« PreviousContinue »
in their lives following they might become holy and without blame by their works and virtues.” And in another place he plainly intimates ", that predestination springs from the mercy and love of God; for speaking of Jacob he says, “ Whilst he was yet in Rebecca's womb, he supplanted his brother Esau, not truly by his own strength, but by the mercy of God, qui cognofcit & diligit quos praedeftinavit, who knows and loves those whom be bath predestinated.” 'Tis true indeed, in the first citacion I have made from this author, he says, that not nations are chosen, sed voluntates hominum, but the wills of men, tho' what he means by it is not very easy to understand: His meaning cannot be, that God chose such persons who he knew would of their own free will, by the mere strength of nature, do that which was good, for this is pure Pelagianism, to which Jerom was an enemy, and is contrary to those principles of grace he was a strenuous defender of. Bụt if his meaning was, that God chose such to happiness who he knew would be made willing to obey' him in the
day of his power, because he had determiSned to make them so. This entirely agrees
with our sentiments. There is another para fage cited by Grotius i from this writer, where he says “, that God, eligat eum quem interim bonum cernit, chooses him, whom for the present be knows to be good; but it is easy to observe, that Jerom is there speaking not of God's choice of men to eternal happiness, but of Christ's choosing Judas to Apostleship, who appeared for a while to be good, tho' he knew he would be wicked. To which may be added another passage produced by Dr. Wbitby', after Grotius and Vosius", to prove that election is from a foresight of good works, in which this writer says ', that, dilectio & odium Dei vel ex praescientia nascicur futurorum vel ex operibus, the love and batred of God arises either from the foreknowledge of things future, or from works. But what he means by this disjunctive proposition is not very evident 'cis
ń Comment. in Hof. Tom. 6. p. 21. B.
Disquifit. de Dogm. Pelagian. p. 11.
very probable, that by the love and hatred of God he means the effects of them, salvation and damnation, which according to him proceed either according to the prescience of God, or the works of men. As for the citation out of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans made by Voffius and Dr. Whitby?, I take no notice of, be
k Adv. Pelag. 1. 3. Tom. 2. p. 100.
Discourse on the Five Points, p. 99. Ed. 2. 97. & Postscript, p. 557. Ed. 2. 534.
m Ubi supra, p. 10.
cause it is judged by learned men', not to be his, buc either the work of Pelagius himself, or of some Pelagian writer. I deny not, but that Jerom held election to be according to the prescience of God, to which he refers it in the passages cited, by the above writers, out of his Commentaries on the epistles to the Galatians and Ephesians ; and so do we in a sense agreeable to the Scriptures; and it is evident chat Jerom had the same sentiments of the foreknowledge of God as we have ; for, says he', “ Non enim ex eo quod Deus scit fucurum aliquid, id circo futurum est, sed quia futurum est, Deus novit, Not because God knows fomething to be future, therefore it is future, but because it is future, God knows it, as having a fore-knowledge of things to come.” And tho' in the same place and elsewhere ', he observes, that the prescience of God does not neceffitate or force men to do this, or not to do that, but notwithstanding it, the will of man is preserved free in all his actions ; the same we also say, and to this we readily assent.
9 Vid. Rivet. Critic. Sacr. l. 4. c.5. p. 374. & Voff. Hift. Pelag. 1. 1. c. 9. P. 12.
r Comment. in Jer. Tom. 5. p. 162. C.
r Comment. in Ezek. Tom. 5. D 177: E. Et in Eccl. Tom. 7. p. 35. F.
Octor Whitby says', That the confirmation of the doctrine of universal redemption, from the suf
frage of all antiquity, is sufficiently done by Voffus, in his Historia Pelegiana, where he lays down these two pofitions, i. That the sense of the antient church was, that God wills the converhon and salvation of all. 2. That it was the judgment of the antient church, that Chrif bad provided an universal remedy for the universal fault of men, by paying a ransom of infinite value, left any one foould peris through the defe&t of it. He further observes, that this is more copiously done by Mr. Dally (he means Monsieur Daille) by producing the cestimonies of the Antients from the first to the twelfth century, and concluding thus, Certainly I don't find one in the first eight ages of Christianity that has said absolutely, and in terms, as is commonly said, that Christ died only
for the ele&t.
* Discourse, &c. p. 193. Ed. 2. 195. Poftfcript, P. 566.
Ed. 2. 543.
Here the Doctor refts, and would have his readers trust to, and depend upon che conclusions and affertions of these two men. Voffius's Pelagian History must be allowed to be a very considerable performance, and is
the fund and magazine of antiquicy for the 13 Arminians. Dr. Twisse intended an answer
to it, and in one of his books says", he had entered
upon it, but death, I suppose, prevented his design; at least it never was published; such a work, by so learned a hand, might have been of great service. But why should we trust to Voffus's account of the judgment of the ancient church in this point, fince Dr. Whitby himself would not trust him in another ? viz. Original fin, though he was so very pofitive as to say, The catholick church always so judged; and the Doctor tells us ", that “ upon an imparcial search he found that all the passages he had collected were impertinent, or at least insufficient to prove the point.” This gives no encouragement to depend on him. And inasmuch as the several passages cited by Vofus are also, with many others, produced by Monsieur Daille, I shall only atcend to the latter, and to those only of the first four centuries ; and though he observes, that in these and the four follow
u Riches of God's Grace against Hord, par. 1. p. 83.