to God And so Faith is below Repentance as a means of it 204. By this the question whether Faith or Repentance be first may partly be resolved and partly cast out as founded in confusion As they are both one thing neither can be first any otherwise than the same Motus ut a termino a quo ut ad terminum ad quem But as they signifie divers things they have each of them divârâ acts and in respect of each are before each other The Assenting act of Faith in general must needs be always before Repentance as it is an Act of the Will But the consenting Act of faith is also part of Repentance and must folow that part of Repentance which is a change of the understanding But whether the Repentance as towards God or Faith in Christ be first or Love to God and Faith in Christ I have discussed as accurately as I can in my Christian Directory Par 1. cap. 3. pag. 182. and therefore thither refer the Reader 205. And how Faith and Love differ I have there also opened and therefore shall now only say that Faith as it signifieth meet How Faith and Love differ Assent differeth from Love as the act of the Intellect from Volition And Love formally taken presupposeth the Assent and doth not contain it But Faith taken largely in the sence of the Baptismal Covenant containeth in it Consent which is the Wills Volition and therefore must needs have some initial Love in it as it acteth iâ Desire This Faith in God hath some Desire and Volition of God and Faith in Christ which is the Souls Practical Affiance in him hath some Love to Christ in it But the denomination is not from the same ratio formalis in each It is eminently called Faith when giving up our Souls to Christ to be saved in practical Affiance is the great work of the Soul though it have something of Love essential to it And it is eminently called Love morally when the Complacency of the Soul in Christ thus trusted and in God our end is the great work or business of the Soul 206. This Holy Love as a fixed habit and employment of the Soul and our Relation to the Holy Ghost to work it in us is it that is promised and Given quoad jus in the Baptismal Covenant of which Faith though it have somewhat of actual Love or Volition in it is the antecedent condition which also I have so fully opened as afore cited that I refer the Reader to it for this also And somewhat was said of it before SECT XIII Of the degrees of Pardon or Justification 207. Some men lest they should yield that Justification is not one perfect finished act done but once do feign that it is only the first act of Faith by which a man is justified Indeed it is only the first act by which he âs changed from an unrighteous to a righteous state But to think that therefore we are never after justified by Faith and so have no actually justifying Faith all our lives but for one instant only is fitter for a Dreamer than a theological Discourser 208. Our first constitutive Justification being in its nature a right to âmpunity and to Life or Glory * * * ââââ tells us that ãâ¦ã which ãâ¦ã by Regeââra ââ and Just ââââ on âuâ what they mean by Râânission they cannot tell themselves as a âoresaid Pardon of the guââ they mean not or else they mean several things in one word is a Relation which must be continued to the end and therefore must have the true causes and condition continued and would cease if any of them ceased 209. As to the question therefore whether Justification be lossable and âardon reversible I answer that the grant of them in the Covenant is unalterable But mans will in it self is mutable and if he should cease believing by Apostacy and the condition fail he would lose his Right and be unjustified and unpardoned without any change in God But that a man doth not so de facto is to be ascribed to Election and special Grace of which afterward 210. Though all our past sins are pardoned at our first Faith or Conversion or as the Ancients speak in Baptism yet it is most certain that Pardon or Justification is not perfect at first no nor on this side death And the saying of many that Justification is perfect at first and Sanctification only by degrees is a palpable error as I have else-where oft shewed For that is not perfect 1. Which is not continued and brought on to its end but upon continued conditions and diligent use of means to the âast * * * Neque enim peccati sui veniam impetravit Adam ut a morte temporali immunis esset Twiss contr Corvin pag. 343. col 2. 2. Which leaveth many penalties unremoved which have further means to be used for their removal and further Right to it to be obtained To have more and more Grace and less and less Sin and to have âearer communion with God are blessings as to the degrees which we must by degrees attain a further Right to and the privation of them are âore penalties to be removed 3. We have new sins to be pardoned every day 4. Our remaining Corruption is such as needeth a continued Pardon till it be perfectly done away 5. The Day of Judgment is not come for which the most perfect Justification is reserved SECT XIV Of Justification by Sentence of the Judge 211. The second sort of Justification which is by Sentence is done by Christ as Judge and so is an act of his Kingly Office 212. Therefore were it true as it is not that justifying Faith were only the receiving or believing in Christ as a Justifier of us it would not be a believing in him in his Priestly Office only but in act For he merited our Justification as a humbled Servant and a Sacrifice He giveth it us in Right by his Covenant or Law of Grace as King and Benefactor He promulgateth it as Prophet He passeth the Sentences as King and Judge He executively taketh off the penalty and glorifieth us as King and Benefactor There is no Justification by a partial Faith 213. Though the estimation of a man as just called the Sententiâ judicis concepta as distinct from the sententia prolata be said to be ââ immanet act of God and therefore from eternity yet it is a mistake For though it be not transient effectivè and do nihil efficere ad extra yeâ it is transient objectivè and doth presuppose the existence of the qualified Object For though Gods Knowledge and Will in genere or as such are his eternal Essence yet Gods Knowledge and Love of John or Peter ââ Believers are terms which signifie not his Essence as such but as transââ and terminated on those existent persons relatively So that the extrinââcal denomination from the existent Object is temporary as it is 214.
sort of grace We may presume of many things as received from our Teachers but it is hard to prove that Adam the next moment after his sin was totally deprived of all degrees of love to God and goodness and so was privatively as bad as Devils or that all mankind are naturally so Though I believe that it was of grace even Gods first pardoning act as our Redeemer not so totally to execute the Law nor take away his grace and leave man to the utmost penalty of his sin but to keep nature from being as bad as else it would have been But sure Man is Man still and not a Devil And I speak with few or none that seem not to have some liking of God and goodness or Justice as such though they love not God or goodness as contrary to their fleshly lusts nor love God as their Sanctifier and Ultimate End And thus the Carnal Mind is Enmity to God being not subject to his Law though this be consistent with loving him secundum quid IV. I believe him that there is a faith such as the Devils which may be without Justification both in habit and act But that the same Faith which after justifieth can be many years Habitually before Justification that is Sanctification as he meaneth it I believe not Seeing God hath promised that all that believe thus shall be justified and have his Spirit V. Jansenius seems to me to set too light by Habitual Grace as if it were some common thing in comparison of the Act Whereas I take a Habit of love to God to differ from an act either as a Spring or Rivolet from a drop or as Honesty from an honest act or Learning from a learned exercise or as a fixed friendly Inclination which is like to Nature differeth from a friendly action and to be more excellent than a particular act XVIII His judgement of the Matter of the Reward that it is but God himself seen and perfectly loved for himself is of great use But yet it is both lawful and ex individuationis principiis ex natura humana necessary that we take and desire this as our own felicity and so under God intend our selves And quoad rationem praemii it is the Reward of a Rewardable state or work and therefore of the free act of a creature not meerly necessitated It may be a gift without Respect to our Liberty and Obedience but not a reward But it is both a gift and a Reward XIX That Fear and its effects are good and yet not of Christs grace that they are of Gods Spirit but not the Spirit given by Christ but the grace of some other Providence All this I take for unsound and injurious to Christ and grace Where doth the Scripture tell us since the fall of any grace given to the World but by the Redeemer who is Head over all things to his Church If you say that God can give men the grace to fear him and depart from evil without a Saviour or Mediator how can you prove that he may not do so by the rest Either he giveth this grace as Rector according to his Laws or not If not then on the same reason you may feign that most men are not his subject nor under any Law of God and so sin not nor are punishable If yea then it is according to the Law of Innocency or of Grace For if Moses Law as Jewish be called a third it is nothing to our case If it be by a Law of grace it is Christs Law either of the first Edition called the Promise or of the second called the Gospel The Spirit and grace in various measures given by both are of Christ It 's a dangerous assertion that there is any yea so much grace which is not Christs It prejudiceth me against Jansenius's Opinion that it should cast him on such absurdities as to deny so much of the grace of Christ while he pretendeth to honour it and to set up such a feigned way and sort of grace without a Saviour and yet speak so hardly of the Pelagians as he doth for wronging grace 2. As Fear is one of mans natural passions though but subservient to love so the sanctifying of it is one part of the Work of Christs Spirit 3. I am sure Christ himself commandeth Fear Luke 12. 4 5. Heb. 4. 1. 12. 28 29. passim And is it our own Legal Righteousness to obey the commands of Christ Indeed if Fear were all or had no conjunct hope and love it would be Legal and shew the Spirit of bondage from which Christ delivereth us by the Spirit of Power and Love and a sound mind which are the fruits of the Spirit of Adoption For Moses Law separated by the Infidel Jews from the Law of Grace or Promise of a Justifying Mediator could have no better effects than Fear But Abraham that believed and foresaw Christs day rejoyced in that Faith and yet had a Law of obedience which had its penalty and so hath the Law of Grace which we obey XX. Of Free-will I have said enough before Natural Liberty as distinct from the Moral freedom from sin and ill disposition is sure more than meer Voluntariness And I think if God gave Satan or man power to take away from a Saint all his Habitual and Actual love of God and goodness whilest antecedently the person did hate such a change and pray against it by making him willing of evil and making a Devil of him remedilesly he would take away or cross the Natural as well as the Moral Liberty of his will though it were Willingness that were caused If any think otherwise remember that it is but de nomine for de re we are agreed that such a change would be our great misery XXI I take it to be the commendation of Jansenius that he renounceth the Dominicans Physical Efficient Predetermining Premotion as naturally necessary to all actions natural and free But his habitation converse and worldly interest tempted him factiously to calumniate Calvin lest he himself should become odious with his own party and so miss of his expected success which hath prevailed also with Gibieuf Arnoldus and most other Papists to do the like when they differ from their Brethren XXII He well saith that Permission of the first sin is no effect of Reprobation But his ordination of Gods acts into this Before and that After and so his differencing the Election of Angels and men I fear hath somewhat in it presumptuous and unproved In conclusion I much mislike in Jansenius 1. His contempt of the Sacred Scriptures as being not properly Christs Laws but some odd occasional Writings his Laws being only in the heart and tradition 2. His slighting of Habitual Grace comparatively which yet is indeed Christs Law and Gods Image in the heart 3. His âeigning a new or odd sort of grace fear which is none of the grace of Christ no not preparatory to his higher
but the Baptismal Covenant where sure the condition is notorious and every Baptizing Minister prerequireth the profession of it CHAP. VII Whether Justifying Faith be a Believing in Christ as a Teacher Lord c. or only a Receiving of his Righteousness P. VI. AS to this your sixth Charge I have said so much elsewhere in my Disputations of Justification and in other Books that I cannot justifie the tiring of Readers by repeating it And will say now but this little following 1. That Paul doth not distinguish between justifying faith and saving faith but excludeth the Works excluded by him from being the causes either of Justification or Salvation 2. That if Receiving Christs Righteousness be meant by them properly and physically it is no sort of faith at all but only the effect of the donation which they call Justificari or passive Justification But if it mean a moral metonymical Reception that is nothing but Consent to have the offered gift And if only Consent to have Christs Righteousness be Justifying faith then all the Assenting part is excluded in which Scripture much placeth it and most Divines in part and many in whole besides Camâro and his followers And so also all the Affiance or Fiducial âcts are excluded which almost all include even that which they call Recumbency being distinct from Consent 3. All these acts following are essential to Justifying faith as well as this Consent to be Justified 1. An Assenting belief in God in the baptismal sense 2. An Assent to the truth of Christs Person Office and Doctrine 3. A belief in the Holy Ghost 4. A belief of Pardon Sanctification and Glory as possible purchased and offered by Christ 5. A Consent that God be our God in Christ 6. And a Consent that Christ be our Teacher 7. And our King and Ruler 8. And our Intercessor 9. And our Judge and Justifier by sentence and as our Advocate 10. A belief of his Resurrection Power and Glory 11. A Trusting to the Father and the Son according to these forementioned Offices 12. A Consent to be Sanctified by the Holy Ghost 4. Plainly our Justifying and Saving Faith in Pauls sense is the same thing with our Christianity or becoming Christians And the same thing with our Baptismal faith and consent 5. To believe in Christ as Christ is in Scripture Justifying faith But to accept his righteousness only and not to believe in him as our Lord and our Teacher and Intercessor c. as aforesaid is not to believe in him as Christ 6. In my Answer ubi sup to Mr. Warner and elsewhere I have detected the fraud of their quibling distinction who say that All this is in faith quae justificat but not quà justificat as supposing a falshood that any act of faith quà talis justifieth 7. They that say that only our Acceptance of Christs Imputed Righteousness is the Justifying act of faith and that to expect to be Justified by any other viz. by Believing in God the Father and the Holy Ghost and believing a Heaven hereafter and believing the Truth of the Gospel and of Christs Resurrection Ascension Glory c. and by taking him for our Teacher Ruler Intercessor c. is to expect Justification by Works in Pauls disclaimed sense and so to fall from Grace I say they that thus teach do go so far towards the subverting of the Gospel and making a Gospel or Religion of their own as that I must tell them to move them to repentance not only the adding of Ceremonies is a small corruption in comparison of this but many that in Epiphanius are numbred with Hereticks had far lesser errors than this is CHAP. VIII Of Faiths Justifying as an Instrument P. VII ANd I have said so much in the foresaid Disputations of Justification and other Books of Faiths Instrumentality and the reason of its Justifying interest that I cannot perswade my self now to talk it out with you all over again but only to say 1. That I have fully oft proved from many plain Scriptures that pardon and salvation are given with Christ in the Covenant of Grace on Condition of a penitent believing fiducial acceptance And therefore that it is most certain that faith is a Condition of our Justification and so to be profest in Baptism 2. The name of An Instrument given to faith and its Justifying as an Instrument are of mens devising and not in Gods Word 3. But as to the sense It is certain that faith is no Instrument of our Justification Gods or Mans if it be meant properly of an Instrumental efficient cause 4. But if it be taken Metaphorically for an Act whose Nature or essence is An Acceptance of a free Gift and so by Instrumentality be meant the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã credere that is Faith 's very Essence in specie then no doubt it is what it is 5. Or if by an Instrument be meant A Moral aptitude or Disposition of the person to be justified answerable to the Dispositio Recipientis vel materiae in Physicks then it is such an Instrument But how well this is worded and what cause there is to contend for a word both of humane invention and metaphorical and this as if it were a weighty Doctrine I leave to sober judgements 6. But it is certain that the Accepting Act of faith is but its Aptitude to be the condition of the Gift and therefore that its being made by Christ the Condition is its Moral nearest interest in our Justification CHAP. IX Whether Faith it self be imputed for Righteousness Lib. VIII WHat do you but subvert the Gospel when you put faith instead of Christ or of his Righteousness When the Scripture saith that we are justified by Christs Righteousness Imputed to us you say it is by faith imputed P. Do you think any sober Christians here really differ or is it only about the Names and Notions Which ever it be 1. Of the name Is it not oft said that Faith is and shall be imputed for Righteousness Rom. 4. 22 23 24. James 2. 23. Lib. Yes I must grant the words but not your meaning P. Where doth the Scripture say that Christs Righteousness is Imputed to us Remember that it is only the Name that I ask you of Lib. It saith that Righteousness is Imputed and what Righteousness âan it be but Christs P. I tell you still it is only the phrase or words that we are first trying Are these the same words Righteousness is Imputed and Christs Righteousness is Imputed If not where are these latter words in Scripture Lib. Grant that the words are not and your words are P. Then the question is Whether Scripture phrase or mans invented phrase be the better and safer in a controvertible case And next Whether you should deny or quarrel at the Scripture saying that faith is imputed to us for righteousness and not rather confute our misexpounding it if we do so Lib. Well Let us examine the sense then What
Righteousness is it but Christs that is said to be imputed to us P. It is none but what we have from Christ But the phrase of Imputing supposeth it ours And the meaning is no more but that we are reputed Righteous And the causes are not included in the phrase of Imputing righteousness to us but in the words before and after As Imputing sin to us and not Imputing it is but to Repute reckon or judge us sinners or by sin guilty of punishment or not guilty so is it here So that it is supposed 1. That Righteousness that is This Relation of being Righteous is the thing imputed 2. Christs Righteousness is the meritorious cause 3. The Gospel Donation is the instrumental Cause 4. Our Faith in Christ is the condition and as such the subordinate matter necessary on our parts And that faith is imputed for Righteousness plainly meaneth but this that Christ having merited and satisfied for us all that is now required on our part to denominate or primarily constitute us Righteous is to be true Believers in him or true Christians And I further ask you Do you thus paraphrase the words Faith that is Christs Righteousness is imputed to us for righteousness Lib. Yes I do so because the act is put for the object P. Were it so said but once and otherwise oft you had some colour for this But when it is never said Christs Righteousness is imputed to us and so oft said Faith is imputed for righteousness how shall ever the Scripture be understood at this rate if still by faith it mean not faith at all but Christs righteousness And why must not all other places that mention faith be so understood also But read the Texts and set all together and see what sense thus will be made of it Rom. 4. 3. What saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it that is not his believing but Christs Righteousness was Imputed to him for righteousness Is this a sober and modest paraphrase or a shameless violence Doth not it refer to believing God before mentioned Vers 4 5. To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned or imputed of Grace but of debt But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith that is not his faith but Christs righteousness is counted for righteousness Is this a modest Exposition Vers 10 11. We say that Faith that is not faith but Christs righteousness was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness How then was it that is not his faith but Christs righteousness reckoned In uncircumcision And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the fiath that is not of the faith but of the righteousness of Christs righteousness which he had being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of them that believe that righteousness that is Christs might be imputed to them also who walk in the steps of that faith which Abraham had c. doth faith here also signifie no faith Vers 13. When the promise is said to be through the righteousness of faith and Vers 14. faith made void is it no faith that is here also meant by faith And Vers 16. It is of faith to that seed which is of the faith of Abraham is not faith indeed here meant by the word faith So Vers 18 19 20 21. Who against hope believed And being not weak in faith he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief but was strong in faith And being fully perswaded that what he had promised he was able to perform is it no faith that is meant in all these words yea or no act of faith but accepting the righteousness of Christ So next Vers 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness that is Not his faith but by It is meant only Christs Righteousness though it was faith that was over and over mentioned as the antecedent So Vers 23 24. It was not written for his sake only that it that is not faith but Christs righteousness was imputed to him But for us also to whom it that is not faith shall be imputed if we believe is not that faith neither on him that is God the Father that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead which is a distinct act from Consenting to have his righteousness who was delivered to death for our offences and was raised again for our Justification Is the meaning that we are justified by the Imputation of Christs Resurrection so to us as that in Law sense we rose again in him and by Rising fulfilled the Law of Innocency I will not for shame and weariness thus go over other such Texts but I must be so faithful as to say that if good men and wise men and men that cry down the Papists and others for adding to Gods Word and corrupting it and calling it a Nose of Wax and introducing new Articles of faith will yet own such Expositions as these and accuse those that own them not they are as great Instances as most I remember except the defenders of Transubstantiation how far education or custom or humane dependance or faction and partiality and prejudice may blind the reason of professed Christians and godly men And that man that dare lay his comforts and hopes of justification and life upon such expositions of Gods Word should be modest in crying down the false hopes of others and reproving them that build upon the sand Lib. You have made a long discourse to make us odious upon a false supposition We do not say that in all or any of those Texts by faith is not meant faith but only that it is not faith as faith or as an act of ours but as connoting its object the Righteousness of Christ P. 1. Alas a great number of better men than you have too oft and plainly said without distinction that Faith is not imputed to us for righteousness I hope they meant better than they spake but I would it could be hid from the world that these words are not only in the Independents Savoy Confession but even in the Confession of the Westminster Assembly cap. 11. Not by imputing faith it self the act of believing or any other Evangelical obedience to them as their Righteousness but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ to them So also in the larger Catechism Not as if the Grace of faith or any act thereof were imputed to him for his Justification How well soever they may mean Gods oft repeated Word should rather have been expounded than denyed 2. But what mean your cloudy words It is not faith as faith but as connoting the object They that cannot speak clearly seldom clearly understand what to speak The Question is Whether it be really and properly Faith that is meant in all these Texts or whether it be only Christs righteousness If you say that It is both in several respects you grant then that it is saith it self in one respect that is
as those as that Accusations against adversaries are to be believed without proof on one side and not on the other Gods Rule against receiving evil reports will be cast out and Charity and Justice will be cast away and meer siding and saction will possess the place And then all the question will be Who are those Accusers that are to be believed And if you think that it is your Teachers the Papists that have many more will think that they have more reason to believe them And ââ the Anabaptists will believe theirs and the Separatists theirs and the Quakers theirs and what falshood and evil will not then be believed against all parties and how odious will they appear to one another and consequently all Christians to Infidels and Heathens L. A man that is set upon a sodering design may palliate any Heresie in the world and put a fair sense on the foulest words but God hateth such cloaking of sin and complyance with it R. May not Papists Familists Seekers Quakers and all Sects say the same against Concord and Complyance with you I pray you tell me what you think of these following words before you know who wrote them and take heed what you say of them lest you strike you know not whom Quest How is Justification free seeing faith and repentance are required to it Answ There are two answers given One is from Augustines doctrine Epist 105. the summ is As Justification is taken inclusively taking in Faith and Repentance as its beginning it is free because faith is free But as it is taken narrowly for Justification following faith that is for Remission of sin and Reconciliation with God it is merited by faith But the other solution I more approve and it seemeth more agreeable to Scripture to wit that even Remission of sin it self and Reconciliation with God are given freely no Merit of ours going before and that neither by faith nor repentance we do merit the gift of this grace For understanding of which Note that Faith hath not of it self any efficacy as it is our act to Remit or Reconcile but all the Vertue proceedeth from the object it self that is Christ whoâe Vertue and Merit God hath determined to apply to a sinner for his justification by faith in him And what I say of Faith I say of Repentance and other dispositions as in the example of them that looked to the Brazen Serpent who were healed by looking not that looking as it was an act of the eye had such a healing force but the efficaây was from the Serpent which God had appointed for the Ioure So we say of Faith which hath not in its nature and from its entity any power to Remit and Reconcile but as the Vertue of Christ doth this in believers And so I answer that If Faith justified as an act and of it self Justification were not free But so it doth not but is a Mediâm by Gods good pleasure by which the Vertue of Christ Justifieth believers therefore faith or repentance make it not lâss free â g. I give a Beggar a gift He puts forth his hand and taketh it If one tell me Thou gavest it not freely because he took it or else had not had it it were a ridiculous objection For putting forth the hand doth not of it self bring him a gift else every time that he puts forth his hand it would bring in a gift But it is from the vertue and bounty of the giver So is it as to faith and the dispositions by which the vertue of Christ and the free mercy of God do give Remission and Reconciliation to believers and disposed persons so that it taketh not away Christs Merit nor maketh Grace less free that faith or these dispositions are asserted L. I know not how much men may mean worse than they speak but these words are such as the best Protestants use R. They are the words translated of the aforesaid Fr. Tolet a Jesuit and Cardinal on Rom. 3. pag. 157 158 159. But still remember that by Justification they mean the holy effect of the Spirit on the soul and indeed by Remission of sin they most commonly mean the destroying or mortifying sin within us and ceasing to commit the act And they are dark and confused in these matters L. But do not Papists hold forgiveness of deserved punishment R. Yes but they bring it in disorderly and on other occasions But if they did not how could they hold that any sin past from our childhood till Conversion is Remitted or pardoned For the Act is past as soon as done factum infectum fieri non potest and so such past sins can have no remission but forgiving the penalty and healing the effects And wrangling Papists consider not that this is the Remission that Protestants mean who call their kind of Remission by the name of mortification And so we endlesly quarrel about words through our unhappy imperfection in the art of speaking and words being arbitrary signs the world is come to no agreement of their sense L. You confess then their confused Doctrine and you cannot excuse many of their Doctors from gross error herein R. No nor many honest pious persons that go for Protestants What Papists have more plainly subverted the Gospel by their Doctrine on these subjects than many of those called Antinomians have done by the contrary extream And who can justifie all the sentences and phrases of many eminent Divines among us yea or of many of the most wise and accurate For when all are much ignorant who can say I do not err L. But undoubtedly you will be as bitterly censured for these your favourable interpretations of the Papists in the point of Merit as if you were half a Papist your self and were but such a Mongrel as Erasmus Wicelius Cassander or Grotius or as if your Conciliatory designs would carry you as far at last as Grotius Mileterius Baldwin or at least as Mountague Guil. Forbes and such others went And others will then say that you are justly served for writing so much against Grotius and his followers on this account as you have done of which Bishop Bramhall and his Epistoler have already told you R. Truth honesty and Gods approbation change not as mens interests minds or tongues do Time will come that Truth will be more regarded when Love and Peace are to be revived unless God will forsake this contentious and unrighteous World And I am so near so very near that World where there is nothing but Truth Love and Righteousness and where God is All and the Fulness and felicitating object of holy souls and where the censures of men are of no signification that I am utterly unexcusable if I should betray the Cause of Truth Love and Concord to avoid the obloquy of men who speak evil of the things which they never understood The Thirteenth Dayes CONFERENCE Of the great errours sin and danger which many Ignorant Professours fall
just so here the question is Whether Gods Causation and Mans be more than Gods alone And I will not say that Gods is a Part nor yet that Mans is none nor that it is the same with Gods But that Gods acting and concurse are quite above the reach of Mortals 568. But here again note what I said even now 1. That it is no more sign of finiteness in God nor dishonour to him to be a limited or Partial Cause than to be no Cause and limited totally by suspension of the whole act And yet so he is as to all Possibles which he doth not make or move 2. And that it is his own free will only that thus limiteth him As it doth from giving all men more grace c. So that really here is matter of satisfaction 569. Though he offend me by making God the Cause of sin I will here cite the words of our Countrey-man Holkot Quodl lib. 2. qu. 1. Est sententia omnium Theologorum quod Deus est Causa immediata omnis rei productae sic quod omni creaturae agenti sive sit Natura sive Voluntas Deus coagit sic imaginandum est quod in omni actione creaturae qua aliquid producit Deus Creatura sunt duae causae Partiales illius producti Non sic imaginando quod Deus producit unam partem effectus creatura aliam ob hoc dicatur Causa partialis sed ideo quia concurrunt in agendo vel causando Unde tam causa universalis quam particularis dicitur communiter causa partialis ideo etiam Sol Homâ sunt duae causae partiales hominis generandi similiter Vir Mulier Quia ad hoc quod aliquid dicitur causa partialis sufficit quod sit tale quod propter ipsum quoddam aliud vel quaedam alia res ponatur in esse sit quod illis positis res est aliquo istorum ablato res non fiet 570. Further I desire that it may be specially noted that God is our Creator in order of Nature before he is our Ruler And that Nature is before Morality obedience or sin And that God as Creator first setled the order of Nature so as that the Alteration of that Law or setled Order should not be ordinarily expected by us though he can alter it And therefore that man is man and hath a Natural Power of Self-determination and that God upholdeth him and concurreth as an Universal Cause belongeth to this fore-setled natural order and is presupposed to moral determinations and specifications either as from God or man 571. And note that to Good Acts we have need of more Help from God than this meer Natural Causality and Concurse And therefore God affordeth us more accordingly but not to all alike 572. It is further objected against this way that our making Reprobation to Infidelity Permission of sin not-giving faith c. to be no Acts of God cometh all to one as to mens sin and damnation because man cannot believe nor avoid sin without those Acts of Grace which God withholdeth Answ I confess it were all one if the supposition were true as it is not For we have proved after that man hath power without those acts of Grace which God suspendeth by that Common Grace which he giveth to do more good and forbear more evil than they do Of which in due place 573. It is objected also that while we make Gods Providence to fill the World with occasions of sin which he fore-knoweth men will take to their damnation yea as long as God could prevent all sin and save all souls and yet will not it cometh all to one which way soever you go in these Controversies I answer 1. Undoubtedly Gods Judgements are unsearchable But when we come into his Light we shall be perfectly reconciled to them all 2. And undoubtedly God doth whatsoever he will and all that he thought meet to Decree or Will shall come to pass in despight of sin 3. And when we have said all flesh and blood will be unsatisfied till faith and the will of God do satisfie us 4. But yet be it known to you that there is a great difference between Gods permitting sin after great means against it and his causing it Between the making of a free agent and putting life or death in his choice and his causing men unavoidably to sin and then to damn them for it The Holiness of Gods Nature will stand with the Being of sin by mans causing but not with Gods causing it And the Truth of Gods Word must be considered 574. If this were all one to Damn men unavoidably and to give them their free choice of Heaven or Hell in the means it is strange that so many Learned men as among the Jesuits Arminians Lutherans and Greeks do hold no other Grace at all but what leaveth man to such a free Choice could ever be so satisfied when others hold that the Elect have more SECT XVIII A Confutation of Dr. Twisse 's Digr 5. l. 2. sect 1. Vind. Grat. 575. I Come now to consider of what is said by them that go further about Gods will or Causality as to sin And because Dr. Twisse hath a peculiar Digression Vindic. Grat. li. 2. p. 1. Digr 4. I will somewhat animadvert upon it He beginneth Sententia nostra haec est Deum hactenus dici posse Velle peccatum quatenus vult ut peccatum âiat viz. ipso permittente And so he maketh the question An Dens Velit ut peccatum eveniat ipso permittente Arminius thought God willed only his own Permission of the sin Twisse saith that he willed that sin should come to pass God permitting it Arminius his concession cannot be proved as I have shewed But Twisses must be disproved And 1. I will give you our Reasons against it Bonavent in 1. d. 46. q. 3. resolveth this question very plainly and truly Mala âieri nullatenus bonum esse potest sed bene occasio boni And shewing the difference between Causa Casus Occasio he saith that Causa est procedens intendens Casus pâivat Intentionem sed non operationem Occasio privat utrumque And he distinguisheth Occasion into that which hath ratioââm Actiâi excitat agentem and that which hath but rationem passivi as one by anothers evil exciteth himself to do good And also between the evil and the ordinability to good And saith the evil is but the occasio passiva of the good and the ratio boni quod substernitur is occasio aliquo modo activa Vide locum 576. Let the Reader remember that what the Author saith of Gods Willing he also in the point of Predetermination saith of his working viz. that he Causeth as much as he willeth But I pass that by now because I have largely confuted it elsewhere And to speak to One is to speak to both 577. 1. All sober Christians are agreed on what side
still have heard Obey and live or Sin and die And if Adam âad obeyed till his translation to Glory or confirmation in the Reward I find not in Scripture any Promise that this should have been imâuted to his Posterity as the full performance of the Condition of their Life or confirmed Happiness but that still their own sinning would have been a possible thing and death would have been the wages of their Sin You seem not to set Adam's Merits and imputed Righteousness any âigher than Christ's And I am too sure that the justified Members of Christ do sin and must ask daily pardon And whether or not they be confirmed against total Apostasie I am sure few if any of them are confirmed against the possibility or existence or futurity of Sin And if you say that Adam's Posterity though confirmed should have sinned too but should have been pardoned as we are It would be another presumptuous addition and contradiction of Scripture to assert Pardon without a Saviour and a pardoning Covenant 3. Adam's Obedience would have justified his next issue from this false Accusation You are born of a sinful Parent or not of a righteous Parent But it would have justified no man against this Accusation You are personally a Sinner or have not personally loved God and obeyed him Therefore it would have justified any man against this Charge You are to be condemned for Adam's sin But it would have justified no man against these Charges You are to be condemned for your own personal Sin or you have no right to Glory by Gods Promise to the adult which maketh their personal Obedience the Condition 4. And though I cannot again here have time to deal with Confounders who think that Imputation or Justification are words which have but one sense I must say that even so Christ's Righteousness is not so imputed to any man as to be to him in stead of his personal Obedience to the Law or Covenant of Grace which he is under But it will justifie any Believer from these Accusations You must be cast into Hell for breaking the Law of Innocency or you must be shut out of Heaven because you deserved it not by perfect Obedience or you have no perfect or sufficient Saviour or you are such as God cannot pardon without wrong to his Truth Wisdom or Justice It will justifie no man from any of these Charges You are Sinners you deserve condemnation by the first Law you are Impenitent or Unbelievers or Hypâcrites or have not performed the conditions of life in the Law of Grace The two first we must confess and not justifie our selves by a denial And against the last we must be justified by our own Repentance Faith and sincere Obedience He that will say to the Accuser that chargeth him with final Infidelity Impenitency or Unholiness I am justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness will but add to his sin 5. There are all these differences between our Justification according to the first Law had we been capable of it and that which we now have 1. One would have been by God as Creator and Legislator to the Innocent The other by Christ as Redeemer and Legislator to the sinful World 2. One would have been for personal perfect persevering Obedience The other for Christ's Merits as purchasing a free Pardon Grace to penitent Believers and upon our own Faith and Repentance as the Conditions of the new Covenant 3. One would have been without pardon and the other chiefly or much by pardon In one if our Publick Root had perfectly obeyed we must also have perfectly obeyed or die In the other because our Publick Root did perfectly obey Faith and sinceere Obedience to the end is all that is required of us to ouâ Glory 4. In one the personal matter of worthiness or merit must have been all that perfection which God in justice could require of man In the other it is only The acceptance of a free Gift according to its nature and use and after the thankful use and improvement of it with other such differences § 34. M. S. What Christ did as surety is imputed to us but not his Suretiship or being a publick Person Ans This is true if you understand Imputation in Scripture sense or soundly and not in their sense who presumptuously say That God reputeth us to have done all by Christ which he did for us in his Obedience to the Law § 35. M. S. Christ did not all that he did as Surety but only that which answered the Law An. I suppose you mean that which the Law requireth of us But the word Surety is ambiguous and after here explained and whether you understood it sano sensu I know not He did all that he did as the Mediator and Sponsor for mans Redemption And we are pardoned and justified by the merit of all his own Covenant-keeping with the Father even of such acts as the Law required not of us And some which the Law required of many he did not because it required them not of him § 36. M. S. The Law said not That Christ must be a holy Husband or Father c. The Imputation of one Act of Christ's Obedience is sufficient to our Justification and Merit of life though it need not be curiously set in this or that part of his life § Still more presumption 1. Where saith the Scripture so 2. You must not assert absurdities or presumptions and then think to put off the detection of them by calling it curious If this be true doubtless it was Christs first act of Obedience which merited Glory for us And so it is that first only that must be imputed to us to that end And who ever thought so before you The Fryars have some of them said That minima guttula sanguinis Christi One drop of his blood was enough to redeem all the World And our Divines say Why then was the rest shed So I ask you 1. Why did Christ do all the rest of his Obedience after the first Act Hath none of it the same end and use 2. How shall we be sure that a Sinner must not plead or trust to any of Christ's Righteousness but the first act for his Justification and Reward or must he trust for it to that which was never by Christ intended for it 3. This is contrary to the Scripture which layeth our Justification on his whole Righteousness as meritorious and on his Obedience to the Death and on his rising again and on other parts first Rom. 4. 24. 5. throughout c. 4. Sure they that are so curious as to tell us which physical act of Faith justifieth in specie numero for some say only the first instantaneous act doth justifie will not think it curiosity to enquire which one Act of Christs Obedience justifieth us when according to your Doctrine it is evident that it must be the first And they that say It is Justification by Works to
sinned by Omission 3. But that Law giving life eternal only to Obedience to the end of his time of trial he merited not that life by initial Obedience This was initial imperfect Righteousness wanting perseverance but not a medium between Just and Unjust except as Just signifieth the merit of Life by persevering Righteousness to the last And so I never denied but in a disobliged Subject there is a medium Adam was not bound to do a years work the first hour and so was neither just nor privatively unjust as to the future years work but as to what he was presently obliged to he was either Righteous or a Sinner Here you come short of necessary accurateness Perseverance is a part of our Condition of Glorification Yet he that is not dead is just if he be a Believer and obedient And if God now call him by death he shall be glorified But he hath not now done all that is to be done till his death if he live longer So that his Right to the present possession of Glory before death is not justifiable but his Right in case he now die is § 41. M. S. Faith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã credere cannot be put in exchange for fac hoc and therefore justified only as it relateth to him who hath suffered and done for all that will receive him An. 1. Exchange is an ambiguous word Here is no proper exchange Faith is not a fulfilling of the Law of Innocency nor so reputed by God Christ did both satisfie for our not-fulfilling it and also by that and by fulfilling it himself not in our persons but his own did merit the free Gift of Life to us to be ours upon new Covenant terms and Faith and Repentance are the Conditions of that New Covenant and so are that Duty which is laid on our selves to do instead of perfect Obedience supposing Christ's Satisfaction and Merits which are instead of it quoad precium or principally as our said acts are instead of it as to what is necessary in our selves And the Apostle who so oft saith Faith is imputed to us for Righteousness doth neither by Faith mean Christ nor mean that Faith is imputed as a fulfilling the Law of Works But that having no such merit of our own or Righteousness our believing in him that hath satisfied and merited for us is reckoned to us instead of a Righteousness or Merit as being all that now is necessary to our Justification in our selves our persevering Obedience being afterward necessary to our Glory 2. No doubt Faith relateth to Christ and here connoteth him as its Object It were not Christian Faith else But it is also related to the New Covenant as its Condition and in that form hath its place to our Justification which cannot be denied Therefore you untruly say Only as relating to Christ and your words confute your self You say Who hath suffered and done for all that will receive him You speak either of secret Decree and that giveth no Right or of Covenant Donation And to say He and his benefits are given in Covenant to all that will receive him is all one as to say The Covenant giveth them on condition that we receive him which is true § 42. M. S. 5. It is impossible that the terms of the Covenant of Grace can be any other than they are because nothing but receiving him can make him mine An. 1. That proveth not that Faith is not the Condition but that it needs must be so 2. It is impossible now the Covenant is so made viz. ex necessitate existentiae But that God could have made it no otherwise is not a thing for man to say 3. Confound not passive Reception with active moral Reception Justificari is passively to receive Justification and to be first related to Christ as mine or to be one that he is given to is passively to receive Christ Active moral receiving is the Wills consenting thus to have him on all his terms and is the means of the other It is this and not the other that is Faith And could not God possibly have made Christ ours by any alteration of the terms sure they that confine Faith to the receiving of Christs imputable Righteousness will grant that God could possibly have put one act more of Faith into the Condition or onâ act of Gratitude Desire Love or Repentance And Dr. Twisse thinks he could have given a man a Right to Life without Christ's Satisfaction and to Christ without Faith and that so he doth to Infants § 43. M. S. There is no Righteousness in point of Justification but only in conformity to the Rule Do this that only brings a man under the approving Will of God An. 1. But what is the Do this that you mean Adam's Law said Do this and live Moses Law said Do this and live The Law given to Christ said Do and suffer this and I will give thee Power over all Flesh to give eternal life to as many as I give thee and believe The Law of Christ to Sinners saith Do this and live This is the work of God that ye believe c. But all these Doings are different for all that It 's an unknown Faith or Repentance which is no Act or Duty 2. There is no Righteousness but the conformity to the Rule of Righteousness if you speak only of that Righteousness which is of that species But there is another sort He that is justifiable is just so far If Satan say Thou art condeânandus to be damned to Hell and shut out of Heaven for breaking the Law of Works I must deny it not by saying I did not break it but keep it by another or I did not deserve damnation but by alledging He that is pardoned is not to suffer any pain of sense or loss I am pardoned by the New covenant through the Merit of the Satisfaction and perfect Righteousness of Christ Adam's Law will not justifie you nor Moses's Law neither The Law requireth personal perfect Obedience It never said Thou or another for thee shalt obey It knoweth no Surety To give a Surety and to accept his suretiship is the act of the Law Giver as above his Law not fulfilling that Law but securing the ends of Government and of it by another way To pardon a Sin and Penalty is not to fulfil the Law that threatened it but to dispense with it which Justice can do upon a valuable consideration securing the ends of Government And Veracity is not impeached by it For 1. The sense of silius mortis is Death shall be thy due and so it was 2. And death was actually inflicted on man himself though not all that which he deserved If the Law of Innocency justifie you you need no Redeemer you need no Pardon you need no New Covenant to justifie you nor can it do it 3. We are justified by Doing though not by our fulfilling the Law of Works by our selves or another We are justified
whether he be a true Christian and must judge of his sincerity and right to Christ Justification and Salvation as he is or is not a sincere consenter to it truly understood in the essential parts SECT V. Of the Gift and Works of the Holy Ghost 72. There are three sorts of Operations of the Holy Ghost one common and two proper to them that shall have or already have Justification 1. The first is preparing common Grace which maketh men fitter for special Grace which yet they may have that perish 2. The second is that Grace of the Spirit by which we perform the The Thomists make the act of contrition and chariây to be the ultiâate disposition to Justification which is with them the habit And yet they say that it floweth from that habit And if the distinction of Alvaâez Disp de Aux 59. p. 264. possim be not contradiction I understand it not Eadem contritio quae est ultima dispositio ad gratiam in genere causae materialis antecedit illam in genere tamen causae formalis efficientis est effectus ejusdem gratiae Though that which is the effect of one act of Gods Love be the Object of another act first Act of special Faith and Repentance called commonly by Divineâ Vocation which goeth before any special habit but not before any holy seed Because the very influx of the Spirit on the Soul is as a seed which exciteth the first act before a habit though not ordinarily before some preparations This Faith is commanded us as our duty first and made necessary to us as the Condition of the Covenant And when we know it to be thus required of us and hear in the Gospel the Reasons which should perfwade us then the Holy Spirit moveth us by his Influx to believe and consent where God and man are conjunct Agents but man subordinate to God 3. The third sort is the Spirits Operation of the habit of Divine Love and all other Graces in the Soul which is called his In-dwelling and Sanctification This is that Gift of the Spirit besides Miracles of old which is promised to Believers To this Faith is the Condition To this upon believing it is that we have Right given us by Gods Covenant and thus it is that by Baptism our right to the Spirit as an in-dwelling Sanctifier and Comforter is given us 73. This third Gift or Work of the Spirit eminently so called is in the same instant of time given us as the second but not of nature or at least immediately thereupon when we believe But yet they are not to be confounded on many accounts 74. But yet though some degree of the Spirit be presently given to every Believer it is usually but a spark at first And there are further means and conditions appointed us for the increase and actual helps from day to day And he that will not wait on the Spirit in the use of those means doth forfeit his help according to his neglect 75. Hence it is that most if not all Christians have lower measures of the Spirit than otherwise they might have and that judicially as a punishment for Sin However God is free herein and if he please may give more even to them that forfeit it 76. This Covenant of Grace being a conditional pardon of all the world The extent of the New Covenant is universal in the tenor or sense of it It is of all Mankind without exception that Christ saith If thou confess with thy mouth and believe iâ thy heart thou shalt be saved No person antecedently is excluded in the world 77. And as to the promulgation of it Christ hath commissioned his Ministers to preach this Gospel to all the world and to every Creature So Matth. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 15 16. that to the utmost of their power they are to offer and publish it to the whole world And Princes and people are all bound in their several places to assist them and to help to propagate the Gospel throughout all the Earth So that the restraint of it is not by the tenor of the Law 78. Those Nations which despise and refuse the Gospel are justly deprived of it penally for that rejection 79. Those Nations that live inhumaâely and wickedly against the means and mercies which they have do forfeit their hopes of more 80. As God in all Ages hath visited the sins of the Fathers on the Children as the instances of Cain Cham Nimrod and others commonly shew and hath proclaimed it as his Name Exod. 34. and put it in Tables of Stone in the Second Commandment and not only of Adam's sin so may he justly deal by the Posterity of the Despisers of the Gosâel in denying it them Though he may freely give it the unworthy when he pleaseth 81. All the rest of the world who have not the Gospel and the Covenant The state of those that have not the Gospel of Grace in the last Edition are left by Christ in as good a state âat least if not better than he found them at his Incarnation He took âway no mercy from them which they had 82. Therefore as it is before proved that before Christ's time none Of Zuingliu's Opinion of the Salvation of Heathens by name Hercules Theseus Socrates Aristides Antigonus Numa Camilli Catonâs Scipiones c. Vid. Montaâut exercit Eccles 1. Sect. 4. Twissum contra Corvinum pag. 371. col 1. Omnium temporum una est fides Deum esse eundemque Justum Bonum Remuneratorem sperantium in se omnium plene meritis respondentem ante legem sub lege sub gratia Nemini rectum sapienti venit istud in dubium sine ista nemo unquam ingressus est ad salutem Rob. Sarisberiens Polycrat de nugis curial Pol. Peucer Hist Carcerum against the Lutherans Concord saith p. 715. Etsi nec ad Ethnicos ante natum Christum nec ad Judaeos post natum Christum misit singulares ministros sonuit tamen vâx doctrinae de Deo patefactae utroque tempore Hoc modo adhuc sonat ut exaudiatur nunc etiam a Turcis Judaeis Nec fuerunt unquam exclusi prorsus a gratia miserecordia Dei ante Christum Ethnici E quibus innumeri ex omnibus gentibus fuerunt ad Deum conversi Post Christum natum Judaei Panciores ex his tamen of the world were left desperate under the meer violated Covenant of ânnocency but that the tenor of that New Covenant as made to Adam ând Noah extended to them all so are they still under all the Grace of âhat Edition of the Covenant further than they are penally deprived of ââ for violating it The Law of Grace in that first Edition is still in force ând the Law by which the world shall be governed and judged They âre all Possessors of Mercy which leadeth to Repentance and bound to use âhe means afforded them in order
he will have all condemned whom he doth condemn But then it must be understood that this distinction iâ not applyed to the Will of God as he is meerly an Absolute Proprietary or Benefactor but as he is the King or Rector of the world and so his Legislation is his Antecedent Will and his Judgment is his Consequent Will And no man of Religion can deny either that Gods Law is the signification of his Will or his Will signifyed or that his Judgment and ââcution is his Will declared or that Gods Law of Grace doth conditionally give pardon and salvation to all antecedently to man's performance or rejection of the condition or that God condemneth Infidels consequently to their Infidelity The Law Antecedently to Mans part acted saith He that believeth shall be saved and the Sentence consequently to his fact saith Judas an unbeliever or impenitent shall perish And thus the distinction hath no doubt or difficulty 103. God by commanding faith and repentance and making theâ necessary conditions of Justification and by commanding perseverance and threatning the Justified and Sanctified with damnation if they fââ away and making perseverance a condition of Salvation doth thereby provide a convenient means for the performance of his own Decree of giving Faith and Repentance and perseverance to his Elect For he effecteth his ends by suitable moral means and such is this Law and Covenant to provoke man to due fear and care and obedience that he may be wrought on as a man 104. To be justifyed by Faith in general agreeth to the ages before Of Justification by Faith c. Christ's Incarnation and those since But so doth not the special kind of faith by which they are justifyed For much more is Essential to that faith which we must be justifyed by to them that are under the last edition of the Covenant of Grace than was or is to them that were under the first alone Abraham believed not all our essential Articles of faith 105. To be justified by faith in Paul's sence is all one as to be justified What that Faith is by becoming Christians To be a Believer a Disciple and a Christian are all one in the Gospel sence 106. The faith by which we are justified as is aforesaid is best understood The Controversie between the Papists and us about Justification is agitated iâ vain till we agree of the sence of the words Justification and Remission As I said elsewhere they take not only Justification for a qualitative change such as we call Sanctification but Remission of Sin for they know not what themselves most of them talk as if it were a putting away the Sin in its essence which can be meant of nothing but the Habit for the fact cannot be infectum Others seem to take it for remitting the punishment also with that change Malderus most plainly in 1. 2. q. 113. a. 1. and p. 567. saith that Remission of Sin is Ablatio Reatus culpae At esse longe aliud quam Nolle illud punire non enim tantum facit Hominem non puniri sed etiam non esse Poena dignum Minus tamen est quam in amicitiam recipi though yet no man is in a middle state neque Dâi amicus neque inimicus yet cogitations possunt seterari Peccata Remittere idem est quod non imputare si hoc non accipias pro dissimulare sed pro desinere esse offensum cum per Remissionem Deo non imputante est quasi non fuerit By this you may see that these Papists hold the same with those Protestants whom they seem most to resist and cannot hide it But 1. It will be true to eternity that Peter sinned 2. To say so is to blame him 3 His sin deserv'd death 4. The Law and the nature of sin past are the same after pardon as before 5. God doth not change his mind of sin 6. Gods offence or displeasure is not a passion or mutable but his essence as denomina ed from the object to be his Velle punire and Justice that must punish 7. For God to be appeased and no more offended is but his Nolle punire peccatorem and not to be obliged in Justice to punish him but by his Covenant related to him as one that will not punish 8. This change is in the sinner becoming not punishable 9. That is not worthy of it in the Gospel-sence though worthy by the Law of Innocency 10. All this is but that the Reatus pâna culpae quantum ad poenam is remitted but not the Reatus culpae simpliciter in se And thus we are all agreed by the Baptismal Covenant and is essentially a Believing Fiducial consent to our Covenant relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as our Reconciled Creator and Father our Saviour and our Sanctifyer connoting the forsaking of all inconsistents For it must needs be the same faith by which we have right to the benefits of that Covenant and by which we are justified because we have our remission and justification by the Instrumental donation of the Covenant it being one of the benefits given by it But Practical Faith or Believing-consent is our condition of receiving our Covenant right to all the benefits in general therefore to Justification in particular 107. The Phrases of Justifying faith and Faith justifying us are humane and not Scriptural at all And though they may be well used with explicatory caution as being well meant yet they are more lyable to mislead men than the Scripture phrase that we are justified by Faith Because the former phrases are apter to insinuate an Efficiency than the other whereas faith is no efficient cause of our Justification nor any other act of Man And the Scripture that speaketh of Justification by Faith sometime useth the phrase ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which no more signifyeth any Instrumental efficiency of Justification than ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ex operibus And though sometime ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã be used it is to signifie no more than that God hath appointed it to be the Medium of our Justification as a condition but not as any efficient cause 108. The Faith by which we are justified as I touched before hath God the Father for its object as essentially as Christ the Saviour as the said Baptismal Covenant sheweth and that not only secondarily as Christ being the Mediator and way to the Father our faith in Christ connoteth the final object but also directly and primarily as the Father is the first in Trinity and as Creator first related to us and as the end is first in our intention Joh. 17. 3. This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou bast sent Joh. 13. 1. Let not your hearts be troubled you believe in God believe also in me 109. And as essential is it to this Faith to believe in Christ as the Purchaser of Holiness and Heaven as to
believe in him as the purchaser of pardon and to believe in him as the Teacher and Ruler of the Church as to believe in him as the justifyer of believers The inseparableness of these acts is commonly confessed 110. Indeed it is essential to this faith 1. To be the act of the three essential faculties of man's Soul the Vital Power the Intellect and the Will 2. And to have for its object God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that in Christ all that is essential to him as a Saviour be its object And therefore 1. That it be an Assent Consent and practical Affiance 2. That it be a believing in Christ as God and Man and as the Teacher Priest and King of the Church revealing the Gospel reconciling us to God and Ruling us in order to Salvation 111. To say that some one only of these parts of Christ's office as they are Concept us inadaequati of a Saviour is the only object of justifying faith and to say that justifying faith is only one Act of the Soul or many acts of one only faculty or to say that we are justified only by such a one and that to expect to be justified by Assent Consent and Affiance or by believing in Christ as our Teacher and Ruler as well as Priest and as a justifying Judg as well as a Justifying Sacrifice and as a fulfiller of the Law is to expect justification by Works as Paul denyeth it This is a vain distinguishing a falsifying the Doctrine of faith and justification a departing from the Scripture simplicity by corrupting seeming subtility and one of those humane inventions which have wronged the Church And it is no wiser than to say that when we speak of taking or receiving a Man to be a Husband a Physician a King it is but one physical aâ of the Soul that is meant or about one only physical conception in the object which is inadequate Whereas all such Moral or Civil acts coâtain many physical acts and are suited to all things in the object which are essential to it in its moral or civil nature or relation 112. And it is but the same deluding subtility and vain curiosity ââ a playing with deceitful words to say that we are justified by faith Quatenus recipit Christi Justitiam As it believeth in Christ's Sacrifice and perfect obedience only and not As it believeth in him as Teacher Ruler Sanctifier Judg or as he intercedeth for us in Heaven c. when the Scripture saith no such thing at all but simply maketh faith in Christ supposing Faith in God the Father to be that by which we must be justified 113. This distinction is founded in another falshood supposed which is that the effects of all Christ's saving works are as distinctly to be ascribed to several Receiving Acts of faith as they are to the several procuriâ acts of Christ the object of faith which is another corrupting additioâ to God's Word One part of the work of our Salvation was done by Christ's humiliation and another by him in his exaltation one by his overcoming the Devil and another by his overcoming the World one by his Cross another by his Grave another by his Resurrection another by his ascension another by his making the new Covenant another by his sending the Spirit another by his sending the Apostles another by his intercession in Heaven another will be done by our Resurrection and another by his last Judgment and our Glorification one by hiâ as an obeying-subject another as a Sacrifice for sin many by him as a Prâphet many as a Priest and many as a King and Judge But to say therefore that our acts of faith as Receptive have as various respects to the effects or benefits and that we are justified by him only as we believe iâ him as Righteous or a Justifyer and that we are adopted as we believe in him in another respect and sanctifyed as we believe in hiâ in another respect c. these are the dreams of corrupting curiosity For that Christ who by all these several works hath done all the office of a Redeemer to procure these several effects is preached and offered to us to be entirely as such a Redeemer believed in and received and upon the condition of such an entire faith only Christ and all these benefits conjunctly are by one Covenant given us and no otherwise And believing in Christ as Christ who by all those acts hath himself procured us this Covenant and these gifts is that by which we are justified as it is one undivided faith And the quatenus here as to Christ's own procurement of the effects hath its place but as to the Act of our faith and Christ as the object constituting that faith there is no such diversity or order to be feigned as if the several effects were accordingly to be ascribed to our several Believings or Receiving acts 114. The ambiguity of the very word Receiving hath drawn many into this error Receiving signifyeth sometimes a Physical reception which is meerly Passive or the Relation of the Patient as such to the Act and Agent And this is twofold 1. The Reception of a real being and so to be sanctified is to Receive Sanctification 2. The Reception of a Relation such as all Jus Right to a thing is and so to be pardoned justified and adopted and to Receive pardon justification and adoption is all one 2. Sometimes it signifyeth Moral or Civil receiving which is nothing but 1. The consent of the mind called Acceptance 2. And as to corporeal objects sometime the voluntary act of the body as the Hand taking that which is offered Now if the Receiving in question were physical either rei vel juris ad rem then indeed it would be so neerly related to the thing received which as received is no object because Receiving so is no act as that this quatenus in question might be applyed to it For it may well be said I receive Justification quatenus Justificatus sum as I By this you see the answer to what Mr. Lawson in his excellent Theopolitica hath said against me on this point Of which see fullyer my answer to Mr. Warner in my Disputes of Justification am justified and I receive Sanctification as I am sanctified and vice versa for they are but various words signifying the same thing But of Moral Receiving the case is otherwise For this is not physical Reception but only a Moral Act which is made a necessary medium or Condition to Physical Reception and thence is called Receiving so Accepting or Consenting is a moral means or condition of that Having or Possessing which is consequential And this Acceptance hath relation immediately to the thing as Given only to be made ours according to the Will of the Giver and not made ours according to the order of the things given That is 1. The Ratio proprietatis the Reason that they are ours is the will of the Donor
and the Collation is according to the order of his Will though the Things Given have their intrinsick difference 115. All men confess that this Moral Reception is an Act and therefore hath an object which Physical Reception is not And that thus to Receive doth suppose a Moral Gift which Gift maketh not the thing ours necessarily as physical operation doth but on supposition of our voluntary Reception or Consent And all confess that Gods Donation is by his Covenant Testament or Promise and this Covenant hath its proper nature and mode that is the Condition as imposed antecedent to our Receiving Therefore as the thing Given is made ours by the Donation so according to the order appointed by it and our Consent no otherwise maketh it ours than as the Condition of the Gift performed But Gods Covenant doth Give us Christ and Life that is Justification Sanctification and Glorification in tithe or right in one Gift to be Accepted by one entire faith as the Condition not making at all the order of the Gifts and faiths respect to them in that order to be any of the Ratio proprietatis 116. This will be plainer by humane instances A Servants Relation is founded in his consent to be a Servant a Wifes Relation is founded in her Marriage-consent to be a Wife and to take that man for her Husband simply without any more adoe Now if the Master of that Servant or the Husband of that Wife be a noble man a rich man a wise man a good man and they knew all this and by knowing it were induced to consent and are to have their proportionable benefits by his Nobility Riches Wisdom Goodness yet their title to these benefits ariseth not from the act of their consent as it respected these benefits severally and distinctly but meerly by consent to their Relation as being his Condition of Collation The Wife is made Noble by her Husbands Nobility she is made Rich by his Riches she is instructed by his Wisdom c. But she hath no more Right to his Riches for marrying him in the notion of Rich or for consenting to him for Riches than for marrying him in the notion or thought of his wisdom or goodness On her part it was not consent to be Rich by him that gave her right to his Riches and consent to be Noble by him that gave her right to Nobility but consent simply to be his Wife that gave her right to all 117. This is yet fullyer evident in that most usually men make consent to one thing to be the condition of their Receiving or Right to another And usually that which one is most backward to is made the condition of their Right to that which they are most forward or willing to have The Master doth not say If thou wilt have thy wages thou shalt have right to it But if thou wilt do my work thou shalt have thy wages The condition of Marriage is conjugal Love and fidelity q. d. I will be thy Husband and give thee right to all that I have if thou wilt be and do what is essential to a Wife and not if thou wilt have my Riches c. If a Father give a Child a free gift on any condition it will likely be If thou wilt be a thankful and obedient Child and not If thou wilt have it Or if meer consent to have it be put it is usually when it is some gift which it is supposed that the person is not very willing to have As if a Sick man will have Physick if an ungodly man will have Teaching Books or Godliness it self But to this usually they are induced by the Promise of somewhat else which they are willing of As to the Sick If thou wilt take this Physick thou shalt have health To the ungodly If thou wilt have Christ and holiness thou shalt have pardon and happiness Now in the sence of Physical Receiving He that receiveth Physick hath Physick and He that receiveth health hath health c. But in the moral sence of Receiving which is Accepting as it is the condition of a gift so He that receiveth the Physick shall have the health and He that receiveth Christ and his sanctifying Spirit shall have Pardon Justification and Salvation Not that his willingness to have pardon and happiness is the chief or only condition of his pardon and happiness But his Accepting Christ and his Spirit which men are naturally unwilling of is the condition of that pardon and happiness which men would have By all which it appeareth that to say Faith justifyeth me as it is the Receiving of Christs Righteousness and not as it is the Receiving of Christ as a Teacher Ruler c. is a confounding or seducing saying For 1. If it intimate that Faith Justifyeth us as an efficient cause principal oâ Instrumental it is false * * * Unless by Justifying they mean the acts of Love Hope Obedience called Hââiness 2. If it mean that Faith is the Condition of Justification quatenus as it receiveth Christs Righteousness only it hath either one or two falshoods 1. If it mean that Faith 's receiving act is the formalis ratio Conditionis or that it justifyeth not qua conditio dââationis but quae Receptio Justitiae Christi it is false Therefore qua here can signifie nothing but the Aptitude of faith to be made the condition and so Qua Quae here are all one 2. And then that only the Accepting of Righteousness justifyeth us that is Is the condition of our Justification is a falshood 118. Therefore our consent to be a Holy and obedient people or to take Christ for our Teacher Exemplar Ruler Sanctifier by his Word and Spirit and Judge hath at least as great a hand in our justification being principally the Condition of the Promise as our belief in our acceptance of Christ's Righteousness hath SECT VIII Of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed 119. Christ's personal Righteousness Divine or Humane habitual active How little the Papists differ from the Imputation which they quarrel with See in Bellarm. words cited and approved by Davenant de Justit And Pet. a S. Joseph Theol. Speculat l. 4. c. 10. saith Obj. Pâccatum remitti non potest quamdiu homo manet conversus ad creaturam aversus a Deo At semper aversus erit a Deo nisi mutatur Resp Sufficere mutationem moralem quae per solam Dei condonationem fieri potest ut jam homo non dicatur aversus a Deo This is Antinomianism and false As if God called not him averse who is really averse Obj. 2. Si peccatum remitti potest sine actu aut habitu per solam imputationem erit quae est âaereticorum sententia Resp Haereticos loqui de facto non de imputatione peccati remanentis vere non remissi nos de possibili de verâ remissione qua peccatum tollatur See how the case is turned and wranglers
person or as fully representing us all the Gospel is over-turned There is no room for Repentance none for the satisfaction of Christ none for Faith in his blood nor for Pardon or prayer for Pardon or any Grace Act Duty or Ordinance Sacraments Confession or any thing which supposeth Sin To say that Adam's Law meant Do this by thy self or by Christ and thou shalt live is a Humane fiction not found in Scripture confounding the Law of Innocency with the Gospel And to say that the New Covenant maketh us one Person with Christ and then the Law of Adââ doth justifie us is a double error We are not reputed one Person with Christ nor doth the first Covenant justifie any but the Person that performeth it But we maintain as well as they that the same Righteousness of God in himself is manifested in both Covenants and the same holy love of perfect Obedience and the ends of the first Covenant are secured by the second But the tenour and terms are not the same nor the Righteousness of the subject as denominated from those terms It is not the same Law which condemneth us and justifieth us nor that justifieth Christ and us nor is it the same Habits or Acts which are the immediââe fundamentum of the Relation of righteous in Christ and in us âough his Righteousness be the meritorious cause of ours And thereââre not the same with the thing merited 130. The Truth which they grope after and must reconcile them ââââ is as followeth Christ in his Sufferings did stand in the room of ââners as their Sponsor and satisfied Justice as was said before And ââd had other ends yet to accomplish It was meet that the perfection âhis Law should be glorified by a perfect fulfilling of it by Christ âen we had failed Satan was hereby confounded God pleased and ânoured Man shewed what he should have been and yet should do âns nature in Christ was thus actively and habitually perfected By all âs Christ performed his Obedience to the mediatorial Law and his Herveus Natal quodlib 4. q. 14. could speak thus much better than many Protestants Sicut meritum Christi quantum ad actum quem exercuit non transit in alios transit tamen in alios quantum ad effectum illius meriti illis qui applicantur ad Christum mediantibus Sacramentis vel mediante fide propria Qui quidem effectus est Gratia quae est cântraria culpae quae reddit hominem dignum vita aeterna Ita etiam demeritum Adae licet non transeat in alios quantum ad actum quem exercuit tamen transit quoad effectum culpae originalis quae est contraria gratiae reddit dignum poenae aeterna indignum vita aeterna How doth this differ from the soundest Protestants as to the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to us or Adam's sin âvenant of Redemption and so acquired a right first to himself of giving ât the purchased Benefits to Sinners by a new Law or Covenant of Grace ââd according to it By which Covenant only as his Instrument the âher and Son give us Right to them in an Order there established ââââ that is there given to us Christ purchased for us by performing his ân Covenant first with the Father by perfect Holiness and Obedience âen in his Sacrifice on the Cross and by all that he undertook to do as Redeemer antecedently The Purchase was made for this Donation â its end and is commensurate to it just so much as Christ hath given ââââ as to matter manner terms degree time c. he did purchase and ârit for us and no more Had he antecedently done all that he did ââââ our person and we in him in Law sense the thing it self with its separable consequents and effects had been all ours ipso facto before and âthout the donation or conveyance of a new Law or Covenant nor âd they been ever given us upon terms and conditions when they were ââââ own before without those terms But now what is given us by the âew Covenant we have title to on this account because it was purâased by the perfect Merit and Saerifice of Christ and so given us by âm and by the Father So that it is ours as sure as if we had merited it âr selves but not ours in the same order and measure and time and âms as if we had merited it our selves in our natural or legal perâns For then it would have been all ours at once ipso facto even âe merit it self and the fore-said effects We deserved punishment ând Christ was punished in our stead that we might be forgiven not âmediately but on Covenant-terms we had forfeited Life by sin And âhrist merited Life for us by his Perfection not in our persons but in âe person of a Mediator which Life was to be given to us by the said âovenant The antecedent benefits such as the Covenant it self he âveth absolutely and antecedently to any act of ours God reputeth all his Satisfaction and Merit of Christ to be as meet and effectual to proâure us all these Benefits to be thus given as if we our selves had done and âffered And in this sense Christ's Righteousness is given us and made ours ââââ that it is given for us and we have the said benefits of it Not that God doth give us the very habits of Holiness which were in Christ nor âhe transient acts which he performed nor the very Sufferings which he ânderwent nor the Relation of righteous satisfactory and meritorious as ââââ was that numerical Relation which immediately resulted from Christ's âwn Habits Acts and Sufferings For such a translation of accidents is ââââ contradiction But God giving us all the effects or Salvation merited ân it self properly is said also not unfitly to give us the Merit or Righteousness which procured them that is as it was paid to God for us to procure them even as he is said to give Christ himself antecedently ââ our Faith to the World as a Saviour And thus Christ's Righteousness Merit and satisfaction may be said to be imputed to us in that it ââ thus given us and thus truly reputed ours 131. But when the Text saith Rom. 4. 24. Righteousness is imputed ââ us the meaning is no more but that God reputeth or judgeth us righteâââ though we have not the Righteousness of Innocency or of the Law ââ Works which indeed is done for Christ's meritorious Righteousââââ procuring it But the Text speaketh not of Christ's personal Righteousââââ in matter or form imputed to us as being it self our own Impuââââ Righteousness to us is a consequent Act after Faith of God as Judââ and not an antecedent donation 132. And it is true that formaliter non-punire praemiari âââpunish and to Reward are not all one And in some cases a man may ââ freed from punishment who is not rewarded But it is as true as is aâââ said 1. That Gods Salvation and
in the heart and so maketh the Creed to be more properly this Law than the Scriptures as being written only on particular occasions But though we thankfully confess that the essentials of Christianity are so plain and few as may be remembred yet the Creed is contained and explained in the Scripture and without written Records our Faith would have been but ill preserved as experience and reason prove 7. That their Law as such discovered sin but gave not the Spirit of Grace to overcome it Insomuch as though he himself desired perfectly to fulfil it without sin yet he could not but was under a captivity that is a moral necessity of imperfection or sins of infirmity from which only the Grace of Christ could as to guilt and power deliver him 8. That no man ever came to Heaven by that way of merit which they dreamed of but all by the way of Redemption Grace free Gift and pardoning Mercy Therefore their conceit that they were just in the main and forgiven their sins and so justifiable by the meer dignity of Mose's Law which they kept and by the Works of the Law and not by the free Gift Pardon and Grace of a Redeemer and by the Faith and practical belief of that Gift and acceptance of it with thankful penitent obedient hearts was a pernicious errour But the true way of Righteousness was to become true Christians that is with such a penitent thankful accepting practical belief or affiance to believe in God as the Giver of Salvation in Christ as the Redeemer and his Spirit as our Life and Sanctifier and to accept Christ and all his procured Benefits Justification and Life as purchased by his Sacrifice and meritorious Righteousness and given in the New Covenant on this condition and so to give up our selves to his whole saving-work as to the Physician of our Souls and only Mediator with God This is the sum of Paul's Doctrine on this point 363. I say again therefore for any man to say that some one physical act either assent or consent or affiance upon one particular Object Christ's Righteousness as offered us is the instrumental cause of our Justification and that to look to be justified by any other act of Faith on Christ or on the Father or Holy Ghost or on Heaven the final Object God in Glory or secondarily as subsequent parts of the condition of Salvation by Repentance by praying for Pardon by forgiving others by Obedience to Christ c. is to look to be justified by Works in the sense that Paul excludeth them this is but to abuse the Gospel and the Church by a scandalous misinterpretation of a great part of the New Testament 364. St. James therefore having to do with some who thought that Leg. Placeum in Thes Salvin de hâsce Vol. 1. Conrad Bergium in Prax. Cathol â e Blank Thes de Just and our Mr. Gibbon's Serm. Of Justif in the Morning-Exercises at Giles in the Fields Paraeus de Justif Cont. Bellarm. l. 2. c. 7. p. 469. Nos imputari nobis Christi justitiam ut per âam formaliter justi nominâmâr simus neque diximus unquam neque sentimus ut aliquoties jam ostendimus Id enim pugnaret non minus cum recta ratione quam si reus in judicio absolutus diceret se clementia judicis donantis sibi vitam formaliter justum esse c. the bare profession of Christianity was Christianity and that Faith was a meer assent to the Truth and that to believe that the Gospel is true and trust to be justified by Christ was enough to Justification without Holiness and fruitful Lives and that their sin and barrenness hindered not their Justification so that they thus believed perhaps misunderstanding Paul's Epistles doth convince them that they were mistaken and that when God spake of Justification by Faith without the Works of the Law he never meant a Faith that containeth not a resolution to obey him in whom we believe nor that is separated from actual Obedience in the prosecution But that as we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being Infidels so must we be justified by our Gospel personal holiness and sincere Obedience against the charge that we are unholy and wicked or impenitent or Hypocrites or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God 365. All this then is past controversie among considerate understanding men 1. That Works justifie us not as perfect according to the Covenant of Innocence because we have them not 2. That the Works or keeping of Mose's Law as conceited sufficient or as set in opposition against or competition with a Saviour or free Gift or any otherwise than as the exercises of meer Obedience under Christ as Mary ââchary Elizabeth Simeon John Baptist David c. used them could justifie no man 3. That consequently no other Works set up either in the said opposition or competition or as any thing of Merit or worth is ascribed to them which is proper to Christ or any part of the honour of Gods free Gift can justifie no man nor any other way than as meer conditions and exercises of thankful obedience or acceptance in pure subordination to God's Mercy and Christ's Merits and the free Gift But that Works are not excluded from being conditions of our justification or the matter of it in any of these following respects 1. That Faith it self which is our act and an act of Obedience to God and is the âiducial accepting belief in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost for the benefits of the Covenant is the condition of our first Covenant-right to these Benefits 2. That this Faith is not actual Obedience to Christ as Christ at first but only to God as God But it is the Souls subjection to Christ as Christ which is our Covenant-consent to our future Obedience and virtually though not actually containeth our future Obedience in it 3. That there is somewhat of love consent or willingness of Desire of Hope of Repentance which goeth to make up this moral work of Faith as it is the condition even our first Christianity it self 4. That as the making of a Covenant is for the performing of it and subjection is for Obedience and Marriage for conjugal Duties so our said first Covenanting-Faith is for our future Faith Hope Comfort and grateful Obedience and Holiness And these are the secondary parts of the condition of Salvation And so are the secondary parts of our Justifications condition as continued or not-lost and consummate For to justifie us is as is said to justifie our Right to Impunity and Glory â That as is said our own performance of the condition of the free Gift of Impunity and Glory by the New Covenant purchased by Christ's Righteousness is the thing to be tried and judged in Gods judgment And therefore we must so far be then justified from the charge of âot performing that condition of
* * * Such as are most of the sober Heathens in the world For the most religious and sober of them are Pythagorears to this day Lege Varenium de divers Relig. post Hist Japân Bless Lord thy own reconciling Truths to the healing of thy Churches or at least of some dis-joynted minds And teach me with patience to bear the Obloquy and Reproach of mistaken zealous Consurers And forgive them that know not what they say or do And wherein I err forgive and rectifie me and better inform both the Reader and me The Third Part OF God's Gracious Operations ON MANS SOUL Their DIFFERENCE and the OPERATIONS OF MANS WILL. For the fuller Decision of the Controversies about EFFECTUAL and DIFFERENCING GRACE By RICHARD BAXTER LONDON Printed by Robert VVhite for Nevill Simmons at the Princes Arms in S t. Pauls Church-yard MDCLXXV THE CONTENTS THE Preface Pag. 1. Sect. 1. The Presupposed Principles briefly repeated p. 7 Sect. 2. The Order of Divine Operations p. 9. Sect. 3. Of the Operations and Principles as compared p. 12. Sect. 4. How far God useth Means p. 16. Sect. 5. Of the Causes of the different Effects of Grace and Means p. 18. Sect. 6. Of the Limitations of Gods Operations on the Soul p. 20. Sect. 7. Of the Resistibility of Grace p. 21. Sect. 8. What is that Operation of God on the Soul enquired of in many following Questions And whether searchable by man p. 22. Sect. 9. Whether Gods Operation be equal on all p. 31. Sect. 10. Whether it be Physical or Moral p. 32. Sect. 11. What Free-will man hath to Spiritual Good p. 35. Sect. 12. More of Predetermination by Physical Premotion p. 37. Sect. 13. More of Mans Power Natural and Moral p. 43. Sect. 14. Whether the giving of Faith be an act of Omnipotency and a Creation and a Miracle p. 46. Sect. 15. Of the Sufficiency and Efficacy of Grace p. 48. Sect. 16. Of Infused Habits and the Holy Ghost even special Grace p. 53. Sect. 17. Whether Man be meerly Passive as to the first Grace p. 55. Sect. 18. Whether the first Grace and the New and Soft Heart or Faith it self be Promised or Given absolutely or on any Condition to be performed by man ibid. Sect. 19. How God may be said to Cause the Acts of Sin p. 57. Sect. 20. How far God and how far man himself is the Cause of Hell and other punishments p. 62. The Conclusion § 1. The Concessions of the Synod of Dort specially the Brittish Divines More of Divine Motion or Impress p. 67. § 2. The Epitome of Alvarez de Auxil drawn up by himself in Epilogo in Twenty Conclusions considered p. 70. § 3. A Censure of the other three wayes described by him viz. 1. The Jesuits de Scientia Media p. 75. § 4. 2. Durandus's Way p. 76. § 5. 3. That of the Scotists and Nominals Of Gods partial Caâsality p. 79. § 6. The true face and Scheme of the Dominican Predeterminant way in the Sense and Consequents in Fifty Propositions and the Reasons of my preferring any before this p. 80. A Summary of all to satisfie sober minds p. 100. Additional Animadversions on Mr. Peter Sterrey's Book of Free-will making God the Author of Good and Evil as he is of Light and Darkness p. 106. The Third Part OF GOD'S GRACIOUS OPERATIONS ON MANS SOUL AND THE SUB-OPERATIONS OF MANS WILL. For the Ending the Contentions about Sufficient and Effectual Common and Special Grace and Free-VVill The Preface THE first Part of this Treatise though largest and fullest of mens contentious Questions and opinions is furthest from the true point of the difference and difficulty which troubleth the Church And is made large by accident by way of disquisition and detection of the many ensâaring questions and vain or hurtful wranglings of the Schoolmen The Second Part cometh nearer our chief Controversies and resolveth many other on the by and containeth the summ of that part of Theologie which is most clear and sure and necessary This Third Part which cometh up to the main Controversie is short and troubleth you less with other mens opinions and Schoolmens Wranglings about Grace and Free-will Partly because you had enough of them by the way before And chiefly because I would not by tediousness and recitation of Contentions obscure that which I most desire to make plain nor discourage the Reader by the length I think if I can manifest that there is no real or considerable difference among the Learned and Moderate on each side such as are the Synod of Dort on one side and even Bellarmine Suarez Ruiz c. on the other besides the moderate Lutherans and Arminians who may be ashamed if they go farther from us than the Jesuites besides abundance of Schoolmen that are of a middle strain between the Dominicans and Jesuites few understanding Divines would then think that there were any considerable difference remaining about Predestination or the universality of Redemption Those differences being but respective unto this But about Perseverance I confess that there doth a real difference remain But that it is of less moment than most on both sides say and such as is no way fit to quench Christian Love or alienate Christians from each other or hinder their liberties or peaceable communion I have fully proved in the Second Part and formerly in a peculiar Treatise entituled My Thoughts of Perseverance If therefore I can truly disprove our pretended difference about the ââârations of Grace or at least prove it to be but as it is no greater not more intolerable than that of Perseverance I shall think that all is done that is thus necessary The main difference seeming or real is about the Power of Mans Will Of which I have spoken much in the First Part and purposely leave much to the Reconciling Praxis in the Second Book which shall dissipate the cloud of ambiguous words Till then it shall here suffice to manifest 1. That we are agreed with them whose conciliation I endeavour that ââ is not the natural Powers essential to a man which we are deprived of 2. But that these Powers have by our common corruption a sinful Disposition unfitting them for a due exercise for God and against sin 3. And that all men at least at age are not depraved in the same degree 4. That this Ill disposition is called a Moral Impotency when it is such as while it remaineth the sinful Act is ever done or the commanded act is never done There is then no Moral Power 5. That the vitious sinful impotency of the will and its Habitual or dispositive unwillingness to good and proneness to things forbidden is all one 6. That he is Morally Able who without any other grace than he hath can do the thing commanded or forbear the thing forbidden 7. That there is no Power but of God 8. That Nature common grace and special grace give several powers or dispositions 9. That a moral power
can do no more than this nor this but by the Power given him of God § 7. Vainly therefore do the Dominicans pretend that it is a Deifying of the Will of man to say that God can enable it to Cause the various ORDER of mans Actions by meer moral helps without Gods predetermining premotion to that order For this is to cause no Real being And he that is moved to the Act in genere needeth no more premotion from God to the disorder and sinfulness of the Act. § 8. And they that will call the production of faith a Creation in the strict and proper sense do not understand that Creatio est Rerum non ORDINIS rerum jam creatarum vel existentium An Act is of it self improperly said to be created in a pre-existent Agent That is not called created which is educed è potentia materiae nor that which is produced by the Potentia Activa prae-existentis forma Faith is an Act of the same Natural Power or faculty which we had before And Grace or rather Nature usually suscitateth that faculty to the Act as an Act in genere And Grace doth cause us to ORDER that act aright as to the due object and other circumstances But if any will call it a Creation I contend not about the name § 9. But the whole state of the Man Habitual Relative and Practical set together is called in Scripture a New Creature and the New Man tropically but not unfitly Partly because we are really new though not by another Humanity or Species of Natural Essence yet by many Accidents And partly because those Accidents are so great and make so great a change of our state as that they emulate a natural Essence and we use to say in common things that when an unlearned man is made learned and a poor man a Prince and a dying man healthful he is another man § 10. Though God be one and the same and Christ the same and the Law and Word and many Antecedent means the same to many on whom they have different effects This difference may be caused many wayes The Causes of difference As 1. By the diversity of other inferiour or concomitant second causes 2. By the diverse Disposition of the Receivers a common cause of varieties in the World 3. By the diversity of Impediments and temptations And many other wayes § 11. * * * I know that Bradwardine li. 2. c. 32. Cor. p. 612. saith that Deum non dare scientiam eratiam aut perseverantiam seu quodlibet munus suum creaturâ capaci est causa quare ipsa non accipit non habet non è contra Et p. 614. Quicquid obex dicatur potest illa respânsio corripi cum nullus possit hunc obicem tollere nisi Deus vel per Deum prius praetollentem si ipse cum voluerit tollere irresistibiliter tollitur Auferam cor lapideum c. The great question is How far the diversity of Receptive Dispositions is from God Answ 1. God made all equal at first in Adam 2. All were equal in sin by his fall 3. Cain and Abel differed from several causes and not one alone Abel differed from Cain in faith and obedience by Gods grace as the chief cause and his own will and agency as the second cause Cain differed from Abel by unbelief and sin by his own will and Satans temptations 4. The sins of later parents as of Cain Cham Esau Achan Gehezi c. make a further difference by depriving their posterity of some means helps or grace which else they had been equally capable of with others 5. It is certain that man hath much to do about his own heart by which he is to be the second cause of his own Receptive disposition and if he fail is the only cause of his indisposition § 12. Difference is but Dissimilitude And an alteration of one of the subjects which soever will make it dissimile or to differ from the other When the good Angels stood and the evil fell if you ask Who made the difference It was the Devils by forsaking their first estate Though Constitutively both their sin and the Angels obedience made the dissimilitude If you suppose Cain and Abel equally under grace at first and ask Who made the difference I answer Constitutively Cains sin and Abels righteousness maketh or is the difference But as to Reputative efficiency Cain made the difference by rejecting grace So if you should suppose two equally qualified with common grace and one of them to lose it the efficience of the difference is Imputable to him But if you suppose two equally lost in sin and one converted and not the other the Constitutive Causes of the difference are ones sin and the others repentance But the Imputable efficiency is Gods grace and mans repentance or will that is recovered § 13. But when Paul doth ask Who made thee to differ he meaneth Who gave thee that good by which thou differest and expoundeth it by What hast thou which thou hast not received And no doubt but all good is received from God And this would have held true if God had by equal operation done as much on the other which had been uneffectual by his indisposition or rejection § 14. Nature and Scripture perswade us that the same measure of help or influx is not enough to make one repent or believe which is enough to make another For the difference of souls and temptations and impediments plainly prove it The same strength will not move a Mountain which will move a Feather nor the same Teaching make an ignorant Sot to understand which serveth a prepared person § 15. Bodily aptitude or ineptitude do much to vary receptivities which are usually Gods punishments or rewards for Parents actions And oft-times for mens own Some by fornication gluttony drunkenness sports and idleness make themselves even next to Brutes § 16. But we have great Reason from Scripture to believe that though Gods Laws be equal and his Judgements where men do not make an inequality yet as a free Lord and Benefactor he dealeth not equally with all that are of equal merit Though he do no man wrong nor deny any what he promised in his Word but keep perfect Justice as a Governour yet he may do with his own as he list and he will be specially good to some though others see it with an evil eye § 17. Whether all that are elect have at first a greater measure of the Divine help and impress than any that are not converted no man can say of which more anon But certainly all the elect were fore-decreed by Gods will to that certain conversion which others were not so decreed to SECT VI. Of the Limitations of Gods Operations on the Soul § 1. THat which sticks in the minds of many is that God being Omnipotent all his operations must be equally unresistible and efficacious because none can conquer God But they must
the Natural power in it self but by so doing formaliter relativè it maketh it no power ad hoc to the contrary in that instant Of which more anon § 10. Such grace of God as cometh from his Absolute Will or Decree of the due Event is never overcome For Gods decree is not frustrate § 11. Gods gracious operations are never overcome by any contrary Act but what he himself is the Agent Cause of as an Act For in Him we Live and Move and Be. Yet man is the only Cause of the Inordination of that act by which it is set in opposition to Gods other acts For God doth not militate against himself § 12. The case lyeth thus God antecedently to his Laws framed Nature that is the Being and Natural Order of all the World and so he became the Head or Root of Nature the first Cause who by his wise decree was to concurr to the end with that Natural frame and to continue to things their proper forms and motions And man is one of his creatures having a Nature of his own to which God as the God of Name doth Antecedently concurr By this natural concurse of God the fomiâ cator the murderer the thief c. are naturally able to do those acts But being free agents that can do otherwise God maketh them a Law to restrain and regulate them And when they break this Law they resist that gracious concurse which suitable to the organical cause God conjoyneth with the means But they do this by their Natural power and activity not used as God requireth them but turned against his own Law So that if God would withdraw his sustentation and destroy mâns Nature they could not resist his grace But that he will not do being his antecedent work and so God is resisted by his own-given-power and act disordered and turned against his grace § 13. The Will of God which is thus resisted is only 1. His Preceptive or Legal will de debito 2. And his will of purpose to give man so much help and no more by which he can and ought to believe and Repent is said to be resisted or frustrate so far when by mans fault it doth him not that good which it might have done § 14. Gods Grace and Spirit are said to be resisted when the Word and other Means are * * * That God doth govern inseriora per superiora and work by means not for want of them but from the abundance of his Goodness so as to communicate to his creatures the dignity of causality See Aquin. 1. q. 103. a. 8. q. 104. a. 2. Alexand. 1. p. q. 26. m. 5. a. 2. 3. m. 7. Albert. 1. p. q. 67. m. 4. a. 1. Richard 1. d. 39. a. 2. q. 3. d. 45. a. 2. q. 2. Agid. Rom. 2. d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. a. 6. ibi Gabritl d. 1. q. 2. resisted which call him to his duty For these themselves are gifts and acts of grace § 15. But it is not the barâ Word or Means alone but the Spirit working in and by those means which is so resisted For though no moâtal man can clearly know just how the Spirit concurreth and operateth by the Word and Means yet we may know that God doth limit his own operation to the aptitude of the means ordinarily and that he worketh with and by them not according to his Omnipotency in it self considered but according to the means or organs And as in Nature he operateth nor quantum potest but agreeably to the order and aptitude of Natural Causes so in Grace he operateth non quantum potest but according to the aptitude and order of the sapiential frame of Governing-means of grace § 16. When the preaching of the Word Education Company and other visible Means seem equal God hath innumerable means supernal internal external invisible and unknown to us by which he can make all the difference that he maketh in men So that we cannot prove that ever he worketh on souls without any second cause or means at all though we cannot prove the contrary neither And therefore he that resisteth all means for ought we know in so doing resisteth all Gods gracious operations on his soul § 17. * * * I know not how to find both sense and concord in the words of your Alvarez de Aâx l. 7. disp 59. p. 264. Eadâm contritio que est ultima dispositio ad gratiam in genere cause materialis antecedit illam In genere tamen causae formalis efficientis est effeclus ejusdem gratiae propterea quamvis non sit meritoria gratiae est tamen meritoria vitae aeternâ Et p. 265. Contritio qua penitens disponitur ad infusionem gratiae habitualis est meritoria vitae aeternae ut Thom. 1. 2. q. 112. a. 2. ad 1. Ergo est effectus gratiae habitualis Nulla enim operatio hominis est-meritoria vitae aeternae nisâ procedat à gratiâ habituali ordine saltem naturae sit ea posterior How can the Act be the ultima dispositio to the infusion of that habit which it floweth from Unless he mean eadem specie and not numerically which yet is false For it is not eadem or else he falsly supposeth that the same Love of God may go before Grace Whereas Dr. Twisse so frequently asketh Whether Gods condional will and so his operation be Volo te velle modo velis or credere modo credas to give us faith if we believe and so maketh non credere or non velle to be the only resistance and the Arminians to be ridiculous in making the effect antecedent to the cause as a condition of the causation and itself This semi-subtilty though it beget voluminous confidence must cry peccavi if a little more subtilty do but detect the defectiveness of it We are not now enquiring of the Rationes fidem habendi but of the Rationes non habendi nor are we enquiring Whether God have made a Covenant or formal Promise of giving faeith upon antecedent conditions But whether he deny or give-not grace for actual faith effectual or sufficient to any but those that resist and wilfully omit the preparatory acts which they were able to perform even preparatory Volitons Or if you will make the question to be de ratisnibus fidem habendi not de causis Actus donandi Whether God do not ordinarily give or produce the act of faith in that soul which doth not wilfully resist and omit such preparatory acts as it could do even Volitions And so I answer 1. It is not I will give thee faith if thou wilt believe or I will make thee willing if thou be willing of the same thing But it is 1. If by resisting common preparing grace thou so harden âhy heart or increase the privation of receptive aptitude in thy self as that the same degree of grace means help impress will not change thee which otherwise would
to make a difference 3. The means much differ which several men have And God usually operateth according to the means upon the soul § 5. If the question be either of the Act or Habit it is no question For that were but to ask Whether all men have equal faith love and other graces which common experience denyeth § 6. Whereas some will stick at my mentioning a Divine Impress on the soul in nature antecedent to Act and Habit I would have them remember that either there is such a thing or not If there be I rightly mention it If not we are instantly at an end of all this sort of Controversies and Calvinists and Arminians cannot differ if they would For then the question must be only about that which is past question viz. 1. Either about Gods Act as in Himself which is his simple Essence 2. Or about the Act and Habit of Faith Love c. in Man which all the World knoweth is not equal For all men have not faith For as for pre-disposition the question will be revolved to the same point It is certain that all are not equally disposed and it is certain that Gods Acts as in him are his Essence SECT X. Whether the said Operation be Physical or Moral § 1. THis paltry question is worthy but a few words though â make too much stir Of the sense of the words Physical and Moral having spoken before I will not repeat it here 1. If the question be de operatione ut est actus agentis before the effect it were but to ask Whether Gods Essence be Physical or Moral which is unworthy an answer § 2. 2. If the question be of the Action of second Causes as the Preacher c. if truly Acts they are both Physical as they are really actus naturalis and moral as they are the acts of free intellectual agentâ But the Acts of Laws and other objects meerly as objects on man are called Moral Acts because they are but nominal but indeed are no Acts and therefore neither Physical nor Moral For they are but signa and significare is not agere but is only an objective aptitude by which an Intellectual agent can âdifie it self All the Books in my Library teach me without any Action by being signa objectively to my active Intellect § 3. 3. If the question be of the Divine Impress on the soul it is quid reale and therefore physicum And it is moral as it is the principium actus moralis The same is to be said of our own Acts and Habits They are physical and moral accidents And they cannot be moral unless they be physical § 4. But it must be known that to be quid naturale and quid morale formally differ as Actus qua talis and ordo qua ordo do differ ab ordine seâ Relatione ad Legem ad finem morum and Moralitas est actus Physici vel privationis Relatio viz. ad Regulam finem morum § 5. But if the question be not of the Morality of the Act but the Morality of the Cause viz. Whether Grace or divine action do cause Physically or Morally I answer plainly that There is no true Cause which is not Physical A moral Cause not physical is but Causa reputata vel ââminalis Objects are usually said to Cause morally But if they be meerly objects they cause not efficiently at all but by termination only materially constitute the Act in specie But some things vulgarly called objects as Light Heat c. are Active and so effect And he that doth proponere objectum doth indeed effect by speaking or doing But he doth not effect any thing by the object on the mind as it is a meer object But the Vox loquentis doth more than present an object It doth by agency suscitate the Spirits and operate on the organs of sensation And many mercies afflictions and other means forementioned have their several wayes of active operation But it is readily confessed that nothing corporeal can by any direct efficiency operate on a soul but only Active Spirits like it self Remember therefore that I take the word Physical here as the Schools do largely as comprehending Spiritual or hyperphysical And I plainly say de nomine that Gods operations of Grace are to be called Hyperphysical in respect to God the Agent and Physical as they are Physical effects on man and Moral as the same are in instanti secundo also moral effects And that they are called Moral in two usual senses 1. In that it is Morality or Virtue that is produced by them 2. And in that objects being much of the Means the operation or efficiency of objects as objects is properly none at all They do but materially as it were constitute the Act and terminate it and occasion it as sine quibus non which many call a Moral Reputative Metaphorical Causation And yet diversification is much by objects § 6. If this stumble any who look not at the greater inconveniences on the other side and occasion them to think that it is little efficient operation which we own in the collation of faith and conversion I desire them to consider well 1. That it is no new substance at all that is to be produced but a pre existent substance and faculty to be actuated 2. That it is not an Act as such in genere that is to be caused by Grace but the due ordering of acts as to right objects c. 3. That the soul as such is an Active Spirit not indifferent between Action and cessation but as naturally prone to Act as the earth to rest and as a stone in the air to descend and as the Sun to move and shine so that it is never one minute out of Action even in this earthen tabernacle from its first being to the last breath day or night Though in different manner 4. That God as the God of Nature doth uphold the soul in this Active Nature affording it that Concurse or Influx necessary thereto which in Nature he made due to it As he doth to the Sun in its action and to the souls of Brutes So that Activity as such distinct from the due order of it is given by God in Nature 5. And God hath placed the soul in the Universe as a wheel in a Watch where it must needs have some effects of the co-operation of Concauses or superiour agents 6. And Angels and Devils who have very much to do with our souls do work as Voluntary Agents in Political Order though not without the regulation of Gods Law or Will 7. And God can do what he will on souls without any second cause though whether he do so or what we know not 8. All this being supposed for Efficiency objects duly qualified may do much for the Order of Acts though properly they do nothing so that though they be but ut Materia ad formam occasions sine quibus non yet the reasons
Some of you will grant that as motion causeth motion by contact of bodies so the first effect on the soul can cause the second And others of you will deny it and say that Gods Actions being diversified only by the diversity of effects and objects that which causeth the second effect is to be denominated a second Action and not the same numerically which caused the first no nor specifically if the effects specifically differ And so as scholastick wits here exercise their curiosity without respect to Arminianism or Calvinism you will here fall into notional Controversies in the way § 20. 2. But granting that the first effect is that efficacious Grace which must cause the second how shall we know what the first effect is and what the second Gods Grace like the Sun is still shining though we are not still receiving it When it worketh but the commoner sort of effects these tend to more and more The first Gracious effect may be forty years before Conversion But this is not your meaning But I suppose you will say that it is the first special effect or gratia operata that is proper to the saved which you mean But to pass by that Augustine Prosper Fulgentius much more their predecessors held that sincere faith Love holiness Justification present right to Life if they so dyed are not proper to the saved but that some lose all these If you say but proper to the Justified or Sanctified or Converted or it be the first effect which is proprium Justificandis which you mean Are we agreed what that is § 21. Either the first effect on the soul or the first Gratia operata is the Act of faith it self or somewhat antecedent If the Act as many subtilly maintain then it were a foolish question to ask Whether the Act of faith be Effectual to cause it self and How Therefore it must be somewhat antecedent or we can find no matter for our Controversie de efficacia Gratiae ad credendum § 22. If somewhat antecedent to the Act it is either a Disposition or Infused Habit or an Impression Impulse or Influx which is neither Disposition nor Habit. * * * Dico 1. Non certo constare ex divinis literis esse hujusmodi Habitus supernaturales 2. At baptizatis infunditur Gratia âo sensu quod efficiuntur Dâo grati consortes divinae naturae renati 3. Conceditur Dei adjutorium ut credamus velimuâ diligamus per inspirationem infusionem spiritus sancti 4. Dei adjutorium desuper infusum est omnino necessarium ut credamus diligamus c. non tantum ut facilius credamus Medina in 12. q. 51. p. 282. See many definitions of a Habit confuted in Medina 1. 2. p. 271. and that which he resteth in is Aristotles Qualitas quâ rectè vel malè afficimur § 23. 1. A proper Habit of faith it is not Though Mr. Pemble singularly seem so to think yet he meaneth but a seminal disposition And it 's commonly held that the Habit is given by sanctification after the Act given in Vocation 2. But if it were otherwise the Habit is not alwayes sufficient to ascertain the Act. For holy men oft sin against a Habit and believers do not alwayes exercise it Habits Incline per modum naturae but do not certainly determine to the act 3. And of a Disposition it must be so said much more § 24. 2. And if it be an Impulse or Influxus Receptus as I think we must affirm this is but a general notion of which our understanding is very crude or small A meer Motus it is not For as was said in the beginning the Divine Influx is threefold viz. From Vital-Activity or Power Wisdom and Love to Life Light and Love in man Now as I said if there be no such Impulse besides the Life Light and Love produced our Controversie is at an end For these are not efficacious or efficient of themselves But if such a different Impulse there be it 's hard to know what it is in man I conceive it best expressed by all these inadequate notions conjunct 1. An inward urgency to this threefold act which is called in the Schools both auxilium concurse and Influx 2. By which Urgency the soul is more Disposed to the Act in hoc ordine than it was before 3. Which Disposition containeth in it a Moral Power to that Act so ordered and somewhat more even some Inclination to perform it If any man can tell me better what that Divine Impulse is which is antecedent to mans Act I am willing to learn § 25. Now if this be the question Whether this Divine Impulse which is the first effect of Gods spirit be of its own nature efficacious to produce According to Jansenius the first Grace is Necessary Delectation or Love in act before that which is free and full And if so then there is no grace causing this grace and so none to be the subject of this question Whether it be more or less sufficient or effectual operating or co-operating grace which maketh one man love God initially rather than another For it is no Grace bâ Gods essential will this Love be the first Grace and no received Impulse antecedent to it our Faith Love c. as the second effect I answer 1. Sometimes Gods Impulse is so Great as propriâ vi doth change mind and will and overcome resistance and procure our act 2. Sometimes it is so strong as that it prevaileth against the contrary ill-disposition so far as to give man a Moral Power to the Act with some Inclination which yet contrary habits and temptations do overcome and the Act doth not follow which yet was not for want of Power to have done it And this is called sufficient Grace 3. We have great reason to believe that as in some Instances Gods greater Impress is the chief differencing Cause so in other Instances an equal Impulse of God on unequally disposed subjects doth produce the Act of faith c. in one of them which it produceth not in the other through the incapacity of the recipient 4. Therefore there is a double degree of efficacy or Vis One which only so far moveth and helpeth the will as that it can do the act and sometime doth it without more Another which is so strong as that the second effect alwayes followeth it 5. But whenever the Act of faith is produced by force or Impulse more or less God is the first and principal cause of it and man but the second and the praise of it is accordingly due And I think this decision accommodateth both sides of our contenders § 26. The foresaid Impulse or first effect is only the work of God and the means and not ours But the Act of Faith Love c. is Gods work and ours and ours as Free-agents Therefore that Impulse of God which is Aptitudinally efficacious on supposition of mans due reception and self-excitation
is oft not Actually effectual for want of that Voluntary Reception and self-excitation § 27. As to the various effects of Grace fore-mentioned 1. As to the preparation of Means and Gracious medicine Christ the Covenant c. Grace is efficient of it self and doth it 2. As to the first Impulse or Impress on the soul God certainly effecteth it in some degree wherever his spirit worketh on the soul 3. Some Urgency and some degree of disposition to the act is constantly contained in this Impulse And usually it giveth a moral power to the Immediate Act-required 4. The Act of faith sometimes followeth this Impulse through its invincible force And sometime it followeth it through its sufficient force and the due Reception * * * Omne agens requirit de necessitate aliquam dispositionem in suo passo Maximè si illud pà ssum habeat dispositiones actionâ illius agentis contrarias ut patet de igne c. Ergo cum Gratia non sit minus inmo magis quam naturalis forma Certum est quod Gratia requirit majorem dispositionem in passo Et voco illam dispositionem Libertatem arbitrii sui Deo submittere se ad alteram partem declinare scilicet ad volendum Gratiam recipere dolere de culpa commissa voluntarie libere per attritionem Brianson in 4. q. 8. cor 3. fol. 152. This is just the doctrine of our Protestant Preachers supposing that Common Grace must make this preparation which the Papists grant of the subject And sometimes it followeth it not at all through the Recipients indisposition 5. The Habit of faith ever followeth a special Act through the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost But usually it goeth not before the Act Man hath not a fixed Habit to promptitude and facility of believing before he believeth but after 6. The Habit ordinarily procureth following acts by the way of Inclination but not necessarily nor alwayes For by strong temptations Habits are oft born down § 28. If the question then be Whence Gods Grace is Aptitudinally and Potentially efficacious able and fit to effect It is because God is God that he is Able and his Impulse is such because he maketh it such And if the question be Whence Grace is Actually efficient of its first effect the Impulse It is because God will so do and his will hath no Cause being the first Cause And if the question be Whence Grace is Actually efficient of mans faith It is by its Impelling man to believe But if you ask Whence faith it self is or of what cause is it an effect I answer of God as the first cause and the Means as his Instrument and of the Believer as a free second Cause And if the question be Why sufficient Grace which is Effectual ad Posse is not effectual ad agere It is because being but sufficient mans Indisposition and wilful neglect or opposition maketh him an unfit Receiver § 29. There being nothing then but Gods essence and the means antecedent to the first effect on the soul and that effect ever following where God worketh and the second effect being the effect both of God by the first and of man as a free agent the questions unde efficatia Gratiae and unde effectus are thus healingly answered § 30. Obj. But the will of God is the first differencing and effectual Cause And that not as it is his essence but as it is terminated on the Creature and decreeth such an effect Answ 1. It is no will but his essence which is so terminated or decretive 2. That termination maketh no difference at all that 's real in the will of God but only in the effect or object 3. What is the difference then between Gods will simply in it self and as willing from eternity a thing not yet existent None really at all And that which is not yet being Nothing what Relative Connotative and Denominative difference such Nothings can make on the will of God besides the variety of imperfect notions in mans frail Intellect let the wise consider § 31. From whence it is that School-divines after Augustine say that with God there is no futurum velpraeteritum no fore-knowledge or fore-decrees properly because no difference of time but only knowledge and will of things as present § 32. Yet Gods Vital Activity Knowledge and Will as he himself is the object of them have a Greater distinction because to be self-living self-knowing and self-loving are his Essential Acts on himself the eternal object which made many Ancients account them the Trinity of persons And also to Will an existent Creature is an extrinsick denomination from existence But to will that which is not that man shall be that he shall believe hereafter c. as it is nothing really different from Gods essence so it is but an extrinsick denomination of his essence from nothing SECT XVI Of Infused Habits and the Holy Ghost Given us The Schoolmen that speak most for the necessity of Infused Habits cannot agree what use they are for Aureolus supposeth chiefly for the right circumstantiating of Acts rather than for promptitude to them and pleasure in them And when all is said they give men but small comfort from them saying as Aureolus Brianson c. that no man can be sure that he hath them seeing acquired Habits may do the same things that Infused do Utrum Beatitudo supernaturalis hujus vitae sit magis in Habitibus quam in operationibus vid. Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 8. n. 18. Molina 1. p. q. 12. ar 5. disp 2. ar 2. pro habitibus Sed contra inquit Aegid de Sancta Praesentatione Li. 4. de beatit q. 5. a. 3. pâ 471. His non obstantibus oppositum affirmant omnes Theologi qui bac de re scripserunt nec videtur posse de hoc dubitari And yet Alens 2. p. q. 104. m. 3. Aquin. 1. 2. q. 51. a. 2. ad 3. q. 63. a. 2. ad 3. Valentiââ To. disp 4. q. 3. punct 2. c. are for preferring Habits Idem Aegid de Praesentat li. 4. p. 443 444. tells us that by Grace God is Present in the soul as his Temple otherwise than by Immensity and sustentation But his praesentia Amicitia can mean nothing but the special effects of Gods Love Nostrâ tempestate non solum est temerarium periculosum sed ferè hareticum habitus insusos negare Nam Concil Vienens c. universi Theologi uno consensu affirmant dari habitus insusos Medina in 1. 2. q. 51. a. 4. 282. But Soto li. 2. de nat grat c. 17 18. saith that the Concil Trid. purposely forbore to define the case of infused habits Let the Reader note that Jansenius proveth that Pelagius himself asserted infused Habits given in baptism and that without merit Jans Aug. To. 1. li. 5. c. 22. p. 126. § 1. EVery operation of the Holy Ghost is not the Giving
the difference seemeth to be founded 1. See what the Brittish Divines say in the Synod of Dort de art 3. 4. suffrag p. 124. Th. 1. There are certain outward works ordinarily required of men before they are brought to the state of Regeneration Rom. 10. 14. Mat. 6. ââ Act. 13. 46. Psa 58. 5. or Conversion which use to be sometime freely done by them and sometime freely omitted as to go to Church to hear the Preaching of the Word and such like Th. 2. There are certain inward effects which are excited in the hearts of those that are not yet justified previous to Conversion and Regeneration Act. 2. 37. by the virtue of the word and spirit such as are the knowledge of Gods will the sense of sin the fear of punishment the thoughts of deliverance some hope of pardon To the state of Justification Gods grace useth not to bring men by sudden Enthusiasm but prepared and fitted or disposed by many previous actings by the Ministry of the word As in natural Generation there are many previous dispositions 1 Cor. 4. 15. before the reception of the form so in the spiritual we come to the spiritual birth by many foregoing actings of Grace If God would immediately Regenerate and Justifie a wicked man not prepared by any knowledge any sorrow any desire any hope of pardon there were no need of the Ministry of man and the Word Preached to do it Th. 3. Those that God thus affecteth by his spirit by means of the Word them he truly and seriously calleth and inviteth to faith and conversion We must judge of the helps of Grace by the nature of the offered benefit and by Gods plain word and not by the abuse and event Seâing the Gospel of its own nature calleth men to Repentance and Salvation seeing the excitements of grace tend to it we must not think that 2 Cor. 5. 20. 2 Cor. 6. ââ Gal. 1. 6. Rev. 3. 2. God here doth any thing dissemblingly Nor can it be imagined that that calling by the word and spirit can make men unexcuseable which is given only to that end to make them unexcuseable Th. 4. Those whom he thus affecteth God forsaketh not nor ceaseth to promote them in the true way to conversion before he is forsaken by them by voluntary neglect or the repulse of this initial grace The talent of grace once given men of God is not taken away from any man till he bury it by his own fault Therefore we are oft warned in Mat. 2â 2â Scripture not to resist or quench the spirit nor to receive the grace Heb. 3. 7. Prov. 1. 24. 2 Chron. 24. 20. of God in vain nor to fall from God Yea it is plainly given as the reason of Gods forsaking men that they first forsake him Th. 5. Many lose these beginnings Mat. 13. 19. Heb. 6. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 21. Th. 6. The Elect do not so behave themselves under these preparatory workings but that for their negligence and resistance they might justly be forsaken of God But such is Gods special mercy to them that though Joh. 6. 37. âer 14. 7. 32. 39. Phil. 1. 6. for a time they may repel or suffocate this exciting and illuminating grace yet God doth urge them again and again and ceaseth not to promove them till he fully subjugate them to his grace and place them in the state of regenerate sons Th. 7. All men resist Gods grace and God might justly forsake all Rom. 9. 18. 11. 35. Act. 28. 27. but doth not By all this it is evident that they took not man to be forsaken of God in the state of meer original sin or the corrupt mass but as a wilful resister and refuser of offered Grace and oft after the receiving of much preparing grace and that God forsaketh none till they forsake his grace 2. To the same sence our English Divines commonly tell us how ordinarily God prepareth men for conversion before he convert them and how far persons unconverted may go in common grace He that readeth Mr. Hooker of New England Mr. John Rogers his doctrine of faith Mr. Boltons instructions for comfort Mr. Meads Almost a Christian and abundance such will see that they were of the same mind 3. Hence it is plain that those persons that resisted this further work of grace and forsook God first had true Power to have done otherwise and could have gone further than they did without any other grace than they had Though quoad necessitatem sequentem vel consequentiae it might be inferred even from Gods prescience that it could not be 4. They here describe Gods effectual grace by moral titles of Gods urging them till they yield though as after they open it Gods renewing active influx maketh new creatures and is not a meer moral indetermining suasion leaving the will indifferent 5. The truth is as is aforesaid no mortal man can tell of any difference on Gods part between his common and special agency on souls but only on the part of the work done Nay it is against the doctrine of all âorts of Divines both Papists and Protestants as to the generality that there is any difference at all For they all say that all Gods actions ad extra are noâhing but his essence viz. his essential knowledge will and power which is undividedly one as terminated effecting related and denominated variously E. g. by one Volition he willeth divers products but not by divers volitions See the Conclusion of the first Chapter ex parte sui either considered specifically or numerically but the specification and individuation is only in the effects and in Gods will as relatively denominated And if this be all mens doctrine what an unhappy case is the Church faln into that the very same men that say this should yet intolerably quarrel Whether this one Divine attingency or operation shall be called Creation infusion urgency excitation perswasion physical hyperphysical moral or what else when all are agreed that all are one and the same ex parte Dei And as to the effects I do my self think that a certain Impulse received on the soul is the first effect and the Act of man as faith is but a second and that of both Causes But we cannot tell well what that Impulse is And therefore must dispute in the dark about the differences of it And this is nothing to them that own nothing but Gods essence as the cause of our act as the first effect If their opinion hold true that as in Creation there was no mediate Impulse between the Creator and the Creature for there was no recipient so here there is no effect on the soul before the Act and habit of faith it self then what is that Grace whose Ratio efficaciae we can make a Controversie of Ad hominem at least I may say that it is common acts and habits overtopt by fleshly interest and concupiscence which
yet he commandeth it and requireth it of us But exciting and adjuvant Grace are all one on Gods part And if you will difference the same things as connoting divers effects you must denominate it more fitly from the effects by words that notifie the difference IX Adjuvant Grace and Free-will are not Partial Causes of supernatural Consent as two drawing a Boat so as neither is premoved by the other or maketh it co-operate with it Answ True For God premoveth the will of man though through mans fault it be not ever effectual And though Gods will and mans be two Causes of the same effect the term Partial is scarce fit while man hath his whole power and activity from God X. Scientia media is not to be ascribed to God But all prescience of the future co operation of the will even from the foresaid Hypothesis presupposeth in signo rationis the free decree of Gods will by which absolutely or granting that Hypothests he will in us and with us effect that operation if Good and permit it if Evil. Answ Here come in your presumptions of things unknown or false 1. That God knoweth future contingents and conditionals is certain But I think this scientia media unfitly named and an unnecessary distribution and insufficient to the Jesuits ends 2. And your fiction of signa rationis and the necessary antecedence of a decree of Gods to his knowledge of every Volition of man is a more ungrounded and perillous figment which you have not proved It seemeth a denyal of Gods Omniscience or perfection that he cannot know an act future as future but only as decreed to be so 3. You deceitfully talk of permitting evil while you plead for the irresistible predetermining premotion of the will by God to every evil act with all its circumstances Is that but Permitting 4. To permit is Nothing no act of God but a non-agency not to hinder And how prove you that God must of necessity have a Positive Decree for every Nothing or non-agency Is not the not-willing or not-decreeing to hinder a lye e. g. supposing natural concurse or to make more worlds enough to the production of that lye by an ill inclined nature or to the not-being of more Worlds We are in the dark and God is infinitely above us and these tremendous mysteries are not to be so presumptuously handled by unproved assertions XI There is on our part no Cause Reason or Condition assignable for which Gods supernatural providence in comparison of this or that hath the formal reason of predestination or retaineth the common reason of providence but predestination is to be reduced into the sole free-will of God Answ Most of this is about meer words The word Predestination connoteth various effects and objects and so is called various Acts. There is no efficient Cause in the Creature of any act of God But there are objects without which Gods Acts have not their special denominations and these objects are the termini and called Material Constitutive Causes of those various acts as denominated various specially or numerically And so Gods Decree or Will to Justifie and Glorifie man hath something in the object as a necessary condition of it * * * That is of that object which is not ââ the object of his decree of giving faith And that hath something in its object which is not in the object of the decree of giving a Redeemer to the World or making the World c. if you will at all distinguish Gods decrees by their objects or effects But if not there will be no matter for any Controversie And Predestination is an ambiguous word If it be taken for All Gods fore-decreeing or all about man or all of Good to us then our Being is the first effect of it in us and the making of the World a preparatory effect c. And so no doubt the first effect supposed us no men before and therefore no condition in us But if you take Predestination for Gods decree of Giving us Grace and Glory only then it is presupposed that we are lapsed sinners And the decree of damning men is exercised only on them as foreknown damnable sinners And the decree of penal denying Grace or faith to sinners for sin supposeth them such punishable sinners But the bare Negation of a Decree to give faith to one to whom the absence is no privation is unfitly called Reprobation though men may talk at their own rates And we grant that some such no-decrees have no condition in the objects for they have no objects e. g. If you will feign that God decreed from eternity to give me no faith before the Creation or before I was born or to give Innocent Adam no faith in a Saviour as dying for him this were no reprobating act But when God hath given men a Saviour with his common grace to believe in and accept here if he deny them necessary grace to believe it is a penal act And note that Christ and Common grace as absolutely given to mankind and offered to individuals ever goeth before mens accepting or refusing him And no man to whom he is offered refuseth him for want of necessary help till by sin against that grace he forfeit it XII God by an absolute and efficacious decree of his Will antecedently to the prescience of the future good use of free-will predetermined all good acts which are done in time specially those by which the predestinate come to eternal life Answ The substance of this seemeth true only 1. Whether you fitly denominate a decree efficacious from eternity which effecteth nothing till the Time I leave to them that dispute of words 2. You presumptuously determine Gods Decrees to be antecedent to his prescience herein when they are neither before nor after one another 3. If by predetermining you mean more than predecreeing or prevolition as if mans will was predetermined when it was not determined or determined before it had a being you speak contradictions But Gods own will was eternally determined if we may so say of that which was never undetermined to give all the grace that he giveth in time and to cause all the good acts that he causeth as he causeth them XIII The Co-operation of free-will with the gifts of grace is in the predestinate an effect of predestination and efficiently proceedeth from God making us by the help of grace freely to co-operate and consequently dependeth not on the sole and innate liberty of the will Answ I think so too XIV We must necessarily distinguish of a twofold help of Grace one sufficient by which man may be converted to God or work piously The other effectual by which God effecteth that he be actually converted and act piously Answ Hold to that and contradict not the terms in your description and all 's well XV. The effectual help of preventing or preoperating grace moveth mans free-will to act not only by perswading alluring inviting or other
are also punishments and so partly involuntary and unavoidable and necessary Though a sinner may forbear one sin by another cap. 22. VI. A rational Creature could not be made of God sinless without true Love to God or at least a faculty most sufficient to love him and cleave to him De statu nat pur l. 1. c. 17. p. 323 324. nor can God withdraw that grace of Love from the innocent c. 13. VII The grace of Adam and of Christ Adjutorium sine quo non Quo do thus differ that the first serveth the will and is determined by it The second Adjutorium medicinale giveth the ipsum velle to the unwilling which else it could not have The Grat. Chr. Sal. Li. 2. c. 4. and is more than Lex scientia revelatio remissio peccatorum gratia sufficiens habitualis per congruitatem efficax c. 5. Also 1. The Adjutorium sine quo non giveth not Merit to the will but it meriteth it self But the Adjutorium Quo giveth us the ipsum opus meritum 2. The former is meritum humanum the second meritum divinum as given of God 3. To the first Life would be merces meriti To the second it is a free gift Reward and Gift are repugnant Angels merited life 4. By the first and free will Angels persevered but we cannot but by the second 5. The first fine quo non was given them that were to be differenced by free-will The second to them that are to be differenced by grace c. 6 7 8. One is adjutorium possibilitatis the other actionis c. 9. VIII That since the fall no good can be in or of man but by Gods gift and is not laudable in any but God c. 23. Man hath no part of the praise This grace is ever effectual determining rapeth the will so that it is scarce perceived to act It useth the will as an instrument which way God will It is insuperable irresistible not meerly potential It is never uneffectual but in all that have it infallibly effecteth c. 24 25. IX There is no grace of Christ but this quo None now fine quo non or ad posse c. 27. That ceased with innocency X. This grace is ever effectual but not ad omnia It giveth some small degree to some and more to others And the weakest have not enough to produce faith prayer hope obedience but some Velleities and Complacencies only c. 27. p. 86. XI He distinguisheth sufficient Grace into that Prater quod nil aliud ex parte Dei per modum Principii necessarium est ut homo Velit âât operetur And that Quod satis est ut homo dicatur posse operari quamvis aliââ adhuâ necessarium est ut de facto operetur The later he denyeth not As to the former he saith Nullum jam dari hominibus lapsis gratia sufficiens quin sit simul efficax lib. 3. c. 1. p. 102 103. This Gratia sufficiens is but the sine quo non the grace of innocency and not medicinal and that which Pelagius and the Massilienses held against Augustine yea ad gratiam naturae pertinet Lapsorum reparationi inutilis pernictosa cap. 2. p. 104. For it supposeth Nature to be sound Quid homini misero perniciosius quam illa gratia abundare qua nemo unquam fatentibus scholasticis nisi majorem damnationem assecutus est Hoc ipso quippe âââsquisque damnabilior est quo magis sufficienti gratia abundavit Nemo ââââ unquam sufficienti gratia usus est aut utitur aut uietur in aternum qui mitius puniretur si tali auxilio caruisset quo Deus neminem vel damnandorum vel salvandorum usurum esse praescivit He concludeth c. 4. Nullam Christi gratiam effectu operiâ ad quem efficiendum voluntati datur ulla voluntatis pervicacia frustrans XII He maketh this to be the great doctrine of Augustine that All Gods Law both old and new is given to convince men that they cannot keep it and all written precepts are to shew men their sin which maketh them the worse because of the Laws restraint and commands And that Law and Grace thus differ that Christs Grace is only Gods making us will and do and the Law sheweth that we cannot and so driveth us from is to Grace c. 4. That to Jews and Christians that have written Laws there is no sufficient or adjuvant grace but what maketh them do the act c. 5. No potential grace that giveth the power is sufficient to the act unless it give the act c. 6. Hence is the necessity of sinning p. 126. Unbelievers want Remote as well as Proximate sufficient help and all its principles c. 11. And the Commands are to them impossible yet make them unexcusable c. 18 19. XIII That impotency excuseth a man when he strongly would do the act and cannot but not that by which he would not do it though he cannot will it without grace p. 145 146. XIV Christs dying for All is meant only for all the Church or all sorts yet as he giveth to others the grace of faith and Love without perseverance and salvation so far he dyed for them and prayed for them c. 20. p. 163 164. XV. The essence of the grace of Christ is a Heavenly Suavity or Delectation given before our free act by which the will is bowed to act what God will It is a vital and indeliberate act of the soul even of Love and Desire before Consent and that Delight which is our Rest and Joy li. 4. c. 1. 11. Plainly it is a necessitated complacency which is the first act of Love when God and Righteousness not for our selves but for themselves and as such are Pleasing to the soul XVI Christs grace is necessary only to Love God sincerely in every act of obedience and only this Love and Suavity is Christs grace whatever other graces or acts as to the name it is found in li. 5. c. 1. For nothing is good that is done only by Fear and not in Love of Justice The Justice Loved is not any habit or act of the soul but God the Eternal Justice c. 2. and the Justice of his Precepts Virtue is nothing but the Love of God c. 3. The four Cardinal Virtues are fourfold Love of God And so all others c. 4 5. XVII By the Love of God is not meant only that degree by which we Love him above all but true sincere Love of God for himself and not ullius creaturae intuitu which is either Imperfect not Loving him so well as the creature but only to an uneffectual Velleity which yet how remiss and small soever is the true and chaste fruit of the Love of God even amoris amicitiae or more perfect which justifieth The first is quaedam dilectio justitiae quasi simplex ejus complacentia quae non eo usque increverit ut adversantia isti bonae voluntati valeat superare This goeth usually first and
the moral pravity of the Will hath divers degrees And the same degree of received help from God will not cure it in one that will in another The godly have some of it and the ungodly more and some of them more than others But we use to call it absolutely a moral impotency when the indisposition of the Soul is such as that none such ever do believe and consent without more help of Grace than yet they have received And we use to say that he is morally able or hath power whose indisposition is not so great nor Grace so small but that some in that case by that same help do believe and consent though it be rarely But that power is morally called impotency which no man ever reduceth to act XXXIV This moral Power is yet short both of Act and Habit For a Habit is not only a power to Act but to Act promptly and easily and aright XXXV By all this you may partly see how to answer the common questions about mens power or impotency to believe and to love God Quest 1. Is every man able to believe and love God Answ Every man hath that natural faculty which hath sufficient of that sort of power called natural to do it supposing necessary concurrents Quest 2. Is any man naturally able without Divine support and concurse and without necessary Objects Concauses and Media Answ No no more than to make himself an Angel He never had such power in Innocency Quest 3. * That Potentia peccandi is of God see Aureolus in 2. d. 44. art 2. pag. 327. 328. Utrum praeceptâ supernaturalia possit bomo servare fine speciaâi auxilio gratiae Resp Quod non quia ipsa nequeânt servari nisi eliciendo actus insusarum virtutum c. Carera sum Theol. 2. 2. c. 1. And what would you have higher than his q. 4. a. 1. An lâmen supernaturale infusum fidei fit tota virtus agendi actum fidei Resp Ass-Quia actus fidei est quoad omnem rationem âodum substantiam denominationem quidditatem supernaturalis ejus vita in actu secundo supernaturalis Deum authorem supernaturalem attingens nec continetur intra vires ordinem naturae intellectus creatus suaptâ natura est ad illam improportionatus p. 38. 39. So other Thomists But here wanteth some explication of supernaturality Yea they assert ut idem ibid. p. 39 c. That the Intellect hath not so much as a potentia obedientialis activa but only passiva to the act of Faith but conceive that the supernatural infused Grace of Faith is as necessary to enable the faculty to that act as the faculty to the Essence of the Soul therein Though yet they grant that the Intellect is causa fidei principalis as the essence is which yet can do nothing but by the faculty And thus they make potentiam fundari in potentia which Dr. Twisse denieth But a hard question troubleth some of the School-men seeing saith is wholly supernatural and Gods work and it was so in the Jews that believed that Christ was to come if that Faith continued in any some time after as in Nathanael c. Whether God still caused it when it became false as he did before which must needs put them upon some exception They say How it is fides humana but per opporentiam divinam Dâus omnium dominus efficere potest ut quis âliâââecidat finâ paccââo Idem ibid. But a further answer may and must be given which will be useful to the Case before us when conside ed. Of which in due place Is a man able to sin if God Decree he shall not or able to forbear sin or obey if God fore-know that he will not Answ Yes for God is not supposed to decree or fore-see that he shall not be able nay if God fore-see that he will not do what he can it inferreth that he can But the event is a logical impossibility that is it is not true that it will be Quest 4. Is the Intellect truly informed able to set right an habitually undisposed Will Answ It is able to do that towards it which on a better disposed Will would be effectual But not to produce the effect Quest 5. Is a power not excited to Act able to do that act Answ The question is Whether a power not excited be a power Yes It is a Power but such as will not act till excited Quest 6. Is that Grace which exciteth our Powers another second Power Answ It is the excitation of a Power or a received impulse Call it Power or what you will so you trouble not the Church with a needless wrangling about a Name when there are others as fit Quest 7. Is a Habit a Power Answ It is somewhat not well known by man But we know that it is less than the natural Power in point of substantiality as being but an Accident But it is more than both natural and moral power in order of perfection to the act For to be able and prompt is more than to be meerly able Quest 8. Is a hindered Power truly a Power Answ If the hinderance be such as the faculty is not able to overcome it is not formally a power ad hoc But otherwise it is Quest 9. Can God make a man able without any change on himself to do that which he was unable for Answ Yes If his disability lay in the want of extrinsick Concauses Objects or Media Quest 10. May a meer change of the Understanding enable the Will to do what it could not do Answ Not what it had not a natural Power to do But what it wanted but a moral power or disposition to do it may in two cases 1. If God do powerfully illuminate the Understanding and by the Understanding powerfully operate on the Will Or in ordinary cases if the understandings acts be clear and strong 2. If the Will it self be not obstinately before ill disposed Quest 11. Is an unwilling Will able to excite or change it self Answ Even in the point of believing it hath natural power and liberty to act otherwise than it doth even to turn it self from the act of Unbelief to the act of Faith But being undisposed and ill disposed it will not do that which it hath a natural self-determining power to do till God assist it or turn it by his Grace Quest 12. Can any man believe that Will Answ 1. A man that knoweth not the Gospel or what to believe upon a general rumor of it may wish that he had it knew it and believed it And yet cannot believe it indeed till he know what to believe 2. A man that perceiveth not the evidence of verity or credibility in the Gospel and therefore believeth it not to be true may for the end and matter wish he could see evidence of truth and believe it And yet is not able till he see it And a Believer that believeth it weakly may
preparation to his Grace A man that is unregenerate may so far seek mercy in a returning degree yet short of saving Grace as that it shall not be in vain Even an Ahab had experience of this And so had Nineve and many others And why else do you still confess a state of preparatory Grace Is Gods preparatory Grace abominable to him Doth Christ give abominable Grace or is preparation to Conversion an abominable thing 2. But the Text speaketh of a wicked man as wicked He that goeth on in a wicked life and thinketh by Sacrifice and Prayers to pacifie God and make him amends his Sacrifice and Prayers are abominable But wicked men may have somewhat in them that is better than wickedness They may have such a belief that God is and that he is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek him yea such a Faith in Jesus Christ as shall move them to that sort of repentance and reformation as that they shall be almost true Christians and not far from the Kingdom of God And the wicked man that doth this doth it not as wicked but by common Grace And though it be so far abominable as not to prove him justified it is not so far abominable as to be all in vain C. But when you have said all yet they have no Promise B. 1. You know I suppose how hard it is to understand certainly many Texts of Scripture whether they be Promises to such or not Matth. 7. 8. Every one that asketh receiveth and he that seeketh findeth c. Lam. 3. 25. The Lord is good to the Soul that seeketh him Amos 5. 4. Seek me and ye shall live Luke 11. 13. God will give the holy Spirit to them that ask him c. I only say that there is difficulty in these and such other Texts 2. But you confess that God hath formerly made Promises of Church-Priviledges and of temporal things to unsanctified men Therefore if he did make a Promise of further helps of Grace to them that well use former helps it were no more incongruous And 3. Truly I understand not what it is that moveth some men to be so much against such a conception that God should make any Promise of further Mercy to the obedient use of former Mercy when it is so agreeable to his Rectorship and Bounty and to the common interest of Mankind 4. But yet I assert no such Promise All that I plead for is that you will state the difference aright as it is and not misreport it as if it were greater C. How is it that you would have it stated B. 1. You are all agreed that by Nature man can do natural actions and by common Grace he can do the actions of common Grace and by special Grace he can do the acts of special Grace Are you not all agreed of this much C. Yes this cannot be denied B. 2. And you are agreed that the acts of common Grace are such as consist in a commanded seeking of or preparing for special Grace C. Yes that also is agreed on B. 3. And you are agreed that the best state of common Grace is in the nature of the thing certainly and always a state of preparation or greater moral aptitude for special Grace whether it certainly follow or not C. Yes that is not denied neither B. The difference then is but this One Party saith That God hath signified certainly his Will to give special Grace to them that so seek it by common Grace as to come up to the highest degree of preparation And that this signification of his Will is a Promise The other Party saith That God by commanding such to seek his special Grace and beseeching and exhorting them thereto and giving them abundant means and helps doth signifie his Will that they shall not labour in vain if they do it and giveth them so much encouragement and hope as that none hath cause of remissness by dispair but all are unexcusable that shall neglect such means and hopes But that this is not a proper Promise because it giveth them not a right C. You have truly stated the difference And I confess that if I were comforting an afflicted Conscience ready to dispair I should tell such that a Command to seek Mercy implyeth a certainty that he that so seeketh it shall find it And if we could but say to men as the people to the blind man Behold he calleth thee It would be near to a promise that he will heal them B. But forget not that all this is but your anticipation of the Controversies about Grace or Gods Promises and is no part of the Controversie about mans power or corruption C. But there is a further difference yet For they say That mans Will hath power to resist the Grace of God and frustrate it which else would be effectual if man did not overcome it B. You have brought the Controversie now to a strange kind of power and further confirm me that this empty CAN is the sum of the Controversie which is nothing but a sound This which you call power is nothing but natural power as morally corrupt and impotent If it be non-agendo that you mean they can resist as by not-believing not loving God c. What power is necessary to it Is it an act of power not to love God Next say that a dead man hath power not to live and a dumb man hath power to be silent and a blind man is able not to see If it be agendo that you mean that they resist the act as an act in genere is an act of that natural power which God himself giveth upholdeth and by universal concurse acteth and so far it is no resistance But as that act hath the prohibited Object rather than another so it is sin And your meaning is that they say Man can sin And indeed is this the Controversie Have you been blaming the Arminians advancing mans natural Power and Will and now do you become the advancers of it Who advanceth or praiseth man more He that saith He can sin Or he that saith He cannot sin Even now you pleaded that men cannot believe and will you now plead that they cannot choose but believe Is it a power to sin that you accuse them for asserting C. They cannot believe without special Grace But they cannot choose but believe if they have it B. It 's true Because it is not that which we call special Grace if it cause them not to believe And so it were a contradiction to say That they have Faith and they have not Faith But this cannot choose is not an impotency for to believe is an act of power But it is meerly the name of a logical impossibility that these two should consist He believeth and he believeth not He that by Grace believeth hath that natural power which of it self is able not to believe if you will call it ability But it is power determined to believe and so
Objects C. I say not so For Objects are not efficient B. True as Objects they are not Therefore they effect not Therefore they do not necessitate properly which is an efficiency Indeed they are but causae quasi materiales actus in specie seu individuo and constitute it and no act is without its Object But they effect it not C. Doth not the Sun effect our sight by its light B. Yes but not as a meer Object for so it only terminateth and constituteth it as the matter But it causeth it efficiently as an Agent C. Well! I will suppose that so far as a wicked man is necessitated to sin it is his pravity that doth it circa objectum ut sine quo non and not the Object it self efficiently and in proper speech B. Quest 9. Is the Will efficiently necessitated by the senses or phantasie C. No otherwise than as by the Objects which they do present B. Quest. 10. Is it so necessitated by the Passions C. I know not whether I may say the Passions do it or its own pravity when the passions do disturb and tempt it B. Quest 11. Is it so necessitated by the Intellect C. So Camero and several others thought and consequently by the Objects But I have many reasons against that Opinion quoad media in comparate elections But the Intellect may necessitate it circa finem 2. And quoad media in specificatione etsi non quoad exercitium actus B. 1. Quoad finem it is not the Intellect that necessitateth but the natural inclination of the Will Intellection is but a previous act sine quo non 2. Where there is no exercitium actus there is no specification Therefore you can only say Non specificatur sine ductu intellectus but the Will can prevent that ductum intellectus if not suspend its act also after it Quest 12. Can any one but God by force impress ill habits on the Will C. No we were miserable if any could make us wicked B. Quest 13. Will God ever make any such evil habits in the Will C. As a habit he may cause it but not as evil B. Quest 14. Do you think that a Sinner is necessitated to every sin that he committeth or to every Duty which he omitteth so that he could not do otherwise C. I think he is under a necessity of sinning but I cannot say it of every sin which he committeth B. You before granted many things to be in the power of the Will And can you deny that power to be free that the same things are in its liberty I will tire you no more but desire you 1. To peruse all your former concessions about mans power And 2. To peruse all the twenty Concessions of A. Confer 5. Criminat 1. where he denieth Free-will in all those senses and then tell me where is the difference C. They think that our freedom is inconsistent with necessity but so do not we who think that Decree and Predetermination do necessitate B. I have forced you before to confess your concord here A Logical necessitas consequentiae in ordine probationis Arminius and almost all men confess doth result from meer prescience And Dr. Twisse professeth that neither the Protestants or the School-men hold any other necessity to result from Decree or Predetermination C. But the pravity of the wicked necessitateth their Wills to evil B. 1. Not to all evil For 1. Men commit not all 2. And you before confessed that men can do more good and less evil than they do 2. The truth is as I distinguished power before into Physical and Moral so must we do Liberty and Necessity The Will hath its physical Liberty and is free from physical necessitation in all the sin that men commit and in all the good they do I think though not from all Divine predetermining necessitation to good Men do not good and evil as Bruits do their acts But the Will hath a kind of moral necessity of doing evil by radicated habits and hath no further moral Liberty than it is freed from the power of those evil inclinations But these habits necessitate not physically but morally and that only to some sin but not to all A man can act contrary to a good or evil habit as common experience proveth But because mens Volitions and Actions are ordinarily or much agreeable to their fixed inclining habits therefore we use to say that morally such can do no better meaning that they will not C. But sure you would not have me believe that there is no difference betwein us and the Arminians in the point of Free-Will B. If there be any either you know it and can name it your self or you know it not and then may be ashamed to contend about it Quest 1. Tell me plainly Is not all the Liberty which you deny a moral Liberty a malo from sinful dispositions of the Soul C. There is much dispute about Liberty from Divine predetermination But I will not meddle any further with that I never contended against any Free-will but freedom from sinful habits as supposed to be in men more than it is B. Quest 2. Do you not hold then that all men have Free-will so far as they have effectual Grace and Sanctification C. Yes in that degree For voluntas per gratiam liberata est libera B. Quest 3. Do the Arminians hold that the VVills of the graceless and unsanctified are freed from sinful habits and so are morally free to holy acts C. No I confess they do not Corvinus and others oft say that it is Grace that giveth us the vires credendi which we had not before But some of them deny any habits to be in the Will But these say the Understanding must be enlightned before we are able to choose aright B. Quest. 4. Doth not common Grace give men a moral Liberty to common good from all necessitating inclinations to the contrary C. Igranted it before as to Power and therefore must as to Liberty B. Where then is the difference between you C. I take it to be here that the Arminians and Jesuites say that the Wills of the Unregenerate are not only free to common preparatory good acts but to the special acts of Faith and true Repentance and Conversion unto God which we deny B. Either you mean this of all unregenerate men or but of some 1. Of all they say it not For the Synod of Dort chargeth them but with saying that men can use their naturals so as by degrees to come up to Faith They commonly hold that ordinarily the Will must be prepared by commoner Grace before it morally can believe though such are freely Unbelievers having a natural liberty or power to the contrary though undisposed and have a moral power and liberty to some preparatory acts 2. But if you mean it of those that are come up to the highest preparatory acts and also have Gods Grace ad posse credere where there is the
sincerity to desire more For if the Regenerate have not Grace enough surely the Unregenerate have not 2. But in this Controversie the Dominicans and Jesuites by sufficient mean that which giveth the posse agere that is so much as is of absolute necessity to the act without which it cannot be done and with which alone it can or may be done And in this sense the Protestants generally and the Synod of Dort particularly deny not that there is such a thing as sufficient Grace I have oft told you that 1. They confess it in the instance of Adam 2. They confess it in the case of common Grace enabling men to common preparatory duty which many are able to do and do not as I have evinced before in many instances and the Synod and specially the British and Breme Divines assert 3. And as to the point of Faith it self whether any unregenerate man have sufficient Grace to believe which is not effectual I find few medling much with it 4. But they commonly I think agree that all regenerate men themselves have sufficient Grace for many an act of Faith Love Obedience which they never do Is it not one of the Opinions which at Dort and frequently these Divines reject as falsly imputed to them that a man can do no more good and forbear no more evil than he doth And if he can do more he hath power to do more And power to act is that which is called sufficient Grace Therefore I need not trouble you any more with this Controversie seeing under both the notions of Power and Liberty it is decided and confessed by you to be so before Remember that all sufficient Grace is effectual but not effectual to the act It doth efficere potentiam enableth men to act but doth not cause the act it self unless it be efficax ad actum as well as ad potentiam How ordinarily do they profess the possibility of doing more than is done by godly and ungodly and that all the power that men have is not reduced into act Yea when some assert Predetermination it self they say that it doth not destroy Liberty or Power ad contrarium but only determine it A. It is bad enough that they deny all sufficient Grace to believe that is not effectual though not to other acts B. You wrong them They do not so Have I not told you now that they commonly grant that even the godly themselves have sufficient Grace to believe which is not effectual as to many an act of Faith And as to Unbelievers 1. They say that all have not Grace sufficient or necessary to believe And so say the Arminians 2. But whether any one have or no who believe not they rather leave it to the Searcher of hearts as an unknown thing to them than deny it But they seem to infer that it is most likely to be so in that 1. It is so with the godly themselves 2. And with all other men as to other acts of common Grace And they all agree as I said before that no man is denied power to believe savingly but for not using as he could his antecedent commoner Grace And I think neither Party knoweth more than this and in this both are agreed And he that will assert his uncertain Conjectures and then pretend that this is a Church-Controversie is the maker but not the ender of Controversies A. Some of them stick not to say that Adam himself had not Grace sufficient to stand or forbear sinning and if so then there is none such B. We have nothing to do with any odd persons words Who is it that never speaketh amiss I confess Dr. Twisse Vind. Grat. l. 1. par 3. de Reprob sect 2. pag. Vol. minor 306. saith Gratiam ad peccatum vitandum necessariam duplicem esse dicimus aliam ad posse vitare peccatum aliam ad pecatum actu vitandum illa est Gratia Regenerationis Altera non in est homini per modum habitus sed per modum passionis est motio quaedam gratiosa in voluntatem influens ad omnem sanctam actionem extimulans And so one or two say that Adam had Grace necessary ad posse stare non autem ad actum But this is but a few mens odd Opinion contrary to plain truth I mean If by necessary ad actum be meant in the proper School-sense not all that is conducible to ascertain it but that sine quo esse non potest it is a contradiction to say that men have the power to Act and yet want that which is necessary to the Act that is that without which they cannot Act. It is plainly They Can and They Cannot For we talk not de potentia passiva which a Stone Tree or a Beast or a mad Man have This distinguishing of things that differ not must be detected as well as confusion avoided To say a man can believe or hath power to believe and yet wants that without which he cannot believe is palpable contradiction And where he maketh Regeneration to give the posse before the Act he speaketh obscurely or unsoundly Gods active Influx on the Will exciting it to Act is at least part of his Regenerating Grace A man is not Regenerate before he ever actually believed or repânted though he first receive the Divine Influx ad agendum Nor can he prove that any proper habit goeth before the first act And whether it do or not most certainly the nature faculty and the habit and all together is truly and formally no power ad hoc to believe or love God or do any good without Gods necessary Influx Concurse or exciting Grace No more than a Plant hath a power to fructifie without the Sun or Earth Of Gods help ad bene esse we speak not But to say that Gods exciting Grace is necessary ad actum without which the Act cannot be and yet that we have a power to do that Act without that Grace is still a contradiction This is potentia hypothetica aequivoca a term fit to play with But it is true power where nothing of absolute necessity sine quo non esse potest is wanting which our Divines do commonly confess that Adam had and that all men good and bad have to more good than they do Therefore I find not that you are in that disagreed And Dr. Twisse as I told you oft and vehemently professeth Vindic. Grat. de Amis Grat. Cont. Bellar. pag. Vol. Minor 230. c. 2. 232. that man hath no necessity of sinning ex decreto but logical consequentiae But if it were true that we wanted that Grace which is absolutely necessary to avoid sin it must needs follow that such are under an absolute present necessity consequentis also of sinning as much as of dying when God ceaseth to continue life And if he mean that the Decree necessitateth not sin but the denying of necessary Grace doth he should have said so Andr. Rivet Disput 7. de
Grat. Univers p. 113. saith Sed non quemadmodum Pomificii alii qui eorum sententiam vel sequuntur vel interpolant nobis imponunt ita ut plane negemus sufficientis Gratiae phrasin posse usurpari aut dicamus nullam esse sufficientem ullo modo quae efficax non sit vel nullam esse efficacem quae ad conversionem salutem non sit efficax Id tantum dicimus non dari omnibus talem Gratiam sufficientem quae ita moveat omnium hominum voluntates ut sit in potestate electionis motioni aut obtemperare aut resâagari adeoque nullum esse qui per talem gratiam non possit ad salutem pervenire Deumque id velle omnibus intendere You see that he will own no more but the denial of a universal sufficient Grace for Salvation intended of God to all men And you your selves confess 1. That God intendeth not Salvation for all men unless conditionally if they believe and repent which from eternity he knew before he made them that they would not 2. And that all men have not sufficient Grace to Salvation no nor to believe but only to make them better and bring them nearer it and prepare them for it which some call Grace mediately sufficient to Salvation but that 's an improper Speech as long as for want of their Obedience they never attain to much that is absolutely necessary For my part I doubt not to assert 1. That no man in the World hath Grace sufficient for Salvation that is Glorification an hour before he dieth For he cannot be saved without more that is without the Grace of perseverance to the end But every believing Penitent hath Grace sufficient and effectual to give him a present Right to Salvation And 2. I add that there is no such thing as Grace sufficient to Salvation which is not effectual and doth not save Seeing all that persevere in holiness are saved and they that do not have not Grace sufficient that is necessary to Salvation 3. And I add that no man hath Grace sufficient to give him a Right to Christ and Pardon and Salvation which is not effectual and doth not procure it For every penitent true Believer hath that Right to Christ Pardon and Life And he that is not a penitent Believer hath not Grace sufficient to obtain that Right A. Yes if he have sufficient to help him to believe B. Not so unless he actually believe For is not Faith in act somewhat more than power to believe When you confess that men are damned that have the Power but not that have the Act. A. Yes but man causeth the Act oft when God hath given only the Power and necessary concurse to the production of the Act. B. Corvinus and others of you ordinarily confess that Faith it self is the Gift of God and that Faith is more than a power to believe And we denominate Gods Grace by the various effects Therefore I may say that a man that hath Grace sufficient to believe yet hath not Grace sufficient to Justification till he have 1. The Grace of Faith 2. And so the Grace of the moral donation of the Covenant which is the justifying pardoning Instrument A. You seem then to deny sufficient Grace your self B. I assert 1. That godly men have power or sufficient Grace to many acts of Faith Love and Duty which they never do 2. And that all men by common Grace or sufficient are able to do better than they do in preparation for special Grace 3. And that they are bound so to do in order to their Salvation And so that all men have some helps and Grace in its kind sufficient to enable them to seek Salvation and that God will not forsake them till they forsake him * But I am not able to prove what Vasqu asserteth in 1. Tho. q. 23. disp 98. c. 4. Nunquam occurrere nobis obligationem praecepti aut tentationem sine sufficienti cogitatione qua hanc vincere illud observare possimus Loquor de praeceptâ affirmativâ cui non solum tempuâ adest quo solet obligare sed etiam cujus obligatio memoriae occurrit And he addeth a great untruth Nam si nulla illius in mentem subiret cogitatio nulla nobis ejus obligatio inâumberet unless by sufficient Grace he meant meer natural power and by cogitation the natural power of cogitation this is odious As if a man were bound by no. Law of God or Man if he could but make himself ignorant contemptuous and wicked enough never so much as to think of iâ A. But doth not your Church of England Art 13. say Works done before the Grace of Christ and the Inspiration of his Spirit are not pleasant to God forasmuch as they spring noâ of Faith in Jesu Christ neither do they make men meet to receive Grace or as the School Authors say deserve Grace of congruity yea rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done we doubt not but they have the nature of sin B. This Article is intended against merit of congruity in the works of wicked men And it is certain that all their works are sin in that they are in defectiveness of ends and manner and in perverseness the violations of the Law of God as to pray to God only to be saved from Hell without love to God and Holiness or hatred of Sin to give Alms for the same ends c. where the love of God the true end is left out the action must needs be sin But we say not that it is only sin or totally sin It is good and pleasing to God secundum quid though not simpliciter And such Actions as are sin by deficiency may have a tendeney to better Actions and so to Salvation by that good that is in them He that in meer love to his own Soul will pray hear meditate avoid sin c. is in a likelier way to Grace and Life than he that will do none of this And 2. The Authors of the Artiâle by merit of congruity meant somewhat more than preparation for Conversion For no English Divines I think have denied that 3. And by Works done they meant such as the Papists taught men too much to trust in as giving Alms building Hospitals going on Pilgrimages c. which went under the notion of Sacrifices and Oblations under the old Law when God said He abhorâd the Sacrifice of the Wicked and bid them be readier to hear than to offer the Sacrifice of Fools But it is not I think Soul-humbling Repentance Confession begging for Grace considering their Ways hearing the Word c. though but such as preparatory Grace may do which they meant by Works 4. And that is not done without Grace and the Spirit of Christ which is done but by his common Grace And yet I could wish the Article had been better worded But if you will see the consent of an
same respect much less after the act is past that it hath a contrary power ad praeteritum It is I suppose only in the instant antecedent to the act that you say Grace is resistible A. You may easily be sure of that B. Quest 5. If you mean only that the natural faculty was potentia libera activa ad utrumlibet till Grace procured it to determine it self And so that Grace destroyed not the natural Power or Liberty do you know any that differ from you in that A. No if they may take freedom in their own sense B. Enough of that I hope before Quest. 6. If you mean that the moral Pravity of this natural faculty was such as could have prevailed against Grace though it did not do you not speak unintelligibly For either you speak of a Logical possibility only or of a real strength or power If of the former you equivocate and you differ not from others For you oft confess that Gods meer Prescience that it will not be doth infer a Logical necessity consequentiae and so a Logical impossibility of the contrary But if by Could you mean a real strength or opposite power you mistake the matter Moral pravity is not strength or power at all But the perversion or disease of strength or power So that the case is not unsearchable when a man is converted what hath your question respect to in the word Resist but the Act the vicious habit and privation and the natural faculty Is there any thing else to be considered A. Not that I remember what then B. The Act you confess is procured and therefore not resisted effectually 2. The privation resisteth but passively and so hath no active power And to say that the privation of Faith could have resisted the Grace that wrought Faith implyeth a falshood if you mean it of active power or resistance 3. The contrary habit is not a power but the ill disposition of a power Therefore if it be de facto overcome as to the act by actual Grace or in it self by habitual Grace it is on a false supposition to say that it had power to have resisted when as it hath no power nor is a power But if you speak of Logical possibility its impertinent equivocation 4. All that remaineth then is that the natural faculty in the antecedent instant wanted not power or freedom to the contrary act which is true and none of them that are intelligent deny For God by determining a free power doth not destroy it but use it and determine it And Gods change of the Mind and Will is not by any diminution or fraction of the power of it but by a sapiential and loving efficacy acting it aright and more advancing it Even in our after lives he doth not take away our natural power to will and do evil but he taketh away the vicious disposition of it that we may certainly will and do well Tell me yet then where is the difference A. Though you over-whelm me by distinctions you cannot so blind me but I know a difference between these two Opinions when Paul first believed he could have resisted and not believed and He could not resist and not believe B. That is you have learnt of the Masters of Confusion and Dissention to strive about words which you understand not and having the Foot-Ball before you you will drive it on But little know you whither nor how little thanks the great Shepherd of the Flock will give you at the last Either shew us the difference or be ashamed to pretend a difference A. I perceive that the Controversie about Resistance is resolved into that of power Can and Cannot resist which was opened before THE Eighth Days Conference Between B. and C. of SUFFICIENT and EFFECTUAL GRACE B. I now expect your sharpest Charge against your Adversaries about the nature efficacy and extent of Grace The first Crimination C. 1. They assert an Universality of Grace to all men sufficient to their Salvation * Malderus in 1. 2. Tho. q. 109. a. 10. dub 1. pag. 464. mentioneth five degrees of sufficient Grace 1. That most imperfect degree by which Sinners may forbear a particular mortal sin 2. That of the Regenerate by which they are able to forbear all mortal sin but being infirm will not 3. Adam in Innocency who could easily have persevered but did not when some Angels did by the same degree which others had that fell 4. That of the Predestinate who have Gods special custody before they are confirmed in Grace 5. The Grace of Confirmation of which there are five Opinions of which after Some Lutherans seem to go further in this than the Jesuites or Arminians and to deny the distinction of sufficient and effectual Grace saying that it is the same Grace that is effectual in one and not in another but I think they differ but in words So Gerhard de lib. arb c. 6. sect 1. Concedimus sane spiritui sancto conversionis opus aggredienti multos resistere conâilium Dei adversus seipsos spernere hac ratione sua culpa gratiam conversionis a se repellere sed propterea ipsam Gratiam in sufficientem efficacem dividendam esse negamus siquidem una eademque Dei Gratia est quae in credentibus operatur quae ab intredulis repellitur And he supposeth all mens Wills to be bad and without power to convert themselves and that God giveth them such Grace as doth not physically constrain or necessitate them or determine them but such a suitable operation as they can resist And so that the efficacy of Grace is not from the Will but from Grace it self but the inefficacy is from man and the reason why any are converted is from Grace but the reason why any are not converted is from their resisting that Grace and so the Will of the Wicked is the differencing cause Le Blank de dist Grat. in suffic c. 68 69. Remonstrantes non ideo Gratiam distinguunt in sufficientem efficacem quod putent gratiam quam accipiunt illi qui increduli manent in peccatis perseverant non habere vim efficaciam necessariam praerequisitam ad hoc c. sed ideo solum gratiâ cujus suât participes denegant efficacis nâmen quod effectum ad quem destinatur in iis reapse non producat propter impedimentum quod illi ponunt utrique ergo docent gratiam hanc satis virium habere ad ipsos convertendos nihil ergo pejus hât in parte sentiunt Remonstrantes illis qui Lutherani dicuntur Ac proinde cum Reformati horum communionem non refugiunt sed ultro cos ad pacem c. Magna est bonitas Dei in dandis bonis corporis animâ major est bonitas Dei in remittentis peccata magna multa maxima in patientia c Strigel Loc. 60. pag. 301. Carbo Compend Tho. 1. q. 21. a. 4. Opus divinae justitiae semper
And the sum of his opinion about the nature and cause of our holy actions is 1. That Gods universal influx or causation is necessary on our will to make them acts 2. That Free-Will is the cause that they are these particular acts about this object rather than another 3. That Gods particular or special influx of Grace is the cause that they are supernatural acts And that preventing Grace doth give men good thoughts and the first motion of the affections before deliberation and choice or liberty as Vasquez also saith which seemeth the same with the Doctrine of Ockam Buridane and the rest of the Nominals who call it Complacency as antecedent to Election yea and Intention To be pleased with the thing simply on the first apprehension they call a necessary natural act Though the Scotists say that quoad exercitium actus vel libertatem contradictionis even that is free And it seems the same which Augustine and Jansenius call primam aelectationem But converting Grace it self Molina takes to be a habit wrought by Gods special help in and with the word or means His words are of men that are hearing Gods Word or thinking on it Influit Deuâ in âeasdem notitias inâluxâ quodam particulari ac supernaturali quo cognitionem illam adjuvat tum ut res melius dilucidius expendatur peâetret âumâetiam ut notitia illa jam limites notitia supernaturalis ad finem supernaturalom in suo ordine attingat Inde oritur in voluntate motus affectionis c. Yet no Jesuite is supposed to go further from the Calvinists than this man In truth I cannot perceive but that Jesuites Arminians Lutherans and all such are willing to ascribe as much to Gods Grace as they think consistent with mans Free-will and Gods not being the cause of sin which is the same thing that the Calvinists also endeavour thoughâhey seem not to hit on the same names and notions to do the thing desired save themselves and those that hear them 1. Tim. 4. 16. And that he that converts a sinner doth save a soul from death James 6. ult And that the word is the immortal incorruptible seed by which we are begotten again and which remaineth in us Are you now in doubt of this C. It is one thing for God to work with the Word and another thing to work by the Word The first we confess But if God work by the Word then he must operate first on the Word which is the Preachers act and so by that Word on the soul and not immediately Therefore I rather think that the word is a concomitant than an instrumental cause B. 1. You wrong your self and Christ in that you will not believe him John 3. that we mortals know not the way and manner of the Spirits accesses and operations on the soul any more than the cause of the wind whose sound we hear Do you not know that you do not know how Gods Spirit moveth our intellect and wills and how he maketh use of instruments except secundum quid in some particles revealed 2. An hundred Texts of Scripture which I omit lest I be tedious tell us that the Word is a means or subordinate cause to God of his informing and reforming operations on mens souls And it 's dangerous to dream of any second cause that is so concomitant as to be but co-ordinate with the first cause and not subordinate to it And the word is not only subordinate to God as Instituter by Legislation and Declaration but also to God as efficient operator 3. God can work two ways by the Word which are within our reach besides others 1. As it is the act of the speaker by exciting and illuminating him 2. As it is the species as they call it received by the senses and imagination which God can by his power set home to the attainment of the due effect 4. And yet I know not any or many of your Adversaries that deny that besides this Divine operation by the VVord God hath another immediately on the soul exciting it to operate upon the VVord as the vis plastica vitalis materna operatur in semen jam receptum But I will here forbear to trouble you with the physical difficulties whether the VVord heard be only objectum intellectus or also causa efficiens as light is both to the eye And whether it be operative on the intellect or only terminative with other such like C. Well I must grant you that all Infused Faith as to the act is Acquired But all Acquired Faith not Infused but infusion is added to our own endeavours like the creation of the humane soul B. I am glad that we are got so far on towards peace But Quest. 4. What mean you by Infusion Is it not a Metaphor C. Yes and we mean that immediate perswasion of God which you even confess to be besides his operation by the Word and by our Cogitations Even a Creation of an act or habit B. Quest. 5. Is it the name Infusion or the thing that you plead for C. The name though I confess Metaphors must not be used unnecessarily in Disputes is yet convenient but that I leave indifferent B. Quest 6. Do you not think that the act of Faith is the act of mans own Intellect and Will or Soul and that immediately C. Yes that cannot be denied B. If so then when you say that our act is Infused I hope you will confess the term to be none of the plainest and you only mean that Gods Grace doth so operate on the faculty as to excite it so to act and consequently that the thing first and properly infused is not the act of Faith it self but the vis impressa facultatem before described by which the act is caused And so in a secondary sense the act may be called Infused but not most immediately C. I confess it is the habit which we commonly take to be Infused and therefore we use to distinguish habitus infusos ab habitibus acquisitis rather than actus infusos ab actibus acquisitis B. Is that Habit before the Act or after it C. You know that it is a Controversie among our selves Mr. Pemble saith it is before and the common opinion is that it is after the first special Act. B. 1. I once received that from Mr. Pemble ignorantly But that cometh to us by not distinguishing the vis impressa or first received influx of the spirit from a Habit when as Amesius well saith it is fitter called semen fidei vel dispositio quaedam than a Habit of Faith For 1. no man can prove such an antecedent habit and therefore none should assert it 2. The true nature of a Habit consisteth in a promptitude to perform that special act with facility But that we should have such a promptitude and facility not only while we are Infant Christians but no Christians as having not yet believed in Christ is not probable according to our
commonest observation 3. All other Habits follow the Acts and therefore we have little reason to say it is otherwise here C. Doth the Soul believe before it is inclined or disposed to it B. Inclination is a hard word and belongeth both to Natural Inclination such as we have to Felicity and to Habits and to meer Dispositions And a pre-disposition we grant As when you spur your Horse you make him first the patient of your act and by suscitating his natural faculty you dispose him to a speedy motion though the similitude doth not quadrare per omnia because Gods influx is on the whole Soul it self But this Disposition to the present act is far less than a proper Habit or it 's another thing C. When I spur my Horse or whip my Dog I do but stir up a former faculty or slothful power But God giveth a new life and power to them that were dead in sin B. Yet I cannot take words for matter 1. It 's nothing but the natural faculty or power which you suscitate in the beast And hath not an unbeliever the Natural faculties or power Is he not a man Why do you not bury him if he be not alive 2. Death in sin is relative or real The Relative is Reatus mortis which denominateth men filios mortis and is done away by pardon The real is the Privation of a holy disposition to the act of Faith and Repentance c. or of the Act it self or of the Habit. You can name no other Now 1. the death which consisteth in the privation of the first disposition to act supposing all natural dispositions is taken away by the first influx or suscitation of the Holy Ghost 2. And by the same in secunda instanti is caused the Act and the death gone that lay in its privation 3. And in the third instant or afterward by degrees is taken away the death which lieth in the privation of the Habit. And this giving the Habit is called in Scripture and by Divines Sanctification as following Vocation and it is wrought in us by degrees and not all at once and that by the Spirits power with and by our exercised Acts. In my youth I was so prematurely confident of the contrary that the first Controversie that ever I wrote on was a Confutation of Bishop Downam Amesius Medall de Vocat Mr. Tho. Hooker c. in Defence of Pemble herein but riper thoughts made me burn that Script C. But the spur or rod putteth no new power at all into your Horse but Gods Spirit putteth a new Power into us B. I have talkt long enough to you about Power before and therefore would not turn back needlesly to say it over again Gods Spirit putteth no such thing into us as we call a faculty or natural power For that is the form or essence of the Soul and our Species is not chang'd by Grace But he giveth us that which is called a Moral Power which consisteth conjunctly in the concurrence of means and objects and the disposition of our faculties to the act Hear Dr. Twisse against Hord pag. 12. lib. 2. He secretly maintaineth that every man hath such a power by Grace by which he may repent if he will Concerning which Tenet of his we nothing doubt but every man hath such a power but we say it is nature rather Page 18. Truly I see no cause to deny this that even the wicked could do good if they would We may safely say with Austin Omnes possunt Deo credere ab amore rerum temporalium ad Divina praecepta servanda se convertere si velint Here is posse se convertere id est velte si velit But saith Twisse pag. 170. l. 1. But such is the shameful issue of them that confound impotency moral with impotence natural as if there were no difference which he oft sheweth is but the want of actual and dispositive willingness Now the rod or spur may cause both a present disposition and an act of will C. But is this all the new Life and Spirit and Divine Nature that is given us Sure it is much more B. No doubt but it is much more But that Spirit Life and Nature is promised and given to Believers and is promised on condition of our accepting Christ in whom is our life And therefore it is that habitual Grace which followeth the first act of Faith and is a nobler disposition to the following acts C. Will one act of ours cause a Habit B. Not as ours only But when the Spirit will work by it it will But even that Habit I told you is weak at first and increased by degrees But proceed and tell me Quest 7. Are you sure that in the Acquisition of Habits there is no immediate operation of God on the Soul that causeth them C. We all hold an immediate Influx necessary to the Being and Action of every Creature natural and free but not an immediate Infusion B. What 's the difference between Influx and Infusion C. The first is an universal operation the other a particular B. Do you mean that the difference of the acts or operations is at all ex parte agentis sen act us ut est agentis antecedent to the effect or only in the effect it self C. I dare not say that there is any difference in God for it is against his simplicity and his very will and act as in himself is his Essence though varioâsly related and denominated by cannotation Therefore I must needs confess that the diversity is only in the effect B. Do you not see then what a delusory and troublesome stir men make for and about meer words What 's the Crimination come to then about Acquired and Infused Habits when the difference is only in the effects You confess that all proper Habits Infused are by our cogitation and use of means and so are also acquired And you confes that all Acquired Aabits are wrought besides our cogitation and use of means by an immediate influx of God so that as to the Causes you can name no difference And yet the words Acquired and Infused signifie a difference in the Causes and their operation and not in the Effect by their notation Is not this deceit then C. Tell me what you take to be the difference your self B. 1. I suppose that ab uno omnia God without diversity causeth all diversity which is only in the Creatures and not in him 2. I suppose that God hath appointed natural means and second causes for common natural effects and his Will is that they shall operate according to their aptitude And that he hath appointed extraordinary means even Christ and supernatural Revelation for the production of saving Faith And it is his will that they shall work usually according to their aptitude 3. It is his command that we use these several means natural and supernatural accordingly 4. As these means are special extraordinary and for a special end
the production of Faith and Holiness So it is the will of God that they shall have answerable noble special effects which effects besides his operation on and by the means the said Volition of God it self produceth immediately operating on the Soul not as a meer volition alone but as conjunct with his Wisdom and Vital Power or Activity by which he operateth all in all I could here say that God doth concur with these supernatural means on his Elect with a stronger greater special energy force or influx But I am loth to deceive you with bare words for this force energy or efflux is either God or something created God operateth by that Wisdom Will and Power or Activity which are his Essence therefore there are here no degrees in any operation And in the effects the degrees are not denied The sum of all is then but this natural effects are natural effects and Faith is Faith the difference we partly perceive the means also are various but in God the operator there is no diversity And so you may see what the stir about Infusing and Acquiring is come to C. I dare not deny this because it is agreed on by all Philosophical Divines and I should be called a Blasphemer if I affirmed any real diversity in God at least besides the Trinity of Persons called by the School-men Real Relations and by some real modes of being But it surpasseth mans understanding to conceive that the same cause no way differing ex parte sui should produce variety of effects By which it seemeth that when there was nothing but God his love to Jacob and his hatred to Esau his decree to save and to damn his will to make the world and to destroy it his fore-knowledge of good and evil had no real difference at all And is it not somewhat of a lye then in us to call those acts different or by different names which really have not the least difference at all But of this before B. God were not God if mans shallow wit could comprehend him All this must be confest unless you will be a Vorstian But if our conceptions be not false our diversity of names here is no lye because we intend but to denominate Gods knowledge and decrees or will but by the relative connotation of the things known and willed And though those things were nothing before the Creation and so the difference between Gods Decrees c. was really none at all and the esse cognitum was nothing but Gods simple Essence Yet as Greg. Armin. hath disputed there be some kind of Relations which are nothing themselves and consequently denominations which may be terminated on nothing as praeteritu futura are But if your understanding rest not here do as I do rest in a necessary and willing ignorance and be but so wise as not to trouble the Church with that which you know not nor imitate them that can shew the valour of their raging zeal by Writing or Preaching against them as the enemies of the Grace of God which dote not as confidently as themselves C. But what say you to Dr. Twisse 's words against Hord l. 1. p. 156. Albeit it be not in the power of nature to believe fide infusa yet is it in the power of nature to believe the Gospel fide acquisita which depends partly on a mans Education and partly on Reasons considering the credibility of the Christian way by light of natural observations above all other ways in the world B. 1. * Pet. a S. Joseph Thes univers de Grat. habit p. 86. Datur aliquod donum Gratiae Divinitus infusum quod post operationem in anima nostra habitualiter permanet Dari gratiam habitualem jam videtur esse de fide post Concil Tridentiâ antea tamen non erat habitus gratia sanctificantis realiter a charitate distinguitur which others deny Gratia habitualis constituit hominem in statu supernaturali c. The Reader that will peruse Casp Peucer's Hist Carcer pag. 692 693 c. may see that the Luthorans were more for Infusion and miraculous operations of Grace and may see a handsom explication of Conversion and the operation of the Word and Sacraments and pag. 698. De viribus humanis in renascentibus renatis dum fit conversio deinceps ad sinem Credo quod gratuiti beneficii ac meriti Christi salvatoris applicatio naturae mortuae vivifitatio in regeneratione non fit actione physica brâta aut raptu Enthâstastico aut Stoica coactione aut Magico affâatu verbi Sacramentorum sp sancti Neâ mutatione Physica aut Mâgica hyperphysica substantiâ temperamenti viriuâ seu facultatem hâminis sentientis quidem nec moventis se nec quiâquam agentis sed sustinentis tantum impressionem ut subjectum pations sicut ranâ reviviscunt a tepore solis c. By this you may see what this excellent man Melanââhons Son-in-law suffered his ten years cruel imprisonment for by the instigation of Schmidelinus and other Lutherans to their perpetual shame and who was then as the Papists still are most for Physical infusions ex opâre operato in Word and Sacraments Not only he but all the School-men distinguish acquired and infused Faith But though the names sound otherwise the difference meant by them is in the effects only and the means and not in God He meaneth that a slight ineffectual belief may be performed by that disposition or moral power which is found before special Grace as excited by good Education and helps But an effectual saving Faith must be the product of a special impress of Gods Spirit on the Soul which is a special disposition and moral power to that act And this is true And no more can be truly meant or said 2. But I will tell you a mystery added oft by Dr. Twisse which may much moderate your judgment about the cause of mens condemnation if it be true He holdeth that no man is condemned for want of an infused Faith C. How why no man is condemned at least that hath the Gospel but for want of it For if it be only an infused Faith that justifieth then it is the want of an infused Faith by which men are unjustified And if as you say Infused and effectual or special Faith be all one sure men are condemned for want of special effectual Faith B. His words are these against Hord l. 1. p. 156. Neither have I ever read or heard it taught by any that men shall be damned for not believing fide infusa which is as much as to say because God hath not regenerated them but either because they refused to believe or else if they have embraced the Gospel for not living answerable thereunto which also is in their power quoad exteriorem vitae emendationem though it be not in their power to regenerate their wills and change their hearts any more than it is to illuminate their minds Yet I
they were made less Receptive and more disposed as to the universal means and Influx And by his secession from the holy seed he was deprived of much outward means And having forfeited the Spirit he had less also of its helping Influx And thus he and his posterity made themselves to differ as if a Generation of Sinners should be born blând while the Sun shineth as it did before 8. The Holy seed that 's not yet Apostate have great subjective and objective Grace 9. The seed of Cain are still under the same Law of Grace and universal conditional promise that If they will believe and repent they shall be saved And they have some Means and some Help of Grace yet left them which have an aptitude by degrees to bring them back again to God And if they will not use that lower degree of Grace by returning as they can they forfeit that and further help 10. But yet God hath besides this Universal Grace some special and extraordinary ways and degrees of Grace for some according to his Good pleasure But this with the answer to your other two questions will come in better anon under the next head C. Having spoke to the matter now speak of the sense of the Text 1 Cor. 4. 7. and Rom. 12. 6. For who maketh thee to differ from another and what hast thou that thou didst not receive Now if thou didst receive it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it B. It is most evident that Paul speaketh of the Gifts or Excellencies themselves primarily and of Differing from others but as a resultancy from those Gifts And he medleth not here with the question why others have not those Gifts as well as they and so why others differ from them q. d. Are not all those things of which you glory the free gifts of God And is it not by those free gifts that you differ as more excellent than others And should you boast of that which is Gods free Gift of which you are but Receivers To pass by the common answer that Paul speaketh of Ministerial Gifts and not of special Grace what Arminian can deny any of this about the Grace of faith it self 1. He must confess that we have no Grace to cause faith but what we have received For the Act which we performed is no otherwise to be said to be received but as we receive the gracious operation which causeth it 2. He cannot deny that by this Received Grace and Faith the believer in excellency differeth from unbelievers 3. Nor that such a Receiver hath no cause of boasting as if he had not received it Who will deny this C. But they leave him to boast that by his better preparation and disposition he was a fitter Recipient than another And so all boasting is not excluded B. 1. In Paul's Case of extraordinary Ministerial gifts there is less room for that much because they are not given so much according to preparations as saving Grace is For even ungodly men may have them 2. The boasting which is excluded is a boasting of our selves as against or without the glory of Grace as if we had some excellency which we had not received But our very Receptive disposition was received by Gods Grace even from his common preparing Grace And that common Grace was freely given 3. If by boasting you would mean an acknowledgment of Gods grace then all thanksgiving is boasting Or if a Rejoycing in the effects of that Grace as Received and improved by us then Paul so boasted often yea and to the death rejoyced in this testimony of his Conscience that in simplicity and Godly sincerity and not in fleshly wisdom he had had his conversation in the world 2 Cor. 1. 12. And that he tamed his body and that he suffered for Christ and that he had fought a good fight 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. If praising Gods grace in his Servants and that holy use of it in wisdom faith love obedience and patience be boasting God so boasteth of them and praiseth them even at judgment Math. 25. Well done good and faithful Servant And Scripture throughout so boasteth of them And we that must honour those that fear the Lord Psal 15. 4. must so boast of them also But this is not the forbidden boasting And as to Rom. 12. 6. 1 Cor. 12. Eph. 1. 6 7 8. and such like its past question that God freely diversifyeth Offices and such Gifts as he pleaseth and we know of no praedisposition to which even ordinarily he tyeth himself as to many of them But saving Grace is given more under a Law and stablished course of means in the use of which we must be fit Recipients The ninth Crimination C. They make the Grace of God to be Effectual not from the Will of the Giver nor from the proper force of the Grace it self so much as from the will of man concurring For they think that Gods Grace is but universal and indifferent and leaveth it to mans will whether it shall produce the act of faith or not so that the posse Credere velle is of God but the actu credere velle is of our selves This is the grand difference which I have reserved to the last and as Dr. Twisse oft noâeth the question Unde Gratia fit Efficax is it which they are loath to be brought to answer B. I know that this is cryed up as the great difference And where-ever things are mysterious and hard there will be variety of Conceptions and words from whence it will be easie to pretend real differences and make them seem great But because order befriendeth Truth we must be agreed first of the subject of the question what Grace is it whose Efficacy you dispute of I take it for granted that it is such as is to work in genere Causae Efficientis But tell me first whether you Arminius confesseth Gods infallible operation thus Nihil mali caveri posse nist Deo impediente certum est Sed de modo impediendi disputatur an ille sit ex Omnipotentâ Dei actione in voluntatem hominis agente secundum modum naturae unde impeditionis existit Necessitas an vero ex tali actione quae agât in Voluntatem secundum modum voluntatis quâ liberâ est unde impeditionis infallibilitas Armin. Exam Perkins pag 501. Note by Necessity Arminius doth mean Necessity consequentis vel effecti and confesseth necessity Consequentiâ which here he calleth ânfallibility And Dr. Twisse professeth that he and all the Schoolmen hold no other And note the unde that he maketh the Infallibility to result from the operation of God and not from his fore-knoâledge only confess or not that there is such a thing as Universal Grace or Help of the Spirit fixedly or ordinarily accompanying or working by the means of Grace which operateth as the Sun ad modum recipientis and will not produce the same effect on one receiver as on another C. I
made a Janizary A third the Parents dying leave to such as educate them vitiously And some the Parents apostatizing educate in Heresie or unpiety themselves 3. He oft casteth their lot under different means for their Edification One is set Apprentice to a Godly Master and another to an ungodly one One is cast under a Holy able Minister and another under an ignorant Seducer One is cast among Godly Companions and another among lewd Seducers idle wanton voluptuous unclean malignant scornful or other such tempting persons as that a great deal more grace or help is necessary to their preservation 4. One for ought we see of equal commerit is impelled or occasioned to go to Church just when an apt Sermon is prepared for him and another occasioned to be absent A Minister or Friend is sent as Philip to the Eunuch though by ordinary means to meet with one and speak suitably to his case and not to the other 5. One falleth under some great affliction which taketh him down and awakeneth him to seriousness and another swimmeth down the violent and dangerous stream of prosperity and constant health 6. One seeth some notable Judgments on others or some convincing Providences or hath some strange deliverance himself which another never hath 7. One Nation or Kingdom of equal ill desert hath the Gospel and powerful Preachers sent to them while others are left as the most of the world without it yea as the poor Islanders Laplanders Brasilians Soldanians and Canibals A thousand ways God hath to fulfil his Will which we know not of But besides all these in point of Means we see that under the same Means or Sermon or Family helps there is not the same success Not only because the unbelievers make the difference by sinning against sufficient universal Grace but because God doth especially touch the hearts of some by such Grace as he giveth not to others Thus did he open the heart of Lidia Act. 16. C. Methinks you should lay all on this Internal changing Grace and not on the difference of means B. Certain Experience telleth us that most usually God giveth extraordinary differing means where his Grace shall work different effects Christ himself who was to bestow extraordinary Grace after his Incarnation was himself to be an extraordinary means He must work Miracles raise the Dead rise from the Dead c. as the Means The Apostles that were to do extraordinary things in calling the unbelieving world to Christ were to do it by miracles and extraordinary means The 3000 Act. 2. must have the Apostles miraculous gift of tongues to be the means of their Conversion Cornelius must have both an Angel and Peter Paul must be strucken down and blind and hear Christ speak from Heaven and after have Ananias's Ministry The Eunuch must have Philip. The Jaylor Act. 16. must have an Earthquake and so of others And to this day we see how little God doth where there is no Ministry or Means And how much the success of able holy skilful Ministers doth differ from that of wicked or Ignorant sots And how usually in all the world the success goeth according to the means and that the instances of contrary are unusual rarities Therefore separate not what the wisdom of God hath conjoyned C. But do you think that God ever ascertaineth the Effect meerly by such Moral Differencing helps or means annexed to his universal Gracious Efflux or aid without a special degree of that Immediate Efflux it self on the Soul B. 1. We little know when God worketh Immediately and how far His Efflux or Action ex parte agentis I oft tell you hath no degrees being himself The degrees are in the Received Impress on the Soul And it 's like this special differencing Grace consisteth in a special degree of Impress But when that Impress is made by the Spirit without the Instrumentality of Means we know not God can make our own Imagination and spirit and inward temperament a means undiscernably to us 2. If I have proved to you that even the universal Grace it self with common means may attain the effect and doth in many who dare question whether All yea One extraordinary or special Means added by God to that Common Influx with a will of success may ascertain the effect It were Blasphemy to say that God hath not Wisdom enough thus to attain his ends by a series of adapted means in conjunction with that Grace C. But methinks you spin too fine a thred when you talk of an Impress of the Spirit on the Soul as the first Effect of God alone or God and the Means antecedent to faith or the Act of man as the second effect of God and Man together I find not that our Curiousest School Wits do talk much of such an Impress B. 1. You will find the same sence in the Thomists and many of the Schoolmen And methinks it is clear in it self The Act of Faith is done by us Our Souls have need of some Grace to be the Cause or it The Cause goeth before the Effect This Cause must not be out of us but within us Grace therefore must be first within us as a Cause before it is within us as the effect of it Yea Action being nothing but Modus Agentis is not a fit recipient it self immediately of a vis impressa It is the Soul or faculty that must Act and to say that Gods Influx is not on the Soul or faculty as the recipient but on the Act of that faculty aloue seemeth to be unintelligible if not absurd It is our Act or our Soul that needeth help or Grace If not the Soul but the Act then we have need of none at all For the Act is yet future that is is no act and nothing and so hath no need 2. But if really you will hold to the opinion that our Act it self is the first Effect of Gods Influx or Will then take notice that all our controversie here between you and the Arminians what Grace is sufficient and what effectual is at an end And it is on your part and for the truth that I spin that thred which you account too fine C. How do you manifest that B. Most plainly For if we have nothing to enquire after between Gods agency ex parte sui and the Act of Faith it is a ridiculous question to ask what Grace is sufficient and what effectual and what difference between the one and the other and what is that which maketh efficiently the difference For either your Question is of the Cause or the Effect If of the Cause it is besides the second Causes nothing but Gods Essence even his essential Activity Wisdom and Will And do you think that Gods essence is diversifyed as little and great more or less sufficient and effectual Do you enquire for Diversity in simple unity That which worketh all effects in the world is one Cause that hath in it self no real difference of parts kinds
15. 58. And they work out their salvation with fear and trembling laying up a treasure in Heaven Matth. 6. 20. and laying up a good foundation for the time to come and pressing forward for the prize Phil. 3. 8 9. and laying hold upon eternal life Lib. All this leadeth us to our own works and sets up the Law and taketh down Christ and his righteousness and is meer Popery for humane Merits P. If this be Gods Word and Christs own Law and Doctrine then you inferr that Christ taketh down himself and his own righteousness and sets up man and humane merits But give me leave to tell you that if you deny the Reward of Evangelical duty and the Rewardableness or Worthiness or Merit of such duty as it is but our Merit or Worthiness of the free Gift of Christ and Life given by Paternal Love and Justice to believing Penitent accepters according to the tenour of the Covenant of Grace 1. You do contradict so much of the most express Texts of Scripture as alloweth us to suspect that really you believe not the Scripture to be true or that it is not it but your own contradicting fancy that is the measure of your belief and you may on such terms hold the vilest absurdities even what you list as in despight of Scripture while you pretend that it is for you 2. You will deny the honour of Gods Image on man and the work of the Holy Ghost and the design of Christ who came to destroy the works of the Devil and save his people from their sins and purifie to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works 3. You will disgrace the Church of God which Christ washeth and sanctifieth and render it too like to the unsanctified world 4. You will leave man no ground for true assurance of Justification or Salvation while the difference between the worthy and unworthy is taken away 5. You will harden the wicked in their false presumptuous hopes and teach them to say We are but unworthy and so are all 6. You will destroy the comfort of well doing by denying the reward and making it seem to be in vain 7. Hereby you will take down all holy diligence in our Christian race and warfare while you deny the prize and recompence of reward Heb. 11. 26. We run for an incorruptible Crown 1 Cor. 9. 25. Phil. 3. 14. 8. You will strengthen all Temptations while you take down that which should be set against them See Luke 12. 4. Heb. 4. 1. 12. 28 29. Matth. 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19 20 c. Matth. 5. 10 11 12. 9. You will disgrace the Word and Ministry and all Means if after all we are never the more accepted 10. In a word you deny Gods Government in denying his Governing Justice and Judgements and that is to deny God to be our God Yea you deny all Religion all the Kingdom of Christ all Law all Judgement all Retribution Heaven and Hell all the true difference between Good and Evil Holiness and Sin all Praise and Dispraise while you deny the Reward and Rewardableness of holy obedience by the Paternal Government of the Law of Grace and that glory honour and peace is to every one that doth good both Jew and Gentile Rom. 2. 7 10. Lib. You would perswade us that holiness is good for nothing if it be not Rewardable as if you knew of no other use of it so ignorant are natural men of the things of God which are spiritually disâerned I will tell you that which your carnal mind cannot understand 1. Holiness Faith Love Obedience c. are Gods free Gifts excellent in themselves without a Reward 2. They are Fruits of the Spirit and marks and signs of our future felicity though they deserve it not 3. I told you that they are Rewards to Christ and Gifts to us P. 1. That they are Gods Gifts we doubt not But are not Faith Love and Obedience also the Acts of man by that Grace which is the gift of God Lib. Yes they are mans acts but it is God that worketh them in us P. And tell me if you can 1. Why God cannot Reward those acts which are done by his own Grace Cannot God make the Promise of a Reward to be a fit Moral Means for his Spirit to work by Nay doth not the scope of the Scripture tell you that he doth so 2. Is there ever the less worthiness in it because God causeth it Tell me without shifting Is an honest man no more worthy of a Princes favour than a Thief If you are no more worthy of liberty and protection and life than Atheists and Rebels why do you call men Persecutors for using you as if you were such Why call you men Malignants for hating deriding and opposing godly men if they deserve no better than the worst Lib. They deserve better from men but not from God P. Do you deny Rulers to be Gods Officers and that they are to make this difference by his appointment and therefore it is done by God 3. But without shifting tell me Doth not every good action or inclination deserve praise from God and man Doth it not deserve to be accounted and called just as it is Lib. All our Righteousnesses are as menstruous rags and what praise then do they deserve Can that deserve praise which deserveth Hell P. 1. Come on then let Conscience be a while unmuzzled Why do you so much praise those of your own Church or Opinion Why praise you so much the Ministers and people that are of your way Why do you make a difference between them and such as are against you 2. Why do you so aggravate the sin of those that vilifie deride and persecute you Why call you the Saints the precious ones on earth Gods treasure and peculiar people 3. Why were you lately so angry with the Ecclesiastical Politician the Debate-maker and other such Books which vilifie men whom you and I have better thoughts of if they deserve no more praise than the vilest men 4. Why were you so angry lately when you heard of one that reproached you and so pleased with one that proclaimed your wisdom and goodness and took your part 5. And if good actions deserve not praise from God himself why doth he praise them so greatly in his Word Why will he say before all the world Well done good and faithful servant c. 1. Dare you call God Ignorant Legalist or charge him with mistakes 2. Doth not every thing and person deserve to be thought and called just as it is Else lying or silence must be the virtue and Truth the Vice 3. Is there no more good in a Saint than in a Devil If there be doth it not deserve to be called just as it is 4. May not he who deserveth Hell by the Law of Works or Innocency be yet Morally fit for that is Worthy of Heaven according to the Law of Grace which pardoneth his sins
not by such talk as this believe either that God Rewardeth himself or that he Rewardeth not us But we easily grant that he rewardeth us for nothing which cometh not from his free bounty For no creature can have any other good 2. But if Faith and Love and Obedience be not commanded to us but only given us then they are no Duties but Gifts only and unbelief hatred of God and disobedience is no sin nor brings no punishment Lib. At least they are no Conditions of the Covenant P. Do you think that they are any proper Means of our Justification and Salvation as their End or not Lib. Yes I dare not say that they are no means at all Faith and Repentance are Means of our Pardon and Holiness and Perseverance of our Glorification P. What sort of means do you take them to be Lib. They are such Gifts of God as in order must go before Salvation P. Going before signifieth only Antecedency and not any Means Lib. One Gift maketh us fit for a thankful improvement of another P. This speaketh them only to be a Means to our Thankful improvement and not to our Right to the things to be improved Lib. I do not think that they are a means of our Right or title P. Rev. 22. 14. Blessed are they that do his Commandments that they may have Right to the tree of life c. Lib. It may be translated that wash their garments and that they may have power upon as Dr. Hammond noteth P. 1. The Alexandrian Copy which giveth him this occasion is singular and not be set against all other though the Vulgar Latin go the same way Beza who yet thinks that a transposition of two Verses hath darkned these Texts this Book being negligently used because many for a time took it not for an Apostolical Writing or Canonical yet saith that it is contra omnium Graecorum codicum fidem that the Vulgar goeth 2. But all 's one in sense For to wash their Garments is to be sanctified or purified from sin and not only from guilt of punishment And ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth such a Power as we call Authority oâ Right usually But what maketh you deny Conditions on mans part Lib. Because 1. It is supposed that a condition is profitable to him that requireth it 2. It is some Cause of the benefit 3. It is to be done by the performers own strength whereas God giving âs Faith that can be no condition on our part which is first a Gift from him that requireth it For to give it first maketh it no condition of ours P. Here we see what it is to quarrell about ambiguous Words No one of these is true that you say of the common nature of a condition or at least as we mean by that word 1. Civilians define a Condition to be Lex addita negotio qua donec praestetur eventum suspendit As it is Required it is only Modus promissionis donationis vel contractus as Performed it is only a Removal of an Impediment and a Disposition of the Receiver So that as the Non-performance is but the suspension of a Causation so the performance of a Condition as such is no Cause efficient But it is dispositio subjecti which you may call a necessary Modus of a Material Cause as the Recipient may improperly be called Dr. Twisse therefore calleth faith Caâsa justificationis dispositiva 2. So it be an act of our own it is no way necessary that it be done without the Commanders help or gift For he that giveth us to believe doth give it by this means even by commanding it and making it a Condition of his further benefits that so he may induce us as rational free agents to perform it ex intuitu mercedis or by the motive of the end or benefit For he causeth it by suitable means And no doubt but faith and the rest are free acts of ours though caused by Gods grace 3. And it is accidental to a Condition that it be any way commodious to the Imposer What profit is it to a Father that his Child put off his Hat and say I thank you And yet he may make that a condition of his gift What profit is it to a free Physicion that the Patient observe his order in taking his Medicines And yet he may give them on that condition But yet I will add that as usually men make that the condition of a Gift or Contract which the person obliged is backward else to perform and that which is somewhat either for the Donor or Contracters Interest or the Ends of his contract so God who taketh his Glory and Pleasure in his Childrens Good to be as his Interest and the End of his Gifts and knoweth how backward we are to our duty doth on these accounts impose on us our duty and conditions his Pleasure and Glory being instead of his Commodity But if If be a conditional Particle and if Gods suspending by the tenour of his Donation our Right to Justification upon our free believing and our Right to Salvation on our free obedience do prove Conditionality as it doth all that we mean then you see that the new Covenant hath conditions Lib. Doth not God promise us the first Grace even to take the hard heart out of our bodies and give us hearts of flesh and new hearts c. And I pray what condition can the first grace have unless you will run in infinitum to seek Conditions of Conditions P. 1. This is a Cause of great moment of which I have my self had darker thoughts than now I have 1. If one Benefit of the Covenant have no Condition viz. the first will it follow that none of the rest are given upon condition May not God in Baptism give us a Right of special Relation to the Father Son and Holy Ghost his Love Grace and Communion Pardon Adoption and Glory on condition of Faith and Repentance and yet himself give us that Faith and Repentance which is the condition of the rest 2. But upon fuller consideration it will appear that It is not the first Grace that those promises mean by a new and soft heart For who ever will examine them shall find that the Texts mention Conditions and also antecedent Grace And indeed A new and soft heart is but the same thing which the New Testament calleth Sanctification And yet that Sanctification is promised as consequent to Faith as its condition And our ordinary Divines do accordingly distinguish of Vocation and Sanctification holding that in Vocation the Act of Faith and Repentance are caused by Gods Grace before proper Habits and that Sanctification is the Habits specially of Love and Holiness following them vid. Ames Medull de Vocat Rolloc de Vocat Hookers Souls Vocat Humil. Rogers of Faith c. And this is the new and fleshy heart But what need we more to prove that Covenant Conditional which I mean when it is nothing
the believing sinner may stand before this righteous and holy God is to affirm the eternal damnation of all the World VII The Covenant mentioned justifieth not but declareth our Justification which is the immediate proper effect of Christ's righteousness VIII Never any man in his wits affirmed that the righteousness of Christ is the formal cause of our Justification Give us but leave to call it the material cause or the meritorious cause immediately and properly of Justification c. Some will think that they are great and heinous errors which either these words or some of mine that seem contrary import But I must crave leave here to follow my usual method in separating the Controversies de re de nomine and then I think that even these strange words prove not him and me at so great a distance as they seem to intimate For I grant him as followeth de re 1. That God hath such a decree of Election or eternal purpose as he describeth and calleth the Constitution of the Covenant 2. That God doth wisely and graciously execute this Decree 3. That all Grace and Mercy is given by Christ And therefore so far as Mercy is common Christ is the common cause of it 4. That Christ himself is a blessing or gift decreed and also freely given by God even from his love to the World Joh. 3. 16. 5. That God's electing Act or Decree as in him hath no condition nor his purpose to give Christ as a Saviour to mankind 6. On our part no condition is required either that God may elect us or that the first promise of a Saviour be made or that Christ come into the World or that he fulfill all righteousness or that he obey or die or rise or be glorified or come to judgment or raise the dead or that he enact it as his Law of Grace that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned 7. Nor is any condition on our part necessary absolutely necessitate medii that the Gospel or the first Grace yea the first special Grace be given us 8. That Christ by his suffering and merits hath procured to his elect not only pardon and life if they believe and obey him but Grace to cause them effectually and infallibly to believe repent obey and persevere 9. That no man can or will believe and repent but by his Grace 10. That to give men a promise of pardon and life if they will believe repent and obey the Gospel is not the whole of Christ's Grace to any but where-ever he giveth this he giveth also much means and gracious help by which men may do better than they do and so be more prepared for his further Grace 11. That if God only gave men a promise of pardon if they believe and gave them no Grace to enable or help them to believe it would be no saving Covenant 12. God did not repeal his Law of Innocency or as he had rather call it of Perfection nor did properly dispense with or relax the preceptive part of it Nor is it absolutely ceased as to a capable subject And therefore Christ was bound to perfection 13. God would not have his Law to be without the honour of the perfect performance of mans Mediator though it be violated by us all 14. No man is saved or justified but by the proper merit of Christ's perfect obedience yea and his habitual holiness and satisfactory sufferings advanced in dignity by his divine perfection 15. This merit as related to us supposeth that Christ as a Sponsor was the second Adam the Root of the justified the reconciling Mediator who obeyed perfectly with that intent that by his obedience we might be justified and who suffered for our sins in our room and stead and so was in tantum our Vicarius poenae as some phrase it or substitute and was made a curse for us that we might be healed by his stripes as he was obedient that his righteousness might be the reason as a meritorious cause of our Justification which supposeth the relation of an undertaking Redeemer in our nature doing this and in our stead so far forth as that therefore perfect obedience should not be necessary to be performed by our selves And righteousness therefore is imputed to us that is we are truly reputed righteous because we as believing members of Christ have right to impunity and life as merited by his righteousness and freely given to all penitent believers And Christ's own righteousness may be said so far to be imputed to us as to be reckoned or reputed the meritorious cause of our right or justification as aforesaid Thus far we are agreed de re And then de nomine I willingly leave men to their way of speech 1. If he will call God's Decree his Covenant in Constitution 2. If he will call the execution of his Decree his Covenant in execution 3. If he will call nothing else the Covenant of Grace or at least nothing of narrower extent but what comprehendeth God's eternal Decrees and the promise and gift of a Redeemer and so of the rest I cannot help it his language is his own But I shall tell you further my thoughts de re de nomine 1. De re 1. God's eternal decrees purposes or election give no one right to Christ Pardon or Life and so justifie no man 2. The execution of God's Decrees yea of Election hath many Acts besides Justification 3. It must therefore be some transient Act done in time ad extra by which God justifieth men 4. There are divers such acts concurring in several sorts of causality or respect 5. Christ's meritorious righteousness and satisfaction are the sole proper immediate causemeritorious of all the Grace or Mercy procured and given by him there being no other meritorious cause of the same kind either more immediate or at all co-ordinate and copartner with him 6. As Christ giveth us Holiness qualitative and active by the real operation of his Spirit though he merited it immediately himself so doth he give us right to impunity to the further Grace of the Spirit and to Glory by the instrumentality of his Covenant as by a Testament Deed of Gift or Law of Grace Which by signifying God's donative will doth not first declare us justified or to have the foresaid right to Christ and Life but doth first give us instrumentally that right and so immediately justify us And God's will giveth us not right as secret or of it self but by such instrumental signification 7. God hath signified his will to us partly by absolute gifts and promises and partly by conditional that such there are he that denieth must deny much of the Scripture Christ was absolutely given to fallen mankind for a Redeemer and so was the Conditional Law or Covenant of Grace and many other mercies But he hath made and recorded a conditional Gift of Christ as in special Union to be our
getteth a right to any benefit by his fault What then Why the Precept to that man is past into a Virtual Judiciary Sentence condemning him as disobedient even as it is with those in Hell 239. Therefore since the fall the Law of Innocency in it self is the same which once said Thou shalt continue perfectly Innocent but it doth not properly oblige us as a Law to that Innocency or perfection which we were born without because we are become uncapable subjects Much less is that Innocency now the Condition of any Promise or Covenant of God as if he still said Be personally and perpetually Innocent and thou shalt live and that thou maist live But the Law being still the same we that are uncapable of the duty are not uncapable of the guilt and condemnation Vid. Bellarmin de Grat. lib. aâb li. 5. per totum c. 30. de dist necessitates And therefore the Law and Covenant are now become a Virtual Sentence of Condemnation for not obeying personally perfectly and perpetually to the death For he that hath once made Innocency Naturally Impossible to him is Virtually in the case of one that hath persevered to the death in sin 240. But if the contracted Impossibility be not Physical but Moral the case is quite different For then the thing is a threefold sin in it self as aforesaid 1. The disabling sin 2. The vicious Disability or Malignity of the Will 3. And the after sin thereby committed and omission of duty More of Physical and Moral Impotency 241. 1. No righteous Law forbiddeth Physical Impotency as such nor commandeth men Physical Impossibilities as is said But Gods Laws primarily forbid the malignity of the Will which is its Moral Impotency Bradwaâdine plainly saith li. 3. c. 9. p. 675. that Nullus actus noster est simpliciter in nostra potestate we grant not absolutely and independently sed tantum secândum quid respectu Caâsarum secundarum Nihil est in nostra potestate nisi subactiva subexecâtiva subservienâe necessariâ necessitate naturalitâr praecedente respectu âoluntatis divinae Quod ideo in nostra dicitur potestate quia cum volumus iliud facimus voluntarie non inâiti So that by him no creature was ever able to do more or less than it doth except you call him able to do it that can do it when God makes him do it but that is not to be able before or when he is not caused to do it 242. 2. Rulers use not to make Punishments for Physical Impotency But for the Wills Malignity God doth 243. 3. Rulers use not to propound Rewards for Physical Impossibilities But for the fruits of Moral Sanctity or Habits and for themselves God doth 244. 4. No just Judge condemneth men for Physical Impotency But for Moral God and man do 245. 5. No Good man hateth another for Physical Impotency But for Moral malignity God and man do 246. 6. An inlightned Conscience accuseth and tormenteth no man for meer Physical Impotency and Impossibilities But for the Wills Malignity Conscience will torment men So that it is evident that one sort of Impotency maketh an act no sin in its degree and the other maketh it a greater sin For Nature and common notices teach men to judge that the More Willingness the more culpability But he that hath Actual and Habitual Wilfulness and is as some Adulterers drunkards revengeful persons proud covetous c. who are so bad that they say I cannot choose are the worst of all the sorts of sinners by such disability 247. It is most probable that God overcometh Moral Impotency and giveth Moral Power by Moral Means and Operations For though God can give it by a proper Creation without Moral Means and we cannot say that he never doth so nor how oft he doth or doth not yet it is most probable that his special Grace doth by his Trine Influx of Power Wisdom and Goodness Life Light and Love suscitate the natural faculties of the soul to the first special Act and by it cause a holy Habit which he radicateth by degrees And this is Metaphorically a Creation 248. This is certain that since the sall we have the same essential faculties that Original sin is not as Illyricus so long and obstinately maintained though an excellently good and Learned man a Substance though it be the Pravity of a substance And that sin changed not the humane species Nor doth Grace change our species It is certain that the Acts of these same natural faculties are commanded to all men even the unregenerate under the names of Faith and Repentance And so these are their duties And it is certain that a Course of Moral means preaching reading meditating conference threatnings promises mercies afflictions are appointed and used to the procuring the said faculties to perform these commanded acts It is certain that these Means have an Aptitude to their end And that God worketh by his own means And appointeth not man to use them in vain And that in working Grace God preserveth and reformeth Nature and worketh on Man as Man and according to the Nature of his means 249. And I think none dare deny but that God is Able by his Spirits powerful operation without any Antecedent new Habit or disposition to set home these same means so effectually on the Natural powers of the soul as shall excite them to the first Acts of Faith and Repentance And by them imprint a Habit as is said and shall be said again in Part 3. And if he Can do so and Can do otherwise which then is likest to be his ordinary way I leave to the observers of Scripture and Experience 450. This is the Common sense of Divines who place Vocation exciting the first act of Faith and Repentance before Union with Christ and before Sanctification which giveth the habit till Mr. Pemble Vind. Grat. taught otherwise whom Bishop G. Downame confuted in the Appendix to his Treatise of Perseverance 251. As to the question How this Grace is called Infused and not Natural I answer It is called Infused and Supernatural because 1. It is not wrought by any Natural-moral means only but by Supernatural-moral means viz. Revelation in and by the Gospel of Christ 2. And this supernatural Revelation cannot work it without the special extraordinary operation and impression by the Holy Ghost above the common concurse of God with all his Creatures as he is fons naturae This the Schools have Metaphorically called Infusion 252. But it may be called Natural 1. In that mans Natural faculties receive Gods Influx 2. And perform the act 3. And are perfected by it as the Natural body is by Health 253. And what the difference is ex parte Dei agentis ex parte effectus between Gods Natural and Gracious operations I shall after open in the third Part. 254. The Schoolmen especially the Scotists and Ockam and many Franciscans Benedictines and other Fryers yea such Oratorians as Gibieuf
a Means 2. Making one little parcel of that means to be the end 3. Inserting two acts or parts only of that which they themselves confess to be but Means For what should the names of Salvation and Damnation do in the description of the end Are they any part of the end Why is not Redemption Justification Sanctification Preservation Resurrection c. as well put in Is he not Glorified in them as well as in final salvation or damnation Yea and in Creation and the frâme of nature too Yea why is not the glory of Angels and all the world put in as part of the same means to his end 406. If it be said that it is only Gods Glory of Mercy and Justice in menâ salvation and damnation which is the end of Redemption Conversion Preaching Ordinances Sanctification Adoption c. 1. I deny it His Power Wisdom and Goodness and his forementioned subordinate attributes are thereby Glorified also 2. It is an injury to God unworthy of a Divine to make God to have as many distinct ultimate ends as they think there are particular aptitudes or tendencies in the means 407. For undoubtedly we must feign in God no more ultimate ends than one And undoubtedly the means consisting of innumerable parts make up one perfect whole in which Gods Glory shineth so as it doth not in any part alone And he that will cut Gods frame into scraps and shreds and set up the parts as so many wholes will more dishonour him than he that would so mangle a Picture or a Watch or Clock or House or the pipes of an Organ or the strings of a Lute and tell you of their beauty and Harmony only distinctly Well therefore did Dr. Twisse reduce all the Decrees de mediis to one But they are one in their apt composition for one end And the Glory of Sun and Stars and Angels and the whole Creation is a part and the Glory of our salvation and damnation is but another part 408. The order therefore of Gods Decrees in respect of the Execution is onây fit for our debate Any farther than that we may moreover say that Gods will or Himself is all his ultimate end and his Glory shining in the perfection of his intire works is the perfect means And there is nothing else that we can reasonably controvert And about this our Controversie is next to none at all Here we may well enquire what is prius vel posterius quid superius quid inferius c. and that to our edification 409. Seeing then that we are agreed as is said with Aquinas that * * * Ruiz de Voâân Dei disp 15. §. 4. p. 163. prettily argueth that Si non potest dari ratio ipsius âolitionis divinae sed solius denominations extrinseâae resultantâs ab eââââlis creatââ sequitur âanas esse plurimaâ Thâoâogorum de ordine dependââtia vel ratione diviâââum volitionum post quam inter illos constat quem ordinem dependentiam vâl rationâm habeant externa objecta inter se The conscquent is true They are vain indeed though he deny it And all his reasons p. 161 162 c. to prove that dantur iâ creatââa rationes finales moventes divinam voluntatem are but triflings with the ambiguities of the word Ratio and abuses of the word Causa having before confessed that there is no Real Cause And are there Causes that are not Real 1. We grant the Creature is an Object of Gods will and the object is bâ some called the material cause of the act in ââââââââ numero 2. It is the Terminus and Recipient of the divine influx 3. It may therefore âe causa materialâs of the diversity of the effects of Gods influx as Received in patiente ex diâersitate dispositions 4. Our acts may be the effects of Gods Volitions 5. And may be second Causes of other effects 6. Those other effects may be said to be Gods nearer ends speaking of him after the manner of imperfect man 7. Where our acts are not causes they may be conditions sine quibus non of many of Gods acts quoad effectus as sin is of punishment at least 8. In all these respects Gods Volition which is One in itself may and must be denominated divers from the diversity of these effects and objects which therefore are the Ratio nominââ And he that would prove any other Ratio or Cause of the first Cause the will of God or any of his acts as in himself must first renounce all natural and Scholastical Theologie at least He citeth Durand Major Richardus c. But Durandus 1. d. 41. q. 1. doth but say that Gods Acts are thus to be reckoned secundum rationem as likening Gods reasoning or thoughts to ours ut n. 7. and not âuxta rei veritatem Richard is full for what I say 1. d. 45. Voluntas sive volens de Deo secundum essentiam dicitur non est aliud Velle aliud Esse But yet his Velle hoc speaketh not his esse quà esse and therefore he addeth that when God is said scire aut velle it is his Essence but to say Hoc aut illud scit aut vult is but to say Hoc aut illud est subjectum scientiae vel voluntatis quae ipse Deus est Et Voluntas Dei est prima summa Causa omnium cujus Causa non est quaerenda non est diversa Voluntas sed diversa locutio de ea in Scripturis And Richardus in loc p. 141. saith but this that Ipsius divini Velle nulla est ratio motiva cum realiter idem sit quod Deus Tamen Ordinationis quae est inter divinum velle ipsum volitum bene est ratio aliqua respectu alicujus voliti Which is no more than I have said And as to Major Ruiz did ill to cite him who there professeth that Predestination and Volition is but Relatio rationis denominatio extrinseca as to God And his ordo signorum in mente divina is but the Scotists assimilating Gods acts to mans Deus non propter hoc vult hoc sed vult hoc esse propter hoc that which we have to do is but to enquire 1. De re how one thing is a Cause or other means of another 2. And so how God Decreed it to work and be 410. And 1. It is agreed that the Creation was Gods first work that we know of or have any thing to do with This had as to the first part no Antecedent Object but produceth its effect which some call its object But the latter dayes works had an antecedent object and also a produced effect And accordingly God Decreed from Eternity that this should be his first work From whence by connotation that may be called his first Decree 411. That sin or the Permission of sin or other meer Negatives are not to have place among the asserted Means and Decrees I am anon in due place to
manifest 412. 2. God having made man did give him a Law both Natural and Positive This was next done and therefore decreed to be next done 413. 3. Man having broke this Law God judged him and laid on him some indispensible penalties This was decreed to be done in the third place 414. 4. At the same time God promised Man the victory by the Womans Seed and giving him pardon of the destructive penalty became his Redeemer and put him under a Covenant of Grace first given to mankind in Adam and afterwards in Noah And this was decreed to be so done 415. 5. Though all were thus put under this Covenant and God forsook none that first forsook not him yet did he give more Grace to some than to others to Abel e. g. than to Cain so that those that did actually repent and believe and live to God were justified and adopted and made heirs of life And thus he decreed to do 416. 6. Perseverance also was the effect of his special Grace which accordingly is Decreed to be given 417. 7. The Cainites Canaanites and others that were the wicked Seed of wicked Parents who forsook him and his Grace he accordingly judged punished and forsook And so decreed 418. 8. The Seed of the faithful he eminently blessed especially of Abraham whom he took by reward into a further special Covenant superadded to the common Covenant of Grace taking his Seed into a peculiar political and gracious relation to him promising the multiplication and prosperity of them and that the Saviour should come out of them All which was so decreed to be done 419. 9. The Messiah came in the fulness of time and did and suffered all that is mentioned in the Gospel And gave us a more perfect Edition of the Covenant of Grace and greater grace with it even more of the Spirit with a better Ministry Ordinances and Church-state Which were so decreed to be done 420. 10. To some Nations of the Earth this second Edition of the Covenant of Grace that is the Gospel is freely promulgate or Preached who deserved it no more than others while others for sin are left under the first darker Edition and under desertions and grievous punishments for their fore-fathers and their own violation of it 421. 11. Where the Gospel cometh among many that all deserve rejection for the resisting of grace God giveth to some that grace which infallibly Converteth them and consequently justifieth adopteth and sanctifieth them All which he decreed 422. 12. Giving also Perseverance as aforesaid he finally justifieth all such in Judgement and Glorifieth Christ first and them with Christ singly and conjunctly at the final consummation And he Decreed to do all this accordingly 423. If the Decree of God be called but One for the Reasons before given the Controversie is then at an end But if it must be distinguished and called Many Decrees or parts it must be either from the Effects oâ from the supposed objects 424. 1. If from the Effects there will be no Controversie about the Decrees but what is first about the Effects themselves And most of them now named are uncontroverted 425. 2. And we cannot well denominate and distinguish the Decrees from any thing else but the Effects even as we do his operations as Creation Redemption c. But the objects then are past doubt such as follow 426. Viz. 1. The object of the Decree of Creation as such distinct from the Effect is Nothing that is There is no object 427. 2. The object of the Decree of Legislation is man considered meerly in his Being and Naturals as such 428. 3. The object of the Decree of the first Judgement was man newly faln 429. 4. The object of the Decree of the giving of the Promise of Christ the New Covenant in the first Edition and pardon and grace by it was faln man first judged 430. 5. The object of the Common grace of that Covenant from first to last is faln judged man brought under that Covenant of grace ut norma officii judicii beneficii 431. 6. The object of the Special grace of God at first viz. for effectual Conversion to men under that Covenant was the same as last mentioned Man brought under the Covenant of grace of whom 1. Some were prepared and disposed by Common grace for Special 2. And it 's like some not but suddenly surpirzed by mercy 432. 7. The object of Abrahams special promise besides the Common Covenant of grace was Abraham eminent in faith and self-denying obedience to God And afterward his Seed for his sake 433. 8. The Object of the actual gift of Christ incarnate and the perfect Edition of the New Covenant by him was the sinful world that had transgressed both the Law of Innocency and the first Edition of the Covenant of grace and the Jews that had broken Moses's Law 434. 9. The object of the gift of the Gospel as promulgate or published is the same adding the world as now Redeemed by the Actual sacrifice Merits and Resurrection of Christ incarnate 435. 10. The object of the Commonest grace of the Gospel Covenant is Redeemed man brought under this Covenant as the Norma officii judicii beneficiorum quoad jus or subditi obligati 436. 11. The object of the grace of this Covenant proper to the Visible Church and common to its members are Visible Christians or Baptized Professours 437. 12. The object of the first effectual grace of saving Conversion saith and repentance is certain persons Redeemed and brought under the obligation of this new Covenant Of whom some are prepared by common grace and it's like some are not 438. 13. The object of the gift pardon justification adoption the spirit of sanctification and right to life and all this in Christ by union is a Penitent Believer and the seed of such dedicated in Covenant to God 439. 14. The object of many acts of auxiliary grace and of higher degrees of grace is ordinarily such as have well used former degrees of special grace But also who God is freely pleased to give it to 440. 15. The object of the grace of Perseverance is the same last mentioned If not all the Justified which I reserve as almost our only real Controversie to handle in its proper place in the next Chapter 441. 16. The object of the Act of Raising the dead is all the world as appeareth in Joh. 5. 22. to 32. 442. 17. The object of the Justification of the soul alone at the first appearance is the soul of a member of Christ or one faithful and persevering August ad Simplic lâ â qu. 2. Quia non invââââ Deus opera in hominibus quââligât idâo manââ propositum justification is ipsâus sâd quia illâd ââââ ut justifiâât credântâs idâo invânit opera quae jam âligat ad râgnum câlorââ in his Covenant or a Saint 443. 18. The object of the final justification of the whole man is a Saint âisen from
side and rejecting hating forsaking on the other side And electing implyeth that some are not elect 458. About the object of that which many call Reprobation be sure to distinguish between a true object of any Act circa quod versatur and which is subjectum inhaesionis and a meer object of speech or subjectum praedicationis Else you will with many be ensnared to think that every subject or object of a predication which in the series of Gods judgements you meet with is the object of some positive act of God 459. And though we would quarrel with no man about meer words yet lest words deceive you I add that as the word Reprobation seemeth to signifie a positive Act and yet a great part of the desertion of the Reprobates is by Gods preteritions and not-acting and privations therefore it is not the whole series that the word Reprobation aptly expresseth but only some particular Acts. 460. The word Predestinate used Rom. 8. 29 30. and Ephes 1. 5. The presumption of the Schoolmen in defining the Act of predestination is tremendous See Ruiz de provid disp 3. sect 9. ad 11. who concludeth that Predestination is an Act of Gods Intellect and a Practical act and is Actus affirmans Dâi volitionem libere decernântâm de finibus rerum mediis c. q. d. Volo Petrum beatificare per talia media c. It is not this will but the knowledge of it 1 Cor. 2. 5. it 's ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã though not spoken of persons Act. 4. 28. translated fore-determined when applyed to persons is ever taken in Scripture as an act of mercy And the ancients Augustine Prosper and Fulgentius use the words Praedestinati Praesoiti the predestinate and the fore-known as of late men use among us the words Elect and Reprobate 461. Though men differ as their opinions lead them in the exposition of such texts as * * * Vid. Bezam in Rom. 8. 28. de proposito Rom. 8. 28 29 30. Ephes 1. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11. and some take them to speak of predestinating Individuals and others only of species that is of believers sufferers Lovers of God c. yet as to the matter it self none that is judicious can or doth deny but that God eternally Predestinateth Individuals The Jesuits commonly confess it though they differ on the question how far it is on fore-sight of faith But that foreseen Believers individually are eternally elected to salvation thev cannot deny And the Learnedst Jesuits maintain that God giveth faith in time and electeth Individuals to faith it self from eternity That is eternally decreed to give them faith or to give them that Grace by which he fore-knew that in the advantagious circumstances in which he decreed to put them they would freely and he deereed should infallibly believe 462. The conceit and supposition of many that Election and Reprobation are such perfect contraries as that they run pari passu and that God willeth in the one just as he doth in the other End and means for matter and order is a gross mistake Augustine Prosper Eulgentius and Davenant of late with many more have shewed that God predestinateth Leg. Dauen Dissert de Praed Reprobat copiose haeâ probantâm Et Zumel Disput 5. §. 5. p. 335. ââââ objecâo elect pag. 367 c. men to Faith and perseverance and to Glory and not only to Glory upon the foresight of faith and perseverance But that he pâedestinateth or decreeth men to damnation only on the foresight of final impenitence and infidelity but not to Impenitence or Infidelity it self 463. The Grand difficulty that occasioneth all our Controversies herein is How to discern that God is the Author of all our Good and yet not the Author of Sin nor of Damnation saving for sin And both parties are very desirous to hold and see that both these are true Nay both believe them But they differ only in the way and method of manifesting it 464. There are three opinions about Reprobation 1. One is that âod Positively decreed from eternity to glorifie his Justice in the damnation of the most and to that end to occasion and permit their hardning and unbelief so that Reprobation is Positive both as to the Act and Object 2. The other is the opinion of the Synod of Dort as expressed defended at large by Davenant and many others that Reprobation is Gods Positive Decree not to give saith and and repentance to the same men and to damn them for impenitence and infidelity and so is Positive quoad Actum but Negative quoad Objectum as to the first part not giving faith 3. The third is the Opinion of subtile Scotus and his followers that in primo instanti Reprobation is Negative quoad Actum Objectum So Albertine before cited that is It is no Act of God at all but only a Non-election or preterition which is I suppose the meaning of Dr. Sterne of Dublin Coâledge who hath written a Latin Tractate maintaining that God Reprobateth none that is by any Act. 465. The method laid down by Scotus is this Offertur Voluntati sââ hunc peccaturum vel peccare Primo voluntas ejus circa hunc non habet Scot. 1. d. 47. Vid. Signa Mayronis in fine Against Scotus his foundation that God knoweth future contingents only ut Volita saith Alliacâin 1. q. 11. N. Sed ista propositio non est intelligibilâs 1. Quia talia instantia prioritatem posterioritatem esse in Deo noâ est verum 2. Quia impossibile est quod pro aliquo instanti talis complexio de futuro sit neutra Alias pro tune daretur medium in contradiââione 3. Quia ponââ aliquid esse medium rationem cogâoscendi in Divino intellââlu Velle Velle ânim ipsum habere peccatum non potest 2. Potest intelligere Voluntatem suam non volentem hoc tunc potest velle Voluntâtem suam non velle hoc ita dicââur Volens sinere vâluntarie permittere sicut ex alia parte praesentato sibi Juda primo Deuâ habet non Velle sibi Gloriam non primo Nolle potest tunâ secundo reflectere super istam negationem actus Velle eam ita Vâlens sive voluntarie non eligit Judam finaliter peccaturum non nolitioneâ gloriae sed non-volitionem gloriae 466. It is notable that both Dr. Twisse and Bishop Davenant do disclaim this opinion of Scotus without offering us any one argument against it which is so unusual a course with one of them as would perswade one to think that they had not much to say against it but what they intimate the harsh sound of the words that God should be here a non-agent 467. The truth seemeth to me that as Davenant saith Scotus was the first artifex of this ordering of various Acts in the mind of God So here he saith too much and is
positivas causas To which what I have said is a sufficient answer And 1. Sometimes they have not but only the cessation of a causation 2. They never have a positive efficient of themselves for nothing is not made but only a positive remover of the cause of that which the subject is deprived of or an interposer or hinderer of the causation of it e. g. of Light or life And death hath no cause but that which ceaseth the causes of life Reprobation is commonly looked at in the two most notable parts as called 1. Gods Reprobating men to unbelief and impenitency 2. His Reprobating men to final damnation The last of these also is considered in the execution 1. As Privative 2. As Positive called Poena damni sensus And both especially the Privative part are considerable 1. As executed by man himself on himself freely 2. Or as executed by God Concerning each of these observe 512. 1. Not to Believe and Repent is no real entity And not to Give faith and Repentance as is said is no real entity And to Permit Infedelity and Impenitency is no real entity as is proved And not to Decree the Giving of saith and the hindering of unbelief is nothing And most clearly besides these four nothings nothing can be proved either existent or needful All that cometh to pass will come to pass without any more ado Therefore 513. As far as any mortal man can prove God hath no such Act of Reprobation at all as is 1. Either a Decree that a man shall not eventually Repent 2. Or a Decree not to give him Repentance 3. Or a Decree to Permit his Impenitence 4. Nor can we prove an after Volition of his own former non Volition which is asserted by Scotus But the three first we have great reason to lay by and so not only to say as Davenant that this part of Reprobation is an Act negative quoad objectum but that it is no Act and there is no other Reprobation as to this part save 1. Gods not decreeing to give faith 2. And his not giving it 514. 2. And as to Damnation so much of it as consisteth in sin it self God no otherwise causeth than as he doth all sin which is properly not at all It being but the Act as an act which he causeth as the Cause of Nature and not as sinfully qualified and so no more decreeth this than other sin 515. And most men little think how much of damnation lyeth in sin it self and the privative consequents which need no other cause 1. To be ignorant of God and Goodness 2. To be void of the Love of God and Holiness and Holy persons and all the Holy employment of Heaven 3. To be thereby void of all the Delights of Holy ones which consist in such Knowledge Love and Employment Praise Obedience and holy Communion 4. To be uncapable of the Reception of Divine complacency as he that maketh himself blind is uncapable of the light or he that maketh himself unlovely is uncapable of immediate Love 5. To be defiled and diseased with all kind of sinful lusts and malignity and made like the Devil 6. To have all sorts of Lusts in violence when they can have no fewel or satisfaction and so to be tormented with these lusts To have extream selfishness and Pride when they have cast themselves into the utmost shame and misery 7. To see that no Creature can deliver them and to despair of ever being better as having no hope from God or any other 8. To see or know that others enjoy the Glory and everlasting felicity which they have lost 9. To think how easily once they might have attained it and how it was offered freely to their choice 10. To think of all the solicitations of mercy that importuned them and all the time and means they had 11. To think for how base a vanity they lost it and that misery was their wilful choice 12. To be tormented with envy and malice against God that forsaketh them and against his Saints And to feel conscience awakened setting home all their former folly All this is nothing but sin and its own effects which hath no Causation at all from God but to continue the nature which he gave them and is not bound to destroy And how great a part of hell is this 516. Nay we know not how much sensible Pain may be the consequent of their own sin without any other Act of God than his common continuation of nature it self As a man that eateth Arsnick or unwholsome meat is tormented by it without any other act of God than as the universal Cause of Nature 517. All this much of Damnation then being meerly the work of the sinner himself so far as there is no Act of God in the execution so far no man can prove any Positive Act of Volition or Decree 518. But 1. As God in these is the universal cause of Nature and so of natural acts 2. And as in other instances he actually further punisheth them 3. And as he actually made that Law which made these penalties the sinners due so far God hath a Positive Decree and Volition that these persons shall be damned And moreover as improperly or morally his not sanctifying them and not saving them is called his Act and is really their penalty even so may his not-willing to save or glorifie them be called his Decree and will to damn them if you will 519. By this time we are ready to answer our first question What are the objects of these several acta of God so far as connotatively we must call them several And 1. * * * Besides all before cited against Volitions de nihilo see Ruiz de Vol. Dei disp 6. §. 1. p. 36. Antiquorum gravissimi sentiunt Deum non omnia Velle sed ea duntarat bona quae in aliqua differentia temporis existunt proinde possibilia que nunquam futura sunt non amari à Deo ââââ Mala inde Deum not esse omni-volentem nâllam creaturam à Deo amari necessario Ita Albertus Alexand. Boââvent Richard Gaby Bannez Zumel Molina Valentia Scotus Against which he bringeth frivolous reasons and asserteth that God willeth as a material object the Goodness which the Creature would have if it were made and this as to all Creatures which never will be What putid contradictions are here to will Goodness which is no Goodness of all Creatures which are no Creatures as material objects which are nothings God willeth his own Power whence man calleth that Possible which is nothing But was there from Eternity any Possibles not-future to be willed What was there from Eternity but God And are all theâe Nothings God himself Gods not giving the Gospel to any persons is no Act and so hath no object But reductively or improperly the object is Man sinning against the grace of the first edition of the Law of Grace that is These are the
subject de quo of which it is truly said They are without the Gospel 520. 2. Gods not converting effectually some that have the Gospel is no Act and hath no object But the subject of the Privation called the Object is Some part of those men who have forfeited the helps of special Grace by their abuse or neglect of the Gospel and the Commoner grace which was given them 521. 3. Gods not Pardoning Justifying Adopting and Sanctifying men is no Act and hath no object But the subject of the Privation and object of the Laws contrary sentence is Impenitent Unbelievers or the non-performers of the condition of Justification c. in the Covenant 522. 4. Gods not Glorifying men is no Act nor the damnation which consisteth in sin as aforesaid is none of Gods act But the sentence of condemnation is Gods Act and no doubt some other Positive Execution And the object of these is All finally Impenitent Unbelievers and unholy ones that is who performed not the Condition of that Edition of the Covenant of Grace which they were under 523. And it being past all denyal that these are the objects of the Executive Acts we must say that these also are the objects of the Decrees accordingly where a Decree is proved and when we speak of them only juxta ordinem executionis and not Intentionis which I laid by before 524. And lest you recurr to it once more I will recite more of Davenants words de ordine Intentionis De Praed Reprob cap. 1. p. 107. 1. Sciendum tenendum est si Dei naturam perfectionem in se consideremus illum non prius unum videre deinde aliud neque prius hoc decernere aut velle deinde illud sed unico simplicissimo actu c. 2. Ex parte tamen Rerum quae decrevit signa quaedam prioritatis posterioritatis distingui possunt Hic tamen observandum est inter ipsos Scholasticos non admodum certam constantem esse hanc doctrinam de hisce signis seu instantibus prioritatis Scotus qui primarius est ad haec signa fabricanda artifex videtur non-nullis non solum eadem posuisse priora posteriora secundum nostrum intelligendi modum sed etiam statuisse unum esse in ipso Deo prius naturâ alio But from this he vindicateth him Ex adversa parte Occamus noster haec signa quocunque modo considerata negavit in 1. d. 9. q. 3. Et Biel ejus sententiam amplexus haec signa oppugnavit in 3. d. 2. q. 1. dub 3. Prioritates in Divinis non sunt ponendae sicut nec pluralitates actuum ordinatorum Unus est enim Actus in Divinis re ratione indistinctus qui est ipsa essentia Divina ne secundum nostram quidem considerationem talem ordinem Prioritatis posterioritatis concipi posse in decretis Divinis ut talis consideratio non sit falsa speculatio If this hold our Controversie of the order is at an end 525. And he added the words even of a rigid Thomist Domin Bannes quamvis non omnino explodat haec signa cum Biele perpendens tamen discordiam Theologorum in his assignandis Animadvertendum est inquit quam pro libito in negotio praedestinationis reprobationis multiplicentur instantiae à Theologis quam parum illa conferant ad assignandam rationem differentiae inter praedestinatos reprobos Liceat itaque hic paucis monere non esse nimis confidendum aut certo dogmati adhaerendum ulli certo ordini decretorum divinorum sive à Protestantibus sive à Pontificiis assignato cum difficile sit duos reperire sive inter nostros sive inter adversarios qui ad amussim per omnia consentiant in hac serie decretorum divinorum describenda Caveat it aque unâsquisque ne talem considerationem praedestinationis reprob inducat quae vel Divinae justitiae vel gratiae gratuitae adversetur tâm non multum refert quo ordine prioritatis c. SECT XVII Of Gods Causing and Decreeing Sin 526. BUt because it is the avoiding of Gods Causing and Willing sin Of too many such enquirers it may be said with Augustine de Utilit Credândi cap. 18. Dum nimis quaerunt unde sit malum nihil reperiânt nisi malum Obj. Omnis determinatio diâina est immutabilis Omnia siuât Deo determinante Ergo omnia siunt immutâhiliter Respondet Mâlanâth Ad maj Est immutâbilâs necessitate conseqâentiae Ad minor Dissimilâs est determinatio in bonis malis actionibus Mala siunt 1. Deo praesciente non impediânte non autem adjuvante vel impellente Item Deo sustentante naturam suum opus Item Deo eventus certos decernente Strigel in Melancth pag. 296. Carbo Compend Thom. 1. q. 19. a. 9. Malum ut malum nullo appâtitu potest appeti nisi per aââidâns Deus âullo modo vult malum Culpae Deus neque vult siâri malum ââque non vult sed permitti Ruiz de praedesin Tr. 2. disp 13. §. 3 4. would prove a decree to permit mortal sin in the unjust and just ex destitutione circumstantiis And d. 16. §. 3. he tellâth us of many wayes by which God maketh sin the occasion of his Grace without causing or willing sin in form or nearest matter which is a great reason of these Controversies I shall say somewhat more particularly of that About which there are various Opinions 1. Some think as Hobbs that no acts of the will are so free as not to be necessitated as the motions in an Engine though unobserved by our selves who see not the Concatenation of Causes 527. 2. Some Dominicans and our Dr. Twisse and Rutherford held that no act natural or free can be done by any creature without the Predetermination of Gods Physical efficient immediate Premotion as the first total Cause of that act But yet that this standeth with Liberty because God causeth contingentia contingenter fieri And that he so causeth every Act of sin in all its circumstances and the totum materiale peccati and all that the sinner causeth But yet that he is not the Author of sin nor causeth the form Because 1. They say that sin hath no efficient cause but a deficient which God is not being not obliged to act And sin is nothing but a privation 2. Because God is under no Law and therefore though he do the same things that man doth it is sin in man but not in him And saith Holkot he is the cause of sin but not the Author because he commandeth it not by his Law 3. At other times they say that sin is formally a Relation of disconformity to the Law of God and God causeth the whole act as circumstanced but not the relation which resulteth from it 4. And God causeth not sin as sin but as a means to his Glory or as a punishment of former sin
Holiness The Holiness of Christs Humane Nature and of Angels and Saints in Heaven is as much the Creators as is his Works of Mercy and Justice And Gods glory shineth as much in them And it is the glory of his Goodness if not of Mercy which preventeth sin and misery yea and of Mercy too For though mercy relate to misery it is as well to possible misery prevented as to existeââ misery removed And if he speak not of Subjects but Proprietors the Boâum Creaturae is also Creatoris SECT XIX The same doctrine in Rutherford de providentia confuted 625. I Have been too long in confuting this Digression of Dr. Twisse which is contrary to the commonest doctrine of Protestants and The summ of their opinion I think soundeth not well in Christians ears The summ of which is this Neither God nor Devil do will sin as it is evil but God is the first willer of its existence because it is in its own nature summe unice conducibile to the manifestation of his Justice and mercy And willing and Loving being all one in God he thus singularly Loveth the existence of sin above its contrary holiness for this end And by Predetermining premotion which he much more largely writeth for elsewhere he causeth as the first total Cause all that man Causeth But it is sin in man because forbidden him but not in God because not forbidden him And therefore God is not to be said to cause sin though he cause all that is caused but to permit it because he causeth it not in himself nor is he to be called a Deficient cause of our omissions because he is not bound to Actuate us but man is to be called the efficient and deficient cause because he is under an obliging Law Though God made that Law And though he can no more than a stone act without physical predetermination nor forbear acting when so acted yet he is to be called free because he is actually willing or his will doth act and because he is predetermined by none but God This is the true sence of their opinion as opened by themselves I shall now briefly consider what Rutherford saith to the same sence 626. Cap. 15. pag. 186. To Annatus charging Twisse as denying Gods permission of sin because he maketh him the * * * Nec omnino negari potest Voluntatem Dei esse Causam rerum omnium quas fieri velit Twiss recitante etiam Rutherf de Prov. c. 15. p. 186. See all their Reasons for Gods causing sin or willing its existence answered by Ruiz de Vol. Dei disp 26. p. 262 263 264 265. As also against Gods predetermining to the immediate materiale peccati disp 27. p. 270 c. disp 28 29 30 c. usque ad p. 580. As to the common saying that God willeth not sin as sin all men will confess Dr. Twiss often that neither doth a wicked man do so Peccans ut sic non intendit peccatum quoad illud quod est formale in peccato seu carentiam conformitatis sed intendit actum ut est in genere moris inquit Aureolus in 2. d. 42. a. 3. pag. 319. I will not conceal a more difficult argument than most of theirs which may occurr to others God caused e. g. in Nathanaâl Peter c. this act of saith before Christs coming the Messiah is to come hereafter When Christ was come this was false and so evil God still caused the faith which he gave them Therefore he caused an untrue belief and evil and that supernaturally But I answ 1. God caused the habit of their faith and the act The nature of the habit was in general A belief of all divine revelations and in special A belief in the promised Messiah The termination of the act on the Messiah as future rather than as Incarnate required nothing positive in the Habit The same Habit served to both acts unless the latter being for the nobler act had some addition but the former needed none 2. And that this Habit might bring forth the act in that circumstance no more was necessary but 1. Gods word Christus venturus est 2. And Gods influx on the habited faculty to cause it to act according to that habit So that when God had reversed that word Christus venturus est he was no longer the cause determining the mind to believe that word but only the cause that the habit of faith was still towards Christ But not at all sub ratione venturi For the determining word was called in and it was an imperfection not to know so much where it was not a sin Cause of the Act the Liberty and the Prohibition and to Cause is not to Permit he hath no better answer than to say that God doth not permit the Act nor the Evil of the Act but he permitteth the evil act and 2. To say that the Dominicans and Jesuits hold the same as he Which is to jest with holy things and not to argue As if he said God made neither the soul nor the body and yet he made the man What! is it as it 's said that non animased unio est vita so Doth God permit the Union of Actum and Malâm No that he pretendeth not 627. To prove that God willeth the existence of sin he bringeth the instance of Joseph's case Gen. 45. To which I say that the text saith not at all that God willed the Will or Act or Sin of Joseph's brethren but only the Venditio passiva or effect and the consequents Nay only the consequents are mentioned in the Texts His replyes to the answers prove no more than the five things which I before asserted about sin Nothing so much deceiveth them as not distinguishing between the sinful act and the effect or passion when they are called by the same name as Selling Killing c. 628. His next instance is of Christs death of which I said enough before But 1. He understandeth his adversaries as ascribing only the Consequents of Crucifixion to Gods will which is his mistake It is Crucifixion it self passivè sumpta which they ascribe to it some of them at least And let men too wise against God deride it as much as they will God can will and Love that Christ be Crucified and yet hate and not will the will and act of the Crucifiers but only foresee it as aforesaid And let them jeer God as Idle or asleep if he neither will nor effectually nill the sin we will believe it to be his perfection and liberty which they so deride 2. And whereas he addeth that Active Verbs are used as Gen. 45. Misit me Deus Isa 53. Deus voluit eum conterere Zech. 13. Ego percutiam Pastorem and God delivered Christ to death I answer It is too too gross to perswade us hence that any of these Texts say that God willeth the sinners will or Act. God sent me speaketh Gods act that is his disposal
be justified by any act of Faith in specie besides the recumbency on his Righteousness to be imputed to us or by any numero besides the first will likely say that it is Justification by another Righteousness than that which the Scripture saith is imputed to us to be justified by the Imputation of any but the first Act of Christ's Obedience Or else that if all be imputed we have a redundancy of Righteousness and deserve many Heavens or one oftener than needs But when men have received some unsound Principles all things must be forced to comply with them § 37. M. S. Towards the end the M. S. summeth up my Assertions and setteth down some as contrary to them In reckoning up mine he sheweth candor and ingenuity and a good memory having not the Book at hand But I must advertise his Readers 1. That he taketh all from my Aphorisms the first Book I wrote in my youth when my Conceptions of these things were less digested wherefore I have above twenty years ago retracted that Book till I had leisure to correct it and have since more fully opened my judgment in my Confession and in my Disput of Justification and other Writings and most fully in my Methodus Theologiae unpublished 2. That he over-looketh my asserting our Adoption to be by the Merits of Christ's Active Obedience yea and our Justification too as well as by his Passive 3. That reciting my words that it is by Gods Will in the form of his Donation or Covenant that Faith hath that use to Justification which is nearest it viz. the formal Reason of a Condition he leaveth out my other assertion that Faith 's material disposition or aptitude to this form or office is the very nature of it as fitted to that use about its Object Christ which Gods design and our case required His Assertions as against me are as followeth § 28. M. S. 1. There is no way to Life but by Doing It is not enough that the Law be not dishonoured but it must be glorified An. Doing is a word of doubtful sense It 's one thing to Do all that the Law of Innocency required and another thing to do all that the Law of Grace maketh necessary to life It 's one thing to Do all our selves and another thing for a Mediator to merit Pardon and Life to be given conditionally by a new Covenant by Doing all in kind and much more than all that we should have done for us though not in our persons The way to Life now hath many parts 1. Christ's perfect habitual active and passive Righteousness fulfilling the Law of Innocency and the Law of Moses and the peculiar Law of the Mediator to merit Pardon Spirit Adoption and Glory to be given by the New Covenant on its terms 2. The said New Covenant as the donative Instrument and Law of Life and Pardon and Adoption by it 3. Our doing or performing the Conditions of the New Covenant by Grace But our personal Doing all according to the Law of Innocency really or reputatively to be justified by that Law is none of the way of Life which you think the only way And I hope we shall both meet there § 39. M. S. It 's clear as the light of the Sun that their fundamental distinction is absurd to make sinning and suffering equivalent to doing because he that hath born the utmost penalty hath done no more towards living than he that never sinned or suffered else Adam in Innocency should have been sentenced worthy of life If a Servant instead of his Service steal and restore it he meriteth not his wages c. An. 1. It 's certain that you mistake and wrong us I never put sinning among the things that are equivalent to doing or meriting Of this before 2. I doubt you noted not sufficiently that no Creature can merit commutatively as a Proprietor of God as a Servant doth his wages nor can have any thing of God but what in respect of such merit and the value of the thing is an absolute free Gift free as to commutation And that all Gods Laws of Life are but a prescription of the wise Order in which he will give his free benefits As a Father will give Lands to the Son that will behave himself decently and thankfully and not to the contemptuous Rebel So that as to commutation no Man or Angel hath other merit than not to commerit the contrary perdition God is never the better for our Doing If you dream of meriting commutatively from a Proprietor by work for wages I can soon tell you what we set up instead of such merit I hope you had no such thoughts but want of due distinguishing But as to Doing and Merit in respect to Paternal Justice that which I set instead of fulfilling the first Law is aâ aforesaid not sinning and suffering but 1. Christ's Satisfaction and the Merit of his compleat Righteousness 2. The Gift of Pardon and Life by a new conditional Covenant merited and made by him 3. Actual Pardon of all sin thereby 4. Actual Adoption 5. Our fulfilling the Condition of that Covenant that these may be ours And thus the Law was dishonoured by our Sin but is glorified by Christs Obedience and Satisfaction And Gospel-Justice but specially Mercy glorified in our personal Obedience to the Gospel without such Doing indeed Christ's as Principal in fulfilling the Law in the Person of a Mediator and ours as subordinate in obeying the Gospel there is no Glorification And I think this is plain truth But in your instance of a Servant deserving his wages you seem to look at Commutative Justice when we have to do only with governing Paternal Justice And you should have remembred that if the Servant do not his Work in order of governing Justice it is his crime And if he have no fault he hath no fault of Omission And he that hath no Sin of Omission hath done all his Duty and so deserved the Reward As for Adam 1. In the first instant of his life he was bound to no present Duty before he could do a moral Act. 2. But afterward I think he merited in tantum pro tempore and had not the Condition of the Promise been of further extent than one act he had merited life But a Reward for a years Duty is not merited by an hours § 40. M. S. There is a medium between just and unjust He was non-justus He was not actually just though habitually He had done nothing for which the Law could justifie him else why did he not live for ever An. 1. Habitual holiness fits a Soul for Glory where no more is due as if one die immediately And so it would have done Adam had God translated him instantly and made him no Law of actual Duty 2. But afterward that Adam in Innocency did that for which the Law would justifie him in tantum for that time He fulfilled all the Law for so long else he had
by two sortâ of Doing Principally by the Merit of Christ's perfect Righteousness and subordinately by our fulfilling the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace which Baptism celebrateth 4. Gods Will approveth of all that is good so far as it is good It approveth of habitual Holiness in Adam and would have done in his Infants had he stood and doth so in all Christians now And I will believe that Christ before he actually obeyed was under Gods approving Will. But not as one that had merited by Obedience For God doth not suppose any to do that which they do not nor oblige them to do to-morrows work to-day § 44. M. S. The issue in a word is 1. Suffering for Sin is not doing nor equivalent in point of Justification 2. Nor can God having satisfaction for what was done cross to his Law lay aside that in order to the conveying of Life and substitute believing instead of it Therefore Faith justifieth ratione objecti only Now we Do in another Christ instead of doing in our own persons An. I doubt this is another Gospel than the Apostles delivered us though I hope that practically we meet in one 1. To the first I answer It 's true but you do ill to intimate that we think otherwise Suffering by the Sinner never satisfieth because it must be everlasting Suffering by Christ satisfieth not meerly as suffering but as the voluntary suffering of God-Man aptly glorifying Justice and Love and securing the ends of Government This Satisfaction is not equivalent to doing in Justification For Doing all required would have justified us against this Charge Thou art a Sinner by Omission and Commission and thou hast deserved Death and hast not deserved Life according to the Law of Works Against this Charge I look for no Justification but confess it is all true But Christ's Satisfaction justifieth us against this Charge God must damn thee by paine of loss and sense or else he is not just because thou hast deserved it And Christ's perfect Righteousness also justifieth us against this Charge God must damn thee and deny thee life because thou didst not merit it by perfect Obedience The Justifier says No because Christ's Merit in Doing and Suffering hath glorified the Law and Justice of God instead of my Merit and hath procured us Pardon and Life given by the New Covenant 2. To the second I answer 1. God did not lay aside his first Covenant but man by sin did lay it aside by making the Condition impossible 2. You overturn the Gospel too much by thinking that the Law is not laid aside as a Covenant or Promise though I grant that the Precept as a Rule of Life continues To say that the sense of Adam's Law was Thou or another Christ for thee shalt obey And that we are justified by that Law is to confound Law and Gospel and make a Gospel of that Law and make the Covenant of Works not to condemn us or both to condemn and justifie and to feign man to live and be judged by the Covenant that is ceased God saith now to no man living Be innocent and so merit life that thou maist live And God doth not repute us innocent at all 3. To the third I answer It is notoriously untrue that Faith justifieth only ratione objecti unless you mean that efficiently it justifieth not at all which is true For we are justified by it also ratione foederis because that which is materially Faith in Christ a justifying Saviour and so connoteth its Object as the meritorious Cause of the free Gift and Pardon is by reason of this aptitude made the Condition of that New Covenant or Gift which is its nearest interest or reason of our being justified by it And it is the Law of Grace by which we must be judged and justified And at that Bar the question which Life or Death dependeth on will be supposing Christ's Merits whether we are penitent Believers or impenitent Unbelievers and so have part in Christ or not And if Satan accuse us as being impenitent Unbelievers and the question be whether we have true Faith or not my Opinion is that we cannot be herein justified by pleading the Object when the Act is questioned and saying That Christ fulfilled that Law unless you could prove that he justifieth impenitent Infidels and as Saltmarsh said repented and believed for us But the grand Case remaineth Whether we are justified by the Law of Innocency by fulfilling it and meriting in another without any sort of doing of our own by our selves Mr. Wotton Mr. Gataker and abundance more have long ago said much to confute your Error besides Mr. Bradshaw whom you name But I add I. I have before proved that by the deeds or sentence of the Law of Adam or Moses no man can be justified 1. He that hath sinned against it cannot be justified as not having sinned For factum infectum fieri is impossible to God himself 2. The Law that condemneth us doth not justifie us 3. What Paul Rom. 3. 4. frequently saith against Justification by the Law of Moses will hold here a fortiori And Christ keeping Moses Law as far as he was capable of Obligation that also would else have been imputed and so we should have been justified by that Law also which the Scripture copiously denieth He that saith He hath no sin deceiveth himself and is a lyar and the truth is not in him And the Law of Adam justifieth no man that hath sin II. We did not fulfil it and merit in Christ But Christ did in the Person of a Mediator voluntarily undertaking it on his Fathers terms and not as our Instrument or in our Persons I have else-where given abundance of Arguments against that which I must not here repeat This Author took notice of my Objection that he that is reputed perfectly Innocent and Obedient is uncapable of Pardon and needeth no satisfaction or remitting or rewarding Covenant besides that which he kept but answereth it not This subverteth the Gospel and Religion Quer. If there be no Reward nor Life but of Justice and no Reward but for Christ's Merits and all Believers equally merited in Christ as fulfilling all the Law 1. Whence cometh the inequality of Grace and Glory 2. How come any Believers to be left long under sins and weakness of Grace and temporal punishments III. The Merits of Christ have procured us the New Covenant sealed in Baptism by which we have a new Rule offiicii judicii for such is every Law Christ is not the only Subject of God He made us not lawless or Rebels God still ruleth the Church by a Law or Covenant This is the Law or Covenant of Grace Deny this Covenant and you deny the Gospel This Covenant or Law obligeth us to Duty And it promiseth and giveth Pardon and Life in and with Christ This Covenant hath Conditions various conditions of various Benefits Our first true consent which Baptism celebrateth that is
him total resignation and use as such 2. As our Ruler we owe him âubjection and Obedience as such 3. As our Friend Benefactor Amaââlissimus we owe him Gratitude and Love as such which yet is part âf Obedience too Now Sin being the privation of all this God is to âe satisfied for it as such in all these three Relations And is pars laesa ââ all these three Relations that is he is injured though not hurt It is ââue that Government and punishing Justice formally as such belong to God only as Rector And satisfaction is made him eminently in that Reâation yet also to compensate the injury done by sin to him in the other âwo Relations also SECT IX Of the nature and distinctions of Justification 152. Justification is a word of many significations the Scheme whereof And 1. Of constitutive Justification should I give them all would seem to most Readers a troublesome diâtinguishing Therefore I take up with these three most notable senses â Justification constitutive 2. Sentential 3. Executive The first is to make a man righteous The second is to judge him righteâus The third is to use him as righteous 1. By Impunity 2. Reward * * * The Papists are confounded in the point of Justification by sticking to confounding words They talk of Justification and remission of sin but cannot tell men intelligibly what they mean They say that Remission is a putting away the sin it self and not only the Reatum poenae and yet say many that it may be done without any physical change of the Sinner 1. By sin they mean not the Habit for that cannot be removed without a physical change 2. Nor the act For that is past as soon as done 3. When they say it is macula moralis habitualiter remanens they talk gibberish and play with a metaphor and the word habitualiter A true habit is quid physicum and what macula is they can tell no man besides a habit disposition privation âr relation If they mean that it is the Reatus culpae or culpability that is done away and not only the Reatus poenae they hold âhe same thing which they oppose in those Protestants that go too far from them And it is not sound For the pardoned Sinâer will be culpable though not punishable for ever that is will be really the man that sinned and it will be an everâasting truth This man sinned though he be pardoned See Pet. a S. Joseph Theol. Speculat l. 4. c. 10. pag. 509 510 511. The Papists say Homo est formaliter justus per formam gratiae ipst exâriâsecam non tantum per justitiam Christi illi imputatam And yet Nullus actus quantumvis perfectus sive sit contritio sive Amor Dei super omnia est causâ formalis justificationis Patres diâentes charitatem esse perfectam justitiam intelligendi sunt dispositive non autem formaliter Because it is in the Habit and not in the Act âr rather as others of them say in some internal inclination antecedent to the habits of Faith Hope and Love that they place Justification or as we call it Sanctification Pet. a S. Joseph Thes Univers de grat Hab. pag. 88 89. 153 God never judgeth a man righteous either by secret esteem or open sentence till he have made him such 154. To be made righteous is to be justified in Law-sense which is To be justifiable or justificandus by sentence 155. A man is righteous 1. Particularly secundum quid as to some particular cause that he is accusable of 2. Or universally as to all causes 3. Or eminently as to all those causes that Heaven or Hell depend upon 156. 1. No man is universally righteous really or reputatively God judgeth no Saint in Heaven to be one that never sinned And he that hath once sinned is unavoidably under the Relation of ââââ that sinned to eternity ex necessitate existentiae which Relation is the very Reatus ipsius peccati though all the ill effects be remitted 157. 2. Every man hath some particular righteousness For the worst man may be falsly accused and be righteous as to that false accusation But this will not save him 158. 3. That eminent Righteousness necessary to our Salvation though it be not universal or perfect else we should never be afficted by chastiââments or denials of Grace or permissions to sin yet is it at least perfect as to its proper use and to our glorious perfection And may be called our universal Righteousness because it is all that we have And ââ consisteth not of any one or two Causes but of many Of which no oââ must be excluded or set against the rest As there are several Allegatioââ or Accusations against us so there must be several parts of the matter of our Justification 159. Not only an actual Accusation but a possible or a virtual oââ which we are liable to sufficeth to denominate Justification as its contrary in the first Law-sense of Justification 160. It is our Right to Impunity and to the heavenly Glory which is to be justified finally in Judgment and our persons as the Subjects of that Right And our Actions but mediately in order to that end 161. It is only at the Bar of Christ as Redeemer that we are to be judged and justified and not by God only as a Creator Therefore it is by the Law of Grace that we must be judged to life or death finally and not by the sole Law of Innocency 162. Therefore no man is justified by the Law of Innocency either by the preceptive or retributive part But we are justified only by the Lââ or Covenant of Grace against the Accusation which may be brought against us from the Law of Innocency Against it not by it 163. We are liable to all these following Accusations which will opeâ to us the correlate Justifications and the matter of each part 1. It may be said by the Accuser of the Brethren Thou art a Siââââ against the Precepts of Nature and Grace He that denieth this is a Lyar Against this Charge there is no Justification for ever But we must ââ Heaven confess that we have sinned but Glory be to him that washed âs from our sins in his blood by Pardon and Sanctifiation 164. 2. Next it may be said that We did deserve Hell by our Sin This also is to be confessed for ever 165. 3. It may be said that by Gods Law of Innocency Hell is ouâ due and therefore we are to be condemned to it To this we deny the consequence because we have right to Impunity and to Glory freely given us by God our Redeemer by a Covenant of Grace merited for us by the Obedience and Satisfaction given for us by Christ our Saviour Where note that here in this first part of our Justification there are all these conjunct necessary Causes 1. Gods Love and Mercy giving 2. Christ's Righteousness and Satisfaction meriting 3. The Covenant
instrumentally giving 4. Right to Impunity and Glory by Justification and Adoption conjunct the thing given which Right is our very Righteousness against âhis Accusation that is a relation whence the other relation of just and âustifiable resulteth For if you will not here see relations resulting from âelations pretend not to true accurateness in your search 166. These four Causes now were enough to constitute and so prove âs righteous against the Charge of being damnandi if we were questionaâle no further But the turning point of the day is yet behind 1. Our âllegation of Justification by Christ and the Covenant may be denied ât may be said by the Accuser that the Covenant justifieth none but âenitent Believers and giveth plenary Right to Glory to none but saints ând persevering Conquerors and that we are none such Against this Acâusation we must be justified or perish else all the rest will be unâffectual And here to say that it is true I died an impeninent Person ân Insidel Hypocrite or Ungodly but Christ was a penitent Believer for Of our own personal performance or righteousness how far necessary to our Justification âe or sincere and holy for me or that he died to pardon this all this will âe false and vain Christ's Merits and Satisfaction is not the Righteousness it self which must justifie us against this Accusation But our own âersonal Faith Repentance sincere Holiness and Perseverance purchased ây Christ and wrought by the Spirit in us but thence our own acts Mr. W. Thomas of Ubley in his Book against Speed the Quaker saith pag. 42. part 2. This is an old Popish trick to make much of the Doctrine of the St. James in a mistaken interpretation and to lay aside the Doctrine of St. Paul Rom. 3. 28. when they should joyn both together and ascribe to Faith the justification of men as sinners and to work their justification as Believers This is sound and needeth but fuller explication âe that cannot truly say The Accusation is false I am a true Penitent âanctified persevering Believer must be condemned and perish Thus âaith and Repentance are our Righteousness by which we must thus far âe justified 167. But this is but a particular mediate subservient Righteousness ând part of our Justification subordinate to Christs Merits 168. Yet this being the Condition on our part for our Participation ân all the free Gifts of the Covenant Scripture useth to describe Gods âudgment as enquiring after this The great thing to be glorified in âudgment is Gods Love Wisdom Justice and Truth and Christ's great Merits and performance in our Redemption But the great thing questioâed accused tried and judged will be our performance of the Covenant of Grace as to our conditions The day is not to try God whether he be âust or Christ whether his Merits and Satisfaction were sufficient and whether he have done his part But to try man whether 1. He have ârue Right to Impunity and Glory 2. Whether he have performed the Condition on which the Covenant giveth that Right and be indeed the ârue Receiver of it The Devils hope cannot lie at all in proving Christ or the Covenant faulty or defective on their part but in proving âs to be none of the persons that have Right This therefore is the Righteousness mentioned Matth. 25. and of Faith imputed Rom. 4 c. ând else-where 169. But if we will speak of Righteousness and Justification entirely âs that which containeth all its Causes we must set all the five forementioned together giving each one its proper place and no one the âlace or office of the rest And give leave to the self-conceited pievish âgnorant blindly to revile you for saying that you joyn your Faith and Holiness to make one Righteousness with that of Christ as if it were not sufficient And tell him that Christ's Righteousness is not ours absolutely in it self but to and in the proper effects And that it is perfect as to its âroper ends And that he never intended it to this end to be instead of Faith and Holiness in us nor to make them needless to our Salvation 170. No man must ascribe any thing to his own Faith or Holiness iâ the least degree which is proper to 1. Gods Mercy or Grace 2. To Christ or his Righteousness or Merits 3. Or to the Covenant not any thing but its proper part And that must be granted it 171. It is a vain Fiction in them that think our Right to Justificatioâ or Impunity and our Right to Salvation have not the same causes and conditions but that our own Repentance and Obedience is a condition of our Right to Salvation but not to Impunity or forgiveness Whereas ouâ very Justification is a justifying of our Right to Salvation and the same Covenant giveth them conjunctly on the same conditions 172. But our Right to both as begun hath less for the condition thââ our Right to them as continued and perfected For our believing consent to the Baptismal-Covenant putteth us into immediate Right to all the benefits of the Covenant which we are then capable of but not to all that we shall be made further capable of hereafter we are pardoned and should be glorified if we presently died But as we have more Grace to receive so we have more Duty to perform as a means yea a condition of obtaining it 173. This over-lookt by many is much to be considered both as to the case of Infants baptized and the Adult Many wonder that the What right the Covenant giveth to the after-helps and degrees of Grace Children of godly Parents prove oft so bad as if by the Baptismal-Covenant they had received nothing from God But the Synod of Dort Art 1. § 17. well concludeth that godly Parents have no cause to doubt of the Election or Salvation of their Children dying in Infancy they being holy and in the same Covenant with their Parents But the continuance of Gods Grace hath a continued condition and means to be used on our part The condition which the Covenant requireth to an Infants first Justification is that he be the Child of a true Believer by him dedicated to God And as the first Condition is to be found in the Parent or Owner so must the Condition of continued Grace as long as the Child continueth an Infant And that is the continuance of the Parents Faith and his faithful performance of his promise made to educate his Child in the way of God But if the Parents should presently both turn Infidels and so educate their Child and give him up as the Jââizaries are to an Infidel to educate I know God may nevertheless give him Grace above his Promise if he please for a Benefactor as such is free but I know of no assurance of it by Promise For in Baptism both Parties were obliged for the future and not one only And if when the Child cometh to the use of Reason he wilfully
really all is but a Thankful Accepting of the mercy of the new Covenant according to its nature and use as it is offered 196. It is a great question whether a man may Trust to his own Faith Of Trusting in our own faith repentance holiness c. Repentance or Holiness But some men still trouble the world with unexplained words where no sober men differ No wise man can dream that we may Trust to these for more than their proper part as that we may Trust them to do any thing proper to God to Christ to the Spirit to the Promise c. And to use the phrase of Trusting to our own faith or Holiness when it soundeth absolutely or may tempt the hearers to think that they may Trust them for Gods part or Christ's part and Of which see more in my Life of Faith Tollit gratia Meriâum non quod omnino nihil agamus sed quia non satisfacimus legi procul absumus a perfectione Melancth in Loc. Com. de lib. arb c. 7. not only for their own is a dangerous deceiving course But that really they may be Trusted for their own part and must be so no sober person will deny For so to believe obey pray to God c. and not to Trust to them in their place that is not to think that we shall be ever the better for them is unbelief and indeed distrusting God and saying It is in vain to serve him and what profit is it that we call upon him And such diffidence and despair will end all endeavours Let every man prove Gal. 6. his own work and so shall he have rejoycing in himself and not in another This is our Rejoycing the testimony of our Consciences that in simplicity 2 Cor. 1. 12. and Godly sincerity we have had our Conversation in the world If we are Justified by faith we may Trust to be Justifyed by it But the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture and the danger of it must make us never use it without need As if we were disputing whether the Popish or Protestant Religion be that which a man may trust for his Salvation or the like And when ever it 's used it implyeth our Trust in God and our Saviour only for their part 197. To conclude this great point of Imputed and Inherent Righteousness The last objection of the mistakers of Imputation To save me that much labour of citations I desire the Reader to see in Guil. Forbes Consider Pacific the Concessions of Vega Pighius Stapleton and other Papists about Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as granting us all that Protestants mean as Bellarmine expresly doth as Davenant Nigrinus Joh. Crocius and many others have observed it may be objected that The same man may well be judged a Sinner deserving hell never fulfilling the Law nor satisfying Justice nor deserving Heaven in himself that is in his Natural person and yet be Judged one that never sinned but fulfilled the Law is perfectly holy and righteous and merited Heaven in his Legal or Civil person in and by Christ To which I answer One man is but one and hath but one person But if you take the word Person equivocally as signifying another that is made like him in some respects or that hath his Nature or doth somewhat in his stead and for his benefit as a second person say so and we will strive with no man about words If you will say we are now on earth in our Natural persons and are in Heaven in Christ or that we are Redeemed in our Natural persons but Redeemed our selves in Christ or that you are sick in your Natural person and well in your person in Christ c. I like not your language but there are scarce any words so bad which a man may not put a good sence on But we would be understood and plainly ask whether Christ was properly every sinners or believers person in Law-sence so that ipso facto God accounteth us to have been habitually and actively perfect in Him and to have merited and satisfied in him If so the Law can look on one man but as one And he that paid a debt by his Servant or any other as his Legal person cannot be required to do it again in his Natural person unless you will say that God loveth our Legal person and will save it and may hate our Natural person and damn it The Scripture useth no such contradictory subtleties as these SECT XI How faith Justifieth 198. The common saying that faith justifieth as an Instrument might pass as tolerable if too many did not strain it to a wrong sence and raise Note that when we call faith an Accepting it relateth to the Donation of the Covenant and the Donatum which is a Jus ad beneficia Renovation is effected by faith as a second cause but Pardon is Accepted by it And we fully grant the Papists that Renovation and pardon go together whatever they call them And some of themselves do speak just as we de Remissione Macula which others are confounded about Vid. Wotton's citations out of the Schoolmen de Macula de Reconcil pec And Brianson saith in 4. q. 8. fol. 116. that sin as âemitted or guilt is Tantum quaedam Relatio rationis in quantum est objectum intellectus Voluntatis divinae Quia postquam commissit peccatum Dei voluntas ordinat ipsum ad poenum correspondentem peccato Intellectus praevidet pro omni tempore donec poena debita sit soluta Videre peceata Dei est ad âoenam imputâre Avertere faciem est ad poenam non reservare August Ergo niâ aliud est post actum câssantem pââcatis offânsa Macula reatus nisi ista relatio rationis Sâd hujus Ordinatio ad âoenam ut est disconveniens ipsi animae dicitur ejus Macula ut autem est obligatio formaliter ad istam poenam dicitur Râatus Et ut est divinae voluntatis c. dicâtur Offensa Nil n aliud est Offendi vel Irasci in Deo quam vâlle Vindicare ista poena But he after owneth that the culpa is another thing unwarrantable Doctrines from it and harden the Papists by unwarantable Answers A Justifying Instrument properly is an efficient Instrâmental cause of Justification which I have elsewhere too largely proved that faith is not either Gods Instrument or ours Physical or Moral noâ any way efficiently justifieth us But justifying is one thing to Receive justification is another thing and to be justified is a third Faith iâ no justifying act But faith is in its Essence the Acceptance of an offered God Christ Spirit for Life This Acceptance is by the Covenant made the condition of our passive true Reception and Possession of Right before opened To be such a Condition performed is to be a removens prohibeâs of the said Reception which is strictly to be Dispositio materiae recipientiâ And so it
may be called 1. A Receiving Cause 2. And a mediââ or dispositive Cause of the effect Justification as Received but not as Given As I said Dr. Twisse chooseth to call it But this causa Dispositiva is pââ of the causa Materialis viz. Qua disposita A cause or more properly a condition why I receive Justification and by receiving it am Justified which is their meaning who call it A Passive Instrument that is A ââceiving Instrument 199. The plain easie truth is that Faiths Nature which is to be ââlieving Acceptance of Christ and Life offered on that Condition being ââ very essence is but its Aptitude to the office it hath to our Justification by which the Question is answered why did God promise us Christ and Life ââ the Condition of faith rather than another Because of the congruity of its Nature to that office But the formal Reason of its office as to our Justification is Its Being the performed Condition of the Covenant And if God had chosen another condition a condition it would have been Now the true notion in Law being a Condition Logicians would call this improperly a Receiving cause and more properly A Receptive Disposition of the matter reducing it to Physical notions But the most proper term is the plainest We are justified by that faith which is the Believing Practical Acceptance of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as Given us on that condition in the Baptismal Covenant because or as it is made by God the condition of his Gift thereby Understand this plain doctrine and you have the plain truth 200. They that say contrarily that Faith justifieth proximately as it is an Instrument or a Receiving Accepting act and not as a Condition of the Covenant do evidently choose that which they vehemently oppose viz. that the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã credere justifieth For the very ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã credere or the ââââ of Faith is to be an Acceptance of Christ given But if they will to avoid this say that By Faith they mean Christ believed in then they say that by Receiving Christ they mean not the receiving of him but Christ himself And why then do they not say so but trouble the world with such unintelligible phrases But to open the senselessness and coâsequents of that Doctrine would but offend All know that Chriââââ the object is connoted as essential to the act of Faith SECT XII How Repentance is joyned with Faith 201. Repentance is a Dispositio materiae recipientis too and a part of the condition of the Covenant And so far a Material or dispositive Receiving Cause But not an Acceptance of the Gift formally in its averting act 202. Faith and Repentance are words used in Scripture in divers significations Saith Malderus Gu. Amesius a parte recedit ab antiquo Calvinismo quiae requirit ad justitiam bonae operâ tanquam conditionem praerequisitam quod âtiam extendit ad ipsam âlectionem See here how little the Papists understand us As Faith is sometimes taken for bare Assent as Jam. 2. and usually for Affiance or Trust and always when it denominateth a Christian or Justified Believer as such it essentially includeth all the three parts Assent Consent and Affiance but yet denominateth the whole by a word which principally signifieth One act which commonly is Affiance as including the other two so Repentance is sometime taken comprehensively for the whole Conversion of a Sinner to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and so it includeth Faith in the narrower sence and is the same thing as Faith in the larger sence but express'd under another formal notion Sometimes it is taken more narrowly and that 1. As to the Act. 2. As to the Object 1. As to the Act and so the word Repentance signifieth only the Aversion of the Soul from evil by sorrow and change of mind And this is the strict formal notion of the word though usually it be taken more largely as including also the Conversion of the Soul to Good which is the usual Scripture and Theological sense though the word it self do chiefly signifie the Averting act 2. As to the Object 1. Repentance sometime signifieth the Turning of the Soul from Sin and Idols to God as God And so Repentance towards God is distinguished from Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ 2. And sometimes it signifieth only the turning of the Soul and life from some particular Sin 203. Repentance as it is the turning of the Soul from sin and Idols * The Papists take Repentance it self to be part of the Remission of Sins And let the Reader note for the fuller opening of what I have said of their darkness thereabouts that Jansenius Aug. To. 1. li. 5. c. 22. p. 126. maketh four things to be inseparably conteined in Remission though distinguishable 1. The Conversion of the Soul to God 2. The abstersion of the Macula or filth 3. Reconciliation or the remission of Gods offence 4. The relaxation of the aeternal punishment That all these are then at once given us we are all agreed But whether the name Remission or Pardon of sin âe meet for them all we disagree Is it not visible then how unhappily we strive about words wheâ we talk like men of several Languages But all is but removation and remitting the penalty of which Gods offense is the first part And Macula is either the sin it self or the relative consequents to God is the same with Faith in God in the large Covenant-sence and includeth Faith in God in the narrower sence Repentance as it is our Turning from Infidelity to Christianity is the same with Faith in Christ in the large Covenant-saving-sence and includeth Faith in Christ in the narrower sence as it is meer Assent Repentance as it is a Turning from the Flesh to the Holy Ghost as our Sanctifyer is the same thing as our Faith in the Holy Ghost in the large Covenant sence and includeth Faith in the Holy Ghost in the narrower sence But when they are the same thing the ratio nominis or formal notion is not the same As man's mind is not so happy as to conceive of all things that are one by one entire single Conception so we are not so happy in our language as to have words enough to express things entirely by one name but we must have several words to express our inadequate conceptions by And so that is called Repentance as the Souls motion from the Terminus a quo which is called sometimes Faith or Affiance and sometimes Love from the motion of the Soul to the Terminus ad quem though the Motus be the same But when Faith and Repentance are distinguished as several parts of the Condition of the new Covenant the common sence is that Repentance signifieth the Conversion of the Soul from Sin and Idols to God as God which is or includeth Faith in God And Faith signifieth specially Faith in Christ as the Mediator and way
it he could never have the thing promised for that were to have God and not to have him nor yet his necessary disposition for fruition for without holiness he is not a capable disposed recipient of Salvation The rest of his arguments run all upon this error as iâ love and holiness were only the means and not the end and Salvation given SECT XVI Of assurance of Pardon Justification and Salvation And whether it be Faith 224. The Faith by which we are justified is not a believing that ââââ justified but a believing that we may be justified Not a believing tââ Christ is ours more than other mens or that we shall be saved but â believing in Christ that he may be ours and we may be saved by him 225. There is assurance in this Faith not assurance that we are sâcere or shall be saved But assurance that Gods Promises and all ââ Words are true and that he will perform them and that Christ ââ the Saviour of the world and that the love of God is our End ââââ Happiness and that all this is offered to us in Christ even Pardon âââ Life as well as others which offer Faith accepteth truly But the Believer is oft uncertain of the sincerity of his own belief and so of ââ Salvation 226. How much certainty we have of Divine Revelation and Scripture verity I have so fully opened in many Tractates and lastly in oââ I know that the learned Conciliator Guiliel Forbes doth confidently charge them as guilty of confusion who place Faith in more faculties than one and that call it Fiducia But I doubt not but the error is his own which tendeth to confusion by not distinguishing a meer physical act from a moral or political which is made up of many physical acts And if he or Bishop Gror. Downame Camero or any that go that way had been put to tell what one physical act they will confine Christian justifying Faith to they would have âound themselves in confusion To say It is assent denieth not but that it must be an assent to many verities And this assent signifieth at once a belief that God is true and that this is his word and that this word is true He that saith It is a belief of the assertion for the oredibility of the Asâertor can scarce prove that he nameth but one Act And I know no such assent which ââââ bit essentially contain a trusting to the word of the Assertor or Testifier called Fiducâa Can you believe a âaââ âoââââ be true because he is credible and not trust his credibility so far as believing him importeth It is a contradiction Fâââ eredentis is nothing but a trusting to the Fides dicentis and they are Relatives as Act and Object Though I grant that ââââ is also a quietting applicatory Trust or Fiducia which is but the exercise of Faith as supposing me to see my ãâ¦ã Promise which cometh after our first believing in which we see but our receptive capacity that the Promise ãâ¦ã with the rest of Mankind and the thing promised is offered to me called The certainty of Christianity without Popery that I will not here repeat it further than to say that it is not a perfect apprehension which we call our certainty nor yet an uneffectual doubtful one But such âââ as will carry a man on confidence of Gods Word to a holy life and ââ the forsaking of all other hopes even life it self for the hopes which ââ given us by Christ which yet may have several degrees in several persons But objective certainty which is the evidence of verity is mâââ full than our subjective certainty for want of our due receptivity ââ us and is still the same in it self though not equally brought or reveaââ to all 227. Even doubting of the truth of the Scripture and Christianity may stand with saving Faith and Salvation when it is not predominant nor so great as to keep us from the said forsaking all for Christ and Heaven 228. Doubting of mans own Salvation is not always from weakness of Faith directly much less is it the want of Faith it self âoâ sometime a man may doubt meerly as doubting of the sincerity of ââ own Faith and not at all doubting of the truth of the Word of God But when it is the doubting whether the promises be sure which makeâ a man doubt whether he shall be saved this doubting is the debility ââ Faith 229. The same may be said of dispair That dispair is from the weakness or want of Faith which cometh from an unbelief of the truth of the Promise And that also is pernicious dispair which from what Cause soever is so great as to take men off the use of necessary means to attain Salvation But that dispair which cometh from overmuch self-condemning and a conceit that a mans heart is false and not that Gods Promise is false may stand with true Faith and Salvation if it be not so great as to take him off the use of necessary means 230. No man ordinarily can be assured of his Salvation or Justification without extraordinary Revelation but by being assured first of the âruth of Gods Promise and of his own sincerity in believing For his assurance is of the conclusion of this argument Whosoever sincerely believeth and repenteth is justified But I sincerely believe and repent âherefore I am justified And the weakness of the apprehension of either of the premises is ever in the conclusion which always followeth partem debiliorem 231. There are therefore but two sorts of men who can believe that they are justified by a Faith properly called Divine that is which is a belief of Gods Word herein 1. Those that God revealeth it to by proâhetical or extraordinary Revelation if there be any such 2. Those who are more certain of their own sincere Faith than they are that Gods Word it self is true if any such there be in the world For with all others the certainty of the sincerity of their own Faith being weakest âhe conclusion followeth it 232. If any man can possibly doubt more of the truth of Gods Word âhan of the soundness of his own Faith though that mans Faith may be called Divine it is no honour to it because it hath so much doubting of Gods Word mixed with belief And it 's like his greater assurance of his belief of it is but his error or infirmity 233. Ordinarily therefore no Christians can believe fide Divina that they are justified and shall be saved that is this is no Word of God but a conclusion of which one of the premises only and that the stronger is Gods Word 234. To say that he that believeth shall be saved is equivalent to this I shall be saved is not true nor reasonable seeing I believe is not Gods Word nor so certain as Gods Word And one of the premises is not equal to both 245. When they say That it 's all one when I am sure that
elect and should persevere So that they denied all certainty of Salvation by ordinary means And that none of all the Greek or Latin Fathers then or long after went further from the Pelagians than Augustine did I think I need not perswade any that hath read them 259. This historical Truth is useful to be known From whence I infer that it is possible for Christians to live in setled peace and comfort in respect to their heavenly Felicity without a certainty of perseverance and Salvation For to think that no Papists no Greeks no Arminians no Protestant Lutherans nor any of the ancient holy Doctors nor any of all the Martyrs or other Christians of their judgment did attain to such holy peace and comfort is unreasonable and contrary to all Church-History and to experience 260. And though it were a far more joyful state to have proper certainty yet reason and experience in other cases tell us that without certainty a man may live a joyful and peaceable life where probability is strong enough to remove all reasonable cause of fearfulness though there be a possibility of the worst As we see that men in youth and health though they may possibly die or fall into torments the next hour yet do not therefore cast off comfort and live in such trouble as they would do if they had probable cause to expect it There is no wife living is certain that her own Husband will not murder her the next night nor no Child certain that the Parents will not cast them off or kill them nor no Friend certain that his dearest Friend will not do so And yet few but melancholy people will therefore take up sorrow and cast away all their comfort in life and peace and in these Friends Even these persons are their trust and joy There is no man sure but he may be executed among Malefactors And yet while there is no reason to expect it a man may live a comfortable life There is no man certain that he himself shall not fall into a particular crime of Murder Theft Perjury or the like And yet we live not therefore uncomfortably For mens affections follow the powerfullest cause 261. Hence also I conclude that certainly the denial of certainty of persevering and Salvation is not a thing that should break the love peace or concord of the Christian Churches or for which they should cast off or revile each other For what sober man could do so by all those that I have instanced in 262. It is a shameful self-delusion of some Disputers who think when they have once believed that certainty of Salvation may be had that they are then certain themselves or next to certain of their own Salvation But he that hath no more certainty to be rich or healthful thaâ to believe that Health and Riches may be got is far from having them 263. Who was more full of confidence and joy than Luther who speaketh more against the Papists commanding men to doubt of the pardon of sin who speaketh of a higher Faith than he on Galat. Yet he with Melancthon and all the first Protestants in the August Confess Art 11. saith They damn the Anabaptists who deny that those that are once justified can again lose the Holy Ghost 264. If Adam in Innocency had neither solid comfort or cause of such the state that we fell from was not so good as we commonly believe But Adam had no assurance of his perseverance in that state For he fell from it 265. No man as is said is certain that he shall not fall into such a Vid. Judic Theol. Palat. de persever in Synod Dord p. 1. pag. 208. pr. 3. hainous sin as Peter David c. did 266. The Synod of Dort saith By such enormous sins they greatly offend God they incur the guilt of death they grieve the Holy Ghost they interrupt the exercise of Faith they most grievously wound Conscience sometimes they lose the sense of Grace for a time till by serious Repentance returning into the way Gods fatherly countenance again shine upon them And the Brittish Divines in their Synodic Explic. say They contract damnable guilt and lose their present aptitude to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Adding So that while they remain in that state of Impenitence they neither ought nor can perswade themselves otherwise than that they art obnoxious to death Rom. 8. 13. If ye live after the flesh ye shall die For they are bound in a capital Crime by the desert whereof according to Gods Ordination they are subject to death though they be not yet delivered to death nor shall be if we respect Gods fatherly love but shall be pluckt out of this sin that so they may be pluckt out of the guilt of death Lastly For their present condition they lose their aptitude to enter into Heaven c. And Thes 4. p. 193. Gods unmovable ordination requireth that a Believer thus exorbitant do first return into the way by renovation of Faith and the act of Repentance before he can be brought to the ways end which is the heavenly Kingdom By the Decree of Election the faithful are so predestinated to the end that they can no otherwise be brought to it than by Gods instituted means as by the Kings high way And Gods Decrees of the means and of the end and order of events are as firm and certain as those of the end and of the events themselves If any man therefore go on in a way contrary to Gods Ordination as the broad way of uncleanness and impenitence which directly leadeth to Hell he can never come that way to Heaven Yea if death surprize him wandering in Luk. 13. 3 5. 1 Cor. 6. 9. Heb. 12. 14. 2 Tim. 2. 19. Act. 27. 31. that out-way he cannot but fall into everlasting death This is the constant and clear voice of the Scripture As Paul said of those in the Ship c. Act. 27. 31. It is certain that David and Peter Gods Elect Servants were to come to Heaven But it is as certain that if one had remained impenitent in his Adultery and Murder and the other in his denial of Christ and perjury neither of them could have been saved Providence and Mercy unty this knot by providing that no elect person die in that state in which according to any Ordination of Gods Will he should have been shut out of Heaven And Thes 5. In that interspace which is between the guilt of sin contracted by a grievous sin and the renewed act of Faith and Repentance such a Sinner standeth a person to be damned by his own desert but by Christ's Merit and Gods firm purpose a person to be saved but not before by excited Faith and Repentance he hath obtained pardon is he actually absolved But in such guilt the condition of the Faithful and of the Wicked is not the same To the Unbelievers is wanting the inward principle of Faith without which the
be equal or unequal physical or moral c. is to dote § 5. But yet this Knowledge and Will of God is transient or terminated Objectively when it is not so Effectively And so God is said to know things differently as they differ and to will things differently as they are different objects But this speaketh truly nothing New or various in God but only a Relative and so denominative connotation of his simple essence from these objects whose diversity giveth divers names to Immutable most simple Unity Of this all Schoolmen for substance are agreed however the Thomists Scotists and Occamists differ about the notions of Ratio ratiocinata formalitas denominatio extrinseca § 6. II. If it be the operation of the second Causes ex parte operantiââân and so of God by them that we dispute of the disputes would have the easier decision But this is denyed by the Dominicans and another Infusing Immediate operation is made the subject of these Controversies § 7. III. It remaineth therefore that it is only the effect as in the soul-receiving which we dispute of And if so this must be remembred that we dream not of any Controversie about Gods Action as ex parte agenâis in Him or between him and the soul § 8. In mans soul we know of nothing but 1. The substance in the first notion as answerable to Matter in bodies 2. The form which is a Threefold Virtue or faculty in One viz. The vital Power Intellect and Will which is at once Virtus Vis Inclinatio naturalis ad proprias actiones All these are but Inadequate conceptions of the same simple essence and not compounding parts None of this is the thing in question for the soul is presupposed to be a soul 3. The Accidental and mutable Disposition of the faculties to the Acts. 4. The Impressions of sâperiour Causes God and means in moving to the Acts. 5. The Acts of the soul themselves 6. The Habits I know of no more § 9. I. Though All Habits are dispositions yet all Dispositions are not Habits And before Habits the soul may be many wayes predisposed to the Act As 1. By former acts of another sort which yet conduce to this 2. By other habits that are preparatory 3. By deliverance from many Internal and External Impediments 4. And lastly By the Divine Impress it self in the instant of Nature though not of time before the Act. For God so disposeth the soul to act § 10. This predisposition is sometime but a Moral Power that is in so low a degree as containeth only the Necessary power to the act with which alone it is sometime done And sometime besides this Moral Power it containeth some further degree of accidental Inclination or propensity to the Act. And these degrees are various in various instances and sâbjects § 11. II. When God moveth the soul to believe or repent we must conceive that in the instant antecedent to the Act the soul receiveth some Impress or Impulse from the divine essence by which it is disposed or moved to act * * * Aâxilium praevium non appellatur à nobis Forma Voluntatis impressa quoniam hoc nomen significare videtur qualitatem constituentem potentiam in actâ primo sed proprio vocabulo dicitur motio Actualis qua Deus vere efficienter facit ut liberum arbitrium operetur actum liberum determinatum cum vera expedita facultate qua potest illum non operari si velit Alvarez de Auxil disp 23. p. 108. Mâtio is the proper notion he thinks between God and the Act or Habit of man as aforesaid but unaptly I think so conceived by him And though spirits especially God move not by such contact and impress as things corporeal yet in an unconceivable manner some spirit some spiritual Impress Influx or motion must be Received by which faith is caused And this Impress and the Disposition to the Act caused by it perhaps are really the same § 12. III. The Act it self by this and by the soul disposed and excited is next caused not given as pre-existent but given by causal efficacious suscitation of the pre-existent faculty or power § 13. IV. The Habit which is a Promptitude to facile acting is caused by all the forementioned causes conjunct and not by any one alone viz. by God and his Impress on a soul some way pre-disposed and by the soul it self further disposed and excited by that Impress But of Habits more anon And here because almost all our seeming difference dependeth on the question What it is that is between Gods essence and mans act which is the cause of our Act or may be called grace sufficient or effectual more or less c. I shall tell you how Alvarez handleth the question and thereby further shew you that it is a thing unsearchable and past mans knowledge and though I satisfie my self with calling it an Impulse or Impress or a Received energie or force or Influx yet these are but general notions and tell us not as to a distinct formal conception What it is And you shall see that the boldest disputers know no more Alvarez de Aux l. 3. disp 19. p. 77. tells you that there are these several opinions of it What is the previous motion by which God moveth and applyeth second causes to operate I. Some Thomists hold that It is a Quality not permanent but by way of transient disposition with operation Cabrera 3. p. q. 18. ar 4. dub 1. Conc. 4. n. 58. For it must be some Virtus and that must be a Quality Imperfect supernatural acts as attrition fear of hell c. are before habits and have only such transient virtues or qualities c. II. Others hold contrarily that Gods motion is nothing besides his own will or essence and mans act being simultaneous Their reasons I omit * * * So Bradwardine and many others And this would cut short most of our present Controversies if it would hold Dr. Twisse saith Vind. Grat. li. 2. p. 2. Crim. 3. c. 15. §. 9. p. 348. Probabile esse nullam motionem à Deo recipi in Voluntatem sed quia Deus velit Voluntatem creaturae Velle aliquid necesse est ut velit Ratio haec est cujus solutionem mihi expediat Arminianus aliquis Sola Dei Voluntate factum est ut Mundus crearetur Quis enim influxus Dei potest fingi praecedaneus qui occuparetur circa nihilum c. III. Others hold that Gods previous motion is somewhat received in second causes in order of nature before they operate and when they are asked What it is they say It is really the very operation of the second cause e. g. man it self as it proceedeth from God And so that Gods premotion and predetermination of our Will is not really distinct from the actual determination by which the will determineth it self but is the same The same act being of God and man So that they
make this motion to be somewhat received before we act and yet nothing but our act which is absurd IV. Other Thomists hold that It is somewhat really distinct from our operations and that is Quoddam complementum virtutis activae quo actualiter agat And he that knoweth what predicament this complementum belongeth to and what it is let him take this opinion for more than a meer complement And here they tell you that they speak not of Gods simultaneous concurse for that Alvarez confesseth is nothing besides Gods essence and mans act But of his previous motion which he saith is somewhat more So Amesius Antisynod de Grat. c. 2. pag. 255. Satis esset apud omnes pios dicere Dei Velle sine ulla Impressione intercedente certe posse efficere ut Voluntas consentiat ipsius Vocationi I now meddle not with the truth of this and Twisses argument is easily answered But I intreat the Reader to note into what all our controversies are by these excellent men reduced who yet most aggravate them What now is the Gratia efficax ad credendum Nothing besides Gods esse but ipsa fides Is faith effective of it self No. Is Gods essential will effective of it Who ever denyed it What place is there for Controversies of sufficiency and efficacy when it is but Gods essence and the known effect of which they speak and hold not as Alvarez doth any motion or Impress made by God upon mind or will at all Gods will then is effectual quia vult effectum and it is virtually sufficient for whatever he willeth not but could will But then no man can possibly do any more good or less evil than he doth because no more or less is willed of God which volition is the first necessary Cause of all things And is not all their Volumes de Auxiliis Gratiae and the several sorts previous simultaneous operating co-operating c. meerly vain when there is no such thing as any Grace besides Gods meer will and the Act of man And yet Dr. Twisse elsewhere saith that Gods Decrees do nihil ponere in objecto As if they differed in the nature of motion And he saith that this is true both of supernatural acts which are from Infused habits as faith hope Love and of Imperfect supernaturals as fear of hell and attrition by which man is remotely prepared for Justification â which proceed not from supernatural habits but from the spirits special impulse not yet inhabiting but moving And Alvarez thus concludeth I. That which God doth in second causes by which these act is Aliquid habens esse quoddam incompletum per modum quò colores sunt in aere virtus artis in instrumento artificis It is Aliquid incompletum transiens cum ipsa operatione Are you ever the wiser for all this II. Hoc ens incompletum praevium actioni causae secundae producitur in illa effective à solo Deo nullo modo dependet efficienter ex influxâ ipsius causae secundae And therefore herein the will is passive though not in its own Act as he falsly affirmeth Luther to assert for what can act and not be active III. When second causes natural or supernatural have by their inherent form sufficient Active virtue per modum actus primi proportioned with the effect then Gods premotion is not a Quality but proprio vocabulo dicitur Motio Virtuosa by which the universal cause maketh the second actually operate according to its proper mode Therefore it is not a Habit or disposition or natural power IV. Yea in Imperfect supernatural acts as fear of hell which go before habits and by preventing grace are elevated to the acts it is not a Quality but Motio Dei virtuosa by which they are done and is of the same sort with that which causeth acts from habits V. This previous Motion is Really distinct from the operation of the second cause and is not our act it self but is immediately from God Which he useth many arguments to prove And can all this give any man a formal conception what it is which he calleth aliquid incompletum and Motio Virtuosa We know not what the Vis projectis impressa is in corporeals And can we tell how spirits and how the God of spirits maketh his Impressions or what the word Impression or Motion here signifieth We know that we know it not if we know what we know and know-not And why is it called Motio Virtuosa Virtus he maketh a quality It is no quality and yet Virtuosa Omnis motio est Actio Is it Actio Increata Then it is God himself which he denyeth and speaketh of somewhat between God and mans Act. Is it Actio creata Then it is a Modus Agentis for so is every Action as such as distinct from its effect in patiente And if so it cannot be modus Dei for then it is Ipse Deus And if it be modus hominis it is either hominiâ agentis vel patientis If the first then it is mans Action If the second it is formally no action For modus patientis is passio though many would confound action and passion with saying after their Masters that Actio est in patiente which is equivocation So that the plain truth is that mans understanding can reach no further than to conceive 1. That our souls are the termini of Gods Volition and Active power 2. That though God act not on us by corporeal contact yet we must call our selves Patients and think of the Attingency of his Active essence with its effects by some Analogie of Corporeal attingency contact and impressed moving force But truly to know how God toucheth moveth operateth on any Creature and by what Impressions or what there is indeed between Gods essence and mans Act we know not at all And if Christ had never said Joh. 3. so is every one that is born of the spirit our own experience might have told us that we know it not Boldly then tell our Church-distracting wranglers that contend about the nature sufficiency efficacy resistibility of this Act of Grace that they know not the very subject of their disputes And shall we still fire the Church by striving about words that profit not but subvert the hearers and tend to the increase of ungodliness Yea and shall bold blind zeal use the Reverend names of God and his precious Truth to colour and countenance these pernicious contentions I grant that the nature of Grace and the concord of it with Free-will may be soberly treated of But when men have followed the controversie beyond the ken of humane understanding and there will proceed to build great Fabricks upon unknown suppositions and perversly contend for them against Love and peace they do but serve Satan against God under the colour of his sacred truth and name And I think it not amiss here to tell you what Alvarez saith to this Question de Aux l. 12. disp 118. p.
that have a mind to contend about names § 20. Though a meer Indifferent faculty be as Dr. Twisse saith rather to be called Nature than Grace yet it is Grace 1. Which giveth a gracious object to that faculty though thereby it be still but an undetermined Power 2. And it is more Grace which taketh off some vicious Ill-dispositions of the soul and giveth it some more Disposition to believe though but so much as common grace doth give § 21. It is not a meer Power that God giveth men to Repent and believe But a Power accompanied with many Gracious helpâ and means to determine it aright of which before § 22. He that will not use such Power and means doth thereby forfeit further grace * * * Brianson in 4. q. 8. Cor. 3. fol. 152. maintaineth i. Quod ad obtinendam eratiam necessario ex parte homânis praecedit aliqua dispositio 2. Quod talem dispositioâem homo per selpsum potest si vult in se inducere praesuppositâ influentiâ gânâali Dâi 3. Quo l talis dispositio ex parte hominis nullam inducit necessitatem introductionis gratiae ex parte Dei sed totum fit merâ gratuitâ Dei voluntate But the second must be done by common preparing Grace However God doth not alwayes take the forfeiture and will not of his elect to their destruction but doth pardon them § 23. By all this it appeareth 1. That all men have a natural power or faculties enabled to all that is necessary to salvation so far that it is not the want of a proper natural power that shall necessitate them to sin and perish 2. That this Power is by vice undisposed to believe c. 3. That it hath some Indisposition to all that virtue or moral good which tendeth to salvation 4. That it is not equally undisposed to all such Good 5. That it's Indisposition to some means of Recovery is no greater than what may be overcome by Gods commoner sort of Grace 6. That this commoner Grace is not herein ever so effectual as that all that receive it do all the good that they can do by it even in a moral sence nor all that some others do that have no more help But the wilful negligence of the receiver or his diversion or resistance frequently frustrateth it though not alwayes 7. That the right use of this commoner grace in the use of the foresaid means is a way appointed by God himself and not in vain by and in which men may be made fit to receive that special Grace which will call them savingly to believe 8. That no man is denyed that special grace that deserveth it not by the abuse of Common grace How the caâe of Infants dependeth on the Parents I must not instance as oft as the exceptions of wranglers require it 9. And therefore no man is condemned for want of natural Power as such but only for want of stirring up his natural power by those helps of grace by which he might have done it and for want of that further Good faith love obedience which by the helps rejected he might have been brought up to had he not wilfully neglected the power and helps which he had 10. Yea usually God long waiteth patiently on sinners with the tenders of mercy while they reject it before he utterly forsake them SECT XIV Whether the giving of faith be an Act of Omnipotency and a proper Creation and a Miracle § 1. THe Reader must pardon me for troubling him with such frivolous questions about names seeing unhappy Theologues have made it necessary An Act of Omnipotency hath several senses Creation is an ambiguous word Pet. de Alliaeo in 4. q. 1. G. telleth us of four Ordinary senses of the word 1. Facere aliquod esse post non esse 2. Facere aliquid esse post non esse ab illo agente quod potest hoc sine causali influxu materiae vel subjecti 3. Facere aliquid esse post non esse sire concursu causali seu influru materiae vel subjecti sine subjecto praesupposito ex quo illud fiat 4. Facere aliquid esse post noâ esse absque agente se solo causante sine concursu alterius causae efficientâ Malderus 1. 2. qu. 113. a. 9. p. 578. ex Tho. August Justificatio impii est maximum opus Dei. Secundum quantitatem tam magnum est Angelos justos câeare sed secundum quantitatem proportionis majus est impios justificare quia major est diâproperti impii ad gratiam quam justi ad gloriam sicut ex plebeio creare ducem quam ex duce regem Aug. Tr. 72. in Joh. Justis create impios justificare aequalis potentiae hoc autem major is misericordiae est 1. If the meaning be Whether Omnipotency be the Agent Principle it is past dispute For it 's all one as to ask Whether it be an Act of God God hath no Power but Omnipotency that is perfect power 2. If the meaning be Whether the Giving of faith be an Adequate effect of Omnipotency it is also negatively past doubt Though those that take God to be but Anima Mundi say that Either the World is Infinite or that God is not Infinite as thinking the World to be his adequate effect yet Christians are commonly agreed that God hath no adequate effect Even the making of the universe the Giving of Christ and the Glorifying of the Church which are the highest effects of his Power Wisdom and Love are not adequate effects For nothing but another God can be an adequate effect of God And another God is a contradiction § 2. 3. But if the sense of the question be only comparative As 1. Whether Omnipotency be more eminent in the giving of faith than Wisdom and Love or Goodness 2. Or whether Omnipotency be more eminent in giving faith than other works of God they are both needless questions And to the first I say No To the second those other works of God must be named and compared by the presumptuous that have no safer work to do § 3. 4. If the question be Whether the giving of faith be so great a work that no Power below Omnipotency could suffice to do it I answer it is a presumptuous paltry question of rash men But yet if it must be answered it must be negatively Because as Omnipotence is more illustrious in the making of the world than in causing a man to believe so Christians agree that the world it self as I said is not an adequate effect of Omnipotency Which maketh so many of the subtilest Schoolmen conclude that God could not be proved to be Omnipotent by the whole Creation âas such were it not further to be gathered from the notices of his perfection Which were false if by Omnipotence they meant only a Power that can do all that is done But they mean An Infinite Power which they say must be so seen in
an Infinite effect But the world is not Infinite § 4. As to the second question it is either de nomine or de re If the former let every man speak as he list for me rather than I will contend with him whether Creation of faith be a fit name As to the matter 1. It is agreed on that faith is not a substance 2. Nor an Accident con-created with a substance 3. Nor a composition of substances into one done by secondary Creation Generation or Art 4. But that it is the right ordered Act of a substance whose natural power which performeth it was pre-existent though without that act and the moral disposition Therefore it being a Modus entis or modus modi that we talk of the common name is Alteration and suscitation actuating and ordering But if men sober sometime call it a New Creation as indeed the whole frame of holiness together is called the New Creature in the Scriptures and sometimes the Divine nature sometimes Regeneration sometimes a Divine Artifice Alteration Conversion Sanctification c. it is the same thing that is meant by all their several names § 5. As to the third Question Whether it be a Miracle * * * Justificationem non esse proprie Miraculum Vid. Malder ib. p. 578. Et Brâanson in 4. q. 8. Cor. 2. fol. 144. confessing it above the power of a Creature to justifie us but not properly a miracle p 1. As a Miracle signifieth a wonder a thing is wonderful either for the Rarity or for the Great appearance of Gods power in it In the first respect faith is not so Rare as to be a miracle In the second the Sun and Heavens are a greater wonder than faith 2. But as a Miracle signifieth that which is done by second Causes but unknown to us and out of Gods ordinary way of working so it is no miracle 3. And as some men call that a Miracle which exceedeth the power of the second causes so all things would be Miracles that God doth For they are effects of his power as exceeding the power of second causes 4. As a Miracle is that which is done by God without any second causes â â â Many good people would never be so much against the acknowledgement of second Causes if they understood the matter But they ignorantly think it derogateth from God the first cause so some think that the propagation of souls is a miracle But of souls and faith it is much unknown to us how far God useth second causes But that Generation as to one and Preaching and all other means to the other are some sort of second causes * * * We have no reason to think that God useth no second cause in working faith It is much to be noted which Pet. de Alllaco saith in 4. q. 1. E. Plus facit Deut faciendo aliquem effectum mediante causa secunda quam si faceret euâdem effectum se solo Quia in prima factione sunt plures termini divina actionis quam in secunda For as he said before Quandocunque Deus facit aliquem effectum mediante causa sceunda ipse non solum facit illum effectum sed etlam facit causam secundam esse causam illius effecti Marâ this well is sure 5. And lastly if by a Miracle be meant that effect which God produceth both above the power of second causes and by a more glorious exertion of his own power than in his Course of Nature and Government he useth by and with second causes so it is not a Miracle because in the way of his ordinate co-operation with his Gospel he ordinarily produceth it § 6. So that as all Christians must confess that we had never believed if God had not wrought it in us by that spirit of Wisdom and Love which is Omnipotent so to contend any further whether it be a Miracle and a proper Creation or an effect of Omnipotency as such c. are such questions as presumptuous Schoolmen heretofore and hot-headed Sectaries in our times have used to afflict the Church of Christ with and to tempt their ignorant zealous followers into such employments as most effectually destroy their charity and injure others and scandalize the world SECT XV. Of the sufficiency and efficacy of Grace § 1. I Have said so much of this before as that lest I be tedious by repetition I must be but brief * * * Malderus against the Synod of Dort and 1. 2. q. 111. art 3. dub 8. bestirs himself with special industry to tell what Gratia efficax is And he concludeth that it is afflatus gratiae praevenientis sub genere gratiae excitantis quae non respuitur cum respui possit rather praeparans voluntatem quam adjuvans rejecting Valentia who placeth it in the Habit of Grace caused by excitation and à Lorca who takes it to be adjuvant and those that make it co-operant and those that place it in praedetermination physical of which he confuteth four opinions p. 502. and saith Probabilior sententia est quae negat omnimodam gratiae infallibilitatem adeóque efficaciam sumi posse ex sola reali aliqua differentia considerata ex parte gratiae praevenientis And that Just and unjust have effectual grace and therefore it differeth not from sufficient really And he resolveth all per scientiam mediam that Grace is effectual because ex proposito convertendi Deus it a hominem trabit sicut aptum novit ut sequatur certissime secuâurum and so that Grace iâ effectual er natura sua and not so called only ex eventu I. By sufficient Grace is meant that which is necessary to the effect and without which it Cannot be but with it it may be though it sometimes be not § 2. That there is such a sufficient Grace not alwayes effectual to mans act is before proved by Adams Case And that no man hath such now for any means or duty in order to his recovery as Adam had to stand when he fell is not to be asserted or received And that no prepared soul hath such sufficient Grace to believe that yet believeth not is a thing that is past our reach to know § 3. This sufficient Grace consisteth in a Power to the act when the Indisposition of the natural power is so far altered or repressed as that by the means and helps vouchsafed by God the act is Morally possible to be done For he that truly can do it all things considered is well said to have such necessary grace § 4. But God of his bounty usually giveth men more than such a meer moral possibility by many additional helps and urgencies to the act which I mentioned before § 5. But by sufficient is not meant As much as is useful yea or needful to the Ascertaining of the Event much less to the meliority of the act § 6. II. The EFFICACY of Grace relateth to the effect And
of the Holy Ghost which is specially promised in the Gospel to believers For there are 1. Many common works of the Spirit 2. And the special effect of faith it self before it § 2. This gift of the Holy Ghost unto Believers was formerly two fold the Gift of Miracles or wonders and of special Holiness of which the latter continueth to the end of the world § 3. The spirit is Given to Believers in several respects conjunct 1. In that he is Given to Christ their Head with whom by Union they are Relatively one Body 2. In that He is Given to them by the Baptismal Covenant in special Relation to their own persons to be their sanctifier In which respect they are Baptized into the name of the Holy Ghost as being now in Covenant theirs 3. In that he worketh in them the Acts and Habits of Holiness even of Love to God and to his Image and helpeth them in all duties and against all temptations enemies and sins But not that his essence is more in them than elsewhere but his Operations from those Relations § 4. This Gift of the spirit is the great priviledge of believers and of Gospel times in the eminent degree and He is the great Agent Advocate and witness of Christ in us the divine nature and name of God and his mark upon us our witness earnest pledge and first-fruits of life eternal and the great difference between Christs living members and the unregenerate world § 5. So powerful and fixed is this Habitual Holiness or Love of God for that is the summ of it that though it be no substance nor alter not mans species nor operate not by natural necessitating determination yet it strongly and constantly inclineth the soul per modum nature to the act of Love and so emulateth nature that it is called in Scripture the Divine Nature and the new man § 6. The greatest blessing in this world is to have more of this Spirit and the greatest punishment to be for saken by the spirit and deprived of it And believers themselves must fear most lest they should quench and grieve the spirit and be punished with any measure of its desertion And their great work is to cherish it carefully and obey it faithfully and constantly § 7. The word Infusion as to Habits being metaphorical is ambiguous 1. If the question be Whether Habits be so Infused as that they are caused without Means we must deny it ordinarily 2. If it be Whether they are not at all procured by any cogitations desires or preparatory duties of our own to fit us to receive them It is to be denyed as to the ordinary way 3. If the question be Whether the Act of faith do ever go before the Habit as a cause of it It must be affirmed of the ordinary case 4. If it be Whether the Habit ever go before the Act we must say that some Impulse disposing to it doth And God can cause a Habit before the Act But we cannot prove that he ever doth so much less that it is his ordinary way § 8. Whence it is plain that ordinarily All Infused Habits are so far also Acquired as that they follow means and the Act But all Acquired Habits are not such as are called Infused § 9. The difference is in this that Habits are said to be Infused when the Holy Ghost doth excite the soul to the Act and by that Act unto a setled Habit by such a special powerful Impulse as would not follow Gods ordinary operation by meer natural second Causes As the seal set home on the wax by a strong hand maketh a deep impression more than when it 's laid on lightly by a child so are sacred objects and means and motives when set home by the spirit allowing for the differences of the things § 10. Whether in every true Believer a fixed Habit of Love instantaneously follow the first act of true faith though weak or whether in many God only give after the first act so small an increase of the Disposition as is short of the true nature of a habit till increased by frequent acts is a case that I think more difficult than needful to resolve § 11. That which God worketh in Infants is a seminal fixed disposition But I cannot prove that it is a proper Habit. § 12. Whether Adams Natural sanity or sanctity antecedent to his first Act was to be called more properly a Habit or only a seminal disposition I leave to others But if his and Infants be to be called Habits you must say that they are only certain General Habits such as Health in the Body and not those particular Habits which are strictly so called § 13. The nature of a Habit is not well known to mortal men We know that it is a strong and fixed Disposition to prompt and facile action of this or that special sort But what that Disposition is we well know not That is whether it be the robur of the essential virtues or faculties of the soul Intellection Will Activity And if so wherein that second Gradus Virtutis which is not essential differeth from the first that is And whether it be any thing else than a secret constant Act in and by which the soul is excited to more sensible acts it 's hard to know But certain I am that besides those Acts which taking in somewhat of Imagination or sense are ordinarily perceived by us which are our ordinary conversation the soul hath also some deep secret fixed acts which make no use of sense or Imagination or none that is observed and yet are the ruling acts of the man Such commonly is the Intentio finis which operateth constantly without memory or observation in all use of means As a travailer on his journey keepeth on his way while he seemeth wholly taken up with the occurrences company and talk of his way and thinketh not sensibly of his end And yet had he not an unobserved Intention of it he would not go on And night and day the soul hath this secret insensible sort of Action § 14. As when a spark of fire is blown up to a flame and the excited Act doth tend to more and the more it burneth caeteris paribus the more it is strongly inclined to burn And yet no man can say that here is any new Matter that was not before existent nor that the second degree of fire is not of the same nature with the first nor that there is any thing but nature and action which inclineth it to more action And yet how the same essence before not perceived is suddenly blown up by Action to such observable appearance and effects is past the power of man to understand aright So some such thing there is in the present case allowing for the difference of natures and kinds of operation SECT XVII Whether man be meerly Passive as to the first special Grace § 1. Answ 1. THe Nature of mans soul is to
be an Active Spirit * Indifferentia Voluntatis in ordine ad auxilium praevium est indifferentia passiva caeterum in ordint ad actum liberum quâm producit praedeterminata tali motionâ praevia indifferentia Voluntatis est activa libera Alvarez de Aux disp 23. pag. 115. and therefore what ever it receiveth it receiveth it as it is in that nature 2. But the same soul is Passive as well as Active and that in the prior instant of nature For it must receive from God the first cause which made the Greek antient Doctors and many of the Latines say as Damascene in sense though in grosser words that the soul in respect to bodies was immaterial or incorporeal but it was material in respect of God § 2. Not only in its Receiving the Spirits first Impulse to Believe the soul is Passive before it is Active but also in its Reception of every sort of Divine Influx even to every natural act So that in this there is no difference between Conversion and any common act For the soul is first passive in allâ even in receiving that Natural Influx by which we Live and Move and Be. § 3. But the soul which is passive in Receiving Gods Impulse to believe the first effect is Active in the producing of its own Act of believing which is the effect of many Concauses And as I said It is not the Habit of faith properly so called which it passively Receiveth before the Act. SECT XVIII Whether the first Grace and the New and Soft Heart be Promised and Given Absolutely or on any Condition on our part And so of faith it self Answ § 1. BY the first Grace is meant either simply the first or the first special renewing Grace on the soul proper to them that shall be Justified Of the first Grace simply there is no Condition for it is given Universally to all viz. a Reprieval a Law of Grace a Redeemer c. And after this there is much common personal mercy given conditionally and much absolutely to all or some * * * And as to the first moving inward Grace see how copiously the Jesuit Ruiz as Vasquez and others proveth that it hath no initium in us no not an occasion or disposition much less merit for which it is given And he reasoneth from the Names Creation Generation by the seed of God resuscitation and Gods being found of them that sought him not and from the Cause of the difference between man and man De pradest Tr. 3. disp 18. â 4 5 6 7 8 c. p. 227 228 c. Even Medina 12. p. 596. is so hesitant as to say Esse probabilem sententiam Doctorum quod facienti quod in se est ex facultate naturae Deus ex sua misericordia nunquam denegat gratiam Sed dico quod probabilius est magis consentaneum sanctis patriâus praeclpuâ Augustino non esse Legem infallibilem quod homini pââatori facienti quod in se est ex facultate natura continub conferatur gratia Nam si esser Lex infallibilis certè initium bona pars justificationis esset à nobis c. Thus the Papists herein differ as much as the Protestants among themselves § 2. It seemeth to me an error which by oversight I was long entangled in my self to think that by the new and soft heart is meant the first special Grace For most Divines agree that it is proper sanctification which is meant by it as distinct from antecedent Vocation Vid. Ames Medul de Vocat Rolloc de Vocat Bishop G. Downame against Pemble Hookers Souls Vocation Joh. Rogers of faith and many others In Vocation they suppose the Act of Faith and Repentance suscitated by the Spirit and thereupon a Covenant-Relation to Christ and to the Holy Ghost with Regenerating Sanctifying Habits âo be given And I see no reason to be singular herein § 3. That faith is by the Law of Grace made a Condition of this Sanctification and the Spirit promised us if we will believe and so the Spirit given to us by Covenant in Baptism when we believe is plain ill Scripture and the commonest doctrine of all Divines § 4. Therefore if it be this Spirit of Sanctification that is meant by the New the Tender the Circumcised heart it is not promised and given absolutely but on condition of faith § 5. Let us peruse the several Texts where it is promised Dent. 30. 1 2 3 6. When thou shalt call to mind among all the Nations and shalt return unto the Lord thy God and obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day thou and thy children with ââ thy heart and all thy soul that then the Lord thy God will turn thy cââtivity And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul that thou maist live Here it is a Grace consequent to a condition even to much obedience which is described And Deut. 10. 16. it is a command Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts and be no more stiff-necked Jer. 32. 36 37 c. I will gather them out of all Countreys whither I have driven them and will bring them again into this place and I will cause them to dwell safely and they shall be my people and I will be their God and I will give them one heart and one way that they may fear me for ever So Ezek. 11. 16 17 18 19 20. And Ezek. 36. 25 26 27 28 29. In all which there is a promissory Prophecy how great a deliverance God would give the Nation of the Jews both for body and soul And their temporal return and liberty is promised and prophesied in the same manner as a new heart is But here is not a syllable to prove that this is the first special Grace any more than perseverance is which in the same manner is promised in Jer. 32. 40. I will put my fear in their hearts and they shall not depart To say nothing how far in the first sense this was National to the Jews nor how the performance did expound it For doubtless it is performed the Text it self premiseth I will be their God and they shall be my people with other mercies And no doubt but Faith and Repentance go before this Covenant-Relation to God and therefore before the following gift of the Spirit ver 9. and Ch. 11. 19. And Ezek. 18. 31. the same is commanded Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed and make you a new heart and a new spirit § 6. The promissory Prophecy of Jer. 31. 31 c. is recited by the Penman of Heb. 8. 8 c. to prove the cessation of the old Jewish Câvenant and that a better should succeed And this much is easily proved out of both 1. That God would certainly have a holy people among the
causeth no antecedent necessity but concomitant existentiae 3. This supposeth Gods Scientia futuri conditionalis Against this Dr. Twisse hath said much in a peculiar Digression And surely God ever operateth as God which is ut Causa prima But how far he determineth is the doubt i a capable object of knowledge And therefore he knoweth what conditional propositions of future contingents are true 2. Whether this should be called scientia media or not is a vain question 3. Gods acts ex parte sui being but his Essence and all one can no otherwise be distinguished nor ordered as to the denominations of priority or posteriority than as the objects are distinct and by their order of priority and posteriority allow us by Connâtation so to denominate the acts 4. The Intelligibility and the Amability of things are in themselves simultaneous though from the order of humane operations we say that things are first Intelligible before they are Amiable And so we may say of God after the manner of men but not otherwise 5. God doth not will the form or the act of sin as circumstantiated and as the form necessarily resulteth from it neither for it self nor propter aliud the essence or existence 6. Therefore God doth not foreknow sin as willed and decreed by him nor therefore foreknow it because he willeth it 7. God fore-knoweth or knoweth the formale peccati as well as the materiale yet almost all confess that he willeth not the formale Therefore he knoweth that which he willeth not Therefore his Volition of it is not necessary to his knowledge of it 8. There is no effect in God for all that is in God is God who is not effected Therefore there is no Cause in God of any thing in God Therefore Gods will or decree of Good is not the cause that he foreknoweth it noâ his foreknowledge the cause that he willeth it But he both knoweth and willeth all that is Good at once 9. Gods inward operations on the soul are real efficiencies and yet moral and to us unsearchable They cause the will to determine it self to Good when it doth so but how we know not But we know that he ordinarily worketh by means and according to their aptitude 10. God useth such means with the free wills of his elect as he foreknoweth will prevail with them and setteth them in such circumstances as he foreknoweth they will freely act aright in But his inward grace is the principal or chief cause And he doth not will or decree to give them such means and circumstances because he foreknoweth they will prevail That is Gods will and decree as in him hath no cause 11. But the word because is in Scripture applyed sometimes to Gods Love or hatred and sometimes to his outward acts as John 16. 27. The Father loveth you because ye have loved me and believed And in the first case that which is meant is that the qualification of the object is the material constitutive cause of the act of God not as it is Himself but as relatively denominated ab extra from the object in specie vel individuo And in the second case It meaneth that the effects of God ad extra called his transient acts as in passo have their proper uses and we our commanded ends in using them And so God is said to send Ministers e. g. because he would save the hearers that is the Ministry is a cause of mens ââlvation 12. From all this it appeareth that they err who think that their scientia media is equally useful in the points of Election and of Reprobation and that they run pari passa For all Good is both willed and known and so Election supposeth not the foresight of our faith or obedience as causal or antecedent if we speak of that Act of Election which is to faith and obedience But Evil is foreknown and not willed at all And therefore there is no such Reprobation which is a will or decree that men shall sin And the non-impedition of sin being no act needeth no positive act of will or decree * * * Yet none of the stress of their differences lyeth on this And the Jesuits with the rest assert a Positive Volition de peccato permittendo without proof which I leave to âuens various opinions But Reprobation which is the decree of damning ever supposeth the object to be a foreseen-sinner finally rejecting grace The rest about this is spoken to sufficiently before §. IV. II. Of Durandus 's way II. AS to the way of Aureolus Durandus Ludov. à Dola c. I conceive it is commonly rejected because not understood or because the wording of it soundeth disgracefully But it is a great matter that all confess how easily it would end all these controversies were it true And by Lud. à Dola's Explication and what Capreolus saith of Aureolus I conceive that they are commonly mistaken Durandus thinketh that to the motion of the Creature it is necessary 1. That God by his continued No doubt but God is quoad praesentiam Immediate in all his efficiency and as Near to the effect as if he used no second cause But yet he is not so immediate as to exclude second causes as media And while he useth them he operateth on us according to their kind of operations even as if they were between him and the effect And this is the sense of Durandus and à Doâa and easily reconcileth all Amyraldus de lib. Arbit c. 4. concurreth with Durandus It is consâderable that all confess that if Durandus's way did hold it easâly ended all the controversie As Lud. le Blank noteth Thes 3. de Concurs Juxta hos doctores nulla est difficultas in conciliando divino concursu cum libertate c. And this way is as consistent with Gods certain disposal of events as predetermination it self influx continue the being and the nature and properties of the agent 2. And that he continue all the circumstant creatures concauses and objects and the media of action 3. And that no powerful impediment hinder the action Now say the Jesuits and Dominicans and the rest God doth moreover concurr as the first cause to the Act it self by an Immediate efficient Influx besides that by which he upholdeth the Power and second Causes But I think that Durandus meaneth as much as they that is that God doth not only uphold the creature in its meer esse but in its Nature which is its Mobility and its principium motus And this Nature is not only a Power to Action but also an Inclined Power So that for God by constant Influx to continue a Natural Power and Inclination to Action or motion with all necessary concurrents without impediments is truly by his Influx to concurr to the motion as the first Cause while his Influx is not only as to Being but as to the Motive force and inclination And no more than this doth seem to me
think a good thought by any help that God can give him unless he physically predetermine him to it then the reason why man doth it not is as notoriously to be resolved into Gods not-predetermining him to it as the reason why he doth it into his predetermination and as it is night because the Sun shineth not XVII But at least we can say that God is not the cause of sin because he is under no prohibiting Law Though it be true 1. That his nature or perfection the root of all Laws is more than a Law 2. And we know indeed that this proveth him not at all to be no cause of the sin of man but only to be no sinner himself though he cause it which is none of the question XVIII And from this necessity of predetermination it followeth that all that part of our holiness and obedience which consisteth in not sinning is not at all caused by God e. g. that we hate him not nor his truth and wayes and servants that we murder not commit not adultery steal not lye not covet not blaspheme not wrong none do no evil c. we need no help of God for this Because if he will not move our wills by efficient predetermination to do them it is impossible for us to do them at all XIX And though we say that God willeth sin to be by his permission only and not by his efficience yet indeed predetermining by efficiency as the first cause is the principal efficiency And properly we must say that God permitteth no sin at all For we say that his permission proveth the consequence of the thing permitted And therefore we must say that he permitteth no sin but what is done And that which is done by commission positively he effecteth by effecting the fundamentum and therefore permitteth not And men sin by omission because God doth not make them sin and not because he meerly permitteth it For permission is not de impossibilibus XX. God willeth not sin because he willeth it not as sin in its formale which also we must confess that the wicked themselves do not XXI And whereas we hold that God cannot foreknow things future but as he willeth or decreeth them we must confess that the formale peccati as well as the materiale was such as it is quid futurum if it was but futura privatio And therefore this would inferr that God willed and decreed the formale peccati also XXII Gods Will is his Love and what he Willeth he Loveth XXIII God willeth the futurity and existence of sin not only of the materiale but the formale even of all the sin that ever is done XXIV The existence of sin is Good and Amiable not only by accident but per se as being very conducible to the Glory of Gods Justice and Mercy and therefore is per se Willed and Loved of God XXV It is incomparably much more sin than Holiness which God willeth and Loveth and by predetermination causeth in mankind on earth For it is much more sin than Holiness that existeth in man And all that existeth God causeth as aforesaid the circumstantiated act and so the resultancy of the relative form And he willeth and Loveth the existence of all and the thing existing so far as he causeth it XXVI God Willeth Loveth and Causeth sin incomparably more than wicked men do For they Will and Love it with a humane mutable dependent will but God with a Divine primary immutable will Man causeth the forbidden act whence the relation resulteth with a Will that is irresistibly moved so to do by God as the pen writeth only sâo modo with Volition But God causeth it as the first omnipotent unresistible cause of all that the Creature doth in sinning XXVII The same must be said of God and the Devil who can no more commit one sinful act till God unavoidably predetermine his will to it by his premotion than sinful man can XXVIII God by his Law doth strictly forbid all those sinful acts which he principally and unavoidably causeth And he strictly commandeth all those good acts whose contraries he thus causeth us to do XXIX Though there is nothing in sin which can have a cause of which God is not the Principal cause and though he Willeth and Loveth all that he causeth yet the Scripture saith that God hateth sin and cannot behold it and hateth all the workers of iniquity and that it is abomination to him that he is as one laden with it and wearied provoked and offended by it And that he Loveth the Acts of obedience and holiness when he will not cause them but doth cause and will the contrary XXX Pardon and salvation is promised and earnestly offered by God to the Reprobate themselves on condition that they will believe and repent when God doth unavoidably as the first cause determine their wills to the contrary acts even to disbelief and impenitent hatred of God and holiness XXXI The Law of God is that all the Reprobates shall be damned to hell fire if they will not believe and repent when his omnipotence doth unavoidably premove and determine them to unbelief and impenitence and if they will not give over those acts of sin to which God doth thus unavoidably move and determine them XXXII Gods executions are answerable to these Laws and all save Christians and all professed Christians saving the sanctified are to be punished in hell fire for ever only for not doing the acts of Faith Love and obedience when God as the first cause predetermined them to the contrary and for doing the acts of sin when God unavoidably moved them to it and made them do it so that consequently all that are damned suffer in hell for not being Gods even the first sufficient causes of their own acts and for not being above God or stronger than he that is for not overcoming or avoiding his invincible and unavoidable predetermining premotion unto evil acts XXXIII The same must be said of the Devils who sin and suffer on the same terms XXXIV Q. What kind of torment then will there be in Hell Can Conscience torment men for doing that which they were unavoidably made to do by Omnipotency and for not doing that which without Divine predetermination they could no more do than make a world or for not doing that whose contrary they were thus predetermined to that is for not overcoming God when they know the case Or must we not more congruously say that the state of Hell torments lyeth in a most vehement hatred of God for so using them and a justifying of themselves Or will every mouth be thus stopt in judgement XXXV Q. Is not Divine Justice the most perfect Justice and the exemplar of all humane Justice allowing for disparities And should Kings and Judges imitate this fore-described course And how then would they be esteemed XXXVI Q Is not that best which is most agreeable to Gods Will and Love And therefore sin better than
Some of these are Decrees of common Grace and not called Election by any that I know of except as some say God chose Man and not Devils to have a Saviour But all that I speak of are agreed with you that Gods decreeing Will is his Essence and that it is but one God or Will in the notion of Essence or Principle or Act as it is meerly Agentis But they say that if we distinguish not Gods Decrees by connotation of the various Effects or Objects our Controversies are at an end And I ask of you Do not you distinguish them when you dispute of their Order Priority and Posteriority C. Yes There is no Order without distinction B. Will you not distinguish Election from Reprobation C. Yes Though both be Gods Decree B. Will you not distinguish the Election of Peter both from the Reprobation of Judas and from the Election of Paul C. Yes as connoting various Objects and Effects B. Is there not then the same reason for distinguishing Gods Voââtioââ about one and the same person as to various effects As Gods Will that Paul be born that he be redeemed that he be endured in his sin that he be converted that he suffer persevere be glorified C. Yes But though these be various Decrees yet not Elections B. These names and words are our unhappy Difference 1. Remember then that you agree to call them divers Volitions or Decrees and I think no sober man will fall out with you for the name Election 2. But what reason is there in the nature of the thing why you may not as lawfully and decently say that to choose David to be a Saint a King and a Prophet to choose Paul to be a Christian a Preacher and a Martyâ ââe various Elections as well as various Decrees 3. But my own Opinion is that the denomination should follow the Object And therefore where the Objects elected or the Termini of the Relation are various we may call them various Elections But when they are diversified but as parts we should call them various acts and parts of one Election And no doubt but our election to have the Gospel to Conversion to Justification to Perseverance to Glory to the Ministry to Martyrdom c. may in several respects be named many and parts of one Election C. I confeââ I am convinced that it is a shame to make a quarrel of this because it is about â word and really there is no difference But why make they various Objects in one man of these Decrees B. What is it but diversity of Objects that doth diversifie them In the execution the case is plain Paul uncreated and creandus was nothing or no man 2. Paul before he heard the Gospel was a Pharisee that had not heard it 3. Paul before Conversion and convertendus was a persecuting Infidel 4. Paul jam justificandus was a Believer 5. Paul jam vocandus ad facrum Ministerium was a Christian 6. Paul persevering and ready to overcome finally was a faithful holy Christian and Apostle 7. Paul janâ justificandus per judicem finaliter glorificandus was a persevering over-coming Christian Saint and Apostle The ninth Crimination C. * Bannes in 1. q. 23. a. 2. pag. 264. Jaciendum nobis est fundamentum necessarium viz. quod in divinis omnia sunt simul nihil prius aut posterius in aliquo genere causae nihilque realiter ab alio distinctum ubi non obviat relationis oppositio At quia non simplici conceptu sed multis imperfecte nos cognoscimus necesse est distinguere you may see a multitude of Authors and Reasons to prove that Gods Will to all Objects is but one most simple Volition in Ruiz de Volunt Dei disp 5. sect 6. p. 34. But that 's my next offence that they order Gods Decrees according to the order of Execution and not according to the order of Intention when as Quod prius est intentione posterius est executione B. Dr. Twisse hath that word I think many score if not hundred times But it is no fit matter for contention Do you believe that in God himself there is Priority and Posteriority of Decrees C. Not in time but in order of Nature or Intention B. How can there be difference of Order where there is no diversity C. Though in God there be no diversity yet you confess there is the Relative connotation and denomination from the Objects B. True Therefore the Order also must not be denominated from any feigned diversity in God but from the Order of the divers Objects as one is first or last in time or nature or use That which is first God decreed should be first That which is propter aliud God decreed should be propter aliud And that which is the end of another thing God decreed should be its end C. But even in God himself we must as men conceive that his velle ââem and velle media are not all one but must distinguish them B. As men we must not judge falsly of God when we know that it is false If velle finem media be certainly one without any diversity in God saying what is in the connoted Objects and the relation or denomination how can we without sin destinguish where there is no difference But I pray you tell me what mean you by Gods intendere âââem C. I mean that as every wise man doth first will an end and then do all for it so doth God B. We call nothing to man an end but something which he wanteth ââ at least is without But God wanteth nothing nor is ever without his ââd or the accomplishment of his Will But of this I crave leave to refer you to the first Book where I have fully shewed that God willeth an ââââ improperly and not as man doth But tell me what take you to be strictly Gods end C. His Glory B. What mean you by his Glory C. Our Knowledge Admiration and Praise of his Perfection B. * Constat totius effectus praedestinationis non esse causam per modum finis aliquid ex parte praedestinati cum Gloria quae posset esse sinis inter effectus annumeretur Vasqu in 1. Thom. disp 91. c. 4. These are Acts of men and can mans Acts be Gods chief âod C. I know some say It is the objective Luster or Demonstration of Gods Perfections Take that if it please you better B. That Luster or Demonstration objective is a Creature And can a Creature be Gods Ultimate End C. No God who is the Beginning is the End alone B. God is no efficient Beginning of himself or any thing in himself For in God there is no Cause or Effects how then can he be his own End or final Cause * If any man will say that to be generated and to proceed in the second and third persons are effects I account it presumption to enter into a dispu â of it But it 's
scope of the Gospel must not be reduced to your feigned sense of one obscurer Text. 2. But doth the Text tell us that he died not for the world as it tells us that he prayed not for them Or doth it tell us that he died for no more than he then prayed for Or rather are not these your own Inventions 3. But where doth the Text say that Christ never prayed for any but the Elect yea or that he prayed not at all for the world though he put not up that particular prayer for the world Look on the Text and you will see that he speaketh there only of the Disciples that followed him on Earth And that he prayed not in that Petition for all his Elect only And therefore he after addeth vers 20. Neither pray 1 for these alone but for them also which shall believe in me through their word And what was the prayer That they may be one and kept from the evil of the world which is a blessing peculiar to his Disciples But it is manifest that Christ had other prayers for the world even for many ungodly men yea for Reprobates For 1. On the Cross he prayeth for his Persecutors Father forgive them And it is mens own invention to say that he meaneth none but the Elect We must not unnecessarily limit where the Word limiteth not And Stephen made Christ his Pattern And it is gross fiction to say that Stephen prayed for none but the Elect. C. Doth not Christ say That his Father heard him always and can you imagine that he prayed for that which God denied him B. 2. My next Answer should have prevented that Objection which is that what God giveth to the World for Christ's sake that Christ may well be said to pray for For it is the fruit of his Mediation But God giveth much Pardon and many Mercies to the World for Christ's sake 1. He giveth them an Act of Oblivion of conditional pardon of the eternal punishment which Christ purchased and therefore prayed for * Ambros de Paradis c. 8. Venerat Dominus Jesus omnes salvos sacere peccatores etiam circa impios ostendere suam debuit voluntatem ideo nec proditurum debuit praeterire ut adverterent omnes quod in electione etiam proditoris suâ servandorum omnium insigne praetendit Quod in Deo fuit ostendit omnibus quod omnes voluit liberare Nec tamen dico quia praevaricationem nesciebat futuram immo quia sciebat assero Sed non ideo pertuntis proditoris invidiam in se debuit derivare ut ascriberetur Deo quod uterque sit lapsus Chrysost Tom. 3. hom 9. de land Pauli Ipse quidem vult omnes salves sieri at non omnium voluntas ejus voluntati obsequitur neque ab to aliquis cogitur unde ad Jerusalem c. Deus paratus est ad salvandum hominem non involuntarium neque non volentem 2. He giveth them much Actual pardon of temporal punishments for Christ's sake All the Life Health Time Gospel Means and Mercies which ever he giveth them are such as deserved full punishment would have deprived them of And therefore they are all acts of executive pardon of that punishment 3. And this very Chapter containeth a prayer for the World viz. vers 21 23. That the World may believe and know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them If you say that by the World here is meant only the Elect I answer 1. Your word is no Proof 2. That they are prayed for to believe and know c. is no proof For many did believe that God sent Christ that yet were not saved This soundeth but as a common Act of Faith 3. And note that here the world is contradistinguished not only from Apostles but those after-mentioned that should believe by their word and it is prayed That the world may know that God loveth those that believe in him which may extend both to the Conversion of such as then are unconverted and to the conviction of others such as are the common members of the visible Church at least As the Spirit is sent to convince the world of Sin and Righteousness and Judgment 4. And it is not to be granted you without proof that by the World is meant all Reprobates as such For Judas is before distinguished from the World as one given to Christ when yet he was a Reprobate But either it may be the World of present Unbelievers whom Christ prayeth for else-where though not there Or the World of final professed Infidels and Enemies of the Church as distinct from both Elect and Reprobate in the Church And several expressions of Christ's before of the Worlds hating and persecuting his Apostles seem not applicable to every Hypocrite who prophesieth and casteth out Devils in his Name and perhaps suffereth for his Truth and excellently defendeth it and hath some love to Believers The fifth Crimination C. They make Christ to merit only Pardon and Salvation to Believers but not to have purchased Faith it self for any man And by that way no one that he died for would be saved For Faith is the necessary Gift of God And if Christ purchased not that all the rest would be in vain B. 1. Let us not here confound the Controversie de nomine de re That Christ died to purchase the Act of Faith for us is no Scripture-phrase so far as I know If therefore it be only the phrase which they refuse you may well bear with them But as to the matter they do not deny any of these things 1. That Christ is the Author and Perfecter of our Faith as Faith signifieth the Christian Religion or the Objects and Doctrine of Faith 2. That our own actual and habitual Faith is the Gift of God Though the controversies about the manner of giving it are to be afterward decided 3. That all that Christ giveth his Sacrifice procured and therefore it procured Faith All this is commonly granted by most School-men Papists Lutherans and moderate Arminians But 2. It must be considered that Christ did not die to purchase Faith as immediately and on the same account as to satisfie for Sin and purchase us impunity or Redemption The proper direct reason of his Sufferings was to demonstrate the Justice of God against Sin instead of mans own suffering for it and thereby to procure Pardon We may well conceive Christ promising to the Father as it were I will suffer for Sinners that they may not suffer But you will hardly describe his Undertaking thus I will die if thou will give men Faith or I will give thee so much of my Blood for so much Faith But because he knew that without Grace no man would believe and accept his Gift therefore he whose Sufferings were primarily satisfaction for Sin were secondarily meritorious of the means to bring men to the intended ând that is of the Word and Spirit by which Christ causeth Sinners to
without using the memory and imagination to the Act and this deep insensible Act is such as that a man may doubt whether it be not the very thing which we call a habit I say now all these ten things being presupposed which yet are none of them commonly taken to be the habit of Grace How hard is it to us to know what a habit is indeed beyond all these and what it is that it addeth to these We are sure that it is a Disposition Propensity and Aptitude to holy Action in Specie But what that Disposition and Propensity is besides all this fore-named it is not easie to understand And yet undoubtedly it is the Operation of the Holy Ghost XVIII How hard then must it be to know how much Power or what kind of Power and in what sense so called it is that this superadded habit containeth beside all the ten fore-mentioned excitations and propensities And whether it be properly called Power and how it differeth from the potentiae naturales XIX But yet our great Disputes being more about the first act of Faith which antecedeth the habit than about any of the acts that follow the habit the case will be yet harder what that Power is which the Holy Ghost giveth before the habit of Faith as to the performance of that particular act That it suscitateth the natural âaculty to act is certain Therefore in order of nature it must be disposed or inclined to that act before it act That the Soul receiveth the Divine influx is certain But no mortal man knoweth what that is We commonly conclude that ex parte Dei it is nothing but God himself By God himself is meant his Act By his Act is meant his Essence as in Act But how his Essence is always immutably in equal Act and yet produceth a world in time which it produced not from eternity and how the equal Act or Agency of the Essence is natural necessary and eternal and the Effect free How the Volition is necessary in se and yet free in every termination and effect ad extra How a natural-equal-eternal Agency can produce such wonderful diversity of Effects And how Souls are said to receive Gods Influx if it be nothing but his Agent Essence All these are past the reach of Mortals XX. And it addeth to these difficulties that we are uncertain what use it is that God maketh of Angels in operating on the Soul They are ministring Spirits for the good of them that are Heirs of Salvation about the matters of their Salvation It is absurd to think that Devils whose very powerful Operations on our imagination we surely feel have more power to put evil thoughts into us and stir up evil passions in us than Angels good ones And seeing a Spirit is more active than a Body they that take the Sun to be a Body and perceive that its Beams and Virtue of Light and Heat and Motion is extended to this Earth and incomparably further in a minuite should not take an Angel to be like a stone or staff that moveth no where but where it corporally toucheth and is no where but where it moveth XXI And all Motion and Action hath so many impediments in the world and all Active Natures as fire have so strong a natural inclination to act when they are not hindred by a greater Power that we little know how much of the action of the Soul is promoted by removing impediments internal and external As they that dam up the water all ways save one do force it to rise if it be a stream till it flow that one way Embittering all other things to a Soul doth much to turn its thoughts towards God and dispair of any delight or felicity on Earth maketh Heaven regarded XXII Seeing all naturally-necessary Concauses Objects Media are supposed to the Ratio formalis of Power which is Relative ad possibile he that giveth or taketh away any one of those necessaries doth give or take away Power though he never change the Soul or faculty at all And this is called A moral collation or causation of Power not a moral Power As when a man bringeth a Light into a dark Room he enableth us to see or if he bring in a Book he enableth me to read that which else I could not have read If he open the Windows or if he cure me of blindness by cutting a Suffusion c. So he that preacheth the Gospel to them that had not heard it and God when he gave Christ and the Gospel to be an Object of Faith did make the natural faculty to be more in sensu naturali potentiam ad hoc to which before it was no power but hypothetically only XXIII The Will is not a Power of choosing or willing an unknown good Therefore it may be truly said to be naturally unable to will that which the Intellect perceiveth not to be good And he that giveth knowledge to such a Mind doth truly give more power to the Will as the loss of knowledge is its loss of power Though the Will it self should receive no habitual alteration by it XXIV We must not conceive of the suscitation of an active nature as we do of the motion of dead matter which is meerly passive But as of that which is passive indeed from God and superior Causes but active in it self and on inferiors And I think like the Sun beams passive from no lower nature save by stop or resistance of its own activity XXV As the Scotists distinguish Passive Receptive Power into natural which is naturally disposed to the form received and violent which is averse or opposite to the form or neutral which is indifferent and affirm the Soul to have the first sort of passive power natural to the love of God and supernatural felicity so the distinction is sound and their assertion is true as to the nature of the Soul in it self considered for it was made to love God But accidentally by reason of adventitious pravity it is but potentia passiva violenta for the the carnal mind is enmity to God and neither is nor can be subject to his Law So that it is both natural and violent in several respects XXVI As for the great question what is a moral Power I answer 1. Power may be called Moral ab objecto because it is ad mores and so our natural power is moral and actus humanus and actus moralis are oft put for Synonima's 2. Power may be called moral from the way of effecting it And so our natural Powers also are moral not in the Essence of the Soul but in the Relative form of the power in specie vel individuo ad hoc objectum For he that causeth or revealeth the Object doth by moral causation give us a natural power ad hoc 3. Power is called moral formally In that of it self it is a moral Virtue or Vice Good or Evil which yet could not be true if it were
stir up their distast of others B. The question may have three several senses of passiveness as man is considered 1. In his Nature 2. In his Action And therein 1. In the reception of the Divine Influx 2. In the acting thereupon And so the questions are 1. VVhether mans Soul be an active nature or passive matter only 2. VVhether mans Soul be meerly passive in the reception of the Divine Influx ad agendum 3. VVhether mans Soul be meerly passive in its own first act of Faith or Repentance Tell me Are not these three distinct questions And are they not all that you can devise unless you will make another whether we are merly passive in the preparatory part And are you not now ashamed to confess that you need any answer to any one of these three questions I. All the world is agreed save the Hobbists and Somatists and Sadduces that mans Soul is not meer passive nature but is an active nature inclined to Action as passive Elements are to non-action And that when God moveth it he moveth not Earth Water or Air but a Spirit whose nature is self-moving as fire under the first mover II. All the world is agreed that the Soul and all Spirits are not so purely and meerly active as God is but are partly and first passive and that they do and needs must be receptive of the Divine Influx before they can act For all Creatures depend on the first Cause and both Being Nature and Action would cease if Gods emanation to it ceased And all the world agreeth that no man before Conversion or after doth any act of Faith Love c. no nor eating and drinking and going c. but he is in the first instant passive as influenced by God before he is active Who ever doubted whether physice recipere be pati Did you ever know such a man III. All the world is agreed that man is not meerly passive when he acteth An Act is an Act sure And to believe repent and love is an Act and an act of mans Soul And Scotus who thinketh that immanent Act are qualities as we think of habits yet thinketh that the Soul is truly active antecedently to that quality Where now is there any room for a Controversie C. You would make me believe that we are very ignorant Wranglers that make a noise in our dream and will not suffer others to rest Do not the Arminians say that man concurreth with God to the first act of his own Faith yea that he maketh Gods Grace effectual B. You shall not again tempt me to anticipate the question of effectual Grace though enough is said before to it as far as this Objection is concerned in it Gods Influx on the Soul is one thing mans natural faculty receiving that Influx passively is another And mans Act is another To thrust in here a general word man concurreth and so to run away from clear and necessary distinction is not the part of a man of knowledge Did ever man yet deny that man herein concurreth as aforesaid 1. Man concurreth not to make his Soul nor to continue it in being or power 2. Man concurreth not as any efficient of Gods Influx on his Soul ad agendum 3. But man receptively or passively concurreth as a Receiver of that Influx 4. And man actively thereupon concurreth to believe and repent Is not all this true But you would tempt the Arminians to say that it is you and not they that are herein to be accused For what mean you else by confining the Controversie to the first act of Faith or to our first Conversion Would you make men believe that a converted man is not as truly passive in believing loving God c. as the unconverted is Must not the holiest person be passive in receiving the Divine Influx on his Soul before he do any holy Act You seem to deny this and then you are the person that err by ascribing too much to man If not shew the difference C. There is a habit of Faith goeth before the first Act And it is in respect to that habit that the Arminians say we are active procurers of it which we deny But the godly operate from a habit B. You speak a private Opinion of your own brain against the sense of the Concordant Churches Where doth Scripture say that a habit of Faith goeth before the first Act Mr. Pemble * Vind. Gratâ saith so indeed yet he sometime calleth that but a Seed which at other times he calleth a habit Dr. Ames in his Medulla contradicteth it Bishop Downame * In the end of his Treatise Of Perseverance Le Blank de diss Grat. 2. Thes 22. speaking of our being passive as to operating Grace saith truly Non videntur hac in parte Reformati a sanioribus inter Scholasticos dissentire licet aliis verbis mentem suam exprimant The School-men and Protestants little differ in the method of operations of Grace and all are drawn by Controversies too near curiosity beyond their reach hath written a large Confutation of Mr. Pemble The generality of Protestant Divines contradict it and thus with Rollock de Vocat distinguish Vocation from Sanctification that they suppose Vocation to cause the first act of Faith and Repentance and Sanctification to give us the fixed habit the act intervening Mr. Tho. Hooker is large upon it in his Souls Vocation Will you start one mans Opinion which Calvinists and Arminians are against and feign this to be a difference between Calvinists and Arminians And perhaps Mr. Pemble himself by his first semen or habit meaneth no more than the Divine Influx ad actum received I have before told you how unsearchable the nature of that Influx is and how hard it is to know the true nature of an Habit. C. But Mr. Pemble saith It is the Spirit that is given before we believe B. Away with Ambiguity By the Spirit is meant either the meer received Influx of the Spirit ad agendum and so it is granted Bad men receive the Spirits Influx to such acts as he moveth them to Or else you mean the foresaid fixed Habits and Dispositions to a ready and facile ordinary Operation Or else you mean the Spirit given relatively by Covenant undertaking to be the Sanctifier and Preserver of the Soul In both these latter senses the Spirit is not given before the first act of Faith to Infidels They have not the fixed habits of Holiness Love Hope Obedience c. Otherwise they were holy Infidels No Scripture speaketh it nay contrarily it promiseth the Spirit as to Believers and affirmeth it given after Faith Eph. 1. 13. Joh. 14. 17. 15. 26. Gal. 3. 14. 4. 6. Joh. 7. 39. And that the Holy Ghost is not given in Covenant to Infidels I need not prove to them that will not baptize Infidels The sixth Crimination C. They hold that none are damned only for Adam's sin imputed * Yes Vasqu and other
proportion of gracious means * Protestant Divines do commonly conjoyn the operation of the Spirit and Word as well as Papists and in some cases more Thom. docet q. 22. de Ver. a. 8. Deum inclinare Voluntatem ad aliquid appâtendum eam âfficaciter physice praedeterminando non solum immediate sed etiam mediate aliqua entitate recepta in voluntate ex mente D. Tho. Deus movet omââs causas secundas eas applââa ' ad suas operatioââ ita ut etiam quando ââââât voluntatem aliquid âââimit in illam per moâââ transeuntis Alvaâez de Aux disp 23. p. 114. and helps than to others but leaveth them under the common helps which convert the more prepared Souls Not that God always doth so For oft times to his Elect he doth as he did by Paul or the Eunuch vouchsafe them extraordinary means For as a Benefactor he is free and may do with his own as he list and may make Vessels of Mercy and Honour of them that deserved worst And the case of the Tyrians and Sidonians compared with theirs of Capernaum and Bethsaida doth prove that less means are proportionable to some as being less ill-disposed when greater to others may be uneffectual III. And then as to objective Grace it being the same God the same Heaven the same Christ and the same Promise which is set before all that have the Gospel this cannot be the Controversie Though the revealing means be divers with many so is not the Object nor the Means to all IV. All that remaineth then to be questioned is the Effect which is subjective Grace whether that Grace in one man which is but sufficient be efficient in another or in the same man at several times And here by this subjective Grace is meant either 1. The vis impressa 2. Or the Power 3. Or the Act produced 4. Or the Disposition or Habit. The two latter are shut out of the question which is not whether the Act or Habit be sufficient and effectual but whether the Grace be so that is to cause them Whether this vis impressa be always caused by means with Gods Power set home as the impress of a Signature by the Arm and Seal or be caused immediately by God without any proper means the word being but a Concomitant and not mediate Operator is made a Controversie by some But he that well considereth the Scripture here abouts and the experience of man will be likelier to think that it is God by means that ordinarily maketh the impress on the Soul and that the same impress is the effect of both though extraordinarily God can do without means For 1. It is most likely that God should work on man most agreeably to his nature and to his subject state under God his Governor 2. And Christ himself as our Teacher and Example and all his Gospel are appointed to this use 3. The Ministry and Ordinances are appointed to the same end And Ministers commanded to fit their teaching to that end 4. No man can prove that ever any came to actual Knowledge Faith or Love but by some means Experience telleth Gods Servants that he worketh by them 5. The most apt and powerful usually have best success and those prosper most in Grace that use means best and those speed worst that use them least 6. God strictly commandeth the use of the means as means for that end that his Grace may be wrought by them 7. God promiseth his blessing on the means Act. 26. 17 18. 1 send thee to open their eyes c. Rom. 1. 16. The Gospel is the Power of God to Salvation 2 Tim. 4. 16. Thou shalt save thy self and them that hear thee Jam. 6. last He that converteth a Sinner saveth a Soul from death c. 8. When God forsaketh a Nation by taking away the means he usually forsaketh them as to further Grace 9. The Devil seemeth to know this by his earnest opposition to a holy powerful Ministry and other means throughout the World so that we may say with Cypriam Epist. 69. ad Pupian Ut etiam qui non credebant Deo Episcopum Constitâenti vel Diabâlo credebant Episcopum proscribenti But whether it be by means or not it must be somewhat different from Gods own Essence which is imprinted or communicated And to get a formal conception of it what it is if it be not the Power Disposition Act or Habit is past mans reach Whatsoever it is this is certain 1. That God doth not give an Act as a thing pre-existent but giving Faith is but causing us to believe or do that act our selves which was none till we performed it 2. That quoad effectum disposed Power and Act also are more than Power and Disposition without the act 3. Undoubtedly Dr. Fairfax Of the Bulk c. of the World pag. 5. 6 7 c. Though God be the Maker of every Being that is physicaly so it follows not that he is so of every Being that is morally so It is enough that God is the Maker of the Power to do evil which being good may spring from him c. All that God doth towards sin is to leave us to our selves to bring it forth if we will and instead of driving on to it as a fellow-helper or procatarktick cause he draws from it and towards the good with unspeakable endearments of wooing and drives from it by forbidding the Evil with all that earnestness of threatning which may beget in man the utmostness of dread Nor is he any nearer the physical cause of it than to give that good power which is not the cause at all as it looks towards him for by giving this power he is at the same time the evil is done as much the cause of the good that is not done therefore he is not the cause at all Besides this power is not only good but also needful For though the the perfection of the Will in the next life will not be in a wavering alike towards Good and Evil but only in a selfwillingness to Good yet in this life I think it mainly does and must For this is a life of doing or believing as it looks on to reward in that to come and that is a life of rewarding as it looks back to doing or believing here c. Hence we may answer the old ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã For âs sin is a moral thing c. unbounded Wisdom and Goodness having âaid out endless happiness as a reward for Obedience and endless wretchedness as punishment for sin without this Obedience there could be no Heaven without Sin no Hell And without a power not to do in both there could be neither So then that God may have leave to make man happy for holiness man must needs have power to make himself wretched for sin That evil should always flow from evil in a chain of Breeders is a great misunderstanding Object Then man may
a sweet connatural manner like as an effectual perswader doth not forcing the Will but preserving its liberty and as the Arminians speak not irresistibly or by necessitation leaving the act to be contingent 4. But withal it is most certain that God operateth on the Mind and Will it self and not on the Preacher of the Word only 5. But no mortal man knoweth how nor is able to comprehend his way of operation 11. But next tell me what you mean by Physical which is the other branch of your distinction C. What should I mean but Natural by Real Contact attingency or influx on the Recipient B. 1. God is above Nature and not included in your Physicks How then do you call his operations Physical ex parte agentis No Physicks pretend to treat of God 2. Contact and proper attingency belongeth to Bodies But God is not a Body and therefore the Contact or Influx by which he operateth is utterly unknown to mortal man any farther than that it is by his Essence 3. God is immense and essentially every where and therefore such a Metaphysical Attingency or Contact as may be spoken of him he hath to all things in the world and therefore must do all that he any way doth in such attingency C. Explain it and resolve it your self if you like not my Explication B. Gods operations are called Physical or Moral 1. In regard of God the Agent 2. In regard of the means or second causes 3. Or in respect of the effect I. In respect of God the Agent they are not properly either Physical or Moral but transcendently they are above both for they are his Essence The Papists who are most for meer moral operations in this Controversie yet have such strange opinions about the physical operations of Sacraments e. g. Baptism on Infants as that they make them to be instruments of Miracles the Miracle being first wrought upon them e. g. the water and then on the receiver Yea they seem to make God to operate miraculously with every Sacrament and Will which is the transcendent Head of all operations and causes Physical and Moral II. As to the Means or second Causes those acts of God that have no such means or causes are not here concerned And as for all those that have such means no doubt but they are to be called both Physical and Moral for Morality is but Modality or Relation ex rerum ordine And all Order Mode and Relation is Alicujus entis ordo Modus Relatio And e. g. preaching the Gospel is such an act of a Physical and Moral Agent as is it self both Physical and Moral Man is quaedam natura and yet Intellectual and Free And his act is quid physicum in genere entis and yet quid morale in genere moris imputanda juxta lâegem morum III. And as to the Effect it is no doubt both quid physicum for Faith is actus realis and quid morale For it is morale bonum ita reputanda And will any Arminian deny any of this that understandeth words Where then is your difference in this C. But when you dispute about Pre-determination you can say it is not Physical what mean you by it then B. We marvail that men should say that God physically pre-determineth the Will to all acts of sin in the specifying circumstances when as he pre-determineth it not really to them at all either physically or morally So that it is here a Real efficient motion of God to the evil act which we deny C. And it is a Real efficient motion of God to the act of Faith and Repentance which we assert and mean by the word Physical B. And this your Adversaries will not deny and so you are in this agreed The fourth Crimination C. I doubt they hold not Faith to be infused but acquired whereas Arminius professeth Faith and Repentance Nisi Deo dante haberi non posse Exam. Perk. pag. 57. and that both of them are denied to the Reprobates by the Decree of Reprobation See his own words At Deus statuit Dâereto reprobationis reprobis fidem poenitentiam non dare concedo lubens illam assumptionem sed recte intellectam Twisse against Hord p. 70. l. 1. Dr. Twisse sheweth the difference to be so great that an unjustified person may have an Acquired Faith about the same objects when yet only an Infused Faith will justifie B. 1. Tell not me what you Doubt but what you Prove unless you mean no more than to tell me of your injustice and uncharitableness I find the Jesuites and Lutherans commonly asserting an Infused Faith and I have met with few Arminians if any that deny it though the word be not so much in use with them 2. But because you that are the Accuser are supposed to understand what you speak against I pray help me to understand it Quest 1. What mean you by Acquired Faith C. That which we our selves get by our use of means and consideration B. Quest. 2. Is there any man in his wits that denieth Faith to be the effect of consideration Do you not think what and why you must believe and even believe in and by Thinking or Considering Do you believe and not think what or why C. No but it is by Infusion that we have those thoughts B. Infused Faith then is by Infused Thoughts Be it so but then it is not without Thoughts or Consideration But further Quest 3. Is there any Christian that denieth that Faith cometh by hearing and the use of the means which God hath appointed us I pray you hear Dr. Twisse against Hord pag. 169. God in his Covenant of Grace requireth obedience to salvation but of his Free Grace undertakes to regenerate them and work them to obedience But how agreeable to their rational natures that is by admonition instruction exhortation that is to work Faith and Repentance by exhorting and perswading them to repentance All this he performs by his Ministers Do you not believe that the Apostles were sent to open mens eyes and turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God Acts 26. 17 18. And that Ministers must The Schoolmen-men and even the Jesuites ordinarily profess the necessity of infused Grace yea many of them in a higher sense than many Protestants dare own Even Molina himself asserteth the supernaturarality of Grace thus Ut consensus liberi arbitrii Deo excitanti vocanti per gratiam praevenientem nihil in re sit qd non supernaturale quod non simul a Deo emaâet non solum tanquam ab allicâente excitante invitante ad id arbitrinm sed etiam tanquam a co-operanee per auxilium gratiae And he pronounceth Anathema on them that affirm Consensum arbitrii nostri Deo excitanti vocanti per auxilium Gratiae praevenientis esse actum naturalem aut posse elici sine auxilio co-operatione ejusdem praevenientis Gratiae
finem Now either there is such a middle Impulse or not If not then besides Gods essence there is no effect on us antecedent to our consent but the said cogitation and passion And 1. These are commonly said not to necessitate the will 2. And if they do it must be but Morally which is commonly held to be no way of necessitating though it may be of ascertaining the event And so consent or our Volition it self would be but of co-operating Grace And if there be such a middle Impulse as Gregory holdeth it is confessed by him and the Dominican praedeterminants to determine the will only to act freely and therefore not to necessitate it to consent but only to ascertain it and so the Volition will be as free as but by co-operating Grace though the Impulse would be necessary which tendeth to it of a special Grace for every preparatory Act. But of the rest I doubt B. And then 2. Sure you cannot deny it as to well prepared Souls 1. Because you granted that the same degree of help may be effectual to a disposed Soul 2. And so the Help though universal will to a prepared Soul be proportionable to the desired effect and is nevertheless Grace or powerful to such for being universal or uneffectual to others 3. And it seems that such a kind of degree of Grace was effectual on Adam before his fall and uneffectual in his fall 4. And it seemeth congruous to Gods other works that he give Grace suitable to his Law and Promise which shall not be always uneffectual So that it is most probable that to prepared Souls that ordinary established degree of the Spirits Influx from Christ which is universal but uneffectual to the unprepared is not only sometimes but ordinarily effectual I think none can prove the contrary And the same Grace you confess to be effectual to preparation But to unprepared Souls whom God will suddenly convert out of the ordinary way a special extraordinary operation seemeth necessary But wherein the extraordinariness of it consisteth antecedent to faith the second effect besides the extraordinary means I think it past mans reach to know C. Well now tell us Unde Gratia fit Efficax B. Any ordinary Logician will tell you that the effect is from all the causes and not from any one alone It is effectual in that it produceth the effect To which each cause doth its proper part and one is not all The effect in question now is Faith Faith is caused as is said 1. By Gods will as the Original 2. By Christ as sending the Spirit and meriting Grace first 3. By the Spirit as the Operator 4. By the Gospel as the Instrument 5. By the Preacher as a Sub-Instrument 6. But all this effecteth ordinarily in materia disposita and no other Having before wrought that preparation 7. But extraordinarily in materia indisposita working disposition and all at once Now here 1. Gods Will doth its part without any cause Velle ex parte Dei sicuâ agere is his essence and the termination of it in rem Volitatam hath no efficient but only an Objective Cause 2. This prime Cause is the prime reason of all the efficacy of Inferior Causes Not qua voluntas simply moving them but qua voluntas cum potentia executiva moving them and qua volitio inferreth the necessitatem consequentiae of the effect So that plainly I think that no Good cometh to pass in the world but what God forewilled and nothing which he absolutely willeth cometh not to pass what he fore-knoweth is necessary necessitate Infallibilitatis and what he absolutely willeth necessitate Imutabilitatis and what he worketh from such a will is necessary necessitate invincibilitatis 3. Though all the other Causes are the reason of the effect and not only the first yet none of them operate on the first Cause and put any force into it for the act So that its force is from it self but theirs from it And having said this much preparatorily I thus resolve your great question Here are three things before us whose cause may be enquired of 1. The necessitas Logica consequentiae ex quo in ordine probandi necessario sequitur eventum futurum esse And this is the Decree or Will of God yea and his fore knowledge This is presupposed 2. The prime effect of Gods Will and Active power operating And this prime effect is not our Faith or Act but the Impression or Received Influx of God on the Soul For the Soul receiveth its like some Impression by the Divine Influx by which it believeth or acteth it self It doth not Receive its own Act as if that act had been first pre-existent in the Donor but it performeth that Act because it is premoved to it Now if the question be of this first effect Unde operatio Gratiosa sit efficax I answer 1. The whole efficient reason is in the operator and operation it self It is effectual ad impressionem ex natura rei because it is an Act If it did nothing it were no Act transient 2. And the specification and individuation is from the terminating object It is denominatively and Relatively one Act which is on a Stone and another on a Soul de specie And it is numerically one which is on Peter and another on John If the Sun did shine in vacuo there being no other creature to be objective or passive it would still agere but it would nihil efficere quia nihil afficere So God is one Infinite act and ex parte sui never begineth to act nor ever ceaseth nor is divided But transiently he doth nihil afficere vel efficere but first by making objects and then acting on them So that were there no mobile Gods act would not movere This first effect then of Impress hath an Effective and an Objective Cause The Effective Cause is Gods Essence that is his Active Power Intellect and Will and nothing else Supposing now that it be not Gods operation on the Instrument or medium that we speak of but immediately on the Soul it self But Man's Soul is the Objective Recipient Cause of this first effect which is the Impress or Influx received 3. The Secondary effect is Mans Act Faith and Repentance it self If the question Unde Gratia sit efficax mean this as with most it doth then it is all one as to ask Unde hic Effectus For that Gods Influx on the Soul immediately is the sole Cause is false Therefore the answer is that this effect is from all the Causes conjunct From Gods Will or Law and Power and Wisdom from Christs mission of the Spirit before merited from the Spirits Impress or Influx from the Gospel from the Ministry usually and from the Agent Believer all these as the efficient Causes And it is from or on the prepared Soul ordinarily as the Materia disposita vel Causa Receptiva Objectiva of the Divine operation And from or on God Christ the promise
or degrees II. But if your question be of the Effect it is ridiculous or past question Do you ask what Grace in us it is that maketh the Difference between a Believer and an Infidel Why your question answereth it self It is Faith and that maketh the difference in one as Infidelity doth in the other Do you ask what is sufficient To what If to Salvation it is perseverance in Faith and Holiness If to Justification it is Faith if to Faith and Conversion nothing pre-existent in us Do you ask what maketh Grace effectual what Grace mean you If Faith it 's none of the doubt or Controversie It is improperly effectual to Justification being no efficient of it but a Condition which is a Receptive dispoâition ex ordinatione divina virtute foederis You must recur then and ask what maketh Gods Essence or Spirit effectual As if Gods essence had a Cause or suffered from the Creature But if you mean no more but what are the Causes of Faith that 's another question oft answered Choose now whether you will lay all our Controversies on that fine thred of Gods various Impress on the faculties in order of Nature antecedent to Faith in act or true habit or else confess that we have no difference nor shew of any but have many ages abhominably abused the world C. But seeing you maintain that God as a free Lord and Benefactor doth vary his gifts of Grace as he doth of Nature though we know not when he doth it Morally and by means and when by Immediate differing Impress yet methinks you should hold that by one of the two he always doth it And that equal Grace hath never unequal effects by the unequal free reception rejection or other difference made by man B. To conclude this whole dispute 1. * By Grace here I mean not with Bradwardine Gods Will as denominated from various objects Gods Will in it self is but One and the Effects are many and the Will is variously denominated virtually ex connotatione terminorum vel effectuum If he could prove more diversity in Gods Will or that no man can do any thing but what he doth I should be of his mind That equal universal Grace can end in different effects in the same Man and in divers men by man's own free various concourse or neglect I have fully proved to you 2. And when we have proved that such a Grace there is and so it can do we have great reason to think that sometimes it doth so And no man can prove that it never doth so 3. And de facto I have proved that sometimes it doth so in Adam's case and in Cain's making a difference before God denyed him sufficient Grace And in all bad men and good men in the world who sometimes sinfully omit to do that which by the same Grace they could have done and did another time 4. But de facto How oft and when and in how many God converteth men by the one way or the other no Mortal man can tell And therefore forget not that when I call universal Grace ordinary and the special different Grace extraordinary I intend not to tell you which God most usually doth the work by as distinct from the other But I call one Ordinary because it is common to all or more in it self and also concurreth always with the other in its work and so is never left out And I call the other Extraordinary because it is above the universal degree and way and proper to some as superadded C. You did well to remember that For I was offended that you called that Different Grace Extraordinary B. I say again to conclude I will earnestly intreat you to take heed of these few errors in your foundation here that they mislead not your understanding in all the controversie I. Do not think that God must needs act ad ultimum posse in all his operations It 's certain that as to many possible effects he doth omnino non agere as to make more Suns more Men more Worlds And if he can therein totally not act he can act limitedly or in tantum only as he freely will II. Do not think these degrees of Operation as various ex parte Dei for they are but his most simple essence Nor do not Imagine that there is a certain Vis media called Grace which is somewhat Causal between the Creator and the Creature I doubt such a wrong conceit lyeth at the bottom of all these disputes and men think that besides Gods essence and the effects on the Soul there is some middle force or cause called Grace which is neither God nor a Creature whose kind and degree they enquire after * As Aureoluâ maintaineth III. Do not overlook the Glory that God designeth to himself in his SAPIENTIAL Kingdom Government and operations I doubt some think so much of Strength and Power alone as if they thought God were Glorified by nothing else or more in an Oxe or Horse than in a Man And whatever is ascribed to Gods Sapiential operation they contemptuously call A Moral Causing and not a Physical As if God must move men as he doth the air the water or a stone Remember that though Gods Omnipotent Activity his Wisdom and his Will do still inseparably co-operate yet they have each its eminent Impress Effect and Glory And so the frame of Nature is the Glorious Impress of Omnipotency with Wisdom and Love The Kingdom of God on earth especially of Grace is the Glorious work of the Wisdom of God directly governing Man as a Moral agent by Moral means And the Kingdom of Glory as foretasted on Earth and perfect in Heaven is the glorious work of Divine Love Separate not these nor undervalue or dishonour any one of them But study the Glory of Gods Sapiential Kingdom and works And remember that Moral Means and Moral Operations of God are not unsuitable to the Government of Moral Agents in Moral works IV. Forget not the great difference between the way of operation suitable to such a Moral Rector as such and to a meer Proprietor or Actor and Benefactor And then you will see that standing Laws are the Rectors Instruments and Judgments and Executions equal according to those Laws And that Life Eternal and Gods Glory and pleasure being the ends of Government it cannot be doubted but Gods Laws to all the world have some aptitude and suitableness on their part to that end And therefore that the frame of Moral means and annexed help hath a certain universal equality antecedent to man's sinful will which by forfeiture and rejection maketh an inequality And therefore it is one of the noblest parts of your study here to find out what Acts God doth as Legislator for those are first and equal and as Judge which man maketh unequal and what he doth as Owner and free-Benefactor For so he may make what difference he pleases And the wonderful varieties through all the
Remedying means and duties for himself Lib. No that must not be imagined P. Quest 2. Is not all this commanded by the Law of Grace Lib. Yes If it be a Law P. Quest 3. Was not Christ under a Law which bound him 1. To obey all the precepts of nature perfectly without sin 2. To obey all the Mosaical Law as far as he was capable 3. To do all this a sa Mediator to reconcile God and man And to dye for sinners to work Miracles to send out Apostles to gather a Chruch to intercede for us and to present us Justified and perfect to his father And are we obliged to do so too Lib. No one so imagineth P. Quest 4. Did not Christ as a Covenanter undertake all this And do we do so too And do not we in Baptism our selves consent and promise to take God the Father Son and Holy Ghost for our Father Saviour and Sanctifier and to forsake the flesh the world and the devil Is it Christ only that is Baptized Nay did Christ ever receive such a Baptism as this to wash away his sins and deliver him a pardon Is it Christ or we that at Baptism make these promises to God Is it to Christ or us that Christ himself saith If thou believe and repent thou shalt be saved Doth Christ as King make Laws and Covenants to bind himself only Who seeth not that hath any sense of Scripture matters that The Mediators case office and work is one and ours another that It is one Law that was given him and another to us yea that which seemeth the same was another being not formally but materially only the same and forma denominat For he was to fulfil the Law of Moses and of Innocency to such ends as a Redeemer and with such difference from our case that it was not formally but materially and that but in part the same Law and so his Baptism was formally another thing from any ones Baptism else in the World It was one thing that Christ promised and undertook in his Covenant with the Father and it 's another thing that we undertake and promise It 's one thing that God promiseth to Christ upon his Merits that he shall see of the âravail of his soul and be satisfied and another thing that he promiseth us that our persons shall be Justified sanctified and saved In a word by the Law given to Christ Christ himself is Governed as a Subject and Justified and Rewarded by God as his Judge for fulfilling it By the Law given to us we are the subjects and Christ is the Governour Lawgiver and our Judge who will Justifie reward or condemn and punish us I know not how that man can preach the Gospel that knoweth not the difference between the Law and Covenant made to and with Christ as Mediatour and the Law and Covenant made to and with us and in Baptism solemnly prosessed Children should not be ignorant of it Lib. But it is the same thing which is promised to Christ and us viz. that we shall be justified and saved and this is promised first to Christ and therefore the words cited may be justified Christ is the seed of the woman who is first to break the Serpents head Gen. 3. 15. P. 1. The same thing may be promised to different persons in different Covenants To promise to Christ that his elect shall be saved and to promise Believers that they shall be saved are two promises 2. What one word do you find in Gen. 3. of a Covenant or promise made to Christ It 's true that he is the principal Seed there meant though not the only But he is the Promised Seed It 's one thing for a promise to be made to Christ and another thing that Christ as the viâtorious seed â be promised to man There is no promise in Gen. 3. to Christ mentioned ââ and what can be meant by a Promise of God to God himself but a prophecy and promise of a Saviour to man But if there had that would not have proved these two to be one Understand the tenour and difference of these several Laws and Covenants of God or pretend not to understand the Scripture viz. 1. The Law and Covenant of Innocency made to Adam â The Law and Covenant made to and with the Mediatour for our Redemption 3. The promise Law or Covenant of Grace of the first Edition made to Adam and all in him and renewed with Noe and mankind in him 4. The Law and Covenant both of Common Grace and of Peculiarity at once given to Abraham and perfected in the Law and Covenant of Works made by Moses with the Jews 5. The Law and Covenant of Grace made by the Incarnate Mediatour and the Father by him in the second perfect Edition with eminent peculiarity CHAP. VI. Whether the New Covenant of Grace have any Conditions Lib. V. BY feigning the Covenant of Grace to have Conditions you make it to be a Covenant of works P. Either by works you mean any humane acts And so all Gods Covenants with man and his Laws are of works that is It is some act of man that they require For what else can be commanded Or you mean as Paul doth when he calls the Jews Law a Law of works And if so you falsifie his doctrine or ours Prove if you can that by works he meaneth every humane Act and that Faith it self is either no Act of man or the works meant by him Lib. Faith is a work but it is not put in the Covenant as a work required of us but as a gift to be given to us freely P. Judge whether it be required of us and that formally as a condition by such texts as these yea whether obedience be not required as a Condition of our salvation which is promised thereupon 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come Mark 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Rom. 10. 8 9 10 13. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead N. B. this is an act distinct from accepting his Righteousness thou shalt be saved For with the heart man believeth unto Righteousness and with the mouth Confession is made unto salvation For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved Matth. 6. 14 15. For if ye forgive men their trespasses your Heavenly Father will also forgive you But if c. Rev. 22. 14. Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have Right to the tree of life c. See Isa 1. 16 17 18. 55. 6 7. Luk. 13. 3 5. 1 Joh. 1. 9. Act. 3. 19. Heb. 5. 9 c. Lib. God promiseth a Reward to our Actions not as ours but as hâ own gifts P. 1. Enough is said of Rewards before We shall
imputed to us for righteousness If it be only the object and not faith why is it so often called faith believing being perswaded c. Will you say that It is not faith as an act of ours only Whoever dreamt it was For à quatenus ad omne If as an act then every act even plowing and walking and sinning would justifie us Will you say that It is not Faith as a Moral Virtue or Good act only Who saith it is For then every moral good act would justifie men Do you say that It is not by faith as faith in genere It is granted you For else à quatenus ad omne any act of faith would justifie even believing that there is a Hell Will you say that it is not any other species of faith besides our baptismal faith We grant it you But if you will also say that It is not this species even the Christian faith neither that is meant but only the object of it then 1. Why say you that it is Faith as connoting the object contradicting your self for if be not faith at all it is not faith as connoting that which is not doth not connote 2. And why say you that it is not faith it self essentially Is not the object essential as an object to the act in specie Is it not essential to our Christian faith to be a Believing in Christ 3. But what sober unprejudiced Christian that readeth the Text throughout and hath not been instructed to pervert it can choose but see that it is Faith it self that the Apostle speaketh of and that it is our personal Relation of Righteousness that it is said to be imputed for And who can believe that this is the sense Abrahams faith was imputed to him for Christs Righteousness or this either His faith that is Christs Righteousness and not his faith was imputed to him for Christs Righteousness Undoubtedly by faith is meant faith and by Righteousness is meant our own Relation But it is most easie to discern that the plain sense is Christ being presupposed the Meriter of our Justification and Salvation which he hath given the world conditionally by a Law of Grace or Covenant Donation by which now he ruleth and judgeth us all that this Covenant Gift or Law requireth on our part to make us Righteous and entitle us to the Spirit and everlasting life is that as Pânitent Believers we accept Christ and life according to the nature ends and uses of the gift and this also by his grace Reader hold close to this plain Doctrine which most of the lower sort of Christians know who have not faln into perverters hands and youâ will have more solid and practical and peaceable truth about this point than either Dr. Thomas Tullie or Maccovius or Mr. Crandââ or Dr. Crispe or the Marrow of Modern Divinity * Written by an honest Barber Mr. Fisher as is said and applauded by divers Independent Divines or Paul Hobson or Mr. Saltmarsh or any such Writers do teach you in their learned Net-work Treatises by which being Wise or Orthodox overmuch being themselves entangled and confounded by incongruous notions of mans invention they are liker to entangle and confound you than to shew you the best method and grounds for the peace of an understanding dying man Christs Righteousness is Imputed or Reckoned to be as it is the total sole Meritorious Cause of all that Grace and Glory given us in and by the Conditional Law or Covenant of Grace and of our Grace for performance of the Conditions and it needeth nothing at all of ours to make it perfect to this use nor hath our faith any such supplemental Office But this condition of our part in Christ and of our Right to his Covenant-gifts must be performed and the sentence of Absolution or Condemnation life or death must be passed on us accordingly it being not Christ but we by this very Law that are to be Judged Justified or Condemned And this is the Condemnation that light is come into the World and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil But to as many as Received him he gave Right to become the Sons of God even to them that believe in his name And there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit For being perfected he is become the Author of eternal Salvation to all them that obey him And it is not they that cry Lord Lord that shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but he that doth the will of our heavenly Father For Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is and of that to come CHAP. X. Whether Gods justifying those to day that were yesterday unjustified signifie any change in God P. IX OF this also I have said so much in my Apologie to Dr. Kendall and in the two first parts of this Book before that I shall now put you off with this short notice 1. There is nothing changed or new in God That which on his part is in God the Cause of our Justification is his eternal simple essence 2. But Gods Essence Understanding or Will considered simply in it self is not to be called Mans Justification But the effect produced by it And partly the extrinsick object as terminating Gods act and so by extrinsick denomination or connotation Gods Essential Intellect and Will is said de novo to justifie But it is only man that is really changed 3. The New effect in man from which God is said de novo to justifie him is 1. A new Right or Relation to Christ pardon and life and to the Father and the Holy Ghost 2. A new objective termination of Gods estimation acceptance and complacency And 3. A new heart hereupon at the same instant given us I think none of this is from eternity And that as God did de novo make the world and judge it existent and love and order it as existent without any change in him as also millions of creatures proceed from his simple Unity so is it here And this needeth no more words with knowing or teachable men And to others there is no end CHAP. XI Whether a Justified man should be afraid of becoming unjustified Lâb THis fear of losing our justification which you teach men is most injurious to Gods free grace and immutability and a rack for Conscience to destroy mens peace P. I have said so much of this before about Perseverance and Assurance as forbiddeth me tedious repetitions Here needeth no more but this explication of the matter which you confound 1. Fear is either Causeful or Causeless 2. Fear is either such as hindereth comfort or such as helpeth it 3. Fear is either a Duty or an unavoidable natural passion or a sin of unavoidable infirmity or a more deadly or heinous sin 4. It 's one thing to cause and cherish Fear and another thing to teach men that cannot avoid
to sin entertained we must go as far from sin as we can But poor deceived souls run into it under the conceit of going far enough from it and sometimes into greater than they avoid S. What sin have such Protestants run into in their opposition to Popery P. I will tell you some I. In Doctrine and II. In the consequentâ and practice I. It is more than one injudicious Protestant Divine that hath printed such unfound Opinions as these in opposition to Popery for want of judgement 1. While they plead against the Romish false Tradition they have weakned faith by denying that necessary use of Historical Tradition of Scripture which Christianity doth suppose As others have denyed the necessary use of Reason unto faith 2. They have wronged the Church by undervaluing the Tradition of the Creed and the Essentials of Christianity by many means besides the Scriptures 3. They have much wronged the Protestant Cause by denying the perpetual Visibility of the Church and almost given it away as I have shewed against Johnson 4. And their dânyal of its Universality and confining it long to the Waldenses and such others is an exceeding injury to the Church and Truth 5. And so is some mens over-doing as for the Scripture who teach men that they can be no surer of Christianity as delivered many years in Baptism before any of the New Testament was written than they are that there is no one error in all the Bible by the carelesness of the Scribes and Printers nor any humane frailty in the phrase 6. And also their feigning the Scripture perfection to consist in its being a particular determiner of all those circumstances of which it is only a general rule 7. And those that make every form of prayer or Ceremony to be Antichristian 8. And those that make Justifying faith to be a certainty or full perswasion that we are elected and pardoned and shall be saved 9. And those that say that To believe that I am justified is to believe Gods Word or âides divina either as most say because one of the premises is in Scripture or as excellent Chamier saith because the Witness of the Spirit is Gods Word 10. And those that say All that have true faith are sure they have such as Keckerman and too many others 11. Those that deny Christ to have made any Law 12. And those also that assert Imputation of Christs Righteousness in that sense which I have proved to subvert the Gospel 13. And those that deny Faith it self to be Imputed for righteousness 14. And those that deny that there is any personal Evangelical Righteousness in our selves that is any way necessary to our Justification 15. And those that lay all the stress of Faiths Justifying us on the notion of Instrumental efficiency 16. And those that say we are Justified by no act of faith but its receiving Christs Righteousness and all other acts of faith are the Worâs by which none is justified 17. And those that say that Evangelical obedience is not meritorious as it signifieth only Rewardable in point of Paternal Evangelical Governing Justice and as all the antient Fathers used that word because we merit not by Commutation 18. And those that say that man hath no free-will at all of any sort to spiritual good 19. And those that say that Christ was in Gods reputation the greatest sinner or wicked man Adulterer Murderer hater of God in all the world 20. And those that say that he suffered in soul Pain altogether of the same kind with those that the damned suffer in Hââ 21. And those that in opposition to the Popish Government Confession Austerities and several acts of Worship do run into the conârary extream against due Government Confession Austerities c. And those that from dark uncertainty or à minus notiâ do gather many conclusions against known truth I pass by such as the Antinomians who as I have proved subveât the Gospel it self by running into the contrary extream from Popeâââ S. You are as âad as Parker or the Debate-maker that thâs lây sâândal on the Reformers themselves If these were their faults you ââââ cover them and not open them This had been enough for â Romish Râbshakeh P. You know not what it is that you say This is to aâhoââââââtance and to preferr the honour of man before the honour of God yea to let the shame be cast on Gods Word and Religion lest the erroâ of ââââ be shamed But all men are lyars that is fallible and God is ââââ He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy but he that hideth it shall not prosper Are there not with you even with you also saith the Prophet sins against the Lord our God Why hath God recorded in Scripture the faults of so many of his servants and fomeâ them to such open Confessions Did Paul wrong Peter and ââââ Gal. â or the Ministry when he said All seek their own thingâ and noâe the things of Jesus Christ or did the Evangelists wrong all âhe Disciples by saying that They all forsook him and fled or James all Cââstians saying In many things we offend âll I think the Prouâ Impeâitence of many Professors that will not confess sin nor endure to be ââled to it lest Religion be dishonoured is that great dishonour to Religion which God hath been long punishing us for When such evils have ââââ held and done as our age hath known either it must be said that they are not evil or that they are If we deny it and say they are God ââââ and mâns duty we feign God and Scripture and Religion to be for all that evil which is to blaspheme If we say It is evil we must saââ that we are the guilty causes of it God will teach Ministers and Professors instead of Pharisaical self-justification to take open shame to themselves that he and Religion may be vindicated before he will deliver us from shame and sorrow And he that will save his honour against this shame shall lose it and he that will thus lose it and cast it away shall most effectually recover it S. I think you would fain perswade us that Protestants are as bad as Papists and perswade us into the Roman Tents P. That is but your pievish inference But little do you know how much of Popery it self you have while you think that you hate it more than I. S. You would make me believe any thing if you make me think that I have more of Popery than you P. 1. Do not you agree with them in consining the Catholick Church to one Sect or Party only They to their Sect and You to yours 2. Do you not agree with them in your vehement condemnation of dissenters only they excommunicate and burn them and you deny them your communion and reproach them But their charity extendeth much further than yours and you condemn more dissenters than they do 3. Do you not agree with them in
against those things which their ignorance misrepresenteth to themselves And so Gods ordinances are made a snare to souls which are appointed for their salvation and the man that can kindle in his hearers a transporting passion against this or that opinion or form as Popish is cryed up for an excellent preacher and seemeth to edifie the people while he destroveth them 11. And by this means you seem to justifie the Papists lyes and calumnies against the Protestants by doing as they do They belye Luther Zuinglius Calvin Beza c. with just such intentions and such a kind of zeal as some over doing Sectaries belye them And is it bad in them and good in you 12. You teach the people a dangerous and perverse way of reasoning à minùs notis which will let in almost any errours From a dark text in the Revelations or Daniel or from the supposition that the Pope is the Antichrist and all Papists have received the mark of the beast you gather conclusions against the notorious duties of Love and peace which the light of nature doth commend to all Not that I am perswading you that the Pope is not Antichrist but that all things be received but according to their proper degree of evidence S. Now you open your self indeed All that revolt to Popery begin there with questioning whether the Pope be the Antichrist and telling men of the darkness of the Book of Revelations P. I tell you I will abate no certainty that you have but increase my own and yours if I could but I would not have any falsly to pretend that they are certainer of any thing than they are And no certainty can go beyond the ascertaining evidence And if all Scriptures be equally plain St. Peter was deceived that tells us of many things hard to be understood which the unlearned wrest as other Scriptures to their own destruction And if the Revelations be not one of the hardest I crave your answer to these questions 1. Why are five Expositors usually of four opinions in the expounding of it when it is those that have spent much of their lives in studying it as Napier Brightman c. who are the Expositors 2. Why will none of you that find it so easie at last write one certain Commentary which may assure which of all the former if any one of them was in the right 3. Why did Calvin take it to be too hard for him and durst not venture to expound it 4. And if you take it to be so necessary as you pretend tell me whether it was so necessary and so taken by all those Churches that for a long time received it not as Canonical Scripture Surely they were saved without believing it Though no doubt but the book of Revelation is a great mercy to the Church and all men should understand as much of it as they can But all that I blame you for here is the perverting of the order of proof in arguing à minùs notis 13. And these over-doers that run things into the contrary extreams do most injuriously weaken the Protestant cause by disabling themselves and all men of their principles to defend it and arming the Papists against it by their errors When it cometh to an open dispute by Word or Writing one of these mens errors is like a wound that lets out blood and spirits and puts words of triumph into the adversaries mouth A cunning Papist will presently drive the ignorant disputant to resolve his cause into his mistake and then will open the falshood of that and thence inferr the falshood of all the rest And what an injury is that to the souls of the auditors who may be betrayed by it and to the cause it self For instance If one of our over-doers hold that we are reputed to have kept all the Law of Innocency and merited salvation our selves by Christ or that no act of faith is Justifying but the accepting of his righteousness or that faith Justifieth only as the efficient instrumental cause or that we have no righteousness which hath any thing to do in our Justification but only Christs imputed Merits or that mans faith Love or obedience are not rewardable c. how easily will a Papist open the falshood of such an opinion to the hearers and then tell them that they may see by this who is in the right And alas what work would one Learned Papist make in London by publick disputing if we had no wiser men to deal with him than these over-doers They may call Truth and Sobriety Antichristian and talk nonsence as against Popery successfully to their own party but I hope never to see the cause managed by their publick disputes lest half the Congregation turn Papists on it at once If Chillingworth had not been abler to confute a Papist than those that used to calumniate him as Popish or Socinian he had done less service of that kind than he did 14. And it is an odious injury that these Over-doers do to the ancient and the universal Church while in many cases they ignorantly or wilfully reproach and condemn them as if they were all the favourers of Popery and call their ancient doctrine and practice Antichristian Some of them ignorantly falsifie the Fathers doctrine and upon trust from their Leaders averâ that they held that which they plainly contradict and that which they held indeed they cry out against as Popery Such an instance we have newly in a Souldier Major Danvers an Anabaptist which I have detected And will Christ take it well to have almost all his Church condemned as Antichristian 15. And hereby what an honour is done to Popery and what a dishonour to the Reformed Churches when it shall be concluded that all the Churches heretofore even next after the age of the Apostles and almost all the present Churches were and are against the doctrine of the Protestants and on the Papists side And yet how many do us this injury and the Roman Church this honour About the nature of Justifying faith and its office to Justification and about the nature of Justification it self and Imputation of Righteousness and free-will and mans Works and Merits and about assurance of salvation and perseverance how many do call that Popery which the whole current of Greek and Latine Fathers do assert and all the ancient Churches owned and most of all the present Churches in the world And those that call all forms of prayer Popery or the English Liturgie at least when almost all the Christian world have forms and most such as are much worse do but tell men that the Christian world is on the side that they oppose and against their way 16. And it is a crime of infamy to be taken for Separatists from the universal Church And in doctrines and forms of Worship not only to avoid what we take to have been a common weakness but also to condemn them as Antichristian or as holding pernicious errours is but
are wrought by common grace and that it is special acts and habits overcoming the flesh and world which are wrought by special grace So that those firemen that are resolved that yet differ they will and implacably differ and their adversaries shall be enemies of Gods Grace whether they will or not are yet defective in that acuteness and pregnancy of wit which is necessary to pretend a real disagreement and are forced to say that they disagree when they have not wit enough to seem to prove it to any but those that take their cholerick zeal and reproach for proof For in this there is no difference among us 6. Obj. At least we can prove that we differ in this about the effects that one side make Gods gracious habits given to believers to be such as may be lost and dye and the other do not Answ That is no difference You still want wit to make differences though you want not will For both sides are agreed that perseverance ariseth not from the meer nature of the Habit of grace but from Gods superadded sustentation For Adam and the faln Angels had as is commonly held such kind of habitual grace as we though objectively differing 7. Seeing there is no difference on Gods part as they all conclude Resistible grace and irresistible sufficient and effectual can have no difference but in the very effect or event and the connotation of mans Power or impotency to the contrary I know as I have said that not only the Dominicans and Calvinists but Suarez and other Jesuits say that Effectual Grace is such ex parte principii as is forcibler for faith as the effect But they contradict themselves who confidently say that besides that effect it is nothing but Gods essence which hath no degrees or real differences And mans power of Resistance and frustration is none as to Gods will and essence but only as to the effect When he could have done otherwise 8. The same Vanity they declare in the question Whether the same degree of Divine Grace help or operation would Convert one man as doth another or would Convert as doth not Convert When they are agreed that the effect is not the same and that the cause hath no degrees of difference 9. And though it 's past mans understanding to comprehend how all the various effects in the world should be produced without the least diversity in the Cause Will or Action ex parte agentis and that Velle salvare Petrum velle damnare Judam should be perfectly the same Volition ex parte Volentis yet it is the liker to be true because man cannot comprehend it as long as he hath no evidence to prove that it is not true For God is incomprehensible 10. Seeing then that we must concent 1. That God Decreed to do all that he doth and properly and absolutely no more 2. And that Christs death is the cause of all that it effecteth and properly of no more Of which the conditional gift of pardon and life is part And so that all the Controversie 1. Of Decree 2. Of Redemption is resolved into that of the effects 3. And seeing all the effects are such whose difference we little differ about if at all and ex parte Dei agentis they agree that there is no difference where then is the Difference among all the contenders §. II. Alvarez his Epitome in Twenty Propositions considered BUt that all this may more plainly appear I will recite the Twenty Conclusions which Alvarez in his Epilogus giveth us as the summ of all his Book one hundred twenty one Disputations And I shall tell you how far they are all to be consented to * Thus Bradwardine concludeth his Book with thirty six errors and as many verities which he would have the Church especially that of Rome determine But leaving out the most unsavoury parts or expressions of his own judgement Whether God be the chief necessitating Cause of all sin is none of them I. Free-will in lapsed nature cannot without the help of grace do a moral work which by co-operation of the supernatural End shall be truly good and a work of Virtue so as that by the doer it be referred to God beloved simply above all as to the ultimate natural End Answ It is granted and more that though all natural men have one sort of Grace given them yet I think this cannot be done without special saving grace II. Man by the sole strength of nature cannot assent to all supernatural mysteries propounded and explained to him as revealed of God or because revealed of God so as the formal reason of his belief is Divine revelation Answ It 's true He must have commoner grace to believe them dogmatically and uneffectually and special saving grace to believe them practically and savingly III. Not only faith it self but also the first beginning of faith proceedeth from the help of grace and not from the strength of Nature only Answ Very true IV. The free-will of man in lapsed Nature cannot without the help of Grace Love God above all simply even as he is the author of Nature Answ It 's true V. Man in lapsed Nature without the help of Grace cannot fulfill all the precepts even of the Law of Nature nor overcome any great difficulty and temptation even for any little time which it is necessary to overcome for the keeping of that Law Answ True Therefore they have some Grace that do it VI. There is no Law nor ever was made by God of his giving the actual helps of preventing grace to them that do all that is in them by the sole faculty of nature nor hath Christ merited or would have any such Law Answ True For he giveth some common grace to all men antecedently without any condition on their part And though he give to those that use their common grace to the utmost or near it sufficient encouragement to go on and hope that such endeavour shall not be in vain as to the obtaining of peculiar grace yet de nomine vel definitione Whether this encouragement shall be called a Law or a Promise or neither we contend not VII God by his helping grace floweth into free-will by premoving it that it may co-operate and also truly-efficiently together with the same free-will causeth its pious operation Answ It 's true But all adjuvant grace produceth not the second effect which floweth from both Causes of which before and after VIII When God by his exciting Grace striketh and toucheth the hearts of men he doth not expect that the will by its innate liberty begin its motion by Consenting But God by adjuvant grace effecteth that it freely and infallibly Consent Answ It 's true of all that do consent But God hath a degree of exciting and adjuvant grace which are Necessary and give the posse Velle which cause not the act through mans defect And though God expect not that effect as one that is deceived