The Court of the Gentiles Part 4:2, Title page – Preface
THE COURT OF THE GENTILES.
PART IV. Of Reformed Philoſophie.
BOOK III. Of Divine Predetermination.
WHEREIN The Nature of Divine Predetermination is fully Explicated and Demonſtrated, both in the General, as alſo more Particularly, as to the Subſtrate Mater, or Entitative Act of Sin: WITH A Vindication of Calviniſts and others from that Blaſphemous Imputation of Making God the Author of Sin.
By Theophilus Gale.
Si Pelagio tantillum dederis, danda ſunt omnia.
Cornel. Janſen. Praefat. in Pelag.
LONDON, Printed for John Hill at the Black Lyon in Fleet-ſtreet, and Samuel Tidmarſh at the Kings-Head in Cornhill. 1678.
PREFACE.
THE ſtrong and almoſt invincible Inclination I have to Solitude and Retirement, with a natural averſion from the Controverſies of this Age, wherein there is ſo little of Chriſtian Candor, Fidelitie, Ingenuitie, and Moderation to be found, hath given me no ſmall ſatisfaction in my being exemted hitherto from thoſe vexatious Conflicts which I ſee many learned and pious men involved in: and it ſeems to me a thing no leſſe than prodigious, to conſider, with what warm zele and ſelf-complacence ſome learned men contend in the miſts and clouds of ambiguous termes, as if they had no other deſigne but that of ſome Mercenary Soldiers, who do what they can to protract the War. Theſe and ſuch like conſiderations have kept me, for ſome Moneths, from the publication of this Diſcourſe, with hopes there might be found out ſome Expedients for the putting a period to thoſe unhappy Controverſies it refers to, which I now have little hopes of. But enough of that.
The Diſcourſe it ſelf both as to its firſt conception and preſent publication, has not been without various agitations in mine own thoughts; and how little my natural Inclinations have induced me hereto, is wel known to ſome. But I muſt confeſſe, the crime charged on us being no leſſe than Blaſphemie againſt the God of Heaven, it may be deſervedly judged too great a violation to the Laws of Chriſtianitie not to purge our ſelves from ſo black an Imputation; and yet in as much as ſome reverend Divines, of repute among us both for their Learning and Pietie, have entertained Sentiments oppoſite to our Hypotheſis, we have been very ſtudious, yea emulous to deliver our own thoughts in ſuch a mode or forme, as may be leaſt obnoxious to paſſionate emotions, perſonal reflexions, or whatever may unbeſeem one that lies under eſſential obligation to love and honor the Perſons of ſome that differ in Judgement about theſe points. Wherefore, to render our Diſcourſe the leſſe offenſive, we have caſt it into a thetic and dogmatic Method, rather than agoniſtic and polemic. And becauſe it is altogether impoſſible diſtinctly and demonſtratively to diſcuſſe ſuch an Hypotheſis, without ſome oppoſition againſt ſuch as defend the Antitheſis, we have pitcht on Strangius as our principal Antagoniſt, who indeed, to give him his merited character, has ventilated this Controverſie with candor, perſpicuitie, and force of Argument beyond his Sectators. Yet we muſt alſo do the Cauſe we undertake this juſtice, as to declare, that we have not omitted to examine the Reaſons and Arguments of other Reverend Divines, who oppoſe our Hypotheſis, albeit we have, as in dutie we conceived our ſelves obliged, conceled their Names. For indeed, of what uſe are ſuch perſonal Nominations and Reflexions, but to render us a grief to Friends, and reproche to Enemies?
As for my Stile, if any judge my pen too much drenched in Scholaſtic Theologie, I ſhal not denie, but that I have ſpent ſome time in thoſe Studies, neither do I as yet ſee any reaſon to repent thereof; for I have found thoſe Controverſies about Divine Concurſe and Efficacious Grace, no where more accurately examined and demonſtratively determined, than among the Scholemen, ſpecially, Bradwardine and Alvarez, neither can I conceive how any one can diſtinctly and perfectly diſcuſſe theſe Controverſies, ſpecially as now miſerably perplexed with ambiguous obſcure termes, without ſome inſpection into and knowledge of Scholaſtic Theologie. For doth not a principal part of the Controverſie depend on that ſcholaſtic Notion of Free-will? Yea, is there any thing New ſtarted by the Arminians or New Methodiſts, but what has been fully examined and anſwered by ſome among the more ſober Scholemen, ſpecially Aquinas, Ariminenſis, Bradwardine and Alvarez. Whatever others may judge of them, yet Reverend Mr. Baxter, Cathol. Theol. Part 1. p. 124. prefers the Scholemen before Arminians. And albeit I have a particular kindneſſe for ſome of the more ſober Scholemen, as to ſuch points wherein they ſerve not the Papal Intereſt, and their own vain Imaginations; yet what a low and cheap eſtime I have of the Scholemen in the general, is ſufficiently apparent, by the Character I have given them, Court of the Gentiles, Part III. B. 2. c. 2. S. 1. §▪ 2. And indeed I would read them, with the ſame indifference and ſuſpenſion of mind, as I read Plato and Ariſtotle. But to conclude, if any private Chriſtian deſires, not to charge his thoughts with the Scholaſtic part of this Controverſie, but only to ſatisfie his Douts and confirme his Faith in the Scriptural part, he may confine himſelf to Chap. III. of this Diſcourſe, (which contains almoſt a third Part of the Book) where we have under ſeven general Heads largely given the Scriptural Demonſtrations of our Hypotheſis, Touching Gods Concurſe to the entitative Act of Sin, with Solutions to ſuch falſe Gloſſes and Comments as our Adverſaries give thereto; which are ſuited to Vulgar Capacities.