The anatomy of Arminianisme: or The opening of the controuersies lately handled in the Low-Countryes, concerning the doctrine of prouidence, of predestination, of the death of Christ, of nature and grace. By Peter Moulin, pastor of the church at Paris. Carefully translated out of the originall Latine copy

About this Item

Title
The anatomy of Arminianisme: or The opening of the controuersies lately handled in the Low-Countryes, concerning the doctrine of prouidence, of predestination, of the death of Christ, of nature and grace. By Peter Moulin, pastor of the church at Paris. Carefully translated out of the originall Latine copy
Author
Du Moulin, Pierre, 1568-1658.
Publication
London :: Printed by T[homas] S[nodham] for Nathaniel Newbery, and are to be sold at the signe of the Starre vnder Saint Peters Church in Cornehill, and in Popes head Alley,
1620.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Synod of Dort (1618-1619) -- Early works to 1800.
Arminianism -- Early works to 1800.
Cite this Item
"The anatomy of Arminianisme: or The opening of the controuersies lately handled in the Low-Countryes, concerning the doctrine of prouidence, of predestination, of the death of Christ, of nature and grace. By Peter Moulin, pastor of the church at Paris. Carefully translated out of the originall Latine copy." In the digital collection Early English Books Online 2. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A69245.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 23, 2024.

Pages

CHAP. XI.

Whether the power of beleeuing the Gospell is lost by the sinne of Adam.

I. IT is demanded, whether by the sinne of Adam we haue lost the power of belee∣uing the Gospell; Arminius, that maruai∣lous artificer of deuising, doth deny it: For, that he might proue that God is bound to giue to euery man power of beleeuing in Christ and obtai∣ning faith, he doth contend, that Adam before his fall, had not power of beleeuing in Christ, nor was it need∣full for him; & therefore we could not loose in Adam, that which Adam himselfe had not. He saith also, that faith was not commanded by the law, and therefore Adam was not bound to faith, because onely the law was giuen to him; he addeth also, that no man can beleeue, but he that is a sinner: And if Adam did not receiue power wherby, if he fell he might rise again, he

Page 74

did not receiue power of beleeuing the Gospell, by which we rise out of this fall.

II. Seeing these things tend thither, that Armini∣us might make a way for himselfe to that impious and vngodly opinion, whereby he affirmes, that God is bound to giue to all men power of beleeuing, and that God is prepared to giue faith to all men, if they themselues will: This question is of no small mo∣ment, nor to be perfunctoriously and lightly hand∣led.

III. We therefore contend against Arminius, that mankinde by the sinne of Adam, together with their originall purity and righteousnesse, lost also the pow∣er of beleeuing in Christ. For by the fall of Adam we lost the power of louing God, and of obeying him. Now saith doth include the loue of God, and it is a cer∣taine kinde of obedience.

IV. Adam indeede before his fall, was not bound to beleeue in Christ, because he was not declared to him, neither then was there neede; but he was bound to beleeue euery word of God, whatsoeuer should afterward be; this bond passed to his posteritie: but it had not passed, if Adam had not beene tyed to the like bond. So the israelites in the time of Dauid, were not bound to beleeue, Ieremy foretelling the instant captiuity into Babylon, because Ieremy then was not, neither was it needfull for them to know this; and yet the Iewes in contemning the prophesie of Ieremy, vi∣olated that law, by which the same people was held and bound in the time of Dauid. Hee were a foole who would say, that hee that hath lost his sight, hath not lost the power of seeing that house which was

Page 75

built foure yeares after: or that hee that is blinde by his owne fault, hath not lost the faculty of seeing the collyria or plaisters which the Physitian bringeth him some moneths after. Surely Adam, before his fall, had power of beleeuing in Christ, after the same manner that he had then power of succouring and helping the sicke and miserable, although before the fall there was no misery, nor could there be. Adam was in the remote power to beleeue the Gospell, as a sound man is in the remote power to vse the remedies of a disease that will or may come: But that he did not beleeue in Christ, it was not because it did exceede the power giuen him by God, but because it was not needefull. Finally, seeing Adam by his incredulity, lost the pow∣er of beleeuing the word of God, it must needes be, that hee lost also the power of beleeuing that word, by which God was to bring a remedy to this euill.

V. In vaine doth Arminius thinke, that it is vnapt∣ly spoken, if it be said that Adam had power of belee∣uing when hee had no neede, which power was ta∣ken from him, when hee began to haue neede of it. For neither was the power of beleeuing wanting to Adam, nor was it taken from him, but hee willingly lost it, when he lost the power of obaying God: And God of his meere grace doth restore the same to whom he will, not because we will, but because he worketh in vs that we will.

VI. But that is ridiculous which Arnoldus, cap. 14. doth say, that Adam before his fall, did not receiue power, by which he might rise, if he should fall: For that power whereby men rise, after the fall, is not

Page 76

giuen before the fall, seeing the power is lost by the fall; but after the fall is repaired. There is no doubt, but that Adam before his fall, had strength whereby he might rise againe, if hee had not lost it by his fall. Arnoldus therefore thus speakes; as if I should say, that hee to whom God hath giuen sound and cleare eyes, hath not receiued power, by which he might see with those eyes after he is made blinde,

VII. Finally, as many as are the posterity of A∣dam, are bound to fulfill the law; this is a naturall debt; and the law commands vs to loue God, and to obey him, and therefore to beleeue him speaking: When∣soeuer then Christ is preached, the doctrine of the Gospell cannot be refused, but with the contempt of the Gospell, the law also is violated. But he to whom Christ was neuer preached, shall not be condemned, because he hath refused Christ, but he shall be iudged by the law, which tyed him to beleeue in Christ, if Christ had beene preached to him.

VIII. And Arnoldus is plainely deceiued, when he doth affirme that the power whereby we beleeue God is one, and the power whereby they beleeue Christ is another; because, saith he, the word of the law, & the word of the Gospell differ in the whole genus, and are opposite; this thing fell inconsiderately from the acute man: Because white and blacke are opposite, is it therefore the property of one power to see white, and of another to see blacke? is it not the operation of the same faculty to know contraries? And yet I doe not see how the Law and the Gospell can be said to be contrary, seeing the Law is the Schoole-master to Christ, and the Gospell doth minister the meanes,

Page 77

by which the law should be satisfied: Surely be∣tweene the creditor and the surety, there is no dis∣cord. Christ came not that hee might abolish the law, but that hee might fulfill it. Matthew 5.17. Romanes 3.30.

IX. Out of these, it is easie to gather what is to be answered to that question, whereby it is demanded, whether the law doth comand vs to beleeu in Christ: For this is euen as one should demand whether the law of Moses commands the Prophet Esay to be belee∣ued: It is plaine, that that is not expressely comman∣ded by the law; for no man was bound to beleeue Esay before he was borne: Yet I say it was comman∣ded by the law implicitely, and by consequence, in as much as the law doth command obedience to be yeelded to God: And God is to be obeyed whe∣ther he speake to vs immediately, or by his messen∣gers: The same, I thinke, may be saide of Christ.

X. For of those things to which we are bound by the law, there are two kindes. Some things are due absolutely, by all men, and at all times; yea by them to whom the law, deliuered by Moses, hath not beene made knowne, such as are to loue God and our neighbour: For Adam was indued with the know∣ledge of these duties before the fall, and was bound to performe them in act: But there are some things, to the obseruation whereof, wee are then bound by the law of God, when they are commanded in act, and when the ability of knowing them is giuen vs of God. Thus the Israelites in Aegypt were not bound to obey the commandement of the not gathering of Manna vpon the Saboth day, or of looking on the

Page 78

bralen Serpent, or of the passing ouer lordan, which notwithstanding, if any had not obeyed when God commanded them, without doubt, they had iustly borne the punishment of the breach of the law.

XI. But Arnoldus doth wrongfully say, that it is not spoken here of that generall power of beleeuing euery word of God; for of it, it is plainely spoken here, seeing that the power of beleeuing in Christ, is comprehended in that generall power: No other∣wise then the power of seeing, doth comprehend al∣so the power of seeing the remedies for blindnesse, al∣though those remedies are not present, neither is there any neede of them before blindnesse.

XII. All these things pertaine thither, that it might appeare, that the power of beleeuing, and of embracing the remedies which God offers in the Gospell, is lost by that naturall corruption which is deriued into vs from Adam: And therefore that Arminius doth erre, when hee saith, that God is bound to giue to all men power to beleeue in Christ, or that he is prepared to giue faith to all. For, God is not bound to restore to man that which man lost by his owne fault; nor doth he deale vniustly, when he requireth of man, that which hee doth naturally owe.

XIII. Arminius is not constant to himselfe in this thing, and doth pluck vp those things which hee laid downe: For he saith, that many nations haue for many ages beene depriued of the light of the Gospell, without which, yet there is no faith, and that for a punishment of the incredulitie of their ancestors: He doth acknowledge, therefore, that God hath not

Page 67

giuen, nor was prepared to giue to these nations, po∣wer of beleeuing in Christ. Yea truely Arminius, in speaking thus, doth set downe the cause why God would not, and therefore was not prepared to giue to people that, without which, faith cannot be. Was God prepared to giue to the men of Tyre and Sydon the power of beleeuing, of whom Christ giueth this testimony, that they would haue conuerted in Sack∣cloath and Ashes, if the word and his miracles had come to them? Doth he giue power of beleeuing to them whose hearts he hardneth with his vnresistable will, as Arminius speakes? Could they beleeue of whom, it is spoken, Iohn 12.39. Therefore they could not beleeue, because it is written, he hath blinded their eyes, and hath hardned their hearts? Doth he giue power of beleeuing to them whom, Arminius saith, are called of God, by a meanes that is not congruent and agreeable, and by which he knoweth man will neuer be conuerted?

XIV. Here Arminius doth not obscurely accuse God of folly; for he will haue God to be aduerse to himselfe, and to be prepared to doe that, which that it might not be done, he taketh an incongruent and disagreeable course; nay, like a iudge, hee sets lawes for God himselfe; for what else meane these words, God is bound to giue the power of beleeuing? Surely it seemes that Arminius doth binde God by this Law: neither will God haue any reason for his iustice, vn∣lesse Arminius supply to him the meanes, whereby he may auoide the crime of iniustice.

XV. And although that impotency and disabilitie of beleeuing be a punishment of the sinne of Adam,

Page 80

yet he is not vniustly punished, who by this impo∣tency hath refused the Gospell, because the same im∣potency or disability, which is a punishment, is also a fault, which I say, that it might appeare how vnpro∣perly Arnoldus doth here vse the examples of punish∣ments which are not faults. Is it equity (saith he) that to a Souldier that hath beene punished with the losse of his eyes, for not keeping good watch, the Generall should offer the pardon of some other fault, or should promise some other thing, with this condition, that he should watch more diligently, and then punish him, because that being blinde, he hath not watched: This example is not to the pur∣pose; for to be blinde is not a fault, neither is any man by a naturall obligation bound to see: It is other∣wise with our impotency to beleeuing. Besides, hee that is punished with the losse of his eyes, is sorrow∣full, and doth heauily beare the losse of the light. But man therefore doth not beleeue, because he will not beleeue, and this impotency is voluntary.

Notes

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.