The Riches of Gods Love, Part 1 · Section 4
Sect. 4.
M. Maſon's Aditions p. 18. 19. D. Twiſ: his Vindiciae l. 2. p. 1. Digreſ. 1.But it is replyed by ſome (who will rather ſpeak unreaſonably and againſt common ſenſe then lay down the concluſions which they have undertaken to maintain) that it is more elegible to be tortured in hell then to want or looſe a being. For he that wants a being enjoyeth no good, but he that is tormented in hell, hath a being, and by conſequent ſomething that is good. If therefore God may take away a man's being that is innocent, and turne him into nothing for his pleaſure, much more may he torment him in hell.
I am glad to ſee my name ſo often remembred by this Authour in his margent; for a long time I deſired to know his way by certaine evidence; for I would not ſuffer my ſelfe Anſwer.to be carried away with rumours; and withall I found ſome contradiction in the relations I received from different perſons, but at length I was ſo happy as to ſee it under his own hand, and there to obſerve not his judgment only, but the ſtrength of his affections alſo. Now let the Reader obſerve the cunning carriage of this Authour, and how farre off it is from all ingenuitie. For what I diſcourſe, being drawne thereunto by Arminius his excurſions, that this Authour obtrudes upon me, as if the defence of the cauſe I tooke in hand had drawn me thereunto, notwithſtanding that I have profeſſed the contrary. For thus I write l. 1. pag. 1. De electione Sect: 4. pag. 127. In the canvaſing of this ſection Arminius runs out at large, ſaving that moſt of theſe things which here he heapes up are aliena, and nothing pertinent to the preſent purpoſe; as pertaining rather to the decree of reprobation, then to the decree of election. And a little after I write thus; Hence it is that Arminius expatiates and transfers his diſputation from the point of election, to the point of Reprobation too unſeaſonably: Yet wiſely affecting the incolumity of his wavering cauſe. By that right (ſaith he) which God hath over his creature, he cannot ordaine any man to the ſuffering of pain without the foreſight of ſinnne. To wit that his cauſe might ſtand upright, and that this examiner might omit nothing that tends to the making of his opinion plauſible with his propitious reader, it was needfull that he ſhould make uſe of ſome ſuch tranſition, though never ſo unreaſonable but ſeeing ſuch are the wiles and artifices of our Adverſaries to confound all Scholaſticall method, it ſhall not be unſeaſonable for me to weigh what he delivers as briefly as I can. Therefore after I had refuſed Arminius on that point, where he denyes, that God can doe that injuſtice, which he can doe by power; after this manner I enter upon a new digreſſion concerning this point. Hitherto have I followed Arminius in his extravagants. For M. Perkins hath not proceeded ſo farre; as to affirme that God hath power to afflict an innocent creature, neither hath his Adverſaries objected any ſuch thing unto him, as juſtly inferred from ought delivered by him. So that all ſuch have well hardened their foreheads, who faigne that our opinion cannot well ſubſiſt without the help of ſo horrid and ſo harſh an aſſertion, to wit, That it is better to be miſerable, then not to be at all. It is true, ſome may conceive that though this were a truth, it were to be ſuppreſſed, rather then affirmed by reaſon of the harſhneſſe of it. Let every one conſider aright that I undertake the defence of M. Perkins, and it is he that hath uttered this harſh aſſertion, (namely, That God can inflict hell paines without any demerit in the creature) out of Cameracenſis: And it ſtood me upon to defend M. Perkins ſo farre as I had reaſon for it. Now finding the maine argument whereby Arminius maintaines the contrary (to that other, yet more harſh propoſition) to be moſt unſound; and even this aſſertion which ſounds moſt harſh in the eares of many, not only to be maintained by Auſtine himſelfe and and divres Schoole-Divines, but anſwered by many arguments, the ſolution whereof was never expedited by any; have I deſerved ſo ſharply to be cenſured for repreſenting all this in the way of juſtifying M. Perkins, whoſe defence I undertook againſt Arminius?
1. My words are theſe tranſlated, God can annihilate the holieſt creature, which Arminius confeſſeth, how much more is it in his power to afflict an innocent creature, and that for ever, conſidering that not only according to Schoole-divines, but alſo according to Auſtine, yea according to the truth it ſelfe, it is more to be deſired to have being under any pain, then to have no being at all. And afterwards I propoſe not one argument of mine own for the juſtifying of this, but only repreſent the diſcourſe of Auſtine hereupon, as it is analized by Durandus that Schoole Divine. Now why are not the School-men cenſured, as men ſpeaking unreaſonably and againſt common ſenſe? Nay why is not Auſtine cenſured as one that had rather ſpeak unreaſonably and againſt common ſenſe; then lay downe the concluſion which he hath once undertaken to maintain, as well as my ſelfe? Yea and much more conſidering that the diſcourſe proving this, is Saint Auſtin's; and had I not added on the by theſe four words etiam ſecundum ipſam veritatem, there had been no place at all for any cenſure to be paſt upon me. If a man finding himſelfe convicted by Auſtin's diſcourſe ſhall confeſſe that what he writes is true, is it equity to cenſure him as one who had rather ſpeak unreaſonably and againſt common ſenſe, then lay down the concluſions which formerly he hath undertaken to maintain. When in the mean time no cenſure is at all paſſed upon Auſtine, who alone is the player of the game, he that ſtands by profeſſing only in his judgment, he playes his game well.
2. If Auſtine hath ſpoken unreaſonably and againſt common ſenſe, how comes it to paſſe that this cenſurer hath not taken the paines to repreſent unto the world the unreaſonableneſſe of his argument? This authour ſpends his mouth frankly in cenſuring, but takes no paines to free his Reader from errour, by ſolving arguments produced by Auſtin for the proofe of that wich this Authour conceives to be an errour.
3. Nay he doth not ſo much as anſwer that one argument, which here is propoſed by me. An argument which the Scoole-men uſe as ſufficiently convincing the truth, as Durandus and Ricardus. Yet conſidering the unreaſonable condition of ſuch adverſaries, who take no courſe to convince or confute their oppoſites, but imperiouſly to cry them down; I have taken the paines to call to an account both Auſtin's arguments and others propoſed by Schoole-Divines, and to deviſe with my ſelfe what anſwer might be made unto them, ſo to performe that for my adverſaries, which they ſhew no hart to performe for themſelves, and I was borne in hand that ſuch a digreſſion of mine ſhould be extant long ere this.
4 Yet by the way I wonder not a little that one thing is pretermitted. For if I miſtake not, this very Authour is the man that heretofore hath been very full mouthed in cenſuring, not ſo much the doctrine it ſelfe, as a certain anſwer I made to an argument brought out of Scripture againſt it; namely from thoſe words of our Saviour, It had been better for that man if he had never been born. My anſwer was, that it was ſpoken according to the judgment of man, though indeed erroneous; and that after this manner phraſeologies of Scripture doe proceed I there ſhewed. Now this Authour hereupon ſpared not to profeſſe, that if this were true he would turne Atheiſt. I wiſht that Friend of mine to whom he ſpake this, to perſwade him the next time he met with him, to enquire and conſider well, whether Maldonat the Jeſuite doth not imbrace the ſame interpretation. And indeed if ſuch proteſtations would carry it, this Authour would prove a very potent and formidable adverſary, I have ſeen the like under his own hand, namely this, As Plutarch ſaid of the old heathens who ſacrificed men that they might pacifie their gods: that it had been better with Diagoras to ſay, There is no god, then to think that God is ſuch a one that delights in the blood of men: And hereupon he adds this Proteſtation, I proteſt unto you I think it leſs diſhonourable to the bleſſed Trinity, to ſay with the Atheiſt, there is no god, then to feigne ſuch a God, as the decree of Reprobation maintained by the Contraremonſtrants maketh him to be. This man I find is reſorted unto and conſulted with by the Arminians, as if his judgment were an oracle; and I willingly confeſſe he deſerves to be in ſome great place unto them: and no place in my judgmentmore fit then to be unto the, à proteſtationibus. Yet I doe not preſcribe but leave it to their diſcretion to prefer him as they think good: but how comes it to paſſe, that here he is ſilent in reviving the reproaches he caſt upō my anſwer to the Scripture before mentioned? Is it becauſe Maldonat the Jeſuite hath been ſince found by him to embrace the ſame interpretation? And he is loath to fall ſo foule in cenſuring ſuch as he is? Yet here he falls foul on me for profeſſing my approbation, not of Schoole-men but of Auſtin's diſcourſe. This makes me call to mind what was delivered of him ſometimes by a London Miniſter; as that he ſhould perſwade a young Divine to ſtudy Bellarmine; as alſo what cenſures others have paſſed upon ſome writings of his. And it hath been my hap to ſee under his own hand ſuch a counſaile as this givē to a friend of his. Theſe things have I repreſented unto you the rather, becauſe I would give you occaſion to learne that in your younger dayes, which I have learned by late and long experience in my ſelfe, and that in theſe two things. Firſt in reading Bellarmine and other adverſaies to our Church; I have divers times noted ſuch ſpeeches in them, as to my thinking involved contradiction, or had ſhew of abſurdity, or might either give advantage to our ſelves, or breed prejudice unto them; but when afterward I came in cooler blood to weigh the words better, and to conſider the circumſtances more narrowly. I found that I did miſtake their meaning, and that an itching deſire to find an advantage, made me to take ſhadowes for ſubſtance. And the like miſtake in my ſelfe I obſerved, when I read the fathers, or the Scriptures, ready to interpret every thing either in favour of mine own cauſe, or in prejudice of the adverſaries: And concludes ſententiouſly thus; Nimirum ita eſt ingenium noſtrum, facile credimus, quae nimium volumus. If ſuch be the genius of this Authour, though he thinks not good to ſpare me for Auſtin's ſake, yet methinks he ſhould ſpare me for Richardus ſake, or at the leaſt for Maldonat's ſake. This calls to my remembrance an Epigramme which D. Hoskins my chamber-fellow in New-Colledge ſometimes made upon the fleas, (that ſore troubled him as he lay in his bed.) And the concluſion was thus;
But if ther's nothing that can ſlack
Your rage and your correction,
Yet ô remember you are black;
And ſpare me for complexion.
So we proceed.