dorsed the sublapsarian theory, Gomarus alone uphold- ing supralapsarianism, without, however, ceasing to be considered orthodox. The synod had recognised that both systems preserved the same fundamental doctrine, and only preferred siiblapsarianism as presenting that doctrine in a form less objectionable to other churches. This question had no connection whatever with Armin- ianism, for not even the sliglitest appearance of a con- cession to those views would have been tolerated. In 1675, at the drawing -up of the Formula Consensus, the Swiss refused expressly to endorse sublapsarianism for fear of appearing thereby to cast blame on the su- pralapsarians. The most eminent theologians, such as Beza, Piscator, Yoetius, Gomarus, etc., u[)held the strict- er system. It is only in modern times that sublapsa- rianism has come to be considered as a real diminishing of the difficulties of the orthodox Reformed doctrines; but the ancients, who ap|ireciated it more correctlv, did not look upon it as such, and consequentlj- did not oppose it. The general principles of the system were as follows : The world, and man at first, answered ex- actly to the divine plan : man was created in primitive purity, fell by his own voluntary iict, and thus became subject to retribution, and this infallibly; and altlunigh all are bad alike, yet some are redeemed by grace and made blessed, but the others remain unredeemed, and — as all, even those who are saved, deserve — are damned. All this happens exactly as it was originally decided in the organization of the world, and because it was thus decided. The decrees were all equally promulgated by God from all eternity without one having precedence over the other. Yet we are obliged to distinguish the different decrees according to their relation to each oth- er, as the final decree includes necessarily the means by which its object is to be attained; and these decrees con- cerning the means even precede the decree on the final result, yet onlj' in causality, not in time, since there is no time with God. The supralapsarian system, on the other hand, holds that the final object of creation, in- dependent from any other, is the revelation, the self- manifestation of God, and that in his two great attri- butes of mercy and justice — mercy on those he saves, justice on those he leaves to the punishment they de- serve. All other decrees serve but as means for this great object of the creation ; in this view God created men, then permitted the introduction of sin, thus mak- ing them objects of his salvation or of his condemna- tion, which were decided beforehand. In consequence of these views, that school asserts that in issuing the decree of election God looked on man merely as man, not as man fallen ; hence, also, Gomarus names as objects of the decree of predestination the " creaturaj rationa- biles, servabiles, damnabiles, creabiles, labiles, et repara- biles," i. e. creatures considered yet as without any de- termined properties. The sublapsarians arranged the plan of creation in such a manner that God, from mo- tives of his own, decreed to create man, and to allow him to sin. knowing that he would infallibly do so; and from these decrees they make the other decree depend — whereby some are saved, though no better than the others, and the others damned, tliough no worse ; and this manifestation of mercy to some and of justice to others constitutes the justification of the whole. This is their whole difference. The two methods uphold the same doctrine of absolute predestination, only the supralapsa- rians present it in a stricter, more imperious manner, without, however, lessening the guilt of man or making God the originator of evil ; the sublapsarian method is more cautious in its expression, although it upholds predestination as firmly, and the guilt of man in the Fall; for what God allowed in his plan is not permitted because God foresees what will happen, but only be- cause he wills it. The supralapsarians, indeed, say that the Fall itself was predestined, but mean only that it was infallibly to come ; while, on the other side, the sublapsarians do not in any way mean that the Fall might not have happened, that it could only be consid-
ered in the plan of creation as having occurred, or even tliat the entrance of sin into the world might have oc- curred in a different manner than in that which God freely appointed in his scheme of creation. See Hagen- bach, Dogm.enge.sch. 3d ed. p. 589 ; Schweizer, Ref. Dog- matik, ii, 123 sq. ; the same, Gcsch. d. ref. Central-Dog- men, ii, 43, 55. 181,
Subleyras, Pierre, a French painter and engrav- er, was born at Uzes in 1()!)9, and was the son of Mat- thieu Subleyras, a painter of considerable merit. Pierre, at the age of fourteen, went to Toulouse in order to receive lessons from Antoine Rivalx. In 1724 he went to Paris, took the course in the Academy, and in 1726 gained the first prize. He went to Kome in 17'28 as royal pensioner, and died there. May 28, 1749. He painted several sacred and ecclesiastical scenes which have been greatly admired. See Hoefer, Nouv. Bioy. Generale, s. v.
Submission, Act of, an act passed in the reign of Henry A'lII, in 1534, which makes royal license neces- sary to the validity of certain acts of convocation.