Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, Article 5
Article. 5.
Papiſt.
The Protestants make God the Author of ſinne, the only cauſe of ſinne, that man ſinneth not, that God is worſe, then the diuell.
Proteſtant.
The Proteſtants make the diuill, and man, the onelyonly Authors, and committers of all ſinne; and namly of theſe hereſies, and ſlaunders, wherewith you hauehave ſtult this malicious pamphlet.
Papiſt.
Whoſoeuer defendeth, that God commaundeth, perſwadeth, vrgeth, impelleth to ſinne, maketh God the cauſe of ſinne.
But all Proteſtants ſay, that God commaundeth, perſwadeth, Calu lib. 1. inſtit c 17. ſect. 11. &c 18. ſect 4 li. 3. c. 23. ſect 7. 8. 9. Zuingl ſerd. prouidentia. Beza aphoriſ.vrgeth, impelleth to ſinne. Ergo.
The Proteſtants make God the cauſe, and author of ſinne.
The maior I proue: for if God perſwade, or impell men to ſinne, as for example, Iudas to ſel Chriſt, Saint Peter to deny Chriſt, the Iewes to crucifie Chriſt; queſtionles he intended the ſacriledge of Iudas, the negation of Peter, the murder of the Iewes; and this much more effectually, then Iudas, Peter or the Iewes. for who can reſiſt his impulſion, or who can fruſtrat his intention. Voluntati euis quis reſiſtet? who is able to oppoſe himſelfe againſt his wil? yea what mā is he, that in conſcience were not bound, to cōforme his will vntounto the wil of God, who is the author of al good wills, & the firſt rule, & ſquare of al regular wils? Iudas, Peter, & the Iewes, if they had followed the motions of God, who could hauehave blamed them for following him, who could not erre, in impelling, nor ſinne, in perſwading them?
But ſome will ſay, God moued them for a good end, videlicet, the redemption of man, and they intended an ill end, to wit, lucre, reuenge, or ſome other ſiniſter effect. Yet thisAd Rom. 3 v. 8. ſnift will not ſalue the ſoare. For euill may not be done, that good may follow. Non ſu…t facienda mala, vt inde veniant bona. For otherwiſe, a man might ſteale to giuegive almes, be drunke for a meriment, commit adultrie to beget Children. Moreouer why might not Iudas, Peter, or the Iewes intend that good end, that God intended, and hauehave ſold, & denied, and crucified Chriſt, conforming their intentions to his; they being inſtruments, and he the firſt mouer.
Agane, it cannot be ſaid, but that God indirectly and moſt effectually, intended their ſinnes. For he, that intendeth any effect, wherewith an other effect is neceſſarily conioyned, conſequently intendeth it as for example, He, that intendeth to burne a ſhip in the middeſt of the ſea, intēdeth cōſequently the death of all the men, which be in her. In like m…ner, if God intended, that Iudas ſhould ſell Chriſt, vntounto which action ſinne was neceſſarily adioyned, conſequently God intended the ſinne, as well as the ſelling.C. Cal. lib. 1. inſtitution. C. 18. §. 1.
The Minor is to to euident: for the Proteſtants deride Gods permiſſion; they ſay, that all his actions are energetical, or effectual, they deſperatly auerre, that Pauls conuerſion, & Dauids adultry, were in like maner the works of God; and as he elected ſome to Glory, before the preuiſion of workes, ſo he reiected ſome from glory, before the preuiſion of ſinnes.
Here hence I inferre, that, according to the Proteſtants principles, God is moſt properly the author of ſinne; becauſe he impelleth moſt effectually thereunto.
Next, that he is the only author of ſinne, for that he inforcethD. men, vponupon neceſſity to ſinne, and they, as inſtruments, follow the motion of their firſt cauſe.
Againe, that man ſinneth not. For where there is neceſſitie of ſinning, there is no ſinne. For ſinne is free, or no ſinne Beſides how can man ſinne, in conforming his will, to Gods will?
Finally God is worſe then the diuell. For that the wickednes of the diuell principally conſiſteth, in the mouing, perſwading and inducing of men to ſin, the which, by the Proteſtants confeſſion, God performeth more effectually, then the Diuell; becauſe the motions of God are more forcible, & leſſe reſiſtable, then the illuſions, or ſuggeſtions of the diuell. Many ſinnes moreouer are acted, without the temptations of the diuell; ſome of ignorance, ſome of paſsion; but none without the motions of God; ſo that God is worſe then the Diuell: both in cauſing greater multitude of ſinnes, then the diuell, and in the forcible maner of cauſing ſinnes. Which the diuell cannot attaine vntounto. The which doctrine, is as good a ground for Atheiſme, as euer hell could deuiſe: for were it not much more reaſonable, to ſaye, there were no God at all, then to beleeue there were ſuch a God, as commaundeth, perſwadeth, vrgeth, impelleth men to ſinne: and yet, for the ſame ſinnes, will torment them with the inexplicable paines of hell?
Proteſtant.
Whoſoeuer defends that God Commaunds, perſwades, vrges, A.impells to ſinne, makes God the cauſe of ſinne. Of this propoſition there is no queſtion, betwixt the Papiſts, and vsus. Yet I hold it neceſſary, to ſpeake a word or two of it, not by way of refutation, but of explication. If a man commaund, vrge &c. to that, which is euill, and the effect enſue therevpon, he is iuſtly to be charged with that ſinne as the Author of it.
In Gods Commaunding it is otherwiſe. For that, which heB. commaunds, being otherwiſe euill, chaunges the nature by his commaundement; ſo that neither he, that commaunds, nor the partie that obeies, commit any ſinne, in commaunding or obeying. For example, it is vnlawfull for a man to offer vp his Child for a burnt ſacrifice, yet God commaunds Abraham to do ſo, and Abraham is ready to fulfill the comm…undement. Both without ſinne: becauſe the will of God is the rule of righteouſnes, and he, that gaue man a lawe, hath reſerued authoritie to himſelfe, to diſpence with that lawe, when, and as it pleaſeth him. and as this Papiſt ſaith truely; EueryEvery man is bound in Conſcience to Conforme his will, to the will of God. But yet this is not ſimply true. For admit that Iudas had knowne, that it was Gods will, that our Sauiour ſhould be betraied to the Iewes by him; might he therefore the doing of it? At no hand for he was to hauehave receaued a warrant for it, that it might be lawful, wheras he had the contrary charge in the 6. Commaundement Thou ſhalt not kill. But, if God had geuen him commiſſion to do it, as he did to abraham, for the offring of his ſonne, then he had bin bound to yeeld obedience to this commaundement of God, and had not ſinned in obeying. So much doth it concerne a man, to liue in obedience to thoſe lawes, which God hath preſcribed to all, and eueryevery man generally, and particularly. Abraham hath a commaundement not to kill; if it be Gods wil he ſhould kill without ſinning therby, God wil giuegive him warrant, and charge to kil: without which (howſoeuer Gods wil ſtand) Abraham cannot do it lawfully. And therefore it had not ben warrantable for Iudas, Pilate, or the Iewes, intending that good end, which God intended, to hauehave done contrary to the generall commaundement of God without a ſpeciall commiſſion to that purpoſe: which is more then a knowledge, that God would hauehave it done. This being vnderſtood, we diſclayme, as needeleſſe, all ſuch excuſes for God, as this Papiſt ſeemeth to make, on our behalfe.
For we ſay not, that God moued them, for a good end, but that he did not moue them at all, and yet there is a great deale of difference betwixt mouing, and commaunding, perſwading, vrging, impelling, ſince he may truly be ſaid to moue a man that offers him the outward occaſions, whereby he may be prouoked to the doing of any thing; which (I ſuppoſe) God doth, and you will graunt may do, without being guilty of ſinne, for ſo doing.
But, if we would maintaine, that God moued them, it it were no hard matter to anſwer your ſtrong proofe. For neither doth God binde him ſelfe to thoſe lawes, which he giues to man; and, his will being the rule of Iuſtice, that which he will hauehave done, by his willing of it, ceaſſes to be euill. So that, he cannot doe any euill, though he may commaund that to be done, which till he commaunded it, could not be done without ſinne. But you vrge vsus further, that God indirectly, and moſt effectually intended their ſinnes. Of his effectuall intending by and by, in anſwere to the Aſſumption: Now only of his direct intending which we are ſo farre from denying, that we hold it abſurd to make any queſtion of it. For what is more plaine in the ſcripture, then that2 Sā, 24. 1. God would hauehave Dauid ſinne to the end that he might by his ſinne, hauehave occaſion to puniſh the people as he did.
Doth not Michah profeſſe, that it was Gods purpoſe,1. Reg. 22. 22. 23. that Achab ſhould fall at Ramoth Gile…d, by hearkening to the falſe propheſies of them, whom a lying ſpirit was to ſeduce? Goe, ſaith God thou ſhalt preuaile. And, to come to your owne example, did not God intend, & decree, that our ſauiour Chriſt ſhould be treacherouſly betrayed by Iudas, falſely accuſed by the Prieſts, vniuſtly condemned by Pilate? If he did not certainly determine theſe things, ſo that the euen could not but enſue thereupon, he did not certainly prouide for the ſaluation of his children: becauſe it might hauehave come to paſſe that Chriſt ſhould not hauehave bene betrayed, accuſed, nor executed, ſince it depended wholy vponupon their free will, without any determination on Gods, part. Wherefore it is not to be denyed, that it is Gods will that there ſhould be ſinnes committed in the world; as all men graunt, that acknowledge Gods moſt iuſt iudgement in hardening Pharoes heart, and giuing vp theExo. 7. 3. 4. Rom. 1. 24. 26. wicked to a ſenſeleſſe minde, that they may doe thoſe thinges, that are not conuenient. I diſpute not as yet of the meanes, whereby this purpoſe of GOD is brought to paſſe, but onelyonly vrge that there is ſuch a purpoſe.
But all Proteſtants (ſaith he) ſay, that God commaundeth, perſwadeth, vrgeth, and imp…lleth to ſinne &c.
All Proteſtants ſay, nay rather all true Proteſtants denyC. it; as abſurd, and blaſphemous; which if this Papiſt had not knowne, I thinke he would not hauehave vſed ſo many ſleights to proue it. The firſt whereof is, that the Proteſtants deride Gods permiſſion, and therefore ſay, that he commaundeth, vrgeth, perſwadeth, &c. Nay the Proteſtants deride only heatheniſh fancies of permiſſion, which with Epicurus make God ſit by, & looke on, in worldly matters, as it were ſetting all at ſix, and ſeaven, for the preſent being of things. Contrary to which wee teach, that nothing falls out, one way, or other, in this world, but according to the councell, and determination of Gods euerlaſting prouidence. To make the matter more plaine. God, when he would puniſh Pharoes pride, did not careleſly leaue him to himſelfe, permitting him to ſinne or not to ſinne; but had before reſolued, that he ſhould increaſe his ſinne, to the glory of God, and his owne iuſt damnation. How then you will ſay, Did God commaund or perſwade, or vrge, or impell him to ſinne? Nothing leſſe. For indeed there neuer was, nor neuer is neede of any ſuch worke of God, for the puniſhing of ſinne by ſinne. Becauſe the ſtate of men vnregenerate is ſuch, that the diuill, by their owne corruptition, can eaſily bring them to the committing of ſinne, without any Enforcement, or perſwaſion, or commaundement of God. Yet dare not we vndertake curiouſly to inquire, and boldly to determine, by what meanes this wil of God is performed, but we content our ſelues with that, which is euident, that it is Gods will, that ſuch ſinnes ſhould be committed. Neither do we hereunto apply any effectuall, or energeticall action of God, to the enforcing of this ſinne, but onelyonly affirme that this will of God, muſt needs take effect; and yet without any worke of God vponupon the ſoules of the wicked, to commaund, perſwade, vrge, or impell them to ſinne.D.
And therefore the poynt, that followeth, is not deſperatly auerred by vsus, but Diuilliſhly, that is ſlāderouſly deuiſed by you. For we conſtantly affirme, that God workes by, and in, the godly: but by the wicked only, not in them. Paules conuerſion was wholly the worke of God who enclined & bowed his will, to the obeying of the truth, which of himſelfe hee did willingly, and cruelly perſecute: But Dauides Adultery, occaſioned by the ſight of Bathſheba, proceeded from his owne concupiſcence, without any inclining of his heart thereto, on Gods part. Yet we deny not, but both the one & the other, was willed of God, & could not but take effect, though in diuers ſorts, & by diuers meanes. God would that Paule ſhould be conuerted, and this he did like of as a good, and holy thing, nay not ſo onelyonly, but by his almighty power he wrought it, and (without forcing of Paules will) made him of vnwilling willing; it was alſo the will of God that Dauid ſhould commit that Adultery, but God neither approued this fact of Dauid, as good, not ſtirred vp the motiō in his heart, nor wrought his heart to the liking of it but only gaue him vp, for a time, to the diuill & his owne corruption. Cal it permiſſion if you wil, we miſlike not you ſhould do ſo, ſo that withall you graunt, that the end of this permiſſion was, that the thing might come to paſſe, as it did.
The laſt point is added ignorantly, becauſe it is the commō doctrine of the Papiſts, aſwel as of the Proteſtants, that there can be no reaſon giuen, why God chooſeth one, and refuſeth another, but his owne will.
To the proofe whereof, your great Doctor Thomas of Aquin, many times applies theſe ſimilitudes. As there can be no reaſon yeelded (ſaith Thomas) why this part of materi… prima, the firſt matter of naturall things, becomes fire, that water, rather then that fire, this water, ſaue onelyonly the will of the creator; and as it depends wholly vponupon the will of the builder, that this brick lyes aboue, that below, and not that aboue this below: ſo why Peter is choſen to glory, Iudas refuſed, no reaſon can be alledged, but the will of him that chooſeth. Noli Iudicare (ſaith Auſti…) Si non vis errare. Offer not to iudge what the reaſon of this difference is, vnleſſe you deſire to erre. This is that monſtrous opinion forſooth, for which the Papiſts charge vsus, with I cannot tell what blaſphemies, what would they do, trow you, if any later Proteſtant had written, as the Ancient Auſtin hath.Auguſt. de gr…. & lib. art. cap. 20.
Deus operatur in cordibus hominum, ad inclinandas …orum …oluntates, quocun que voluerit, ſiue ad bona, pro ſua miſericordiae, fiue ad mala, pro meritis corum: judicio vti que ſuo, aliquando aperto, aliquando occulto, ſemper autem iuſto. God worketh (ſaith Auſtin) in the hearts of men, to the inclining of their willes, whether ſoeuer it pleaſeth him, eyther to good things, of his owne mercy, or to euill things, vponupon their deſert; which iudgement of his, in reſpect of the reaſon thereof, is ſometimes euident, ſometimes ſecret, but alwayes iust. Let our Papiſts goe now, and raile vponupon this auncient, and learned Proteſtant, for making God the Author of ſinne; for auouching that man ſinneth not, that God is worſe then the diuill. For if theſe points follow vponupon our doctrine, much more doe they vponupon Auſtins. Who, though for the ſubſtance of his matter, he ſpeake the trueth, in that former ſentence: yet in wordes affirmes that, which hath neede of a very fauourable conſtruction. But let vsus examine theſe conſequents.
You muſt bring better proofe of your Antecedent, ere your conſequents wil be granted. For all Proteſtants deny, that God impells, eyther effectually, or at all to ſinne. How then can he be the onelyonly Author of it? or how can men be ſaid not to ſinne, but as Inſtruments, when by the corruption of their nature, they conceaue, and with conſent, and liking of their will, bring forth ſinne; and that freely, without any force, though the euent be certainly foreappointed by God? neither will it ſerue their turne to ſay, that they conforme their wills to Gods will, and therefore cannot ſinne. When as they neither doe that, they do, with any purpoſe to fulfill the will of God, and if they did, yet ought they not to doe ſo, without warrant from him, in eueryevery matter, contrary to his reuealed commaundements.
Blaſphemous therefore, and not be thought on by any chriſtian, much leſſe vttered, are theſe conſequents, and eſpecially the laſt of them: which inferres, that God is worſe, then the diuill. Becauſe neither doth God, as I hauehave often ſaid, impell, or induce any man to ſinne, and though he ſhould, for cauſes knowne onelyonly to himſelfe, incline (as Auſtin ſaith) the hearts of men to euill things: yet were it ſtill blaſphemous, to denie the iuſtice of his iudgement, whatſoeuer prophane fleſh, and bloud imagines. O man Rom. 9. 19. 20.what art thou, that diſputeſt with God! ſhall the clay, &c.