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

CHAP. XV.

That Arminius doth willingly darken the words of the A∣postle, which are cleare and expresse.

ARminius with a carefull subtilty, but with an vnhappy successe, hath written a Treatise vpon the ninth Chapter to the Romanes; for hee doth torment the A∣postle, and doth, as it were with wracks, draw from him against his will, what things he thinks may make for the patronage of his errour of Election for faith fore-seene.

I. He faines that the Apostles minde is to teach, that they onely of the Iewes were to be reckoned the sonnes of Abraham, who letting passe iustification by the law, doe follow after righteousnesse and faith; and the purpose, according to Election, hee denyeth to be the decree of the election of seuerall men, but the generall and condition all decree of sauing all, who were to beleeue: By which decree Arminius will haue all men to be elected conditionally, which surely is no election, seeing election is not, but of seueral men, who are chosen out of the multitude, others being re∣iected.

II. I confesse indeede, that the doctrine of election

by free grace, doth make the way to the doctrine of righteousnesse, by faith; yet all this dispute of Saint Paul concerning election, which reacheth from the sixt verse to the thirteenth, doth not deale of iustifi∣cation by faith, neither would the Apostle proue in this place, that man is iustified by faith, or that God doth elect those which apprehend Christ by faith: But by the doctrine of election, doth frame to him∣self an entrance, to the treatise of iustification by faith, which afterwards he addes. Hee would here proue this one thing, that man is not truely the sonne of the promise by the workes of the law, but by the electi∣on of free grace, and by the mercy of God; for it is manifest, that here workes are not opposed to faith, but to election, and to God calling. So Verse the 11. he doth not say, not by workes, but by faith; but he saith, not by workes, but by him that calleth. So Verse 16. when he had said, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; hee doth not adde, but of him that beleeueth: What then? but of God that sheweth mercy.

III. For when it is spoken of the cause, why, of two that are equally conceiued in sinne (such as were Esau and Iacob,) God should preferre the one afore the other, the onely mercy of God, and the election by grace, is to be considered, and not faith, which is not the cause, but the effect of our election, neither doth it goe before election, but followeth it. So Saint Paul 1 Cor. 7.25. saith, that he obtained mercy from God to be faithfull, and not because he was after to be so. Wherefore Saint Paul in all this speech wherein hee speaks of the cause of the difference which God makes betweene two that were by nature alike, makes no

mention of faith: But this Treatise being finished, he doth descend, verse 30. to the righteousnesse of faith, as to the fruit which doth follow election.

IV. But Arminius for the safegard of his cause, doth change the words of Saint Paul, and doth thrust in something of his owne: * 1.1 For in the place of that which Saint Paul saith, not of workes, but of him that calleth, he doth substitute these his words, feigned by himselfe; not of worke, but of faith, whereby God calling should be obeyed: when notwithstanding in all that dis∣putation which dealeth concerning election, there is no mention made of faith, neither doth the least steppe thereof appeare.

V. It is meruailous, how much Arminius doth a∣buse the examples of Isaac and Ishmael, and also of Ia∣cob and Esau: He doth contend, that they are here propounded, not as examples, but as types of them who followed after righteousnesse by workes, not by faith. Certainely there must be some agreement be∣tweene the type, and the thing signified by the type. But who euer heard it said, that Ishmael would haue beene iustified by the workes of the Law, and not by faith? seeing at that time the law was not giuen, nei∣ther were these differences of iustification by the law, and by faith knowne; neither is it credible, that Ish∣mael euer thought of or regarded these things: There∣fore Arminius doth as much as if Nimrod should be made a type of the Pharisaicall righteousnesse. Can the night be a type of the light? or can Esau, whom the Apostle, Heb. 12.16. calleth prophane, and therefore also a despiser of the Law, be a type of them, who be∣ing set on fire with the zeale of the Law, would be

iustified by their workes? But it is worth the labour to here, why he would haue Esau be a type of the sonnes of the flesh, and of them which aff••ct right••ousnesse by workes. Because (saith he) he was first borne. O acutely spoken! He should haue said, because he was red, or because he was a hunter: I am ashamed to re∣fute these things; and yet in these figments and for∣geries, the good man doth place the chiefe safegard of his doctrine of election, for faith fore-seene.

VI. Then also see how licentiously he mookes the Apostle: For when he layeth downe Ishmael and E∣sau, not as examples of re••ection, by the secret coun∣se••l of God, but as a type, hauing no agreement with the thing signified; he doth so vse these names, as Lo∣gi••ians vse Socrates, or Lawyers Titius and Maeuius, for any other man.

VII. But if we exactly weigh, what it is to haue hated man, being yet in the wombe, before hee hath done good or euill; we shall easily see, that Esau is not onely laid downe h••re as a type, but also as an exam∣ple, to whom indeede these things agreed, although he were not vsed for a type: For Malachy, from whence these words are taken, doth not lay downe Esau as a type, but as an example.

But how that which is said, that God hated Esau, being yet in the wombe, before he had committed a∣ny cuill, may be drawne to Arminius his purpose, and belong to the type of those who will be iu∣stified by faith, hee hath seene, surely I doe not see.

VIII. Paul addeth, What shall we say then? is there vnrighteousnesse with God? The sense is plaine, and

depending on those things that went before▪ He had laid downe two twins of like condition and nature, neither better then the other, whereof yet God loues the one, and hates the other, and had brought the meere will of God, who hath mercy on whom he will, to be the cause of this difference, and not the fore-seeing of any vertue in the one. Hence is bred an obiection: whether God be vniust, who giueth vnlike things to them that are alike; and why he hath not mercy on both? What saith Arminius here? Why, hee takes these things, as if Paul demanded whether there is iniustice with God, who excludes those from the co∣uenant, who would be iustified by the Law, which he himselfe made, and who would haue them that be∣leeue in Christ, to be iustified. This is a bould con∣iecture, whereof there is no step nor mention in that which went before. But if it be lawfull for any one to mingle and adde to the Scripture so many things out of his owne wit, there is nothing so absurd or impi∣ous, which may not be proued out of the Scripture. What? that there is no color nor reason for this here? for what shew is there here of iniustice in God? or who is so mad that he will expostulare with God, because he will iustifie by faith in Christ, and obsolue them that are guilty of the breach of the law? Truely who∣soener doth maruaile or demand, why it seemes good to God to saue sinners by fa••th in Christ, doth not re∣quire iustice in God, but doth peere into the secrets of Gods wisdome. And if this had beene the Apostles minde, which Arminius doth faine to him, it had beene easie to answere, that God is not therefore vn∣iust, who doth saue them that beleeue, and doth sup∣ply

a better righteousnes, to them who cannot be iustified by the Law, of the breach whereof they are guilty; or in place of the couenant of the law, which by sinne is made voide, doth set another, by which man might be saued. Saint Paul answers no such thing, but doth bring in God himselfe, answering thus; I will haue mercy on whom I will haue mercy, and I will haue compassion on whom I will haue compassion: which words, doe not speake of iustification by faith, but of the free election of God, whereby of two men alike conceiued in sinne, and alike guilty, one is pre∣ferred before the other: Saint Paul doth not say, that because the law is violated therefore there is neede of mercy; but he doth bring the cause of this difference betweene those that are equall by nature; I will haue mercy on whom I will haue mercy: According to Armi∣nius, hee should haue said, I will haue mercy by what meanes I will & I will make such a couenant as shall please my selfe. For he will haue God not to speake of the election of seuerall men, but of the manner, which it pleaseth God to choose to exercise his mercy: As if he had said, I will haue mercy as I will; and not, I will haue mercy, cuius volo, on whom I will: Surely this word Cuius, of whom, doth put this question to flight, and doth make dull the weake wit of Arminius: for this word marketh out particular persons, and not the manner whereby God doth exercise his mercy to∣wards them: For he that asked the question; What shall we say then, is there iniustice with God? moued the doubt concerning the hardning and reiection of par∣ticular men, & not concerning the manner by which it seemed good to God to saue men, or to haue mercy on them.

IX. And these words, I will haue mercy on whom I will haue mercy, and, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy: By which saluation and election, is expresly ascribed to the good pleasure of God, Arminius doth darken and obscure them; for he thus interpreteth them: It is not of him that willeth, that is, righteousnesse is not: But in the former verses, it is not spoken of righteous∣nesse, but of election: Also those wordes, I will haue mercy, on whom I will haue mercy, are taken out of Exodus, Chap. 33. v, 19. Where it is spoken of salua∣tion, not of righteousnesse: But grant that it is here spoken of righteousnesse; will it not hence follow that faith is not of him that willeth, and therefore neither saluation? for saluation is by righteousnesse, and righteousnesse is by faith.

X. The obstinacy and affected stupidity of these sectaries, doth maruallously bewray it selfe in one thing. Paul bringeth in the demander thus speaking, Why doth he yet complaine? for who hath resisted his will? By which words it doth manifestly appeare, that in this Chapter it is spoken of the will of God, which cannot be resisted, and that Arminius is willingly blinde, while he affirmeth that it is here spoken of the antecedent will of God, which hee thinkes may be resisted.

XI. What? That Arminius doth secretly accuse Saint Paul of stupid dulnesse, or of preposterous and needelesse modesty: for what neede was there in the businesse of the election and reprobation of seuerall persons, to stop the mouth of demanders, by saying, O man, what art thou that repliest against God? seeing

by the doctrine of Arminius, there is at hand an ea∣sie and ready answere: That God elected this man, because he foresaw he would beleeue; and hee re∣probated that man, because he foresaw he would not beleeue. Did not the Apostle see these things? Or did he see them, but did enuy to vs the cleere solution of this knot, that might bring light to this darke∣nesse? The ignorance of Paul shall be alwaies bet∣ter to mee, then the sharpe vnderstanding of an∣other.

XII. Maruailous is the wit and ridiculous au∣dacitie of Arnoldus Coruinus, in expounding this chap∣ter. He in his worke against Tilenus, Chap 9. doth thus expound the type of Iacob and Es••u. Surely (saith he) as there the yonger was preferred before the elder, so also it was figured, that saluation should not be by the Law, although it was first giuen, but by faith. Surely if this man be beleeued, the Law is the elder brother, and Faith the yonger: Did God then hate the law, before it had done good or euill? I am asha∣med to confute these things; for seeing God preach∣ed the Gospell to Adam himselfe, by the yonger bro∣ther, the law is rather to be vnderstood: Perhaps by the elder, he would haue those to be vnderstood, who would be iustified by the law; but this is no lesse dif∣ficult to conceiue, how God hated them before they had done eyther good or euill, and how they could be the elder, seeing they neuer were sonnes.

XII. Finally the truth is here so euident, that Vorstius hauing left Arminius, * 1.2 doth yeeld to our part: For he thinkes that the scope of the Apostle in this chapter is to teach, that righteousnesse, and eternall

saluation doth depend, not on the dignity and worth of workes, or any carnall prerogatiue, such as the Iewes boasted of, but on the meere * 1.3 good pleasure ••o God that hath mercy.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pag. 27.
• * 1.2

  C••llat. aduers. Piscat. sect. 141
• * 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.