An Answer to Blasphemous Cavillations by an Anabaptist, Section 7
THE ADVERSARIE.
God created man a verey good thing,The seuenth section. and dare you say that God ordeined a verey good thing to destruction? Then God deliteth in the destruction of that which is verie good. Man at his creation was a iust and innocent creature▪ for afore the transgre…sion there was no euill neither in Adam nor in vsus, and think you that God ordeined his iust and innocent creatures to condemnation? what greater tyrannie and vnrighteousnes can the most wicked man in the world, yea the deuil him self do, then to condemne the innocent and iust person? Hereby may we se that these careles man by more abominable then the Athei, which beleue there is no God. But these affirme God to be as bad as the deuil yea and worse: for asmuch as the deuil can onelyonly tempt a man to death, but he can compell none to fall vntounto cōdemnation, but God may not onelyonly tempt, but also compell …y his eternall decre the most part of the world to damnation. And hath so done (as they say)▪ so that of necessitie and onelyonly because it was his pleasure and will: then must God be worse then the deuil. For the deuil onelyonly tempted men to fall, but God compelleth them to fall by his immutable decre. Oh horrible blasphemie.
ANSVVER.
Becaus that before plainely and simply I hauehave declared our iudgement of gods eternall election, and most iust reprobation in all these your dispitefull arguments, I will onelyonly shew your malice,To the 1. … & 3. ignorance, and proude vanitie. This is your argument, God created man a verie good thing therefor he did not ordein him to destructiō. your reason is: for that is contrarie to his iustice, to ordein a good thing to destructiō. I answere if ye be able to proue that man stoode in the same goodnes, perfectiō and innocētie (he ād his posteritie whome so hieghly ye praise) in the which he was first created, then will I confesse your argument to be good. But if man (albeit he was created good) did yet willingly make him self euill how can it be contrarie to the iustice of God to appoint punishmēt for transgression, which he did not onelyonly fore se by an idle speculation, or yet suffre and permitt against his omnipotent, will, but in his eternall counsell for the manifestatiō of his own glory had decreed the same. Against which, albeit ye cry horrible blasphemie till your braines drop out, yet hauehave we Moises Exod. 9. Isaiah. 6. Salomon and Paul to absolue vsus from your cruell sentēce. For they do affirme that God hath created all thinges for his own glorie, and the wicked to the day of destruction, that he raised vp Pharao that his power might be shewen furth in him: that he blindeth the eis and hardeneth the heartes of some, so that they can neither heare nor se that they may conuert: That God hath prepared bothe vessels of merciemercy and vessels of wraith which places albit som of them seme not to appertein to the creation, yet if they be iustly weyed it shall euidently appere that the hardnes of mennes heartes,Blindnes and hardnes of hart are effectes reprobation. their blindnes and stubborn malice are not onelyonly punishments of sinne, but also are the effects of reprobation, like as faith, obedience, and other vertues be the fre giftes of God geuen in Christ Iesus to those whom he hath elected in him. But yet to your argument, which thus ye amplifie: do ye think that God ordeined his iust and innocent creatures to damnation? what greater tyrannie and vnrighteousnes can the most wicked man in the earth, yea the deuil him self do? then to cōdemne a iust ād an innocent person.
I answer (as before) that your argument is nought worthe. For you conclude more then ye be able to proue of your two former propositiōs: which be those. God created man a verie good thing. Trew it is, and God reprobated mā and shall also condēne him whō he created good, I grant also. Therefor he damned the good thing which he created, or that thing which is verie good, I deny the conclusion. For before demnation there cometh a change in man, so that he of verie good, became extreme euill, and so gods iust iudgements found nothing but that which is euill to condemne. You forme your reason, as that God had so created mā good, that he by no meanes after could be made euill, which last part is fals, and so you are deceaued. If ye cānot se iust causes why God should make that thing verie good which after should becom exttreme euill, accuse your own blindnes, and desire of God to repres in you that presumption and pryde, which against the eternall Sonne of God you hauehave conceaued,Why God treated mā good whō he ordeyned neuertheles to fall. and so your eyes shalbe illuminated and you shall se first that becaus the creator is infinitly good, that therefor it behoueth the creatures in their original creation to be good. And so I doute not was the deuil created good, but in the veritie, he stood not. And secōdarely that because the iust iudgemēts of God were no les to shyne in the damnation of the reprobat: then his infinite merciemercy was to be praised in the vessels of honor, it behoued the one and the other to be innocent and good in their creation. For if the original had bene euill, God iustly could not hauehave after dāned that which he had made no better. but so we must confesse that it was good that (yet willingly corrupting the self) mā made away to the most iust executiō of gods eternal coūsell. And last that the eternall purpose of God might in tyme be notified vntounto mā, wc was that God wold bestow greater liberalitie, shew greater louelove ād merciemercy in the redēption of mā iustly damned then that he did in his creation. Of nothing he did creat him (for his corporall substāce was made of the dust (which somtymes was not) to his own image and similitude, to him he gaue the dominion of all creatures, these were documents of a true louelove. But if they be compared with that louelove, which in Christ Iesus we receiue and that of fre grace, they are no thing. For what is the dominion of earthlie creatures in respect, that we shall reigne with Christ Iesus for euer? what were the pleasures and fruites of Paradise in comparison of those heauēlie ioyes which sainct Paul affirmeth can not enter in to the heart of man? If man had stand perpetually in Adam, neither had the louelove of God so wonderously bene notified vntounto vsus, neither yet had place ben grāted to his fre grace ād merciemercy, wc we receiue in Christ Iesus. For mercy properly hath respect to miserie. But ye cheif comfort of gods children is, that as they fell in Adam, so are they new transferred in an other that is in Christ Iesus, to whom they are giuen, and who (as before we hauehave proued) hath so receaued them from the hand of his Father that he shall giuegive lief euerlasting to so many as the Father hath giuen him. If ye (I say) can not admitt these reasons, why it behoued mā to be created good, and yet after to fall in to sin and merserie, accuse your selues, storm not against God. for he will not be subiect to your reason & iudgements: your horrible blasphemies against God, and your dispitefull raling against vsus at this tyme I will omitt. and how impudently ye leap from the purpose of gods reprobation to the execution of his iudgement, shalbe spoken, in weying this your reason which thus foloweth.