A Friendly Discussion Between James Arminius & Francis Junius, Concerning Predestination, Conducted By Means of Letters

The origin of this discussion is thus stated by the elder Brandt: "On the subject of Predestination, he [Junius] endeavored to defend the opinion of Calvin, by rendering it a little more palatable. For he did not maintain that the divine predestination had respect to mankind either ANTECEDENT TO THE DECREE OF THEIR CREATION, or SUBSEQUENT TO THEIR CREATION, ON A FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THEIR FALL, but that it had respect only to MAN ALREADY CREATED, so far as BEING ENDOWED BY GOD WITH NATURAL GIFTS, HE WAS CALLED TO A SUPERNATURAL GOOD. On that account James Arminius, then one of the ministers of the church at Amsterdam, entered into an epistolary conference with him, and tried to prove that the opinion of Junius, as well as that of Calvin, inferred the NECESSITY OF SIN, and that he must therefore, have recourse to a third opinion, which supposed man, not only AS CREATED but AS FALLEN, to have been the object of predestination. Junius answered his first letter with that good temper, which was peculiar to him, but seemed to fabricate out of the various opinions concerning predestination one of his own, which, Arminius thought contradicted all those which it was his endeavor to defend. Arminius was induced to compose a rejoinder to the answer of Junius, which he transmitted to the Professor, who retained it full six years, to the time of his death, without attempting to reply."

The letter of Arminius was divided by Junius into twenty-seven propositions in answering it, and each of them is here presented, with the answer of Junius, and the reply of Arminius, corresponding to it.

TO THE MOST DISTINGUISHED MAN, FRANCIS JUNIUS, D.D., A BROTHER IN CHRIST, WORTHY OF MY MOST PROFOUND REGARD, JAMES ARMINIUS WISHES YOU HEALTH.

MOST DISTINGUISHED AND VENERATED SIR:
They who do not give their assent to the sentiments of others, seem to themselves, and wish to seem to others, to be, in this, under the influence of sound judgment; but sometimes, ignorance of the sentiments of others is the cause of this, which, nevertheless, they by no means acknowledge. I have not hitherto been able to agree, in the full persuasion of my mind, with the views of some learned men, both of our own and of former ages, concerning the decrees of predestination and of reprobation.

Consciousness of my own lack of talents does not permit me to ascribe the cause of this disagreement to sound judgment: that I should ascribe it to ignorance is hardly allowed by my own opinion, which seems to me to be based on an adequate knowledge of their sentiments. On this account I have been till this time in doubt; fearing to assent to an opinion of another, without a full persuasion in my own mind; and not daring to affirm that which I consider more true, but not in accordance with the sentiments of most learned men. I have, therefore, thought it necessary for the tranquillity of my mind, to confer with learned men concerning that decree, that I might try whether their erudite labors might be able to remove my doubt and ignorance, and produce in my mind knowledge and certainty. I have already done this with some of my brethren; and with others, whose opinions have authority, but thus far, (to confess the truth,) with a result useless, or even injurious to me. I thought that I must have recourse to you, who, partly from your published works, and partly from the statements of others, I know to be a person such that I may, without fear, be permitted to hope from you some certain result.

REPLY OF FRANCIS JUNIUS TO THE MOST LEARNED MAN, AND MY VERY DEAR BROTHER, JAMES ARMINIUS

GREETING:

TERTULLIAN, On whose works, as you know, I have now been long engaged, has been the cause of my long silence, respected brother. In the mean time, I placed your letter on a shelf plainly in my view, that I might be reminded of my obligation to you, and might attend, at the earliest possible opportunity, to your request. You desire from me an explication of a question of a truly grave character, in which the truth is fully known to God: that which is sufficient He had expressed in His written word, which we both consult with the divine help. You may set forth openly what you think and do not think. You desire that I should present my views, that from this mutual interchange and communication of sentiments, we may illustrate the truth of divine grace. I will do what I can according to the measure, which the Lord has admeasured to me; and whatever I may perceive of this most august mystery, I will indicate it, whether I regard it as truth or as a merely speculative opinion, that you with me may hold that which belongs to the Deity. Whatever pertains to my opinion, if you have a more correct sentiment, you may, in a kind and brotherly manner, unfold it, and by a salutary admonition recall me into the way of truth. I will here say nothing by way of introduction, because I prefer to pass at once to the subject itself, which may rather be "good to the use of edifying," as the apostle teaches. I judge that all desire the truth in righteousness: but all do not therefore see the truth in righteousness. "We know in part, and we prophesy in part," (1 Corinthians 13:9,) and "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13.) We perceive a part of the truth: and present a part; the rest will be given in his own time, by the Spirit of truth to those who seek. May he therefore grant to both of us that we may receive and may present the truth.

That we may both realize greater advantage from this brotherly discussion, and that nothing may carelessly fall from me, I will follow the path marked out in your letters, writing word for word, and distinguishing the topics of your discussion into propositions; and will subjoin to them, in the same order, my own opinion concerning each point, that in reference to all things you may be able to see clearly, and according to the Divine will, determine from the mode of my answer, what I think and what I do not think. The following is your first proposition, in which you may recognize yourself as speaking.

FIRST PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

I see, then, most renowned sir, that there are three views in reference to that subject, [predestination] which have their defenders among the doctors of our church. The first is that of Calvin to Beza; the second that of Thomas Aquinas and his followers; the third that of Augustine and those who agree with him. They all agree in this, that they alike hold that God, by an eternal and immutable decree, determined to bestow upon certain men, the rest being passed by, supernatural and eternal life, and those means which are the necessary and efficacious preparation for the attainment of that life.

THE REPLY OF FRANCIS JUNIUS TO THE FIRST PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

If one should wish to accumulate a variety of opinions, he would in appearance have a large number of them; but let these be the views of men to whom will readily be assigned the first place in relation to this doctrine.

But in reference to the points of agreement among them all, of which you speak, there are, unless I am deceived, two things most worthy of explanation and notice. First, that what you say is indeed true, that "God, by an eternal and immutable decree, determined to give eternal, supernatural life to certain men;" but that eternal life is not here primarily, or per se the work of that divine predestination, but rather in a secondary manner, and dependent, by consequence, on adoption th~v uiJoqesi>av The apostle demonstrates this in Ephesians 1:5.

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."

And in verse 11,

"which He hath purposed in Himself; that in the dispensation of the fullness of time, He might gather together in one all things in Christ," etc.

Also, Romans 8:17, "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ," etc. We must not, however, forget that if an effect is substituted for the distinguishing part of the essence the definition of the thing is defective. Predestination, if we regard its peculiar and distinguishing quality, is, according to the testimony of the Scripture, to filiation, (so to speak,) or the adoption of children, the effect and sequence of which is eternal life. It is thus true that we are predestinated to life, but, accurately speaking, we are predestinated to adoption by the special grace of our heavenly Father. He who proposes one, supposes the other; but it is necessary that the former should be always set forth distinctly in the general discussion. Hence it seems that the arrangement of this whole argument will be less encumbered, if we consider that saving decree of the divine predestination in this order; that God has predestinated us to the adoption of children of God in Christ "to himself," and that he has pre-arranged by his own eternal decree the way and the end of that adoption; the way of that grace, leading us in the discharge of duty, by our vocation and justification, but its end, that of life, which we shall obtain when our glorification is perfected, (Romans 8,) which are the effects of that grace, and the most certain consequences of our adoption. The statement that God has predestinated certain persons to life, is a general one; but it is not sufficiently clear or convenient for the purpose of instruction, unless gratuitous adoption in Christ is supposed, prior to justification and life and glory.

There is still another statement, made by you, which seems to me to need consideration, that "God has bestowed on certain men those means which are the necessary and efficacious preparation for the attainment of that life." For though that assertion is true, yet it must be received with cautious discrimination and religious scrupulousness. Our filiation is (so to speak) the work of the divine predestination, because God is our father, and by His grace unites us to himself as sons. But whatever God has ordained for the consummation of this adoption in us, it is, in respect to that adoption, not a means but a necessary adjunct or consectary. That eternal life, bestowed on us, is a consectary of our adoption "to himself."

But in respect to the adjuncts and consequence, they may be called mutually, the means one of another; as calling is said to be the means of justification, and justification of glorification, (Romans 8.) Yet though they are means, most of them are necessary and efficacious in certain respects, not per se and absolutely. For if they were, per se and absolutely necessary and efficacious, they would be equally necessary and efficacious in all the pious and elect. Yet most of them are not of this character; since even infants and they who come in their last hours, being called by the Lord, will obtain eternal life without those means. These things have been said, the opportunity being presented. We agree generally in reference to the other matters.

THE REPLY OF JAMES ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER OF FRANCIS JUNIUS

To that most distinguished person, Doctor Francis Junius, and my brother in Christ, to be regarded with due veneration.

REVEREND SIR:

I have read and reviewed your reply, and used all the diligence of which I was capable, considering it according to the measure of my strength, that I might be able to judge with greater certainty concerning the truth of the matter which is under discussion between us. But while I consider everything in the light of my judgment, it seems to me that most of my propositions and arguments are not answered in your reply. I venture, therefore, to take my pen and to make some comments in order to show wherein I perceive a deficiency in your answer, and to defend my own arguments. I am fully persuaded that you will receive it with as much kindness as you received the liberty used in my former letter, and if any thing shall seem to need correction and to be worthy of refutation, you will indicate it to me with the same charity; that, by your faithful assistance, may be able to understand the truth which I seek with simplicity of heart, and explain it to others to the glory of God and their salvation, as occasion shall demand. May that Spirit of truth be present with me, and so direct my mind and hand, that it may in no respect err from the truth. If however any thing should fall from me not in harmony with its meaning, I shall wish that it had been unsaid, unwritten.

THE REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO HIS FIRST PROPOSITION

In my former letter I laid down three views held by our doctors in reference to the decree of Predestination and Reprobation, diverse, not contrary. Others might perhaps have been adduced, but not equally diverse among themselves or from others. For each of these are distinguished by marks which are manifest and have reference to the essence and nature of the subject itself, which is under discussion. First, they give the object of the decree (man) a different mode or form, since the first presents him to the Deity as an object to be created, the second as created, the third as fallen.

Secondly, they adapt to that decree attributes of the Deity, either different or considered in a different relation. For the first presents mercy and justice as preparing an object for themselves; the third introduces the same attributes as finding their object prepared; the second places grace, which holds the relation of genus to mercy, over predestination; and liberty of grace over non-election or the preparation of preterition, and justice over punishment.

Thirdly, they differ in certain acts. The first view attributes the act of creation to that decree, and makes the fall of man subordinate to the same decree; the second and the third premises creation; the third also supposes the fall of man to be antecedent in the order of nature to the decree, regarding the decree of election which flows from mercy and that of reprobation which is administered by justice, as having no possible place except in reference to man considered as a sinner, and on that account meriting misery.

It is hence apparent that I have not improperly separated those views which are themselves separated and discriminated by some marked distinction. But you will perhaps persuade me that our doctors differ only in their mode of presenting the same truth, more easily than you will persuade them or their adherents. For Beza in many places sharply contends that God, when predestinating and reprobating man, considers him, not as created, not as fallen, but as to be created, and he claims that this is indicated by the term "lump," used in Romans 9:21, and he charges great absurdities on those who hold different views. For example, he says that they "who present man as created to God decreeing, consider the Deity as imprudent, creating man before he had his own mind arranged any thing in reference to his final condition. He accuses those who present man as fallen, of denying, divine providence, without the decree or arrangement of which sin entered into the world, according to their view. But I can readily endure, indeed I can praise any one who may desire to harmonize the views of the doctors, rather than to separate them more widely, only let this be done by a suitable explanation of views, apparently diverse, not by change in statement, or by any addition, differing from the views themselves. He, who acts otherwise, does not obtain the desired fruit of reconciliation, and he gains the emolument of an erroneously stated sentiment, the displeasure of its authors.

As to those two respects in which you think that my explanation of the agreement of those views needs animadversion, in the former I agree, in the latter I do not much disagree with you. For Predestination is, immediately, to adoption, and, through it, to life; but when I propose the sentiments of others, I do not think that they should be corrected by me. Yet I cheerfully receive the correction; though I consider that it has little or nothing to do with this controversy. Indeed I think that it tends to confirm my view. For adoption in Christ not only requires the supposition of sin as a condition requisite in the object, but of a certain other thing also, of which I did not in my former letter think it best to treat. That thing is faith in Jesus Christ, without which adoption is in fact bestowed on no man, and, apart from the consideration of which, adoption is prepared for no one by the divine predestination. (John 1:12.) For they who believe are adopted, not they who are adopted receive the gift of faith: adoption is prepared for those who shall believe, not faith is prepared for those who are to be adopted, just as justification is prepared for believers, not faith is prepared for the justified. The Scripture demonstrates that this is the order in innumerable passages. But I do not fully understand in what sense you style vocation and justification the way of adoption. That may be called the way of adoption which will lead to adoption, and that also by which adoption tends to its own end. You seem to me to understand the term way in the latter sense, from the fact that you make justification subsequent to adoption, and you speak of the way of grace leading us in the discharge of duty, by our vocation and justification. Here are two things not unworthy of notice. The first is that you connect vocation with adoption as antecedent to it, which I think can scarcely be said of vocation as a whole.

For the vocation of sinners and unbelievers is to faith in Christ; the vocation of believers is to conformity to Christ and to communion with him. The Scripture makes the former antecedent to adoption. The latter is to adoption itself, which is included in conformity and communion with Christ. The second is that you made adoption prior to justification; both of which I regard as bestowed on believers at the same time, while in the order of nature, justification is prior to adoption. For the justified person is adopted, not the adopted person is justified. This is proved by the order both of the attainment of those blessings made by Christ, and that of the imputation of the same blessings made by God in Christ. For Christ obtained the remission of sins, before he obtained adoption, before in the order of nature: and righteousness is imputed before sonship. For "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son," (Revelation 5:10,) but being reconciled, we are adopted as sons.

Let us consider also what are opposed to these, namely, imputation of sins and non-adoption. From these it is clearly seen that such is the order. Sin is the cause of exclusion from filiation by the mode of demerit. Imputation of sin is the cause of the same exclusion by the mode of justice, punishing sin according to its demerit. In reference to your remarks concerning means, I observe that this term is applied by the authors to whose sentiments I refer, to those things which God makes subordinate to the decree of Predestination, but antecedent to the execution of that decree, not those by which or in respect to which Predestination itself is made, whether to adoption or to life. But I think it may be most useful to consider whether these, either as adjuncts, or consectaries, or means, or by whatever other name they may be called, are only effective to consummate the adoption already ordained for certain individuals, or whether they were considered by the Deity in the very act of predestination to sonship, as necessary adjuncts of those to be predestinated.

SECOND PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

They differ in this, that the first presents men as not yet created, but to be created, to God, electing and predestinating, also passing by and reprobating, (though, in the latter case, it does not so clearly make the distinction): the second presents them created, but considered in a natural state, to God electing and predestinating, "to be raised from that natural state above it; it presents them to Him in the act of preterition, as considered in the same natural state, and to Him in that of reprobation, as involved in sin by their own fault: the third presents them to Him both electing and predestinating, and passing by and reprobating as fallen in Adam, and as lying in the mass of corruption and perdition.

THE ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE SECOND PROPOSITION

That, in this statement of views (which are apparently, not really, contradictory) you have, in some manner, fallen into error, we shall, in its own place, demonstrate. I could wish that in this case an ambiguity, in the verb reprobate, and the verbal reprobation, had been avoided. This word is used in three ways; one general, two particular. The general use is when non-election, or preterition and damnation, is comprehended in the word, in which way Calvin and Beza frequently understood it, yet so as to make some distinction. A particular mode or signification is when it is opposed to election, and designates non-election or preterition (a Latin phrase derived from forensic use) in which sense the fathers used it according to the common use of the Latins. There is also a particular use of the word, when reprobation is taken for damnation, as I perceive that it is used by you in this whole letter. The first mode is synecdochical, the second common, the third metonymical; I add that the third might properly be called catachrestic if we attend to the just distinction of these members. I wholly approve the second meaning and shall adhere to it in this whole discussion.

THE REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND PROPOSITION

I have made a difference, not a contrariety between those views, and have already explained that difference according to my judgment. I do not, however, wish to be tedious in the proof of this point. For, in this matter, it is my aim that of a number of positions, any one being established, others, perhaps before unsettled, may be demonstrated.

The word reprobation may be sometimes used ambiguously, but it was not so used by me: and, if it had been, blame for that thing ought not to be laid on me, who have used that word in the sense and according to the use of those, whose views I presented, but especially according to the sense in which it has been used by yourself, with whom I have begun this discussion. For I had examined various passages in your writings, and in them I found that the word was used by you in the last sense, which you here call catachrestic. I will adduce some of those passages, from which you will see that I have used the word in accordance with your perpetual usage. In your Notes on Jude, (fol 27-6,) "The proper cause of reprobation is man himself; of his own sin, dying in sins." So in your Sacred Axioms concerning Nature and Grace, prefaced to the Refutation of the Pamphlet of Puccius, Axioms 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and especially 49 and 50, the words of which I here quote. Axiom 49: "Nor is preterition indeed the cause of reprobation or damnation, but only its antecedent. But the peculiar and internal efficient cause of this is the sin of the creature, while the accidental and external cause is the justice of God." Axiom 50: "Therefore Reprobation (that we may clearly distinguish the matter) is understood either in a wider sense, or in one which is more narrow and peculiar to itself. In a wider sense, if you consider the whole subject of the divine counsel from preterition, as the antecedent and commencement, to damnation, as the end and consequent, with the intervention of the peculiar cause of damnation, namely, sin; in a more narrow and appropriate sense, if you consider only the effects of sin." We might add, also, what is said in the 51st axiom. Of the theses concerning Predestination, discussed by Coddaeus under you, the 14th has this remark: "Preterition is the opposite of preparation of grace and reprobation or preparation of punishment is the opposite of preparation of glory. But preparation of punishment is the act in which God determines to punish his creatures, etc." In theses 17 and 18, "reprobate on account of sins, from the necessity of justice." Here you seem to have wished to use those words properly: which you also signify more plainly in the Theses concerning election discussed by the younger Trelcatius under your direction. Thesis 12: "But if reprobation is made the opposite of election, (as it really is,) it is a figurative expression, that is either by synecdoche, or by catachresis. By synecdoche, if it refers to the whole series of acts opposed to Predestination; by catachresis, if it refers to non-election. For non-election is the first limit of the divine purpose, dependent on his will alone. Reprobation is the ultimate limit, next to the execution, dependent on the supposition of antecedent causes." Hence it is apparent that I have used that word in the sense which you have styled "appropriate." I will state, in a few words, what I think in reference to the same word, and its use. I am wholly of the opinion that the word reprobation, according to the use of the Latin language, properly signifies non-election, if election does not consist without reprobation. But I think that it is never used in the Scripture for an act which is merely negative, and never for an act which has reference to those who are not sinners. If at any time Augustine and others of the fathers use it for preterition, non-election, or any negative act, they consider it as having reference to a reelection in sin, and in the mass of corruption, or for a purpose to withhold mercy, the latter term being used for a deliverance from sin and actual misery. Calvin and Beza use it in almost every case, for the mere preparation of punishment, or for both acts.

THIRD PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

The first theory is this, that God determined from eternity to illustrate his own glory by mercy and justice: and as these could be exercised in fact only in reference to sinners, that he decreed to make man holy and innocent, that is, after his own images yet, good in such a sense as to be liable to a change in this condition, and able to fall and to commit sin: that he ordained also that man should fall and become depraved, that He might thus prepare the way for the fulfillment of his own eternal counsels, that he might be able mercifully to save some and justly to condemn others, according to his own eternal purpose, to the declaration of his mercy in the former, and of his justice in the latter.

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE THIRD PROPOSITION

This view seems to have been stated not with sufficient fullness; for Calvin in his Institutes, (lib. 3,) eloquently refers to the words of Paul in Ephesians 1: "He predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, etc.," and explains them, preserving the order which we noticed under Proposition I. God therefore from eternity determined to illustrate most wisely his own glory by the adoption of these and the preterition or non-adoption of those with the introduction also of mercy and justice. This being settled, that statement may be very well conceded, that "God determined to illustrate his own glory by mercy and justice, if it is rightly understood. But this will be hereafter explained in a summary manner. But it cannot be conceded, nor can I think that Calvin or Beza would have said simply that "mercy and justice cannot in fact be exercised except in reference to sinners. For in the first place (that we may sooner or later explain these things), sinners are such in act, in habit, or in capability.

We are sinners in act when the depravity of our nature has carried out its own operations; we were sinners in habit in the womb and from the womb, before we wrought the works of the flesh. Adam was such in capability in some sense before the fall, when he had the power to lay aside his holy habits of life, and make himself the bond-slave of sin. So also they are miserable, in act, in habit, or in capability, who now endure miseries or 16 have put on the habit of them, are capable of falling into them. The latter, however, are sinners and miserable, not absolutely but relatively; not fully but in a certain sense (kata> ti) and only in a comparative mode of speaking as Job 4:18, "Behold He put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly." Augustine refers to this (Lib. contra. Priscill et Origen, cap 10) concluding his remarks with this most elegant sentence: "for by participation in whom they are righteous, by comparison with Him they are unrighteous."

But in the second place it is not true that "mercy cannot be exercised except in reference to sinners," for all creatures, even the angels from heaven, when compared, according to their own nature, with the Deity, are wretched, since in comparison with Him they are not righteous, and because, by their own nature, they can sink into misery, (which is certainly the capability of misery; as, on the contrary, not to be capable of misery, is the highest happiness), they are miserable by capability.

Therefore, He who has freed them from possible misery by His own election, has bestowed mercy on them; in reference to which they are called "elect angels" by Paul. (1 Timothy 5:21.) We may here merely refer to the fact that the word mercy (the Latin term misericordia being used in a more contracted sense) does not necessarily suppose misery, as will be seen by a reference to the original languages, the Hebrew and Greek, in which the men of God wrote. The Hebrews expressed that idea by two words dsj and symjr neither of which had reference properly and necessarily to misery e]leov of the Greeks does not necessarily suppose misery, if we regard the common usage of the Scriptures; for parents exercise it towards their children, though happy and free from misery. In the third place, it is by no means more true that "he can exercise justice only in reference to sinners." For he who renders to each his due, exercises justice: but God would clearly not be just if he did not render their due to the righteous as well as to the unrighteous. For even towards Adam, if he had remained righteous, God would have exercised justice both by the bestowment of his own reward upon him, analogous to his righteousness, and by that supernatural gift, analogous to his own power and grace, which He adumbrated to man by the symbol of the tree of life. It was possible that God should exercise justice in reference even to those who were not sinners. But concerning judgment to death, the case is different. From what 17 has already been said, we readily conclude in reference to the rest. In reference to the word ordain, we shall speak under the sixth proposition.

REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO HIS THIRD PROPOSITION

I might show that the sentiments of Calvin and Beza were well and fully set forth by me in those words, by many passages selected from their writings. For though sometimes, when they make mention of adoption, and non-adoption, which is its contrary by logical division and opposition, yet they do not set forth their views, as it was explained by you in answer to my first proposition, and as you have just explained it in these words: "God, therefore, from eternity, determined to illustrate most wisely his own glory by the adoption of these, and the preterition or non-adoption of those, with the introduction of mercy and justice." For in two respects there is a departure in those words from their sentiment.

In the first place, because they do not consider that the illustration of the glory of God is effected immediately by the adoption of these and the non-adoption or preterition of those, but by a declaration of mercy and justice, which are unfolded in the acts of adoption or election, and of non-adoption or reprobation. It seems proper, according to the rule of demonstration, that this order should be preserved; the glory of God consists in the declaration of the attributes of God; the attributes of God are illustrated by acts suitable to those attributes.

Secondly, mercy and justice are not said by them to be introduced into the decree of predestination and reprobation. For those words signify that God, according to other attributes of his nature, decreed the adoption of these and the non-adoption of those, to the illustration of his own glory, in which deed he used also mercy and justice for the execution of that decree, and indeed with the condition of a change in the object. But this was not their view, but it was as I have already set it forth, namely, "God determined from eternity to illustrate his own glory by mercy and justice: since the glory of God can be neither acknowledged nor celebrated, unless it be declared by his mercy and his justice. But they consider mercy the appropriate cause of adoption, but justice the cause of non-adoption or reprobation, and they regard his purpose of illustrating both as the whole cause of predestination, that is, of election and reprobation; for they divide predestination into these parts or species. Therefore in my statement less was ascribed to mercy and justice in that decree than those authors think ought to be ascribed to those attributes, and than they do ascribe to them in the explanation of their entire view. Nor is it with justice denied that it is a part of their sentiment that mercy and justice can only be exercised in fact in reference to actual sinners. For they assert this most clearly, not indeed restricting the word justice to punitive justice, which, indeed, is my view, as is evident from my sixth proposition, and I think that this can be understood from them. I will adduce a few passages from many.

Beza (adversus calumnias Nebulonis, ad art. 2) "God, having in view the creation of man, to declare the glory both of his mercy and of his justice, as the result showed, made Adam in his own image, that is, holy and innocent; since as he is good, nothing depraved can be created by him. But they must be depraved on whom he determines to have mercy, and they also whom he justly determines to condemn." From this passage I quoted the words in which I stated this view. The same Beza again says (lib. 1, quest. et reap. fol. 126, in 8,) "Since God had decreed from eternity, as can be learned from events, to manifest in the highest degree his own glory in the human race, which manifestation might consist partly in the exercise of mercy, partly in the demonstration of hatred against sin, he made a man inwardly and outwardly pure, and endowed with right understanding and will, but susceptible of change. He, as supremely good, could not and would not indeed create any evil thing, and yet unless evil had entered into the world, there would have been no place for mercy or judgment." He expresses himself, in the plainest manner possible, in his conference with Mombelgartes; "Let us," says Beza "lay down these principles. God, an infinitely wise architect, and whose wisdom is unlimited, when He determined to create the world, and especially the human race had a certain proposed end, etc. For the eternal and immutable purpose of God was antecedent to all causes, because He decreed in Himself from eternity to create all men for His own glory. But the glory of God is neither acknowledged nor celebrated, unless his mercy and justice is declared.

Therefore, He made an eternal and immutable decree by which He destined some particular individuals, of mere grace, to eternal life, and some, by an act of judgment, to eternal damnation, that He might declare His mercy in the former, but His justice in the latter. Since God had proposed this end to Himself in the creation of men, it was necessary that He should also devise the way and the means by which He could attain that end, that His mercy and His justice might be equally manifested. For since mercy presupposes misery, it can neither have place nor be declared where misery does not exist, it was then necessary that man should be created, that in him there might be a place for the mercy of God. This could not be found without preceding misery. So also, since justice presupposes crime, without which justice cannot be exercised, (for where there is no crime, there justice has no place,) it was necessary that man should be so created that, without the destruction of his nature, he might be a fit subject, that in him God might declare His own justice. For He could not declare His own justice in man unless He should have destined him to eternal damnation.

Therefore, God proposed, etc." These things were published by James Andreas, but acknowledged by Beza, for in his answer to that discussion he does not say that views, not his own, are attributed to him.

You see, therefore, that I have adapted the proper object to those attributes according to their opinion, which sentiment they without doubt think that they have derived from the Scripture; in which this is fixed that God cannot justly punish one who is not a sinner; in which also the same author will deny that the word mercy is so used that, when attributed to God, it may signify salvation from possible misery; since, in their view, it every where designates salvation from the misery which the sinner has merited, and which either has been or can be justly inflicted by the Deity.

But I shall not wish to contend strenuously that it is not possible that mercy should be exercised towards those not actually miserable, and I can easily assent to those things which you have said concerning that subject, if they may have the meaning which I will give in my own words, namely, that all creatures, even angels and men, when compared with God, are miserable, misery being here taken for non felicity, not for that which is opposed to felicity in a privative sense, but for that which is opposed to it in a contradictory sense; as nothing more is proved by the reason from analogy. In comparison with God they are not just, therefore, in comparison with him they are not happy. For there are three antecedents, each of which has its consequent; just, unjust, not just; happy, unhappy or miserable, not happy. From justice results happiness, from injustice misery, from non-justice non-felicity.

But creatures as such can be compared with God, both in relation of the limit whence they proceed, and in relation to the limit to which they advanced by the Deity. In relation to the latter, angels and men exist, are just, are happy; in relation to the former, they do not exist, are not just, are not happy, since they come from nothing and can therefore be returned to nothing. But in this relation they cannot be called unjust or unhappy, since the limit, from which they were brought forward, is opposed, by contradiction, not by privation, to the limit to which they are borne by the divine goodness, or more briefly, since they are brought from possibility to actuality, which possibility and actuality are contradictory not privative, one of the other. Now, since they consist of possibility and actuality, it is not possible that they, if deserted by divine support, should return to nothing, but it is necessary that they, if thus deserted, should return to nothing. It is moreover possible that, continuing to exist by the divine power, yet being left to themselves and having power to decide their own course, they should, in their second action, not live according to the dictates of justice, by which they were governed in their first action, but do something contrary to it, and by this act become unrighteous and sinners, and, having become such, should put on the habit of unrighteousness, the habit of righteousness having been removed, either as an effect or on the ground of demerit, so that they would become miserable first by desert, next by act, and finally by habit. But if God should hinder them from deserving that misery that is from sinning and becoming actually miserable, I do not see why that act may not be ascribed to mercy since it originates in the desire to prevent misery, which desire pertains to mercy. I concede, indeed, that this is so, and that it is not therefore absolutely true that mercy can only be exercised towards actual sinners.

But I wish that it should be observed that mercy is not used, in that sense, by Calvin and Beza, and indeed if mercy, thus understood, should be substituted for the same affection, as it is used by Calvin and Beza, the whole relation and description of the decree would be changed. I remark also that mercy, understood as you present it, does not come under consideration when the subject treated of is the predestination of men: for it is not exercised by God towards man, as one who has not been saved from possible misery by the divine predestination. Finally, it should also be considered that the relation between mercy understood in the latter, and mercy understood in the former sense is such that both cannot concur to the salvation of a man. For if there be occasion for the mercy, which saves from possible misery, there can be no place for that which delivers from actual misery, as the opportunity for the exercise of its peculiar functions is taken away, or, rather, precluded by the former; if on the contrary the mercy, which frees from actual misery, is necessary, the other does not act, and so the former excludes the latter in the relation of both cause and effect, and the latter consequently excludes the former, not succeeding after the fulfillment of its office, but existing by the necessity of its own action, as the man has failed of the former.

We remark in reference to justice that it is indeed very true that it can have place, and can be exercised towards those who are not sinners. For it is the rewarder not only of sinful, but of righteous conduct. But why may it not be deduced from these things, so considered by you, that the necessary existence of sin cannot be inferred even from the necessary declaration of the mercy and justice of God, since both, considered in a certain light, can be exercised towards those who are not sinners. In this way the order of predestination established by Calvin and Beza is wholly overthrown.

But as mercy, saving from possible misery, and justice, rewarding virtue do not need the pre-existence of actual misery and sin, yet it is certain that mercy, freeing from actual misery and justice, punishing sin, can only be exercised towards the actually miserable and sinful. But Calvin and Beza every where use the terms, mercy and justice, in this sense, when they discuss the decree of predestination and probation. Since, also, mercy and justice, understood in the former sense, have no place in the predestination and reprobation of men, but only as they are received in the former signification, mercy, saving from possible misery and justice, rewarding good deeds, might be properly omitted in the discussion of the predestination and reprobation of men, though I do not deny that such a consideration may have its appropriate and by no means small advantages.

Since we have entered on the consideration of mercy and justice, we may, if you have leisure and are so disposed, continue it for a short time, comparing each with the other, for the illustration of the subject which we now discuss, in reference first to the object of both, then to the order in which each acts on its own object.

Mercy and justice, the former saving from possible misery, the latter rewarding good conduct can be exercised towards one and the same object, as is manifest in the case of the elect angels, who are saved from possible misery, and have obtained from the divine goodness the reward of right conduct. But that same mercy cannot be exercised in reference to the same object with punitive justice. For whatever is worthy of the act of punitive justice is not saved from possible misery. The mercy, also which saves from actual misery is in this respect similar to the other kind of mercy, that it cannot concur in respect to the same object with punitive justice; but it is to be considered whether and how, like the other mercy, it can be exercised at the same time with the justice which rewards goodness. We, indeed see, that in the Scriptures the reward of a good deed is promised to those who have obtained mercy in Christ, and is in fact bestowed upon them, but the reward, though it may be of justice, is yet not of justice, understood in that sense in which justice is regarded, when rewarding a good deed, according to the promise of the law, and of debt; for the former remuneration is the grace of God in Jesus Christ, who is made unto us of God, righteousness, (justice) and sanctification. Justice, in one case bestowing a remuneration of debt, may be called legal, but, in the other, of grace, may not inappropriately be called evangelical, the union of which with the mercy saving from actual misery has been effected in a wonderful manner by God in Jesus Christ, our High Priest, and expiatory sacrifice.

The object, then, of punitive justice is essentially and materially different from the object of mercy considered in either light, and of justice remunerating right conduct.

But the object of mercy, saving from possible misery, is different in its formal relation from the object of mercy, saving from actual misery, for the former is a creature, righteous and considered in his state as it was by creation, but the latter is a sinful creature, and fallen from his original state into misery by transgression. Of those two classes both of mercy and justice, the former in each case is to be excluded from the decree of the predestination and reprobation of men, namely, mercy-saving from possible misery and justice, rewarding goodness from a legal promise, but the latter, preside over that decree, namely, mercy-saving from actual misery, over predestination, and punitive justice over reprobation.

Now let us examine the order, according to which each, compared by themselves and among themselves, tends to its own object. Mercy preventing misery and justice rewarding goodness according to law, tending towards one subject, take this order, that mercy should first perform its office, and then justice discharge its functions. For the prevention of sin, and therefore of misery, precedes any good deed, and therefore precedes the reward of that good deed, therefore, also, the misery which saves from actual misery precedes the justice which rewards a good deed, of grace. For that mercy not only takes away the guilt and dominion of sin, but creates in the believer a habit of righteousness, by which a good deed is produced, to be compensated of grace by the reward. But concerning mercy-saving from actual misery, which is the administration of predestination, and punitive justice which is the cause of reprobation, what judgment shall we form? We will say that both tend, at the same moment, to their own object, but we will [make] consider the former as an antecedent in the order of nature. For though he, who elects, in the very fact that he elects, reprobates also the non-elect, yet the act of election is antecedent in the order of nature, just as an affirmative is in the order of nature prior to negation. From which we infer (of this we will speak hereafter) that the decree to leave man to the decision of his own destiny, and to permit the fall, does not belong to the decree of reprobation, since it is prior to and more ancient than the decree of predestination.

I wish that this order may be considered with somewhat more diligence and at greater length, for it will open before us a way of knowing some other things, different from and yet by no means wholly foreign to the subject now under discussion. If the mercy, which bestows grace and life, holds the prior relation to this decree, and the justice, which denies grace and inflicts death, the posterior relation in the order of nature, though not of time, then it is still more to be considered, whether the object of this decree is adequately and with sufficient accuracy described by the term sinner; or whether something else ought not also to be added, which may so limit the object, that it may be made adequate to the decree which originated in such mercy and justice, and may be in harmony with it, namely the nature of the object thus made adequate, and, in its own capability, tending to its own peculiar and appropriate object. If any one thinks that the functions of justice towards sin and the sinner are prior to those of mercy and that the rendering of it’s due punishment to sin is prior by nature to the remission of the same to the sinner, I wish he would attend diligently to two points.

First, that a twofold action is attributed, by those who discuss this matter, to justice, so far as it premises over the decree of reprobation, or preterition and predamnation, and this in harmony with the nature of the subject; the former is negative, the latter affirmative, and in this order that the negative precedes the affirmative. From this it follows that if that negative act is posterior, in the order of nature, to the affirmative act of predestination, as is the case, then the functions of mercy must be prior; for from mercy originates the affirmative act of predestination, which is antecedent to the negative act of reprobation.

SECONDLY, that the punishment, due to sin, is by this decree destined for no one, unless so as it is not removed by mercy; and in this respect, though justice may in its own right claim the punishment of the sinner, yet it exacts that punishment, according to the decree of predomination which is made by justice, in view not of the fact that it is due to the sinner, but of the fact that it has not been remitted to him of mercy; else all men universally would be predamned, since they all have deserved punishment. Hence, this ought also to be considered whether the justice, which is the administratrix of the decree of reprobation or predamnation is revealed according to the Law or the Gospel, of legal rigor or softened by some mercy and forbearance. If mercy, the administratrix of predestination is revealed according to the Gospel, as is true, it seems from what has already been said, that justice the opposite of mercy, which is prior to it, in the order of nature, should be also revealed according to the Gospel. If any one thinks that these views are vain and useless, let him consider that what is said in the Scripture concerning legal righteousness is not useless —

"The man which doeth those things shall live by them," (Romans 10:5,)

and

"cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Galatians 3:10.)

Let him also consider what is said concerning Evangelical righteousness, "He that believeth in the Son hath everlasting life, (John 3:36,) and "He that believeth not is condemned. (John 3:18.) I wish that these things may be considered thoroughly by the thoughtful, and I ask a suspension of their decision until they have accurately weighed the matter.

FOURTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

The second theory is this — God, from eternity, considering men in their original native condition determined to raise some to supernatural felicity and ordained for the same persons supernatural means which are necessary, sufficient and efficacious to secure that felicity to them, to the praise of his glorious grace; and to pass by others, and to have them in their natural state, and not to bestow on them those supernatural and efficacious means, to declare the liberty of his own goodness; and that he reprobated the same individuals, so passed by, whom he foresaw as not continuing in their original condition, but falling from it of their own fault, that is, he prepared punishment for them to the declaration of his own justice.

THE ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE FOURTH PROPOSITION

This theory is stated, in these words, not more nearly in accordance with the sentiment of its authors than the preceding. For in the first place, I do not remember that I have read these words in Thomas Aquinas, or others: in the second place, if any have used this phraseology, they have not used it in that sense, as shall be proved under the sixth proposition. But in the phrase supernatural felicity, understand th<n uiJoqesi>an, the adoption of the sons of God with all its adjuncts and consectaries. After the words "declare the liberty of his own goodness," add, if you please, "and the perfection of his manifold wisdom." The word reprobation is to be taken catachrestically, as we have before observed. I should prefer that words should be variously distinguished in referring to matters which are distinct.

THE REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE FOURTH PROPOSITION

If I have stated this second theory as nearly in accordance with the sentiments of its authors as in the preceding case, it is well; but I fear on this point since I do not, with equal confidence claim a knowledge of the second. Yet I think that I have derived the explanation of this from the Theses discussed under your direction in which I recognize your style and mode of discussion. Thus in Thesis 10 of those which were discussed, Coddaeus being the respondent, is this statement. "Human beings" (that is, one part of the material of predestination, as is stated in Thesis 7, of the same disputation concerning predestination) "are creatures in a condition of nature (which can effect nothing natural, nothing divine) to be exalted above nature, and to be transmitted to a participation of divine things by the supernatural energy of the Deity." The same assertion is found in the Thesis 4 of your tenth theological disputation, in which the subject of the predestination of human beings alone is discussed, as is the case with the first Thesis, that no one may think that things, said in common concerning the predestination of angels and of men, ought to be expressed in general terms. which might afterwards be attributed specially to each of these classes, according to their different condition to the elect angels, an exaltation from that nature, in which they were created by the Deity, but to elect human beings on elevation from their corrupt nature into which they fell, of their own fault. If, however, this matter is thus understood, there is now no discrepancy between us in this respect.

But I think that it is evident from those words of your Theses that human beings, considered in their original condition are the material of predestination, or its adequate object. Human beings I say in their original condition, both in the fact that nothing supernatural or divine has been bestowed upon them, and that they have not yet fallen into sin.

Considered in their original condition, I say again, in view of the fact that even if they have either supernatural and divine gifts or sin, they are not considered with reference to these by Him who determined to perform any certain act concerning them, which is equivalent to an assertion that neither supernatural or divine gifts, nor sin, held, in the mind of Him who considered them the position of a formal cause in the object, From these words I deduce this conclusion: Human beings, considered in their natural state which can admit nothing supernatural or divine, are the object or material of predestination;-But human beings, considered in their natural condition, are here as beings considered in that natural state, which can do nothing supernatural or divine, or rather they are the same in definition;-

Therefore, human beings in their natural state are the object and material of predestination, that is, according to the views embraced in your Theses.

The Major Proposition is contained in the Thesis. For if the will or decree of God in reference to the exaltation of men from such a state of nature to a state above nature is predestination, then men, considered in that natural state, are the true material of predestination; since the acts of God, both the internal, which is the decree concerning the exaltation of certain human beings, and the external, which is the exaltation itself, (as it ought to be, if we wish to consider the mere object) leave to us man in his mere natural state which can do nothing supernatural or divine.

If it is said that, in these words, the condition of sin is not excluded, since even sinners may be raised from their corrupt nature, I reply, in the first place, that this cannot be the meaning of those words, both because it is not necessary that it should be said of such a nature that can do nothing supernatural or divine, for this is understood from the qualifying term, when it is spoken of as "corrupt," and because, in the definition of preterition, Thesis 15, that act, by which the pure nature of some creatures is not confirmed, is attributed to preterition, which preterition is the leaving of some created beings in their natural condition. I reply, in the second place, that there is here an equivocation in the definition, and that the decree is equivocal and only true on the condition of its division, of which I will say more hereafter. The Minor is true, for this is evident from the reciprocal and equivalent relation of the antecedent and consequent to each other. But what pertains to predestination is enunciated in these words, "to be exalted above nature, and to be transferred to a participation of divine things by the supernatural energy of the Deity, which divine things pertain to grace and glory," as in your Thesis 9. It is not doubtful that my words, in which I have described the second theory, are in harmony with these statements, but if any one thinks that there is a discrepancy because, in your Theses, grace and glory are united, and that it can be understood from my words that I designed to indicate that glory first, and grace afterwards, are prepared for men in predestination, I would inform him that I did not wish to indicate such an idea, but that I wished to set forth, in those words, what the predestinate obtain from predestination.

I come now to the second part, which refers to preterition, and in reference to this, your Theses make this statement "Preterition is the act of the divine will, by which God, from eternity, determined to leave some of his creatures in their natural state, and not to communicate to them that supernatural grace by which their nature might be preserved uncorrupt, or, having become corrupt, might be restored to the declaration of the freedom of his own goodness." Also in your theological axioms Concerning Nature and Grace, axiom 44. "To this purpose of election in Christ is opposed the eternal purpose of non-election or preterition, according to which some are passed by as to be left in their own natural state." These are my words: "but he determined to pass by some and to leave them in their natural state, and not to impart to them those supernatural and especially those efficacious means, to declare the freedom of his own goodness." He, who compares our statements, will see that one and the same sentiment is expressed in different words. For "supernatural grace" and "supernatural means" signify the same thing, "the grace by which nature, when uncorrupt, might be strengthened, and when corrupt, might be restored," is what I have described in the phrase "efficacious means." For "efficacious means" either confirm nature when uncorrupt or restore it when corrupt; as sufficient means are those which have the power to confirm or restore.

Moreover the end, which I have proposed, is expressed in your second Thesis, "to the praise of his glorious grace," and again, in the second Thesis of the tenth disputation, "to the praise of his most glorious grace," and in Thesis 15 of the disputation concerning predestination, in which Coddaeus is the respondent, you have stated the end of preterition to be "the declaration of the freedom of the divine goodness, with no additional remark; yet I do not object to what you wish to add in this place, "the perfection of his manifold wisdom." However, the freedom of goodness and the perfection of wisdom cannot be at the same moment engaged in the acts of predestination and preterition. For the office of wisdom takes precedence, in pointing out all possible methods of illustrating the glory of God, and that which may especially conduce to the glory of God. But the freedom of his goodness is subsequent in its operation, in making choice of the mode of illustration, and in carrying it out into the action, in the exercise (so to speak) of power. In reference to the third part, I make the same remark, namely, concerning reprobation, or the preparation of punishment, that I have also explained it correctly according to your view, for thus is reprobation or the preparation for punishment defined in Thesis seventeen. "It is the act of the divine pleasure, by which God from eternity determined for the declaration of his own justice to punish his creatures, who should not continue in their original state, but should depart from God, the author of their origin, by their own deed and depravity. But I have used the same words with only this addition, "the same individuals, so passed by," by which addition I have only done that which was made requisite by the arrangement and distinction in character which I have adopted; for those, for whom punishment is prepared, are not different from those who are passed by, though punishment was prepared for them, not because they are included in the latter class, the passed by, but because they were foreseen as those who would be sinners.

I cannot, therefore, yet persuade myself that this sentiment has been incorrectly set forth by me. If I shall see it hereafter, I will freely acknowledge it, though this may not be of so much importance.

This indeed I desire, that whether the first view, or the second, or any other view whatever be presented, it may be clearly and strongly proved from the Scriptures, and be defended, with accuracy, from all objections. In reference to the word "reprobate," I have spoken before in reply to your second answer, and I am prepared to use it hereafter according to your later explanation, as you have given it in your last answer. I should perhaps have so used it, in my former letter, if I had found it so used by yourself in your own writings, for I know that equivocal meaning has always been the mother of error, and that it ought to be carefully avoided in all serious discussions.

FIFTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

The third theory is that God determined of his grace to free some of the human race, fallen, and lying in the "lump" (Romans 9:21 ) of perdition and corruption, to the declaration of his Mercy; but to leave in the same "lump," or at least to damn, on account of final impenitence, others, to the illustration both of the freedom of his gratuitous grace towards the vessels of glory and mercy, and of his justice towards the vessels of dishonor and wrath. I do not state these views, that I may instruct you in reference to them, but that you may see whether I have correctly understood them, and may direct and guide me, if I am, in any respect, in error.

THE REPLY OF JUNIUS TO THE FIFTH PROPOSITION

This theory agrees with the first and second in all respects, if you make this one exception, that, in the latter case, the election and reprobation of men is said to have been made after the condition of the fall and of our sin, in the former case without reference to the fall, and to our sin. But neither of them seems properly and absolutely to pertain altogether to the relation of election and reprobation since all admit that the cause of election and reprobation is placed in the consent only of the Being, who alone predestinates. For, whether it is affirmed that election and reprobation are made from among human beings in their original state, or from those, who are fallen and sinful, there was not any cause in them, who, in either state, were equal in all respects, according to nature, but only in the will and liberty of God electing, who separated these from those, and adopted them unto himself "of his own will" boulhqei>v as James says (ch. 1, vers. 18,) or according to the counsel of his will. But yet this circumstance is worthy of notice, and we will, hereafter in its own place, give our opinion concerning it, according to the Scriptures, as there will be an appropriate place for speaking of this subject.

THE REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE FIFTH PROPOSITION

The circumstance of sin and of the fall is of very great importance in this whole subject, not indeed as a cause but as a quality, requisite in the object, without a consideration of which I do not think that election or reprobation was or could have been made by the Deity, which matter we will hereafter more fully discuss. There are also many men learned, and not unversed in the sacred Scriptures, who say that God could not be defended from the charge of sin, if he had not in that decree, considered, man as a sinful being. But I cannot, for a two-fold reason, assent to your denial that the formal cause of the object properly pertains to the subject of that decree, because all fully agree in admitting that the cause of the decree is placed in Him, who predestinates. First, because the formal cause of the object, and not the cause of the act only, is necessarily required for the definition of that act. Secondly, because it is possible that the cause of the act may be of such a nature, that, in its own act, it cannot exert influence on the object which is presented to it, unless it be furnished with that formal relation, which I think is the fact in this case, and will prove it. Nor is there any reason why it should be said that the freedom of God, in the act of predestination, is limited though the circumstance of sin may be stated to be of necessity presupposed to that decree.

But since frequent mention has been made, in this whole discussion of divine freedom, it will not be out of place to refer to it at somewhat greater length, and to affix to it its limits from the Scripture, according to the declaration of God himself. The subject of freedom is the will, its object is an act. In respect to the former, it is an affection of the will, according to which it freely tends towards its one object; in respect to the latter, it is the power and authority over its own act. This freedom is, in the first place and chiefly, in God, and it is in rational creatures by a communication made by God. But freedom is limited, or, which is the same thing, it is effected that any act should not be in the power of the agent in three ways, by natural and internal necessity, by external force and coaction, and by the interposition of law. God can be compelled by no one to an act, he can be hindered by no one in an act, hence, this freedom is not limited by that kind of restriction. Law also cannot be imposed on 33 God, as He is the highest, the Supreme Lawgiver. But He can limit Himself, by His own act. There are, then, but two causes which effect that any act should not be in the power of God; the former is the nature of God, and whatever is repugnant to it is absolutely impossible; the latter is any previous act of God, to which another act is opposed. Examples of the former are such as these; God cannot lie, because He is, by nature, true. He cannot sin or commit injustice, because he is justice itself. Examples of the latter are these; God cannot effect that what has previously occurred may not have occurred, for, by an antecedent act, he has effected that it should be; if now can effect that it may not have been, He will destroy his own power and will. God could not but grant to David that his seed should sit on his throne, for this was promised to David, and confirmed by an oath.

He cannot forget the labor of love, performed by the saints, so as not to bestow upon it a reward, for He has promised that reward. If, then, any one wishes to inquire whether any act belongs to the free will and the power of God, he must see whether the nature of God may restrict that act, and if it is not so restricted, whether the freedom of God is limited by any antecedent act, if he shall find that the act is not restricted in either mode, then he may conclude that the act pertains to the divine power; but it is not to be immediately inferred that it has been or will be performed by God, since any act which depends on His free will, can be suspended by Him, so as not to be performed. It is also to be observed here that many things are possible for God, in respect to this absolute power, which are not possible in respect to justice. It is possible in respect to His power that He should punish one who has not sinned, for who could resist Him, but it is not possible, in respect to justice, for it would be at variance with the Divine justice. God can do whatever He wills with His own, but He cannot will to do with His own that which he cannot do of right. For His will is restricted by the limits of justice. Nor is the creature, in such a sense, in the power of God, the Creator, that he can do, of right, in reference to it, whatever he might do of His absolute power, for the power of God over the creature depends, not on the infinity of the Divine essence, but on that communication by which he has communicated to us our limited essence. This permits that God should deprive us of that being which he has given us without merit on our part, but does not permit that He should inflict misery upon us without our demerit. For to be miserable is worse than not to be, as happiness is better than mere existence. And, therefore, there is not the same liberty to inflict misery on the creature without demerit, as to take away being without previous sin. God takes away that which He gave, and He can do as He wills, with His own, but He cannot inflict misery, because the creature does not so far belong to God. The potter cannot, from the unformed lump, make a man to dishonor and condemnation, unless the man has previously made himself worthy of punishment and dishonor by his own transgression.

SIXTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

I am not pleased with the first theory because God could not, in his purpose of illustrating his glory by mercy and punitive justice, have reference to man as not yet made, nor indeed to man as made, and considered in his natural condition. In which sentiment I think that I have yourself as my precedent, for, in discussing predestination, you no where make mention of mercy, but every where of grace, which transcends mercy, as exercised towards creatures, continuing in their original, natural state, while it coincides with mercy in being occupied with the sinner, but when you treat of the passed by and the reprobate, you mention justice, and only in the case of such. Besides, according to that opinion, God is, by necessary consequence, made the author of the fall of Adam and of sin, from which imputation he is not freed by the distinctions of the act and the evil in the act, of necessity and coaction, of the decree and its execution, of efficacious and permissive decree, as the latter is explained by the authors of this view, in harmony with it, nor a different relation of the divine decree and of human nature, nor by the addition of the proposed end, namely that the whole might redound to the divine glory, etc.

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE SIXTH PROPOSITION

There are three things to be laid down in order, before I come to the argumentation itself. First, in reference to the meaning of the first view; secondly, in reference to its agreement with the second and third; thirdly, in reference to a few fundamental principles necessary to the clearness of this question. In the first place, then, if that view be fully examined, we shall perceive with certainty that its authors did not regard man absolutely and only before his creation, etc., but in a general view and with a universal reference to that and to all times. For though they make the act of election and predestination, (as one which exists in the Deity,) as from eternity, in reference to the creation of man, yet they teach that its object, namely mankind, was predestinated without discrimination, and in common, and that God, in the act of predestination, considered the whole human race as various parts inwrought by the eternal decree into its execution. Thus Beza, very clearly on Ephesians 1:4, says,

"Christ is presented to us as mediator. Therefore, the fall must, in the order of causes, necessarily precede in the purpose of God, but previous to the fall there must be a creation in righteousness and holiness."

So afterwards, on ch. 4:24,

"As God has made for Himself a way both for saving, by his mercy, those whom He had elected in Christ, and for justly punishing those who, having been conceived in sin, should remain in their depravity," etc.

This view he also learnedly presents in a note on verses 4 and 5. Thus those authors embrace the first, and, at the same time, the second and third theories.

But this first theory has an agreement with the second and also with the third, indeed it is altogether the stone, though in appearance it seems otherwise, if you attend to the various objects of these theories. For while the authors of the first regard man universally, in the argument of predestination, election and reprobation, the authors of the second have made a restriction to the case of man before transgression only, and this with the design to show that, in predestination, the cause of election and of reprobation was only in the being predestinating, which is very true. When they assert, therefore, that the election of man was made before his fall, they do not exclude the idea of the eternity of that decree, but consider this to be sufficient if they may establish the fact that eternal predestination, that is, election and reprobation, was made by God, without reference to sin, which the apostle has demonstrated in the example, by no means obscure, of Jacob and Esau. (Romans 9) The first, therefore, differs from the second less in substance than in the manner of speaking. But those, who adhere to the third theory, have looked, properly speaking, not so much to the cause of election and reprobation, as to the order of causes, of which damnation is the consequence; which damnation, many in former times, confounding with reprobation, that is, non-election or predestination, exclaimed that the doctrine of predestination was impious, and accused the servants of God, as is most clearly evident from the writings of Augustine and Fulgentius. The little book of Augustine, which he wrote in answer to the twelve articles falsely charged against him, most opportunely explains the matter. Neither those who favor the second theory, therefore, nor those who favor the third, have attacked the first, but have rather presented in a different mode, parts of the same argument, distinct in certain respects. It seems then that, as to the sum of the whole matter, they do not differ so much as some suppose, but have attributed to parts of its execution, (to all of which the decree has reference,) certain circumstances, not indeed ineptly in respect to the decree.

Let us now come to certain fundamental principles necessary to this doctrine, by the application of which its truth may be confirmed, and those things which seem to operate against it, may be removed. These seem to me capable of being included under four heads, the essence of God, His knowledge, His actions, and their causes, to each of which we will here briefly refer. We quote first from Malachi 3:6, "I am the Lord, I change not;" also from James 1:17, "with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning," and many similar passages. The truth of this fundamental principle is very certain; from it is deduced the inevitable necessity of this conclusion, that in the Deity nothing is added, nothing is taken away, nothing is changed in fact or relation; for such have philosophers themselves decided to be the nature of eternity; but God is eternal. Also that God is destitute of all movement in His essence, because He is immortal; in His power because He is pure and simple action; and in intellect, because "all things are naked and opened unto His eyes," and He sees all and each of them eternally, by a single glance; in His will and purpose, for He

"is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of a man that He should repent," (Numbers 23:19,)

but He is always the same; and lastly in operation, for the things which vary are created, while the Lord remains without Variation, and has in Himself the form of immutable conception of all those things which exist and are done mutably in time. The second fundamental principle is that the knowledge of the eternal, immutable and infinite mind is eternal, immutable and infinite and knows things to be known as such, and those to be done as such, (gwstw~v) eternally, immutably and infinitely. God has a knowledge practically (praktikw~v) of all evil as a matter of mere knowledge and finally of all things of all classes, (which consist of things the highest, the intermediate, and the lowest of things good and evil,) energetically (ejnerghtikw~v) according to his own divine mode. There is a three-fold relation in all science, if comparison is made with the thing known according to the measure of the being who knows or takes cognizance of it; inferior, equal, and superior, or supereminent, which may be made clear by an illustration from sight. I see the sun, but the light of my vision is inferior to its light; I take cognizance of natural objects, but as owls do of the light of the sun, as Aristotle says. Here is the inferior mode of knowledge, which never exists in God. In him alone exists equal knowledge, and that knowledge which is supereminent after the divine mode, for He has equal knowledge of Himself; He is that which He knows Himself to be, and he knows adequately what He is. All other things He knows in the supereminent mode, and has them present to himself from eternity; if not, there would be two very grievous absurdities, not to mention others; one, that something might be added to the Deity, but that nothing can be added to eternity; the other, that knowledge could not belong to God univocally as the source of all knowledge. But nature herself teaches that in every class of objects there is some one thing which they call univocal, from which are other things in an equivocal sense; as, for example, things which are hot, are made so by fire. Here the fire is hot univocally, other things equivocally. God has knowledge univocally, other beings equivocally; unless perhaps some may be so foolish as to place a possessor of knowledge above the Deity, which would be blasphemy. The third point is that the actions of God in Himself are eternal, whether they pertain to His knowledge or His essence, to His intellect, will or power, and whatever else there may be of this nature; but from Himself they flow, as it were, out of himself according to His own mode, or according to that of the creature according to his eternal decree, yet in an order which is his own, but adapted to time. According to the mode of the Deity, action is three-fold; that of creation, that of providence, so far as it is immediate, and that of saving grace.

For many things proceed from the Deity without the work of the creature, but they are things which He condescends to accomplish mediately in nature and in grace. He does, as a universal principle according to the mode of the creature, and, as Augustine says, (lib. 7, de. civit. Dei. cap. 30) "He so administers all things which He has created, as to permit them also to exercise and to perform their own motions." But "their own motions" pertain, some of them to nature and to natural instinct and are directed invariably to one certain and destined end, and others to the will in the rational nature, which are directed to various objects either good or evil, to those which are good, by the influence of the Deity, to those which are evil by His influence only so far as they are natural, and by his permission so far as they are voluntary. From which it can be established in the best and most sacred manner that all effects and defects in nature and in the will of all kinds, depend on the providence of God; yet in such a manner that, as Plato says, the creature is in fault as the proximate cause, and "God is wholly without blame."

The fourth point is that the first and supreme cause is so far universal, that nothing else can be supposed or devised to be its cause, since if it should depend on any other cause, it could be neither the first nor the supreme cause, but there must be another, either prior or superior, or equal to it, so that neither would be absolutely first or supreme. In the next place, all causes exist, either as principles or derived from a principle; "as principles" nature and the will exist; "from a principle" are mediate causes, from nature, natural causes, and from the will voluntary causes. The mode of the latter has been made two-fold by the Deity, necessary and contingent. The necessary mode is that which cannot be otherwise, and this is always good, in that it is necessary; but the contingent is that which is as it happens to be, whether good or bad. But here a three-fold caution is to be carefully observed; first, that we hold these modes of the causes to be from the things themselves and in themselves, according to the relation of the principles from which they proceed, for we speak now not of the immediate actions of God, which are above these principles, as we have before noticed, the natural causes, naturally, and the voluntary causes, voluntarily; secondly, that we make both these modes to be from God, but not in God; for mode in God is only divine, that is, it surpasses the necessary and contingent in all their modes; since there can occur to the Deity neither necessity from any source, nor any contingency, but all things in the Deity are essential, and in a divine mode; thirdly, that we should consider those modes as flowing from God to created things, in such a manner that none of them should be reciprocated, and, as it were, flow back to God. For God is the universal principle; and if any of these should flow back to Him, He would from that fact cease to be the principle. The reason, indeed, of this is manifest from a comparison of natural examples, since this whole thing proceeds not from natural power simply, in so far as it is natural, but from the rational power of God. For it is a condition of natural power, that it always produces one and the same thing in its own kind, and that if it should produce any thing, out of itself, it must produce something like itself from the necessity of nature, or something unlike from contingency. A pear tree produces a pear tree, a bull begets one of its own species, and a human being begets a human being; that is, in accordance with the distinct form which exists in the nature of each thing.

But the operation of rational power, which is capable of all forms, is of all kinds; to which three things must concur in the agent, knowledge, power, and will. But the mode of those things, which rational power effects, is not constituted according to the mode of knowledge or power, but to the mode of the will which actually forms the works, which virtually are formed in the knowledge and power, as in a root; and this from the freedom of the will and not from the necessity of nature. If we would illustrate this by an example in divine things, let it be this: the person of the Father begat the person of the Son by nature, not by the will; God begat his creatures by the will, not by nature. Therefore, the Son is one with the Father, but created things are diverse from the Deity, and are of all classes, degrees, and conditions, made by His rational power voluntarily to demonstrate His manifold wisdom. It is indeed nothing new that those things which are of nature should be reciprocated and refluent, since many of them are adequate, while many indeed are essential. But it is a new idea that those things which are of the will should be either reciprocated or made adequate.

But if this is true in nature, as it surely is, how much more must it be believed in reference to God, if He be compared with created things. It was necessary that these should be laid down by me, my brother, rather copiously, that the sequence might be more easily determined by certain limits.

You say that the first opinion does not please you, because you think that God cannot, in his purpose to illustrate his glory by mercy and punitive justice, have had reference to the human race, considered as not yet made.

You add, in amplifying the idea, that God did not have reference even to the human race, considered as created, and in his natural condition. That we may each understand the other, I remark that I understand by your phrase, "have reference to the human race," to have man as the object or instead of the object of action. But let us consider, if you please, or rather, because it does please you and you request it, how far your view is correct. Indeed, from the first fundamental principle, which I have before laid down, (from which I trust that you do not dissent,) I consider man as not yet created, as created, as fallen, and, in fine, man in general, in whatever light he may be viewed, to be the object of the power, knowledge, will, mercy and justice of God; for if this is granted, it will then be a complete sequence that there is something, aside from common providence and the special predestination of the sons of God, not an object of the action of the Deity. Then there can be some addition to God, if something can be added to His power, knowledge, will, etc., since the power, knowledge, will, etc., of God, is either God, or a divine, that is, an infinite act. Whatever eternity looks upon, if it does not look upon it eternally, it ceases to be eternity; it loses the nature of eternity. If infinity does not look on infinite things, in an infinite manner, if it is limited by parts, it ceases to be infinity. To God and His eternity, it is not is, was or shall be, but permanent and enduring being, all at once, and without bounds. The creature exists indeed in time, but is present to God, in a peculiar, that is, a divine mode, which is above all consideration of time, and from eternity to eternity; and this is true not only of the creature itself, but of all its feelings, whatever may be their origin. You will perhaps say that this principle is acknowledged in the abstract, but that here, as it is considered in the concrete, it has a different relation, in that it has reference to mercy and punishment, which can really be supposed only in view of antecedent misery and sin. But these also, my brother, are present with God as really as those; I do not say in the mode of nature, which is fleeting, but in that of the Deity, which is eternal, and in all respects surpasses nature. They, who think differently, are in danger of denying the most absolute and eternal essence of the Deity itself. We said also, under proposition three, that in created things misery and sin may be considered in relation to the act, the habit, or the capability also in an absolute and in a relative sense. But in God, (whom also Aristotle acknowledges to be "energy in its most simple form," mercy and judgment exist by an eternal act, and not by a temporal one; and contemplates the misery and sin of man in all their modes, previous to all time, and does not merely take cognizance of them as they occur in time.

Lastly, that we may disclose the fountain of the matter, this whole idea originates in the fact that the third fundamental principle which, we before laid down, has not been sufficiently regarded by those who so think. For since all action is either internal or external, or both united together. The internal is in God, as the maker: the external is in the creature in its own time and place, and in the thing made just as the house is formed in the mind of the builder, before it is built materially (as it is said). But when both acts are united and from them is produced a work, numerically a unit, which they style a result, then the internal act is the formal cause; the external act is the material cause. Nothing in God is temporary; action in God is alone eternal, for it is internal, it is therefore not temporary; so, on the contrary, all things out of God are temporary, therefore the external act is temporary, for it is out of God. "What, then, do you prove?" you will ask. "That God in his mercy and punitive justice acts with reference to man as not yet created, or indeed as created, but considered in his natural condition?" I indeed admit that whatever it may be, which can be predicated of man, it can sacredly and in truth be predicated of him. Yet I see that two statements may be made of a milder character, and in harmony with the words of Christ and the apostles, which are clearly intimated, if not fully expressed by them; the former, that, in this question, we must consider, not only the mode and the consequent event (which some call, catechrestically, the end), namely, mercy and punitive justice, also life and eternal death, but the fountain and the genus from which these result, and to which they hold the relation of species, namely, grace and non-grace, adoption or filiation, and non-adoption, which is reprobation, as we have said above (Prop. 2), the latter, that, in the argument of election, we must propose not any particular relation of the human race, but the common or universal relation so that we may consider him as not yet created, as created, as fallen etc., yet present in all respects in the conception of God, so that in this election, grace towards mankind in the abstract, and mercy towards man as fallen and sinful, which is of grace, concur, but in reprobation, the absence of the grace of adoption and the absence of mercy concur. If these statements are correct, I do not see in what respect a pious mind can be offended. For Christ says that they are blessed of God, the Father who

"inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world." (Matthew 25:34.)

And Paul says that God

"hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure, to the praise, etc." (Ephesians 1:3-6.)

"What then? is there no special reference?" I answer that properly in the argument of election and reprobation (for the matter of damnation is a different one) there is no particular reference to men as a cause, but our separation from the reprobate is wholly of the mere will of God: in that God has separated and made a distinction among men, whether not yet created, created or fallen, and indeed among all things, present alike to Him, yet equal in all respects by nature and condition, by electing and predestinating some to the adoption of the sons of God, and by leaving others to themselves and to their own nature, not calling them to the adoption of the sons of God, which is gratuitous and can be ascribed only to grace. This grace, also, unique in itself only, may be twofold in the elect, for either it is grace simply, if you look even from eternity on man without reference to the fall, which grace is communicated to the elect, both angels and men, or it is grace joined to mercy, or gracious mercy, when you come down to the special matter of the fall and of sin. God dealt with the angels according to His grace, with us according to His grace and mercy, if you do not also have reference to possible misery (of which we spoke, Prop. 3, and misery.) For in this sense mercy is, and can, with propriety, be called a divine work of grace. But what is there here which can be reprehended in God? What is there, which can be denied by us? God has bestowed human nature on all; it is a good gift; on certain individuals he has bestowed mercy and the grace of adoption; this is a better gift. He was not under obligation to bestow either; He bestowed both, the former on all, the latter on some men. But it may perhaps be said that reprobation is one thing, and punitive justice and damnation, which is under discussion, is another. Let that be conceded; then there is agreement between us in reference to reprobation, let us then consider punitive justice and damnation. It is certain that, as the vessels of mercy which God has prepared for His glory that He might demonstrate the riches of His glory, are from eternity fully present to Him in a divine and incomprehensible manner, without any motion or change in Himself, so also "the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" that he might "show His wrath and make His power known," (Romans 9:22,) are eternally presented to his eyes, according to the mode of Deity. As vessels, therefore, they are of God, for He is the maker of all things: as vessels of wrath, they are of themselves and of their own sin, into which they rush of their own will, for we all are by this nature the children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3,) but not in our original constitution. Moses affirms in Genesis 1:31, that

"God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good."

God, who is good, does not hate that which is good. All things, at their creation, were good, therefore at their creation, God did not hate any one of all created things: He hates that which is alien from Himself, but not that which is His own: He is angry with our fall and sin, not with His own creation. By creation they are vessels; by the fall, they are vessels of wrath, and fitted to destruction, as the most just consequence of the fall and of depravity: for "neither shall evil dwell with God." (Psalms 5:4.) As in the knowledge of God is the good of the elect, with whom he deals in mercy, so in the knowledge of God, as Isaiah says, chapter 48:4 and 8, is the evil of others: the latter He hated and damned from the period of His knowledge of it. But He knew and foreknew from eternity; therefore, He hates and damns, and even pre-damns from eternity.

As this is the relation of the former proposition, the relation of the other also, added by way of amplification, "nor indeed to man as made and considered in his original condition," is also the same. For the consequence is plainly deduced in the same mode, in reference to the latter as in reference to the former; and you are not ignorant that universal affirmations follow by fair deduction from that which is general to that which is particular. God has reference from eternity in election and reprobation to mankind in general; therefore He had reference to man as not created, created and fallen, and if there is any other term, by which we can express our ideas. In the case of election, and of reprobation, I say, He regarded man abstractly, with whatever relation you may invest him. In the case of damnation, He regarded the sinner, whom He had not given to Christ in the election of grace, and whom He from eternity saw as a sinner.

Those holy men, therefore rightly stated that the election and reprobation of man was made from eternity: some considered them as having reference to man, not yet created, others to man as not yet fallen, and yet others to man as fallen: since in whatever condition you regard him, a man is elected or reprobated without consideration of his good or evil deeds. Nor indeed can it be proved that they are at variance in this matter, unless a denial of other conditions is shown in plain terms. For such is the common statement by universal consent. In which, if any one affirms that the supposition of one involves the disavowal of the other he opposes the truth of natural logic and common usage. But if such is the relation of election and reprobation in a general sense, it is a complete sequence that they who say that men, as not created, were elected, speak very truly, since God elected them by the internal act, before He did by the external act; and that they who affirm that the election was of man, as created, have reference to the principle of the external act; and so with the rest. But all these things are not in reference to His act per se, but in reference to the condition of the act, which does not affect its substance. You say that in this opinion you have me as a precedent since, in the discussion of predestination, I "no where make mention of mercy, but every where of grace, which transcends mercy." Indeed, my brother, I have never thought that I should seem to exclude the other parts when I might use the term grace, nor do I see how that inference can be made from the phrase itself.

Grace is the genus; it does not exclude mercy, the species. Grace includes, so to speak, the path for all times; therefore it includes that of mercy. Nor do they, who mention mercy, in presenting the species, exclude the genus, nor, in presenting a part, do they exclude all which remains. And we, in presenting the genus, do not deny the species, nor in presenting the whole, do we disavow a part. Both are found in the Scriptures, which speak of grace in respect to the whole and its single parts, and in a certain respect, of mercy: but they take away neither by the affirmation of the other. I would demonstrate this by quotations, did I not think that you with me, according to your skill and intelligence would acknowledge this.

Predestination is of grace: the same grace, which has effected the predestination of the saints, also includes mercy: this I sufficiently declared a little while since. I mentioned grace simply, in the case of simple predestination, that is, predestination expressed in simple and universal terms. I speak of mercy, also, in relation to a man who is miserable, spoken of absolutely, or relatively. You add that when I treat of the passed by and the reprobate, I mention justice, and only in the case of such. Let us, if you please, remove the homonymy; then we shall expedite the matter in a few words. We exposed the homonymy in the second proposition; we speak of the reprobate either generally or particularly. If you understand it generally, the mention of justice is correctly made, as we shall soon show. If particularly, either reprobates and those passed by refer to the same, which is the appropriate signification, or the term reprobate is applied to the damned, which is catachrestic. I do not think that you understand it in the former sense, if you understand it in the latter (as you do), what you say is certainly very true, that I spoke of justice only when treating of the damned. However, I do not approve that you write copulatively of the passed by and the reprobate, that is, the damned.

For although they are the same in subject, and all the passed by are damned, and all the damned are passed by, yet their relation as passed by or reprobate is one thing, and their relation as damned is another.

Preterition or reprobation is not without justice, but it is not of justice, as its cause: damnation is with justice and of justice. Election and reprobation or preterition are the work of free will according to the wisdom of God; but damnation is the work of necessary will according to the justice of God; for God "cannot deny Himself" (2 Timothy 2:13.) As a just judge, it is necessary that He should punish unrighteousness, and execute judgment.

This, I say, is the work of the manifold wisdom of God, which in those creatures, in whom he has implanted the principle of their own ways, namely, a free will, He might exhibit its two-fold use, good and bad, and the consequent result of its use in both directions. Hence he has, in His own wisdom, ordained, both in angels and in men, the way of both modes of its use, without any fault or sin on His own part. But it is a work of justice to damn the unrighteous. Therefore also it is said truly that the passed by are damned by the Deity, but because they were to be damned, not because they were passed by or reprobated.

Now I come to your argumentation, in which you affirm that, "according to that theory, God is, by necessary consequence, made the author of the fall of Adam, and of sin etc." I do not, indeed, perceive the argument from which this conclusion is necessarily deduced, if you correctly understand that theory. Though I do not doubt that you had reference to your own words, used in stating the first theory, "that he ordained also that man should fall and become depraved, that he might thus prepare the way for the fulfillment of his own eternal counsels, that he might be able mercifully to save some, etc." This, then, if I am not mistaken, is your reasoning. He, who has ordained that man should fall and become depraved, is the author of the fall and of sin; God ordained that man should fall and become depraved; therefore, God is the author of sin. But the Major of this syllogism is denied, because it is ambiguous; for the word ordain is commonly, though in a catachrestical sense, used to mean simply and absolutely to decree, the will determining and approving an act; which catachresis is very frequent in forensic use. But to us, who are bound to observe religiously, in this argument, the propriety of terms, to ordain is nothing else than to arrange the order in acts, and in each thing according to its mode. It is one thing to decree acts absolutely, and another to decree the order of acts, in each thing, according to its mode. The former is immediate, the latter, from the beginning to the end, regards the means, which in all things, pertain to the order of events. In the former signification, the Minor is denied; for it is entirely at variance with the truth, since God is never the author of evil (that is, of evil involving guilt). In the latter signification the Major is denied, for it is not according to the truth, nor is it necessary in any respect that the same person who disposes the order of actions and, in each thing, according to its mode: should be the author of those actions.

The actor is one thing, the action is another,-and the arranger of the action is yet another. He who performs an evil deed is the author of evil. He, who disposes the order in the doer and in the evil deed, is not the author of evil, but the disposer of an evil act to a good end. But that this may be understood, let us use the fourth fundamental principle, which we have previously stated, according to this, we shall circumscribe this whole case within this limit; every fault must always be ascribed to the proximate, not to the remote or to the highest cause. In a chain, the link, which breaks, is in fault; in a machine, the wheel, which deviates from its proper course, is in fault, not any superior or inferior one. But as all causes are either principles, or from principles, (in this case, however, principles are like wheels, by which the causes, originating from the principles, are moved), God is the universal principle of all good, nature is the principle of natural things, and the rational will, turning freely to good or evil, is the principle of moral actions. These three principles, in their own appropriate movement, perform their own actions, and produce mediate causes, act in their own relations, and dispose them; God in a divine mode, nature in a natural mode, and the will in an elective mode. God, in a divine mode, originates nature; nature, in its own mode, produces man; the will, in its own appropriate mode, produces its own moral and voluntary actions. If, now, the will produces a moral action, whether good or evil, it produces it, of its own energy, and this cannot be attributed to nature itself as a cause, though nature may implant the will in man, since the will, (though from nature) is the peculiar and special principle of moral actions, instituted by the Deity in nature. But if the blame of this cannot be attributed to nature as a cause, by what right, I pray, can it be attributed to God, who, by the mode and medium of nature, has placed the will in man? I answer then, with Augustine, in his book against articles falsely imputed to him, artic. 10.

"The predestination of God neither excited, nor persuaded, nor impelled, the fall of those who fell, or the iniquity of the wicked, or the evil passions of sinners, but it clearly predestinated His own judgment, by which He should recompense each one according to his deeds, whether good or bad, which judgment would not be inflicted, if men should sin by the will of God."

He proceeds to the same purpose in art. 11, remarking, "If it should be charged against the devil, that he was the author of certain sins, and the inciter to them, I think he would be able to exonerate himself from that odium in some way, and that he would convict the perpetrators of such sins from their own will, since, although he might have been delighted in the madness of those sinners, yet he could prove that he did not force them to crime.

With what folly, what madness, then, is that referred to the counsel of God, which cannot at all be ascribed to the devil, since he, in the sins of wicked men, aids by enticements, but is not to be considered the director of their wills. Therefore God predestinated none of these things that they should take place, nor did He prepare that soul, which was about to live basely and in sin, that it should live in such a manner; but He was not ignorant that such would be its character, and He foreknew that He should judge justly concerning a soul of such character."

But if this could be imputed neither to nature, nor to the devil, how much less to God, the most holy and wise Creator? God, (as St. Augustine says again, book 6) "does not predestinate all which he foreknows. For He only foreknows evil. He does not predestinate it, but He both foreknows and predestinates good." But it is a good, derived from God, that, in His own ordination, He disposes the order in things good and evil; if not, the providence of God would be, for the most part, indifferent (may that be far from our thoughts). God does not will evil, but He wills, and preserves a certain order even in evil. Evil comes from the will of man; from God is the general and special arrangement of His own providence, disposing and most wisely keeping in order even those things which are, in the highest degree, evil.

Here a twofold question will perhaps be urged upon me: first, how can these be said, in reference to the will, to be its own motions, when we acknowledge that the will itself, that is, the fountain of voluntary motions, is from nature, and nature is from God? Secondly, why did God place in human beings this will, constituted in the image of liberty? I will reply to both in a few words. To the first; the will is certainly from nature, and nature is from God, but the will is not, on that account, the less to be called the principle of those motions, than nature is called the principle of natural motions. Each is the principle of its own action, though both are from the supreme principle, God. It is one thing to describe the essence of a thing, another to refer to its source. What is essential to nature and the will? That the former should be the principle of natural motions, the latter, of spontaneous motions. What is their source? God is the only and universal source of all things. Nor is it absurd that a principle should be derived from another principle: for although a principle, which originates in another, should not be called a principle in the relation of origin or source, yet, in the relation of the act it does not on that account, cease to be an essential principle. God is, per se, a principle. Nature and our wills are principles derived from a principle. Yet each of them has its own appropriate motions. Nor is there any reason, indeed, why any should think that these are philosophical niceties: they are natural distinctions, and that, which is of nature, is from God. But if we are unwilling to hear nature, let us listen to the truth of God, to Christ speaking of the devil (John 8:44), "when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father of it." Here he is called "the father of a lie," and is said "to speak of his own." According to Christ’s words, then, we have the origin and the act of sin in the devil. For the act has a resemblance to himself, for he speaks of his own. What, I pray, can be more conclusive than these words? Hence Augustine, in the answer already quoted, very properly deduces this conclusion. "As God did not, in the angels who fell, induce that will, by which they did not continue in the truth; so he did not produce in men that inclination by which they imitate the devil. For he speaketh a lie of his own; and he will not be free from that charge, unless the truth shall free him." He indeed gave free will, namely, that essential power to Adam: but its motion is, in reference to Adam, his own, and, in reference to all of us, our own. In what sense is it our own, when it is given to us by God? Whatever is bestowed on us by God, is either by the law of common right, or of personal and private property. He gave the will to angels and men by the law of personal possession. It is therefore, one’s own and its motion belong to the individual. "This," says Augustine, (lib. de Genes. ad litt. in perf. cap. 5,) "He both makes and disposes species and natures themselves, but the privations of species and the defects of natures he does not make, He only ordains." Therefore God is always righteous, but we are unrighteous.

To the second question, namely, why did God create in us this will, and with such a character? I reply; — it was the work of the highest goodness and wisdom in the universe. Why should we, with our ungrateful minds, who have already made an ill use of those minds, obstruct the fountain of goodness and wisdom? It was the work of goodness to impress his own image on both natures, in the superior, on that of angels, and in the inferior, on that of men: since, while other things in nature are moved by instinct, or feeling, as with a dim trace of the Deity, these alone, in the freedom of their own will, have the principle of their own ways in their own power by the mere goodness of God. It was the work of wisdom to make these very species, endued with His own image, together with so many other objects, and above the others, as the most perfect mirror of His own glory, so far as is possible in created things. But why did he make them of such a character, with mutable freedom? He made His own image, not himself.

The only essential image of God, the Father, is the Lord Jesus Christ, one God, eternal and immutable, with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Whoever thou mayest be, who makest objections to this, thou hearest the serpent whispering to thee, as he whispered once to Eve, to the ruin of our race.

Let it suffice thee that thou wast made in the image of God, not possessing the divine perfection. Immutability is peculiar to the divine perfection.

This pertains by nature to God. The creature had in himself His image, communicated by God, and placed in his will: but he, whether angel or man, who fell, rejected it of his own will. Not to say more, this whole question was presented by Marcion, and Tertullian, with the utmost fluency and vigor, discussed it in its whole extent, in a considerable part of his second book against Marcion, the perusal of which will, I trust, be satisfactory to you.

You remark, finally, that they are not freed from the necessity of that conclusion "by the distinctions of the act, and the evil in the act, of necessity and creation, of the decree and its execution, etc." Indeed, my brother, I think that, from those things, which have just been said, you will sufficiently perceive in what respects your reasoning is fallacious. For God does not make, but ordains the sinner, as I say, with Augustine, that is, He ordains the iniquity of the sinner not by commanding or decreeing particularly and absolutely that he should commit sin, but by most wisely vindicating His own order, and the right of His infinite providence, even in evil which is peculiar to the creature. For it was necessary that the wisdom of God should triumph in this manner, when He exhibited His own order in the peculiar and voluntary disorder of His own creature. This disorder and alienation from good the creature prepared for himself by the appropriate motion of free-will, not by the impulse of the Deity. But that freedom of the will, says Tertullian against Marcion (lib. 2, cap. 9) "does not fix the blame on Him by whom it was bestowed, but on him by whom it was not directed, as it ought to have been." Since this is so, it is not at all necessary that I should speak of those particular distinctions, which, in their proper place, may perhaps be valid; they do not seem to me to pertain properly to this argument, unless other arguments are introduced, which I cannot find in your writings. Besides all those distinctions pertain generally to the subject of providence, not particularly to this topic. I am not pleased that the discussion should extend beyond its appropriate range. But here some may perhaps say; "Therefore, the judgments of God depend on contingencies, and are based on contingencies, if they have respect to man as a sinner, and to his sin." That consequence is denied: for, on the contrary, those very things which are contingencies to us, depend on the ordination of God, according to their origin and action. To their origin, for God has established the contingency equally with the necessity: To their action, for He acts in the case of that which is good, fails to act in that which is evil, in that it is evil, not in that it is ordained by His special providence. They are not, therefore, contingencies to the Deity, whatever they may be to us; just as those things, which are contingent to an inferior cause, can by no means be justly ascribed to a superior cause. But I have already stated this matter with sufficient clearness, in the discussion of the fourth fundamental principle. Let us, therefore, pass to other matters.

THE REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE SIXTH PROPOSITION

The meaning of the first theory is that which I have set forth in the third proposition. But it is of little importance to me, whether the object, generally and without distinction, or with a certain distinction, and invested with certain circumstances, is presented to God, when predestinating and reprobating, for that is not, now, the point before me.

If, however, it may be proper to discuss this also in a few words, I should say that it cannot seem to one who weighs this matter with accuracy, that the object is considered in general and without any distinction by God, in the act of decreeing, according to the sentiment of the authors of the first theory. For the object was considered by God, in the act of decreeing, in the relation which it had at the time. when it had, as yet, been affected by no external act of God, executing that decree; for this, in a pure and abstract sense, is an object, free from every other consideration, which can pertain to an object, through the action of a cause operating in reference to it. But since, according to the authors of the first theory, the act of creation pertains to the execution of the decree, of which we now treat, it is, therefore, most certainly evident, that man, in that he was to be made, was the object of predestination and reprobation. If any one considers the various and manifold sets of that decree, it is not doubtful that some of these must be accommodated and applied to this and others to that condition of man, and in this sense, I would admit the common and general consideration of the object. But all those acts, according to the authors of that first theory, depend on one primary act, namely, that in which God determined to declare, in one part of that unformed "lump," from which the human race was to be made, the glory of his mercy, and, in another part, the glory of his justice, and it is this very thing which I stated to be displeasing to me in that first theory; nor can I yet persuade myself that there exists, in the whole Scripture, any decree, by which God has determined to illustrate his own glory, in the salvation of these and in the condemnation of those, apart from foresight of the fall.

The passage which you quote from Beza, on Ephesians 1:4, plainly proves that I have done no injustice to those authors in explaining their doctrine. He says, in that passage, that God, by the creation and corruption of man, opened a way for himself to the execution of that which he had before decreed."

In reference to the harmony of those theories, I grant that all agree in this, that this decree of God was made from eternity, before any actual existence of the object, whatever might be its character, and however it might be considered. For

"known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." (Acts 15:18.)

It is necessary also that all the internal acts of God should universally be eternal, unless we wish to make God mutable; yet in such a sense that some are antecedent to others in order and nature. I admit also that they agree in this, that there exists, in the predestinate or the reprobate, no cause why the former should be predestinated, the latter reprobated; and that the cause exists only in the mere will of God. But I affirm that some ascend to a greater height than others, and extend the act of decree farther.

For the advocates of the third theory deny that God, in any act of predestination and reprobation, has reference to man, considered as not yet fallen, and those of the second theory say that God, in the act of that decree, did not have reference to man as not yet created. The advocates of the first, however, openly assert and contend that God, in the first act of the decree, had reference to man, not as created, but as to be created. I, therefore, distinguished those theories according to their objects, as each one presented man to God, at the first moment of the act of predestination and reprobation, as free from any divine act predestinating and reprobating, either internal, by which he might decree something concerning man, or external, by which He might effect something in man; this may be called pure object, having as yet received no relation from the act of God, decreeing from eternity, and no form from the external act. But when it has received any relation or form from any act of God, it is no longer pure object, but an object having some action of God concerning it, or in it, by which it is prepared for receiving some further action, as was also a short time since affirmed. We will hereafter examine your idea that they substantiate their theory by the example of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9.

I may be permitted to make some observations or inquiries concerning what you lay down as fundamental principles of this doctrine, and of your reply to my arguments. In reference to the first, concerning the essence of the Deity, God is in such a sense immutable in essence, power, intellect, will, counsel and work, that, nevertheless, if the creature is changed, he becomes to that creature in will, the application of power, and in work, another than that which he was to the same creature continuing in his primitive state; bestowing upon a cause that which is due to it, but without any change in Himself. Again if God is immutable, He has, for that very reason, not circumscribed or determined to one direction, by any decree, the motion of free-will, the enjoyment and use of which He has once freely bestowed on man, so that it should incline, of necessity, to one direction, and should not be able, in fact, to incline to another direction, while that decree remains. Thirdly, God has the form and an eternal and immutable conception of all those things which are done mutably by men, but following, in the order of nature, many other conceptions, which God has concerning those things which He wills both to do Himself, and to permit to men.

In reference to the second, concerning the knowledge of God; I am most fully persuaded that the knowledge of God is eternal, immutable and infinite, and that it extends to all things, both necessary and contingent, to all things which He does of Himself, either mediately or immediately, and which He permits to be done by others. But I do not understand the mode in which He knows future contingencies, and especially those which belong to the free-will of creature, and which He has decreed to permit, but not to do of Himself, not, indeed, in that measure, in which I think that it is understood by others more learned than myself. I know that there are those who say that all things are, from eternity, presented to God, and that the mode, in which God certainly and infallibly knows future contingencies, is this, that those contingent events coexist with God in the Now of eternity, and therefore they are in Him indivisibly, and in the infinite Now of eternity, which embraces all time. If this is so, it is not difficult to understand how God may certainly and infallibly know future contingent events. For contingencies are not opposed to certainty of knowledge, except as they are future, but not as they are present. That reasoning, however, does not exhaust all the difficulties which may arise in the consideration of these matters. For God knows, also, those things which may happen, but never do happen, and consequently do not co-exist with God in the Now of eternity, which would be events unless they should be hindered, as is evident from 1 Samuel 23:12, in reference to the citizens of Keilah, who would have delivered David into the hands of Saul, which event, nevertheless, did not happen. The knowledge, also, of future events, which depend on contingent causes, seems to be certain, if those causes may be complete and not hindered in their operation. But how shall the causes of those events, which depend on the freedom of the will, be complete, among which, even at that very moment in which it chose one, it was free not to choose it, or to choose another in preference to it? If indeed at any time your leisure may permit, I could wish that you would accurately discuss, in your own manner, these things and whatever else may pertain to that question. I know that this would be agreeable and acceptable to many, and that the labor would not be useless.

The knowledge of God is called eternal, but not equally so in reference to all objects of knowledge. For that knowledge of God is absolutely eternal, by which God knows Himself, and in Himself all possible things. That, by which He knows beings which will exist, is eternal indeed as to duration, but, in nature, subsequent to some act of the divine will concerning them, and, in some cases, even subsequent to some foreseen act of the human will. In general, the following seems to me to be the order of the divine knowledge, in reference to its various objects. God knows

1. Himself what He, of Himself is able to do.

2. All things possible what can be done by those beings which He can make.

3. All things which shall exist by the act of creation.

4. All things which shall exist by the act of creatures and especially of rational creatures. Whether moved by those actions of His creatures and

5. What He Himself especially of His rational shall do. creatures; Or at least receiving occasion from them.

From this, it is apparent that the eternity of the knowledge of God is not denied by those, who propose, as a foundation for that knowledge, something dependent on the human will, as foreseen.

But I do not understand in what way it can be true that, in every genus, there must be one thing univocal, and from this, other things in an equivocal sense. I have hitherto supposed that those things which are under the same genus are univocal or at least analogous; but, that things equivocal are not comprehended with those which are univocal, under the same genus, either in logic, or metaphysics, and still less in physics. Then I have not thought that the univocal could be the cause of the equivocal. For there is no similarity between them. But if there exists a similarity as between cause and effect, they are no longer equivocal. Thus those things, which are heated by the fire as I should say, are heated neither univocally, nor equivocally, but analogically. God exists univocally, we, analogically.

This they admit, who state that certain attributes of the divine nature are communicable to us according to analogy, among which they also mention knowledge.

In reference to the third, concerning the actions of the Deity; the actions of God are, in Himself, indeed eternal, but they preserve a certain order; some are prior to others by nature, and indeed necessarily precede them, whether in the same order, in which they proceed from Him, I could not easily say; but I know that there are those who have thus stated, among whom some mention George Sohnius. Some also of the internal actions in God, are subsequent in nature to the foresight of some act dependent on the will of the creature. Thus the decree concerning the mission of His Son for the redemption of the human race is subsequent to the foresight of the fall of man. For although God might have arranged to prevent the fall, if he had not known that He could use an easy remedy to effect a restoration, (as some think,) yet the sure decree for the introduction of a remedy for the fall by the mission of His Son, was not effected by God except on the foresight of the disease, namely, the fall.

The mode in which God, as the universal principle, is said to flow into His creatures, and especially his rational creatures, and concurs with their nature and will, in reference to an action, has my approbation, whatever it may be, if it does not bring in a determination of the will of the creature to one or two things which are contrary, or contradictory. If any mode introduces such a determination, I do not see how it can be consistent with the declaration of Augustine, quoted by yourself, that God so governs all things which He has created as also "to permit them to exercise and put forth their own motions," or with the saying of Plato, in which God is declared to be free from all blame.

I could wish that it might be plainly and decisively explained how all effects and defects in nature, and the will, of all kinds universally, are of the providence of God, and yet God is free from fault, the whole fault, (if any exists,) residing in the proximate cause. If any one thinks that God is exempted from fault because He is the remote cause, but that the creature, as the proximate cause, is culpable, (if there is any sin,) he does not seem to me to present a correct reason why any cause may be in fault, or free from fault, but, concerning this also, I will hereafter speak at greater length.

In reference to the fourth, concerning the causes of the actions of God; the universal cause has no cause above itself, and the first and supreme cause does not depend on any other cause, for the very terms include that idea; but it is possible that there may be afforded to the universal, first and supreme cause, by another cause, an occasion for the production of some certain effect, which, without that occasion, the first cause would neither propose to be produced in itself, nor in fact produce out of itself, and indeed could neither produce nor propose or decree to be produced. Such is the decree to damn certain persons, and their damnation according to that decree.

I readily assent to what you have said in reference to the modes of necessary and contingent causes, as also those things which you have remarked in reference to the distinction between natural and rational power. I am, however, certain that nothing can be deduced from them against my opinion, or against those things, which have been presented by me for the refutation of the first theory.

Having made these remarks, I come to the consideration of your answer to my arguments. In my former argument, I denied that man, considered as not yet created, is the object of mercy rescuing from sin and misery, and of punitive justice, and I persist in that sentiment; for I do not see that any thing has been presented, which overthrows it, or drives me from that position. For man is not, by that consideration, removed from under the common providence or the special predestination of God, but providence must, in this case, be considered as according to mercy and justice thus administered, and predestination, as decreed according to them. But the reasoning from the relative to the absolute is not valid; and the removal, in this case, is from under the providence of God, considered relatively, not absolutely; so also with predestination. You foresaw that I would make this reply, and consequently you have presented a three-fold answer; but, in no respect, injurious to my reasoning. For as to the first, I admit that sin and misery were, in the most complete sense, present with God from eternity, and, as they were present, so also there was, in reference to them, a place for mercy and justice. But the theory, which I oppose, does not make them, (as foreseen,) present to mercy and justice, but, according to the decree for illustrating mercy and justice, it presents a necessity for the existence of sin and misery, as, in their actual existence, there could be in fact, a place, for the decree, made according to mercy and justice. As to the second, I grant also that there could be, in one who was in fact neither a sinner, nor miserable, a place for mercy saving from sin and possible misery, but we are not here treating of mercy so considered: and it is certain that mercy and judgment exist in the Deity, by an eternal act, but it is in the first action of those attributes. In a second act, God cannot exercise those attributes, understood according to the mind of the authors of that theory, except in reference to a sinful and actually miserable being.

Lastly, what you say concerning the internal, and external action of the Deity, and these conjoined, does not disturb, in any greater degree, my argument. For neither the internal action, which is the decree of God in reference to the illustration of his glory, by mercy and punitive justice, nor the external action, which is the actual declaration of that same glory through mercy and justice, nor both conjoined can have any place in reference to a man who is neither sinful, nor miserable. I know, indeed, that, to those who advocate this theory, there is so much difference between internal and external action, that is, as they say, between the decree and its execution, that God may decree salvation according to mercy and death according to justice to a person who is not a sinner, but may not really save, according to mercy, any one, unless, He is a sinner, or damn, according to justice, any except sinners. But I deny that distinction; indeed I say that God, can neither will nor decree, by internal act, that which He cannot do, by external act, and thus the object of internal and external action is the same, and invested with the same circumstances: whether it be present to God, in respect to his eternal intelligence and be the object of His decree, or be, in fact, in its actual existence, present to Him and the object of the execution of the decree. Hence, I cannot yet decide otherwise concerning that theory, than that it cannot be approved by those, who think and desire to speak according to the Scriptures.

The "two statements" which you think "may be made, of a milder character, and in harmony with the words of Christ and the apostles," do not serve to explain that first theory, but are additions, by which it is very much changed, and which its advocates would by no means acknowledge, as, in my opinion, was made sufficiently manifest in my statement of the same theory in reply to your third answer, and may be, at this time, again demonstrated in a single word. For those very things, which you make the mode and the consequent event of predestination and reprobation, are styled, by the authors of that first theory, the cause, and the principle of that same decree, and also the end, though not the final one, which, they affirm, is his glory, to be declared by mercy and justice. Again they acknowledge no grace in predestination which is not mercy, and correctly so, for the grace, which is towards man considered absolutely, is not of election: also they do not acknowledge any non-grace, or non-mercy, which is not comprehended in punitive justice. Here I do not argue against that theory thus explained, not because I approve it in all respects, but because I have, this time, undertaken to examine what I affirm to be the view of Calvin and Beza; other matters will be hereafter considered. I will notice separately what things are here brought forward, agreeing with that view, thus explained. The passages of Scripture quoted from Matthew 25, and Ephesians 1, in which it is taught that "God, from all eternity, of the good pleasure of his will, elected some to adoption, sanctification, and a participation of his kingdom," so far fail to prove the common view that on the contrary there may be inferred from them a reference to sin, as a condition requisite in the object of benediction and election. In the former passage, the blessed are called to a participation of the kingdom, which God has prepared for them from eternity; but in whom and by whom? Is it not in Christ and by Christ? Certainly; then it was prepared for sinners, not for men considered in general, and apart from any respect to sin. For

"thou shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:2.)

The passage from Ephesians 1, much more plainly affirms the same thing, as will be hereafter proved in a more extended manner, when I shall use that passage, avowedly to sustain the theory which makes sin a condition requisite in the object. I did not present a particular reference to men, as a cause, which I wished to have kept in mind, but according to a condition, requisite in the object, namely, misery and sin. This I still require.

The distinction, which you make between grace and mercy, is according to fact and the signification of terms, but in this place is unnecessary. For no grace, bestowed upon man, originates in predestination, as there is no grace, previous to predestination, not joined with mercy. God deals with angels according to grace, not according to mercy saving from sin and misery. He deals with us according to mercy, not according to grace in contradistinction to mercy. I speak here of predestination. According to that mercy, also, is our adoption; it is not, then, of men, considered in their original state, but of sinners. This is also apparent from the phraseology of the apostle, who calls the elect and the reprobate "vessels," not of grace and non-grace but of "mercy" and "wrath." The relation of "vessels" they have equally and in common from their divine creation, sustainment, and government. That they are vessels worthy of wrath, deserving it, and the "children of wrath," (Ephesians 2:3), in this also there is no distinction among them. But that some are "vessels of wrath," that is, destined to wrath, of their own merit, indeed, but also of the righteous judgment of God, which determines to bring wrath upon them; while others are "vessels" not "of wrath" but "of mercy" according to the grace of God, which determines to pardon their sin, and to spare them, though worthy of wrath, this is of the will of God, making a distinction between the two classes; which discrimination has its beginning after the act of sin, whether we consider the internal or the external act of God. From this it is apparent that they are not on this account vessels of wrath because they have become depraved, the just consequence of which is wrath, if the will of God did not intervene, which determines that this, which would be a just consequence in respect to all the depraved, should be a necessary consequence in respect to those, whom alone He refuses to pardon, as He can justly punish all and had decreed to pardon some. That which is "added by way of amplification" is confirmed by the same arguments. For there is no place for punitive justice except in reference to the sinner; there can be no act of that mercy, of which we treat, except towards the miserable. But man, considered in his natural condition is neither sinful nor miserable, therefore that justice and mercy have no place in reference to him. Hence, you, my brother, will see that the object of predestination, made according to those attributes and so understood, cannot be man, considered in general, since it requires, in its object, the circumstance of sin and misery, by which circumstance man is restricted to a determinate condition, and is separated from a general consideration. I know, indeed, that, if the general consideration is admitted, no one of those particular considerations is excluded, but you also know that if any particular relation is precisely laid down, that universal relation is excluded.

I do not think that it is to be altogether conceded that, in the case of election and reprobation, there is no consideration of well-doing or of sin.

There is no consideration of well-doing, it is true, for there is none to be considered; there is no consideration of sin as a cause why one, and not another, should be reprobated, but there is a consideration of sin as a meritorious cause of the possibility of the reprobation of any individual, and as a condition requisite in the object, as I have often remarked, and shall, hereafter, often remark, as occasion may require. In what respects, those theories differ was briefly noticed in reply to your first answer.

When God is said to have elected persons, as not created, as created but not fallen, or as fallen, all know that it is understood, not that they are in fact such, but that they are considered as such, for all admit that God elected human beings from eternity, before they were created, that is, by the internal act; but no one says, that man was elected by the external act before he was created; therefore a reconciliation of those theories was unnecessary, since the object of both acts is one and the same, and considered in the same manner. Besides the questions, when the election was made, and in what sense it was considered, are different.

I wished to confirm my words by the authority of your consent; whether ignorantly, will be proved from these statements. You make man, considered as a sinner, the subject of the preparation of punishment according to justice, which I, agreeably to your Theses, have called reprobation, and you, according to your opinion, presuppose sin in him; but, in the first theory, they make sin subordinate to that same decree. The preterition, which the same theory attributes to punitive justice, you attribute to the freedom of the divine goodness, and you exclude punitive justice from it, when you make man, not yet a sinner, the subject of preterition. Predestination, which the first theory ascribes to mercy, in contra-distinction to grace, your Theses, already cited (answers 2 and 4) assign to grace, spoken of absolutely, since they consider man in the state of nature in which he was created; but you make man, as a sinner, the subject of grace, as conjoined with mercy, and you presuppose sin. That first theory, on the other hand, makes sin subordinate to that predestination, both of which cannot, at the same time, be true, therefore, in this you seem to agree with me, as you ascribe election to mercy, only so far as man is considered miserable, and preparation of punishment to justice, only so far as man is considered sinful. You reply, that, when grace is presented, as the genus, mercy, as the species, is not excluded, and mercy being presented, as the species, grace, as the genus, is not excluded.

I grant it, but affirm, first, that grace cannot be supposed here as the genus, for grace, spoken of generally, cannot be supposed to be the cause of any act, that is, any special act, such as predestination. Again, the relation of grace and mercy in this case, is different from that of genus and species: for they are spoken of, in an opposite manner, as two different species of grace, the term grace, having the same appellation with that of the genus, referring to that grace which regards man as created, the term mercy, receiving its appellation from its object, referring to that grace which regards man as sinful and miserable. If man is said to be predestinated according to the former, the latter can have no place; if according to the latter, then it is certain that the former can have no place, otherwise the latter would be unnecessary. Predestination cannot be said to have been made conjointly according to both. My conclusion was, therefore, correct, when I excluded one species by the supposition of the other. If man is to be exalted to supernatural glory from a natural state, this work belongs to grace, simply considered, and in contra-distinction to mercy; if from a corrupt state, it belongs to grace conjoined with mercy, that is, it is the appropriate work of mercy. Grace, simply considered and opposed to mercy, cannot effect the latter, mercy is not necessary for the former. But predestination is of such grace as is both able and necessary to effect that which is proposed in predestination.

What I wrote copulatively, in reference to the passed by and the reprobate, was written thus, because they are one subject. But that they are not the same in relation, is admitted: and I expressed this when I remarked that you referred to justice only in the case of the latter, namely, the reprobate, that is, the damned. In my second proposition, however, I signified that, according to the view of those to whom I ascribed the second theory, the relation of preterition was different from that of predamnation, which I there called reprobation. The homonymy of the term reprobation is explained in my second answer, and all fault is removed from me, who have used that word every where according to your own idea. But it is very apparent, from what follows, that you dissent from the authors of the first theory. For you assert that "predestination is of justice," but that preterition or reprobation is according to justice, but not "of justice;" while the authors of the first theory ascribe to justice the cause of reprobation, however understood, whether synecdochically, or properly, or catachrestically, that is, they affirm that both preterition and predamnation are of justice.

But how are election and preterition "the work of flee-will according to the wisdom of God and damnation, the work of necessary will according to the justice of God? I have hitherto thought, with our theologians, that this whole decree was instituted by God, in the exercise of most complete freedom of will, and I yet think that the same idea is true, according to the declaration,

"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," and "He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth." (Romans 9:15 & 18.)

In each of these acts God exercises equal freedom. For, if God necessarily wills in any case to punish sin, how is it that He does not punish it in all sinners? If he punishes it in some, but not in others, how is that the act of necessary will? Who, indeed, does not ascribe the distinction which is made among persons, equally meriting the punishment, to the freewill of God? Justice may demand punishment on account of sin, but it demands it equally in reference to all sinners without distinction; and, if there is any discrimination, it is of free-will, demanding punishment as to these, but remitting sin to those. But it was necessary that punishment should be at least inflicted on some. If I should deny that this was so after the satisfaction made by Christ, how will it be proved? I know that Aquinas, and other of the School-men, affirm that the relation of the divine goodness and providence demands that some should be elected to life, and that others should be permitted to fall into sin and then to suffer the punishment of eternal death, and that God was free to decree to whom life, and to whom death should appertain, according to his will, but their arguments seem to me susceptible of refutation from their own statements, elsewhere made concerning the price of our redemption paid by Christ. For they say the price was sufficient for the sins of all, but if the necessity of divine justice demands that some sinners should be damned, then the price was not sufficient for all. For if justice, in him who receives that price, necessarily demands that some should be destitute of redemption, then it must have been offered by the redeemer with the condition that there must always remain to the necessity of justice, some satisfaction, to be sought elsewhere and to be rendered by others. Let no one think that the last affirmation of the school-men (that concerning the sufficiency of the price), which, however, they borrowed from the fathers, is to be rejected, for it could be proved, if necessary, by plain and express testimonies from the Scripture.

Let us now come to my second argument, which was this. A theory, by which God is necessarily made the author of sin, is to be repudiated by all Christians, and indeed by all men; for no man thinks that the being, whom he considers divine, is evil; — But according to the theory of Calvin and Beza God is necessarily made the author of sin; — Therefore it is to be repudiated. The proof of the Minor, is evident from these words, in which they say that "God ordained that man should fall and become corrupt, that in this way he might open a way for His eternal counsels." For he, who ordains that man should fall and sin, is the author of sin This, my argument, is firm, nor is it weakened by your answer. The word ordain is indeed ambiguous, for it properly signifies to arrange the order of events or deeds, and in each thing according to its own mode, in which sense it is almost always used by the school-men. But it is also applied to a simple and absolute decree of the will determining an action. What then? Does it follow, because I have used a word, which is ambiguous and susceptible of various meanings that I am chargeable with ambiguity? I think not; unless it is proved that, in my argument, I have used that word in different senses. Otherwise sound reasoning would be exceedingly rare, since, on account of the multitude of things and the paucity of words, we are very frequently compelled to use words, which have a variety of meanings.

Ambiguity may be charged when a word is used in different senses in the same argument. But I used that word, in the same sense in the Major and in the Minor, and so my argument is free from ambiguity. I affirm that this is evident from the argument itself. For the added phrase "that man should fall" signifies that the word ordain, in both propositions, is to be applied to the simple decree in reference to an action, or rather to a simple decree that something should be done. It cannot, on account of that phrase, be referred to a decree disposing the order of actions.

Let us now state the syllogism in a few words, that we may be able to compare your answer with the argument.

He who ordained that man should fall and become depraved, is the author of the fall and of sin;

God ordained that man should fall and become depraved;

Therefore, God is the author of sin.

You deny the Major, if the word ordain is understood to mean the disposal of the order of actions. You deny the Minor if the same word is used to mean a simple decree as to actions, or things to be done. This is true, and, in it, I agree with you. But what if the same word in the Minor signifies a simple decree, etc.? Then, indeed, even by your own admission, the Major will be true. Else your distinction in the word is uselessly made, if the Major is false, however the word may be understood. But that the word is used in the Major in this sense, is proved by the phraseology, "He who ordained that man should fall." Then you say that the Minor is false if the word is used in the same sense in which we have shown that it is used in the Major, and so the conclusion does not follow. I reply, that the question between us is not whether that Minor is true or false, the word ordain being used for the decreeing of things to be done, but whether they affirm it, to whom the first theory is attributed. If, then, they affirm this, and the Major is true, then it follows (and in this you agree with me,) that God is the author of sin. For you admit that he is the author of sin, who, by the simple decree and determination of the will, ordains that sin shall be committed. Calvin and Beza assert this in plain and most manifest declarations, needing no explanation, and by no means admitting that explanation of the word ordain, which, as you say and I acknowledge, is proper. I wish also that it might be shown in what way the necessity of the commission of sin, can depend on the ordination and decree of God otherwise than by the mode of cause, either efficient or deficient, which deficiency is reduced to efficiency, when the efficiency of that which is deficient is necessary to the avoidance of sin. Beza himself concedes that it is incomprehensible how God can be free from and man be obnoxious to guilt, if man fell by the ordination of God, and of necessity.

This, then, was to be done: their theory was to be freed from the consequence of that absurdity, which, in my argument, I ascribe to it. It was not, however, necessary to show how God ordained sin, and that He is not indeed the author of sin. I agree with you, both in the explanation of that ordination, and in the assertion that God is not the author of sin.

Calvin himself, and Beza also, openly deny that God is the author of sin, although they define ordination as we have seen, but they do not show how these two things can be reconciled. I wish, then, that it might be shown plainly, and with perspicuity, that God is not made the author of sin by that decree, or that the theory might be changed, since it is a stumbling block to many, indeed to some a cause of separating from us, and to very many a cause of not uniting with us. But I am altogether persuaded that you also perceive that consequence, but prefer to free the theory of those men from an absurd and blasphemous consequence, by a fit explanation, than to charge that consequence to it. This is certainly the part of candor and good will, but used to no good purpose, since the gloss, as they say, is contrary to the text, which is manifest to any one who examines and compares the text with the gloss. Those two questions, which you present to yourself, do not affect my argument, when the matter is thus explained.

Yet I am delighted with your beautiful and elegant discussion of those questions. But I would ask, in opposition to the theory of Calvin and Beza, "How can these movements of the will be called its own and free, when the act of the will is determined to one direction by the decree of God?" Then, "Why did God place the will in man, if He was unwilling that he should enjoy the liberty of its use?" For these questions are necessarily to be answered by those authors, if they do not wish to leave their theory without defense. It is therefore, apparent from these things that my argument does not fail, but remains firm and unmoved, since all things which you have adduced, are aside from that argument, which did not seek to conclude, as my own views, that God is the author of sin (far from me be even the thought of that abominable blasphemy), but to prove that this is a necessary consequence of the theory of Calvin and Beza: which (I confidently say) has not been confuted by you: nor can it be at all confuted, since you use the word ordain in a sense different from that in which they use it, and from that sense, according to which if God should be said to have ordained sin, nothing less could be inferred than that He is the author of sin.

I said, moreover, that the theory of Calvin and Beza, in which they state that God ordained that man should fall and become depraved, could not be explained so that God should not be made by it the author of sin, by the distinctions of the act, and the evil in the act, of necessity and coaction, of the decree and its execution, of efficacious and permissive decree, as the latter is explained by the authors of that theory agreeably to it, nor by the different relation of the divine decree and of human nature or of man, nor by the addition of the end, namely, that the whole ordination was designed for the illustration of the glory of God. You seem to me, reverend sir, not to have perceived for what purpose I presented these things, for I did not wish to present any new course of reasoning against that first theory, but to confirm my previous objection by a refutation of those answers, which are usually presented by the defenders of that theory, to the objection which I made, that, by it, God is made the author of sin. For they, in order to repel the charge from their theory, never make the reply which has been presented by you, for, should they do this, they would necessarily depart from their own theory, which is wholly changed, if the word ordain, which they use, signifies not to decree that sin should be committed, but to arrange the order of its commission, as you explain that word. But to show that it does not follow from their theory, that God is the author of sin, they adduce the distinctions to which I have referred, and have diligently gathered from their various writings; which ought to be done before that accusation should be made against their theory. For, if I could find any explanation of that theory, any distinction, by which it could be relieved of that charge, it would have pertained to my conscience, not to place upon it the load of such a consequence. Your distinction in the word ordain indeed removes the difficulty, but, in such a way, that, by one and the same effort, it removes the theory from which I proved that the difficulty followed. Prove that the authors of that theory assert that God ordained sin in no other sense than that, in which you have shown that the word is properly used, and I shall obtain that which I wish, and I will concede that those distinctions were unnecessary for the defense of that theory. For the word ordain used in your sense, presupposes the perpetration of sin; in their sense, it precedes and proposes its perpetration, for "God ordained that man should fall and become depraved," not that from a being, fallen and depraved, He should make whatever the order of the divine wisdom, goodness, and justice might demand. There is here, then, no wandering beyond the appropriate range of the discussion. You say that all those distinctions pertain in common to the question of providence, and therefore the ordination of sin pertains in common to the question of providence. If, however, the authors of the first theory have ascribed the ordination of sin to the divine predestination, why should it cause surprise, that those distinctions should also be referred to the same predestination? There is, in this case, then, no blame to be attached to me, that I have mentioned these distinctions. On the contrary, I should have been in fault, if, omitting reference to those distinctions, I should have made an accusation against their theory, which they are accustomed to defend against this accusation by means of those distinctions.

But since you do not, by your explanation, relieve their theory from that objection, and I have said that those distinctions do not avail for its relief and defense, it will not be useless that I should prove my assertion, not for your sake, but for the sake of those, who hold that opinion, since they think that it can be suitably defended by these distinctions.

They use the first distinction thus: "In sin there are two things, the act and its sinfulness." God, by his own ordination, is the author of the act, not of the sinfulness in the act. I will first consider the distinction, then the answer which they deduce from it. This distinction is very commonly made, and seems to have some truth, but to one examining, with diligence, its falsity, in most respects, will be apparent. For it is not, in general or universally, applicable to all sin. All sins, especially, which are committed against prohibitory laws, styled sins of commission, reject this distinction.

For the acts themselves are forbidden by the law, and therefore, if perpetrated, they are sins. This is the formal relation of sin, that it is something done contrary to law. It is true that the act in that it is such, would not be sin, if the law had not been enacted, but then it is not an act, having evil or sinfulness. Let the law be absent, the act is naturally good: introduce the law, and the act itself is evil, as forbidden, not that there is any thing in the act which can be called unlawfulness or sin. I will make the matter clear by an example. The eating of the forbidden fruit, if it had been permitted to the human will as right, would, in no way, be sin, nor any part of sin, it would not contain any element of sin; but the same act, forbidden by law, could not be otherwise than sinful, if perpetrated; I refer to the act itself, and not to any thing in the act to which the term evil can be applied. For that act was simply made illicit by the enactment of the law. I shall have attained my object here in a single word, by simply asking that the sinfulness in that act may be shown separately from the act itself.

That distinction, however, had a place in acts which are performed according to a perceptive law, but not according to a due mode, order, or motive. Thus he, who gives alms, that he may be praised does a good act badly, and there is, in that deed both the act and the evil of the act according to which it is called sin. But the sin which man perpetrated at the beginning, of the ordination of God, was a sin of commission; it therefore affords no place for that distinction. This fundamental principle having been established, the answer, deduced from that distinction, is at once refuted. Yet let us look at it. "God," they say, "is, by ordination, the author of the act, not of the evil in the act." I affirm, on the contrary, that God ordained that act, not as an act, but as it is an evil act. He ordained that the glory of His mercy and justice should be illustrated, of his pardoning mercy, and His punitive justice; but that glory is illustrated not by the act as such, but as it is sinful, and as an evil act. For the act needs remission, not as such, but as evil; it deserves punishment, not as such, but as evil. The declaration, then, of His glory by mercy and justice, is by the act as it is evil, not as it is an act; therefore that ordination which had its end, the illustration of that glory, was not of the act as such, but as evil, and of sin, as sin and transgression. That distinction, therefore, is useless in repelling the objection, which I have urged against that theory. I add, for the elucidation of the subject, that if God efficaciously determines the will to the material of sin, or to depraved objects, though it may be affirmed that He does not determine the will to an evil decision, in respect to the evil, He is still made the author of sin, since man himself does not will the evil in respect to the evil and the devil does not solicit to evil in respect to the evil, but in respect to that which is delectable, and yet he is said to induce persons to sin.

The second distinction is that of necessity and coaction. They use it in this way. If the decree of God, in which he ordained that man should fall, compelled him to sin, then would God, by that decree, become the author of sin, and man would be free from guilt: but that decree did not compel man. It only imposed a necessity upon him so that he could not but sin; which necessity does not take away his liberty. Therefore, man, since he sins freely, the decree being in force, is the cause of his own fall, and God is free from the responsibility. Let us now consider this distinction, and the use made of it.

Necessity and coaction differ as genus and species. For necessity comprehends coaction in itself. Necessity also is twofold, one from an internal, the other from an external cause; the one, natural, the other, violent. Necessity, from an external cause and violent, is also called coaction, whether it be used contrary to nature, or against the will, as when a stone is projected upwards, and a strong man makes use of the hand of a weaker person to strike a third person. The former has the name of the genus, necessity, but is referred to a specific idea, by a contraction of the mental conception. There is, then, between these two species, some agreement, as they belong to the same genus, and some discrepancy, since each has its own form. But it is now to be considered whether they so differ that coaction alone, and not that other species of necessity, is contrary to freedom; and whether he who compels to sin is the cause of sin, and not he who necessitates without compulsion. They indeed affirm this, who use this distinction. First, in reference to freedom; it is opposed directly to necessity, considered in general, whether natural or compulsive, for each of these species causes the inevitability of the act. For a cause acts freely when it has the power to suspend its action. Some say that freedom is fully consistent with natural necessity, and refer to the example of the Deity, who is, by nature and freely, good. But is God freely good? Such an affirmation is not very far from blasphemy. His own goodness exists in God, naturally and most intimately; it does not then exist in Him freely. I know that a kind of freedom of complacency is spoken of by the School-men, but contrary to the very nature and definition of freedom. We say, in reference to sin, that he is the cause of sin, who necessitates to the commission of sin, by any act whatever of necessitation, whether internal or external, whether by internal suasion, motion, or leading, which the will necessarily obeys, or by an application of external violence, which the will is not able, though it may desire, to resist; though, in that case, the act would not be voluntary. He, indeed sins more grievously, who uses the former act, than he, who uses the latter. For the former has this effect, that the will may consent to the sin, but the latter has no such effect, though that consent is not according to the mode of free-will, but according to that of nature, in which mode only, God can so move the will, that it may be moved necessarily, that is, that it cannot but be moved. And in this relation, the will, as it consents by nature to sin, is free from guilt; for sin, as such, is of free-will, and tend towards its object, according to the mode of its own freedom. The law is enacted not for nature but for the will, for the will as it acts not according to the mode of nature, but according to the mode of freedom. That distinction is, therefore, vain, and does not relieve the first theory from the objection made against it. If any one wishes, with greater pertinacity, still to defend the idea, that one and the same act can be performed freely and necessarily, in different respects, necessarily in respect to the first cause, which ordains it, but freely and contingently in respect to the second cause, let him consider that contingency and necessity differ not in certain respects, but in their entire essence, and that they divide the whole extent of being, and cannot, therefore, be coincident.

That is necessary which cannot fail to be done; that is contingent which can fail to be done. These are contradictions which can in no way be attributed to the same act. The will tends freely to its own object, when it is not determined, to a single direction, by a superior power; but, when that determination is made by any decree of God, it can no longer be said to tend freely to its own object; for it is no longer a principle, having dominion and power over its own acts. Did it not pertain to the nature of the bones of Christ, (which they present as an example,) to be broken? Yet they could not be broken on account of the decree of God. I reply, that the divine determination being removed, they could be broken; but, that determination, being presented by the decree of God, they could not at all be broken, that is, it was necessary, not contingent, that they should remain unbroken. Did God, therefore, change the nature of the bones? That was not necessary. He only prevented the act of breaking the bones, which were liable by their nature to be broken, which act could have been performed, and would have been, if God had not anticipated it by His decree, and by an act according to that decree. For our Lord gave up the ghost when the soldiers were approaching the cross to break his bones, and were about to use the breaking of his legs to accelerate his death. That I may not be tedious, I will not refute all the objections; but I am persuaded, from what has been presented, that they are all susceptible of refutation.

The third distinction is that of the decree and its execution. They use it thus; though God may have decreed from eternity to devote certain persons to death, and, that this may be possible, may have ordained that they should fall into sin, yet he does not execute that decree, by their actual condemnation, until after the persons themselves have become sinful by their own act, and, therefore, He is free from responsibility. I answer that the fact that the execution of the decree is subsequent to the act of sin, does not free from responsibility him, who, by his own decree, has ordained that sin should occur, that he might afterwards punish it; indeed he, who has ordained and decreed that sin should be committed, cannot justly punish sin after its commission; he cannot justly punish a deed, the doing of which he has ordained; he cannot be the ordainer of the punishment, who was the ordainer of the crime. Augustine rightly says, "God can ordain the punishment of crimes, not the crimes themselves," that is, He can ordain that they should take place. I have already demonstrated that man does not become depraved of his own fault, if God has ordained that he should fall and become depraved.

The fourth distinction is that of efficacious and permissive decree: which distinction, rightly explained, removes the whole difficulty, but it removes also the theory, by which God is affirmed to have ordained that sin should take place. The authors, however, of the first theory endeavor to sustain that theory by reference to permissive decree. They affirm that God does not effect, but decrees and ordains sin, and that this is done not by an efficacious, but by a permissive decree; and they so explain a permissive decree, that it coincides with one, which is efficacious. For they explain permission to be an act of the divine will, by which God does not bestow, on a rational creature, that grace, which is necessary for the avoidance of sin. This action, joined with the enactment of a law, embraces in itself the whole cause of sin. For he, who imposes a law which cannot be observed without grace, and denies grace to him, on whom the law is imposed, is the cause of sin by the removal of the necessary hindrance. But more on this point hereafter.

On the contrary, if permissive decree be rightly explained, it is certain that he, who has decreed to permit sin, is by no means the cause of sin; for the action of his will has reference to its own permission, not to sin. Nor are these two things, God, in the exercise of His will, permits sin, and, God wills sin, equivalent. For, the object of the will is, in the former case, permission, in the latter, sin. On the contrary rather, the conclusion, God permits, therefore, He does not will, a sinful act, is valid, for he who wills any thing does not permit the same thing. Permission is a sign of want of action in the will. That distinction, then, does not relieve the first theory.

The fifth distinction is that of the divine decree and human nature, which they use thus: — sin, if you consider the divine decree, is necessary; but if you have reference to human nature, which is equally free and flexible in every direction, it is freely and contingently committed; and, therefore, the whole responsibility is to be placed on human nature, as the proximate cause. We have discussed this, previously, in reference to the second distinction, and have sufficiently refuted it. They make another use of the same distinction, by a diverse respect of the ends, which God has proposed to Himself in His decree, and which are proposed to man in the commission of sin. "For," they say, "God intends, in His decree, to illustrate His own glory, but man intends to gratify his own desire; and though man does the very thing, which is divinely decreed, he does not do it because it is decreed, but because his will so inclines him. I reply, first; a good end does not approve, or make good, an action which is unlawful in itself; for "we are not to do evil that good may come;" but it is evil to ordain that sin shall be committed. Secondly, that man, to satisfy his own desire, should do that which God has forbidden, also results from the decree of God, and, therefore, man is relieved from responsibility. Thirdly, though the fulfillment of the divine decree is not the end which moves man to the commission of sin, yet that same thing is the cause which, by a gentle, silent, and imperceptible, yet efficacious, movement effects that man should sin, or, rather, commit that act which God had decreed should be committed, which, then, in respect to man, cannot be called sin.

Finally, the last defense consists in a reference to the end, of which they make this use: "We are accustomed to state the decree of God, not in these terms, that ‘God has determined to adjudge some men to eternal death and condemnation,’ but we add, ‘ that His justice may be illustrated to the glory of his name.’"

I answer, that the addition does not deny the previous statement, (for this is confirmed by the rendering of the cause,) and the addition, even of the best end, does not justify an action which is not in itself formally good, as has before been stated. From these things, then, it is apparent, that these grounds of defense are insufficient, and avail nothing for the defense of that theory which states that God ordained that men should fall and become depraved, in order to open to Himself, in that manner, a way for the execution of the decree which He had, from eternity, determined and proposed to Himself, for the illustration of His own glory by mercy and justice. If any one may think that any other distinction or explanation can be presented, by which that theory may be defended and vindicated, I shall be, in the highest degree, pleased, if this is done. But let him be cautious not to change the theory or add to it any thing inconsistent with it.

You mention, at the end of your sixth answer, an objection to your view; — "Then the judgments of God depend on contingency, and are based on things contingent, if they have reference to man as a sinner, and to his sin."

I must examine this with diligence, since it also lies against my view, in that I think that sin must be presupposed in the object of the divine decree. It is most manifest, from the Scriptures, that many of the judgments of God are based on sin, which, yet, cannot be said, to depend on sin. It is one thing to make sin the object and occasion of the divine judgments, and another to make it the cause of the same. The judgment, which God pronounces in reference to sin, He pronounces freely, nor does this depend on sin, for He can suspend it, or substitute another in its place; yet it is based on sin, because, apart from sin, He could not thus judge. But sin is contingent, or contingently committed. Therefore, the judgments of God are based on things contingent. I deny the consequence.

The judgments of God are based on sin, not as it is committed contingently, but as it is certainly and infallibly foreseen by God.

Therefore, the sight of God intervenes between sin and judgment, and thus, judgment is based on the certain and infallible vision of God. Then that which exists, so far as it exists, is necessary. But the judgments of God are based on sin, already committed and in existence. In your answer, however, I could wish that it might be explained to me how those things, which are contingent, depend on the ordination of God, whether according to the source or the act, the word ordination having reference to a decree that certain things shall be done, not to the disposal of the order in which they shall be done, for so the word is to be understood in this place. For, though God has appointed the mode of contingency in nature, yet it does not follow from this that contingencies have their source in the ordination of God. For a cause, which is free and governs its own action, can suspend or carry forward a contingent act, according to its own will; so also in reference to the act. I do not, therefore, understand in what way contingencies, which are such in themselves, are not contingencies to God, from the fact that He has established the mode of contingency in nature.

Sin is not, in any mode and in respect to anything, necessary. Therefore, sin is also contingent to God, that is, it is considered by God as done contingently, though in His certain and infallible sight, on account of the infinity of the divine knowledge. Nor is it the same idea, that a thing should be really contingent to the supreme cause, and that a thing, truly contingent in itself, should be considered as contingent by that supreme cause. For it is understood that nothing can be accidental or contingent to God, for He is immutable, He is entirely uncompounded, and, as Being and Essence, belongs to Himself alone. But the knowledge of God considers things as they are, though with vision far exceeding the nature of all things.

SEVENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

I will not now adduce other reasons why that theory is not satisfactory to me, since I perceive that you treat it in a mode and respect different from mine. I come then to the theory of Thomas Aquinas, to which, I think, you also gave your assent, and presented proofs from the Scriptures, and I will openly state that, of which I complain. I would pray you not to be displeased with the liberty, which I take, if your good will towards me was not most manifest.

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE SEVENTH PROPOSITION

I should prefer that those "other reasons," whatever they might be, had been presented, that I might dispose of the whole matter, (if possible,) at the same time, for I desire that my opinion should be known to you without any dissimulation, and that your expectation should be satisfied.

Nevertheless, I hope, that, in your wisdom, you will perceive, from what I have already said, and shall yet say, either what my opinion is concerning those reasons, or what there may be, according to my view, in which your mind may rest, (which may the Lord grant). The theory of Thomas Aquinas I unite with the other, I do not follow it. But I will, briefly and in a few words, explain what I shall state in this argument, and in what mode, from the word of God, and what does not please me in that theory, noticing the words of your writing in the same order.

REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE SEVENTH PROPOSITION

If I thought, indeed, that you considered that first theory, as it is explained by its authors, to be in accordance with the Scriptures, I would, in every way, attempt to divest you of that idea, but I see that you so explain it, as greatly to change it; on which account I am persuaded that you judge that, unless it be explained according to your interpretation, it is, by no means, in accordance with the Scriptures. You will also allow me, my brother, to repeat, that, in your entire answer, you have not relieved that theory from any objection. For it remains valid, that "God is made the author of sin, if He is said to have ordained that man should fall and become depraved that He might open to Himself a way for the declaration of His own glory, in the way in which He had already determined by eternal decree." Yet, that no one may think that my promise was vain, I will attempt by other arguments also the refutation of that theory, which presents, as an object to God, in the act of predestination, man not yet created or to be created. I used two arguments, one a priore, the other, a posteriore or by absurdity of consequence. The argument a priore was as follows; — Predestination is the will of God in reference to the illustration of His glory by mercy and justice; but that will has no opportunity for exercise in a being not yet created. The argument a posteriore was as follows; If God ordained that man should fall and become depraved, that He might open to Himself a way for the execution of that purpose of His will (predestination,) then it follows that He is the author of sin by that ordination. These arguments have been already dwelt upon at sufficient length.

I adduce my third argument. Predestination is a part of providence, administering and governing the human race; therefore, it was subsequent to the act of creation or to the purpose of creating man. If it is subsequent to the act of creation, or to the purpose of creating man, then man, considered as not yet created, is not the object of predestination.

I will add a fourth. Predestination is a preparation of supernatural benefits, it is, therefore, preceded by the communication of natural gifts, and, therefore, by creation, in nature, or act, or in the decree of God.

Also a fifth. The illustration of the wisdom of God in creation, is prior to that illustration of the wisdom of God, which is the business of predestination. (1 Corinthians 1:21.)

Therefore, creation is prior to predestination, in the purpose of God. If creation is prior, man is considered by God, in the act of predestination, as existing, not as to be created.

So also in reference to goodness and mercy, the former of which, in the act of creation, was illustrated in reference to Nothing, the latter, in the act of predestination, concerning that which was subsequent to Nothing.

To the same purpose can all the arguments be used, by which it was proved that "sin is a condition requisite in the object of predestination."

EIGHTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

I shall, therefore, consider three things in that theory.

1. Did God elect from eternity, of human beings, considered in their natural condition, some to supernatural felicity and glory, and non-elect or pass by others?

2. Did God prepare for those whom He elected, that is, for human beings to be raised from a natural to a supernatural state, and to be translated to a participation of divine things, according to the purpose of election, those means which are necessary, sufficient, and efficacious to the attainment of that supernatural felicity, but passed by others, that is, determine not to communicate those means to them, but to leave them in their natural state?

3. Did God, foreseeing that those persons, thus passed by, would fall into sin, reprobate them, that is, decree to subject them to eternal punishment?

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE EIGHTH PROPOSITION

Let this be the rule which shall guide us in our future discussion. If any use the term, "in their natural condition," they do not exclude supernatural endowments, which God communicated to Adam, but use it in opposition to sin, (which afterwards supervened,) and to native depravity. They, who use these words otherwise, seem to me to be deceived by a diversity of relation. The word reprobation is here used, (as we have before observed,) in its third signification, which we have called catachrestic; but sufficient on that point. We will come to those three points in their order.

THE REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE EIGHTH PROPOSITION

Natural condition I have opposed both to supernatural endowments, and to sin and native depravity, for I have supposed the former term to be used, to the exclusion of the latter; — not incorrectly, whether we consider the force of the terms themselves, or their use by the school-men. Natural 81 condition has a relation to supernatural endowments, which they exclude as transcending it, and to sin and depravity which they, in like manner, exclude, as corrupting it. Though I have used the term reprobation in the sense in which it is used in your Theses and other writings, yet I shall desist from it hereafter, (if I can keep this in my mind,) and use, in its place, the words preterition and non-election, except when I wish to include both acts, by Synecdoche, in one word. For the term reprobation, as it is used by me, I will substitute preparation of punishment or predamnation.

NINTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

In the first question, I do not present as a matter of doubt, the fact that God has elected some to salvation, and not elected or passed by others for I think that this is certain from the plain words of Scripture; but I place the emphasis on the subject of election and non election; — Did God, in electing and not electing, have reference to men, considered in their natural condition. I have not been able hitherto to receive this as truth.

THE ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE NINTH PROPOSITION

We remarked, in the sixth proposition, that, though the mode of regarding man can and ought to be distinguished by certain respects or relations, yet the authors of the first theory have stated that mankind was considered in common by the Deity in the case of election and reprobation; but the authors of the second have not excluded that common relation of the human race, which they have referred to a special relation; but they have only desired that the contemplation of supervenient sin should not affect the case of election and reprobation, according to the declaration of the apostle, "neither having done any good or evil," (Romans 9:11,) and according to those words "natural condition," mean only the exclusion of any reference to supervenient sin from the case of election. If this observation is correct, the latter state of the question, properly considered, will not be at variance with the former. For he, who states that man, as not yet created, as not yet fallen, and as fallen, was considered by the Deity in the case of election and reprobation, he certainly affirms the latter, and both the former. The question, therefore, is, properly, not whether God, in electing and in passing by or reprobating, had reference to men in their natural condition, that is, apart from the contemplation of sin, as sin, but the question should be, whether God had reference, in this case, to man, apart from any contemplation of sin as a cause. We deny this, on time authority of the word of God. Nor did Augustine, to whom the third theory is ascribed, mean any thing else, as he has most abundantly set forth (lib. 1, quaes. ad Simplicianum), for what he asserts concerning Jacob and Esau is either to be understood, in the same manner, in the ease of Adam and Eve, or the rule of election and reprobation will be different in different cases, which is certainly absurd. Before, then, Adam and Eve were made, or had any thing good or evil, the Divine election, as we have plainly stated in the same argument, was already made according to the purpose of grace, which election preceded both persons, and all causes originating from, or situated in, persons. The truth of this is proved from authority, reason, and example. From authority, in Romans 9, Ephesians 1, and elsewhere. From reason; for, in the first place, election is made in Christ, not in the creatures, or in any condition in them; secondly, it is admitted by all, (which you afterwards acknowledge in part, though in a different sense,) that predestination and reprobation suppose nothing in the predestinate or the reprobate, but only in Him who predestinates, as the apostle affirms "not of works, but of Him that calleth." (Romans 9:11.) Augustine presents a most luminous exposition of that passage, showing, from the reasoning of the apostle, that neither works, nor faith, nor will, was foreseen in the case. The procreation of the child depends, in nature, on the parent only; much more does the adoption of His children originate in God alone (to whom it peculiarly pertains to be the cause and principle of all good), not in any consideration of them. Finally the example of angels demonstrates the same thing, of whom some are called elect, others are non-elect. Of the angels, the elect were such apart from any consideration of their works, and those, who are non-elect, passed-by; or reprobate, are non-elect, apart from the consideration of their works.

For, as Augustine conclusively argues in reference to men, "if, because God foresaw that the works of Esau would be evil, He, therefore, predestinated him to serve the younger, and, because God foresaw that the works of Jacob would be good, He, therefore, predestinated him to have rule over the elder, that which is affirmed by the apostle, would be false, ‘not of works,’" etc. The state of the case is the same in reference to angels. For God provided against the possible misery of these, by the blessing of election; He did not provide against the possible misery of those, in the work of reprobation and preterition. But how? by predestinating the elect angels, to the adoption of sons, who are so styled in Job 1, 2 & 38, and not predestinating the others. God begat them as sons, not by nature, but by will, which will is eternal, and preceded from eternity their existence, which belongs to time. What does the child contribute towards his procreation? He does not indeed exist. What does an angel contribute towards his sonship? If nothing, what does man contribute? In reply to both these, Augustine, in the place already cited, surely with equal justice, thunders forth that inquiry of St. Paul,

"who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" etc. (1 Corinthians 4:7.)

God, therefore, regards man in general; He does not find any cause in man; for the cause of that adoption or filiation is from His sole will and grace.

But if any one should say that sin is the cause of reprobation or preterition, He will not establish that point. For, in the first place, the reasoning of Augustine, which we have just adduced, remains unshaken, based on a comparison of works foreknown; in the second place, since we are, by nature, equally sinners before God, one of these three things must be true; — either all are rejected on account of sin, as a common reason, or it is remitted to all, or a cause must be found elsewhere than in sin, as we have found it. Lastly, "who makes us to differ," if it be not God, according to the purpose of His own election? Therefore, the affirmation stands, that God, in the case of election and reprobation made from eternity, considered man in general, so that He has in Himself, not in man, the cause of both acts. Yet let us accurately weigh the arguments, which are advanced here, though, properly, they are not opposed to this theory.

THE REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE NINTH PROPOSITION

I think it is sufficiently evident how the authors of the first theory considered man, from what was said in reply to your answer to Prop. 6.

But that the authors of the second theory, by the addition of that special relation, did not exclude the universal relation, seems hardly probable to me. For he, who says that sin supervened to election and preterition originating in their own causes, excluding sin not only from the cause of election and preterition, but from the subject and the condition requisite in it, he denies that man, universally, considered as fallen, is presented to him who elects and passes by, and if he denies this, he denies also that man is considered in general, by God, in the act of decree. In other respects I assent to what you affirm. Sin is not the cause of election and preterition, yet this statement must be rightly understood, as I think that it is here understood, namely, that sin is not the cause that God should elect some, and pass by others: let it be only stated that sin is the cause that God may be able to pass by some individuals of the human race made in His own image. In the former statement there is agreement between us, in the latter we disagree, if at all. It is not, then, the question, "Did God have reference, in His own decree, to men apart from any consideration of sin, as a cause, that is, as a cause that He should elect these, and pass by those." For this is admitted even by Augustine, who, nevertheless, presupposes to that decree sin, as a requisite condition in its object. But the question is this; "Is sin a condition requisite in the object, which God has reference in the acts of election and preterition, or not?" This is apparent by the arguments presented by myself, which prove, not that sin is a cause of that decree, but a condition, requisite in the object. Augustine affirms this, and I agree with him. Let us look at some passages from his works. In Book 1, to Simplicianus, he excludes sin as a cause that God should elect or reprobate, but includes it as a cause that He might have the power to pass by or reprobate, or as a condition requisite in the object of election and reprobation. The latter, I prove by his own words, (there is no necessity of proof as to the former, for in reference to that, there is agreement between us). "God did not hate Esau, the man, but He did hate Esau, the sinner," and again, "Was not Jacob, therefore, a sinner, because God loved him? He loved in him not sin, of which he was guilty, but the grace which Himself had bestowed, etc., and again, "God hates iniquity, therefore He punishes it in some by damnation, and removes it from others by justification." Again, "The whole race from Adam is one mass of sinful and wicked being, among whom both Jews and Gentiles, apart from the grace of God, belong to one lump." If you say that Augustine was here discussing, not preterition, but predamnation, I reply that Augustine knew no preterition which was not predamnation, for he prefixes to preterition hatred as its cause, as he prefixes love to election. Then, I conclude, according to the theory of Augustine, that what is affirmed in the case of Esau and Jacob, is not to be understood in that of Adam and Eve, and it does not, hence, follow that there would be a diverse mode of election and reprobation, unless it be first proved that God, in election, had reference to Adam and Eve, considered in their primitive state, which, throughout this discussion, I wholly deny. But there is a manifest difference between Esau and Jacob, and Adam and Eve. For the former, though not yet born, could be considered as sinners, for both had been already conceived in sin; if they had not been created, they could not be considered as such, for they were such in no possible sense; not even when they had been created by God, and remained yet in their original integrity. It cannot be inferred from this, that "persons, and all causes originating from, or situated in persons" preceded the act of election. For sin, in which Jacob and Esau were then already conceived, did not precede. Yet I admit that sin was not the cause that God should love one and hate the other, should elect one and reprobate the other, but it was a condition requisite in the object of that decree. Those arguments, however, which you present, do not injure my case. For they do not exclude sin from the object of that decree as a requisite condition, nor as a cause without which that decree could not be made, but only as a cause, on account of which one is reprobated, another elected.

This is apparent from Romans 9. For Esau had been conceived in sin when those words were addressed by God to Rebecca. In the same chapter also, the elect and the reprobate are said to be "vessels of mercy" and "of wrath," which terms could not be applied to them apart from a consideration of sin. I will not now affirm, as I might do with truth, that Jacob and Esau are to be considered, not in themselves, but as types, the former being the type of the children of the promise, who seek the righteousness which is of faith in Christ, the latter, the type of the children of the flesh, who followed after the righteousness of the law, which subject requires a more extended explanation, but here not so necessary. The first chapter to the Ephesians clearly affirms the same thing, as it asserts that the election is made in Christ, because it is of the grace, by which we have redemption in the blood of Christ, etc.

Your arguments "from reason" do not militate against the position, which I have assumed, they rather strengthen it. For in the first place, "the election is made in Christ," therefore, it is of sinners, as will be hereafter proved at greater length. Secondly, "predestination and reprobation suppose nothing in their subject." Therefore, whatever character the subject may have, which receives grace, for such a character, and considered in the same relation, is the grace prepared. But the sinner receives, and he only, the grace prepared in predestination. Therefore, also for the sinner alone, is grace prepared in predestination, but of this, also, more largely hereafter.

Thirdly, men are the sons of God, not by generation, but by regeneration; the latter, presupposes sin, therefore, adoption is made from sinners. The example of angels in this case proves nothing. Their election and reprobation and those of men are unlike, as you in many places acknowledge, for their salvation is secured by the grace of preservation and confirmation, that of men by the grace of restoration. He begat angels, as sons to Himself, according to the former grace; He regenerated men as sons to Himself by the latter grace. Therefore, God regarded man not in general, but as sinful, in reference to which point is this question between us, though he might find in man no cause that He should adopt one and pass by another, in reference to which we have no controversy. The question then remains between us, did God, in His decree of predestination and reprobation, have reference to man considered in his natural purity, or to man considered as in his sins? I assert the latter, and deny the former, and I have presented many arguments in support of my opinion; but I will now consider, in their order, those things, which you have presented against it.

TENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

First, in general. 1. Since no man was ever created by God in a merely natural state; whence also no man could ever be considered in the decree of God, since that, which exists in the mind, is the material of action and exists in the relation of capability of action, but takes its form from the will and decree by which God determined actually to exert His power, at any time, in reference to man. Hence, whatever distinction may be made, in the mind, between nature, and a supernatural gift, bestowed on man at the creation, that is not to be considered in this place. For the creation of the first man, and, in him, of all men, was in the image of God, which image of God in man is not nature, but supernatural grace, having reference not to natural felicity, but to supernatural life. It is evident, from the description of the image of God, that supernatural grace in man is that divine image.

For, according to the Scripture, it is "knowledge after the image of Him that created him," (Colossians 3:10,) and "righteousness and true holiness" pertaining to the new man which is created after" (according to) "God."

(Ephesians 4:24.) In addition to this, all the fathers, seem, without exception, to be of the sentiment that man was created in a gracious state.

So, also, our Catechism, ques. 62. Since there is found, in the Scriptures, no reference to the love of God according to election, no divine volition and no act of God concerning men, referring to them in different respects, until after the entrance of sin into the world, or after it was considered as having entered.

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE TENTH PROPOSITION

Before I refer to arguments, an ambiguity must be removed, which is introduced here, and which will be frequently introduced whenever reference is made to a "merely natural state." Things are called natural from the term "nature." But nature is two-fold, therefore, natural things are also two-fold. I affirm that nature is two-fold, as it is considered, first in relation to this physical world, situated nearer and lower in elementary and material things, which is described by Philosophers in the science of Physics, secondly, in relation to that spiritual world, namely, that which is more remote and higher, consisting in spiritual and immaterial things, which is treated of in Metaphysics, rightly so called. From the former nature we have our bodies, and by it we are animals; from the latter, we have our spirits, and by it we are rational beings, which is also observed by Aristotle (lib. 2, de gener. animalium cap. 3) in his statement that the mind alone "enters from without" into the natural body, and is alone divine; for there is no communion between its action and that of the body. Hence, it is, that natural things must, in general, be considered in three modes; physically, in relation to the body according to its essence, capability, actions and passions; metaphysically, in relation to the intelligent mind, according to its essence and being; and conjointly in relation to that personal union, which exists in man, as a being composed of both natures.

But particularly, a distinction must be made in these same natural things, in respect to nature as pure and as corrupt. Therefore, all those things, which pertain to the nature of man in these different modes, are said to belong to the mere natural state of man, sin being excluded.

Now, I come to the particular members of your Proposition. First, you affirm, "that no man was ever created in a merely natural state." If you mean that he was created without supernatural endowments, I do not see how this can be proved, (though many make this assertion). The Scripture does not any where make this statement. But you are not ignorant that it is said in the schools, that a negative argument from authority, as, "it is not written, therefore, it is not true" is not valid. Again, the order of creation, in a certain respect, proves the contrary, since the body was first made from the dust, and afterwards the soul was breathed into it. Which, then, is more probable, that the soul was, at the moment of its creation, endowed with supernatural gifts, or that they were superadded after its creation? I would rather affirm that, as the soul was added to the body, so the supernatural endowments were added to the soul. If God did this in relation to nature, why may He not have done it, in the case of grace, which is more peculiar. Lastly, I do not think that it follows, if man was not made in a merely natural state, but with supernatural endowments, that grace, therefore, pertains to creation, and also that supernatural gifts would therefore, pertain, in common, to the whole race. That this consequence is false, is proved by the definition of nature, and the relation of supernatural things. For what else is nature than the principle of motion and rest, ordained by God? If, then, supernatural things are ordained on this principle, they cease to be supernatural and become natural. Besides the relation of supernatural things is such that they are not natural, as they are not common; for those things which are common to all men belong to nature, but supernatural things are personal, and do not pass to heirs. I acknowledge that Adam and Eve received supernatural gifts, but for themselves not for their heirs; nor could they transmit them to their heirs, except by a general arrangement or special grace. If this be so, then man is without supernatural endowments, though, as you claim, the first man may not have been made without them; and he is justly considered by us as not possessing them, and much more would he have been so considered by the Deity. Indeed, my brother, God contemplated man, in a merely natural state, and determined in His own decree to bestow upon him supernatural endowments. He could then be so considered in the decree of God. He contemplated nature, on which He would bestow grace; the natural man, on whom He would bestow, by His own decree, supernatural gifts. Was it not, indeed, a special act of the will, to create man, and another special act of the will to endow Him with supernatural gifts? Which acts, even though they might have occurred at the same time (which does not seem to me necessary, for the reasons which have been just advanced) cannot be together in the order of nature, since one may be styled natural, and the other supernatural. I know that you afterwards speak of the image of God, but we shall soon see that this has no bearing, (as you think), on this case. Meanwhile, I wish that you would always keep in view the fact, that, though all these things should be true, yet they are not opposed to that doctrine which asserts that in this decree, God considered man in general.

I will leave without discussion those subsequent remarks on the material and the formal relation of the decree of God, since the force of the argument does not depend on them, and pass to the proof. "The creation of the first man," you affirm, "and, in him, of all men, was in the image of God," (I concede and believe it,) "which image of God in man is not nature but supernatural grace, having reference not to natural felicity but to supernatural life." What is this, your statement, my brother? Origen formerly affirmed the same thing, and on this account received the reprehension of the ancient church in its constant testimony and harmonious declarations, as is attested by Epiphanius, Jerome and other witnesses. I do not, however, believe that you agree in sentiment with Origen, in opposition to the united and wise declaration of that church, but some ambiguity, which you have not observed, has led you into this mistake. Let us then expose and free from its obscurity this subject, by the light of truth.

The first ambiguity is in the word nature, the second in the term supernatural. We have just spoken in reference to the former, affirming that this term may refer to the lower nature of elementary bodies, or to that higher nature of spiritual beings, or finally to our human nature, composed of both natures in one compound subject; and that this latter nature is itself two-fold, pure and depraved.

The latter ambiguity consists in the fact, that the term supernatural is applied, at one time, to those things which are above this inferior nature, and pertain to the superior, spiritual, or metaphysical nature; at another, to those things which are above even that higher and metaphysical nature, that is, to those which are properly and immediately divine; and at another, to those things which are above the condition of this our corrupt nature, as they are bestowed upon us only of supernatural grace, though they might have pertained to that pure nature. The body, for example, is of this lower nature, and in comparison with it, the soul is supernatural.

Again, our souls are of the higher nature, which pertains to angels. In reference to both the soul and the body, all divine things are supernatural as they are superior to all corporeal and mental nature. How you say that "the image of God in man is not nature but supernatural grace;" that is, as I think, it is not of nature, but of grace, or not from nature, but from grace.

Here consider, my brother, the former ambiguity. "The image of God is not of nature," if the lower or corporeal nature is referred to, is a true statement, but if the higher nature is referred to, it is not a true statement.

For what is nature? It is the principle, ordained of God, of motion and rest in its own natural subject, according to its own mode. Place before your mind the kinds of motion, which occur in the lower nature, generation, corruption, increase, diminution, alteration, local transition, which they style fora> etc. You will find this difference, that the subjects of this lower nature experience these motions according to their own essence and all other matters, that is, according to their material, form, and accidents, but the subjects of that higher nature are moved by no means according to their essence, but only according to their being; but that divine things surpass both natures, in an infinite and divine mode, because they are, in all respects, destitute of all motion. The body is mortal; whence, if not from this inferior nature? The soul is immortal; whence, if not from that superior nature? But both natures are ordained of God, and so perform their work, immediately, that God performs, by both mediately, all things which pertain to nature. But the image of God is from that superior nature, by which God performs mediately in the children of Adam, as He instituted our common nature in Adam, our first parent. It is indeed true, that it was supernatural grace by which God impressed His own image on Adam; just as he also performed the work of creation by the same grace.

God bestowed its principle not on nature, of nature, but of Himself; but when nature has received its existence, that which existed by nature, was produced by nature in the species and individuals. Though, in its first origin, it is of grace, yet it is now, in its own essence, of nature, and is to be called natural. But the image of God is produced, in the species and in the individuals, by nature. Therefore, it must be called natural We shall hereafter consider its definition, for it is necessary first to elucidate the statement that "the image of God has reference, not to felicity, but to supernatural life." Let us remove the ambiguity, as we shall thus speak more correctly of these matters. Natural felicity pertains either to the nature from which we have the body, or to that from which we have the spirit, or to both natures united in a compound being. To this latter felicity the image of God has, naturally, its reference; to that of the body as its essential and intimately associated instrument; to that of the spirit, as its essential subject; to that of the man, as the entire personal subject. If you deny this, what is there, I pray you, in all nature, which does not seek its own good? But, to every thing, its own good is its felicity. If, in this lower nature, a stone, the herds, an animal, and, in that higher nature, spirits and intelligent forms do this, surely it cannot be justly denied to man, and to the image of God in man. You add that "it has reference to supernatural life." This, however, is a life dependent on grace, as all the adjuncts show. If you understand that it has reference to that life only, we deny such exclusive reference. If to this (natural) life, and to that life conjointly, we indeed affirm this, and assent to your assertion that the image of God in man has respect to both kinds of felicity, both natural and supernatural; by means of nature, in a natural mode, and of grace, in a supernatural mode.

I would now explain this, in a more extended manner, if it was not necessary that a statement should first be made of the subject under discussion. Perceiving this very clearly, you pass to a definition of that image, in proof of your sentiment. "It is evident," you say, "from the description of the image of God, that supernatural grace, in man, is that divine image." You will permit me to deny this, since you ask not my opinion. You add, "According to the Scripture, it is ‘knowledge after the image of Him that created him,’ (Colossians 3:10,) and righteousness and true holiness pertaining ‘to the new man which is created after God.’ (Ephesians 5:25)". I acknowledge that these are the words of the apostle, and I believe them, but I fear my brother, that you wander from his words and sentiment.

In the former passage, he does not assert that the image of God is "knowledge after the image etc," but that the "new man is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." The subject of the proposition is man, one in substance, but once "old," now "new." In this subject there was old knowledge, there is new knowledge. According to the subject, the knowledge is one, but it differs in mode; for the old man and the new man understand with the same intellect, in the previous case as the old, afterwards as the new man. What, therefore, is the mode of that knowledge! "After the image of God." This is the mode of our knowledge and intelligence. The former (that which is old) according to the image of the first Adam who "begat a son in his own likeness;" (Genesis 5:3;) the latter according to the image of the second Adam, Christ and God, our Creator. The image of God is not said to be knowledge, but knowledge is said to be renewed in us after the image of God. What, then, is knowledge? An act of the image of God. What is the image of God? The fountain and principle of action, fashioning in a formal manner, the action, or the habit of that image. The mode, in which this may be understood, is a matter of no interest to me. Consider, I pray you, and I appeal to yourself as a judge, whether this can be justly called a suitable description; — "The image of God is knowledge according to the image of God." This description, indeed, denies that the image of God is either one thing or another; either knowledge or the image of God, if, indeed, knowledge is according to the image of God. You will, however, understand these things better, from your own skill, than they can be stated by me in writing.

I now consider the other passage. "The image of God is ‘ righteousness and true holiness’ pertaining ‘to the new man, which is created after God."’ Here you affirm something more than in the previous case, yet without sufficient truth. That knowledge, of which you had previously spoken, is a part of truth, for it is the truth, as it exists in our minds. Here you state that it is truth, and righteousness and holiness. But let us examine the words of the apostle. He asserts, indeed, that the new man is one "which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness." I will not plead the fact that many explain the phrase "after God," as though the apostle would say "by the power of God working in us." I assent to your opinion that the words kata< Qeo>n mean simply the same as would be implied in the phrase "to the image," or "according to the image of God."

Yet do you not perceive that the same order, which we have just indicated, is preserved by Paul; and that the subject, the principle, and the acts or habits, thereby inwrought, are most suitably distinguished? The subject is man, who is the same person, whether as the old; or the new man. The principle is the image of God, which is the same, whether old or new, and purified from corruption. The acts or habits, inwrought by that principle, are righteousness, holiness, and truth. Righteousness, holiness, and truth are not the image, but pertain to the image. Let us return, if you please, to that principle, which the Fathers laid down "natural things are corrupt, supernatural things are removed." You may certainly, hence, deduce with ease this conclusion; — righteousness, holiness and truth are not removed, therefore, they are not supernatural. Again, they have become corrupt, therefore, they are natural. If they had been removed, none of their elementary principles would exist in us by nature. But they do exist; therefore, they are by nature, and are themselves corrupt, and, with them, whatever originates in them. The same is the fact with the image of God.

The image of God is not removed; it is not, therefore, supernatural; and, on the other hand, it has become corrupt; it is, therefore, natural. For it is nowhere, in the Scriptures, said to be bestowed, but only to be renewed.

I shall offer proof, on this point, from the Scriptures, when I have made a single remark. Righteousness, holiness, truth, exist only in the image of God; there is, in man, some righteousness, holiness and truth; therefore, there is in man somewhat of the image of God. Moses, in Genesis 1, certainly relates nothing else than the first constitution of nature, as made in reference to every subject and species. But he relates that man was made in the image of God. This, then, was the constitution of human nature.

But, if it is of nature, then the image of God pertains universally to the human race, since natural things differ from personal things in this, that they are common. The same is evident from Genesis 5:3. Adam begat Seth "in his own likeness," in his own image; but Adam was made in the image of God; therefore he begat Seth in the image of God. It may be said, however, that the image of God, and the image of Adam differ, and that a distinction is made between them by Moses. They indeed differ, but in mode, not in their essence; for the image of God in Adam was uncorrupted, in Seth it was corrupted through Adam; yet in both cases it was the image.

In the same respect, this image, in the rest of the human race, is called according to its corruption, the image of the earthy, according to its renewal, the image of the heavenly. But since the image of God is diverse in mode only, and not in essence, it is said to be renewed, and restored, and not to be implanted or created, as we have before observed, as that which differs not in essence, but in mode or degree.

The same thing is taught in Genesis 9:6.

"Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

If the image of God did not exist in the descendants of Adam, who are slain, the argument of Moses would be impertinent and absurd. But the argument, either of Moses or of God, is just and conclusive; for if you say, — "The slayer of him, whom God has made in His own image, ought to be slain by man; God made the man who is slain in his own image; therefore, let the murderer be slain by man." the argument is valid. For since man was made in the image of God, it is just that his murderer should be slain, and indeed that he should be slain by man. But if you explain the passage "for in the image of God made He man," so that "He" shall refer to man, my interpretation of the argument will be even more confirmed. I do not, however, remember that it is affirmed any where in the Scriptures that man made man, nor can it be proved to me. These things, I think will be sufficient that you may see, my brother, that the image of God is naturally in man.

What, then, is the image of God? For it is now time that we pass from destructive to constructive reasoning. I will state it, in the words of the orthodox Fathers. Let Tertullian, of the Latins, first speak (lib. 2 advers.

Marcion, cap. 9.) "The distinction is especially to be noticed, which the Greek Scriptures make, when they speak of the afflatus, not of the Spirit, (pnoh>n non pneu~ma) for some, translating from the Greek, not considering the difference or regarding the proper use of words, substitute Spirit for afflatus, and afford heretics an occasion of charging fault on the Spirit of God, that is, on God Himself; and it is even now a vexed question.

Observe, then, that the afflatus is inferior to the Spirit, though it comes from the Spirit, as its breath, yet it is not the Spirit. For the breeze is lighter than the wind, and if the breeze is of the wind, the wind is not therefore, of the breeze. It is usual also, to call the afflatus the image of the Spirit; for thus also, man is the image of God, that is of the Spirit, for God is Spirit, therefore, the image of the Spirit is the afflatus. Moreover the image will never in all respects equal the reality; for to be according to the truth is one thing, to be the truth itself is another. Thus, also, the afflatus cannot, in such a sense, be equal to the Spirit, that, because the truth — that is the Spirit, or God — is without sin, therefore the image, of truth also, must be without sin. In this respect the image will be inferior to the truth, and the afflatus will be inferior to the Spirit, having some lineaments of the Deity, in the fact that the soul is immortal, free, capable of choice, prescient to a considerable degree, rational, and capable of understanding and knowledge. Yet, in these particulars, it is only an image, and does not extend to the full power of divinity, and so, likewise, it does not extend to sinless integrity, since this belongs alone to God, that is to truth, and can not pertain to the mere image; for as the image, while it expresses all the lineaments and outlines of the truth, yet is destitute of force, not having motion, so the soul, the image of the Spirit, is not able to exhibit its full power, that is, the felicity of freedom from sin, otherwise it would be not the soul, but the Spirit, not man, endowed with mind, but God, etc."

Ambrose (hexaemeri lib. 6, cap. 7), after many arguments, concludes in this way; "for ‘what will a man give in exchange for his soul?’ in which there is, not merely a small portion of himself, but the substance of the entire human race. It is this by which thou hast dominion over other living creatures, whether beasts or birds. This is the image of God, but the body is in the likeness of beasts; in one there is the sacred mark of divine resemblance, in the other the vile fellowship with the herds and wild beasts, etc." Also, in Psalm 118, sermon 10, "Likeness to the image of God consists, not in the body, or in the material parts of our nature, but in the rational soul; in respect to which man was made after the likeness and image of God, and in which the form of righteousness, wisdom, and every virtue is found."

To the same purpose are the words of Augustine, in his first Book "De Genes. contra Manich," chap. 17th, and in many other places. I mention also Jerome, because he evidently has the same view, and, in writing against Origen, he uses the same argument with that of Epiphanius and the Greek Fathers. I would refer to Basil, if you did not know that Ambrose quotes from him. Why should I speak of Chrysostom, the two Gregories, Cyril, Theodoret? Damascenus, an epitomist of all those writers, presents this subject, with the greatest accuracy, in the book which he has inscribed "Concerning the respect in which we were made in the image of God."

Also, in another, which has reference to "The two wills in Christ," in which he uses the following words, "as to the rational, and intellectual, and voluntary powers, they belong to the mind at birth, and the Spirit is superadded, as having princely prerogative, and in these respects both angels and men are after the image of God, and this is abundantly true of men, etc.," in which passage he has, with the utmost diligence, introduced those things which are essential and those which are adjunct.

I conclude with a single argument from Augustine against the Manichees. "Those men," he says, "do not know that it is not possible that nature should use any action, or produce any effect, the faculty for which has not been received according to nature. For example, no bird can fly, unless it has received the faculty of flying, according to nature, and no beast of the earth can walk, unless it has received the faculty of walking, according to nature. So, likewise, man cannot act or will, unless he has received, according to nature, that faculty, which is called the "voluntary," and the "energetic;" and he cannot understand if he has not received from nature the intellectual faculty, and he cannot see, or perform any other action, and, therefore, in every kind of nature, natural actions find place, and they exist at once and together, but those which depend on the will and activity, do not exist together." From which reasoning he infers that man understands, reasons, wills, and, above other creatures, does many things which savor of divinity; therefore, many faculties exist in man, in respect to which he is said, in the Scriptures, to have been made in the image and likeness of God.

Here then is that image of God, in our soul; its essential parts not only show, of themselves, some resemblance, by nature, to divinity, but are, by nature and grace together, adapted to the perception of supernatural grace, as we shall soon show. You add that "all the fathers, seem, without exception, to be of the sentiment that man was created in a gracious state.

So also our Catechism, ques. 6." I have, indeed, known no one among orthodox divines, who holds any different opinion; nor is there any other correct explanation of our catechism.

But you seem to fall into an error from a statement, which is susceptible of a two-fold interpretation, and to unite things really distinct. For it is not meant that the first man was created with grace, that is, that he received, in the act of creation, nature and supernatural grace; but this is their meaning: the man who was first created, received grace, that is, supernatural grace, as an additional gift — which idea we have before presented in this answer.

What then? Did he not have supernatural grace in creation? If you understand, by grace, the good will of God, he had grace; if you understand supernatural gifts, bestowed upon him, then he did not have those things, which are supernatural, from creation, or by the force of creation, since creation is the principle of nature, or its first term, but supernatural things entirely differ from it; but he had them in creation, that is, in that first state of creation in which Adam was until he fell into sin. That you may more easily understand the subject, let us use the illustration of the sun and moon, to explain the divine image. The moon has an essential image, and one which is relative and accidental. As its image is essential, it has its own light in some degree; yet it would be darkened, unless it should look towards the sun; as its image is relative, it has light borrowed from the sun, while it is looked upon by it, and looks to it. So, there was, in man, a two-fold relation of the image of God, even from the creation. For man had his own essential light fixed in the soul, which shines as the image of God among created things; he had also a relative light, as he was looked upon by God, and looked back to God. The essential image is natural; the relative image was, so to speak, supernatural, for it looked to God, through nature joined to grace, by a peculiar and free motion of the will; God looked upon it, of grace, (for, what action of God towards us is natural?) We have that essential light, corrupted by sin; it is plain that we have not lost it. We have lost the relative light; but Christ restores this, that we may be renewed, after God, in his own image, and that the essential light may be purified, since natural things are corrupted, the supernatural are lost, as we have previously said.

Your second argument is stated thus: "Since there is found, in the Scriptures, no reference to the love of God according to election, no divine volition, and no act of God, concerning men, referring to them in different respects, until after the entrance of sin into the world, or after it was considered as having entered." If I should concede this, yet the sentiment of those, who say that man is considered, in general, by the Deity, would not, therefore, be confuted, as we have before shown. But I may, perhaps, be able to disprove this assertion by authority, by reason, and by example.

You have authority in Romans 9:11-13. "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." What do those three phrases indicate "the children being not yet born;" again, "neither having done any good or evil;" and "according to election, not of works, but of Him that calleth."

You will say, "these expressions are according to truth; but they have reference to fallen and sinful nature." But they exclude, with the utmost care, all reference to sin and refer all blessing to the sole vocation of God, who calleth, as even yourself, my brother, if you are willing to observe it, (and you certainly are thus willing,) may easily deduce from that proposition. To this authority you will certainly submit every semblance of reasoning. (Ephesians 1:4, 5,)

"He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ to Himself."

Election originates in special love; and when He is said to have chosen us in Christ, all reference to ourselves is excluded; predestination also precedes both persons and cases relating to them. Indeed this is indicated by the words "foreknow" and "predestinate," (Romans 8). Christ himself attributes to the blessing of the Father only that they were made possessors of the kingdom, "from the foundation of the world," (Matthew 30). In sin, or previous to sin? In view of sin, or without reference to it? Why should the former be true, I ask, rather than the latter? Why indeed, should not the latter rather, since all things are said to depend on God, who calleth?

To these, let the following considerations be added:

1. Whatever absurdity may be connected with this subject, you will perceive, (if you examine it closely,) that it pertains as much to the former interpretation, and rather more to it than to the latter. This absurdity is not to be passed by, but rather to be religiously and suitably removed.

2. I deny that a reference to sin belongs to the matter of filial adoption. I call nature as a witness: Does not a father beget sons, before he investigates or observes what shall be their condition? But this generation, (namely that of the children of God), is of will and not of nature. True: yet it is attributed to the will of God alone, not to any condition in us. Every condition in us is excluded, even that of sin; the will of God, alone, His purpose, alone, is considered in the matter. God distinguishes by His mere will among those equal in nature, equal in sin; whom, considered in their natural condition simply, not in that of sin, but generally in Christ, He adopts as His children. As in nature, children are begotten without reference to their future condition, so God, of His own will, adopted from eternity His own children.

3. Whatever is more consistent with the wisdom and grace of God, would be performed by the Deity, and is to be believed by us, rather than that which is less consistent. But it is more consistent with His wisdom and grace that He should adopt unto Himself children without any consideration of character, than that He should do so on the supposition of such consideration; otherwise nature would act more perfectly than God, as according to nature, fathers beget children, without such consideration.

Therefore, the former view is more consistent with the character of God, and rather to be received with faith by us.

As an example, for the confirmation of this matter, we will take, if you please, that of the Angels. Whoever are the sons of God, are sons by election. Angels are the sons of God, (Job 1, 2, & 37,) therefore, they are such by election, as Paul affirms (1 Timothy 5:21,) when he calls them "the elect." But they are elect without consideration of their sins, as they did not sin, but remained in their original condition. Therefore, the love of God is with election, without reference to sin, or consideration of it, which you seem to deny in your assertion. Perhaps you will say that your assertion had reference only to men. But I reply, that love and election are spoken of in relation both to angels and men, and in the same manner, since God placed, in both, his own image, in reference to which election is made.

The most decisive proof of this is found in the principle that, if any act which apparently exists in reference to two things, which have the same relation, does not really exist in reference to one, it does not exist in reference to the other. In the election of Angels, there is no reference to their condition or their works; therefore, in the election of men there is no such reference. If the condition of Angels and of men is, in some respects, different, it does not follow that the mode of their election is different; especially when the relation of that thing, in reference to which they are chosen, is the same in both cases. This is the image of God, which, preserved or restored according to His own will, he has called and united to Himself, which will remain immutably in Christ, "gathering together in one all things," (Ephesians 1:10,) and which he had placed on the common basis of his own nature, from which, those, who were to be damned according to His judgment, fell of their own will.

It is not possible to adduce any other example; because all other things are created in a different relation. For they are destitute of the image of God, in which consists, with suitable limitations, the object of election. Therefore, the nature of the divine election, made concerning men, can be illustrated by the example of angels, and by no other example. But the divine election was such, not that it separated, at first, the Angels who sinned from those who did not sin, but that, of His own will and grace, he distinguished those who were not about to sin, as previously elected and predestinated to adoption, from others who were about to sin of their own free will. What reason, then, is there that we should think that another mode of the divine election must be devised in reference to men?

REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE TENTH PROPOSITION

I apply the term natural to whatever pertains to the substance and existence of man, without which man cannot exist. Such are the soul and the body, and the whole system compounded of them, with all natural attributes, affections, passions, etc. I apply the term supernatural to whatever God has bestowed on man above and in addition to those natural characteristics, which indeed pertain to the perfection of man, not in respect to his animal nature, but in respect to his spiritual nature, to the acquisition not of natural, but of supernatural good. I apply the phrase "merely natural," in this place, to that which has nothing supernatural added to it. The sense then of my words is that man is not made in a merely natural state, without supernatural endowments.

I do not here contend, with much strenuousness, whether he has those supernatural endowments from the act of creation or from another act of superinfusion, but leave this without decision, as neither useful or injurious to my cause. But I decidedly state and affirm, that God decreed to make man such by nature, as he in fact did make him; but such, that He might add to him some supernatural endowments, as He not only wished that he might be such as he was by nature, but He wished also to advance him further to a happier state, namely, to a participation of Himself, to which he could not attain, unless endowed with supernatural gifts. But when I deny that man was made in a merely natural state, and, therefore, was created with supernatural gifts, I wish not to indicate that the act, by which supernatural endowments are communicated, was creation, (for in my 26th proposition I have called that act superinfused Grace,) but that God was unwilling to cease from the act of communicating His blessing to that part of primitive matter or Nothing from which He created man, and that of His own decree, until he should also have bestowed those supernatural gifts upon him. I thought that I ought to observe the mode of expression, used in the Scripture, which declares that man was created "in the image and likeness of God," which image and likeness of God comprehends in itself also supernatural gifts. If this is true, as I contend, then man was created with supernatural endowments. For he was made in the image of God, and the word "made" is attributed, without distinction, to all parts of the image, without separating that, in the image, which is natural from that which is supernatural to man. I am glad to quote here the words of Jerome Zanchius, who, in his first book concerning the creation of man, chapter 1, speaks concerning this same matter in these terms;" I am pleased with the sentiment of those, who say that with the inbreathing of life, there was also inbreathed and infused by the Deity whatever Adam possessed of celestial light, wisdom, rectitude, and other heavenly gifts; in which he reflects the Deity, as His true image. For he was created such as the Scripture teaches, affirming that he was made in the image of God, and Solomon in Ecclesiastes 7:29, "God made man upright." But he was not such when his body only was formed. When, with a soul placed in him, he became a living soul, that is a living man, that he was made upright, just, etc., and thus, at the same time with his soul, rays also of divine wisdom, righteousness, and goodness were infused." Thus Zanchius, who clearly decides what I left without decision in either direction, and this for a twofold reason; I knew that it was a matter of dispute among the learned, and I perceived that nothing could be deduced from it either of advantage or disadvantage to my cause.

Those supernatural gifts, which were bestowed on man, he received for transmission to posterity, on the terms, on which he received them, namely, of grace, not as this word denotes the principle of natural endowments, for from grace, understood in its widest sense, we have received even our nature, as that to which we had no claim, but as it is used in contra-distinction to nature, and as it is the principle of supernatural gifts. I can then concede that God had reference to man in nature, as the subject of grace, the natural man as the subject of supernatural gifts; but that He had reference to him, contemplated in the administrative decree of creation, not in the decree of predestination, which we have now under discussion; as the subject of grace sufficient for supernatural felicity, not of effectual grace, of which we now dispute; as the subject of supernatural gifts, to be transmitted to his posterity, without exception, according to the arrangement of grace, and without any condition, not of such gifts as are peculiar to those, who are predestinated, and to be bestowed, with certainty and infallibly, upon them, in reference to which is the controversy between us.

Hence, these things are not opposed to my sentiment, for in them the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi is committed. I wish, however, that you would always remember that I speak constantly concerning the grace, prepared in the decree of predestination, and in no other decree. But I have proved that man was not made in a merely natural state, in the sense, as I have already stated, of a destitution of supernatural endowments, whether he is said to have them by the act of creation, or by the act of superinfusion; and I have proved it by an argument, deduced from the image and likeness of God in which man was created. Which argument is valid, whether the image of God signifies only supernatural gifts, bestowed on man by the Deity, as our Catechism and Confession, and some of our theologians affirm in reference to the image of God, or nature itself, together with those supernatural gifts, which is my opinion; according to which I wish that my affirmation, that "the image of God in man is not nature, but supernatural grace," should be understood, that is, that it is not nature alone, apart from supernatural endowments, which is sufficient for any argument. For the question is not concerning natural qualities, and therefore, the decision of the point whether they belong to the image of God, according to my opinion, or not, does not affect the subject of inquiry. Let supernatural qualities be embraced in the definition of the image of God, in which man was made, and I have obtained what I desire.

I also wish that my subsequent remarks should be understood in the same manner, namely, that the image of God, has respect, not to natural felicity only, but to supernatural, and if that is true, as you seem to concede, I have attained my object. I did not wish to define with accuracy the image of God in which man was made, since this was not necessary to my purpose: it was sufficient to have shown that "knowledge, righteousness, and holiness" pertained also to the image of God, whether that image consisted wholly or only in part in them. For either of these statements would be equally available for my purpose, as I had undertaken to prove that man was not created without supernatural endowments, and therefore that he could not have been considered, in the decree of predestination, as created in a merely natural state, without supernatural endowments.

But, before I come to the defense of my argument on this point, I must speak, at somewhat greater length, of three things, in considering which, a considerable part of your answer is occupied. First. I will explain more fully than I have before done, what I call natural, and what, supernatural qualities. Secondly. I will speak of the image of God, and what things, whether natural or supernatural, are embraced in it, and in its definition.

Thirdly, by what action of the Deity, man has both the former, and the latter qualities.

First; I call those qualities natural which pertain to the nature of man, without which man cannot be man, and which have their source in the principles of nature, and are prepared, by their own nature, for natural felicity, as their end and limit: such are the body, the soul, the union of both, and that which is made up of both, and their natural attributes, affections, functions, and passions; under which I also comprehend moral feelings, which are sometimes spoken of in contradistinction to those which are natural. I call those qualities supernatural which are not a part of man, and do not originate in natural principles, but are superadded to natural principles, for the increase and perfection of nature, designed for supernatural felicity, and for a supernatural communion with God, our Creator, in which that felicity consists.

Between these, exists a natural relation of this character, that natural qualities may receive the addition of supernatural, by the arrangement of God, and that supernatural qualities are adapted for adding to, adorning and perfecting nature, and are therefore ordained for exalting it above itself.

Hence, without ambiguity, under the term natural, I have comprehended nature both corporeal and spiritual, and that which is composed of both. It is, however, to be carefully observed — that ambiguities of words are to be noticed and explained, in a discussion, when, if taken in one sense, they favor any view, and, if in the other, they do not, when, according to one sense, a statement is true, and, according to the other, is false. But when the statement is true, and pertinent to the subject, in whatever sense a word is taken, there is no need of an explanation of the ambiguity. Thus, in this case, you observe that I understand, by natural qualities, both those which pertain to the inferior nature, that is, to the body, and those which pertain to the superior nature, that is, to the soul, and in whatever mode you take it, my argument is equally strong and valid. We shall hereafter notice examples of equally unnecessary reference to ambiguity.

Secondly; two things must be considered in reference to the image of God in man, in what things does it consist, and which of them may be called material, and which supernatural? I affirm that the image of God in man embraces all those things which represent in man any thing of the divine nature, which are partly essential: yet God did not wish that the images of all of them should be essential to man, whom He wished to create, in such a condition, not only that he might be that which he was, but that he might have the capability of becoming that which he was not, and of failing to be that which he was. I call essential the soul, and in it the intellect, and will, and the freedom of the will, and other affections, actions, and passions, which necessarily result from them. I call accidental both the moral virtues, and the knowledge of God, righteousness and true holiness, and whatever other attributes of the Deity exist, to be considered in Him as essential to his own nature, but in man as an express image, of which under the term "divine nature," Peter says, that believers are "partakers." 2. I do not think that all these things can be comprehended under the term natural, but I think that "knowledge, righteousness and true holiness," are supernatural, and are to be called by that name. I am in doubt whether I have your assent to this affirmation. For in one part of your answer, you say that those are natural qualities, and present arguments in support of that view, and in another place, in the same answer, you acknowledge that Adam had supernatural gifts though not from the act of creation: by which supernatural qualities, I know not what you can understand, except those things which are mentioned by the apostle in Colossians 3, and Ephesians 4. Yet you seem to set forth under the term reflexive image, those very things which you acknowledge to be supernatural. But, whether I rightly understand your sentiment or not, I will speak of those things which, I think, tend to confirm my sentiment, and to refute your view, as I understand it.

I prove, then, that those qualities are supernatural. First, from Colossians 3, and Ephesians 4. Whatever things we have, from regeneration, by the spirit of Christ, are supernatural. But we have, from regeneration, by the Spirit of Christ, "the knowledge of God, righteousness and true holiness."

Therefore, they are supernatural. If any one says that we do not have them, in substance, from regeneration, but only a renewal of the same qualities, which had previously been made corrupt, I do not see how that assertion can be proved. For the phrases of the apostle teach another doctrine. For he who must "put on the new man," is not clothed with the "new man," or with any part of him. But to the new man, pertain "righteousness and true holiness." Then, in the case of him, who must be "renewed in knowledge," it is not his knowledge which has become corrupt and must be renewed, but his intelligence, which must be enlightened with new knowledge, which has been utterly expelled by the darkness of the old man. I designed this, only, in my argument, and not to define the image of God in man. But I cannot see that I differ from the view of the apostle in my explanation. For the knowledge of God, in the passage quoted by me, is the "image of God" itself, and "after the image of God." Nor are these expressions at variance with each other, nor are they so absurd as you wish them to appear. You say "the image of God is knowledge, according to the image of God, therefore, the image of God is denied to be either knowledge or image." I deny this sequence if the definition is rightly understood, namely, in the following manner. The image of God, renewed in us by the regenerating Spirit, is the knowledge of God, according to the image of God, in which, at the beginning, we were created. This image has a two-fold relation, in that it is created anew in us by the Spirit of Christ, and that it was formerly created in us by the Spirit of God. That knowledge differs not only in mode, but in its whole nature, from the knowledge of the old man: nor is it said to be renewed, but the man is said to be renewed in it. But I confess that I cannot understand how knowledge is an act of the image of God, and how that image is the fountain or principle of that act, that is of knowledge. For I have hitherto thought that man was said to be created in or to the image of God, that is, because, in mind, will, knowledge of God, righteousness and finally holiness, he refers to God Himself, as the archetype. In the other passage from Ephesians 4, I do not find the three characteristics, "truth, righteousness and holiness," but only two, righteousness and holiness, to which is ascribed truth, that is, sincerity, purity, simplicity. Knowledge, also, is not a member or portion of that truth, but a gift, created in the intellect or mind of man, as righteousness and holiness are ingenerated in the will, or rather the affections of man.

Secondly, I prove that the same qualities are supernatural in this way. Those things, according to which we are, and are said to be, partakers of the divine nature, and the children of God, are supernatural: but we are, and are said to be partakers of the divine nature, and children of God, according to knowledge, righteousness and holiness; therefore, these are supernatural. The Major does not need proof. The Minor is evident from a comparison of the first, second, third, and fourth verses of 2 Peter 1.

Thirdly, those things which have their limit in supernatural felicity, are supernatural; but the knowledge of God, righteousness and holiness are such; therefore, they are supernatural.

Fourthly, the immediate causes of supernatural acts are supernatural. But the knowledge of God, righteousness and holiness, are the immediate causes of supernatural acts: therefore they are supernatural.

I now come to your arguments, in which you attempt to show that the image of God in man is natural, and that those qualities, knowledge, righteousness and holiness, are natural, not supernatural.

Your first argument is this: Supernatural qualities were removed, natural qualities were corrupted. But truth, righteousness, holiness, were not removed, they were corrupted; therefore, they are not supernatural, but natural. Your first argument is this: Supernatural qualities were removed, natural qualities were corrupted. But truth, righteousness, holiness, were not removed, they were corrupted; therefore, they are not supernatural, but natural. Your Minor is defended thus. The principles of these qualities are in us by nature; they would not be, if they had been removed. I reply — that I admit the Major; but the Minor does not seem at all probable to me, not even by the addition of that reason. For, I affirm that the knowledge which is according to piety, the righteousness and the holiness, of which the apostle speaks, were not corrupted, but removed, and that none of the principles of those qualities remain in us after the fall. I acknowledge that the principles and seeds of the moral virtues, which have some analogy and resemblance to those spiritual virtues, and that, even those moral virtues themselves, though corrupted by sin, remained in us after the fall. It is possible that this resemblance may mislead him who does not accurately discriminate between these moral and those spiritual virtues. In support of this sentiment, in which I state that those gifts were taken away, I have the declaration of the Catechism, in the answer to question nine, in these words: "Man deprived himself and all his posterity, of those divine gifts." But an explanation of the nature of those divine gifts is given in the sixth question, namely, "righteousness and holiness." I know not but that I have the support of your own declaration on this point. For in the eighteenth of your Theses, Concerning Original Sin, discussed in 1594, are these words: "For, as in Adam the form of human integrity was original righteousness, in which he was made by God, so the form of corruption, or rather of deformity, was a deprivation of that righteousness."

In the nineteenth Thesis, "The Scripture calls the form, first mentioned, the image and likeness of God." In the twentieth Thesis, "The Scripture calls the latter form, the image and likeness of Adam." If I rightly understand these expressions, I think that it plainly follows from them that original righteousness was removed, and that it is, therefore, supernatural, according to the rule "supernatural qualities were removed; natural qualities were corrupted." I have also, in my favor, most, perhaps all, of the Fathers. Ambrose, in reference to Elijah and his fasting, chap. 4th, says, "Adam was clothed with a vesture of virtues before his transgression, but, as if denuded by sin, he saw himself naked, because the clothing, which he previously had, was lost," and again in the seventh book of his commentary on the 10th chapter of that gospel, marking, more clearly, the distinction between the loss of supernatural qualities and the corruption of natural ones, he speaks thus: "Who are thieves if not the angels of night and of darkness? They first despoil us of the garments of spiritual grace, and then inflict on us wounds." Augustine, (De Trinitate, lib. 14, cap. 16,) says, "Man, by sinning, lost righteousness and true holiness, on which account, this image became deformed and discolored; he receives them again when he is reformed and renewed." Again, (De civit. Dei, lib. 14, cap. 11) he affirms that "free-will was lost." To conclude this part of the discussion, I ask what were those spiritual qualities, which were renewed or lost, if not the knowledge of God, righteousness and holiness.

Another argument, adduced by you, is this: "Whatever belongs to the species is natural; But the image of God belongs to the species; Therefore it is natural." I answer, the Major is not, in every case, true. For a quality may pertain to the species either by a communication through nature or natural principles, or by an arrangement of grace. That, which, in the former, not in the latter, pertains to the species, is natural. In reference to the Minor, I affirm that the image of God pertains to the species, partly through nature, partly of grace; therefore the image of God in man is partly through nature, partly of grace; therefore, the image of God in man is partly natural, partly supernatural. If you make any other inference, you deduce a general conclusion from a particular proposition, which is not valid. If an addition be made to your Major, so that, in its full form, it should stand thus: "Whatever is produced in the species, and its individuals, by nature, is natural," I will admit it as a whole. But in that case, the Minor would not be wholly true. For the image of God is not promised in us wholly by nature, for that part of it which is in truth and righteousness, and holiness, is produced in us by nature, but is communicated by an act of grace, according to the arrangement of grace.

But it is objected that the image cannot be common, if it is not natural. For natural qualities differ, in that they are common, from those which are personal, (the question refers not to supernatural qualities). I answer a thing is common in a two-fold sense, either absolutely, according to nature, or conditionally, according to the arrangement of grace. The image of God is common in part according to nature and absolutely, in those things which belong to man according to his essence, and which cannot be separated from his nature, and in part conditionally, according to the arrangement of grace, in those things which pertain not to the essence but to the supernatural perfection of man. The former are produced in all men absolutely, the latter conditionally, namely that he should preserve those principles, which are universal to the species, and particular to the individual, uncorrupted. Therefore, the whole image is common, but partly by nature, and partly of the arrangement of grace; by nature, that part, which is called natural; according to the arrangement of grace, that part which I call supernatural. This, also, is according to the declaration of the Scripture that Seth was begotten in the image and likeness of Adam, not in the image of God. He was indeed begotten in the image of God, not as God communicated it, in its integrity, to Adam, but as Adam maintained it for himself. But Adam maintained it for himself not in its integrity, therefore, he communicated it in that condition. But that, which is in its integrity, and that, which is not in its integrity, differ, not only in mode and degree, but also in some of the essential parts of that image, which are possessed by the image, in its integrity, and are wanting to the image, not in its integrity, which Adam had originally, by a complete communication from God, and of which Seth was destitute on account of the defective communication from Adam.

Your third argument is this:

"The image of God is not said to be produced or created in us, but to be renewed or restored, therefore, it was not lost or removed, but corrupted."

I answer — Neither part of your assumption is, in a strict sense, true; with suitable explanation, both parts are true, but neither of them is against my sentiment. I will prove the former assertion, namely, that neither part of the assertion is true. We are said to be "new creatures in Christ" and "to be created to good works." David prayed that God would "create" within him "a clean heart." The image of God is nowhere said to be restored and renewed within us, but as we are said to be "renewed in knowledge after the image of God," "to be renewed in the spirit of our mind," and "to be transformed by the renewing of our mind." Yet, with suitable explanation, both parts of the assumption are true, but they are very favorable to my sentiment, as I will show. There are in us, in respect to ourselves, two parts of the image of God, one essential, the other accidental to us. The essential part is the soul, endowed with mind, affection and will. The accidental is the knowledge of God, righteousness, true holiness, and similar gifts of spiritual grace. The former are not said to be produced or created in us, because it was deformed and corrupt. The latter is not said to be restored or renewed in us, because, from a defect in the subject, it has no place in us and not because it was not corrupt and deformed, but it is said to be produced and created in us, (for we are called, on its access, new creatures,) because it resembles a mold, by the use of which, that essential part is restored and renewed. The words of the apostle plainly set forth this idea, in which it is affirmed not that the knowledge, referred to, is renewed, but that we, as partakers of the image of God so far as it is essential to us, are said to be renewed in knowledge, as in a new mold, according to the image of God, so far as it is accidental to us. Both parts, then, of the antecedent are true. For the image of God is restored and renewed in us, namely, our mind and will, and the affections of the soul; and the image of God is produced and created in us, namely, the knowledge of God, righteousness, and true holiness. The former is the subject of the latter; the latter is the form, divinely given to the former. Therefore, also, the argument of Moses in commanding the murderer to be slain, is valid.

For in man, even after transgression, the image of God remained, so far as it was essential to him, or that part remained, which pertained to the essence of man, though the part, which was accidental, is removed through sin.

We now discuss the action of the Deity, by which we have both the natural and the supernatural part of the image of God. I have not made any distinction in the act, both because I wished to use the phraseology of Scripture, according to which the word creation signifies the act by which man has in himself, the image and likeness of God, for it speaks thus: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," and "so God created man in his own image," and because both parts equally well answered my purpose. But, if the subject is considered with accuracy, I think that a distinction is to be made in those acts, and that one is rightly termed creation, by which man received natural qualities, the other, superinfusion, by which he received the supernatural. For life in man is two-fold, animal and spiritual; animal, by which he lives according to man, spiritual, by which he lives according to God. Of the former, the principle is the soul in man, endowed with intellect and will; of the latter, the principle is the Spirit of God, communicating to the soul those excellent gifts of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. It is probable that the principles of these kinds of life, each so diverse from the other, were bestowed on man, not by the same, but by a different act. But it is not important to my sentiment to decide in what mode, whether by a two-fold or a single act of God, man had these qualities, only let it be understood that he had both the former and the latter, before God was employed concerning him in the act of predestination; that is, he had them in respect to the divine consideration. I make the statement in general terms, because those things, both natural and supernatural, were conferred on the whole species, the former absolutely, the latter on the condition that the species should preserve to itself that principle. Hence, I conclude, if it was conferred on the species, then it was conferred by a decree of providence, in contra-distinction to predestination; if it was conferred conditionally, it was not conferred by a decree of predestination, by which no gift is conditionally conferred. It is now evident from this that my argument is valid. For if man was created by God, under this condition, that he should have, not only natural, but also supernatural gifts, either by the same act of creation, or by the additional act of superinfusion, (in reference to which I have never contended,) it follows, then, that God, in the acts of predestination and reprobation, which separate men, could not have reference to men, as considered in a merely natural state. You also seem, afterwards, to concede this, that man had supernatural endowments, even in his primitive state, but as an increment to nature, and not from the act of creation, which is the principle of nature. This I concede, and from it make this inference, since those things, which the first man had, were possessed by all his posterity in him, (for all which he was, we also were in him, according to the 40th Thesis of your disputation concerning Original Sin, previously cited,) the former, of nature, the latter, of the arrangement of grace, it follows that God could not, in the decree under discussion, have reference to man, considered in a merely natural state, nor indeed, to man, considered with supernatural endowments, for a being of such character could not be passed by, or at least was not passed by, except from the fact that it was foreseen that he would lose those supernatural endowments by transgression and sin.

Your assertion that these statements, however true they may be, are not opposed to that sentiment, which considers man in general, is valid, if it is proved that man was, or could be considered universally by God in the act of decree. But I think that my arguments are valid, also, against that sentiment. For if God could not consider man in a merely natural state, if not with supernatural endowments, if not without sin, regarding him as the object of the acts of predestination and reprobation, then also he could not consider the same being in a general sense. For a general consideration is excluded by the necessary consideration of any particular circumstance, which becomes the formal relation (ratio) of the object, apart from which formal relation God could not consider man, when He was acting in reference to man in that decree. Besides, how can the general consideration yet have place, when a circumstance, which that general consideration comprehends within itself, is excluded.

If what you say concerning "the essential and the relative image" has this meaning, that the essential image comprehends truth and righteousness, and holiness, and yet is entirely natural to man, as may be deduced from some things alleged by you, then I affirm distinctly, that I cannot oppose it; indeed, I think that I can prove the contrary. But if you apply the phrase "essential image" to all which man has, essential to himself, according to the image of God, I admit it. Then the "respective" image will embrace what I call supernatural and accidental. But, as these things, with the premises which I have laid down, do not tend to refute my sentiment, I proceed to the remainder of my argument.

My second argument is this, that no love of God according to election, or divine volition regarding human beings variously, or divine actions varying in reference to them, is found after sin entered into the world, or after it was considered as having entered. But if this argument is valid, it also refutes the sentiment, which states that man was considered "in general."

For if there is no divine election and reprobation of men except after the entrance of sin into the world, then man is considered, not "in general," but particularly, in reference to the circumstance of sin. But you plead "authority, reason, and example." You plead "authority" from three passages of Scripture, Romans 9, Ephesians 1, and Matthew 25. Neither of these is opposed to my view, since I do not deny that election and reprobation were made from eternity, and do not say that sin was the cause of the decree, but a condition requisite in its object. The passage in Romans 9, is not adverse to me; first, because Jacob and Esau had been already conceived in sin, when those words were addressed to Rebecca, as is evident from the text. The affirmative, that they had done neither good nor evil, is to be understood in reference to the distinction which might be made between them, as is explained by Augustine in many places. The apostle then denies all reference to sin, namely, to that by which any distinction might be made between them, not to that, of which they were both equally guilty. Secondly, because he attributes all things to the vocation of God, who calleth, which is of mercy, and has reference only to sinners. Thirdly, because the "purpose of God, according to election" which states, "not of works," is a gracious purpose in Christ, to the promise of which reference is made in Romans 4:16 "it is of fruit, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed," that is, of faith of, or in Christ, which pertains only to sinners, for he, who has not sinned, does not need faith in Christ, since he obtains righteousness, and thereby life, by the laws. Let this, then, be the answer in reference to this passage, if it is to be understood of Esau and Jacob in their own persons, without any typical meaning. But the meaning of that passage is far different, as could be proved, if it were necessary.

I come, now, to the passage cited from Ephesians 1. That passage is so far from being opposed to my sentiment that I shall hereafter use it as a strong argument in my favor. Election is here said to be "from eternity;" I grant it.

It is said to have been made "in Christ;" I acknowledge it. It is said to be "unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ;" I consent to it. I do not, however, see that either of these statements is opposed to the idea, that sin is a condition, requisite in the object of election and reprobation. It is true that any reference to ourselves, as a cause of our own election, is denied. Predestination precedes persons, in respect to their actual existence, not as they are considered by the Deity. It refers to causes, before they actually exist, but not before they are foreseen by God from eternity, though, in the foresight of God, they exist, not as the causes of predestination, but as a condition requisite in the object. In Matthew 25, the blessed of the Father, who shall possess the kingdom prepared for them of the mere benediction of God, are spoken of. But that benediction is in Christ, by which the malediction is removed, which even the blessed themselves had deserved according to the prescience of God, before they were blessed in Christ; and the kingdom, which was prepared for them, by the blood of Christ, is a kingdom, to which they are raised from the ignominy and slavery of sin. If you had thoroughly considered that, which is really in controversy, you would not have thought that those passages could be used effectually against me.

The reasons, adduced by you, are not more adverse to my opinion, for they oppose the sentiment which makes sin the cause of the decree, not that which makes it a condition, requisite in the object. I will examine them. To the first, I answer that my sentiment, either as antecedent or consequent, is not absurd, until it is proved to be so. Your second and third reasons change the state of the question. For they exclude from that decree sin, as a cause, on account of which God adopted children unto Himself, or in view of which He made the decree; in reference to which there is no question. To the second, I say, that the subject of discussion, here, is the adoption made in Christ, which pertains to no one except by faith in Christ, to which we are not begotten but begotten again by God.

From this it is proved, that the adoption is of sinners, and of sinners equally involved in sin, not of men equal in nature. To the third, I answer; — In the first place, we must judge from the word of God, what may be more, and what may be less in accordance with the wisdom and grace of God. In the second place, I affirm that it is equally in accordance with the wisdom and grace of God, that He should adopt unto Himself sons from those who are not sinners as from those who are sinners, and vice versa, if such should be His choice. What you say in reference to "the supposition of such consideration" is aside from the subject. In the third place, the wisdom and grace, according to which God adopted children unto Himself from among men in that "hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory, which none of the princes of this world knew," which wisdom is "Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block," — and that grace, is that which is joined with mercy, bestowed on the sinner, and is in Christ. The latter tends far more illustriously to the glory of God than grace, as used in contradistinction to mercy, and so much the more, as he, who has deserved evil, is more unworthy than he, who has deserved nothing, either good or evil. It has been shown before, that the example of angels is not analogous, but the reverse. For God determined to secure the salvation of men and of angels in different modes. The relations, therefore, of predestination, in the former, and in the latter case, are diverse. God stamped His own image on both, but with a different condition, namely, that it should be preserved in none, but restored in some, among men. God so tempered, as Augustine says, the natures of angels and of men, that He might first show, in them, what their own freewill could effect, then what should be the beneficial influence of His grace, preserving in the case of angels, and restoring, in the case of men. He showed in the case of angels, namely, grace in contradistinction to mercy. He showed in men, the power of the latter grace, namely, grace joined to mercy, and both of his own.

&nb

ELEVENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

Secondly, of Election.

1. Election is said to have been made in Christ, who was ordained as mediator for sinners, and was called Jesus, because He should save, not certain individuals, considered merely in their nature, but "His people from their sins." He is said to have been foreordained, and we in Him, and He, in the order of nature and causes, before us. He was ordained as Savior, we, as those to be saved. But in Christ, having such a character, and being considered such as the Scripture describes him to us, man could not be considered in a merely natural state. Much less, therefore, could he be elected in Him.

2. Election is said to have been made of grace, which is distinguished from nature in a two fold manner, both as the latter is pure and considered abstractly, and as it is guilty and corrupt. In the former sense, it signifies the progress of goodness towards supernatural good, to be imparted to a creature naturally capable of it; in the latter sense, it signifies the ulterior progress towards supernatural good to be communicated to man, as corrupt and guilty, which is also, in the Scriptures, called mercy. In my judgment, the term grace is used, in the latter sense, in the writings of the apostles, especially when the subject of discussion is election, justification, sanctification, etc. If this is true, then election of grace was made of men considered, not in a "merely natural state, but in sin."

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE ELEVENTH PROPOSITION

It is true, that election is made by God the Father in Christ the Mediator; but that the Mediator was ordained, only for sinners, is not absolutely true. Therefore, the inference is not valid. Indeed, should its truth be conceded, yet it has no weight against those, who state that, in election, reference was to man in general. But that the Mediator was ordained, not for sinners alone — to say nothing of that Mediation, which is attributed to Christ in creation and nature,

"all things were made by Him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men." (John 1:3, 4,) "by whom also He made the worlds." (Hebrews 1:2, etc.)

— I demonstrate most completely by a single argument.

Christ is Mediator for those, to whom He was, from eternity, given as Head by the Father; — He was given as Head by the Father to Angels and men; therefore, he is the Mediator for both the latter and the former. But angels did not sin; he was not, then, ordained Mediator for sinners only.

Let us discuss each point, if you please, separately, that we may more fully understand the subject.

When we speak of the Head, we consider three things, according to the analogy of nature; its position, by which, in fact, dignity, and authority, it holds the first place in the whole body; its perfection, by which it contains all the inward and outward senses, in itself, as their fountain and the principle of motion; finally its power, by which all power, feeling, motion and government is accustomed to flow from it to the other members.

According to this idea, Christ is indeed the Head, in common, of all created things; the Head, I say, of superior nature, and of interior nature, and of all those things which are in nature. We transcend this universal relation, when we contemplate the Head, as appointed from eternity. Angels and men are, after God, capable of eternity; and to both Christ was given eternally, by the Father, as the Head, not only that they should exist forever, (which is the attribute of spiritual nature) but also, and this is specially of grace, that they should be forever heirs of eternal glory, as sons of God, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. The latter were ordained of God, by the adoption of grace in Christ Jesus, all to one end, namely, to the sight, the enjoyment, and announcement of the glory of God, and of them was constituted the mystical body of Christ, the celestial church. Finally, as in all this life, that is the head of a living creature, from which power, feeling and motion flow into the members of the body, so in all that eternal life, the body grows by the influence of Christ, its Head, and each of the members obtain immutability of life, that is, eternity from this fact, that they subsist in Christ, their Head, apart from whom they would be dissolved. But Christ, is the Mediator by the relation in which he is the Head of angels and men, for, as Head, he’ joins them to Himself; as Mediator, he joins them to the Father. That Christ is Head and Mediator, is in fact, one and the same thing, only that the divinity intervenes in the relation, since He is called the Head, as to our relation to Himself; and Mediator as to our relation to the Father. "But," it may be said, "he did not redeem the angels as he redeemed us. This indeed is true; but Mediator and Redeemer differ from each other, as genus and species. To angels, Christ is Mediator of preservation and confirmation; but to us, he is Mediator, also, of redemption and of preservation from that from which we have been redeemed. So he is styled Mediator for both, though in a different mode. The Major, then, of my syllogism is true, that "Christ is the Mediator of those to whom he was appointed from eternity as their Head." But that He was appointed, both to angels and men, as their Head, and therefore, as Mediator, is taught by the apostle in Colossians 1, when he affirms of Christ that he "is the image of the invisible God," that is, He represents God the Father, in his word and work, chiefly to those whom the Father has given to him, as their Head and Mediator; "the first born of every creature," namely, every one whom God has, of His grace, predestinated to adoption, and begotten then, that they might be His children; for there is a comparison of things which are homogeneous, and so the passage is to be understood. Then, explaining both those attributes, he subjoins, first, in general terms, "For by Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth visible, and invisible," (but he explains these things, to take away the plea of the angel worshipers, whom he assails in this epistle,) "whether thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him and for Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist;" and then, with particular reference to the glorious body of which He is precisely the Head and Mediator, "and He is the Head of the body, the church," who, in the confirmation of grace is "the beginning," but in redemption, is "the first-born from the dead," the common end of all, which is "that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." The cause, is the decree of the Father, predestinating His Son for the adoption of His children, "for it pleased the Father that, in Him, should all fullness dwell, and having made peace through the blood of His cross to reconcile all things to Himself;" etc. He sets forth this idea still more clearly, when, warning them from the worship of angels under the pretense of philosophy, he says, "for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, which is the Head of all principality and power," that is, of angels to the worship of whom, they were solicited.

For, of every one soliciting them to the worshipping of angels, he afterwards affirms that they do not hold the "Head, from which all the body, by joints and bands having nourishment ministered and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God." To the same purpose is Ephesians 1.

It is then to be stated, generally, that he was ordained to be Mediator for sinners, but not for them only, since he is also Mediator for the angels, who have maintained their original purity, but he is ordained as Redeemer for sinners only. We may be able to express this very idea in another mode, if we say that he was ordained Mediator, both for those, who could sin, that they might not sin, and for those, who had sinned, that they might be saved from their sins. Both modes of interpretation tend to the same result. The same is the case with the name Jesus. But what need is there of many words? We say that he was ordained as Mediator both for those who stood and for those who fell, as Redeemer only for those who fell; for those who stood, that they might remain, standing, and for those who fell, that they might rise again, and remain standing. From which it follows, a mode of argumentation, plainly the same, being preserved, that when election is said to have been made in Christ, God had reference to man, considered generally, as not yet created as created in a natural state, as standing and as having fallen, but this is the same thing as being considered in a merely natural state, which you deny. The same argument applies to what follows.

I come to your second argument. You say "Election is said to have been made of grace," and further, that "grace is spoken of in a two-fold sense, when it is used in opposition to nature, and that it is to be taken, in the latter sense, in this argument," and you conclude that, "the election of grace was made of men, considered not in a natural state, etc." Do you not see, my brother, that your conclusion is unsound, involving the fallacy of division, and that it is also equivocal? For, in the Major, grace is used collectively or generally, but in the Minor distributively; in the former, it is used simply, as to its essence, in the latter, an accident is taken into account, namely, the different modes of the object, which do not affect the essence of grace. Why shall we not rather argue in this manner? Election is of grace; — grace has reference to those, whom it establishes in good, and to those whom, saved from evil, it restores to good; election, then, has reference to the same. That, which is stated in general terms, should be applied in general terms, for this, both nature and reason demand, unless there is a positive restriction in the necessity of the subject, or there be some limitation by an adjunct. That election is used in a general sense, is most clearly evident from a comparison of angels and men. You say, that grace is used, in the latter signification, in the writings of the Apostles in this and similar arguments. This may be correct, but this is not affected by a restriction of the term grace, which in God and of God, embraces all things, but by a restriction of the object kata> ti the restriction is in the object, that is, in man, not in that which is added or granted to him. What, if a farmer should command his servant to cultivate a field, which field needed first to be cleared, then plowed, and lastly to be sowed, etc., would you, then, restrict the word cultivate to one of these processes? That, which is general or common, remains general or common, and its generality may not be narrowed down by any particular relations of the object.

Therefore, as you see, this consequence, deduced from faulty reasoning, is not valid, nor is that, which is stated in general terms, to be restricted to particular circumstances.

REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER OF THE ELEVENTH PROPOSITION

The two arguments advanced by me, as they are most conclusive, so they remain unaffected by your answers. I prove this, in reference to the first.

Its strength and force consists in this, that the election of men is said to have been made in Christ, as the Mediator between God and sinful men, that is as Reconciler and Redeemer, from which I argued thus: Whoever are elect in Christ, as Mediator between God and sinful men, that is, as Reconciler and Redeemer, they are considered by God, electing them, as sinners; — But all men, who are elect in Christ, are elect in Christ, as Mediator between God and sinful men, that is, as Reconciler and Redeemer; Therefore, all men, who are elect in Christ, are considered by God, electing them, as sinners.

The Major is plain. For, in the first place, they, who are not sinners, do not need a Reconciler and Redeemer. But election is an act, altogether necessary to those who are elected. In the second place, Christ himself is not considered by God as Mediator of Redemption, unless in view of the fact, that he is ordained as such for those who have sinned. For the divine foresight of sin preceded, in the order of nature, the decree by which its ordained that His Son should be the Mediator, appointed to offer in the presence of God, in behalf of men, a sacrifice for sins. In the third place, the election of men by God is made only in the Mediator, as having obtained, by his own blood, eternal redemption.

The Minor is evident. For since Christ is the Mediator between men and God, only as Reconciler, Redeemer, and the advocate of sinners; Mediator, I say, who, by the act of His Mediation, affords salvation to those, for whom he is Mediator. (1 Timothy 2:5 & 6; Hebrews 8:6 etc.; 9:15; 12:24.)

Hence follows the conclusion, since the premises are true, and consist of three terms, and are arranged in a legitimate form.

Let us now examine your arguments in opposition to what I have adduced.

You affirm that Christ is not ordained as Mediator for sinners only, and therefore, my conclusion is not valid. Let it be conceded that your antecedent is true, yet it does not follow that my conclusion is not valid.

For, in my premises, I did not assert that Christ was ordained Mediator only for sinners, nor are the questions discussed between us, — of what beings is Christ the Mediator — when spoken of universally — and in what modes. But I spoke of Christ, as ordained a Mediator for men in particular, and affirmed that he was ordained Mediator for them, only as sinners; for he was ordained Mediator to take away the sins of the world.

The subject of discussion, then, in the mode in which he is the Mediator for men. Here, you commit two fallacies, that of Irrelevant conclusion [ignoratio elenchi], and that of reasoning from a particular case to a general conclusion, [a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter]. I speak of Christ’s Mediation as pertaining to a particular case, namely, as undertaken for man, you treat of his Mediation, as simply and generally considered. But you rightly separate the consideration of the mediation, which is attributed to Christ, in creation and nature, for the latter is, entirely, of another kind and mode. According to this, he is the Mediator of God to creatures; according to that, of creatures to God. The one, refers to all creatures, the other, only to those, made in the image of God. The one tends to the communication of all natural and created good to all creatures, the other, to the bestowment, on rational creatures, of a participation in infinite and supernatural good. You, indeed, prove that he was ordained Mediator, not for sinners only, but without any necessity.

For this is not the question between us. The point to be proved by you, was that he is the Mediator of men, not of sinners, which I know that you would not wish to attempt, as a different doctrine is taught in the Scriptures. Yet, let us examine the argument. He was ordained as Mediator also for the angels; — But the angels did not sin; — Therefore, he was not constituted Mediator only for sinners. I may concede all this, for it weighs nothing against my argument, since I have not said in general terms, that Christ was ordained only for sinners. I restricted his Mediation to men, to the work of their salvation, to the mode in which salvation was obtained for them. Hence, if this be true, I conclude that my argument remains firm and unmoved, in which I proved that, in Christ as the Mediator of men before God, only sinners were elected.

I wish that we might always remember that there is no controversy between us concerning the election of angels or the mediation, by which they are saved, and that we are treating only of the election and reprobation of men, and of the mode of mediation by which they obtain salvation, for it will be perceived that statements, which, taken generally, are not true, may be, in the highest degree, true, when applied to the particular case of mankind. There is, then, no need of considering those things, which are said concerning Christ as the Mediator of angels. If, however, I may be permitted to discuss even this point, I may ask for the proof of your Major, in which you affirm that "Christ is Mediator for those to whom he was given, as Head, by the Father." I think that I have good reason for denying your postulate. For, in Philemon 2, Christ is said to have received "a name which is above every name, that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, because he, "being in the form of God, humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Here we see that the reason of his being constituted the Head, even of heavenly things, was this, that, by his own blood and death, he might perform the functions of Mediator for men before God. If he was the Mediator for angels, then this fact, and not the former reason, should have been alleged, in this passage, for his appointment as Head, even of angels.

These two terms, Head and Mediator, seem to me to have an order and relation, such that the appellation of Mediator pertains to Christ in a prior relation, and that of had in a posterior relation, and the latter, indeed, on account of the former. For, by the act of Mediation, he acquires for himself the right of dominion, the possession of which the Father delivers to him, when He bestows the title of Head upon him. This is implied, also, in the distinction used in schools of Divinity, Christ is Mediator by merit and by efficacy. By merit first, then by efficacy. For by his merit, he prepares for himself a people, the blessings necessary for their happiness, and the right and power of imparting those blessings to his own people; from which are derived the titles Head, Savior, Leader, Prince, and Lord; in accordance with which titles, there flows, of his own efficacy, to his own people, an actual communication of those blessings, which he obtained by the merit of his death. For in Hebrews 2:16, it is said that Christ:

"took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."

Now, if the statement, made by our divines, is true — that this assumption of nature was made that he might be able to perform the functions of Mediator for those whose nature he assumed, you perceive that the conclusion is valid, that since "he took not on him the nature of angels," he did not perform the functions of Mediator for them. To this add, that it is very frequently said, by our Theologians that Christ is Mediator only as he stands between God and men, which assertion they refer to his human nature, taken into a personal union by the Word, that he might, in this way, stand between both, partaking, with the Father, of the Divine nature, and with us, of human nature. Hence, also, he is called Emmanuel in a twofold sense, first, because he is God and man in the unity of his person, and secondly, because, being such, he has united God and men in the office of Mediation. But he does not stand between God and angels. Consider, also, the declaration of Hebrews 5:1,

"every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God."

But Christ was not taken from among angels, therefore, he was not ordained for angels in things pertaining to God. Indeed, I affirm, with confidence, that there was nothing to be done, by the way of any mediation for, or in behalf of angels before God. I add, also, that a Mediator should not be inferior in nature to those for whom he acts in that capacity. But Christ, in his human nature, was made "a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death. (Hebrews 2:9.) Therefore, he is not Mediator for angels. Finally, I remark, angels are "ministering Spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation." (Hebrews 1:14.)

"Unto the angels hath He not put in subjection the world to come," but unto Christ Jesus primarily, and unto all his brethren, secondarily, whose nature he sanctified in himself, and exalted with himself to that dignity.

Therefore, Christ is not the Mediator of angels. But the inquiry may be made, Cannot Christ, then, be said in any manner to be Mediator for angels? I answer; — The term mediator may be applied in a two fold manner, either in behalf of creatures to the Deity, or of the Deity to creatures. I deny that Christ is Mediator in behalf of the angels before God, but I do not deny he is Mediator for God to angels. For this coincides with the appellation of Head, which I confess belong to Christ, in respect to angels, though in a relation different from that, by which he is the Head of believers. For the union, which exists between Christ and believers of the human race, is more strict and close, than that which exists between him and angels, on account of the consubstantiality of his human nature with that of men, from which angels are alien. But enough on these points. Whether they are, as I have stated them, or not, it affects, neither favorably nor unfavorably, my argument, but you entirely agree with me when you say that he was ordained as Redeemer only for the fallen. From this, also, I infer the truth of my sentiment. Men are elected in the Redeemer, only as fallen; for they are not elected that they should remain standing, but that they should rise again, and then remain standing, as you have rightly observed. But how can you infer, that, since election is made in Christ, the election, I say, of men, in Christ, the Redeemer, (for those words are to be supplied), it follows that God had respect to men, in general, considered generally as not yet created, as created in their natural state, as yet standing and as fallen. I think that the contrary can, and must be inferred. Therefore, God, in election, had reference to man, only as fallen. For, in election, He regarded man in the Redeemer, and the Redeemer is such only of the fallen.

As to the latter argument, the form of the answer is the same. I do not use the word grace equivocally; I do not use it at the same time collectively and distributively. I admit that it is used in a two-fold sense, for the grace of preservation and restoration; I admit that it is used collectively, and absolutely, particularly and concretely, that is, the grace of preservation and restoration. But, what then? If I use a word, which has a general and equivocal sense, is equivocation, therefore, at once, to be laid to my charge? But I have used that word, at all times in this discussion, in the same way, namely, as referring to the grace by which some men are elected. It is that grace by which restoration and its means are prepared, not that by which preservation and its means are appointed. For the latter grace was not bestowed on human beings.

From the former grace alone, all they, who are saved, obtain their salvation.

In the Major of my syllogism, grace is spoken of in a particular relation, and in the Minor, it is used in the same way, and, neither in the former nor in the latter, is it used in a general sense, as the following syllogism will show. They who are elected according to the grace of restoration, which is joined with mercy, having place only in reference to sinners, are considered by Him, who elects, as sinners; But all men, who are elected, are elected according to the grace of restoration, which is joined to mercy, having place only in reference to sinners; — Therefore, all men, who are elected, are considered by Him, who elects, as sinners. Grace is spoken of, throughout, particularly and relatively in respect to men, and in no case, is it used generally or absolutely. Indeed, it cannot be used generally or absolutely when it has reference relatively and particularly to election, whether of angels or of men. For neither these nor those are elected or saved by grace, taken absolutely, but both by grace used relatively, angels by the grace of preservation, men by the grace of restoration.

When, however, we treat of election universally and abstractly, we must discuss the subject of grace, as its cause, universally, absolutely and abstractly; for, to a genus, general attributes are to be ascribed, which may be afterwards applied to the species after their several modes. Your argumentation, then, is aside from our controversy. Election is of grace; grace respects those, whom it establishes, and those whom, saved from evil, it restores to good. Therefore, election has reference to the same persons. For we do not now discuss election in general, and absolutely, if so, the word grace, according to correct usage, must be understood in a general sense. But we discuss the election of men; therefore, the general term grace must be restricted to that grace, according to which men are elected. It is not, therefore, proper to say that "grace has reference to those whom it establishes in good," for the grace, of which we here treat, does not refer to those whom it establishes in good, for grace established no one of the human race, it only restored those, to whom it had reference. But you say that the grace, which establishes in good, and that, which restores, are one in essence, and only distinguished and restricted in relation to the object. What if I should concede this? My conclusion will still be valid.

The question between us has reference to the object and its formal relations by which relation you say that grace is distinguished and restricted. But that restriction of the object has only this force, that the grace, which, according to your assertion, is one in essence, must unfold itself and be applied to a sinner, and to one not a sinner, in a different mode; and indeed must use acts of a different character in the two cases.

There is, then, a restriction in "that which is added or granted," but it is a necessary consequence of the restriction of the object. This distinction, then, is sufficient for the conclusion which I desire.

The question is not concerning objects of election, essentially different from each other, but concerning different modes of considering an object, which is one and the same in essence, and concerning a different formal relation. I will illustrate it by a simile. Justice in God is one in essence, namely, giving to each one that which is due to him; to him who is obedient, what pertains to him, according to the divine promise, and to the sinner that which pertains to him, according to the divine threatening. But from the fact that justice renders the retribution of punishment an object, it is necessarily inferred that the object is worthy of punishment, and was, therefore, liable to sin; so likewise with grace. Grace then is one in essence, but varies in its mode; one in principle and end, but varied in its progress, steps and means: one, when taken absolutely and in general, but two-fold, when taken relatively and particularly, at least in respect to opposite and distinct matters. But in the whole of this course of reasoning, I have used the term grace, in a particular relation, as it is varied in mode, progress, steps and means, and as it is taken relatively and distributively. No equivocation, then, has been used in this; there is no reasoning from general to particular, from the abstract to the concrete.

But, though, all these statements be true, they avail nothing, you affirm, against those who state that mankind in general were regarded in election.

These arguments, indeed, prove that mankind in general could not have been regarded in election, or at least that such was not the case. For if man was considered in general, then he was elected by grace, taken in a general sense. For a general effect requires a general cause. But man was elected, not by grace considered generally, but by grace considered particularly, relatively, and distributively, with reference to the circumstance of sin. If man was considered in general, then he was elected in the Mediator not considered generally, but considered particularly as Redeemer. Therefore, in election, man was not considered in general, but with restriction to the circumstance of sin, which was to be proved. The illustration of the field to be cultivated, is not against this view, indeed it is in its favor. For if a farmer should command his son to cultivate a field, which was overrun with briars, and, therefore, required culture joined with clearing, then the word cultivate, though, when taken in a general sense, it is not restricted to clearing, yet, when applied to that particular field, it necessarily includes that act. Hence we infer, that, if a field cannot be cultivated without the act of clearing, it is, therefore, overrun with briars and weeds, and, by analogy, if a man can not be saved without the act of restoration, he is, therefore, a sinner; for a sinner only is capable of restoration, and restoring grace is adapted only to his case.

TWELFTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

Thirdly, of Non-Election or Preterition. Non-election or preterition is an act of the divine pleasure, by which God from eternity determined not to communicate to some men supernatural happiness, but to bestow on them only natural or animal happiness, if they should live agreeably to nature; — But, in an act of this kind, God has not to do with men considered in a merely natural state; — Therefore, God does not pass by certain men, considered in a merely natural state. The truth of the Minor is proved; —

1. Because there is no natural happiness of this kind, which is the end of man, and his ultimate neither in fact, for there has not been, and there is not a man happy in this sense, nor in possibility, derived from the decree of God considered, either absolutely, for no man will ever be thus happy naturally, or conditionally, for God did not design happiness of this kind for any man on a condition, as the condition must be that of obedience, which God remunerates by supernatural happiness.

2. Because sin is the meritorious cause of that act of the divine pleasure, by which He determined to deny, to some, spiritual or supernatural happiness, resulting from union with Himself and from His dwelling in man.

"Your iniquities have separated between you and your God." (Isaiah 59:2.)

Nor can that denial of happiness to man be considered otherwise than as punishment, which is necessarily preceded by the act of sin, and its appointment by the foresight of future sin. These arguments may be useful also in the discussion of other questions.

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE TWELFTH PROPOSITION

Your definition of non-election or preterition, (which Augustine calls also reelection,) is by no means just, — and this in three respects.

1. Since that, which is made a difference, is not merely an accident. For if the difference of the things defined is only an accident, the definition is not a good one. The essential difference between election and reprobation consists in adoption by Jesus Christ unto God the Father, the accidental consectary of which is supernatural happiness. Ephesians 1, and Romans 8.

2. Because the thing defined is referred, not to its primary end, but to one which is secondary, which is erroneous. The primary end of election is union with God by adoption, but a secondary, and, as we have said, accidental end, is happiness.

3. Because the definition is redundant; for an addition is made of something positive, when you insert, in parentheses, "but to be bestowed," etc., while the definition itself is purely negative. There is also a fault, and even an error in that which is added. For non-election or preterition does not bestow natural happiness, but rather supposes it; God does not, in that act, bestow a gift on those on whom it already has been bestowed. This we remark concerning the Major.

The Minor is denied. God, in this act, has reference to man in general, therefore also, in this mode, He has respect to the same general reference.

Thus you perceive that your whole reasoning is false. To sustain your Minor you use two arguments. The first is designed to confirm that part of the definition, which does not, as we have asserted, belong to definition; therefore, I need not notice it. Yet since you afford the occasion, I shall be permitted to make certain suggestions. The argument denies that there is any "natural happiness of this kind, which is the end of man, and his ultimate." If you speak here of the depraved nature of man, I admit it; for "an evil tree does not bring forth good fruit," much less does it acquire any goodness of itself. If you speak of nature, in its purity, as it was, originally, in Adam, I deny it. For, to undepraved nature, pertained its own future natural happiness, though it was afterwards, so to speak, to be absorbed, by the grace of God, in supernatural happiness. This happiness was the natural design of man and his natural end. Do not all things in nature seek their own good? But since nature seeks not any thing which may not exist, (it is foolish to seek that, which does not exist, even in possibility, and nature, the work of an infinitely wise Architect, is not foolish,) it follows that the good of each thing exists by nature, in possibility, if the thing does not attain to it, and in fact, if the thing does attain to it. But if the condition of natural things is such, consider, I pray you, my brother, how it can be truly said of man that he is deprived of natural felicity, and his natural end, when all things, in nature, are in a different situation. Surely, nature could not be blind, in her most excellent work, and see so clearly in all her other works. But you say that this fact never existed. I admit it, for Adam fell out by the way; but it was to exist in the future. You say that it did not exist "in possibility." This is an error, for God designed it for Adam, on the condition of his remaining in the right way. I prove this from the words of God himself; "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17.) What is death? Is it not privation? What is privation? Is it not of some natural attribute or habit? Adam, then, was deprived of natural life, and of that happy constitution of life, which he obtained in Eden, otherwise he would have remained happy in it, if he had continued in the discharge of duty, until God had fulfilled in him the promise of supernatural life, which was adumbrated to him by the tree of life in the garden of Eden. For, on the contrary, it follows that, if he had not eaten the forbidden fruit, he would not have become mortal, but, with life and sight, he would have been prepared for translation to a higher life.

You affirm that God "remunerates obedience by supernatural happiness." He indeed remunerates obedience in that way, but not in that way alone. Conjunctively, it is true; exclusively, it is false. He remunerates obedience in both ways. For even at the present time, when we are very far removed from the natural condition of Adam, godliness has the

"promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (1 Timothy 4:8.)

I judge that a two-fold idea, namely, of the end and of the mode, has led you into error. You have thought that the only end of man is that which is supernatural. It is very true, that things subordinate are not at variance.

There is a natural end. As nature is subordinate to God, so natural ends are subordinate to those which are supernatural and divine. The end of our nature, so far as it is natural, is this, that it should approach very near to the Divine; so far as it is supernatural, it is that man may be united to God.

To the former, Adam could attain by nature; to the latter, he could be exalted from the former, by grace. You indeed judged that there could be no mode, in which both kinds of happiness should concur. But two things must be observed in this case, one, that natural happiness is a previous preparation, the other that it is a foundation to the supernatural. It is prepared for and previous to it. Unless he had been already happy in nature, even it he had remained without falling, he would not have attained the other happiness, there must have been in him that natural happiness by which he could approach the supernatural. But when he should have in fact, entered into that supernatural felicity, then natural happiness would be the foundation and upon it the consummation would be in supernatural happiness. If perfection is added to perfection, the less is not destroyed, but the increase is made upon the less, as fire is increased by fire, the vegetative faculty by the sentient, and both by the rational. The less rests in the greater as in its own principle, and is more fully perfected by it, as it more fully ceases to be its own, and partakes of the perfection of another.

Thus it will be, in the resurrection of the dead and in eternal life. The nature of man will be both perfected and glorified above the mode of nature. It will so obtain the perfection of nature, as to rest in that divine and supernatural perfection; and nature will not be abolished, but be clothed in a supernatural mode, as the apostle says of the body, in 1 Corinthians 15. These things, however, are merely incidental.

Your second argument may be stated thus: — Sin is the meritorious cause of that negative act; — Man, in a merely natural state, has no sin; — There is not then, in him any meritorious cause. By consequence God has not any cause of that negative act. The whole prosyllogism is admitted, but the inference is denied, because it is made from a particular case. It would indeed be true if the negative act of the Deity resulted only from a meritorious cause, but this position is very far removed from the truth.

The cause of every negative act is either in God or in the creature. The same is true of this act. But the cause of this act is not in the creature. Therefore, it is in God. This prosyllogism will be denied by none. In the will of God alone, exists the cause that you are not an apostle, and that you may not live to the age of Adam or Methuselah. Iniquity in man is the cause that he is far from God, and that God is far from him; namely, in that respect, of which Isaiah spoke. (Isaiah 59:2.) For, in other respects, not only is iniquity a cause, but also the will of God; who, if he would, might remove their iniquity as a cloud, and bring man near to Himself: I prove that the cause of this act is not in the creature, as was said before in the 10th proposition; first, by the authority of Christ in Matthew 25, and of Paul in Romans 8 & 9, and Ephesians 1; secondly, by reason, since even that first sin did not take place, except from the negative act of God, of which negative act sin cannot be the cause, for the same thing cannot be both cause and consequence of another thing. But election and non-election were prior even to the first sin, as we have before demonstrated. A positive and a negative act of God also precede every act of the creature, whether good or bad. For there is no evil act which has not been preceded also by a negative act of the Deity, permitting the evil. Adam and Eve sinned, certainly not without a negative act of God, though there had been committed by them no previous sin, deserving that negation. What, then, was the cause of that negative act if it was not the free will of God? In subsequent sins, however, it may be admitted that sin is, indeed, the meritorious cause, and the free will of God is also a cause; for He destroys even sins, when He wills. He has that power, and if He does not destroy them, it is because He does not will to do it. But those sins which He destroys, can not, though a meritorious cause, produce the negative act of God. You see then, my brother, that sin may be indeed a meritorious cause of that negative act, but not singly or alone or always; therefore, it is not the necessary cause.

Thirdly, by the example of the Angels? What has restrained the holy Angels from evil and confirmed them in good? The positive act of God, that is, the manifestation of Himself in election; for they are elect. What did not restrain the fallen Angels from evil, into which they rushed of their own will? The negative act of God, in non-election or preterition which Augustine also calls reelection. It also belongs to this act of election, that the former were confirmed in good against evil, and to reprobation, that the latter were left, who (as Christ says in John 8.) speak a lie of their own, and commit sin. However, I wish that you would always remember, in this case and in subsequent arguments, that it is not suitable to substitute, for the proper and proximate end, a remote consequence, or event (which is also called in its own mode, an end), namely, supernatural happiness. That it is appropriate and proximate to assert that sin is the meritorious cause of that divine negative act, by which He does not adopt certain men as children unto Himself by Christ, the consectary of which adoption is happiness, is denied, my brother, by nature herself. God begets sons unto Himself according to His own will, not according to their character, whether good as in the case of the elect angels, or bad as in our own case.

He looks upon all, in Christ, not in themselves, that Christ "might be the first-born among many brethren." (Romans 8:29.) In nature, children are begotten by parents, without reference to their future character, and may not God beget his adopted children, without reference to their character? Nature claims the whole for itself in those about to be begotten; may grace claim but a very small part? God forbid.

Of the same nature is the position that "denial of happiness to man cannot be considered otherwise than as punishment." For in the first place, "denial of happiness" is not suitably introduced into the discussion, the subject of which is the denial of adoption, which, as we have said, is the appropriate and proximate end of election. This, then, is not, primarily and per se, the proposition. Again, if the subject of discussion is adoption, the statement is not true; for a denial of adoption is not properly punishment; it is, indeed, previous to punishment, since it is even previous to sin, but it is not, therefore, punishment. Who, indeed, can affirm that the antecedent is the same with its consequent, and that a most remote one? But if, as you think, the statement is made in reference to happiness, it is not, even in that case universally true; for a denial of happiness, on account of sin, is considered as punishment of sin, but a denial of happiness on account of a voluntary arrangement, or of the will only, is not punishment. To Adam, in his primitive state of holiness, God denied supernatural happiness, until he should fulfill his appointed course. That was not punishment to Adam.

To a private individual it is not a punishment that he is not an emperor.

The denial of happiness, is not punishment, then, of itself alone, but of some accident, as a final consequence, (as they say), of the sin of the creature.

The same consideration is fatal to your statement, that "denial of happiness is necessarily preceded by the act of sin." That is true, indeed, of the denial of final happiness, as they style it; but we are now discussing the denial of the principle of happiness, that is, of grace and gratuitous adoption in Christ Jesus. Therefore, though it may be conceded to you, that sin precedes, in fact, that denial, yet this also should be added, that antecedent to sin is particular reelection by God in the beginning and progress of sin, but that the foundation of that particular reelection is non-election,or preterition and reprobation, which we acknowledge to be, not the cause, but the antecedent of sin. So, likewise, your statement is not universally true, that "the appointment of that act is preceded by the foresight of future sin." For that foresight of future sin is both the consequent, and the antecedent of that divine denial; since the divine negative act, (as they call it), precedes the commission of sin, but, as has been before shown, follows that commission by imposing final unhappiness on the sins of men. These answers may also be adapted, in the most complete manner possible, to the arguments which follow.

REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE TWELFTH PROPOSITION

Definition and demonstration are distinguished by their objects. The former, is used for explanation, the latter, for proof: the former, for the discussion of a single question, the latter, for that of a compound question.

But in this case, I did not undertake to explain, but to prove. I therefore, thought I must make use, in my argument, of definition so far as would tend to prove that which I had undertaken to prove, which was the reason that I did not use special effort to adapt my definition of election or preterition to the rules of art. For if what I lay down is on the whole kata< pa>ntov true, even if it do not reach the truth in all respects, kaq o[lou it will be sufficient for me, for the proof which I have proposed to myself.

Hence, even with those substitutions, which you have considered important, my proof remains valid, and therefore, that correction does not seem to be necessary for our purpose. Yet, I must say something concerning that matter. In general, I remark, that you could see that I was treating distinctly of that predestination which is unto glory, not of that which is unto grace, and of that preterition, by which glory was not prepared for some, not of that by which God determined not to communicate grace. This is evident from my eighth proposition. I must then abstain from matters which belong in general to grace and glory.

Among those general matters is adoption as children, for the beginning and progress of which, grace is prepared, and glory for its consummation. Thus you also remark elsewhere in this answer.

I remark particularly, in reference to your corrections to the first; — in adoption and non-adoption consists the essential difference of election at once to grace and to glory, and of reprobation from both. Therefore, that the former difference pertains not to election to glory alone, and the latter, is not of reprobation from glory alone. For a difference of genus can not be a difference of species. Therefore, I ought not in this case to have mentioned adoption unless I wished, in discussing a species, to set forth the genus contrary to the law, referred to above kaq o[lou.

To the second; — I mentioned no end in my definition of election, or rather in the part of the definition which I presented. I did not, indeed, desire to present it in full. For supernatural happiness or glory is not the end, but the material or subject of election, which material, embraced in your Theses in the term blessing, you divide into grace and glory. I know, indeed, that supernatural happiness is not communicated to us, except by an antecedent union of ourselves with God, which is implied in these words from the same proposition, "to deny supernatural happiness, and resulting from the union with Himself, and from His indwelling in man."

But let us notice the definition of preterition contained in your Theses.

"Preterition is an act of the divine pleasure by which God determined, from eternity, to leave certain of His creatures in their own natural state, and not to communicate to them supernatural grace, by which their nature, if unfallen, might be confirmed, and, if fallen, might be restored; for the declaration of the freedom of His goodness." In the phrase "to leave in their own natural state," is comprehended, also, exclusion from supernatural happiness, or it is not. If not, the definition is incomplete. I think, however, that you designed to include, also, that idea, otherwise your Theses are imperfect, as they treat of the predestination by which grace and glory are prepared for the elect, but nowhere of the negative act by which God does not appoint glory for the non-elect, if not in those words. Yet, even in those words, according to your idea, that preterition, by which God does not determine to bestow glory on any one, can not be included. For you define preterition (Thesis 14) to be "contrary to the preparation of grace." But the preparation of punishment is an affirmative act, by which He appoints punishment for the sinner, opposed, not negatively, but affirmatively to the preparation of glory. When, therefore, I wished to describe preterition or non-election, so far as it is an act by which God does not determine to bestow glory on some persons, it seemed proper that I should, in some measure, keep in your track, in that, you nowhere, in your definition of preterition, mention exclusion from adoption and union with God.

To the third; — It is manifest that what is inserted, in parenthesis, was added for the sake of explanation, and does not come within the order or relation of the definition, like the other statements. I do not, however see, that even those statements are false or faulty, though they may be related, in the mode which you consider them, to that definition. For they mark, not an affirmation, but a negative act, and there is emphasis in the word (tantum) which marks the negative. To will the bestowment of natural happiness is an affirmative act, but to will only that bestowment is a negative act, for it excludes all other happiness, which He does not determine to bestow. Also, what is that act by which God determines to bestow only natural happiness, if not preterition or neglect. If to leave in a natural state is a negative act, and otherwise your definition of non-election, which considers it as opposed negatively to predestination, is erroneous, I do not see how those words "to bestow only supernatural happiness," do not designate a negative act. If you explain it so as to distinguish, in this case, the two acts, one, that by which God determined to bestow natural happiness, the other, that by which He determined to bestow only that, and not some other kind of happiness, then I acknowledge that the former, as an affirmative act, does not pertain to this decree of preterition. But we have never discussed that kind of happiness.

It might, then, have been easily understood that I used those words so as to note a negative act, that of the non-bestowment of any happiness other than natural. When I was writing those words, I thought of using the phrase "to leave" in imitation of you, but judged that it would be unsuitable as presupposing that the bestowment was already made, and I considered that supernatural happiness was not yet bestowed, but to be bestowed, if man should live in obedience. In which I have also your assent, as is manifest from your answer to my third proposition, at the end. The definition, therefore, remains, and there is nothing in it to be blamed, for which there can not be found apology in the example of your Theses, which I have constantly had before my eyes in this discussion.

That this may be made more plain, I will compare your definition with mine. You thus define the preterition by which grace is denied: "Preterition is an act of the divine pleasure, by which God, from eternity, determined to leave some of His creatures in their natural state, and not to communicate to them supernatural grace, by which their nature, if unfallen, may be confirmed, and, if fallen, may be restored, to the declaration of the freedom of His own goodness." If I define the preterition by which glory is denied, analogically according to the form of your definition, it will be like this. "Preterition is an act of the divine pleasure, by which God, from eternity, determined to leave some of His creatures in their natural state and not to communicate to them supernatural happiness, or glory, by which their natural happiness may be absorbed, or into which their ignominy may be changed, to the declaration of the freedom of His own goodness." In this definition, I have proposed that which was sufficient for my purpose; with no evasion, since, the other adjuncts are neither to the advantage, nor to the disadvantage of my argument. Therefore, the Major of my syllogism is true, even if it would not be true, as a complete definition and reciprocally. For a conclusion can be proved from a Major, which is on the whole kata< pa>ntov true.

I come now to the Minor, which I proved by two arguments. The first is not refuted by you, as it is proposed in a mutilated condition, and so it is changed into something else. For I did not deny that natural happiness was prepared for man, but I added "which is, the design and end of man," in which words, I meant not that it alone, but that it also was prepared, but on this condition that it would be absorbed by the supernatural happiness, which should follow. I wish that the explanation, which I add, may be thus understood; namely, that natural happiness, could, neither in fact nor in possibility, occur to man, as the design of man and his end. For God promised to man, on condition of obedience, not only natural but also supernatural happiness. In which, since, I have also your assent, I conclude my proposition thus. God does not will to bestow upon any man, considered in his original natural state, natural happiness alone, as the end and design of man, to the exclusion of supernatural happiness.

Therefore, God passed by no one, considered in his original natural state.

For whether preterition is the act by which God does not determine to bestow supernatural happiness on any one, or that by which He determines to bestow natural happiness, which I think that you concede, it is equally to my purpose.

I prove the antecedent in this way. All men are considered in Adam, on equal terms, whether in their original natural sate, or in a state of sin, unless some difference is introduced by the will of God. But I deny that any difference was made in respect to man’s original state, and you confirm the first reason for that denial, when you say that both kinds of happiness were prepared for man. Again, that, which God, by His providence, has prepared for man, is not denied to him by preterition, the opposite of election, unless from the foresight that he would not attain to it, under the guidance of providence, but would turn aside freely, and of his own accord. But God prepared for the first man, and in him, for all men, supernatural felicity, for He bestowed on him means sufficient for its attainment; with the additional aid of divine grace, (if this was also necessary in that state,) which is not denied to any man unless he first forsakes God.

Your opinion that I have been led into an error, by a two fold idea, namely, that of the end and the mode, and that I thought that a single end only was before mankind, is incorrect, for my words do not, of themselves, imply this. I made a plain distinction between the subordinate ends, when I mentioned natural felicity, which I denied was the end of man and his ultimate. I, therefore, conceded that natural happiness belongs to man, otherwise there would have been no necessity of the addition of the statement that this does not belong to him as the end of man, and his ultimate, that is, as that, beyond which nothing further can happen to man.

Does not he, who admits that natural happiness pertains to man, but not as the end of man and his ultimate, acknowledge a two fold end of man, one subordinate, namely, natural happiness, and the other final, which is the end and ultimate of man, namely, supernatural happiness? I do not, however, think that it can be said truly that happiness is the end and ultimate of man. Your additional remarks, concerning the order of natural and supernatural happiness, I approve, as truthful and learned; but they are, as you admit, "merely incidental," and do not affect the substance of my argument.

My second argument is also valid, but it should be arranged correctly, thus; — An act of the divine pleasure by which God determined to deny to any man spiritual or supernatural blessedness, depends on a meritorious cause, which is sin; Preterition is such an act; — Therefore preterition depends on sin as its meritorious cause. The reason for the Major is contained in these words, "that denial of happiness can not be considered otherwise than as punishment," but it is necessarily preceded by sin, as its proper cause, according to the mode of merit. From this it follows that God can not have reference in that act to men, considered in a merely natural state, without reference to sin.

I will briefly sustain the Major, and the reason assigned for it, and then examine your answer. I prove the Major thus: That which the Providence of God has prepared for man, under a condition, is not denied to him, except on the non-performance or the violation of the condition. But God, by His Providence, prepared supernatural happiness for man, etc. Again, the passage from Isaiah plainly shows that God would not have deserted the Jews, if they had not merited it by their "iniquities." The reason, assigned for the Major, I sustain in this manner: Whatever is contrary to the blessing of happiness, prepared, promised, and therefore conditionally due to man, as made in the image of God, cannot be considered otherwise than as punishment. A denial of supernatural happiness is contrary to the blessing of happiness, prepared for man, as such, for even supernatural happiness was prepared for him as such. Therefore its denial is punishment. Again, there is no passage of Scripture, I assert it confidently, from which it can be shown that such denial is or can be considered otherwise than in the relation of punishment, than as it is prepared only for sinners. For we have stated, with truth, that punitive justice has place only in reference to sinners.

I proceed to examine your answer. In my syllogism the inference is not "made from a particular case." For that negative act of God, now under discussion, only exists in view of a meritorious cause, that is, it does not exist except in view of that cause, and that act of God would not exist, if that cause did not exist. The particle "only" does not amount to an exclusion of the will of God. For it is certain that sin is not, in fact the cause of punishment, except as the will of God, who wills to punish sin according to its merit, otherwise he can remove sin, and remit its punishment. How indeed could you suppose that he, who made sin the meritorious cause of punishment, wished to exclude the will of God, when the very nature of meritorious cause requires another cause also, which may estimate merit, and inflict punishment in proportion as it is merited. I acknowledge that the cause of every negative act does not exist in man, nor have I made that statement, for why should I needlessly enter into the general discussion of this matter. My subject is the act of preterition or non-election, by which God denies supernatural happiness to man, and I affirm that the cause of this is in and of man, so far, that without the existence of this cause, that act would never be performed. But you argue that the cause of this act does not exist in man. First, by authority, then by reason, finally by example. I deny that proof is contained in the passages, cited as authority. Let it be shown in what sense, these are the antecedents, from which this consequence may be deduced. We have previously examined those passages, so far as the necessity of the subject required.

Your argument from reason is not more conclusive. You say that the "first sin did not take place, except from the negative act of God," also "a positive and a negative act of God also precede every act of the creature," and "there is no evil act, which has not been preceded also by a negative act of the Deity, permitting the evil. I concede all those points, if rightly understood. But an affirmative statement, reasoning from the general to the specific, is not valid, unless a mark of universality is added. Many negative acts of the Deity precede the act of sin; therefore, also the negative act of preterition precedes sin. I deny the sequence. The controversy concerns that very act. The first sin results from a negative act of God, but not from the act of preterition. A positive and a negative act precede every act of the creature, but not the act of election and that of preterition. You affirm that election and non-election are prior to sin. To sin, as existing in fact, I admit, but not to sin, as foreseen. That point, however, has been previously discussed. But you affirm that the free will of God is the cause also of this negative act. Who denies it? It is indeed within the scope of God’s free will, either to punish or to remit sin, but neither is necessary, even though sin has been committed, (that is, since God is "in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself,") but neither is possible unless sin has been committed. The will of God is, in the most complete sense, free, as the cause of creation, the cause of glorification, the cause of condemnation.

But He creates those non-existing; He glorifies those created and existing, and, indeed, called and justified; He condemns only sinners, and those, who die in their sins. There is, then, no limitation placed on the freedom of God, even if we consider sin as antecedent, and necessarily so, to that negative act of God. You see, then, that sin is the meritorious, cause, which necessarily precedes that negative act of God; and that I have reasoned correctly from that cause, necessarily antecedent, that God, in that negative act of preterition, has reference only to sinners.

That the example of the angels, in this case, is not analogous, I show in a word. You say that "the negative act of God, in non-election or preterition, which Augustine also calls reelection, did not restrain the fallen angels from evil." But I affirm that the negative act of God, by which man is not restrained from evil, but permitted to fall into sin, is not the act of preterition, but a negative act of providence, and I prove, by two arguments, that this is distinguished from predestination. If it is by the negative act of preterition, then all are passed by, for all have sinned. Also, if it is the negative act of preterition, then all men have sinned irretrievably, and without hope of pardon and remission, as in the case of the angels who sinned. I add a third consideration, that an act of election, opposed at the same time to preterition, must have place here, in respect to certain individuals; but there is not and can not be such an act, in this case, since all men are comprehended under that preterition. There is a great difference between the negative act, by which God left man to his own counsel, and the negative act of preterition, which is to be here considered. Nor do I think that it is of much importance to this subject that, for non-adoption, as the proper and proximate end, I have substituted, the remote consequence, the absence of supernatural happiness. For, in addition to the fact that adoption, in your Theses already often cited, occupies the place of form not of end, I affirm that, in the negative act, by which He did not will adoption for any man, God could not, or, at least, did not have reference to any except sinners.

But you say that "God begets sons unto Himself according to His own will." He does this, however, from among sinful men. "He looks," you say, "upon all in Christ, not in themselves." Therefore, I affirm, He considers them as sinners, not in themselves, as having, in themselves, any reason that He should regard them, but in themselves, as in need of being considered in Christ as Mediator of such character. "May not God," you ask, "beget His adopted children without reference to their character?" I admit that He may, without such reference to them as may influence God to beget them, not without such reference to them, that, not generation, but regeneration may be necessary to them. Grace claims for itself the whole in generation, but more strongly claims the whole in regeneration. But that God begets sons to Himself from among men, the word generation being used in any other sense than that of regeneration, I consider contrary both to theology and to Scripture. The subject, however, of discussion is adoption according to the decree of God.

Let us now consider the position, by which I strengthened my argument. I said that the "denial of happiness to man can not be considered otherwise than as punishment. I said "denial of happiness" not "of adoption." For I am, here, discussing the denial of glory, not of grace; but non-adoption, either alone or also, pertains to the latter. I wish, however, that it might be shown in what mode a denial of adoption to a man, made in the image of God, has not the nature of punishment, and is not caused by sin. You indeed affirm that it is previous to punishment, since it is previous even to sin. I deny both parts of the assertion. It belongs to him, who makes an assertion, to prove it, but I, though denying the assertion, will give the reason of my denial, to show the strength of my cause. He, who is made in the image of God, as Luke says of Adam, "which was the Son of God," (chap. 3:38,) is, by the grace of creation, the son of God. But Adam was, not begotten, but created, "the son of God," as said in the marginal note of Beza’s Testament. That, which any one has by the gift of creation, is not taken from him, unless the demerit of sin precedes, according to the justice of God. Supernatural happiness, whether it is bestowed on condition of obedience to law, or according to the condition of the covenant of grace, is always to be considered in the relation of an inheritance; but it was promised to Adam, on the condition of obedience; therefore, Adam was then considered as the Son of God. Filiation, then, could not be denied to him except on account of sin and disobedience. But the subject, of which I was treating, was denial of happiness.

You assert, that denial of happiness, considered in general, is not punishment, since that, which exists on account of a voluntary arrangement of God, is not punishment. I wish that you would show that any denial of supernatural happiness is according to voluntary arrangement of God, apart from the consideration of sin. You remark, in proof of your assertion, that "to Adam God denied supernatural happiness, until he should fulfill his appointed course. That was not punishment to Adam." I reply, the term, denial of supernatural happiness is ambiguous; it may be either final or temporary. The former is peremptory, the latter is conditional. That, of which we treat, is final and peremptory. The decree of predestination and preterition is peremptory, and that, which is prepared for or denied to any one, according to that decree, he will finally enjoy, or want. But you treat of temporary denial, "until he should fulfill his appointed course," according to the rule of divine justice, and of denial, on the consideration that he should not live according to the requirement of God, — which denial belongs to the just providence of God, in contra-distinction to predestination and preterition. Indeed what you call a denial, can not be so called except in catachrestic sense. For how shall he be said to deny happiness to any one, who has promised it on a certain condition? You concede, however, that sin is antecedent to the denial of final happiness. But preterition or non-election is a denial of final happiness.

Therefore, sin is antecedent to preterition. You say that it should be stated in addition "that antecedent to sin is particular abandonment by God, in the beginning and progress of sin, the foundation of which abandonment is non-election, or preterition and reprobation." I concede that abandonment by God was antecedent to sin, so far that God left man in the power of his own purposes; but it is not particular, but universal, in respect to the beginning of sin, for in that abandonment he left Adam, and, in him, all men; hence preterition can not be the foundation of that abandonment. For all mankind were left, in the beginning of sin. In respect to its progress, it may be called particular, for He freed some from sin and left others in sin; and non-election or preterition may be called the foundation of this abandonment, since some were left in the progress of sin, others being freed from sin by the gratuitous election of God, which is the direct opposite of preterition. Hence it follows that it can not be rightly said that preterition or non-election is the antecedent of sin, since it is only the antecedent of the progress of that which has already been perpetrated, and, indeed, its cause, by a denial of that which prevents the progress of sin, namely, grace. I affirm that it is universally true that the foresight of sin precedes the appointment of that negative act by which he does not determine to bestow felicity on an individual. For the act of preterition does not precede commission of sin, as has been already frequently shown.

Sin, which is common to all men, does not result from that negative act which discriminates among men, but from a negative act common to all men. Preterition is a negative act, not common to all men, but discriminating among them. Therefore, preterition is not an act antecedent to sin. So my arguments are confirmed against your answers; they may, therefore, also be available for the decision of the other questions.

THIRTEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

The second question, referring to the preparation of grace, and its opposite, preterition, is not, whether God designed to bestow saving grace only on some persons, and those considered in certain relations, and did not design to bestow it on others, for this is very manifest from the Scriptures, in many passages. But the question is, whether God, in the act of predestination and its opposite, preterition, had reference to men, considered in a natural condition. I have not been able to persuade myself, either from the writings of Thomas Aquinas, or from those of the advocates of his views, that this question is to be answered affirmatively.

My reasons for answering it negatively, are these: —

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE THIRTEENTH PROPOSITION

I have previously stated that divine election and non-election have reference to men in general, and this is very true. The phrase, "merely natural state," is ambiguous. The question before us, then, is not, whether election has reference only to men, considered in a natural condition, (as you understand that phrase,) if one attends closely to the subject. This is rather the question, whether it also has reference to men, so considered.

We answer this affirmatively. Indeed, though it differs, in phraseology, from the first theory, yet we think that, in fact, it is very much in harmony with it, since this particular relation was added neither by Thomas Aquinas, nor by others, that the relations, previously noticed, might be excluded, but only that, in this argument, a consideration of sin, as a cause, might be excluded. Yet, let us examine your arguments as they are presented.

THE REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE THIRTEENTH PROPOSITION

That man, considered in general, is the object of the decree of which we treat, has not yet been made clear to me from your answers. Indeed I have proved from many arguments, adduced, as opportunity has been offered, that a general consideration of man has no place in that decree, and I shall prove the same by other arguments, as there may be occasion. Concerning the state of the question, as you propose it, I will not contend with you.

Let the question be as you state it, whether God, in the decree of predestination and reprobation, has reference also to men, considered in a merely natural state. I maintain the negative. Not only does the affirmative of this question please you, but, from your Theses and other writings, you seem to me to incline to it so strongly that you seem even to have proposed the affirmative of the former theory. For if He, who predestinates and passes by, did not consider man as a sinner, then He did consider him as created among those things, on which He imposed certain conditions, or as not created, or as to be created. But let these remarks suffice. I have every where denied, and still deny, that God, in the act of predestination and of preterition, had reference also to men, considered in a merely natural state; but I assert that He had reference only to men, as considered in their sins. Concerning the difference between the first and second theory, we have already spoken.

FOURTEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

First, because Adam and, in him, all men were created in a state of supernatural grace, hence no one could be considered in a merely natural state. The antecedent is proved, because all were created in Adam after the image and likeness of God; but that is supernatural grace, as has been said: secondly, the law, which was given to Adam, was enacted for all, which is evident from the fact that all sinned in Adam, and became guilty of transgression. But that law could not be obeyed without supernatural grace, which I prove from the subject of the law, from the appendix of the law, from the instigator of transaction, and from the mode of instigation.

The law required obedience towards God, that man should live, not according to man, but according to God, which life is not animal, but spiritual, and its cause in man is supernatural grace. The appendix of the law consisted in the threatening of temporal and spiritual death, that of the body and of the soul. Punishment, which is spiritual and opposed, not only to animal, but also to spiritual good, ought not to be annexed, in equity, to a law which can be observed without supernatural grace; especially when the same law, if observed, could not afford supernatural or spiritual good, since it can be observed without supernatural grace. It seems unjust that the transgression of a law should deserve eternal and spiritual death, but its observance could not obtain eternal and spiritual life from God, on the terms of divine goodness and justice. The instigator was Satan, whose design was to cast down man, by transgression, to death, not only of the body, but of the soul, and when man could only resist through supernatural grace. The mode of temptation was such that it could not be successfully resisted by man, if destitute of supernatural grace.

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE FOURTEENTH PROPOSITION

Your antecedent, namely, "Adam and in him all men were created in a state of supernatural grace," is ambiguous. Again, it can not be proved, as we have shown, in answer to the tenth proposition. The consequent is denied, and is also ambiguous. Since I have previously discussed both of these points, I come now to the arguments. The proof from the image of God, 150 was related in the same answer, and it was shown that it was not supernatural of itself; but that it had relation and adjustment to supernatural grace, not of nature or its own essence, but by the arrangement of grace. This argument, therefore, now, as before, is denied.

The first position in the second argument, is not to be admitted without some distinction, for one law, given to Adam, was general; the other particular. The general law, namely, that which is natural and joined to the natural, was enacted for all. This was by no means true of the particular law. The latter was that he should not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is not credible that this law, which was one of particular requisition should have been enacted for all; it is not credible that, if all had remained unfallen, they would have come into Eden to that tree, that their obedience should be tested.

The Scripture, also, does not make this statement. We concede the second position in reference to the universal law, not in that the law was natural, but in that the nature of man itself and the natural law, was adjusted to grace. The natural, as such, was within the capability of man; as it was related and adjusted to grace, it could not be observed without supernatural grace. In reference to the special law, the second position is erroneous. For the mere act of eating or not eating of any fruit, is natural. The power to eat or abstain from that fruit, was, in fact, possessed by man, though these acts were not both left with him by the requisition and arrangement of the special law declared by God. Therefore the second point is, in this case, erroneous, for it was possible for him not to choose, not to touch, not to eat the fruit, as it was to do the contrary. This was of natural power (which possessed full vigor) in a natural subject. To establish this point, you adduce four arguments, all pertaining to the mode of general law. I will briefly examine each in order. The first argument pertains to general law, both as it is natural and as it is adjusted to grace. We concede, then, that the affirmative is true of general law, but deny it as to the particular law, by which God required obedience in a particular matter, and in one merely natural or animal. It pertained to natural power to abstain from or to eat that fruit; it pertained to natural will to avoid the experiment of sin and death, of which God had forewarned them. God tested the obedience of man in a matter merely natural, and in the same thing he miserably renounced obedience to God, of his own will, not by any necessity. He had then no just ground of complaint that God should hold him responsible, because, in a matter of no difficulty, and according to nature, he did not willingly render due obedience unto the Lord, but preferred, to His word, the word of the serpent in the case of Eve, and that of his wife in the case of Adam.

You will perhaps say that he would not have committed that transgression, if grace had been bestowed upon him. Must you, then, always require grace, and make it ground of accusation, if it is not bestowed, even in a matter which is natural, and, indeed, merely natural? God bestowed a natural constitution on Adam, for this very reason, that in a matter merely natural, he might use his natural powers. He gave that which was sufficient. Do you demand more? I quote, on this point, the words of Tertullian (lib. 2 advers. Marcion, cap. 7.) "If God bestowed upon man the freedom of the will and power to act, and bestowed it suitably, He undoubtedly, according to His authority as Creator, bestowed them to be enjoyed, but to be enjoyed, so far as depended upon Himself; in accordance with His own character, that is ‘after God,’ that is according to goodness, (for who would grant any permission against himself,); but so far as depended upon man, according to the motions of his freedom. Who, indeed, bestowing on a person any thing to be enjoyed, does not so bestow it, that it may be enjoyed according to his mind and will? It was, therefore, a consequence that God should not interfere with the liberty once granted to man, that is, that He should retain in Himself the action of His prescience and prepotency, by which He could have intervened, so that man should not fall into danger, in attempting to enjoy his own freedom, in an evil mode. For had He thus intervened, He would have rescinded the freedom of the will, which, in reason and goodness, He had bestowed.

Then let it be supposed that he had intervened, that He had destroyed the freedom of the will, by calling him back from the tree by not permitting the tempting serpent to converse with the woman, would not Marcion exclaim, O futile, unstable, unfaithful Lord, rescinding that which He had established! Why did he bestow the freedom of the will, if He must interfere with it? Why did He interfere, if He bestowed it? Let Him then choose the point in which He shall charge Himself with error, whether in its bestowment, or in its rescission, etc."

Your statement, that "supernatural grace is the cause of spiritual life in man," we believe to be most certainly true, and we avow the same thing.

Yet there was one mode of spiritual life in Adam, and there is another mode in us, in whom supernatural grace alone produces this life, while Adam had, together with this grace, the image of God unimpaired and uncorrupted, and therefore had spiritual life in both modes, the natural and supernatural. But these things will be introduced, appropriately, in another place.

Your second argument, from the appendix of the law, is plainly in the same condition. This seems to be its scope. If God, in the case of election and reprobation, had reference to men considered in a merely natural state, (that is, with the same ambiguity, and on the supposition which we have denied above,) He would not have ordained spiritual punishment, opposed not only to animal, but is spiritual good, for transgression of a law, which might be observed without supernatural grace; for it is in accordance with equity (which point was also regarded in the law of the twelve tables) that the punishment should be adapted to the crime; — But God ordained punishment of this kind; — Therefore, He did not have reference to men, considered in a natural condition. In reference to the antecedent of the Major, I will say nothing; I have already spoken often on that point. The consequent is denied. It would be true, if both sins or evil deeds and their punishments were estimated only from the deed (which the law forbids), and according to its kind. But there are many other things, by which the gravity of offenses is usually, and most justly estimated; the author of the law, the author of the crime, its object, end, and circumstances. We must consider the author of the law, for the authority of a law, enacted by an emperor, is greater than that of one, enacted by a tribune, of one imposed by God, than of one imposed by man. The author of the crime, whether he commands it, or personally commits it. For a crime is greater which is committed through the persuasion of an enemy, than one committed through that of a master or father. The same distinction may be applied to the personal commission of sin. The object, for an offense, against a parent, is more heinous than against a stranger, against one’s self and family, than against a person not thus connected, against God than against man. The end, for it is a greater sin, if you transgress a law with an unimportant end or no end in view, than if the same thing is done of necessity, if with all unworthy and wicked design than if with a worthy and good design.

What shall I say in reference to circumstances? What I have already said is, in my judgment, sufficient. But he, who transgresses the law of God, is guilty of these aggravating particulars, of which even the first, alone, is sufficient for the infliction, with the utmost justice, of spiritual punishment. Should he regard lightly the legislator, God? Adding the second, should he listen to an enemy, the enemy of God, and of his race, and of the universe, Should he, the recent workmanship of God, and the tenant of Paradise, transgress the recent commandment of God, Adding the third particular, should he rush forward against himself, his family, and God, not ignorantly, but with due warning? Do not these, my brother, seem to you to be cases of the greatest aggravation? Are they not worthy of bodily and spiritual punishment? As in general, so in special or particular law, the same rule is to be observed. The law was particular, and that in a natural requirement, which man could perform naturally, as we have before said. Here perhaps, you will say, that it is improper that supernatural punishment should be imposed in reference to a natural offense. But consider all those things which I have just said. Man transgressed the law of God, from which he has just received the blessings of nature and of grace, and to whom he owed all things as his Supreme Ruler. He transgressed by the persuasion of the Devil, the public and sworn enemy of God, of the universe, and of the human race, to listen to whom, once only, is to renounce God. At the time of his transgression, he was the recent work of God, the heir of all natural and supernatural good, the inhabitant of Paradise, the foster-child of heaven, the lord of all things, servant of God alone. Man transgressed, using violence against himself, and bringing sin and death, and all evils upon himself and his posterity, dishonoring God in himself, though forewarned by the God of truth, and prescient, in his own mind, of coming evil. He transgressed in a matter, most trivial, entirely unnecessary, of the least importance, when he really abounded in the blessings of the whole world, and this with a most unworthy and plainly impious design, that he might be like God, "knowing good and evil." How could he, who was not faithful and obedient in a matter of the least importance, be faithful in one of great importance, He transgressed in a beastly manner, served his belly and appetite, blind to all things belonging to heaven and earth, except the flame of lust, wickedly placed before his eyes, deaf to all things except the voice of the devil. Here, if we please to glance at other circumstances, how many and how strong arguments exist for most just though most severe damnation! Truly, was that, in many respects, an infinite fall, which brought infinite ruin.

But should any one affirm, that it was an unworthy thing that man should be condemned for so small a matter, let him consider these two things; first, it was an unworthy thing that man, in "so small a matter," should disobey the mandate of his Supreme Ruler, of the author of nature, of grace, and of his salvation; secondly, it is not a small matter, which was ordained for the manifestation of due obedience in natural things, and as a just method of the perception of supernatural blessings. God willed that Adam should, by this sign, manifest his religious and voluntary obedience in natural things, and in this way suitably exert himself to attain supernatural blessings. Does this seem a small matter, when he acted contrary to the will of God, and to all natural and supernatural blessings in a thing of so little importance?

But, to proceed; do you think, my brother, that this punishment can be inflicted on man more justly, if considered in his fallen state, than if considered in his natural condition, This is the amount of your argument. I have not indeed hesitated to affirm the contrary. I say that the sin of Adam was more heinous, because he sinned when unfallen, than if he had sinned, as a fallen being. Consider the simple fact in the case of man. You will, I know, declare that it was a more unworthy thing that man, in a state of integrity, should become the slave of sin, than if, in a sinful state, he should fall into sin. It is, therefore, more just that Adam, at the time of that transgression, should be considered as unfallen, than in reference to the fall which afterwards supervened. This illustrates the truth of the righteousness of God. As to your statement, "it seems unjust that the transgression could deserve eternal and spiritual death, etc." I wonder, indeed, that it could have been made by you. For you are not ignorant that the law of God, whether general or particular, is the appointment of the present course according to which we both worship God in the discharge of duty, and reach the goal of supernatural grace. As a traveler, to whom his Lord has prescribed the mode of his journey, if he departs from the prescribed path, by the same act renounces both his journey and its goal, by his own sin, but if he remains in the path, he performs his duty, thus I judge that it was necessary that Adam should be treated. The unhappy traveler left the right path. Did he not, therefore, also renounce the good which God had graciously set before him? If he had remained in the path he certainly would have attained the goal, of grace, not of merit. How, not of merit? Because, by not keeping the path, the servant loses both his way and his life, as the proper cause of his own evil, but by keeping the way, he obtains life, as the result of his journey. Life is proposed, of grace, not of merit, both to the obedient and to the disobedient, as the result of pursuing the right path. In this way the obedient obtains grace, and the disobedient is the cause to himself that he does not obtain grace, and, by his own act, forfeit the life, which depends on that grace.

The third argument, from the instigator of the transgression, and the fourth, from the mode of temptation, are disposed of in the same answer.

The third argument is this; "man could resist the Devil only through supernatural grace; therefore the law could not be observed without supernatural grace" — and the fourth; "the mode of temptation was such that it could not be successfully resisted by man, if destitute of supernatural grace; therefore, the law could not be observed without supernatural grace."

In the first place, though I should admit both arguments, in reference to general law according to our previous distinction, yet we might, with propriety, deny their validity in reference to that particular law, which enjoined a natural act, situated properly and absolutely within the capability of nature, for it is as truly natural not to eat that which is bad in its nature or effect, as it is to eat that which is good. It was then within the capability of man not to sin, for the refusal or neglect to eat was in the capability of man, of his own natural power.

In the second place, we must make a distinction in reference to both those arguments, even when referred to the general law of God, concerning that which is called supernatural grace. For, as in nature, the work of Providence is threefold, to sustain a thing as to its existence, to govern it as to its action, and to protect or preserve it as it may be liable to destruction, so also in the pious, the work of grace is threefold, for it is accustomed to sustain, and to govern, and to protect them. It always sustains, because inherent and common grace is permanent, but it rules and protects, or preserves when and as it chooses; for this act, as it is assisting and not inherent, is particular, and the free act of variable grace. This distinction having been stated, we thus judge concerning these arguments. Man was never without supernatural grace, either inherent or habitual: he was not without assisting grace, except in that particular act, in which God did not govern, did not preserve, because it was an act of nature, which must be tested in its own mode, which has been allotted to it by the infinite wisdom of God. For, as Tertullian says — God retired, from the administration not of all grace, but of supernatural grace from the time when he said to man,

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it," (Genesis 2:16 and 17,)

and committed the whole matter, of compact and solely, to the nature of man." Indeed he wholly transferred to the will of man, according to the law of his nature, the power to render or not to render obedience in all matters pertaining to nature. But "he could not resist the devil, and the mode of the temptation was irresistible." This is denied; for if he could, according to his nature, refrain from eating of the forbidden fruit, he could, in this, resist the devil, and the mode of the temptation was not irresistible. He could refrain from eating, because that was, in the simplest sense, natural, and, by compact, as we have just said, was placed in the power of man. But he did not refrain from eating, certainly, because he did not wish to do so, but he willingly consented to the temptation, concerning which point, we have already under Prop. 9 noticed the opinion of Augustine.

In the observance of general law, the case is different, cause, as we have before said, the law operates on nature and adjusts nature to the supernatural, and it could not be observed, nor indeed could the devil be resisted, without supernatural grace.

REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE FOURTEENTH PROPOSITION

My object, in the arguments which I now present, is to prove that Adam, and in him, all the human race, were created in a state of supernatural grace, that is, that in their original condition they had, not only natural attributes, but also supernatural grace, either by the act of creation or superinfusion.

From which I conclude, that God, in the act of predestination, and preterition or reprobation, could consider no one in a merely natural state.

My first argument is taken from the nature of the divine image, to which or in which man was created. Another argument is deduced from the law, which was imposed on Adam, and on all men in him, which I assert, was not to be observed without supernatural grace. The former argument was discussed in my reply to the answer to the tenth Proposition, and I refer to what was then stated.

We will now consider the latter, and, in the first place, its Major, which supposes that the law, given to Adam, was enacted for all men, with the addition, as proof, of the fact that all men have sinned in Adam, and become partakers of his transgression. You discuss this Major Proposition, without reference to the proof. I notice the mode in which you assail the former, and what force is possessed by the latter for its confirmation. You make a distinction in the law, imposed on Adam, and regard it as having a two-fold relation, first, as common and natural; second, as particular. You say that the former was enacted for all men, the latter, not for all men. I agree with what you say concerning common or general law, and shall hereafter make use of it to confirm my own proposition. I do not, in all respects, assent to what you say concerning particular law. The law, concerning the forbidden tree, had, in part, a particular reference, and in part, a general one. For it is symbolical, and consists, therefore, of two parts, the symbol and that signified by it. The symbol was abstinence from the forbidden tree; the thing signified was abstinence from disobedience and evil, and the trial of obedience. So far as abstinence from disobedience and evil was prescribed by that law, it was a general law. But as the law required an observance of a symbolical character, it must be considered in a two fold light, either as prescribing symbolical observance in general, or the observance of that particular symbol. So far as the law should prescribe the observance of any symbol, in general, to test the obedience of man, it would, to that extent, be general.

For God would have determined to test the obedience of all men by some symbol, either this one or some other, if it had been their lot to be born in a state of integrity. I prove this first from the fact that He purposed that the condition of all men should be the same with that of Adam, if they should be born in the state in which Adam was created, in respect to the image of God. Secondly, it was most suitable that the experiment of obedience should be made in a matter which was indifferent; but a law, which commands or forbids any thing indifferent is symbolical and ceremonial.

But, so far as the observance, prescribed by the law, had reference to that particular symbol, namely, abstinence from the fruit of the forbidden tree, it can, in one sense, be called general, and in another, it may be particular.

It was general as prescribed to Adam and Eve, the parents and social head of the human race, in whom, as in its origin and root, was then contained the whole human race. It was particular, as prescribed to the same persons as individuals, and as it, perhaps, would not have been imposed on other human beings, if they had, at that time, been born, and considered in themselves, and not in their first parents. I say perhaps; for you know that there are those who think, that if the first human beings had maintained their integrity, that their descendants would have been born and would have dwelt in Paradise, and this idea has some probability. For if that earthly paradise was a symbol of the heavenly kingdom, as seems probable from the fact that the third heaven, the residence of the blessed, is called, in the Scripture, paradise, it is most probable that no one of the human race would have been excluded from that paradise on earth, if he had not first rendered himself worthy of the heavenly paradise. This point may, however, be left without decision.

That the law (to come to the argument of my Major) which Adam transgressed, was enacted for all men, I proved by an irrefragable argument, which you passed by. "Sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4.)

The law can not be transgressed by him for whom it was not enacted.

Hence that law, which Adam transgressed, was enacted for all who are said to have sinned in him. But that law was the same which is called particular by you. More briefly; the law, which all men transgressed in Adam was enacted for all men. But all men transgressed, in Adam, the law concerning the forbidden tree. For against no other law is Adam said to have sinned, and, indeed, we are all said to be guilty of the sin committed against that law. Therefore that law was enacted for all men. In whatever respect, then, it is considered, it is equally in my favor, and is equally adapted to sustain my sentiment.

I come now to the Minor. "But that law could not be obeyed without supernatural grace." You grant this in reference to the general law, you deny it concerning that in which the eating of the fruit of that tree was forbidden. I may assent to your position for the sake of the argument, and from that position sustain my proposition. A law which can not be observed without supernatural grace, should be imposed only on those to whom supernatural grace has been given by God; — But that general law could not be observed without supernatural grace; — Therefore, it should be imposed only on those to whom supernatural grace was given by God.

It was imposed on Adam, and, in him, upon all men. Therefore, Adam, and, in him, all men, had supernatural grace. Therefore, they could not be considered in their natural condition by God in the act of predestination and reprobation. This might suffice for my purpose. I affirm, however, that even the particular law concerning the forbidden tree could not be obeyed without supernatural grace, not indeed so far as the external act of abstinence from the fruit of that tree was prescribed, but as, under that symbol, obedience was commanded, and it was enjoined on man to live not according to man, but according to God. This you acknowledge when you say that "these acts" (eating and abstaining), "were not both left with him by the requisition and arrangement of the special law declared by God, though the power to eat is to abstain from that fruit was in fact absolutely possessed by man. That law, however, was to be observed, not according to fact only, but according to the arrangement of that particular law.

You say that my argument "pertains to the mode of general law." Let that be admitted, and still sustain my proposition, as I have before demonstrated, and I have also shown that, in the law which you call particular, there is something of the nature of general law. Those arguments are, therefore, in this respect valid. The first also is sustained, as is apparent from our previous statements. For as the law required obedience which should consist, not only in the external deed, but in the external disposition of the mind, for that reason it could not be obeyed without supernatural grace.

My second argument does not seem to have been understood by you in accordance with my meaning. The design of the argument was — and in this consists its force — that spiritual punishment could not be inflicted for the transgression of that law, to the observance of which spiritual good was not promised. But spiritual good was not promised to the observance of this law, if, indeed, it could be observed without supernatural grace. For supernatural grace and supernatural happiness are analogous. Hence it follows, that if spiritual punishment was the penalty of the transgression of that law, then, also spiritual good was promised to the observance of the same, and, therefore, it could be observed only by supernatural grace; otherwise nature could, by its own fact, obtain supernatural good. Here we must consider a three-fold distinction in the transgression and observance of law. First, a single transgression of law deserves punishment, but reward pertains only to those who observe the law even to the end; secondly, the violation of one precept deserves punishment, but reward is bestowed only on those who have kept all its precepts; thirdly, the violation of a precept may be estimated from the omission either of an external act or of an internal feeling, or of both at once, also, from the intention, so that he, who fails in one of these points, may be considered a transgressor, but observance is judged of from all these united, nor can it be regarded as perfect if it is not complete in all these points.

I acknowledge that what you say concerning the heinousness of the sin perpetrated by our first parents is very true, nor do I think that its heinousness can be declared in words. But how do you infer that my argument is designed to set forth that punishment would be inflicted more justly, on a man, if he should violate the law, when he was corrupt and sinful by nature, than if he should do the same thing, when he was pure by nature, These states of human nature were placed in opposition by me, but I contrasted man in a natural condition with one endued with supernatural grace. Punishment is inflicted with greater justice on the latter than on the former; indeed it would be inflicted unjustly on the former, if the law could not be observed without supernatural grace; and if the observance of the law had not the promise of spiritual good, spiritual punishment is inflicted unjustly on the transgression of that law.

I will not now speak of my last two arguments and your answers to them, both because so much has been said on the preceding points, and because you concede to me that man was not without habitual, supernatural grace.

I conclude then that man could not be considered in a merely natural condition by God in the act of predestination, since he was not in that state. In this, then, we agree. But you say, "these arguments have no weight against the opinion which considers man in general." I answer, that these arguments prove that man could not have been considered in general, for he could not have been considered in a merely natural condition. But in the state of supernatural grace, he was not considered as reprobate or passed by. For, in reprobation or preterition, man is left in the state of nature, which can have nothing supernatural or divine, as is stated in your Theses. Also, that state of supernatural grace has its measure and proportion to supernatural felicity according to the providence of God.

Moreover as to those, on whom God wills to bestow supernatural happiness, by the affirmative act of His providence, on them he cannot, by the negative act of preterition, will not to bestow the same happiness, unless he has considered them as failing to attain, by those supernatural means, to that happiness, but as either about to sin, or as having already in fact transgressed, of their own free will. Otherwise there would be two contrary acts of God in reference to one subject, considered in the same relation, and performed at the same time.

FIFTEENTH PROPOSITION OF ARMINIUS

Secondly, because the grace of predestination, or that prepared for man in predestination, is Evangelical, not Legal; but that grace was prepared only for man considered as a sinner. That it is Evangelical is clear, because the decree of predestination is peremptory. It has reference, then, not to Legal grace, of which a man may not make use, as in the case of transgression of law, and yet be saved, but to Evangelical grace, by which he must be saved, or excluded from salvation.

Again, the grace, prepared in predestination, is that of the remission of sins, and of regeneration, that is, of the turning of sin and to God, by the mortification of the old, and the vivification of the new man.

ANSWER OF JUNIUS TO THE FIFTEENTH PROPOSITION

I accede to your first statement, if it be correctly understood, but some explanation may be necessary concerning the second. In the assumption which you make, there should be a distinction, for it is false, if referred to Evangelical grace, understood with a general reference to nature; if that grace be understood with reference to ourselves, it is very true. But, as you know, it is fallacious to argue from the concrete to the abstract. I will explain the subject in a few words. In supernatural Evangelical grace there are two parts, one to preserve those who are now in a state of grace; the other to gain those who are not in that state. The order of this grace, considered according to nature, is one thing; considered according to ourselves it is another. The order of nature is that they, who are in a state of grace, should be preserved (as in the election and predestination of angels), and afterwards that they, who are not in that state, should be brought into it, as is done for men. Considered according to ourselves, who have fallen from grace, the order is different. It is necessary that they, who have fallen, should first be raised up, as Christ does in the gospel, and then be kept, as He will do for us eternally, in heaven, when we shall be like the angels. Your second statement, then, is false in the abstract, if you say that Evangelical grace, in general, is not prepared for man, except as he is considered sinful, for it was prepared for man in the abstract and in common, as God also testified to man, in the symbol of the tree of life, placed in Eden. But if you speak of Evangelical grace, in the latter sense, that is considered in this mode and order, then indeed I accede to your statement. But then the conclusion will not be valid, as we have just said.

For the Evangelical grace of God is one in its substance, but two-fold in its mode and order, which mode and order does not change the substance of the thing. Hence it was not at all to the purpose that your first statement might be sustained, which we also, if it is rightly understood, strongly affirm.

Your statement that "a man may not make use of Legal grace and yet be saved," is a doubtful one, unless it be fully explained, and as I know that you understand it; but this does not relate to the question. Finally, Evangelical grace, by your limitation to the remission of sins, regeneration, etc., is, as you also, my brother, perceive from what we have now said, rendered incomplete, because you pass over preservation, which is one essential part of it. In other respects we accede to your proposition.

REPLY OF ARMINIUS TO THE ANSWER TO THE FIFTEENTH PROPOSITION

My argument may be stated thus: — Evangelical grace is prepared only for man, considered as a sinner; — But the grace of predestination, or that prepared for man in predestination, is Evangelical; — Therefore, the grace of predestination is prepared only for man, considered as a sinner. This is a syllogism in form, mode, and its three terms. Hence it includes nothing else and nothing more than is in the premises. Though Evangelical grace, considered in general, might have two parts, yet I have restricted the Evangelical grace, which was prepared for man. But grace, considered in the abstract, was not prepared for man, but only one part of it; that is, the acquisition of those who are not in a state of grace, not the preservation of those who are in a state of grace, for no one of men has been kept in that state of grace, which he obtained at his creation, all have fallen. There is, therefore, in this case no fallacy from the concrete to the abstract.

I use the term Evangelical grace in my first and second statements in entirely the same manner; not in one case "according to nature" and, in the other, "according to ourselves" or vice versa, but in both cases "according to ourselves," namely, as that which was prepared, for men, not angels.

Therefore, by your own acknowledgment, both my statements are true.

You say that "it is false, in the abstract, that Evangelical grace is not prepared for man, except as he is considered as sinful, for it was prepared for man in the abstract and in common, as God also testified to man in the symbol of the tree of life placed in Eden." I reply — there is an equivocation in the word "prepared," and when that is removed, the truth of my view will be manifest. The preparation of grace is either that of predestination or of providence, as used in contra-distinction to the former. In providence, sufficient grace is prepared, and if it is efficacious, as some think, it is not finally efficacious. In predestination, grace, which is efficacious, and indeed finally efficacious, is prepared. Predestination superadds to providence, as the School-men say, fire certainty of the event. In providence is prepared that general grace, which pertains promiscuously to all men; in predestination is prepared that particular grace, which is peculiar to the elect. In providence is prepared both Legal and Evangelical grace; in predestination only Evangelical grace. In providence is prepared grace communicable both in and out of paradise; in predestination is prepared grace, communicable only out of paradise. It is true that God symbolized, by the tree of life, general not particular grace, Legal not Evangelical grace, grace communicable in paradise, and, finally, sufficient, not efficacious, grace. Therefore, the grace, which God symbolized by the tree of life, is that of providence, not of predestination.

But Evangelical grace, which is finally efficacious, particular not general, only communicable out of paradise, and which is prepared for man in predestination, is no other than that which is adapted only to man considered as a sinner. I refer, then, in my first and second statement, to Evangelical grace, in this mode and order. Therefore, my conclusion is valid. And, though grace is the same, in substance, and varies only in its mode and relation, yet that variation of mode, is a reason that grace, constituted in that mode and order, can certainly be prepared only for the sinner. The whole matter will be more manifestly evident, if I conclude by the addition of proofs of the Minor of the preceding syllogism.

Evangelical grace, by which man is in fact saved, which consists in the remission of sins and in regeneration, belongs only to man considered as a sinner; — But the grace, prepared in predestination for man, is Evangelical grace, by which man is in fact saved, consisting in remission of sins and in regeneration; — Therefore, the grace, prepared for man in predestination, does not belong to man except as he is considered as a sinner.

Consequently man was not considered by God, in the act of predestination, in his natural condition.

If any one should argue thus, "Evangelical grace was prepared for man in the abstract and in common; — But the grace, prepared for man in predestination, is Evangelical grace; Therefore, grace was prepared in predestination for man, considered in the abstract and in common," he will, on more than one account, be chargeable with fallacy. In the first place, the Major, considered in the abstract, is false. For that grace, which preserves its subjects in their primitive state, which you call, also, Evangelical in respect to the angels, was not prepared for man. Again, there are four terms in the syllogism. For, in the Major, Evangelical grace is spoken of in the abstract; in the Minor, it is spoken of in the concrete. If it be said that it is understood in the Minor in the same manner as in the Major, then the Minor, also, is false. For the grace prepared for man in predestination is Evangelical grace, in the concrete, and understood in respect to us. I use your phraseology. But what if I should deny that the grace which is bestowed on angels, in election and predestination can be called Evangelical, and should ask for the proof of your statement? This I could do with propriety and justice. For it is certain, especially as the gospel is explained to us in the Holy Scriptures, that the grace bestowed on angels can not be called Evangelical. The sum of the gospel is this, "Repent and believe the gospel" or "believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and your sins shall be remitted unto you, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards, eternal life." These expressions are by no means adapted to the elect angels.

If you say that it is not Evangelical in the mode in which the gospel is adapted to sinful men, yet, it can be called Evangelical as, according to it, they are preserved in their own state, you will permit me to ask the proof of that statement. In the weakness of my capacity, I can conceive of no other reason for that sentiment than that Christ is also called the Mediator of angels, and that they are said to be elect in him. You know, however, that this is in controversy among the learned, and we have already presented some thoughts concerning it. But, even with the concession that Christ can be called the Mediator of angels, I can not persuade myself that the grace, which was bestowed on the angels, was prepared or obtained for them by any merit of Christ, or any work which he performed, in their behalf, before God. Grace, which Christ did not obtain, can not, in my opinion, be called Evangelical. Again, I think that, in general, there is a two-fold mode and way of obtaining supernatural and eternal happiness. One of strict justice and Legal, the other of mercy and Evangelical, as there is, also, a two-fold covenant with God, of works and of faith, of justice and of grace, Legal and Evangelical. In the former mode and relation, happiness is obtained by perfect obedience to the law, given to the creature by God; in the latter, happiness is obtained by remission of disobedience and the imputation of righteousness. The human mind can not conceive any other mode; at least, no other is revealed in the Scriptures. These two modes have, to each other, this relation, that the former precedes, as is required by the justice of God, by the condition presented to the creature, and by the very nature of the case; the other follows, if, in the former way, happiness can not be allotted to the creature, and it seems good to the Deity, also, to propose the latter, which depends on the mere will of God.

For He can punish or pardon disobedience. Both modes are used in reference to man, as the Scriptures declare in many places, and briefly in Romans 8:3.

"For what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh."

I think that the former mode only was used in reference to the angels, and that God determined to treat the angels according to the Legal covenant strictly of justice and works; but to display all His goodness in the salvation of men. This is apparent from the fact that the angels, who fell, sinned irremediably and without hope of pardon, and the other angels did not obtain pardon for sins, for they had not committed them, but were preserved and confirmed in their own state, through the grace, it may be, which they received through the mediation of Christ, and which he communicated to them, not, in a correct sense, by that which Christ either merited or obtained for them by any work performed in their behalf, before God. These things, however, are irrelevant.

In my statement that it is possible for man not to use Legal grace, and yet be saved, I intended to convey the same idea which you also have expressed, that God can, if he will, move iniquity "as a cloud;" and I think that the apostle says the same in Romans 4:5. "To him that worketh not," (that is, who does not fulfill the law, and therefore, does not use Legal grace,) "but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

In limiting Evangelical grace to the remission of sins and regeneration, I committed no fault. For I explained it, not in the abstract, (if it is ever so used), but in the concrete. But, thus explained, it excludes that part which you call "the grace of preservation" (unless that phrase is applied to perseverance in a state of restoration). We were not saved, in the primitive state, by that grace, for it was not prepared for in that state, by predestination. For we all fell and sinned. Here, again, there is need of the admonition that we are not now treating of angels, therefore those things which may be common to angels and men, are here, according to the law of general and specific relations kaq o[lou,