[Examen Arminianismi; Conscriptum & discipulis dictatum à Doctissimo Clarissimoque Viro, D. Samuele Rhetorforte, SS. Theol. in Academia Scotiæ S. Andreanâ Doctore & Professore; recensum & editum à Matthia Netheno, SS. Th. D. & Profefs.; (Ultrajecti: Ex Officinâ Antonii Smittegelt, Bibliopola, 1668)]

Samuel Rutherford (c. 1600–1661), a shining luminary in the firmament of Scottish Reformed divinity, was born about the year of our Lord 1600, in the parish of Nisbet, Roxburghshire. Raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord, he received his education at the renowned University of Edinburgh, wherein he attained the degree of Master of Arts and was noted early for his diligence in both the liberal arts and the sacred sciences. In the year 1627, he was called to the pastoral charge at Anwoth, a remote parish, where he labored indefatigably in the ministry of the Word and prayer. His godly zeal, coupled with scholarly acumen, soon rendered him eminent, not only as a preacher but as a polemic divine, steadfastly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. For his adherence to Presbyterian order and resistance to prelacy, he suffered banishment from his flock, but bore the cross of Christ with patience. Rutherford’s return to public life came with his appointment as Professor of Divinity at St Andrews in 1639, and later Principal of St Mary’s College. There he shaped many who would become pillars in Christ’s Kirk. He was also a Commissioner of the Church of Scotland to the Westminster Assembly (1643–47), wherein he argued vigorously for the parity of ministers and the jure divino rights of presbyteries. His writings, especially Lex, Rex—a treatise on the lawfulness of resistance to tyrannical magistrates—were both a bulwark for civil liberty and a scourge to royal absolutism, drawing the ire of Charles II. Though summoned to stand trial for high treason, he was providentially called home to glory in 1661. His Letters remain a spiritual treasure, testifying to a life hid with Christ in God, and his legacy endures in the annals of Reformed orthodoxy and constitutional liberty.

Samuel Rutherford (c. 1600–1661), a shining luminary in the firmament of Scottish Reformed divinity, was born about the year of our Lord 1600, in the parish of Nisbet, Roxburghshire. Raised in the fear and admonition of the Lord, he received his education at the renowned University of Edinburgh, wherein he attained the degree of Master of Arts and was noted early for his diligence in both the liberal arts and the sacred sciences. In the year 1627, he was called to the pastoral charge at Anwoth, a remote parish, where he labored indefatigably in the ministry of the Word and prayer. His godly zeal, coupled with scholarly acumen, soon rendered him eminent, not only as a preacher but as a polemic divine, steadfastly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints. For his adherence to Presbyterian order and resistance to prelacy, he suffered banishment from his flock, but bore the cross of Christ with patience. Rutherford’s return to public life came with his appointment as Professor of Divinity at St Andrews in 1639, and later Principal of St Mary’s College. There he shaped many who would become pillars in Christ’s Kirk. He was also a Commissioner of the Church of Scotland to the Westminster Assembly (1643–47), wherein he argued vigorously for the parity of ministers and the jure divino rights of presbyteries. His writings, especially Lex, Rex—a treatise on the lawfulness of resistance to tyrannical magistrates—were both a bulwark for civil liberty and a scourge to royal absolutism, drawing the ire of Charles II. Though summoned to stand trial for high treason, he was providentially called home to glory in 1661. His Letters remain a spiritual treasure, testifying to a life hid with Christ in God, and his legacy endures in the annals of Reformed orthodoxy and constitutional liberty.

Table of Contents:

<aside>

CHAPTER IV: CONCERNING REPROBATION

</aside>

Question I. Whether Reprobation is a temporal, not an eternal act in God?

The Remonstrants affirm, because Paul says the Jews shall again be shown mercy if they do not continue in unbelief.

We deny:

  1. Because the text does not say that the same individuals of that nation who are to be saved and shown mercy again are reprobated.
  2. Because those who were hardened and did not obtain the promises are opposed to Election, that is, to those elected from eternity, who obtained the promises.
  3. Because Esau was reprobated before he was born, and had done anything good or evil. Romans 9:11.
  4. Because the impious are rejected from efficacious grace, and from glory in time. Therefore, they are reprobated from eternity.
  5. Because there is no new volition in God in time, which was not in Him from eternity; for so He would be changed.

Question II. Whether God reprobated men from eternity absolutely, that is, without any respect to Original sin, actual sin, or final impenitence, as a cause or previous condition, and thus out of His Sole free and independent Will?

The Remonstrants affirm, art. 1, page 230, that sin is the meritorious cause of Reprobation.

We deny:

  1. Because Scripture says, John 10:26: “Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.” 1 John 2:19: “If they had been of us, they would have continued with us.” According to the Remonstrants, the contrary should be said.
  2. Because Esau was reprobated and hated by God, before he was born, and had done anything good or evil. Romans 9:11.
  3. The potter has power, of the same lump to make one vessel to dishonor, and another vessel to honor. Therefore, according to Paul, the same right, by a stronger right, belongs to God over men.
  4. Because God hardens whom He will; He raised up Pharaoh, that in destroying him the glory of Justice and Power might be declared. Therefore, He has mercy on whom He will and hardens whom He will. Romans 9:17,18.
  5. Because God denies the efficacious grace of believing to Judas, which He gives to Peter, not from the merit of free will, but because He absolutely wills it. Therefore, He decreed to deny it from eternity, out of His mere good pleasure.
  6. Because God can convert and save all, if indeed He would. Therefore, it is from God’s absolute good pleasure, that some are not converted, but perish.
  7. If the created will freely determining itself were the cause and fabricator of men’s reprobation; the elect would have whereof to glory in their free will, not in God’s grace; because this man would be reprobated from eternity because he wills; that man elected because he wills.
  8. It would be in the power of free Will, that men pass from the number of the reprobate to the number of the elect; neither would the determined number of the elect and reprobate be in God’s power, but in men’s.
  9. Because it would be in the power of the created free will, that the glory of punitive Justice be declared, or not; and it might be, if men had so seen fit, that that glory would be hidden forever.
  10. Because man by free will would discern and separate himself from others, who freely make themselves the objects of eternal reprobation.
  11. Because there would be no Mystery here, as Paul says Romans 11:33. Nor any place for this Pauline Response to the objection Romans 9:20: “Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?” Because there is no place for the objections of carnal men Romans 9:19 if God therefore reprobates men, because men first reprobated God by their final impenitence.

Question III. Whether that distinction of negative and privative non-election, or preterition and reprobation is vain?

The Arminians affirm, art. 1, page 235, 236.