in religion cannot long continue for the affections have been the strongest planters and are the surest upholders of it in the world Primus in or be Deos fecit timor 3 Because it taketh away the desert and guilt of sinne Offences if fatall cannot be justly punished The reason is because those deeds for which men are punished or rewarded must be their owne under their owne power and soveraignty but such are no fatall actions or events Neither temporally nor eternally can sinne be punished if it be absolutely necessary 1 Not temporally as God himselfe hath given us to understand by that law which he prescribed the Iewes Deut. 22.25 which was that if a maide commit uncleannesse by constraint she should not be punished His reason was because there was no cause of death in her what she yeelded to was through compulsion being overborne by power as a man that is wounded to death by his Neighbour so was a virgin in that case a sufferer rather then a doer This particular law is of universall right no just punishment can be inflicted for sin where there is no power in the party to avoyd it The speech of Lypsius is but a meere crotchet contrary to reason Fatali culpae fatalis paena Fatall faults must have fatall punishments Did Magistrates think mens offences unavoydable they would think it bootless and unreasonable to punish them Nay not onely so but we see by dayly experience that Iudges following the direction of reason have very remissely punished such faults as have been committed through the power of headstrong and exorbitant passions Yea we may reade of some who have not thought it fit to punish such faults at all Valerius Maximus telleth that Popilius a Roman Praetor Val. Max. l. 8. c 1. sitting in judgment on a woman who had in a bitter passion slaine her mother because she had murther'd her children neque damnavit neque absolvit neyther cleered her nor condemned her Gell. l. 12. c. 7. And Aulus Gellius reporteth of Dolabella the Proconsull of Asia that when a woman of Smyrna was brought before him who had poyson'd her husband and son for murdering a son of hers which she had by a former husband he turned her over to the Areopagus which was the gravest most renowned judgment seat in the world The Iudges there not daring to acquit her being stayned with a double slaughter nor yet to punish her being provoked with just griefe commanded the Accuser and the Offender to come before them 100 yeares after And so (l) Neque absolutum mulieris venesicium est quod per leges non licuit neque noâ—ns damnata punitaque quae digna venia fuit Neyther was the womans fact justified the Lawes not allowing it nor yet the woman punished because she was worthy to be pardoned If wise Magistrates have spared such Offenders as have beene over-swayed with passions which did but incline not determine them to their irregular actions they would never have punished any trespassers if they had thought them to be such by invincible necessity Or if offenders did thinke that their offences were theyr Destinies and that when they Murther steale commit adultery make insurrections plot treasons or practice any outragious villanies they doe them by the necessity of Gods unalterable decree and can doe no otherwise they would and might complaine of their punishments as unjust as Zeâ—oes servant did When he was beaten by his Master for a fault he told him out of his own grounds that he was unjustly beaten because he was fato coactus peccare constrayned to make that fault by his undeclinâ— bâ—e fate The Adrumetine Monkes misled by S. Austin Epist 105. ad Sixtum Presbyterum which he calleth a Booke wherein he setteth downe his opinion concerning Gods grace did so teach grace that they denyed Free-will And this S. Austin confuted in his booke De gratia lib. arb And thinking the grace of God as S. Aug. taught to be such as could not stand with freedome of will they thought that no man should be punished for his faults but rather prayed for that God would give them grace to do better Against this S. Austin directed his other Booke De Corr. grat In which discourse though it be grace that is still named yet predestination is included Kâ— in praâ— aâ—l Luth. de serâ—â—lâ— For as Kimedoncius sayth truly in his Preface to Luther de servo arbitr Betweene Grace and Predestination there is onely this difference as S. Aug. teacheth l. de Praedest SanctoruÌ„ cap. 10. that Predestination is a preparation of Grace and Grace a bestowing of Predestination As Zenoes servant and these Monks did so would all men judge did they considerately think that men could not choose but offend And what would be the resultance of such a perswasion but an inundation of the greatest insolencies and a dissolution of all good government 2 Nor if this be true can sinne be punished eternally or that tribunall be just on which the sentence of eternall fire shall be denounced against the wicked at the last day To this I have the Fathers bearing witnesse generally and plainly Tertullian hath these words (m) Tertul. lib. 2. Contr. Marcion Caeteâ—ùm nec boni nec mali merces â—re peÌ„saâ— ei qâ— aut bâ—nus aut malus neccisitate suit inventus non vâ—luntate The recompence of good or evill can with no justice be given to him who is good or evill not freely but of necessity S. Hierom sayth (n) Liberi arbiâ—i nos condiâ—t Deus accâ—d vâ—tu es nec ad â—a necessitate trahimur alioquin ubi necessitas est nec damnatio nec corona est Where necessity domineers there is no place for retribution Epiphanius sayth (o) Epiph. advers her l 1. haer 5. num 3. Sanè quidem justiâ— a stâ—lis quae necessitateÌ„ priuat paeâ—ae repetantuâ— quam ab eo qui quod agit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessitate adactus aggreditur The starres which impose upon men a necessity of sinning may bee punished with better justice then the men themselves (p) Aug. l. 2 contr Faust c. 5. Et nos quidem sub fato stellatum nullius hominis genesin ponimus ut liberum arbitrium voluntatis quo bene vel male vivitur propter justum Dei judicium ab omni necessitatis vinculo vindicemus We place mens nativities under no fatall constellations sayth S. Aug. that we may free the will by which a man liveth eyther well or ill from all bands of necessity because of the righteous judgement of God Prosper speaking of the judgment of God by which he decreed to render unto every man according to his workes (q) Prosp ad Obj. 10. Vinc. Quod judicium futurum omnino non esser si homines Dei voluntate peccarent This judgment should never be if men did sinne by the will and determination of God Fulgentius also sayth the same
determination but not the perswasion of the will God is therefore a truer cause of sinne by this doctrine then the Divell 2 Wicked men are esteemed authors of their owne offences because they plot purpose choose and commit them and are immediate agents in the acting of them But God by this opinion doth more for he overruleth the projects and purposes of wicked men and by an uncontrollable motion proceeding from an immutable decree carrieth all their deliberations resolutions choyses and actions precisely that very way so as they cannot choose but doe as they doe whatsoeuer they may think to the contrary They have indeed potentiam in se liberam a power in it self free to choose what they refuse or to refuse what they choose to determine themselves this way or that way as liketh them best but they have not liberum â—sum a free use of this their power God doth determine their will before it hath determined it selfe and maketh them doe those onely actions which his omnipotent will hath determined and not which their willes out of any absolute dominion over their owne actions have prescribed More rightly therefore may God be called the Author of those offences for (u) Opera magis pertinent ad imperaÌ„tem quaÌ„ ad exequentem deeds whether good or bad are owned more truly by him that over-ruleth them then by the servile instruments that onely execute and doe them 3 Wicked counsellers and they who allure and advise men to sinne are accounted by God and men to be the causes of those sinnes to which they are the perswaders and have beene punished for those misdeeds which others through their instigations have committed Jezabell Ahabs wife was reputed and punished as the murderer 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 counsels may be refused but an almighty power cannot be resisted God therefore that useth this according to their doctrine in the production of sinnes is much more an author of them then hee that onely useth the other 2 If we could finde out a King that should so carry himselfe in procuring the ruine and the offences of any subject as by this opinion God doth in the effecting of the damnation and transgressions of Reprobates we would all charge him with the ruine and sinnes of those his Subjects (w) Molin Anat. c. 12. de praedest p. 73 Quis non regem abominetur sic loqueÌ„tem Who would not abhorre sayth Moulin a King speaking thus (y) Ego hunc hominem addico suspendioâ— sed ut justè suspendatur volo patret homicidium vel peculatum J will have this man hang'd and that J may hang him justly I will have him murther or steale This King saith he should not onely make an innocent man miserable sed sceleratum but wicked too and should punish him for that offence cujus ipse causa esset of which himselfe is the cause It is a cleere case (y) Sueton vit Tib. cap. 61. Tiberius as Suetonius reports having a purpose to put certaine Virgins to death because it was not lawfull among the Romans to strangle Virgins caused them all to be defloured by the Hangman that so they might bee strangled Who will not say that Tiberius was the principall author 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 Divell shall defloure them that afterward he may damne them It followeth therefore that God is the maine cause of those their sinnes 3 That God is the Author of mens salvation and conversion all sides grant and yet hee doth no more in the procuring of them then these men report him to do in the Reprobates impenitency and damnation The salvation and conversion of the Elect say they he hath absolutely and antecedently without the fore-sight of any deservings of theirs resolved upon and by irresistible meanes in their severall generations draweth them to beleeve repent and endure 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 sinne 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 Reprobates And therefore what hindereth but that God by their grounds may as truly be stiled the prime cause and author of the sinnes of the one as of the conversion of the other The Fathers thought it a plaine case and therefore they did generally make sinne an object of prescience not predestination and bent the most of those arguments by which they refuted this foule assertion against an absolute irresistible and necessitating decree as I could easily shew but that I feare to be overlong Onely I will cite some few of those Authors words whom the learned and reverend Bishop hath alledged in favour and for the defence of the Predestinarians and the mainteiners of Gotteschalkes opinion The Church of Lyons in their answer to the positions of Iohannes Scotus which he framed against Gotteschalk hath these words (z) Bish Vsher his hist of Gottesc pag. 138. Qui vim necessitatem peccandi deum intuliste homini vel inferre dicit manifeste horribiliter in deum blasphemat quem ad peccata compellendo utique authorem peccati osse confirmat Whosoever sayth that God hath layd a constraynt or a necessity of sinning upon any man he doth manifestly and fearfully blaspheme God in as much as he maketh him by affirming that of him to be the very author of sinne Remigius Archbishop of that Church explaining his Churches opinion in the poynt of prescience and predestination in 7 severall rules in the 5th of those rules he hath these words to the same purpose God sayth he by his prescience and predestination hath layd a necessity of being wicked upon no man (a) Id. ib. p. 173. Hee enim si fecisset ipse utique esset author mal rum c. For if he had done this he should have been the author of sinnes And thus in my judgment doth it plainly appeare that by absolute Reprobation as it is taught the upper way God is made to be the true cause of mens sinnes Many distinctions are brought to free the Supralapsarian way from this crimination all which me thinke are no better then meere delusions of the simple and inconsiderate
of the action 2 The formall part which is the evill or obliquity of it God is the Author of the action it selfe but not of the obliquity 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 Author of sinne Answ 1 1 All sinnes receive not this distinction because of many sinnes the acts themselves are sinfull as of the eating of the forbidden fruit and Sauls sparing of Agag and the fat beastâ— of the Amalekites 2 It is not true that they make the decree of God onely of actions and 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 transgressions of Gods law 3 To the Simile I say that the rider or master that shall resolve first to flea his horse or knocke 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 if God 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 author as well of their sinnes as of those actions to which they doe inseparably adhere and that out of Gods intention to destroy them The will is determined to an Object two wayes Distinct 3. 1 By Compulsion against the bent and inclination of it 2 By necessity according to the naturall desire and liking of it Gods Predestination say they determineth the will to sinne this last way but not the first it forceth no man to doe that which he would not but carryeth him towards that which he would when men sinne it 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 Gods decree is the cause of mens sinnes but their owne wicked wils Answ 1 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 lest they should grant him hereby to be the Author of sinne as I have touched before and shall intimate againe afterward Nor did the Schoolemen put any difference betweene them as may appeare by the testimony of Mr. Calvin Calv. Instit i. 2. c. 2 Sect â—â— who speaking of the Schoole-distinction of the willes threefold liberty from Necessity from Sinne from Mâ—ery sayth This distinction I could willingly receive but that it confoundeth necessity with coaction 2 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 avoyded and therefore if the divine decree necessitate mans will to sinne it is as truly the cause of the sinne as if it did enforce it 3 That which necessitateth the will to sinne is more truely the cause of the sinne then the will is because it over-ruleth the will and beareth all the stroke taketh from it its true liberty by which it should be Lord of it selfe and disposer 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 controll of no Lord but it selfe It over-ruleth I say and maketh it become but a servile instrument irresistibly subject to superiour command and determination and therefore is a truer cause of all such acts and sinnes 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 principall over-ruling cause the other but instrumentall and wholly at the devotion of the principal then is the effect in all reasoÌ„ 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 meere servant in the production of it We shall finde it ordinary in Scripture to ascribe the effect to the principall Agent It is not ye that speak sayth CHRIST but the spirit of my father that speaketh in you Math. 10.20 J laboured more abundantly then they all yet not J but the grace of God which was in me 1. Cor. 15.10 And I live yet not J but CHRIST liveth in me sayth S. Paul Gal. 2.20 In these and many other places the effect or worke spoken of is taken from the instrument and given to the principall Agent Which being so though mans will work with Gods decree in the commission of sinne and willeth the sinne which it doth yet seeing what the will doth it doth by the commanding power of Gods almighty decree and so it doth that otherwise it cannot doe the sinne committed cannot so rightly be ascribed to mans will the inferior as to Gods necessitating decree the superior cause 4 That which maketh a man sinne by way of necessity only that is with and not against his will is the cause of his sinne in a worse manner then that which constrayneth him to sinne against his will as he which by powerfull perswasions draweth a man to stab or hang or poyson himselfe is in a grosser manner the cause of that evill and unnaturall action then he that by force compelleth him because he maketh him to consent to his own death And so if Gods decree do not onely make men sinne but sinne willingly too not onely cause that they shall malè agere doe evill but malè velle will evill it hath the deeper hand in the sinne Sinne may be considered as sinne Distinct 4. or as a meanes of declaring Gods justice in mens punishments God doth not predestinate men to sinne as it is sinne but as a means of their punishment He is not therefore say they the Author of Sinne. Answ 1 1 A good end cannot moralize a bad action it remayneth evill though the end be never so good bonum oritur ex integris end manner yea and matter too must be good or else the action is naught He that shall steale that hee may give an almes or commit adultery that he may beget children for the Church or oppresse the poore to teach them patience or kill a wicked man that he may doe no more hurt with his example or do any forbidden thing though his end be never so good he sinneth notwithstanding And the reason is because the evill of sinne is greater then any good that can come by sinne for as much as it is laesio divinae majestatis a wronging of Gods majesty and so divino bono opposita directly prejudiciall to the good of Almighty God as much as
Attributes into communicable and incommunicable would fall to the ground For against it this might be sayd that the holinesse mercy justice and sincerity with other vertues that are in us are not the perfections of God in a lower degree communicated to us but things of a different nature Câ—n. 〈…〉 2 Men cannot be truely sayd to be made according to Gods Image nor when they are regenerated to be renewed after the same image and to be made partakers of the divine nature That picture cannot be the picture of such a man which doth not in his parts and lineaments truely resemble him no more can we be truely called the picture or image of God if in our graces in respect of which we are principally so called there be not a lively resemblance of Gods attributes 3 We may not safely imitate God as we are coÌ„manded Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect Math 5.48 1. Pet. 1.16 and Be yee holy as J am holy Nor when we shew forth holinesse mercy justice and sincerity in our doings can we be properly sayd to imitate God if these be one thing in God and in men another These two things being thus premised viz. Gods holinesse mercy justice and truth are foure of his chiefe Attributes in the exercise of which he taketh himselfe to bee much glorified and that we are to measure these attributes by the same vertues in our selves I come to the proofe of my second reason against absolute Reprobation stated even in the mildest and most plausible way It opposeth Gods principall Attributes particularly his Holinesse Mercy Iustice Sincerity 1. Repugnant to Gods Holinesse FIrst it sighteth with Gods Holinesse and maketh him the principall cause of sinne in the greatest number of men I know that the defenders of it do not thinke so For the maine reason which moved the Synod at Dort and 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 avoyd this imputation as * Dr. Twisse his vind graâ— 1. par 1. c. 4. initio Dr. 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 sinnes of Reprobates which are the greatest number by many degrees God is the true and principall author Two things they say which taken together me thinks inferre it 1 That God of his own will and pleasure hath brought men into an estate in which they cannot avoyd sinne 2 That he leaveth the Reprobate irrecoverably in it I. That God of his own will and pleasure hath brought men into an estate in which they caÌ„not possibly avoyd sin that is into the state of originall sinne which consists of two parts 1 The guilt of Adams transgressions 2 The corruption of nature In both these they say mankinde is interessed not through the force and efficiencie of naturall generation because we all derive our nature from Adam as our first principle but by Gods free and voluntary order and imputation (a) Calv. Instit l. 3. c. â—3 Sect. 7 NoÌ„ eniâ— factum est naturalâ—ter ut à salute exciderent omnes unâ—us parenus culpâ It came not to passe by any naturall meanes sayth Calvin that all men fell from salvation by the fault of our first parent (b) Cunctos mortales in unius hoâ— personâ morti â—eturnae mancipatos fuâ— Scriptura clamat hoc cum naturae nequeat ascribi ab admirabili dei consilio profectuÌ„ esse minime obscuâ—uÌ„ est That all men are held under the guilt of eternall death in the person in the person of one man it is the cleare and constant voyce of Scripture Now this cannot be ascribed to any naturall cause it must therefore came from the wonderfull counsell of God A little after he hath the same again with as great an Emphasis (c) Quomodo factuÌ„ est ut toâ— gentes unà cum liberiâ— corum infantibus â—ae mâ—tiâ— prolvere lapsus Adâ— absque remedio anis quia dâ—o ita 〈◊〉 est 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 Dr. Twisse affirme the same (d) Twisse vind grâ— l. 1 par 1 â—r 4 viz. prope◠〈◊〉 Orâ—ginalis p◠〈◊〉 non nisi impâ—uâ—â—ious lu◠〈◊〉 propagatione ad noâ— derivatur quorum 〈◊〉 que non nisi a libera Dei câ— sâ—tutione proficiscâ—tur The guilt of originall sinne is derived to us onely by imputation the silth onely by propagation and both these onely by Gods free constitution A little before hee hath these words (e) Etenim naturae vâ—ium non est cuâ—que suum voluntate propâ—â contractum sed solâ imputatione aut propagatione detivatum quarum utraquâ— ut voluntate Dei Deus enim nulla necessitate sed pro meâ—â mâ voluntate nobis imputat peccatum Adae The fault of nature commeth from Gods free appointment for he doth not out of any necessity but of his meere will onely impute the sinne of Adam to us To this purpose he speaketh a great deale more in the same place To these sayings S. Bernard hath the like speaking of Adams sinne he sayth (f) Bern. Serm. 1. â—ni 1. pâ—st S. Epiph. Alien est quia in Adam omnâ— nescientes pâ—ccavimus noster quiâ— etsi in alio nos tâ—men peccavimus nobis justo Dei consilio imputabatur hâ—lto Adams 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 agreeable to reason For if we be fallen into the guilt of the first sinne and the corruption of nature onely because we were in Adams loyns when he sinned and derive our being from him then these two things will follow 1 That we stand guilty of all the sinnes which Adam committed from his fall to his lives end For we were virtually in his loynes as well after his fall as before and in every passage and variation of his life he was still a principle of mankinde But where doe we reade that we are guilty of any other of his sinnes To the first sinne onely doth the Scripture entitle that sinne and misery which entred into the world and invaded all mankinde as we may see Rom. 5.15 16 17 c. 2 That children are guilty of the sinnes of all their progenitors especially of their immediate Parents For they were in theyr loyns when they sinned and more immediately then in Adams 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 visite the sinnes of the
and fall but to shed his bloud and by that bloud to purchase Salvation for all mankind not onely for those who are saved but for those also who through their wilfull unbeleefe and impenitency are not saved as we may see Joh. 3.17 God sent his Sonne sayth the Sonne into the World not to condemne the world but that the World through him might be saved In which words the end of his comming is set down 1 Negatively not to condemne the World 2 Affirmatively but that the World through him might be saved and therefore very fully The like speech we have Ioh. 12.47 I came not to judge the World but to save it These Negations joyned with affirmations shew that the Salvation of all men was the onely end of CHRISTS comming the end exclusively no other end was properly intended by it but this The Sonne of man came to seeke and to save what was lost Luke 19.10 Therefore he came to save every man for every man was lost And Act. 3.26 To you sayth S. Peter hath God sent his Sonne IESVS to blesse you in turning everyone of you from your iniquity every one of you you that reject him as well as you that receive him The end of CHRISTS comming into the world was the Salvation of all and every man therein 2 The ministery of the word and Sacraments is given also and appointed for the same end and is in its own proper nature and use an instrument of conveying the Spirit of regeneration to those that live under it and to all those Better proofs for this I cannot have then those which our reverend Divines at Dort gathered to my hand Esay 59.21 This is my Covenant with them sayth the Lord my Spirit that is upon thee and my words which J have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed nor seeds seed for ever Hinc patet say they from these words it appeareth that the word and spirit are joyned in the ministery of the word with an inseparable band by the promise of God Hence it is that the Ministers of the New Testament are called Ministers not of the letter but of the Spirit not of the letter that killeth but of the spirit that giveth life 2. Cor. 3.6 And the ministery of the Gospell is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the ministery of the Spirit in the same place vers 8. Hence also is the Gospell called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grace bringing Salvation Tit. 2.11 And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word of Reconciliation 2. Cor. 5.19 To these let me adde 1. Pet. 1.23 Where the word is called the seed of the new birth and 2. Cor. 5.20 Where Ministers are called Embassadors for CHRIST to beseech men to be reconciled to God They are so called to shew that the word preached is by Gods appointment an instrument to make men new creatures and that the proper matter of Ministers errands is reconciliation with God and the naturall fruit of it is in Gods intent not the obduration and destruction but the conversion and salvation of men The same Authors out of Joh. 15.22 If J had not come spoken unto them they should not have had sin do say it is evident that CHRIST in his preaching did administer so much inward grace as was sufficient to convince those that rejected the Gospell of positive unbeleefe and render them obnoxious to just punishment and by good consequence say I so much as sufficed by their good husbandry to have converted and saved them for that grace leaveth none without excuse which is not sufficient to convert them I will conclude what they say of this gracious intention of God in the ministery of the word with that speech of Prospers cyted by them in the same place (r) Prosper ad cap Gal. resp ad Obj. 〈◊〉 Non omnes vocaâ— ad gratiam eos quiâ— bus omnibus evangâ—lium praedicatur 〈◊〉 recte dicitur etiam si sint qui evangelâ— non obaudiunt They that say that all those to whom the Gospell is preached even those that obey not the Gospell are not called to grace they say an untruth God looked for Grapes sayes the Text Esay 5.2 What doth this imply but that it was Gods principall ayme in the husbandry which he bestowed upon the Church of Israel that it should bring forth good fruit though in the event it did not How oft would J have gathered you sayth CHRIST to Ierusalem Math. 23.37 These things sayth he have I spoken to you that ye might be saved but ye will not come to me that ye might have life Ioh. 5.34 40. In those words intimating no lesse then this that it was his full intent by his preaching to gather and to save those very particular men that in the end were not gathered nor saved through the contempt or neglect of CHRISTS Ministery Touching the Sacraments this is also the use and end for which they were ordayned as we may see Luke 7.30 Where we have these words But the Scribes and Pharisees and expounders of the Law despised the counsell of God against themselves and were not baptized of Iohn In which words thus much is evidently included that it was Gods counsell and purpose in Iohns Baptisme to bring them to CHRIST and in him to Heaven So much also is sayd of his Baptisme Mark 1.4 Iohn did baptize in the Wildernesse and preach the baptisme of Repentance and remission of sinnes If this were the end of Iohns much more is it the end of CHRISTS baptisme it being more excellent then 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 into his death Rom. 6.3 All yee that have been baptized into CHRIST have put on CHRIST Gal. 3.27 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 againe of water sayth our Saviour and of the Spirit he cannot c. Joh. 3.5 In which words are these two things 1 The necessity of regeneration Except a man be borne againe 2 The working cause of it Efficient the Spirit instrumentall the Sacrament of Baptisme there called Water from the outward matter of it Baptisme therefore is appoynted to be a meanes of regeneration to all those that are baptized and doth effect it in all who do not put an obstacle in the way to hinder it So much doth the Apostle ascribe to Baptisme Eph. 5.26 and for this cause doth dignifie it with this title The laver of regeneration Tit. 3.5 I will shut up this with Act. 2.38 where Peter sayth Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sinnes plainly implying that therefore is baptisme ordeyned to be received that those who do receive it might
the eternall rejection and damnation of the greatest part of mankind as the end and in their unavoydable sinne and impenitency as the meanes And this way goe Calvin Beza Zanchius Piscator Gomarus and some of our owne Countrimen 2 The rest of that side thinking to avoyd the great inconveniences to which that supralapsarian way lyeth open fall downe a little lower and present man to God in his decree of Reprobation lying in the fall and vnder the guilt of originall sinne saying That God looking vpon miserable mankind lying in Adams sinne did decree the greatest number of men even those men whom he calls to repentance and salvation by the preaching of the Gospell to hell torments for ever and without all remedy for the declaration of his severe justice This way went the Synod The difference between them is not much and even in their own account too small a discord to cause a breach Notwithstanding this petty difference therefore they agree well inough together as we may see in the Hague conference and Synod In the conference at Hague the Contraremonstrants have these words (a) Col. Hag. Braud pag. 37. Quo ad sententiarum diversitatem in hoc argumento quòd deus respexit hominem in hoc decreto nondum creatum vel creatum lapsum quia hoc ad fundamentum hujus doctrinae non pertinet libenter alij alios aequitate Christianâ toleramus As touching the diversitie of opinions in this argument viz. that God lookt at man in this decree not yet created or created and fallen because this belongs not to the foundation of this doctrine we do in Christian equity beare with one another After this in the Synod at Dort they permitted Gomarus to set downe his judgement in the upper way And the Delegates of South Holland were very indifferent which way they tooke For these are their words (b) Acta Syn. per. 3â— pag. 48. An Deus in elageÌ„do coÌ„sideraverit homines ut lapsos an etiam ut nondum lapsos existimant non esse necessarium ut definiatur modò statuatur Deum in eligendo considerasse homines in pari statu Whether God in choosing considered men as fallen or else as not fallen They the Delegates of South-Holland think it is not necessary to be determined so it bee held that God in choosing considered men in a like estate (c) Antidot Remonstra pag. 32. Maccovius also Professor of Divinity at Francker a violent and stiffe maintainer of the most unsavoury speeches which have beene uttered in this Controversie and one that undertooke in the very Synod to make good against Lubbert his fellow Professor that God did (d) Velle peccata ordinare homines ad peccatum quâ peccatum neutiquam velle ut omnes homines salventur c. Will sinnes ordaine men to sinne and would not at all that all men bee saved and besides this openly and peremptorily affirmed that Except these things were hold and maintained by them they could not possibly keepe their owne ground but must come over to the Remonstrants This man was not onely not censured but publiquely declared in the Synod to be pure and Orthodox and dismissed onely with this kinde and friendly admonition that hee should hereafter take heed of such words as might give offence to tender eares and could not well downe with those who are yet vncapable of such Mysteries 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 they both contend 1 That the moving-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 unavoydable by Gods absolute Decree These two things are the maxima gravamina principall grievances that the other side sticke at So that these two paths meet at last in the same way Both these opinions of the first side I dislike My reasons why are of two sorts 1 Such as first made me to question the truth 2 Such as convince me of their untruth MY reasons of the first sort doe indifferently respect and make against both and I will set them downe against both together My second sort of reasons I will divide delivering some of them against the upper and more rigid way others against the lower and more moderate way I begin with those reasons which first moved me to question the truth of absolute Reprobation as it is taught both wayes They are these foure which follow 1. Reason Novelty 1 The Novelty of this opinion Absolute and inevitable Reprobation hath little or no footing in Antiquity The upper way was never taught or approoved by any of the Fathers even the stoutest defenders of grace against the Pelagians for the space of 600 I may say 800 yeares after CHRIST nor the lower way till the time of St. Austin which was about 400 yeares after CHRIST They did generally agree upon the contrary conclusion taught men in their times That it was possible for them to be saved which in the event were not saved and to have repented which repented not and that there was no Decree of God which did lay a necessity of perishing upon any sonne of Adam This that I say Mr. Calvin himselfe doth freely acknowledge speaking of Election and Reprobation according to Gods fore-knowledge (e) Calv. Iust l. 3. c. 22. Sect. 1. Neque haec vulgò recepta opinio solius vulgi est habuit enim seculis omnibus magnos authores This commonly received opinion saith he of a conditionall respective Decree is not the opinion onely of the common people but hath had great Authors in all ages Reverend Beza likewise speaking of the same opinion hath these words to the same purpose (f) Beza in cap. 11 ad Rom. v. 35. In quem errorem sanè turpissimum Origines veteres plerosque tum Graecos tum Latinos adegit Into which surely most foule error Origen hath driven many of the Ancients both Greeke and Latin To the same effect also Prosper St. Austins follower hath a remarkable speech (g) Prosper in Epist ad Aug. prope finem Peâ—è omnium parem inveniri unam sententiam quâ propositum praedestinationem dei secundùm praescientiam receperunt â—ut ob hoc Deus alios vasa contumeliae alios honoris vasa fecerit quâ— fineÌ„ uniuscujusque praeriderit sub ipso gratiae adjutorio in qua futurus esset voluntate actione praescierit Almost all the Ancients saith he did grant with one consent that God decreed mens ends according to his fore-sight of their actions and not otherwise To these speeches let me adde that of Remigius Archbishop of Lyons who to Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz objecting that St. Austin wrote a booke called Hypognosticon
verò amantes justitiae hominumque studiosos ac defensores esse oporteret c. Doubtlesse sayth he if there were any footstep or sparke of goodnesse in them for which they might deserve to be called good they would be disposed to doe good and desirous to save all men they would love justice and take a care of men And being such how could they delight in their slaughter c. Yea he concludeth that they were (c) Ibid. c. 15. pag. 153 Non bonos sed malos fuisse daemones vel hac ipsa ratione confici existimo Quicquid bonuÌ„ est prodesse solet nocere vero contrarium Divels or evill spirits and not Gods or good spirits because if they were good they would doe good whereas those which are evill use to doe hurt I will therefore shut up my first reason with the speech of Prosper (d) Prosp aâ— Obj. Vincent resp 3. Omnium quidem hominum deus creator est sed nemo ab eo ideo creatus est ut periret quia alia est causa nascendi alia pereundi God is the Creator indeed of all men but yet of no man for this end that he might be damned the reason why we are created is one and why wee are damned another SEcondly this opinion chargeth God with mens sinnes on earth and makes him the Author not of the first sinne onely that entred by Adam into the world but of all other things that have been are or shall be committed to the worlds end no murthers robberies rapes adulteries insurrections treasons blasphemies heresies persecutions or any other abominations whatsoever fall out at any time or in any place but they are the necessary productions of Gods Almighty decree The Scriptures I am sure Psal 5.4 teach us another lesson Thou art not a God sayth David that hath pleasure in wickednesse And the Prophet Esay tells the people that when they did evill in the sight of the Lord Esay 66.4 they did choose the things which he would not Let no man say when he is tempted Iam. 1.13.14 I am tempted of God for God cannot be tempted with evill neyther tempteth he any man but every man is tempted when he is drawne away with his owne concupiscence 1. Ioh. 2.16 And S. John having referred all the sinnes of the world to three heads the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes and the pride of life telles us that they are not of the Father but of the world To which speeches let me adde the speech of Siracides though not of the same authority Say not thou it is through the Lord that I fell away Ecclesiasticus 15.12 for thou oughtest not to doe the things that he hateth Say not thou that he hath caused me to erre for he hath no need of the sinfull man Pious antiquity hath constantly sayd the same and prest it with sundry reasons some of which are these that follow If God be the Author of sinne then 1 He is worse then the Divell because the Divell doth onely tempt and perswade to sinne and his action may bee resisted but God by this opinion doth will and procure it by a powerfull and effectuall decree which cannot be resisted This is Prospers argument (a) Prosper resp ad ad obj 11. Vincent who to some objecting that by S. Austins doctrine when Fathers defile their owne Daughters and mothers their owne sonnes servants murder their masters and men commit any horrible villanies it commeth to passe because God hath so decreed answereth that if this were layd to the Divels charge he might in some sort cleare himselfe of the imputation (b) Quia etsi delectatus est furoâ—e peccantium probaret tamen se non intulisse vim criminum Because though he be delighted with mens sinnes yet he doth not he cannot compell them to sinne (c) Quâ ergo insipientiâ quârè dementiâ disinitur ad Dei referendum esse consilium quod nec diabolo in totum ascribi potest qui in peccantium flagitiis illecebrarum adjutor non voluntatum credendus est esse generator What a madnesse therefore is it to impute that to God which cannot be justly fathered upon the Divell 2 He cannot be a punisher of sinne for none can justly punish those offences of which they are the authors This is Prospers argument too (d) Prosp Resp ad Obj. 4. Vincent Insanum omnirò coÌ„tra rationem est dicere damnatorem diaboli ejus famulorum velle ut diabolo serviatur It is against reason to say that he which is the damner of the Divell would have any man to be the Divels Servant This reason Fulgentius useth likewise (e) Fulgent lib. 1. ad Monim c 19. Jllius rei Deus ultor est cujus author non est God is the avenger of that which he is not the author Tertullian also before them hath sayd (f) Tert. l. 2 cont Marcion c. 9. Nec idem habendus est delicti author qui invenitur interdictor condemnator He is not to be accounted the Author of sinne who is the Forbidder yea and the Condemner of it 3 He cannot be God because he should not bee just nor holy nor the Iudge of the world all properties essentiall to God And this is S. Basils reason who hath written a whole Homily against this wicked assertion (g) Basil homil quòd deus non est c. Tantundem est deum asserere esse authorem peccati negare esse deum Jt is all one sayth he to say that God is the author of sinne and to say he is not God Vpon these and the like considerations I may well conclude that the opinion which chargeth the holy God with the sinnes of men is neyther good nor true 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 sayd directly and in terminis that God is the cause of sinne yet have they delivered those 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 of necessity be damned (h) Marlor Comm. in â—ob 15. v. 2. Sâ—at igitur firma sententia Quemcunque deus ante conditum orbem elegerit eum noÌ„ posse peâ—ire quem verò rejecerit cum noÌ„ poss salâ—ri eâ—si omnia sanctorum opera fecerit usque adeo iâ—ratractabilis est sententia It is saith Marlorat a firme and stable truth that the man whom God in his eternall counsell hath rejected though he doe all the good workes of the Saints cannot possibly be saved 2 That without sinne this decree of Reprobation cannot be justly executed (i) Piscat l. contr Schafin pag. thes 27. Deus â—c consilio condidit homines ut teipso liberentuâ—
and give no true satisfaction to the understanding There is say they a twofold decree 1 An Operative Distinction 1. by which God positively and efficaciously worketh a thing 2 A Permissive by which he decreeth only to let it come to passe If God should work sinne by an operative decree then he should be the author of sinne but not if he decree by a permissive decree to let it come to passe And this onely they say they mainteyne Answ 1 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 Eccl. 15.14 he suffered the nations in times past to walk in their own wayes Act. 14.16 and daily doth he suffer both good and bad to fall into many sinnes And this he doth not because he stands in need of sinne for the setting forth of his glory for he hath no need of the sinfull man Ecclus 15. but partly because he is summus provisor supreme moderator 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 presseth Tertull. l. 1. contr Marcion namely because man is made by Gods owne gracious constitution aâ— a free creature undetermined in his actions till he determine himself and therefore may not be hindred from finning by omnipotency because God useth not to repeale his owne ordinances 2 It is true also that a permissive decree is no cause of sinne because it is meerly extrinsecall to the sinner and hath no influence at all upon the sinne it is an antecedent onely and such a one too as being put sinne followeth not of necessity And therefore it is fitly contradistinguisht to an operative decree And if that side would in good earnest impute no more in sinfull events to the divine power then the word Permission imports their mayne conclusion would fall and the controversie betweene us end But 1 Many of them reject this distinction utterly and will have God to decree sinne efficaciter with an energeticall and working will Colloq Mompel 2. par pa. 177. Witnesse that discourse of Beza wherein he averreth and laboureth to proove that God doth not onely 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 meere evasion to shift off this seeming absurdity Calv. Instit l 14 c. 18 Sect 1 2. that that man is made blind volente jubente Deo by Gods will and commandement who must shortly after be punished for his blindnesse he calleth it also figmentum a fiction and sayth they doe ineptire play the fooles that use it By many reasons also doth he indeavour to lay open the weaknesse of it taxing those who understand such Scriptures as speake of Gods smiting men with a spirit of flumber and giddinesse of blinding their mindes infatuating and hardening their hearts c. of a permission and suffering of men to be blinded and hardned Id ib l. 21. c. 4. Sect. 3. Nimis frivola est ista solutio saith he this too frivolous a glosse In another place he blameth those that referre sinne to Gods prescicience onely calling theyr speeches argutia trickes and quirks which Scripture will not beare and those likewise that ascribe it to Gods permission and sayth (c) Similiter quod de permissione afferunt dilutius est quam ut subsistat What they bring touching the divine permission in this businesse will not hold water 2 They that admit the word Permissive do willingly mistake it and while to keep off this blow they use the word they corrupt the meaning For 1 Permission is an act of Gods consequent and judiciary will by which he punisheth men for abusing their freedome and committing such sinnes day by day as they might have avoyded and to which he proceedeth lente gradu slowly and unwillingly as we may see Psal 81.11 12. Israel would none of me so I gave them up c. Ezech. 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 to their hearts lust to vile affections and to a Reprobate minde Revel 22.11 He which is unjust let him be unjust still In these places and many more we may see that persons left to themselves are sinners onely and not all sinners but the obstinate and wilfull which will by no meanes be reclaymed But the permission which they meane is an act of Gods antecedent will exercised about innocent men lying under no guilt at all in Gods 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 and supposeth a possibility of sinning or not sinning in the parties permitted but with them it is a withdrawing or with-holding of grace needfull for the avoyding of sinne and so includeth an absolute necessity of sinning for from the withdrawing of such grace sinne must needs follow as the fall of Dagons house followed Sampsons plucking away the Pillers that were necessary for the upholding of it Maccovins in two disputations expounding this word Permission circumscribes it within two acts Maccov coll theoâ— disp 9. pag. 10. the first of which is a substraction of divine assistance necessary to the preventing of sinne and having prooved it by two arguments that none may thinke he is alone in this hee saith that he is compassed about with a cloud of witnesses and produceth two 1 The first of them is our reverend and learned Whitaker some of whose words alledged by him are these (d) Pag. 15. Permissâ— pâ—câ—i est privatio â—uxilu divini quo positio peccatum impediretur Permission of sinne is a privation of that ayde which being present sinne would have been hindred The second is Pareus for saying that (e) Subâ—racto auxilio dei homo Adamus istis facultatibus ad standum benè uti non potuit that helpe which God withdrew from Adam being withdrawen Adam could not so use his endowments as to persevere And this doctrine sayth he is defended by our men as it appeareth out of Pareus lib. de gratia primi hominis cap. 4. pag. 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 efficiens a deficient cause in things necessary is truly efficient and so is but a meere fig-lease to cover the foulnesse of their opinion Distinct 2. There are two things they say in every ill act 1 The materiall part which is the substance
in libertima dei veluntate fundari dicimus We affirme that this non-Election is founded in the most free pleasure of God And (n) Ib thes 3. heterodox Nominem post lâ—psum merâ Dei voluntate praeteritum osse 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 Ministers of the Palatinate (o) Act Syn. Iud. Palat thes 3. Causa reprobationis est liberrima ac justissima Dei voluntas The cause of Reprobation is the most free and just will of God (p) Ib thes 4. Quod Deus nonnullos praeterit granâ praedicationis evan â—elii ejus causa est idem beneplacitum sive eadem libera vâ—luntas That God passeth over some and denyeth them the grace of the Gospell the cause is the same free pleasure of God (q) Iudic. Theol. Hassiac Decrevit deus quosdam in lapsu misâ—ia relinquere pro suo beneplacito God decreed to leave some in the fall of his owne good pleasure Thus the Divines of Hâ—ssen The proofe of this they fetch from the execution of this decree in time (r) Deus in tempore quosdomè genere humino de relinquit in miseâ—ââ—suâ nec media ad fiâ—eÌ„ conversioneÌ„ ipsumque etiam saluâ—em obtinendam necessaria eis confert c idque pro libertiniâ suâ voluntate God doth in time leave some of mankind fallen and doth not bestow upon them meanes necessary to beleeve 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 own pleasure in which we must rest without seeking any other cause 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 author of the reprobates sinnes 1 Because Causa causae est causa causati The cause of a cause is the cause of its effect if there be a necessary subordination between the causes and the effect whether it be a cause by acts negative or positive But God is the chiefe 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 c. that which withdraweth or 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 would 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 them from falling into sinne therefore he becommeth a true morall cause of their sinnes (s) Terâ—ul l. 1 contr Marcion c. 22. In cujus manu est quid ne fiat ei deputatur â—m jam fit In whose power it is that a thing be not done to him it is imputed when it is done saith Tertullian It will not suffice to say that God by withholding grace from Reprobates becommeth onely an accidentall not a proper and direct cause of their sinnes For a cause is then onely 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 nor intended by the husbandman in digging But when the effect is lookt for and aymed at then the cause though it be the cause onely 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 detayning grace necessary to the avoyding of sinne from Reprobates not as one ignorant and carelesse what will or shall follow but knowing infallably what mischiefe will follow and determining precisely that which doth follow namely their impenitency and damnation becommeth the proper and direct cause of their sinnes SEcondly it opposeth Gods Mercy God is mercifull a part it is of his title Exod. 34.6 2 Contrary to his Mercy mercifull and gracious He is mercy in the abstract 1 Joh. 4.16 God is love a Father of mercies and God of all consolations 2 Cor. 1.3 a Saviour of men 1 Tim. 4.10 And thus the Church hath alwayes taken him to be And therefore hath of old stiled him in her liturgy A God whose nature and property is alwayes to have mercy and to forgive Two wayes is Gods mercy spoken of in Scripture absolutely and comparatively 1 Absolutely and so it is set out in high and stately termes It is called rich mercy Eph. 2.4 great kindnesse Ionah 4.2 Abundant mercy 1 Pet. 1.2 love without height or depth length or breadth or any dimensions love passing knowledge Eph. 3.18 So great it is that Jonah could not intreat him to punish the little infant harmelesse Ninivites with temporall death for the sinnes of their guilty parents Ionah 4.11 2 Comparatively with two things it is compared 1 His owne justice 2 The love that dwelleth in the creature and is advanced above both I. With his owne Iustice it is compared and advanced above it not in its essence for all Gods excellencies are infinitely good and one is not greater then another but in its expressions and some things that have relation to it particularly in these 1 In its naturalnesse and dearenesse to God It is sayd of mercy it pleaseth him Micah 7.18 but justice is called his strange worke aliâ—num à naturâ suâ Esay 28.21 He doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men Lamentat 3. 33. 2 In the frequent exercise of it selfe He is said to be slow of anger but abundant in goodnesse Exod. 34.6 mercies are bestowed every day judgements inflicted but now and then sparingly and after a long time of forbearance when there is no remedy 2 Chron. 36.15 All the day long have J stretched out my hands to a gainsaying and rebellious people Esay 65.2 That is I have been patient a long time and in that time I have not been idle but imployed in exhorting promising and shewing mercy that so I might