Viewing page 7 of 27

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

364

THE ABSOLUTE DECREE

The first side is divided, for
1. Some of them present man to GOD in the decree of reprobation, out of, or above the fall : and say, 

That GOD of his mere pleasure, antecedent to all sin in the creature original or actual, did decree to glorify his sovereignty and justice in the eternal rejection and damnation of the greatest part of mankind, as the end; and in their unavoidable sin and impenitency, as the means. And this way go Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Piscator, Gomarus, and some of our own countrymen.

2. The rest of that side fall down a little lower and present man to GOD in his decree of reprobation, lying in the fall, and under the guilt of original sin, saying,

That GOD looking upon mankind lying in Adam's sin, decreed the greatest number of men (even those whom he calls to repentance and salvation by the preaching of the gospel) to hell-torments for ever, and without remedy, for the declaration of his justice. This way went synod.

 The difference between them is not much, and even in their own account too small cause a breach. Notwithstanding this petty difference therefore, they agree very well together as we may fee in the Hague conference and synod. 

 In the conference at the Hague, the Contra-remonstrants have these words : As touching the diversity of opinions in this argument, viz. that GOD looked at man in this decree, not yet created, or created and fallen : because this belongs not to the foundation of this doctrine; we bear with one another.  
After this in the synod at Dort, they permitted [[italic]] Gomarus to get down his judgment in the upper way. And the delegates of South-Holland were very indifferent which way they took: For these are their words; Whether GOD in choosing, considered men as fallen, or else as not fallen; they think it is not necessary to be determined. Maccovius  also, professor of divinity at Franeker, one that undertook, in the very synod, to make good against Lubert, his fellow-professor, that GOD did will sin, ordain men to sin, and would not at all, that all men be saved: and besides this, openly and peremptorily affirmed, that except for these things were held and maintained

OF DAMNATION DISPROVED.   365
[[main]]tained by them, they could not possibly keep their own ground, but must come overt to the Remonstrants. -This man was not only censured, but publicly declared in the synod to  be pure  and  orthodox. 

By these influences in appears, that they of the first side can easily bear on with another in this difference. And (to say the truth) there is no reason why they should quarrel about circumstances, seeing they agree in the substance. For they both contend,

1. That the moving cause of reprobation is the alone will of GOD, and not the sin of man, original or actual.

2. That the final impenitency and damnation of reprobates are necessary and unavoidable by GOD's absolute decree.

These two things are the brincipal grievances that the other side stick at. So that these two paths meet at last in the same way.

Both these opinions I dislike.

My reasons why, are of two sorts:

1. Such as first made me question their truth.

2. Such as convince me of their untruth.

My reasons of the first sort respect both, and I will set them down against both, together.

My second sort of reasons I will divide, delivering some of them against the upper and more rigid way, others against the lower and more moderate way.

I begin with those reasons which first moved me to question the truth of absolute reprobation, as it is taught both ways.

They are these four which follow:

1. The novelty of this opinion. Absolute and inevitable reprobation hath no footing in antiquity. The upper way was never taught or approved by any of the fathers (even the stoutest defenders of grace against the Pelagians) for the space of 600 (I may say 800) years after Christ: nor the lower way till the time of St. Austin, which was about 400 years after Christ. The fathers in general agreed upon the contrary conclusion, and taught,  
That

Transcription Notes:
Please note the shape of an 's' in this printing. It looks like an f without the crossbar. Please don't indicate italics, page breaks and other superficial formatting. See updated Transcription Tips for further detail.