But seeing the regenerate doe afterward sinne whence are these sinnes but from their inward corruption For that being taken away the effects also which doe flow onely from this cause would be taken away IX And what shall we say to this that the best men beget their children tainted with this blot and therefore standing in neede of Baptisme Now if the parents begetting children were without originall sinne how could they send this blemish to their issue and giue that to their children which themselues haue not X. Therefore say you marriage is euill seeing by it children of wrath are begotten and sinne is propagated which ought rather to be pulled vp by the roote and to be choaked in the very seede I answere that marriage is more ancient then sinne and instituted by God himselfe the sinne that came vpon it doth not hinder but that marriage is naturally a good thing No otherwise then meate and drinke are things that are good and to be desired although thereby the life of wicked men is sustained Besides marriage doth bring forth sonnes to God and doth serue to fill vp the number of the Elect. I let passe that the faithfull couple doe ioyne their prayers doe stirre vp one another to good workes doe cure one anothers incontinency and in slippery places doe stretch forth the hand one to another Neither are there wanting examples of wicked men to whom by Gods benefit there haue happened good and godly children euen as God doth send seasonable raine on those seeds which were stollen and sowed by a theefe CHAP. VIII What Originall sinne is and whether it be truely and properly sinne I. ORiginall sinne is the deprauation of mans nature contracted and drawne from the very generation it selfe and deriued from Adam into all mankinde consisting of the priuation or want of originall righteousnesse and the pronenesse to euill II. These two things to wit the priuation or want of originall righteousnesse and the inclinablenesse to euill are in originall sinne For as sicknesse is not onely a priuation of health but also an euill affection of the body from the distemper of the humours so this hereditary blot is not onely the want of righteousnesse but also the inclinablenesse to vnrighteousnesse III. The last of these proceedes from the former For the soule which by originall sinne hath ceased to be good is necessarily euill and the soule being instructed by the will which cannot be idle holines and righteousnesse being lost must needes turne to the contrary part IV. This corruption brings blindnesse to the minde peruersenesse to the will perturbation to the appetites the losse of supernaturall gifts and the corruption of those that are naturall V. And although in Adam the minde was first stained with errour before the will was infected with peruersenesse yet is the corruption of the will farre worse and that blot more foule because wee are not made good or euill by the vnderstanding but by the wiâ—l for whatsoeuer euill is committed it is the sinne of the will the committing of wickednesse is a greater sinne then the ignorance of the truth VI. The guilt or obliging to punishment cannot be any part of the definition of Originall sinne Lombard lib. 2. dist 30. Thâ—mas t. 2 Quest â—2 art 3. seeing it is the effect of it VII Lombard and Thomas and the other schoolemen who say that originall sinne is concupiscence doe not attaine sufficiently to the nature of concupiscence For Originall sinne doth infect all the faculties of the reasonable soule and concupiscence is the disease of the will and appetite also concupiscence is contrary to one commandement of the Law and Originall sinne is contrary to the whole Law Neither by it doe men sinne more against the second table of the law then against the first What that concupiscence is forbidden by a proper law But I know not whether Originall sin may be said to be forbidden by the law for God doth not command that wee should be generated or begotten pure without sin for so God should speak to man before he were born Surely man is not bound to obey the law before he be man and seeing the law doth not speak but to them that heare are partakers of reason to think that the law commands a man that is growne to age to be born without sin is a ridiculous thing well nigh a dreame For so the law should command him to be born that is already born him to be begotten that is already grown a man The law doth not command but presuppose Originall righteousnes doth speake to man being considered in the state wherein he was before the fall requiring that old debt and naturall obedience Whence it is manifest that Originall sin is condemned by the law but not forbidden VIII Of this sinne although the Scripture speaketh so expressely and sense it selfe and experience doth abundantly testifie it yet there haue not beene wanting some who did deny this sinne and would not acknowledge mankinde from his first stock and originall to be infected with sinne Cyrillus Ierosolomytanus or whosoeuer else is the author of those Catechismes which goe vnder his name in his fourth part of his Catechisme hath these words Thou dost not sinne by generation thou dost play the adulterer by fortune And a little after Wee come without sinne but now we sinne by our owne election IX In Saint Austins age Pelagius Celestius did deny Originall sinne and did contend that sinne did passe from fathers to their issue onely by example and imitation They did deny that sinne was remitted to infants by Baptisme because they had none and did affirme that by it onely the kingdome of heauen was opened to them whose heresie is long agoe hissed out and strongly confuted by Saint Austin X. Saint Hierome or whosoeuer else is the author of those briefe comentaries vpon the Epistle of Saint Paule which are put in among Saint Hieromes works doth fauour Pelagius For those words of the Apostle Rom. 5. in whom all haue sinned he restraines to example and doth take them as spoken of the imitation of the sinne of Adam XI Saint Chrisostome in many places doth seeme to creepe into this error In his Homily vpon new Conuerts he denyeth Baptisme to be profitable only to the remission of sinnes For saith he wee Baptise infants although they are not polluted with sinne that holinesse and righteousnesse adoption and the inheritance c may be added to them And in his tenth Homisie vpon the Epistle to the Romanes expounding that of Saint Paule Rom. 5. By the disobedience of one many were made sinners by sinners hee would haue vs vnderstand those that are guilty of punishment and mortall and not those that are defiled by the blot of sinne XII Lombard lib 2. distinct 30. litera E. saith there were some that said Originall sinne was no vice in vs but onely the guilt of punishment euen of that eternall punishment which is
due to vs for the sinne of Adam vnlesse we be freed by Christ The Arminians doe not much differ from this opinion who doe not care who they imitate so they inuent something that may make for the safeguard of their errour Pag. 388. in Tilenum Arnoldus after Arminius doth teach that Originall sinne hath no respect of vice or sinne properly so called for nothing is sinne or vice vnlesse it be committed by the free-will In the same place hee denieth that Originall sin deserues punishment but saith that it is a punishment And he doth confesse Pag. 389. 390. that Arminius doth deny that Originall sinne is sinne properly so called Arminius himselfe Resp ad 9. Quaest P. 174. hath these words It is peruersely said that Originall sinne doth make a man guilty of death XIII The reasoning then of Saint Paule the Apostle doth fall to the ground Rom. 5.13.14 where speaking of sinne which hath flowed from Adam into his posterity when he had said That sinne was in the world vntill the Law hee afterward proues it by the death of the infants who were dead before the daies of Moses Death saith he raigned from Adam to Moses euen ouer them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is ouer infants which had not sinned actually Hee thereby proueth that sinne was in those infants because death is the fruit and punishment of sinne Seeing therefore the death of infants is a punishment of Originall sinne if this Originall sinne were not truely sinne but onely the punishment of sinne then this death of infants would be the punishment of a punishment and not the punishment of sinne but to say that God doth punish punishments and not sinnes is vncomely for any especially for those who professe themselues to be maintainers of Gods iustice XIV And if the Originall blot of infants is not sinne but onely the punishment of sinne they are baptised in vaine For baptisme is not profitable to wash away punishments but to wash away sinnes In vain are they washed that are without the filth of sin Why is it necessary men should be borne againe but because they are dead in sinne Whence is that peruersenes by which naturally men are prone to euill but from vice and what is this vice but sinne XV. But you say it is not sinne vnlesse it be voluntary I confesse it if you speake of actuall sinnes but if you speake of the naturall staine and blot it is not necessary that this naturall blot be procured by euery one 's owne will it is enough if it be contrary to the Law For this is the best difinition of sinne that Saint Iohn layeth downe that sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the breach of the Law And it cannot be doubted but that that is contrary to the law which doth stirre vp a man to rebell against the law For although Originall sinne hath not yet stirred vp the infant to sinne in act yet is it apt and prone to stirre him vp No otherwise then the Snake which hath not yet infected any one with her poysoning biting hath yet an engrafted poyson in her and a naturall readinesse to hurt Originall sinne also may be said to be voluntary because by it we sinne voluntarily and also because we sinned in Adam and therefore in him wee were desirous of this corruption Finally wee must rather beleeue Saint Paul that teacheth vs that sinne is in infants then these men who strike themselues with their owne stings and entangle themselues XVI For seeing that the Arminians teach that by the death of Christ all mankinde is reconciled to God and that remission of sinnes is obtained for all men I demand for what sinnes are infants punished and doe fall into torments of body and doe suffer the assaults of Diuels Is it for the sinne of Adam that the Arminians affirme is forgiuen them Is it for any actuall sinne they haue committed none It remaines therefore that they are punished for Originall sinne Vide Aransic Concil secund Chap. 2. vnlesse we will brand God with the marke of iniustice as he that torments the innocents and they that are guilty of no sinne CHAP. IX How the sinne of Adam may belong to his posteritie and how many waies it may passe to his of spring And first of the imputation and whether the sinnes of the Grandfather and great-Grandfathers are imputed to their posterity I. THe sinne of Adam doth passe to his posterity by two meanes by imputation propagation II. The punishments which all men suffer in the name of Adam doe argue that the sinne of Adam is imputed to vs This the Apostle teacheth Rom. 5.12 Death passed on all men by one man in whom all men sinned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or because all men sinned in him For the sinne of Adam was not onely personall neither did hee sinne as a singular person but as carrying all mankinde in the stocke and originall no otherwise then Christ satisfying for vs on the crosse hath not suffred as a priuate person but as sustaining and representing the whole Church in the head Saint Paul 2 Cor. 5.15 speaketh thus If one dyed for all all likewise were dead And Rom. 6. doth affirme that we are dead and crucified with Christ If therefore we dyed in Christ dying and were crucified with him it is no doubt but that it may likewise be said that we sinned in Adam For if the satisfaction and righteousnesse of the second Adam be imputed to vs why shall not the sinne of the first Adam be imputed to vs seeing that therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to vs that the sinne of Adam might not be imputed to vs III. Reason it selfe doth consent to this for if Adam had receiued good things not for himself alone but for his posterity it is no maruell if being spoiled of these good things he lost them for himselfe and his posterity If any one be capitally punished for treason and brought to extreame pouerty his children also with him doe loose their Nobility Nor is any thing more equall then that the sonne should pay his fathers debts and that as they are heires of their estates so they might be heires of their debts IV. But in this similitude there is one and that a notable difference that is when the debter hath wasted the inheritance and there is more in debt then in goods the sonne may renounce the inheritance and leaue his fathers goods But here this yeelding vp cannot be made because to the guilt by the sinne of Adam there commeth also the naturall deprauation and contagion like as he that is borne of parents infected which leprosie which contagion cannot be put off when they please V. Although these things are grounded vpon the word of God and the very rule of iustice yet they seeme to be charged and followed with great discommodities First that in Ezekiell Chap. 18. v. 20. doth offer it selfe The
soule that sinneth shall die The sonne shall not beare the iniquity of the father Whereunto the law of God Deut. 24. is consonant and agreeable which law doth forbid children to be punished for the sinnes of their parents Why then doe we die for anothers sinne Why is the sinne of Adam imputed to vs Or is it credible that he that forgiues vs our sinnes will impute to any one anothers sins What that the punishment is greater then the sinne For when we sinned in Adam onely in potentia in power and possibility yet we are punished in actu in act And that seemeth most cruell that Adam which sinned in act is saued and for the same sinne many are damned who sinned in Adam onely in power and possibility I answere the place in Ezechiel must be taken thus the innocent sonne shall not beare the punishment of his fathers sinne So when God saith in the law that he will visit the iniquity of fathers vpon the children he speaketh of children which walke in their fathers steps and are partakers of the same fault But the sonnes of Adam cannot be said to be innocent as they which not onely sinned in Adam as in the stocke and roote of mankinde but also themselues are borne stained with the same deprauation and prone to the same sinne Secondly I say that that place in Ezechiel makes nothing to the present matter for hee speaketh of the sinnes of the fathers whose sinnes are personall and who in sinning doe not sustaine the persons of their children For Arminius is deceiued in setting downe the cause why those Infidels are reprobated who haue not refused the Gospell viz. Because saith he they refused the grace of the Gospell in their parents In Perkins p. 92. grandfathers great-grandfathers and their fathers by which act they deserued that they should be forsaken by God For I would haue them shew me a solid and sound reason why Infants haue not sinned against the grace of the Gospell in their Parents to whom the grace of the Gospell was offred and by whom it was refused seeing in Adam all his posterity sinned against the Law and by it deserued punishment and forsaking For the reason of the couenant of God is perpetuall that children are comprehended in their Parents VI. Let therefore the Schoole and followers of Arminius learne the cause of this difference and why the sinne of Adam should be imputed to his posteritie but the sinnes of other fathers should not be imputed to their children These therefore I say to be the causes of this difference 1. Because by the sinne of Adam we lost originall purity but wee haue not lost it by the sinnes of our Grand-fathers or great-Grandfathers 2. Because Adam receiued gifts which as he had for himselfe so hee should haue conueyed them to his posterity which seeing hee lost it iustly comes to passe that his posterity should be depriued of those gifts But my Grand-father or great-Grandfather receiued no supernatural gifts from God which by an hereditary right they should deriue to their posterity 3. Then also the sinnes of my Grand-father and great-Grandfather were personall sinnes neither did they in their sinning sustaine the persons of their posterity which cannot be said of Adam Vide Tho. 1.2 quest 81. Art 2. Surely I think that it cannot be said that Ezechias or Iosias who were the posterity of Dauid did in Dauid murther Vrias 4. I will say somewhat more Adam while hee liued committed many sinnes yet I thinke that onely that first sinne of Adam was imputed to his posterity because onely by this sinne he violated that couenant which was made with him as with the author of mankinde 5. And if any one at this day is depriued of the light of the Gospell because some of his ancestors a thousand yeeres since refused the Gospell as Arminius thinks there is no cause why on the other side one may not be called effectually to saluation because some one of his ancestors beleeued the Gospell For why shall the infidelity of the great-Grandfather be imputed to the great-grandsonne and his faith be not imputed But that the faith of one is imputed to another Arminius himselfe is not of opinion when he saith out of Habacuk 2. The iust shall liue by his owne faith and not by anothers Nor because Adam beleeued the promise of his seede that should breake the serpents head is this his faith therefore imputed to any of his posterity Arnoldus doth seeme to consent to this but I cannot be brought to thinke that the other sectaries doe beleeue the same 6. To beleeue that any one is reprobated because hee resused the Gospell in his greatgrandfathers or their Fathers is plainely conrâ—ary to the opinion of Saint Paul 2 Cor. 5.10 where he saith that euery one shall receiue the things done in his body whether it be good or euill therefore not according to those things which he hath done in anothers body 7. I let passe he absurdities into which Arminius by this meanes would plunge himselfe For it may come to passe that ones Grandfather by the fathers side hath beleeued the Gospell his Grand-father by his mothers side hath refused the Gospell It may come to passe that ones Grandfathers or greatgrandfathers so vpward part haue beleeued and part haue not beleeued I demand of which of them in the purpose of God shall respect be had Shall the faith of the one or the infidelitie of the other be imputed to their posteritie Then also as often as the Gospell is offred to any Nation or Citie there is nothing so likely as that some of those people were borne of Ancestors that were Infidels and that some of them were borne of faithfull Ancestors yet is the Gospell offred to all without any difference Also it will come to passe that some one proceeding of faithfull Ancestors may refuse the Gospell and on the otherside one proceeding of Insideâ—s may be conuerted 8. And if one may be an Infidell by anothers infidelity and may be said to haue refused the Gospell in his Ancestors because some one of his progenitors refused the Gospell a thousand yeares before there will scarce be any of the godly that after this manner hath not refused the Gospell 9. But what will they say to this That it is found by experience that the worst and most wicked progeny of very wicked Ancestors haue beene conuerted to the faith and as the Apostle saith Rom. 5.20 Where sinne abounded there grace abounded What were the ancient Romanes but theeues depopulating and wasting the world and a scourge in the hand of God What was Corinth but the stewes of all Graecia and the Mart or faire of most foule lusts yet neuerthelesse in those cities God by the preaching of the Gospell raised vp most flourishing Churches and there were very many in those dregges which did belong to the election of God 10. But if at any time the posterity is punished for
Scripture that cannot lye saith that euery man is a lyar The same Law commandeth that God be loued withall our heart and all our strength which thing how can it be performed by the vnregenerate seeing it was neuer peeformed by the regenerate themselues That which a liuing man neuer performed how can it be performed by him that is dead Finally we must bid Christian religion farewell and another Gospell must be coyned if this prodigious doctrine be admitted IX But that we may come to that double spirit of God Arminius and according to him Arnoldus pag. 399. doe deuise two spirits or rather two acts of the same spirit The one of these spirits they will haue to be common to all men euen to the vnregenerate yea and to heathen men to whom the Gospell hath not come by which spirit they thinke that God doth worke in all men and is idle in none This is that spirit which they call the spirit of bondage of which it is spoken Rom. 8.15 which is opposed in that place to the spirit of Adoption which is peculiar to the true faithfull This spirit of bondage the Arminiaâ—s will haue to be effectuall in the law not onely in the written law but also in that which is naturally imprinted in mens hearts By this spirit they thinke that vnregenerate men doe tremble with a sauing feare doe acknowledge and confesse their sinnes doe implore the grace of God and apply themselues to the obedience of the law of nature these they thinke are preparation and dispositions to regeneration if so be that free-will doth vse well that vniuersall and sufficient grace which is common to all men These are the decrees of this new sect full of many perplexities and filled with nice and slender points X. I finde in the holy Scripture the spirit of adoption the first fruits of the spirit the spirit of sanctification but I no where finde a spirit of God that is tyed to the law and common to all men Nor can the spirit of God working in our hearts be without very great wickednesse seperated from the knowledge of Christ 2 Cor. 3.6 Ministers of the new Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the letter killeth but the spirit giueth life Nor doe I see how there can be in them whom Saint Paul Ephes 2. saith to be dead in sinne strangers from the life of God and without God in the world either any spirituall life or the spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and sauingly mouing and affecting them Certainely the Apostle had neuer called the Law seperated from the Gospell a killing letter nor had opposed it to the spirit if the spirit of God were alway ioyned to the law or if the spirit of God did worke in mens hearts and dispose them to faith and conuersion without the knowledge of the Gospell Nor is the Law a Schoole-master vnto Christ vntill the grace of Christ is offred to vs for then the Law with terrour and threats doth compell vs to imbrace the grace offred XI But that is most dangerous which the Arminians presse downe and hide but dare not vtter to wit that the holy spirit is naturally in euery man For if the spirit of God be effectuall in the law and the law be naturally engrauen in euery man it must needes be that the spirit of God is naturally in euery man And so whatsoeuer the Scripture speaketh of the second birth by the spirit of the creation of the new man and of the spirituall resurrection will fall to the ground yea will be ridiculous For what neede were there to infuse a new spirit for regeneration if the same spirit of God did already dwell in the hearts of the vnregenerate XII And that place of Saint Paul Rom. 8. Ye haue not receiued the spirit of bondage againe to feare they doe falsely and against the Apostles will draw to this matter For Saint Paul neuer called the spirit of God the spirit of bondage for so he had reproached the spirit of God but he onely saith that the spirit that was giuen to them was not seruile and such as should strike their hearts with a slauish feare For where the spirit of God is there is liberty 2 Cor. 3. If I should say that we haue not receiued from God the spirit of lying should I therefore say that there is a spirit of God that compels to lying Is the spirit of God contrary to it selfe that one spirit of God should be called the spirit of bondage and another the spirit of liberty The plaine and simple meaning therefore of the words of the Apostle is this Ye haue receiued the spirit of God not that which should terrifie your consciences with a slauish feare which made you vncertaine and doubtfull before the grace of God and the adoption of Christ was reueiled to you c. XIII And they doe extreamely dote when they put the feare and terrour wherewith the law destitute of the spirit of regeneration and the knowledge of Christ doth strike mens hearts among the effects of the spirit of God For the law thus receiued can onely restraine the raging affections with the feare of punishment and frame a man to certaine outward obedience but it will neuer purge the inward filthinesse or instill any one drop of true repentance yea rather it will stirre vp the inward lusts by the resistance of it as it is engrafted in euery man to encline to that which is forbidden and wheresoeuer hope of impunity is propounded men hauing broken their barres doe so much the more outragiously riot by how much they were straightly bridled in This is that which the Apostle would expresse Rom. 7.5.8 The motions of sinnes by the law did worke in our members and sinne taking occasion by the commandement it selfe wrought concupiscence And that vntill the spirit of life which in Christ frees vs from the law of sinne and death as it is said Chapter 8.2 that is vntill the powerfull efficacy of that quickning which we haue from Christ free vs from that bondage of deadly sinne XIV It is vaine and idle which they obiect that the corruption of an vnregenerate man is compared to sleepe and to an Vlcer I confesse it is compared to a sleepe but to a deadly one and such a one out of which man cannot awaken and raise himselfe That Vlcer and scarre which is spoken of Esay 53.1 and 1 Pet. 2. doth not signifie sinne it selfe but the punishment of sin This therefore is nothing to the reliques and remainds of spirituall life in an vnregenerate man CHAP. XXXV The Obiections which the Arminians borrow from the Pelagians and Papists are answered Whether an vnregenerate man doth necessarily sinne and whether necessitie excuseth the sinner Also whether God doth command those things which cannot be performed by man I. THese thornes and difficulties being taken away wee are to come to the Arguments or rather Declamations with which they
violated But he to whom Christ was neuer preached shall not be condemned because he hath refused Christ but he shall be iudged by the law which tyed him to beleeue in Christ if Christ had beene preached to him VIII And Arnoldus is plainely deceiued when he doth affirme that the power whereby we beleeue God is one and the power whereby they beleeue Christ is another because saith he the word of the law the word of the Gospell differ in the whole genus and are opposite this thing fell inconsiderately from the acute man Because white and blacke are opposite is it therefore the property of one power to see white and of another to see blacke is it not the operation of the same faculty to know contraries And yet I doe not see how the Law and the Gospell can be said to be contrary seeing the Law is the Schoole-master to Christ and the Gospell doth minister the meanes by which the law should be satisfied Surely betweene the creditor and the surety there is no discord Christ came not that hee might abolish the law but that hee might fulfill it Matthew 5.17 Romanes 3.30 IX Out of these it is easie to gather what is to be answered to that question whereby it is demanded whether the law doth comand vs to beleeu in Christ For this is euen as one should demand whether the law of Moses commands the Prophet Esay to be beleeued It is plaine that that is not expressely commanded by the law for no man was bound to beleeue Esay before he was borne Yet I say it was commanded by the law implicitely and by consequence in as much as the law doth command obedience to be yeelded to God And God is to be obeyed whether he speake to vs immediately or by his messengers The same I thinke may be saide of Christ X. For of those things to which we are bound by the law there are two kindes Some things are due absolutely by all men and at all times yea by them to whom the law deliuered by Moses hath not beene made knowne such as are to loue God and our neighbour For Adam was indued with the knowledge of these duties before the fall and was bound to performe them in act But there are some things to the obseruation whereof wee are then bound by the law of God when they are commanded in act and when the ability of knowing them is giuen vs of God Thus the Israelites in Aegypt were not bound to obey the commandement of the not gathering of Manna vpon the Saboth day or of looking on the bralen Serpent or of the passing ouer lordan which notwithstanding if any had not obeyed when God commanded them without doubt they had iustly borne the punishment of the breach of the law XI But Arnoldus doth wrongfully say that it is not spoken here of that generall power of beleeuing euery word of God for of it it is plainely spoken here seeing that the power of beleeuing in Christ is comprehended in that generall power No otherwise then the power of seeing doth comprehend also the power of seeing the remedies for blindnesse although those remedies are not present neither is there any neede of them before blindnesse XII All these things pertaine thither that it might appeare that the power of beleeuing and of embracing the remedies which God offers in the Gospell is lost by that naturall corruption which is deriued into vs from Adam And therefore that Arminius doth erre when hee saith that God is bound to giue to all men power to beleeue in Christ or that he is prepared to giue faith to all For God is not bound to restore to man that which man lost by his owne fault nor doth he deale vniustly when he requireth of man that which hee doth naturally owe. XIII Arminius is not constant to himselfe in this thing and doth pluck vp those things which hee laid downe For he saith that many nations haue for many ages beene depriued of the light of the Gospell without which yet there is no faith and that for a punishment of the incredulitie of their ancestors He doth acknowledge therefore that God hath not giuen nor was prepared to giue to these nations power of beleeuing in Christ Yea truely Arminius in speaking thus doth set downe the cause why God would not and therefore was not prepared to giue to people that without which faith cannot be Was God prepared to giue to the men of Tyre and Sydon the power of beleeuing of whom Christ giueth this testimony that they would haue conuerted in Sackcloath and Ashes if the word and his miracles had come to them Doth he giue power of beleeuing to them whose hearts he hardneth with his vnresistable will as Arminius speakes Could they beleeue of whom it is spoken Iohn 12.39 Therefore they could not beleeue because it is written he hath blinded their eyes and hath hardned their hearts In Perâ—ins P. 294. 295. Doth he giue power of beleeuing to them whom Arminius saith are called of God by a meanes that is not congruent and agreeable and by which he knoweth man will neuer be conuerted XIV Here Arminius doth not obscurely accuse God of folly for he will haue God to be aduerse to himselfe and to be prepared to doe that which that it might not be done he taketh an incongruent and disagreeable course nay like a iudge hee sets lawes for God himselfe for what else meane these words God is bound to giue the power of beleeuing Surely it seemes that Arminius doth binde God by this Law neither will God haue any reason for his iustice vnlesse Arminius supply to him the meanes whereby he may auoide the crime of iniustice XV. And although that impotency and disabilitie of beleeuing be a punishment of the sinne of Adam yet he is not vniustly punished who by this impotency hath refused the Gospell because the same impotency or disability which is a punishment is also a fault which I say that it might appeare how vnproperly Arnoldus doth here vse the examples of punishments which are not faults Is it equity saith he that to a Souldier that hath beene punished with the losse of his eyes for not keeping good watch the Generall should offer the pardon of some other fault or should promise some other thing with this condition that he should watch more diligently and then punish him because that being blinde he hath not watched This example is not to the purpose for to be blinde is not a fault neither is any man by a naturall obligation bound to see It is otherwise with our impotency to beleeuing Besides hee that is punished with the losse of his eyes is sorrowfull and doth heauily beare the losse of the light But man therefore doth not beleeue because he will not beleeue and this impotency is voluntary CHAP. XII That God doth saue those whom of his meere grace hee chose out of mankinde corrupted and obnoxious to the
be for sin But to reprobate men to be willing to condemne are the same thing euen as to elect to be willing to saue is the same thing Therefore God doth not reprobate vnlesse it be for sinne IV. Furthermore it cannot be denied but that reprobation or reiection of the creature from God is the punishment which can be inflicted on the reasonable creature because eternall torments doe necessarily follow it which if we get to be granted it will thence follow that it is not the part of infinite goodnesse and highest iustice to forsake his owne creature and that not because he hath sinned but because it so seemed good to God that hee might seeke matter for his glory out of the desertion and forsaking of the soule which hee created Can the father who knoweth that the happinesse of his sonne depends on him without the crime of cruelty and want of naturall affection forsake his sonue that is innocent and found guilty of no wickednesse especially if by this forsaking his son should fall into eternall torments and by it be made not onely most miserable but also most wicked V. Neither should God deale iustly if he should giue more euill to the creature by infinite parts then he hath giuen good To which when he had giuen esse a beeing a while after without any fault of it he gaue it male esse an euill and miserable being for euer Indeede if God should onely take away that he hath giuen and should bring the creature to nothing there were no cause at all of complaining But to giue an infinite euill to that creature to whom he gaue a finite good and to create man to that end onely that he might destroy him that out of this destruction he might get glory to himselfe the goodnesse and iustice of God abhorreth VI. Yet this is the most grieuous thing that by this eyther reprobation or desertion of man being considered without sinne the innocent is made not onely most miserable but euen most wicked For the auersion and turning away of the will doth necessarily follow the denying of the spirit of God and seeing according to this opinion God hated man that was made by him before man hated God it cannot come to passe but that the hatred of God whereby he hates man by the same opinion should be made the cause of that hatred whereby man hates God and so God should be made the author of sinne VII And if God hated Esau being considered in the vncorruptible masse as not a sinner it must needes be that God hates the innocent creature and hatred in God although it is not an humane affection nor a perturbation yet it is a sure and certaine will of punishing and punishment cannot be iust if it be without offence neither can a man be iustly punished vnlesse he be considered as a sinner VIII If any man should say that God is obnoxious or subiect to no lawes and therefore his actions are not rightly examined according to the rule of iustice seeing hee is tyed to no rules I will anfwere that the nature of God is more mighty then any law That naturall perfection by which it is impossible that God should lie or that he should sinne is also the cause why he could not hate his guiltlesse creature or appoint man to eternall torments for no fault of his Yea if these things were true it were the part of a wise man to suppresse these things not to moue this anagyris or offensiue matter and rather to command silence or ignorance to themselues then to breake into these secrets which being declared doe cast in scruples and doubts and yeeld occasion to the aduersaries of defaming the true religion and by which no man is made fitter to the duties of a Christian or of a ciuill man or to any part of piety IX That could not escape which should say that by reprobation men are not appointed to damnation but onely are passed by or not elected Thus they seeke gentler words that by them the same thing might be said for it is all one whether God doth appoint a man to damnation or doth that from which damnation must necessarily follow Whosoeuer God doth not elect whether hee be said to be omitted and passed by or to be reprobated hee is alwaies excluded from the grace of God damnation doth certainely follow this excluding because without the grace of election there is no saluation For seeing it is manifest to all that men by election are appointed to saluation I would haue it told mee to what they that are not elected but passed by are appointed Surely if election doth appoint men to saluation it is plaine that by reprobation which is called omission or passing by the rest are excluded from saluation and appointed to destruction X. And if God haue appointed the innocent creature to destruction it must needes be that hee hath appointed it to sinne without which there can be no iust destruction and so God would be the impulsiue and mouing cause of sinne Neither could man iustly be punished for that sinne to which he is eyther precisely appointed or compelled by the will of God XI That the decrees of God are eternall and that he hath fore-knowne all things from eternity doth not hinder this opinion which doth maintaine God in election and reprobation to haue considered man as fallen before he considered him as condemned For although the decrees of God are certaine yet there is some order among them as the eternall decree of ouerthrowing the world by fire was in order after the decree of creating the world So although God from eternity had appointed the wicked to punishment yet nothing hinders but that the consideration whereby hee considered men as sinners should be in order before that whereby hee considered men as reprobate or appointed to punishment XII Neither doth it follow of the opinion of the reuerend Synod and the confession of our Churches by which man fallen is the obiect of predestination that God created man to an vncertaine end or to haue missed of that end which he propounded to himselfe The last end propounded to God was the illustration and setting forth of his glory by the manifestation of his goodnesse and iustice that hee might come to this end hee decreed to create man iust but mutable and free The fore-knowledge of the fall of man doth follow this decree not in time but in order and election and reprobation doth in order follow this fore-knowledge XIII They are very farre from the truth which would haue God in electing and reprobating to haue considered man as not created for they doe as much as if they should say that God considered man as nothing and therefore as not man Surely in that very thing that they call him a man they call him somewhat but to consider something as nothing is a thing well-nigh a dreame He that will saue or punish a man must necessarily first haue