proving that God doth determine the will to every act thereof and shewing the great concurrence herein and upon what grounds of schoole Divines from Albertus Magnus his dayes downwards But I proceed with you 9. To that which you say concerning infants I thinke I may answer that although there were no other thing that made way to their salvation or damnation but onely the fall of Adam yet it followeth not that God decreed to permit Adams fall as a Medium tending thereunto For what if he decreed to save or damne some sine mediis supposing them in a state immediately capable of salvation or damnation as by Adams fall and their originall sinne contracted hereupon they were yet I adde farther concerning infants that are saved there is somewhat else decreed to make way to their salvation besides Adams fall namely an application of Christs merit to them in baptisme or otherwise And for those that are damned since their originall sinne makes them immediately justly damnable it was enough for God to decree to leave them in the state they were and so to damne them there being no other remedy to bring to passe his end in the matter Resp In generall observe I pray you the disproportion of your Tenet concerning Infants and others God doth not decree to damne Infants as you say but upon the foresight of all the sinne for which they are damned but God doth decree to damne all others not upon the foresight of all their sinnes for which they are damned nor upon the foresight of those sinnes for which they are chiefly damned and which doe justifie God most in their damnation but onely upon the foresight of originall sinne for which least of all they are damned and which doth least of all justifie God in their damnation But I come to the particular scanning of the parts 1. You utterly mistake my wordes I said not the fall of Adam was the onely way or any way for the salvation of Infants But this I said and say the fall of Adam was the onely way of manifestation of Gods mercy in the salvation of Infants For mercy supposeth misery and the misery of Infants is onely in respect of sinne originall not at all in respect of sinnes actuall wherein they are nothing culpable Now to the manifestation of Gods mercy in their salvation the permission of Adams fall and their fall in Adam was a Medium and I prove it thus if God did permit Adam to sinne and these Infants in Adam to this end namely to the manifestation of his mercy in their salvation then this permission of Adams fall and their fall in Adam was a Medium tending to the manifestation of his mercy in their salvation But God did permit Adam to fall and these Infants in Adam to this very end Ergo. I prove the Mâ—â—â—r thus he did permit Adam to fall and these Infants in Adam to the manifestation of his own glory in them But no glory of God is more conveniently manifested in the permission of Adams fall and these Infants in Adam than the glory of his mercy in the pardoning of their sinnes and saving their soules in despight of sinne Therefore this is to be accounted the end as much as any 2. I nothing doubt but that infants are saved sine mediis I spake not of the Media of their salvation but of the manifestation of Gods mercy in their salvation I make no question but that they are saved by the merits of Christ whether they have the ordinary meanes of applying Christ unto them or no. 3. Touching reprobate Infants I prove the permission of Adams fall and their fall in Adam was a Medium tending to the manifestation or Gods justice in their damnation For if God did permit Adam to fall and them in Adam to this end namely to the manifestation of his justice in their damnation then this permission was a Medium tending thereto But to this end God did permit Adams fall and their fall in Adam which I prove thus He did permit it for the manifestation of his own glory as to this end he doth all things But no glory of God is so conveniently manifested hereby as the glory of his justice in their damnation unlesse you will say with Alphonsus Mendoza and Didscus Alvarez that rather the manifestation of Gods glorious grace towards his elect in consideration that he could have made them vessells of wrath as well as others is the cause why God doth not save all but permits a multitude to sinne after much different courses and damnes them for sinne 4. Since their originall sinne you say they are justly damnable But I pray consider how came they to be thus justly damnable was it onely by the will of Adam was it not by the will of God also That the first sinne of Adam alone and no other is imputed to his posterity how could this come to passe but by the will of God 2. That the sinne of Adam becomes fatall to all his posterity and not so the sinne of any man else to his posterity how is this but by the will of God 3. Could not God have derived a child from Adam in the state of his innocency if he had so thought good 4. How come we to be borne in originall sinne but by the will of God who could have destroyed Adam after his sinne and made another Author of generation of mankind In all this appeares the will of God and forceth us to acknowledge the power of God over his creatures to dispose of them as he thinkes good But along to the rest 10. Although we say the fall of Adam was considered in the decree of Gods election yet we doe not say it was preintended neither indeed can God properly be said to intend any thing which he permits onely wherefore it followeth not upon our opinion that the fall of Adam was the end of mans salvation and damnation or that it was to be in execution after it For the respect of Media and Finis is where things are intended onely But you will say God intended the permission of the fall though not the fall it selfe and if that were first in his intention the same consequents follow I answer it was one thing to consider Adams fall as a thing that would be if it were not hindered another thing to resolve positively to permit it And though perhaps God did both yet we make the former act onely to have beene precedent to his election not the latter Resp 1. I spake nothing of Gods intention that Adam should fall but onely of Gods intention to permit him to fall and shewed that if the permission of Adams fall was first in intention and then mans damnation it will manifestly follow that in execution it shall be last that is God shall first damne men for sinne and afterwards permit Adam to fall into sinne and all in Adam To this you say that it is one thing to
ponderous consideration But as touching Papists their dislike of us he confines it only to the Supralapsarian-way And indeed that distinction of the Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian-way was brought in meerely to get thereby some more elbow roome For if they agree with us in the poynt of Gods absolute and irrespective decrees how improbable is it that the doctrine of any of our Divines in stating the object of predestination to be humanum genus nondum conditum will prove odious unto them considering this is a meer Logicall difference as I have shewed in my Vindic. Grat. Dei cap. 1. pag. 1. De Predestinatione digress 1. Yet as touching the Supralapsarian-way that opinion is imputed unto Junius by Arminius as also to Thomas and his Followers Collat. Armin. cum Juni pag. 4. and if so how improbable is it that such an Opinion should be so odious to the Papists as this Author upon his bare word avoucheth And Alphonsus Mendoza spares not to professe that supernaturalls were intended by God before naturalls and his discourse hereupon was taken with admiration by his Auditors in Spaine and he was urged as himselfe professeth to set it forth in Print And the Quatuor signa Francisci Mayronis mentioned by M r Perkins De Praedest Modo Ordine doe manifest that he took the same way and these quatuor signa Franciscus Mayro received from the doctrine of Scotus It is well known that in the Synod of Dort there met Divines different in this poynt who yet neither hated one anothers doctrine nor persons for this difference like as so it is amongst us as in the place above mentioned I have shewed Nay it is apparent that Junius took upon him to reconcile all three opinions there abouts and Piscator after him who also hath discharged his part herein farre more clearely then Iunius And no marvail Iunius having first broken the ice But that the truth may not be carried in the clouds of ambiguities as they desire who are in love with errour All the question between these our Divines consists in this Whether it were the will of God that Adam should fall by his permission so to make way for Gods glorious ends to wit the manifestation of his glory in the incarnation of the Sonne of God as also in the way of mercy in the salvation of some and in the way of justice in the condemnation of others The Supralapsarians maintaine that such was the will of God least otherwise way should be made for the manifestation of Gods glorious works by accident rather then by Gods providence Other Divines that take the Sublapsarian way had rather decline this nice poynt as difficult then oppose it as odious But say I the doctrine wherein both Jesuits and Arminians doe agree will abundantly serve us to justify us in the positive and affirmative part of so nice a poynt as this For by their doctrine of Scientia Media God did foresee that upon such an administration of his providence about Adam as was used Adam would fall and more then this that God could have brought forth other administrations of his providence in very great variety some whereof were such that if God had used Adam would not have fallen Now being pleased to make use of such an administration of providence divine upon the purpose whereof he foresaw Adam would fall and not being pleased to use such a providence upon the purpose whereof he had foreseen Adam would not have fallen I call here all the indifferent of the World to judge whether it doth not manifestly follow herehence that it was the will of God Adam should fall by his permission Again throughout our doctrine nothing is more harsh then that of Gods determining the will of the creature to every act of his as touching the substance thereof Dares this author betray such ignorance as hand over head to professe that this doctrine is odious unto Papists Whereas the most learned in the Church of Rome are well known to maintain it in expresse termes whereas our Divines course is to keep themselves to the phrase of Scriptures And as for the Jesuits who oppose it and in the place thereof bring in Scientia Media and Gratia Congrua shaped after the genius of Scientia Media I can shew an expresse acknowledgement under the hand of a zealot for the Arminian cause that between the Gratia praedeterminans of the Dominicans and Gratia congrua of the Jesuits there is no such materiall difference at all but that the absolutenesse of predestination and reprobation doth follow as well upon the one as upon the other To conclude I would this Author would be so wise as once more to consult with his Oracle and enquire Whether Papists are more ready to joyne with Lutherans in their doctrine of Christs Ubiquity as touching his Manhood then with us in the poynt of Reprobation or of Gods concourse For suppose we held as Suarez is pleased to state our Tenent namely Quod Deus omnipotenti voluntate nobis necessitatem imponat yet the same Suarez saith that in this very poynt we are not reprehended of them as if we affirmed ought Quod vel in re ipsâ contradictionem involvat aut Dei omnipotentiam superet I presume no Papist is so well conceited in the Lutherans doctrine in the poynt of Ubiquity From that which he affirmes of Papists I come to that which he affirmes of Lutherans And what one instance hath he given of any Lutheran speaking against our making the corrupt Masse the object of predestination or reprobation Surely not one either out of Sir Edwin Sands nor out of Osiander Nay what cause is there why either Papist or Lutheran should in case the object thus stated or in a more rigid forme of the Masse Uncorrupt doth no way constraine us to maintaine that God doth intend the damnation of any man in any moment of nature before the consideration of him as departing out of this World under the power of sinne no nor to maintain that God doth intend the salvation of any man in any moment of nature before the consideration of him in finall perseverance in faith and repentance provided God suffer him to live untill the use of reason as I have shewed and endeavoured to justify and make appeare in my Vindic. Grat. Dei in the digressions concerning Predestination For indeed not any of our Divines was I think ever known to maintain that God did intend to damne any man but for sinne Neither doe I maintaine that God intended to bestow salvation on any man of ripe years but by way of reward of his faith and repentance The true and principall reall not verball only difference between us and the Arminians is about Gods bestowing of faith and repentance and his purpose thereof Now let any learned Lutheran deliver his mind on this namely upon the foresight where of it is that God gives faith and repentance unto some and denyes it unto others When
consider Adams fall as a thing that would be if it were not hindered another thing to resolve positively to permit it But this answer is to no purpose For my argument doth not depend upon the confusion of these things which you say doe differ and therein say truly my argument depends upon a principle that is totâ Aâ—ademia notissimum and justified also by all experience that what is first in intention is last in execution 2. But what say you doe you not make the permission of Adams fall precedent to election and reprobation why then let us shake hands for the case is cleare that then the foresight of Adams fall neither could be precedent to election For the foresight of Adams fall in no moment of time before Gods resolution to permit it For though God foresaw that Adam would fall if God permitted him yet could he not foresee that he would fall absolutely untill God were resolved to permit him 3. Some things you touch by the way I may not omit you say nothing can properly be said to be intended which he permits onely This is very worthy of consideration what think you of Adams eating of the forbidden fruit did God intend that or no Perhaps you will say that God may be said to intend that because he did only permit that as evill but concurred to the effecting of it as a naturall action But then consider how was it possible that God should intend that this act should come to passe and not the evill of it whereas the evill considering Gods interdict was inseparable from it I should answer it thus As touching the substance of the act God intended it should come to passe and it came to passe by Gods effection for so God intended it should come to passe to wit by his effection But as touching the evill of the action God intended it should come to passe and it came to passe but onely by Gods permission for so onely he intended it should come to passe to wit by his permission Hereupon you may flye out and deny that God did intend so much as the act it selfe of eating the forbidden fruit But I pray why might not God intend and determine that that act should come to passe aswell as the Jewes crucifying of Christ yet what say the Apostles with one mouth both Herod c. why not aswell as the Kings giving their Kingdomes unto the beast yet it is expressely said that God put it into their hearts to doe his â—ill even in this to wit giving their Kingdomes unto the beast In a word I have a Digression to this purpose in the second booke Digresâ—â—â— The title is this Aâ— sanctus Israelis c. It is the onely point wherein I oppose Aquinas and Aquinas herein opposeth himselfe manifestly against Austin as there I shew 11. In your laying downe the order of Gods decrees I would gladly understand one thing Whether you make his first decree de fine to have been definite or indefinite I meane whether he resolved at first to declare his mercy upon such and such persons as Peter Judas c. or indefinitely upon some onely If you make it indefinite it may be such a decree might passe upon Massa nondum condita But that is not the decree of election If you make it definite me thinkes your arguments before alleadged are strong against it Resp Your distinction is good of a decree definite and indefinite in the same tearms you shall finde it disputed of in the third Digression of those that are come to your hands and sound labouring to hold up a decree indefinite but all in vaine The truth is Massa nondum condita is not to be taken positively but privately rather as it denies creation and corruption precedent to Gods predestination forasmuch as all these decrees of creation of permission of Adams fall of liberation finall from sins by faith and repentance and lastly of salvation are but one formall complete decree de mediis tending to one compleate end which is the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of mercy mixt with justice On the other side all these decrees to wit of creation of permission of Adams fall of finall dereliction in sin and lastly of condemnation for sin doe make up but one compleat decree de medijs tending to one end which is the manifestation of Gods glory in the way of justice As for the strength of your arguments alleadged against this opinion I remit to every indifferent mans judgement to consider thereof As touching the first arguments you propose I could gratifie you thus farre that the decrees you speake of doe consuppose sin but not presuppose sinne Forasmuch as my Tenet is that in the same moment with those decrees God doth consider their sin but not in any moment before it This I say my Tenet alloweth me to grant but I cannot acknowledge that any of your arguments prove thus much But then againe I maintaine that these decrees consuppose other sinnes aswell as originall yea the decree of damnation consupposeth in the same moment all their actuall sins yea even finall impenitency forasmuch as God decreeth to damne no man of ripe yeares but for all the sins that ever he shall commit and finall impenitency in them whereas you maintaine that God first decrees to damne them and then foreseeth the actuall sins of theirs for which they shall be damned FINIS Addenda Corrigenda PAg 1. lin 24 read parts p. 2. l. 30 r. rectifie ib l. 56 r. were of p. 4 l 33 r. diversions from l 54 dele not p. 7 l. 36 is intended p 9 l. 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 10 l. 16 twofold p. 11 l. 10 and not p. 15 l. 4 wholy God's because they are wholy from God p. 16 l. 30 first shewing l. 50 this objection l. ult creatures love p. 17 l. 43 world healthfull l. 47 he decreed should perish p. 24 l. 3 judicious author l. 4 conversion l. 17 affect p. 27 l 49 kind of a meritorious p 29 l. 21 Vines l 32 they are the sons of God l. 45 praised me l. 54 we discourse p. 30 l. 23 of men l. 50 to the dead ib according to men p. 32 l. 10 del not l. 19 very philosophically takes l. 56 to some p. 34 l. 28 over man his l. 59 that it is p. 35 l. 8. from ten l. 53 puniri p. 36 l. 33 unsesonable l. 36 refuted p. 37 l. 48 unto them p. 39 l. 4 friend of his l. 45 at the font p. 40 l. 16. dele if l. 18 exposition l. 24 Judas may cease and the prupose of electing Judas may c l. 35 and in saying p. 41 l. 40 of being l. 45 in this p. 43. l. 20 lesse evident that death was not desireable l. 51 defignes l. 54 at a being in a state l. 56 deliberative desire l 60 esse nolis p. 45 l. 48 all soules p. 53 they are p. 46 l. 2 paine corrupting
to stretch himselfe thereon and therefore he desires to change his lodging and to passe from the desert of good actions to the desert of evill actions which he formerly insisted upon and he tells a story of Zeno's servant most suitable to his Iambick taken out of Seneca though he quotes the place of neither Well Zeno's servant he saith when he was punished by his Master for a fault that he had done told his Master out of his own grounds that he was unjustly beaten because he was Fato coactus peccare and hereupon making his reckoning without his hoste concludes that Certainly if Malefactors could not chuse but play their rude prankes they could not be justly punished for them Wherein he tells us what the servant said but what the Master answered thereof he saith just nothing Nay doth he truly relate what the Servant said Nothing lesse but shapes it as he thinks good that making his own bed he may lye thereon more softly If we may believe Diogenes Laertius who reports the story the Servants answer was not Fato coactus sum peccare but Fatale mihi erat furari For he took his serâ—â—â—â— laying the theefe though the servant took advantage from his Masters doâ—â—â—â— of Fate to frame an Apology for himselfe yet would not Zeno permit him to 〈◊〉 thereby any priviledge from stripes For servum in furto deprehensum verberavit A manifest evidence that even in his opinion the destiny he maintained was no just excuse for sinne And to meet him in his own plea when he said Fatale mihi erat furari caedi inquit this was the answer he made to his servant which answer of his this Author either conceales or was not privy to his own ignorance And indeed Chrysippus the Stoick though an eager maintainer of Fate Stoicall yet denyed not the liberty of mens wills as appears in Cicero de Fato though in his opinion this doctrine of theirs did cohere And Plutarch likewise in his book De Fato professeth as much Fatum omnia continet sicut etiam videtur neque tamen proptereà omnia necessariò eveniunt sed unumquodque suo naturae modo Neither did Zeno conceive hereby all place to be taken away for perswasion as appears by his answer to Crates when he took him by the cloake to draw him away from Stilpo saying O Crates commodissimè auribus Philosophum teneas Cum igitur persuaseris tum illum trahe Nam si per vim egeris corpus quidem apud te sed animus apud Stilponem erit Neither were any Philosophers more studious of Morality then the Stoicks They wrote De Bonis Malis de Affectibus de Virtute de Fine deque primâ aestimatione de Actibus ac de Officiis de Adhortationibus dehortationibus as Diogenes writes in the life of Zeno. And Austin de Civit. Dei cap. 9. professeth of the Stoicks that though Omnia Fato fieri contenderent yet Non omnia necessitate fieri dicerent And more then this whereas the Stoicks were so jealous of maintaining the liberty of mens wills that they denyed them of all other things to be subject to necessity Austin professeth that their feare of subjecting the wills of men unto necessity in this respect was a causelesse feare Ibid. cap. 10. Unde nec illa necessitas formidanda est quam formidando Stoici laboraverunt causas rerum ita distinguere ut quasdam subtraherent necessitati quasdam subderent atque in his quas esse sub necessitate noluerunt posuerunt etiam nostras voluntates ne videlicet non essent liberae si subderentur necessitati And then proceeds to shew that there is a certain necessity nothing prejudiciall to the will albeit the will be acknowledged in subjection thereunto And that necessity he describes to be this as when we say that Necesse est ut ita sit aliquid vel ita fiat his words are these Si autem illa definitur esse necessitas secundum quam dicimus necesse est ut ita sit aliquid vel ita fiat nescio cur eam timemus ne nobis libertatem auferat voluntatis Herein Austin professeth to goe beyond the Stoicks in acknowledging a necessity whereunto the will of man is subject and that without detriment to the liberty thereof Yet in my judgement it would better become a Christian Divine to informe both himselfe and others out of the Word of God and rest thereon for the discovery of the nature of Providence and Predestination divine then to goe a forraging among Poets and Stoicks for the justification of his own in point of Christian faith and for the redargution of the way of his Opposites INTRODUCTION SECT IV. THese absurdities following too evidently from the upper Way Others of the same side wiling to decline them as rocks and precipices doe leave that Way and present man to God in his decree of reprobation lying in the fault and under the guilt of Originall sinne and say That God looking upon miserable mankind lying in Adams sinne did decree the greatest part of them to eternall torments in hell without remedy for the manifestation of his severe Justice But notwithstanding this difference among themselves they agree well enough together For this little jarre is not in their judgements enough to make a breach between them as we may see in the Conference at the Hague and in the Synod at Dort In the Conference at the Hague the Contra-Remonstrants have these words Quoad sententiarum diversitatem in hoc argumento quod Deus hominem respexit in hoc decreto nondum creätum vel creätum lapsum quia hoc ad fundamentum hujus doctrinae non pertinet libentèr alii alios aequitate Christiana toleramus After this in the Synod of Dort they permitted Gomarus to goe the Supralapsarian way and the Delegates of South Holland were very indifferent which way they took For these are their words An Deus in eligendo consideravit homines ut lapsos an etiam ut nondum lapsos existimant viz. the Delegates aforesaid non esse necessarium ut definiatur modo statuatur Deum in eligendo considerasse omnes homines in pari statu And to say the truth there is no reason why they should quarrell about circumstances seeing they agree in the substance For they both say 1. That the moving cause of reprobation is the alone will of God and not the sinne of man originall or actuall 2. That the finall impenitency and damnation of reprobates are necessary and unavoidable by Gods absolute decree These two things are the maxima gravamina that the other side stick at So that these two paths meet at last in the same way But because this last is chosen by the most and latest maintainers of the absolute decree as the more moderate of the two and the easyer to be defended I will set down the conclusion which I dislike in their way and words God hath absolutely purposed
such another speech in another place and concludes it with these Words Quare ergo Dominus nisi propter hoc Gallina esse voluit in sanctâ Scripturâ dicens O Jerusalem Jerusalem quoties volui te congregare ut gallina c. Our Lord and Saviour did therefore compare himselfe to a Hen rather then any other creature because of her singular expressions of love to her young ones even when they are out of her sight By these things we see how highly the Scriptures speak of Gods mercy especially in the expressions of it to Mankind To which testimonies let me adde these few more Psal 8. 4. Lord what is man that thou art mindfull of him c. Prov. 8. 31. In the children of men did the wisdome of God delight himselfe when the foundations of the earth were appoynted He took not the nature of Angells but the seed of Abraham Heb. 2. 16. When the bountifulnesse and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared Tit. 3. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the originall word is where doe we read of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More mercifull is God to man then to all other creatures With such a mercy cannot stand such a decree absolute Reprobation being once granted we may me thinks more properly call God a Father of cruelties then of mercies and hatred then of love and the Devills names Satan and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an adversary a destroyer may be fitter for him then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Saviour which I tremble to think Doth mercy please him when he of his own will only hath made such a decree as shewes farre more severity towards poore men then mercy Is he slow to anger when he hath taken such a small and speedy occasion to punish the greater part of men in Hell torments for ever and for one sinne once committed hath shut up the greater part of men under invincible unbelief and damnation Is his mercy abundant doth it extend it selfe farther then justice when it is tackt up so short limited to a few chosen ones when 100 for one at least take in all parts of the World are unavoidably cast away out of his only will and pleasure Or doth his love passe knowledge when we see daily greater love then this in men and other creatures What Father and Mother that have not only cast off Fatherhood and Motherhood but humanity too so the Authors Copy hath it would determine their children to certain death or to cruell torments worse then death for one only offence and that committed too not by them in their own persons but by some other and only imputed unto them How much lesse would they give themselves to beget Children and bring them forth that they might bring them to the rack fire gallowes and such like tortures and deaths But to deliver things a little more closely Foure things in my conceit being well and distinctly considered doe make it apparent that this decree is incompatible with Gods mercy 1. That Adams sinne was the sinne of mans nature only and no mans personall transgression but Adams it was neither committed nor consented to by any of his posterity in their own persons 2. That it was the sinne of our nature not by generation for then the sinnes of our Grand-fathers and Fathers would be our sinnes also because we come from them and they would be our sinnes so much the more by how much nearer we are to the stock from which we doe immediatly spring then to the first root and common Father of Mankind It is the sinne of our nature by imputation only it was Gods will that he should stand up for a publique person and that in him all men should stand or fall This is generally granted by Divines and particularly by that excellent servant of God M. Calvin Neque enim factum est saith he ut a salute exciderant ommes unius parentis culpâ And a little after he saith Hoc cum naturae nequeat ascribi ab admirabili Dei consilio profectum esse minimè obscurum est And a little after thus unde factum est ut tot gentes uuà cum earum liberis infantibus aeterna morte involveret lapsus Adae absque remedio nisi quia Deo it à visum est 3. That God did pardon it in Adam who did actually and voluntarily commit it in his own person 4. That Christ came into the World to take away peccatum mundi the sinne of the World Ioh. 1. 29. That God either did or might have satisfied his wronged justice in the blood of the Covenant for all man kind and without any impeachment to justice might have opened a way of Salvation to all and every man These things being well considered will make no man I think to conclude in his thoughts that if there be any such decree God is not mercifull to man at all much lesse is he more mercifull supposing this decree to men then he is to other creatures but more sharpe and severe then he is to other creatures to the Devills themselves 1. To other creatures because the most of men are determined by his omnipotent decree to such a being as is a thousand times worse then no being at all whereas other creatures even the basest of them though they perhaps have but a contemptible being yet they have such a beeing as is much better then no being at all it is farre better not to be at all then to be eternally miserable without any possibility of the contrary for so saith our Saviour speaking of Judas It had been good for that man if he never had been borne Men would not have accepted of life and being when first they entred upon possession of it if they had known upon what hard conditions it was to be tendred and that it was to be charged with such an interest as can no waies be recompensed by the benefits of life or did men firmely believe this decree they would at adventure with Job curse their birth-day be willingly released from the right of creatures and desire that their immortall soules might vanish into nothing What Minutius saith of Pagans might be truly affirmed of men in generall Malunt extingui penitus quam ad supplicia reparari Nay Parents out of pitty to their Children would wish that they might be borne Snakes and Toads rather then men and creatures whose being shall at last be resolved into nothing rather then immortall Spirits 2. Then to the very Devills also who are set forth in Scripture to be the greatest spectacles of Gods wrath and irefull severity In one thing this decree makes most men and Devills equall Utrisque desperata salus they are both sure to be damned but in three things men are in a farre worse condition by it 1. In their appoyntment to Hell not for their own proper personall sinnes for which the Devills suffer but for the sinnes of
repentance on whom he will because he finds all equall in naturall corruption and no difference in any whereby to move God to bestow grace on him rather then on another The case is not alike when God comes to bestow salvation and inflict damnation for some he finds dying in sinnes others dying in the Lord yet we deny not but by power absolute and secluding the determination of his own will he could annihilate the righteous as well as the wicked In like sort the whole course of nature depends meerely upon the pleasure of God yet we say it is naturall for a Leprous person to beget a Leprous person and so as naturall it is for that which is borne of the flesh to be flesh though each depends upon the constitution of God For albeit Adam lost the spirit of God by his transgression and all supernaturall graces wherewith he was endued yet like as God by regeneration of his meere pleasure restored them afterwards to Adam and in due time doth restore them to every one of his Elect so in their very conception if it pleased God he could for Christs sake infuse them notwithstanding the sinne of Adam and consequently it is the free act of God in refusing after this manner to deale with them Yet this nothing hinders but that the propagation of spirituall corruption unto all Adams posterity may be as naturall as the propagation of any hereditary disease from the Father to the child and over and above that it is not in the way of meer pleasure but in the way of justice for the sinne of Adam which was the sinne of our nature bereaving him of that originall righteousnesse wherein he was â—reated and causing all mankind to be 1. Derived from him whereas he could have otherwise provided 2. And that from Adam after his nature was corrupt with sinne whereas he could have derived posterity from him before his fall had it pleased him And therefore I approve the second Canon of the Synod of Dort whereunto our English Divines with many others subscribed where they professe that the corruption derived from Adam to his posterity was per vitiosae naturae propagationem justo Dei iudicio derivata This I take to be much different from saying Adams sinne is made ours by meer pleasure or by imputation only So the fifteenth Article in the confession Ecclesiarum Belgicarum runs thus Credimus Adami in obedientiâ peccatum originis in totum genus humanum diffusum esse quod est totius naturae corruptio vitium haereditarium quo ipsi infantes in matris suae utero polluti sunt quodque veluti radix omne peccatorum genus in homine producit ideoque ita foedum execrabile est coram Deo ut ad generis humani condemnationem sufficiat Our Brittain Divines in their second Thesis upon the third and fourth Articles explicate themselves concerning the condition of originall sinne in this manner Lapsae voluntati inest non tantum peccandi possibilitas sed etiam praeceps ad peccandum inclinatio Nec aliter se potest res habere in homine corrupto nondum per divinam justitiam restaurato cùm ea sit natura voluntatis ut nuda manere nequeat sed ab uno cui adhaeserat objecto excidens aliud quaerat quod cupidè amplectatur ideo per spontaneam defectionem habitualiter adversa a Deo creatore in creaturam effraeni impetu fertur ac cum ea libidinose ac turpiter fornicatur semper avida fruendi utendis ac vetita moliendi ac patrandi Quid mirum ergo si talis voluntas sit Diaboli maneipium I find indeed in Corvinus such a profession of his namely that ex puro Dei arbitrio qui Adami peccatum nobis imputare voluit etiam in nos reatus derivatus est And Walaeus in answer unto him writes thus Nec quinto illo ad Rom. Capite ad quod nos hic Corvinus remittit quicquam tale dicitur aut innuitur nempe quod ex mero Dei arbittio pendeat haec primi peccati imputatio 2. The Second thing he puts upon our Divines is That God hath determined for that sinne to cast away the farre greater part of mankind for ever and so they make God to doe that by two acts the one accompanying the other which the other say he did by one To which I answer First that if they say that God doth no more by two acts then the other say God did by one seeing I have proved that the other doe no way maintain that God doth punish the righteous with the wicked which is his immodest and unshamefac't crimination no nor doe they maintain that God determined to damne any but for sinne and which is more then that supposing humanum genus nondum conditum to be the object of reprobation yet doth it not follow that in any moment of nature the decree of damnation is before the consideration of sinne surely neither will it follow by the Sublapsarian Doctrine that God doth not decree to punish any man with damnation but for those sinnes wherein he dyeth unrepented of much lesse that God doth punish the righteous with the wicked which is the crimination of this Author proposed I doubt against his own conscience T is true some perish only in originall sinne and that justly for if they be borne children of wrath is it strange if they dye children of wrath And is it not just with God to inflict eternall death on them whom this Author professeth to be guilty of eternall death only he saith that God of his meer pleasure makes them guilty of eternall death That is his saying not ours For though we say originall sinne makes a man guilty of eternall death by the free constitution of God yet we say not that this free constitution of God was made of his meer pleasure but justo Dei judicio like as whosoever believes not shall be damned here damnation is by the free constitution of God made the portion of unbelievers but dares this Author inferre herehence that it is not made so justo Dei judicio indeed God gives grace according to the meere pleasure of his will but no wise man will say that he damnes men according to the meere pleasure of his will for this phrase implies that there is no cause thereof on mans part And indeed there is no cause on mans part why God should give him grace but there is cause enough on mans part why God should inflict damnation on him and yet this work of God though just is never a whit the lesse free So in damning for originall sinne only though Gods constitution hereof be just yet is it never a whit the lesse free and though it be free yet it is never a whit the lesse just And like as damnation is inflicted on finall impenitents sola Dei constitutione only by vertue of this constitution Divine whosoever repents not of his sinne shall be
that believeth and it is most true that in like manner Christ hath procured the salvation of every one that believes so that here is a truth to feed upon and they that oppose it are strengthned in their vaine confidence by a meere mist of confusion which they raise unto themselves and others that so they may set the better face upon that lye which they hold in their right hand wherewith they are so enamoured that they had rather forsake their own mercies then forgoe it And so I come to the third and last reason in generall drawn from Gods justice DISCOURSE SUBSECT III. THe third reason why absolute Reprobation infringeth Gods justice is because it will have him to punish men for the omission of an act which is made impossible unto them by his own decree not by that decree alone whereby he determined to give them no power to believe having lost it but by that decree also by which he purposeth that we should partake with Adam in his sinne and be stripped of all that supernaturall power which we had by Gods free grant bestowed upon us in Adam before the fall These are my reasons which move me to think that this absolute decree is repugnant to Gods justice TWISSE Consideration I Have already shewed how Gods decree and impossibility arising upon supposition thereof doth no way prejudice the liberty of the creature as by pregnant passages of the Scripture is made plaine unto us And as for the other decree here spoken of First it is untrue which he supposeth that God by a speciall decree decreed all mankind to be made partakers of Adams sinne and therein to be stripped of all supernaturall power which before the had by Gods free grant For if it were just with God to decree that Adams nature upon his sinning should be bereaved of all supernaturall power which formerly he enjoyed this and this alone should suffice to bereave all his posterity of supernaturall power to doe that which is good For seeing all his posterity did receive their natures from Adam after his fall they must therewithall necessarily receive their natures from him bereaved of all supernaturall power unto that which is good untill such time as God be pleased of his free grace to restore it by regeneration 2. Is it not good reason that God for Adams sinne should bereave us of all supernaturall power in Adam as of his meere grace he did adorne us all with supernaturall power in Adam 3. Notwithstanding this depravation of supernaturall power in Adam yet we acknowledge that neverthelesse whatsoever sinne a man commits he committeth freely and the Schoole hath taught it before us Aquin. p. 1. q. 23. art 3. ad 3. licet aliquis non possit gratiam adipisci qui reprobatur a Deo tamen quòd in hoc peccatum vel illud labatur ex ejus libero arbitrio contingit undè merito sibi imputatur in culpam DISCOURSE SUBSECT IV. TWo things are usually answered First that there are many things delivered for truths in Scripture among which this is one which are above the reach of humane capacity and therefore are we quietly to submit as to other revealed truths so to this and not to be so bold as to examine the justice of this decree or any thing else in it by our shallow and erring understandings But this answer takes not away the arguments for I have these things to reply 1. That though there be diverse things revealed in Gods word which are above reason viz. That there are three Persons and one God and that Christ was borne of a Virgin that the world was made of nothing that the dead shall be raised c. to all which we must captivate our understandings and yeeld a firme assent propter authoritatem dicentis yet there is nothing revealed therein abhorring from and odious to sound and right reason for it cannot be that the most excellent gifts of God Faith and Reason Nature and Scripture should overthrow one another and that the wise God who is the fountain of all right reason should discover any thing to us in his word or enjoyne us any thing to be believed which is vere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truly and properly unreasonable Our faith is an act of our service of God and Gods service is cultus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a reasonable service Rom. 12. 2. and Gods word is also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 milk reasonable and without guile they are so called no doubt to shew that there is a sweet harmony between faith and reason things revealed and mens understandings though there be a disproportion yet there is no contradiction between them 2. That therefore all those Doctrines which are adverse and repugnant to understandings purged from prejudice and false principles are not to be taken for doctrines of Scripture but devices of men corrupting Scripture by false glosses and interpretations and consequently that this absolute reprobation of so many millions of miserable men out of Gods only will and pleasure because it is most irkesome to the eares and understandings of all sorts of men best and worst that stand indifferent to the entertainment of any truths that may appeare to be so is no doctrine of the Text no part of the word of God 3. That howbeit some things in Scripture which are peculiar to the Gospell are above our understandings and must without hesitation be believed yet there are many things there which have their foundation in nature and may be apprehended by the light of nature and demonstrated by reason and among these things the justice of Gods waies is one as I have shewed before out of Isaiah 5. 3. and Ezek. 18. and it is but a meer evasion when the absolute decree is proved by sound reasons to be unjust to say reason is blind and must not be judge but the Scripture only for God offers the justice of his waies to the tryall of reason TWISSE Consideration THis Author seems to swell in the conceit of his rationall performances as if never any fly sitting upon a cart-wheele in a Sommers day had made such a dust as he had made And fashioning to himselfe a victorious conquest as if all his adversaries were but Pigmies to this Anakim glad to runne into corners or into Acorn-cups to hide themselves there For his reasons like some hobgoblins doe so fright them more then all the spirits that stand by the naked man in the book of Moones And therefore all the help they have if we believe this Pyrgopolinices is to charme them by saying that many things are delivered in Scripture which are above the reach of humane capacity among which this is one c. And I take this to be sound For otherwise why should the Doctrine of Godlinesse be called a mystery of Godlinesse And the Schooles teach that Fides est assensus inevidens and Cajetan who was no gras-hopper as great an Anakim as this Author or
the light but the morning is even to them as the shadow of death if one know them they are in the terrours of the shadow of death Now there is a course of adulterating the word of God and deflouring his truth every way as abominable in the sight of God as the deflowring of women yea and much more abominable In my answer to the former discourse as I remember I proposed certaine arguments to prove the absolute nature of Reprobation This Authour doth not accommodate himselfe nor his Achates neither to answer so much as one of them Thus having Prefaced concerning these concealed Authours and therewithall made answer to the Preface of this Interpolator I come to make answer to the Additions themselves The Answer to the Additions 1. Some say that God of his meer pleasure antecedent to all sinne in the Creature originall or actnall did decree to glorifie his Soveraigntie and Justice in the eternall rejection and damnation of the greatest part of Mankind as the end and in their unavoidable sinne and impenitence as the meanes 2. The rest of that side thinking to avoid the great inconveniences to which the supralapsarian way lies open fall downe a little lower and present men to God in his decree of Reprobation lying in the fall under the guilt of originall sinne laying 3 That God looking upon miserable mankind lying in Adam's sinne did decree the greatest number of men even those men whom he calls to repentance and salvation by the preaching of the Gospel to Hell torments for ever and without all remedie for the declaration of his severe justice This way went the Synod Let the Reader observe that this Authour in stating the opinion of our Divines alleageth no passages out of any of them no nor so much as quotes the place of any of their writings where this doctrine is to be found in the terme wherein he delivers it that so he may take the greater libertie to shape their opinions according to his owne pleasure first as touching the first observe 1. How he shapes this opinion 2 the Persons to whom he imputes it concerning the first the Decree is shaped as consisting of two parts The one sets downe the end which God intended the other the meanes whereby this end is procured 1. As touching the end it is hard to say by his shaping of it whether the manifestation of God's glory be made the end or man's damnation and if any one conceaves hereupon that man's Damnation is the end which God intended in the opinion of our Divines like enough this Authour will be well enough pleased with it 2. Consider how God's Soveraingtie and Justice are coupled together as appearing in the eternall rejection and damnation of his Creatures as if both of them did appeare equally in each 3. Then rejection is proposed without distinction and specification that we might know whether he understands it of rejection from Grace or rejection from Glorie 4. And in the fourth place he couples rejection with Damnation as if both were of equall yoke signifying Acts temporall whereas rejection in the Common notion thereof is all one with reprobation and reprobation is commonly taken for an act eternall to witt The eternall purpose of God to deny grace permit sinne and inflict damnation for sinne 5. Damnation is here brought in as belonging to the Decree of the end and quite left out in the Decree of the meanes whereas by the very light of Nature it is apparent that Justice vindicative is manifested no where more then in the execution of punishment 6. And lastly Damnation in it selfe is no manifestation of Justice any more then of Injustice unlesse it be executed as a condigne punishment for sinne yet most absurdly he talks of manifesting justice in man's Damnation without specifying the meritorious cause of Damnation without consideration whereof Damnation is no manifestation of Justice either Divine or humane 7. Whereas he sets forth the Persons damned to be the greatest part of Man-kind this is only to speak with a full mouth and to gull a partiall Reader who may be well pleased to have his mouth filled with an emptie spoone For the Scripture teatheth expreslie that even of them that are called but few are chosen and clear reason doth manifest that look how God may deale with one in the same manner it is lawfull for him to deale with Millions We love to speak distinctly and accordingly we say that all God's decrees are of doing something for the manifestation of his owne Glory I say of doing something for no glory of God is manifested in Decreeing but in executing his Decrees As when Solomon saith God hath made all things for himselfe even the wicked against the day of evill Prov 16 4. So then the manifestation of God's Glory is the end of all his actions And accordingly if rejection here be taken for God's Decree no glory is manifested herein and too absurd it is to account God's eternall Decrees to to be meanes for the accomplishing of his ends But if Rejection be taken here for a temporall Act to witt Of finall dereliction in sinne then it may be a meanes for the manifestation of God's glory in a certaine kind namely his Soveraigntie for like as God hath mercy on whom he will in not leaving them finally in their sinnes but delivering them from the power of it by bestowing on them the Grace of Faith and Repentance In like manner God hardneth whom he will in denying the same Grace of Faith and Repentance and so finally leaving them and permitting them to continue finally in their sinnes without breaking them of by repentance So that God proceed's herein merely according to his pleasure for the manifestation of that Soveraingtie which he hath as a Creator over his Creatures Even the same that the Potter hath over his Clay to make of the same lump one vessell unto honour an other unto dishonour No Justice is manifested in this difference I meane no such Justice as proceedes in reference to the workes of men for he doth not bestow Grace upon men because of their good workes nor deny grace unto them because of their evill workes but finding men equall in the state of sinne he bestowes Grace upon the one to cure sinne in them and bestowes it not upon others Yet God is just herein in another respect namely in as much as he doth no other thing in all this but such as he hath a lawfull power to doe As for Damnation that is clearly an Act temporall and this the Lord inflicts on none but for their sinnes And like as in giving or denying grace God manifested no justice Compensative but Soveraigntie only proceeding therein merely according unto pleasure So in inflicting dānation denying glory he manifest's vindicative Justice alone not proceeding according to mere pleasure herein but according to mens workes and that according to a Law which himselfe hath given unto men namely
this Whosoever continueth in sin without repentance shall be damned 2. The second part of this Decree is concerning the meanes and the meanes he makes to be sinne and impenitency It is very well he tooke libertie to set downe their opinion without specifying their words least they should fly in his face and convict him of shamefull slaunder He that intends the end is the Authour of the meanes this is universall we say that the permission of sinne and of impenitencie is the meanes and this we acknowledge to make way as well for the manifestation of his mercy in pardoning sinne as of his Justice in punishing it it being apparent that neither mercy in pardoning nor Justice in punishing can have place unlesse sinne be permitted to enter into the world Over and above this sinne is stiled unavoidable without all distinction such is the proper language of the Arminian Court we say all sinnes are avoydable by Grace and that no sinne can be avoided in an acceptable manner without Grace and here I speak not of grace restrayning only but of Grace sanctifying Here if it pleased him he might have put in Damnation also for sinne as without all doubt a principall meanes of promoting the manifestation of God's Justice and Thomas Aquinas expresly professeth that Reprobatio includit voluntatem permittendi culpam damnationem inferendi pro culpa Reprobatition includes God's will to permit sinne and to inflict Damnation for sinne here is the Decree concerning meanes And as for the end hereof both Aquinas and Alvarez after him professeth that the manifestation of God's glory in the way of vindicative Justice as intended by him as the end of all this 2. As for the Persons here named to take this way 1. Calvin though this Authour placeth him amongst the Supralapsarians yet Lubbertus doth not in his treatise of predestination but opposeth Vorstius in this particular Cornelius de Lapide a Jesuite upon the 18 verse of the 9 to the Romans agrees with Lubbertus in this Calvin's owne wordes are these de praedestinatione pag 710. Cum de Praedestinatione sermo habetur inde exordiendum esse constanter semper docui atque hodie doceo jure in morte relinqui omnes Reprobos qui in Adam mortui sunt ac damnati jure periere qui naturâ sunt filii irae When we treate of Praedestination I ever taught and to this day teach that we ought to begin it from thence That all Reprobates are justly left in death who are dead in Adam and damned and that they justly perish who by nature are children of wrath 2. Lubbertus shewes Beza also to concurre in the same 3. Piscator in a small Treatise of the object of Predestination annexed to his answer to Hemnigius of universall Grace though he makes the Decree of making all men in Adam to different ends and of permitting them to fall in Adam to precede the consideration of the Corrupt Masse as it is evident they must Yet the Decrees of Election and Reprobation he subordinates to the foresight of the corrupt Masse 4. And as for Zanchy let but his Generall definitition of Predestination be considered it will appeare that he distinguisheth the particulars of the Decree of Predestination as Piscator doth 2. I come to the second opinion and as for the great inconveniencies which here is pretended that the Authours thereof desire to decline I have answered hereunto upon the Treatise of M. Hord and shewed that not so much to decline inconveniencies have some embraced this way as rather because this way seemes to be more familiar and plaine and chiefly because the formall Notions of the particulars of the Decrees of Election and Reprobation the one in the Generall seeming to be a worke of mercy the other of Justice seeme to suppose a consideration of man in the state of miserie But supposing that some might take this way to avoid inconveniencies yet I have shewed in my answer to Arminius that none of these are at all avoided this way And then againe both these opinions have I endeavoured to reconcile in my Vindiciae and withall shewed that the difference whatsoever it comes to is but in apice logico in a point of logick both sides concurring in the maintenance both of God's Soveraigne prerogative over his Creatures to make one vessell unto honour another unto dishonour by giving faith and repentance unto the one and denying it to others as also in the prerogative of Grace as only effectuall to the working of men unto faith and Repentance 2. God decrees both to Create all men in Adam and to permit them all to fall in Adam These be the Divine Decrees concerning meanes tending to the manifestation of his Glory in the way of Mercy and Justice except man were created no Glory at all could be manifested in him unlesse all were suffered to fall in Adam there were neither place for mercy nor Justice these are generall decrees concerning all then there are speciall degrees of difference to be joyned to these generall decrees 1. The one is of raising some out of sinne by Faith and Repentance and bestowing Salvation on them by way of reward for the manifestation of God's mercy 2. The other is of leaving others in sinne and permitting them finally to persevere therein and inflicting Damnation for their sinnes the end whereof is the manifestation of God's Justice The decree of manifesting these is alone the decree of the end all the rest are decrees of the meanes tending to these ends whereof the two first are generall and concerne all whether Elect or Reprobate the rest are speciall concerning either the Elect alone or the Reprobate alone 3. Now here is a colour cast as if the speciall Decrees did praemise the two generall Decrees But this is a mere colour as I have shewed you in my Vindiciae 2. And even they that take this way maintaine that God ordaines no man to Damnation but for sinne and that both actuall as well as originall which is utterly pretermitted by this Authour 3. The Scripture is expresse that of them that are called few are chosen 4. It is untrue that the Synod went this way they medled not at all with the ordering of God's decrees Mascovius also Professor of Divinitie at Franekar a violent and stiffe maintainer of the most unsavory speeches which have been uttered in this Controversie and one that undertooke in the very Synod to make good against Lubbert his fellow Professor that God did will sinnes ordaine men to sinne and would not at all that all men should be saved And besides this openly and peremptorily affirmed that except these things were held and maintained by them they could not possibly keep their owne ground but must come over to the Remonstrants This man was not only not censured but publiquely declared in the Synod to be pure and Orthodox and dismissed only with this kind and friendly motion That he should hereafter take heed of
saved as Prosper doth without assaying to cleare it by interpretation as Austin doth and will have it goe for a secret and withall he expresly concurres with Prosper in expressing first that God doth not give grace for mens good workes sake nor denyes it for their evill workes For the ages wherein God so plentifully communicated his grace were no better then the former Observe farther that Austin himselfe in his Enchiridion treating of this place of Paul God will have all to be saved after he hath given two interpretations thereof the last whereof interpreting it of genera singulorum not singula generum is most generally received as most congruous both to Scripture phrase in generall and in speciall unto this very text of Paul as Piscator observes and Vossius against himselfe improvidently confesseth Yet see the ingenuity of this great light in Gods Church If any man can give any other convenient interpretation let him provided we be not driven to deny the first article of Creed whereby we confesse that God is omnipotent And this I conceive proceeded out of a desire to hold up the meaning of that text to the uttermost that the very letter of it may be applyed so we might not be driwen to so foule an inconvenience as to say that God willeth that mans salvation which is never saved which is as much as to say that such a one therefore is not saved because God cannot save him Observe farther in the dayes of Hincmarus and Remigius these controversies being revived in the cause of Goteschalk the church of Lyons writes a booke wherein it treats of the meaning of this place of Paul whereof he gives fower expositions according to the antient fathers First That it is to be understood of genera singulorum not singula generum of all sorts of men not of all men of all sorts Secondly That none is saved but by the will of God Thirdly That God workes in us a will or a desire that all may be saved Fourthly That God will have all men to be saved if they will Then they propose their judgement concerning these fower expositions distinguishing betweene the three first and the last thus In the three first expositions of these words wherein it is sayd that God willeth all men to be saved no absurdity is to be found no repugnancy unto faith But as touching the fourth and the last here we are to take heed for it gives occasion to the Pelegian pravity in as much as it affirmes that God that he may save men doth exspect the wills of men Now this Pelagian pravity is the very substance of our Authours orthodoxy whom I deale with Against this errour sayth the Church of Lyons we read Definitions have beene made in the antient counsels of the fathers This I take out of the extracts which Vossius hath made out of that booke which goes under the name of the Church of Lyons in his Pelagian history l. 7. c. 4. p. 755 756. there is an addition of some few lines in the third Sect concerning Gods justice but they adde noe moment at all to the rest and therefore the answer made in that third Sect to M. Hord may suffice And in the same sect and subsection subordinate to the second assertion which he obtrudes upon the maintainers of the lower way which was this God hath determined for the sinne of Adam to cast away the greatest part of mankind for ever this Interpolation is inserted This is so cleare a case that Calvin with some others have not stickt to say that God may with as much justice determine men to hell the first way as the latter See Instit l. 3. cap. 23. s 7. Where against those who deny that Adam fell by Gods decree he reasoneth thus All men are made guilty of Adams sinne by Gods absolute decree alone Adam therefore sinned by this only decree What lets them it grāt that of one man which they must grant of all men And a little after he saith It is too absurd that these kind patrons of Gods justice should thus stumble at a straw and leap over a blocke God may with as much justice decree Adams sinne and mens damnation out of his only will and pleasure as out of that will and pleasure the involving of men in the guilt of the first sinne at and their damnation for it That is the substance of his reasoning To the same purpose speaketh Maccovius Fromhence we may see sayth he what to judge of that opinion of our adversaryes viz. That God cannot justly ordaine men to destruction without he consideration of sinne Let them tell me which is greater to impute to one man the sinne of another and punish him for it with eternall death or to ordaine simply without looking at sinne to destruction Surely no man will deny the first of these to be greater But this God may do without any wrong to iustice much more therefore may he do the other As touching the assertion it selfe here charged upon our Divines namely that God hath determined for the sinne of Adame to cast away the greatest part of mankind I have thereunto answered at large in my consideration of M. Hords discourse Yet let me adde something by way of an apt accommodation of that before delivered to cleare the ambiguous phrase of this Authour as touching the phrase of casting away For it may well be doubted whether by casting away which he makes the Object of Gods determination he meanes the act of damnation or the act of denying grace If the act of damnation it is most untrue For Reprobates are not damned for originall sinne only but for all the actuall sinnes that have beene committed by them And as they are and shall be damned for them So God from everlasting decreed they should be damned for them Secondly According to my Tenet in noe moment of nature is Gods decree of damning reprobates before the prescience not of originall sinne only but also of all their actuall sinnes Indeed I do not make the prescience of sinne to go before the decree of damnation Nor do I make the decree of damnation to go before the prescience of sinne but I conceive them to be simultaneous It is true many infants we say perish in originall sinne only not living to be guilty of any actuall sinne of their persons why should this seeme strange when M. Hord himselfe professeth in his preface sect 4. That all mankind are involved in the guilt of eternall death If all are guilty of eternall death then it were just with God to inflict eternall death upon all for originall sinne How much more is it just to inflict eternall death upon some few being guilty of it Therefore observe the foxlike cariage of this Authour For this former free acknowledgement of the guilt of eternall death adherent to originall sinne in M Hords discourse is quite left out in this though there it was professed with
right accommodating it for your words are these If any decree be concerning the working of a certaine effect in such a subject as cannot possibly exist without the producing of that subject then we may suppose that he doth first decree thus you would say though indeed you say otherwise to produce that subject and afterwards to worke such an effect thereupon which in plaine tearmes is to argue thus The permission of Adams sinne presupposeth the creation of Adam therefore the decree of peâ— to create Adams sinne presupposeth the decree of Adams creation Now this is the Resp â—gh way to Arminianisme and Pelagianisme in the highest decree as I shewed you in my first the evidence whereof as it seemes drave you to acknowledge it and to devise some other course for maintenance of the Tenet of massa corrupta yet thro ghout all the reason you give is resolved into this for as there I said herehence it will follow in like manner that because damnation presupposeth all actuall sinnes therefore the decree of damnation presupposeth the decree of permitting of all actuall sinnes and consequently the foresight of them In like manner because salvation presupposeth all manner of good workes in men of ripe yeeres therefore the decree of salvation presupposeth the decree of giving effectuall grace for the performing of all manner of good workes and the foresight of them which is direct Pelagianisme in the highest degree And these considerations perswade me better than heretofore that the maintainers of massa corrupta for the object of predestination must be cast upon the maintenance of Arminianisme and Pelagianisme in the highest degree whether they will or no. 5. Conclusio quinta Gods decree to permit Peter to sinne in Adam is before his decree to manifest his mercy in Peter by occasion of this sinne ex Thes 9. Resp 1. Your Thesis Nona I have already answered 2. Gods decree to permit Peter to sinne in Adam is no more before his decree to manifest his mercy by occasion of that sinne than Gods decree to permit Peters personall sinnes all his life long is before his decree to manifest his mercy in pardoning them And what place you make for these decrees whether in election or out of election you have no where shewed 3. God doth manifest his mercy by occasion of Peters sinnes both originall and actuall not onely in the way of pardoning sinne but in the way of saving his person in despight of sinne whence it followeth by the course of your argumentation that the decree of permitting all Peters sinnes throughout the whole course of his life precedes the decree of manifesting Gods mercy in his salvation 4. And because Gods decree of saving Peter is a decree of doing somewhat by occasion of Peters faith and repentance and good workes it followeth by your manner of reasoning that the decree of saving Peter presupposeth the decree of giving Peter faith and repentance and good workes 6. Conclusio sexta Gods decree to produce the person of Judas is before his decree of manifesting his justice in Judas his person Thes 8. Resp This is all one with Conclusio quarta and admits the same refutation 7. Conclusio septima Gods decree to permit Judas to sinne in Adam is before his decree to manifest his justice in Judas by occasion of that sinne Resp 1. This is all one with conclusio quinta and admits the same answer 2. Why doe you say by occasion of that sinne and not by reason of that sinne perhaps you will say because that sinne is not the cause of Judas his damnation for I cannot devise any other reason but this is not sound for that sinne is the meritorious cause of Judas his damnation For though he be damned for actuall sinnes yet is he damned for originall also Againe many thousand infants are damned onely for originall sinne 3. May you not as well say that Gods decree to permit Iudas his personall sinnes is before his decree to manifest his justice in Iudas by occasion of those sinnes and consider I pray how little agreeable that is to your Tenet 4. And if the decree of permitting Iudas his personall sinnes be before Gods decree of punishing him with damnation why should not the decree of giving faith and repentance and good workes be before Gods decree of rewarding with salvation 8. Conclusio octava Gods decree to manifest his mercy in Peter or to make Peter a vessell of mercy which is properly decretum electionis is before his decree to call Peter to give him faith and repentance c. because that is a decree de fine this de medio Resp 1. I doe not dislike the order of these decrees but I say there is no congruity between them such as should be between the ends and the meanes For there is no shew of mercy expressed in giving faith and repentance but onely implyed in as much as both faith and repentance implies a state of misery preceding the permission whereof alone hath congruous reference to the shewing of mercy as the meanes stand in congraity to the end Faith and repentance and good workes are means tending to another end namely to the manifesting of Gods remunerative justice for as much as God meanes to bestow salvation on men of ripe yeares by way of reward of their faith repentance and good workes And it is without all contradiction that in Peter and every elect appeares not onely Gods mercy but his justice also and that in the highest degree both in the pardoning of their sinnes and saving of their soules for the merits of Christ Jesus And God hath ordained his sonne to give salvation Iob. 17. 2. 2. And I wonder not a little that you should subordinate any Medium tending to the demonstration of Gods mercy rather than the permission of misery 3. Especially considering that God when he purposed to shew mercy on Peter he purposed to shew mercy on him 1. In pardoning not onely his sinne originall but all his actuall sinnes also 2. In saving him not onely in despight of sinne originall but in despight of all his actuall sinnes also Neither have you any way to avoid this but by saying that God made Peter a double vessell of mercy and that by two decrees which I thinke was never heard of since the world began 9. Conclusie Nona Gods decree to manifest his justice in Judas or to make Judas a vessell of wrath which is properly the decree of reprobation is before his decree to deny Judas faith and repentance c. by the same reason Resp Here againe you erre marvelously in making a Medium most incongruous to the end intended To deny faith and repentance what is it more than not to give it and by faith you meane I doubt not faith in Christ crucified c. But it is cleare that God gave no such faith and repentance unto the elect Angells yet farre be it from us to thinke that this was a medium tending