A64002:292
The riches of Gods love unto the vessels of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessels of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entitled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two books, the first being a refutation of the said book, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hord's discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceals his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twice ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twice from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeans ...The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessells of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entituled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two bookes, the first being a refutation of the said booke, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hords discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceales his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twisse ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twisse from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeanes ...
Oxford: printed by L.L. and H.H. for Tho. Robinson, 1653
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Farther consider that as touching predestination it self, there was no question moved thereabouts in the Church of God, before the days of Pelagius; and what credit can they get, who consult with them in such points, wherein they were not exercised. For we find by experience, that to contend with Heretics hath been an ordinary means in the course of Gods providence, for the more diligent inquisition after the truth of God and happy discovery thereof. Sancta Ecclesia (saith Gregory) in 1suâ semper eruditione instruitur, dumb Haereticorum quaestionibus impugnatur. And Austin in like manner, Didiscimus, saith he, singulas quasque Haereses intulisse Ecclesiae proprias questions, contra quas diligentius defenderetur scriptura divina, quam si nulla talis necessitas cogeret. And on the other side, before question hath been moved on a point, the Fathers have delivered themselves somewhat improvidently, whereupon Heretics have taken advantage to countenance their errors by the writings of the Ancient. This Hierome observes in the point of Arianism, proving thereby, that the Ancient 2Writers before the Arian Heresy arose, were no competent judges in that point. Si me causas vitiorum (saith he) in Patrum Scriptis nescire respondero non statim illos Haereticos judicabo. Fieri enim potest ut vel simpliciter erraverint, vel alio sensu scripserint, vel a Librariis imperitis eorum paulatim scripta corrupta sunt, vel certè antequam in Alexandriâ quasi daemonium Meridianum Arrius nasceretur. Innocenter quaedam & minus cautè locuti sunt & quae non possunt perversorum hominum calumniam declinare. Mark it well, Before Arrius like a Devil from the South rose up, the Fathers delivered some things innocently, yet lose warily, and such as cannot avoid the calumny of perverse persons. Upon the same ground it is, that Austin excuseth Ticonius, and that in 3the same particular wherein he approached near to Pelagianism, to wit, before the Church of God was acquainted with that Heresy; his words are these, Sed non erat expertus hanc Haeresin Ticonius quae nostro tempore exorta multum nos, ut gratia Dei quae per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum est adversus eos defenderemus, exercuit; & secundum id quod ait Apostolus, Oportet Haereses esse ut probati manifesti fiant in vobis, multò vigilantiores diligentioresque reddidit:
Farther consider that as touching predestination it selfe, there was no question moved thereabouts in the Church of God, before the daies of Pelagius; and what credit can they get, who consult with them in such points, wherein they were not exercised. For we find by experience, that to contend with Heretiques hath been an ordinary means in the course of Gods providence, for the more diligent inquisition after the truth of God and happy discovery thereof. Sancta Ecclesia (saith Gregory) in 1suâ semper eruditione instruitur, dum Haereticorum quaestionibus impugnatur. And Austin in like manner, Didiscimus, saith he, singulas quasque Haereses intulisse Ecclesiae proprias quaestiones, contra quas diligentius defenderetur scriptura divina, quam si nulla talis necessitas cogeret. And on the other side, before question hath been moved on a poynt, the Fathers have delivered themselves somewhat improvidently, whereupon Heretiques have taken advantage to countenance their errours by the writings of the Ancient. This Hierome observes in the poynt of Arrianisme, proving thereby, that the Ancient 2Writers before the Arrian Heresy arose, were no competent judges in that poynt. Si me causas vitiorum (saith he) in Patrum Scriptis nescire respondero non statim illos Haereticos judicabo. Fieri enim potest ut vel simpliciter erraverint, vel alio sensu scripserint, vel a Librariis imperitis eorum paulatim scripta corrupta sunt, vel certè antequam in Alexandriâ quasi daemonium Meridianum Arrius nasceretur. Innocenter quaedam & minus cautè locuti sunt & quae non possunt perversorum hominum calumniam declinare. Marke it well, Before Arrius like a Devill from the South rose up, the Fathers delivered some things innocently, yet lese warily, and such as cannot avoid the calumny of perverse persons. Upon the same ground it is, that Austin excuseth Ticonius, and that in 3the same particular wherein he approached neere to Pelagianisme, to wit, before the Church of God was acquainted with that Heresy; his words are these, Sed non erat expertus hanc Haeresin Ticonius quae nostro tempore exorta multum nos, ut gratia Dei quae per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum est adversus eos defenderemus, exercuit; & secundum id quod ait Apostolus, Oportet Haereses esse ut probati manifesti fiant in vobis, multò vigilantiores diligentioresque reddidit:
ut advérteremus in scripturis Sanctis, quod istum Ticonium minús attentum, minusque sine host sollicitum, fugit, etiam ipsam scilicet fidem donum illius ese, qui ejus mensuram unicuique partitur. Ticonius considered not that faith it self is the gift of God, neither was he so careful to look into the truth of this; and why? surely because he had no enemy to put him to it, as being not ⟨p. 48⟩acquainted with the error of Pelagius. But this Heresy, saith he, arising in our days, hath put us upon the defence of the grace of God, which is given us through our Lord Jesus Christ, and hath made us more watchful and diligent to observe, that even faith it self is his gift, who distributes to every one a measure thereof. Hence it is that the same Austin, when Prosper signified that those of Marseilles would rest contented if he could make good the opinion which he maintained in the point of predestination, out of the Writings of the former, and more ancient Divines, returns for answer, that there was no need hereof, considering that They living before this Heresy was known, (to wit, of Pelagius) were not at all put upon the discussing of this question, which surely they would have done, had they been constrained 1to make answer to any such as the Pelagians were. See his own words, Si hujus sententiae defensionem ex divinorum eloquiorum nos praecedentibus Catholicis tractatoribus promerem, profectò hi Fratres quibuscum nos agimus, acquiescerent. Hoc enim significastis Literis vestris. This was Prosper's motion; now mark Austin's answer. Quid igitur opus est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula, qui priusquam ista Haeresis oriretur, non habueruni necessitatem in hac difficili ad solvendum quaestione versari, quod proculdubio facerent, si respondere talibus cogerentur. Charity did suggest unto him, this would have been their course, had they been exercised with Pelagius, as he was. For it was his own case. For there was a time when himself thought that albeit holiness and good works consequent to faith together with salvation, were the work of God, yet faith it self he conceived to be the work of man; to wit, before he was exercised with Pelagius as appears, Liber Propositionum ex Epistolâ and Romanos.
ut advérteremus in scripturis Sanctis, quod istum Ticonium minús attentum, minusque sine hoste sollicitum, fugit, etiam ipsam scilicet fidem donum illius ese, qui ejus mensuram unicuique partitur. Ticonius considered not that faith it selfe is the gift of God, neither was he so carefull to look into the truth of this; and why? surely because he had no enemy to put him to it, as being not
Non ergo elegit Deus opera cujusque in praescientiâ, sed fidem elegit in praescientiâ, vel quem sibi crediturum esse praescivit, ipsum elegit cui Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bona operando eriam vitam aeternam consequeretur. For he professeth in the words following that he then conceived, Nostrum esse credere, to believe was a work of our own. Afterwards he retracteth this, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 25. professing, I had never said this, had I known faith it self to be the gift of God, Si scivissem fidem ipsam inter Dei munera quae dantur per Spiritum Sanctum reperiri. Nam quamvis credere & operari utrumque nostrum sit propter liberum voluntatis arbitrium & quae non nisi volentibus nobis fiunt, utrumque Dei donum est qui & credere, & velle, & perficere subministrat. The Papists themselves, notwithstanding the great devotion they pretend towards the Ancients, yet are driven to devise what may be said to excuse them; as in the very point of Free-will they desire to excuse Chrysostom. Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth••. lib. 5. annotat. 101. Uel dicendum est sicut etiam Annianus in Praefatione Commentariorum Chryjostomi in Math. annotavit Chrysostomum interdum naturae nostrae vires plus aequo extulisse ex contentione disceptandi cum Manichaeis & Gentilibus, qui hominem asserebant vel naturâ malum vel fati violentia ad peccandum compelli. Nay what think we of Vossius himself, from whose labours it is, and nothing of their own, that our Arminians would seem to breath so much Antiquity. This Vossius professeth, they mistake him that taketh him to be of any other opinion in the point of predestination, then Austin was of. De Historicis Lat. lib. 2. cap. 17. Yet doth he acknowledge that Austin did reject the opinion of the Ancients both Greeks and Latins who went before him, in the point of predestination. Histor. Pelag. pag. 655. Patres Graeci & Latinorum illi qui ante Augustinum vixerunt, ipseque aliquandiu Augustinus, verba Apostoli interpretari solent de electione quorundam ad salutem secundum fidem & pietatem praevisam; & aliorum reprobatione aeterna ob praescientiam malorum operum quae in vita acturi essent. Sed Augustinus (here comes in the Adversative) rejectâ hâc opinion existimabat Apostolorum loqui de quorundam electione ad vitam, aliorum item praeteritione, non habitâ vel in his vel in illis ratione, sive bonorum, sive etiam malorum quae personalia forent.
Non ergo elegit Deus opera cujusque in praescientiâ, sed fidem elegit in praescientiâ, vel quem sibi crediturum esse praescivit, ipsum elegit cui Spiritum Sanctum daret, ut bona operando eriam vitam aeternam consequeretur. For he professeth in the words following that he then conceived, Nostrum esse credere, to believe was a work of our own. Afterwards he retracteth this, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 25. professing, I had never said this, had I known faith it selfe to be the gift of God, Si scivissem fidem ipsam inter Dei munera quae dantur per Spiritum Sanctum reperiri. Nam quamvis credere & operari utrumque nostrum sit propter liberum voluntatis arbitrium & quae non nisi volentibus nobis fiunt, utrumque Dei donum est qui & credere, & velle, & perficere subministrat. The Papists themselves, notwithstanding the great devotion they pretend towards the Ancients, yet are driven to devise what may be said to excuse them; as in the very point of Free-will they desire to excuse Chrysostome. Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth. lib. 5. annotat. 101. Uel dicendum est sicut etiam Annianus in Praefatione Commentariorum Chryjostomi in Math. annotavit Chrysostomum interdum naturae nostrae vires plus aequo extulisse ex contentione disceptandi cum Manichaeis & Gentilibus, qui hominem asserebant vel naturâ malum vel fati violentia ad peccandum compelli. Nay what think we of Vossius himselfe, from whose labours it is, and nothing of their own, that our Arminians would seem to breath so much Antiquity. This Vossius professeth, they mistake him that taketh him to be of any other opinion in the poynt of predestination, then Austin was of. De Historicis Lat. lib. 2. cap. 17. Yet doth he acknowledge that Austin did reject the opinion of the Ancients both Greeks and Latines who went before him, in the point of predestination. Histor. Pelag. pag. 655. Patres Graeci & Latinorum illi qui ante Augustinum vixerunt, ipseque aliquandiu Augustinus, verba Apostoli interpretari solent de electione quorundam ad salutem secundum fidem & pietatem praevisam; & aliorum reprobatione aeterna ob praescientiam malorum operum quae in vita acturi essent. Sed Augustinus (here comes in the Adversative) rejectâ hâc opinione existimabat Apostolorum loqui de quorundam electione ad vitam, aliorum item praeteritione, non habitâ vel in his vel in illis ratione, sive bonorum, sive etiam malorum quae personalia forent.
And which is more then this, Pag. 653. professeth a third interpretation of that passage Rom. 9. 11, 12, 13. differing both from Austins interpretation, and from that of the Fathers Greek and Latin that went before him, and makes it disputable, which is truest, though this third opinion hath no footstep amongst the Ancients, and thus he carrieth himself, notwithstanding all the pretence of his reverence of Antiquity. And to vindicate Austins interpretation, as well as the rest, from countenancing absolute reprobation, he calls in to help at a dead lift, the doctrine of the Jesuits, concerning Scientia Media. And I desire upon no better terms to contend then this in Scholastical Divinity, whether this doctrine be not a most unsober invention without all ground. And ⟨p. 49⟩whereas Vossius acknowledgeth Austins opinion to be for the absoluteness of election (and he professeth himself to be of Austins opinion.) I dare appeal to any learned Divines sober judgement, whether this doctrine of Scientia Media doth not equally justify the absoluteness of reprobation, as the absoluteness of election. Yet after all this, I would not have any think, that I reject any of these ancient Fathers, that seem to be most opposite to Austins opinion in the point of predestination. I think they may be fairly and Scholastically reconciled without acknowledging so much difference between them, as Vossius maketh, and that by such an interpretation as sometimes is admitted by Vossius himself, of his own phrase of his own distinction, though he dreams not of the appliable nature of the same to the will of God in predestination. His distinction is of Voluntas Dei antecedens, & voluntas consequens; and this he makes equivalent to that other distinction of the will of 1God, to wit, Absoluta & Conditionalis. Now this Conditional will of God he interprets not quoad actum volentis, but quoad Res volitas: Like as Doctor Jackson professeth
For though sin be acknowledged to be the cause of the will of God in reprobation quoad res volitas, that is, in respect of the punishment willed thereby, this hinders not the absoluteness of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis. And unless we understand the Fathers thus, we must necessarily charge them with such an opinion, whereof Aquinas is bold to profess, That never any man was so mad as to affirm, to wit, that any merits should be the cause of Predestination quoad actum praedestinantis. And why so? to wit, because predestination is the act of Gods will, and there can be no cause of Gods will quoad actum volentis. Now who seeth not that by the same reason there can be no cause of divine reprobation quoad actum reprobantis; for even reprobation is the act of Gods will, as well as predestination, and every way it must be as mad a thing to devise a cause of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis.
For though sinne be acknowledged to be the cause of the will of God in reprobation quoad res volitas, that is, in respect of the punishment willed thereby, this hinders not the absolutenesse of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis. And unlesse we understand the Fathers thus, we must necessarily charge them with such an opinion, whereof Aquinas is bold to professe, That never any man was so madde as to affirme, to wit, that any merits should be the cause of Predestination quoad actum praedestinantis. And why so? to wit, because predestination is the act of Gods will, and there can be no cause of Gods will quoad actum volentis. Now who seeth not that by the same reason there can be no cause of divine reprobation quoad actum reprobantis; for even reprobation is the act of Gods will, as well as predestination, and every way it must be as madde a thing to devise a cause of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis.
They did all generally agree, saith this Author, upon the contrary conclusion. Now the contrary Conclusion to absolute and unavoidable reprobation is to maintain conditional and avoidable reprobation; but this is not the contrary conclusion here specified by this Author, but rather that damnation was avoidable, such is his loose discourse; whereas there is no question at all concerning damnation, whether it be conditional or absolute. We all confessing, that like as salvation is not ordained to befall any man of ripe years, but upon the performance of faith and repentance and final perseverance therein; so damnation is not ordained to be the portion of any, but upon their final perseverance in sin. In like sort as touching the possibility of salvation, not one Divine of ours, that I know, denies the possibility of any mans salvation while he lives in this World. Doctor Jackson indeed hath an opinion, that a man may proceed so far in sin in this life, that the door of repentance may be shut upon him. We have no such opinion; We acknowledge, that as God calls some at the first hour, so may some be called at the last hour of the day, yea the Thief upon the Cross, yea, inter Pontem & Fontem. In a word, We say plainly, that it is possible for any man at any time to be saved by grace giving repentance: without repentance none can be saved; which is, I presume, without question between us. In like sort it is possible for any man to repent, provided that God be pleased to give him repentance, and whether God will give him repentance or no we know not. Therefore the Apostle instructs Timothy after this manner, The servant of the Lord must not strive, but must be gentle towards all men, apt to teach, suffering the evil, instructing them with meekness that be contrary minded, [Greek or Hebrew], if at any time God may give them repentance, that they may acknowledge the truth and come to amendment out of the snare of the Devil, of whom they are taken Prisoners to do his Will. Here is clearly an acknowledgement of a possibility of repentance, sooner or later, but upon the gift of God, not otherwise.
They did all generally agree, saith this Author, upon the contrary conclusion. Now the contrary Conclusion to absolute and unavoidable reprobation is to maintain conditionall and avoidable reprobation; but this is not the contrary conclusion here specified by this Author, but rather that damnation was avoydable, such is his loose discourse; whereas there is no question at all concerning damnation, whether it be conditionall or absolute. We all confessing, that like as salvation is not ordained to befall any man of ripe years, but upon the performance of faith and repentance and finall perseverance therein; so damnation is not ordained to be the portion of any, but upon their finall perseverance in sinne. In like sort as touching the possibility of salvation, not one Divine of ours, that I know, denyes the possibility of any mans salvation while he lives in this World. Doctor Jackson indeed hath an opinion, that a man may proceed so farre in sinne in this life, that the doore of repentance may be shut upon him. Wee have no such opinion; We acknowledge, that as God calls some at the first houre, so may some be called at the last houre of the day, yea the Thiefe upon the Crosse, yea, inter Pontem & Fontem. In a word, We say plainly, that it is possible for any man at any time to be saved by grace giving repentance: without repentance none can be saved; which is, I presume, without question between us. In like sort it is possible for any man to repent, provided that God be pleased to give him repentance, and whether God will give him repentance or no we know not. Therefore the Apostle instructs Timothy after this manner, The servant of the Lord must not strive, but must be gentle towards all men, apt to teach, suffering the evill, instructing them with meeknesse that be contrary minded, , if at any time God may give them repentance, that they may acknowledge the truth and come to amendment out of the snare of the Devill, of whom they are taken Prisoners to doe his Will. Here is clearely an acknowledgement of a possibility of repentance, sooner or later, but upon the gift of God, not otherwise.
The contrary opinion whereunto, this Author seemeth in this passage very strongly to savour of, but allegeth not one Father for the proof of it, to give us some document of his judicious ⟨p. 50⟩carriage in the survey of the Fathers which here he pretends to have been made by him, and that with very great ostentation; Yet I seem to be very well acquainted with the spirit that breatheth here; and I wonder the passages of the Ancients to this purpose (which yet I am persuaded are nothing to the purpose) are not collected out of Doctor Usher's discourse In causa Godaeschalci inscribed to Gerardus Vossius; and I doubt not but the issue will be this, that God is ready to give all men repentance in case they perform somewhat; and so the grace of repentance shall be given according to mens works, which was condemned 1200 years ago in the Synod of Palestine, and ever since accounted no better then flat Pelagianism. And which is worse then this, as that which stands in opposition to common sense, they will be driven to profess, that God is ready to give a reprobate repentance, in case he will repent, yea the very will to repent, in case he will repent. This desperate resolution I have already found by experience, and if I be not deceived, breathed by the very same spirit that breatheth here.
The contrary opinion whereunto, this Author seemeth in this passage very strongly to savour of, but alleageth not one Father for the proofe of it, to give us some document of his judicious ⟨p. 50⟩carriage in the survey of the Fathers which here he pretends to have been made by him, and that with very great ostentation; Yet I seem to be very well acquainted with the spirit that breatheth here; and I wonder the passages of the Ancients to this purpose (which yet I am perswaded are nothing to the purpose) are not collected out of Doctor Ushar's discourse In causa Godaeschalci inscribed to Gerardus Vossius; and I doubt not but the issue will be this, that God is ready to give all men repentance in case they performe somewhat; and so the grace of repentance shall be given according to mens works, which was condemned 1200 years agoe in the Synod of Palestine, and ever since accounted no better then flat Pelagianisme. And which is worse then this, as that which stands in opposition to common sense, they wil be driven to professe, that God is ready to give a reprobate repentance, in case he will repent, yea the very will to repent, in case he will repent. This desperate resolution I have already found by experience, and if I be not deceived, breathed by the very same spirit that breatheth heere.
At length we are like to receive an account of this Authors judicious survey of the Ancients out of Calvin and Beza. Neque haec vulgò recepta opinio solius vulgi est; (saith Calvin) habuit enim saeculis omnibus magnos authores. To this I answer,
1. That this is far from justifying, that absolute reprobation, and absolute election had no footing in Antiquity, that the Upper way was never taught for the space of 600 years, nor the Lower way till the time of St Austin. Though in all ages it had great Authors to impugn it, yet it might also have in all ages as great Authors to maintain it, and more too, for ought these words of Calvin in his opinion do manifest to the contrary.
1. That this is farre from justifying, that absolute reprobation, and absolute election had no footing in Antiquity, that the Upper way was never taught for the space of 600 years, nor the Lower way till the time of St Austin. Though in all ages it had great Authors to impugne it, yet it might also have in all ages as great Authors to maintain it, and more too, for ought these words of Calvin in his opinion doe manifest to the contrary.
2. Albeit not some but all had maintained election and reprobation to proceed according to foreknowledge of mens works, yet this nothing hinders the absoluteness either of election or reprobation. For consider, it is one thing to speak of election unto grace, another to speak of election unto glory; one thing to speak of reprobation, as it signifies a purpose to deny grace, another thing to speak of it, as it signifies a purpose to inflict damnation. It was never known I think, that any maintained, that God upon the foresight of mens faith, did elect them unto faith, or purpose to give them faith; or that God foreseeing men would not believe, nor repent, did decree that they should neither believe nor repent. Upon which brainsick conceit our Arminians are cast now a days, and all the embracers of Scientia Media: But many of them professed indeed that God did decree to bestow salvation upon them whom he foresaw would finally persevere in faith and repentance; and to damn those whom he foresaw would finally persevere in infidelity or impenitency. We acknowledge as much as they, but still the way is open to enquire of the order of these, namely, Whether the foresight of faith and repentance were before the decree of salvation, or after it, or simultaneous with it: Whether the foresight of infidelity and impenitency were before the decree of damnation, or after it, or simultaneous with it; but where is any such question to be found amongst the Ancients? We willingly profess that God did not purpose to bestow eternal life on any of ripe years, but as a reward of their faith and repentance and good works; that God did not purpose to inflict damnation on any of ripe years, but as a condigne punishment of their final infidelity and impenitency; and the Ancients who maintained that God decreed to save some and damn others, according to his prescience of the piety of the one, and impiety of the other, had no other meaning that I know, or this Author is able to make good, or any other, as I am persuaded.
2. Albeit not some but all had maintained election and reprobation to proceed according to foreknowledge of mens works, yet this nothing hinders the absolutenesse either of election or reprobation. For consider, it is one thing to speak of election unto grace, another to speak of election unto glory; one thing to speak of reprobation, as it signifies a purpose to deny grace, another thing to speak of it, as it signifies a purpose to inflict damnation. It was never known I think, that any maintained, that God upon the foresight of mens faith, did elect them unto faith, or purpose to give them faith; or that God foreseeing men would not believe, nor repent, did decree that they should neither believe nor repent. Upon which brainsick conceit our Arminians are cast now a daies, and all the embracers of Scientia Media: But many of them professed indeed that God did decree to bestow salvation upon them whom he foresaw would finally persevere in faith and repentance; and to damne those whom he foresaw would finally persevere in infidelity or impenitency. We acknowledge as much as they, but still the way is open to enquire of the order of these, namely, Whether the foresight of faith and repentance were before the decree of salvation, or after it, or simultaneous with it: Whether the foresight of infidelity and impenitency were before the decree of damnation, or after it, or simultaneous with it; but where is any such question to be found amongst the Ancients? We willingly professe that God did not purpose to bestow eternall life on any of ripe years, but as a reward of their faith and repentance and good workes; that God did not purpose to inflict damnation on any of ripe years, but as a condigne punishment of their finall infidelity and impenitency; and the Ancients who maintained that God decreed to save some and damne others, according to his prescience of the piety of the one, and impiety of the other, had no other meaning that I know, or this Author is able to make good, or any other, as I am perswaded.
3. But let us farther enquire what those Ancients thought concerning faith and repentance; as whether they thought them to be the gifts of God, or no; dares this Author or any Arminian deny, they maintained them to be the gifts of God, the Scripture being so full and express for this? Secondly, enquire what their opinion was concerning the manner how God gave faith to one, and not to another, as 'tis manifest he did not, he doth not give it to all; as namely, whether it was of the mere pleasure of God, that he converted some, and not others; or whether he bestowed faith on some, and not on others, because he found those some to have prepared themselves for the receiving of faith, not so others. If it was of the mere pleasure of God, it manifestly followeth, that election unto grace and reprobation from grace, was absolute: which is the main thing in question in these our days. For we who are accounted most rigid herein, do not affect to say, That God decreed to save ⟨p. 51⟩whom he will, or to damn whom he will; but to the contrary we say, God decreed to save none, but such as believe and repent, and to damn none, but such as dye in infidelity or impenitency: but we profess willingly, that God decreed to bestow faith and repentance on whom he would, and deny it to whom he would, the Scripture being express, that God hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. And Austin is most frequent in this profession, and this is that Grace which he acknowledgeth to be the foundation of predestination, and wherein both Cyprian, and Nazianzene, and Ambrose did agree with him. And Ambrose in special sort he magnifies for this profession. And Calvin hereupon observes, that whereas the Pelagians charged him, with differing from the ancients herein. Valet Augustini testimonium, saith he, apud eos, qui libenter in Patrum authoritate acquiescunt. Quanquam non patitur Augustinus see a reliquis disjungi, sed claris testimoniis divortium hoc cujus invidia gravabant eum Pelagiani, ostendit falsum esse. Citat enim ex Ambrosio (lib. de Praedestin. sanct. cap. 19.) Christus quem dignatur vocat (here is the critical point of this question concerning the absoluteness of election and reprobation) Item si voluisset ex indevotis fecisset devotos. Sed Deus quos dignatur vocat, & quem vult religiosum facit.
3. But let us farther enquire what those Ancients thought concerning faith and repentance; as whether they thought them to be the gifts of God, or no; dares this Author or any Arminian deny, they maintained them to be the gifts of God, the Scripture being so full and expresse for this? Secondly, enquire what their opinion was concerning the manner how God gave faith to one, and not to another, as 'tis manifest he did not, he doth not give it to all; as namely, whether it was of the meer pleasure of God, that he converted some, and not others; or whether he bestowed faith on some, and not on others, because he found those some to have prepared themselves for the receiving of faith, not so others. If it was of the meer pleasure of God, it manifestly followeth, that election unto grace and reprobation from grace, was absolute: which is the main thing in question in these our daies. For we who are accounted most rigid herein, doe not affect to say, That God decreed to save
Si ex Augustino integrum volumen contexere libeat, lectoribus ostendere promptum esset mihi non nisi ejus verbis opus esse: sed eos prolixitate onerare nolo. This was Calvins judgement, as touching the judgement of Antiquity in this.
4. Yet I confess there was a time when Austin did not conceive faith to be amongst the gifts of Gods spirit, but being exercised with the Pelagians, he came to acknowledge the special grace of God in this; and hereupon made faith an effect of predestination, and not any precedent thereunto, and doubts not, but the Fathers would have expressed as much, had they been exercised with the Pelagians as he was; for so much he signifies unto Prosper as before I showed, and withal shows how in the foundation of predestination they agreed with him, in as much as they agreed in the nature of grace, acknowledging the conversion of the heart to be the gift of God; And not they only, but the whole Catholic Church, as appeared by their common prayers, that God would convert the hearts of Infidels; and to say, that God doth not convert the hearts of men according to the mere pleasure of his will, but according to mens preparations, is clearly to maintain that God gave grace according unto works, which doctrine was generally exploded as mere Pelagianism.
4. Yet I confesse there was a time when Austin did not conceive faith to be amongst the gifts of Gods spirit, but being exercised with the Pelagians, he came to acknowledge the speciall grace of God in this; and hereupon made faith an effect of predestination, and not any precedent thereunto, and doubts not, but the Fathers would have expressed as much, had they been exercised with the Pelagians as he was; for so much he signifies unto Prosper as before I shewed, and withall shewes how in the foundation of predestination they agreed with him, in as much as they agreed in the nature of grace, acknowledging the conversion of the heart to be the gift of God; And not they only, but the whole Catholique Church, as appeared by their common prayers, that God would convert the hearts of Infidells; and to say, that God doth not convert the hearts of men according to the meer pleasure of his will, but according to mens preparations, is clearly to maintaine that God gave grace according unto works, which doctrine was generally exploded as meer Pelagianisme.
5. Suppose they did all acknowledge the decree of election and reprobation, to be conditional, yet if they interpreted this conditionally, not quoad actum Volentis, but quoad Res volitas, this is nothing opposite to the absoluteness of election and reprobation quoad actum elegentis and reprobantis, but only quoad res volitas, to wit, salvation on the one side, and damnation on the other side. And we willingly acknowledge that God hath not ordained that salvation or damnation shall befall any man but in case they believe and repent, or refuse to believe, or repent. Now that the Ancients did in this manner understand voluntas conditionata in God, Vossius himself (upon whom our Arminians do most depend as touching the authority of the Ancients) doth improvidently, and ere he is a ware, confess. Hist. Pelag. pag. 638. his words are these. Aliqua absolutè vult & simpliciter: quomodo creare mundum voluit & extremo die volet resurrectionem carnis. De qua voluntate intelligi debet illud, Psal. 115. 3. Deus noster in coelo, quaecunque voluit facit. & Apost. ad Rom. 9. 19. Voluntati ejus quis resistit? Aliqua item vult cum conditione quae idcirco in effectum non prodeunt nisi conditione impletâ: quomodo omnes homines salvari vult, sed per & propter Christum fide apprehensum. Atqui non omnes fide aphrehendunt Christum, sed absque paenitentiâ ac fide plurimi de hoc mundo decedunt. Quo respectu tales in aeternum statuit damnare. De conditionatâ illâ voluntate extant longè plurima apud Veteres Scriptores. Aliqua hoc loco ascribemus.
5. Suppose they did all acknowledge the decree of election and reprobation, to be conditionall, yet if they interpreted this conditionally, not quoad actum Volentis, but quoad Res volitas, this is nothing opposite to the absolutenesse of election and reprobation quoad actum elegentis and reprobantis, but only quoad res volitas, to wit, salvation on the one side, and damnation on the other side. And we willingly acknowledge that God hath not ordained that salvation or damnation shall befall any man but in case they believe and repent, or refuse to believe, or repent. Now that the Ancients did in this manner understand voluntas conditionata in God, Vossius himselfe (upon whom our Arminians doe most depend as touching the authority of the Ancients) doth improvidently, and ere he is a ware, confesse. Hist. Pelag. pag. 638. his words are these. Aliqua absolutè vult & simpliciter: quomodo creare mundum voluit & extremo die volet resurrectionem carnis. De qua voluntate intelligi debet illud,
Such indeed are Beza's words upon that of the Apostle, Who hath given first unto God? Rom. 11. 35. Est autem etiam hic locus (saith he) diligenter observandus adversus eos qui fidei, vel operum praevisionem faciunt electionis causam. In quem errorem sanc turpissimum. Origenes veteres plerosque tum Graecos tum Latinos adegit donec; tandem Dominus Augustinum per Pelagianos ad hunc agnoscendum & corrigendum errorem excitaret. The first part this Author conceals, it being by Beza delivered as touching election; and this Author deals purposely on reprobation only. The latter part likewise he passeth by; for Beza confines this which he saith of the Ancients to a certain time, namely, the time preceding the troubles raised by Pelagius. But this Author had rather it should run at random without any determination; and then again, the mentioning of Austin raised by God ⟨p. 52⟩upon occasion of Pelagius his doctrine, to take notice of this error, and correct it, he well saw was like enough to blast all the show he makes of the Ancients, especially considering how that Pelagian faction was not by Austin only, but by the Catholic Church of those days beaten down. And it is well known how the writings of Austin were countenanced, and how many Councils of those days, made decrees against the Pelagian Heresy. And for both these passages, it seems he was beholding to Vossius in his Pelagian History, Lib. 6. Thes. 8. which is this, Graeci Patres semper, Patrum verò Latinorum illi qui ante Augustinum vixerunt, dicere solent, eos esse praedestinatos ad vitam, quos Deus p•e recteque victuros praevidit, sive ut alii loquuntur quos praevidit credituros, & perseveraturos, &c. Quod ita interpretatur ut praedestinatio ad gloriam facta dicitur, secundum praescientiam fidei & perseverantiae. And next unto some passages alleged out of Origen he brings in these two passages of Beza and Calvin. Now it liked not this Author to take his course to begin with Clemens Alexandrinus, and his Scholar Origen, as Vossius doth: For albeit Origen was a man for his learning of great authority in the Church of God, in such sort that it was wont to be said, that Origenis ingenium Ecclesiae Sacramentum, and no marvel if many followed him, and 'tis usual even with Hierome in his Commentaries to follow him.
Such indeed are Beza's words upon that of the Apostle, Who hath given first unto God?
Yet after his death, his Writings were found at length to have a very ill savour in the Catholic Church. And amongst other foul opinions found in him, one nearly concerning this very particular we have in hand, was that which Vossius there delivers in this manner, Veterum multorum opinio est, putâsse eum animas corporibus vel praedestinatorum, vel reproborum uniri pro iis quae bene vel male egissent ante conditum corporeum hunc mundum. Judge I pray whether here be not a sweet nosegay for the Divill, as touching the foresight of works, not to come, but of works past before they were borne, and thereupon their souls united either to bodies predestinated unto life, or reprobated unto death. Yet Vossius would not have us think either Origen deceived by Clement (which no man ever said that I know, neither doth Vossius pretend any such thing) or that Chrysostom was deceived by them, or those that followed, by him, all this seems to be delivered only to cross Beza, who professed the Greek and Latin Fathers were deceived by Origen. Yet it is well known of what estimation Origen was in the Church, none of the others like him, but what is his reason? because forsooth Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 76. professeth that God did destinate heaven to them that should believe; and to them which should not believe, hell. But could he be ignorant that Fulgentius professeth the self same, lib. 1. ad Monimum; namely, Deum praedestinasse ad regnum quos ad se praescivit misericordiae praevenientis auxilio redituros, & in se misericordiae subsequentis auxilio esse mansuros. Yet this very Author in his Preface professeth that Fulgentius amongst others, albeit they maintained that God did destinate no others to salvation, then such as whom he foresaw by the pure gift of his grace, would have the beginnings of faith, and a good will, and persevere in good, yet notwithstanding they withal maintained, that this prescience divine of their faith and perseverance, did flow from Gods absolute decree to save them. Nay Austin himself in Joan. Tract. 42. (as Hunnius and others allege him, and I find it true) hath these words of those of whom our Saviour saith, Therefore you hear not, because ye are not of God; Praecogniti erant quòd non fuerant credituri eâ fide quâ solâ possint a peccatorum obligation liberari; and afterwards saith, secundum hanc praedestinationem loquutus est Dominus.
Yet after his death, his Writings were found at length to have a very ill savour in the Catholique Church. And amongst other foul opinions found in him, one nearly concerning this very particular we have in hand, was that which Vossius there delivers in this manner, Veterum multorum opinio est, putâsse eum animas corporibus vel praedestinatorum, vel reproborum uniri pro iis quae bene vel male egissent ante conditum corporeum hunc mundum. Judge I pray whether here be not a sweet nosegay for the Divill, as touching the foresight of works, not to come, but of works past before they were borne, and thereupon their soules united either to bodies predestinated unto life, or reprobated unto death. Yet Vossius would not have us think either Origen deceived by Clement (which no man ever said that I know, neither doth Vossius pretend any such thing) or that Chrysostome was deceived by them, or those that followed, by him, all this seems to be delivered only to crosse Beza, who professed the Greek and Latine Fathers were deceived by Origen. Yet it is well known of what estimation Origen was in the Church, none of the others like him, but what is his reason? because forsooth Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 76. professeth that God did destinate heaven to them that should believe; and to them which should not believe, hell. But could he be ignorant that Fulgentius professeth the selfe same, lib. 1. ad Monimum; namely, Deum praedestinasse ad regnum quos ad se praescivit misericordiae praevenientis auxilio redituros, & in se misericordiae subsequentis auxilio esse mansuros. Yet this very Author in his Preface professeth that Fulgentius amongst others, albeit they maintained that God did destinate no others to salvation, then such as whom he foresaw by the pure gift of his grace, would have the beginnings of faith, and a good will, and persevere in good, yet notwithstanding they withall maintained, that this prescience divine of their faith and perseverance, did flow from Gods absolute decree to save them. Nay Austin himselfe in Joan. Tract. 42. (as Hunnius and others alleage him, and I find it true) hath these words of those of whom our Saviour saith, Therefore you heare not, because ye are not of God; Praecogniti erant quòd non fuerant credituri eâ fide quâ solâ possint a peccatorum obligatione liberari; and afterwards saith, secundum hanc praedestinationem loquutus est Dominus.
And which is more then this, Pag. 653. professeth a third interpretation of that passage Rom. 9. 11, 12, 13. differing both from Austins interpretation, and from that of the Fathers Greeke and Latine that went before him, and makes it disputable, which is truest, though this third opinion hath no footstep amongst the Ancients, and thus he carrieth himselfe, notwithstanding all the pretence of his reverence of Antiquity. And to vindicate Austins interpretation, as well as the rest, from countenancing absolute reprobation, he calls in to help at a dead lift, the doctrine of the Jesuits, concerning Scientia Media. And I desire upon no better termes to contend then this in Scholasticall Divinity, whether this doctrine be not a most unsober invention without all ground. And ⟨p. 49⟩whereas Vossius acknowledgeth Austins opinion to be for the absolutenesse of election (and he professeth himselfe to be of Austins opinion.) I dare appeale to any learned Divines sober judgement, whether this doctrine of Scientia Media doth not equally justify the absolutenesse of reprobation, as the absolutenesse of election. Yet after all this, I would not have any think, that I reject any of these ancient Fathers, that seem to be most opposite to Austins opinion in the point of predestination. I think they may be fairely and Scholastically reconciled without acknowledging so much difference between them, as Vossius maketh, and that by such an interpretation as sometimes is admitted by Vossius himselfe, of his own phraise of his own distinction, though he dreames not of the applyable nature of the same to the will of God in predestination. His distinction is of Voluntas Dei antecedens, & voluntas consequens; and this he makes equivalent to that other distinction of the will of 1God, to wit, Absoluta & Conditionalis. Now this Conditionall will of God he interprets not quoad actum volentis, but quoad Res volitas: Like as Doctor Jackson professeth 2in expresse termes, that the former distinction of voluntas antecedens & consequens, is to be interpreted, namely, quoad res volitas, and not quoad actum volentis. Now according to this construction, there is no difference between them and Austin, nor the least impediment to the making of the will of God, both in predestination and reprobation to be most absolute.
