Theological Theses · §1934 · Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu

Samuel Rutherford rejects an indifferent concurrence as injurious to God (De divina providentia 25)

The Scot Samuel Rutherford, who was professor of theology at the University of St Andrews a few years ago, holds the same view. He attacks with many arguments, as fictitious and impious, a concurrence of God that is general and indifferent in itself and is determined by the concurrence of the secondary cause.

In his judgment such a concurrence wrongs God. It robs God of freedom in his decrees and makes God shamefully dependent on the fickle nod of his creature, since it supposes that God is determined by the creature rather than the creature by God. It also removes the point of the prayers in which we ask God to bend our hearts and the hearts of others as our salvation and theirs requires, for that cannot happen except through an operation by which God determines human wills. For the same reason it would be pointless to thank God for good things obtained through free agents. Nor would the wealth that comes to people through their free acts of trade be from God. Finally, God's particular providence, which Scripture so often commends, would have to be denied (De divina providentia, chapter 25).

Latin

XLII. In eadem sententia est Samuel Retorfortis Scotus, ante paucos annos in Academia Andreapolitana Theologiae Professor. Nam Concursum Dei ex se Generalem, & indifferentem, & qui a causae secundae concursu determinatur, tanquam commentitium & impium pluribus argumentis refutat. Quippe, ut ipse existimat, istiusmodi concursus Deo injuriosus est; quoniam Deo libertatem in decernendo eripit, & infert foedam Dei a creaturae suae lubrico nutu dependentiam, quandoquidem supponit Deum a creatura, non vero creaturam a Deo determinari. Praeterea tollit usum precum illarum quibus a Deo petimus, ut corda nostra, & aliorum flectat, prout saluti nostrae & illorum expedit: Siquidem id fieri non potest, nisi per operationem qua Deus Voluntates hominum determinet. Et ob eandem rationem frustra gratiae Deo agerentur de bonis procuratis per agentia libera. Nec etiam erit a Deo Copia divitiarum quae obveniunt hominibus actibus liberis mercandi. Et denique neganda erit particularis Dei providentia, quam Scriptura tam saepe commendat. De divina Providentia cap. 25.

Report a mistake in this passage

About this text

Louis Le Blanc, a Reformed professor at Sedan, sets out theology in theses argued against Rome: Scripture, faith, grace, free choice, good works and the saints.

This volume holds the Theses on Theology I–XLIII and On Faith I–XXII, in eighteen sections.

Louis Le Blanc de Beaulieu (1614–1675) was minister and professor of theology at the Academy of Sedan, the Reformed school on France's eastern border. His Theses were disputed by students over many years and collected in a London folio (1675).

The Theological Theses range across the whole Reformed system — Scripture, God, predestination, grace, and justifying faith — in the crisp thesis-and-proof form of the seventeenth-century schools.

Date1675 AD (Sedan theses; London collection)

No modern English.

Reference

ESTC R17887; Wing L802. IA bub_gb_eOkHAW4G0-wC (+ EEBO 1675 for gap leaves).

Printed text used

Translated from Latin (Pitt 1675) (Latin)
Also checked PDF of the 1675 (Latin)
Also checked pdftotext of De Theologia pages (Latin)
Also checked DjVu machine-read text of the 1675 (Latin)

We have not yet re-checked this work against its source. We made this study translation with AI help. No scholar has yet certified it as faithful and complete. Open Latin on any section, or the Latin source link, to see the source text. It is not a critical edition.

Report a mistake