The Riches of Gods Love, Part 1 · Section 6
The 6. Sect:
To the reaſon on which the reply is grounded, which is melius eſt eſſe, quàm non eſſe. It is better to be, then to have no being. I anſwer that it is a Sophiſme or, a fallacy a non diſtributo ad diſtributum. To be in it ſelfe is M. Maſon's Addit. p. 22.better then not to be, but it is not univerſally true in all particulars. Againe it is true in ſome caſes, & ex hypotheſi, ſi caetera ſint paria; If there be any equality in the Adjuncts, It is ſo farre from being ſimply true; that our Saviour limiteth it, and putteth a caſe wherin it is not true but the contrary to it is true: That is the caſe of Judas of which we have ſaid ſomewhat before. It had been good &c. Which words St. Hierome expounding ſaith; it is ſimply and plainly averred by our Saviour, that it is better to have no being, then an evill being. This was the judgment too of Job. Why died I not ſaith he, in the birth? why did the knees prevent me? and why Hierom: in. Matt: c. 26. v. 24. Iob: 3. 11. 12. 13. Eccleſ. 4. 1. 2. 3.did I ſuck the breaſts? For now ſhould I have lyen ſtill, and been quiet, and ſhould have ſlept then and been at reſt. In which words he plainly implyeth, that he thought it better to have had no birth and being, then ſuch a painfull and miſerable being. This was alſo the opinion of Solomon. So I returned ſaith he, and conſidered all the oppreſſions that are done under the ſunne; and behold the teares of ſuch as were oppreſſed, and they had no comforter &c. Wherefore I praiſed the dead which are already dead, more then the living which are yet alive. Yea better is he, then both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not ſeen the evill works that are done under the ſunne. The words doe clearly ſhew that Solomon did think it better to be dead, and to be deprived of being, then to be oppreſſed by the mighty, and to be without comforters, that is then to have a miſerable and mournfull being.
Indeed ſo Hierome ſaith, but that is not all he ſaith. For he labours to prevent ſuſpicion Anſwer.that Iudas had ſome being before he was borne: which was the errour of Origen. And the words of our Saviour ſeemes to favour it as Ianſenius obſerves. Quibus verbis Origenianum quid ſignificare videtur, quaſi homo ille fuerit antequam naſceretur, quia nulli poteſt benè eſſe niſi ei qui fuerit. And Hierome himſelfe upon Eccleſ. 4. 3. writes that ſome were of that opinion; namely, Arminas noſtras antequam ad noſtra corpora iſta deſcendant verſari apud ſuperos, & tam diu beatas eſſe, quamdiu coeleſti Hieruſalem & choro perfruantur Angelico. Neither doth Hierome there paſſe any cenſure upon the Authours of ſuch an opinion. Here indeed upon Mat. 26. 24, he ſaith, We muſt not hereupon think that Iudas had a being before he were born, becauſe a well being can agree to none but ſuch as have a being. Which argument Hierome doth not anſwer. For when he adds, ſed ſimpliciter dictum eſt, multo melius eſſe non ſubſiſtere quàm malè ſubſiſtere. This rather confirmes the antecedent, namely, that it had been well for Iudas, if he had not been; then gives any tolerable or colourable anſwer to the conſequence made therehence. And is not the authourity of Auſtine as good as the authourity of Hierome in this? Ianſenius embraceth Hieromes expoſition; but Maldonat doth not, but at large diſputes for another interpretation, the very ſame which I delivered before I were aware of Maldonates expoſition. And Ianſenius though he followes Hierome in expounding this place, yet he profeſſeth, that both Euthymius of old, and Caietan of late do underſtand this place in the ſame manner that Durandus doth, namely, de nativitate ex utero, of Iudas his bringing forth into the world, diſtinguiſhing his birth from his conception, ut ſit ſenſus, after this meaning, Bonum erat vel fuiſſet ei, ſi cum erat in utero matris ſuae non fuiſſet editus in lucem, ſed mortuus tunc fuiſſet; & ſepulchrum ipſius uterus matris extitiſſet; ſi enim tunc mortuus fuiſſet non incidiſſet in tantam & talem condemnationem, quantam & qualem natus propter immenſum perditionis ſcelus erat excepturus. It had been good for him, if being conceived in his Mothers wombe he had never been brought forth, but then had dyed, and his Mothers wombe had been his grave. For had he then dyed his condemnation had been nothing like ſo heavy, as now it is. Let me adde here Maldonat's interpretation of this place which is memorable. Of this paſſage ſome diſpute ſubtelly more then enough how it could be better for Iudas not to have been, whereas not to be is no good; to be damned is ſome good (meaning in reſpect of being) For he that is damned is ſomewhat and every thing that is, as it hath a being is good. Hierome ſignifies that ſome though Iudas had a being before he was born; and that Chriſt of purpoſe ſayd not, it were better for that man, if he had never been; but if he had never been born, to ſignifie that though he had not been born; yet he ſhould have had a beeing, and ſo to have had naturall good things without evill. I imagine that Hierome herin noted the Originiſts, whoſe opinion was that as ſoules were from the beginning created, and each according to his merrit either to remaine without a body, or to be caſt into a body as into a priſon. And indeed Origen ſo writes on this place, as he ſeemes not to be farre off from ſuch an opinion. After the ſame manner allmoſt doth Euthinius interpret this. But ſuch like phraſes of ſpeech are not to be accommodated to the ſubtillty of the Schooles. For they ſpeak proverbiall ſpeeches and vulgar, which commonly are ſomewhat hyperbollicall, as Iob 3. 11. Why haſt thou brought me out of the wombe? would I had periſhed, that the eye might not ſee me, that I had been as if I had not been, from the wombe carried to the grave. And Ier: 20 14, 15, and chap: 33. Let the day periſh wherin I was born. For all theſe proceed not from any deliberate judgment of the mind; but by way of complaint, whoſe courſe is to amplifie evills. Chriſt therefore in like manner ſpeaks of Iudas, as it was to be thought he would ſpeak of himſelfe being in torment. Now it was very credible that he would ſay; I would I had never been born, it had been better for me never to have been born, then to ſuffer theſe paines: conſidering that Job and Jeremy moſt holy men have uttered the like ſpeeches, under farre leſſe ſufferings. Adde to this that Chriſt ſaith not, It had been better that Iudas had not been born born; but that it had been better to him, to wit, in his opinion and judgment: As we ſee it befalls many ſuffering bitter evills, to preferre death before life, ſorrow & pain before judgment, whereas without doubt to live is better then to dye.
In the next place this Authour ſaith, this was alſo the opinion of Solomon. Better is he then both they, which hath not yet been; The words, ſaith he, do clearly ſhew that Solomon didthinke it Eccleſ. 4. 1, 2, 3.better to be dead and deprived of being, then to be oppreſſed of the mighty, and to have no comforters, that is then to have a miſerable and mournfull being. Surely Solomon was not ignorant that of them that are dead there are two conditions; ſome in the ſtate of damnation; others in the ſtate of ſalvation. To be with God in the ſtate of ſalvation, we make no queſtion but that it is a better condition, then to be living here on the earth in the greateſt happineſſe that the world can affoord. But to be dead and in the ſtate of damnation, can it enter into the heart of any ſober Chriſtian, to believe that Solomon ever thought ſuch a condition to be better then to live here on earth, in the moſt afflicted condition that is incident to the ſonns of men? And doth this Authour well in coupling death with deprivation of being, as if every one, or any one that is dead were deprived of being? Surely all the dead are not deprived of all kind of living. For God is the Father of Abraham, Iſaak, and Iacob; And he is not the God of the dead but of the living. Againe conſider who are more oppreſſed by the men of this world then the Children of God? For as our Saviour told his diſciples The world will love her own, but becauſe ye are not of the world, and I have choſen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you All that will live godly in Chriſt Ieſus ſhall ſuffer Io: 15. 19.perſecution, ſaith Paul, and through manifold temptations we muſt enter into the kingdome of God. And our Saviour forewarned his diſciples, Ye ſhall be hated of all men for my names ſake. Now is it credible, that, this Authour ſhould beleive or conceive that ever King Solomon was of ſuch an opinion, as to profeſſe, that it is better for the Children of God to be deprived of being then to live in oppreſſion? Conſider farther, the words cheifly pertinent to this Authours purpoſe alleaged out of King Solomon are theſe, Better then they both is he which hath not yet been. Now I preſume this is ſpoken not of ſuch an one, who as yet hath not been; though hereafter he ſhall be. For ſuch an one may be in as great oppreſſion when his time comes, as any other is, or hath been, amongſt thoſe that have lived before him▪ But rather of ſuch an one as never yet hath been, nor never ſhall be Now judg whether this can admit any ſober ſenſe, unleſſe in a vulgar phraſe, according to the intemperate expreſſions which in time of oppreſſion are uttered by men wherein as Maldonat obſerves, there is allwaies ſomething hyperbolicall, and ſuch as muſt not be examinedaccording to the ſubtilty of the Schooles. For conſider, is there but one ſuch that never yet was, nor everſhall be; or are there many ſuch? If many ſuch, how come they to differ, who have nothing wherein to differ? What a vaine imagination is it to talke of particulars that never had, or ſhall have exiſtence, to aſcribe unto them a better condition then is found Tuſculan, quaeſt. 5.in them, that have not being only but life alſo? We know Cicero hath profeſſed & that according to the opinion of Stoicks, that a vertuous man may deſcend into Phallaris his Bull without any deſtruction of his happy condition. I have conſulted Solomo Iarhi upon this place, and he tells us what he hath ſeen in the Jewes Midrach, namly, that there are 974 generations which have growen old and wrinckled from the creation, who yet never were created, and belike the Authours thereof conceive that Solomon ſpake of one of theſe. Rabbi Aben Ezra, propoſeth the queſtion, how can any better condition be ſaid to be unto him, who was never created. And his anſwer is, that we muſt not wonder at ſuch a ſpeech of Solomon; for ſuch ſpeeches have their courſe. foreign by reaſon of the ſhortneſſe or ſtreightnes of the languages; and therefore we muſt expreſſe our ſelves figuratively, and to ſpeake hyperbollically is to ſpeake figuratively. I betake me to Mercer hereupon to acquaint my ſelfe with his judgment upon this place. Hoc autem dicitur; ſaith he, ſemper magnitudine aerumnarum hujus vitae conſiderata. Coeterum Chriſtus aliâ ratione habitâ beatos pronunciat, qui perſecutionem patiuntur propter juſtitiam maximè & Dei nomen; quia ſpiritualia & coeleſtia conſiderat repoſitam illis coronam gloriae in futurum. Noſter Solomon externa tantum & praeſentis vitae incommoda perpendit quae vere hydra eſt. Thus he ſpeakes allwaies having his eyes fixt upon the greatneſſe of the miſeries of this life, but Chriſt in an other reſpect pronounceth them bleſſed who ſuffer perſecution for righteouſnes ſake, eſpecially and for the cauſe of God, becauſe he conſiders ſpirituall and heavenly things, the Crowne of Glory laid up for them againſt the time to come. Our Solomon conſiders only outward things and the incommodities of this life preſent, which indeed is as it were a Serpent with ſeven heads. This is the firſt expreſſion of Mercer in his interpretation of this place, which is as much as to ſay, that, Solomon ſpeakesherein according to the judgment of a naturall man. But Mercer hath yet a farther reach then this, which followeth by way of inſtance or exemplification thus, Sienim earum ratio habeatur ab eo qui illas perfert, mortem peroptat, aut etiam nunquam fuiſſe. For when he that ſuffers theſe miſeries ſhall conſider the weight & heavines of thē he wil be ready to wiſh he were dead, or that he had never been; & no marvaile: For as Maldonat obſerveth, even holy men of God ſuch as Iob & Ieremy, have broken forth into ſuch imprecations, judicio dolore corrupto, as he ſpeakes, the pain which they ſuffer corrupting their judgment, this is to ſpeake not only according to the judgment of a naturall man, but according to the judgmet of a man himſelfe that ſuffers ſuch miſeries. Furthermore Mercer taketh notice of the School-mens diſcourſes to the contrary, juxta Scholarum ſubtilitatem, according to accurate judgmment, as Maldonat ſpeaketh. Sophiſticantur noſtrorum nonnulli, praeſtare adhuc malè eſſe, quàm omnino non eſſe. Some of ours diſpute that it is better to be in an ill caſe, then to have no being at all. Now doth Mercer oppoſe this? Nothing leſſe he rather admits it, and without contradiction thereunto, proceeds in his interpretation Sed ut ut ſit, vis malorū conſideratur. Buthowſoever that be, the force of the evill is conſidered, to wit, as before hath been ſhewed. 1. As in the judgment of a naturall man looking no farther then to the evills of this world. And 2ly, according to the ſenſe & judgment of him that ſuffers them, Quomodo & Chriſtus dicebat de Iuda, melius fuerat homini illi ſi nunquam natus fuiſſet gravitatem praevidens tormentorum illius. After which manner Chriſt ſayd of Iudas, It had been better for that man if he had never been borne, foreſeeing the greivouſneſſe of his torments. The Antient Greeks and Latines uſed the like proverbe, Optimum non naſci, aut ubi natus ſis, quam ocyſſime aboleri. Graecum epigramma inquit
foreign
foreign
The beſt condition was not to be borne; the next to dye ſooneſt. Such were the conceits of naturall men in conſideration of the evills of this world. And Cicero is full of ſuch paſſages in the firſt of his Tuſculans queſtions. In the laſt place I meet with a faire tranſlation of this paſſage of Solomon in Piſcator, who ſets his tranſlation on the other ſide to the translatiōns of Iunius, & thus it runnes. Sed beatiorē ut riſ que judicabam eū, qui non videt facta iſta mala quae fiunt ſub ſole. But more hapy then both I judged him that hath not ſeen the evill workes that are done under the Sun. For albeit in the Hebrew ſomething more there is, which is not here expreſſed, to wit, which hath not been. Yet he conceives the laſt words to contain the fuil ſenſe of them; and therefore he interprets theſe words of thoſe who have periſhed in their Mothers wombe, or in their infancy or childhood, not of thoſe who never had any being, perceiving manifeſtly the foule abſurdity of ſuch a ſpeech according to accurate calculation. And Mercer himſelfe profeſſeth that both theſe expreſſions are of the ſame force in Solomon, and ſo that is more plainly ſet downe in the latter, which is more obſcurely expreſſed in the former, which is a very uſuall courſe in Scripture.
To this aſſenteth Sir Fran…s Bacon in his Colours of good and evill; where againſt this Mathematicall poſition (as he caus it) that there is no proportion between ſomething and nothing, and that the before the M. Maſon's Adait. p. 22. 23. 24.degree of privation … eater then the degree of diminution; he excepteth that it is fal…e in ſundry caſes, and among the eſt in …; namely, when the degree o… diminution is more …tive then the degree of privation In this caſe at … … much better then a diminution. Hence the … formes of ſpeech. Better eye out l…e … Make or mar &c Some evills o… paines (perhaps) either for their lightnes becauſe they may be well end …e…; or for their … because they are quickly over; are leſſe: hen reſolution into nothing And a man had better for a wh… … them, then looſe … to be …d of them: becauſe his being may afford … preſently, or afterward ſuch and …o many … things, as will more then recomp…nc… … pain…s. But when his paines a… ſo many and violent, … no other good then a poore being, or to …inch him, that he cannot enjoy or Joy in the good… that remaine, it were a thouſand times better for him to have no being; and ſuch a…e the paines of … ▪ which for the… greatneſſe are infinite, producing many miſerable weepings and waitings & …ning of teeth all ſymptomes of intolerable greifes, and for their …eng… eternal. The wo…me never …eth, the fi…c is never quenched but the breath of the Lord as a river ofbr… ▪ſtone doth kindle it forever. And therefore it is incomparably better to ceaſe to be, then to live in th…ſe torments, which cannot be equalled by any good, which a being can make us capable of, much leſſe by that poore little … good, which is all the good the damned injoy in hell.
This Sophiſticall evaſion therefore and all others of the like ſert notwithſtanding. I doubt not but I may ſafely ſay, that the unavoidable damna…n of ſo many mi…ions, cannot be abſolutely and antecedently intended by God, without the greateſt injuſtice & cruelty which may in no wiſe be imputed unto God. Plutar…h ſpeaking of the Pagans, who to pacifie the anger of their gods, did ſacrifice to them men and wo…men; it had been much better with Di…gor is and his fellowes to deny the being of a God, then confeſſing a God to thinke he delights in the bloud of men. How much rather may we ſay it were better to be an Atheiſt and deny God, then to believe or report him to be a devourer of the Soules of men? The like argument is preſſed by Euſebius againſt thoſe cruell and merc…es gods of the Pagans, doubtles, ſaith he, if there were any foot-ſtep or ſparke of goodnes in them for which they might deſerve to be called good, they would be diſpoſed to doe good, and deſirous to ſave all men, they would love juſtice and take a care of men. And being ſuch how could they delight in their ſl…ughter &c. Yea he concludeth that they were devills or evill ſpirits; and not Gods or good ſpirits, becauſe if they were good they would doe good; whereas thoſe that are evill uſe to doe hurt. I will therefore ſhut up my firſt reaſon with the ſpeech of Proſper, God indeed is the Creator of all men, but yet of no man for this end, that he might be damned; the reaſon why we are created is one, and why we are damned an th…r.
The Authority of S. Francis Bacon is moſt aliene from the preſent purpoſe, according to Anſwer.the inſtance given by him, which is onelyonly of a deſtruction of a member, as Better eye out then allwayes akeing. Yet this holdes not, ſave of ſuch an akeing, as is more evill and dangerous, then the ſight is beneficiall, but we ſpeake of the univerſall deſtruction of the creature. The ſame appeares by the generality of the exception given, as in caſe the decree of diminution be more ſenſible (for ſo I conceive it ſhould be, and not ſenſitive) then the decree of privation. Whereby it is manifeſt that he ſpeakes of ſuch a privation whereof the creature is ſenſible, though ſenſible with leſſe ſmart and paine then the decree of diminnion. Otherwiſe if it be taken in compariſon of no ſenſe of the one, and ſome ſenſe of the other, it would follow herehence that death is to be preferred before a paine: For every man is ſenſitive of the one, no man is ſenſitive of the other. I deſire no fairer way to come to an iſſue in this particular, then that which is here propoſed by this Author. He grants that ſome evil & pains, either for lightnes or ſhortnes are leſſe then reſolution into nothing. Yet with a perhaps only As if by reaſon of a pain in his back, he were in doubt to reſolve whether it were better for him to be turned into nothing, then to endure it. Is this man yet reſolved whether it be better for him to ſuffer Martyrdome for Chriſt, then to be (I do not ſay reſolved; for as I know no compoſition of nothing; ſo neither do I know any reſolution into nothing) turned into nothing? …t is not credibile: How then cōes in this parentheſis of a perhaps, was it to ſet a good face, upon his argumēt? or was it becauſe he ſaw the dangerous con…equence of this his conceſſion, being direct & abſolute? For I find him more cunning then ſolid throughout like a crafty Crowder For ſeing himſelfe cōfeſſeth that ſome pains & Sorrows are willingly to be ſuffered by every reaſonable man, rather then that he ſhould be turned into nothing. Let us divide the latitude of pains & ſorrows into a thouſand degrees, if he think good: And then let him ſet down unto us at which degree it begins to make a mā more miſerable, thē to be turned into nothing. In like manner as touching the durance of theſe ſorrows; if he ſayth that the ſuffering of hell pains for an hour, for a day, for a year doth not make a mā worſe, thē to be turned into nothing. Let him define ūnto us where that proportiō of time in ſuffering hell begins, which makes a mā more miſerable thē to be turned into nothing Divers Divines maintain that Chriſt ſuffered hel pains for us: Wil this Author ſay that this made him more miſerable thē to be turned into nothing? Had he ſuffered thē to this very day, what helhound wil dare to ſay it had been better for him to be turned into nothing? If S. Auſtin prayed, Da Domine quod jubes & jube quod vis. Lord give me grace to do what thou cōmmādeſt, & thē cōmand what thou wilt. Pelagius ſpighted Auſtin for this.) May we not in like māner pray Lord give us grace to bear what thou layeſt upon us, & then lay upon us what thou wilt? Nay is it not Auſtins profeſſion that the puniſhēnt of infants dying in Originall ſin is mitiſſima & ſuch as they thēſelves would not chooſe to be turned into nothing, to be freed frō it? And is it not in the power of God to give a mā ſtrength to bear the very pains of hel & that without ſin? Did not Chriſt ſuffer thē without ſin, even ſuch ſorrows as the Greek Church profeſſed in their Liturgy to be unknown ſorrows, as Biſhop Andrews ſometims obſerved in a paſſiō ſermō of his? And if it be in the power of God to inable a mā to bear the pains of hel for an hour, a day, a year; is it not in his power to enable thē to hold out in ſuffering thē, & that without ſin for the ſpace of ten thouſand years, & that in infinitū? Again al this while this Author takes no notice of the miſery of ſin, which Arminius (his wel beloved) profeſſeth to be greater thē the miſery of puniſhēnt. And he gives his reaſon for it, becuſe illud bono divino, hoc humano oppoſitū eſt. That is oppoſit to a divine, this to ā humane good? Wil he ſay that it is better for a mā to be turned into nothing, then to rob, ſteale, take the nāe Exam. Praedeſt. Perk. p. 103.of God in vain, profane the Lords ſabbath, to ly with another mans wife, to oppoſe truth againſt his knowledge & cōſcience? If this be his opiniō can he plead the cōmon conſent of the world, or the cōmō ſenſe of mā for this? See by the way how he virifies the being of mā which he calls a poore little entitative good God looked upon al things that he had made, & behold they were very good, not the leaſt fly, or ēmet, or worm is excepted frō the cōmendatio, yet mā was made after the Image & likenes of God. In other creaturs are foūd veſtigia Dei, footſteps of God, as Martin Luther obſerves out of the Antients, but mā is Imago Dei the very Image of God; Yet this Author cals it a poor little ētitative good; & barely ſayth it, & when he hath done, wipes his lipps frō al ſophiſticatiō, & claps that upon the back of his adverſaries very authoritatively. Then the queſtion is only of Miſeria paenae, whether it makes a mā worſe then annihilatiō, not in a cōplicate condition with ſin, which is the condition of the dāned. Yet thus he carrieth it to ſerve his turn; whereas in Arminius his opinion, the ſinfull condition of the dāned, makes them more miſerable then thir torments. But if the torments of hell in thēſelves are able to make a man in a worſe condition then to be turned into nothing, then an holy Angell or Saint ſhould chooſe rather to be turned into nothing, thē to ſuffer the torēnts of hell. And the Schoole divines diſpute ſeverally of the miſery of ſinne, and the miſery of torēnt, & that with ſuch different reſolutions upon the point, as to maintaine, that albeit the miſery of torment is not ſo bad as utter ānihilation, yet the miſery of ſinne, is. Yet therein I willingly profeſſe I am not of their mind. For what? are not the Children of God ſinners? Now what ſober Chriſtian will affirme, that it were better for them to be annihilated, then to be ſinners. If you ſay, therefore it is not better for God's children to be annihilated then to be ſinners; becauſe they are not only ſinners, but they are in the ſtate of grace. I proceed farther, and demand whether God's Elect before their calling, being yet in the ſtate of ſin, as Manaſſes and Saul before their vocation, were better to be annihilated, then to be as they are. What if I am a ſinner, yet while I have any being I may mourne for my ſinne, I may ſerve God, I may enjoy his favour in the pardoning of my ſinne, is not this a better condition then not to be, which is a condition conjunct as well with the deſtruction of ſanctity as of ſinne?
But the former argument, which he takes ſo much paines to enervate, he calls a ſophiſticall evaſion, and addes that ſo are all others of the like ſort, very magiſterially and reſolutely. But what thoſe others are he doth not ſo much as name. Not ſo much as one of Auſtin's, whoſe diſcourſe alone I propoſed on this point; together with an argument of Durand's, neither of all which doth he touch, yet I am the marke ſet up by him to ſhoote at, not Durand, not any one of the School-men, not Auſtin whoſe diſcourſes alone I propoſed. And as for the argument here mentioned, melius eſt eſſe, quam non eſſe; It is better to be then to have no being, therefore it is better to be in hell torment then not to be. This is neither argument, nor any of thoſe that I propoſed out of Durand and Auſtin. Durand's argument is, To be annihilated is an univerſall deſtruction of man's nature, not only of his well being, but of being: but hell paines is the deſtruction only of his well being not of his being. Neither is it anſwerable to the argument formerly mentioned by him p. 19. which was this. He that wants a being enjoyeth no good, but he that is tormented in hell hath a being, and by conſequence ſome thing that is good. Now this argument cometh nereſt to Maldonats diſcourſe upon that of our Saviour, ſpeaking of Iudas. It had been good for that man he had not been borne. Some, ſaith he, diſpute ſubtilly more then enough, how it could be better for Iudas, not to have Mat. 26. 24.been; whereas not to be is no good, to be damned is ſome good. For he that is damned is ſomewhat; And every thing that is, as it hath a being, is good. And we know that man's being is no common good but a ſpeciall one, as being made after God's owne Image and likeneſſe. And looke with what judgment this Author extenuates, being humane, calling it a poore, little entitative good; with the ſame judgment he might extenuate Angelicall being. For even among Angells ſome have their portion in hell fire. But now he comes to his firſt propoſition, that unavoidable damnation of ſo many millions can not be abſolutely and antecedently intended by God, without the greateſt injuſtice and cruelty. The queſtion is of the ſuffering of hell paines, whether it be worſe then to be annihilated? This Authour runnes upon the terme damnation, which is a civill and judiciall act. Is there no difference between theſe? They that ſay Chriſt ſufferd the paines of hell, doe they ſay Chriſt was damned? Then to ſpeake with a fuller mouth he puts in the damnation of ſo many millions, whereas if the damnation of one may be intended by God without injuſtice after what manner ſoever, undoubtedly the damnation of never ſo many millions may. Then he helps himſelfe with the Epithite of unavoidable added to damnation, and the terme abſolutely affixed to God's intention, to no purpoſe that I know, but to abuſe himſelfe and others by confuſion; for feare leaſt the truth ſhould break forth to their conviction. To intend damnation avoidable, what is it but to intend it conditionally. And to intend damnation not abſolutely, is all one with to intend it conditionally. Now to intend the damnation of any man conditionally is with this Author as much, to intend his ſalvation as his damnation. Yet this he calls the intention of damnation. And Bradwardine hath long agoe maintained and demonſtated by evidence of reaſon, that there is no conditionate will of God: And this Authour will not ſay (I ſuppoſe) that God did intend that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer hell paines conditionately, or that if he did intēd it abſolutely, he was unjuſt in ſo doing. Now both D. Iackſon expreſly confeſſeth, that the diſtinction of will antecedent and conſequent in God▪ is to be underſtood, not as touching the act of willing, but as touching the thing willed. And Gerardus Voſſius acknowledgeth that after the ſame manner muſt the conditionate will, which is aſcribed unto God, be interpreted. Now we willingly confeſſe that the thing willed and intended by God to Reprobates, namely, damnation, befalls none, but in caſe they dye in ſinne without repentance. And as already I have ſhewed not any of our Divines maintaine that God intended to damne any man but for ſinne. Only the maine point of difference between us is, as touching the conferring & denying grace, even the grace of regeneration, the grace of faith and repentance. Herein we willingly confeſſe that God carrieth himſelfe merely according to the pleaſure of his own will, according to that of the Apoſtle, He hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. Now on this point this Authour keeps himſelfe cloſe, and earthes himſelfe within his own concealements, leſt he ſhould betray the bitter Leven of Pelagianiſme, in maintaining that grace is conferred according unto workes, which cannot be avoided by him, if once he comes to deale on this Argument. He thinks he hath great advantage in the point of Reprobation, and very free he is here, but declines the point of election, and point of conferring grace, which argueth a naughty diſpoſition, practiſing by indirect courſes to circumvent and ſuppreſſe the truth, rather then conferre any thing for the clearing of it: yet ſee his confuſed carriage in the very point. For when he ſpeakes of damnation avoidable and unavoidable, he takes no paines to manifeſt in what ſenſe he takes it to be avoidable; as whether by power of nature, or power of grace. Is it his meaning that any man's damnation is avoidable by grace? We deny it not. Or is it his meaning that it is avoidable by nature? we utterly deny this. But this man counts it his wiſedome not to ſpeake diſtinctly, but worke his advantage upon confuſion of things that differ; but let all ſuch take heed, leaſt utter confuſion be their end. But if it be his meaning that all men have power to avoid damnation if they will, to wit, in as much as they have power to beleive if they will, to repent if they will: I would he would deale fairely once, and come to this. The Scripture is expreſſe, That they that are in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God, that the naturall man diſcerneth not the things of God, that they are fooliſhneſſe unto him, Rom. 8. 1 Cor. 2. 14. Ioh. 12. Rom. 2 Deut. 29. 34. Phil. 1. 29. Eph. 2. 8. Acts. 18. 11. 1 Tim. 2 25.neither can he know them becauſe they are ſpiritually diſcerned. That, they cannot beleive, cannot repent. Of the Children of Iſrael in the wilderneſſe that, God had not given them eyes to ſee, eares to heare, nor hearts to perceive fourty yeares. And truely we take faith and repentance to be the guift of God. And the habits of them not to be a power to beleive and repent if a man would, but an habituall and morall inclination of them to believe, to repent. And habits (as it was wont to be ſaid) Agunt ad modum naturae, doe worke after the manner of nature. And it is very ſtrang that ſupernaturall grace ſhould not. And long agoe I have learnt in Auſtin, that to doe good, and obey God if a man will, is rather nature then grace. For the will alone is all in all as touching acts morall, good or evill; and till the will be changed, we are as farre off as ever, from performing any thing that is pleaſing in the ſight of God. This is the peculiar glory of God's grace, To make us perfect to every good worke, and to worke in us that with is pleaſing in his ſight through Ieſus Chriſt, and this he doth according to his good pleaſure. For grace is not conferred according unto Heb. 13. 21. Phil. 3. 13.workes. That was condemned as a peſtilent doctrine long agoe in the Synod of Paleſtine, and all along in divers Councells againſt the Pelagians. How gladly ſhould I imbrace any delineation of this Authours opinion in the point of grace and free will, the rather, becauſe I ſeem to ſmell who he is by this which followeth. For I remember ſometime under whoſe hand I read it; namely, that, Plutarch ſpeaking of the Pagans, who to pacifie the anger of their gods, did ſacrifice to them men and women, ſhould ſay, It had been much better with Diagoras and his fellowes to deny the being of a God, then confeſſing a God, to think he delights in the blood of men. But allbeit this ſupercilious and confident profeſſor be of Plutarch's mind in this, I willingly profeſſe I am not. I know no naturall reaſon why he ſhould delight more or leſſe in the bloud of beaſts, then in the bloud of men. Only it pleaſed him by the bloud of Bulls and Goats to repreſent the delight he took in the ſatisfaction made in the blood of his own Sonne. We know in what errand the Lord ſent Abraham three dayes journey, namely, to ſacrifice his Sonne upon mount Moriah; had not God hindred him it had been done; Abraham knew no other but that it ſhould be done, when he anſwered his Sonne ſaying, My God will provide himſelfe of a burnt offering. Abraham did not Gen. 22.break forth in this man's language, to ſay he would rather deny there was any God, then believe he delights in bloud; neither had he delighted in bloud, though Iſaak had been ſacrificed, but in the obedience of his ſervants. Nor had Iſaack received any loſſe by this. For Abraham knew that God was able to raiſe him from the dead. Did not Samſon ſacrifice himſelfe. Chriſt was content to ſhed his precious bloud for us, and we by his grace ſhall be content to ſhed our bloud for him, & that according to his good will and pleaſure. Let heathens thus diſcourſe who are nothing acquainted with the powers of the world to come; but a foule ſhame it is for Chriſtians to comply with them. But, how much rather, ſaith this Authour, may we ſay it were better to be an Atheiſt, then to beleive or report him to be a devourer of the ſoules of men. Yet I cannot be perſwaded it is better to be an Atheiſt then to belive even this. For I muſt not give ground to a confident Theologue for his bare proteſtation ſake. What is it I pray for God to be a devourer of the ſoules of men? Is it any other then to be a tormenter of of them in hell fire? Now doth not this man believe that God deals ſo with millions of ſoules? Doth not he profeſſe, that, the breath of the Lord as a river of brimſtone doth kindle that fire? what out recuydance hath poſſeſt the ſpirit of this Cavaliere that he ſhould flaunt it to the world in this manner? It ſeemes his atcheivements known ſo well to the world have puft him up, that he ſwells with the conceit of it: And 'tis enough for him now to brave it with proteſtations inſteed of arguments, wherein having known him ſo well heretofore, I cannot but wonder at the poverty of his ſpirit; he will battle ſo long upon his credit and reputation with the world, that it will crack at length; and he prove bankrupt: So that proteſt what he will no man will truſt him for a groat. Now in that manuſcript of his, which it was my hap ſometime to have a view of, his proteſtation upon the book of that ſaying of Plutarch was ſomewhat different, thus. I proteſt unto you, I think it was leſſe diſhonour able to the bleſſed Trinity to ſay with the Atheiſt there is no God, then to forme ſuch a God, as the decree of Reprobation maintained by the Contraremonſtrants, maketh him to be. This proteſtation though it had courſe in private, yet here it is changed that it might not ſee the light of the Preſſe. For it is well known that this toucheth nearely a whole Synod of the Church reformed; and that countenanced by King Iames and divers worthy Divines of this Kingdome ſubſcribing to it, ſome yet living, and two of them in Apice Epiſcopali, in Epiſcopall dignity. Yet what is that doctrine of the Contraremonſtrants that he pincheth upon? It is well knowne that their generall tenet is that God ordaines no man to damnation but for ſinne; ſome difference there hath been, and is about the ordering of God's decrees, which is merely apex Logicus, & what my opinion is thereabouts is well known; namely that in no moment of time or reaſon doth God ordaine any man to damnation, before the conſideration of ſinne, more particularly thus; that all beſides the Elect, God hath ordained to bring them forth into the world in their corrupt maſſe, and to permit them to their ſelves, to go on in their own waies, and ſo finally to perſevere in ſinne, and laſtly to damne them for their ſinne, for the manifeſtation of the Glory of his Juſtice on them, & of the greater mercy on the veſſells of mercy, whom he hath prepared unto glory; inaſmuch as he hath of his free grace provided better for them, then for millions of others. Only as touching the grace of regeneration, of faith and of repentance; he did not only ordaine of his mere pleaſure to beſtow that on his Elect, and not on Reprobates; but in time he doth of his mere pleaſure conferre that grace on ſome; denying it to others. This doctrine is ſo diſhonourable to the Trinity in this Authors judgment, as that to deny there is any God at all, he thinks to be leſſe diſhonourable: A prodigious aſſertion! We have the leſſe cauſe to be moved, when he preferred the annihilation of our natures, before the ſuffering of hell paines. When he ſeemes to preferre the annihilating of the bleſſed Trinity, before the renouncing of his own vile fancies. As for that of Euſebius, true it is, the god's of Paynims ſought only the deſtruction of thoſe that ſerved them, and that not of their bodyes but their ſoules alſo. The true God put Abraham once upon the ſacrificing of his Son, for the tryall of his faith and obedience, but perceiving his obſequious readineſſe, took a courſe to reſtraine him. Of him it it is true, He ſaveth both man and beaſt, and the eyes of all doe wait upon him, and he gives them meat in due ſeaſon, he heareth the cry of Ravens, and not a ſparrow lights upon the ground without his providence; The very Lyons roaring after their prey do ſeek their meat at (the hands of) God. Yet if he be pleaſed to ſave our ſoules, we have reaſon to ſubmit unto him in doing what he will with our bodies, which yet one day he will raiſe, glorious bodyes, when mortality ſhall be ſwallowed up of life. We acknowledge no other end of man's creation, and of all other Divine Acts of God, but his own glory. For even there where Solomon profeſſeth, God hath made even the wicked againſt the day of evill, he withall acknowledgeth, that both them and all things, he hath made for himſelfe. God of his mere pleaſure created all, but of his mere pleaſure he damneth none. But every one that is damned is damned for his ſin, & that willfully committed & contumaciouſly continued by them that come to ripe yeares. For as Auſtin ſaith Libertas ſine gratia non eſt libertas, ſed contumacia: Liberty without grace, is not liberty, but willfullneſſe or contumacy. I come to the ſecond part of his firſt argument.