The Anatomy of Arminianism, Chapter 25
CHAP. XXV.
Whether Chriſt be the cauſe and foundation of Election.
I. WE ſay that no man is ſaued but by and for Chriſt, and that Chriſt is the foreign, and price of our redemption, the foundation and meritorious cauſe of our ſaluation: But we doe not ſay that he is the cauſe of election, or the cauſe why of two conſidered in the corrupted maſſe, one is preferred before another. There are not wanting examples of moſt wicked men to one whereof (God ſo diſpenſing) the Goſpell hath beene preached, whence it came to paſſe that he was conuerted and did beleeue, but to the other the Goſpell hath not beene preached: The Scripture doth not ſay that the death of Chriſt is the cauſe of this, but doth fetch the cauſe from the good pleaſure of God, who hath mercy on whom he will: For the louelove of the father doth alwaies goe before the mediation of the ſonne, ſeeing that the louelove of the father to the world, was the cauſe why he ſent his ſonne.
Yea truely, ſeeing Chriſt himſelfe, as he is man, is elected, and the head of the elect, hee cannot be the foundation and cauſe of election: For as hee is the head of men, as he is a man; ſo is he the head of them that are predeſtinated, as he is a man predeſtinated to ſo great honour, which came to him by the meere grace of God.
II. Wherefore the Apoſtle calleth Chriſt foreign, the price of our redemption, and, foreign, the propitiation, Coloſſ. 1. Rom. 3. but he doth not ſay that he is the cauſe why ſome men ſhould be elected rather then others.
III. Reaſon it ſelfe doth conſent. For as the recouery of the ſicke-man doth in the intention alwaies goe before the vſing of the Phiſitian; ſo it muſt needes be, that in the minde of God, the thought of ſauing men was (not in time, but in order) before the thought of ſending the Sauiour.
IV. Adde to theſe, that the mediation and redemption of Chriſt, is an action whereby the iuſtice of God is ſatisfied, which is not ſignified by the word Election; for it is one thing to be a mediator, and another thing to be the cauſe of Election, or of the preferring of one before another in the ſecret counſell of God: Whence it is, that Chriſt is the meritorious cauſe of our ſaluation, but not of our election; which is as much as if I ſhould ſay, that Chriſt is the foundation and cauſe of the execution of the decree of Election, but not the cauſe of Election it ſelfe.
V. It is of no ſmall moment that Chriſt, Iohn 15.13. ſaith, That he layeth downe his life for his friends: & chap. 10. v. 11. he calleth himſelfe the good ſhepheard, that layeth downe his life for his ſheepe: And if Chriſt be dead for his friends, and for his ſheepe, it muſt needs be, that when he died for them, he did conſider them as being already friends and ſheepe, although many of them were not then called, as Chriſt himſelfe doth teſtifie, who in the ſixteenth verſe of the ſame chapter doth call thoſe alſo his ſheepe, who were not yet conuerted. And if Chriſt dying for vsus, conſidered vsus as his friends and ſheepe, it is plaine, that before the death of Chriſt, there was already deſtinction made betweene his friends and enemies, betweene the ſheep and goates, and therefore that the decree of Election was in order, before the death of Chriſt, and that the opinion of Arminius, is to be hiſſed out, as an opinion ſubuerting the Goſpell, whereby hee thinkes that the election had not place when Chriſt died. Certainly he that died for his ſheepe, died for the elect, and not for them who were to be elected after hee was dead.
By theſe things it is plaine, that by thoſe friends and ſheepe for which Chriſt died, are not vnderſtood thoſe, onelyonly, who louelove God and follow Chriſt, but all thoſe whom God loueth, and whoſe ſaluation hee decreed: for whom Chriſt died when they did not yet louelove God, and when they were enemies to him. And therefore they are called enemies, Rom. 5.10. becauſe they did not louelove God, but yet euen then they were highly loued by God, and were appointged to ſaluation in Chriſt: For in a diuers reſpect they were both friends and enemies, ſheepe and goates: Friends becauſe God loued them, enemies becauſe they did not yet louelove God.
VI. Neither is iniurie done to Chriſt, if the louelove of the Father, and his good pleaſure be ſaid to goe in order before the decree of ſending his ſonne, ſeeing Chriſt himſelfe doth witneſſe it Iohn, 3.16. God ſo loued the world, that he gaue his onelyonly begotten ſonne, &c. where the louelove of the father is manifeſtly ſet before the ſending of the ſonne, which is ſo to be vnderſtood, as that the ſonne is not excluded from the act of election it ſelfe; ſeeing that he alſo is one God with the father, but this was done by him, not as hee is mediator, but as he is God.
VII. Neither is any iniury done to Chriſt, if the will of the father concerning the ſauing of men, be ſaid to goe before the redemption of Chriſt, ſeeing that this redemption is alſo after ſinne: for the diſeaſe is before the medicine.
VIII. Nor is any thing detracted from the greatneſſe of the price of our redemption, if his will who offered the price, be ſaid to goe before it.
IX. The very definition of the decree of election, doth proue this thing; for election is the decree of ſauing certaine men by Chriſt, in which definition, Chriſt is laid downe, not as the cauſe of election, but as the meanes of the execution of it, and as the meritorious cauſe of ſaluation.
X. It is maruailous, how much the Arminians inſult here: For becauſe wee make the louelove of God to goe (not in time, but in order) before the mediation of the ſonne, they ſo deale with vsus, as if we taught, that God loued vsus without Chriſt, and as being conſidered without faith in Chriſt, which doth differ as much from our opinion, as that which doth differ moſt. Be it farre from vsus, that wee ſhould ſay, that God would euer beſtow ſaluation vponupon vsus, but that together and in the ſame moment he conſidered vsus in Chriſt, as being to be ſaued by him: Nor was there any cauſe why we for that thing ſhould be accuſed of Sicianiſme; we hauehave nothing to doe with that Alaſtor and helliſh monſter, which doth altogether ouerthrow the benefit of Chriſt: But it is one thing to ſay that the louelove of the father doth, in order, goe before the mediation of the ſonne; and another thing to ſay that God loueth vsus without the ſonne. It is one thing to diſpoſe the thoughts of God in order, and another thing to ſeparate them, and pull them aſunder. Arminius who in the beginning of his booke againſt Perkins, calleth himſelfe a wirty fellow, do…h craftily, yea wickedly catch at and hunt after points of priority in order, to pull aſunder thoſe things which cannot be ſeperated. Hee doth therefore as much as if one ſhould ſay, that the thought of creating man, was firſt in order, in God, before the thought of adorning him with holineſſe and righteouſnes, and would thence inferrre that God would firſt create man not iuſt, or firſt to hauehave conſidered him as not holy. If any man ſaith that in the decree of God, the thought of ouerthrowing of the world, was before the thought of ouerthrowing it by fire, hee doth not therefore ſay, that God firſt thought of ouerthrowing it without fire. All the purpoſes of God are eternall, although there be a certaine order and dependency betweene them.
XI. That place of Saint Iohn, Chap. 3. vexeth Arminius: God ſo loued the world, that hee gaue his onelyonly begotten ſonne, &c. where the louelove of God is laide downe, as the cauſe by which it came to paſſe, that he gaue the ſonne: He doth therefore endeauour to delude ſo direct a place by a witleſſe cauell, That louelove (ſaith he) is not that by which he will giuegive eternall life; which appeareth by the very words of Iohn, who doth ioyne faith betweene this louelove and eternall life. The Reader therefore ſhall obſerue, that Arminius himſelfe doth acknowledge, that there is a kinde of louelove of God towards men, which doth goe before his decree of ſending his ſonne. But hee ſaith that God by that louelove is not willing to giuegive eternall life. What then will hee doe by it? For this thing hee ought to ſhew. Will God by that louelove, leaue men in death? Is it poſſible that God ſhould louelove the creature, created by him to life, but he muſt needes by the ſame louelove, will that it ſhould liue? I am aſhamed of ſo weake a ſubtilty. Yea truely, in that he ſent his ſonne, by that louelove it is ſufficiently manifeſt, that by that louelove he was willing man ſhould be reſtored to life: But (ſaith he) faith commeth betweene that louelove and eternall life: What then? Cannot I will the recouery of him that is ſicke, although the Phiſition come betweene my will and his recouery. Surely he maketh thoſe things oppoſite and contrary, which are appolite, and ioyned together. But I doe not ſee how he rather fauoureth Socinus, who ſaith that Chriſt is not the cauſe of Election, then he that ſaith that Chriſt is not the cauſe of the louelove whereby God would ſend Chriſt into the world, and prouide for vsus a redeemer: Or why there ſhould be a greater offence in making the redemption of Chriſt to be the medium, and meane betweene the louelove of God, by which hee elected vsus, and betweene our ſaluation, then if it be made the medium, a meane betweene the louelove of God, by which he will giuegive Chriſt for vsus, and betweene our ſaluation: For on both ſides redemption is made the meanes, and not the firſt cauſe. Let vsus not therefore enuy God the father this praiſe, that his good pleaſure thould be made the fountaine and firſt originall of our Election.
XII. Obſerue moreouer that that Election whereof Arminius will hauehave Chriſt to be the foundation, is that generall election, whereby all men are conditionally elected, which ſeeing wee hauehave largely conſuted, Chap. 18. whatſoeuer the Arminians doe bring to proue that Chriſt is the foundation of election, doth vaniſh away. Surely there was no cauſe why they ſhould ſo earneſtly labour to proue that Chriſt was the foundation of that election, by which Pharaoh and Iudas were elected: Of which imaginary election, he ſhall hauehave the true character and portraiture, who hath brought in God ſpeaking thus: I decreed to ſend my ſonne to ſaue all men who ſhall beleeue, but who and how many they ſhall be, I hauehave not determined; onelyonly I will giuegive to all men ſufficient power to beleeue, but he ſhall belecue who will himſelfe.
XIII. Arminius doth defend himſelfe againſt ſo euident a truth, by one little word of the Apoſtle, Epheſ. 1.4. He hath elected vsus in Chriſt: But it is one thing to be elected in Chriſt, and another thing to be elected for Chriſt, ſo that Chriſt ſhould be the cauſe why one is elected rather then another. The meaning of the Apoſtle is cleere: To elect, is nothing elſe then to appoint to ſaluation. Therfore to elect in Chriſt, is to appoint to ſaluation, to be obtained in or by Chriſt: For whoſoeuer God hath decreed to ſaue he hath giuen them to Chriſt, and hath conſidered them as ioyned to Chriſt. Hee ſeeketh a knot in a bulruſh, who by farre fetched interpretations would darken that which is perſpicuous and plaine.
XIV. For a foundation of this their opinion, Arminius, and after him Arnoldus, doth lay this propoſition: That Predeſtination is the foundation of Chriſtianity. This demand he will hauehave to be granted him, for he doth not proue it; no otherwiſe then if one in the beginning of a diſputation, would obtaine by ſuite, and would deſire that it might be granted him, that a circle hath corners. This is a great demand, and that which I thinke no man would grant him, who knoweth what predeſtination is, and what is the foundation of Chriſtian Religion. The foundation, of Chriſtian Religion is, to acknowledge that Chriſt, the onelyonly ſonne of God, is ſent from the father, that whoſoeuer beleeueth in him might not periſh but hauehave euerlaſting life. It muſt needes be that the foundation of Chriſtianity be the rule of faith, on which the faith of Chriſtians muſt reſt; but predeſtination is not the rule of faith, but the action of God, whereby bee determined to ſaue certaine men by Chriſt. Farre be it from vsus that wee ſhould ſay, that the ſecret decree, by which ſeuerall men, as Peter or Charles, &c. are elected, is the foundation of Chriſtianity. Whoſoeuer would from thence beginne to teach Religion, and would beginne the elements of Chriſtian faith at this decree of Predeſtination, hee ſhould eyther, by the darkeneſſe caſt before him, tremble at the very entrance, or ſhould fall downe right, as being taken with giddineſſe. Whatſoeuer things therfore Arnoldus doth build on ſo falſe a propoſition, doe of themſelues fall to the ground, ſo that we neede not ouerthrow thoſe things, which of themſelues will fall downe. Further alſo he doth impugne and ſtriue againſt that thing which is not beleeued by vsus, to wit, that we are loued by God without Chriſt; onelyonly the ambiguity wherewith he would deceiue the Reader, is to be noted, when he ſaith, Page 171. That Chriſt is the foundation of our receining into grace, and into the louelove of God. If by receiuing into grace and louelove, he vnderſtand the reconciliation by his ſatisfaction performed for vsus; I confeſſe that Chriſt is the foundation of that receiuing into grace, and of that louelove: But if by receiuing into grace and louelove, be vnderſtood that louelove of the father, by which hee would ſend his ſonne to ſaue vsus (which is the greateſt louelove of all, and the fountaine of all good) certainely Arminius himſelfe would not hauehave Chriſt to be the foundation of that louelove; and yet by that very ſame louelove, God choſe from eternity whom he would.
XV. I doe not ſearch into that which Arminius boldly and raſhly hath dared to ſay, that God could not ſaue vsus otherwiſe then by Chriſt, nor had he any other meanes for the ſaluation of man. God could not (ſaith he) will eternall life to any one without the reſpect of a mediator: And the Arminian conferrers at the Hage; It is impoſsible for God to decree ſaluation to ſinners, but that he muſt before hauehave decreed the ſatisfaction of his iuſtice: Now they ſpeake of the ſatisfaction of Chriſt. Surely they doe boldly and raſhly containe the wiſedome of God within limits, and if this thing were true, yet it were not for man to ſpeake ſuch things: It is ſufficient that God hath followed the moſt conuenient way, and then which none is better. By the way it is to be obſerued, that this opinion hath not pleaſed Vorſtius. He, Page 33. diſput. de Deo, doth affirme, That it was lawfull for God to relent or yeelde ſomewhat of his owne right, no leſſe then to retaine or purſue that which is his right. And Page 399. It is falſe to ſay, that no ſinne could be let paſſe vnpuniſhed by the iuſtice of God.
XVII. The conferrers at the Hage doe thus argue: If the decree of Chriſt the Sauiour, be after the decree of the election of ſome particular perſons to ſaluation, then God decreed the ſaluation of ſome particular perſons, in order before he decreed the ſatisfaction of his iuſtice.
Here is a maniſold deceite: For the decree of ſauing certaine men, and the decree of ſending Chriſt to ſaue them, they make two decrees, when it is but one; for election is the decree of ſauing certaine men in Chriſt. It is not one decree by which God hath appointed man to life, and another, by which he hath appointed him to breathing. There is another fraud in that they compare the ſaluation of ſeuerall men with the ſatisfaction of Gods iuſtice, when the compariſon was to be made, of the manifeſtation of the goodneſſe of God, by which hee doth ſaue ſeuerall men, with the ſatisfaction of his iuſtice. It is not inconuenient if God be ſaid firſt to hauehave decreed the manifeſtation of his goodneſſe, before the ſatisfaction of his iuſtice. Adde to theſe that they doe craftily vſe theſe words, the election of ſome particular perſons, to extenuation and contempt; for theſe ſome particular perſons, are the Church of the Elect, whoſe ſaluation is of ſo great account with God, that for the ſaluation thereof, he would ſatisfie his owne iuſtice: Whence it followeth, that God, that he might declare his goodneſſe, did firſt intend their ſaluation, before the ſatiſfaction of his iuſtice.