herein Whence in the following Chapters 9 10 11 12. he answers the Objections and Arguments of the Papists whereby they endeavor to prove That the Calvinists make God the Author of sin which imputations are stil fastened on us by the Arminians and new Methodists We may adde hereto the sentiments of Ludovicus Crocius Professor at Breme and a Member of the Synod of Dort who in many points specially that of middle Science and universal Grace follows the new method yet in this of Gods concurse to the substrate mater of sin seems orthodox and concurrent to Calvins Doctrine So in his Duodecas Dissertat Exegetic De voluntate Dei Dissert 8. thes 74. pag. 415. where he tels us That the fundamen of clearing God from being the Author of sin is the distinction of the material and formal part of sin namely of the action and the vitiositie which is in the action for that not this he wils and decrees and this not that he permits And his reason is invincible for otherwise there should be an action independent as to God and the efficacious providence of God should be denied which is Epicurean And then thes 99. pag. 426. he tels us That as to the act of the Divine wil about sin the Scriptures seem to contradict themselves in that some Scriptures assure us that God doth not wil sin but hate it with those that commit it as Psal 5. 5 6 7. Zach. 8. 17. and yet other Scriptures say that God wils creates and effects sins as Esa 45. 7. Lam. 3. 37 38. Amos 3. 6. Then he solves these seeming contradictions by distinguishing between the act and the vitiositie of the act also between the act as it procedes from God and as from the Creature lastly between the decreeing wil of God and the preceptive wil of God Whence he concludes thes 100. thus ` For God both wils and produceth the act as an act of it self indifferent to moral bonitie and evil c. And he addes thes 101. ` That this act in itself essentially good even as it is contaminated by the creature God wils it as a punishment and useth it as an ordained convenient means for the best ends The like thes 112. p. 430. where he shews how God wils sin not as sin but as a punishment c. of which more fully hereafter Chap. 5. § 5. These sentiments of Lud. Crocius I rather chuse to cite because he in other points follows the new method and is cried up by some of that partie As for the Judgement of the Synod of Dort touching our Hypothesis it is sufficiently evident by their Determinations as also by the oppositions the Arminians made against them in this point both whiles they sate and afterwards I am not ignorant that some of our Adversaries are so confident as to cite the Synods testimonie in favor of their Antithesis but this is so false an imputation as that I judge no intelligent impartial Reader can give credit to it There needs no more to evince the Synods concurrence with us in this point than their stout defence of absolute Reprobation of which see Davenants Animadversions on Gods love pag. 242. We might adde almost an infinitude of Testimonies from Reformed Divines Churches and Synods for the confirmation of our Hypothesis but in what remains we shal confine our selves to the Doctrine and Testimonie of the Church of England and those renowned Professors of Theologie who have maintained and vindicated our Hypothesis The Church of England as to Doctrine imbibed even in her first Reformation the sentiments of Calvin and the Reformed Churches in France Holland Helvetia and Germanie albeit as to Discipline she stuck unto Episcopal Jurisdiction This is evident by that noble designe of Cranmer and our first Reformers to reduce the Doctrine of al the Reformed Churches unto one Confession I shal here only cul out a few Testimonies of some great Professors of Theologie both in Oxford and Cambridge who were of an Episcopal Judgement as to Discipline yet stout Champions for our Hypothesis We shal begin with Davenant a great Master of Reason and one that went as far as he could and I think as far as any ought in compliance with those of the New Method yet he stil asserted and with great strength of reason defended absolute Reprobation and Gods predeterminative concurse to the substrate mater of sin Thus in his Determinations when Professor of Theologie at Cambridge Quaest 22. In evil acts saith he God hath decreed to permit the event to concur with the Agent as an universal Motor and lastly to order the event itself according to that of Hugo de sacr fid lib. 1. cap. 13. God wils that sin be and yet he wils not sin i. e. with a wil of approbation So Quaest 25. pag. 118. he grants That Gods decree to permit sin is efficacious so as to extract good out of it But he speakes more fully for the defense of our Hypothesis in his Animadversions on Gods love to mankind pag. 72. But those who derive the evil actions of men from their own free wil as the proper efficient cause and the existing or coming of such actions in eventum à Decreto Dei permittente ordinante are in no error at al. But if any shal go about to set mans wil at libertie and to tie up short the decreeing and determining wil of God as if this had not the determining stroke amongst al possible evil actions or events which shal infallibly be and which shal infallibly not be he may avoid the suspicion of Stoicisme and Manicheisme but he wil hardly avoid the suspicion of Atheisme For the greater number of mens actions being wicked and evil if these come into act without Gods determinate counsel and decree human affaires are more over-ruled by mans wil than by Gods What could be said more acutely and distinctly for the demonstration of our Hypothesis He here alsertes 1 That the existence of evil actions is from Gods decree permitting and ordering of them 2 That Gods decreeing wil doth determine or predetermine al possible evil actions or events which shal infallibly be And do or need we assert more than this And frequently in that Book Davenant assertes and demonstrates That the decree of Reprobation is absolute determining sinful acts and events yet so as that it leaves no man under a compulsion to sin So pag. 253. he saith Gods decrees carrie with them a necessitie of infallibilitie as to the event but not a necessitie of compulsion as to the manner of acting And elsewhere he frequently inculcates That let Reprobation be absolute or conditional it leaves the same possibilitie and the same libertie to the Agent So pag. 333 340 341 351 360. Yea he proves That the Arminians must and do grant immutable absolute decrees which admit the same objections and difficulties as those of the Antiarminians So pag. 354 400 418 419. Lastly he proves
difference between the Predeterminants and Antipredeterminants in 7 particulars 40 c. CHAP. III. Scriptural Demonstrations of our Hypothesis 1. FRom Gods prime Causalitie 45 c. 2. From Gods predetermining natural actions to which sin is annexed 52 c. 1 The Vendition of Joseph ibid. Evasions as to Josephs Vendition solved 56 2 The Crucifixion of Christ 58 Evasions about Christs Crucifixion taken off 65 3 From Gods making use of wicked Instruments for the punishment of his people 69 4. From Gods immediate hand in the Acts of Sin 72 Shimei's cursing David from God 73 God moved David to number the People 75 Other Acts of sin from God 76 c. 5. From Gods efficacious permission of sin 85 6. From Gods judicial Induration 90 The false Comments of Adversaries reselled 94 Gods concurse to the individual act which is sinful 96 How God judicially hardens men without being the Author of sin 97 7. From Gods efficacious ordering mens sins for his own glorie 101 CHAP. IV. An Historic Idea of Predeterminants and Antipredeterminants THe Assertors of Gods predeterminative Concurse to the substrate mater of Sin 108 Augustins Sentiments touching it 109 Prosper and Fulgentius 110 Anselme Hugo de Sancto Victore accord hereto 111 Aquinas expresse herein 112 Scotus also positive herein 114 Greg. Ariminensis demonstrates the same 116 So Holcot and Altissiodorensis 117 Thomas Bradwardine his Character and zele for efficacious Grace 118 Also for efficacious Concurse to the substrate mater of sin ibid. His Sentiments touching Gods willing sin 119 Also how the entitative act is from Gods predeterminative Concurse 121 Moreover how God spontaneously impels men to the entitative act of sin 122 The Sentiments of Dominicans Alvarez c. 123 The doctrin of Jansenius concordant with ours 125 The Jansenists sentiments agree also 126 The Roman Catechisme consonant 127 Reformed Divines Wiclef Calvin Zuinglius fully agree 128 Chamiers defense of our Hypothesis 130 The Testimonie of Lud. Crocius for us 131 The Synod of Dort and Church of England Davenant Ward Abbot c. for us 132 Such as denie Gods concurse to the substrate mater of sin 136 Marcion Manes Pelagius Nic. Bonetus 137 Durandus against Gods immediate concurse ib. Who they are that symbolise with Durandus 138 The Consentiments of Jesuites and Molinisis 139 Lud. Ã Dola a sectator of Durandus 140 Arminius's Consentiments 141 The Remonstrants and Anabaptists consent 142 The New Methodists how far consentient 143 Camero and Amyraldus their consent 144 Placeus in suspense 145 Le Blanc and Baronius how far they agree 146 Strangius our principal Adversary 147 How these New Methodists fel into this their New Method in imitation of Semipelagians 149 Who of the New Methodists may be estimed orthodoxe 150 CHAP. V. Rational Demonstrations of our Hypothesis ARguments for Predetermination to the substrate mater of al sin 1. From the Futurition of althings 151 Objections against this Argument solved 152 2. From the Certitude of divine Prescience 155 Our Adversaries Evasions from the force of this Argument 157 3. From the divine Wil and Decrees specially that of Reprobation 159 Davenant's Hypotheses about absolute Reprobation 161 4. From Divine Concurse 1 It s Principe 163 2 Its Nature 1 Totalitie ibid. 2 Vniversalitie as to Effects 164 3 Particularitie as to manner of working ib. 4 Immediation 166 5 Prioritie and Antecedence 167 6 Absolute Independence 169 3 From the Efficace of Gods Concurse 170 1 As to al natural acts 170 2 As to supernatural Acts and Effects 172 The Objections urged by the New Methodists against Predetermination to the substrate mater of Sin urged with as much force by Arminians against predetermination to good 174 5. From the Nature of Sin 1 It s Mater 176 2 Its formal Reason 178 6. From Gods Permission of sin 179 Divine Permission explicated 180 7. From Gods Providence about Sin 182 8. From Creatural Dependence 185 CHAP. VI. The Objections against Predetermination to the substrate mater of Sin solved 1. OBject That this Hypothesis makes God the Author of Sin 189 1. This Objection as urged by Baronius ib. 2. The Objection as urged by Strangius 191 General Solutions for the freeing God from being the Author of Sin 195 1 Gods Wil the effective cause of the substrate mater not a defective cause of Sin ibid. 2 None the Author of sin but the particular moral cause thereof 196 3 God concurs only to what is naturally good in sin ibid. 2. Object From Gods Essence and Attributes 197 1 Gods Sinceritie and Fidelitie vindicated ib. 2 His Justice also cleared 198 3 The Vindication of his Mercie 199 4 His Sanctitie also vindicated 200 3. Object From Gods Word 1 Preceptive 202 2 Promissive and Inviting ibid. 1 Al Promises primarily for the Elect. 204 2 Their use as to Reprobates ib. 3 The Antithesis of Antipredeterminants destroyeth the use of Promisses c. as much as our Hypothesis 206 4 What Power we allow Reprobates 207 4. Object From the Overthrow of Religion 208 5. Object From the Libertie of the Wil. ib. The injustice of the New Methodists in urging this Objection and its inconsistence with their own Sentiments 209 CHAP. VII The genuine Hypotheses of the Predeterminants and Antipredeterminants with their Consequents THe genuine Hypotheses of the Predeterminants with the false Hypotheses and Consequents imposed on them 211 The Antitheses of the New Methodists and Antipredeterminants with their dangerous Consequents 215 Table of SCRIPTURES Explicated Genesis Ch. Vers Pag. 45. 5 7 8. 53 Exodus Ch. Vers Pag. 9. 14 15 16. 102 1 Samuel Ch. Vers Pag. 2. 25. 86 26. 19. 76 2 Samuel Ch. Vers Pag. 12. 11. 72 16. 10 11. 73 16. 22. 72 24. 1. 75 1 Kings Ch. Vers Pag. 11. 31 37. 77 12. 15 24. 77 22. 23. 79 2 Kings Ch. Vers Pag. 9. 3 10. 78 10. 30. ibid. Job Ch. Vers Pag. 1. 21. 71 12. 16 17. 88 Psalmes Ps Vers Pag. 33. 15. 47 69. 22. 81. 12. 90 105. 25. 71 Proverbs Ch. Vers Pag. 16. 4. 103 21. 1. 49 Esaias Ch. Vers Pag. 6. 10. 91 10. 5 6 7. 69 19. 14. 92 26. 12. 45 29. 10. 91 44. 18 19. 92 60. 2. ib. 63. 17. 89 Jeremie Ch. Vers Pag. 16. 16. 70 Habakkuk Ch. Vers Pag. 3. 4. 49 Matthew Ch. Vers Pag. 26. 24. 58 Luke Ch. Vers Pag. 22. 22. 24 60 John Ch. Vers Pag. 19. 10 11. 61 Acts. Ch. Vers Pag. 2. 23. 24 62 4. 28. 63 7. 9. 55 11. 21. 49 17. 26. 23 17. 28. 51 18. 21. 52 Romans Ch. Vers Pag. 1. 28. 93 8. 29 30. 24 9. 17 18. 102 103 9. 21 22. 104 11. 8 10. 92 91 11. 36. 45 1 Corinthians Ch. Vers Pag. 2. 7. 24 4. 19. 52 4. 28. 24. 12. 6 11. 22. 2 Corinthians Ch. Vers Pag. 4. 12. 22. Ephesians Ch. Vers Pag. 1. 11. 22 24 46 1. 19. 3. 7. 22. Philippians Ch. Vers Pag. 3. 21. 22. 2 Thessalonians Ch. Vers Pag.
their final Infidelitie and Impenitence but under these Conditions Si crediderint poenituerint if they shal believe and repent we assure them of Salvation under the same conditions notwithstanding the absolute Decree of their Non-election we adde and Gods Predetermination to the entitative act of Sin 4 To put a period to the vain Cavils of our Adversaries we grant that even Reprobates notwithstanding Gods absolute Reprobation and Predetermination unto the entitative act of sin stil retain a remote radical power and Indifference of wil to embrace the good things offered in the Gospel For neither doth the natural corruption of the wil nor yet Divine Predetermination to the substrate mater of sin take away the radical Indifference or Flexibilitie of the Wil or the passive natural remote power it is naturally invested with as a rational elective facultie to embrace whatever good whether natural or spiritual that is absolutely or conditionally tendered to it and this sufficeth to ground divine Exhortations and Invitations on for the Propositions and Offers being made to rational Creatures they might were they but willing embrace the things that belong to their peace tendered to them but here lies the Plague of their hearts Joh. 5. 40. They wil not c. So that the blessed God making such gracious offers so suitable to the needs of a rational creature and having given him a remote passive natural power of understanding and wil suited thereto doth not this suffice to leave him without al excuse for his wilful Impenitence and Infidelitie notwithstanding the predeterminative Concurse of God to the entitative act of his Sin And that this is the Doctrine of the Calvinists and Church of England we are assured by Davenant Animadv p. 257 They confesse that under the Evangelical Covenant Si credideris salvus eris If thou believe thou shalt be saved every man hath a true claim to Eternal Life They confesse that wheresoever is Christs Church there is such a sufficient administration of Grace as would have saved the Non-elect had they not opposed a malignant voluntary act of their own wil against the motions and operations of Divine Grace according to those words of our Saviour Joh. 3. 17. 12. 47 48. Act. 13. 46. Calvin saith as much in Joh. 3. Mundi nomen iterum iterumque repetit ne quis omnino arceri se putet modò fidei viam teneat He therefore as wel as the Remonstrants grants a conditional possibilitie of Grace and Salvation to al men but we say the non-elect are always permitted to fail in the performance of the condition And doth not this sufficiently vindicate the sinceritie of God in al his Evangelic promisses invitations and tenders of grace and happinesse yea every way as much as the new Method of our Adversaries who grant certain prescience and predetermination to what is good § 4. Another Objection urged by our Opponents against predetermination to the substrate mater of sin is that is overthrows al Religion and makes mens faculties whereby they are capable of moral government remisse sluggish uselesse and vain yea they stick not to avouch that this our Hypothesis opens the dore to Familisme Enthusiasme and the most prodigiose impieties and enormities This they aggravate with many rhetoric aggravations Answer This Objection is grounded on the same false Hypothesis with the precedent namely that the wil predetermined by God is moved only by an inward violent impulse which makes al Gods precepts promisses and comminations mere impertinencies and mens faculties uselesse and vain What a grosse Sophisme this is and how much the Hypothesis of our Adversaries fals under the force of it as wel as ours we have already in what precedes sufficiently demonstrated and shal do again in what follows We shal only adde at present an excellent demonstration and solution given by judicious Davenant Animadv pag. 418. For the second branch of this reason whereby he goeth about to prove that absolute predestination and reprobation destroy both Hope and Fear it is grounded upon an error confuted and rejected by the commun consent of al Divines namely that the eternal Decrees of God concerning future events make the contrary events impossible do make the temporal and immediate Agents to do al they do out of an absolute necessitie having no libertie in modo agendi to abstain from so doing or to do the contrary Were this true the Remonstrants who acknowlege eternal and absolute Decrees upon a presupposal of an eternal absolute prescience should by their Doctrine destroy hope and fear the nerves of Religion as wel as we But more of this in answer to the next Objection § 5. The last Objection we shal mention which is indeed first in order of nature is that our Hypothesis overthrows the libertie of the wil introduceth a fatal necessitie and is the darling of Hobbes with the like unjust and scandalous reproches This is much urged by Strangius Baronius and some of name among our selves Answer 1 In this I confesse the spirits and principal forces of al their Objections centre and that which the Defendents of efficacious concurse have been in al Ages urged with by the Pelagians and Patrones of free wil. Thus Augustin was ever and anon upbraided by the Pelagians with a designe to introduce a fatal necessitie the like the Synod of Dort has been reproched with by the Arminians and now because the name of Hobbes sounds very harsh in Christians ears therefore that is fastened on us But this is no new method but long since invented by the Accuser of the Brethren for the oppressing of this suffering truth 2 What the true Idea and notion of Libertie includes and thence how little our Hypothesis doth infringe the same we have sufficiently demonstrated in the explication of the libertie of the wil Chap. 1. § 3. 3 We answer with Bradwardine lib. 3. cap. 29. pag. 739. that God violently impels no man to sin albeit he spontaneously impels or draws the wil voluntarily to the substance of that act which has sin annexed to it of which see what precedes Chap. 4. § 2. 4 Our Adversaries seem herein very unjust in that they fasten their false Ideas of predeterminative concurse and libertie on us and so make us to hold what follows upon their sentiments For they placing the wils libertie in an actual indifference and indetermination as also making al predeterminative concurse to acte by violent impulses on the wil which being so impelled remains no longer free but is acted as a machine c. it 's no wonder if from such false principes their forged consequence and conclusion follows naturally Thus Strangius lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 243. makes Gods predetermination to the entitative act of sin to be an impulsion to sin The like is urged by one and another Divine of name among us who wil allow no predetermination to the entitative act of sin but what is violent impulsion It 's
of further grace 4 Whereas he saith That the thing that he is said to ordain them unto is not sin but ruine the consequent of their sin the word stumbling and falling signifying their destruction it seems contradictory to the letter and mind of the words for both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie according to our precedent explication of them primarily their sin and then their ruine or destruction as the consequent of their sin This also is evident from that parallel Text Jude 4. For there are certain men crept in unawares who were of old ordained to this condemnation ungodly men turning the grace of God into lasciviousnesse and denying the only Lord God These ungodly men are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 designed and as it were before written in the book of Gods predetermination to be given up to this condemnation of turning the grace of God into lasciviousnesse c. So that it is evident that God foreordained and decreed not only their destruction but to leave them to those sins which should cause the same But to sum up the whole of this Head we grant 1 That absolute Reprobation is not the cause either of mens sins or damnation It 's true elective Grace is the cause of faith and salvation but the Decree of Reprobation is not the cause of sin or damnation 2 That Reprobation withdraws not any power from the person reprobated Yet we denie 1 That it is injust for God by an absolute efficacious Decree to reprobate some for the glorifying of his own Justice For albeit the Decree of Reprobation be not an act of justice yet it is not injust for God to reprobate any 2 We denie also that there is any motive cause or condition of Reprobation as it regards the act of the Divine wil. Whence also 3 we denie that the act of Reprobation is merely negative but affirme that it is positive and absolute of which see Davenant Dissert de Elect. Reprobat p. 113. Hence 4 It necessarily follows that when God predestines and preordains any unto Damnation he predestines and preordains in like manner by an efficacious act of his own soverain Wil to leave men to their own sinful courses and efficaciously to concur to the substrate mater of those sins See more Chap. 5. § 3. CHAP. IV. An Historic Idea of Predeterminants and Antipredeterminants The Assertors of Gods predeterminative Concurse to the substrate mater of Sin 1 Fathers Augustin Prosper Fulgentius 2 Such as succeeded in the Roman Church Hugo de Sancto Victore Aquinas Scotus Ariminensis Holcot Altissiodorensis Bradwardine his Conversion Parts both natural and acquired zele for Efficacious Predeterminative Concurse particularly as to the substrate mater of Sin How God wils Sin How the entitative act is from Gods predeterminative Concurse How God spontaneously impels or necessitates men to the entitative act of Sin The Dominicans and particularly Alvarez's sentiments conforme to our Hypothesis The concurrent perswasions of Jansenius and his Sectators also of the Tridentine Catechisme 3 The Sentiments of Reformed Divines Wiclef Calvin Zuinglius Beza Chamier Lud. Crocius the Synod of Dort and Church of England Davenant Sam. Ward c. 4 Such as denie Gods Concurse to the substrate mater of Sin more ancient Durandus his proper Hypothesis and who may be accounted his Sectators Lud. à dola his proper Sentiments and designe Arminius and his Adherents the Remonstrants and Anabaptistes The New Methodistes Camero Amyraldus Placeus Le Blanc Baronius Strangius How these New Methodistes fel into these Sentiments and who may be estimed such § 1. HAving given a Scriptural Demonstration of our Hypothesis touching the efficacious predeterminative Concurse of God to the substrate mater or entitative act of that which is sinful we now procede to lay down the concurrent sentiments of Anti-pelagians in al Ages of the Church and withal to shew who have in al Ages defended the Antithesis of our Adversaries First among the Patrons of our Hypothesis none deserves a more illustrious name and mention than Augustin that great Propugnator or Champion of efficacious Concurse I am not ignorant that some of our Adversaries as Strangius by name are so confident as to cite Augustin's testimonie in defense of their Antithesis but this is too palpable an abuse to find place among the indifferent or impartial Sectators of Augustin whose sentiments touching this subject are sufficiently evident in his Works Thus de Grat. Lib. Arbitr cap. 20. If the Scripture saith he be diligently inspected it wil appear that not only the good wils of men but also the bad are so in Gods power that he can incline them where and when he wil to performe his benefices or to inflict his punishments by his most secret yet most just judgement Again in the same book he saith That God workes in the hearts of men to incline them which way he please either to Good out of his Mercie or to evil according to their deserts by his Judgement sometimes open sometimes secret but always just So De Praedestinat Sanct. c. 16. It is saith he in the power of wicked men to sin but that by sinning malitiosely they do this or that is not in their power but of God dividing the darkness and ordering it that so hence what they do against the wil of God might not be fulfilled but by the wil of God Again De Gen. ad literam lib. imperfecto c. 5. Some things saith he God makes and orders other things he only orders righteous men he makes and orders but sinners as sinners he makes not but only orders i. e. In good actions he is both the cause of the good and of the action but in sinful acts he is not the cause of the sin but only of the act ordering it for his glorie Again De Civitate Dei l. 13. c. 22. he saith That Sin as it is justly permitted by God fals under the Eternal Law that is the Divine Wil or Decree Moreover Augustin frequently asserts that God punisheth one sin by giving men up to another So Contra Julian l. 5. c. 3. de Civitate Dei l. 15. c. 6. libro de Natura Gratia from cap. 20. to the end To these Testimonies we may adde several Hypotheses of Augustin which demonstratively evince Gods Predeterminative Concurse to the substrate mater of sin As 1 He asserted that Reprobation was the act of Gods absolute Wil and so in it self positive and absolute 2 He held That Excecation and Obduration is the consequent of Reprobation of which see Jansenius August de Gâ—…t Christ l. 10. c. 3 4. 3 He maintained That al sins in lapsed Nature are necessary because punishments as Jansen de Nat. Lap. c. 22. p. 264. Lastly that Augustin held Gods Efficacious predeterminative Concurse to the substrate mater of sin is evident from the false Imputations charged on him by the Pelagians who
Sun Whence 4 That as to the substrate mater of Sin immediate Concurse doth no way determine the wil or applie it to its act but only influence the act in a general indifferent manner so as the wil stil retains its innate indifference and libertie of acting or not acting Such are the Sentiments of the Molinists or Jesuites wherein they are greatly opposed both by Dominicans and Jansenists Thus Jansenius August Tom. 2. lib. 6. singul c. 14. p. 58. where he proves That this simultaneous Concurse confers no forces or aide to second Agents but only accommodates it self to the forces of the create power c. which sufficiently demonstrates the identitie of this opinion with Durandisme albeit the avouchers of it oppose Durandus with great vehemence But of late there started up Ludovicus à Dola a Capucine Friar yet learned and acute who espoused the Hypothesis of Durandus as the only Medium for the reconciling those two opposite parties the Dominicans and Jesuites His book he termes A Quadripartite Disputation touching the mode how the Concurse of God and the Creature stand in conjunction for the production of free Acts of a natural order specially such as are wicked He bends his Disputation both against the Predeterminants as also against the Assertors of Middle Science His first part is general stating the controversie between the Jesuites who assert a Middle Science and the Dominicans the Assertors of Predetermination and withal explicating the origine of the Controversie from the presupposed Immediation and real Identitie of the Divine and creatural Concurse His Second Part is against the Jesuites to demonstrate That a next immediate and identific concurse of God to al acts both good and bad cannot be defended by the artifice of their Middle Science In his third part he disputes against the Dominicans proving That God doth not concur with us to acts of a natural order specially such as are wicked by a physic Predetermination and moreover by an identific and simultaneous concurse In his fourth and last part he stablisheth and demonstrateth with al the force of Arguments such a ruinous foundation wil admit the Hypothesis of Durandus That the general Concurse of God to acts of a natural order specially such as are wicked is not proxime immediate and identific but remote mediate and really distinct from the act of the creature This Hypothesis he defends as the only expedient for the conciliation of Divine Concurse with human Libertie the vindication of Gods Sacred Majestie from the imputation of being the Author of Sin and the putting an end to those endless controversies about Divine Concurse And I cannot but conceive my self under an essential obligation freely to deliver my mind in this point that it is impossible for our Adversaries the New Methodists or any others to defend their Antithesis against us from apparent contradictions and inconsistences with it self or to free themselves from those blasphemous Imputations they charge upon us unless they betake themselves to this stratageme and subterfuge of Durandus and Lud. à Dola and therefore I do no way wonder that a Divine of great name and Head of that partie among us doth openly declare his assent and consent to this Hypothesis of Durandus it being the only refuge to preserve him and his Adherents from self-contradiction and condemnation Among the Reformed Churches the first Impugnators of our Hypothesis were the Remonstrants communly stiled Arminians from Arminius their first Founder Professor of Theologie at Leyden who began to diffuse his Pelagian Infusions about the year 1610. His Sentiments about Gods Concurse to the substrate mater of sinful acts he layeth down Disputat publica Thes 7. § 8 9 10. p. 193. but more fully Thes 9. de justitia efficacia Providentiae Dei in malo p. 198. where he distinguisheth Gods efficience about the act of sin from that about its vitiositie This efficience of God about sin he makes to be both about the beginning progresse and consummation of Sin 1 As for Gods efficience about the beginning of sin he distinguisheth it into 1 Impedition both sufficient and efficacious whereby God puts an impediment to sin and 2 Permission which is contrary to Impedition the suspension of al impediments which might hinder the execution of Sin The fundamen of this Permission he makes to be mans Libertie and Gods infinite Wisdome and Power to bring good out of evil 2 Gods Efficience about the progresse of Sin he placeth in Direction and Determination 1 Direction of Sin he makes to be an act of Divine Providence whereby God doth most wisely and potently direct sin to what end he pleaseth passing on from one extreme to the other mightily and yet disposing althings sweetly according to that great effate of apocryphous Wisdome c. 8. v. 1. 2 Determination he takes to be an act of Divine Providence whereby God puts measures to his Permission and termes to sin that it run not into infinite according to the pleasure of the creature 3 Gods Efficience about the consummation and terme of Sin he placeth in Punition and Remission As for Gods Concurse to the Act of Sin as naturally good he doth craftily according to his wonted mode in such cases wave that difficult point Yet in his Articles De Peccati Causa Vniverse p. 779. he Scepticly urgeth the Arguments of our Antagonists to prove That we make God the Author of Sin But to sum up Arminius's Sentiments in this point Albeit he placeth Gods Permission about Sin in a mere suspension of Impediments which is no way influential on the Act yet in that he allows also a providential Direction and Determination of the Act to its end and due measures we may thence evidently demonstrate our Hypothesis that God predetermines the Wil to the entitative act of Sin of which hereafter Chap. 5. Arminius's Sectators usually stiled Remonstrants from their Remonstrances in the Synod of Dort Grevincovius Vorstius Episcopius Corvinus c. who being animated by many of the Civil Magistrates of Holland gave themselves the confidence but those poor Churches the peste of divulging their Pelagian Poison which by the interposure of King James who was a professed enemie to that faction occasioned the Synod of Dort An. 1618. where Divines out of England France and Germanie resorted to put a period to those Pelagian Dogmes The Remonstrants in opposition to that Synod writ their Acta Scripta Synodalia Dordracena wherein they greatly impugne the Synods Determinations for Absolute Reprobation and Gods Providence in sinful Acts falsely charging on our Divines 1 That they held the Reprobate were destined to Incredulitie Impietie and Sins as the Means and Causes of Damnation 2 That they made God the Author of Sin and the like of which see Acta Synodalia Scripta Remonstrantium Dogmatica p. 40 41. I shal here only adde what is wel remarqued by Le Blanc Conciliat Arbit Humani Thes 32. p. 434. That
these Arminians and Remonstrants directly follow the Jesuites and Molinists in asserting a general simultaneous indifferent Concurse such as is determinable by the cooperation of the human wil. These Remonstrants from a spirit of Cabal to fortifie themselves against the Calvinists who overpowered them in the Synod fel into a league offensive and defensive with many German Anabaptists who thereupon drank in many Pelagian and Arminian Dogmes particularly that of Free-wil which Infusions have been since diffused throughout some yea whole Churches of that Perswasion in England I am not ignorant that a great number not only of Professors but also Churches who are for Rebaptizing do yet keep themselves unspotted and untainted as to these Arminian Notions and with these I have no controversie but particular love and kindness for many of them albeit I differ from them in the point of Pedobaptisem But as for those of that persuasion who fight under Arminius's banner they seemed most forward after the breaking up of the Synod of Dort to oppose the Calvinists in their sentiments about Gods Concurse to the substrate mater of Sin And that which deserves a particular remarque the very arguments that are now urged against us by the New Methodists were urged against the Synod of Dorts determinations in this point by them and that in the same forme Which is to be seen in a Dialogue of the Anabaptists intituled A Description of what God hath predestinated concerning man c. wherein pag. 16. they have this very expression which they impute to the Calvinists as our Adversaries impute the same to us namely that they say That God punisheth man with Hel-torments for doing those things which he himself hath predestinated ordained decreed determined appointed willed and compelled him to do and that which a man cannot chuse but must needs do by the force and compulsion of his predestination Are not the very same forged calumnies charged on us now-adays See an excellent replie hereto as to the rest of their false imputations by pious and learned Ainsworth in his Censure upon this Dialogue pag. 2 4 5 c. But we descend now to our principal Antagonists such as would passe under the name of Calvinists and yet are professed yea vehement oppugnators of our Hypothesis Thus Le Blanc Concil Arbitr Hum. Thes 34. pag. 434. But of those Reformed Divines which subscribe to the Synod of Dort some in this part agree with the Molinists and Remonstrants neither do they acknowlege any other general concurse of God with second causes than what is simultaneous and indifferent whereby God doth not influence the cause itself but its act c. He instanceth in Baronius Strangius Amyraldus c. And what terme or title to give this new Sect of Adversaries more proper than New Methodists I know not this being the softest title and that which they seem to recreate themselves in some terme them downright Arminians and albeit I conceive their Principes directly issue from and tend to Ariminianisme yet I dare not lode them with this reprocheful style because they generally assert efficacious Grace I think we might terme them without injustice Semiarminians as the Semipelagians of old who refined Pelagianisme because they assert conditionate Reprobation and al the consequents thereof But yet because nothing more becomes an opponent than candor and ingenuitie therefore to let passe al Titles that may carrie any thing of reproche I give them only this of New Methodists because they affect and attemt to give us a new Method or Scheme of Predestination efficacious Grace Divine Concurse c. The first that opened the way to this New Method was John Camero a person of excellent naturals and those wel improved by acquired literature but too much addicted to innovation in the doctrine of the Gospel which he could not dissemble but too oft made profession thereof as in a Letter to Ludovicus Capellus where he saith That many things occurred to him which neither his own mind nor the reason of the times would permit him to publish He too much abounded in his own sense and words with too great contemt of such as differed from him though more deserving than himself as Chamier There were few Theologic Questions professedly handled by him specially such as belong to the Doctrine of Grace and Free-wil but he divulged something of Novitie therein among which novel opinions this was one That he denied every real positive Being to be from God immediately as the prime efficient cause as Epist ad Thom. Rhaedam oper edit 1642. p. 526. and Epist ad Jac. Gallovaeum pag. 528. Which sentiment of Camero laid the foundation which Baronius and Strangius his Country-men afterward built their Antithesis on Camero had for his intime Camrade Milleterius who after his death turned Roman Catholic and publisht many Antichristian Errors which he professed to have received from Camero But Camero's principal Sectator was Moses Amyraldus who succeded him in the profession of Theologie at Saumur and indeed much out-went him in his propensions and closures with Durandisme and the Arminian Dogmes particularly with this about Gods concurse to the substrate mater of sin And that I may not be thought falsely to accuse so learned a man one that passed under the name of a Calvinist I shal faithfully relate the Character given him in this particular by one of his own friends and adherents Le Blanc Concil Arbitr Hum. par 3. thes 48. pag. 436. There are not wanting saith he among the Doctors of the Reformed Schole some who touching the general Concurse of God necessary to al the acts of creatures seem to have the same sentiments with Durandus and Ludovicus à Dola Doctors of the Roman Schole For that illustrious man Moses Amyraldus seems not to acknowlege any other general Concurse of God by which he concurs with al second causes besides that continued efficace whereby he doth preserve and sustain the nature of every thing and the forces given by nature Whence he gathers that such a concurse belongs not to libertie So Amyrald de Lib. Arbitr sect 4. pag. 246. Make saith he nature and its abilities able to consiste without the aide of such a concurse and they wil truly act freely Therefore let there be granted a concurse which performes nothing else but that these abilities which would otherwise flag and vanish consiste and be preserved in their natural state Libertie wil thence receive no detriment He had been speaking of Gods concurse to sinful acts and as Le Blanc wel observes by these words sufficiently indicates that in this part he has the same sentiments with Durandus Wherein note 1 that Amyraldus grants that sometimes it is sufficient for God to preserve the subject and render its faculties habile or capable of acting without immediate concurse to the act which is also the opinion of some among us 2 That this opinion according to Le Blanc fals in
Privation only An acute and excellent Decision of this Controversie were not the minds of men eaten out with Prejudices the sum whereof is this The Act of sin entitatively and substantially considered is naturally good and so wel-pleasing unto God the Author of Nature yet if we consider it morally in regard of its Vitiositie so it is infinitely displeasing to God This is as a Key to open the dore to a more ful solution to al objections against us so that at present we need say no more than this that our Hypothesis is no more obnoxious to these aspersions than that of our Adversaries Is not the Divine Sanctitie as illustrious in Gods predetermining to the substrate mater of Sin as if we held only with our Adversaries an immediate previous concurse thereto Are not those very Acts which are morally evil as to the Sinner both naturally and morally good as to God Suppose he predetermine to the entitative act of sin yet must we thence necessarily conclude that he predetermines men to sin formally considered Must not the sinful qualities of al moral effects be imputed to the second particular cause and not to the first universal cause It 's true the Sinner comes short of the Divine Law and therefore sins but doth God come short of any Law Has not his Wil the same Rectitude which his Nature is invested with and therefore whatever he wils must be right and holy even because he wils it The sin which he governs is it not only sin in regard of the Creatures wil not in regard of his wil It is confest that God and the Sinner concur to the same sinful act materially considered but yet is their Concurse the same Yea is there not morally an infinite distance between the one and the other Doth Sin as to Gods Concurse include any more than a natural act which is in regard of God and the conducibilitie it has to his glorie morally good but doth it not as to mans Concurse speake moral vitiositie Again what doth Gods permission of sin implie but a natural or judiciary Negation of that Grace he is no way obliged to give But doth not sin as to the sinner denote a moral privation or deficience of that rectitude which ought to be in his act Is there any thing in the world purely simply and of it self sinful without some substrate mater naturally good What reason therefore can our Adversaries allege why God may not predetermine the wil to the said substrate mater without prejudice to his Sanctitie § 3. We descend now to a third objection taken from the Word of God both Preceptive and Promissive which divine Predetermination of the wil to the substrate mater of sin doth according to the Antithesis of our Adversaries render uselesse impossible yea collusive and unsincere For say they Gods Precepts Promises and Comminations whereof mans Nature is capable should be al made Impertinences through his constant overpowering those that should neglect them 1. As to Gods Laws and Prohibitions they urge That our Hypothesis renders them altogether uselesse yea naturally and simply impossible This they exaggerate with many fine words and rhetoric flourishes which are the best armes they have to defend their declining cause with But having God and Truth though naked and simple on our side we no way dout but to stand our ground against al their fiery or venimous darts And in answer to the first part of their Objection from the Impossibilitie of divine Precepts and Prohibitions we answer 1 That our Adversaries greatly please themselves in their false sophistic Ideas and Notions of what is possible or impossible which we have endeavoured to clear from that ambiguitie and confusion Chap. 1. § 4. with endeavors to explicate what is possible and what impossible to corrupt Nature as to divine Commands 2 We are to know that the Laws of God in their Second Edition were primarily intended to subserve the ends of the Gospel as to the heirs of Salvation to whom they are by Grace in an Evangelic way made possible The Law is said to be given in and by the hands of the Mediator i. e. to subserve his ends which principally regard the Elect. 3 Yet we grant that the Law is also of great use even unto Reprobates 1 In that it lays a great restraint on them not only as to wicked actions but also as to lusts in some measure as Exod. 34. 24. The Autoritie and Majestie of Divine Precepts backed with many severe Curses leaves a great awe and restraint sometimes on the most debaucht spirits and so keeps their lusts from open violences 2 The Precepts are so far useful to Reprobates albeit they have no power to observe them in that they are thereby instructed how much obedience is wel-pleasing to God and how ungrateful they are in not performing of it whereby they are left without al Apologie or Excuse The Precept shews us what we ought to do not what we can do it is always imperative albeit not always operative and may not the Soverain Lord require of man the payment of his debts although by reason of his profligate bankrupt humor he hath disabled himself from the payment of them What excuse is it for the Sinner to say it is impossible for him to obey the Precept whenas the impossibilitie lies in his own wil not in any force or defect on Gods part Doth he not in that very moment wherein he is predetermined by God to the entitative act of Sin voluntarily espouse and wil that act And doth not this leave him without al shadow of Excuse Where can he loge the blame of his Sin but on his own crooked depraved wil which electively and freely determines it self to the Sin in the same moment of time though not of nature that it is predetermined by God to the entitative act 4 We affirme that Gods certain Prescience of Mens sins with the conditional Decree of Reprobation Gods immediate previous Concurse to the entitative act of sin and mans universal impotence to perform what is spiritually good which are al granted by our Adversaries bring sinners under as great impossibilitie of obeying Gods Commands as absolute Reprobation and predeterminative Concurse to the mater of Sin asserted by us This is wel demonstrated by a judicious and awakened Author in his late Letter touching Gods Providence about sinful Acts c. from p. 67. to 74. But because he is a party I shal mention only the Response of Davenant Animadv p. 341. As for Gods Law which cannot be kept without supernatural Grace we say that men are as capable of any supernatural Grace considered under the absolute Decrees maintained by S. Augustine and by the Church of England as considered under the conditional Decrees of late framed by Arminius And p. 418. he strongly proves That Divine eternal Prescience of future Actions or Events infers as absolute a necessitie of such events and impossibilitie of
12. 11. 2 Sam. 16. 22. Shimei ' s cursing David how from God 2 Sam. 16. 10 11. 2 Sam. 24. 1. 1 Sam. 26. 19. 1 King 11. 31 37. 12. 15 24. 2 Kings 9. 3. 10. 30. Answer 1 Kings 22. 23. Rev. 17. 17. Gods efficacious Permission of Sin 1 Sam. 2. 25. Job 12. 16 17. h. e. Justo judicio permittit errare seduci Vatablus Esa 63. 17. Gods judicial hardening Sinners Psal 81. 12. Psal 69. 22. Rom. 11. 10. Esa 6. 10. Esa 29. 10. Rom. 11. 8. Esa 19. 14. Esa 44. 18 19. Esa 60. 2. Rom. 1. 28. 2 Thes 2. 11. The false comments of Adversaries refuted Gods Concurse to the individual act which is sinful How God judicially hardens men without being the cause of sin Gods efficacious ordering mens sins for his own glorie Exod. 9. 14 15 16. Vitiorum nostrorum non est auctor Deus sed tamen ordinator August Rom. 9. 17. Rom. 9. 18. Prov. 16. 4. Rom. 9. 21 22. 1 Pet. 2. 8. Jude 4. The Assertors of Gods predeterminative Concurse to the substrate mater of Sin Augustin Si ergo servi sunt peccati quid se jactant de libero arbitrio August libr. de Spirit lit c. 30. Prosper and Fulgentius Such as succeeded the Fathers Anselme Hugo de Sancto Victore * Malum esse vult Deus tamen malum non vult vult esse malum quia bonum est malum esse non vult ipsum malum quia bonum non est ipsum malum Deum malas voluntates praesidendo occultâ invisibili operatione ad suum arbitrium temperare inclinare Aquinas Praedeterminare voluntatem est applicare voluntatem ad agendum facere ut faciat Strang. l. 2. c. 11. p. 244. Scotus Scotistae nihil hujusmodi physicum intrinsecum creaturae inditum esse volunt sed eam dicunt per decretum Dei extrinsecum absolutum efficax ad agendum applicari ac determinari Carleton Philos Disp. 30. sect 1. pag. 327. Gregorius Ariminensis Object 1. Object 2. Holcot Altissiodorensis Thomas Bradwardine his character and zele for efficacious Grace His zele for efficacious Concurse to the substrate mater of sin How God wils Sin Non quia quod dicitur non bene dicitur sed quia quod bene dicitur non bene intelligītur Hugo How the entitative act is from Gods Predeterminative Concurse How God spontaneously impels men to the entitative act of Sin The Dominicans sentiments Alvarez The Doctrine of Jansenius concordant with our Hypothesis C. T. p. 3. p. 93. The Jansenists sentiments The Roman Catechisme Non solùm Deus universa quae sunt providentiâ suâ tuetur atque administrat verùm etiam quae moventur agunt aliquid intimâ virtute ad motum atque actionem ita impellit ut quamvis secundarum causarum efficientiam non impediat praeveniat tamen cùm ejus occultissima vis ad singula pertinear Sapient 8. 1. Act. 17. The sentiments of Reformed Divines Wiclef Calvin Interdum bonâ voluntate hominem velle aliquid quod Deus non vult Rursus fieri posse ut idem velit homo voluntate malâ quod Deus vult bonâ Calv. ix August Zuinglius Umim igitur atque idem facinus quantum Dei est Authoris Motoris ac Impulsoris opus est crimen non est quantum autem hominis est crimen ac scelus est Ille enim lege non tenetur hic autem lege etiam damnatur Zuing. prov cap. 2. pag. 365. Beza Chamiers Difence of our Hypothesis The Testimonie of Lud. Crocius Illam scil actionem non verò hanc scil malitiam Deus vult ac decernit hanc non illam permittit The Synod of Dort The Church of England Davenant Ward George Abbot Dr. Holland Prideaux Barlow Such as denie Gods Concurse to the substrate mater of sin Dicebat Pelagius Deum collato semel libero arbitrio ulteriùs nobis ad operandum non esse necessarium Hieronym ad Ctesiph Durandus against Gods immediate Concurse The Jesuites and Molinists Lud. à Dola his following Durandus Arminius's Sentiments The Remonstrants and their Sectators The Anabaptists of Germanie that fel in with the Remonstrants The New Methodists John Camero Quod negem omne ens est à Deo tanquam à causa efficiente immediata Ep. ad Jac. Gallovaeum Moses Amyraldus Placeus Le Blanc Baronius Strangius How these New Methodists fel into their new Model Who of the new Methodists may be estimed orthodox Arguments for Predetermination to the substrate mater of al sin 1. Arg. from the futurition of althings Objections against this Argument solved 2 Arg. from the Certitude of Divine Prescience 3 Arg. from the Decree of Reprobation Davenant's Hypotheses about absolute Reprobation 4. Arg. from Divine Concurse 1. It s Principe Cùm voluntas Divina sit efficacissima non solùm sequitur quòd fiant ea quae Deus fieri vult sed quòd eo modo fiant quo Deus ea fieri velit Aquin part 1. 2. It s Nature 1. Totalitie Adeò ut tota actio pendeat à Deo tota à Creatura 2. Vniversalitie 3. Particularitie 4. Immediation 5. Prioritie 6. Absolute Independence 3. The efficace of Divine Concurse proves predetermination Nos autem eo nomine sc influxus communis non determinationem seu praedeterminationem intelligimus sed vim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 efficaciam Dei quâ causas secundas sibi subordinat c. Strang. l. 1. c. 11. 1. Efficacious Concurse as to natural acts Non solùm sunt ea quae Deus vult fieri sed etiam eo modo fiunt quo Deus vult fieri Strang. l. 2. c. 11. p. 266. Act. 2. 23. Et sic quantum ad concursum attinet dicimus Deum concurrere eodem modo ad generationem ex legitimo matrimonio adulterio quia physicè eadem est specie utrobique actio Strang. l. 2. c. ◠p. 254. 2. Efficacious Concurse as to supernatural Acts and Effects 5. Arg. from the Nature of Sin 1. It s mater Fatemur quidem malitiam non sequi actum peccati ut est actus alioqui omnis actus esset peccatum c. Strang. 2. From the formal reason of sin 6. Arg. from Gods Permission of Sin Mars's his parallel with Nimrod Vulcan the same with Tubalcain Gen. 4. 22. Vade nisi à Tubalcain Vulcanus Sandf de Desc l. 1. §. 21. Gen. 4. 22. Silenus the same with Silo. Gen. 49. 10. Nysa where Silenus reigned the same with Sina or Nissi Silenus's Genealogie as Silo's unknown Heb. 7. 3. Silenus and Silo agrees in offices Gen. 49. 10. Silenus the great Doctor as Silo is stiled Silenus's riding on an Asse from Silo's Gen. 49. 11. Silenus's being filled with wine from Gen. 49. 12. Silenus's meat Cows milk from Gen. 49. 12. Silenus's parallel with Balaam Num. 22. 28. Num. 22. 5. The Theogonie of Pan and his parallel with the Jewish Messias Josh 2. 9 24. Josh 5. 1. Pan the same with Silenus Pan the same with Faunus Satyrus the same with Pan and Silenus Pan a falle of the Messias Pan Abel Pan Israel Israel Patriartha verus sortē Pan Gentilium Park ex Sandf Pan Cham. Prometheus his Theogonie and parallel with Noah 2. Prometheus's parallel with Magog Neptune the same with Japhet Unde etiam Japetus nisi à Japhet Sandf Desc l. 1. §. 22. The parallel 'twixt Japhet and Neptune Gen. 9. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same origination with Japh ◠Neptune the God of the Sea from Japhets possessing the Islands Janus's Theogonie and Parallel 1. With Noah 2. With Javan Of Aeolus his Origination Grecian Goddesses of Phenician and Hebrew extract 1. Rhea from Gen. 29. 20. 2. Minerva 3. Ceres 4. Niobe 5. Sirenes The Theogonie of the Phenician Gods Hebraick Of Baal from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Bel from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hos 2. 16 17. The Supreme Baal stiled Beelsamen The Theogonie of Baalzebub 2 King 1. 2. 2 Kings 23. 24. 2 Kings 1. 2. Mat. 12. 24. The Theogonie of Baal Peor Hebraick Num. 25. 2 3 6. Hos 9. 10. Psal 106. 28. Num. 25. 1 2 3. Psal 106. 28. Moloch amongst the Ammonites the same with Baal 1 King 11. 7. Lev. 18. 21. Lev. 20. 2 3 4 5. 2 Kings 23. 10. Amos 5. 26. Act. 7. 43. Ps 106. 37. 38. Adramelech and Anamelech 2 King 17. 31. Job 17. 6. Esa 30. 33. 2 King 23. 10. Jer. 7. 31 32. The Samothracian Cabiri Phenician Gods 2. From Divine Justice 3. From Gods Clemence and Mercie 4. From Divine Sanctitis Object 3. From Gods word ◠Preceptive 2. From Gods Promisses and Invitations 1 Al Promisses primarily intended for the Elect. 2 The use of evangelic Promisses as to Reprobates 3 The Antithesis of Antipredeterminants destroyeth the use of Promisses c. as much as our Hypothesis 4. What Power we allow to Reprobates Object 4. From the overthrow of Religion Object 5. From the libertie of the Wil. The injustice of the New Methodists in urging this objection and its inconsistence with their own sentiments The Antitheses of the New Methodists and Antipredeterminants with their consiquents