understandings purged from prejudice and false principles 5. My fifth argument is this If sinne be the cause of Reprobation that is of the decree of damnation then either by necessity of nature or by the constitution of God not by necessity of nature as all that hitherto I have known confesse But I say neither can it be by the free constitution of God for mark what a notorious absurdity followeth hence and that unavoidably namely that God did ordaine that upon foresight of sinne he would ordaine them to damnation marke it well God did ordaine that he would ordaine or God did decree that he would decree In which words Gods eternall decree is made the object of Gods decree Whereas it is well known that the objects of Gods decrees are meerely things temporall and cannot be things eternall we truly say God did decree to create the World to preserve the World to redeeme us call us justify us sanctify and save us but it cannot be truly said that God did decree to decree or ordaine to ordaine for to decree is the act of Gods will and therefore it cannot be the object of the act of Gods will Yet these arguments I am not so enamoured with as to force the interpretations of Scripture to such a sense as is sutable hereunto presuming of the purity of my understanding as purged from prejudice and false principles I could willingly content my selfe with observation of the Apostles discourse in arguing to this effect Before the Children were borne or had done good or evill it was said the elder shall serve the younger therefore the purpose of God according to election stands not of works In like manner may I discourse Before the Children were borne or had done good or evill it was said the elder shall serve the younger therefore the purpose of God concerning Reprobation stands not of works And like as hence it is inferred that therefore election stands not of good works so therehence may I inferre that therefore reprobation stands not of evill works 6. If sinne foreseen be the cause meritorious of reprobation then faith and repentance and good workes are the disposing causes unto election For therefore evill works foreseen are made the meritorious cause of reprobation because evill works exsistent are the meritorious cause of damnation And if this be true then also because Faith and Repentance and good workes are the disposing causes unto salvation then by the same force of reason faith repentance and good workes foreseen must be the disposing cause unto election But faith repentance and good workes foreseen are not the disposing causes unto election as I prove thus 1. If they were then the purpose of God according to election should be of faith repentance and good works which is expressely denyed by the Apostle as touching the last part and may as evidently be proved to be denied by him in effect of the other parts also by the same force of argumentation which he useth as for example from this anticedent of the Apostles before the Children were borne or had done good or evill it no more evidently followeth that therefore the purpose of God according to election is not of workes than it followeth that the same purpose of God according to election is not of faith nor of repentance For before they were borne they were no more capable of faith or of repentance than of any other good works And undoubtedly faith and repentance are as good works as any other 2. If God doth absolutely work faith in some and not in others according to the meer pleasure of his will then it cannot be said that faith foreseen is the cause of any mans election For in this case faith is rather the means of salvation then salvation a means of faith and consequently the intention of salvation rather precedes the intention of faith than the intention of faith can be said to precede the intention of salvation And to this the Scripture accords Acts 1348. As many believed as were ordained to everlasting life making ordination to everlasting life the cause why men believed answerable hereunto is that Acts 2. last God added daily to the Church such as should be saved and that of Paul to Titus according to the faith of Gods elect So that according to Pauls phrase fides est electorum but according to the Arminians Doctrine the inverse hereof is a more proper and naturall predication as to say electio est fidelium But God doth absolutely work faith in some men according to the meer pleasure of his will denying the same grace to others which I prove 1. By Scripture Rom. 9. 18. God hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth compared with Rom. 11. 30. Yee in times past have not believed but now have obtained mercy where it appears by the Antithesis that to find mercy is to believe that is to obtain the grace of faith at the hands of God in Saint Pauls phrase 2. By cleare reason for if it be not the meer pleasure of Gods will that is the cause hereof then the cause hereof must be some good workes which he finds in some and not in others whence it manifestly followeth that God giveth grace according unto works which in the phrase of the ancients is according to merits and for 1200 years together this hath been reputed in the Church of God meere Pelagianisme 2. I further demand what that good worke is whereupon God workes it in one when he refuseth to worke it in another Here the answer I find given is this that God doth work in man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 velle credere modo velit Now of the absurdity hereof I appeale to the very light of nature and let all the books that ever were written on this argument be searched and let it be enquired whether ever any did expresse themselves in the manner of so palpable and grosse absurdity as wherein the act of willing is made the condition of it selfe whence it followeth evidently that it must be both before it selfe and after it selfe for the condition must allwaies exsist before the thing conditionated Yet they are driven upon these rocks of absurdities in spight of their teeth so shamefull is the issue of their discourses who in hatred of Gods truth revealed in Gods word and in a proud conceit of their own performances in the way of argumentation dare prescribe rules to all others how to carry themselves in the interpretation of Scriptures as namely to be so warie as that they doe not deliver any thing repugnant to understandings purged from prejudice and false principles as if the word of God supposed them that are admitted to the studying thereof to have their understandings already purged from prejudice and false principles not that it is given by God for this very end namely to purge our understandings for what is the illumination or opening of the eyes of the mind other than the purging of
like as none were more opposite to the Epicures then they so none were more religious and devout among the Heathens then they Yet there is no opinion so true or good but by a prophane heart may be abused But as for the efficacy of Gods will we are so farre from maintaining that it takes away either the liberty of mans will or the contingency of second causes that we professe with Aquinas that the root of all contingency is the efficacious will of God and with the Authors of the Articles of the Church of Ireland Artic. 11. That God did from all eternity ordaine whatsoever in time should come to passe and yet neither the liberty nor the contingency of second causes is thereby destroyed but established rather DISCOURSE The Fift and last sort of Reasons It is an Enimy to True Comfort SECT I. I Am come to my last reason against it drawn from the Vncomfortablenesse of it It is a doctrine full of desperation both to them that stand and to them that are fallen to men out of temptation and in it It 1. Leads men into temptation 2. Leaves men in it And therefore it is no part of Gods word for that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good newes to men a store-house of sweet consolations for them that stand and such as are fallen These things are written saith the Apostle Rom. 15. 4. That by patience and consolation of the Scriptures we might have hope implying that therefore was the word written and left to the Church that by the comforts contained in it those poore soules that look towards heaven might never want in any changes or chances of this mortall life a sweet gale of hope to refresh them and carry on their ship full merrily towards the Haven It leads men into temptation and into such a one too as is as sharpe and dangerous as any the tempter hath The Devill can easily perswade any man that makes absolute reprobation a part of his creed that he is one of those absolute Reprobates because there are more absolute Reprobates even an hundred for one then absolute chosen ones and a man hath a great deale more reason to think that he is one of the most then one of the least one of the huge multitude of inevitable castawaies then one of the little flock for whom God hath absolutely prepared a Kingdome Such a man is not only capable of but framed and fashioned by his opinion for this suggestion which is a very sore one if we may believe Calvin Bucer and Zanchius Calvin tells us Quod nulla tentatione vel gravius vel periculosius fideles percellit Satan that the Devill cannot assault a believer with a temptation more dangerous And a little after he saith It is so much the deadlier by how much commoner it is then any other Rarissimus est cujus non interdum animus hac cogitatione feriatur unde tibi salus nisi ex Dei electione Electionis autem quae tibi revelatio Quae si apud quempiam semel invaluit aut diris tormentis miserum perpetuo exeruciat aut reddit penitus attonitum So ordinary is the temptation that he who is at all times free from it is a rare man we are to conceive that he speakes of those that believe absolute reprobation and so dangerous it is that if it get strength he which is under it is either miserably tormented or mightily astonished And a little after this he saith againe Ergo si naufragium timemus sollicité ab hoc scopulo cavendum in quem nunquam sine exitio impingitur He that will not wrack his soule must keep from this rock Bucer also hath a passage like to this Vt caput omnis noxiae tentationis saith he repellenda est quaestio sumusnè praedestinati Nam qui de hoc dubitat nec vocatumse nec justificatum esse credere poterit hoc est nequit esse Christianus This doubt whether we are predestinated or no Must be repelled as the head of every pernitious temptation for he that doubts of this cannot be a Christian Praesumendum igitur ut principium fidei nos omnes esse a Deo praescitos Every man therefore must presume it as a principle of faith that he is elected This very speech of Bucers Zanchy makes use of to the same purpose We see then by the restimony of these worthy men that this temptation is very dangerous and ordinary too to such as think there are absolute reprobates The truth of both will farther appeare by the example of Petrus Hosuanus a Schoolemaster in Hungary who intending to hang himselfe signified in a letter which he left in his study for the satisfaction of his friends and Countrymen the cause of it in that writing he delivered these three things 1. That he was of Calvins and S. Austins opinion that men are not dealt withall secundum bona or mala opera according to their works good or evill but that there are occultiores causae more hidden causes of mens eternall condition 2. That he was one of that woefull company of absolute castawaies Vas formatum in ignominiam a vessell prepared to dishonour and that therefore though his life had been none of the worst he could not possibly be saved 3. That being unable to beare the dreadfull apprehensions of wrath with which he was affrighted he hanged himselfe For these are some of his last words there recorded Discedo igitur ad Lacus Infernales aeternum dedecus patriae meae Deo vos commendo cujus misericordia mihi negata est I goe to those infernall lakes a perpetuall reproach to my Country commending you to God whose mercy is denyed mee Out of this example we may easily collect two things 1. That men who think that there are many whom God hath utterly rejected out of his only will and pleasure may be easily brought to think by Satans suggestion that they are of that company And 2. That this temptation is very dangerous I conclude therefore the first part of my last Reason that absolute Reprobation leads men into temptation TWISSE Consideration AS I remember when this Author first had resort unto some prime stickler for the Arminian way to conferre with him there about it was told me that this Authour should alledge that our doctrine of election was a comfortable doctrine but then on the other side it was alledged that granting that yet with all it did expose to dessolutenes of life And therefore I little expect any such argument as this to be proposed least of all to be ranged amonst the nūber of those that are taken to be of a convincing nature Yet is it the lesse strange because the Apostle telleth us of some that their course is proficere in pejus to growe worse and worse But let us consider whether he speeds any better in this then in the former And whereas he saith It is a doctrine full of desperation both to them that stand
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
againe the word of God came to Semaiah the man of God saying speak to Rehoboā the son of Solomon King of Iudah unto all the house of Iudah Benjamin to the remnant of the people saying Thus saith the Lotd ye shall not goe up nor fight against your brethren the children ef Israel returne every man to his house for this thing is from me Here we have Gods word for it Who can deny that the hardening of Pharohs heart that he should not let Israel go the selling of Ioseph into Egypt by the hands of his unnaturall brethren came to passe by the will of God I proceed to prove the same truth by evidence of reasō First because God permits sin to come to passe as all confesse though he could hinder it if it pleased him that without all detriment to the free will of the creature why then doth he permit it but because he would have it come to passe accordingly permission is reckoned up by Schoole Divines amongst the sinnes of Gods will like as allso is Gods commandment Now what God commandeth if it be done it is said to come to passe by the will of God albeit the things that God commandeth seldome the things he permits allwayes come to passe according to the common tenet of Divines even Vostius Arminius not excepted Againe it is the common opinion of all that therefore God permits sin because he can and will worke good of it which plainly supposeth that sinne shall come to passe if God permits it consequently it must needes be the will of God it shall come to passe Thirdly it is granted on both sides that the act of sin is Gods worke in the way of an efficient cause not the outward act onely which is naturall but the inward act of the will which is morall even this as an act is the worke of God How can it be then but the deformity and vitiousnesse of the act must come to passe God willing it though not working it considering that the deformity doth necessarily follow the act in reference to the creatures working it though not in respect of Gods working it Lastly all sides agree that God can give effectuall grace whereby a man shall be preserved from sin infallibly Wherefore as often as God will not give this grace which is in his power to give doth it not manifestly follow that he will not have such a man preserved frō sin To these I added the testimony of divers as that of Austin Not any thing comes to passe unlesse Good will have it come to passe either by suffering it to come to passe or himselfe working it If good he workes it if evill permits it 't is true of each that he wills it cap. 96. It is Good saith Austin that evill should come to passe And Bellarmine himselfe so farre subscribes hereunto as by professing that It is good that evills shoul come to passe by Gods permission The same Austin confesseth that The perversity of the heart comes to passe by the secret judgment of God And againe that after a wonderfull and unspeakable manner even those things which are committed against the will of God to wit against the will of his commandment do not come to passe besides the will of God to wit the will of his purpose Anselme the most ancient of schoole Divines in his booke of the concord of foreknowledge with free will Considering saith he that what God willeth cannot but be when he wills that the will of mā shall not be constrained by any necessity to will or no and withall will have an effect follow the will of man In this case it must needs be that the will of man is free and that also which God willeth shall come to passe to wit by that will of man Now observe what in the next place he concludeth hence In these cases therefore it is true that the worke of sin which man will doe must needs be though man doth not will it of necessity And in his concord of predestination and free will In Good things God doth worke both that they are and that they are good in evill things he workes onely that they are not that they are evill Hugo de sancto Victore 1. De sacr 4. p. 13. When we say God willeth that which is good it sounds well but if we say God willeth evill it is harsh to eares neither doth a pious mind admit of the good God that he willeth evill for hereby he thinkes the meaning is that God loves and approves of that which is evill therefore the pious mind abhorres it not because that which is said is not well said but because that which is well said is not well understood To these I adde the testimony of Bradwardine at large A man reputed so pious in those dayes that the Kings prospe ous successe in those dayes was cheifly imputed unto his piety who followed him in his warres in France as Preacher in the camp In the last place I make answer to the Sophisticall arguments of Aquinas and Durandus and the frothy disputation of Valentianus all of them standing to maintaine the contrary Now let every sober Christian judge of this Authors proposition when he saith that If God doth will and procure sin c. he is worse then the Devill For I have made it evident by variety of Scripture testimonyes by reason and also with the concurrence of diverse learned Divines that it is Gods will that sin should come to passe even the horrible outrages committed against the holy sonne of God were before determined by Gods hand and counsell Now what followes herehence by this Authours dicourse but that the holy Apostles yea and the Spirit of God do make God worse then the Devill So little cause have we to be impatient when such horrible blasphemyes are layd to our charge when we consider what honourable compartners we have in these our sufferings Yet see the vanity of this consequence represented most evidently For albeit the will of Gods decree be powerfull effectuall and irresistable and consequently every thing decreed thereby shall come to passe powerfully effectually irresistibly yet this respects onely the generality of the things eveniency not the manner how For onely things necessary shall by this irresistible wil of God come to passe necessarily But as for contingent things they by the same irresistable will of God shall come to passe also but how not necessarily but contingently that is with a possibility of not comming to passe Now the free actions of men are one sort of contingent things They therefore shall infallibly come to passe also by vertue of Gods irresistible will but how Not necessarily but contingently that is with a possibility of not coming to passe in generall as they are things contingent And in speciall they shall come to passe not contingently onely but freely also that is with a free power in the
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
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
OF All those weighty parcells of Gospell truth which the Arminians have chosen to oppose there is not any about which they so much delight to try and exercise the strength of fleshly reasonings as that of Gods eternall decree of Reprobation partly because the Scripture doth not so abound in the delivery of this Doctrine as of some others lying in a more immediate subserviency to the obedience and consolation of the Saints though it be sufficiently revealed in them to the quieting of their spirits who have learned to captivate their understandings to the obedience of Faith and partly because they apprehend the Truth thereof to be more exposed to the riotous opposition of mens tumultating carnall Affections whose help and assistance they by all meanes court and solicite in their contests against it Thus the Author of the Book entituled Gods love to Mankind being desired to render a reason of the change his Faith in passing over to the Tents of the Arminians he drawes forth only this one poynt to make shew of for the hinge of his alteration Many Learned men know with what applause that Book of his was received and divulged by that whole Generation which had then wrapped up the ball of the Errors promoted by it in the gilded covering of Preferment and carried it away before them They being by providence removed from that station and conjunction unto Power whence they had their effectual influence on the Earth God foresaw if he may be allowed to foresee what reinforcement upon other hands their Abominations would receive and therefore in his tender love made provision for his Church before hand as by others so in especiall by the renowned Author of this Treatise whose paines herein intended by him for the conviction of them with whom after much forbearance God intended to take another course are now seasonably brought to light to stop the mouthes of another Generation risen up in their steed enemies of Gods Soverainty and Grace untill He shall be pleased to deale otherwise with them God is not moâ—â—ed that which men sow they shall reap It is well known what spheare this Learned Author moved in how farre elevated above any possibility of my reaching the least esteeme to him or his labours This being desiâ—ed by my worthy and Learned friend the Publisher to expresse my thâ—ughts upon its perusall I shall take the boldnesse to say that this Treaâ—ise of our Author comes not any whit behind the choycest of thosâ— other eminent Workes of his wherein in this cause of God he faithfullâ— served his Generation I doubt not but it will appeare to the Readeâ— that he hath dealt with the Adversaries of the Truth in their chiefest â—olds advantages and strengths putting them to shame in the calumnyes and lyes which they make their refuge IOHN OWEN Vicecan Oxon. The Riches of Gods Love unto the Vessells of Mercy CONSISTENT WITH His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation Of the Vessells of Wrath. OR AN ANSWER UNTO A BOOK ENTITULED Gods Love unto Mankind Manifested by Disproving His Absolute Decree for their Damnation IN TWO BOOKES The First being a Refutation of the said Booke As it was Presented in Manuscript by Mr HORD unto Sir NATH RICH. The Second being an Examination of certain Passages inserted into M. HORDS Discourse formerly Answered by an Author that conceales his Name but was supposed to be Mr MASON Rector of Andrews-Undershaft in London By that Great and Famous Light of Gods Church WILLIAM TWISSE D. D. And Prolocutor of the late Assembly of DIVINES Whereunto are annexed Two Tractates of the same Author in Answer unto D. H. The one concerning Gods Decrees Definite or Indefinite The other about the object of Predestination TOGETHER WITH A Vindication of D. TWISSE from the exceptions of M r JOHN GOODWIN In his Redemption Redeemed By HENRY JEANES Minister of God's Word In CHEDZOY Rom. 9. 20. O Man who art thou that repliest against God shall the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made mee thus v. 21. Hath not the Potter power over the clay of the same Lump to make one vessell to honour and another unto dishonour OXFORD Printed by L. L. and H. H. Printers to the University for Tho Robinson Anno Salutis M. DC LIII TO THE WORSHIPFULL And his Honoured Uncle MICHAEL OLDISWORTH Esquire And a Member of the PARLIAMENT Of the Common-wealth of ENGLAND SIR I Have often heard you professe a deep dislike of the unnaturall vanity of the English Nation in preferring strangers in all callings above such of their own Country men as farre surpassed them And of this unjust partiality no profession hath tasted in a greater measure than that of Divinity for of our Ministers such whom God hath best fitted with parts and Learning for the discussing of controversies have been so undervalued in comparison of some Forraine Divines whose Learning was little better than systematicall as that they languished in their private studies and had dyed in obscurity unlesse the fame of their great abilities had been eccho'd over unto us by the generall applause of all Christendome Nay this sometimes hath not awakened us unto a due estimation of them D r Ames was looked upon abroad as one that amongst Protestant writers had few either superiors or equalls for subtilty in Logick and Scholasticall Divinity and yet he dyed an exile from his Native Soyle so that his Tombe might have had that inscription upon it which Scipio by his will appoynted to be on his Ingrata Patria ne ossa mea quidem habes Unthankfull Country thou hast not so much as my Bones Of how great reputation this our Author was beyond the Seas I had rather you should heare from the able and judicious Rivet than by mee who am censured by some who I am sure much overvalue their own judgements to have too high and admiring thoughts of him Rivet in his Epistle prefixed unto a late Book of D. Twisses against Arminius and Corvinus c. will assure you that The most Learned men in the whole Christian World even those who are of the adverse party doe confesse that there was nothing yet extant more accurate exact and full touching the Arminian Controversies than what was written by D. Twisse As also That he if any one hath so cleared and vindicated the Orthodoxe cause from objected absurdities and the calumnies of adversaries as that out of his labours not only the Learned but also those who are least versed in controversies may find enough whereby to disentangle themselves from the snares of Opposites Indeed there is none almost that hath Written against Arminianisme since the Publishing of any thing of D r Twisses on that Subject but have made very honourable mention of him and have acknowledged him to be the mightiest man in these Controversies that this Age hath afforded And yet this Worthy and able Combatant for the Truth and Cause of God was here at home designed unto Ruine as
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
so Gods grace preserved him from such excesse but that the Ministers Tiberius set about them did more provoke them by exasperating courses then God did in like manner provoke Ionah it doth not appeare but had Ionah hereupon broken forth into blasphemies had Ionah's sinne been excusable or Gods course blameable Revel 16. 21. we read of a great hayle that fell upon the men like Talents out of heaven and men blaspheamed God because of the plague of the hayle for the plague thereof was exceeding great And Isai 8. 21. The Lord prophecyeth that He that is afflicted and famished shall goe to and fro and when he shall be hungry he shall even fret himselfe and curse his King and his Gods and look upward such plagues are the work of God for there is no evill in the citty but the Lord hath done it Amos 3. But let them look unto it that thereupon take occasion to blaspheme And Tentatio probationis was never yet that I know denyed unto God to try whether they will blaspheme God or no. To this end Satan desired to have an hand on Job yet not so much to try whether he would blaspheme or no but being confident he should bring him to blaspheme Job 1. 11. stretch out now thine hand and touch all that he hath and he will curse thee to thy face The Lord gave him leave and Job acknowledgeth the Lords hand in all that Satan did saying The Lord gave and the Lord takes away yet in all this Job sinned not nor charged God foolishly Satan desires yet farther liberty saying skin for skin yea all that a man hath will he give for his life But put forth thy hand now and touch his bone and his flesh and he will curse thee to thy face And the Lord said unto Satan Behold he is in thy hand but save his life So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord and smote Job with sore boyles from the sole of his foot unto his crowne and he took him a potshard to scrape himselfe withall and he sate down among the ashes Then said his Wife unto him Doest thou yet continue in thy integrity Curse God and dye She manifested the inward corruption of her irreligious heart Job might have brought her to a forme of godlines by his pious courses in his family but litle power of godlinesse doth appeare upon her For as Solomon saith If thou faint in the day of adversity thy strength is small It seems her heart was sowred with Atheisme thinking the world was governed by chance rather then by divine providence and consequently it was all one whether a man did blesse God or curse God and a madnesse to make a conscience of walking in integrity and that in Iobs case at this time whether he did blesse God he must dye or whether he did curse God he could but dye and better it was for him thus impoverished thus afflicted to dye then to live as for the powers of the world to come it seems she never had but a tast of them and that tast never produced any true faith in her concerning them Here was a sore temptation the very gates of hell playing upon him with their greatest Ordinance to batter if it were possible his shield of faith But what is Iobs answer Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh What shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive evill In all this did not Iob sin with his lips The worke of Satan in the impoverishing of Iobs estate and afflicting his person cannot be denied to be Gods work As for the work of his wife why might not that be the work of God as well as the work of Satan For did not Satan sin in all this As our Saviour saith that he was a murtherer from the beginning and as S t Peter saith The devill goes about like a roring Lyon seeking whom he may devoure so who can make doubt but these courses practised against Iob were fruits of his murthering and devouring disposition And all sides now a daies confesse that the act of the most flagitious sin committed by man or Angell is the work of God in the way of a principall efficient cause as well as it is the work of the creature And as for the sinfulnesse of the act either of the Devill or his Wife that was not it which did or could hurt Iob but the works wrought by Satan the temptation atheisticall proposed by his Wife this was the greatest danger in the consideration thereof to corrupt his soule for that is it alone that workes upon the will to incline it And as for their sinning herein that proceeded from the want of Gods feare according to that of Abraham Genes 20. 10. I said surely the feare of God is not in this place therefore they will slay me for my Wives sake And albeit God engageth himselfe towards some for the putting of his feare in their hearts that they shall never depart away from him Ierim 36. 40. yet he hath not engaged himselfe thus farre towards all For the Apostle plainly professeth that He hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth Rom. 9. 18. and hardning we know is denying the feare of God either as touching the habituall infusion thereof or as touching the actuall excitation thereof after it is infused Yet I deny not but obduration and excaecation are sometimes promiscuously used the one for the other because of the strict conjunction that is betwixt them And as touching the particular act of Convitiation Austin spares not to professe that even when it is committed by man it is brought forth by God out of his secret providence lib. 9. Confess cap. 8. Quid egisti Deus meus unde curasti unde sanasti nonne protulisti durum acutum ex alterâ animâ convitium tanquam medicinale ferrum ex occultis provisionibus tuis uno ictu putredinem illam praecidisti And whereas Bellarmine endeavoureth to blast the evidence of this place giving testimony unto Gods secret providence in evill I have endeavoured to shew the vanity of his discourse in my Vind. Grat. Dei lib. 2. Crim. 3. digress 2. cap. 13. And in what congruity can it be said that God bid Shimei to curse David but that in the same analogy of faith it may be said that God bid Iobes Wife in this manner to tempt him And which of the two was the greatest provocation Tiberius his Ministers Provocation of Drusus and Nero or Shimei's provocation of David rayling on him to his face the Subject blaspheaming his Prince undoubtedly the provocation was nothing inferior only here was the difference Tiberius gave such commandment to his Ministers so to provoke Drusus and Nero God gave no such commandement in proper speech unto Shimei but rather commanded the contrary in his law Thou shalt not speak evill of the ruler of thy people But Gods secret providence whereby he
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
fides à naturâ sit In my poor judgement the Fathers as many as stated predestination according to the prescience of mens works had no other meaning but this that God did predestinate no man to eternall life but such as coming to ripe years should believe in Christ and repent no man unto eternall death but such as should finally persevere in infidelity and impenitency so making works foreseen the cause of salvation but not of Gods decree And Aquinas was bold to professe that Nemo fuit it a insanae mentis qui diceret merita esse causam praedestinationis divinae quoad actum praedestinantis And 't is a good rule that Gerson gives that holy mens Writings are not to be urged precisely according to the letter De Vitâ Spirituali animae Sect. 1. co 11. Notet his quód Doctores etiam sancti sunt magis reverenter glossandi in multis quà m ampliandi quoniam non omnes semper adverterunt aut advertere cogitaverunt ad proprietatem locutionis Improprietas autem non ampliari debet sed ad proprietatem reduci alioquin quid mirum si augetur deceptio 5. We know what answer Austin himselfe makes unto this De Praedestin Sanct. cap. 14. Quid igitur opus est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista Haeresis oriretur non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad solvendum quaestione versari quod proculdubio facerent si respondere talibus cogerentur 6. As before I shewed Fulgentius himselfe maintaines predestination to be secundum praescientiam yet Vossius acknowledgeth him as well as Austin to have maintained the absolutenesse of predestination 7. Lastly this passage concerneth predestination alone as it signifies the divine decree of conferring glory but who ever was known to maintaine the divine decree of conferring grace to have been secundum praescientiam according to foresight of any work in man For this is plainly to maintain that grace is given according unto works which in the Ancients phraise is all one as to acknowledge that grace is given according unto merits which is direct Pelagianisme and condemned 1200 years agoe in the Synod of Palestine As for that of Minutius Foelix We deny that God doth sortem in hominibus punire non voluntatem We doe not say Genitura plectitur we say that in every one who is punished by God ingenii natura punitur Wee confesse that Fatum illud est quod de unoquoque Deus fatus est and that pro meritis singulorum qualitatibus etiam fata determinat Yet the holy Ghost professeth in the mouthes of all his Apostles that both Herod and Pontius Pilate together with the Gentiles and People of Israel were gathered together against the holy sonne of God to doe that which Gods hand and Gods councell predetermined to be done and yet this predetermination divine I should think was nothing prejudiciall to the liberty of their wills As for Hierome this Author saith that he was an eager opposer of the Pelagians but no where doth it appeare that the point of predestination comes in question between them These very passages out of Hierome are proposed by Grotius in his Pietas Ordinum Hollandiae and answered by Gratianus Civilis punctually and long before by Bellarmine Lib. 2. de Grat. lib. arb cap. 14. I answer what is this any other but that which the Fathers many of them have professed in saying that predestination is secundum praescientiam And doth not Fulgentius affirm the same Yet is he acknowledged by Vossius a maintainer of the absolutenesse of predestination as well as Austin Did Hierome deny faith to be the gift of God or granting it to be the gift of God did he maintaine that God gave it according unto works If not but according to the meer pleasure of his will having mercy on some while he hardned others the case is cleare that he maintained absolute election unto faith As for Gods decree of salvation and damnation we willingly professe that God decreed to save no man but upon his finall perseverance in faith and piety to damne none but such as finally persevere in infidelity and impenitency Now compare we these decrees together the decree of giving faith and the decree of saving which of these are most likely to be the foremost it is apparent that salvation is more likely to be the end in respect of faith and faith the means in respect of salvation then the contrary And the generall and most received rule of Schooles is that the intention of the end is before the intention of the means I think the glory of God in the way of mercy mixed with justice is the end of both and that the decrees of giving faith and salvation are simultaneous as decrees of means tending to the same end and so neither before the other But Hierome saith that ex Praescientia futurorum nascitur dilectio vel odium I confesse he doth in a disjunctive manner thus vel ex praescientia vel ex operibus And we know that passions such as Love and Hatred are commonly said to be attributed to God not quoad affectum but quoad effectum and so they may fairely stand for salvation and damnation which proceed ex operibus in Hieroms phraise But admit he means hereby decretum salvandi which rising expraescientia fidei must presuppose the decree of giving faith to precede I answer then there is to be acknowledged an impropriety of speech and here is place for Gersons rule Sancti non semper adverterunt ad proprietatem locutionis And the rather because Hierome we never find exercised in this Controversy And it is against common reason that faith should be intended before salvation And lastly this were to impute unto him to acknowledge 2 motive cause of Predestination quoad actum praedestinantis which Aquinas professeth against as a thing impossible namely that there should be a cause of Gods will quoad actum volentis Nay he is bold to say that No man was so mad to say that merits are the cause of Predestination quoad actum praedestinantis The last part of this Authors performance in the poynt of Antiquity is the Councell of Arles subscribing as he saith the letter which was written by Faustus against Lucidus the Predestinarian for so he styles him and in his Epistle he insists upon two Anathema's the one this Anathema illi qui dixerit illum qui periit non accepisse ut salvus esse possit The other this Anathema illi qui dixerit quod vas contumcliae non possit affurgere ut sit vas in honorem First I will answer as touching the Anathema's themselves then as touching the credit and authority of this story 1. As touching the Anathema's The first proceeds as well of him that is baptized and afterwards perisheth as of him that is a Pagan and never was baptized and perisheth in his Paganisme as the Anathema it selfe witnesseth if it be repeated at
the Scripture And the reason hereof is because the word of God consists not in the outward barke or bone of the letter but in the inward pith and marrow of the meaning And as for contradiction unto Scripture in terminis it may easily be proved that to deny Gods delight in the destruction of obstinate sinners is to contradict a very pregnant place of Holy Scripture as namely Prov. 1. 24 25 26. Because I have called and ye refused I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded but ye have set at naught all my counsell and would none of my reproofe I will also laugh at your calamity I will mock when your feare cometh when your feare cometh as desolation and your destruction as a Whirlewind And yet never a whit the more is any contradiction found in Scripture for this because though they contradict each the other in terminis yet there is no contradiction if we consider the true meaning As for example it is both true that the Father is greater then the Sonne as touching the Sonnes Manhood And the Sonne equall to the Father as touching his Godhead So of repentance it cannot be attributed to God as it signifies change of mind or counsell but it may be attributed unto God as it signifies change of sentence according to that of Gregory Deus mutat sententiam consilium nunquam So as touching Gods pleasure or delight in the death of a sinner as it is the destruction of the creature he delighteth not in it but as it is a just punishment of the impenitent creature he delights therein Thus Piscator reconciles it on Ezech. 18. v. 23 32. Surely God delights in the execution of justice as well as in the execution of mercy as Jer. 9. 24. I am the Lord which exerciseth loving kindnesse judgement and righteousnesse in the earth for in these things I delight saith the Lord. 2. Here first the Author declines from the former phrase of having no pleasure in the death of a sinner to not willing the death of a sinner which phrases have no small difference as Piscator observes upon that in Ezech. 33. 11. for saith he potest homo velle id quo non delectatur ut aegrotus potest velle potum amarum quo non delectatur potest enim eum velle non perse sed propter aliud nempe ad recuper andam valetudinem And to deny that God willeth the death of as many as dye is in terminis to contradict a pregnant place of Scripture as where it is said that God worketh all things according to the counsell of his will Ephes 1. 11. And therefore seeing the inflicting of death is Gods work he must will it But this Author is more happy for invention then his fellowes For whereas others of his opinion work upon the place as it is rendred in the vulgar Latine Nolo mortem peccatoris this Author hath found out an argument from the very phrase of our last English translation to advantage his cause as when from Gods having no pleasure in the death of a sinner he quaintly inferres therefore God doth not of meer pleasure will or decree their death But how superficiary this is also and how fouly it falls in the issue upon the Author himselfe as usually it falleth out with men that affect new and quaint inventions I hope to discover in due place Farther observe that place Ezech. 33. 11. I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked according to our last English translation and that Ezech. 18. 23. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should dye doe differently render one and the same phrase in the Hebrew in the death of the wicked Ezech. 33. 11. which is word for word according to the Hebrew that the wicked should dye Ezech. 18. 23. which being not according to the precise termes of the originall it followeth that hereby our Translators did expound the sense of the Hebrew which is word for word in the death of the wicked and so accordingly that phrase Ezek. 18. 32. in the death of him that dieth importeth as much as this that he who dyeth should dye And as for Tertullian that which he alleadgeth out of him neither makes for him nor against us we all believe what the Prophet delivereth but we enquire about the sense of it But in the same place Tertullian interprets the place not absolutely but comparatively thus Vivo inquit Dominus paenitentiam malo quam mortem and indeed thus it is accommodated more then once in the Book of Common prayer as first in the generall absolution then in one of the Collects upon Good-Friday There is a double pleasure that God may be said to take in the one but a single pleasure only in the other For in the death of an impenitent sinner God delights only in the execution of justice but in the conversion of such a one that he may live God delights both in the execution of mercy which is equivalent to his delight taken in the execution of judgement and over and above he delights in their repentance For like as of such as fall from God it is said His soule hath no pleasure in them so of such as turne unto him it is as true that his soule hath pleasure in them 3. But give we him leave to enjoy the interpretation he affecteth yet consider I pray whether he doth not enjoy it tanquam Diis iratis and to his bane for marke I pray his argument and consider whether I doe not from the same argument most strongly conclude against him 1. His argument runnes thus If God delighteth not in the destruction of wicked men he did never out of his own pleasure take so many millions of men lying in the fall and seale them up by an absolute decree under invincible damnation Now from the rule of contraries I herehence dispute thus If this be a good consequence which he makes then on the contrary it followes that seeing God doth take pleasure and delight in mans eternall life as this Author expressely acknowledgeth therefore he did out of his own pleasure take so many million of men lying in the fall and seale them up by an absolute decree under invincible salvation Now this conclusion is as directly opposite unto him in the poynt of election as his conclusion is opposire to ours in the poynt of reprobation And my argument must be of the same force and validity with his because Contrariorum contraria est ratio Yet I will not content my selfe with this answere 2. Therefore consider I pray in the next place the true meaning of this phrase I have no pleasure in these places of the Prophet the Author himselfe though he doth not plainly professe what is the meaning of it as it became him to doe and not to depend upon colour of words suitable yet by his drift he manifests the meaning of it to be this that God doth not bring
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
the Gospell according to that Mar. 1. Repent ye and believe the Gospell Now to believe the Gospell is one thing the summe whereof is this That Jesus Christ came into the World to save sinners but to believe in Christ is another thing which yet this Author distinguisheth not though it appears by the course of his argumentation that he draws to this meaning and that in a particular sense which is this to believe that Christ died for them as appears expressely in the latter end of this Section And no marvaile if this Author carry himselfe so confidently in this being as he is armed with such confidence But I am glad that in one place or other he springs his meaning that we may have the fairer flight at him to pull down his pride and sweep away his vain considence though we deale upon the most plausible argument of the Arminians and which they think insoluble My answer is first Look in what sense Arminius saith Christ died for us in the same sense we may be held to say without prejudice to our Tenet of absolute reprobation that all who heare the Gospell are bound to believe that Christ died for them For the meaning that Arminius makes of Christs dying for us is this Christ dyed for this end that satisfaction being made for sinne the Lord now may pardon sinne upon what condition he will which indeed is to dye for obtaining a possibility of the redemption of all but for the actuall redemption of none at all Secondly But I list not to content my selfe with this therefore I farther answer by distinction of the phrase of dying for us that we may not cheat our selves by the confounding of things that differ To dye for us or for all is to dye for our benefit or for the benefit of all Now these benefits are of a different nature whereof some are bestowed upon man only conditionally though for Christs sake and they are the pardon of sinne and Salvation of the Soule and these God doth conferre only upon the condition of faith and repentance Now I am ready to professe and that I suppose as out of the mouth of all our Divines that every one who hears the Gospell without distinction between Elect and Reprobate is bound to believe that Christ died for him so farre as to procure both the pardon of his sinnes and the salvation of his soule in case he believe and repent But there are other benefits which Christ by his obedience hath merited for us namely the benefit of faith and repentance For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulnesse dwell Col. 1. And He hath blessed us with all spirituall blessings in Christ that is for Christs sake and God works in us that which is pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ and therefore seeing nothing is more pleasing in Gods sight on our part then faith and repentance even these also I should think God works in us through Jesus Christ and the Apostle praies in the behalfe of the Ephesians for peace and faith and love from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ that is as I interpret it from God the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost as an efficient cause and from the Lord Jesus Christ God and Man as a meritorious cause thereof Now I demand whether this Author can say truly that t is the constant opinion of our Divines that all who heare the Gospell whether Elect or Reprobate are bound to believe that Christ dyed to procure them faith and repentance Nay doth any Arminian at this day believe this or can he name any Arminian that doth avouch this Nay doth himselfe believe this If he doth not if he cannot shew any Arminian that doth with what face can he charge this opinion upon us as if we should extend the obligation to believe much farther then the Arminians doe whereas usually they criminate us for not extending it so farre as we should And indeed there is a main difference between these benefits and the former For as touching the former namely pardon of sinne and salvation God doth not use to conferre them but conditionally to wit upon the condition of faith and repentance But as for faith and repentance doth God conferre them conditionally also If so then let them make known to us what that condition is on mans part and whatsoever it be let them look unto it how they can avoid the making of grace to wit the grace of faith and repentance to be given according unto works But if these graces are conferred absolutely and Christ dyed for all to this end that faith and repentance should be conferred absolutely upon all then it followeth manifestly herehence that all must believe and repent and consequently all must be saved So that not only Election as Huberus that renegate faigned must be universall but Salvation also Thus have I given in my answer distinctly to that which he delivered most confusedly Fourthly I come to the scanning of the particular opinion of Zanchy namely that every one that hears the Gospell whether elect or reprobate for so I suppose it proceeds to wit only of them who heare the Gospell though this Author takes no consideration of that neither but hand-over-head laies about him like a mad man is bound to believe that he is elect in Christ and will trye whether I cannot reduce that opinion of his also to a faire interpretation And here first I observe Zanchy is not charged to maintain that every hearer of the Gospell is bound to believe that he is elect in Christ unto faith and repentance but only to salvation that puts me in good heart that Zanchy I shall shake hands of fellowship in the end and part good friends Secondly I distinguish between absolute-Election unto Salvation and election unto Salvation-absolute The first only removes all cause on mans part of election the latter removes all cause on mans part of salvation By cause of salvation I mean only a disposing cause such as faith repentance and good works are as whereby to expresse it in the Apostles phrase we are made meet partakers of the inheritance of the Saints of light Now albeit Zanchy maintains as we doe that all the elect are absolutely elected unto salvation there being no cause on mans part of his election as we have learned yet neither Zanchy nor we doe maintain that God doth elect any unto salvation absolute that is to bring him to salvation without any disposing of him thereunto by faith and repentance Now to accommodate that opinion of Zanchy I say it may have a good sense to say that every hearer is bound to believe both that Christ dyed to procure Salvation for him in case he doe believe and that God ordained that he should be saved in case he doe believe where beliefe is made the condition only of salvation not of the Divine ordination and the confusion of these by the Arminians doth usually
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
he the Lord knoweth Now who doubts but that our doctrine of justification by faith and not by workes may be an occasion to some to abuse the grace of God unto wantonnesse such there were even in the Apostles daies but what Shall we therefore renounce that doctrine I am not yet come to the tempering of the manner of proposing this doctrine I have more to say before I come to that What difference is there in harshnesse between these doctrines If ye doe not believe therefore ye doe not believe because God hath ordained you to destruction and this If ye doe not believe therefore ye doe not believe because God hath not regenerated you Let any man shew how a doore is open to slothfulnesse more by the one then by the other especially considering the ground of all is mans inability to believe without this grace of God effectually preventing and working him unto faith Now this doctine is plainly taught and that particularly of certain persons to their faces Ioh 8. He that is of God heareth Gods word ye therefore heare them not because ye are not of God The phrase to be of God I interpret here of regeneration but both Austin of old and our Divines of late doe interpret of election and so it is precisely the same with the Preaching of reprobation in his true colours as this Author interprets it and passeth this censure upon it as opening a doore to liberty and profanenesse which may I confesse well be occasionally to carnall men or to men possest with prejudicate opinions yet here it appears plainly to be in effect the same with that which our Saviour himselfe Preached But take this withall as it may be an occasion of slothfulnesse so it may be a meanes to humble men and beat them out of the presumptuous conceit of their own sufficiency to heare Gods word to believe to repent and the like and thereby to prepare them to look up unto God and to waite for him in his ordinances if so be as the Angell came downe to move the waters in the poole of Bethesda to make them medicinable so Gods spirit may come downe and make his word powerfull to the regenerating of them to the working of faith and repentance in them And I appeale to every sober mans judgement whether to this end tended not the very like Doctrine and admonition proposed by Moses to the Children of Israel in the Wildernesse Deut. 29. 2 3 4. Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh and all his servants and unto all his Land The great temptations which thine eyes have seene those great miracles and wonders Yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and eares to heare unto this day For is it not Moses his purpose to set before their eyes how little they have profited in obedience and thankfulnesse unto God and amendment of life by all those great workes of his in the way of mercy towards them and in the way of judgement towards the Egyptians And what was the cause of all this but the hardnesse of their hearts and the blindnesse of their eyes and to what end doth he tell them that God alone can take away this hardnesse of heart and blindnesse of mind which hitherto he had not done Might he not seem to justify them in walking after the hardnesse of their hearts by this and harden them therein by this Doctrine of his like as this Author casts the like aspersion in part upon the like Doctrine of ours Yet Moses passeth not for this so he might set them in a right course to be made partakers of Gods grace and that by the ministry of the Law to humble and prepare them for the grace of God which is the Evangelicall use of the Law And it is remarkable that in the first verse of this Chapter these words are said to be the words of the Covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Children of Israel in the land of Moab beside the Covenant which he made with them in Horeb. Wherefore seeing the Covenant made in Horeb was the Covenant of the Law it followeth that this Covenant is the Covenant of grace and these words are the words of the Covenant of grace which is plainly expressed in the next Chapter v. 6. And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed that thou maiest love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule that thou maiest live And what is the usuall preparation hereunto but to humble men by convicting them of sinne and of their utter inability to help themselves and that nothing but Gods grace is able to give them an heart to perceive and eyes to see and eares to heare But yet because we doe not speake in the same measure of the spirit and of power as Moses and our Saviour did therefore we labour to decline all harshnesse as much as lyeth in our power where we see occasion is like to be taken of offence Therefore first as touching this discourse of Calvins If you believe not therefore it is because you are already destinated unto damnation I say this is untrue more waies then one First if he conceives destination unto damnation goes before Gods decree to deny faith this I utterly deny and have already proved that in no moment of reason doth the decree of damnation precede the decree of denying grace Therefore Gods decree to deny them grace is rather the cause why they believe not then the decree of damnation Secondly whether we take it of the one or of the other or of both yet the proposition is utterly untrue For it doth not follow that because a man doth not as yet believe therefore God hath decreed to deny him faith and because he hath so decreed therefore he denies him faith For he that believes not to day may believe to morrow Saul was sometimes a persecutor of Gods Church but was it at that time lawfull to conclude that because he did not then believe therefore he was destinated unto damnation so that the reason indeed is either because God hath not decreed at all to give them faith or because the time which God hath ordained for their conversion is not yet come This is so cleare that Calvin himselfe were he alive would not gainsay upon consideration Neither doth he justify this discourse but only saith we must be more wise then so to discourse to our Auditors But this Author in saying this is to set downe our doctrine of reprobation in its colours delivers that which is shamefully untrue and nothing sutable with our doctrine More necre to the matter we should say rather That like as therefore a man heareth Gods word because he is of God that is as I interpret it because he is regenerated of God so therefore men heare them not because they are not of
save it being no way fit that a temporall thing should be made the condition of a thing eternall such as is Gods will to save And this is more apparent by the reading of Vossius himselfe Histor Pelag l 7. treating of Gods will to save all Now if we speake thus of Gods will quoad res volitas as touching the things willed these things willed being very different wee have reason to consider them distinctly also Now these things are either grace or glory cōmonly called Salvation And as touching grace to wit the grace of regeneration the grace of faith and repentannee we willingly confesse that Gods will to conferre them is so absolute that he hath determined to conferre them according to the meere pleasure of his will not according to mans workes which is plaine Pelagianisme and condemned in the Synod of Palestine above 1200 yeares agoe and as he gives them to whom he will so he denyes them to whom he will according to that Rom. 9. 18. He hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardneth But as touching Salvation or damnation in which respect this Author usually speakes of the absolute or conditionall will of God we uttererly deny that God in the dispensation or administration or execution of these proceeds or ever did decree to proceed according to the meere pleasure of his owne will but altogether according to theire workes For albeit God hath made no law according whereto he meanes to proceed in giving or denying grace yet hath he made a law according whereto he proceeds in bestowing Salvation and inflicting damnation And the law is this Whosever believeth shall be Saved Whosoever believeth not shall bedamned 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appeare before the Judgement Seate of Christ that every man may receive the things which are done in his body according to that he hath done whether good or evill So that according to that sence wherein this Author usually speakes of the absolute and conditionall will of God we utterly deny that God doth absolutely elect any man to Salvation or reject any man unto damnation though he doth absolutely elect some unto grace that is to the grace of regeneration to the grace of faith and repentance and absolutely reject others there from For as much as he bestowes these graces on some and denies them unto others not according to their workes but according to the meere pleasure of his owne will but he doth not inflict damnaton or bestow Salvation according to the meere pleasure of his will but according unto mans works And as he carrieth himselfe in the execution of Salvation and damnation after the same manner he did from everlasting decree to carry himselfe namely to Save no man of ripe yeares but by way of reward of their faith repentance and good workes so to damne none but for their infidelity impenitency and evill works As for the manifestation of Gods will of election and reprobation unto any we say that ordinarily man may be assured of his election For the spirit of God is given to this very end even to shed the love of God in our hearts that is Gods love towards us Rom 5. 5. And what is the shedding therefore in our hearts but his working in us a sense and feeling thereof especially considering that the sence of Gods love to us is the cause of our love to wards God according to that 1 John 4. 19. We love him because he loved us first and accordingly the spirit is sayd to testifie unto our spirits that we are the sonnes Rom. 8. And if sonnes then heyres even heyres of God and heyres annexed with Christ And the Apostle S t Peter exhorts us to give diligence te make our election vocation sure implying manifestly that men may be sure of their election otherwise why should our Saviour wish his Disciples to rejoyce not in this that Divells were subdued unto them but that their names were writen in Heaven And by what meanes may a man be assured hereof but either immediatly by the testimony of the spirit or mediatly by the fruits of the spirit as the fruits of our election one where of is faith plainly so signified Act 13. 48. As many believed as were ordained to everlasting Life And Act. 2. last God added daily to the Church such as should be Saved And repentance is another Act. 11. 18. Then hath God unto the Gentiles also given repentance unto life Giving to understand that as many as to whom God giveth repentance he hath ordained them unto life And indeed by the worke of our faith and labour of our love and the patience of our hope others come to be assured of our election how much more our selves no man knowing the things of mā so as the spirit of man 1 Cor 2. Thus S t Paul professeth his assurance of the election of the Thessalonians 1 Thess 1. 3 4. We remember the worke of your faith and the labour of your love c. Knowing beloved bretheren that ye are elect of God And hereupon he proceeds to assure them that Antichrist by all his deceiveablenesse of unrighteousnesse shall never prevaile over them in as much as he prevailes only over them that perish 2 Thess 2. 10. But as for them they are the elect of God And how doth he know that Surely by their faith and sanctification which were visible in them v 13. But we ought to give God thankes allwayes for you bretheren beloved of the Lord because that God hath from the begining chosen you unto Salvation by sanctification of the spirit and faith of the truth But as for reprobation we say that no man can by any ordinary way be assured thereof seing nothing but finall perseverance in infidelity or impenitency is the infallible signe thereof whence it followes that no way of desperation is open to one but the way of assurance and abundance of consolation is opened to the other and thereby encouragement to proceed cheerefully in the wayes of Godlinesse being assured that the more holy they are the greater shall be their reward And surely if certainty of salvation were a meanes of licentiousnesse the Apostle S. Peter would never have exhorted us to give diligence to make our calling and election sure And we manifestly seem to perceive strength of encouragement hereby unto Godlinesse as being assured that Christ dyed for us to the end we might live unto him And God receives us as Sonnes and Daughters to this end that we should purge our selves from all pollutions of flesh and spirit and perfect holinesse in the feare of God As also being assured that God will not lay our infirmities and sinnes unto our charge and will be ready to keepe us from presumptuous sinnes and however it fares with us Yet sinne shall not have dominion over us and consequently we shall have the victory over it either by obedience or by repentance because we are not under the
conditionall it must needs be predestination unto grace subsequent As for example God doth decree to worke in man the act of willing that which is good this decree say they is not absolute but conditionall Now I pray consider what is or can be the condition hereof but the act of willing And this indeed is their doctrine as I have seen it under the hand of one of them namely that God doth work in us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 velle modo velimus as much as to say If we will make our selves willing to believe to repent to doe any good work then God will make us willing hereunto This is the issue of the comfortable doctrine of these Arminians and unlesse we concurre with them in such unsober expressions we expose our selves to the temptations of Satan yea the forest temptations if we believe this Author and bereave our soules of all comfort from the Scriptures As if divine consolations were like to their argumentations the one as unsober as the other But let us consider the force of his Argument If it be so easy a matter for the Divell to perswade a man of this how came it to passe that he did not perswade Austin hereof or Prosper or Fulgentius or any of those ancient writers in this argument against the Pelagians How is it that he could not performe so easy a matter upon Calvin Bucer Beza Zanchy Junius Piscator or any other of those famous writers in this argument How is it that he prevailes over so few in comparison Nay consider was there ever any that was perswaded or can this Author produce any evidence to prove that ever any was perswaded that himselfe was a Reprobate upon this ground to wit because the number of Reprobates are by farre fewer then the number of Gods elect though as he speakes an hundred for one I have read of diverse collected by Goulartius within that century of yeares next preceding his worke that have cast themselves away in despaire yet not all neither upon conceit of their absolute reprobation And of them that have so conceived not one doe I find that hath entertained this conceit upon the ground here mentioned by this Authour Francis Spira is a strange president but the ground of this desperate condition is manifested to have bin this that he cōceived himself to have sined the sin against the Holy Ghost Many in our dayes have been knowne to have made themselues a way and this very yeare 1632 hath brought forth many strange examples in this kind but hitherto I have not heard that the ground of this their desperate resolutions was this that the Devill had perswaded them they were absolute Reprobates much lesse that they were perswaded hereunto by so sorry a ground as that which this Authour alledgeth And as before I signified all this must proceed of reprobation from grace And if God deny grace upon the meere pleasure of his will and not according to mens workes the way is open to desperation and it is an easy matter for the Devill to perswade us that we are absolute Reprobates as this Authour with great zeale of his cause belike upon the singular comfort he finds in his owne way disputeth But over whom hath the Divell this power Not over Heathens for they are nothing acquainted with the doctrine of election and reprobation but over Christians Yet consider I pray who are Christians but such as believe in Christ And is it an easy matter for the Devill to perswade such as believe in Christ that they are Reprobates If so then either as it is reprobation from grace or as it signifies reprobation from glory not as it signifies reprobation from grace for it is supposed they are in the state of grace to wit in the state of faith which is the prime grace As for reprobation from glory we doe not maintaine that God doth absolutely deny that or that he decreed absolutely to deny that but only to such as should be found to dye in sinne Againe as many as maintaine absolute reprobation they doe withall maintain that faith is a fruit of election and consequently by the Genius of their doctrine must conclude that they are elect and not Reprobates Againe they according to their doctrine doe maintaine that who is once in the state of regeneration connot fall a way totally or finally Therefore they are not so easy to be perswaded that they are Reprobates at all but elect rather Let them that is our adversaries looke to this and that they are not easily perswaded by the Devill that they are reprobates at least that they neither have or can have any assurance of their election for as much as they deny faith to be a fruit of election and whatsoever their faith be yet are of opinion that they may totally and finally fall from it and be damned Farther consider seeing this Authour denies not but the damnation of every Reprobate is decreed by God everlastingly and that irrevocably though upon foresight of finall perseverance in sinne I pray what comfort is it for any man that he is not an absolute Reprobate if so be he is perswaded that he is a Reprobate and from everlasting ordained to condemnation Now I will prove that it is an easy matter for the Devill to perswade any Arminian that he is a Reprobate by the same argument which this Authour useth against us For seeing the Reprobates are more by farre then the elect even an hundered for one and withall that it is an easy thing for the Devill to perswade any man that he is rather of that number which is greatest then of that which is least hence it followes by his owne forme of argumentation that it is an easy matter for the Devill to perswade any Arminian that he is a Reprobate Yet the vanity of this argumentation I have formerly shewed by representing first the vast number of Heathens in all ages in comparison unto Christians Secondly the variety of Sects in Christian Religion and that most of them miserably corrupt together with the vast number of prophane persons on the on side and of Hypocrites on the other why should any man that is privy to his owne heart as looking towards Heaven be carried away with so base a pretence as to conceive himselfe to be a Reprobate especially considering the nature of man to hope the best of his fortunes and that upon no ground to speake of as it appeares in those who venture in Lotteries Whereas every true Christian believing in the Christ hath a certaine ground for the assurance of his election by our doctrine And truly I am verily perswaded the Devill is more wise then to think so base an illusion as this is likely to prevaile Save that in case this Author or his Informator doe believe as they pretend hereupon he may take advantage to work upon them according to their own rules to perswade them thereby that they are Reprobates and 'till we find
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
his trust in himself with Gods concurrence as if otherwise a mans condition were uncomfortable and the way were open to desperation But what doth Austin answer to such like discourses of old de Predest sanct cap 22. An vero timendum est ne nunc de se homo desperet quando spes ejus demonstratur ponenda in Deo non autem desperaret si eam in se ipso superbissimus infelicissimus poneret Is it to be feared least a man despaire when it is proved that a mans hope is to be placed in God and that he is free from despaire in case he place his hope in himselfe most proudly and most unhappily As for that which he cites out of Melancthon it is every way as much to the purpose as that which he cited out of Calvin in the first Section Melancthon sayeth we must judge of Gods will by his Word so saith Calvin his words are these Qui recte atque ordine electionem investigant qualiter in verbo continetur eximium inde referunt consolationis fructum To enquire after a mans election in the Word is the way to reape singular consolation But they that enquire after the eternall counsell of God without the Word in exitialem abyssum se ingurgitant they plung themselves into a gulfe of perdition Yet when Melancthon sayeth multa disput antur durius the comparative there is not to be rendred as this Authour renders it more harshly but rather thus somwhat harshly And of Melancthons concurrence with Calvin in the doctrine of predestination as touching the substance of the doctrine I have formerly shewed out of his owne Epistle who professeth that he differeth only tradendi ratione in the manner of delivering it and of his owne professeth that they are of a popular nature thus Mea sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adusum accommodata as it were woven with a thicker thred and fited to use and practise No man doubts but that as Melanchton saith it is Gods immutable commandement to heare the Son and to assent to the promise and the promise is universall to wit that whosoever believeth shall be saved Therefore let us not seeke election besides the Word it is a grave counsell and well becomming Melancthon and Calvin gives the very same councell in the very Booke Chapter and Section last related by this Author But he saw it fitter for his turne to represent Melancthon professing as much rather then Calvin We nothing doubt but God will performe that he hath promised and therefore whosoever believeth shall be saved according to our doctrine not so according to the doctrine of Arminians who maintaine that a man may totally and finally fall away from faith Rogers upon the Articles of the Church of England Art 17. Not only acknowledgeth this universality of Gods promises according to the Tenor of that Article but concludeth herehence That they are not to be heard that say that the number of the elect is but small and seeing we are uncertaine whether we be of that company or no we will proceed in our course as we have begunne and accompts all such adversaries of this truth touching the universality of Gods promises and let every sober man judge whether this Author doth not justify this their discourse whom he accompts adversaries to the truth of that Article in that particular The same Rogers in his 8 proposition as touching the comfortable nature of predestination writs thus This doctrine of predestination is to the Godly ful sweet pleasant and comfortable because it greatly confirmeth their faith in Christ and encreaseth their love towards God But saith he to the wicked and reprobate the consideration hereof is very sower unsavory and most uncomfortable as that which they think though very untruly and sinfully causeth them either to despaire of his mercy being without faith or not to feare his justice being extreamely wicked whereas neither from the Word of God nor any confession of the Church can man gather that he is a vessell of wrath prepared to damnation What more contradictions to this Authors discourse of the uncomfortable condition of predestination according to our way yet who was this Authour was he at any time accompted an innovatour in this Church His books dedicated to Arch-Bishop Bancroft writing upon the Articles of the Church of England perused and by the lawfull authority of the Church of England allowed to be publick And because some choosing to play at small game rather then sit out may say that he speakes not a word of absolute election or absolute reprobation let his 5. Proposition be observed which is this Of the meere pleasure of God some men in Christ Jesus are elected and not others unto salvation this he prooves by that Rom. 9. 11. That the purpose of God might remaine according to election And that Eph. 1. 5. Who doth predestinate us according to the good pleasure of his will And that 2 Tim. 1. 9. Not according to our workes but according to his owne purpose and grace And that Exod. 33. 19. And Rom. 9. 15. I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy And as touching the other part of not choosing others that of Solomon Prov. 16. 4. The Lord hath made all things for his owne sake yea even the wicked against the day of evill And Rom. 9. 21. Hath not the Potter power over the clay to make of the same lumpe one vessell unto honour and an other unto dishonour And comming unto the Errours and adversaries of this truth Hereby saith he is discovered the impiety of those men which think that 1. Man doth make himselfe elegible for the Kingdome of Heaven by his owne good workes and merits so teach the Papists 2. God beheld in every man whether he would use his grace well and believe the Gospell or no and as he saw man so he did predestinate choose or refuse him 3. Besides his will there was some other cause in God why he chose one man and cast off another but this cause is hidden from us 4. God is partiall and unjust for choosing some and refusing others calling many and electing but few The other place alleadged by this Author of Melancthon partly repeates the same matter concerning the universality of the promises no mention at all with him either of the universality of Gods love or of the universality of Christs death or of the universality of the Covenant of grace partly opposeth it to dangerous imaginations of predestination what are these but such as proceed without the word For without doubt it is to be understood in opposition to that which he formerly delivered advising us to judge of the will of God by his expresse Word and all one with seeking election extra verbum formerly specified of both which Calvin speakes more at large in that very place aleadged by this Author in the first Section of this last sort of Arguments And there Calvin commends the one as a
which he will and proper in the thing whereto he sends it And remove all vaine grounds of apprehensions of terrible things against themselves What if a great many be reprobated from grace and shall never have any part in Christ it doth not follow that this afflicted soule is any of them what one is there of the children of God which was not sometimes dead in sinne and if pangs of childbirth goe before the delivering of a child into the world of nature why should it seeme strange that pangs of childbirth are suffered before a man be brought forth in to the world of grace And these feares and terrours wherwith this poore soule is perplexed may be unto her as pangs of childbirth to bring her forth into a new world We say that by Gods Word we are to conceive that ye are elected upon our faith and repentance Thus Paul concluded the election of the Thessalonians 1 Thess 1. 3 4. And 2 Thess 2. 13. Thus Melancthon would have us seeke it but by the Arminian doctrine it is in vaine to seeke after it for as much as none can find it We acknowledge that as our Saviour saith Few are chosen therefore we admonish every one to strive to enter in at the straight gate This was our Saviours exhortation delivered by way of answer to a question made unto him by his Apostles Whether there were but few that should be saved We teach that Christ hath died for the people of God for the elect of God for his Church for his body not only to make satisfaction for sinne and to procure salvation for them in case they believe but to procure also the Holy Spirit for them to make them believe and repent c. And this is wrought by the word which is the sword of the spirit We take not the course he obtrudes upon us We make no such distinctions for the consolation of the afflicted as he faignes We deale plainly and spare not to professe that albeit salvation is open to all that believe and that by the ordinance of God yet that no man is able of himselfe to believe or repent for as much as the Scripture testifies that all are dead in sinne in the state of nature and led captive by the Divell to doe his will and that the very Law of God doth strengthen sinne such being the course of mans corruption that the more he is forbidden this or that the more it provokes him to transgresse taking occasion by the law to work in mans heart all manner of concupiscence this is our course to beat downe the pride of man and beat out of him all conceit of ability to doe any good as of himselfe and so to cast him downe at the feet of Gods mercy Yet God is able by his grace to quicken him and being brought up in the Church of God wherein is the balme of Gilead able to heale our waies be they never so sinfull and that that is administred not according to the vile workes of men as if they had any power to prepare them for the participation of Gods grace but of the meere favour and good pleasure of God Who calleth as the Apostle speakes 2 Tim. 1. 9. with an holy calling not according to our own workes but according to his own purpose and grace And that for the merits of Christ who hath merited not only pardon of sinne and salvation for all that believe but faith also and regeneration for all his elect and being as we are members of Gods Church we have no cause to despaire but sooner or later God may call us as continually he doth some or other and we know not how soone our turne may come And as for Gods purpose touching the performance of the condition of faith we plainly professe That God purposed to give faith and repentance only to his elect according to that Act. 13. 48. As many believed as were ordained to everlasting life And Acts 2. last God added daily to his Church such as should be saved Now heare I pray their doctrine on the other side which set out our manner of consolation devised most ridiculously at their own pleasure so to expose our doctrine to scorne Doth God purpose to bestow faith and repentance upon any other besides his elect This they must avouch if they contradict us and that he purposeth to bestow it on all and every one but how Not absolutely on any that is not according to the meere pleasure of his will how then Surely conditionally to wit according to mens workes that so not Semi-Pelagianisme only but plain Pelagianisme may be commended unto Gods Church for true Christianisme And what is that worke in man whereupon God workes faith or repentance in them Surely the will to believe the will to repent So that if all men will believe will repent then in good time through Gods grace they shall believe they shall repent and if this be not to crowne Gods grace with a crowne of scornes as Christ himselfe was crowned with a Crowne of Thornes I willingly professe I know not what it is We utterly deny that God hath two wills one contrary to the other We acknowledge that in Scripture phrase Gods commandement is called his will as This is the will of God even your sanctification 1 Thess 4. 3. But this is not that will of God which the Apostle speakes of when he saith Who hath resisted his will Rom. 9. 19 For his will of commandement is resisted too oft But the will he speaketh off there is the will of Gods purpose and decree whereof the Psalmist speakes saying Whatsoever the Lord will that hath he done both in Heaven and earth Now suppose God command Abraham to sacrifice his sonne Isaack and yet decrees that Isaack shall not be sacrificed both which are as true as the word of God is true yet there is no contradiction For as much as his commandement signifies only Gods will what shall be Abrahams duty to doe not what shall be done by Abraham On the other side Gods decree signifies what shall not be done by Abraham Now what contradiction I pray is there betweene these It is Gods will that it shall be Abrahams duty to sacrifice Isaack but it is not Gods will that Isaack shall be sacrificed by Abraham for as much as when Abraham comes to the poynt of sacrificing Isaack the Lord purposeth to hold his hand In like manner God commanded Pharaoh to let Israell goe It was his will then that it should be Pharaohs duty to let Israel goe but withall he toâ—d Moses that he would harden Pharaohs heart that he should not let Israel goe whereby it is man iâ— est that God decreed that Israel should not be dismissed by Pharaoh for a while and that as is signified in the Text to make way for his judgements to be brought upon the land of Egypt whereby God meant to glorify himselfe as in the sight of Pharaoh and of his
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
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
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
for the preservation of the integrity of her mind in the opinion of the world and that they might know that she consented not unto Tarquinius but was forced by him So then the act is it they doe or choose to doe for some motive or other which whether it be pleasure or profit or credit they get thereby that makes not the act sinfull but only that it is against some law or other forbidding it And this act all sides confesse is the worke of God as well as the worke of man as in whom we move like as in him we live and have our being And Bradwardine maintaines that of every act of the creature God is a more immediate cause then the creature it selfe whoâ—e act it is This he proves of the creatures conservation of the creatures action of the creatures motioÌ„ to this he proceeds by certaine degrees And in all this God doth not transgresse any law as man doth too often in the performing of many a naturall act and only in performing acts naturall is sinne committed never in performing any act supernaturall all such acts are in a peculiar manner the work of grace 2. God overruleth no man's good projects or purposes otherwise then as when accepting their intentions he will not have them put such in execution because perhaps he hath reserved that for another time person As when David was purposed to build God an house was encouraged therein by Nathan yet the Lord sent Nathan shortly unto David to give him to understand that he reserved that work for Solomon his Son yet so well accepting David's purpose that he promised to build his house But if God at any time overruleth the wicked projects and purposes of men whether good or evill let us blesse him rather for this then curse him by cursing them that maintaine this good providence Yet in overruling them whether he doth it immediately or by the ministry of his good Angells not by working immediately upon the will as this Authour dreameth For that is not the way to worke agreably to the reasonable nature of man though so he worke also by generall influence affoarded coÌ„mon to all agents but by representing to the understanding congruous motives to divert them from that they doe intend whether in a gracious manner as he diverted David from his purpose to massacre the whole house of Nabal or only in a naturall way whereby he diverts wicked men from their ungodly designes by representing the danger thereof to make them feare so to restraine them Will the Devill himselfe be over prone to blaspheme God for this yet in this alone he doth more then either the Devill or man can doe though this be not all that he doth For he doth cooperate to every designe and execution of the creature be it never so abominable which neither man nor Angells can doe And he hath power to give over unto Satan and to harden any man and that more effectully then any Devill can doe The Devill could not say with truth that He would harden Pharaoh's heart that he should not let Israel goe Nor when he had let them goe I will harden Pharaoh's heart that he shall follow after them to bring them back The Devill could not say in truth as the Lord did to David I will take thy wives before thine eyes and give them to thy neighbour and he shall lye with thy wives in the sight of the sunne Nor as he said to Ieroboam Behold I will rent the kingdome out of the hands of Solomon and will give ten tribes to thee Nay the very permissioÌ„ of sin so as whereby it shall infallibly come to passe is not in the power of any creature but in God alone And shall it follow that because God doth more both as touching the act it selfe and touching the sinfull condition of it then any creature can doe therefore God is the Authour of sinne whereas when God moves a man or carrieth him on to any good morall workes whether in doing that which is vertuous or abstaining from that which is vitious this man shall certainely sinne though not in so great a degree unlesse God be pleased over and above to regenerate him and to bestow faith and love on him for as much as in this case though he doe an act vertuous yet shall he not doe it in a gracious maÌ„ner though he doe abstaine froÌ„ an act vitious yet he shall not abstaine froÌ„ it in a gracious manner Let this man therefore proceed maintaine if he thinks good that except God doth bestow the spirit of regeneration upon all and every one throughout the world he is the Authour of sinne not only when he moves them to such acts which are evill but also when he moves them to the doing of such as are vertuous or to the abstaining from those that are vitious As for his phrases noe wise man will regard them but only such as are content to feed on huskes for want of better food As when he talkes of motion uncontroulable which makes a noise as if men's wills would controule his motion but cannot whereas God as the first mover moves the creature most congruously unto his nature without which motion of his the creature could not move at all The like noyses makes the phrase immutable decree as empty things many times give the greatest sound whereas by vertue of God's immutable decree it is that it cannot otherwise be then that as necessary things cannot but come to passe necessarily so contingent things cannot but come to passe contingently and the free actions of men freely But by the way he manifest's how he licks his lips at a Mutable decree of God even of that God with whom as St. Iames speaketh there is no variablenesse nor shadow of change He doth acknowledge we maintaine potentiam in se liberam but then he saith we doe not maintaine liberum usum a most absurd distinction For noe power deserves to be stiled free save that it is of free use and exercise And what a prodigious thing is it to affirme that it is not within the almighty power of God to cause that this or that shall be done by a reasonable creature freely this is it that Bradwardine proposeth to the judgment of all to consider whether it be not an unreasonable thing to deny this unto God 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 Thus he relates the opinion of our Divines whereas neither determining nor necessitating as I said before are the expressions of our Divines but of Papists yet he laies not this to the charge of Papist's Noe nor to the charge of Bellarmine for saying that God doth not only rule and governe but wrest and bend them and that to one evill
built upon the freenes of the other in not being given according unto men's merits As it appeares de bono perseverantiae cap. 15. Where having proposed some exceptions of the Massilienses made against his doctrine of predestination comming to make answer thereunto he begins thus Ista cum dicuntur saith he ita nos à confitenda Dei gratia id est quae non secundum merita nostra datur a confitenda secundum eam predestinatione sanctorum deterrere non debent When these things are objected they must not deterre us from confessing God's grace I meane such a grace as is not given accordiog unto works nor from confessing the predestination of Saints according thereunto Now if the absolutenesse of predestination be grounded upon this that grace is not given according unto merits the scripture phrase denies it to be given according unto workes But Bellarmine acknowledgeth that in this Argument merits and workes are taken by the Ancients in one and the same sense it followeth that as many as deny the absolutenesse of predestination must therewithall maintaine that Grace is given according to men's merits or works And the reason is evident For if God doth not give grace according unto men's works but of his mere pleasure decreed to give grace unto some and not upon consideration of their works And this is to elect absolutely and antecedently without the foresight of any deserving yea of any works though by that expression which this Authour useth he doth sufficienty manifest that his opinion is that God elects not only upō the foresight of men's workes but upon the foresight of men's deservings It is farther considerable to prevent the reaches of such crafty foxes as we have to deale with whose course is in joyning the decree of conversion and salvation together to translate that which belongs unto one unto the other most unreasonably For albeit God proceeds according to the mere pleasure and without all respect to workes in conferring grace and decreeth accordingly to conferre it Yet he proceeds not merely according unto pleasure and without all respect of works in conferring glory but according unto a Covenant which is this whosoever beleiveth shall be saved and accordingly he bestowes the kingdome of heaven by way of reward for faith repentance and good workes This hath Christ deserved at the hands of his Father that our weake performances should be thus rewarded Lastly it is farther to be considered that God as he thus bestoweth salvation by way of reward of our faith repentance so from everlasting he did decree to bestowe salvation namely by way of reward Not that either faith or repentance or good workes any or all of these were the cause least of all the deserving cause of God's decree or antecedaneous to his decree but of his mere pleasure decreed both to give the grace of faith and repentance and to bestow eternall life by way of a reward thereof as may farther be proved and that clearly divers waies 1. By the Apostl's discourse where he discourseth after this manner Before Esau and Iacob were borne or had done good or evill it was said that the Elder shall serve the younger therefore election is not of workes But if election did proceeed upon the foresight of faith repentance and good workes or any of them then it might justly be said that it were of faith repentance or good workes or of all of them And the force of the Apostles argument extends to conclude that election is noe more of faith or of repentance then of workes not only because faith and repentance are workes and so accounted in Scripture phrase as it appeares Io 6. 29. But cheifely because before men are borne they are uncapable of faith and repentance as of good workes 2. If faith were a motive cause unto election then either it were so of it 's own nature or by constitution Divine not of it's own nature as it is apparent If by constitution divine mark what strange absurdities follow namely this that God did ordaine that upon the fore sight of faith he would ordaine men unto salvation whereby God's eternall ordination is made the object of his ordination whereas the Objects of God's decrees are alwaies things temporall never any thing that is eternall 3. It cannot be said that God giveth salvation to the end he may give them faith but it may farre more congruously be said that God gives faith to the end that he may save them therefore the intention of salvation is rather before the intention of giving faith then the intention of giving faith is before the intention of giving salvation Or better thus if God foresee faith before he decrees salvation then the intention of giving faith without which God cannot foresee faith is before the intention of giving salvation and consequently the giving of faith should be the last in execution that is men shall first be saved and aferwards have faith bestowed upon them to wit in another world where they live by sight and not by faith I come to the decree of reprobation the Objects whereof are two proportionable to the two objects of election or predestination The first is permission of sin the second is Damnation for sinne according to that of Aquinas Reprobatio includit voluntatem permitendi culpam damnationem inferendi pro culpâ Reprobation includes a will to permit sinne and to inflict damnation for sinne The first object of reprobation I say is permission of sinne not Sin as this Authour would have it but permission of sinne Because these decrees to wit of permitting sinne and inferring damnation for sinne are decrees of meanes conducing to a certaine end For like as in election God decreeth to bestowe faith repentance and obedience on some and to reward it with everlasting life for the manifestation of his glory in the way of mercy mixt with justice So in Reprobation he decrees to permit others to sinne and finally to persevere therein and to damne them for their sinne to manifest his glory in the way of vindicative justice Now whosoever intends an end must also be the Auhour of the meanes conducing to that end Now God though well he may be the Authour of permission of sinne yet he cannot be the Author of sinne Albeit upon God's permission of sinne it followeth that sinne shall exist Now to permit sinne is all one with denying grace whether it be grace Custodient to preserve from it or grace healing to pardon and cure it after it is committed Now like as the Lord hath mercy on whom he will in pardoning their sinne and healing it by faith and repentance So he hardeneth whom he will by denying faith and repentance So that as God of his mere pleasure grants the grace of faith and repentance unto some so of his mere pleasure he denies it unto others And so in Reprobation he decreeth of his mere pleasure to deny it But albeit the Lord of mere
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
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
magistrates have spared such offenders as have been overswayed 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 their destinies and that when they murther steale commit adultery make insurrections plot treasons or practise any other outragious villanies they doe them by the necessity of Gods unalterable decree and can doe no otherwise they would and might compâ—aine of their punishments as unjust as Zenoes 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 â—fato coactus peccare constrained to make that fault by his undeclinable fate The Adâ—umctine Monks misled by Saint 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 Saint Austin confuted in his booke De gratia liberoarbitrio And thinking the grace of God as Saint Austin 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 doe better Against this Austin directed his other booke De correp gratiá In which discourse though it be grace that is still named yet predestination is included For as Kimedontius saith truely in his preface to Luther De servo arbitrio Between grace and predestination there is only this difference as Saint Austin teacheth Libro de praedest Sanctorum 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 thinke 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 dissolution of all good goverment Indeed if our doctrine make sin to be no sin and therewithall take away the conscience of sin it is not to be marvailed if it take away the desert and guilt of sinne For as sinne is no sinne so likewise it is as fit that the desert and guilt of sinne should be the desert and guilt of no sinne and so no desert or guilt at all This Authour to serve his own turne takes great libery of discourse in talking of offences fatall these were called by Austin profane novelties of words Yet elsewhere he professeth that if no other thing were meant hereby then the divine providence Sententiam teneant linguaÌ„ corrigant let theÌ„ hold their orthodoxe meaning but let theÌ„ correct their language Now by providence divine is meant the will of God working every thing that is good and permitting every thing that is evill And without this will of God not any thing comes to passe in the judgment of Austin Non aliquid sit saith he nisi oÌ„nipotens furi velit vel sinenâ—o ut fiat vel ipse faciendo Not any thing comes to passe unlesse Almighty God will have it come to passe either by suffering it or by 〈◊〉 working of it to wit if evill suffering it if good working it but of each he professeth that God wills it The abominable outrages committed upon the person of the holy Son of God were such as God's hand and God's counsell sore determined that is as much as to say antecedently determined to be done And the â—en Kings in giving their kingdomes to the Beast are said herein to have agreed to dce God's will Yet this Authour dares not say that these actions could not be justly punished Yet the maintainets of destiny as I have shewed out of Austin denyed that the wills of men were subject to destiny while this Authour talkes in their language why doth he not talke in their meaning And if he talkes in our meaning why doth he not talke in our language Now Austin farther saith is I have shewed out of the same place that they who exempted the wills of men from all necessity seared a vaine and causelesse feare professing that as to some necessity the will is not subject such as is the necessity of death which befalls us whether we will or no. So to some necessity it may be subject without any danger and that necessity he expresseth to be such as when we say it must needs be that such a thing come to passe Now such a necessity and no other is granted by us as consequent to the will of God so that if God will give a man faith it must needs be such a man shall believe if he will give repentance it must needs be that such a man shall repent If he will keep such a man as Abimelech from sinning against him it must needs be that such a man shall be kept from sinning against him If God will not give a man faith nor repentance it must needs be that such a man will not believe will not repent In like manner if God will not keepe a man from sinne but suffer him to sinne it needs must be that such a one shall sinne If God harden the heart of Pharoah so that he shall not set Israel goe undoubtedly so it shall come to passe If God put it into the hearts of the Kings to give up their kingdomes to the Beast they shall infallibly give their Kingdomes to the Beast If he gives men over unto a Reprobate mind to doe things inconvenient undoubtedly being thus prostituted by God to their own corruption from within and to the power of Satan from without they shall doe those inconvenient things be they never so abominable yet not necessarily much lesse in the way of absolute necessity as this Authour wordeth it affecting to speake with a full mouth which is a quality naturall to these Arminians and runnes in a blood but proveth nothing but contingently and freely not only with a possibility but also with an active power to the contrary And if freely then surely their works are their own proceeding from their own power and soveraignty but yet not supreame and absolute dominion and independent in their operation on God their maker God must have the prerogative still of being the first mover the first cause the first Agent the first free Agent So farre off are we from maintaining that the actions of men have their being by absolute necessity that we utterly deny any thing in the world to have ' its existence by absolute necessity saving God alone as before I have shewed Sciendum saith Durand quod loquendo de necessitate simpliciter voluntas divina nec imponit nec imponere potest rebus necessitatem nec res creatae sunt capaces talis necessitatis We are to know that speaking of necessity simply so called the will of God neither doth
a thing it is for any man to maintaine that there is some cause of predestination as touching the act of God predestinating So as mad a thing it must be every way to avouch that there is a cause of Reprobation as touching the act of God reprobating And truely the Apostle St. Paul plainly manifests that upon what ground he proves that Election is not of good works namely because before Iacob or Esau were borne or had done good or evill it was said The elder shall serve the younger upon the same ground we may be bold to conclude that Reprobation is not of evill workes And the same reason manifests that faith and infidelity are excluded from being the causes the one of Election the other of Reprobation as well as good and evill workes And both Piscator by evidence of Scripture and Bradwardine by evidence of reason have demonstrated that no will of God is conditionall which is to be understood as touching the act of God willing And it may be evidently further demonstrated thus If any thing be the cause of God's will then either by necessity of nature or by the constitution of God Not by necessity of nature as is evident and all confesse there being no colour of truth for that besides such an opinion were most dangerously prejudiciall to God's soveraignty and liberty If therefore they say it is by the constitution of God maske I pray what an insuperable absurdity followeth hereupon For seing God's constitution is his will it followeth that God did will that upon foresight of this or that he would will such a man's salvation and such a man's damnation And thus the act of God's will is made the Object of God's will even the eternall act of God's will Whereas to the contrary it is apparent that the objects of God's will are things temporall never any thing that is eternall But as touching things willed we readily grant it may be said there is a cause thereof as School-Divines doe generally acknowledge And thus Gerardus Vossius speaks of the conditionall will which he faith the Fathers doe ascribe to God For this is the instance which he gives thereof as for example when God ordaines to bestow salvation on a man in case he believe here faith is made the condition of Salvation but not of the will of God And in like manner we willingly grant that reprobation is conditionall inasmuch as God intends to inflict damnation on none but such as die in sin without repenance But albeit predestination as touching this particular thing willed may be said to be conditionall according as the School-men explicate their meaning and reprobation likewise as touching the particular of dānatiō mētioned yet no such thing cā be truely affirmed either of the one or of the other as touching the particulars of grāting or denying the grace of règeneratiō which are intended also by the decrees of predestinatiō reprobatiō For albeit God intends not to bestow salvation on any but upon condition of faith nor damnation on any but upon condition of finall impenitency and infidelity Yet God intends not to bestow the grace of regeneration on some for the curing of their naturall infidelity and impenitency Nor to leave the same infidelity and impenitency uncured in others by denying the same grace of regeneration unto them This I say God doth not intend to bring to passe upon any condition For if he should then grace should be conferred according unto works which was condemned in the Synod of Palestine and all along in divers Synods and Councells against the Pelagians So that albeit God proceeds according to a law in bestowing salvation and inflicting damnation yet he proceeds according to no law in giving or denying the grace of regeneration for the curing of our naturall corruption but merely according to the pleasure of his will as the Apostle testifies saying He hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardeneth And if the conferring and denying of this grace be absolute how much more are the decrees hereof to be accounted most absolute And consequently that one man is delivered from the power of his sins whether originall or habituall another is not but still continueth under the power of them This I say doth must needs come to passe by vertue of Gods absolute decrees Yet no absolute necessity followeth hereupon First because no greater necessity then that which is absolute can be attributed to the existence and continuance of God himselfe Secondly God did absolutely decree to make the world yet no wise man was ever known to affirme that the worlds existence was and is by absolute necessity In like sort God did absolutely decree that Iosiah should burne the Prophets bones upon the Altar That Cyrus should build his Citty and let goe his captives That no man should desire the Israelites land when they should come to appeare before the Lord their God thrice in the yeare That God would circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their children to love the Lord their God withall their heart and with all their soule To put his feare in their hearts that they should never depart away from him To cause them to walke in his statutes and judgments to doe them To worke in them both the will and the deed according to his good pleasure Yea to worke in them every thing that is pleasing in his sight through Iesus Christ Likewise that Absolom should defile his fathers Concubines that the Jewes should crucify the Son of God that some through disobedience should stumble at the word that the Kings should give their kingdomes to the beast Yet these actions were done by them as freely as ever they did ought in their lives All these things I say by Scripture evidence were decreed by God to come to passe The good by God's effection the evill by God's permission and decreed absolutely on their parts that did them if not let it be shewed upon what condition on Absolon's part he should defile his fathers Concubines upon what condition on the Jewes part they should crucify the Son of God upon what condition on their part others through disobedience should stumble at God's word And upon what condition on their part the Kings should give their kingdomes to the beast And if they take Arminias his way let them reply upon mine answere to Arminius if Bellarmin's let them reply upon my answer to Bellarmine that we may not trouble the world with out Tautologies If a different way from both these I shall be glad to be acquainted with it give it such entertainement as according to my judgment it shall be found to deserve So that with Epiphanius though we are ready to concurre in denying destiny which as before we heard out of him was a necessity derived from the starres yet with Austin we may still hold that the wills of men need not to be exempted from all necessity to maintaine the liberty
but that to him sinne is to be imputed when it is done by Tertullians rule approved by this Authour quite contrary to the judgment and doctrine of Austin putting this difference betweene man and God the creature and the Creator that if we suffer others to sinne when we can hinder them rei cum ipsis erimus but how many sinnes sayth he do we see committed in the world which could never come to passe if God would hinder them Shewing how our doctrine opposeth Gods mercy according to his conceit and coming to deliver things more closely as he sayth and comprehending that which he hath to say under 4. particulars The 2. whereof this That it was the sinne of our nature not by generation as I have shewed but by Gods owne voluntary imputation The proofe whereof and the confirmation of it out of M. Calvin being set downe at large in some 13. lines or more in M. Hords discourse is here utterly left out which will be the more remarkable by comparing it with what he delivers concerning another attribute of God here inserted and which he pretends also to be impugned by our doctrine p. 54. where he seemes to sup up that which here he delivered Num. 3. These words are inserted I thinke I may conclude with the words of Prosper He which sayth that God would not have all men to be saved but a certaine set number of predestinate persons only he speaketh more harshly then he should of the height of Gods unsearchable grace Nay he speakes that which cannot stand with his infinite grace and mercy especially to the sonnes of men The 8. objection of the Galles was this That God will not have all men to be saved but a certaine number of persons predestinate Now Prospers answer hereunto is very large and it begines thus If about the salvation of all mankind and calling them unto the knowledge of his truth the will of God is maintained to be so indifferent throughout all ages that God may be shewed to have neglected no man altogether the unsearchable depth of Gods judgement is hereby assaulted For why did God suffer all nations in ages past to walke in their owne wayes when the Lord chose Iacob to himselfe and dealt not so with every nation And why are they now become Gods people which before were no people of God c All this makes nothing for this Authour The next is directly against him not only at large but in this very particular wherein he alleadeth Prosper not in his answer to this 8. objection but in his sentence proposed afterwards upon it For what is this Authours meaning in citeing him to affirme that God not only willeth their salvation whom he hath predestinated but all men also or at least that such as say the contrary do speake more harshly then we ought to speaks of the depth of Gods inscrutable grace but to cast a colour that Prosper concurres with him and judgeth that God is indifferunt to save all But the reason why he only saves some and not others is because some prepare themselves for grace and accordingly he bestowes it upon them Others do not prepare themselves and accordingly God doth not bestow it upon them Now prosper directly contests against all such as maintaine this opinion and that in two particulars 1. In taking upon them to give the reason of Gods judgements and that drawen from the wills and actions of men and which is no lesse impiety in thinking that grace is bestowed by way of reward for good workes Or restrayned from men by reason of their evill workes His words translated run thus But whosoever referreth the causes of Gods workes and judgements throughout to the wills and actions of men and will have Gods dispensations varied according to the changeable condition of mans free will such a one professeth the judgements of God to be scrutable and his wayes such as may be found out And that which Paul the Doctor of the Gentiles durst not touch this man thinkes he can unlock and make known And that which is a fruit of no lesse impiety the very grace of God whereby we are saved is given by the way of reward for good workes and denyed or restrained for evill workes So that in each particular Prosper is directly contrary this Authours tenet Now seeing the most part of men have not the grace of salvation that is such a grace as is of saving nature And the reason by God doth not give it them is not in consideration of their evill workes let any other sober and judicious Aminian be judge whether God can be sayd to will their salvation in such a sense as we speake of it when he denyeth them the grace of salvation and that not for their evill workes sake but which necessarily followeth hereupon meerely according to the good pleasure of his will And indeed in Prospers large answer to this eighth objectionto the Galles which taketh up almost a whole columne in Austin this Authour finds nothing at all to fasten upon for his advantage But yet you will say in his eighth sentence which he proposeth it is as this authour alleadgeth I grant it but observe his censure well The inscrutable depth of Gods grace may suffice to keep us from speaking so rashly as to say that God wills not all to be saved but only a certaine number of persons predestinate Where observe first he counts it an harsh speech to say that God willeth not that all men shall be saved the reason whereof undoutedly is this because it is expresly contradictory to a text in Scripture But then if we object how can God be sayd to will their salvation whom he hath not predestinated to whom he will not give the grace of salvation that not for their evill workes sake but according to the meere pleasure of his will Now Prospers answer in my judgement is this The depth of Gods inscrutable grace will beare us out in it so that we need not cast our selves upon so harsh an expression as to deny that God will have all men to be saved which is contradictious to the letter of Gods word In effect it is as if he should say It is a secret This I take to be Prospers meaning and herein I remit my selfe to the judicious But sure I am that Prosper is directly contrary to that opinion whereunto this Authour by vertue of this sentence of his desires to draw him In like manner the Authour of the booke De vocatione Gentium which is commonly thought to be Prospers though Vossius affects to entitle it unto another upon no other ground but because he conceits that Authour not to be so rigorous in the doctrine of predestination as Prosper But let the judicious compare Prospers cariage in this particular with that Authours and observe whether they do not exactly agree For that Authour holds up that text of Paul God will have all to be
have answered it and shewed the absurd interpretation that he makes of it He vaunts that he hath proved reprobation absolute to be unjust when he hath performed no thing lesse But making only a greate cracke he goes out like a squib and throughout meddles not with one argument that our Divines bring out of Scripture or reason to justifie their doctrine concerning the absolutenesse of reprobation And it is apparent that he denies the absolutenesse of election as well as the absolutenesse of reprobation and consequently must necessarily maintaine that grace is given according to works whereupon it was that Austin grounded his doctrine concerning the absolutenesse of Predestination And upon the like ground have we as good cause to ground our doctrine concerning the absolutenesse of reprobation it being every way as evident that Grace is not denied according unto works as that it is not granted according to mens works And the Scripture is equally as expresse concerning both where it is said that as God hath mercy on whom he will so also whom he will he hardneth Pag 75. 76. Treating of God's sincerity Sub-sect 1. There are two passages inserted taken out of Piscator before the passages alleadged out of Zanchy and Bucer For having said that Now God's meaning is by this doctrine that the most of those to whom he offereth his grace and glory shall have neither forthwith he gives instance in Piscator thus And so Piscator saith Grace is not offered by God even to those who are called with a meaning to give it but to the Elect only Gratia non offertur à Deo singulis â—licet vocatis animo communicandi eam sed solis electis In the same booke he hath such an other speech Non vult Deus reprobos credere liâ—etliâ—gua profiteatur se velle Though God in words protest he would have reprobates to believe yet indeed he will not have them they make God to deale with men in matters of salvation as the Poets feigne the Gods to have dealt with poore Tantalus They placed him in a cleare and goodly river up to the very chin and under a tree which bare much sweet and pleasant fruit that did almost touch his lips but this they did with a purpose that he should tast of neither For when he put his mouth to the water to drinke it waved away from him And when he reached his hand to the fruit to have eaten of it it withdrew it selfe presently out of his reach so as he could neither eate nor drinke Just so dealeth God with reprobates by their doctrine He placeth them under the plentifull meanes of salvation offereth it to them so plainly that men would thinke they might have it when they will yet intendeth fully they shall never have it withholding from them either the first grace that they cannot believe or the second grace that they cannot persevere Did not those gods delude Tantalus yes doubtlesse And if God doe so with reprobates what did he but delude them and dissenible with them in his fairest and likeliest offers of salvation that he makes them And this doe Zanchius and Bucer grant by evident consequence as appeareth by a speech or two of theirs which cannot stand with their conclusion and therefore I suppose fell unwarily from them This treatise of Piscator De praedestinatione against Schaffman I have the second editition printed at Herborne Anno 1598. But these words according to their quotations here are not to be found the severall distinct passages are distinguished by numbers which in all editions hold the same not so the pages Yet the latter passage quoted p. 143. I meet with in mine p. 128. According to the like difference I try whether I can find out the other but in vaine But yet I meet with such matter of discourse as whereunto this passage is very congruous to be there delivered if any where yet no such thing is there delivered as num 74. Schaffman's argument is this If God calls all to salvation then he will save all To this Piscator answereth The proposition is false But he calls with animo simplici atque vero a simple mind and true Sane saith Piscator as much as to say I grant that but so as that he calls them with condition of repentance and faith Therefore as he promiseth salvation seriously unto them that performe this condition and therefore performes this promise So on the contrary he doth seriously threaten death and damnation to them who doe not fulfill the condition and performes unto him that commination Then though God be not capable of hypocrisy yet he doth not alwaies will that what he commands shall be alwaies performed by him to whom he gives that command Whether by commanding he meanes to prove a man as to prove Abraham he commanded him to sacrifice his Son or because to him whom he commandeth he will not give grace to performe that command as he deales with reprobates And num 120. To Schaffman's objection which was this God is no hypocrite he answers thus But yet he gives not grace to all to performe what he commands theÌ„ For promiscuously he commands as well reprobates as elect to believe as many as he calls by the preaching of the gospell but he gives this grace to his elect alone according to that To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdome of heaven but to them it is not given So that undoubtedly God offers grace to wit pardon of sinne with a purpose to communicate it to all that shall believe according to the judgment of Piscator neither doth he offer it with a purpose to communicate it to any unlesse they believe But the grace of faith is not offered to any with a purpose to communicate it upon a condition For then grace should be conferred according unto works which is manifest Pelagianisme As for the other which I meete with p 128. num 120 take it at full and not as it is dismembred by this Authour who cares not how he calumniates so he might advantage his own cause Schaffman's objection was Deus est unius linguae voluntatis God is both of the same tongue and will Whereto Piscator answers thus Your meaning is that God look what he professeth with his tongue that he willeth But this saith he is not alwaies true nor in all particulars For by his tongue that is by speech uttered he professed that he would have Abraham to sacrifice his Son Isaac yet he would not have him sacrificed With his tongue he professed by his servant Ionas that he would destroy Nineveh within forty dayes yet he would not so doe With his tongue by the ministers of the Gospell he professeth that he would have the reprobates to whom he speaketh among his Elect to believe the Gospell in as much as he commands them so to doe yet he would not have them to believe in as much as he will not
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
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
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
Trent And againe in the next page 535. Neither doe I like saith he Cajetans interpretation after this manner when he saith Est sermo de voluntate signi qua Deus proponit omnibus homimbus praecepta salutis doctrinamque Evangelii and that for two reasons First because God doth not propose his Gospell to all Secondly if God should propose the Gospell to all and bid all men to believe this is no certaine signe that God will have them to believe like as it is no certain signe that God will give them grace to believe without which they cannot believe For it is manifest that God doth not give the grace of faith and repentance unto all that heare the Gospell nor to a major part of them but it is a signe I confesse that God will have it our duty to believe by commanding us to believe The interpretation of this place which D. Twisse sticks to is that of Austin that God will have some of all sorts or conditions to be saved and he makes it good from the coherence as here so in his consideration of the doctrine of the Synod of Arles and Dort c. p. 61. and p. 62 63 64. he gives a full and satisfactory answer unto that which you call more then a Topicke argument against this exposition unto which why you doe not reply I cannot but wonder but perhaps you never read it And yet againe 't is very strange that you who have searched so narrowly and throughly into these controversies as you professe should be unread in all the workes of him whom you confesse to be one of the greatest Patrons of the Adverse cause as you call it I will lay downe that which you call more then a Topicke argument and compare it with the objection of Tilenus and then put downe D. Twisse his answer unto Tilenus and referre it unto the Reader whether it doe not fully satisfy that which you suppose to be a demonstration M. GOODWIN pag. 104. IF it may be said that God will have all men to be saved because he will have some of all sorts to be saved it may more properly truly be said of him that he will have all men to be destroyed at least in their sense who hold an irreversible reprobation of persons personally considered from eternity because not simply some but a very great part of all sorts of men now extant in the world will in time perish and that according to the decree or will of God the tenour whereof is that all persons dying in impenitency and unbeleife shall perish yet the Scriptures doe no where say upon any such account as this either in terminis or in substance that God will have all men to perish and not to come to the knowledge of the truth which is somewhat more than a Topicke argument that God is not therefore said to will that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth only because he will have some some few of all sorts of men to be saved and to come to this knowledge but simply because his will is to have all men with out exception viz. as they are men and whilst they are yet capable of Repentance to be saved and in order thereunto to come to the knowledge of the saving truth i. e. The Gospell TILENVS NOW if this New Evangelist doe tell the Infidell that the passages of Scripture which say that God would have all men to be saved are to be understood of some of every Nation and condition the Infidell will reply that then the Scripture ought with much more reason to say that God would have all men to be damned because that in every Nation there are farre more of these than of them and how that in all reason the denomination should be taken from the greatest number DR TWISSE upon the Synod of Arles c. Pag. 62 63 64. I Deny that the Scripture ought with much more reason or with any reason to say that God would have all men to be damned although put the case that in every Nation condition there be more of these than of them and his reason drawne from the denomination to be taken from the major part is nothing to the present purpose For the question here about the interpretation of Saint Pauls phrase is only this whether the word All be to be interpreted of all sorts or of all and every one so that the rule of denomination taken from the major part is nothing pertinent to this The question being only whether genera singulorum or singula generum be here meant not whether some of all sorts or all and every one of all sorts Which being resolved and that hereby is meant genera singulorum it may be farther questioned whether genera singulorum doe imply every particular of these kinds or only some of them For it is well known that the phrase is indifferent to the one as well as the other and that genera singulorum are equally preserved entire in some particulars as in many or most or all Like as the Species of the Sunne is maintained exactly as well in that one Sunne which shines by day in the firmament as if there were twenty Sunnes Secondly though the reason here given from the denomination to be taken from the greater part were pertinent yet were it nothing pertinent to the Apostles purpose in this place to say that God would have all men to be damned For this were no agreeable reason to move them to pray for all for Kings and all that are in authority As if the Apostle should say thus I will have you to pray for all for God will have all to be damned for saith Austin if Gods Church knew who were predestinated to be sent into eternall fire with the Divell and his Angells they would no more pray for such than they would pray for the Divell himselfe So that this Author doth miserably overlash in this his subtilty and betraies more nakednesse than any sober and wise Infidell were like to doe Then againe the instances of Scripture are clearely against him For when every foure-footed beast as the Scripture speakes was seen by Peter in a vision in all likelyhood they were not the most part of every kind but the smallest rather of every kind and accordingly this Author might conclude that considering denominations are taken from the major part therefore it is rather to be said that every foure-footed beast was not seen by Peter for certainly the major part of every kind was not yet in this sense to speake of it in that case was nothing pertinent but rather contrariant to that which followeth Rise Peter kill and eate In like sort seeing in all likelihood more people staid at home both in Jerusalem and in Judea then were they who went out to John and according to this Authors rule it were more fit to say All Jerusalem and all Judea staid at home when John the
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
disposing causes of their election unto salvation But you proceed and I am content to go along with you 3. And this reason especially for the latter part of it which concernes the manifestation of Gods glory per mâ—dum justitiae punientis may be farther confirmed thus That which tends not to Gods glory simply but onely upon supposition if sinne be could not be intended by him simply but onely upon that supposition For so farre and no farther doth God intend any thing as it makes for his glory But to punish men or any other creatures is a thing that tends not to Gods glory simply but onely upon supposition if sinne be Ergo it could not be intended by God simply but onely upon that supposition Resp You need not have mentioned the tending of this to Gods glory your argument is in force and greater force without it For I hold that to punish without supposition of sinne implyeth contradiction paena being properly opposed to praemium and as reward formally hath a respect to obedience going before so hath punishment unto sinne 1. Now first to follow you in your owne course I reason thus That which tends to Gods glory not simply but onely upon supposition of obedience in faith repentance and good workes cannot be intended by him simply but upon that supposition but to reward with salvation and everlasting life tends not to Gods glory simply but onely upon supposition of faith repentance and good workes Ergo it could ot be intended by God simply but onely upon faith and repentance 2. But to your Major I answer No man saith that God doth intend to punish any man but for sinne Now hereupon many not onely Arminians but some Orthodox also are apt to be deceived and to thinke that these words but for sinne are to be referred to the Antecedent removed which is Gods intention But it is not so those words are onely to be referred to the Antecedent next before which is to punish And I prove it thus When any man saith God intends to punish man for his sinne the meaning can be no other than if he had said God doth intend that punishment shall be inflicted on man for his sinne where it is manifest that sinne is noted onely as going before the punishment not as going before Gods intention But as soone as this confusion of sense is opened by distinction then they flye to this kind of argument sinne goeth before the execution of punishment therefore the consideration of sinne goeth before the intention of punishment which is the argument I formerly proposed and the inconsequence whereof I presume you doe manifestly perceive Now to that which followeth 4. Although the reason which you alledge on our behalfe be inconsequent as you have framed it yet I suppose it may be reduced to a true Syllogisme thus The decree of liberation from sinne presupposeth sinne election is the decree of liberation from sinne Ergo election presupposeth sinne If you deny the Major I prove it thus That which presupposeth sinners presupposeth sinne The decree of liberation from sinne presupposeth sinners Ergo the decree of liberation from sinne presupposeth sinne you will perhaps yet deny the Minor but I prove it thus The decree of liberation from sinne presupposeth some that have need to be delivered for else it were vaine and to no purpose Onely sinners have need to be delivered from sinne Ergo the decree of liberation from sinne presupposeth sinners The like argument and in the like forme may be framed touching the decree of dereliction in sinne Or if you take reprobation for the decree of damnation it may be said thus The decree of damnation presupposeth some persons justly damnable for otherwise it were either an unjust or at least and unwisean indeliberate decree But onely sinners are justly damnable Ergo the decree of damnation presupposeth sinners and conse quently sinne For peccatum is de formali ratione peccatoris qua peccator est as you know Resp Every one indeed knowes that peccatum is de formali ratione peccatoris and hereupon it is manifest that the second Syllogisme gives no mite of proofe unto the first For seeing formalis ratio of any thing cannot be separated from the thing it selfe and consequently neither peccatum from peccator you may easily perceive that when we deny that the decree of liberation from sinne presupposeth sinne we must therewithall necessarily deny that it presupposeth sinners Your third Syllogisme addeth as little force unto the former being meerly identica probatio For every man knoweth that to be a sinner and to have need to be delivered from sinne is all one in such sort as whatsoever is denyed of a sinner must be denyed of him that hath need to be delivered from sinne forasmuch as every sinner hath need to be delivered from sinne Thus while you decline that proofe which in my observation alone hath course and the implication whereof in the Major proposition is all the evidence of it you fall upon no sound proofe at all The truth is if you observe you may perceive your Major proposition involves this Enthymeme Liberation from sinne presupposeth sinne sinners such as have need to be delivered from sinne Ergo the decree of liberation from sinne presupposeth both sinne and sinners and such as need to be delivered from sinne Of any other force of proofe that you give I am not conscious 2. If the argument formed touching the decree of dereliction in sinne be of the like forme it will admit no doubt the same answer 3. The Major of the last Syllogisme hath a clause annexed unto it as a reason of it thus else it were in vaine and to no purpose If this reason pleased you you might have relyed upon it in the first Syllogisme of the three whereas now you may perceive they containe no proofe but identicall 2. Your course of argumentation tends to prove that it is impossible it should be otherwise than you conceive which is more than to say it were otherwise onely vaine and to no purpose Thirdly I answer that which is vaine and to no purpose is either to no end or to no good end But the decree of liberation from sinne whether it presuppose sinne as you say or not presuppose sinne as I say still it tends to the same end and that a good end to wit the manifestation of Gods mercy But I erre your meaning seemeth to be this it is vaine in respect that it cannot obtaine the end it aimes at unlesse it presuppose sinne But how doe you prove that Gods decree of liberation from sinne cannot take effect except it presuppose sinne you have no meanes to prove it but this Liberation from sinne cannot take effect without it presuppose sinne Ergo the decree of liberation from sinne cannot take effect without it presuppose sinne And while you decline this way of proofe you light upon no proofe at all 4. Touching your last Syllogisme