rather a fiction of the remnants of the Pelagians wherewithall to reproach the doctrine of S. Austin in the poynt of Predestination Thus have I examined this Authors pretence of the Novelty of our Tenent I come to the consideration of that which followes DISCOURSE The Second Motive IT S unwillingnesse to abide the Tryall I find that the Authors and Abettors of it have been very backward to bring it to the Standard not only when they have been called upon by their Adversaries to have been weighed but also when they have been intreated thereto by their chief Magistrates who might have commanded them A shrewd argument mee thinks that it is too light In the Disputation at Mompelgard Anno 1586 held between Beza and Jacobus Andreas with some Seconds on both sides Beza and his company having disputed with the Lutherans about the person of Christ the Lords Supper c. When they came to this Point did decline the sifting of it and gave this reason among others that it could not then possibly be disputed of sine gravi eorum offendiculo qui tanti mysterii capaces non sunt without the great scandall and hurt of the ignorant and unacquainted with these high mysteries The Contra-Remonstrants also in their Conference with their Adversaries at the Hague in the year 1611 could not be drawn to dispute with them about this point but delivered a Petition to the States of Holland and Westfrizland that they might not be urged to it resolving rather to break off the Conference then to meddle with it In the Synod likewise of Dort in the year 1618 and 1619. the Remonstrants were warned by the President of the Synod ut de Electione potius quà m de odiosâ Reprobations materiâ agerent that they should rather dispute of the point of Election then the odious point of Reprobation Can this Doctrine be a truth and yet blush at the light which makes all thing manifest especially considering these things 1. That Reprobation is a principall Head of Practicall divinity by the ill or well stating of which the glory of God and good of Religion is much promoted or hindered 2. That there is such a necessary connexion between the points of Election and Reprobation both being parts of predestination that the one cannot well be handled without the other 3. That Reprobation was the chief cause of all the uproares in the Church at that time 4. That it was accused with open mouth and challenged of falshood and therefore bound in justice to purge it selfe of the crimination 5. That it may easily be defended if as some say it be such an apparent truth for Nihil est ad defendendum puritate tutius nihil ad dicendum veritate facilius saith S. Hierom. The striving to lye close and hide it selfe though perhaps it be not so infallible yet it is a very probable argument of a bad cause Truth covets no corners but is willing to abide the tryall whether in men or in doctrines David knowing his heart to be without guile offers himselfe ready to the Lords tryall Search me o God and know my heart try me and know my thoughts and see if there be any wicked way in me And our Saviour tells us that Every one that doth evill hates the light and comes not to the light least his deeds should be reproved but he that doth truth comes to the light that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God As S. Paul saith of an Heretick he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 selfe condemned and so may we say of Heresy and untruth it condemnes it selfe and by nothing more then by refusing the Touch-stone He is to be thought an empty Scholler who is loath to be opposed and his gold to be light and counterfeit that will not have it touched and weighed and these Opinions to be but errours which would so willingly walk in a mist and dwell in silence when it concernes the peace of the Church so much to have them examined TWISSE Consideration VVHo are these Authors of this Doctrine who here are said to have been backward to bring it to the standard Is Beza those Authors whereof was he the Author Was it the doctrine of predestination as proceeding of the meer pleasure of God and not upon foresight of mans faith and works Is it not apparent that this was the doctrine of Austin 1200 years agoe and that in opposition to the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians Or was it the doctrine of reprobation as not proceeding upon the foresight of sinne but of the meer pleasure of God Is this Author so ignorant as not to know what are the conclusions of Alvarez in the question Whether there be any cause of reprobation on mans part Lib. 10. de Auxil disc 110. pag. 866. 1. His first Conclusion is this Reprobation whereby God decreed not to give unto some everlasting life and to permit their sinne is not conditionate but absolute neither doth it presuppose in God foresight of the deserts of reprobates or of their perseverance in sinne unto the last period of their life 2. His next Conclusion is In the Angells that fell there is no cause of their reprobation on their part as touching the whole effect thereof but before any foresight of their future sinne God pro sua Voluntate of his meer will did reprobate some of them and suffered them to fall into sinne 3. The third Infants departing in Originall sinne alone there is no cause on their part of reprobation if they be considered in comparison with others which are not reprobated and the like is to be said proportionably of men of ripe years 4. The fourth Not only comparatively but absolutely there is no cause of reprobation Therefore neither sinne actuall nor originall nor both of them foreseen by God was indeed the meritorious and motive cause of the reprobation of any as touching all the effects thereof and the proofe hereof he prosecutes at large 5. Reprobation as touching the last effect thereof presupposeth in signo rationis the foresight of sinne originall or actuall for which a reprobate is damned Marke it well He does not say as the cause for which God decrees his damnation but as the cause for which a reprobate is damned And Aquinas whose followers the Dominicans are expresseth this doctrine in this manner and that more Scholastically and accurately then Alvarez Praescientia peccatorum potest esse aliqua ratio reprobationis ex parte paenae quae praeparatur reprobatis in quantum scilicet Deus proponit se puniturum malos propter peccata c. in Ad Rom. 9. Sect. 2. in fine that is Prescience of sinnes may be some reason of reprobation on the part of punishment to wit in as much as God purposeth to punish wicked men for their sinnes Where sinne is evidently made the cause of damnation and that by vertue of Gods purpose but by no means the cause of the
men devise God and man to move to the producing of the same act as two men in lifting a timber logge most indecently And to free this concurrence from chance they say sometimes that God workes this or that act in us modo velimus that is upon condition that we will But when they consider that God workes the act of willing as well as ought else are demanded to answer upon what condition he workes this what condition will they devise of this will he say modo velimus provided that we will As much as to say God will produce the act of willing provided that it be produced already by us Others say that God foreseeing that the will of man at such a time will produce such an act of willing in case God be pleased to concurre to the producing of it hereupon he resolves to concurre to the producing of it whereby the finall resolution is rather into the will of God then into the will of the creature I say the finall resolution of every sinfull act committed by the creature Secondly here is devised a thing future without all ground For whereas the act of willing as for example in Iudas the act of willing to betray his Master is it in ' its own nature merely possible not future how then did it passe into the condition of a thing future and that from everlasting For from everlasting God knew it as a thing future this could not be done without a cause And what cause could there be of an eternall effect but an eternall cause which is God alone And in God nothing can be devised to be the cause thereof but his will or decree Therefore to avoid this they must be driven to conclude that all future things became future by necessitie of nature if not of their own nature yet at least by the necessitie of God's nature he producing them all not freely but by necessitie of nature This is that Atheisticall necessitie whereupon our Adversaries are cast while they oppose such a necessitie as depends upon God's decree ordaining all things to come to passe agreably to their natures necessary things necessarily contingent things contingently and accordingly ordaining necessary causes working necessarily for the producing of the one and contingent causes working contingently for the producing of the other as Aquinas discourseth 1. pag q. 19 in the Article whose title is this Utrum divina voluntas necessitatem rebus imponat whether the will of God imposeth a necessitie on things that come to passe in the world The reason this Authour brings is a mere Socysme saying the same over and over againe As when he saith For when two causes concurre to the producing of an effect the one principall overruling cause the other but an instrumentall wholly at the devotion of the principall then is the effect in all reason to be imputed to the principall which by the force of ' its influxe and impression produceth it rather then to the subordinate and instrumentall which is but a mere servant in the production of it To which I answer that which he calls overruling I have often shewed how absurdly it is imputed unto us For how can that be called overruling which workes not the will contrary to ' its nature but moves it only agreably to the nature thereof As for the cause principall what Scholar of any braines ever denyed God to be the cause principall in any action to the producing whereof he concurres For is he not the first cause and the first Agent Are not all other second causes and second Agents But this Authour hopes his Reader will understand this in reference only to the sinne not to the naturall act under it whereas God as touching the sinfullnesse of it is no Agent at all much lesse a prime Agent no cause at all much lesse a prime cause Then secondly let God never so effectually work any creature to the producing of an act connaturall thereunto yet if he works the creature therunto agreably to its nature that is if it be an necessary Agent moues it to worke necessarily if it be a contingent agent moves it to worke contingently if it be a free agent moves it to worke freely then by Arminius his confesion our cause is gained For God shall be found free from blame and the creature void of excuse Now this is clearly our doctrine and in effect the doctrine of all them who say that God determines the will as the Dominicans or that God necessitates the will as Bradwardine For they all acknowledge hereby that God moves the creature to worke freely in such sort that in the very act of working they might doe otherwise if they would They confesse this providence of God is a great mystery and not sufficiently comprehensible by humane reason Cajetan professeth thus much as before alleadged and Alvarez maintaines it in a set disputation And supposing God's concourse as necessarily required to every act of the creature they are able to prove by evident demonstration that no other concourse can be admitted then this whereby God moves every creature and that effectually to every act thereof but agreably to ' its nature and condition And this is farther demonstrated by God's fore knowledge of things future Another Arminian with whom I have had to deale in this argument being pressed with this reason drawen from God's foreknowledge and urged to shew how things possible became future that from everlasting for from everlasting they were known to God as future had no way to helpe selfe but by flying to the actuall existence of all things in eternity And I have good ground for strong presumption that this Authour with whom now I deale had his hand in that Pye which was above foure yeares agoe See the desperate issue of these mens discourses who are drawen to take hold of such a Tenet to helpe themselves withall which their best freinds the Jesuites the Authours of Scientia media doe utterly disclaime And on the other side the Dominicans who embrace the actuall existence of all things in eternity are utterly repugnant to the doctrine of Scientia media So that when the Jesuites are reconciled to the Dominicans in the point of actuall existence of all things in eternity And the Dominicans to the Jesuites in the point of Scientia media then these men with whom I deale are like to prevaile which I doubt will hardly be before Elias comes Thirdly consider if when one cause is principall overruling the other the effect must be imputed rather to the principall then to the other It followes evidently that when the causes doe equally concurre without any such overruling of one the other then the effect is equally imputable unto each consequently the sin For such is this Authour's language in this Argument is equally imputable to both to God as well as man And he is to be accounted the Author of it as well as man I appeale to every man's
not space only but grace also for repentance seeing as Austin saith Quantamlibet praebuerit Patientiam nisi Deus dederit quis aget Paenitentiam Now I pray what is become of the harshnes of this our Tenent as is pretended And the truth is the harshnes lyeth not here though our Adversaries would faine draw it hither but rather on the other part of reprobation as it denotes Gods purpose for the denying of grace to wit the grace of Regeneration the grace of faith and repentance but on this part they are not very forward to cry out upon our Tenent as savouring of harshnes but themselves rather driven to such straites as either to deny faith and repentaince to be the gift of God wherein the Remonstrants now a daies are come so far as cleerely to professe that Christ merited not faith and Regeneration for any whence it followeth that if God doth give faith and repentance unto any yet it is not for Christs sake that he gives it Or being demanded how it comes to passe that God gives it not to all if his meer pleasure be not the cause of this difference as namely in shewing mercy unto some when he hardens others they are put upon this shift to say that if they would believe God would give them faith if they would repent God would give them repentance and one that I have had to deale with on this very argument spares not to professe that God doth work in man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Velle credere resipiscere modè Velit One thing I had almost pretermitted and that was to represent the infatuate condition of this declaration to wit as touching the Authors Tenet in opposition to ours as in saying that Gods decree to cast off men for ever is grounded upon the foresight of their continuance in sin and unbeliefe For this continuance must be understood of finall continuance therein least otherwise the contradiction to our Tenent be not duely expressed Now the foresight hereof is made to precede Gods casting men off for ever but from what surely from grace and glory in contradiction to our Tenent as here it is shaped and consequently in election the foresight of finall perseverance in faith and repentance must be shaped to precede Gods giving grace to wit in another world as if the other world were appoynted for the giving of grace to some and denying it another and that the giving of the grace of faith and repentance and denying it unto others was after the one hath persevered in faith and repentance and the other in infidelity and impenitency unto the end in this World For this is it we meane by grace when we say God in Election destinates it to one and in Reprobation decrees to deny it unto the other and in contradicting us it is fit they should use our termes in our meaning unles they expresse the contrary and give a reason of it 3. As for the Persons on whom this decree passeth and the aggravation there mentioned namely of shutting up the greater part of men even of those that are called under sinne and damnation This is confessed on all hands That the greatest part of men are reprobated even of those that are called and our Saviour hath expresly given us to understand That many are called but few are chosen And it is without question that if it be lawfull for God to deale thus with one it is as lawfull to deale so with the greatest part yea with all And experience justifieth that the greatest part of them that are called doe not performe true faith and repentance and if they did and dye therein then the greatest part of them that are called should be chosen Whereby it is manifest that God doth not give Faith and Repentance unto the greatest part of them that are called and consequently it is nothing strange that he shuts up the greatest part of them that are called under Damnation So that in true account there is no weight at all of aggravation in this Like as you have read in Newes from Parnassus that when the French and the Spaniard weighed their powers in the ballance and the French being found to weigh 25 Millions and the Spaniard but 20 He thinking to help the matter and to make himselfe as weighty as the French clapped into the scale the Kingdome of Naples and the Dukedome of Millan but beyond his expectation the scale proved never a whit the more weighty then before but lighter rather 4. As for the last claw to help the matter with a couple of Epethetes of invincible sin and unavoidable damnation one of these might have sufficed to be expressed seeing undoubtedly Damnation is no otherwise avoidable by man then by avoiding sin the cause thereof For it is undenyable that man dying in sin his damnation is unavoydable by the whole power of nature But as for the avoydablenes of sin the Author of this Discourse acknowledgeth it no otherwise then by grace and we willingly professe that all sin is avoydable by grace But by the way it is implied that such a grace is afforded unto all reprobates whereby they may avoyd that infidelity and impenitency for which they are damned But this we deny For if this were true then all Reprobates were enabled to believe to repent to please God to discerne the things of God to be subject to the Law of God but to say this is directly to contradict the Word of God which professeth of some that They could not believe Ioh. 12. 39. of others that They cannot repent Rom. 2. 5. Of all naturall men that They cannot discern the things of God as which seem foolishnesse unto them 1 Cor. 2. 14. of them that are in the flesh that They cannot please God Rom. 8. 8. of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the affection of the flesh that 't is enmity against God and it is not subject to the Law of God nor can be Rom. 8. 7. And of the Israelites in the Wildernesse for forty years together God had not given them eyes to see nor eares to heare nor an heart to perceive Deutron 29. 4. INTRODUCTION SECT II. THE first side is divided for 1. Some of them present man to God in the decree of Reprobation considered and looked upon out of or above the Fall and make the Will of God without any consideration of sin in man Originall or Actuall to be the cause of his eternall Rejection that so he might shew his absolute and unlimited power and dominion over him in appointing to heaven or hell whom he pleased and this way goe Calvin Beza Zanchius Piscator Gomarus That way seems to charge God very deepely and to make him the prime and principall cause of mens everlasting ruine and the author also not only of the first sin that entred into the world but of all other sins likewise that are successively committed therein as meanes to bring men by a course and colour of justice to those
pag. 710. Cùm de praedestinatione sermo habetur inde exordiendum esse constantèr semper docui atquè hodiè doceo jure in more relinqui omnes reprobos qui in Adam mortui sunt atquè damnati As for Beza I know full well he maintained that man not created is the object of Predestination but can this Author represent unto us any place out of Beza wherein he should affirme that God doth decree to damne any man but for sin or that damnation is the end that God intends in the decree of Predestination to death In his Questions and Answers he professeth the contrary pag. 111. Postremò non dixi exitium istorum he speaks of Reprobates esse finem deo decernenti propositum sed gloriam ipsius Nequè etiam simpliciter dixi istos esse exitio destinatos sed justo exitio destinatos dixi And in his Book De aeternâ Dei Praedestinatione contrà Sebastian Castell ad argument Castell 2. pag. 346. Quamobrem etiam illud quoquè probavimus nos ita loqui non solere quanquam à Deo simpliciter conditum dicamus ad perditionem sed idcircò ut ipsius justa condemnatione Dominus justitiam suam patefaciat As for Zanchy Peter Baro that caused such perturbation in Cambridge about this very argument he denyes this to have been the opinion of Zanchy In summa trium de Praedestinatione sententiarum his words are these Altera sententia est Augustini posterior etiam Sohnii Heydelbergensis Theologiae Professoris aliorum quorundam Protestantium ut Zanchii atquè etiam Bellarmini qui omnes priorem illam improbant in hoc inter se consentientes ut sit praedestinatio ab Adami tantum lapsu accipienda And as touching Piscator he handles the question about the object of Predestination in a small Treatise annexed to an answer of his to Hemingius De Universali Gratiâ and inquires whether the obiect thereof be Humanum genus nondum conditum or conditum but nondum corruptum or both conditum and corruptum and his resolution is that in the decree of Predestination there is place for all these considerations according to three severall acts comprised therein which I have formerly mentioned and so drawes into one all three opinious As touching Gomarus in the last place I have seen little or nothing of his but when Lubbertus in his Book Ad 99 Errores Conradi Vorstii pag. 807. had professed Massam consideratam esse a Deo non ut integram sed ut corruptam and was charged by Vostius as delivering that which was contrary to the doctrine of Calvin Beza and Gomarus he replies that herein he doth not contradict them but saith he Illorum dict a quae quibusdam asperiuscula videntur lenio in commodissimum sensum interpretor But be it so that all of them made Humanum genus not corruptum no nor integrum but nondum conditum the object of reprobation I am of their mind that doe so and was not D r Whitaker also whom very wisely this Author conceales This renowned Professor in the University of Cambridge in a Publique exercise his Concio ad Clerum professeth what Paul speaks De luto sigulo non posse melius exponi quà m de Massâ incorruptâ and that Bucer understands it thus Bucerus per Massam intelligit primam humani ganeris originem ex quá homo conditus à Deo fabricatus est And he disputes at large that there is no cause of reprobation and that neither sin actuall nor sin originall is the cause thereof and professeth this to be the Opinion of the Church of England And though now a daies we be upbraided as if we had learned it of Papists and Schoole Divines this great light of Cambridge spares not to make honourable mention of Schoolemens sollid discourse on this point saying Hanc sententiam Scholastici si ullam egregiè solideque pertractarum praeserùm qui insigniores sanioresque habiti sunt Lombardus ait ut praedestinationis nulla merita sunt ità nec reprobationis Now the doctrine which he saith the Schoolemen handle so solidly as none more is the very doctrine which this Author seems here to impugne as when he saith some make the will of God without any consideration of sin in men originall or actuall to be the cause of their eternall Rejection for D r Whitaker expresseth it thus His igitur isto modo explicatis sequitur tertiam opinionem solummodò necessario veram esse aequè reprobationis ac praedestinationis causam esse dei voluntatem quandoquidem providentiae divinae munus est omnia ad fines istos certa ratione certisque mediis ordinare Only as touching the end here mentioned That so he might shew his absolute and unlimited power and dominion over them in appointing to heaven or hell whom he pleaseth that I find not in D r Whitaker He saith plainly that God predestinated unto death whom he would and because he would Deus igitur ad mortem praedestinavit quos voluit quia voluit which phrase I willingly confesse I like not so well but that the end thereof is to manifest his absolute and unlimited dominion and power he saith not and Beza in the places before mentioned referres it to the manifestation of Gods justice as the end thereof And like as he saith certissimum est damnationem nunquam nisi propter Peccatum infligi so I should think it nothing lesse certain that God doth not ordaine any man to be damned but for sin especially cosidering that damnation in the notion thereof hath an essential reference to sin Now since I have found such a Champion as D r Whitaker for the maintenance of this Tenent have I cause to feare the sharp censures of any professors in the Country Were he alive I presume he would be nothing skarred with the imputation of making God the Prime and Principall cause of mens everlasting ruine he would I think require a little more learning in the Criminator then to expresse himselfe so crudely For without all question God is the prime and principall cause nay the sole cause of mans everlasting ruine in genere causae efficient is though this excludes not a meritorious cause of his own damnation on the creatures part as D r Whitaker professeth in the words formerly alleadging acknowledged Damnationem infligi propter Peccatum And farther I am apt to conceive and have undertaken to justify and that to the view of the World that albeit mankind not created be the only object of predestination and reprobation yet no mans reprobation is made by God citra considerationem Peccati in as much as I hold that the decrees of creation permission of sin and of finall perseverance therein and lastly of damnation for sin are not decrees subordinate but coordinate and simultaneous as being decrees concerning means tending to the same end which is the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of vindicative justice
of his Scene whereunto it is fit he should be serviceable And as for the two Articles here mentioned wherein they are said unanimously to agree and which he calls maxima gravamina It is true they doe agree herein but it may be in a farre other sense then he is willing should be taken notice of For as for the first 1. That the moving cause of reprobation is the alone will of God and not the sinne of man originall or actuall 1. This is true in proportion to election that like as no good work of man is the moving cause of election but only the will of God so no sinne or evill work of man is the cause of reprobation but only the will of God 1. That so it is of election the Apostle both 1. Saith Election is not of Workes but of him that calleth 2. And proveth thus Before Esau and Iacob were borne or had done good or evill it was said The Elder shall serve the Younger therefore Election is not of Workes that is of good workes but of him that calleth 2. That so it is of reprobation I prove by the same argument of the Apostle thus Before Esau and Iacob were borne or had done good or evill it was said the Elder shall serve the Younger therefore reprobation stands not of workes that is of evill workes but of the meer pleasure of God 1. And like as this is farther evident by Gods course of calling in the point of Election as the Apostle intimateth for as much as God calleth effectually whom he will in bestowing faith and repentance upon them For as the Apostle afterwards professeth He hath mercy on whom he will 2. So it is as evident in the point of reprobation in as much as God refuseth to call whom he will by denying faith and repentance unto them as afterwards the same Apostle professeth saying that God hardneth whom he will 2. And this doctrine we doe explicate by distinguishing that which our Adversaries desire to confound least their cheating carriage should be discovered as formerly I have shewed For Predestination and Reprobation may be considered either quoad Praedestinantis Reprobantis actum or quoad Praedestinationis Reprobationis terminum as much as to say quoad res praedestinatione reprobatione praeparatas that is either as touching the act of Predestination and Reprobation or as touching the things decreed by Predestination or Reprobation Now as touching the act of Predestination never any man saith Aquinas was so mad as to say that the merits of man are the cause of predestination And why so Because the act of predestination is the act of Gods will and formerly saith he I have shewed that there can be no cause of the will of God as touching the act of God willing but only as touching the things willed by God Now apply this to reprobation For is not reprobation as touching the act of God reprobating the very act also of Gods will This cannot be denied and herehence it followes that like as there can be no cause of Gods will as touching the act of God willing so there can be no cause of reprobation as touching the act of God reprobating And like as it was a mad thing in Aquinas his judgement to say that merits were the cause of predestination as touching the act of God predestinating so it is no lesse madnesse in his judgement to maintain that either sinne originall or actuall can be the meritorious cause of reprobation as touching the act of God reprobating And what are the reasons hereof in School-divinity Why surely these 1. Predestination and Reprobation are eternall but good workes and evill workes of the creature are temporall but impossible it is that a thing temporall can be the cause of that which is eternall 2. The act of Predestination and Reprobation is the act of Gods will and the act of Gods will like as the act of his knowledge is the very essence of God even God himselfe and therefore to introduce a cause of Gods will is to bring in a cause of God himselfe 3. If works or faith foreseen be any moving cause of Divine election then either they are so of their own nature or by the meer constitution of God Not of their own nature as it is apparent therefore by the constitution of God but this cannot stand neither For if by the constitution of God then it would follow that God did constitute that upon foresight of mans faith he would elect him that is ordaine him to salvation And what I pray is to constitute Is it any other then to ordaine And herehence it followeth God did ordaine that upon foresight of mans faith he would ordaine him unto salvation Whereby the eternall ordination of God is made the object of his eternall ordination whereas it is well known and generally received that nothing but that which is temporall can be the object of divine ordination which is eternall In like sort I dispute of reprobation if sinne be the cause thereof then either of its own nature it is the cause thereof or by the ordinance of God Not of its own nature as all are ready to confesse if you say by the ordinance of God then it follows God did ordaine that upon the foresight of mans sinne he would ordaine him unto damnation For reprobation is Gods ordaining a man unto damnation as touching one part of the things decreed thereby which we come to consider in the next place and that both in election and in reprobation having hitherto considered them as touching the act of God electing or reprobating and shewed that thus they can have no cause But as touching the things decreed thereby they may have a cause as Aquinas professeth and we professe with him As for example to begin with election The things decreed or destinated to a man in election are two Grace and Glory Now both these may have a cause For both Grace is the cause of glory and Christs merits are the cause both of grace and glory But let grace be rightly understood For in the confuse notion of grace many are apt to lurke thereby to shut their eyes against the evidence of truth For no marvail if men be in love with their own errours and in proportion to the love of errour such is their hatred of Divine truth opposite thereunto Now by grace we understand the grace of regeneration whereby that naturall corruption of mind and will commonly called blindnesse of mind and hardnesse of heart which we all bring into the world with us through originall sin is in part cured More distinctly we call this grace the grace of faith and repentance whereby our naturall infidelity and impenitency is cured Now this grace we say God bestowes on whom he will finding all equall in infidelity and impenitency For so the Apostle tells us that God hath mercy on whom he will And as God bestowes it on whom he will not finding any
shewing the like grace to them which he shewed to others 1. So that the moving cause of Reprobation is the alone will of God and not the sinne of man originall and actuall like as on the other side the moving cause of election is only the will of God or not faith or any good workes whereupon this Authour is loath to manifest his opinion This doctrine is not only approved by Doctour Whitaker Doctour of the Chaire in the Universitie of Cambridge and that in his Cygnea Cantio a little before his death but justified and confirmed by varietie of Testimonies both of Schoolemen as Lumbard Aquinas Bannes Petrus de Alliaco Gregorius Arminensis of our owne Church and the Divines thereof as taught by Bucer at Cambridge by Peter Martyr at Oxon professed by the Bishops and others promoted by Queen Elizabeth and farther in the yeare of our Lord 1592 there was a famous recantation made in the Universitie of Cambridge by one Barret in the 37. of Elizabeth whereunto he was urged by the heads of houses of that Universitie The Recantation runnes thus Preaching in Latine not long since in the Universitie Church Right worshipfull many things slipt from me both falsly and rashsly spoken whereby I understand the mindes of many have been grieved to the end therefore I may satifie the Church the truth which I have publiquely hurt I doe make this publique confession both Repenting and Revoking my Errour First I said that no man in this transiâ—â—ie world is so strongly underpropt at least by the certainty of Faith that is unlesse as I afterwards expounded it by Revelation that he ought to be assured of his owne Salvation But now I protest before God and acknowledge in my conscience that they which are justified by faith have peace towards God that is have reconciliation with God and doe stand in that grace by faith therefore that they ought to be certaine and assured of their owne Salvation even by the certainty of Faith it selfe 2. Secondly I affirmed that the faith of Peter could not faile but that other mens faith may for as I then said Our Lord prayed not for the faith of every particular man but now being of a better and more sound Iudgment according to that which Christ teacheth in plaine words Ioh. 17. 20. I pray not for these alone that is the Apostles but for them also which shall believe in mee through their word I acknowledge that Christ prayed for the faith of every particular believer and that by the vertue of that prayer of Christ every true believer is so stayd up that his faith cannot faile 3. Thirdly touching perseverance to to the end I said that that certainty concerning the time to come is proud for as much as it is in his owne nature contingent of what kind the perseverance of every man is neither did I affirme it to be proud only but to be most wicked but now I freely protest that the true and justifiing faith whereby the faithfull are most neare united unto Christ is so firme as also for the time to come so certaine that it can never be rooted up out of the mindes of the faithfull by any temptation of the flesh the world or divell himselfe so that he that once hath this faith shall ever have it for by the benefit of that justifying faith Christ dwelleth in us and we in Christ therefore it cannot but be both increased Christ growing in us dayly as also persevere unto the end because God doth give constancy 4. Fourthly I affirmed that there was no distinction in faith but in the Persons believing in which I confesse I did erre Now I freely acknowledge the Temporarie faith which as Bernard witnesseth is therefore fained because it is temporary it is distinguished and differeth from the saving faith whereby sinners apprehending Christ are justified before God for ever not in measure and degrees but in the very thing it selfe Moreover I adde that Saint Iames doth make mention of a dead faith and Paul of a faith that worketh by love 5 Fifthly I added that forgivenesse of sinnes is an Article of faith but not particular neither belonging to this man or that man that is as I expounded it that no true faithfull man either can or ought certainely believe that his sinnes are forgiven But now I am of an other mind and doe freely confesse that every true faithfull man is bound by this Article of faith to believe the forgivenes of sinnes and certainely to believe that his owne particular sinnes are freely forgiven him neither doth it follow hereupon that that Petition of the Lord's prayer to wit forgive us our trespasses is needlesse for in that Petition we aske not only the gift but also the increase of Faith 6 Sixtly these words escaped me in my Sermon viz As for those that are not saved I doe most strongly believe and doe freely protest that I am so perswaded against Calvin Peter Martyr and the rest that sinne is the true and proper cause of Reprobation But now being better instructed I say that the Reprobation of the wicked is from everlasting and that saying of Saint Austine to Simplician to be mòst true viz If sinne were the cause of Reprobation then no man should be elected because God doth know all men to be defiled with it And that I may speak freely I am of the same mind and doe believe concerning the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation as the Church of England believeth and teacheth in the booke of the Articles of faith in the Article of Praedestination Last of all I uttered these words rashly against Calvin a man that hath very well deserved of the Church of God to wit that he durst presume to lift up himselfe above the high and Almighty God by which words I doe confesse that I have done great injurie to that most learned and right good man and I most humbly beseech you all to pardon this my rashnes as also in that I have uttered many bitter words against Peter Martyr Beza Zanchy Iunius and the rest of the same religion being the lights and ornaments of our Church calling them by the odious names of Calvinâ—sts and other slanderous termes branding them with a most grevious marke of reproach whom because our Church doth worthily reverence it was not meet that I should take away their good name from them Doctor Fulke in like manner maintaines that reprobation is not of workes but of God's free will Rom 9 Num 2. His words are these God's election Reprobation is most free of his owne will not upon the foresight of the merits of either of them for he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth vers 18. Yet here is to be distinguished for the explication of the truth That God's decree of Reprobation may be considered either as touching the Act of God reprobating and willing or as touching the things hereby willed or Decreed As
ad ignem aeternum deputatum posse salvari etiamsi optimè vivat se itaque velle pro suâ libidine vivere Ut ut enim sollicite lahoret non tamen posse decretum Dei infringere Respondet hic Christus Omnem palmitem c. qnod dicitur Quid ad te de occultâ Dei praedestinatione Hoc tu videris ut tu in me maneas fructum feras reliquae dispensationi prudentiae Dei committenda sunt Nam etiamsi videar is ad aeternam salutem praedestinatus non tamen fructum feras abjicieris in ignem tanquam infructuosus palmes He instances in Saul then whom there was not a better man in Israel That which is here cited out of Marlorat his Expositio Ecclesiastica it is set down as in Calvin's Commentary but no such thing is found in Calvin And it may be that is the fault of the Printers mistaking And Marlorat's own exposition succeeds in a few words thus Quae ideò dicuntur non ut fideles inde ansam arripiant de suâ salute dubitandi sed ut carnalis securitas ignavia ab hominibus tollatur And the next sentence whence this question is taken seems to cohere with this though a great C. as if it were Calvin's comes in between and it begins thus Certum est enim dècretum Dei à nemine infirmari posse quia Deus non est ut homo qui poenitentiam agat retractet sententiam semel decretam Then followes the passage here alleadged and at the heels of it these words Time igitur in solam Domini eligentis manum respice ut salutem per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum assequaris Undoubtedly Marlorat approves of Brentius his exposition otherwise he would not have placed it in his Expositio Ecclesiastica Now Brentius brings in the very saying for which Maldonat is criminated as the objection of some carnall person Therefore when Marlorat seems to justifie such a saying it must be in another sense and that either of good workes in shew of which Brentius also observed that such might have been found in Saul Or of workes in distinction from faith And accordingly he concludes with exhortation feare that is not to be secure how good soever his workes are but to have an eye to God and trust only to him that so he may obtain salvation through Jesus Christ Calvin in Ioh. 15. 6. Arescere dicuntur instar emortua sarmenta quae à Christo resecta sūt quia sicuti initiū vigoris ab ipso est ita continuus tenor Non quòd ex electis aliquem contingat unquam execari sed quia multae hypocritae in speciem ad tempus florent virent qui postea in reddendo fructu spem domini frustrantur They are said to to wither like a branch cut off such as are cut off from Christ because like as the beginning of their vigour is from him so also their continuance Not that at any time it falleth out that any of Gods Elect is cut off but because many Hypocrites carry a faire shew for a time as if they were green and flourishing who afterwards in rendring fruit make void the Lords Expectation 2. The decree of Reprobation as touching one part of it cannot be executed without sin For it is a decree of inflicting damnation for sin so that there is no place for damnation where sinne and that as a meritorious cause preceeds not I had thought this Authour needed not to runne out to Piscator and Maccovius for proofe of this neither Arminius nor the Authour is of any other opinion I am confident then that the decree of damnation cannot be executed on any without the precedency of sin in the party who is to be damned But there is another part of Reprobation For as Aquinas speakes it includes the will of permitting sin Now the execution of this decree which consists in the permitting of sin doth not require the precedency of sinne For when God first permitted the Angels to fall this permission of his did not require any precedency of sinne in them nor the permission of Adam to fall it cannot be said without manifest contradiction that it did For before the first sinne there was no sinne Piscator saith that God created men for this very purpose that they might fall he saith hoc consilio which is as much as to say with this purpose not for this purpose to wit to permit them to fall And God purposing this purposed that they should fall by his permission For Arminius confesseth that in case God permits a man to will this or that Necesse est ut nullo argumentorū genere persuadeatur ad nolendum It must needs be that no argument shall perswade him to will that which God permits him to will And that it is good that evill should come to passe by God's permission both Austine hath affirmed Bellarmine subscribed And shall it not be lawfull for God to will that which is good Undoubtedly neither justice punishing nor mercy pardoning can be manifested without sin either to be punished or pardoned or both neither is it credible to me that this Authour thinks otherwise And is not the manifestatiō of God's mercy on some and his justice on others the supreme end of God's providence towards mankind and consequently by the most received rules of Schooles first intended even before the permisson of sinne For if the permission of sinne were first intended then by the same rule of Schooles it should be in the last place executed that is God should first manifest his mercy and justice in pardoning some and punishing others and afterwards suffer them to sinne such is the learning and judgments of these Divines And as for the foresight of sin it is apparent that it presupposeth God's purpose to permit it and more then that it presupposeth the fruition of it Now it is well knowne that sinne in its own nature is meerly possible How comes it to passe that from the condition of a thing meerly possible it hath passed into the condition of a thing future This cannot be done without a cause and that cause must be eternall for the effect was eternall For from everlasting sinne was future for from everlasting God knew it to be future Now there is nothing everlasting but God himselfe therefore he must needs be the cause of this transition whereby a thing meerly possible in its own nature became future And therefore either by his knowledge he was the cause thereof or by his will and decree Not by his knowledge for that rather supposeth thē to be future then makes them such It remaines therefore that the will of God and that alone makes every future thing to passe out of the condition of a thing meerly possible into the condition of a thing future and that from everlasting Let this Authour satisfie this argument and I will ease him of all further paines and lay down the bucklers before
his own hand still and hereby occasions and opportunities are offered from time to time for a man to advantage himselfe in sinfull courses either in the way of profit or satisfying his unclean lusts And Arminius confesseth that the administration of Arguments and occasions which provoke to such an act as cannot be committed by the creature without sinne if not by Gods intention yet at least according to the creatures affection and often according to the events that arise therehence This administration I say Arminius confesseth doth belong to the Divine providence And these arguments he saith are objected ther to the mind of man or to his senses outward or inward and that either by the mediate worke of the creatures comming between or by God's immediate action And that the end of this Divine administration is to make tryall whether the creature will abstaine from sinne even then when it is provoked thereunto As for the triall of David was Bathsheba going â—oâ—th to wash her selfe objected to David whereupon he was inflamed with lusts Ioseph was not though farre more strongly sollicited by the temptations of his wanton Mistris Secondly to necessitate the will or determine the will are noe phrases of our Divines The first is used only by Bradwardine as at present I remember sometimes Arch-Bishop elect of Canterbury The other is that phrase of the Dominicans Now they are of age and able to answer for themselves Why doth not this Authour answer a chapter or two in Bradwardine a chapter or two in Alvarez where they dispute this and resolve the question affirmatively Surely hereby he should performe a worke more worthy of a Scholasticall Divine then by so hungry a discourse as this Secondly consider neither Bradwardine maintaines that God necessitates nor Alvarez that God determines the will to sinne but to every naturall act in which kind of acts sinne is to be found Why then should this Auhour carry himselfe thus in his crimination We know sin is meerly privative in the formall notion thereof an obliquitie such as concerning which Austine hath long agoe deliverd that it hath noe efficient cause but deficient only And divers waies Divines have shewed how God may be the authour of the act yet not the Authour oâ— the sin and illustrated it by various similitudes As of a man riding upon a lame horse he makes him goe but doth not make him halt The sun shining upon a dung-mixton makes it evaporate but doth not make it stinke The sun makes flowers to evaporate and send forth their favours as well as a dung-mixton but that the one evaporates a sweet odour the other an unsavory is froÌ„ the nature of things themselves on which the sun beates In like sort the Sun by the heat thereof provokes all things to engender according to their kinds even frogs and toades snakes as well as other creatures profitable for the use of man in the way of food yea of vipers flesh good use is made in the way of physicke And God knowes how to make good use even of the sinnes of men and of the rage and malice of Satan If an underw-heele being out of his place the upper wheele in a jacke or clocke will set him going in a wrong way as well as all the rest in a right way his motion is from the upper whele his irregular motion from himselfe A good Scribe meeting with moist paper will make but sorry worke The writing is from himselfe the blurring from the moistnesse of the paper on this very question whether the act of sinne be from God Aquinas maintaining the affirmative illustrates it by a distinction of the halting motion of a lame legge the motion saith he is from the soule the 〈◊〉 is froÌ„ the imperfection of the Organ the infirmitie of the legge Yet this Authour carrieth it hand over head as if to be the Authour of the action were to be the sinne not considering that himselfe maintaines that God is the Authour of the action and that in the kind of a cause efficient naturall Thirdly when Bradwardine maintaines that God necessitates the will to every good act thereof he withall professeth that he necessitates it ad liberum actum suum that is to worke every act thereof freely Soe when Alvarerz maintaines that God determinates the will to every act thereof he withall maintaines that God determines the will to worke free ye and so Aquinas For when he workes upon contingent causes he moves theÌ„ to bring forth their effects contingently like as when he workes upon necessary causes he moves them to produce their effects necessarily And like as to move contingent causes to produce their effects contingently is to move them to produce their effects with a possibility to the contrary Soe to move free causes to produce their effects freely is to move them to produce their effects with an active power to the contrary But to proceed whereas he saith that sinne must needs follow the determination it is as true 1. In this Authour's judgment that it must needs follow upon God's coÌ„currence to this act If he say that this concurreÌ„ce is necessary to every act I answer it is necessary to the substance of every act but not at all required to the sinne though this Authour carieth it blindfold after this manner Secondly so say we is determination required to the substance of every act And Gods concourse with the creature is not coordinate like as one man concurres with another in moving a timber logge which is the expression of the Jesuites thereby manifesting the vilenesse of their opinion as we can demonstrate and that more waies then one by evident demonstration as I have allready shewed in my Vindiciae Let this Authour answer those digressions if he can I am confident he will never answer them while his head is hot nor all the Rabble of the Arminians We know God is the first cause and all other are but second causes in comparison to him Yet we willingly confesse that the providence of God is wonderfull and of a mysterious nature in this but such as whereunto the Scripture gives pregnant testimonie as scarce to any thing more So jealous he is least his providence should be denied in evill wherein indeed it is most wonderfull and he takes unto himselfe the hardning of men's hearts and blinding of their mindes and prostituting them to abominable courses even to vile affections and thereby to punish sinne with sin as Rom 1. Therein saith the Apostle they received the recompence of their errour This hath Austine also by Scripture suggestion testified at large in his book De gratiâ Libero arbitrio in two large chap likewise in his fifth book against Iulian the Pelagian third chap this also the Adversaries have been driven to confesse in a strange manner as to give instance first in Bellarmine whose words are these God saith he praesidet ipsis voluntatibus easque regit
of Adrumetum were the Authours of it And this Interpolatour takes Vossius his part and labours by certaine arguments to make it good against he judicious observations of that most reverend and learned Arch-Bishop of Armagh It may be I shall represent my answer thereunto by waâ—â—â— digression but first I must dispatch my answer to this I have in hand Sect 6. Many distinctions are brought to free the Supralapsarian way from this crimination all which me thinks are noâ— better then mere delusions of the simple and inconsiderate and give noe true satisfaction to the understanding There is say they a twofold decree 1. First an operative by which God positively and efficaciously worketh allthings 2. A permissive by which he decreeth only to let it come to passe If God should worke sinne by an operative decree then he should be the Authour of sinne but not if he decree by a permissive decree to let it come to passe and this only they say they maintaine It is true that God hath decreed to suffer sinne for otherwise there would be none Who can bring forth that which God will absolutely hinder He suffered Adam to sinne leaving him in the hand of his own counsell Ecclus 15. 14. He suffered the nations in time past to walke in their own waies Act 14. 16. And dayly doth he suffer both good and bad to fall into many sins And this he doth not because he stands in need of sinne for the setting forth of his glory for he hath noe need of the sinfull man Ecclus 15. But partly because he is summus provisor supreme moderatour of the world and knoweth how to use that well which is ill done and to bring good out of evill and especially for that reason which Tertullian prelleth namely because man is made by God's own gracious constitution a free creature undetermined in his actions untill he determine himselfe And therefore may not be hindred from sinning by omnipotency because God useth not to repeale his own ordinances 2. It is true also that a permissive decree is noe cause of sinne because it is merely extrinsecall to the sinner and hath noe influence at all upon the sinne It is an antecedent only and such a one too as being put sinne followeth not of necessitie And therefore it is fitly contradistinguisht to an operative decree And if that side would in good earnest impute noe more in sinfull events to divine power then the word Permission imports their maine conclusion would fall and the controversy between us end But first many of them reject this distinction utterly and will have God to decree sinne efficaciter with an Energeticall and working will Witnesse that discourse of Beza wherein he a verreth and laboureth to prove that God doth not only permit sinne but will it also And witnesse Calvin too who hath a whole section against it calling it a carnall distinction invented by the flesh and effugium a mere evasion to shift off this seeming absurdity that that man is made blind Deo volente jubente by Gods will and command who must shortly after be punished for his blindnes He calleth it also figmentum a fiction and saith they doe ineptire play the fooles that use it By many reasons also doth he indeavour to lay open the weaknes of it taxing those who understand such Scriptures as speaks of God's smiting men with a Spirit of slumber and giddinesse of blinding their minds infatuating and hardening their hearts c. Of a permission and suffering of men to be blinded and hardned Nimis frivola est ista solutio saith he it is too frivilous a glosse In another place he blameth those that referre sin to God's prescience only calling their speeches argutiae tricks and quirks which Scripture will not beare and those likewise that ascribe it to God's permission and saith what they bring touching the Divine permission in this businesse will not hold water They that admit the word permissive doe willingly mistake it and while to keep of this blow they use the word they corrupt the meaning For 1. Permission is an act of God's consequent and judiciary will by which he punisheth men for abusing their freedome and committing such sins day by day as they might have avoided and to which he proceedeth lento gradu slowly and unwillingly as we may see Psal 81. 11. 12. Israel would none of me so I gave them up c. Ezeh 18. 39. Goe and serve every one his Idoll seeing ye will not obey me c. Rom 1. 21. 24. Because when they knew God they glorified him not as God therefore God gave them up unto their hearts lusts to vile affections and to a Reprobate mind Rev. 22. 11. He that is unjust let him be unjust still In these places and many more we may see that persons left to themselves are sinners only and not all sinners but the obstinate and willfull which will by noe meanes be reclaimed But the permission which they meane is an act of God's antecedent will exercised about innocent men lying under no guilt at all in God's eternall consideration 2. Permission about whomsoever it is exercised obstinate sinners or men considered without sinne is no more then a not hindring of them from falling that are able to stand supposeth a possibility of sinning or not sinning in the parties permitted but with them it is a withdrawing or withholding of grace needfull for the avoiding of sin and so includeth an absolute necessitie of sinning For from the withdrawing of such grace sin must needs follow as the fall of Dagon's house followed Sampson's plucking away the Pillars that were necessary for the upholding of it Maccovius in two disputations expounding this word Permission circumscribes it within two acts The first of which is a Substraction of Divine assistance necessary to the preventing of sinne And having proved it by two arguments that none may thinke he is alone in this he saith that he is compassed about with a cloud of witnesses and produceth two The first of them is our reverend and learned Whitaker some of whose words alleadged by him are these Permission of sinne is a privation of the aid which being present sinne would have been hindred The second is Pareus for saying that that helpe which God withdrew from Adam being withdrawen Adam could not soe use his endowments as to persevere And this doctrine saith he is defended by our men as it appeareth out of Pareus lib de grat primi hominis c. 4 p. 46. Their permission therefore of sinne being a substraction of necessary grace is equivalent to an actuall effectuall procuring and working of it For Causa deficiens in necessariis est eficiens a deficient cause in things necessary is truely efficient and so is but a mere fig-leafe to cover the foulenesse of their opinion Here we have a very demure discourse proceeding in a positive manner proceeding from one that takes upon him to
That which necessitateth the will to sinne is as truly the cause of sinne as that which forceth it because it maketh the sinne to be inevitably committed which otherwise might be avoided and therefore if the Divine decree necessitate man's will to sinne it is as truly the cause of sinne as if it did inforce it 3. That which necessitates the will to sinne is more truly the cause of the sinne then the will is because it overruleth the will and beareth all the stroke taketh from it ' its true liberty by which it should be Lord of it selfe and disporser of ' its own acts and in respect of which it hath been usually called by Philosophers and Fathers too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a power which is under the insuperable check and controule of no Lord but it selfe It overruleth I say maketh it become but a servile instrument irresistably subject to superiour command and determination And therefore is a truer cause of all such acts and sins as proceed from the will so determined then the will is For when two Causes concurre to the producing of an effect the one a principle overruling cause the other but instrumentall and wholly at the Devotion of the principall then is the effect in all reason to be imputed to the principall which by the force of ' its influxe and impression produceth it rather then to the subordinate and instrumentall which is but a mere servant in the production of it We shall find it ordinary in Scripture to ascribe the effect to the principall Agent It is not ye that speak saith Christ but the Spirit of my Father that speaketh in you I laboured more abundantly then they all yet not I but the grace of God which was in me And I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me saith St. Paul Gal 2. 20. In these and many other places the effect or work spoken of is taken from the instrument and given to the principall agent Which being so though man's will worke with God's decree in the commission of sinne and willeth the sin which it doth yet seing what the will doth it doth by the commanding power of God's Allmighty decree and so it doth that otherwise it cannot doe the sin committed cannot so rightly be ascribed to man's will the inferiour as to God's necessitating decree the superiour cause 4. That which makes a man sinne by way of necessitie that is with and not against his will is the cause of sin in a worse manner then that which constraineth him to sinne against his will As he which by powerfull perswasions drawes a man to stab to hang to poison himselfe is in a grosser manner the cause of that evill and unnaturall action then he that by force compells him because he maketh him to consent to his own death And so if Gods decree doe not only make men sin but sin willingly too not only cause that they shall malè agere doe evill but malè velle will evill it hath the deeper hand in the sinne God determines the will to sinne by necessitie though not by compulsion this he obtrudes upon our Devines as their opinion but quotes none is it likely that he who quotes Beza to shew that in his opinion God doth not only permit sinne but will sinne And Calvin to shew that a man's mind is blinded volente jubente Deo would not quote some or other of our Divines to prove that which he obtrudes upon them If his common place booke could afford him any such quotation out of any one of them to shew who they be and where they say that God determines the will to sinne by necessity though not by compulsion Was there ever the like crimination made against any without naming them that say so and the place where and their own words Or hath this man or any of his spirit deserved any credit to be trusted this way The very phrase of determining in Latine is no word of course with our Divines in this argument It is the phrase of the Dominicans But doe they say that God determines the will to sinne I doe not thinke he can produce one of them that expresseth himselfe so unscholastically so absurdly Alvarez saith that God by his effectuall decree predetermineth second causes to worke He saith that God doth predetermine the will to the act of sinne as it is an act That the first root of contingency is the will of God Then to what doth God determine the will in their opinion Is it to the act only and not to the manner of its production Namely to produce it voluntarily and freely Nothing lesse though this Authour counts it his wisdome to conceale this God by his omnipotency doth cause that man whose heart he moves to will and will freely Againe God's generall concourse is a divine immediate influence into second causes whereby they are foremoved applyed and determined to worke every one according to the condition of its nature The naturall cause naturally the free cause freely as I have professedly delivered Disput 18. 23. And that in such sort freely as they can choose to doe otherwise if they will and that in the very instant wherin they doe what they doe But come we to consider his answer 1. Touching that which he saith of the Ancients he gives us his bare word for it as touching the confounding of necessitie and compulsion yet Bernard I confesse willingly in talking of liberty from necessity understands by necessity coaction He saith farther that those Ancients did deny that God did necessitate men to sinne least they should grant thereby that God is the Authour of sinne But I doe not thinke he can shew this phrase of necessitating the will any way to be found among the Ancients what he hath touched before I have considered what he shall intimate hereafter I hope I shall not let it passe unsaluted And the truth is to necessitate hath such an Emphasis with it as to perswade that whatsoever a man is necessitated to do that he doth by constraint against his will And it is a rule commonly received that Voluntas non potest cogi The will cannot be forced which is most true as touching Actus eliciti the acts of the will inward and immediate and not so of actus imperati acts outward and commanded But Bradwardine who alone useth this phrase among'st School-Divines takes it in no such sense but only for an effectuall operation of God upon the will moving it to worke this or that not necessarily but freely which this Authour most judiciously dissembleth all along for desparing to prevaile by true and substantiall information of the understanding perturbundis affectibus suffuratur by a corrupt proposition of his Adversaries tenet hopes to worke distast upon the Readers affections Bradwardines position is this God can after a sort necessitate every created will to ' its free act and to a free cessation vacation from act and
Synod of Palestine 1200. yeares agoe to this day The difference of opinions here feigned by him about the point of Reprobation amongst our Divines is like the feigning of a knot in a bulrush For what is a peremptory denying of grace and glory to some men lying in the fall other then a denyall of that grace and glory which is prepared in the decree of election to the sonnes of God though indeed neither of them make it a denyall which is done in time but rather Gods decree to deny it For do not the latter Divines maintaine it to be peremptory as well as the former For what difference doth he devise between a flat denyall and a peremptory denyall and as for the latter decree belonging to reprobation here mentioned namely a preordination of the man thus left to the torments of hell do not the latter Divines acknowledge this decree to belong to Reprobation also Only they professe that God preordaines none to eternall torments in hell but for their sinnes actuall as well as originall of as many as live to ripenesse of age Now I would faine know what Divine of ours maintaines the contrary 1. Our Divines in saying Reprobation is Decretum quo statuit non misereri do manifest that not denying grace but the decree of denying it is Reprobation Walaeus speaketh of no common endowments though that be a truth which here is attributed unto them else how should they be called common endowments 2. If he decrees to leave Reprobates without grace and consequently under that necessity of sinning into which all are cast by the sinne of Adam it is nothing strange I thinke that God should accordingly leave them therein though in a different manner the Lord prostituting some to their own lost's and to the power of Satan more then others and making some even by the ministery of the Gospell proficere ad exteriorem vitae emendationem quo mitius puniantur as Austin some where speaketh If Gods decree cannot be frustrated as here is avouched I wonder he should charge us with teaching that God decreeth this or that immutably For if he should change any of his decrees they should undoubtedly be frustrated Indeed we do not say that God decrees Hypothetically to give grace to wit upon condition that men will make themselves fit for it and for failing herein to deny them grace And I am very glad to observe so good correspondence in the suffrages of Protestant Divines in the Synod of Dort and our English also with them Sect 3. 3. God both decreeth and executeth this leaving of men to themselves of his alone absolute will and pleasure This is the third branch 1 That they say so witnesse the suffrage of our English Divines We affirme that this non election is founded in the most free pleasure of God And that no man lying in the fall is past over by the meere will of God is numbred by the same Divines among the heterodox positions To this purpose also speake The Palatinate Ministers The cause of Reprobation is the most free and just will of God That God passeth over some and denyeth them the grace of the Gospell the cause is the same free pleasure of God Thus the Divines of Hessen God decreed to leave some in the fall of his own good pleasure The proofe of this they fetch from the execution of this decree in time God doth in time leave some of mankind fallen and doth not bestow upon them meanes necessary to beleive c. and this out of his most free pleasure This they joyntly affirme and prove it by this reason especially All men were lookt on as sinners If sinne therefore were the cause that moved God to reprobate he should have reprobated or rejected all But he did not Reprobate all therefore for sinne he reprobated none but for his owne pleasure in which we must rest wthout seeking any other cause 1. Now from these two things layd together viz. 1. That God did bring men into a necessity of sinning 2. That he hath left the Reprobates under this necessity it will follow that he is the Authour of the reprobates sinnes 1. Because Causae causae est causa causati the Cause of a cause is the cause of its effect if there be a necessary subordination betweene the causes and the effect whether it be a cause by acts negative or positive But God is the cheife or sole cause by their doctrine of that which is the necessary and immediate cause of the sinnes of reprobates namely their impotency and want of supernaturall grace therefore he is by the same doctrine the true and proper cause of their sinnes 2. Because Removens prohibens that which withdraweth and withholdeth a thing which being present would hinder an event is the cause of that event As for example he that cutteth a string in which a stone hangs is the cause of the falling of that stone And he that withdraweth a pillar which being put to uphold a house is the true cause in mens account of the falling of that house But God by their opinion withholdeth from reprobates that power which being granted them might keep thē from falling into sinne therefore he becometh a true morall cause of their sinnes In whose power it is that a thing be not done to him it is imputed when it is done sayth Tertullian In cuius manu est quid ne fiat ei deputatur cum iam fit It will not suffice to say that God by withholding grace from reprobates becometh only an accidentall not a proper and direct cause of their sinnes For a cause is then only accidentall in relation to the effect when the effect is beside the intention and expectation of the cause For example Digging in a feild is then an accidentall cause of the finding a bag of gold when that event is neither expected not intended by the husbandman in digging But when the event is lookt for and aymed at then the cause though it be the cause only by withholding the impediment is not accidentall As a Pilot who withholdeth his care and skill from a ship in a storme foreseeing that by his neglect the ship will be drowned is not to be reputed an accidentall but a direct and proper cause of the losse of this ship This being so it followeth that God by this act and decree of removing and detaining grace necessary to the avoyding of sinne from reprobates not as one ignorant and carelesse what will or shall follow but knowing infallibly what mischeife will follow and determining precisely that which doth follow viz their impenitency and damnation becomes the proper and direct cause of their sinnes That God of his meere pleasure sheweth mercy on some and hardeneth others is the expresse word of God Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth Now to shew mercy is to give the grace of faith and obedience as appeares
by the opposition of it to obduration which is such as whereupon followeth disobedience as appeares by the objection following hereupon Thou wilt say then why doth yet cōplaine For who hath resisted his will Now God complaineth of nothing but disobedience Againe to give faith is to shew mercy For to have faith is to obtaine mercy Heretofore ye have not believed but now have obtained mercy through their unbeliefe Where to believe to obtaine mercy are made equipollent of the same signification And in reason if God did deny faith because of some unpreparednesse in the creature then God did expect that the creature should first prepare himselfe and make himselfe fit for faith that so God might bestow it upon him so grace should be conferr'd according to workes which is contradictious to expresse testimony of holy scripture testifying that God hath saved us called us with an holy calling not according to our workes but according to his owne purpose and grace all along hath beene condened in the Church of God for Pelagianisme Thus we have beene entertained with a discourse containing nothing but the opinion of our Divines which none of us deny Yet in the proposing hereof he hath wasted a whole leafe and more Now he comes to his argument drawen from these two layd together 1. That God did bring men into a necessity of sinning 2. That he hath left the reprobates under this necessity Hence he concludes that God is the Author of the reprobates sins But this we utterly deny Therefore this he undertakes to prove by two reasons 1. Because the cause of the cause is the cause of its effect if there be a necessary subordination betweene the causes and the effect But God is the cheife or sole cause by their doctrine of that which is the necessary and immediate cause of the sinnes of Reprobates namely their impotency and want of supernaturall grace For answer whereunto I say first begining with the minor 1. That the want of supernaturall grace is not the immediate cause of the sinnes of Reprobates nor the cheife cause much lesse the sole cause And I prove it evidently Let instance be given in any sinne committed by a Reprobate let it be the sinne of murther or of fornication or of theft or of lying For if it were then every reprobate should be guilty of murther of fornication of lying of stealing For positâ causâ principali immediatâ ponitur effectus Where a principall and immediate cause doth exist there the effect must needs exist But it is apparent that albeit every reprobate doth want supernaturall grace yet every reprobate is not guilty of murther of fornication lying and stealing Secondly If the want of supernaturall grace were the immediate and principall cause of all the sinnes of reprobates then not only every Reprobate should be guilty of committing all the sinnes formerly mentioned but at all times every one of these sinnes should be committed by them Because at all times they want supernaturall grace And the truth is every one of these sinnes may be abstained from without supernaturall grace and for carnall respects Only without supernaturall grace they cannot be abstained from in a gracious manner as namely out of faith in God and love to God He that hath neither faith nor love cannot abstaine from these vile courses out of faith and love In like sort heathen men in their generations have beene exceeding vertuous according to the worlds account of vertue in moderating their passions and ordering their conversation aright one towards another and all this hath beene performed by them without supernaturall grace Thirdly The immediate cause of all their sinnes rather of the two is their naturall corruption whereby they are habitually turned away from God and converted unto the creature in an inordinate manner Like as the immediate cause actionis laesae of a naturall function of the body imperfect is the disease or infirmity that hath seised upon some part of the body And the Physitian who is able to cure it and will not is the cause why it continueth uncured But no wise man will say he is the cause why this or that member in a sicke mans body doth not performe its operation as it should In like manner as touching the vicious actions of the soule the want of supernaturall grace is the cause why those vicious actions continue uncured because God alone by his grace can cure them but no sober man that is well in his wits should say that is the cause of vicious actions but acknowledge rather the corruption thereof to be the cause of these vicious actions And indeed all morall philosophy referres the cause of every vicious action unto the vicious habit depraving the will and inclining it to vicious courses Fourthly Yet farther to represent the wildnesse of this Authours discourse The vicious habit it selfe is not the sole cause no nor the principall and immediate cause of a vicious action in particular For if it were then that particular vicious action should alwayes be committed by it So that an impure person should alwayes commit fornication a Lyar should alwayes lye a Theife should alwayes steale a Murtheret should alwayes commit murther For it is a rule generally received that the immediate and principall cause being existent the effect must needs exist also And indeed albeit habits whether good or evill do worke after the manner of nature inclining and swaying the will to the accomplishment of them Yet the will of man being a free and not necessary Agent proceeds not to worke but according unto judgement and occasions and opportunityes from without And albeit a purser that maintaine himselfe by robbery hath a faire opportunity offered him to advantage himselfe to take a purse yet if upon consideration he finds himselfe too weake to goe through with it or that he cannot do it safely he will forbeare For albeit a vicious habit doth naturally and necessarily incline him to a naughty end yet in the choice of the meanes conducing to this end he is free How much more plainely doth it appeare that the want of supernaturall grace is farre off from being either the sole cause or the immediate or the principall cause of any sinne committed by a Reprobate Rather of the two the intestine corruption of the Reprobate is the cause of his sinnes and the want of grace is the cause why this corruption is not cured Now albeit a Physitian may sinne in not curing a sicke person when it lyes in his power to cure him For we are in charity bound to do to others as we would have others do unto us yet God is bound to none I will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion 2. Observe how sluttishly he carryeth himselfe in the next reason taken from removens prohibens His rule proceeds both of withdrawing and withholding a thing which being
of evill for himselfe But by the way I observe how you mistake the opinion of your opposites as when you say that this decree of manifesting Gods mercy or justice is a decree of working an effect in that subject for this is utterly untrue This were to make the decree of salvation of the one and of damnation of the other to be before the decree of creation And although some such thing may be conceived out of a superficiall apprehension of it as proposed by Beza and Piscator yet both in true account of that opinion in generall and mistaking of it in speciall no such thing is avouched Nay whereas your selfe maintaine that the decree of damnation is before the decree of permission of finall impenitency a point no way congruous to your Tenet about massa corrupta you have often read in my writings that I account the decree of damnation in no moment of time to precede the decree of permission of finall impenitency Then the case of Angells is utterly against this unlesse you maintaine the one to be elected upon the foresight of their obedience the other reprobated upon the foresight of their disobedience which I am perswaded you shall not find any Orthodox Divine in the point of mans election to maintaine 3. Conclusio tertia Gods decree to permit sinne is before his decree to manifest either his mercy in pardoning sinne or his justice in punishing sinne because that is a decree de eventu this a doing of something by occasion of that event Resp 1. To your reason here mentioned I have answered before 2. There is no priority or posteriority in intention but onely in respect of finis and media ad finem 3. It is untrue that the former decree is a decree of an event and the latter of doing something by occasion of this event For what is Gods permission the event you meane If so then Gods working grace may be accounted an event also and so Gods decree of salvation upon his working grace shall follow upon his decree of working grace which is manifestly Arminianisme Is the sinne permitted the event First why should you call it an event is it because you conceive it to fall out besides Gods intention Arminius himselfe professeth the contrary The articles of Ireland professe that God from eternity did by his unchangeable counsell ordaine whatsoever in time should come to passe your selfe acknowledge that Gods decree of permitting sinne is a decree de eventu your selfe acknowledge that God did foresee that man would sinne in case he did permit him to sinne which is as much as to say stice food did intend that sinne should come to passe by his permission which is 〈…〉 and expresse profession of Austin where he saith Non ergo aliquid fit nisi omnipotens fieri velit vel sinendo ut fiat vel ipse faciendo so that whether things come to passe Deo faciente as good things or Deo sinente as evill things still they came to passe Deo volente as Austin professeth Now this sinne is apparently the cause of the damnation of many thousands for as much as many thousand infants are damned onely for sinne originall And therefore like as upon this sin existent God doth not take an occasion onely but a cause of damning many thousands so if the decree of permitting this be presupposed before the decree of damnation you may say as well that God upon the foresight of this sinne doth not onely take occasion but a cause also of decreeing their damnation And this may be applyed to the reprobation not onely of infants but of all that are damned forasmuch as all that are damned are damned for originall sinne onely here is the difference such reprobates as dye in their infancy are damned onely for originall sinne but others are damned not only for originall sinne but for their actuall sinnes also Againe it is manifest that the decree of permitting sinne originall is no more a decree de eventu and Gods decree to manifest his mercy in pardoning it is a decree of doing something by occasion of that event than Gods decree of permitting all actuall sinnes of his elect from the first to the last is a decree de eventu and Gods decree to manifest his mercy in pardoning actuall sinnes is a decree of working something by occasion of that event and I cannot but wonder this being againe and againe put to your consideration that you doe not take notice of the equipollency of these whence it manifestly followeth that the decree of pardoning sinnes shall presuppose massam corruptam as well with actuall sinnes as sinnes originall Againe if Gods decree of shewing justice in punishing sinne is but a decree of taking occasion of doing something then Gods decree of damnation for mens actuall sinnes is but a decree of taking occasion of doing something and consequently by what reason the decree of punishing sinne presupposeth the decree of permitting sinne originall by the same reason the decree of damnation shall presuppose the decree of permitting not onely sinne originall but all actuall sinnes also By the same reason the decree of salvation is but a decree of doing something upon the occasion of faith repentance and good workes For if sinne deserve not to be accounted a cause moving God to resolve to punish a man with damnation but rather an event by occasion where of he resolves to punish with damnation much lesse shall faith repentance and good workes be accounted a cause moving God to decree to save any man but onely an event by occasion whereof God doth decree some mens salvation Yet looke by what reason the decree of punishing with damnation doth presuppose the decree of permitting sinne by occasion of which event punishment by damnation is decreed by the same reason the decree of salvation doth presuppose the decree of giving faith repentance and good workes by occasion of which events salvation is decreed for why should not faith and good workes be accounted an occasion of the decree of salvation as well as sinnes are the occasion of the decree of damnation 4. The fourth conclusion is this Gods decree to produce the person of Peter is before his decree to manifest his mercy in Peter by the reason aforesaid Thes 8. Resp That eighth Thesis aforesaid made no mention of priority in decree or intention but onely of priority in execution by vertue of Gods decree for the words of that eighth Thesis are these God decreeth first to produce that subject and afterwards to worke such an effect thereupon Not that God did first decree to produce the subject but onely that God did decree first to produce the subject manifesting hereby that your intent is onely to reason from the order of execution and therehence to inferre the like order in intention which is the ordinary course of Arminians at this day And you signifie your meaning to be this in that eighth Thesis though in the issue you faile of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that it is not to be accounted any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at all Theologicall but meerly Logicall Let the condition of the decrees be rightly explicated according to Divinity and we shall have no need at all of Divinity for the right ordering of them A meer Logicall faculty by light of nature will serve for this For the decrees whereof we treat are meerely Intentiones rerum gerendarum Now for the ordering of these in what kind soever we have received Rules of the Schooles never yet that I know contradicted by any namely that they are to be ordered according to the condition of the things intended which are but two to wit the end and the means and all doe attribute priority to the intention of the end and posteriority to the intention of the means It is true men may erre in designing the right end as also in designing the right means and these errours are to be discovered and the truth cleered by that science whereunto the consideration of the end and means belong and not by Logick But agreement being made concerning the end and means there is no doubt to be made but that according to the most received Rules of Schooles the end must be acknowledged both first in intention and last in execution and contrarily the means last in intention and first in execution 2. But come we to the Decrees themselves the different opinions thereabouts which follow in the next place Now here I looked for different opinions about decrees in the plural number but I find the relation extends no farther then to one decree and that of Reprobation So at the first entrance reasons are promised even in this writing to be exhibited of chang of opinion in certain controversies in the plurall number when in the issue all comes but to one controversy and that about Reprobation Yet the Scripture speaketh fully of Election sparingly of Reprobation in most places leaving us to judge thereof by consequence from the doctrine of Election Yet some passages we have I confesse that give light and evidence to both alike For like as it is said Acts 2. last that God added daily to the Church such as should be saved so 2 Cor. 4. 3. it is said If our Gospell be hid it is hid to them that are lost and as it is signified Math. 24 24. that T is impossible seducers should prevaile over the elect so 2 Thes 2. both as much is signified ver 13. and also expressed ver 10. 11. that they shall prevaile among them that perish and the 1 Cor. 1. 18. we are given to understand joyntly that the preaching of the Crosse is to them that perish foolishnesse but unto us which are saved it is the power of God and Rom. 9. 18. that as God hath mercy on whom he will so also he hardneth whom he will And like as Acts 13. 48. we read that as many believed as were ordained to eternall life which phrase of ordaining to eternall life I conceive under correction to be all one with the phrase of Writing our names in Heaven Luke 10. 20. and writing us in heaven Hebr. 12. 23. and this phrase I take to be all one with the writing of us in the Book of life So on the other side we read that Whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the World should wonder when they beheld the Beâ—st and not so only but worship him also But give we every vessel leave to vent that liquor whereof it is full I come to the consideration of the different opinions here proposed concerning the decree of Reprobation and herein I will endeavour to open a clear way to the right understanding of the truth that your judgement may have the more free course in discerning it and withall to represent unto you the unreasonable carriage of our Adversaries in the setting downe of our Tenent whereby you may guesse what you are to expect from them prosecuting against it And herein I will insist upon these particulars The first shall be the Things Decreed The second the Cause of this decree The third the Persons on whom this Decree doth passe The fourth shall be that claw of Unavoydable Sin and Damnation 1. The Things Decreed are here said to be The casting off from grace and glory and the shutting of men up under Damnation Now I pray observe here in the first place that by casting off from grace and glory we mean no other thing then the not giving of grace and glory and by grace we mean the grace of Faith and Repentance the grace of Regeneration For like as in Election God purposeth we say to give this grace unto some which is the same with shewing mercy on them Rom. 9. 18. as we suppose so on the other side God purposeth to deny this grace unto others which in Scripture phrase is to harden them that being made opposite to Gods shewing mercy Rom. 9. 18. And for the farther clearing of the termes we say that God by giving Faith and Repentance doth cure that infidelity and impenitency which is naturall unto all as being borne in sin and by not giving this grace of Faith and Repentance unto others God leaves their naturall infidelity and impenitency uncured And if this Author means ought else by shutting up under sin then the not curing of their naturall infidelity and impenitency he doth us wrong and what he means thereby I know not As for shutting up under damnation that is not our phrase but we love to speak in plain tearmes and say that God doth purpose to inflict damnation on them whom he Reprobates Thus much for the cleering of the tearmes as touching the things Decreed Secondly observe I pray which is of principall consideration that here we have no cause at all specified why he refuseth to give them grace cunningly leaving it to an improvident Reader to conceive that the cause of the decree which is here specified to be the meer pleasure of Gods will is indifferently applyable to the not giving of grace and glory and to the shutting up under damnation as the cause thereof which is a notorious imposture yet I doe not think this Author guilty of it but others rather who abuse their witts by cunning courses to deceive the hearts of the simple Amongst the Fallacies observed by Aristotle there is one called Fallacia plurium interrogationum as when many things are put together and an answer is required to be made either affirmatively or negatively to them all as if they were but one when indeed the answer cannot be made aright without distinction of the things demanded the one whereof perhaps requires an answer affirmative the other negative As for example to instance as touching one of the Controversies here declined We are often demanded whether every one that heareth the Gospell be not bound to believe that Christ died for him Now I say this phrase Christ died
we acknowledge of predestination both in the way of a meritorious cause on Christs part and in the way of a disposing cause on our part For God we say hath predestinated to bestow upon us both grace and glory for Christs sake where Christ is made a meritorious cause of grace and glory but not of the act of predestination And farther we say that God hath predestinated to bestow glory upon us as a reward of grace as a reward of faith repentance and good workes and to this purpose it is said that God by his grace doth make us meet partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light Coloss 1. 12. But as for the bestowing of grace on any we say there is no cause thereof on mans part For he hath mercy on whom he will Rom. 9. 18. and he hath called us with an holy calling not according to our workes but according to his own purpose and grace 2 Timoth. 1. 9. Now let us apply this to reprobation which is the will of God as well as predestination and if there can be no cause of predestination quoad actum Praedestinantis because there can be no cause of the will of God quoad actum volentis Who seeth not that by the same reason there can be no cause of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis And if it be a mad thing to maintain that merits are the cause of predestination quoad actum praedestinantis it must be as mad a thing to maintain that any merits of the creature can be the cause of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis And this doctrine Aquinas applies expresly to Reprobation it selfe upon the 9. Rom. Lect. 2 da at the end of these words Praescientia peccatorum potest esse aliqua ratio reprobationis but how ex parte actus reprobantis nothing lesse but rather ex parte effectus and what effect not the denying of grace but only as touching the inflicting of punishment thus Praescientia peccatorum potest esse aliqua ratio reprobationis ex parte paenae quae praeparatur reprobatis in quantum scilicet Deus proponit se puniturum malos propter peccata quae à seipsis habent non à Deo And farther we prove this both by cleare evidence of Scripture and cleare evidence of reason and thirdly by as cleare a representation of their infatuation that oppose this doctrine and particularly of the Author of this discourse First by cleare evidence of Scripture Rom. 9. 11. Where the Apostle proves that Election stands not of good works by an argument drawn from the circumstance of the time when that Oracle The elder shall serve the younger was delivered together with the present condition of Jacob and Esau answerable to that time thus Before the children were borne or had done good or evill it was said to Rebecca The Elder shall serve the Younger Therefore the purpose of God according to Election stands not of good workes Now look by what strength of reason the Apostle concludes this of Election by the same strength of argumentation may I conclude of reprobation in proportion thus Before the Children were borne or had done Good or Evill it was said to Rebecca The Elder shall serve the Younger therefore the purpose of God according to reprobation stands not of evill workes that is like as good workes are not the cause of Election so evill workes are not the cause of Reprobation to wit quoad actum reprobantis as touching the very act and eternall decree of God it selfe Secondly observe I pray whether my reason be not as cleare If God upon the foresight of sin doth ordain a man unto damnation thus I am content to propose it in the most rigorous manner then this is done either by necessity of nature or by the constitution of God Not by necessity of nature as it is confessed and the cause is evident for undoubtedly he could annihilate them and so he can the holiest creature that lives as all sides confesse Therefore it must be by the constitution of God but neither can this hold For if so then God did constitute that is ordaine that upon the foresight of sin he would ordaine men unto damnation Where observe that the act of divine ordination is made the object of divine ordination as much as to say he did ordaine to ordaine or he did decree to decree Whereas the objects of Gods decrees are alwaies things temporall as for example We say well God did decree to create the world to make man out of the earth to send Christ into the World to preserve us to redeeme us sanctify us save us But Gods ordination or decree is an act eternall and cannot be the object of his decree or ordination I challenge all the Powers of darknes to answer this and to vindicate the Tenent which I impugne from that absurdity which I charge upon it if they can O but some will say it 's very harsh to say that God of his meer pleasure doth ordain men unto damnation I am content to doe my endeavour to remove this scandall out of the way of honest hearts yea and out of the way of others also First therefore consider is it fit to resist the evidence of divine truth because it is harsh to mens affections Secondly Wherein consists this harshnesse Is it in this that nothing is the cause of Gods decree and will nothing temper the harshnes of it unles a thing temporall as sinne be made the cause of Gods will which is eternall and even God himselfe But let us deale plainly and tell me in truth whether the harshnes doth not consist in this That the meer pleasure of Gods will seems to be made the cause not of Gods decree only but of damnation also as if God did damne men not for sin but of his meer pleasure And this I confesse is wondrous harsh and yet no more harsh then it is untrue though in this jugling world things are so carried by some who will both shuffle and cutt and deale themselves as if we made God of meer pleasure to damne men and not for sin which is a thing utterly impossible damnation being such a notion as hath essentiall reference unto sin But if God damne no man but for sinne and decreed to damne no man but for sinne what if the meer pleasure of God be the cause of this decree what harshnes I say is this As for example Zimri or Cosby perished in their incestuous act and gave up both lust and ghost together so going as it were quick to Hell never fearing the judgements of God untill they felt them If we say God decreed they should be cut off in this sin of theirs and be damned for it What hatshnes I pray in this though God made this decree of meer pleasure For is it not manifest he did For could he not if it had pleased him have caused them to outlive this sin of theirs and given them space for repentance and
no lesse then abominable most damnable sins Yet undoubtedly God did not animate Herod Pontius Pilate together with the Gentiles and people of Israel to do what they did against our Saviour but rather left them to be ordered by his Law wherein such things are prohibited And neverthelesse the Apostles in their pious meditation with one voyce professe that All these were gathered together against the holy Son of God to doe those things which Gods hand and Gods councell had predestinated to be done and why the like is not to be acknowledged of the most barbarous facts committed by Tiberius or any other monster of nature I know no reason And as touching shamefull courses no lesse abominable in the kind of acts flagitious as these here mentioned of Tiberius were in the kind of acts facinorous The Apostle professeth both that God gave them up to vile affections and to the lusts of their own hearts to the committing of such abominations and also that herein they received such recompence of their errour as was meet and the errour which God avenged in this manner what was it but such wherein Tiberius was as deep as those whom the Apostle speaks of namely in changing the glory of the incorruptible God to the similitude of the image of a corruptible man and of birds and of four footed beasts and of creeping things And they were but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into which God delivered up Tiberius and to such God delivered up them of whom the Apostle speaks and his actions as well as theirs were equally the fruits of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into which God gave them up that so they might receive that recompence of their errour as was meet I come to the second instance here made of Tiberius his cruelty which he compares to those courses which we out of holy Scripture have learned to be attributed unto God himselfe Now this hath long agoe been objected by Bertius in his Preface to the Conference of Arminius with Iunius I say objected by him unto Piscator thereunto Piscator also hath answered long agoe And whereas Bertius hath replyed and allowed Piscator a year for putting in his answer thereunto whereof had he failed he would interpret it as a confession of his insufficiency to make good the cause maintained by him Piscator answers that he had no need of so long a time as he prescribed him for after he had read over his book in the space of two or three daies he addressed himselfe to an answer thereunto and within a month finished it Now if the Author of this discourse were ignorant hereof his ignorance might excuse him if otherwise he might have with more credit occupied himselfe in the answering at the least of some chief particulars whereupon Piscator stands for the justifying of his doctrine delivered by him not of his own brain but according to the word of God then hand over head to hold up the crimination without taking notice of the dilution thereof many years a goe proposed and set forth to the judgement of the world But I am content to take into consideration how Scholastically and judiciously he carrieth himselfe in this crimination as well as in the former and the rather because it may be that this odious cōparison he makes more account of for the preparation of his Auditors to entertain that which followes with the more propitious affectiō then he doth of the strength of ought that follows whatsoever he doth or may pretēd to the cōtrary to the point thē Tiberius commanded the Virgins to be defloured that they might be strangled Now is there any carriage of God taught by us like unto this If God were disposed to strangle any certainly he hath no need to have thē defloured first For it is now a daies confessed even by Arminius himselfe that God can lawfully annihilate the holiest creature that lives and that without all respect to sin or the vitiation of them And annihilation I think is much more then strangulation this causing only a dissolution between the body and soule but annihilation setting an utter end to body soule by turning them both into nothing And farther had Tiberius only permitted the deflouring of them whē he might have hindered it though this were a foule part in him yet I hope no Christian will say it is a foule part in God to permit any act never so flagitious or facinorous when he is able to hinder it especially when he may hinder it without any prejudice to the liberty of mans will and that this is in Gods power Arminius acknowledgeth and supposeth at large in his Examen and Treatise there De Permissione But Tiberius commanded the Hangman to defloure them But is this our doctrine that God commanded the ravishing of any the murthering of any or any other sin whatsoever Do we not all teach rather that God forbids it and that under penalty of everlasting death yet it is true the word of God expressely professeth out of the mouth of David that God bad Shimei to curse David and that he bid the evill spirit to seduce Ahab that he might goe up to Ramoth-Gilead and that not to be strangled I confesse but which was nothing better to him that he might fall and be slain there But this is a figurative speech and signifies not properly any command of God but rather denotes the secret operation of Gods providence in the hearts of men even of wicked men for those as well as Devills God knows how to make use of to serve his own turne And Austin professeth Deum operari in cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluntates quocunque voluerit sive ad bona pro suâ misericordiâ sive ad mala pro meritis eorum judicio utique suo aliquando aperto aliquando occulto semper autem justo And touching the particular of Shimei writes thus ejus voluntatem proprio suo vitio malam in hoc peccatum judicio suo justo occulto inclinavit As for Tiberius his causing the little maides to be defloured that might be done without their sinne they might be ravished and in that case that might be their sorrow but not their sin And as for the hangmans fault in this he was not excusable by Tiberius his causing him to defloure them For Tiberius his causation herein extended no farther then to command them And I hope it was no just excuse for the people of Israel in their Idolatrous courses that therein they did but keep the statutes of Omri and all the manner of the house of Ahab Mic. 6. Yet neither doth God command any man to doe that which his Law forbids or to sin against him And farther we acknowledge with Austin that sin hath no efficient cause but deficient And it is enough with God to expose any man to sin by not working him to that which is good it being his office to work us to every thing
that is pleasing in his sight Heb. 13. 20. to cause us to walk in his statutes and judgements and to doe them Ezech. 36. 28. yea to keep us from presumptious sins and that they get not the dominion over us Psal 19. 14. yea to deliver us from every evill work 2 Timoth. 4. 18. But perhaps some may say Our doctrine is that God willeth sin to be committed for which men may and shall be punished like as Tiberius would the Virgins should be defloured that they might be strangled And I answer that Arminius himselfe professeth that Deus voluit Achabum mensuram scelerum suorum implere God would have Ahab fill up the measure of his sinne that he might be condignely punished And why may we not say as well that God would have Tiberius to fill up the measure of his sinnes And yet like as Tiberius would have the Virgins to be defloured that they might be strangled so Ahab would have Naboth accused of blasphemy that he might be condemned for it and so put to death and stoned and all these things were done under colour of Religion Yet Arminius in reference to these very courses spares not to professe that God would have Ahab to fill up the measure of his sinnes yet doth not Bertius upbraid him for defaming God with imputing cruelty unto him Againe the same Arminius professeth that in their ignominious handling of Christ God would have the Jewes progredi quousque progressi sunt proceed so farre as they did proceed And was it not Gods will in like manner that the Gentiles should proceed as farre as they did in the same businesse Now we know full well by the story Evangelical how farre they went in their mischievous courses against the Son of God For Judas betrayed him and the high Priests both hired Judas hereunto and suborned false witnesses against him and both the Herodians and Souldiers mocked him and the people urged Pilate to crucify him and to dismisse 〈◊〉 and Pilate yeelded to the peoples desire took order to have him first scourged then crucified And if it may be truely and piously said that in these ignominious usages of the Son of God they went as farre as God would have them to goe why may it not with as great truth and piety be avouched that Tiberius also in these his barbarous courses went as farre as God would have him Neither doth Arminius give himselfe to qualify the harshnesse of these his affirmations We say that whatsoever comes to passe it is Gods will it should come to passe as Austin expresly professeth Enchir. cap. 95. Nec aliquid fit nisi Omnipotens fieri velit and the Articles of Ireland Artic. 11. professe the same But withall we explicate it as Austin dothin the words following by adding the different manner how they shall come to passe by the will of God according to the different condition of things that come to passe namely good or evill thus Vult fieri but how vel sinendo ut fiat to wit in case they are evill vel ipse faciendo to wit in case they are good So then good things God will have come to passe by his effection evill things only by his permission And Bellarmine opposing our Divines to the uttermost of his power in this particular being convicted in conscience by the evidence of truth is driven to confesse Bonum esse ut malum fiat Deo permittente It is good that evill should come to passe by Gods permission or Gods permitting it Tiberius willed that the Virgins should be defloured and impiously he willed it God willed that Davids Concubines should be defloured and holily he willed it neither is he delighted with impurity For the Scripture attributes this unto God I will give thy Wives unto thy Neighbour and he shall lye with them in the sight of all Israel and before the sunne And this constupration of Davids Concubines served for the chastising of David as Arminius professeth Inserviit castigando Davidi omnes paenae habent Deum authorem All punishments have God for their author they are the words of the same Arminius It was impiety and cruelty in Tiberius to cause the Virgins to be defloured and strangled But what Christian dares to impute impiety or cruelty unto God for causing the Children of the Sodomites some in their Mothers wombe some hanging upon their Mothers breasts to be consumed with fire and brimstone It was impiety and cruelty in Tiberius to will the deflouring of those Virgins that they might be strangled But Arminius thought it neither impiety nor cruelty for God to will that Ahab should fill up the measure of his sinne that so he might accumulate unto himselfe wrath in the day of wrath for if he had I presume he would not have ascribed any such will unto God as he doth in expresse termes Although he well knew the vast difference between the power of man and the power of God in executing vengeance the ones power extending only to the execution of vengeance temporall but Gods power extends to the execution of vengeance eternall Now I find a story immediatly following this very story alleadged by this Author out of Suetonius expressing the cruelty of Tiberius in a farther degree as not contented with the death of them whom he would destroy and therefore he would keep them alive to torment them Mori volentibus vis adhibita vivendi when they desired to dye he caused them to live by force Nam mortem adeò leve supplicium putabat ut cum audisset unum è reis anticipasse eam exclamaverit Carnutius me evasit For he accounted death so light a punishment that when he heard one of the condemned persons to have anticipated it he cryed out Carnutius hath escaped me for that was the condemned persons name And when he took notice of them that were inward when one desired to suffer betimes he answered him Nondum tecum in gratiam redii I doe not as yet beare these so much good will Now why may not some Atheisticall person track the steps of this Author and in this particular exaggerate the hainousnesse of Gods holy courses as savouring of cruelty beyond all example beyond the cruelty of Tiberius because he holds delinquent creatures upon the rack of eternall torment in hell fire For certain vindicative courses in Tiberius inferior unto these are accounted abominable cruell and impious how much more if this Authors argumentation be of force those courses which the word of God hath informed us to be the courses divine infinitely beyond the courses of Tiberius in the way of severity and rigour As for the power of God in producing sinne we acknowledge none Above 1200 years agoe it was delivered by Austin that sinne hath no efficient cause but deficient only But when the creature sinneth he sinneth in doing that he ought not to doe or in doing what he doth not in that manner he ought to doe or in not doing what he
to stretch himselfe thereon and therefore he desires to change his lodging and to passe from the desert of good actions to the desert of evill actions which he formerly insisted upon and he tells a story of Zeno's servant most suitable to his Iambick taken out of Seneca though he quotes the place of neither Well Zeno's servant he saith when he was punished by his Master for a fault that he had done told his Master out of his own grounds that he was unjustly beaten because he was Fato coactus peccare and hereupon making his reckoning without his hoste concludes that Certainly if Malefactors could not chuse but play their rude prankes they could not be justly punished for them Wherein he tells us what the servant said but what the Master answered thereof he saith just nothing Nay doth he truly relate what the Servant said Nothing lesse but shapes it as he thinks good that making his own bed he may lye thereon more softly If we may believe Diogenes Laertius who reports the story the Servants answer was not Fato coactus sum peccare but Fatale mihi erat furari For he took his serâ—â—â—â— laying the theefe though the servant took advantage from his Masters doâ—â—â—â— of Fate to frame an Apology for himselfe yet would not Zeno permit him to 〈◊〉 thereby any priviledge from stripes For servum in furto deprehensum verberavit A manifest evidence that even in his opinion the destiny he maintained was no just excuse for sinne And to meet him in his own plea when he said Fatale mihi erat furari caedi inquit this was the answer he made to his servant which answer of his this Author either conceales or was not privy to his own ignorance And indeed Chrysippus the Stoick though an eager maintainer of Fate Stoicall yet denyed not the liberty of mens wills as appears in Cicero de Fato though in his opinion this doctrine of theirs did cohere And Plutarch likewise in his book De Fato professeth as much Fatum omnia continet sicut etiam videtur neque tamen proptereà omnia necessariò eveniunt sed unumquodque suo naturae modo Neither did Zeno conceive hereby all place to be taken away for perswasion as appears by his answer to Crates when he took him by the cloake to draw him away from Stilpo saying O Crates commodissimè auribus Philosophum teneas Cum igitur persuaseris tum illum trahe Nam si per vim egeris corpus quidem apud te sed animus apud Stilponem erit Neither were any Philosophers more studious of Morality then the Stoicks They wrote De Bonis Malis de Affectibus de Virtute de Fine deque primâ aestimatione de Actibus ac de Officiis de Adhortationibus dehortationibus as Diogenes writes in the life of Zeno. And Austin de Civit. Dei cap. 9. professeth of the Stoicks that though Omnia Fato fieri contenderent yet Non omnia necessitate fieri dicerent And more then this whereas the Stoicks were so jealous of maintaining the liberty of mens wills that they denyed them of all other things to be subject to necessity Austin professeth that their feare of subjecting the wills of men unto necessity in this respect was a causelesse feare Ibid. cap. 10. Unde nec illa necessitas formidanda est quam formidando Stoici laboraverunt causas rerum ita distinguere ut quasdam subtraherent necessitati quasdam subderent atque in his quas esse sub necessitate noluerunt posuerunt etiam nostras voluntates ne videlicet non essent liberae si subderentur necessitati And then proceeds to shew that there is a certain necessity nothing prejudiciall to the will albeit the will be acknowledged in subjection thereunto And that necessity he describes to be this as when we say that Necesse est ut ita sit aliquid vel ita fiat his words are these Si autem illa definitur esse necessitas secundum quam dicimus necesse est ut ita sit aliquid vel ita fiat nescio cur eam timemus ne nobis libertatem auferat voluntatis Herein Austin professeth to goe beyond the Stoicks in acknowledging a necessity whereunto the will of man is subject and that without detriment to the liberty thereof Yet in my judgement it would better become a Christian Divine to informe both himselfe and others out of the Word of God and rest thereon for the discovery of the nature of Providence and Predestination divine then to goe a forraging among Poets and Stoicks for the justification of his own in point of Christian faith and for the redargution of the way of his Opposites INTRODUCTION SECT IV. THese absurdities following too evidently from the upper Way Others of the same side wiling to decline them as rocks and precipices doe leave that Way and present man to God in his decree of reprobation lying in the fault and under the guilt of Originall sinne and say That God looking upon miserable mankind lying in Adams sinne did decree the greatest part of them to eternall torments in hell without remedy for the manifestation of his severe Justice But notwithstanding this difference among themselves they agree well enough together For this little jarre is not in their judgements enough to make a breach between them as we may see in the Conference at the Hague and in the Synod at Dort In the Conference at the Hague the Contra-Remonstrants have these words Quoad sententiarum diversitatem in hoc argumento quod Deus hominem respexit in hoc decreto nondum creätum vel creätum lapsum quia hoc ad fundamentum hujus doctrinae non pertinet libentèr alii alios aequitate Christiana toleramus After this in the Synod of Dort they permitted Gomarus to goe the Supralapsarian way and the Delegates of South Holland were very indifferent which way they took For these are their words An Deus in eligendo consideravit homines ut lapsos an etiam ut nondum lapsos existimant viz. the Delegates aforesaid non esse necessarium ut definiatur modo statuatur Deum in eligendo considerasse omnes homines in pari statu And to say the truth there is no reason why they should quarrell about circumstances seeing they agree in the substance For they both say 1. That the moving cause of reprobation is the alone will of God and not the sinne of man originall or actuall 2. That the finall impenitency and damnation of reprobates are necessary and unavoidable by Gods absolute decree These two things are the maxima gravamina that the other side stick at So that these two paths meet at last in the same way But because this last is chosen by the most and latest maintainers of the absolute decree as the more moderate of the two and the easyer to be defended I will set down the conclusion which I dislike in their way and words God hath absolutely purposed
of them proceed on this manner The first thus Praedestinatio est voluntas Dei de illustrandâ suâ gloriâ per misericordiā justitiā At illa voluntas locum non habet in nondum condito ceu condendo The third thus Praedestinatio est pars providentiae administrantis gubernātis humanū genus ergò posterior naturâ actu creationis vel proposito creandi Si posterior actu creationis vel propositio creandi hominē jam homo praedestinationis objectum non est consideratus ut nondū conditus His 4 th argument is this Predestinatio est praeparatio supernaturalium bonorū ergo praecedit communicatio naturaliū proptereà creatio in naturâ sive actu sive in decreto Dei His last reason is of the same nature thus Illustratio sapientiae Dei per creationē prior est illustratione sapientiae Dei quae est administratio praedestinationis 1 Cor. 1. 21. Ergo creatio prior est praedestinatione To all which reasons of his I have answered in my Vindic. Grat. Dei lib. 1. part 1. De Praedestin digress 5. in severall chapters Only the second argument of Arminius insisteth upon Gods ordination of mans fall And to be freed from the trouble of answering this argument is the only thing that I know we gain by leaving the first and second way and embarking our selves in the third But how freed surely only so farre as that the doctrine of election and reprobation supposing Adams fall doth not engage us to inquire into divine providence concerning Adams fall But neverthelesse it cannot be denied but that had not God permitted Adam to fall he had never fallen And we that take the first way acknowledge no other Providence divine concerning the ingresse of sinne as sinne into the world but in the way of permission Sinne as sinne admitting no cause efficient but deficient only And it is utterly impossible that God either in doing what he doth or in forbearing to doe what he doth not should in any culpable or justly blameable manner be deficient And if it be farther demanded whether upon Gods permission it followeth that sinne shall be committed by the creature We readily professe it doth This Vorstius acknowledgeth a favorite of the Arminians Nay doth not Arminius himself deliver it expresly where he saith That when God permitteth the willing of ought Necesse est ut nullo argumentorum genere persuadeatur ad nolendum This he delivers without all qualification of the necessity mentioned which we doe not And this also Navarettus a Papist professeth and though he be a Dominican yet I know no Jesuite that opposeth him in this And if any man inferre herehence that then God determining to permit sinne did determine that sinne should enter into the World We willingly grant that God did so ordaine namely that sinne should come to passe by his permission Non aliquid fit saith Austin nisi Omnipotens fieri velit vel sinendo ut fiat vel ipse faciendo And Bellarmine professeth that Bonum est mala fieri Deo permittente so that herein God doth not will evill but that which is good in the acknowledgement of Bellarmine and that in the heat of his opposition against our Divines in this particular And Arminius is expresse in saying Voluit Deus Achabum mensuram scelerum implere And what is this but Peccata peccatis cumulare And though the Jesuits and Arminians doe with all their force resist yet it evidently followes from the notion of efficacious grace embraced by the one and by the notion of an efficacious impediment of sinne dictated by Arminius himselfe For efficacious grace with the Jesuites consists in the congruity thereof and the congruity thereof consists in this that God foreseeth that upon the confession thereof sinne will be avoided Now what is the reason why God grants such a grace whereupon he seeth sin will not be avoided and denies such a grace upon the granting whereof he knowes full well that sinne would be avoided but because his pleasure is that sinne shall be committed by his permission and not be avoyded although he hath given them grace sufficient to avoid it as they say and it was most true of Adam in the state of innocency In like sort doth Arminius distinguish of Peceati impedimentum sufficiens efficax Efficacious hinderance of sinne is that whereby God seeth sinne will be avoided sufficient is only that whereby a man may avoid it if he will But withall he confesseth that God in the Promptuary of his wisdome hath not only such impediments as are sufficient to the avoiding of any sinne but such also as whereby any sinne would indeed be avoided were he pleased to grant them But yet as often as he thinks good to permit sinne he doth not grant such impediments And is not this a manifest evidence that it is Gods will that sinne shall come to passe to wit as often as it doth come to passe by his permission But suppose all our Divines that embrace the third way doe imagine the absurdities here spoken of to be justly chargeable upon the first way Yet as he thinks them in an errour while they conceive they can with ease avoid these absurdities by their third way let him be pleased to conceive they may as well be in an errour in thinking them justly chargeable upon the first way and consequently their opinion is nothing sufficient to justify that they are unremoveable by them that embrace the first way It is true there is no cause of breach either of Unity or Amity between our Divines upon this difference as I shewed in my digressions De Praedestinatione Digress 1. seeing neither of them derogate either from the prerogative of Gods grace or of his soveraignty over his creatures to give grace to whom he will and to deny it to whom he will and consequently to make whom he will vessels of mercy and whom he will vessells of wrath but equally they stand for the divine prerogative in each And as for the ordering of Gods decrees of creation permission of the fall of Adam giving grace of faith and repentance unto some and denying it to others and finally saving some and damning others whereupon only arise the different opinions as touching the object of predestination and reprobation it is meerly Apex Logicus a poynt of Logick And were it not a meer madnesse to make a breach of unity or charity in the Church of God meerely upon a poynt of Logick Thus have I justified the improbability and utter unlikelihood that ever any schisme will be made in the Church of God upon these nice and meer Logicall differences in my Vindic. Grat. Dei which this Author is acquainted with as appears by a passage that hereafter he representeth therehence and that farther into the Book then these my digressions are upon the point of predestination but is content to take no notice thereof least it might hinder the course
cause in man any way moving him either in its own nature or by divine constitution moving him to bestow this grace on any So the Apostle 2 Timoth. 1. 9. God hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our workes but according to his own purpose and grace And indeed we being all found dead in sinne what could be found in one to move God to bestow the life of faith and repentance upon him more then upon another And if any such thing were found in man moving God hereunto then should grace be bestowed according unto works that is in the Fathers phraise as Bellarmine acknowledgeth according unto merits which was condemned 1200 years agoe in the Synod of Palestine and Pelagius himselfe was driven to subscribe unto it otherwise they had condemned him also But as touching the conferring of glory God doth not bestow this on whom he will finding men equall without any moving cause thereunto even in man For though there be no moving cause hereunto in man of its own nature yet there is to be found a moving cause in man by constitution divine whereby God is as it were moved to bestow solvation on some and not on others For God hath made a gracious promise that whosoever beleeveth and repenteth and continueth in faith and repentance unto death shall be saved and whosoever beleeveth not and repenteth not shall be damned So then though men are equall in originall sinne and in naturall corruption and God bestowes faith and repentance on whom of them he will curing their corruption in whom he will yet when he comes to the conferring of glory men are not found equall in morall condition and accordingly God cannot be said on like manner to bestow glory solvation on whō he will For he hath tyed himselfe by his own constitution to bestow solvation on none but such as dye in thestate of grace Yet I confes some say that God bestows solvation on whom he will in as much as he is the author of their faith repentance bestows these graces on whō he will yet certainly there is a different manner in the use of this phraise of bestowing this or that on whom he will For when God bestowes faith and repentance he findes them on whom he will bestow it no better then others But when he comes to the bestowing of glory he findes them on whom he bestowes that farre better them others Now we come to the things decreed in reprobation and these are two 1. The denyall of the grace of regeneration that is of the grace of faith and repentance whereby mans naturall infidelity and impenitency is cured 2. The denyall of glory and the inflicting of damnation The first of these to wit the denyall of grace mentioned is made to whom he will And it must needs be so in ease God gives this grace to whom he will And the Apostle professeth that as God hath mercy on whom he will so he hardneth whom he will And as God denies this grace to whom he will so did he decree to deny it to whom he will Yet there is a difference considerable For albeit God hardneth whom he will by denying unto them the grace of faith and repentance yet notwithstanding like as it is just with God to inflict damnation upon them for that sinne whether originall or actuall wherein he findes them when the ministry of the word is afforded them so likewise it cannot be denied to be iust with God to leave their infidelity and impenitency wherein he finds them uncured But yet because God hath not made any such constitution namely that whosoever is found in infidelity and impenitency shall be so left and abandoned by him therefore he is properly said as to cure it in whom he will so to leave it uncured in whom he will finding them all equall in originall sinne and consequently lying equally in this their naturall infidelity and impenitencv So wee may iustly say there is no cause at all in man of this difference to wit why God cures infidelity impenitency in one and not in another but it is the meer pleasure of God that is the cause of this difference And if any list to contend hereabouts we shall be willing to entertaine him and conferre our strength of argumentation on this point 2. But as touching the denyall of glory and inflicting of damnation which is the second thing decreed in reprobation there is alwaies found a cause motive yea and meritorious hereof to wit both of the denyall of the one inflicting of the other And God doth not proceed herein according to the meer pleasure of his will that by reason of his own constitution having ordained that whosoever continueth finally in infidelity in profane courses and impenitency shall be damned And albeit on the other side it may be said in some sence as formerly I have shewed that God saves whom he will in as much as he is the author of faith which he bestowes on whom he will yet in no congruous sence can he be said to damne whom he will for as much as he is not the author of sinne as he is the author of faith For every good thing he workes but sinne and the evill thereof he only permits not causeth it And lastly as God doth not damne whom he will but those only whom he finds finally to have persevered in sinne without repentance so neither did he decree to damne or reprobate to damnation whom he will but only those who should be found finally to persevere in sinne without repentance Now let us apply this to the Article we have in hand which is this The moving cause of reprobation is the only will of God and not the sinne of man originall or actuall and for the explication hereof according to that which hath been formerly delivered We say that reprobation doth signify either a purpose of denying grace as above mentioned or a purpose of inflicting damnation And each may be considered either as touching the act of Gods decree or as touching the things decreed We shew how the Article holds or holds not being differently accommodated 1. As touching the things decreed 1. As touching the deniall of grace We say That God decreed of his meere good pleasure to deny unto some the grace of faith and repentance for the curing of that naturall infidelity and impenitency which is found in all without any motive cause hereunto found in one more then in another 2. As touching the inflicting of Damnation We say That God decreed to inflict damnation on some not of his meer pleasure but meerly for their finall perseverance in sinne without repentance 2. As touching the very act of Gods decree We say Nothing in man could be the cause hereof but the meer pleasure of God as Aquinas professeth it a mad thing to devise in man a cause of divine predestination as touching the act of God predestinating as I have
death upon a sinner of meere pleasure but being provoked thereunto and that according to the purport of the first place Ezech 18. by the sinner himselfe and also according to the purport of the second place only in case of impenitency And I concurre with him in this And so I conceive it to be delivered in the same sense with that Lament 3. 32 33. For though he cause griefe to wit by reason of mens sinnes v. 39. yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies to wit in case he repents Ier. 18. 7. Iudg. 10. 16. For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men Mark I pray not willingly to wit in as much as he is provoked thereunto by sinne and by refusall to repent And this is in the former Scripture phrases not to take pleasure in the afflicting and grieving of men For if any work be such as wherein pleasure is taken we need not enquire after a cause why it is done but though no pleasure be taken in it yet for some benefit redounding thereby a man may doe it yea though it be grievous and bitter unto him As a sick man is willing to take a bitter potion for the recovery of his health Now come we to the argument God takes no pleasure in the death of any therefore he doth not of pleasure inflict death We willingly grant it in as much as he never inflicts eternall death on any that doth not dye in sinne unrepented of And as he doth not inflict death on any of meere pleasure that is without just cause on the part of him that dyeth deserving it So we willingly confesse that God did never decree to inflict death on any without just cause on the Malefactors part deserving death And this is the uttermost whereunto this Authors argument can be extended And all our Divines unanimously confesse that God neither decreed to damne any man of his meer pleasure but for his sinne wherein he died without repentance 3. Observe the cunning of this Disputer to deceive himselfe first and then to abuse his readers For whereas he should have proceeded in his argument by degrees thus God hath no pleasure in the death of a sinner therefore he doth not of his own pleasure inflict death and thence proceed if he had thought good to conclude the like of Gods decree thus if God doth not of his ownpleasure inflict then neither doth he of his own pleasure decree to inflict death and damnation This author leaping over the inflicting of death as a block in his way for the last consequence would have betrayed its own nakednesse flyeth at first to the application of it to Gods decree Now I willingly grant that Gods having no pleasure in the death of a sinner doth signify that God inflicts death on no man without a cause for that were of meer pleasure to inflict But dares he herehence inferre therefore God doth not of meer pleasure decree to inflict death and damnation on man for sinne for to this alone comes all the force of this argument Now to shew the vanity of this consequence consider I pray 1. It is as if he should argue thus in plain termes sinne is alwaies the meritorious cause of damnation therefore sinne is the meritorious cause of Gods eternall decree of damnation Now this Enthymeme hath no force any farther then it may be reduced into a Categoricall Syllogisme and this Enthymeme is reducible into no other Syllogisme then this Damnation is the decree of Damnation sinne is the cause of Damnation therefore sinne is the cause of the decree of damnation But in this Syllogisme the proposition containes a notorious untruth Or thus Sinne is the cause of damnation therefore the foresight of sinne is the cause of the decree of damnation But this Enthymeme is not reducible unto any categoricall Syllogisme at all for as much as it consists of foure termes all which must be clapt into the Syllogisme whereunto it is reduced and consequently make that Syllogisme consist of foure termes which utterly overthrowes the illative forme thereof 2. We may as well dispute thus Good works as well as faith and repentance are the disposing cause unto salvation therefore good works as well as faith and repentance or the foresight of them are the disposing cause to Gods election or to the decree of salvation But shall I tell you the chiefe flourish whereupon this Author and usually the Arminians doth insist in this his loose argumentation I conceive it to be this they hope their credulous readers unexpert in distinguishing between Gods eternall decree and the temporall execution thereof will be apt hereupon to conceit that we maintain that God doth not only of meer pleasure decree whatsoever he decreeth but also that he doth decree of meer pleasure to damne men which yet is utterly contrary if I be not deceived to the tenet of all our Divines all concurring in this that God in the execution of the decree of damnation proceeds according to a Law and not in the execution of reprobation only but also in the execution of election And the law is this Whosoever believes shall be saved whosoever believes not shall be damned And like as he inflicteth not damnation but by way of punishment so he conferres not salvation but by way of reward But in the execution of his decrees of election unto grace and reprobation from grace we willingly professe that God proceeds according to no law given unto men to prepare themselves hereunto but meerly according to his good pleasure having mercy on whom he will and hardning whom he will And this indeed is the criticall poynt of this controversy But neither this Author nor his complices some of them of my knowledge have any heart to deale on this I come to his Second pregnant place as he calleth it DISCOURSE SECT II. GOD hath shut up all in unbeliefe that he might have mercy on all Rom. 11. 32. in these words of the Apostle are two all 's of equall extent the one standing just against the other an all of unbelievers and an all of objects of mercy look how many unbelievers there be on so many hath God a will of shewing mercy And therefore if all men of all sorts and conditions and every man in every sort be an unbeliever then is every man of every condition under mercy And if every man be under mercy then there is no antecedent precise will in God of shutting up some and those the most from all possibility of obtaining mercy for these two are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they cannot stand together TWISSE Consideration I Willingly grant the word all in each place is of equall extent but how in the Apostles meaning in this place that is look in what sense the Apostle takes the word all when he saith God hath concluded all under unbeliefe in the same sense he takes the word all when he sayeth that he might have mercy
themselves God took not that pleasure in them as to give them his custodient grace to keep them from withdrawing themselves which grace and that out of his good pleasure he afforded unto others But this grace comes in no account throughout with this Author like unto the Remonstrants who would have no other notice taken of any other counsell of God then that whereby he decreeth to save believers and damne unbelievers But if you call them to enquire of Gods decree to bestow the grace of Faith and repentance upon some and not on others as whether it proceeds absolutely or conditionally they usually lend a deafe eare to this whereby it is as cleare as the Sunne what estimation they make of the grace of regeneration of the grace of Faith and of repentance and after what manner they give God the glory of it By the way observe I pray how he makes the state of man in being a reprobate consequent to his withdrawing himselfe which undoubtedly is a Temporall act and accordingly the act of Reprobation whereby a man is denominated a reprobate to be meerely Temporall and consequently such an act must election be also viz. not eternall but Temporall Still he keepeth himselfe in his strength of confusion as most advantageous for him as in saying God forsakes no man till by actuall sinnes and continuance in them he forsaketh God But albeit God forsaketh no man as touching the inflicting of punishment untill man commits actuall sinne and continueth therein impenitently yet before this God did forsake him as touching the denyall of this grace custodient from sinne and the denyall of the grace of repentance to rise out of sinne which yet he grants to many as in shewing mercy to whom he will like as whom he will he hardneth and so accordingly cures in some that naturall infidely and hardnesse of heart wherein we are all borne and leaves it uncured in others Now consider we his argument following which is this If God reject no man from salvation in time or in act and deed till he reject God then surely he rejected no man in purpose and decree but such a one as he foresaw would reject and cast off God Now this argument not one of our Divines deny not only as it is applied to reprobation but neither doe we deny it applied unto election For we willingly professe that like as God bestowes salvation on none but such as he then findes believers penitent and given to good works in like sort wee all professe that God decrees to bestow salvation on none but such as he foreseeth will believe repent and become studious of good works Like enough many doe wilfully dissemble the true state of the Question between us others ignorantly mistake it The question is not whether God decrees to bestow salvation on such as he foreseeth will believe and reject those from salvation whom he foreseeeth will not believe but of the order of reason between these decrees of God and the foresight of obedience the one side and disobedience on the other that is whether like as faith repentance and good works in men of ripe years doe precede their salvation as disposing causes thereunto so the fore-sight of faith repentance and good works precede election as disposing causes or prerequisites thereunto In like manner on the other side whether as finall perseverance in sinne precedes damnation as the meritorious cause thereof So finall perseverance in sinne as foreseen by God precedes reprobation as the decree of Damnation as the meritorious cause thereof So that the argument here mentioned which is all his strength in this place rightly applyed must runne thus Faith repentance and good works actually existent precede salvation as the disposing causes thereunto therefore faith repentance and good works foreseen precede election as the disposing causes thereunto and what is this but as good as in expresse termes to professe that election is of faith repentance and good works though it be in direct contradiction unto Saint Paul professing in terminis to speak in this Divines language that the purpose of God according to election is not of works So on the other side Finall perseverance in sinne precedes damnation as the meritorious cause thereof therefore finall perseverance in sinne foreseen precedes the decree of damnation as the meritorious cause thereof And then what is to make reprobation to be of evill works if this be not Whereas Saint Paul look by what arguments he proves that election is not of good works viz. because before Jacob and Esau were borne or had done good or evill it was said of them the Elder shall serve the Younger by the same argument it is equally evident that Reprobation is not of evill works Yet we acknowledge an exact conformity between Gods decrees and the execution thereof because like as God damnes no man but for sinne so he decreed to damne no man but for sinne where sinne is in each place made the meritorious cause of damnation not of the decree of damnation And like as God bestowes salvation on no man of ripe years but by way of reward of faith repentance and good works so he decreed to bestow salvation on no man of ripe years but by way of reward of faith repentance and good works where faith repentance and good works are in each place made the disposing causes to salvation but not to election There was never any so madde saith Aquinas as to say that merits are the cause of predestination as touching the act of God predestinating and Why but because so is the cause of predestination to be enquired into as the cause of Gods will is enquired into but formerly he had shewed that there can be no cause of Gods will as touching the act of God willing Now let every one judge whether the act of reprobation be not as clearly the act of Gods will as the act of predestination and consequently whether it be not equally as mad a course in Aquinas his judgement to devise a cause of reprobation as to devise a cause of predestination on the part of Gods will And no marvail for the act of Gods will is eternall all the works of the creature are temporall Then the act of Gods will is God himselfe for there is no accident in God and therefore they may as well set themselves to devise a cause of God as a cause of Gods will His phrase of casting off is ambiguous if it signifieth the denyall of salvation it followeth disobedience if it signifieth the deniall of grace it precedes disobedience in what kind soever 3. Our velle and facere are both temporall in God it is otherwise for his deeds are temporall and may admit the works of men precedaneous thereunto but his resolutions are his decrees and they are all eternall and can admit no work of man precedaneous thereunto yet is God as just in the one as in the other For like as he damnes no man but for
have I received this from three severall hands of Arminians each giving the same interpretation of it as if it were called a strange work because it is alienum a naturâ Dei I know none but Papists doe justify them in this interpretation in my judgement a most unreasonable exposition the Lord taking unto himselfe the execution of judgement as his peculiar saying vengeance is mine and I will repay And Magistrates are but Gods Ministers for this And he professeth his delight in this as well as in the execution of mercy It is true he doth not inflict judgement without cause for that were not a work of judgement in proper speech but of power and absolutenesse rather as in turning a holy and innocent creature into nothing And in that respect he is said not to afflict willingly sinne alwaies deserving it Mercy is of another nature and supposeth free grace though I find little or no notice this Author takes of this throughout his discourse Neither doe I find that he or any Arminian acknowledge that the change of a mans heart is wrought in a man of the meere grace of God without any motive cause in the creature Neither doe all Papists concurre in this interpretation for Lyra and Burgensis are together by the eares hereabouts and our Divines as Junius and Piscator doe render it opus insolens terribile an unusuall and terrible judgement interpreting it of bringing the Babylonians upon them so strange a worke that they should wonder at it And as Moses foretold that God should bring upon them Wonderfull judgements Deut. 28. So the Prophet Abakuk sets it forth in like manner Abak 1. 5. Behold among the Heathen and regard and wonder and marvaile for I will worke a worke in your daies you will not believe it though it be told you For loe I raise up the Caldeans that bitter and furious nation which shall goe upon the breadth of the Land to possesse the dwelling places that are not theirs And Jer. 19. 3. Behold I will bring a plague upon this place which whosoever heareth his eares shall â—ingle For seeing Gods lawes are strange things unto them Hos 8. 12. God would bring such judgements upon them that should be as strange unto them And in the same phrase it is said that destruction is to the wicked and strange punishment to the workers of iniquity Job 31. 3. Yet be this granted him it is nothing to the purpose For be it never so deere unto God yet if he restraineth his chiefe mercy which consists in changing the heart whereof this Author seems unwilling to take any distinct notice only to the Elect called accordingly in Scripture vessells of mercy in distinction from vessells of wrath which are the Reprobates this nothing prejudiceth the absolutenesse of reprobation And as for the frequent exercise thereof we read Zeph. 3. 5. That every morning God bringeth his judgements to light and as for the mercy which consists in regenerating man which alone is to the present purpose it is apparent that it is farre lesse frequently shewed then the contrary judgement in obduration And certainly the vessells of mercy are by farre fewer then the vessells of wrath and as for temporall mercies the more frequent they are the worse where the spirit of regeneration is wanting through the corruption of man that makes him thereupon the more obdurate The vanity of the next as touching the amplitude of the objects whereto mercy is extended though this alone is to the present purpose I have already sufficiently discovered it being apparent that in Scripture phrase only the Elect are counted vessells of mercy and all the rest vessells of wrath As there be examples of Gods long suffering and patience so we have fearfull examples of the suddainesse of Gods judgements taking Men and Women away in the very act of sinne Thus the Israelites in the Wildernesse when the flesh of Quailes was in their mouth the heavy wrath of God came upon them and sent them to the graves of lust Zimri and Cozbi perished in their incestuous act and gave up both lust and ghost together Balshazzar a King cut off in his drunken revells to make good the Prophecy of Isaiah The night of my pleasures hath he turned into feare unto me And in like manner the wrath of God seazed upon Herod in his pride But above all this appears in Gods dealings with his Angells who sinned once and fell for ever without all hope of recovery And as for Gods sparing a man in case God gives not repentance what will be the issue but filling up of the measure of their sinnes For to speak in Austins language Contra Julian Pelag. lib. 5. cap. 4. Quantamlibet praebuerit patientiam nisi Deus dederit quis agit paenitentiam Now the case is cleare God gives repentance to a very few who are in Scripture called vessells of mercy which nothing at all prejudiceth the absolutenesse of reprobation 5. Of the riches of Gods mercies to his children we nothing doubt but what doth this prejudice the absolutenesse of reprobating those whom he never meaneth to make his children But here it is to be suspected that this Author accounts all and every one the children of God for forthwith he confounds this notion with the notion of creatures quite contrary to the most generall current of Scripture not of the New Testament only which teacheth us that we are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus Gal. 3. and if children then heires even heirs of God and heirs annext with Christ Rom. 8. But of the old Testament also Gen. 6 2. The sonnes of God saw the daughters of men that they were faire c. Exod. 4. 22. Thou shalt say to Pharaoh thus saith thè Lord Israel is my Sonne my first borne wherefore I say let my Sonne goe that he may serve me if thou refuse to let him goe behold I will visit thy Sonne even thy first borne Deut. 14. 1. Ye are the children of the Lord your God 2. Thou art an holy people to the Lord thy God and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a precious people to himselfe above all the people that are upon the earth That of the Hen though we give him liberty to amplify her naturall affections as one of the most affectionate Females among unreasonable creatures yet doth it nothing profit him for it represents Gods love appropriated to his Children which nothing prejudiceth the absolutenesse of his power reprobating others Nay rather as it justifies his absolutenesse in electing them if we consider the meere grace of God to have made the difference as the Scripture sheweth Deut. 7. 7. The Lord loved you because he loved you and Deut. 9. at large he beats them out of all conceit of any righteousnesse in them moving the Lord to plant them in the Land of Canaan so by consequent it justifies the Doctrine of absolute reprobation also for as much as the Apostle
professeth that like as God hath mercy on whom he will so also he hardneth whom he will Yet hereis much matter made of the Hen like as D. Jackson hath done it before him but he betrayes no such authority for it out of Austin as this Author doth to whom he is beholding for it himselfe best knoweth If the pedegree be enquired into their conceits may be found to be of kinne yet give me leave to say somewhat of this similitude also And first this Author commits a very great Anomaly in entring upon it with such state as proves nothing answerable to his own profession anon after almost in the same breath Marke the state I pray of his entrance hereupon thus And as if these comparisons were too small too expresse Gods affection to his creatures he proceeds farther now the comparisons preceding were taken from reasonable creatures as namely from Fatherly and Motherly affections amongst men towards their children and these comparisons he signifies to have been to small to expresse Gods affections to his creatures and that therefore the Lord proceeds farther and compares himselfe to a Hen which he saith is one of the most affectionate females among unreasonable creatures not daring to say t is more affectionate then creatures reasonable yet most improvidently carried away with affectation of a Rhetoricall flourish he faignes a gradation from creatures lesse affectionate to creatures more affectionate and presently himselfe beats out the braines of his invention before he is aware as soon as it is borne As for Austins amplification of the affectionate nature of an Hen above other creatures we may consider that Austins Tractates on John are of the nature of Sermons and therein the ancients doe accommodate themselves to popular amplifications It is true we doe not know Sparrowes Swallowes Storkes Doves to be Mothers but when we see them in their nests but what is the true reason hereof Is it not because their young ones are wild and as soon as they are apt to fly one flies one way and another flies another way they come together no more it is not so with chickens which are tame creatures and we see the carriage of the Hen towards them we doe not see the carriage of other fowles towards their young ones Yet we read not the like of a Hen as of a Storke that when her nest was on fire out of a desire to save them with her wings from the fire hath not forsaken her young ones till shee was burnt her selfe And we have seen also how a Hen hath sometimes peckt her young ones and driven them from her when they would have roosted under her And in my judgement our Saviour doth not represent his tender affection to the Jewes by the generall affection of an Hen to hers but to that particular carriage of hers in desiring to gather her chickens under her wings Neither doe I think that he who invited those mighty men but unto what unto a Hen was to expresse his singularity of affection towards them be it that God is more mercifull to man then to all other creatures whence I pray proceeds this is it not meerly from the good pleasure of his own will and if so why may he not out of the meere pleasure of his own will restraine his saving mercy to some few who are accordingly called in Scripture expressely vessells of mercy distinguished from all the rest who are called vessells of wrath Whereas he saith that with such a mercy cannot stand such a Decree as absolute reprobation We answer neither doe we say any such decree doth stand with such a mercy it is rather absolute election stands with such a mercy then any reprobation The Scripture plainly giving us to understand that they on whom reprobation passeth are not vessells of mercy but vessells of wrath But like as God though he spared not Angells when they fell nor left any way open unto them for repentance whereby to returne to his grace and favour yet he spared man and left a way open unto him to returne to his grace and favour by faith in Christ In like sort though God were pleased absolutely to elect some amongst men yet this nothing precludes him from dealing as absolutely in reprobating others that is in purposing to deny them the spirit of faith and repentance whereby they might rise after they were fallen which grace most freely and absolutely he decreed to bestow and as freely and absolutely he doth bestow on others according to that of the Apostle Rom. 9. 18. he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth By this I pray judge of the insipid nature of this discourse yet see the foulenesse of his mouth unlesse God be indifferent unto all and make all vessells of mercy he is a Father of Cruelty and more properly so to be called then a Father of mercies and the very name of the Devill for so he takes upon him to interpret that name in the Revelation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Destroyer is good enough for him And the conscience of his own piety no doubt expert in Paraphrasing and shaping some Rhetoricall flourishes and passionate expressions bears him out with such confidence as to feare no Blasphemy It is very likely he hath a high conceit of these performances that he is so bold as to professe in effect that if the contrary be true then will he be guilty of as great Blasphemy as to have called God Satan yet see the absurdity that throughout he may be like himselfe of his discourse whatsoever God be accounted by him in respect of reprobates doth this any way hinder him from being the Father of mercies towards his elect who alone in Scripture phrase are called vessells of mercy His hatred of Esau doth it any way hinder his love to Jacob If to damne be to destroy and no creature hath power to damne but God only can any be a destroyer in this kind but God as the efficient cause of Damnation and destruction But in case our Doctrine holds doth he damne any but for sinne and shall he in this case be stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense it is delivered in the Revelation What thinks he If many thousands even all the Infants of Turkes and Sarazens dying in originall sinne are tormented by him in Hell fire is he to be accounted the father of cruelties for this And I professe I cannot devise a greater shew and appearance of cruelty then in this Now I beseech you consider the spirit that breatheth in this man dares he censure God as a Father of cruelties for executing eternall death upon them that are guilty of it Now hath not he himselfe professed that all borne in originall sinne are borne guilty of eternall death his words are these Fol. 2. p. 2. That all mankind is involved in the first sinne and the fruits thereof which are corruption of nature and the guilt of eternall death And
saith then for inflicting eternall death only on them that are guilty of it as we say But let we him finish the Declamation he hath begunne Is his mercy abundant doth it extend it selfe farther then justice when it is tackt up so short limited to a very few chosen ones when a hundred for one at least are unavoidably cast away out of his only will and pleasure As touching this I have already shewed how much he is out in his Algebra but let that passe unlesse this Divine take upon him to deliver truer Oracles then Saint Paul we are bound to believe that the elect only are vessells of mercy distinguished from reprobates as vessells of wrath Rom. 9. 22 23. and toward these alone it is that his mercy is abundant in the way of bestowing saving and spirituall graces It is untrue that he hath proved any such thing as he pretends namely that Gods mercy is extended to more persons then his justice And applied aright namely as touching mercy seen in pardoning sinnes in changing the heart and saving soules which are peculiar to Gods elect the most brazen faced opposite to Gods holy truth that liveth cannot deny but that they to whom these are granted are farre fewer then they to whom they are denied And if within the Church only for there only are found such as feare God his mercy extends to thousands of them that feare him when but to the third and fourth generation he punisheth the sinnes of the Father upon the Children which is all the proofe this Author brings to this purpose it followeth not herehence that his mercy extendeth any whit to more then doth his justice considering the small proportion of those within the Church and therein of them that feare him in comparison to those without the Church And like as visiting the sinne of Fathers which is commonly understood of temporall punishments so in proportion the mercy is to be understood of temporall mercy And we well know that it is nothing necessary that a man that fears God should have children And like as God doth not alwaies thus visit the sinnes of Fathers upon the Children in like sort it is not alwaies necessary that God should shew mercy to thousands of every one of them that feare him He dealt so with Abraham Isaack and Iacob they to whom the Law was delivered knew this full well then again must not they who look to have an interest in this gracious promise look unto it that they walk in the steps of their Forefathers that feared God By all which may appeare the superficiary nature of this Disputants argumentation even then when the zeale of his cause makes him as most confident so also most luxuriant Lastly doe we say that God damnes any man out of his only will and pleasure Doe we not professe that he damnes no man but for sinne And as he damnes no man but for sinne so likewise that he decreed to damne no man but for sinne though there could be no cause of this his decree but of his meere will and pleasure he made this decree namely to damne many thousands for their sinnes But let him come to an end of this his roaving discourse when he thinks good and not before Or doth his love passe knowledge when we see daily greater love then this in men and other creatures What Father or Mother would determine their children to certain death or to cruell torments worse then death for one only offence and that committed too not by them in their own persons but by some other and only imputed unto them How much lesse would they give themselves to beget Children and bring them forth that they might bring them to the rack fire gallowes and such like tortures and deaths What doe I heare Doth man or any creature shew more love to their Children then God doth towards his Elect Did they ever provide such a sacrifice to make satisfaction for their Childrens sinnes as God did provide for his Yea but reprobates also are Gods Children this must needs be his meaning though in plain termes he spared to expresse so much How unnaturall then was Christ who would not pray for the World if they were all his children And what meant he to professe that he sanctified himselfe only for them for whom he prayed Which sanctification of himselfe was in respect of the offering up of himselfe upon the crosse as Maldonate confesseth was the interpretation of all the Fathers whom he had read And in that prayer professeth of them saying they are thine and thou gavest them unto me as much as to say the World was not his And farther consider Is it safe to measure out Gods proceedings by the proceedings of men What Father or Mother would be content to execute a Child of theirs upon the Gallowes when by some capitall crime he hath deserved it How much lesse hold them upon the rack of continuall tortures what then must not God be allowed to inflict eternall death upon his creatures And what hath an earthly Father or Mother to doe either to determine or execute death on any This belongs to God not to man unlesse he make choyce of them as of his Ministers for the execution of vengeance But this Author is nothing yet awaked out of his dreames or his Arminian Lethargy Yet I hope he will grant that God did foresee all this even the sinnes of Judas in betraying and of the Jewes in crucifying the Sonne of God yet neverthelesse he was content to bring forth both him and them into the World Now what earthly Father and Mother would not make choyce rather to be Childlesse then to bring forth such children as should deale with them as Nero dealt with his Mother Proceed then and as from the affections of earthly Fathers and Mothers he disputes against the absolutenesse of Gods decrees so also in the next place let him conclude the like to the utter overthrowing of Gods foreknowledge Yet who of our Divine saith that God for one offence hath determined death and tortures to any reprobate of ripe years Doe they not all professe that as many as dye in actuall sinnes unrepented of God determined to damne them for those actuall sinnes unrepented of I doe not think he can alleadge any that denies this Againe what one of our Divines maintaines that Infants perishing in originall sinne are damned for that sinne which is made theirs only by imputation What a shamelesse habit hath he gotten to himselfe to deliver untruths yet will he not I warrant you be accounted a Pelagian neither will he plainly deny originall sinne as Grevincovius is said to have done and that testibus convinci potuit Their Tenets are nothing lesse shamefull then Pelagius his Tenets were only they have not that ingenuity which Pelagius had in professing plainly that there was no originall sinne conveyed unto us by propagation Now he comes more closely unto the matter yet but a little neither a
repentance on whom he will because he finds all equall in naturall corruption and no difference in any whereby to move God to bestow grace on him rather then on another The case is not alike when God comes to bestow salvation and inflict damnation for some he finds dying in sinnes others dying in the Lord yet we deny not but by power absolute and secluding the determination of his own will he could annihilate the righteous as well as the wicked In like sort the whole course of nature depends meerely upon the pleasure of God yet we say it is naturall for a Leprous person to beget a Leprous person and so as naturall it is for that which is borne of the flesh to be flesh though each depends upon the constitution of God For albeit Adam lost the spirit of God by his transgression and all supernaturall graces wherewith he was endued yet like as God by regeneration of his meere pleasure restored them afterwards to Adam and in due time doth restore them to every one of his Elect so in their very conception if it pleased God he could for Christs sake infuse them notwithstanding the sinne of Adam and consequently it is the free act of God in refusing after this manner to deale with them Yet this nothing hinders but that the propagation of spirituall corruption unto all Adams posterity may be as naturall as the propagation of any hereditary disease from the Father to the child and over and above that it is not in the way of meer pleasure but in the way of justice for the sinne of Adam which was the sinne of our nature bereaving him of that originall righteousnesse wherein he was â—reated and causing all mankind to be 1. Derived from him whereas he could have otherwise provided 2. And that from Adam after his nature was corrupt with sinne whereas he could have derived posterity from him before his fall had it pleased him And therefore I approve the second Canon of the Synod of Dort whereunto our English Divines with many others subscribed where they professe that the corruption derived from Adam to his posterity was per vitiosae naturae propagationem justo Dei iudicio derivata This I take to be much different from saying Adams sinne is made ours by meer pleasure or by imputation only So the fifteenth Article in the confession Ecclesiarum Belgicarum runs thus Credimus Adami in obedientiâ peccatum originis in totum genus humanum diffusum esse quod est totius naturae corruptio vitium haereditarium quo ipsi infantes in matris suae utero polluti sunt quodque veluti radix omne peccatorum genus in homine producit ideoque ita foedum execrabile est coram Deo ut ad generis humani condemnationem sufficiat Our Brittain Divines in their second Thesis upon the third and fourth Articles explicate themselves concerning the condition of originall sinne in this manner Lapsae voluntati inest non tantum peccandi possibilitas sed etiam praeceps ad peccandum inclinatio Nec aliter se potest res habere in homine corrupto nondum per divinam justitiam restaurato cùm ea sit natura voluntatis ut nuda manere nequeat sed ab uno cui adhaeserat objecto excidens aliud quaerat quod cupidè amplectatur ideo per spontaneam defectionem habitualiter adversa a Deo creatore in creaturam effraeni impetu fertur ac cum ea libidinose ac turpiter fornicatur semper avida fruendi utendis ac vetita moliendi ac patrandi Quid mirum ergo si talis voluntas sit Diaboli maneipium I find indeed in Corvinus such a profession of his namely that ex puro Dei arbitrio qui Adami peccatum nobis imputare voluit etiam in nos reatus derivatus est And Walaeus in answer unto him writes thus Nec quinto illo ad Rom. Capite ad quod nos hic Corvinus remittit quicquam tale dicitur aut innuitur nempe quod ex mero Dei arbittio pendeat haec primi peccati imputatio 2. The Second thing he puts upon our Divines is That God hath determined for that sinne to cast away the farre greater part of mankind for ever and so they make God to doe that by two acts the one accompanying the other which the other say he did by one To which I answer First that if they say that God doth no more by two acts then the other say God did by one seeing I have proved that the other doe no way maintain that God doth punish the righteous with the wicked which is his immodest and unshamefac't crimination no nor doe they maintain that God determined to damne any but for sinne and which is more then that supposing humanum genus nondum conditum to be the object of reprobation yet doth it not follow that in any moment of nature the decree of damnation is before the consideration of sinne surely neither will it follow by the Sublapsarian Doctrine that God doth not decree to punish any man with damnation but for those sinnes wherein he dyeth unrepented of much lesse that God doth punish the righteous with the wicked which is the crimination of this Author proposed I doubt against his own conscience T is true some perish only in originall sinne and that justly for if they be borne children of wrath is it strange if they dye children of wrath And is it not just with God to inflict eternall death on them whom this Author professeth to be guilty of eternall death only he saith that God of his meer pleasure makes them guilty of eternall death That is his saying not ours For though we say originall sinne makes a man guilty of eternall death by the free constitution of God yet we say not that this free constitution of God was made of his meer pleasure but justo Dei judicio like as whosoever believes not shall be damned here damnation is by the free constitution of God made the portion of unbelievers but dares this Author inferre herehence that it is not made so justo Dei judicio indeed God gives grace according to the meere pleasure of his will but no wise man will say that he damnes men according to the meere pleasure of his will for this phrase implies that there is no cause thereof on mans part And indeed there is no cause on mans part why God should give him grace but there is cause enough on mans part why God should inflict damnation on him and yet this work of God though just is never a whit the lesse free So in damning for originall sinne only though Gods constitution hereof be just yet is it never a whit the lesse free and though it be free yet it is never a whit the lesse just And like as damnation is inflicted on finall impenitents sola Dei constitutione only by vertue of this constitution Divine whosoever repents not of his sinne shall be
so as if we maintained that God ordained them to be damned absolutely and for the meer pleasure of God concealing the only cause for which God ordained that they should be damned namely for the wilfull transgression of Gods holy Commandements Only the giving and denying of the grace of regeneration the giving of faith and repentance for the curing of that naturall infidelity and impenitency that is found in all and the leaving it uncured by denying faith and repentance this indeed we maintain to be absolute according to that of Saint Paul he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9. 18. Now dare any of them deny faith and repentance to be the gift of God They doe not they dare not only of late they have come thus farre as to deny that Christ merited faith and regeneration for any Secondly inquire whether God gives faith and repentance to some and denyes it to others of his meere will and pleasure or because he finds some good works in the one which he finds not in the other Here is the criticall poynt we defend no other absolutenesse of election and reprobation but such as depends wholly on this namely that God finding men equall in corruption hath compassion on some giving them faith and repentance which he denies unto others All other absolutenesse of Election and Reprobation besides that which we undertake by cleare demonstration to deduce herehence we utterly renounce Neither can our adversaries be so grossely ignorant as not to perceive that this is the criticall poynt of these controversies the resolution of the truths wherein will set an end to all contention about Election and Reprobation Why then doe they not deale plainly and try their strength in this whereby they should carry themselves fairely and ingenuously and deale above board For here alone is that absolutenesse of God in execution which we maintaine but here they are not so prone to shew their hornes this argument is not so fit for the raising of clamours and Tragedies And hating the truth of God as touching his soveraignty over his creatures to have compassion on whom he will and to harden whom he will as also the prerogatives of his grace to work us effectually to that which is pleasing in his fight and that in whom he will also yet not daring plainly to deliver their mind in this as wherein they are found most absurd and encumbred with shamefull contradictions therefore by the back dore as it were they hope to discredit it and by opposing the absolutenesse of Reprobation to supplant and undermine the Doctrine of Gods free grace And not content with this they miserably corrupt our doctrine also in the poynt of absolute Reprobation drawing it to this as if not reprobation only but damnation also were made absolute by us and that God damned men not so much in the way of justice for their sinne as of his own meere pleasure At length to come to the third particular of his reply 3. And that is this that howbeit some things in Scripture which are peculiar to the Gospell are above our understandings and must without hesitation be believed yet many things there have their foundation in nature and may be apprehended by the light of nature and amongst these the justice of Gods waies is one as hath been shewed Isai 5. 3. and Ezek. 18. To this I answer That the waies of God mentioned Isai 5. 3. is only in his expecting fruits after so great pains that he had taken in husbanding his vineyard And Ezek. 18. consists only in rendring unto men according to their waies Neither doth it follow that because the justice of God doth plainly appeare in these particulars therefore it doth appeare as cleerely or comprehensively in all others Is there no difference between the waies of God there mentioned and the waies of Gods justice mentioned in other place as namely in causing the Sonnes of Achan to be stoned to death with Achan himselfe for his Sacriledge in drowning the old World not sparing the very Infants and sucklings and for their conspiracy against Moses and Aaron causing the earth to swallow up not Dathan and Abiram only but their Wives and Children and all that they had So in consuming Sodom and Gomorrah with fire And as for the punishing of of sinne this is no peculiar truth of the Gospell I had thought the Gospell in the proper nature thereof had been above reason altogether and no way capable of demonstration And as for the justice of God must not this suppose him to be a free agent Or was this known to Aristotle by all the light of nature whereunto he attained We that believe him to be a free agent and withall the creator of all are ready to demonstrate that it is in his power to doe what he will with his creature and that not only to annihilate him though never so holy but to inflict what paine soever upon him yea even the torment of hell fire which Medina acknowledgeth to have been Communem omnium Theologorum sententiam viz. that this he can doe ut Dominus vitae mortis as I have shewed in my Vindiciae graciae Dei and by variety of arguments proved it more then once in two severall digressions which this Author pretends to have seen yet answereth not one of them And as for justice divine toward the creature whereupon this Author doth with such confidence discourse both Vasquez and Suarez Jesuits in other poynts concerning Gods justice are miserably at odds yet joyntly concurre in this that all iustice Divine doth presuppose the free determination of Gods will Now because I find this Gentleman so conceited of the purity of his rationall faculty and the power thereof as to require that all interpretation of Scripture should veyle bonnet to the soveraignty thereof I purpose to try his ability this way for the expediting of certain arguments about the absolutenesse of Gods decrees in generall and particularly of the decree of Reprobation Therefore to combate with him on his own ground and in his own element I dispute thus 1. No temporall thing can be the cause of that which is eternall but the sinnes of men are all temporall whereas Reprobation is eternall therefore the sinnes of men cannot be the cause of Reprobation If it be said that sinne is not made the cause of reprobation but as it exsists in Gods foresight and so not so much sinne as the prescience of sinne is the cause of reprobation I reply that this device cannot stand viz. that the prescience of sinne should be the cause of reprobation and that for this reason The cause of reprobation whereof we enquire is of the nature of a meritorious cause But the prescience of God can no way be said to be a meritorious cause thereof Science and prescience are causes of Gods works in the kind of an efficient Physicall not in the kind of an efficient morall such as are
all causes meritorious If it be farther said that not so much the foresight of sin as to speak more properly sinne foreseen is the cause of reprobation I reply against it in this manner sinne foreseen doth suppose Gods decree to permit sinne and consequently if sinne foreseene be before reprobation then also the decree of permitting sinne is before the decree of reprobation that is the decree of damning for sinne But this cannot be as I endeavour to prove by two reasons The first is this There is no order in intentions but between the intention of the end and the intention of the means and the order is this that the intention of the end is before the intention of the means Therefore if the decree of permitting sinne be before the decree of damning for sinne the decree of permitting sinne must be the intention of the end and the decree of damning for sinne must be the intention of the meanes But this is notoriously untrue For it is apparent that damnation tends not to the permission of sinne as the end thereof for if it did then men were damned to this end that they might be permitted to sinne But far more likely it is that sinne should be permitted to this end that a man might be damned which yet by no means doe I a vouch other reasons I have to shew the vanity of this argumentation I rather professe that permssion of sinne and damnation are not subordinate as end means but coordinate both being means tending joyntly to a farther end which under correction from understandings purged from prejudice and false principles I take to be the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of justice vindicative 2. My second reason is if permission of sinne be first in intention and then damnation it followes that permission of sinne should be last in execution but this is most absurd namely that a man should be first damned and then suffered to sinne 2. My second principall argument is this Reprobation as it signifies Gods decree is the act of Gods will now the act of Gods will is the very will of God and the will of God is Gods essence and like as there can be no cause of Gods essence so there can be no cause of Gods will or of the act thereof Upon some such arguments as these Aquinas disputes that the predestination of Christ cannot be the cause of our Predestination adding that they are one act in God And when he comes to the resolution of the question he grants all as touching actum volentis that the one cannot be the cause of the other But only quoad praedestinationis terminum which is grace and glory or the things predestinated Christ is the cause of them but not of our predestination as touching the act of God predestinating And I think I may be bold to presume that Christs merits are of as great force to be the cause why God should elect man unto salvation as mans sinnes are of force to be the cause why God should reprobate him unto damnation The same Aquinas a tall fellow as touching Scolasticall argumentation hath professed that no man hath been so mad as to say that merits are the cause of predestination quoad actum praedestinantis and why but because there can be no cause on mans part of the will of God quoad actum volentis Now reprobation is well knowne to be the will of God as well as election and therefore no cause can there be on mans part thereof quoad actum reprobantis And it is well knowne there is a predestination unto death as well as unto life and consequently t is as mad a thing in his judgement to maintaine that merits are the cause there of quoad actum praedestinantis God by efficacious grace could breake off any mans infidelity if it pleased him that is by affording him such a motion unto faith as he foresaw would be yeelded unto this is easily proved by the evident confession of Arminius formerly specified Now Why doth God so order it as to move some in such a manner as he foresees they will believe others in such a māner as he foresees they will not believe but because his purpose is to manifest the glory of his grace in the salvation of the one and the glory of his justice in the damnation of the other Herein I appeale to the judgement and conscience of every reasonable creature that understands it in spight of all prejudice and false principles to corrupt him 4. In saying sinne foreseen is the cause of Gods decree of damnation they presuppose a prescience of sinne as of a thing future without all ground For nothing can be foreknown as future unlesse it be future now these disputers presuppose a futurition of sinne and that from eternity without all ground For consider no sinne is future in its own nature for in its own nature it is meerely possible and indifferent as well not to be future as to become future and therefore it cannot passe out of the condition of a thing meerely possible into the condition of a thing future without a cause Now what cause doe these men devise of the futurition of sinne Extra Deum nothing can be the cause thereof For this passage of things out of the condition of things possible into the condition of things future was from everlasting for from everlasting they were future otherwise God could not have known them from everlasting And consequently the cause of this passage must be acknowledged to have been from everlasting and consequently nothing without God could be the cause of it seeing nothing without God was from everlasting Therefore the cause hereof must be found intra Deum within God then either the will of God which these men doe utterly disclaime or the knowledge of God but that is confessed to presuppose things future rather then to make them so or the essence of God now that may be considered either as working necessarily and if in that manner it were the cause of things future then all such things should become future by necessity of nature which to say is Atheisticall or as working freely and this is to grant that the will of God is the cause why every thing meerely possible in its own nature doth passe from everlasting into the condition of a thing future if so be it were future at all And indeed seeing no other cause can be pitched upon this free will of God must be acknowledged to be the cause of it And consequently the reason why every thing becomes future is because God hath determined it shall come to passe but with this difference All good things God hath determined shall come to passe by his effection All evill things God hath determined shall come to passe by his permission And the Scripture naturally affords plentifull testimony to confirme this without forcing it to interpretations congruous hereunto upon presumptuous grounds that these arguments proceed from
but to draw them up by these to an expectation of better things and a carefull endeavour to please God that they might obtain them But what blessings had the Gentiles more than common blessings doth he particulate any And as for the expectation of better things than the things of this world whereunto he pretends God doth draw them hereby what oracle hath he for this Prosper in the Book wherein he insists hath nothing at all of any possibility of knowledge of God unto salvation arriveable unto by the meere contemplation of the creature neither have I found any such Oracle throughout the Nation of the Arminians Nay he professeth plainly that that knowledge of God which is attaineable by the contemplation of the creature is not sufficient unlesse he enjoy the true light to discusse the darknesse of mans heart De vocatione Gent. l. 2. cap. 6. his words are these Tam acerbo natura humana vulnere sauciata est ut ad cognitionem Dei neminem contemplatio spontanea plenè valeat erudire nisi obumbrationem cordis vera lux discusserit And the Apostle more than once professeth of the Gentiles that they were without hope And the tast of the powers of the world to come seemes to be by the Apostle ascribed to the word of God as the cause of it Heb. 6. Yet 't is true the Heathen had odde notions of a condition after death as many as believed the immortality of the soule but where I pray was it upwards in heaven or downewards rather under the earth as Styx Phlegeton and the Campi Elisii yet Cicero looks upwards I confesse in his Tusculans questions but yet he goes no farther than the starres and this was their expectation of better things though Adrian an Emperour and a Schollar too bemoans himselfe that he knew not what should become of his poore soule Animula vagula blandula Hospes comesque corporis Quae tu abibis in loca nec ut soles dabis jocos horridula rigida nudula But this Author most confidently supposeth that these better things are manifest by the creatures by the contemplation whereof he might attaine to the knowledge of them and then I doubt not but he might entertaine a hope to attaine them provided he carefully endeavoured to please God which this Author conceaves to have been very possible and therewithall knew what that was by doing whereof he might be sure to please God And all this he obtrudes upon his Reader by a most dissolute course without one crumme of reason for it In like sort he discourseth very confidently of the end of man without distinction of any relation hereof as if the end of man were equally known as well by light of nature as by revelation of Gods word Solomon telleth us That God made all things for himselfe even the wicked against the day of evill Was this known to the Gentiles by the light of nature Not one of all the Philosophers of old acknowledged the Worlds creation out of nothing and who ever manifested any such faith among them as of enjoying a perpetuall society with God in heaven But it may be they all erred in interpreting the book of nature aright and understanding the language thereof concerning this poynt of faith This Author may doe well to cleare the World of this errour and that out of the book of the creatures and then proceed to interpret unto us therehence a generall resurrection also And if he could find Christ there too togeather with the Incarnation of the Sonne of God and his death and passion resurrection and ascension and sitting at the right hand of God to make request for us and our justification by faith in him togeather with regeneration also and the generall judgement then no doubt though the Gospell should continue to be a scandall to the Jewes yet surely through the incomprehensible benefit of his comfortable atchievements it should continue no longer to be foolishnesse unto the Gentiles only our faith should then cease and be turned into sight before we are brought to the seeing of the face of God And yet I see no great need of Christ if it be in the power of an Heathen man to know what it is to please God and to have an heart to please him For certainly as many as know what it is to please God and have an heart to please him God will never hurt them much lesse damne them to hell Yet the Apostle telleth us that they that are in the flesh cannot please God but whether this Author thinks Heathens to be amongst the number of them that are in the flesh I know not But I little wonder when an Arminian spirit of giddinesse hath possessed him if he proceed to the confounding not only of the Law with the Gospell but heathenisme also such as might be with Christianity But suppose a man might attaine to as much knowledge by the meere contemplation of the book of nature as we doe obtain by the Revelation of Gods word yet we that conceive the knowledge of Gods word to be no impediment to the absolutenesse of reprobation must needs find our selves as much as nothing streightned herein by this Authors roaving discourse as touching the generall providence of God in his works as long as that of the Apostle he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth shall stand and be received for the word of God we shall never want ground for maintaining the absolutenesse both of election by the one and by just proportion of Reprobation also by the other For so long as God doth absolutely and according to the meere pleasure of his will decree to have mercy upon some by giving them faith and repentance for the curing of their infidelity and hardnesse of heart this is very sufficient to maintain the absolutenesse of election unto grace and if God doth absolutely and according to the meere pleasure of his will decree to harden others by denying them the grace of faith and repentance so to leave their naturall infidelity and hardnesse of heart uncured this shall be as sufficient to maintaine the absolutenesse of Reprobation from grace As for election unto salvation though the decree thereof can admit no cause yet we say that God by this decree doth not decree to bestow salvation on any man of ripe yeares but by way of reward of faith repentance and good workes as for the decree of Reprobation from glory and to damnation though the decree hath no cause yet we say that God by this decree doth not decree to inflict damnation on any but for sinne unrepented of only I confesse that as touching the interpretation of those words of Saint Paul He hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth I doe not know how it may be charmed by good witts least it may seem repugnant to some reason gathered by contemplation of the creatures for some affect such a
did bring to passe also but withall let us consider what the Apostle teacheth us and take that along with us also namely that all are not Israel that are of Israel and so in his elect he effecteth this 3. I doubt not but this is pronounced chiefely for the elects sake and though they are not as yet so fruitfull as they should be yet I nothing doubt but this passionate expostulation was a means to turne them to the Lord that is some of them For God calls them not all at once but some at one houre of the day some at another 4. It might be a means to bring others also though not to true conversion yet ad exteriorem vitae emendationem As for that of our Saviour over Jerusalem Math. 23. 37. That is of another condition in two respects Jerusalem neither saw his teares nor heard his bemoaning of it but we heare of it and read it in his word and it is equally effectuall with the elect of God and others also as the expostulation we read Isai 5. Secondly our Saviour was a man as well as God and though the Sonne of God yet made under the Law and accordingly as much bound to desire and endeavour the salvation of all amongst whom he was sent as any Prophet or Apostle or Minister of Gods word That in the 5. Ioh. 34. These things have I spoken unto you that ye might be saved What is the meaning thereof but this These things have I spoken unto you exhorting you to believe that ye might be saved according to that v. 24. He that heareth me and believeth him that sent me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but hath passed from death to life and by the words following in the words alleadged by him it appears that there is no other intention of salvation meant than in case they believe But ye will not come unto me that ye might have life v. 40. And as before I said Christ being made under the Law was bound as well as we are to desire the salvation of his Brethren that is to desire and labour the conversion of those to whom he was sent that so they might be saved DISCOURSE SECT IV. THis is also the use and end for which the Sacraments were ordained as we may see Luk. 7. 30. Where we have these wordes But the Scribes and Pharisees and expounders of the Law despised the councell of God against them selves and were not Baptized of Iohn In which words thus much is plainly included that it was Gods counsell and purpose in Iohns Baptisme to bring them to Christ and in him to Heaven much more is it in the end of Christs Baptisme which is more excellent than Iohns was not in substance but in the fulnesse of grace administred and dispensed by it All that have been Baptized into Christ sayth the Apostle have been Baptized unto his death Rom. 6. 3. And Gal. 3. 29. All ye that are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ the very phrases there used shew that Baptisme is in its originall intention an instrument of uniting men to Christ and giving them communion with him in the benefits of his death except a man be borne of water saith Christ and of the spirit he cannot c. Ioh. 3. 5. In which words are delivered two things 1. The necessity of regeneration except a man be born again 2. The working causes of it efficient the Spirit of God instrumentall the Sacrament of Baptisme there called water from the outward matter of it Baptisme therefore is appointed to be a means of regeneration to all those that are Baptized and doth effect it in all that doe not put an obstacle in the way to hinder it For this cause doth the Apostell dignifye it the layer of regeneration Titus 3. 5. I will shut up this with Acts. 2. 38. Where Peter sayth repent and be Baptized every one of you for the remission of sinnes plainly implying that therefore is Baptisme ordained to be received that those who doe receive it might have their sinnes remitted The patience of God also which is another singular donation and gift of God to men is exercised to this very end as appeares Rom. 2. 4. Despisest thou the riches of his goodnesse and forbearance and long suffering not knowing that the goodnesse of God leadeth thee to repentance But thou after thy hardnesse of heart that canst not repent heapest up c. In these words we may note for our purpose 1. Gods end and intent in forbearing sinners and that is the leading of them to repentance and so to Salvation for repentance is Per se ordinata ad salutem as a means to the end 2. The persons to whom God intends this good by his forbearance and they are such as dispise the riches of his goodnesse and have hard and impenitent hearts 3. The issue and event of this theire contempt of Gods patience and that is a treasuring up wrath unto themselves against the day of wrath Out of all which laid togeher ariseth thus much That God by sparing wicked men who have hard and impenitent hearts intends their everlasting good though they by the abuse of his patience and refusall to repent doe treasure up to themselues wrath and eternall misery The like to this is delivered in the 2 Peter 3. 9. God is not slack as some men count slacknesse but patient toward us that is us men And why patient towards us Because he would have none to perish The end therefore of Gods patience is mans repentance and Salvation TWISSE Consideration THough this Author doth little answer your expectation in confining himselfe to Reprobation therein to give you satisfaction as touching the reason why he hath changed his mind in certain controversies yet it may be his purpose is to make you amends by acquainting you with some misteries of his concerning Baptisme out of Luk. 7. 30. Where it is said of the Scribes and Pharises that in refusing to be Baptized of Iohn they despised the counsell of God against themselves hence he inferres that it was Gods counsell and purpose in Iohns Baptisme to bring them to Christ and in him to heaven as much as to say God purposed to bring them to Christ and to heaven but they would not and so it came to passe that Omnipotentis Dei voluntatis effectus was hindered by the will of the creature which Austin accounted a very foule absurdity as if God were not able to bring them to Christ yet our Saviour professeth that like as none can come unto him except the Father draw him so on the other side every one that the Father giveth me comes unto me Ioh. 6. And the Apostle saith Who hath resisted his will Omnipotente facilitate convertit saith Austin ex nolentibus volentes facit But as for the Text suppose the Evangelist had called it the purpose of God yet the object of his purpose is not
Augustini quisque teneat De me intelligo quemlibet ante uterum matris pradestinatum vel ad vitam vel ad mortem quod nunquam quisquam nisi in horâ mortis cognoscere potest Ego sum ex numero damnatorum ergo Deo nunquam asscribi possum Hoc certo credatis rectum esse quod Paulus Rom. 9. scribit Misereor cujus misereor Discedo ad lacus infernales Deo vos commendo cujus misericordia mihi negata est Et addit Major haec verba Hic est fructus perversae doctrinae de praedestinatione hominum Concerning which relation give me leave to observe somewhat 1. Here is no such thing as this Author relates that Hosuanus should say that man by Calvin and Austins opinion is not dealt withall secundum bona or mala opera and indeed this deciphering out of Austins and Calvins opinion is notoriously untrue neither as touching occultiores causae of mens eternall conditions as indeed it is apparent that in the way of a cause meritorious there is no other cause of damnation then sinne and in the way of a disposing cause no other cause of salvation then faith repentance and good workes And as touching the efficient cause of both none is or can be the cause thereof but God But as touching the cause why God gives grace to one and denyes it to another wee willingly confesse there is no cause thereof but the meere good pleasure of God In like sort of absolute cast-awayes here is no mention no nor of Vas formatum ad ignominiam nor any such saying of himselfe that he was none of the worst 2. Here is no mention made of the cause moving him hereunto as this Author pretends but only 't is said that it proceeded of desperation And though Major adds as a Coronis his censure that Hic est fructus perversae doctrinae de praedestinatione hominum yet I hope his censure is no Oracle with us no nor with Lutherans neither for I find him branded by Osiander in his Ecclesiasticall History And though he were of Austins and Calvins opinion in this poynt of predestination and did despaire yet it followes not that this doctrine moved him to despaire Suppose the conceit of being a reprobate moved him hereunto might it not move him hereunto according to the Arminian tenet as well and according to any tenet provided they doe not believe that God hath as yet decreed nothing or if he hath that his decrees may be recalled And then again by our Doctrine of Predestination it cannot be concluded of any man that he is a reprobate while he lives Nay this seems contrary to his own opinion which was this that no man can know whether he be predestinate to life or death till the houre of his death and his death was not brought upon him but wrought by him And as it was in his power not to have killed himselfe so was it in his power not to believe that he was a reprobate by this opinion of his Then again what moved him to conceive that he was a reprobate is concealed all along Now the conscience of sinne committed against the Holy Ghost may make a man conceive he is a reprobate of what opinion so ever he be concerning reprobation And as I take it That famous Doctor of Germany whom Goulartius mentioneth remaining then at Hall in Swabe was no Calvinist of whom he reports out of the History of Germany That having oftentimes turned his Conscience some times toward God some times toward the World having inclined in the end to the worser part said and confest publiquely that he was undone and fell so deepe into despaire as he could neither receive nor take any comfort or consolation so as in this miserable and wretched estate of his soule he slew himselfe most miserably It was not the doctrine of Predestination or Reprobation brought him unto this And though a man hath not sinned against the holy Ghost yet a conceit of such a sinne may drive a man unto this or of blasphemies in an inferior degree when God gives a man over unto the power of Satan as Gaulartius makes mention by his own experience of another desperate man whom he had heard who being exhorted to turne from the too vehement apprehension of Gods justice unto his mercy which was open unto him He answered very coldly you say true God is God but of his children not for me his mercy is certain for his elect but I am a reprobate a vessell of wrath and cursing and I doe already feele the torments of Hell When they did exhort him to call God his Father and Jesus Christ his Sonne My mouth saith he doth speake it but my heart hath horrour of it I believe that he is the Father of others but not of mee When they did lay before him that he had known God heard his word and received his Sacrament yea but he added I was an hypocrite and guilty of many blasphemies against God And then he returned to his ordinary discourses I am a vessell prepared to wrath and damnation I am damned I burne The same Goulartius reports out of the History of the times of a Learned man at Lovaine called Master Gerlach Who had profited so well in his studies as he was one of the first amongst the learned of that time And that being touched with a grievous sicknesse he sighed continually and feeling himselfe to draw neer his end he began to discover the ground of his sighes speaking such fearfull words as desperate men are accustomed to utter crying out and lamenting that he had lived very wickedly and that he could not endure the judgement of God for that he knew his sinnes were so great as he should never obtain pardon so as in this distresse he dyed oppressed with grievous and horrible despaire What this wickednesse of his was in speciall it seems he concealed it might be horrible enough though done in secret yet no just cause of despaire unlesse it were the sinne against the holy Ghost The like is recorded of M. Iames Latomus one of the chiefe Doctors of the University of Lovaine being one day out of countenance in a Sermon before the Emperour Charles the Fift returning ashamed and confounded from Brussells to Lovaine and did so apprehend the dishonour that he fell suddainly into despaire whereof he gave many testimonies in publique the which did move his friends to keepe him close in his house from that time unto his last gasp Poore Latomus had no other speech then that he was rejected of God that he was damned and that he hoped for no mercy nor salvation as having malitiously made warre against the grace and truth of God He dyed in this despaire neither was it possible for any friends or Physitians to make him change his opinion 3. If this story of Hosuanus be a truth I like his condition the worse for not giving any reason moving him to this desperation and
manner to command Abraham to sacrifice his sonne but it was not Gods determination that Isaack should be sacrificed In like sort he commanded Pharaoh to let Israel goe but withall he told Moses he would harden Pharaohs heart that he should not let them goe for a long time 2. But in the accommodation of these distinctions unto thy selfe What ground hast thou to affirme that God willeth not thy salvation in particular If thou believest Gods word assureth thee thou shalt be saved if thou believest not yet thou maist believe and Gods word hath power to bring thee unto faith as formerly I have discoursed And as for the best of Gods Children who doe believe to the great comfort of their soules rejoycing with joy unspeakable and glorious 1 Pet. 1. They were sometimes in as uncomfortable a condition as thou now art And the rather I put thee upon this because I see he that takes upon him to comfort thee doth take a course rather to feed thy humour then to remove it in as much as he never enquires into the cause thereof For albeit he gave to understand he would apply his argument with as much art and cunning as could be yet it may be that was rather with respect to the advantage of his own cause then to thy consolation But let us see whether he mends it in the next Minister Christ came into the World to seeke and to save what was lost and is a propitiation not for our sinnes only i. e. the sinnes of a few particular men or the sinnes of all sorts of men but for the sinnes of the whole World therefore he came to save thee for thou wast lost and to be a propitiation for thy sinnes for thou art part of the whole World CONSIDERATION Still he continues to afford thee as much comfort as any Reprobate in the world and if thou desirest no more thou maist rest satisfied with this but withall I confesse he affords thee as much comfort as he can afford any of Gods elect for he maketh elect and Reprobate all alike in receiving comfort from Gods Word Christ came into the world to save that which was lost but unlesse he came to save all that is lost it will not follow that he came to save thee We know that pardon of sinne and salvation is procured by Christ for none but such as believe and therefore be not deceived without faith looke for neither by faith be assured of both and that thou art one of Gods elect and no Reprobate And observe well he tells thee nothing of Christ meriting faith and repentance this now a dayes is plainly denyed by the Remonstrants and this Authour is content to say nothing of it when he is put to it we know what must be the issue of it if he sayeth Christ hath merited faith and repentance for thee the meaning is but this Christ hath merited that if thou wilt believe thou shalt believe if thou wilt repent thou shalt repent And that Christ hath merited that God should bestow faith and repentance not on whom he will according to the meere pleasure of his will but according to mens workes The comfort that our doctrine ministers unto thee is this If thou dost believe in Christ thou maist be assured thou art an elect of God if thou dost not believe there is no cause why thou shouldest thinke thy selfe a Cast-away for albeit thou hast not faith to day yet thou maist have faith to morrow Give thy selfe to Gods Word and waite upon him in his ordinances thou maist be so wrought upon as that unbeliever was 1 Cor 14. Who is there represented falling downe on his face and confessing that God was in the Preacher of a truth And though at first thou attendest to it but in a carnall manner yet God may open thy heart as he opened the heart of Lidia and make thee attend unto it in a gracious manner Tempted The World as I have heard is taken two waies in Scripture Largely for all mankind and strictly for the elect or believers In this latter sense Christ dyed for the World Or if for all yet it was only dignitate pretii not voluntate propositi thus only for a few selected ones with whom it is not my lot to be numbred CONSIDERATION Suffer not thy selfe to be abused by them who pretending thy comfort yet seeke nothing lesse but only the promoting of their owne cause And observe how he takes notice of no other benefits of Christs death then such as belong unto men upon the condition of faith to wit pardon of sinne and Salvation in which case the mention of Gods elect comes in very unseasonably And thus is the love of God set forth unto us so God loved the world that he gave his only begotten Sonne that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And if it be not thy lot to be numbred amongst believers then we can give thee by Gods Word no assurance of thy Salvation But if thou art not a believer yet thou maist be in good time as formerly I have spoken more at large and therefore no reason to think thou art a Reprobate And if once thou dost believe in Christ our doctrine gives thee assurance of Justification Salvation and Election the Arminan doctrine doth not As for faith and repentance we say Christ hath merited them also but to be bestowed how According to mens workes say our Arminians though forraine Arminians professe plainly that Christ merited not faith and regeneration for any And if thou relishest this comfort be satisfied with it we say faith and repentance are bestowed absolutely according to the meere pleasure of Gods will and accordingly Christ merited them but not for all for then all should believe and repent and be saved but only for some and who can these be but Gods elect whence it followeth clearly that whosoever believes may by our doctrine be assured of his election not so by the doctrine of Arminians but if thou believest not thou art in no worse case then the best of Gods childern have been for there was a time when they believed not therefore thou hast no more cause to think thy selfe a cast-away then they had Minister God hath founded an universall Covenant with men upon the bloud of Christ and therefore he intended it should be shed for all men universally he hath made a promise of salvation to every one that will believe and excludes none that will not believe CONSIDERATION This I confesse is to administer as much comfort as is administred to any Reprobate but how can this qualify thy discomfort and discontent which riseth from this conceit that thou art a Reprobate And the truth is that by our Doctrine wee were all in a miserable case if Gods Covenant of grace extended no farther then this But hath not God promised to be our Lord and our God that sanctifyeth us to circumcise our hearts and the hearts
affection and soone found that he was little sicke in body but grievously in mind for in all other things he discoursed gravely and constanstly so as none of his familiar friends could discerne that the quicknesse of his discourse was any thing impaired Continuing still in his weaknesse many were much troubled and dayly his Chamber was full of People some curious to see and heare others were desirous to draw him to hope in the mercies of God I was present at many of his speeches with some men of honour and Learning To deliver that which I could observe I began first to note his age and his fashion He was about 50 yeares old free from the violent passions of youth and from the coldnesse of old age Nothing came out of his mouth that was light or foolishly spoken or that might discover any doting in him although he did dayly discourse of grave and important matters with the Learned and that some did propound unto him high questions especially in Divinity 2. I will briefly relate same speeches they had with him During his abode at Padua and I will not forget that he declared with a setled judgment that he did see the eternall vengeance of God prepared against the sinne that he had committed This was the true cause of his dispaire and not an ungrounded conceit of his reprobation but the conscience of his sinne cast him upon this and made him conceive he was a Reprobate For that he did find in him selfe that those things which God had given to others to rejoyce their spirits all conspired against him in despite of his horrible forfeit I doubt the phrase here in the originall was not well understood by the Traslatour For although said he that God for a great blessing had promised to many holy men a goodly issue and a great number of children in whose love and obedience they may repose their age yet in the midst of his miseries The hands and faces of his Children were as horrible unto him as the hangmans and indeed for the good of his children he renounced Gods truth for meere temporall respects It cannot well be expressed what griefe vexation he seemed to receive when his children brought him meat forcing him to eat and threatning him when he refused it He confessed his children did their dutyes and yet he tooke it in ill part saying that he did not acknowledge God any more for his father but did feare him as his adversary armed with judgment For he had been three weeks in this apprehension when he spake these things without eating or drinking but what they forced him unto the which he received with great difficulty resisting with all his power and spitting out that which they forced him to take Some of the Assistants were of opinion to make him afraid to make him the more apt to receive food first for the soule then for the body asking him if he did not feare greater and sharper torments after this life then those he then felt He confessed that he expected farre more sharpe and had already horror of them yet he desired nothing more then to be cast headlong in to them that he might not feare other more grevious torments They asked him againe if he thought his sinne so foule as it could not be pardoned through the bounty and infinite mercy of God His answer was that he had sinned against the Holy Ghost which was so great a sinne as is called a sinne unto death that is to say subject to the eternall vengeance of God and to the paines of Hell now judge I pray whether the example of Peter was sufficient to take him off from desperation for will any say that Peter in denying his Master sinned against the Holy Ghost whereof to wit the sinne against the Holy Ghost this poore wretch discoursed amply learnedly and too subtilly against him selfe Learned and Godly men which did assist him omitted no testimonies that might assure a wounded conscience that God is mercifull gentle and ready to pardon But all this could not divert him from this opinion neither could they draw any other thing from him then that he desired much that he might returne to some hope of pardon But it fares with me saith he as with criminall persons shut up in close prisons and fettered hand and foot Sometimes they are saluted by their friends passing by who advise them to breake Prison and to deceive their guards if they can Such Prisoners would gladly follow their counsell but it is a vaine desire Even so is mine said he 3. As for the Scriptures which were cited to him touching the love and affection of God the Father by reason of his Sonne Jesus Christ he did avow them adding that they belonged only to them whom Jesus Christ did repute his brethren and his members but as for him he had renounced that love and willingly rejected brotherly alliance neither was ignorant in how great tranquillity of mind they might be who had once embraced the promises of salvation and did wrest them continually therein For confirmation whereof this his sad disaster said he was propounded for an example before all mens eyes that if they were wise they should not hold it light nor happened by any chance but to learne by his ruine how dangerous it is to fall any thing from that which belongs to the great glory of the Sonne of God Adding that it was a slippery and very dangerous passage yea most fearfull to him that stood not carefully on his Guard Moreover forasmuch as such evident examples of the vengeance of Almighty God did seldome appeare to the eyes of men they deserved to be the more carefully regarded That amongst a great number of Reprobates in the World his calamity was not singular but his only punishment and ruine did satisfy God a just Judge to admonish all others to have a care of themselves He added withall that therein he did acknowledge the severity of Gods judgement who had chosen him to make him a spectacle rather then any other and to admonish all by one mans mouth to abstaine from all iniquity confessing withall that there was no reproach or punishment which he had not deserved by reason of his foule offence After he had discoursed thus sincerely and gravely of the justice Divine he said they should not take it strange this his long speech touching the true reason of the will of God for that oftentimes God doth wrest out of the mouthes of Reprobates most assured testimonies of his Majesty his justice and his fearfull vengeance How strangely doth he plead for Gods justice against himselfe as a Reprobate when our Arminians are like to blaspheame that justice of God against Spira which Spira justifies against himselfe using a long discourse upon this sentence and desirous to shew the greatnesse of Gods judgements There are some saith he who have all things so wishfully as they live in all delights who notwithstanding are registred for
issues doe justly befall them because they abhorre to professe that God causeth us to walke in his statutes and to keepe his judgements and doe them The course that Junius took to quiet her conscience who thought she was damned for neglecting to goe to Masse by proving unto her that the Masse was a meere wil-worship was faire and reasonable but the course this Author takes to comfort an afflicted soule I have shewed to be most unreasonable Absolute reprobate hath a different sense according as it is differently applyed If applyed unto damnation or the denyall of glory we utterly deny that either the one is inflicted or glory is denyed absolutely but meerely upon supposition of sinne But applyed to grace we willingly confesse that God doth absolutely give the grace of regeneration the grace of faith and repentance to whom he will according to that of Saint Paul He hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9. 18. compared with Rom. 11. 30. Where to shew mercy is apparently to bring men unto faith neither can it have any other sense Rom. 9. 18. being set in opposition to hardening and in reference to the objection rising therehence in the words following Thou wilt say then why doth he yet complaine for who hath resisted his will v. 19. And while this Author denies that faith and repentance are given according to the good pleasure of Gods will which is to give them absolutely he must be driven to confesse that they are given conditionally and if a man will take any comfort therehence he must be acquainted with the condition which yet this Author undertaking the office of consolation upon this ground doth from the first to the last conceale as if he feared to discover the shamefull nakednesse of his cause which I have adventured to display and whereof I desire the indifferent reader would judge So that indeed this discourse is a new snare rather to entangle a poore soule in sadnesse and heavinesse inextricable fowler-like then any true office of consolation where she may escape as a bird out of the first snare of the Fowler by breaking it and delivering her Indeed these grounds of hope and comfort a Minister cannot make use of that holds absolute Reprobation What sober man would expect he should but such a one is never a whit the worse comforter for that For as for these grounds I have already discovered them to be voyd of all truth of all sobriety For if men be not absolutely Reprobated from the grace of faith and of repentance but conditionally For as for the denying of glory or inflicting damnation we utterly deny that God hath decreed that they shall have their course absolutely according to the meere pleasure of his will having made a Law according whereunto he purposeth to proceed therein it became this Author performing the part of a Comforter on this ground to make knowne the condition which he utterly declineth And with all I have shewed the reasons of his carriage thus in Hugger Mugger to wit that their shamefull Tenets might not breake forth and be brought to light We abhorre to say that God gives the grace of faith and repentance according to mens workes Wee abhorre to say that God workes in men the act of believing and repenting provided they will believe and repent or that he workes in them the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 velle of every good worke modovelint But our comsolations proceed as I have shewed in this manner If any man man doth believe and repent we can assure such a one by our doctrine that he is an elect of God this Arminians by their doctrine cannot as who maintaine that a true believer may fall a way from grace and be damned which is to hold the soules of the best children of God upon the rack of feares and terrours and tortures continually and make them walke as it were upon pinacles of the Temple for they have no assurance of stedfastnesse but in their owne wills to keepe them from dropping into Hell fire which burneth under them If men doe not believe and repent we will enquire into the cause of their feares grounds of their apprehentions that they are Reprobates and shew that they have no just cause for such apprehensions whether it be the conscience of their sinne or want of faith that doth affright them For as much as the holiest meÌ„ living before their calling had as great cause to be affrighted as they yet had they thereupon conceived themselves to be Reprobates this had been but an erronious conceit If perhaps it be not the conscience of sinne in generall that affrights them but rather the conscience of some sinne in speciall which they conceive to be a sinne unto death or a sinne against the Holy Ghost which they conceive to be unpardonable we will conferre with them thereabouts and try whether they understand aright the nature of that sinne and endeavour to scatter those mists of illusions in this particular which Satan hath raised desiring to swallow them up in desperation if it doe not prove to be a sinne against the Holy Ghost we will set them in a course to get the spirit of faith and of repentance For albeit God alone can give them yet seeing his Word is a Word of power even a voyce that pearceth the graves we willperswade them to give themselves to be wrought upon by Gods Word and we will pray for them who yet want spirit to pray for themselves And albeit they cannot prepare themselves in a gratious manner to the hearing of Gods Word yet let them come and when they are come let his Word worke yet if forthwith we have not that comfortable experience of Gods goodnesse towards us let us not give over to wait at the lords gates and to give attendance at the posts of his doore Give him leave to be the Master of his own times let us not prescribe unto him We know his course is to call some at one houre of the day some at an other and at the very last hour he calleth some This is the way of consolation that we take We doe not take any such course as this Author at his pleasure obtrudes upon us that God would have all to be saved and that Christ died for all I have allready set forth this Authors collusions in his triple universality of Gods love Christs death and and of the Covenant of grace We rather will exhort him to believe and herein we will take such course as God in his Word hath directed us unto and we will pray unto God that his Word may be as the raine that cometh downe and the snow from Heaven returneth not thither but watereth the earth and maketh it bring forth buâ—d hat it may give seed to the sower and bread to him that eateth So his Word may be that goeth out of his mouth it may not returne unto him voyd but accomplish that
Egyptians so in the sight of the children of Israel and of the bordering Nations No contradiction at all in this no more then Gods word is found to contradict it selfe And nothing but ignorance makes our adversaries so bold as to impute contradiction to us in this We grant willingly that God did intend that most should never believe and repent For as much as he intended to deny the gift of faith and repentance unto most as it is apparent he doth neither dares any Arminian deny it Only they feigne that God would give faith and repentance unto all in case they would prepare themselves which not only includes manifest Pelagianisme but over and above ends in non-sense as I have but erst and often times before made as cleare as the Sunne Gods eternall rejection of many thousands which is impossible to be avoided for how is it possible that what was from everlasting should be avoyded by man or Angell who are brought forth in time not to have been from everlasting though it be all one with the answers of the tempted and is contradictory to the comforts which this Author deviseth out of his own braine and proposeth too in a most colluding manner as before I have shewed and withall not so well sorting with the manner of comforts which he feignes and at meere pleasure obtrudes upon us which yet he cannot evacuate without betraying the shamefull nakednesse of his cause when denying God to bestow the gift of faith and repentance absolutely on whom he will and according to the meere pleasure of his will he is driven to manifest how he takes sanctuary in Pelagianisme maintaining the grace of faith and repentance to be conferred by God on men according to their workes and that in a most unsober manner as I have shewed at large yet notwithstanding is this eternall decree of God concerning the rejection of man nothing contrariant to better grounds of consolation ministred by our doctrine then any can be ministred by Arminians as who doe not so much as undertake to minister better comfort to any then such as is common to them with Reprobates But as for all those that are brought up in the Church of God who we can assure them that there is no cause excepting guilt of that sinne which is unto death or which is against the Holy-Ghost why any of them should conceive themselves to be Reprobates nay the affliction of conscience being the most ordinary meanes whereby God doth prepare men for a comfortable translation out of the state of nature into the state of grace they have cause to conceive comfort in this that these feares and terrours may be as pangs of child-birth to deliver their souls into the world of the sons of God and this vally of Achor a doore of hope this Bethany a house of sorrow or mourning the high-way unto the vision of Peace as Bethany was commonly taken by our Saviour in his way unto Jerusalem For conclusion we have heard a strange cracking of thornes in this but all proves but a squibbe their best light of consolation goes out in an unsavoury snuffe of Pelagianisme Let us remember though Thunder and Earth-quakes and Lightning have their course in the vaine imaginations of men yet God is still and ever will be in the small voyce of his word Let us give Gods truth the glory of our consolation As for Errour and that dangerous errour in defacing the glory of Gods grace let us never seeke any comfort therein and let them that love it take what comfort in it they can I doe not envy them but rather pitty them I would their hearts served them to have compassion upon them selves DISCOURSE SECT IV. SEcondly it leaves a Minister weake grounds only and insufficient to quiet the tempted and therefore it makes him unable to comfort His grounds that are left him are insufficient because they cannot convince and make it evident to the understanding of the tempted that he is not that which he feares i. e. a Reprobate out of temptation probabilities will uphold a mans hopes as they did Manoahs wife Judg. 13. 22 23. If the Lord would kill us he would not have received a burnt offering at our hands nor shewed us all these things because men are not so mistrustfull then but in temptation men are very suspitious and incredulous like Jacob who would not be perswaded that Joseph was alive and a great man in Egypt till he saw the Chariots that were sent to fetch him thither Gen. 45. 25. And like Thomas who would not believe that Christ was risen till he saw the print of the nailes and speare Iohn 20. 25. They will not believe any thing that is said for their comfort till it be made so apparent that they have nothing to say to the contrary My selfe have known some who in their temptations have often put their comforters to their proofes to their protestations nay to their oathes too before they would believe their words of comfort And in this temptation men are so strongly possest with a feare of the greatest evill in the World eternall rejection from God that they will not easily without manifest conviction believe the contrary But such grounds as these a Minister that holds absolute reprobation hath not he can say nothing that is able to make it appeare infallibly and unavoydably to the tempted that he is no absolute reprobate All that he can say is Be of good comfort you are a believer you are a true repenting sinner therefore no reprobate for faith and repentance are fruits of election and arguments of a state contrary to that which you feare But this the tempted will deny he will say that he is no believer c. And how will the Minister convince him that he is He must prove to him by the outward acts of faith and repentance for they are only apparent to him that he doth repent and believe but this proofe is not demonstrative doth not convince him because opera virtutum simulari possunt the externall acts of saith repentance or any other grace may be counterfeited The Devill may seeme to be an Angell of light Wolves may goe in Sheepes cloathing Judas may make the World believe by his Preaching and following Christ that he is a true Apostle And Simon Magus though he remaine in the gall of bitternesse and bond of iniquity may be thought by his receiving of Baptisme to be a true believer And so may any Hypocrite by some exterior act of faith and repentance cosen the best discerner of spirits among men and gaine the opinion and esteeme of a true penitent and believer Actions externally good or good in appearance may be evill indeed for want of a good rule a good manner a good end some other good circumstances with which an action which is good must be cloathed For bonum non oritur nisi ex integris and so by consequence cannot certainly prove the man that doth
them to be a good man or to have the grace of faith repentance or any other truly planted in his heart Which being so I say that the Minister cannot by the eternall acts and fruits of faith and repentance which he seeth come from him make it evident to the tempted for the silencing of all replies that he is without doubt a true believer and a true repentant and consequently no reprobate For still the tempted may say You may be deceived in me for you can see not a whit more in me then hath been seen in many a Reprobate If this be all you can say to prove me to be none I am not satisfied I may be a Reprobate nay I am a Reprobate and you are but a miserable comforter a Physitian of no value This that I say Piseator doth ingeniously confesse where he saith that no comfort can possibly be instilled into the soules of Reprobates afflicted with this temptation Whence it followes that the greatest part of men must beare their burthen if they fall into this trouble as wel as they can the Gospell cannot afford them any sound comfort 2. That the elect in this case may be comforted but it must be this way viz. by their feeling of the burthen of sinne and their desire to be freed from it by Christ which proofs as I have said are but only probable not infallible arguments of a mans election and therefore unsufficient comforts And in the end of the same Thesis where he saith That a man should reason thus with himselfe Grace is offered to some with a mind of communicating it to them therefore it may be that I am in that number he implyes that the doctrine of absolute Reprobation which teacheth this communication of grace to some few only affords but a fieri potest a peradventure I am elected for a poore soule to comfort himselfe withall TWISSE Consideration IN the last place we are to consider how truly he affirmeth that our doctrine leaveth a Minister none but weake grounds and those insufficient to quiet the tempted And whereas he saith We cannot conceive and make it evident to the understanding of the tempted that he is not that which he feares a Reprobate we willingly acknowledge it For not to be a reprobate is to be an elect Now how can any Arminian convince and make it evident to the understanding I doe not say of the tempted but of one that is a believer and walkes on comfortablely in the wayes of Godlinesse is he I say able to convince such a one and make it evident unto him that he is one of Gods elect I doe not think they dare professe that they presume they can or make it evident to their owne understanding that themselves are of the number of Gods elect How unreasonable then is this course to require of us to convince a man that acknowledgeth neither faith nor repentance in him for this is the condition of a man tempted as himselfe fashioneth it and to make it evident to his understanding that he is an elect and no reprobate when himselfe cannot convict him that believeth of this no nor their owne consciences neither notwithstanding all their confidence that they alone are in the right way of salvation Was there ever heard a more unreasonable course then this Againe to feare to be a reprobate or least he be a Reprobate is one thing to perswade himselfe that he is a Reprobate and to despaire thereupon is another thing We say and that according to our Doctrine that there is no cause why any man who hath not sinned the sinne unto death the sinne against the Holy Ghost should perswade himselfe that he is a Reprobate and despaire thereupon we doe not say there is no cause of feare In as much as he hath no evidence of his election there is just cause to feare but then againe seeing he neither hath nor can have any evidence of his reprobation excepting the guilt of the sinne against the Holy Ghost he hath every way as good cause to hope And for the comforting of such a one I would make bold to tell him that there is more hope of such a one as himselfe then of those who goe on in the wayes of their owne heart and in the light of their owne eyes without all remorse and check of conscience without feare or wit not considering that for all these things God will bring them to judgment And towards such I would think it fit to use all meanes and motives to make them feare The Apostle seemes to me to take the like course with better men then such even with such as went on in a faire and comfortable profession of Gospell namely to make them feare and suspect themselves as when he saith Prove youre selves whether you are in the faith examine your selves Know ye not that Christ is in you except ye be Reprobates 2 Cor. 13. 5. And for good reason for as Paul was jealous over the Corinthians with a Godly jealousy for feare least as the Serpent beguilde Eve through his subtilty so their minds should be corrupt from that simplicity which is in Christ 2 Cor. 11. 2 3. And in like manner entertained feare least when he came he should not find them such as he would and that he should be found unto them such as they would not c. 2 Cor. 12. In like manner I should think it is good for a man to be jealous over himselfe with a godly jealousy least their minds should be corrupt their wayes corrupt more then they are a ware of and there upon give themselves to the examining of themselves and to the searching and trying of their wayes whereunto the Holy Ghost exhorts us Lament 3. 40. And there is good comfort to be taken in such a jealousy such a feare such a course For we find that the spirit of bondage making us to feare is the forerunner of the spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Rom. 8. 15. Certainely they are in better case and nearer to the Kingdome of God then such as feare not yet is their no cause of despaire for as much as the elect of God had no evidence of their election before their calling Nay after their calling they may be much afflicted with the feares and terrours of God thinking themselves to be in worse case then indeed they are David found cause to pray that God would restore him to the joy of his Salvation yet Bertius would not say that David was fallen from grace and that propter graves causas yet who hath written more eagarly to maintaine that Saints may fall away from grace then Bertius But this Author beares before him such a spirit of confidence as if he would have all men ordered by his rules When Manoahs Wife Judg. 13. 22 23. discourseth thus If the Lord would kill us he would not have received a burnt offering at our hands nor shewed us these things He
is capable of For their grounds are universall as they professe that is common to all to wit as touching the love of God that it is common to all as touching the death of Christ that he dyed for all as touching the Covenant of grace that it also is common to all And if this will comfort any man namely to be assured that he is in as good a case as any Turke or Saracen or any reprobate in the World I find this Author is ready to assure them hereof and rather then faile he will sweare it though I never heard matter of faith put to be tryed by mans Oath till now I had thought only matters of fact had been tryable and assurable by Oath not matter of faith Yet I will not spare to professe that though they should sweare either of these universalities to be true I would no more believe them then I would believe the Divell For the Apostle adviseth saying Though that wee or an Angell from Heaven Preach unto you otherwise then that which we have Preached unto you let him be accursed Gal 1. 8. But let us examine the comfortable nature of these universalities whether they be such as a sober man can say nothing to the contrary I begin with the universality of Gods love the comfort herehence proceeds thus as I conceive God loves all willes all to be saved therefore thou art no reprobate Now consider whether I may not soberly say to the contrary that by the same reason there is no reprobate in the World or ever was whence it followes that I have no more comfortable assurance that I am no reprobate then I have assurance that there is no Reprobate at all in the World Secondly would you have mee believe hand over head that God would have all to be saved without distinction may not I soberly inquire whether your meaning be that God will have all and every one to be saved whether they believe or no whether they repent or no or only thus That God will have all to be saved in case they believe and repent not otherwise Now this is our doctrine as well as yours grounded upon this Scripture Whosoever believeth shall be saved Now doth this doctrine assure any man that he is no Reprobate nor of the number of those whom God hath rejected from salvation Perhaps you will say it is sufficient to assure him that he is no absolute reprobate and that so this Author is to be understood though hitherto in this Section he delivered it simply Admit this Now judge I pray you whether I may soberly oppose against it thus Although I am no absolute reprobate yet if I am a reprobate and may be as much assured of it as that there is any reprobate in the World what comfort can arise to my poore afflicted soule from hence Againe consider that neither we who oppose Arminians doe maintaine that God hath ordained to deny any man salvation absolutely but only conditionally to wit in case he dye in sinne without faith without repentance But suppose I am perswaded that God hath rejected mee from the grace of faith and of repentance what comfort can you Arminians administer to my sick soule in this case For dare you deny faith and repentance to be a gift of God So then if I conceive my selfe to be a reprobate from grace will you comfort me by saying that I am no absolute reprobate from grace Then belike God hath determined to give or deny grace not according to the meere pleasure of his will but according to mens workes And have you no better balme of Gilead to administer to a sick soule then to take sanctuary in such a Doctrine as is direct and flat Pelagianisme In the same sober manner we shall have somewhat to say against that comfort that is reached forth to an afflicted soule from the universality of Christs death Thou doubtest thou art a reprobate but be of good cheere for Christ dyed for all and every one as much as to say thou hast no more cause to believe that thou art a reprobate then to believe that there is any reprobate in the world Secondly be of good cheere for albeit thou art a reprobate and God foreseeing thou wilt dye in sinne hath from everlasting ordained thee to condemnation as well a Judas that betrayed Christ yet I can assure thee thou art no absolute reprobate no more then Judas was And whereas it may be thou art verily perswaded that he that believes and repents and perseveres herein shall not be damned for as much as all confesse that God hath not ordained that damnation shall be inflicted absolutely according to the meere pleasure of God but meerely according to mens workes but all thy feare is least thou art reprobated from grace and that absolutely considering that God as it seemes in the giving and denying of grace proceeds meerely according to the meere pleasure of his will because the Apostle saith He hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9. 18. Yet be of good cheere for I can assure thee that is nothing so but as there are no absolute reprobates from glory and unto damnation so there are no absolute reprobates from grace but meerely conditionally it is that men are reprobated from grace like as meerely conditionally God doth elect men unto grace And to speake in plaine termes without dissimulation God gives faith and repentance unto men according as they dispose themselves thereunto for want of which disposition he denyes it unto others And if thou desirest to be more particularly informed in this mistery for thine unspeakable consolation know for certain that if thou wilt believe and repent thou shalt believe and repent And albeit in the Synod of Palestine anno 415. it was concluded That grace is not given according unto merits and Pelagius was driven to subscribe thereto for feare of excommunication too in case he had refused it yet take this comfortable mystery along with thee that this was but a fruit of the Predestinarian Heresy which that very yeare if thou markest the story well had his originall and was brought forth into the World And lastly as touching the universality of the Covenant of grace that is as comfortable as the former for all are under it and therefore thou amongst the rest and consequently thou art no more a reprobate then any other certainly no absolute reprobate for there are none such Iudas was not and therefore thou maist assure thy selfe thou art not And indeed there are none that maintaine that God decreed that any man should be denyed glory or damned absolutely but only conditionally to wit in case he finally persevere in infidelity or impenitency And whereas thou maist feare least thou art absolutely reprobated from grace to wit from the grace of faith and repentance take heart and feare no colours For albeit it be fit to confesse considering the times that faith and repentance are the
gifts of God yet know that God doth not dispense them according to the meere pleasure of his will but according to mens workes whatsoever some men cry out to the contrary charging us with Pelagianisme but if thou art wise thou wilt take comfort in this as in true Christianisme As for those that maintaine absolute reprobation none of them is able to make it appeare unto thee that thou art no absolute reprobate And I willingly confesse that if faith and repentance be not evidences hereof we are not able to make it appeare either to others that they are not or to our selves that we are not Reprobates But by the way it is manifest that this Author by his grounds can give no assurance of election no not to a believer no certainty of salvation and yet he pretends to be a comforter when he leaves him in doubt whether he shall be saved or damned yet upon this pillow Arminians sleepe sweetly and presume that others may sleepe sweetly also that they are not absolutely reprobates And no marvaile for even in the course of the holiest conversation their doctrine can administer no assurance either of election or salvation But perhaps they will say though they can give no assurance of election absolute by their doctrine yet they can give assurance of election conditionall But wherein I pray doth this consist Forsooth in this that if they finally persevere in this their holy conversation they shall be saved But I pray consider Doth not our doctrine afford the same assurance as well as theirs It cannot be denied but that it doth and more then so for our doctrine gives assurance of perseverance in the state of grace to them that are once in the state of grace the Arminian doth not And the Apostle assures the Thessalonians that upon his knowledge they were the elect of God and that from the worke of their faith the labour of their love and the patience of their hope 1 Thess 1. 3. 4. And that the man of sinne shall not prevaile over them 2 Thess 2. 13. Because they are elect whereof also he was assured as there he signifies by their sanctification and faith It is true the outward acts of faith and repentance may be counterfited And it is as true that whether they be counterfeited or no it may be discerned otherwise why should the Apostle be so bold as to professe and that by observation of their workes that he knew they were elect of God 1 Thess 1. 4. The Devill may transforme himselfe into an Angell of light but yet we have a sure Word of God whereby to discerne his practises to corrupt either our faith or our manners otherwise we poore Creatures were but in a very evill case so his Ministers also transforme themselves crafty workers as they are into Ministers of righteousnesse but S t Paul discovered them and warned the Corinthians of them Wolves may goe in sheepes clothing but our Saviour assures us that we shall know them by their fruites none more proper fruite of a false Prophet then his false doctrine And we have a true touch-stone to discover that and make the Devills clawes to appeare in their proper forme and colours And we know how soone Simon Magus discovered himselfe to be in the very gall of betternesse and bond of iniquity Yet I nothing doubt but we may be deceived but most commonly it comes to passe that Hypocrites are the greatest deceivers and coseners of themselves and it is not their condition to be exercised with feares least they be Reprobates and to confesse that their faith their repentance is counterfit It is most likely they deale without Hypocrisy in this But when any doe lay such sinnes to their own charge we will not take them at their word but we will inquire upon what grounds they deliver this we will inquire whether now they are well pleased with this their former Hypocrisy If so what cause is there why they should be disquieted in themselves upon the consideration of that wherein they are well pleased But if it be their sorrow if this cause heavinesse of heart unto them here we have a double evidence of some sparkes of grace in them First in confessing their former Hypocrisy Secondly in being humbled with sorrow in the consideration of it Now God hath promised that if we confesse our sinnes God as he is faithfull and just will forgive them And if they are humbled in the consideration of it and tremble at the apprehension of Gods judgements against Hypocrites they are so much the fitter for God to take up his habitation in their contrite heart and humble spirit Es 57. 15. And Es 63. 2. I hope there is no miserable consolation in all this To minister this Physicke is to be a Phisitian of some value And certainly whatsoever was our former course whether in the way of profanesse or the way of hypocrisy when God brings us to consider it and to confesse it and to be acquainted with his feares and terrours here upon we have cause to conceive good hope that God is now in a gratious way to draw them neerer unto him who before were strangers from him Certainly we will be bold to tell them that there is no just cause why they should despaire I come to the last particular he insisteth upon and that is Piscators confession which because he conceives it serves his turne therefore he ascribes unto him ingenuity in this But what saith Piscator That no comfort can possibly be instilled into the soules of Reprobates Piscators words are these Reproborum anxiis animis nulla consolatio instillari potest This Author addes Possibly to make it the more waighty as he thinkes We acknowledg God to be the God of consolation and his spirit alone to be the comforter and if God will not give them Christ surely they can have no true consolation in Christ which yet depends meerely upon supposition of the will of God like as none but God can give raine and if it be his will it shall raine to morrow or not raine either shall come to passe according to his will and it is impossible it should be otherwise then he willeth yet is raine a contingent thing and God will have it come to passe contingently that is so as with a possibility to the contrary Now that God gives not all unto Christ our Saviour professeth John 17. Thine they were and thou hast given them unto me and afterwards for their sakes I sanctify my selfe This is spoken in reference unto the offering up of himself unto his Father upon the Crosse as Maldonate acknowledgeth to be the interpretation of all the Fathers whom he he had read He dyed we confesse to procure Salvation for all that believe but did he dye to procure faith for all If so then either absolutely or conditionally If absolutly then all must believe and be saved If conditionally to wit upon condition of some disposition
of them that are called but few are chosen Yet might that Synod well admonish Maccovius to take heed of such words as might give offence to tender yeares and be carefull to expresse the same truth in as inoffensive way as we can And accordingly having a digression in this very Argument in my Vindiciae Gratiae I proposed it in this manner Whether the holy one of Israell without any injurie to his Holy Majestie may be said to will sinne after a certaine manner and I maintaine the affirmative after this manner Deus vult ut peccatum fiat ipso permittente God will have sinne to come to passe by his permission and Bellarmine confesseth that Malum esse Deo permittente bonum est It is good that evill should be by God's permission which was also the saying of Austine long before And that non aliquid fit nisi Omnipotens fieri velit vel sinendo ut fiat vel ipse faciendo Not any thing comes to passe except God Omnipotent will have it come to passe either by suffering it or himselfe working it And the eleventh Article of the Church of Ireland framed in the dayes of King J'ames runnes thus God from all eternitie did by his unchangable Counsell ordaine what soever in time should come to passe yet so as there by no violence is offered to the to the wills of the reasonable Creatures and neither the libertie nor the contingency of second causes is taken away but established rather And Arminius himselfe professeth that Deus voluit Achabum mensuram scelerums uorum implere God would have Achab to fill up the measure of his sinnes and what is it to fill up the measure of his sinnes but to adde sinne unto sinne And this he delivereth without all qualification By these instances it appeareth That they of the first side can easily beare one with another in this difference And to say the truth there is no reason why they should quarrell about circumstances seeing they agree in the substance for which they both contend 1 That the moving cause of Reprobation is the alone will of God and not the sinne of man originall or actuall 2. That the finall impenitencie and Damnation of Reprobates are necessary and unavoidable by God's absolute Decree The difference which this Authour takes into Consideration is about the object of Predestination and the difference in opinion thereabouts is usually to be observed threefold though this Authour is pleased to take notice of a secondfold difference for some conceive the object of Predestination to be man-kind as yet not created others conceive the object thereof to be man-kind created but not yet corrupted A third sort maintaine the object thereof to be man-kind both created and corrupted Now D. Iunius hath endeavoured to reconcile the three opinions making place for each consideration in the object of predestination And Piscator after him adventured on the like reconciliation and hath performed it with more perspicuitie and with better successe in my judgment then Iunius And that according to three different acts concurring unto Predestination The first is saith he God's purpose to create man-kind in Adam unto different ends now this Act doth clearely require the object thereof to be man-kind not yet Created The second Act he conceives to be God's Decree to permit all men to fall in Adam Now this Act he conceives as clearly to suppose the object thereof to be man-kind created but not corrupted The third last Act he conceives to be God's decree to choose some to shew compassion on them in raising them out of sinne by saith and repentance and of Reprobating others leaving them as be findes them and permitting them to finish their dayes in sinne to the end he might manifest the glorie of his grace in saving the one the glorie of his Justice in damning others Now this third Act he supposeth manifestly to require the object thereof to be man-kind both created and corrupted Now the Authours of these severall opinions have no reason to go together by the eares about these three opinions but with Brotherly love to entertaine one another First because the difference herein is not so much in Divinitie as in Logick and Philosophie difference in opinion about order in intentions being meerly Logicall and to be composed according to the right stating of the end intended and of the meanes conducing to the end it being generally confessed that the intention of the end is before the intention of meanes conducing thereunto And that look what is first in intention the same must be last in execution Secondly the Authours of these severall opinions about the object of Predestination doe all agree in two principall points 1. That all men before God's eternall predestination and reprobation are considered as equall in themselves whether as uncreated or as created but not corrupted or lastly whether created or corrupted 2 That God's grace only makes the difference choosing some to worke thē to faith repentance perseverance therein while he rejecteth others leaving thē as he findes them permitting them to finish their dayes in sinne whereby is upheld and maintained 1. First the prerogative of God's grace as only effectuall to the working of men unto that which is good 2. And secondly the prerogative of God's Soveraigntie in shewing mercy on whome he will to bring them to Faith and true repentance and hardning others that is not bestowing of grace and repentance upon them And seeing they all agree in these momentous points of Divinitie they have no cause to take it offensively at the hands of one another that they differ in a point of Logick Now I have adventured on this argument to find out to my selfe and give unto others some better satisfaction then formerly hath been exhibited and that by distinguishing Two decrees only on each part to witt the decree of the end and the decree of the meanes As for example 1. On the part of Predestination and Election I conceive the end to be the manifestation of God's glorious grace in the way of mercie mixt with Justice on a certaine number of men And the Decree of the meanes is to create them and permit them all to fall in Adam and to bring them forth into the world in their severall generations clothed with originall sinne and to send Christ into the world to dye for them and for Christ's sake first to bestow the grace of faith and repentance upon them and finally to save them 2. On the part of Reprobation I conceive the end to be the manifestation of God's glory in the way of Justice vindicative And the decree of meanes to be partly common and partly proper the common meanes are to create them and permit them all to fall in Adam and bring them forth into the world clothed with originall sin the speciall meanes are to leave them as he finds them and permit them to finish their daies in sinne and so not
commiserant grace hath not as yet raised you But if there be any not yet called whom God hath predestinated to be elected by his grace or whom his grace hath predestinated to be elected ye shall receive the same grace whereby to will and be Elect. And as for those that doe obey if you are not predestinated to be Elect the strength of obedience shall be withdrawne that you may cease to obey Thus farre the objection Austin's answer followeth thus When these things are said they ought not to to deterre us from confessing God's grace to wit which is not given according unto workes and from confessing predestination according thereunto like as we are not terrified from confessing God's foreknowledge if a man should discourse thereof in this manner before the people whether now ye live well or not well such shall ye be hereafter as God foresees ye will be either good if he foresees ye will be good or evill if he foresees he will be evill for what if upon the hearing hereof some give themselves to sloth and from labour prone to lust goe after their concupisences shall we therefore conceive that to be false which was delivered concerning God's foreknowledge And so he proceeds to justifie the truth of this doctrine which was objected against him by way of Crimination I say to justifie it as touching the substance of it though as touching the manner of proposing it he confesseth that to be unreasonably harsh in some particulars and shewes how that may be proposed in a more decent manner still holding up the same truth Thus Austine was able to answere for himselfe whilest he was living Now let us consider how Prosper answers for him after he was dead And first let us consider the objection it selfe now it is this That they who are not predestinate unto life although they live piously and righteously it shall nothing profit them but they shall be reserved so long untill they perish Now this is painely a part of the objection made by the Massilienses and they were Galli whom Prosper answereth for the objection proposed to Austine was that strength of obedience should be taken from them But in the objection of the Galli whom Prosper answeres it is set dowe in a milder manner thus They shall be reserved untill they perish Now Austine himselfe accomodates his answer hereunto in particular De bono Perseverantiae cap. 22. 1 For shewing the unreasonable harshnessein this manner of proposing it I wonder saith he if any weak man in a Christian people can by any meanes heare with patience that which followes as namely when it is said unto them yee that doe obey if ye be predestinated to be rejected the strength of obedience shall be withdrawne from you that you may cease to obey For thus to speake what seemeth it to be other then to curse or to prophesie evill after a sort Then he proceeds to she whow the same truth may be delivered in a fairer manner still holding up the truth of the doctrine of predestination If saith he a man thinke good to speake something of such as doe not persevere and need be so to doe What failes of the truth of this sentence if it be delivered thus But if some doe obey that are not predestinated unto the kingdome and to glorie they are temporarie ones and shall not persevere in the same obedience unto the end Then he proceeds to shew how the same objection may be framed against God's praescience thus Et si qui obeditis si praesciti estis rejiciendi obedire cessabtis If any of you doe obey if with all ye are foreseen to be rejected ye shall cease to obey whereby ye may observe how Austine in framing the objection leaves out the Phrase of withdrawing the strength of obedience as containing a calumnious imputation and such as Austine had nothing to doe with in the course of his opinion concerning predestination Thus Austine hath plainely answered for himselfe and needs noe other to answer for him and his answer proceeds without all colour of prejudice to his owne doctrine concerning the absolutenesse of predestination By this let the Reajudge of the ingenuitie of this Authour who conceales all this from his Reader bearing him in hand that Austine speakes in Prosper making answere to his objection whereas indeed there is a vast difference between Prosper's answer for Austine and Austin's answer for himselfe But like enough Prosper was willing to condescend to the Galli * and to gratifie them with an answer that in his judgment might be more acceptable and satisfactorie unto them To the consideration whereof I now proceed and therein to consider Prosper not Austin's mind concerning predestination as which he hath sufficiently manifested in answer to the same objection as I have shewed Therefore saith Prosper They are not predestinated because they were foreseen to be such hereafter by their voluntarie praevarication what will follow herence That foresight of sinnes was the cause why they were not predestinated unto life I answere first by denying this consequence for it may as well follow that the Creatours love is the cause why sinnes are forgiven him for the Gospell saith of the woman Luk the 7. Therefore many sinnes are forgiven her because she loved much such illations are not alwaies causall but very often merely rationall Secondly let it be causall and that foresight of sinne is the cause of non predestination unto life and accordingly of predestination unto damnation yet here I have a double answer First it is the most generall opinion that reprobation as it signifies a purpose to damne and accordingly to exclude from heaven presupposeth the prescience of sinne M. Perkins expresly professeth as much and other Divines at the Synod of Dort yet this hinders not the absolutenesse of reprobation which appeares in the purpose of God to deny grace and that absolutely to some like as he bestowes it upon others I meane the grace of faith and regeneration otherwise grace should be given according to workes Now let any passage be produced out of Prosper or any other Orthodox writer among'st the Antients to shew that God in distributing these graces unto some and denying them unto others did not proceed absolutely but according unto workes and according to this doctrine it is well knowne that Austine shaped his doctrine concerning predestination as it hath been shewed at large in the answer to M. Hord in the first section secondly that there may be a cause of predestination and reprobation Aquinas doth not deny but how quoad res volitas as touching things willed or praedestinatione reprobatione praepartas by predestination and reprobation prepared and in this sense Aquinas himselfe confesseth that foresight of sinne is the cause of reprobation the nineth to the Romans see how he explicates himselfe his wordes are these Lect 3. praescientia peccatorum potest esse aliqua ratio reprobationis ex parte poenae quae
be such a God A Morall efficient is twofold being only of a moveing nature to move others to doe somewhat as namely either by perswading or by meriting or deserving He that perswades moves an other to doe some what he that meriteth thereby moves another either to reward him or punish him Now to walke in the light of this distinction and not to please our selves by walking in darknesse though God be the prime principall and invincible cause of man's damnation in the kind of a cause efficient physicall which should not seeme strange to an ordinary Christian who knowes full well that vengeance is God's peculiar worke as the Iudge of all the world and that he delights in the execution thereof yet this hinders not but that man may be the cause of his own damnation in the way of a meritorious cause justly deserving it Omnis poena Deum habet Authorem All punishment hath God for the Authour of it This is a principle acknowledged both by the Arminians and Vasquez the Jesuite but never is punishment inflicted on any by the hands of God save on those who formerly have deserved it Consider we farther as touching the severall kinds of causes formerly mentioned if the question be which is the principall Aristotle answereth that this is not confined to any one kind of them somtimes the materiall cause somtimes the formall cause somtimes the efficient somtimes the finall cause is the demonstrative cause the cause propter quam the cause by vertue where of the effect hath its existence but this peculiar and speciall cause is described thus It is that whereby satisfactory answer is made to the question demanding why such a thing is Now in execution of punishment or condigne vengeance this satisfactory answer is made by representing the meritorious cause never by representing the efficient cause as for example if it be demanded why such a malefactor is executed upon the gallowes no sober man will answer because the Sheriffe cōmanded it to be so or because the Judge would have it so but because he robd upon the high way or committed some criminall fact or other which is capitall by the lawes of our land and to be punished with hanging upon the gallowes In like sort if question be made why devills or wicked men are damned is it our doctrine to referre the cause hereof to the mere pleasure of God Doe not all confesse that God inflicts damnation upon thē merely for their sinnes and transgressions wherein they have continued unto death without repentance Yet we acknowledge that God could have taken them off from their sinnes while they lived if he would by giving them repentance as he hath dealt with us and that merely of his free grace For we willingly confes that our sinnes are our owne but our faith is not our repentance is not When I say our owne I meane in respect that they are of our selves otherwise we acknowledge both faith and repentance to be our owne accipiendo in asmuch as we receive them but they are God's gifts and so they are his dando in asmuch as he gives them as Remigius speaketh Now what is become of this Authours pompous discourse Is it not the like the cracking of thornes in the fire making a great noise but the light of distinction like fire sets an end unto it and makes it appeare in its owne likenesse and proves nothing but a squib For albeit God in his decree makes the damnation of reprobates to be necessary and unavoidable yet seeing he makes it not to fall on any but for their sinnes what colour of dishonour unto God in ordaining that Iudas shall necessarily and unavoidably be damned for betraying the Sonne of God and afterwards most desperatly murthering himselfe If hereupon he could no more avoid his damnation then Astionax could the breaking of his neck when the Grecians tumbled him downe from the tower of Troy will any man that is not bereaved of common sense make strange of this It is true God did appoint both Iudas and all other wicked persons that never break off their sinnes by repentance unto destructiō of his own voluntary disposition For God workes all things according to the counsaile of his will and if it pleased him he could annihilate them upon the fresh foot of any sin or after they have suffered the vengeance of hell fire as many yeares in hell as they lived here in sinne yea and the devills in hell as Origen was of opinion and the Jewes at this day are of the same by Sir Edwin Sandes his relation whether this Author be of the same or not I know not And lastly we willingly confesse that the decree of God was antecedent to the deserts of men for reprobation is as antient as election and election was made before the foundation of the world if we believe Saint Paul rather then any other who either by word or deed doth manifest himselfe to be of a contrary opinion Still damnation is inflicted by God only for sinne and in degree answerable unto their sinnes and only because of their sinnes as a meritorious cause thereof though God makes use of it to his owne ends and the manifestation of his owne glory as Solomon professeth namely that God made all things for himselfe even the wicked against the day of evill And Saint Paul tells that as the Lord suffereth with long patience the vessells of wrath prepared to destruction that he might shew his wrath and make his power known So likewise another reason hereof he specifies to be this That he might declare the riches of his glory upon the vessells of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory For when we shall behold the unspeakable misery brought upon others by reason of their sinnes how rich will God's glory appeare unto us when we consider that had it not been for his free grace delivering us from sinne we had been swallowed up of the same sorrowes And thus Alvarez writeth disput III. The glory of God's mercy in his elect and in like manner the manifestation of divine justice on Reprobates is truely and properly the finall cause why God did permit sinnes both in Reprobates and Angells And he proves it out of this passage of Saint Paul So Aquin 1 p. pag. 23. art 5. This is the reason saith he why God hath chosen some and Reprobated others that representation might be made of Gods goodnesse towards the Elect in the way of mercy pardoning them and on the Reprobates in the way of justice punishing them And Alphonsus Mendoza a Scotist concurres with them in this and we see they make Saint Pauls doctrine their foundation And indeed albeit at the day of judgment there will be found a vast difference between the Elect and Reprobates the one having departed this life in the state of faith repentance the other in infidelitie and impenitency in such sort as God will bestow on his elect
eternall life by way of reward and inflict eternall death on the other by way of punishment yet in conferring the grace of regeneration of faith and repentance upon the one and denying the same graces unto the other the Lord carrieth himselfe not according to mens workes but merely according to the pleasure of his owne will shewing mercy on whom he will and hardning whom he will in which respect he is said to make men in what condition he will as Rom 9. 20. Shall the thing formed say to it that formed it why hast thou made me thus Though indeed he makes but one sort of them after a new fashion leaving the other in the state of naturall corruption wherein he findeth them And likewise is compared by the same Apostle to a Potter who out of the same lump makes one vessell unto honour and an other unto dishonour But to returne I have I trust sufficiently shewed that in all this which he hath delivered when things are rightly understood and duely considered ther 's nothing found alien from the holy nature of God no more then it is repugnant to his holy nature to decree and execute vengeance condigne vengeance even the vengeance of damnation on men for their sinnes in such sort that it shall unavoidably overtake all those that breake not off their sinnes by repentance before their death Nothing more agreeable to Scripture nor to the nature of God revealed unto us in holy Scripture then this and consequently nothing more agreeable to Christian reason But as for naturall reason God forbid we should make that the rule of our faith as concerning the resurrection of the dead and the powers of the world to come the rewards of heaven and the torments of hell where the worme never dieth and the fire never goeth out And may it not seeme very strange that a Christian and a Divine and one magnified by the Arminian party for great abilities should undertake to prove this doctrine to be contrary to Scripture to the nature of God and to sound reason Well let us proceed to observe how well he performes what he undertakes And here he saith 1. That the Scripture makes man the principall nay the only cause in opposition to God of his owne ruine We answer the Scripture makes man the only cause of his owne ruine in the meritorious cause thus man's destruction is of himselfe But this nothing hinders God from being the cause why vengeance destruction and damnation are executed upon man for he is the God to whom vengeance belongeth he delights as well in shewing judgment as in shewing mercy Indeed did we maintaine that God damnes the Reprobate whether man or Angells of his mere pleasure this Argument of his were seasonable We know full well that God of his free grace shewes mercy but judgment only upon provocation and herein he proceeds slowly too for he is slow to wrath and easie to be intreated Yet God's afflicting is not alwaies for sinne neither doth it alwaies proceed in the way of punishment when we suffer for Christ we have cause to rejoyce that he counts us worthy to suffer for his name neither were the afflictions of Iob brought upon him for his sinnes but for the tryall of his faith and to make him an example of patience to all succeeding generations and as for that of Ezech I will not the death of the wicked It is the usuall course of men of this Authours spirit thus to render the wordes whereas our last English translation renders them thus I have noe pleasure in the death of the wicked Now as a man may will that wherein he takes noe pleasure as a sick-man takes a bitter potion sometimes for the recovery of his health so God may will that wherein he takes noe delight And whether it be meant of first or second death it cannot be denied but God wills it for he workes all things according to the councell of his owne will Then againe if we consider the infliction of death as an execution of judgment God not only willeth this but delights therein also as it is expressed That of Prosper is nothing to the present purpose we treating here of the cause of damnation not of sinning we say God is the God to whom vengeance belongeth not to whom sinne belongeth Besides sinne as sinne hath noe efficient cause at all but defficient as Austine hath delivered many hundered yeares agoe It is true it is in Gods power to preserve any man from any sinne it is in his power to take any man off from any sinfull course by repentance if he will but he is bound to none he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth and in all this he is not culpable In the next place he tels us It is contrary to God's nature but what To damne men for their sinnes neverbroken offby repentance for all our divines maintaine that God is Authour of damnation to none but such and to such God is not mercyfull nor gratious nor suffers them any longer nor shewes any goodnesse towards them while they lived he did yea much long suffering and patience inviting them thereby to repentance yea and by his word also inviting many but after they dye in sinne therewithall an end is sett to the dispensation of Gods gracious proceedings with them Much lesse doe we deny him to be good and mercifull and of great kindnesse to all that call upon him For Gods mercy doth not exercise it selfe by necessity of nature but by freedome of will yet he heareth the cry of Ravens and not a Sparrow falleth to the ground without the providence of our heavenly father and the very Lyons roaring after thir prey doe seeke their meat at the hands of God These mercyes are temporall but as for spirituall mercyes for the working and cherishing of Sanctification these are not extended unto all but to some only even to whom he will And accordingly the elect of God are called vessels of mercy Yet to the execution of damnation on any he proceeds not till after death and stayes no longer so slow to wrath he is towards the worst and no more slow to the best of them Who is a God like unto thee saith Micah that taketh away iniquity here this Authour out of wisdome maketh a stoppe leaving out that which followeth and passing by the transgressions of the remnant of his heretage That restriction belike he did not so well brooke but having leapt over that he is content to take in that which followeth he retaineth not his wrath for ever because mercy pleaseth him to witt towards the remnant of his heritage of his people But I hope nought of this can hinder God from being the Authour of damnation to all that dye in sinne without repentance without any prejudice to his holinesse though he retaineth wrath for ever against them We come to his reason which he calls soūd saying that it
foresee their wicked courses and what will become of them for it namely to be condemned to everlasting fire with the Divell and his Angells what shall we therefore conclude that God did not foresee the wicked waies and ungodly courses of all Reprobates that they would continue in them and die in their sinnes without all faith in Christ and true repentance towards God And if he did foresee what would be the ends of them in case he did create them and bring them forth into the world yet seeing he would neverthelesse create them and bring them forth into the world one after another in their severall times and ages shall we brand the holy name of God and reproach him for unnaturallnesse and barbarous crueltie Rather I will say what meanes this Auhour so unconscionably to corrupt the state of the question by mentioning only the shortnesse of their life and utterly concealing the wickednesse of their life the only meritorious cause of their torments which they suffer and accordingly to shape the ends intended by God to be only the demonstration of his power and Soveraingtie over them without all mention of his justice whereas we say that in the inflicting of damnation the cheife glory which God manifests is only the glory of his justice proceeding herein according to a law which himselfe hath made as most fit it is the Creatour should give lawes to his creature and the law is this whosoever believeth and repenteth shall be saved whosoever dyeth in sinne without repentance shall be damned Not one of our Divines that I know maintaines that inflicting damnation the Lord proceedes merely according to the good pleasure of his will in the communicating of faith and repentance we willingly confesse the Lord proceedes merely according to the good pleasure of his will and it is expresse Pelagianisme to affirme that grace is given according unto workes And herein this Authour is very well content to walke in the darke and conceale his most corrupt opinion most opposite to the grace of God But that damnation should be inflicted without respect to sinne as the meritorious cause thereof what one of our Divines can he produce that affirmeth Yet thus he is pleased to disguise our opinion when he findes the poverty of his strength to wage faire warre and so expose it to the hatred of me as if God ordained to damne men not for their sinnes but of his owne mere pleasure Thus of old the enemies of the Gospell dealt with Christians for first they would cloath them with beare skinnes and then set doggs upon them All that he hath to say to excuse his shamelesse crimination though so much he doth not expresse here is only this that our Divines maintaine the decree of damnation to preceed the foresight of sinne Yet this is untrue of the most part of them who premit both the foresight of sinne originall before reprobation from grace and of sinne actuall before the decree of damnation I willingly confesse for my part that I concurre with neither and if I should I should withall make the decree of permitting of sinne to preceed the decree of damnation for which I see no reason but yet I doe not make the decree of permitting sinne to follow the decree of damnation I hold these decrees to besimultaneous thus that God at once decrees both to create men and suffer them all to fall in Adam and to bring them forth in their severall generations into the world and to bestowe the grace of faith and repentance upon the one and so to save them and to deny the same grace unto others finally permitting them in their sinfull courses and so to damne them for sinne and all to manifest the glory of his mercy to the one and the glory of his justice on the other yea and his soveraingty too but wherein not in rewarding the one with Salvation and inflicting damnation on the other but only in giving grace to the one and not to the other And all the difference between our Divines is merely in apice Logico a point of Logick To wit as touching the right ordering of decrees concerning ends and meanes tending to the ends all concurring in this that God hath mercy on whom he will in bestowing faith and repentance upon them and whom he will he hardeneth in denying the same graces unto others Now when this Authour shall fairly prove that according to our opinion God destroyeth the righteous with the wicked then and not till then shall he prove that our faith differeth from the faith of Abraham What Divine of ours was ever knowne to affirme that God damneth any one that dyeth in repentance Yet it cannot be denied but that temporall judgments befall the righteous as well as the wicked When the Lord swept away 70 thousand with a three dayes pestilence in the land of Israel was it not possible thinks this Authour that any of God's deare children should perish by that pestilence To be caried away into captivity by an heathenish nation I should thinke is a greater calamity then to dye of the pestilence yet those who were carried away into Babylon with King Iechoniah the Lord represents by the basket of good figgs and those the Lord professeth that he had sent them away into Babylon for their good Were all damned will this Authour say that perished in the flood Saint Peter seemes to be of an other opinion where he saith To this purpose was the Gospell preached also to the end that they might be condemned also to men in the flesh but might live according to God in the spirit Truly I doe not say so much of them that perished in the conspiracy of Corah when the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the conspirators nor them only but their wives and children also especially considering that inter pontem fontem mercy may be sought and mercy may be found Sect. 2. Containing the first Objection with the answer thereunto devised and my reply thereupon and an answer thereunto But God say some is soveraigne Lord of all creatures they are truly and properly his owne Cannot he therefore dispose of them as he pleaseth and doe with his own what he will The question is not what an almighty soveraigne power can doe to poore vassalls but what a power that is just and good may doe By the power of a Lord his absolute and naked power he can cast away the whole masse of mankind for it is not repugnant to Omnipotencie or soveraingty but by the power of a Judge to wit that actuall power of his which is alwaies cloathed with goodnesse and justice he cannot For it is not compatible with these properties in God to appoint men to hell of his mere will and pleasure no fault at all of theirs preexisting in his eternall mind It is not compatible with justice which is a constant will of rendring to every one his due and that is
after his fall Behold I was shapen in wickednesse sayth David and in sin hath my Mother conceived me And except a man be borne againe he cannot see the kingdome of God This though a mystery yet is nothing strange to us whom God in mercy hath reserved unto these times or grace But it was very strange to Nicodemus a Ruler in Israel This hath been the condition of man ever since the fall of Adam and arising merely from the withdrawing of God's spirit from him and that most justly upon their first sin in tasting of the forbidden fruit So that even this condition proceeded originally as from the sin of our first parents in the way of a meritorious cause so from the just judgment of God taking his holy Spirit from him which God was not bound to doe as appeares by this that by vertue of the Covenant of grace which he hath made with us in Christ he doth not take his spirit from us though too often we sin againsthim No not from David notwithstanding those foule sinnes committed by him at appeares by his prayer unto God that he would restore him to the joy of his salvation signifying therereby that he had lost that And that God would not take his holy Spirit from him manifesting hereby that still he retained that And considering that God proceeded with Adam herein in the way of judgment Austine acknowledgeth Concupiscence to be a punishment of sinne as well as sin and a cause of other sinnes in his fifth book against Iulian the Pelagian cap. 3 As for that of Siracides say not thou God hath caused me to erre As it is true that no man must cast the blame of sinning upon God think himselfe blamelesse So it is as true that in consideratioÌ„ of our own inability to staÌ„d of our selves prones to fall eveÌ„ to fall away like water spilt upoÌ„ the ground that cannot be recovered containe it selfe it cannot but it may easily becontained the Church doth sometimes expostulate with God such is the liberty and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he vouchsafeth unto his Children in an holy manner saying Wherefore hast thou caused us to erre from thy waies and hardened our hearts against thy feare Not that this he doth infundendo malitiam by infusing malice into them but non infundendo gratiam by not infusing such grace into them as to preserve them from sin For as Martha said unto Iesus Lord if thou had'st been here our brother Lazarus had not dyed So may we say if the streÌ„gth of thy grace had been operative in us we had not sined in this or that particular It is true God hath not need of the sinfull ma much lesse of his salvation or damnation But if he will of mere pleasure manifest his own glory either in the way of mercy pardoning or of justice punishing he must permit sin to enter into the world forbeare that providence whereby as he did keep the Elect Angells so he might have kept man also from sinning As for the reasons of pâ—oâ—s Antiquity to prove that God cannot be the Authour of sin they are very needelesse in this controversy between us our adversaries the question between us not being thereabouts but rather about the manner of God's providence Our Adversaries so denying him to be the Author of evill as withall they deny him to be the Authour of any good in the actions of men We on the contrary take care so to maintaine that God is not the Author of sinne that withall we maintaine that he is the Author of all good both morall and naturall and much more supernaturall Yet as I have considered the seven reasons of Bellarmine to this purpose collected out of the Antients so I am content to take into consideration the three reasons produced by this Author 1. As touching the first to manifest how superficiarily and absurdly he carieth himselfe therein observe the wildnesse of his reasoning besides all rules of sobriety If God sayth he be the Author of sinne then he is worse then the Devill because the Devill doth only tempt and perswade to sinne and his action may be resisted Let all the Universities of the world be judge between us of the shamefull irregularity of this discourse His syllogisme is hypotheticall for the first proposition is hypotheticall and conditionall Now all such syllogismes by the rule of all Schooles must proceed either from the negation of the consequent to the negation of the antecedent or from the affirmation of the antecedent to the affirmation of the consequent but no such processe is made here And indeed it should be framed thus to inferre the proposition undertaken to be proved If God be the Authour of sin then he is worse then the Divell but God is not worse then the Divell therefore he is not the Authour of sin But this Authour disputes after no such manner But his affection carrying him all along to cast some foule aspersion on our Doctrine in some particular or other and being withall in heat of passion he doth most shamefully involve and entangle himselfe And indeed quite besides his present purpose he aimes only at this to prove that our doctrine concerning God's powerfull and effectuall decree doth more make God the Authour of sin then the Devill which is utterly aliene from that he proposed in this place Yet I am willing to doe him this favour to help a lame Dogge over the stile and to expedite him in this Argument whereof he cannot so dext'rously deliver himselfe though quite besides the purpose Thus therefore the argument should proceed according to his irregular intention If God doth will and procure sins by a powerfull and effectuall decree which cannot be resisted then is God worse then the Devill But by the doctrine of our Divines God doth will and procure sins by a powerfull and effectuall decree which cannot be resisted therefore by the doctrine of our Divines God is worse then the Devill Thus have I endeavoured to bring this argument to some shape which had no tolerable proportion before Now let me shew the corrupt nature of it that the Reader may discerne what spirit he breathes that is the Authour of it in a mixture both of ignorance and abominable profanenes And first I begin with the major proposition And here first let the Reader judge whether it be not this Authours opinion that God doth will and procure sin by some decree though not by a powerfull and effectuall decree that cannot be resisted For otherwise did he acknowledge every will of God as it signifies his decree to be powerfull and effctuall and irresistable what need he cumber his Reader with such unnecessary Epithites cast in like lumber only to trouble the course of disputation Now if he grants that God doth will and decree sin by a powerfull and effectuall decree 1. He must contradict himselfe For formerly he cited Es 66. 4 to prove that men in wicked courses
Agents by whom they are acted to doe otherwise Yet there is another difference according to the morall condition of these actions For if they are good and so farre as they are goood they come to passe by Gods working of them but if they are evill and so farre as they are evill they come to passe onely by Gods permitting according to that of Austin Non aliquid sit nisi omnipotēs fieri velit vel sinendo ut fiat vel ipse faciendo Not any thing comes to passe but God willing it either by suffering it to wit in case it be evill or himselfe working it to wit in case it be good And according to that eleventh Article of Religion agreed upon by the Arch-Bishop and Bishops and the rest of the Clergy in Ireland which is this God from all eternity did by his unchangeable counsell ordaine whatsoever should come to passe in time yet so as thereby no violence is offered to the wills of the reasonable creatures and neither the liberty nor the contingency of the second causes is taken away but established rather Farther consider it is confessed by all that God concurres in producing the act of sinne as an efficient cause thereof not morall but naturall And Aquinas himselfe though he denyes that Voluntas Dei est malorum Because indeed as Hugo de Sancto Victore observes by the will of God is commonly understood in this case Voluntas approbans his will approving it and loving it And so it is justly denyed that God doth will evill things speaking of the evill of sinne Yet Aquinas professeth and disputes and proves that Actus peccati est a Deo the Act of sinne is from God Like as the Act of walking is from the soule though the lamenes in walking ariseth from some disease in the legge Now the Devill concurres not in this manner to any act of sin neither is the efficient cause thereof in the Kinde of a Naturall efficient but onely Morall by tempting and perswading What therefore shall we conclude as this Authour doth without feare or witt or honesty that by the confession of all men God is hereby made worse then the Devill To what abominable courses do the wilde witts and profane hearts of these men expose them The greatest works of Satan in moving men to sin are comprehended under blinding and hardening of them Now these operations are also attributed to God And like enough he doth usually performe them not by the ministry of his holy Angells but by the Ministry of Satan and his Angells of Darkenesse as we read 1. Kings 22. v. 21. 22. 23. Ioh 13. 27. Acts 5. 3. What then shall the Devill so farre possesse our hearts as to break forth into such intolerable blasphemyes as to conclude hereupon that God is bad or worse then the Devill The providence of God I willingly confesse is wonderfull and mysterious in this like unto the Nature of God to be adored rather then pryed into So this providence to be dreaded rather then for satisfaction to every wanton and wild witt to be searched into Yet all confesse that the Lord could hinder all this if it pleased him and rebuke Satan and restraine the power and stop the course of sin and prevent occasions leading thereunto but he will not and why But because he knowes it becomes his allmighty power and wisdome infinite rather exmalis bene facere quà m malum esse non sinere To worke good out of evill then not at all to suffer evill Lastly what meanes this Authour to carry himselfe so as to betray so strange ignorance in mitigating Satans operation in tempting unto sin as if this were not sufficient to make him the Authour of sin Especially considering the reason that moves him hereunto which is meerely the delight that he takes in dishonouring God and being a desperate spirit himselfe to make as many as he can partakers of the same desperate condition For cupiunt perditi perdere sayth Cyprian cum sint ipsi paenales quaerunt sibi ad poenam comites being damned themselves they desire to damne as many as they can And being bound in chaines and kept to the judgement of the great day they desire to have as many companions as they can in drinking of that cup of trembling and sucking the very dreggs of that cup of trembling and wringing them out For as the Historian observes Maligna est calamitas cum suo supplicio crucietur acquiescit alieno Calamity makes a man of a spightfull nature and when himselfe is tormented he takes content in this that others suffer with him And as the Oratour observes Nullum adversarium magis metuas quà m qui non potest vivere potest occidere No adversary more to be feared then he who cannot live himselfe yet can kill another This makes a coward resolute when he must needs dye he will fight like a mad man and kill all he can I say what meanes this Authour to carry the matter hand over head as if it were without question That he is not the Authour of sinne who onely is a Morall cause thereof but rather he that is the naturall efficient whereas great Divines carry it to the contrary As namely Dominicus Soto in his first booke of nature and grace chap 18. Although sayth he there are many that thinke it hard to explicate how in the hatred of God which hath an inward and indivisible malignity God can be the cause of the entity but not of the fault Yet this is not so hard to be understood Then he proceeds to shew how this may be First laying for his ground what it is to be the cause of sinne thus In morall actions he is altogether and is judged to be the cause who by a law or help or counsell or favour or perswasion moves any one either to good or evill Observe I pray the doctrine of this School-Divine directly contrary to that which this Authour supposeth without all proofe For in the judgement of Dominicus Soto he onely is to be accounted the cause of another mans sinne who is the morall cause thereof as by tempting counselling perswading thereunto And upon this ground he proceeds to free God from being the Authour of it after this manner But as for God he by all these wayes moves his creatures to that which is good and honest and none at all to evill Neither is the doctrine of Dominicus Soto alone but the common doctrine of the Divines of Salamancha as Molina confesseth in his disputation 23. And albeit Molina the Jesuite were of another opinion Yet Vasquius the Jesuite professeth that he was ever of the same minde with Dominicus Soto and the Divines of Salamancha in this In his 129 disputation upon the first part of his Summes As for Prosper he hath no such argument But first observe the Objection whereunto he answereth was made against the Doctrine of Austin as the Authour acknowledgeth Whence it followeth that looke
how this Authour chargeth our doctrine after the same manner was the doctrine of Austin charged above 1200 yeares agoe let the indifferent hereby take notice of the congruity of our doctrine with the doctrine of Austin in this particular and the congruity of this Authours spirit in charging us with the spirit of the Semipelagians in charging Austin after the same manner Secondly consider the objection there made t' is this Quod quando incestant Patres filias matres filios vel quando Servi Dominos occidunt ideo fiat quia ita Deus predestinavit ut fieret When father commit incest with their Daughters and mothers with their sonnes Or when servants kill their Lords therefore this comes to passe because God hath so predestinated that it should come to passe Consider in this objection the fault of these abominable courses is not layd upon those that commit them but onely upon God as if Gods predestination did worke in such a manner as to compell men or women to commit such and such abominations And so Prosper conceives the Argument to proceed as if this were their intention And accordingly makes answer Si Diabolo objiceretur quòd talium facinorum ipse Author ipse esset incentor were it objected to the Devill that he were the Authour of such sinnes and did inflame men to the committing of them which indeed is the Devills course and not Gods yet I thinke sayth he that the Devill might in some sort disburthen himselfe of this crimination talium scelerum patratores de ipsorum voluntate vinceret and make it appeare that their owne wills were the committers of such sinnes Quia etsi delectatus est furore peccantium probaret tamen se non intulisse vim criminum Because though he tooke pleasure in the fury of sinners yet might he justifie that he forced no man to sinne After the same manner proceeded the 11. objection of the Galles Quod per potentiam Deus homines ad peccata compellit God by his power compells men to sin And as touching the notion of predestination it is true the Antients used that onely in reference to those thinges which were wrought by God Nihil ergo talium to wit of wicked actions negotiorum Deus predestinavit ut fieret Predestination being onely of such things which come to passe by Gods working of them Yet the same Austin professeth that such things which come to passe by Gods permission of which kind are all manner of sinnes even those came to passe God willing thē though not by Gods predestinating of them And as touching Senacherib who was slaine by his owne sonnes the Lord professeth saying I will cause him to fall by the sword in his owne land And upon Amaziah the Priest of Bethel the judgment was pronounced from the Lord Thy wife shall be an harlot And whatsoever comes to passe it is Gods will it should come to passe sayth Austin how much more that which comes to passe in the way of judgment 2 I come to his second reason to examine whether he carryeth himselfe any thing more handsomly in that If God be the Authour of sinne he cannot be the punisher of sin This argument is better shaped then the former but forthwith he tells us that he cannot be in justice the punisher of that whereof himselfe is the Authour Wherein are two particulars neither of which were expressed in his argument the one is the application of it to the same sinne whereof he was the Authour which was not expressed in the Argument And without this application the Argument is of no force For earthly Magistrates are sinners yet the punishers of sinne in others yea of the same kind of sinne As though a Magistrate be a profaner of the name of God yet he may execute the law on them who doe profane the name of God and that justly Then what is it that makes a man the Author of sinne It is well knowne that though it be unlawfull for a man to permit sinne if it be in his power to hinder it yet unlesse God permit sinne it cannot be committed by any Nos certe saith Austin sieos in quos nobis potestas est ante oculos nostros perpetrare Scelera permittamus rei cum ipsis erimus Quam vero innumerabilia ille permitit fieri ante oculos suos quae utique si voluisset nullâ ratione permitteret Certainely if we suffer those over whom we have power to commit sinne we shall be guilty together with them But how innumerable are the sinnes which he suffers to be committed before his eyes which if he would he could hinder so that by no meanes they should cōe to passe Or is he the Authour of sinne who is the efficient cause of the act of sinne It is Aquinas his doctrine that the act of sinne is from God and that in the kind of an efficient cause and it is commonly received to be the first cause in the kind of efficients subordinate to none and all other subordinate to him Nay more then this Scotus professeth and after him the Dominicans that God determineth the will to every act thereof though sinfull as touching the substance thereof but how Surely no otherwise then to come to passe agreeably to their nature necessary acts necessarily free acts freely So Barwardine maintaines that God necessitates the will of the creatue but how To performe acts thereof freely Suppose they did maintaine that God in his omnipotency did impose a necessity upon our wills as Suarez imputes to our Divines that they so teach Yet in this case Suarez the Jesuite will justifie them that therein they deliver nothing that either doth include contradiction or that doth exceed God's omnipotency Neither did I ever meet any colour of reason why God might not as wholy determine the will to any free act thereof as concurre with the will to the producing of the same act And that in the concurrence of God and man to the same act the first cause should be in subordination to the second or the second cause not in subordination to the first is against all reason and obnoxious to manifold contradiction as I have shewed in my Vindiciae Whereas for God to move a creature to every act of his congruously to his nature and so to determine him is most agreeable to reason and nothing at all obnoxious to contradiction And yet notwithstanding I see noe sufficient reason to conclude these determinations as touching things naturall such as is the substance of every naturall act there being a power to performe that in a naturall Agent Of supernaturall acts the case is different It seemes to me enough that God will have this or that evill come to passe by his permission For when God created the world out of nothing what transient action of God can be imagined when there was no matter at all for any such transient action to worke upon God's will was sufficient
first trangression so that if divine judgment be the will of God it is apparent Prosper is so farre from denying that slavery to have come upon all men by the just will of God as that he expresly acknowledgeth it It is true as Fulgentius saith that God is not the Authour of sinne but the revenger of it And it is as true that it is as just with God to punish sinne with sinne as Scripture justifies as St. Austine observes and improveth at large divers Scriptures to this purpose in his fifth Book against Iulian the Pelagian and third chap. Tertullian in saying he is not to be accounted the Authour of sin who is the forbidder yea the condemner of it falls directly upon the same ground that Dominicus Soto with the Divines of Salamancha and Vasquez the Jesuites in explicating what that is which makes me to be the Authour of a morall action as namely by commanding by counselling it and perswading it and indeed condemnation is but consequent to a law forbidding this or that Now it is apparent that God in this respect ought to be accounted the Authour of every good action but of none that is evill For he commands only that wich is good and counselleth and perswadeth thereunto but forbiddeth and disswadeth every thing that is evill Of this no notice at all is taken by this Authour neither taketh he any care to shew what that is that maketh any agent justly to be accounted the Authour of sinne 3 His third reason is all one with the former as drawne from God's justice and holinesse and his being Judge of the world For it is the property of the Judge to condemne transgressours whereupon his former Argument insisted and that allso was drawne from God's justice But I remember well what the Poet coupleth together when he saith Accessit fervor capiti numerusque lucernis Honesty retaines the Creature from being the Authour of sinne not his nature he being peccabilis by nature but so is not God It is impossible absolutely for him to be found defective any way in a culpable manner He may withhold Grace from any man I speak of Grace preservative from sinne Neither is he unjust herein for he is bound to none At length he comes to prove the crimination laid upon his adversaries as followeth Sect 2. But this opinion doth so For albeit the writers that have defended it Piscator and a few more of the blunter sort excepted have never said directly and in terminis that God is the cause of sinne yet have they delilivered these things from which it must needs follow by necessary consequence that he is so For they say 1. That as the decree of Reprobation is absolute so it is inevitable Those poore soules which lye under it must necessarily be damned It is saith Marlorate a firme and stable truth that the man whom God in his eternall counsell hath rejected though he doe all the works of the Saints cannot possibly be saved 2. That without sinne this decree of Reprobation cannot be justly executed God saith Piscator did create men for this very purpose that they might indeed fall for otherwise he could not have attained those his principall ends He meanes the manifestation of his justice in the condemnation of Reprobates and of his mercy in the salvation of the Elect. Maccovius allso saith the same If sinne had not been the manifestation of justice and mercy which is as much as to say as the damnation of Reprobates had never been 3. That God decreed that Reprobates must unavoidably sinne and sinne unto death that his eternall ordinance might be executed and they damned We grant saith Zanchy that Reprobates are held so fast under God's almighty decree that they cannot but sinne and perish and a little after he saith We doubt not therefore to confesse that there lieth upon Reprobates by the power of their unchangable reprobation a necessity of sinning yea of sinning to death without repentance and consequently of perishing everlastingly Calvin also saith that Reprobates obey not the word of God partly through the wickednesse of their own hearts and partly because they are raised up by the unsearchable judgment of God to illustrate his glory by their damnation I will end this with that speech of Piscator Reprobates are precisely appointed to this evill to be punished everlastingly and to sinne And therefore to sinne that they might be justly punished 4. That as he hath immutably decreed that Reprobates shall live and dye in sinne So he procures their sinnes in due time by his Almighty hand partly by withdrawing from them grace necessary for the avoiding of sinne and partly by moving and inclining them by his irresistable and secret working on their hearts to sinfull actions Calvin saith that men and Devills and Reprobate-men are not only held fast in God's fetters so as they cannot doe what they would but are also urged and forced by God's bridle ad obsequia praestanda to doe as he would have thē in the next chapter these are the words that men have nothing in agitation that they bring nothing to action but what God by his secret direction hath ordered is apparent by many cleare testimonies In that Section following he saith And surely unlesse God did worke inwardly in the minds of men it would not be rightly said that he takes away wisdome from the wise In these two chapters that which he mainly driveth at is to shew that God doth not only behave himselfe privatively in procuring the sinnes of men but doth allso put forth powerfull and positive acts in the bringing of thē to passe And in the second book and fourth chapter after he had said that God may be said to harden men by forsaking them he putteth in another way by which God hardneth them that he saith commeth a great deale nearer to the propriety of Scripture phrases namely by stirring up their wills God doth not only hardē men by levaing them unto themselves but by appointing their counsells ordering their deliberations stirring up their wills confirming their purposes by the Minister of his anger Satan And this he proveth by the worke of God on Sihon King of the Amorites and then insinuateth the end too why God thus hardens men in their wicked courses which is that he might destroy them Quia perditum Deus volebat obstinatio cordis divina fuit ad ruinam preparatio Because God intends his ruine he prepared him for sin by his induration The summe of all these propositions is this God who from all eternity appointed many miserable men to endlesse and unavoidable torments decreed for the bringing about of their intended ruine that they should without remedy live and dye in a state of sinne and what he thus decreed from everlasting he doth powerfully effect in time so governing over-ruling working upon the wills of those Reprobates that they have no liberty
willed by him but only on some things Divina volunt as non omnibus sed quibusdam necessitatem imponit And in the body of that question thus he writes The distinction of things necessary and contingent proceeds from the distinction of God's will For when a cause is effectuall and powerfull to worke the effect followeth the cause not only so farre as to be brought to passe but also as touching the manner of its coming to passe Therefore seing the will of God is most effectuall it not only followeth that those things come to passe which God will have come to passe but that they come to passe after the same manner also after which he will have them come to passe Now God will have some things come to passe necessarily and some things contingently that there may be an order in things for the perfection of the world And therefore for the producing of some effects he hath fitted causes necessary which cannot faile by which effects are brought forth necessarily And for the producing of other effects he hath fitted causes contingent such as may faile in working from which effects are brought to passe contingently So that upon suspicion that God doth will a thing that thing shall certainly and infallibly come to passe but how Not allwaies necessarily or contingently And that certaine and infallible eveniency of things is called also necessity in the Schooles but not necessity simply but only upon suspicion which may well consist with absolute contingency But to make the point yet more cleare Let us distinctly consider the things decreed For they that have an evill cause delight in confusion and feare nothing more then the light of distinction Now the things decreed by Reprobation are either deniall of Grace which is joyned with the permission of sinne Or damnation for sinne according to that on Aquinas Reprobation includes the will of permitting sinne inflicting damnation for sinne Now both the permission of sinne and damnation of God's part are his free acts and therefore come to passe freely But upon supposition that God will deny a man Grace it is impossible that such a man should have grace Secondly secluding grace there is noe actuall transgression for which a man is damned but may be avoided man having power for that naturally though naturally he have noe power to performe every good act The reason is because amongst good acts some are supernaturall as the acts of the three Theologicall vertues Faith Hope and Charity But noe sinfull act is supernaturall all such are naturall Now it is confest on all hands that notwithstanding man's corruption by reason of originall sinne yet he hath still power and free will to performe any naturall act and accordingly he hath free power to abstaine from it So that Iudas had free will to abstaine from betraying his Master After he had betrayed him he had free power to abstaine from destroying himselfe so that as these sinnes of his for which he was damned were avoidable by him in like manner his damnation for these sinnes was avoidable And allbeit God had determined that Iudas by Divine permission should betray his Master and destroy himselfe according to to that of Austin Iudas electus est ad prodendum sanguinem Domini Iudas was ordained to betray his master And that of the Apostles jointly Of a truth against thy holy Son Iesus both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and people of Israell were gathered to doe what thy hand and thy counsell had before determined to be done Acts 4. 28. Yet herehence it followes only that it was necessary to wit upon this supposition namely of the Divine ordinance that these things should come to passe namely both Iudas his betraying of Christ and Herods mocking of him and Pilates condemning him and the peoples crying out away with him together with their preferring of Barrabas a murtherer before him and the Souldiers crucifying him But how came it to passe Not necessarily but contingently that is in this Authours phrase evitably and avoidably inas much as it was joyned with an absolute possibility to come to passe otherwise Nor with a possibility only but with a free power in the agents to have forborne all these contumelious carriages of theirs towards the son of God For both Iudas had free will to abstaine from betraying him and Herod with his Herodians could have abstained from their contumelious handling of him and Pilate from condemning him and the Preists and people from conspiring against him and the Souldiers from crucifying him only they had no power to abstaine from all or any of these vile actions in an holy manner as no man else hath power to abstaine from any evill in a gracious manner without grace Yea without the Grace of regeneration which alone plants in us both faith in God and a love of God to the very contempt of our selves and no performance of any good or abstinence from any evill is acceptable with God unto eternall life unlesse it proceed from this faith and this love That which is here produced out of Marlorate is a strange speech and such as I never read or heard from any before and such as whereof I can give no tolerable construction And is it fit that every extravagant passage that is found in any Writer of ours should be brought forth to charge our doctrine with It were a fitter speech for a Papist who maintaining the absolutenesse of Reprobation doth withall maintaine an apostacy from grace which we do not If Marlorate had any such opiniō he sings therein to himself to his own Muses What Divine of ours maintains that God hath decreed to damne any man otherwaies then by way of punishment for sin continued in unto death without repentance Had he spoken of Good works morall only it is true any hypocrite is capable of them and none taste deeper of Damnation then hypocrites But as for the worke of true faith true repentance it is the generall profession of our Divines that as faith and the spirit of repentance once given never faile so they shall infallibly bring a man unto everlasting life and free him from condemnation But any thing serves this Authors turn to vent his stomack And I am perswaded there is not one more of all our Divines that he can shew to concurre with Marlorat in this And if there were is it fit their improvident inconsiderate expressions should be cast in their teeth that avouch them not but rather conceive them to be void of all sobriety Brentius apud Marloratum in illud Ioh. 15. 2. Omnem palmitem in me non ferentem fructum tollet c. Caeterum haec sententia occurrit curiositati carnis quae solet argutè magis quà m reverenter de praedestinatione disserere pro suo ingenio colligere nullum à Domino ad vitam aeternam electum posse damnari etiamsi pessimè vivat Nullum item à Domino
him 3. It is untrue that by our Doctrine Reprobates doe unavoidably sinne I have already demonstrated the contrary For as I said Malum semper habitat in alieno fundo every actuall sinne is a naturall act a worke of grace may be supernaturall as touching the substance of the act so is not the worke of sinne but allwaies naturall Now no Christian that I know affirmes that a man in the state of sin is bereaved of free will in things naturall Nay we generally confesse he hath free will in things morall only as touching things spirituall he hath no freedome left therein therefore as I said before Iudas might have naturally forborne to betray his Master naturally forborne to destroy himselfe If some object the common opiniō of Divines is that in a state of nature there is noe libertie for sinne I answer first out of Aquinas that this is to be understood of sinne in generall not of any in particular Licet aliquis non possit gratiam adipisci qui reprobatur à Deo tamen quod in hoc peccatum vel illud labatur ex ejus libero arbitrio contingit Though a man that is reprobated of God cannot obtaine Grace for how should he obtaine it if God will not give it will they say that Grace is given according unto workes yet that he falls into this or that sinne this is a contingent thing and proceeds from his own free will So say I every sinfull act committed by man in the state of naturall corruption is committed freely in such sort that he might have abstained from it but I doe not say that he could abstain from it in a gracious manner But whether he doth that which is good he doth it not in a gracious manner so that still he sinneth more or lesse and all by reason that as yet he hath neither faith in God nor love of God which are the fountaines of all gracious actions both in doing that which is good and in abstaining from that which is evill As for Zanchi's saying That God holds Reprobates so fast that they cannot but sinne This act of God is no other then his denying them grace to breake of their sinnes by repentance and to turne unto God Now the Apostle professeth that as God hath mercy on whom he will so he hardeneth others even whom he will in denying this grace unto them And marke what objection he shapes hereupon thou wilt say then why doth he yet complaine to wit of men's disobedience for of nothing else doth the Lord complaine For who hath resisted his will Observe the chaines wherewith God holds them fast irresistably to wit the chaines of obduration Let the Authour therefore charge St. Paul as well as Zanchy for making God the Authour of sinne and indeed he might have abounded in passages out of holy Scripture alleadged to the same end whereunto he alleadgeth these out of our Divines yea and Papists too But Piscator Zanchy and Calvine these are his proper markes to shoote at ever since he learnt in his age to correct the errours of his youth in taking frivolous exceptions against Bellarmine As for a necessity of sinning brought upon all by the sinne of Adam Arminius acknowledgeth it and this Arminius is acknowledged by Corvinus in his answer to Lilenus Only God takes it away from his Elect at the time of their calling and regenerating and leaves it upon the rest and who can say black to the eye for this Will we not give him libertie to have mercy on whom he will and harden whom he will Then let us fly in the face of Paul as well as Calvine Zanchy for so plainly teaching this The hardnesse of men's hearts is the immediate cause why they obey not God's word But there is another cause also that our Saviour takes notice of and that is this That God doth not regenerate them or hath not elected them Of this our Divines may well take notice because Moses before hath done the like The Israelites profited neither by hearing of God's word nor by the seeing of his mighty workes I say by none of these did they profit unto repentance and what was the reason hereof Surely the hardnesse of their hearts as Moses signifies Thou art a stiffe-necked people Yet he takes notice of another cause and that is this Yet the Lord hath not given our hearts to perceive nor eyes to see nor eares to heare unto this day So our Saviour in the Gospell He that is of God heareth God's words ye therefore heare them not because ye are not of God Now to be raised up in Calvin's Phrase to illustrate God's glory in their damnation is no other then to be brought forth into the world and not to be borne of God that is to have the grace of regeneration denied them and consequently to be suffered to goe on in their sinnes and lastly to be damned for their sinne to the manifestation of the glory of God's justice Solomon saith as much The Lord made all things for himselfe that is for the manifestation of his glory even the wicked against the day of evill And St. Paul Rom 9 by shewing mercy towards some signifies how God formes some after one manner by hardening others he formes them after another manner comparing the 18. v. with the 20. And in the 21. He justifies God in this and that in reference to different ends which are the manifestation of his glory different waies saying Hath not God power over the clay of the same lumpe to make one vessell unto honour and another unto dishonour And verse 22. What if God to shew his wrath and to make his power known suffered with long patience the vessells of his wrath prepared to destruction v. 23. And that he might declare the riches of his glory upon the vessells of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory What one of our Divines expresseth himselfe in this argument more fully or more liably to carnall exceptions following the judgment of flesh and bood then St. Paul doth in this Here by the way as touching Piscator I must fetch after mine answer in his behalfe to that which in the entrance to this Section was delivered of him and overseen by me For this Authour confessing that our writers have never said directly in terminis that God is the cause of sinne which introduction of his is the very same which Bellarmine useth opposing our Divines on this very argument lib. 2. Deamissione gratiae statu peccati cap. 4. Afterwards by a parenthesis brings in an exception of Piscator and some other of the blunter sort without naming one of them And though he name Piscator yet he quotes no place for if he had he should withall direct his Reader to the grounds whereupon Piscator affirmes this namely that God is the cause of man's fidelity And it is the very place formerly mentioned in these words He that is of God heareth God's
words ye therefore heare them not because ye are not of God now what reasonable mā can deny but that it is a sin not to heare God's words then doth not our Saviour plainly professe that the true cause hereof is because they are not of God Now if to be of God in this place doth signifie God's Election then the cause of their sinnes hereby is made God 's not electing of them But if this phrase To be of God signifie God's regenerating of them as I thinke it doth then God's not regenerating of them is made the cause of this their disobedience in not hearing God's word 's and indeed the evill of sinne hath noe efficient cause but deficient only as Austine hath delivered long agoe And God is not bound to any either to elect him or regenerate him so that in failing to regenerate mā he doth not deficere or faile in any culpable mā ner now let every indifferent Reader judge whether here be not Dignus vindice nodus a knot worthy to be loosed it will require some worth of learning in him that solves it And is it decent for this Authour to censure a man for a conclusion made by him out of the word of God without shewing the faultinesse either of his interpretation thereof or of his consequence framed therehence So that this Author's wit cunning is more to be cōmended in not specifying the place where Piscator delivers this doctrine then either his learning or his honesty He was loath to raise spirits afterwards to prove unable to lay them Therefore thus I answer in behalfe of Piscator though God her by me made the cause why sōe heare not God's words to wit in as much as he doth not regenerate thē nor give the eies to see nor eares to heare an heart to perceive according to that of Moses Yet he doth not make God any culpable cause neither indeed is he any culpable cause while he failes to performe so gracious a worke towards thē the reason whereof is this He and he alone is a culpable cause who failes in doing that which he ought to do ut God all be it he doth not regenerate a man yet he failes not of doing that which he ought to doe For it is no duty of his to regenerate any man for he is bound to none Now to be the Authour of sinne is not only to be the cause thereof but to be a culpable cause thereof Undoubtedly God could preserve any man from sinne if it pleased him and if he doth not he is nothing faulty Secondly I answere that in true account God is only the cause why our naturall infidelity is not healed our corruption not cured Like as a Physitian may be said to be the cause why such a man continues sicke in as much as he could cure him but will not Soe God could cure the infidelitie of all but will not Only here is the difference the Physitian may be a culpable cause as who is bound to love his neighbour as himselfe but God being bound to none is no culpable cause of man's continuance in sinne and in the hardnesse of his heart albeit he can cure him but will not As for Piscator's saying here mentioned Reprobates are appointed precisely to this double evill to be punished everlastingly and to sinne and therefore to sinne that they may be justly punished Hereing are two things charged upon Piscator 1. That Reprobates are precisely appointed by God to perish everlastingly To this I answer that noe Arminiā that I know denies Reprobates to be appoinby God to everlasting damnation All the question is about the manner of appointing them namely whether this appointment of God proceeds meerly according to his meer pleasure or upon the foresight of sinne We say it proceeds meerly according to the good pleasure of God and not upon the foresight of sinne preceding And this we not only say but prove thus If reprobation proceed upon the foresight of sinne then it were of men's evill workes Now looke upon what grounds the Apostle proves that election is not of good workes upon the same ground it is evident that reprobation is not of evill works for the argumēt for the one is this Before Iacob Esau were borne or had done good or evill it was said to Rebekah the elder shall serve the younger therfore election is not of good works In like manner thus I reason concerning Reprobation Before Iacob and Esau were borne or had done good or evill it was said to Rebekah the elder shall serve the younger therefore reprobation is not of evill workes 2. If God doth ordaine any man to damnation upon foresight of sin then this sin foreseen is the cause of the Divine ordinance but sin foreseen cannot be the cause why God ordained man to damnation as I prove thus If it be the cause then either by the necessity of nature or by the ordinance of God not by necessity of nature For undoubtedly God if it pleased him could ordaine to annihilate them for their sinnes instead of punishing them with eternall fire Nor can it be the cause of any such decree by the free ordinance of God For if it were marke what intolerable absurdityes would follow namely this That God did ordaine that upon the foresight of sinne he would ordaine men unto damnation whereby God's eternall ordination is made the object of God's ordination whereas all know that the Objects of God's decrees which are all one with his ordinations are things temporall not things eternall 3. If the foresight of sinne goes before the decree of damnation then the decree of permitting sinne goes before the decree of damning for sin that is the permission of sinne was first in intention and consequently it ought to be last in execution that is First man should be damned for sin and not till afterwards permitted to sinne The second thing charged upon Piscator is this that Reprobates are precisely appointed to sin Now here the crimination grates not upō the manner of being appointed thereunto otherwise a way could be opened for a progresse in infinitum Now why should it be any more a fault in Piscator to say of some that they are appointed to sinne then in Peter to say of some that they are appointed to disobedience or in all the Apostles to professe that all the outrages committed by Herod and Pilate by the Gentiles and people of Israell were such as Gods hand his counsell had before determined to be done or why doth Piscator make God to be the Authour of sinne in this more then Peter and all the Apostles And considering this man's unconscionable carriage in this let the Reader take heed how he suffers himselfe to be gull'd by this Authour and drawne to censure such speeches in Piscator as making God the Authour of sinne when hereby he is drawne ere he is aware to passe the like censure on the Apostles And the
in my writing So Beza in his questions and answers I say God hath ordained not judicio for judgment but judicio for just judgment that is to manifest his justice upon them Secondly we deny that God suffers them to persevere in their sinfull courses without giving them grace to repent to the end that he may damne them But with Alvarez every way standing as much for absolute Reprobation as Calvin that God suffers them to sin and to persevere therein and damnes them for their sin to this end namely for the manifestation of the glory of his justice And as for this Authour's opinion in premising the foresight of sin to the decree of damnation I have already represented the manifest absurdity thereof as namely in this that seing God cannot foresee sin unlesse he first decree to permit it it followes that by his opinion the decree to permit sin must preceed the decree of damnation that is sin is first in intention and then damnation Whence it followes that if sin be first in intention it must be last in execution and consequently men shall be first damned for their sin and after that suffered to commit sin this is the glorious issue of the premises of this Authour His third and last is that by our doctrine God for the effecting of all this powerfully doth so governe and work upon the wills of Reprobates that they have noe libertie or abilitie at all in the issue of avoiding their sinnes but must of necessitie commit them To this I answer that no other power is requisite for the effecting of all this then 1. To suffer all men to fall in Adam 2. To bring forth all men in originall sinne which alone deserves damnation as Mr. Hoord confesseth and as this Authour sometimes read in his Lectures at Magdelen Hall 3. Not to regenerate Reprobates but to suffer them finally to persevere in their ungodly courses without giving them grace to break off their sins by repentance 2. Yet we deny that all power and ability is taken from Reprobates to avoid actuall sinnes We grant willingly neither Elect nor Reprobate have any power to avoid sinne originall all of them being conceived and brought forth into the world in the corrupt masse But as for actuall sin not only regenerate have power to avoid that and that in a gracious manner but every Reprobate hath power to avoid that in a naturall manner My reason is because though a good worke may be an act supernaturall yet a sinfull work cannot be so but every actuall sin is an act naturall for the ground and substance of it But every naturall carnall man hath power freely either to doe any act naturall or to abstaine from doing it though when they abstaine from doing it as from committing murther adultery theft slaunder or the like they never abstaine from it in a gracious manner Like as any morall good worke they have libertie to doe but they cannot doe it in a gracious manner This proceeds meerly from the Spirit of regeneration which Spirit of regeneration the Lord never bestowes upon any Reprobate Sect 3. Thus they teach and therefore by just consequence they make God the Authour of sin as it will plainly appeare by these following considerations 1. It is ordinary to impute sin to those who have not so great an hand in the production of it as hath the Almighty by the grounds of this opinion For first the Devill is called the Father of lies and by the like reason of all other sinnes And therefore he that committeth sinne is said to be of the Devill and to be the child of the Devill And sin is called the the worke of the Devill which the Son of God appeared to loose And why is the Devill so called but because he doth egge and allure men by inward suggestions and outward temptations to fall into sin This is all he doth or can doe But God doth much more if he necessitate and by his decree first and next by his powerfull and secret working in the soules of men determine their wills irresistibly to sinen For to determine is infinitely more then barely to perswade for as much as sin must needs follow the determination but not the perswasion of the will God is therefore a truer cause of sin by this doctrine then the Devill 2. Wicked men are esteemed Authours of their own offences because they plot purpose choose commit them and are immediate Agents in the acting of them But God by this opinion doth more for he overruleth the projects purposes of wicked men and by an uncontroulable motion proceeding from an immutable decree carrieth all their deliberations resolutions choices and actions precisely that very way so as they cannot chose but doe as they doe whatsoever they may think to the contrary They have indeed potentiam in se liberam a power in it selfe free to chose what they refuse or to refuse what they chose to determine themselves this way or that way as liketh them best but they have not Liberum usum a free use of this their power God doth determine their will before it hath determined it selfe and maketh them doe those only actions which his omnipotent will hath determined and not which their wills out of any absolute dominion over their own actions have prescribed More rightly therefore may God be called the Authour of those offences For deeds whether good or bad are owned more truly by him that overruleth them then by the servile instruments that only execute and doe them 3. Wicked counsellours and they who allure and advise men to sin are accounted by God and men to be the causes of those sins to which they are the perswaders and have been punished for those misdeeds which others through their instigations have committed Jezabell Ahab's wife was reputed and punished as the murtherer of Naboth because she counselled and contrived the doing of it as we may see 1 Kings 21. 23. 25. But what is counselling to inforcing Evill counsells may be refused but an allmighty power cannot be resisted God therefore that useth this according to their doctrine in the production of sins is much more an Authour of them then he that only useth the other After two leaves spent first in the charge and secondly in proving that God is not the Authour of sin in a fumbling manner and thirdly in representing the doctrine of our Divines at pleasure now at length he comes to make it plainly appeare that by just consequence they make God the Authour of sin as he saith will plainly appeare by certaine considerations following which in few words come but to this in generall namely that God doth more then the Devill or wicked counsellours in alluring and advizing others to sin more then wicked persons in acting of their own sins But by this discourse of his he is as farre off as ever from proving that we make God the Authour of sin For consider
either by doing more he understands that God doth the same which the Devill wicked mē do more or though he does not the same yet he doth that which is more then that If his meaning be that God doth the same which the Devill wicked men doe this is notoriously untrue considering thē as tempters advizers and perswaders unto sin For God on the contrary forbids sin perswades to repentance to obedience both by his word and by his spirit and indeed the spirit workes not but by the word which is called the sword of the spirit All holines of life is comprised within the compasse of ten commandements these were given by the Lord frō mount Sinai pronounced by the sound of a trūpet to these the Lord calls his people saying stand in the waies and behold and aske for the old way which is the good way and walke therein ye shall find rest unto your soules For the transgression of these the Lord expostulates with thē Heare ô heavens and hearken ô earth I have nourished and brought up a people they have rebelled against me Whē they have gone astray he exhorts the and that most pathetically to returne by repentance by promise of salvation and threatning judgment if they doe not repent O Ierusalem wash thine heart from wickednes that thou maist be saved how long shall thy wicked thoughts remaine within thee I have seene thy adulteries and thy neighings the filthinesse of thy whoredome on the hills in the feilds and thine abominations Woe unto thee ô Ierusalem wilt thou not be made cleane When shall it once be And to provoak them the rather unto repentance he represents himselfe unto them as easy to be intreated as slow to wrath and one that by his patience and long suffering leades them to repentance And to this end he gives charge to his Ministers namely by representing the gracious nature of God to admonish them of their sinnes to call them to repentance to obedience And to this purpose to represent his promises which he hath annexed unto godlinesse both the promises of this life and the promises of a better life that is to come Yea and his threats also both of judgments in the world to come to the casting both of body and soule into hell fire and thereupon to exhort us to feare him above all others And judgments of this world as famine pestilence and the sword of the enemie To deliver them over into the hands of beastly people skilfull to destroy To send Serpents and Cockatrices among them that will not be charmed and that shall sting them and that without all mercy Surely these are not the courses of Satan or wicked counsellours Therefore they doe not as God doth neither doth God doe that which they doe and more also 2. If it be said that albeit the Lord doth not as the Devill doth and wicked men doe in perswading them to sinne yet he doth that which is more then this I answer that neverthelesse he cannot be accounted the Authour of sinne in case the doing of this alone doth constitute an Agent the Authour of sinne Now as formerly I have shewed this was the opinion of Dominicus Soto and of the Divines of Salamancha yea and Vasquez the Jesuite professeth that he was ever of that opinion Againe if to doe more then this be to become the Authour of sin both this Authour and all that are of his Spirit doe maintain as well we that God doth that which is farre more then this For I presume he will not deny but that God is he and he alone who doth support our natures in the committing of sin who maintaines our senses in their vigour and quicknesse without which we could take noe pleasure in sin and that concurres to every act of sin in the way of cause efficient not morally which alone makes one to become the Authour of sin by the judgment of Divines formerly mentioned but physically and naturally which no creature can doe namely become a naturall coefficient cause to the act of another man's will Nay which is most considerable I presume this Authour hath so much accuratenes in School-learning as not to deny that when the Devill tempts us or wicked counsellours doe tempt us to sin God concurres with them in this act and that in the kind of a cause efficient physicall For in him we live and move and have our being what is it to have our being from him but that he is the Authour of it in the kind of a cause efficient In the same sense doe we live in him and in the same sense doe we move in him It stands us upon as much to maintaine this as to maintaine that God is our Creatour For unlesse all things doe subsist in him neither were all things created by him Now this is a great deale more then to perswade For a weake man is able to perswade but noe creature is able to performe these parts which God doth in the act of every thing created by by him So that hereby the Reader may evidently perceive that the discourse is as farre off as ever from proving God by this Doctrine of ours to be the Authour of sin any more then he is constituted the Authour of sin by the doctrine of this Interpolator But I am content to examine the things he proposeth particularly and severely 1. The Devill saith he doth only allure men by inward suggestions and outward temptations to fall into sinne But God doth much more if he doe necessitate and by his decree first and next by his powerfull and secret working in the soules of men determine their wills irresistibly to sinne For to determine is infinitely more then to perswade Now to this I have already answered by shewing 1. That albeit God doth more then this yet seeing he doth not this if the doing of this alone constitutes one the Authour of sin as many great Divines have concurrently maintained still God is free from being the Authour of sin This Authour barely supposing not once offering to prove the contrary 2. Himselfe confesseth that God concurres to the act of every sinne and that in the kind of a cause efficient naturall And I may be as bold as to say of this that it is infinitely more then to perswade like as he saith of God's determining the will and necessitating thereof Now I proceed to a more particular examination of his discourse And here first I wonder not a little at this Authour's distinction of the Devill 's inward suggestion from his outward temptations For I confesse freely I know noe outward temptation of Satan distinct from his inward suggestions Outward occasions and provocations to sinne I know none wrought by Satan any farther then as he in some cases is God's instrument as in afflicting Iob. For surely God hath not given over the world or any part thereof to the goverment of Satan this is in
for hereby many times men are drawen full sore against their wills to doe that which they would not It is true God's power cannot be resisted but neither hath any man any will to resist that motion of God whereby he workes agreable to their natures then indeed there were place for resisting If the Lord carrieth on a covetous person such as Achan to covet a wedge of gold and a Babylonish garment and coveting it move him accordingly to take it and convey it away secretly and hide it in his tent what resistance doth he make in all this Or what is done in all this lesse agreably to his covetous disposition then to the disposition of Toades and Addars when he moves them according to their nature to sting and poyson So he moved the Babylonians compared to Serpents and Cockatrices to sting a wicked people Doe not the Scriptures plainly professe that God did send them Is not Assur in this respect called the Rod of God's wrath and the staffe in his hand Was it not called the Lords indignation Is he not compared to an axe and a sawe shall the axe boast it selfe against him that heweth therewith Or shall the saw extoll it selfe against him that moveth it Still he confounds the act with the sinfulnesse thereof speaking of God's producing sinnes whereas sinne is never produced it being only an obliquity consequent unto the act of such a worker as is subject to a law And our Adversaries confesse that God is the cause of the act as well as we Yet will they not hereby be driven to professe that in producing the act he produceth the sin As for that which he speaks of Inforcing we may well pitty him that when he wants strength of reason he supplies that by phrases We deny that God inforceth any man's will Nay it is the generall rule of Schooles that voluntas non potest cogi the will cannot be forced We maintaine that every act of the will especially in naturall things such as a sinfull act must needs be for only gracious acts are supernaturall is not only voluntary which is sufficient to preserve it from being forced but free also by as much libertie as the creature is capable of only we deny that the will of man is primum liberum a first free agent that is the prerogative of God alone the first mover of all and the supreme Agent thus I have dispatched my answer to his first reason consisting of three parts I come unto the second Sect 4. If we could find out a King that should so carry himselfe in procuring the ruine and the offences of any Subjects as by this opinion God doth in the affecting of the damnation and transgressions of Reprobates we would all charge him with the ruine and sinnes of those his Subjects Who would not abhorre saith Moulin a King speaking thus I will have this man hangâ—d and that I may hang him justly I will have him murder or steale This King saith he should not only make an innocent man miserable sed sceleratum but wicked too and should punish him for that offence cujus ipse causa esset of which himselfe was the cause It is a cleare case Tiberius as Suetonius reports having a purpose to put some Virgins to death because it was not lawfull among the Romans to strangle Virgins caused them all to be deflouered by the hang-man that so they might be strangled Who will not say that Tiberius was the principall Authour of the deflouring of those Maides In like manner say the Supralapsarians God hath a purpose of putting great store of men to the second death but because it is not lawfull for him by reason of his justice to put to death men innocent and without blame he hath decreed that the Devill shall defloure them that afterwards he may damne them It followeth therefore that God is the maine cause of those their sinnes If a King should carry himselfe as God did in hardning Pharaoh's heart that he should not let Israel goe and when he had let Israel goe to harden his heart that he should follow after them we would acknowledge such a one not to be man but God And then surely whatsoever our Arminians would thinke of such a one we would thinke noe otherwise then Solomon did of him of whom he professed that he made all things for himselfe even the wicked against the day of evill If God doth but permit a man to will this or that necesse est saith Arminius it must needs be ut nullo argumentorum genere persuadeatur ad nolendum that noe kind of argument shall perswade such one to abstaine from willing it And I hope Arminius hath as great auhority with this Authour as Mr. Moulin deserves to have with us Noe King hath power to dispense any such providence as this St. Paul tells us plainly that God hath ordained some unto wrath and as he hath made of the same lumpe some vessells unto honour so hath he made other vessells unto dishonour The Lord professeth that he kept Abimelech from sinning against him Thus the Lord could deale with all if it pleased him Why doth he not is it not for the manifestation of his own glory For to this purpose he hath made all things And that he suffers with long patience vessells of wrath prepared to destruction And what to doe doth he suffer them But to continue and persevere in their sinfull courses without repentance the Apostle plainly tells us that it is to declare his wrath and make his power known This is not the voice of any Doctor of ours now a dayes but of St. Paul And shall Mr. Moulin be brought in to affront St. Paul For recompence let the Jesuits be heard to whom the nation of the Arminians are beholden for their principall grounds Wherefore doth God give effectuall grace unto one and not unto another but because he hath elected the one and rejected the other And I appeale to every sober Christian whether the absolutenesse of reprobation doth not as invincibly follow herehence as the absolutenesse of Election But touching Mr. Moulin I have heard that Doctor Ames somtimes wished that he had never medled in this argument I am not of Doctor Ames his mind in this though it were I thinke most fit every one should exercise himselfe in those questions wherein by the course of his studies he hath been most conversant so should the Church of God enjoy plus dapis rixae multo minus invidiaeque I doe admire Mr. Moulin in his conference with Cayer as also upon the Eucharist and on Purgatory he hath my heart when I read his consolalations to his Breathren of the Church of France as also intreating of the love of God I would willingly learne French to understand him only and have along time desired still to get any thing that he hath written I highly esteem him in his Anatomie though I doe not
sight of this Sun For thou did'st it secretly but I will doe this thing before all Israel and before the Sun It is utterly untrue which this Authour obtrudes upon us as if we thought it unlawfull for God by reason of his justice to put to death men innocent and without blame Was any more innocent then the Son of God yet he gave him to suffer somewhat more then the death for the sins of men Neither must we be gull'd with his phrases of the Devills deflouring of men when by him they are carried away into abominable courses so as to oppose Scripture blaspheme God the language of the holy Ghost being this that all the outrages committed upon the holy Son of God by Herod and Pontius Pilate the Gentiles and people of Israel were such as God's hand and counsell had before determined to be done And the like cruelties or worse were executed upon the Saints of God by their Kings who imploied their soveraigne power in executiō of the beast's behests yet this is called the will of God God hath put into their hearts to fullfill his will and to agree to give their kingdomes to the beast untill the word of God be fulfilled And the truth is if God permit such abominable courses and hardens men's hearts occasion being offered they will commit them according to the common proverbe He must needs goe whom the Devill drives And the very definition of the permission of sinne given by Arminius doth convince this though he carrieth himselfe very superficiarily explicating God's providence in this and the nature of obduration which I have prosecuted at large in my Vindiciae in answer to Bellarmine especially where I treat of the abduration of Pharaoh chap 11. Neither doe we make damnation the end whereunto God permits sinne but both permisson for sinne and damnation for sinne we make the meanes tending to another end namely the manifestation of God's glory in the way of justice vindicative which in Scripture phrase is called the declaration of his wrath And to make God the Authour of sinne by these courses is clearely to charge the holy Ghost with blasphemie seing the holy Ghost gives cleare testimony to all this in the word of God Sect. 5. That God is the Authour of men's salvation and conversion all sides grant and yet he doth noe more in the procuring them then these men report him to doe in the Reprobates impenitency and damnation The salvation and conversion of the Elect say they he hath absolutely and antecedently without the foresight of any deserving of theirs reselved upon and by irresistable meanes in their severall generations draweth them to believe repent and indure to the end that so they might be saved and his absolute decree accomplished On the other side the damnation the sinnes and the finall impenitency of Reprobates he hath of his alone will and pleasure peremptorily decreed this his decree he executeth in time drawing them on by his unconquerable power and providence from sinne to sin till they have made up their measure and in the end have inflicted on them that eternall vengeance which he had provided for them What difference is here in the course which God taketh for the conversion and salvation of the Elect and the obduration and damnation of the Reprobates And therefore what hindereth but that God by their grounds may as truely be stiled the prime cause and Authour of the sinnes of the one as of the conversion of the other The Fathers thought it a plaine case and therefore they did make sinne an Object of prescience and not predestination and bent the most of those arguments by wich they refuted this foule assertion against an absolute irresistable and necessitating decree as I could easily shew but that I feare to be over long Only I will cite some few of those Authour's words whom the learned reverend Bishop hath alleadged in favour and for the defence of the Predestinarians and the maintainers of Gotteschalk's opinion The Church of Lyous in their answer to the positions of Johannes Scotus which he framed against Gotteschalke hath these words Whosoever saith tthat God hath laid a constraint or necessity of sinning upon any man he doth manifestly and fearefully blaspheme God in as much as he maketh him by affirming that of him to be the very Authour of sinne Remigius Arch. Bishop of that Church explaining the Churches opinion in that point of prescience and predestination in seven severall rules in the fift of those rules he hath these words to the same purpose God saith he by his prescience and predestination hath laid a necessitie of being wicked upon noe man For if he had done this he had been the Authour of sinnes And thus in my iudgment doth it plainly appeare that by absolute Reprobation as it is taught the upper way God is made to be the true cause of men's sinnes Observe the false carriage of this Authour That God is the Authour of men's salvation and conversion he saith all sides grant as if there were noe difference between Arminians and the Orthodox between him and us in this We say God workes faith and regeneration in us and that for Christ's sake The Remonstrants in their Censura censurae in expresse termes deny that Christ merited faith and regeneration for us and judge by this indifferently whether they make faith and regeneration to be the guift of God Or when they doe in termes professe this as Epicurus verbis Deos posuit re sustulit whether they doe not equivocate Aske this Authour in what sense he makes God to be the Authour of man's conversiō whether any otherwise thē 1. In giving men power to believe if they will to repent if they will 2. In perswading unto faith repentance 3. In concurring with man to the act of faith repentance Now as touching the first that mere nature not grace Deo credere ab amore rerum temporalium ad divina praecepta servanda se convertere omnes possint si velint saith Austin All men can if they will believe God and from the love of temporall things convert themselves to the keeping of God's commandements Now this is noe more then posse fidem habere posse charitatem habere to be capable of faith of charity and this is naturae hominum of the nature of man As Austin testifies in another place where he saith posse fidem habere posse charitatem habere naturae est hominum fidem habere charitatem habere gratiae est fidelium To be capable of faith and charity is the nature of man but to have faith and to have charity is the grace of the faithfull Consider in reason supernaturall grace is not in reason to be accounted inferiour to a morall vertue but so it will prove if it be but a power to be good if we will For morall vertue doth not give a man a power only to doe
pleasure proceeds in the denying of faith and repentance whereby alone sinne is cured and so of mere pleasure suffers some finally to persevere in sinne yet in inflicting damnation he doth not carry himselfe of mere pleasure without all respect to men's workes but herein he proceeds according to a law which is this whosoever believeth not and repenteth not shall be damned And like as God damnes noe man but for his finall perseverance in sinne So from everlasting he did decree to damne noe man but for his finall perseverance in sinne So that by vertue of the Divine decree of reprobation sinne and finall perseverance therein is constituted the cause of damnation but by noe meanes is it constituted the cause of the decree of reprobation neither doth the foresight of sinne precede it For first like as upon this doctrine that Grace is not given according unto workes the absolutenesse of predestination is grounded in the judgment of Austine as by necessary consequence issuing there from In like sort upon this that grace is not denied according unto men's workes as necessarily followeth the absolutenesse of Reprobation Secondly looke by what reason the Apostle proves that Election is not of good workes namely because before the children were borne or had done any good it was said the Elder shall serve the Yonger by the same reason it evidently followeth that reprobation is not of evill workes because before they were borne or had done good or evill it was said the Elder shall serve the Younger Esau's reprobation being as emphatically signified under his subjection to Iacob his younger as Iacob's election was designed by his dominion over Esau his Elder brother 3. If sinne be the cause of the decree of Reprobation then either of ' its own nature or by constitution divine Not by necessity of nature for undoubtedly God could annihilate men for sinne had it pleased him If by constitution Divine mark what absurdity followeth namely this that God did ordaine that upon foresight of sinne he would ordaine men unto damnation 4. If foresight of sinne precedes the decree of damning them for sin then the decree to permit sin much more precedes the decree to damne them for it as without which there can be noe foresight of sin and consequently permission of sin is first in intention and then damnation and therefore it should be last in execution that is men should first be damned and afterwards permitted to sin to wit in an other world 5. And lastly Reprobation is the will of God but there can be noe cause of God's will as Aquinas hath proved much lesse can a temporall thing be the cause of God's will which is eternall Upon this ground it is that Aquinas professeth Never any man was so mad as to say that any thing might be the cause of predestination as touching the act of God predestinating So may I say it were a mad thing to maintaine that any thing can be the cause of Reprobation as touching the act of God reprobating For the case is altogether alike the will of God being alike uncapable of a cause in both whereas this Authour saith that God by our opinion doth draw men on by his unconquerable power from sin to sin 't is mere bumbast All men being borne in sin must needs persevere in sin unlesse God gives grace to regenerate them For whether they doe that which is morally good they doe it not in a gracious manner or whether they abstaine from evill they doe it not in a gracious manner He that is of God heareth God's wordes ye therefore heare them not saith our Saviour because ye are not of God Arminius acknowledgeth and Corvinus after him that all men by reason of Adam's sin are cast upon a necessitie of sinning He askes what difference is there in the course which God taketh for the conversion of the Elect and obduration of Reprobates and I have already shewed a vast difference and here in breife I shew a difference He hath mercy on the one in the regenerating them curing the corruption he finds in them he shewes not the like grace to others but leaves them unto themselves as touching the evill acts committed by the one he concurreth as a cause efficient to the act which for the substance of it is naturally good For ens bonum convertuntur every thing that is an entity so farre is good but he hath no efficiency as touching the evill as which indeed can admit no efficiencie as Austin hath delivered of old Man himselfe is only a deficient cause of sin as sin and that in a culpable manner which kind of deficiency is not incident to God But to every good act he concurres two manner of waies that in the nature of a positive efficient cause in both namely to the substance of the act by influence generall and to the goodnesse of it by influence speciall and supernaturall It is true the Fathers made sin the object of prescience not of predestination the reason was because they took predestination to be only of such things which God did effect in time Now sin is none of those things that come to passe by God's effection but only by God's permission And that such was the notion of predestination with the Fathers I prove first out of Austin In sua quae falli mutarique non potest praescientiâ opera sua futura disponere illud omnino nec aliud quidquam est praedestinare In his foreknowledge which can neither be deceived nor changed to dispose his own workes that is to predestinate and nothing else And sin not being the worke of God no marvaile if it come not under predestination Secondly out of the Synod of Valens Praedestinatione autem Deum ea tantum statuisse dicimus quae ipse vel gratuita misericordiâ vel justo judicio facturus erat We say that God by predestination ordained only such things as himselfe would work either of his free mercy or in just judgment Againe it is as true that they made even sin it selfe the Object of God's will witnesse that of Austin Non aliquid fit nisi Omnipotens fieri velit vel sinendo ut fiat vel ipse faciendo Not any thing comes to passe but God Allmighty willing it either by permitting it or working it So the eleaventh article of the Church of Ireland So Arminius Deus voluit Achabum mensuram scelerum implere God would have Ahab to fulfill the measure of his sins So scripture often mentioned And Austin gives the reason of it malum fieri bonū est it is good that evill should be Bellarmine confesseth as much namely that Mala fieri Deo permittente bonum est It is good that evills should come to passe by God's permission And shall not God have liberty to will that which is good When he saith of the Ancients that They refuted this foule assertion of an absolute irresistable and necessitating decree
quippe servitus non institutio est Dei sed judicium This slavery of man to Satan is not God's institution but judgment that is God brought it upon him not of his mere pleasure but in the way of judgment Like as Austin in like manner acknowledgeth concupiscense to be not sinne only but the punishment of sinne also So Remigius and the Chuch of Lyons say that God imposed it not on Adam but man falling from God brought a necessitie of sinning upon him upon all his race God hereupon justly withdrawing his holy Spirit from him 2. Why he should alleadge the first passage under the name of the Church of Lyons I know not The reverend Bishop acknowledgeth Florus to be the Authour thereof a Deacon of Lyons pag. 126. Although the same Reverend Bishop acknowledgeth that other book also that goes under the name of the Church of Lyons now extant in the Bibliothecâ Sanctorum Patrum and wherehence Vossius communicateth unto us his excerpta was written by the same Florus pag. 115. He had more reason to father his next passage which he produceth out of Remigius upon the Church of Lyons For albeit Maldonat cites the booke intituled Liber de tribus Episcoporum epistolis whence this passage is taken under the name of Remigius yet he who set it forth ascribes it to the Church of Lyons and that by the direction of the Copy which was in the hands of Nicholas Faber as appeares Goteschalc hist 170. But none doe I find to ascribe this worke of Florus to the Church of Lyons though the Authour of another booke under that title the Bishop acknowledgeth to be Florus 3. Florus acknowledgeth that the very Saints of God are under a necessity of sin in a sort p. 149. In Sanctis licet sit liberum arbitrium jam Christi gratiâ liberatum atque Sanctum tamen tanta est illa sanitas ut quamdiu mortaliter vivunt sine peccato esse non possint cum velint atque desiderent non peccare non possūt tamen non peccare In the Saints of God though there be freedome of will as freed by the grace of Christ and made holy yet this health is such that as long as they carry this mortall body about thē they cannot be without sin and though they would and desire to be without sin yet they cannot be without sin This I conceive is spoken in respect of the flesh lusting against the Spirit of the law in our members rebelling against the law of our mind leading us captive to the law of sin How much more are the wicked in bondage to sinne and Satan as the same Florus sheweth pag. 142 For whereas Scotus taught that a man had not lost his liberty but only the power and vigour of his liberty Florus opposeth him thus Non rectè dicit quia nec sentit he saith not well because he thinks not well sed sicut vigorem potestatem libertatis ita ipsam perdidit libertatem ut jam ipse ad verum bonum unde cecidit liber esse non possit As he hath lost the vigour and power of his libertie so he hath lost libertie it selfe insomuch that unto true good from whence he is fallen he cannot be free to wit untill he be freed by the grace of Christ In like māner Remigius discourseth also grāting free will only to evill p. 36. In infidelibus id ipsum liberū arbitriū ita per Adam damnatum perditum in operibus mortuis liberum esse potest in vivis non potest In infidells free will it selfe so damned and lost in Adam may be free in dead workes cannot be free in living works that is is not free to produce works belonging to a spirituall life So that they unanimously confesse that in respect of originall sin there is a necessity of sinning but this is rightly to be understood namely thus that true good they cannot doe so that whatsoever they doe is evill only that it is free unto them to doe this or that evill which is most true Secondly thus farre they qualifie this necessitie of sinning that never any man is carried by the Divine providence so as to sinne whether they will or no. For albeit Rabanus charged them whom he opposed herewith pag. 53. Si enim secundum ipsos qui talia sentiunt Dei praedestinatio invitum hominem facit peccare quomodo Deus justo judicio damnat peccantem cum ille non voluntate sed necessitate peccaverit For if according to them who thinke such things God's predestination makes a man to sinne against his will how doth God in his just judgmēt damne him that sinneth when he sinned not voluntarily but necessarily Thus they criminated their adversaries but Remigius answers on their behalfe who were thus falsly accused Nemo ita sentit aut dicit quod Dei predestinatio aliquem invitum faciat peccare ut jam non propriae voluntatis perversitate sed divinae praedestinationis necessitate peccare videatur No man so thinks or speakes that God's predestination makes a man to sinne against his will so that a man should seeme to sinne not by the perversitie of his own will but by the necessitie of divine predestination But this is the worke of Divine predestination that he who sins willingly perseveres willingly in his sins shall against his will be punished And the truth is taking predestination as it signifies preparation of Grace or God's decree to conferre this rather God 's not predestinating a man or not giving grace and not making him to be of God is the cause why a man sinneth according to that of our Saviour He that is of God heareth God's words ye therefore heare them not because ye are not of God Yet this is rightly to be understood for God's not conferring regenerating grace is rather the cause why their naturall corruption is not cured thē that they goe on in their sinfull courses for naturally carnall men are prone enough to sin and in this course they necessarily continue untill God changeth their hearts necessarily I say but not against their wills For sinne is as a sweet morsell which they roule under their tongue This may suffice for answer unto these passages and withall to represent the vanitie of this Authour's discourse endeavouring to brand our doctrine with making God the Authour of sinne more of this hereafter For I am acquainted with that which he here conceales and with certaine adjuncts thereunto both touching the opinion of the Church of Lyons concerning falling from grace as also this Authours bold adventure in two particulars in justifying Vossius citing the cōfession of Pelagius as one of Austin's sermons as also defending him in the point of the predestinarian heresie which Doctor Usher maintaines to be a mere fiction of the Semipelagians to bring Austin's doctrin thereby into disgrace But Vossius conceives that there was indeed such an heresie and that the Monks
unto him another counsell Yet though we disswade a brother and so not leave him in the hand of his own counsell yet we still leave him to his own free will Both these I have insisted upon more at large in the second book in my Vindiciae Sect 2. Digres 3. It is true God hath noe need of setting forth his own glory noe more then he hath need of making the world but the existence of sin may be and is necessarily required to the setting forth of God's glory in some attributes of his For neither can the glory of God's mercy appeare in pardoning sinne nor the glory of his vindicative justice called in Scripture his wrath Rom 9. 23. in punishing sinne unlesse there be sinne to be pardoned and sinne to be punished Nor the glory of his power and wisedome in working good out of evill unlesse God give way to the committing of Evill And if upon God's permission of sinne it be not necessary that sinne exist then it is not in the Allmighty power of God infallibly to procure the manifestation of his glory either in the way of mercy pardoning it or in the way of justice punishing it But seeing these reasons are not considerable with this supercilious Theologue it should seeme likely that looke what he substitutes in the place thereof will prove substantiall and satisfie such understandings as his own And that he represents out of Tertullian namely because man is made by God a free creature This reason was represented by Arminius before him and that out of Tertullian Arminius his huskes are pleasing to him Such was the condition of the prodigall child when he forsooke his Father the provender of Swine was acceptable to him Yet he could not have enough of that Is not man a free creature to performe naturall acts as well as morall and morall good as well as evill Nay are not the Children of God made free by Christ to the performance of actions spirituall What therefore must God only permit them to performe them and by noe meanes worke them to the performance of faith and repentance and all manner of obedience yea and keep them from sinning against him as he kept Abimelech Gen 20 See how this Authour displaies himselfe ere he was aware and withall what the reason is why he affects to deale upon reprobation only not upon election or grace least his vile opinion miserably defacing the glory of God's grace might appeare with open face in ' its proper colours Yet it breakes forth more then he could wish in setting down the end why God permits sinne to wit because men are free creatures therefore it becomes not God to worke their wills to this or that but only to permit them to doe what they will if they will sinne to permit them if they would doe any good worke whether it be faith or repentance or any other good worke or to abstaine from sinne to permit that also whereby it is apparent that God by his opinion hath noe more hand in working a man to any good worke excepting the act of commanding and perswading the one and not the other then in working them unto evill For because they are free creatures therefore it becomes God to leave them unto themselves and permit them to doe what they will whether it be good or evill otherwise God should nullifie his own institution in making them free Agents Yet consider farther how herein he contradicts the very principles of his own side both Arminians and Iesuites For Arminius maintaines that God can hinder a man effectually from the committing of sinne without any prejudice to the liberty of their wills The like doe the Iesuites maintaine in their doctrine of grace effectuall in the way of congruity namely that God can bring any man to faith to obedience to any good worke and accordingly preserve him from any sinne by vertue of grace effectuall which is shaped by them in such a manner as to be noe way prejudiciall to the liberty of their wills But Tertullians authority hath abused his fancy and exposed him to lay open himselfe in so shamefull a manner Yet Tertullian will not serve his turn any more then it doth serve Arminius his turne as I have shewed in my answer to Arminius lib. 1. part prima de praedest Sect 7 and that at large Secondly the reasons he brings for the contradistinction of decree permissive from decree operative are very vaine For 1 the decree operative is extrinsecall to the sinner as well as the decree permissive Secondly neither hath it any influence at all upon the sinne as which admits noe efficient cause thereof being of a mere privative nature but upon the substance of the act which I presume this Authour will not deny Thirdly the decree permissive is not an antecedent only but such as being put sinne followes of necessitie as well as upon the position of the decree operative that is of necessitie by supposition not necessity absolute For as Aquinas hath delivered and proved not only the things themselves come to passe by vertue of God's decree but modi rerum severall conditions of them As for example necessary things necessarily contingent things contingently free actions freely And that thus the things permitted do alwaies come to passe not only Piscator with our Divines as Mr. Perkins Doctor Whitaker and Pareus doe avouch but Vorstius also and Arminius as I have shewed in my Vindiciae lib. 2. digres 3. Arminius his words are these if God permits a man to will this or that necesse est it must needs be ut nullo argumentorum genere persuadeatur ad nolendum that no kind of argument move him to will it Navarettus the Dominican professeth the same in quaest 19. pag. prima art 6. pag. 65. col 1. 1. That this destinction is rejected by our Divines this Authour brings no tollerable evidence As for Beza here it is confessed that he acknowledgeth God to permit sinne and whereas he addes that he wills it too it is nothing contradictory to the former For to permit sinne speaking of permission divine is to will that sinne shall come to passe by God's permission And Austin hath professed of those things that come to passe by God's permission that they come to passe Deo volente God willing them And the Scripture acknowledgeth as much that the Kings in prostituting their Royall authority to the executing the pleasure of the Beast did herein fulfill the will of God So that God's permissive decree is as effectuall in its kind as the operative decree in ' its kind thus farre that like as what God meanes to worke shall come to passe so look what God meanes to permit that also shall come to passe Neither doe I know any Arminian or Jesuite that denies God's operative decree as touching the very act of sinne by way of concurrence in the producing of it When Calvin will have the evill of sinne come to passe Deo volente
abstaine from sinne when such a grace is granted him and consequently in granting such a grace he permits him still to sinne as well as in denying it and in denying he permits him to doe good as much as in granting it So that still it is not God that keepeth a man from sinne as often as he abstaineth from it but merely the power of his own free will Whereby it is evident that this Authour as well denies that God is the Authour of any good as that he is the Authour of any evill But man is Authour of the one as well as of the other The power of doing good he will grant is from God neither can it be denied but that the power of doing evill is from God He will grant likewise that God is ready to concurre to any good act if man will and I presume he will not deny but that God concurres also to the substance of every evill act The only difference that remaines is this God perswades only to good and disswades only that which is evill Now this third and last assertion we grant as well as he Yet he layes to our charge that we make God the Authour of evill but cares not at all how he denies God to be the Authour of any good in the actions of men and makes noe place for any grace save such as is hortatory which is performed usually by the ministery of men Yet consider what Bradwardine sometimes Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Elect hath written in this kind before Luther or Calvin were borne The title of the fourth chapter of his second booke is this That free will being tempted cannot of his own strength without the helpe of God and his grace overcome any temptation Of the first this that free will strengthned with what created grace soever cannot without another speciall succour of God overcome any temptation of the sixth this that That speciall succour of God is the unconquerable grace of God Of the seventh this That no man though not tempted can by the strength of his free will alone without created grace or with created grace how great soever it be without the speciall asistance of God avoide any sin all these propositions he demonstrates with variety of argument Behold the ingenuity of this Authour He flies in the face of Calvin and Beza and other our Divines for maintaining that unlesse God by his grace keep and preserve a man effectually from sinning it cannot be that he should abstaine from sinne Bradwardine maintained the same before any of these were borne yet he saith nothing to him le ts all his arguments alone but upbraides us for maintaining the same doctrine without giving any reason to convict us of our errour Adde to this which I have omitted the Corolary of that seventh chapter in Bradwardin formerly mentioned is this That it is the will of God which preserves them that are tempted from falling and them that are not tempted both from temptation and from sinne Not one of the arguments whereby he confirmes any of these positions doth this Authour goe about to answer In like manner Alvarez Positâ permissione divinâ infallibiliter peccat homo upon supposition of God's permission man sins infallibly The proposition he intends to prove in that disputation is this Therefore a man is not converted because he is not aided of God But both he and we deny that hereupon a man sinneth necessarily alwaies but only in some cases In some cases it followeth as namely a man borne in sinne and in the state of corruption the naturall fruits whereof are infidelity and impenitency untill God affords a man the grace of regeneration he cannot believe he cannot repent They that are in the flesh cannot please God Thou after the hardnesse of thy heart that cannot repent Therefore they could not believe In which case God is not the cause of infidelity and impenitency but these proceed naturally and necessarily from that originall corruption wherein they are conceived and borne God is only the naturall cause why this their naturall corruption continues uncured For none can cure it but God it being a work nothing inferior to the raising of them from the dead Yet he is no culpable cause of this For as much as he is not bound to any but he hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth So that necessarily without the grace of regeneration every man continueth in his naturall corruption devoyd of faith of hope and love These being supernaturall and whereunto no man can attaine with out supernaturall grace In like manner hence it followeth that no naturall man can performe any morall good act in a gracious acceptable manner in the sight of God because â—he fountaines of such performances are not found in naturall men But they have a free power as to commit any naturall evill worke so to abstaine from it though not in a gracious manner Free power as to abstaine from any vertuous act so to performe it also though not in a gracious manner They may be temperate chast just and the like but their vertuous actions are not truly vertues in a Christian account because they know not God nor Christ much lesse doe they believe in him and performe these vertuous actions out of their love unto him If Maccovius and Whitaker and Pareus be of the same mind and the Dominicans with them and Bradwardine before them all let the indifferent Reader consider what an hungry opposition is made by this Authour not offering to answer any one of their Arguments nor of mine neither in my Vindiciae Nor saith ought by way of reply upon any answer to the like argument of Arminius The resolution of all that here he delivers determining in a rule himselfe proposeth without reason or authority to justifie it A rule as here it is applyed conteining a notorious untruth For causa deficiens in no case can be efficiens in proper speech any more then causa efficiens can be accounted deficiens unlesse it be understood in divers kinds As for example efficiens naturaliter may be deficiens moraliter and deficiens moraliter may be efficiens naturaliter An efficient cause naturally may be deficient morally and so a cause deficient morally may be efficient naturally Least of all can it have place in the present question which is of the cause of sinne For sinne as sinne evill as evill non habet causam efficientem sed deficientem hath no cause efficient but deficient only as Austin hath long agoe determined and it is a rule generally received and never that I know denied of any Againe causa deficiens in necessariis may be culpable I confesse and so interpretativè as they say may be interpreted to be as good as an efficient As in a civill consideration it is said of the Magistrate that Qui non vetat peccare cum possit jubet He that forbiddeth not a man to sinne when it
is in his power or when he hath authority to forbid 't is as if he should command the committing of that sin Now this is only in such a case where the necessitie respects the person who is the deficient cause as namely in case he be bound in duty to afford help and succour to him that cannot keepe himselfe from sinning without the succour of an other not otherwise And therefore it reacheth not to God who is not bound to preserve any man or creature from sinning Least of all is he bound to regenerate a man that is borne in sinne Adam was created in all sufficiency that the reasonable creature was capable of without any pronenes unto evill but rather in a morall propension to that which was good And his fall hath brought this corruption upon all mankind even a necessitie of sinning as Arminius and Corvinus confesse He wanted no power to doe that which was good or to abstaine from sin but ever since his fall impotency to that which is good pronenesse unto that which is evill hath been the naturall inheritance of all mankind And as for the permission of Adam's fall his sin was in a thing naturally indifferent the holines of his nature not inclining him more to abstain from that fruit any more then to partake of it Neither doe we say that God did withhold from Adam any grace that these our adversaries maintaine to be necessary for the avoiding of that sinne which was committed by him How Adam himselfe was brought by Eve to eate of that fruit is not expressed As for Eve the temptation which Satan used with her which did prevaile is expressed He allured her with the representation of the powerfull nature of that to make them as Gods knowing good and evill he made this seem credible by the very denomination which God gave unto the Tree the Tree of knowledge of good and evill It seemes not likely that she knew who it was that spake unto her in the Serpent nor that she was acquainted with the fall of Angells Then againe the desire of knowledge is no evill thing it selfe or stands in any contradiction to the integrity of a reasonable creature Nay nothing more agreeable to the nature of the best it brings such a perfection with it Only the errour was in affecting it this way God did not keep the Devill off nor reveale unto her who it was that spake unto her much lesse his apostaticall condition least of all his project to supplant them Neither did he quicken that holy feare which he had inspired into her to resist it at the first to goe to her husband to acquaint him with it She might thinke that the knowledge of good and evill might make her more fit for the service of God then unfit All which considered her will being moved to seek this perfection by tasting of such a fruit there was no cause or reason to hinder her from tasting it save only the consideration of God's prohibition For the will of every reasonable creature is naturally apt to affect that which is good and though that good may prove evill in some circumstance yet if that circumstance be not considered the will proceeds to affect it How long the Devill was exercised in this temptation we know not Inconsideration is conceived by Durandus to be the originall of that sinne of theirs and God was not bound to maintaine this consideration quick in her and of the danger of such a transgression In fine she came to a will resolution to tast of it to the producing of this act as a naturall thing the Lord concurred as all confesse namely to the substance of the act The question is whether he concurred to the effecting of it absolutely or conditionally It was as true of Adam and Eve that in him they lived and moved and had their being as it is of us We say God as a first cause moves every second cause but agreeably to their natures Necessary agents to worke every thing they worke necessarily Free agents to doe every thing they doe freely But to say that God made them velle modo vellent to will in case they would will is so absurd as nothing more The act of willing being hereby made the condition of it selfe and consequently both before and after it selfe See what I have delivered concerning this in my Vindiciae lib. 2. Digr 3. and Digr 6. of the nature of permission more at large where unto this Authour is content to answer just nothing Sect 7. There are two things say they in every ill act First the materiall part which is the substance of the action Secondly the formall part which is the evill or obliquitie of it God is the Authour of the action it selfe but not of the obliquitie and evill that cleaveth to it as he that causeth a lame horse to goe is the cause of his going but not of his lame going And therefore it followeth not from their opinion that God is the Authour of sinne First all sinnes receive not this distinction because of many sins the acts themselves are sinfull as of the eating of the forbidden fruit and Saul's sparing of Agag and the fat beasts of the Amalekites Secondly It is not true that they make the decree of God only of actions not of their aberrations For they make it to be the cause of all those meanes that lead to damnation and therefore of sinfull actions as sinfull and not as bare actions For actions deserve damnation not as actions but as trangressions of Gods law 3. To this simile I say that the Rider or Master that shall resolve first to flea his horse or knock him on the head and then to make him lame that for his halting he may kill him is undoubtedly the cause of his halting And so God if he determine to cast men into hell and then to bring them into a state of sinne that for their sinnes he may bring them to ruine we cannot conceive him to be lesse then the Authour as well of their sins as of those actions to which they doe inseperably adhere and that out of Gods intention to destroy them This distinction of that which is materiall and that which is formall in sinne is commonly used by Aquinas 1. secun q 71. art 6 in corp Augustinus in definitione peccati posuit duo Unum quod pertinet ad substantiam actûs humani quod est quasi materiale in peccato cum dicit dictum vel factum vel concupitum Aliud autem quod pertinet ad rationem mali quod est quasi formale in peccato cum dixit contra legem aeternam So then the substance of the act is the materiall part in sinne And the opposition of this act to the law of God is the formall part of it both according to Aquinas and according to Austin also And q 75. art 1. corp He defineth sinne to be Actus inordinatus
on the part of Reprobates is not the damnation of them but the manifestation of his glory in the way of vindicative justice which in Scripture phrase is called the Declaration of his wrath For God made all things for himselfe even the wicked against the day of evill And to this end he doth not only permit them both to sinne and to persevere therein without repentance but also to damne them for their sinne And this worke of God namely the permission of sinne is as requisite for the manifestation of his mercy on the part of his Elect as for the Declaration of his wrath on the part of reprobates Yet who was ever found so absurd as to say that we make the sinfull actions of men to be the meanes which God useth to bring about the salvation of his Elect. So little cause have we to make use of this distinction as the action it selfe and the sinfullnesse thereof to shew in what sense it is a meanes which God useth whereby to bring about the damnation of man For we utterly deny sinne to be any such meanes of God but the permission thereof only is the meanes whereby to bring about not their damnation as this Authour suggesteth but the meanes together with the damnation for sinne whereby he bringeth to passe the declaration of his just wrath But men of this Authours spirit unlesse they be suffered to calumniate at pleasure and corrupt their opposites Tenet at pleasure they can say just nothing It is true actions deserve damnation only as they are transgressions of God's law but we deny that these transgressions are God's meanes but only the permission of them is his meanes and by permitting these transgressions as also by damning for them he brings to passe his glorious end to wit the declaration of his just wrath 3ly It is most untrue that God brings any man into a state of sinne He brings himselfe into it most freely God having no other hand in the sinne but as permitting it that is as not preserving from it Indeed if he did bring men into sinne and they not rather bring themselves thereinto he were the Authour of it But it is well knowne that sinne cannot transcend the region of acts naturall All acts supernaturall must needs be the worke of grace and truly good But every sinfull act is merely naturall never supernaturall Now never any of our Divines denyed a man liberty in his greatest corruption unto acts naturall the Devill himselfe hath liberty thus farre It is true originall sinne is brought upon all by the sinne of Adam For hereby the fountaine of humane nature became corrupted but in this very sin of Adam we had an hand if there be any truth in Scripture which testifies that In Adā we all have sinned This is the doctrin which the Author spights though he be more wise then to publish to the world his spleen against it And I have seen under his hand where he denies originall sinne to be veri nominis pecatum sinne truly so called And albeit M. Hoord makes a flourish in saying that God might justly damne all man-kind for the sinne of Adam and that also was this Authour's doctrine in the lectures which he read at Magdalen Hall yet I have good cause to doubt whether this be his opinion now and not rather the same with Pelagius his opinion saving the difference which Pelagius did put between not entering into the Kingdome of heaven and damnation As for all other sins which we call actuall they are as I said naturall only and not supernaturall and therefore no man wants liberty as to doe them so to abstaine from them Only he wants a morall and Spirituall liberty to abstaine from them in a gracious manner according to that of Aquinas Licet aliquis non possit gratiam adipisci qui reprobatur à Deo tamen quod in hoc peccatum vel illud labatur ex ejus libero arbitrio contingit Though a man who is reprobated of God cannot obtaine grace yet that he falleth into this or that sinne it comes to passe of his own free will It is true also even in God's providence concerning acts naturall there is a great mystery For as God foretold David that his neighbour should lye with his wives and though he sinned secretly yet the Lord would doe this openly So he foretold that upon that Altar which Ieroboam erected a child that should be borne of the house of David Iosiah by name should burne the Prophets bones And that Cyrus also should build him a Citty and let goe his captives Yet who doubts but that Cyrus did freely deliver the Jewes out of Babylon and Iosiah did as freely burne the Prophets bones upon the alter in Bethel as ever they did action in their lives So Absalom did as freely defile his Fathers Concubines Then againe we deny that the damnation of any man is the end that God intends but the manifestation of his own glory And therfore though he hath made the wicked against the day of evill yet both that and all things he hath made for himselfe And to this tends both the permission of sinne and the damnation of Reprobates for their sin And in no moment of nature are either of these intended before the other both being joyntly meanes for the procuring of another end And if permission of sinne were first in intention with God and then damnation as these men would have it it followeth evidently by the most generally received rules of Schooles that permission of sinne should be last in execution that is men should first be damned and afterwards permitted to fall into sinne This is the issue of these men's Orthodoxy and accurate Divinity Section 8. The will is determined to an Object two waies 1. By compulsion against the bent and inclination of it 2. By necessity according to the naturall desire and liking of it God's predestination say they de termineth the will to sinne this last way but not the first It forceth no man to doe that which he would not but carrieth him towards that which he would When men sin t is true they cannot choose And it is as true they will not choose It followeth not therefore from the grounds of their doctrine that God's decree is the cause of men's sins but their own wicked wills 1. The Ancients made no distinction between these two words Necessity and Compulsion but used them in this argument promiscuously and did deny that God did necessitate men to sinne least they should grant him hereby to be the Authour of sin as I have touched before and shall intimate againe afterward Nor did the School men put any difference between them as may appeare by the testimony of M. Calvin who speaking of the School-distinction of the will 's threefold liberty from necessity from sin from Misery saith This distinction I could willingly receive but that it confoundeth necessitie with coaction 2.
of the creatures future cooperation what the free will will doe in particular This conclusion is held of all those Divines who maintaine that God by his motion or effectuall grace not only morally but efficiently and physically doth cause us to worke that which is good it is proved saith he by all those reasons whereby it hath been formery shewed that God by his decree effectuall motion doth predetermine all second causes even such as are free to worke preserving their liberty and nature 3. The dominion of her act is not first in the power of free will created but in the power and dominion of God especially in respect of acts supernaturall Our meaning is that all dominion actuall use of dominion which the created will hath as causa proxima the next cause or doth exercise over her free acts which she produceth proceedeth from God as from the cheifest first cause efficient ought to be resolved into him as into the first Authour first absolute Lord thereof And the truth is the question of free will is commonly confounded though there is place of momentous distincion For as for free will unto good that is merely Morall and the resolution thereof is according to the resolution in the point of originall sinne But free will unto actions in generall under an appearance of good this is naturall liberty and the resolution thereof depends upon a right understanding of God's naturall providence in governing the world and working with all creatures in their severall kinds such operations as are agreable to their severall conditiōs The first liberty consists in disposing man aright towards his end like as morall vertues tend to this But the second liberty consist's only in the right use of the meanes unto what end soever is projected by us The appearance of good moving herein is only in genere boni conducentis in the kind of good conducing to the end propounded whether that end can be good or evill right or wrong But the appearence of good moving in the former is only summiboni of our cheifest good the enjoying whereof will make us happy But to returne this Authour with whom I deale in present stands for the will of man's absolute dominion over her acts as before he did expresse whereas Alvarez professeth utterly against this Neither doe I blame him for contradicting Alvarez in this but for carrying himselfe like a positive Theologue nor so only but like a peremptory Theologue contenting himselfe to dictate rules to others without all proofe save this that otherwise we make God the Authour of sinne Yet this is not any expresse Argument of his neither but he obtrudes premise upon us which I thinke was never affirmed by any Divines of these dayes unlesse it be by some Libertines against whom none that I know have disputed more effectually then some of those very Divines which here are traduced by him But observe the vile and abominable issue of this Authours doctrine in this particular making man as he is a free creature to be the Lord of his own free act yea and to have the absolute dominion thereof as formerly he did expesse Sect 3. For seing the act of faith of repentance and the like are free acts if liberty cannot be maintained unlesse a man hath the absolute dominion of his own act hence it manifestly followeth that God doth not determine the will to believe to repent or to any good work yet the Scripture professeth that God is he who makes us perfect unto every good worke working in us that which is pleasing in his sight through Iesus Christ That it is God who worketh in us both the will and the deed according to his good pleasure So that if a man should live Methusalch his age and spend that whole time in a gracious conversation yet that God doth worke in him either the will or the deed of one gracious act more it is merely of his good pleasure so little cause have we to presume of perseverance in that which is good by out own strength And againe all this God workes in us for Christ his sake Christ hath deserved even this at the hands of God his father What then is the meaning of this that God should cooperate with us to the will and the deed provided that we will Consider the absurdity of this upon the supposall of the possibility of such a cooperation which yet by evident reason may be demonstrated to be utterly impossible Did Christ merit any thing for the Angells yet doth he not cooperate with them to every act of theirs as well as to any of ours Nay is it possible that any act should exist without God's operation And is it reasonable to subject such a course of Divine providence to the merits of Christ Thus we see whereunto this Authour tends in this discourse of his namely so to maintaine God to be no Authour of sinne as withall to maintaine that he is no Authour of that which is good no not of faith repentance or any gracious act that is freely performed by any creature man or Angell we on the other side desire endeavour so to carry our selves that while we vindicate God from being the Authour of evill we may not therewithall deny him to be the Authour of any thing that is good and gracious which is this Authours course as appeares manifestly in the issue And observe his crafty cariage foxe like Had he dealt upon predestination and the efficacy of grace and therein professed plainly that faith and repentance being free acts every man's will hath an absolute dominion over them and therefore God doth not determine the will thereunto For that were to make God the Authour of faith and repentance how many thousands would have been ready to have flowen in his face and abhorre such abominable doctrine Therefore he baulks that and deales only upon reprobation and here he layeth to our charge that we make God the Authour of sinne by necessitating and determining the will to sinne though his premises herein I have shewen to be most false therefore he maintains that God doth not determine the will so much as to the act whereunto the sinfulnesse accrewes both because man's will is free and because so he should be the Authour of sinne And if once he can make his Reader to swallow this he doubts not but to take him in the point of predestination and grace also and make him wary to take heed of maintaining that God determines or necessitates the will of man to any good act whether it be of faith or of repentance and that for feare of denying man to have the absolute dominion over his will to worke himselfe to faith and repentance at his pleasure and secondly for feare of makeing God the Authour of faith and repentance and every good act Like as by saying that God doth determine or necessitate the will to sinne we make him the Authour of sinne
Behold Reader the issue of this man's Divinity and whether he be not leading thee into the very chambers of death by working thee with him to oppose the free grace of God both in predestination and in regeneration and the power and efficacy therereof in working thee to faith to repentance and to every thing that is pleasing and acceptable unto him that through Jesus Christ Yet we have shewed a manifest difference between God's moving the creature unto that which is good and moving the creature unto such acts as are evill For in evill be moves only to the substance of the act whereof our Adversaries themselves acknowledge God to be the Authour that is the efficient cause and this he performes by influence generall But as touching every good act the Lord moveth not only to the substance of the act by influence generall but also to the goodnes thereof by influence speciall He proceeds to tell us what Philosophers teach concerning the condition of the will And because it is very absurd for a Christian to goe to schoole to Philosophers to learne the condition of Divine providence he tels us of Fathers too that maintaine the same as he saith but he quotes neither the one nor the other Now I would gladly know what Father hath ever taught that God hath no power over the will of man to convert it and ex nolentibus volentes facere of unwilling to make men willing to worke men to faith to repentance to all kind of pious obedience And as for God's secret providence in evill how plentifull is the Scripture concerning this God is said to have sent Ioseph into Egypt though this was brought to passe by the parricidiall hands of his brethren To tell David that the sword should not depart from his house though this could not be taken up or used but by the free will of men To send Senacherib against a dissembling nation and to professe that this proud King in all his bloudy executions upon the people of God was but as the axe or the sawe in the hand of God The like is testified concerning Nabuchodonosor after him Nay the Prophet demands Whether there be any evill in the Citty and the Lord hath not done it speaking of the evill of punishment though wickedly executed by the hands of wicked men that the Lord caused the King of Assur to fall by the sword in his own land though this was done by the hands of his own children And as in violent courses so in impure courses the Scripture as plainly testifies the secret providence of God to have place therein And what doth Austin observe from the like places both in his fift book against Iulian the Pelag c 3 and in his book de gratia libero arbitrio professing occulto Dei judicio fieri perversitatem cordis that the perversity of the heart or will comes to passe by the secret judgment of God And the power that God hath over the wills of men to incline them even to evill that is his phrase as I have formerly shewed abundantly representing the places where he delivers this He proceeds not so much in Scholasticall discourse as in rhetoricall amplification more like a Shrew vexing him selfe and fretting that he cannot have his will then like a disputer That which necessitates the will makes it become but a servile instrument irresistably subject to superiour command and determination this action of command comes in most unseasonably it denoting a morall action commanding not only things agreable but sometimes contrary to the will of the person commanded No such thing hath place in God's moving of the will of man did he move it unto sinne which yet is most false for he moves it only to the substance of the act But why should it seeme strange that the creature should be a Servant to the Creator and his instrument and a servile instrument Yet the notion of servility is very aliene from the matter in hand that having place only in proper speech as touching morall obedience that which we treat of is rather of motions naturall and of the subordination of the second cause to the first the second Agent to the first And was ever any sober man known to oppose this with such froth of words as this Authour doth Doth this Authour himselfe thinke it possible that the Creature can move it selfe or performe any operation without God's concourse I doe not think he doth Doe we not live in God have we not our being in God And what is this other then to say that our life and being depend on God in the kind of a cause efficient And doth not the same Apostle and in the same place testifie and that in the words of an heathen man to shew that all such did not so maintaine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condition of the will as to maintaine the exemption of it from influence Divine professe that in God we move also And the truth is all the question is about the manner of this concourse divine whereabouts this Authour spends not a word as if he kept his breath for some other purpose then to deale on that point which alone is controverted The irresistable subjection he speaks of is no more then the bereaving of the will of her liberty which is most untrue For proof whereof I appeale to every man that will but look upon Alvarez that maintaines this divine motion of will under the notion of determining And upon Bradwardine who alone that I know maintaines the same divine motion under the notion of necessitating Whereas he infers herehence that God is a truer cause of all such acts and sins that proceed from the will so determined then the will is Oftentimes he hath set before us such Coleworts but we have nothing but his bare word for it And it depends merely upon this that the action of the creature is not free Whereas both Bradwardin maintaines that God necessitates the creature to every free act of his And Alvarez that God determines the creature to worke freely Now is it a sober course hence to inferre that the act is not free As much as to say it cannot but be free therfore it is not free And yet we know that every one naturally is prone to sinne and in the best of God's children there is a principle that inclines to sinne God is confessed by our very opposites to be the true cause of the act yet not at all the cause of the sin by his concourse Only they differ from us as touching the nature of this concourse We say God concurres to the producing of the act as it becomes not an Agent only but the first Agent not a cause only but the first cause and man as a second Agent and second cause that moveth in God as the Apostle testifies like as he lives in God and hath his being in God But these
sober conscience that is able to judge indifferently between us in this But if to avoid this they deny that the concurrence is equall but that God's concurrence is conditionall to wit in case the creature will and so man is to be accounted the Authour of sinne and not God hence it followeth that seeing God's concurrence unto the act of faith and repentance is of the same nature in the opinion of these men God is not the Authour of faith and repentance any more then he is the Authour of sinne in the language of these disputers Or if they fly not to this as I have found this Authour as I guesse to deny God's concourse to stand in subordination to man's then my former argument is not avoided But a third reason ariseth herehence against his former discourse of God's concourse namely that if God and man doe equally concurre unto the act of sinne then as I have already shewed that they are equally guilty of sin So in the working of faith and repentance man is as forward as God and as much the Authour of his own fatih and repentance as God is in direct contradiction to the Apostle who saith that Faithis the guift of God not of our selves We willingly grant that God is the principall agent in producing every act whether it be naturall or supernaturall For in him we move as well as in him we live have our being But we deny sin as sin to be any act but a privation of obedience to the law of God as the Apostle defines it to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet let us examine that which he delivers of the principall agent the texts produced by him that we may not be carried away as he is with a superficiary apprehension of things And first consider we might plead as well for such acts as this Authour calls sins as he doth for acts gracious by his superficiary discourse For doth not Ioseph comforting his brethren say unto them in like manner Now then you sent me not hither but God But consider farther in that passage alleadged by him out of Mat 10. 20. It is not ye that speak but the spirit of my Father which speaketh in you Was not this speech of the Apostles a free action The labour of Paul more abundantly then of all the rest of the Apostles was it not a free action in Paul â—f God determined theÌ„ unto these actions then freedome of will humane stands not in opposition to determination divine and consequently though the act be evill that is done by man yet may God determine the creature to the doing of that act without any impeachment of the creatures liberty If God did not determine the wills of his Servants but only afford a simultaneous concourse to their actions why is he called the cause principall since it is confessed God doth afford the like concourse to every sinfull act as touching the substance thereof Againe he repeates the same when in case of divine determination he saith the sinne cannot be so rightly ascribed to man's will the inferiour as to God's necessitating decree the superiour cause To which I answer againe being drawen thereunto by his Tautologies by the same reason it may be inferred that when the fire burnes any combustible thing the burning is rather to be ascribed to God the more principall cause then to the fire the lesse principall the first cause being more principall then the second and if it please God so to order it the fire shall not burne as it appeares in the three noble children cast into the furnace of Babylon when they came forth there was not so much as the smell of fire upon them Secondly I answer as before by the same reason when the concourse unto the sinfull act is equall on man's part on God's each shall equally be accounted the Authour of that sinne and not man more then God Now such a concourse is maintained by this Authour Thirdly in the working of faith and repentance since by these mens opinions God affords only his concourse he shall be no more the Authour of man's faith and repentance then man himselfe is Lastly be it granted that God is a more principall cause then maÌ„ in producing the act yet there is no colour of imputing unto God the causality of the sin who hath no Agency therein by doing what he ought not to doe or not in that manner he should doe this is found only in the creature who being a free Agent otherwise then as originall sinne hath impaired liberty which I hope this Authour will not deny is justly answerable for his own transgression As for example God determined that Cyrus should give the Jewes liberty to returne into their own land yet this action of Cyrus was as free an action as any that was performed by him throughout his life God determined that Josiah should burne the Prophets bones upon the Altar at Bethel yet Iosiah did this as freely as ought else God determined that Christ's bones should not be broken yet the souldiours abstained from the breaking of his bones with as much liberty as they had used in case they had broken them This divine providence we willingly confesse is very mysterious and as Cajetan saith the distinctions used to accommodate it to our capacitie doe not quiet the understanding therefore he thought it his duty to captivate his into the obedience of faith And Alvarez in a solemne disputation proves that it is incomprehensible by the wit of man 4. His last is delivered most perplexedly I can make no sense of it as the words lie but I see his meaning He supposeth that God by our Tenet makes a man to sin willingly that he saith is worse then to constraine a man to sinne against his will Where observe how this man's spirit is intoxicated when he delivered this For first he calls that worse which is merely impossible and that by his own rules For he holds that sinne cannot be except it be voluntary speaking of sinne committed by any particular person Secondly he supposeth that by our opinion God makes a man to sinne which is most untrue For when he acknowledgeth that no sin can be committed by man without God's concourse will he say that God by his concourse helps a man to sinne He helps him to the producing of the act not to the committing of the sinne And indeed be the act never so vertuous if it proceed not out of the love and feare of God it is no better then such as the Heathens performed of which Austin hath professed that they were no better then splendida peccata glorious sins So that if God doth not give a man these graces of his holy Spirit in every act that is performed by him he shall sinne and not only in acts vitious and God is not bound to bestow these graces on any Section 9. Sinne may be considered as sinne or as a meanes of
sin Neither are these generalls the only end that God aimed at in this but many other particulars there are whereby the glory of God's wisedome and power and grace doth appeare by occasion of sins entrance into the world The horrible facts of Jewes and Gentiles cōmitted upon the person of the Son of God were such as whereby the Lord brought to passe the redemption of the world if Christ had not been crucified what satisfaction had been made for the sins of the world how could he have been set forth as a propitiation for our sins through faith in his blood yet this is not all the glory of God that breaks forth by the permission of sin The punishment of one sin by another is an admirable worke of God's providence and that more waies then one For God can punish and doth one man by the sin of an other The Assyrians and Babylonians committed outrages enough upon the people of God yet hereby the Lord was just in punishing the sins of his own people Senacherib blasphemed the God of Israel the creature his Creator most unnaturally this unnaturallnes of his towards God the Lord avenged by the unnaturalnesse of his own children towards him This was the worke of the Lord as himselfe acknowledgeth I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land Man seeketh the face of the Ruler but every man's judgment is of the Lord. Many unjust judgments have their course in the world yet Solomon saith every man's judgment is from the Lord. It is just with him to punish unjust courses with unjust courses and there is mercy in this for no better way then this to bring mens former wicked courses to their remembrance As Adonibezek when the thumbs of his hands and great toes of his feet were cut off then he remembred his former cruelty and how that 70 Kings had eaten bread under his Table having the thumbes of their hands and feet cut off And herein he acknowledged the just hand of God saying As I have done to others so hath God done to me And as many as will not in like manner acknowledge the just hand of God in like cases let them take heed lest Adonibezek one day rise up in judgment against them Thus it is just with God by one sin of the same man to punish another For because the Gentiles knowing God glorified him not as God but were unthankfull turning the glory of the incorruptible God into the Image of corruptible things therefore the Lord gave them up unto a reprobate mind to doe those things which are not convenient Therefore God gave thē up to vile affections Therefore God gave them up to their hearts lusts unto uncleanes to defile their own bodies between thēselves And what were these inconvenient things what was this uncleanes Wherein consisted this defiling of their bodies between themselves The text expresseth it thus For even their womē changed the naturall use into that which is against nature And likewise also the mē left the naturall use of the women burned in their lust one towards another mā with man wrought filthines But was there any judgment of God to be observed in this The Apostle hath discovered this also unto us in the words immediately following thus And they received in thēselves such recōpence of their errour as was meet observe manifestly the just hand of God in all this As for the manner how God brought all this to passe we answer with Austin whether it be modo explicabili or inexplicabili by a way that may be explicated by us or whether it be inexplicabile the Apostle troubleth not himselfe hereabout his care was only to shew how great a judgmēt this was this is prosecuted farther by Austin in the same place shewing by variety of particulars all taken out of the word of God in the place formerly quoted Neither is this all the glory of God that cōes to be manifested by the permission of sin For he knows not only how to judge one sin by another but to heale one sin by another also Audeo dicere saith Austin utile est superbis in aliquod apertum manifestumque cadere peccatum that so they may be humbled and brought to sobriety and passe the time of sojourning here with greater care and feare Now consider in how hungry a manner this Authour sets downe our tenet concerning God's providence in willing and decreeing that sin shall come to passe in the world by his permission whē he talkes of sin being a meanes of punishment a most absurd expression both in a sinister stating of the end punishment not being the end but a meanes coordinate to an other end to wit the manifestation of God's glory who hath made all things for himselfe that is for the setting forth of his own glory as also in a sinister stating the end sin being not a meanes as most absurdly he stiles it but a meritorious cause of punishment Like as in reference to the manifestation of his glory it is not the meanes but the materiall cause thereof But the permission of sins that and not sin is the meanes together with the punishment thereof tending to the manifestatiō of God's glory in the way of justice 1. A good end cannot moralize a bad actiō We grant it But seeing it is impossible that the divine hand can doe any bad action the end of his actions is sufficient to justifie his courses For as Aquinas hath delivered God's wisedome is his justice For he is a debtor to none but to himselfe and how to himselfe Not otherwise then in all things which he doth to carry himselfe so as it becōmeth himselfe that is to order every thing to a right end which is only the manifestation of his own glory For himselfe is most lovely and 't is his nature to be most loving of that which is most lovely Now to order all things aright to their congruous ends is the part of wisdome And see how extravagant this Authour is in evey one of his instances For to steale to commit adultery to oppresse to kill is to sinne and in willing any of these a man wills his own sinne But the Argument we treat of is of God's willing the sins of others as when God's hand and his counsell determined that those things should be done which by Herod Pontius-Pilate the Gentiles and people of Israel were committed against the holy Son of God and when the Kings gave their kingdomes to the beast herein they are said to doe the will of God and when every mans judgment is said to come frō the Lord not only judgmēt just but even judgments unjust to wit of men yet God hath a just hand in plaguing others by thē man ought not to doe evill that good may come thereof but God's willing it to come to passe by his permission is no evill at all Nay it is good nor so only
as sinne is no worke of God but the permission of it is his worke and his meanes not to this end that he may punish it but he doth both permit it and punish it for the manifestation of his glory in the way of justice like as he doth also permit sinne in others not to pardon it but he both permits sinne and pardons it to manifest his glory in the way of mercy 3. I come to the consideration of the speciall indignities wherewith God is loaded by this our doctrine as this Authour pretendeth 1. And indeed is God's wisedome and providence so strong as that he is able to find meanes to glorifie his justice without the permitting of sinne For God hath no other hand in sinne as sinne but of permission to the substance of the act he cooperates as a cause efficient as all confesse For of what justice doe we treat in this argument Is it of justice remunerative or justice vindicative Was it ever heard that permission of sinne was required to make way for God's justice remunerative Or is it possible that way can be made for the manifestation of Gods justice vindicative in Scripture called God's wrath unlesse sinne be permitted to enter For though he hates it yet this Authour confesseth that God permits it as without whose permission it could not enter into the world Sect 6. In the last place this Authour helps himselfe with a phrase of God's appointing men to commit it which he obtrudes upon us thinking to make the ballance on his part the heavier not considering that words are but wind We say the horrible outrages committed upon our Saviour God foredetermined to be done And told David that he would give his wives unto his neighbour who should lye with them before the Sun And that it was his will that the Kings should give their Kingdome to the Beast this we deliver according to God's word whereas all this our opposit's discourse is quite besides the word of God as if he would have us take his absurd conceits in steed of oracles And doth he not know that Austin sometimes sayd that Iudas electus est ad prodendum sanguinem Domini Iudas was chosen to betray his Master Or will he answer that he was the first that said so 2. To the second I have already answered and that at large in my answer to M. Hoord in the preface and second Section There I have shewed how that it was merely devislish policy in Tiberius to move him to take this course to make way for a grand child of his own to bring him to the imperiall throne This moved him to seeke the death of Germanicus his two Sons whom Augustus made him to adopt as successours in the empire lest the putting of them to death without cause might provoke the people to mutiny against him therfore by cunning contrivances he caused them to be provoked to revile him that so he might have some cause to justifie his destroying of them which yet he did not by any publique execution he was loath to come to that for feare of raising some tumult thereby Fame necavit he famished them Now how hath Satan possessed the heart of this unhappy Divine thus to blaspheme the holy one of Israell by comparing his waies to these abominable courses of Tiberius not fearing lest his tongue rot in his head while he is uttering of them Cannot God take the life of any man from him be he never so innocent and that what way he will even by punishment if it please him For is it not of God's mere mercy that he promiseth Not to famish the soule of the rightous As for provoking courses is it not apparent by these our opposites confession that to all the provoking courses in the world God doth concurre and that as an efficient cause of every action And accordingly he did concurre with these provoking courses used by Tiberius And did not God professe that he would provoke the Israelites by a foolish people and by a foolish nation he would anger them How did Shimei provoke David by railing upon him And how did David interpret it The Lord saith he hath bid him to curse David Not that he gave any such command in proper speech but by his secret providence brought this to passe using to this purpose the vitious disposition which he found in Shimei but caused it not And observe what Austin speakes in the like case of his mother Monica exercised with the opprobrious speeches of her servant Quid egisti Deus meus unde curasti unde sanasti Nonne protulists durum acutum ex alterâ animâ convitium tanquam medicinale ferrum ex occultis provisionibus tuis uno ictu putredinem illam praecidisti My God what diddest thou how diddest thou cure her how recover her Diddest thou not bring forth an harsh and sharp reproch out of an others heart as a medicinall instrument in thy secret providence and with one stroke pared away all that rottenesse Thus Adonibezek when his thumbes and great toes were cut off by his enemies he acknowledged that God had done to him as he had done to others And Solomon testifies that every man's judgment commeth of the Lord. If every man's judgment then surely unjust judgments and not just only And although they are unjust as they proceed frō man yet are they just as they proceed from God Like as the parricide of Adramelech Sharezer committed upon their Father Senacherib the Lord takes unto himselfe when he saith I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land Yet what was David the worse for Shimei's cursing neither would he thereby be urged to requite evill for evill upon his subjects the more inexcusable were the Sons of Germanicus for reviling their Prince Tiberius though never so much provoked thereunto Neither was this fact of Tiberius a fruit of Hypocrisy which is the counterfeiting of holines justice was pretended indeed not holines that through feare For the wicked man is continually as one travelling with child A sound of feare is in his eares The cunning contrivances that Tiberius used are specified by this Authour but he doth not specifie the cunning contrivances that God useth by our opinion as he obtrudes upon us Belike he was to seek of thē yet we expresse God's providence herein by no other termes then the word of God it selfe doth suggest unto us Namely of blinding the mind of giving over to strong illusions of hardning the heart of giving over unto their hearts lusts unto vile affections unto a Reprobate mind To all which is required no other thing then the not curing of that naturall corruption and habituall vitious disposition which is found in the wicked whether in the way of luxury or in the way of uncharitablenesse and malice or in the way of ambition pride And secondly the administration of congruous occasions unto this their corrupt disposition which Arminius
himselfe confesseth to be the worke of God's providence in his Theses of providence and which in Scripture phrase is stiled the leading into temptation against which our Saviour taught his disciples to pray Thirdly the giving them over to the power of Satan And lastly God's generall concourse in moving all creatures to worke agreably to their natures necessary things necessarily contingent Agents contingently and free Agents freely But my answer to this I have prosecuted at large in more sheets then here are leaves in my answer to M. Hoord 3. As for want of mercy we willingly confesse according to the tenour of God's word as this Authour delivers himselfe without all respect thereunto that God shewes no mercy in hardning them For to harden in Scripture phrase is opposite to God's shewing mercy And as he is bound to none so he professeth that He will shew mercy on whom he will shew mercy and will have compassion on whom he will have compassion And this the Apostle takes hold of in prosecuting the doctrine of election and concludeth from hence in part in part from God's hardening of Pharaoh that God hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth by hardning meaning such an operation the consequence whereof is alwaies disobedience as appeares by the objection derived therehence in the words following Thou wilt say then why doth he yet complaine now he complaines only of disobedience For who hath resisted his will Manifestly implying that when God hardens man unto disobedience it is his secret will that he shall disobey Like as when God hardned Pharaoh that he should not let Israel goe It was God's secret will that he should not let Israel goe for a good while Secret I say in distinction from the will of command which is alwaies made knowne to them who are commanded But it pleased the Lord to make this will of his knowne to Moses though it was kept secret from Pharaoh yet afterwards he told Pharaoh to his face by his servant Moses saying And indeed for this cause have I appointed thee to shew my power in thee and to declare my name to all the world though Pharaoh believed it not as appeares by that which followeth yet thou exaltest thy selfe against me and lettest them not goe But this Authour together with M. Hoord goeth by other rules which his own fancy suggest's unto him he will have God's love and mercy extended to all and every one Christ's redemption to extend to all and every one the Covenant of grace to comprehend all and every one and upon these universalities he grounds his transcendent consolations whence it comes to passe that Abraham the father of the faithfull was of no more comfortable condition then the grand Signior among the Turkes And the grand Siginior had as good grounds of consolatiō as Abraham himselfe Yet this not shewing of mercy on the vessells of wrath prepared unto destruction tends to the greater demonstration of his mercy on the vessells of mercy prepared unto glory As the Apostle testifies Ro 9. 23. And let this Author tell Saint Paul if he thinks good That this is the disposition of hang-men rather then of good Princes And this is the perpetuall tenour of this Authour's discourse to conforme God's courses to the conditions of courses humane Man is bound to shew mercy on all God is not God is free to pardon whom he will man is not If we permit men to sinne in case we can hinder them we shall be guilty with them but how innumerable are the sins committed in the world which if God would hinder could never be committed As Austin discourseth lib. 5. contra Iulian Pelag cap. 4 In nothing did Nero's cruelty shew it selfe more then in prolonging the lives of men that he might torment them the more What then Shall we taxe God for crueltie in keeping mens bodies and soules alive for ever in hell fire to torment them everlastingly without end See what a doore of blasphemy is opened against the just God that will doe no iniquity by this Authour 's unshamefast discourse By this let the indifferent Reader judge of this Authour 's present performance withall take notice of that which himselfe hath dissembled all along touching his own tenet namely that of every sinfull act committed by the creature God is the efficient cause as touching the substance of the act as for the sinfulnesse thereof we hold it impossible that God can have any agency at all therein or any culpable deficiency forasmuch as he neither doth ought which he should not doe or after what manner he should not nor leaves undone ought which he should doe or after what manner he should doe all which are incident to the creature who is subject to a law but not at all to the Creatour who gives lawes to others but himselfe works according to the counsell of his own will in all things The summe is whatsoever we deliver as touching God's secret providence in evill we have expresse scripture for us nothing but pretence of carnall reason against us which when it comes to be examined is found subject to manifest contradiction both as touching their feigning things future without the decree of God And as touching their conditionall decrees and conditionall concurrences ours is not in any particular The greatest shew of contradiction on our parts is in the point of necessitie and libertie Now to cleare this as others have taken paines so have I in my Vindiciae proving divers and sundry waies that these two doe amically conspire to wit the necessitie being only upon supposition the liberty and contingency simply so called only it is not to be expected that there should be no difference between the liberty of the creatures and the liberty of God the Creator Or that the creature in her operation should be exempt from the operation of God The second cause exempt from the motion of the first whereunto this Authour addresseth not the least answer As for the difference which this Authour puts between the upper way and the lower in making God the Authour of sinne compare this with Arminius his profession Namely that the same twenty reasons which he objected against the upper way may all of them be accommodated against the lower way all of them admitting of the same distinctions which this Authour invades to cleare God from being the Authour of sinne The second inconvenience Section 1. The second inconvenienceis the overthrow of true religion and good goverment among men To this this opinion seemeth to tend for these reasons 1. Because it maketh sinne to be no sinne indeed but only in opinion We use to say necessity hath no law creatures or actions in which necessity beares sway are without saw Lyons are not forbidden to prey birds to fly fishes to swimme or any bruit creatures to doe according to their kinds because their actions are naturall and necessary they cannot upon any
I consider this Authour's compounding of these termes absolutely and antecedently I begin to suspect that like as then a thing comes to passe antecedently when it comes to passe by an Antecedent decree in this Authour's language though most absurd So in his language the things are said to come to passe by absolute necessity when they come to passe by an absolute decree the decree in his opinion being sufficient to make a thing come to passe necessarily an absolute decree to make it come to passe absolutely necessarily This undoubtedly is his meaning upoÌ„ which I am stuÌ„bled are I am aware Now let the sober Reader judge how farre these odde conceits are from all sobriety Did not God decree to make the world nay did he not absolutely decree this and antecedently not conditionally and consequently What therefore will it here-hence follow that the world had it's existence necessarily and that by the way of absolute necessity I had thought this had been the peculiar and incommunicable perfection of God himselfe namely to exist necessarily and that in the way of absolute necessity As for all other things which are but God's creatures they have only a contingent existence derived originally from the free will of God the Creator For this I take to be the transcendent perfection of God To be most necessarily to worke most freely Necessity and that absolute being the greatest perfection of being So that Bradwardine conceives this to be the prime and originall perfection of God esse necessario to be necessarily On the other side freedome in the highest kind is the greatest perfection 〈◊〉 operation and God alone so workes as without subordination to any superiour Agent but no creature man or Angell so workes as without subordination to God the first Agent the first cause the first free worker Now I come 〈◊〉 the second particular of this second inconvenience 2. And that is that our doctrine taketh away the conscience of sin and this we willingly grant is consequent upon the former For if sinne be no sinne there is no cause why any man should be troubled with the conscience of sin But all this being grounded upon a vile and most untrue imputation never yet proved namely that we make all actions both good and evill to come to passe by absolute necessity there can be no more truth in the consequent then there is in the Antecedent We say that every sinne that is or ever was committed in the world is and ever was committed freely not only voluntarily much lesse doth any sinne come to passe by any absolute necessity For albeit there be some things that come to passe necessarily by necessity of nature as proceeding from Agents naturall working naturally and necessarily Yet is no worke of nature wrought by any absolute necessity God being able to set an end to nature and the works thereof whensoever it pleaseth him and while nature continueth according to the good pleasure of God he restraines the course thereof or changeth it as he thinks good How much lesse doe the actions of men not only in respect of God's agency who is the first cause but in respect of man's agency a second cause and working deliberately and freely come to passe not necessarily but contingently and freely So farre off are they from comming to passe by absolute necessity to exist by absolute necessity being the incommunicable perfection of God himselfe But I confesse this Authour sheweth some humanity in the proofe of it to wit out of the Tragedian very judiciously and learnedly Fati est ista culpa nemo fit fato nocens It is the fault of fate or destiny and what comes to passe by destiny is no fault of man's Yet Zeno the great Patron of Fate finding his servant in a fault when his servant excused himselfe upon fate saying it was destiny that he should steale made a ready answer saying Et caedo it was his destiny also to be punished So farre was he from justifying or excusing his servant upon any such ground or forbearing to punish him And doth not this Authour know that Iocasta for all her acknowledgment of fate governing all things yet in conscience of her incestuous courses destroyed her selfe in the same Tragedian But consider indifferent Reader whether this Authour doth not carry himselfe as if he were dealing with little children and his purpose were not to informe them but to abuse and mocke them For is that all waies the faith or opinion of the Tragedian whatsoever he puts into the mouthes of this or that Actor Doe not they represent the absurd pretences of some as well as the reasonable discourses of others Then againe who are they that maintaine Fatum destiny Where hath he found this maintained by any of our divines Yet I confesse this Authour deales ingeniously in one thing to wit in walking so fairely in the steps of this forefathers For thus the Pelagians accused the doctrine of Austin not only after he was dead as appeares by Prosper's Epistle ad Ruffinum but even while he was living as appeares by Austin himselfe Nec sub nomine gratiae fatum asserimus quia nullis hominum meritis dicimus Dei gratiam antecedi Si autem quibusdam omnipotentis Dei voluntatem placet fati nomine nuncupari profanas quidem verborum novitates evitamus sed de verbis contendere non amamus neither doe we maintain destiny under the name of grace in saying grace is not prevented by any merits of man But if some are pleased to call the will Allmighty God by the name of faâ—e or destiny we avoid the profane novelties of words but we doe not love to strive about words Where observe how first the same crimination was made against Austin's doctrine by the Pelagians which this Authour makes against ours 2. The doctrine which the Pelagians opposed in this crimination was this Grace is not conferr'd according unto workes 3ly Austin disavowes all antecedency of workes to the bestowing of grace how much more to the decreeing of grace to be bestowed on any which yet is the beloved Helena of this Authour therefore he talkes so oft against an Antecedent decree Then againe it is manifest that the greatest maintainers of destiny and sate did not maintaine it in any opposition to the free wills of men And Austin him selfe professeth that such a necessity as is expressed in these words Necesse est ut fiat it must needs be that such a thing shall come to passe containes no inconvenience nor is any way prejudiciall to the free wills of men His words are these Sienim necessitas nostra ida dicenda est quae non est in nostra 〈◊〉 â—â—detiamsi nelumus efficit quod potest sicut est necessitas mortis ManifestuÌ„ est 〈◊〉 nostras quibus recte aut perperam vivitur sub tale necessitate non esse Multaâ—â—im 〈◊〉 quae si nolemus non facerimus Si autem illa desinitur esse necessitas
impose or can impose any such necessity on things neither are creatures capable of such necessity But if we speake of such necessity as creatures are capable of under the divine liberty by causes intermediate it is to be said that all things doe not come to passe of necessity but some doe and some doe not God will have some things come to passe by the mediation of causes necessary those come to passe necessarily Others come to passe by the mediation of causes contingent and those come to passe contingently Whereby saith he 't is manifest that they say not well who say that all things come to passe of necessity in reference to the Divine will because as hath been shewed in respect of the Divine will all things come to passe freely and therefore speaking absolutely they may not come to passe although upon supposition that they are willed they cannot but come to passe but this is only necessity upon supposition 1. Indeed if men did sinne against their wills and virgins sometimes are ravished men are slaine by force full sore against their wills they deserved no punishment But is it possible that a man can will that which is evill against his will Every ordinary Scholar in the University knowes that axiome Voluntas non potest cogi the will cannot be forced Lipsius his speech fatali culpae fatalis poena fatall faults have fatall punishments this Authour saith is but a mere crotchet contrary to reason As if he would teach the very maintainers of fate yea the very first to understand themselves For fate wherewith our doctrine is charged by our opposites is commonly called Fate Stoicall Now Zeno was the father of the Stoicks yet when his servant was taken playing the theife pleaded for himselfe saying it was my destiny to steale Zeno answeared him in his own language that it was his destiny to smart for it too right in this same sense that Lipsius spake Yet Zeno knew full well that he punished his servant freely And Zeno is well knowne to have been a great Master of morality for all this which could not consist with denying the liberty of man's will as this Authour well knowes And Austin censureth those who feared to subject the will to all manner of necessity as men transported with vaine and causelesse feares manifesting thereby that some necessity may very well consist with a man's liberty Magistrates though they believe with Austin that Not any thing comes to passe unlesse Allmighty God will have it come to passe And with the Church of Ireland that God from all eternity did by his unchangeable counsell ordaine whatsoever should in time come to passe And with Aquinas that the roote of contingency is the effectuall will of God yet may they well thinke it reasonable enough to punish offences seing that God decrees that some things even all the actions of men shall come to passe contingently as well as other things shall come to passe necessarily For to come to passe contingently is to come to passe avoidably and if they be the actions of men freely also It is incredible that any sober man should remissely punish faults for the exorbitancy strength sake of the passions whereby they were committed but rather in consideration of the potent causes which raised such passions in them under a colour of justice And we commonly say the greater the temptation is the lesse is the sin So Peter surprised suddainly with feare denied his Master Yet what saith Aristotle In some things no force is suffecient for excuse but a man ought to dy rather any manner of death then commit them For those things in Euripedes are rediculous which moved Alcmaeon to kill his mother Indeed Plato maintained that things done through passion were not voluntary But Aristotle a better Master then he disproves it and by excellent reasons confirmes the contrary And whatsoever Popilius the Roman Pretor judged of her who slew her mother provoked by her Mothers fact in murthering her children yet let our lawes be consulted and the opinion of our Judges in such a case and whether such a one were not to be condemned and whether Popilius his judgment deserves to be admitted for the correction of the lawes of our land and working a reformation in this particular We should soone have a wild world if every one being provoked by the insolencies of others should thrust themselves into the throne of God for the execution of vengeance Yet none more unfit for this then the daughter to execute God's vengeance upon the mother that bare her Yet it was wont to be held If I forget not that potestas patria originally was power of life and death But all is fish that comes to this Authour's net like as her fact who poisoned her husband and son for killing a son of hers destroying two for one without all authority most unnaturally and that not hastily but in a deliberate way by poisoning And doth it become Christians to admire such heathenish courses of men nothing acquainted with the divine providence And was this so doubtfull a case whether so wicked a wretch avenging her selfe by poison secretly given upon her husband and son for the death of another son of hers that the sentencing thereof should be put over untill an 100 yeares after But what of all this These willfully affect revenge the execution whereof belongs not to them but it is just with God to punish sinne with sinne one man's sinne by another As of Senacherib the Lord professeth that he would cause him to fall by the sword in his own land this was brought to passe by his own children falling upon him furiously and as unnaturally as the actions of any of these How was innocent Naboth used and by publique sentence condemned to be stoned to death and accordingly executed by the practise of wicked Iezabel Yet Solomon spareth not to professe that every man's judgment commeth of the Lord. Never were more abominable courses executed upon any then upon the holy son of God Yet these were all foredetermined by the hand of God and the counsell of God as the Apostles with one voice acknowledge By the same providence was Ioseph sold into Egypt God working thereby the preservation of them that sold him Thus Sihon was hardened and the Canaanites and the Egyptians with Pharaoh their King to their own destruction Thus the Lord punished David's foule sinne by the murther of Amnon contrived by his own brother and by the sword of Absolon rising up against his own father and by the sword of Shimei's tongue cursing David wherein David acknowledged the hand of God Thus he punished the Idolatry of the Gentiles by giving them over to vile affections and so prostituting them to abominable courses What outrages were committed by Senacherib that proud and blasphemous wretch upon the people of God yet is he called the rod of God's wrath and the staffe in his hand is
holinesse and maketh him the principall cause of sin in the greatest number of men I know that the defender of it doth not thinke so For the maine reason which moved the Synod of Dort some other Divines before and since to bring downe predestination thus low and begin their Reprobation after the fall was that they might maintaine a fatall and absolute Reprobation of men and yet avoid this imputation as Doctor Twisse hath noted But what they intended for ought that I can see they have not compassed For it followeth evident enough even from their conclusions too that of all the sins of reprobates which are the greatest number by many degrees God is the true and principall Authour Two things they say which taken together methinks inferre it 1. That God of his own will and pleasure hath brought men into an estate in which they cannot avoid sinne 2ly That he leaveth the Reprobate irrecoverably in it 1. That God of his own will and pleasure hath brought men into an estate in which they cannot possibly avoid sinne that is into the state of originall sinne which consists of two parts 1. The guilt of Adam's transgression 2. The corruption of nature In both these they say mankind is interessed not through the force and efficiency of naturall generation because we all derive our nature from Adam as our first principle but by God's free and voluntary order and impuration It came not to passe by any naturall meanes saith Calvin that all men fell from salvation by the fault of our first parem That all men are held under the guilt of eternall death in the person of one man it is the cleare and constant voice of Scripture Now this cannot be ascribed to any naturall cause it must therefore come from the wonderfull councell of God A little after he hath the same againe with as great an Emphasis How is it that so many nations with their children should be involved in the fall without remedy but because God would have it so As roundly doth Doctor Twisse affirme the same The guilt of originall sinne is derived unto us only by imputation the filth only by propagation and both these only by God's free constitution A little before he hath these words The fault of our nature commeth rom God's free appointment For he doth not cut of any necessity but of his mere will only impute the sinne of Adam to us To this purpose he speaketh a great deale more in the same place To these sayings Saint Bernard hath the like speaking of Adam's sinne he saith Adam's sinne is anothers because we knew not of it and yet ours because it was through the just though secret judgment of God reputed ours And this that they say is agreable to reason For if we be fallen into the guilt of the first sinne and the corruption of nature only because we were in Adam's loines when he sinned and derive our being from him then these two things will follow 1. That we stand guilty of all the sinâ— which Adam committed from his fall to his lives end For we were vertually in his loines as well after his fall as before and in every passage and variation of his life he was still a principle of mankind But where doe we read that we are guilty of any other of his sins To the nâ—st sin only doth the Scripture entitle that sin and misery which entred into the world and invaded all mankind as we may see Rom 5. 15. 16. 17 c. 2. That children are guilty of the sins of all their progenitours especially of their immediate parents For they were in their loines when they sinned and more immediatly then in Adam's But children are not guilty of their parents faults nor obnoxious to their punishments because they are their children as we may see Exod 20. 5. where God saying that he will visit the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them hate him plainly implyeth that children are not simply charged with their fathers sins but conditionally if they be haters of God as their fathers were if by imitating their wicked parents they become partakers of their sins In Ezech 18 14 c. The Lord signifieth thus much in his Apology against the cavill of the Jewes For first he saith that if a wicked man begetteth a son that seet his fathers sins doth not the like he shall not die for the iniquiry of his father This implyeth that the derivation of being from the patent doth not render the child obnoxious to the punishment of the fathers sin nor consequently to the sinne For the good child is not obnoxious and yet the good child is equally in the fathers loines with the bad and equally receiveth nature and being from him And then the Lord tells them expresly thus much in two propositions 1. Affirmatively The soule that sinneth it shall die And that it may be known that he speaks exclusively only the soule that sinneth shall dye he delivers his mind 2. Negatively The Son shall not beare the iniquity of the father neither shall the father beare the iniquity of her Sonne c. Our Saviour in that woefull speech of his to the Pharisees Fulfill ye also the measure of your fathers Behold I send unto you Prophets c. them ye shall kill and crucifie that on you may come all the righteous blood c. Intimateth apparently that the Pharisees were not inheritours of their fathers sins punishments by birth but by the commission and imitation of their fathers sins they came to inherit both their sins and plagues Miserable would our case be on whom the ends of the world are coÌ„e if children should be guilty of all their Ancestours prevatications What a world of sins should we be to answer for personall sins parents progenitours sins to a thousand past generations A thing with no reason to be imagined This is the first thing Whereas I am quoted here to give the reason which moved the Synod of Dort and some other Divines to begin Reprobation after the fall namely this to avoid the imputation of making God the Authour of sinne I doubt this Authour hath so long inured himselfe to leasings that it is growne naturall unto him to deliver untruthes For first I make no mention in that fourth Digres of mine in the matter of predestination of the Synod of Dort neither indeed were they the Objects of my thoughts in this particular That Digression of mine is spent in answering the arguments of those who dispute against Massa nondum condita and stand for massa corrupta to be the object of election and reprobation In the first chapter I make answer to Mr. Elnathan Parre in an English tract of his wherein he deales upon this argument In the second chap I deale with others that make choice of the lower way because it seemes to be the easiest
way which I expresse in the very words of Mr. Doctor Abbats Bishop of Sarisbury ere he died and I conceived that indeed this motive prevailed with most and therefore I thought good so much the more throughly to discusse that But doe I say they tooke this course to free God from the imputation of sinne Nothing lesse my words are these in the Digression cap. 2. Quod plurimos movet illud est nimirum quod in sententia illâ de massâ nondum conditâ omnia sint ut aiunt intricata perplexa infinitis difficultatibus involuta in hac verò de massâ corruptà predestinationi hominum praestruendâ contra clara sint omnia cum Scripturarum autoritate judicioque antiquitatis planissimè consentientia where I mention two reasons that moved them to take this way 1. This in that opinion concerning the Masse of mankind not yet created all passages are intricate perplext and intangled with infinite difficulties but in the opinion concerning the Masse corrupt all things are cleare 2. This that in this other opinion all things are most plainly found to agree both with the authority of Scriptures and with the judgment of antiquity Now after I had endeavoured to discover the insufficiency of this plea in the second and third chapter of that fourth Digression in the matter of predestination In the fourth chapter I propose mine own judgment concerning the true benefit of this way in making the corrupt masse of mankind the object of election and reprobation not the judgment of others as this Authour carrieth the matter but mine own judgment For thus I beginne Ad extremum vis liberè pronuntiem quid unicè proficiatur ex hac nostrá praedestinationis Objecti sententiae temperatione Dicà m igitur quid sentiam Hinc nimirum efficitur ut à lapsu primorum parentum decreto praedestinationis subjiciendo subordinando liberemur huic unicè provisum esse ab istius quasi mediae temperatioris opinionis assertioribus mihi plusquam probabile aut verisimile videtur ne scililicet alias peccatum fieri statueretur decernente Deo tanquam medium ad fines à Deo in praedestinatione sibi praestitutos accommodatum unde etiam quà m author peccati constituendus sit nullâ solidâ ratione explicari posse videtur In the last place will you give me leave freely to professe what we profic by thus tempering our opinion touching the object of predestination I will therefore deliver what I thinke So that herein I purpose mine own opinion only not the opinion of others Herehence thus we gaine that we are freed from subjecting and subordinating man's fall unto God's decree of predestination It seemes to me more then probable or likely that the maintainers of this middle and temperate openion doe provide only against this inconvenience that is their way doth indeed provide against this and against no other inconvenience in my opinion to wit least otherwise the sinne of Adam should be said to come to passe God willing it as a meanes conducing to those ends which God intended in predestination from whence it followes as it seemes that it cannot be explicated by any solid reason that God is not made the Authour of sinne All which is delivered by me as my opinion conceiving that others thinke so too namely not that God is hereby made the Authour and principall cause of sinne but that the contrary cannot be explicated by any solid reason Now Cajetan confesseth as much namely that in these mysteries all the distinctions that are used doe not quietare intellectum satisfie the understanding and therefore he doth captivate his owne into the obedience of faith And Alvarez justifies him in this professing herein that he speakes doctissimè piissimè most learned and holyly And in a peculiar disputation he maintaines that the mistery of Gods providence and predestination standing with the liberty of our wills is incomprehensible by us in this world Lastly consider this is delivered only of the first sinne of our first parents which this authour perverts most shamefully when he avoucheth that I should acknowledge our Divines many of them to embrace this way to avoyd the imputation of making God the principall cause not of Adams sinne alone but of sinne in the greatest number of men And to confesse a truth if sinne be made the meanes for the procuring of the ends which God intends in predestination undoubtedly God himselfe should be the authour of sinne For whosoever intends any end he and none but he must be authour in working the meanes which tend to this end Therefore I said only that in this case It seemes that the sinne of Adam was intended by God as the meanes Whereas in truth and upon due consideration it appeares that not the creatures sinne but Gods permission of the creatures sinne is the meanes whereby God brings to passe his glorious ends Yet not the permission of sinne alone but joyned together with the pardoning of it and saving his elect in despight of it is the compleat meanes together with the procuring of Christs merits for the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of mercy And in like manner not the permitting of sinne alone but joyned with the punishment of it is the compleat meanes for the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of justice vindicative which in Scripture phrase is called the declaration of his wrath And whereas I said that hereby it seemed that it could not by any sound reason be manifested that God was not the Authour of sinne by the first way this Authour avoucheth of the defenders of the lower way which seemes most temperate that from their conclusions it followeth evidently that of all the sinnes of Reprobates which are the greatest number by many degrees God is the true and principall Authour Observe this he sayth followeth evidently from their conclusions and forthwith he tells us that he thinks so or to his thinking it doth so And why is he not the Authour of all the sinnes of the elect also whereas originall sinne continues in them also they carry about them a body of death and have cause to complaine of a law in their numbers that rebelleth against the law of their mind and leadeth them captive to the law of sinne Only there is a principle of spirituall life in them that renewes their repentance dayly as their sinnes are renewed but they looke not to be freed from sinne as long as they live in this world But let us examine how well he makes good that which he affirmes of the sinnes of the Reprobate that God is made the Authour of them by our doctrine of Reprobation I find that Cornelius a Lapide a Iesuite shapes Calvines doctrine of election and Reprobation this lower way and imputes unto him that from Reprobation according to his doctrine in Reprobis manat certus necessarius lapsus in peccata quaelibet A certaine and necessary falling into
among heathen men I come to his second position which he casts upon us as dissenting therein from himselfe and it is this That God leaves the Reprobates irrecoverably in it Now on this point I would gladly know his contrary Tenet in what sense it proceeds namely That Reprobates are not left irrecoverably in originall sinne or in such state wherein they cannot avoid sinne For I cannot comprehend his meaning herein But it was wont to be said of Africa that semper aliquid apportat novi alwaies it brings forth some new monster in course of nature So men of this Authour's spirit are alwaies bringing forth some new monster in Divinity For what thinks he was ever any Reprobate recovered out of originall sin Nay was ever any child of God recovered out of it while he lived upon the face of the earth Or doth he thinke himselfe recovered out of it or is it in his power to avoid it Perhaps he will say though he cannot avoid sin originall yet he can avoid sin actuall and so not only the children of God may if they will but even Reprobates also But what may they avoid all sinne or some only What one of our Divines denies that a Reprobate hath power to avoid fornication We see heathens doe avoid it Or stealth For heathens doe so Or murther Even heathens have been found very morall and that generally But this we say All men in the state of nature whether they doe good as touching the substance of the act yet they doe it not in a gracious manner Or whether they abstaine from that which is evill they doe not abstaine from it in a gracious manner nor can doe Nay since the fall of Adam who ever lived free from sinne the Son of God only excepted Doth notholy Paul professe of himselfe saying I doe not the good that I would but the evill that I would not that doe I. To will is present with me but I find not to performe hat which is good And if God may justly damne all for sinne originall as Mr. Hoord affirmes why may not God leave all irrecoverably in it and that justly So that herein I find my selfe in a brake not can devise with my selfe in what tollerable or colourable sense he can affirme that Reprobates are not left irrecoverably in the state of originall sinne or in such a state in which they cannot avoid sinne I say in what sense he can deliver this different from us I cannot devise For we willingly grant that there is no particular actuall sinne from which a Reprobate hath not power to abstaine though he cannot abstaine from it in a gracious manner without grace and that grace we account the grace of regeneration which is a supernaturall principle of gracious actions both as touching faith in God and the love of God to the contempt of our selves Now I guesse his meaning is that no Reprobate is so left and abandoned in originall sinne but that God gives him grace to believe if he will to repent if he will to love God if he will that above all things I guesse I say that this is his meaning but I would have him expresse it that I might see it under his hand For till then I find noe apparent difference between him us as touching these two principles from whence he deduceth that God is thereby made The principall cause of sin in the greatest number of men And if once he deliver himselfe fairely and comes to this the issue of the question to be debated between us will be faire and cleare namely about this their universall grace whether all men elect and Reprobate by vertue of supernaturall grace given unto them have power to beleive if they will repent if they will And against this I will dispute after this manner First in all this there is no difference between us excepting that this power is said to be wrought in man by supernaturall grace For we say with Austin Deo credere ab amore temporalium ad divina praecepta servanda se convertere omnes possunt si velint All men can believe God if they will and from the love of temporall things convert themselves to the keeping of God's commandements if they will For all the moment of inclining a man to workes of morallity lyeth in the will of man And therefore marke what followes in Austin Sed praeparatur voluntas à Domino supple ut velit tantumque augetur munere charitatis ut possit But the will is prepard by the Lord to wit to make it willing and so much augmented by the gift of charity as to make it able And I prove that looke what I supply is according unto Austin interpreting that of the Apostle neque volentis neque currentis sed miserentis Dei it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy For he shewes that the whole both to will and run is to be ascribed unto God qui hominis voluntatem bonam praeparat adjuvandam adjuvat praeparatam who both prepares the good will of man that after he may helpe it and helpes it being once prepared where plainly man swilling that which is good is made the fruit of God's preparing it but because there is in man a will of the flesh resisting this will of the spirit therefore there is need not of grace preparing only but of grace adjuvant and helping also to enable it to doe what it hath a will unto whence immediatly followeth running as well as willing And these two graces praeparant and adjuvant are afterward called by the names of grace prevenient and subsequent thus Nolentem praevenit ut velit volentem subsequitur ne frustra velit Him that is unwilling the Lord preventeth to make him willing and willing he followeth him that he may not will in vaine And that this double grace is required by reason of the reluctancy between the flesh and the Spirit I prove out of the same Austin writing thus Prima gratiâ est quâ fit ut habeat homo justitiam si velit secunda ergo plus potest quâ etiam fit ut velit tantum velit tantoque ardore diligat ut carnis voluntatem contraria concupiscentem voluntate spiritus vincat The first grace is that whereby it comes to passe that a man is righteous if he will The second grace therefore is of more power whereby it comes to passe also that a man doth will and that so resolutely and with such fervency loveth compare this with that of Austin de Gen contrae Manich lib. 1. cap 3. that by the will of the Spirit he overcommeth the will of the flesh fighting against it So that a power to doe good if a man will is one thing to will that which is good is another thing and lastly to be able to doe that which it wills is a third thing yet both these two last are
time bestowed the spirit of grace upon them to break off their sins by repentance and from grace translated into glory As for the reasons here mentioned by Mr. Mason to justifie that which my selfe and others have delivered on the former point I have noe cause to justifie because they proceed from a false ground supposing that the reason of this imputation of Adam's sinne and propagation of his corruption unto all his posterity is merely built upon this foundation that we were in Adam's loynes when he sinned which is untrue 1 In his first reason he doth miserably overlash for we could not be guilty of all the sinnes which were committed by Adam from his fall to his lifes end no not upon the ground whereon this Authour builds so long we were not in his Ioynes nor any longer then till he begat Seth for from Seth sprang Noah and we all from him Neither is it credible that Adam continued to beget children till the last yeare and month and day of his life Indeed we no where read that we are guilty of any other of his sinnes besides the first The reason whereof shall be given in the next place 2 Therefore I say in answer unto them both that the ground of imputing Adams sinne unto his posterity is not onely because we were in Adams Ioynes but because the first sinne of Adam was it that bereaved his nature of Gods image and so brought corruption upon himselfe by an aversion from the Creator and unchangable good and conversion unto the Creature wherein the Lord left him bereaving him of his spirit and this nature by this sinne alone so corrupt is the fountaine of all our natures Like as if Adam had stood of the same fountaine of integrity we had all received incorrupt natures so that the like cannot be said of any other sinne of Adam afterwards committed by him nor of the sinne of any other our progenitours succeding him For as for the wicked they have no such spirit of God to loose And as for the Godly they have indeed the spirit of God but so as not to be taken from them by the sinnes committed by them any more then it was from David upon the committing of so foule sinnes in the matter of Uriah neither do any Godly parents propagate their state of grace to their posterity And Aquinas is so bold hereupon as to professe that Impossibile est quod aliqua peccata parentum proximorum vel etiam primi parentis praeter primum per originem traducantur It is impossible that the sinnes of our immediate parents or of our first parents besides the first should be derived unto posterity by propagation For sayth he a man generates the same with himselfe in kinde only not in individuall And therefore those things which pertaine to him as a particular person as acts personall he doth not propagate unto his children Now to the nature of man somthing may pertain naturally somthing by the gift of grace And this originall righteousnesse as a gift of grace was bestowed on the whole nature of mankind in our first parents which Adam lost by his first sinne so that like as originall righteousnesse had beene propagated to posterity together with the humane nature so also the opposite inordination But as for other actuall sinnes either of our first parents or of others they do not corrupt the nature of man as touching that which pertaines to nature but as touching that which pertaines to his person therefore other sinnes are not propagated unto posterity And this reason which Aquinas gives was long before given by Anselme De conceptu virginali originali peccato cap. 23. Section 2. 2 They say that God hath immutably decreed to leave the farre greatest part of mankind in this impotent condition irrecoverabâ—ely and to afford them no power and ability sufficient to make them rise out of sinne to newnesse of life and this decree he executeth in time and both these he doth out of his only will and pleasure Of this proposition there be three branches 1. God decreeth to leave them 2. He doth leave them 3. He doth both out of his alone pleasure 1 God say they hath decreed to leave them without sufficient grace and consequently under an everlasting necessity of sinning This is the very Helen which they sight for the maine act of that absolute reprobation which with joynt consent and endeavour they labour to maintaine Most of them cast their reprobation into two acts A negative which is a peremptory denyall of grace and glory to some men lying in the fall And a Positive which they say is a preordination of the men thus left to the eternall torments of hell Others among them define Reprobation by an act meerely negative and call it Non electionem decretum quo statuit non eo usque misereri Thes our Divines in their suffrage define and in their explication of the Definition which they give they say that the proper acts of reprobation as it standeth opposed to election are no other then a denyall of that same glory and grace which are prepared in the decree of election for the sonnes of God But in this they all agree that by the decree of reprobation grace necessary for the avoyding of sinne is flatly denyed to reprobates And if at any time we heare them say that God hath gratified Reprobates with some grace For so sayth Walaeus reprobates are left under the common providence of God and consequently under some common endowments And our Divines in the Synod say Reprobates though they are not elected yet receive many of Gods graces they are to be understood of such Graces and gifts as are insufficient to make them avoyd sinne as we may see in these two cited places and many more 2 God doth actually according to his eternall and unchangeable decree leave the Reprobates in their severall times and generations without his grace under a necessity of finall sinne and impenitency This is the second branch of that second proposition And this they must needs say For Gods decrees cannot be frustrated what he purposed before time without faile he doth in time I shall not need therefore to prove that they say so Neverthelesse to let it be seene how positively and Categorically they say so I will give an instance or two The Divines of Geneva at the Synod among their Theses of Reprobation have this for one Those whom God hath reprobated out of the same will by which he hath rejected them either be calleth not at all or being called he reneweth not throughly by the spirit of regeneration ingraftcth not into Christ mystically nor justifieth c Like to this is the speech of Lubbert who speaking of reprobates sayth To them either he revealeth not the way of salvation or giveth not faith and regeneration but leaveth them in sinne and misery The same authour speaking against the position of the Remonstrants viz
present would hinder an event But he gives instance only in withdrawing as in cutting a string whereon a stoneâ— hangs which who so doth is the cause of the falling of the stone And in withdrawing a pillar upholding an house which who so doth is the cause of the fall of that house which is most true in naturall things yet not the immediate cause that is to be referred to the nature of the stone and house which being heavy things do naturally move downwards But this Authour contents not himselfe with conforming the condition of Agents voluntary to the conditions of Agents naturall and necessary but changeth his termes also and puts the phrass of withdrawing into the place of the former phrase which was withholding Now it is true God withholds that grace from Reprobates which he gives to his Elect but he withdrawes and takes no inward grace from them Yet this phrase of withholding is very improper For it signifies a forcible restraint of that which was going Whereas God being Master of his owne grace gives it to whom he will and denyes it to whom he will For he is bound to none And is it not lawfull for him to doe what he will with his owne But albeit he carry himselfe very sluttishly in opposing us yet I willingly confesse he carryeth the matter very clearely in contradicting himselfe as when he concludeth that God in withholding that power that is that grace which would keep them from sinne for this alone is our Tenet hereby becomes a true morall cause of their sinne I say herein he contradicts himselfe very handsomely For himselfe confesseth that God could hinder any man from sinne but he doth not And doth it not herehence evidently follow that God hereby becomes the Authour of sinne yea of every sinne that is committed in the world But I see what he will reply by the face of his discourse namely this He sayth not that God by withholding that grace which would keep him from sinne becomes the Authour of sinne but only by withholding that grace which might keep him from sinne And indeed so he doth but marke therewithall how sluttishly he carryeth himselfe in 2 particulars 1. In deviating from his confirmity to his owne instances For each instance given is in such a thing withdrawen whereupon the event absolutely followeth and which not being withdrawen the contrary event not only might be but would be as if a string holding a stone being not broken the stone not only might be held but would be held So if the not beene withdrawen not only the house might have beene held up but would have pillar had been held up But upon granting grace he doth not say the creature would have beene kept from sinne but might have beene kept from falling into sinne Now what Legerdeimaine is this And could he presume his Reader would prove so simple and Sottish as not to observe this incongruity 2. He deviates from our tenet For we do not say that upon granting grace supernaturall the creature may abstaine from sinne if he will but that hereby is wrought in him a will to abstaine from sinne a desire to do that which is pleasing in the sight of God though not in such perfection as to worke out all naturall corruption that is found within us but that still there is sinne dwelling in us still there is a flesh fighting against the spirit Yea a law in our members rebelling against the law of our mind and leading us captive to the law of sinne Hence proceed the manifold and dayly sinnes even of the children of God but Gods spirit is prevalent with them to renew their repentance even for sinnes of weaknesse and sinnes of improvidence and inconsideratnesse and to keep from presumptuous sinnes that they may not prevaile over them That it may not be said of them as it was of too many among the Israelites in the wildernesse Their spots are not the spots of thy children Nay which is more consider Arminius confesseth that God doth hinder sinne in such a manner as by granting such a grace whereupon they not only may but will and do abstaine from sinne but he doth not thus hinder it in all What therefore shall he be accounted the Authour of such sinnes Yet I willingly confesse Arminius and this Authour shake hands in this that the Reprobates have such a grace as whereby they may abstaine from sinne if they will Yet holy Paul confesseth of himselfe even then when he was in a better condition I trowe then that of Reprobates to wit when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans saying What I would that do I not but what I hate that do I. And againe To will is present with me but I find no meanes to performe that which is good For I do not the good thing which I would but the evill which I would not that do I. But we deny that a Reprobate hath so much as a will to do good For such a will undoutedly pleaseth God But they that are in the flesh cannot please God As for the solution which he feignes to himselfe of his owne argument by distinction of an accidentall cause and a proper and direct cause that is none of ours This is a gambell of his owne to delude his reader God we say is the direct and proper cause of that sanctification which is found in his children to the subduing of their lusts an inordinate affections and as direct and proper a cause of leaving their naturall corruption uncured in others Nor so only but of prostituting men unto their lusts and giving them over to their vile affections to committ abominable things not affording them so much as a naturall restraint from such vicious courses which he could and that without any supernaturall grace And by this postitution of them he knowes how to pay them home for their other ungodly courses in such sort as they shall receive thereby such recompence of their errour as is meet as Saint Paul hath told us Rom. 1. But this Authour takes little notice of Gods word thereby to informe himselfe of Gods providence but roves whithin the spheare of his owne imagination and rationall discourse yet as corrupt as well beseemes him who opposeth the free grace of God as if he would coyne unto us new oracles the devises of his owne addle braines And as for Tertullians rule which this Authour insists upon In whose power it is that a thing be not done to him it is imputed when it is done Observe whether this Authour doth not make God the Authour of every sinne that is committed in the world as well as we For himselfe in the 6. Sect. of the second inconvenience confesseth that if God had not decreed to suffer sinne there would be none and addes Who can bring forth that which God will absolutely hinder So then undoubtedly it is in Gods power that sinne be not done For he can hinder it what followeth then
right accommodating it for your words are these If any decree be concerning the working of a certaine effect in such a subject as cannot possibly exist without the producing of that subject then we may suppose that he doth first decree thus you would say though indeed you say otherwise to produce that subject and afterwards to worke such an effect thereupon which in plaine tearmes is to argue thus The permission of Adams sinne presupposeth the creation of Adam therefore the decree of peâ— to create Adams sinne presupposeth the decree of Adams creation Now this is the Resp â—gh way to Arminianisme and Pelagianisme in the highest decree as I shewed you in my first the evidence whereof as it seemes drave you to acknowledge it and to devise some other course for maintenance of the Tenet of massa corrupta yet thro ghout all the reason you give is resolved into this for as there I said herehence it will follow in like manner that because damnation presupposeth all actuall sinnes therefore the decree of damnation presupposeth the decree of permitting of all actuall sinnes and consequently the foresight of them In like manner because salvation presupposeth all manner of good workes in men of ripe yeeres therefore the decree of salvation presupposeth the decree of giving effectuall grace for the performing of all manner of good workes and the foresight of them which is direct Pelagianisme in the highest degree And these considerations perswade me better than heretofore that the maintainers of massa corrupta for the object of predestination must be cast upon the maintenance of Arminianisme and Pelagianisme in the highest degree whether they will or no. 5. Conclusio quinta Gods decree to permit Peter to sinne in Adam is before his decree to manifest his mercy in Peter by occasion of this sinne ex Thes 9. Resp 1. Your Thesis Nona I have already answered 2. Gods decree to permit Peter to sinne in Adam is no more before his decree to manifest his mercy by occasion of that sinne than Gods decree to permit Peters personall sinnes all his life long is before his decree to manifest his mercy in pardoning them And what place you make for these decrees whether in election or out of election you have no where shewed 3. God doth manifest his mercy by occasion of Peters sinnes both originall and actuall not onely in the way of pardoning sinne but in the way of saving his person in despight of sinne whence it followeth by the course of your argumentation that the decree of permitting all Peters sinnes throughout the whole course of his life precedes the decree of manifesting Gods mercy in his salvation 4. And because Gods decree of saving Peter is a decree of doing somewhat by occasion of Peters faith and repentance and good workes it followeth by your manner of reasoning that the decree of saving Peter presupposeth the decree of giving Peter faith and repentance and good workes 6. Conclusio sexta Gods decree to produce the person of Judas is before his decree of manifesting his justice in Judas his person Thes 8. Resp This is all one with Conclusio quarta and admits the same refutation 7. Conclusio septima Gods decree to permit Judas to sinne in Adam is before his decree to manifest his justice in Judas by occasion of that sinne Resp 1. This is all one with conclusio quinta and admits the same answer 2. Why doe you say by occasion of that sinne and not by reason of that sinne perhaps you will say because that sinne is not the cause of Judas his damnation for I cannot devise any other reason but this is not sound for that sinne is the meritorious cause of Judas his damnation For though he be damned for actuall sinnes yet is he damned for originall also Againe many thousand infants are damned onely for originall sinne 3. May you not as well say that Gods decree to permit Iudas his personall sinnes is before his decree to manifest his justice in Iudas by occasion of those sinnes and consider I pray how little agreeable that is to your Tenet 4. And if the decree of permitting Iudas his personall sinnes be before Gods decree of punishing him with damnation why should not the decree of giving faith and repentance and good workes be before Gods decree of rewarding with salvation 8. Conclusio octava Gods decree to manifest his mercy in Peter or to make Peter a vessell of mercy which is properly decretum electionis is before his decree to call Peter to give him faith and repentance c. because that is a decree de fine this de medio Resp 1. I doe not dislike the order of these decrees but I say there is no congruity between them such as should be between the ends and the meanes For there is no shew of mercy expressed in giving faith and repentance but onely implyed in as much as both faith and repentance implies a state of misery preceding the permission whereof alone hath congruous reference to the shewing of mercy as the meanes stand in congraity to the end Faith and repentance and good workes are means tending to another end namely to the manifesting of Gods remunerative justice for as much as God meanes to bestow salvation on men of ripe yeares by way of reward of their faith repentance and good workes And it is without all contradiction that in Peter and every elect appeares not onely Gods mercy but his justice also and that in the highest degree both in the pardoning of their sinnes and saving of their soules for the merits of Christ Jesus And God hath ordained his sonne to give salvation Iob. 17. 2. 2. And I wonder not a little that you should subordinate any Medium tending to the demonstration of Gods mercy rather than the permission of misery 3. Especially considering that God when he purposed to shew mercy on Peter he purposed to shew mercy on him 1. In pardoning not onely his sinne originall but all his actuall sinnes also 2. In saving him not onely in despight of sinne originall but in despight of all his actuall sinnes also Neither have you any way to avoid this but by saying that God made Peter a double vessell of mercy and that by two decrees which I thinke was never heard of since the world began 9. Conclusie Nona Gods decree to manifest his justice in Judas or to make Judas a vessell of wrath which is properly the decree of reprobation is before his decree to deny Judas faith and repentance c. by the same reason Resp Here againe you erre marvelously in making a Medium most incongruous to the end intended To deny faith and repentance what is it more than not to give it and by faith you meane I doubt not faith in Christ crucified c. But it is cleare that God gave no such faith and repentance unto the elect Angells yet farre be it from us to thinke that this was a medium tending
body or the decree of advancing a subject by way of reward doth presuppose his service or the decree of a Patron to present his sonne to a benefice doth presuppose his fitnesse for it or the decree of Solomon to bring Shimei his gray haires unto the grave in bloud did presuppose the offence for which this was brought to passe but rather from these decrees and intentions each Author in his kind proceedeth to bring to passe every thing that is required to the accomplishment of that end which he requires As I prove by instance in every particular 1. I have knowne one that to shew the power of his balme hath wounded his owne flesh and pouring his balme into it hath cured it in the space of twenty foure houres Aske wherefore he wounded his flesh every one seeth that both he wounded it and healed it with his balme to make the vertue of his balme knowne So that his intention of manifesting the vertue of his balme did not presuppose the wound but drew after it both the making of the wound and the pouring of balme into it as the meanes tending to the demonstration of the power of the balme 2. So we have knowne another to take poyson and afterward his cordiall against it both the one and the other joyntly tending to the manifestation of the vertue of his cordiall 3. A King intending to promote a favourite but withall to doe it without envy of the Nobility may resolve to doe it by way of reward which purpose presupposeth not good service but rather hereupon he will imploy him in service as in some honourable Embassage or in the Warres to the end that he may have occasion to advance him upon his service without envy of the Nobles 4. A Patron having a young sonne may entertaine a resolution to bestow a living upon him when time serves This intention doth not presuppose his fitnesse without which he cannot be admitted but because he hath a purpose to preferre him thereunto therefore he will take order to bring him up like a Schollar and send him to the University to make him fit 5. Last of all Solomon you know upon Davids admonition on his death bed entertained an intention to bring Shimei to his grave in bloud yet not for his cursing of David but for a new transgression therefore he takes a course to ensnare him and bids him to build him an house in Jerusalem and not to passe over the Brooke Kidron upon paine of death Now it was not indeed in Solomons power effectually to ensnare him and so certainely to bring upon him the execution of death But this is in the power of God For let him but expose any creature unto temptation and derelinquish him therein without giving him his grace to support him that creature shall certainely fall into sinne otherwise if any creature can keepe himselfe from sinne without Gods grace then Gods grace shall not have the prerogative of being the cause of every good action But this prerogative of Gods grace must and by Gods grace shall be maintained unto the end And upon this foundation the prerogative of his soveraigne power also over his creatures in disposing of them as he thinkes good and making some vessells of mercy and some of wrath which Arminius himselfe professeth he dares not deny to be in the power of God to wit to make vessells of mercy and vessells of wrath and that ex massa nondum condita in his Analysis of the ninth to the Romans But I proceed to the forme of your Syllogisme 1. The reason you say may be laid downe Syllogistically thus 1. God could not intend to pardon any without supposition of that which is necessarily required to make them capable of pardon But sinne is necessarily required to make them capable of pardon therefore God could not intend to pardon any without supposition of sinne 2. God could not intend to punish any without consideration of that which is in justice required to make them punishable But sinne is required in justice to make any person punishable therefore God could not intend to punish any without consideration of sinne Resp 1. In both Syllogismes the Minor we grant the Major we deny as being in effect the very same proposition which is in question and all the evidence it carryeth with it consisteth in the parts which have a shew of an Enthymeme thus 1. Sinne is necessarily prerequired to the pardoning of sinne therefore it is necessarily prerequired to the decree of pardoning sinne 2. Sinne in justice is prerequired unto punishing Ergo 'tis in justice prerequired to the decree of punishing Now this is the very proofe which formerly I laboured to disprove by shewing the inconsequence thereof yet the proposition whereon you rely either must depend upon this proofe or upon none at all But I will proceed with you a little farther upon these Syllogismes you propose 2. Sinne you say and that truly is necessarily required to make men capable of pardon And this generall truth brancheth it selfe into two specialls 1. Sinne originall is necessarily required to make men capable of pardon for sinne originall 2. Sinne actuall is necessarily required to make men capable of pardon for sinne actuall Now because God doth intend to pardon all the sinnes of his elect not onely originall but actuall committed throughout the whole course of his life it followeth that God could not intend to pardon these actuall sinnes without the presupposition of them 3. By the same reason of yours I dispute thus 1. God could not intend to bestow salvation upon any man by way of reward without supposition of that which is necessarily required to make him capable of reward But the obedience of faith repentance and good workes is necessarily required to make a man capable of reward Ergo God could not intend to bestow salvation on any man by way of reward without supposition of faith repentance and good workes 2. As God cannot intend to punish any without consideration of that which in justice is required to make him punishable so God cannot intend to punish any in such a degree without that which is required in justice to make him punishable in such a degree Now not onely sinne originall but all actuall sinnes of every Reprobate together with their finall impenitency therein is required in justice to make every one of them punishable in such a degree Ergo could not God intend to punish any Reprobate in such a degree without consideration of all their actuall sins And as mens actuall sinnes are the meritorious causes of their damnation so the consideration of them shall be the meritorious cause of their reprobation or at least of that decree whereby God doth decree to inflict damnation upon them in such a degree And by just proportion of reason like as faith repentance and good workes are the disposing causes unto salvation so the consideration of faith repentance and good workes shall be the
proving that God doth determine the will to every act thereof and shewing the great concurrence herein and upon what grounds of schoole Divines from Albertus Magnus his dayes downwards But I proceed with you 9. To that which you say concerning infants I thinke I may answer that although there were no other thing that made way to their salvation or damnation but onely the fall of Adam yet it followeth not that God decreed to permit Adams fall as a Medium tending thereunto For what if he decreed to save or damne some sine mediis supposing them in a state immediately capable of salvation or damnation as by Adams fall and their originall sinne contracted hereupon they were yet I adde farther concerning infants that are saved there is somewhat else decreed to make way to their salvation besides Adams fall namely an application of Christs merit to them in baptisme or otherwise And for those that are damned since their originall sinne makes them immediately justly damnable it was enough for God to decree to leave them in the state they were and so to damne them there being no other remedy to bring to passe his end in the matter Resp In generall observe I pray you the disproportion of your Tenet concerning Infants and others God doth not decree to damne Infants as you say but upon the foresight of all the sinne for which they are damned but God doth decree to damne all others not upon the foresight of all their sinnes for which they are damned nor upon the foresight of those sinnes for which they are chiefly damned and which doe justifie God most in their damnation but onely upon the foresight of originall sinne for which least of all they are damned and which doth least of all justifie God in their damnation But I come to the particular scanning of the parts 1. You utterly mistake my wordes I said not the fall of Adam was the onely way or any way for the salvation of Infants But this I said and say the fall of Adam was the onely way of manifestation of Gods mercy in the salvation of Infants For mercy supposeth misery and the misery of Infants is onely in respect of sinne originall not at all in respect of sinnes actuall wherein they are nothing culpable Now to the manifestation of Gods mercy in their salvation the permission of Adams fall and their fall in Adam was a Medium and I prove it thus if God did permit Adam to sinne and these Infants in Adam to this end namely to the manifestation of his mercy in their salvation then this permission of Adams fall and their fall in Adam was a Medium tending to the manifestation of his mercy in their salvation But God did permit Adam to fall and these Infants in Adam to this very end Ergo. I prove the Mâ—â—â—r thus he did permit Adam to fall and these Infants in Adam to the manifestation of his own glory in them But no glory of God is more conveniently manifested in the permission of Adams fall and these Infants in Adam than the glory of his mercy in the pardoning of their sinnes and saving their soules in despight of sinne Therefore this is to be accounted the end as much as any 2. I nothing doubt but that infants are saved sine mediis I spake not of the Media of their salvation but of the manifestation of Gods mercy in their salvation I make no question but that they are saved by the merits of Christ whether they have the ordinary meanes of applying Christ unto them or no. 3. Touching reprobate Infants I prove the permission of Adams fall and their fall in Adam was a Medium tending to the manifestation or Gods justice in their damnation For if God did permit Adam to fall and them in Adam to this end namely to the manifestation of his justice in their damnation then this permission was a Medium tending thereto But to this end God did permit Adams fall and their fall in Adam which I prove thus He did permit it for the manifestation of his own glory as to this end he doth all things But no glory of God is so conveniently manifested hereby as the glory of his justice in their damnation unlesse you will say with Alphonsus Mendoza and Didscus Alvarez that rather the manifestation of Gods glorious grace towards his elect in consideration that he could have made them vessells of wrath as well as others is the cause why God doth not save all but permits a multitude to sinne after much different courses and damnes them for sinne 4. Since their originall sinne you say they are justly damnable But I pray consider how came they to be thus justly damnable was it onely by the will of Adam was it not by the will of God also That the first sinne of Adam alone and no other is imputed to his posterity how could this come to passe but by the will of God 2. That the sinne of Adam becomes fatall to all his posterity and not so the sinne of any man else to his posterity how is this but by the will of God 3. Could not God have derived a child from Adam in the state of his innocency if he had so thought good 4. How come we to be borne in originall sinne but by the will of God who could have destroyed Adam after his sinne and made another Author of generation of mankind In all this appeares the will of God and forceth us to acknowledge the power of God over his creatures to dispose of them as he thinkes good But along to the rest 10. Although we say the fall of Adam was considered in the decree of Gods election yet we doe not say it was preintended neither indeed can God properly be said to intend any thing which he permits onely wherefore it followeth not upon our opinion that the fall of Adam was the end of mans salvation and damnation or that it was to be in execution after it For the respect of Media and Finis is where things are intended onely But you will say God intended the permission of the fall though not the fall it selfe and if that were first in his intention the same consequents follow I answer it was one thing to consider Adams fall as a thing that would be if it were not hindered another thing to resolve positively to permit it And though perhaps God did both yet we make the former act onely to have beene precedent to his election not the latter Resp 1. I spake nothing of Gods intention that Adam should fall but onely of Gods intention to permit him to fall and shewed that if the permission of Adams fall was first in intention and then mans damnation it will manifestly follow that in execution it shall be last that is God shall first damne men for sinne and afterwards permit Adam to fall into sinne and all in Adam To this you say that it is one thing to
it is permitted but as it doth not follow a thing is willed or decreed therefore 't is actually existent a thing is foreknown therefore it is In like manner it doth not follow a thing is permitted therefore it is actually and indeed if Gods meere permission did inferre the existence of a thing upon this ground because permission and the thing permitted are relatives it would hold as well concerning the permission of man as God But 't is manifest that it followeth not upon mans permission that whatsoever he permitteth cometh to passe But it may be objected it is necessary that whatsoever is willed by God doe at some time or other come to passe therefore we may say the same of what is permitted by God He denyeth the consequence and he giveth this reason for his denyall because Gods permission is not so effectuall unto the existence of a thing as his volition and yet he acknowledgeth that this kind of consequence is true in naturall causes but this is not in regard only of permission but from the determination of a naturall cause to worke unlesse it be hindered as concerning rationall and free agents this consequence a thing is permitted to come to passe therefore it doth come to passe is of no force at all The last and principall objection is concerning the permission of sinne in particular without grace sinne cannot be avoyded and the permission of sinne stands in the denyall of grace it is cleare therefore that upon the permission of sinne sinne necessarily ensueth First he answereth this in no-wise followeth from the nature of permission in generall as some Divines have thought but from a peculiar manner of Gods permission standing in a constant denyall of grace without which sinne can be shunned by none Secondly he distinguisheth of a twofold consideration of sinne indefinite or definite and that either in regard of sorts and kinds or else particular actions First he grants that upon the permission of sinne that is the denyall of grace sinne followeth indefinitely and in generall so that as long as God with-holds his grace a man sinnes either in doing what is forbidden or else in doing what is commanded in a wrong way or manner He also sinnes in omitting what is commanded or in abstaining from what is forbidden in an unholy and ungratious way or manner And this he exemplifieth both in the unregenerate and regenerate First whiles God denies to or withholds from an unregenerate man his habituall grace or grace of regeneration whilest he suffereth his spirituall diseases to goe uncured his corruptions unsubdued and unmortified so long he cannot but sinne in all his rationall and deliberate both actions and omissions First all his actions are sinnes of commission either a doing of what is forbidden or a sinfull performance of what is commanded not out of right principles nor for the due and requisite end Secondly all his omissions are sinfull for they are either of what is injoyned or else if they be of what is prohibited they are not sanctified proceeding from the love of God and directed unto the glory of God above all Next as for the regenerate if God deny unto or withhold from them never so little a while his actuall grace the actuall supply and assistance of his spirit they sinne in whatsoever they performe or forbeare And indeed it is no wonder that upon Gods suspending the aide of his actuall grace the regenerate breake out into sinne in whom there is a flesh alwaies lusting against the spirit whose graces are imperfect and corruptions naturall and therefore active upon removall of impediments For sinne in Adam followed upon the sole suspension of actuall assistance to will that good unto which he had an habituall fitnesse and yet in him propension unto good was perfect without any mixture of inclination unto evill Secondly he denyeth that upon the bare permission of sinne sinne followeth definitely either for sorts and kinds or particular actions But here first he implyeth an exception of generall and comprehensive sinnes that either lye at the root of or are concomitant unto every sinne as inordinate selfe-love c. Fortè dici potest ex carentià justitiae originalis sequi necessario ut creatura feratur in amorem sui inordinatè adeo ut quicquid operatur illud faciat propter se non autem propter Deum Secondly he desireth chiefly to be understood concerning the imperate or externall actions of sin and such actions of the will as are of efficacy purposes resolutions c. For upon Gods permission that is not curing or healing not subduing of particular sinfull habits v. g. Covetousnesse luxury there doe necessarily follow such sinfull actions of the will as are stiled usually to be of complacency that doe quoad specificationem for their sort and kind answer such habits to wit velleities desires wouldings and wishings likeings approbations c. A covetous man whilest under the reigne of covetousnesse cannot but love like and covet after things which he judgeth to be gainfull a luxurious voluptuary cannot but love approve and long after things which he knoweth to be pleasant and delightfull unto his senses Omnino videtur Deum non posse impedire ne avarus velit concupiscat ea quae videntur utilia vel libidinosus ea quae titillant tanquam jucunda nam velle concupiscere nihil aliud est quam desiderare at avarus quà avarus necessario talia desiderat concupiscit aliàs non esset avarus libidinosus quà libidinosus talia desiderat aliâs minime dicendus esset libidinosus Lib. 2. part 2. pag. 15. For habits work ad modum naturae necessarily A covetous person as covetous necessarily desireth and coveteth things profitable a lustfull or uncleane person necessarily desireth such objects and actions as are uncleane c. And yet of these too we cannot say that they follow meerely upon his permission secluding his concourse These limitations premised let us returne to consider what he denyeth to wit that upon the bare permission of sinne sinne doth not follow definitely for sorts or kinds or particular actions Sine gratiâ saith he abstineri potest a peccato definite quo ad certam speciem vel etiam in individuo consideratam There is no particular sinne especially of commission but may be abstained from without grace And therefore upon the meere and bare denyall or with-holding of grace this or that particular sinne doth not follow For first those that are destitute of habituall grace the grace of regeneration may yet be free from diverse particular sinfull habits v. g. Covetousnesse Luxury c. Secondly in those that have such particular sinfull habits those habits are not actuated especially by outward actions upon Gods bare and single permission his sole denyall of grace This he proves by reason and Scripture First by reason because the subject of an actuall sinne of commission is a naturall act and unto the performance of a naturall
naturaliter scire desiderat quare cum per partem proximam habeat voluntatem universaliter efficacem posset illa scire non novitèr quia tunc non semper esset actualissimus scientissimus perfectissimus beatissimus immutailis penitus contra tertiam partem sextam necessario ergo aeternalitèr omnia vera novit Thirdly from his unchangeablenesse which is affirmable of all his other Attributes and consequently of his knowledge But now his knowledge if it were not of things whilest they were to come it would by actuall existence of them be enlarged and so changed This argument is urged by Durand Cumel Rada Suarez and others God knowes thing whiles present for otherwise he should be ignorant of that which men and Angells know therefore he knew them whiles future otherwise by the presence of them something de novo should accrue unto Gods knowledge which cannot be without a change Suarez also argueth to the same purpose The last sort of arguments which I shall mention are drawn from Gods actuall providence or efficiency God is the cause of all things of him saith the Apostle are all things Rom. 11. 36. Now he is the cause of all things by his knowledge and by his will First by his knowledge and that practicall which is resembled unto that of an Artificer who hath a foreknowledge of what artificiall workes he resolves upon for he hath samplers and patterns of them in his mind Rada propounds this argument very briefely Secondly the will of God is the cause of all things as is demonstrated by Bradwardine and by Aquinas and such as Comment upon him in prim part Q. 19. Art 4. Now the will of God is unchangeable from within and irresistible from without and therefore in it all things future may be certainly and infallibly foreknowne Bradwardine from Esay 46. 10. Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done saying my Counsell shall stand inferres the infallibility of Gods prediction from the firmenesse immutability and unresistiblenesse of his will The Prophet signifies saith he that he can therefore declare the things that are not done because his Counsell shall stand and he will doe all his pleasure Quasi velit innuere quod per hoc annuntiet vei annuntiare possit ab exordio novissimum quia omne suum consilium volunt as immutabiliter stabit siet De causa Dei lib. 1. cap. 218. pag. 224. This argument Cumel inforceth by comparison with mans foreknowledge of things in their causes A Mathematician can foreknow an Eclipse of the Sunne or Moone in its cause and therefore much more can God foreknow all future contingents in the determination of his own will As for the testimonies you bring in the Margent they and diverse others are alleadged generally by the Dominicans to prove the existence of things in Eternity and it is very strange unto me that you take no notice of the common answers that are usually given unto them The place out of Gregory is misquoted but that might be an escape of the Printer in my booke it is Moral lib. 20. cap. 25. And a little after he gives the reason why prescience is not properly in God Praescire dicitur qui unamquamque rem antequam veniat videt Et id quod futurum est priusquam praesens fiat praevideâ— Deus ergo quomodo est praescius dum nulla nisi quae futura sunt praesciantur Et scimâ—â— quia Deo futurum nihil est ante cujus oculos praeterita nulla sunt praesentia non transeunt futura non veni uni Quippe quia omne quod nobis fuit erit in ejus prospectu praesto est Et omne quod praesensest scire potest potius quam praescire The ground upon which both Austin and Gregory deny foreknowledge to be in God is because nothing is future but all things are present unto God Unto all these and diverse other Testimonies which occurre in the Dominicans I shall rehearse the answers of severall men First Rada Par. prim controv triges Art 2. pag. 493. Adomnes authoritaies unica solutione sit satis Dico enim quod non intelligunt sancti omnia esse Deo secundum rem praesentia sed secundum esse objectivum cognitum omnia enim in seipso videt intuâ—tur Secondly Suarez gives the same answer but he explaines himselfe more fully The Fathers saith he speake by way of exaggeration to declare the perfection and exactnesse of that knowledge which God hath of things to come for he knowes them so distinctly and accurately with all their circumstances as if they did exist actually present This knowledge of them therefore is not so much abstractive as intuitive not so much prescience as science Thirdly D. Twisse De scientia media pag. 390. gives the same answer that Bradwardine did unto the like saying out of Boetius and Anselme above 200 yeares agoe to wit That all things are present unto God in esse volito as decreed by him sunt ei praesentia id est per suam insuperabilem immutabilem voluntatem praesentialiter determinata decreta certitudinaliter ut fiant futura And this you may see how he cleares both out of Austin and Gregory Fourthly Becanus gives another answer which I take to be the more satisfying And 't is that the scope of both Austin and Gregory is to shew That there is not such a prescience or fore knowledge in God as there is in us viz imperfect and conjecturall c. From your Testimonies I come to the examination of your Reasons M r GOODWIN NOR is it any wonder at all that there should be peace and a concurrence of judgement about such a poynt as this even between those who have many Irons of coâ—â—ention otherwise in the fire considering how obvious and neere at hand the truth herein is For 1. if foreknowledge were properly and formally in God then might Predestination Election Reprobation and many other things be properly and formally in him also in as much as these are in the Letter and propriety of them as competible unto him as foreknowledge Nor can there be any reason given for a difference But unpossible it is that there should be any plurality of things whatsoever in their distinct and proper natures and formalities in God the infinite simplicity of his Nature and being with open mouth gainsaying it IEANES YOur Argument with open mouth gainsayeth that which no body will affirme but is mute in the proofe of that which only will be called for to wit That whatsoever is properly and formally ascribed unto God is really distinguished from Gods Essence and his other attributes If you think I doe you any wrong by this censure reduce your Argument unto Categoricall Syllogismes and make the best of it you can Mr GOODWIN SEcondly if foreknowledge were properly or formally in God there should be