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 26, 2024.

Pages

CHAP. IX.

How the sinne of Adam may belong to his posteritie, and how many waies it may passe to his of spring. And first of the imputation, and whether the sinnes of the Grandfather, and great-Grandfathers, are imputed to their posterity.

I. THe sinne of Adam doth passe to his posterity by two meanes, by imputation, & propagation.

Page 58

II. The punishments which all men suffer in the name of Adam, doe argue that the sinne of Adam is imputed to vs: This the Apostle teacheth, Rom. 5.12. Death passed on all men, by one man, in whom all men sinned, or because all men sinned in him: For the sinne of Adam was not onely personall, neither did hee sinne as a singular person, but as carrying all man∣kinde in the stocke and originall; no otherwise then Christ satisfying for vs on the crosse, hath not suffred as a priuate person, but as sustaining and represen∣ting the whole Church in the head. Saint Paul, 2 Cor. 5.15. speaketh thus: If one dyed for all, all likewise were dead. And Rom. 6. doth affirme that we are dead and crucified with Christ. If therefore we dyed in Christ dying, and were crucified with him, it is no doubt but that it may likewise be said, that we sinned in Adam: For if the satisfaction and righteousnesse of the second Adam be imputed to vs, why shall not the sinne of the first Adam be imputed to vs; seeing that therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to vs, that the sinne of Adam might not be imputed to vs?

III. Reason it selfe doth consent to this: for if Adam had receiued good things, not for himself alone, but for his posterity; it is no maruell, if being spoi∣led of these good things, he lost them for himselfe and his posterity. If any one be capitally punished for treason, and brought to extreame pouerty, his chil∣dren also, with him doe loose their Nobility. Nor is a∣ny thing more equall, then that the sonne should pay his fathers debts, and that as they are heires of their estates, so they might be heires of their debts.

Page 59

IV. But in this similitude there is one, and that a notable difference, that is, when the debter hath wa∣sted the inheritance, and there is more in debt then in goods, the sonne may renounce the inheritance, and leaue his fathers goods: But here this yeelding vp cannot be made; because to the guilt by the sinne of Adam, there commeth also the naturall deprauation, and contagion; like as he that is borne of parents in∣fected which leprosie, which contagion cannot be put off when they please.

V. Although these things are grounded vpon the word of God, and the very rule of iustice, yet they seeme to be charged, and followed with great discom∣modities. First, that in Ezekiell, Chap. 18. v. 20. doth offer it selfe; The soule that sinneth shall die: The sonne shall not beare the iniquity of the father: Whereunto the law of God, Deut. 24. is consonant and agreeable; which law doth forbid children to be punished for the sinnes of their parents. Why then doe we die for anothers sinne? Why is the sinne of Adam imputed to vs? Or is it credible, that he that forgiues vs our sinnes, will impute to any one anothers sins? What? that the punishment is greater then the sinne? For when we sinned in Adam onely, in potentia, in power and possibility, yet we are punished in actu, in act: And that seemeth most cruell, that Adam, which sin∣ned in act is saued, and for the same sinne many are damned, who sinned in Adam onely in power and possibility.

I answere, the place in Ezechiel must be taken thus; the innocent sonne shall not beare the punishment of his fathers sinne: So when God saith in the law, that

Page 60

he will visit the iniquity of fathers vpon the children, he speaketh of children which walke in their fathers steps, and are partakers of the same fault: But the sonnes of Adam cannot be said to be innocent, as they which not onely sinned in Adam, as in the stocke and roote of mankinde, but also themselues are borne stained with the same deprauation, and prone to the same sinne. Secondly, I say that that place in Eze∣chiel makes nothing to the present matter: for hee speaketh of the sinnes of the fathers, whose sinnes are personall, and who in sinning doe not sustaine the persons of their children: For Arminius is deceiued, in setting downe the cause why those Infidels are re∣probated, who haue not refused the Gospell, viz. Be∣cause (saith he) they refused the grace of the Gospell in their parents, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, and their fa∣thers, by which act they deserued that they should be for∣saken by God: For I would haue them shew me a solid and sound reason, why Infants haue not sinned against the grace of the Gospell in their Parents, to whom the grace of the Gospell was offred, and by whom it was refused; seeing in Adam all his posterity sinned against the Law, and by it deserued punishment and forsaking. For the reason of the couenant of God is perpetuall, that children are comprehen∣ded in their Parents.

VI. Let therefore the Schoole and followers of Arminius learne the cause of this difference, and why the sinne of Adam should be imputed to his posteri∣tie, but the sinnes of other fathers should not be im∣puted to their children. [ 1] These therefore I say, to be the causes of this difference. 1. Because, by the sinne of Adam, we lost originall purity; but wee haue not

Page 61

lost it by the sinnes of our Grand-fathers, or great-Grandfathers. 2. Because Adam receiued gifts, [ 2] which as he had for himselfe, so hee should haue conueyed them to his posterity, which seeing hee lost, it iustly comes to passe that his posterity should be depriued of those gifts. But my Grand-father or great-Grand∣father receiued no supernatural gifts from God, which by an hereditary right they should deriue to their po∣sterity. 3. [ 3] Then also the sinnes of my Grand-father and great-Grandfather were personall sinnes; neither did they in their sinning sustaine the persons of their posterity, which cannot be said of Adam. Surely I think that it cannot be said that Ezechias or Iosias, who were the posterity of Dauid, did in Dauid murther V∣rias. 4. I will say somewhat more; [ 4] Adam while hee liued committed many sinnes, yet I thinke that one∣ly that first sinne of Adam was imputed to his poste∣rity, because onely by this sinne he violated that co∣uenant which was made with him, as with the author of mankinde. 5. [ 5] And if any one at this day is depri∣ued of the light of the Gospell, because some of his ancestors a thousand yeeres since refused the Gospell, as Arminius thinks, there is no cause why on the other side, one may not be called effectually to saluation, because some one of his ancestors beleeued the Gos∣pell. For why shall the infidelity of the great-Grand∣father be imputed to the great-grandsonne, and his faith be not imputed? But that the faith of one is im∣puted to another, Arminius himselfe is not of opini∣on, when he saith out of Habacuk 2. The iust shall liue by his owne faith, and not by anothers: Nor because Adam beleeued the promise of his seede, that should

Page 62

breake the serpents head, is this his faith therefore im∣puted to any of his posterity. Arnoldus doth seeme to consent to this; [ 6] but I cannot be brought to thinke that the other sectaries doe beleeue the same. 6. To beleeue that any one is reprobated, because hee resu∣sed the Gospell in his greatgrandfathers, or their Fa∣thers, is plainely conrary to the opinion of Saint Paul, 2 Cor. 5.10. where he saith, that euery one shall re∣ceiue the things done in his body, whether it be good or euill; [ 7] therefore not according to those things which he hath done in anothers body. 7. I let passe he ab∣surdities, into which Arminius by this meanes would plunge himselfe. For it may come to passe, that ones Grandfather by the fathers side hath beleeued the Gospell, & his Grand-father by his mothers side hath refused the Gospell. It may come to passe that ones Grandfathers or greatgrandfathers & so vpward, part haue beleeued, and part haue not beleeued. I demand of which of them, in the purpose of God, shall respect be had? Shall the faith of the one, or the infidelitie of the other be imputed to their posteritie? Then also, as often as the Gospell is offred to any Nation or Ci∣tie, there is nothing so likely, as that some of those people were borne of Ancestors that were Infidels and that some of them were borne of faithfull Ance∣stors; yet is the Gospell offred to all without any dif∣ference. Also it will come to passe that some one pro∣ceeding of faithfull Ancestors, may refuse the Gos∣pell; and on the otherside, one proceeding of Insides, may be conuerted. [ 8] 8. And if one may be an Infidell by anothers infidelity, and may be said to haue refu∣sed the Gospell in his Ancestors, because some one of

Page 63

his progenitors refused the Gospell a thousand yeares before, there will scarce be any of the godly, that af∣ter this manner hath not refused the Gospell. 9. [ 9] But what will they say to this? That it is found by expe∣rience, that the worst and most wicked progeny of ve∣ry wicked Ancestors, haue beene conuerted to the faith, and as the Apostle saith, Rom. 5.20. Where sinne abounded, there grace abounded. What were the anci∣ent Romanes but theeues, depopulating and wasting the world, and a scourge in the hand of God? What was Corinth, but the stewes of all Graecia, and the Mart or faire of most foule lusts? yet neuerthelesse, in those cities, God by the preaching of the Gospell, rai∣sed vp most flourishing Churches, and there were ve∣ry many in those dregges, which did belong to the e∣lection of God. 10. [ 10] But if at any time the posterity is punished for the sinnes of their Ancestors, Arminius ought not to extend it to so many ages, seeing the law doth not extend the visitation of the iniquity of the fathers vpon the children, beyond the third and fourth generation: And that because a man can scarce liue so long, as to see his issue beyond the third or fourth generation: For therefore are children punished, their fathers beholding it, that griefe might thereby increase to their parents, and that the fathers might be punished by the misries of the children; which is a cause to me of suspecting, that this visitation of the sinne of the fathers vpon the children, ought to be vnderstood of temporall, and not of eternall punishments.

VII. But to that which was said, that the punish∣ment was greater then the sinne, because they which

Page 64

in Adam sinned onely in power, are for his sinne pu∣nished in act; it is easie to answere: For wee so sin∣ned in Adam in power, that also the sinne was in vs in act: neither doe we onely beare the punish∣ment of anothers sinne, but also of our owne: nor is it any maruaile, if God hath pardoned Adam, and doth not pardon many of his posterity, for Adam beleeued and repented, but these refuse the grace of God offred, and persist in impenitency.

Notes

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