For the full resolution of this Question the Sacred Scriptures are not the sole Competent Judge or Rule Nor doth the determination of it belong to the Cognizance of such as are the best Interpreters of Sacred writ for the true Grammatical or Litteral sence of every proposition contained in it This Case must be reserved to the Schools of Arts or to the certain Rules of true Logick and Philosophy which are the best guides of Reason in all discursive faculties But here I am engaged to do that which in other cases I have endeavoured to avoid that is to make repetition of two great Problems in the Science or Faculty of Theologie heretofore in their several places handled and in some ensuing meditations to be hereafter inculcated The first Problem is In what sense or with what limitations the Scripture is held by all reformed Churches to be the only Rule of Faith The Second In what sense or how far it is true that Recta ratio Reason rectified or rightly managed may be admitted a competent Judge in Controversies belonging to the Faculty of Theologie 2. To the First Problem In what sence the Scripture is held by us to be the sole and competent Rule of Faith and manners I have no more to say for the present then hath been long ago published in the second book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed Sect. 1. Chap. 11. The summe of all in that place delivered is to my best remembrance This No Christian is bound to admit or receive any Doctrine or proposition as an Article of his Faith unlesse it be contained in the Old or New Testament either Totidem verbis or may be Concludently or Demonstratively deduced from some Sacred Maxim or proposition expresly contained in the Canonical Books in the Old and New Testament Such Maxims as are expresly and plainly contained in Scripture Every Christian Man is bound to believe absolutely But such propositions or Conclusions as may be demonstratively inferred from Canonical unquestionable Maxims they only are bound absolutely to believe which have so much use of Reason or skill in Arts as may enable them clearly to discern the Necessity of the Consequence or concludent Proof of the Deduction The ignorant or illiterate are only bound to believe such Deductions Conditionally See the second Book chap. 2. chap. 4 c. or to practise according to their Teachers instructions with such Reservation or under such Conditions as have been expressed in the second and third Book of these Commentaries 3. But what Propositions though expresly contained in Scriptures be Negative or Affirmative Vniversal Indefinite Particular or Singular Or how any or all of these be Convertible whether Absolutely by Accident or by Contraposition or how to Frame a perfect Syllogism out of them These or the like are points which the holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets and other Pen-men of Sacred and Canonical Writ did never undertake or professe to teach The discussion or determination of Questions of this nature must be had from the Rules of Reason sublimated or regulated by good Arts or faculties And for the bettering or Advancing of Natural Reason in this search the most learned or most sanctified Christian this day living should be very unthankful to the only Lord his Redeemer and Sanctifier if he do not acknowledge it as an especial branch of his All-seeing Providence in raising up unto the World such Lights of Nature and Guides of Reason as Aristotle Plato and others of the Ancient Philosophers were True Reason in whomsoever seated Whether in the Natural or Regenerate man unlesse it be advanced and guarded by such Rules of Arts as these Sages of the old World have by Gods Providence invented or bettered can be no fit Judge but being so advanced and guarded is the most Competent Judge of Controversies in Divinity of such Controversies I mean as arise from Consequences or Deductions made by way of use or application out of the uncontroverted Maxims of sacred Writ And if we would sequester Grammatical or Rhetorical Pride and partialitie to the several Professions wherein respectively men glory we might easily discern all or most of those unhappy Controversies which have set the Christian World for these late years in Combustion to have been hatched maintained and nourished by such pretended Favorites of the Spirit as either never had faithfully Learned any true Logick Philosophie or ingenuous Arts or else had utterly forgotten the Rules which they had learned or heard before they begun to handle controversies in Theologie or entertain disputes about them 4. Obliquity can have no other Cause beside that which is the Cause of the Act whence it necessarily results The Hypothesis for whose clearer discussion these last Theses have been premised is this Whether it being once granted or supposed that the Almighty Creator was the Cause either of our mother Eves desire or of her Actual Eating of the Forbidden Fruit or of her delivery of it to her husband or of his taking and eating it though unawares the same Almighty God must not upon like Necessity be acknowledged to be the Author of all the Obliquities which did accompany the positive Acts or did necessarily result from them This is a Case or Species Facti which we cannot determine by the Rule of Faith It must be tried by the undoubted Rules of Logick or better Arts. These be the only perspective Glasses which can help the Eye of Reason to discover the truth or necessity of the Consequence to wit Whether the Almighty Creator being granted to be the Cause of our Mother Eves first Longing after the forbidden Fruit were not the Cause or Author of her sin Now unto any Rational man that can use the help of the forementioned Rules of Arts which serve as prospective Glasses unto the Eye of Reason that usual Distinction between the Cause or Author of the Act and the Cause or Author of the Obliquity which necessarily ensues upon the Act will appear at the first sight to be False or Frivolous yea to imply a manifest Contradiction For Obliquity or whatsoever other Relation can have no Cause at all besides that which is the Cause of the Habit of the Act or Quality whence it necessarily results And in particular that conformity or similitude which the First man did bear to his Almighty Creator did necessarily result from his substance or manhood as it was the work of God undefaced Nor can we search after any other true Cause of the First mans confirmity to God or his integrity besides him who was the Cause of his manhood or of his Existence with such qualifications as by his Creation he was endowed with In like manner whosoever was the cause whether of his coveting or eating of the Tree in the middle of the Garden was the true Cause of that Obliquity or crooked deviation from Gods Law or of that deformity or dissimilitude unto God himself which did necessarily result
from the Forbidden Act or desire It was impossible there should be one Cause of the Act and another Cause of the Obliquity or deformity whether unto Gods Laws or unto God himself For no Relation or Entity meerly relative such are obliquity and deformity can have any other Cause beside That which is the Cause of the Fundamentum or Foundation whence They immediately result It remains then that we acknowledg the old Serpent to have been the First Author and Man whom God created male and female to have been the true positive Cause of that Obliquity or deformity which did result by inevitable Necessity from the forbidden Act or desire which could have no Necessary Cause at all For the Devil or old Serpent could lay no absolute necessity upon our First Parents Will which the Almighty Creator had left Free to eat or not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit. That they did de Facto eat of it was not by any Necessity but meerly Contingently or by abuse of that Free-will which God had given them Briefly to say or think that our First Parents were necessitated by the Divine Decree to that Act or any part of that Act or desire whence the First sin did necessarily result or to imagine that the Act or desire was necessary in respect of Gods Decree is to lay a deeper and fouler charge upon the Almighty That Holy One then we can without slander charge the Devil withall 5. Charity binds me to impute the harsh Expressions of some good Writers and wel-deserving of all reformed Churches Yea the Errors of the Dominicans or other Schoolmen which were more faulty then Zwinglius or his followers in this point rather unto Incogitancy or want of Skill in good Arts then unto Malice or such malignancy as the Lutheran long ago had furiously charged upon the Calvinist as if they had chosen the Devil not the Father of lights Much wrong done to worthy writers by unskilful Apologizers for their harsh expresons maker of heaven and earth to be their God And I could heartily wish that Pareus had not entered into that Dispute with Becanus about this Controversie But seeing I cannot obtain my wish I must be sorry that he came off no better then he did especially for Calvins Credit or for his own I did not believe the relation of the conference which I read long ago in Canisius until I read the like set forth by * Tum D. Serarius Scimus Vestros ita distinguere quod non improbamus Calvinus vero in scriptis suis omnem Dei permissionem in peccatis simpliciter rejicit Et opera malorum etiam quoad malitiam efficaciae Dei tribuit atque sic Deum Authorem Peccari manifestè facit Ego verò Utrum haec sit Calvini sententia quam Vos Eitribuitis postea videbimus Jam accipio quod datis Nostros quos Calvinistas vocatis â—o modo quo dixi distinguere Quódque distinctionem nostram non potestis improbare Hinc verò evidentèr conficitur Calvinistas quos vocatis Deum peccati Autorem nequaquam facere Ac proinde salsam esse D. Becani Minorem quòd Calvinistae faciant Deum Authorem peccati eóque Conclusionem esse calumniosam quòd Calvinistarum Deus sit Diabolus Pareus himself wherein he professeth that he likes better of Cardinal Bellarmines opinion then of Calvins Concerning the Controversies or Questions about the First Cause of sinning But were it any part of my present task I could easily make it appear even by the Testimony and Authority or which is more by the concludent Arguments of some learned Jesuits themselves That Cardinal Bellarmin and many others of Aquinas his followers do make God to be the Author of sin Ibi D. Serarius pro ingenio suo intelligens nodum Ergo inquit deleatur illud starum Erit tamen Diabolus Calvini si non Calvinistarum Deus Quo dicto D. Becanus subrubescens cum Socii ingenuitatem improbare non auderet subjecit ipse Benè deleatur starum Manebit tamen Deus Calvini Diabolus Tum Ego dextra eis praebita pro tanta liberalitate gratias agens Satis mihi nunc est inquam quòd fatemini starum delendum esse ut jam non Calvinistarum sed Calvini Deus secundum Vos sit Diabolus Pareus Act. Swalbacen Parte 1. Coll. 2. De Autore Peccati by as clear infallible Consequence as either Zwinglius or Piscator have done And he that would diligently peruse Aquinas his writings and in particular his resolution of that Question An detur Causa Praedestinationis may find him as strait-lac'd as Calvin was one and the same girdle would be an equall and competent measure for both their Errors The best Apology that can be made for Either must be taken from the Romane Satyrists charity Opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum Calvin and Aquinas were Homines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is somewhat more then Authors of long works Authors of many various works in respect of the several subjects or arguments which is the best apologie that Jansenius could make for St. Jeromes contradicting of himself in several works as Espenseus doth the like for Saint Austin 6. But of that Pardon which learned Men that wrot much and handled many much different matters may justly challenge such as stand to be their followers though afarr off are no way Capable Men I meane who having other ordinary works or vocations to follow do busie their braines and abuse their Auditors or Readers with idle and frivolous Apologies for those slips or errors of worthy writers which stand more in need of ingenuous censure of mild interpretation or Correction then a Justifiable Defence More there have not been as I hope nor more peccant in this kinde in any of reformed Churches then In this Church of England though not Of it Some Treatises I have read and heard for justifying the Escapes or ill expressions of Calvin and Beza by improving their words into a worse and more dangerous sense then they themselves meant them in or their Followers in the Churches wherein they lived did interpret them Had these Vnscholastick Apologizers been called to a strict account or examination of their Doctrine by the Rules of Art this haply would have bred a new Question in our Schooles Whether to attribute such Acts or decrees unto God as they do and yet withall to deny that they concludently make him the Author of sin doth not argue as great a measure of Artificiall Foppery or which is more to be feared in some of Supernaturall Infatuation as it would do of impietie toresolve dogmatically in Terminis terminantibus That God is the Author of Sin CHAP. VI. The usuall distinction between the Act and obliquitie of the Act can have no place in the first oblique Act of our first Parents 1. The Illustration of the forementioned distinction retorted upon such as use it THe former Question or Probleme might
That there could be any Goodness in the Creature before the Creature was or had actual being no man did ever avouch That any creature could possily have Actual Being or Goodness Actual or existent in it without some Precedent Act of Gods Will I had expresly denyed in the Proposition immediatly precedent to the Proposition which the Author of the Epistle hath falsified by inserting these words In the Creature He might by the like Omission of the Proposition precedent without any intersertion or falsification have proved this Proposition to be Davids There is no God For this Proposition is expresly set down by David Psal 14. 1. Non est Deus And this Proposition would well please an Epicure or Atheist if he took not the words precedent into consideration with it Dixit insipiens in corde suo non est Deus The Fool hath said in his heart there is no God And when I shall avouch the Proposition wherewith he chargeth me otherwise then with this addition An ignorant or unwise man hath said it or laid it to my charge Let me be censured for a Fool for a Blasphemer or what you will 6. The Proposition delivered by me is so clear that no Artist if he be a Christian can deny it The Proposition consists of these Two Parts First There is a Logical Possibility presupposed to the working of the Almighty Power Secondly There is an Objective Goodness precedent in order of nature to the Act or exercise of Gods Will. Against the first part I do not hear of any exception made or taken yet to make it plainer unto those who are not willing to except against it I will explicate the meaning of it in a particular Instance The First Man was made of the earth by the working of the Almightie power and the earth whereof he was made was by the same power made of nothing Both were made by the working of the Almighty Power within the compasse of these 6000. years Current But before Time had any Being even from Eternity there was a Logical Possibility That the Earth might be made of Nothing and that Man might be made of the Earth He unto whom nothing is impossible He unto whom all things are possible did know the making of both to be Logically Possible that is to imply no Contradiction before he made them much better then we know that they were made by him For this we know and must believe that the Almighty Power worketh nothing maketh nothing without Fore-knowledge not only of it as Possible but as Future Not the Creation of Man only but the Creation of Man after Gods own Image was Logically possible that is it did implie no Contradiction from Eternitie The Possible Creation of Man after this manner was the Object of Gods Power before he said Let us make Man after our own Image and similitude This was the Act or Exercise of Gods Power or Will For the power whereby he is able to do all things never worketh without some Act or exercise of his Will For as the Apostle saith Ephes 1. 11. He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will The Second part of the Proposition was There is a Goodness Objective precedent in order of nature to the Act or exercise of Gods Will. For further declaration of This Truth I added This Proposition Unto some things considered as Logically possible this Goodness Objective is so essentially annexed that if it be his Will to give them actuall Being they must of necessity be Actually Good nor can he that can do all things will their contraries For example The Creation of man after Gods own Image was Logically possible from eternity and was the Object of Gods Power of his knowledge and Will before man was thus created Now unto this possibility of mans Creation after Gods Image which was objectively in Gods knowledg from eternity there was a Goodness also Objective so essentially annexed that whensoever God should be pleased to make man after this Pattern he was of necessity to be actually Good 7. Not to conceal any part of my meaning in this 13. Chapter Unto the former Proposition The creation of man after Gods image was Logically Possible before the Act or exercise of Gods Will before the working of his Almighty power by whose concurrence man was upon the sixt day created I will adde these Propositions following 1. To create Man after Gods own Image and not to create him good was never Logically Possible it could be no Object either of Gods Almighty Power or Will This Proposition had no Objective Truth in his Foreknowledge whose Knowledge is Infinite whose Power is Omnipotent whose Will is Irresistible 2. The Act or exercise of Gods Omnipotent Will was the true Cause the only cause why man was created after his Image But that man being created after his Image should be good the Act or exercise of Gods Will or Omnipotent Power were not the cause 3. The connexion between the Image of God and that goodness which was in Man created after his image albeit we consider this connexion as possibly future from Eternity was essential and eternal and was the Object of Gods eternal Prescience or foreknowledge which in order of nature is precedent to the Acts or exercises of Gods Will. 4. Gods Will or the Act or exercise of Gods Will is the Cause why man was made why being made Good he was tyed to the observance of Gods moral Law not the Cause why mans Observance of the Moral Law was or is in its nature good 5. The end of the Moral Lavv or of Precepts Evangelical is to frame us to a conformity vvith our heavenly Fathers Nature to be holy as he is Holy Gods Will declared in the Moral Lavv and vvorking in us both the Will and the Deed to observe it is the Cause by vvhich vve are made conformable to the Divine Nature but Gods Will declared in that Lavv enacted is not the Cause vvhy our conformity to the Divine Nature is good He rather vvills us to be conformable to his Nature to his Will That is to be holy as He is Holy because such conformity vvas essentially and eternally good All Goodness in the creature vvhether actually existent or considered as possibly future is unseparable from this conformity or consonancy to infinite and eternal goodness vvhich is the infallible Rule of all created goodness the eternal Rule from vvhich the acts or exercises of Gods Will either in making in preserving or governing the creature take their validity Objective Being or Logical Possibility of Being is opposed to Actual Being or existence Goodness Objective is opposed to Goodness Subjective that is to goodnesse actually inherent or existent in any substance In the Divine and Infinite Essence nothing is or can be Subjectively all things are in him Objectively and were so in him before they had Actual Being And if all things had an Objective Being in him before they were then the Goodness
justly be allowed in any Academicall Act or Commencement albeit the Answerer or Defendant were furnished with no other grounds or occasions of his Theses besides that usually avouched Distinction between the Act and Obliquitie of the Act specially if the Distinction were applyed unto the First Sin of our First Parents In that sin whether we refer it to our Father Adam or to our Mother Eve the Act and the Obliquitie are altogether as unseparably annexed as Rotunditie or roundnes is with a Sphere or moulded Bullet And to imagine there should be one Cause of the Act and another of the Obliquitie or sinfulness of the Act would be as gross a Soloecisme as to assigne or seek after any other Cause of the Rotunditie or roundnesse of a Sphere or Bullet besides him that frames the one or moulds the other or as it would be to enquire any other Cause of the equality between two bodies before unequall besides him that makes the quantity to be of one and the same-size or scantling or of the similitude between the Fleece of a black sheepe and of a white sheep perfectly dyed black besides the Dyer Now the similitude betwixt that which is perfectly dyed black and that which is black by nature doth inevitably result from the Dyer without the intervention of any other Cause imaginable Easie it were to produce a volume of like instances in the workes of nature or of mens works and practises upon them all of them concludently enforcing the resolution of the former Probleme to be allowable in Schooles by most perfect and absolute Induction if Arts or Sciences were once so happy as to have none but true and accurate Artists to be their Judges As indeed they are the sole competent Judges in like Cases and Judges they are within these precincts as Competent as the Reverend Judges of this or any other Land are in Causes Civil Municipal or Criminal 2. Admit then a man were found guilty of murther by a Jury of his honest Neighbours upon the Authentick Testimonies of two or three witnesses which had seen him run his Neighbour through the body in some vitall part or to cleave his head in two and a Philosopher or Physitian should undertake to arrest the Judgement or make Remonstrance to the Judge that the Delinquent arraigned and convicted by the Jurie was not the true or immediate Cause of the others death upon these or the like allegations out of his own facultie That death properly consists in the dissolution of naturall heate and moysture whereas the party arraigned did never intend to make any such dissolution or to terminate his Action to the point of death but onely to thrust his sword through him or to knock him in the head which Actions can have no direct Terme besides the Vbi or Terme of locall motion Can we imagine that any Judge could be so milde as not to censure such an Apologizer for a saucy Artificiall Foole or a Crack'd-brained Sophister And yet this Apologie is not cannot be in vulgar judgments so Censurable of Artificiall folly as the former Apologie for salving the Escapes Errors or ill Expressions of some Learned and Pious Men by nice distinctions betwixt the Act and the Sinfulnesse of it in our First Parents Case was For there is not so immediate or so absolute or necessary connexion between death and the deadliest wound that can be given to any man as there is between Acts peremptorily forbidden by the Law of God and the Obliquitie or sinfulnesse of them For there is not neither is it possible there should be any minute of time or which is less then the least part of a minute any moment of time betwixt such Acts and the Obliquitie resulting from them Both of them come together both in respect of order of time and of nature by absolute indispensable Necessity Whereas between death and wounds given meritorious of Capital punishment there usually is a distance of time and oftentimes no absolute or unpreventable necessity that the one should follow within a year and a day of the other 3. But the best Method to convince such as Invented or used the former Distinction of gross error and somewhat more then so will be to retort their own Illustrations or justifications of it upon themselves as I have learned by successefull Experience upon some learned Ingenuous students which have revoked their own opinions and reclaimed others upon the reading of my meditations upon this argument in another Dialect In solenni Lectione One of the most usuall Illustrations or intended corroborations of the former distinction is borrowed from a Man that rides a Lame or halting horse Such a rider say they especially if he ride with switch and spur is the Cause why the horse goes or runs as fast as he can but not the Cause of his lamenesse or of his halting Of his lamenesse supposed he was lam'd before the Rider I confess is no Cause yet of his actuall halting down-right or of the increase of the lameness which will follow upon the unseasonable riding or over-riding he is the only Cause For if the poor Beast might have rested his bones when he was enforced to trot or gallop he would not have halted at all at that time nor would he have been so grievously lame as by such unseasonable usage he is But this instance or Illustration suppose it were not much amisse in respect of men now living can no way sute or fit the Question concerning the sin of our First Parents For Adam at his creation was no way lame or defective either in soul or body before he tasted of the forbidden Fruit. Now if the Almighty Creator had been the cause of this Act he had been as true a Cause of the First sin or of Adams halting in his service as he that bestrides a sound and lusty horse and runs him upon the spur in a rugged and stony ground or in a deep way is of the lamenesse of the death or any disease which ensues such desperate riding 4. Many commit more gross Idolatry with their own fancies then the Heathen did with their Idols To imagin that God should deal so hardly with the First Adam as to give him a Law which he intended to make him break and yet to punish him with death for the breach of it Or that the Second Adam the wisdom of God should send wise men and Prophets to Jerusalem to the intent or End that She should stone or put them to death or for this purpose that their bloud should in later dayes be required of Her as some in our times have publickly taught is an Imagination in it self much worse and more dangerous then the erection of Images though Roman-wise in Reformed Churches A greater Abomination then any Idol of the Heathens For Images or Idols are but the External Objects of or enticements unto grosse Idolatry Nor was it the Carpenter or Statuary that did make the Heathen gods
or Idols Who then Qui colit ille facit He or they alone turn Images or Pictures into Idols or false Gods Qui fingit sacros auro vel marmore vultus which worship or adore them Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit But the former Opinion or imagination whether in respect of God as he was the First mans Creator or of the wisdom of God Martial as he is our Lord and Redeemer is Intrinsecal and Formal Idolatry or Idolatry in the Abstract without any external Object to dote upon or to entice men to bestow worship upon it The Heathens committed Idolatry in their Temples or in their houses but this Idolatry is committed within his Brain that entertains it The Essence of it formally consists in the Reflexion of the Imagination upon it self or in the complacency which men take in such Reflexions if any man happily which I much doubt can be delighted with such imaginations The very height of Heathenish Idolatry as our Apostle instructs us Rom. 1. 23 c. did consist in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things Now if the wisdom of God had sent wise-men and Prophets unto the Jews unto the End that Jerusalem should be destroyed and righteous bloud required of them His weeping over Jerusalem had better resembled or expressed the disposition of a Crocodile then the Nature either of God or any good Man Nor was it greater Idolatry in the Heathen to change the glory of the uncorruptible God into the image or likenesse of a Crocodile as the Egyptians did then it is to ascribe the properties of this noysome beast or any such disposition as the Historical Emblem of the Crocodile doth represent unto the Son of God who came into the world not to destroy or hurt but to save sinners and to be consecrated to be the * Heb. 5. 9. Author of Everlasting Salvation to all that Obey him These Two Branches of Idolatry The One planted in the Egyptian who worshipped the Crocodile for his god The other in such as worship or nourish such sinister imaginations of the Son of God as have been specified differ no more then the way from Athens to Thebes doth from the way from Thebes to Athens 5. The original occasion of the former errors or ill expressions The main head or source original whence all or most of the harsh expressions whether of Reformed writers or of Roman Catholiques whence all the aspersions which both or either of them indirectly or by way of necessary consequence cast upon our Lord Creator and Redeemer naturally issue is that Common or Fundamental Errour That all things the changes and chances of this inferior World not excepted are necessary in respect of God or of his irresistible Decree That nothing not humane Acts can be Contingent save only with reference to Second Causes Now if there be no Contingency in humanc Acts there neither is nor ever was nor ever can be any Free-will in man The original of this common Error That all things are Necessary in respect of the Divine Decree hath been sufficiently discovered in the sixth book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed Sect. 2. Chap. 12. Where the Reader may find the Truth of this Proposition or Conclusion clearly demonstrated That to Decree a Contingency in some works or Course of Nature in Humane Acts especially was as possible to him unto whom nothing is impossible as it was to decree a Necessity in some others works or Courses of Nature As for instance To Decree or constitute that our Father Adam should have a Free power or Faculty either to eat or not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit doth imply no Contradiction and therefore was absolutely possible to the Almighty Creator so to ordain or Decree But many things as the observant Reader will except are possible which are not probable or never are brought into Act. True Yet that the Almighty Creator did de Facto or actually decree a Mutual Possibility of Adams Falling and not Falling or between his Fall and Perseverance hath been in this present Treatise and in some others demonstrated from the Article Concerning The Goodness of God or his Gratious providence by such Demonstration as the Case now in handling is capable of that is by Evident Deduction of the Contradictory Opinion to this Impossibility That God otherwise was the only Cause of our First Parents sins and of all other sins which necessarily issue from their sins unlesse it be granted and agreed upon that Adams Falling or not Falling should both be alike possible that neither should or could be necessary either to the First or Second Causes To deny that God did ordain or constitute a true and Facible Mean between the Necessity of Adams Perseverance in the State wherein he was created and the Necessity of his Falling into sin that is a mutual Possibility of falling or not of Falling into sin would imply as Evident a Contradiction unto or impeachment of his Goodness as it would do to his Omnipotency if any man should peremptorily deny that the Constitution or Tenour of such a Decree were possible to his Almighty power To say God could not possibly make such a disjunctive Decree or such a Tenour of mutual possibility betwixt things Decreed as hath been often mentioned would be a grosse Error yet an error I take it not so dangerous as to deny that he did de Facto make such a Decree For our Gratious Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier is doubtless more jealous to have his Goodness impeached or suspected then to have his Almighty Power questioned 6. Thus much of the main general Query Concerning the manner how sin or that evil which we call Malum culpae did find First entrance into the works of God and in particular into the nature of Man from the first moment of whose creation he and all the rest of Gods visible works had this Elogium or commendation that they were Exceeding Good No entrance of sin into the works of God into man especially was possible without the Incogitancy or Inadvertency of a Free Cause or Agent The true nature of the first sin and of its haynousnesse did especially consist in this that whereas our gratious Creator had endowed our First Parents with a Power or faculty to Doe well exceeding well and given them good encouragement to persevere in so doing they should so incogitantly and quickly abuse this power and the Divine Concourse or assistance that did attend it to do that which was evil that which the Lord their Creator had so peremptorily forbidden them to do under commination of a dreadful punishment to ensue upon the doing of it The difficulty or main Querie which remains all that hath been said being granted is principally this How this one sinful Act of our First Parents could possibly produce an Habit
hath The words cited in the following Chapter See Israels Fast printed in the year 1628. which is owned by Mr. Burtons Name sub-printed Though neither the Printer nor the Place where it was Printed be set down See also The Narration of Mr. H. Burton his Life written by Himself and Printed in London 1643. The Printers name is not there set down in the fift Page of which Book he owns The Book styled Israels Fast and says it was published at a General Fast CHAPTER XXXIX Dr. JACKSON'S VINDICATION of himself written above twenty years agoe OR A Serious Answer to Mr. Burtons Exception taken against a Passage in his Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes AGainst A Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes lately published by me some Exceptions have been taken many sought as if it did open a Gap unto Arminianism And yet I have not had the happiness to know either what Point of Arminianism they be which I am suspected to favour or the particular Proposition in that Treatise upon which the Indefinite or confused Suspition is grounded Only thus far I have been beholden unto One man that it hath pleased him to avouch a quarel against One Passage in my Book with subscription of his Name And it is expected by some but by few of my good Friends that I should give him a Serious Answer For my own part I have ever held it a point not of Folly only but of Cowardise and Inhumanity to accept a Challenge from a man desperately set to wast his spirits to spend his strength to wound himself and the Cause he undertakes by a long and furious fight with his own shadow before he can finde the way into the appointed Field Wherefore leaving him with his Assistants and Abettors to wrastle or combat with their own Imaginations which as I see will find them Play enough and make the Enemies of that Religion which they would profess if they knew how too much Sport I shall craveleave Three things proposed First To unfold this mans Notorious Falsification of my Assertion Secondly to shew the Orthodoxall Truth of that Assertion which he falsifieth with the dangerous and Unchristian Consequences of the Proposition Contradictory unto it Thirdly To make it appear how deeply it concerns every Loyall member of the Church and Commonweal of England especially such as are engaged with me to maintain the Religion which we all profess against the Doctrine of the Church of Rome to prevent the further speading of that rigid Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation as it is held by most if not by all which have hitherto excepted against the forementioned Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes 2. The first Exception which to my knowledge was taken against it was in a Book entitled Israels Fast dedicated to the Royal Ioshua and Loyal Elders of Israel now happily assembled in Parliament In the Epistle before that Book he hath Verbatim These Words These Neutralizers or Popish Arminians or Arminian Papists 〈◊〉 what you will under the name of the Church of England dare vent any Arminian Heresie As in a Book lately printed by Authority too there is This most Blasphemous Arminian Heresie That there is a Goodnesse Objective In the Creature which in Order of Nature is precedent to the Act or exercise of Gods Will thus by necessary Consequence making the Creature a God having a Self-Being Independent but only upon Gods bare Prescience upon which and not upon that Supream Cause of Causes Gods Will he hangeth the Being and well-being of all the Creatures And in the Margin of that Epistle just over against the words last quoted he hath these words also Gods eternal and blessed Will Providence Wisdom Free Grace Glory and consequently his whole Essence overturned by an Arminian Trick and that also backed with abused Authority 3. If the Exhibiter of this Complaint will acquit himself from a double slander he must as I conceive the course of all Justice requireth prove these Two points following First That the Proposition which he chargeth with most Blasphemous Arminian Heresie is or hath been maintained by Arminius or some Arminian Secondly That the same Proposition hath been uttered or maintained by me That Arminius or any Arminian did ever in writing or otherwise deliver or mantain that Proposition which this Objector hath censured for a most Blasphemous Arminian Heresie is more then I know more then I can suspect and more I think then the Author of this Accusation can prove unlesse his meaning be that any absurd or Blasphemous Opinion may justly be fathered upon Arminius or ascribed unto the Arminians And if this be his meaning he will prove him self to be a more Gross Arminian Heretick then those whom he only suspects but proves nothing of most Blasphemous Arminian Heresie For I never heard or read that Proposition which he chargeth with most Blasphemous Arminian Heresie delivered by any save only by the Author of the forementioned Epistle to the Royal Joshua and Loyal Elders of Israel 4. This Proposition following I acknowledge to be mine and have avouched it in A Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes Cap. 13. Par. 3. Pag. in quarto 149. As there is a Logical Possibility presupposed to the working of the Almighty Power so there is a Goodnesse Objective precedent in order of Nature to the Act or exercise of his Will That either this Logical Possibility which is presupposed to the working of the Almighty Power or the Objective Goodness which is precedent in order of Nature to the Act or exercise of Gods Will should be IN THE CREATVRE I never writ I never said I never was so uncharitable as to think that any man in his right wits had ever said or writ it untill I read it in the forecited Epistle without any Distinction of Letter Point or Parenthesis to notifie whether these words IN THE CREATVRE were conteined in my Proposition or inserted by the Author of that Epistle out of some Probable Collections from Words or Circumstances precedent that my meaning was as he doth make it though my words were not so as he relates them 5. That the Author of this Epistle might conceive such a Proposition Charity may attribute it to his Ignorance in matters handled in that Chapter wherein my former Proposition is contained But why he should insert these words In the Creature into the Proposition by me delivered Christian charitie it self which is not suspitious which Believeth all things that may without imputation of folly be believed cannot attribute it to his Ignorance but to his Passion or to his too much credulitie unto others who suggested the former Proposition unto him as worthie of a Parliamentarie Censure or to his zeal to have me censured as one of the Achans that trouble Israel But what he can say for himself in excuse of this palpable Falsification of my words I leave to them who have just cause and full Authoritie to examine him
because it was thus peremptorily willed commanded or required by God not Objectively Good from eternity the observance of the same thing commanded is now as dangerous and displeasing to God as the neglect or Non-Observance of it in Abrahams in Mosess in the Prophets times had been Hence is that wish of our Apostle Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even out off that trouble you that is I would that they which presse Circumcision upon you and upon your children might be sentenced according to Gods Law enacted against such as during the First Covenant did omit or neglect it 10 Partly from ignorance of this Distinction between the nature of things commanded and forbidden by the Moral and Ceremonial Law partly from ignorance why obedience to the Law of Ceremonies was so strictly enjoyned and the neglect of it so severely punished oft times by Gods immediate hand the Jews were drawn to place as great Sanctity in the observance of Rites and Ceremonies as in sincere obedience to the Moral Precepts This was one main root of their Hypocrisie a sin from which it is scarce possible any hearer of the Word should be free unlesse he be taught to put some difference between the Nature of things Good and Evil of things commanded and forbidden besides the Will or authority of the Commander If the Acts or Injunctions of Gods Will were the onely Rule of Goodnesse and had not eternal Goodness rather for their Rule it would be hard to avoid the Stoical error that all sins are equal besides a kinde of Fatality in humane affairs worse then Stoical The Turks acknowledge Gods Will to be a Rule of Goodnesse as soveraign as the author of the forementioned Epistle doth to be such a Cause of Causes as he would have it But being ignorant or not considering that there is an Immutable goodnesse precedent to the Act or exercise of Gods Wil a Goodness whereof his Wil however considered is no Cause For it is Coeternal to his Wil to his Wisdom and Essence they fall into grosly absurd errours And consequently unto this their ignorance or to the common error that all things are Good onely because God willeth them they sometimes highly commend and sometimes deeply discommend the self same practises for quality and circumstances with as great vehemency of zeal and spirit and with as fair Protestations of obedience in all things to Gods Will as any other men do For Selimus to attempt the deposition of his Father was in their Divinitie a good and godly Act. For Bajazet to take arms against his Brother vvas an abominable impietie What vvas the reason Injects sortè Bajazetis mentione coepit Chiaussus in eum inclementiùs invehi quod arma sumpsisset contra fratrem Ego contrà dicebam videri mihi miseratione dignum cui inevitabilis necessitas imposita esset aut capiendorum armorum aut certae pestis subeundae Sed cum Chiaussus nihilominùs exeerari pergeret Vos inquam immanis facinoris reum facitis Bajazetem At Selimum hujus Imperatoris patrem qui non modò contra patris voluntatem verùâ—s etiam salutem arma tulit nullius criminis arguitis Rectè inquit Chiaussus nam rerum exitus satis docuit illum quod fecit divino fecisse instinctu coelitùs fuisse praedestinatum Tum ego si hoe more agetur quicquid quamvis pessimo Consilio susceptum si benè cedat rectè factum interpretabimini Dei voluntati adscribetis Deum facietis authotem mali nec quicquam benè aut sequiùs factum nisi ex eventu pendetis Sumus aliquandiu in hoe sermone commorati cum uterque non sine animorum vocis contentione quod proposuisset defenderet Collecta utrinque plura sacrae scripturae loca Nunquid potest vas dicere figulo Cur me ita finxâ—sti Indurabo cor Pharaonis Jacob dilexi Esaâ— odio habui atque alia ut veniebant in mentem Auger Busbequ Epist 4. Selimus his attempt found good successe for he prevailed against his Father and this vvas an Argument that it vvas Gods Wil that he should so do But Bajazet miscarries in his attempt against his brother and his disaster vvas a proof sufficient that God vvas displeased vvith his attempt it vvas not his Will that he should prosper And seeing his Will is the only Rule of Goodnesse seeing he did predestinate these tvvo Princes as he did Jacob and Esau the one to a good end the other to an Evil the self same Fact or Attempt vvas good in the one but vvicked in the other We all condemn it as an error in the Turk for measuring the difference betvveen good and evil by the Event But even this errour hath an Original which is worse They therefore measure all good and evill by the Event because they ascribe all Events without exception to the Irresistible Will of God Ex quo satis constitit non Avi misericordin eó usque Nepoti parcitum sed ex opinione quae Turcis insedit ut res quocunque consilio institutas si benè cadunt ad Deum auctorem refarant Proptoreà quamdio incertum suit quem exitum Bajazetis conatus sortirentur abstinendas ab insantis injuria manus Suleimannus statuit nesi postmodùmres meliùs vertisser obniti voluntati Dei voluisse videretur Sed nunc illo extincto ac veluti divina sententia damnato causam esse non putabat cur filio diutiùs parceretur Ne malum ovum ex malo corvo relinqueretur Ibidem and think that nothing can fall out otherwise then it doth because every thing is irresistibly appointed by Gods Will which in their Divinitie is such a necessarie Cause of Causes and by Consequence of all Effects as the Author of the said Epistle would have it to be Whosoever he be whether Jew Turk or Christian which thinks that all Events are so irresistibly decreed by God that none can fall out otherwise then they do must of necessity grant either that there is no moral evil under the Sunne or that Gods will which is the Cause of Causes is the only Cause of such evil 11 But is the like sin or errour expresly to be found in Israel Do any make the same Fact for nature qualitie and substance to be no sin in one man and yet a sin in another or to be a little sin in one man and a grievous outcrying sin in another Though they do not avouch this of rebellious attempts against Prince and State or of other like publick Facts Cognoscible by humane Law yet the Principles of Praedestination commonly held by them and the Turk draw them to the like Inconveniences in transforming the immutable Rule of Goodnesse into the similitude of their partial affections in other Cases The Adulterie and murther which David committed had been grievous sins in any other man but in David being predestinated they were but sins of infirmitie sins by which the outward man was defiled not the inward man Such
of any doubtful or difficult place of Scripture The people were in a manner taught to believe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere to believe this Article was sufficient to Salvation live they in the mean time how they list This foolish Doctrine did begin and propagate it self in Germanie before Melancthon did correct Luther or as Chemnitius thinks did record his own Recantation But the infection in the mean time did so farr overspread the Church of England before it heard of the remedie that it moved Sir Thomas Moore to lay aside jesting and deplore the miseries of his times in earnest to see men given over to Revelling Bouzing or drinking or to other worse vices and yet continue Confident that the sufferings and Passions of Christ should fully pay the shot or discharge the reckoning how great soever it were 3. It was but an Implicit Branch of the former Error which at the first did not break forth in expresse Termes to teach men to Believe Secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with full Assurance of Faith that Christ dyed for them in particular before they had any assurance that Christ dyed for All men A strange Conclusion which they sought to cover or overshadow with a more dangerous branch of the same Error to wit That every man was to have Fiduciam or full assurance of his own Estate in Grace or interest in Christ not from Gods General promises made in Him but from special or Particular Faith This was that unfortunate Doctrine which gave such Scandal to the beginning of Reformation in Germanie that not three hundred Bellarmines not so many Valentia's or other learned Jesuites which have lived since could ever withdraw the tenth part so many from Reformed Religion as Dr. Hessils did with-hold from embracing it by exagitating this Sensual Doctrine as he styles it as if it had been conceived or maintained of purpose that some professing Reformation might continue and encrease their drunken and voluptuous Others their lascivious and wanton kind of life and yet be as sure of their Personal Salvation as either St. Peter or St. Paul were during their Pilgrimage here on Earth This was that Ginne or Noose which Satan sought to draw upon them as knowing that he had this kind of people at greater command then ever he had any besides For as is intimated in some former meditations published and in some Others in due time to be communicated to Learned and Pious Readers There is not There cannot be any possible Evasion out of this snare but by recanting the former Opinions or Errors themselves For every Novice in Arts hath Learned that every Vniversal Negative Proposition may be Converted Simpliciter Now the Scripture gives us this Universal Negative again and again That no Adulterer no Covetous Person no Slanderer or Reviler of his Neighbours no Seditious or Rebellious Spirit shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven The other Vniversal Negative which they deliver up as their Deed and Writing unto the Father of Lies and of all wicked cunning is This That no Man which must of necessitie enter into this Kingdom though he dye this day or to morrow can be an Adulterer a Covetous Person a Slanderer or Reviler of his Neighbour or carrie a Seditious Rebellious or Traiterous Spirit to his King and Countrie Now by this Noose or Gin which they have cast for themselves the Great Tempter can draw or lead them to all manner of mischief and Hypocrisie to envenome their thoughts with malice and slander with Treason Sedition and Disloyaltie and yet assure them that they are no Slanderers no Traytors c. but Zealous and Godly persons because they must enter into the Kingdom of Heaven The Last and worst branch of the former bitter Root is an Assertion which I never read in any forraign writer but of late set down in Terminis Terminantibus by some English Zelots whose study and practice it hath been either to improve or malignifie Forraign Errors The improvement of the former Errors which Outlandish Writers did rather not take into Consideration then maintain is The Division of all Mankind into Two Sorts that is into Elect and Reprobate An Error I confesse which can do no great harm upon such Sawcy Malepert Vocalists as have the gift to let the Word of God runne as fast out at their mouthes as it comes into their braines either by the Ear or Eye But if it enter once into the thoughts of a Sober Conscientious Spirit whose brain and heart have dayly entercourse or Commerce it is impossible but it should put him into a Dangerous Perplexitie either of being carelesly Presumptuous or of falling into utter despaire Experiments of this Later evill have been more frequent in our Church and in these times then in any other Church or times before us 4. For Conclusion of this Tragical Consideration I would request all such as sit in judicature specially in Causes Criminal to call to mind or suffer Me to be their Remembrancer of a Grave saying delivered by a great Praelate in the high Court of Parliament That Severitie without instruction is a kind of Tyranny More particularly my humble request is that with good leave I may put such in mind as judge seditious turbulent or enormous practises or Censure Fellones de se that they shall mightily condemn themselves by judging them unless they be as forward withall to quell the Erroneous Doctrine whether by Lawes Ecclesiastical or Civil whence the former Practises spring As that kind of Sedition Stubborn disobedience disloyalty Scandalum Magnatum or privie Conspiracie under whose heavie burden this State and Church doth now sigh and groan These and divers other like Branches of the Divels service are as true and proper Effects or natural issues of the forementioned preposterous Belief or Doctrine of Special faith or Division of all Mankind into Two Sorts as Christian Charitie Humilitie Obedience Penitencie or Contrition of Spirit are of the true and wel-grounded Belief of Jesus Christ and of him Crucified 5. The best instructions that can be given for rectifying the former Errours is that of our Apostle Rom. 4. Though we follow the Interpretations or Hints of those Writers whom these Zelots most admire He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief but was strong in Faith giving glory to God and being fully perswaded that what he had promised he was able also to performe And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him But for us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our Justification Vers 20 21 22 23 24 25. CHAP. LII That Iustification Consists not in one Single Act. In what Sense Fides est Fiducia is True 1. MUst we then with the Romish Church admit of a First and Second
c. 3303 c. See Presence Luther did not distinguish inter Liberam voluntatem Liberum Arbitrium 3130 Lutheran Catechisms and consequences 3188 Lutherans wrest the Antients in Point of Consubstantiation 3298 Lycurgus's Whelps 3085 3134 M. Great Magore weighs himself yearly in gold and gives it to the poor 3236 Malepert Courtier 3227 Manichees their Bruitish opinion 3080 c. Marie the B. Virgin free from sin in her consent Be in vnto me 3038 Mass Doctr. of it injurious to Christ 3262 c. wrongs his one sacrifice the value and efficacie of it 3289 c. scandalizes the Jew 3290 makes Legal Priests Types of Masse-Priests 3265 Melchizedeck by the Romanists made a Type of Mass-Priests rather then of Christ 3265 Melchizedek not read that he offerd any sacrifice his Priesthood was a Priesthood of Blessing Authoritative 3302 Ministers main work to sett men right in the way of Conversion 3219 Mercie of God maintained 3184 3210 c. 3217 He will have mercie on whom he will the sense and quintessence of that Aphorism 3205 it implies mercie in abundance mercie to the purpose to all that seek it 3217 God shewes mercie Isaac wills Esau runs 3215 He will have mercie on whom he will the extent of that Division 3242 c. To have mercie on whom he will is a reserved prerogative of God 3216 Rom. 9. 16. excludes not endeavours nor meanes but merits 3216 c Gods readiness to shew mercie 3221 He will have mercie he hardeneth to what points the Text reaches 3247 c. Merit of works The question useless as to Adams first Estate 3008 Meritorum Reviviscentia 3285 Men several sorts several workings of the Spirit 3121 Men not come to full growth in faith c. but Children in Christ 3247 Mens deprecaturad optima 3119 Not Metaphors but Mysteries in the 6 8 9 10 Chapt. to the Hebr. 3254 Moses hid by Revelation 3191 designed Heir of the Crown of Egypt 3192 His great Atchievements perhaps against Ethiopia an omen of his leading Israel out of Bondage ibid. Two points of his Embassie to Pharaoh 3193 Gods Viceroy carried the Treaties in accurate solemnitie 3194 instructed incouraged 3196 had miracles for Letters of Credence 3195 3197 Mortification 3096 c. Progress in mortificaton a firm sign of mans Estate in Grace 3097 3103 3245 By it measure our perswasions 3162 Dutie of mortification how universal how indefinite 3099 Universal in respect of Persons though not for the matter or degrees 3146 The very Elect must mortifie 3102 Mortification a Term divisible 3105 Mortification how wrought by the Spirit how by our selves 3106 How by Gods Spirit how by mans Spirit 3110 3115 3120 Flesh the seat of the disease and must be mortified Spirit quickned 3118 c. 3121 Mortification Moral and Spiritual 106 3132 c. Whether mortification be ex operibus praevisis 3112 Mortification consists in two things Deading our desires purifying the heart 3119 Accomplishment of mortification wherein it consists 3124 c. it consists not in negatives 3125 Men that have been mortified if they draw back like heated water they freez the soonest 3128 More about Mortification 3146 c. Each degree of mortification is an approach to the Final Ratification of the promise ye shall live 3152 Mortification our reasonable Service 3159 The use of the Doctrine of Mortification 3160 c. Murmuring what must quiet it 3229 Mutinie at Capua 3074 Maâ—hiavel's judgment upon it ib. N. NAaman had some degree of Free-will 3130 Natural grounds to deny our selves and flee to God Impotencie to doe good that Good he approves dulness it self a spur 3219 c. This natural Capacitie not used makes us inexcusable ibid. The Naturalist hunts Truth upon fresh Sents not foyled with second notions 3019 Negative Precepts Sin more provoked by them then by Affirmative the reason 3026 Negative See precepts See proposition This error That all things be necessary nothing Contingent in respect of God a cause of Errors c. 3164 3016 An ill necessitie freely Contracted 3052 3063 3055 Necessary ab aeterno that ungodly men perish but not necessarie that they should be ungodly men 3169 Necessitie See Adam See Decree See Free Nobilitie expires not in uno vitioso 3032 Non-age Persons under yeares neither servants nor freemen properly 3042 of the two rather Servants ibid A strange Note upon St. Jude 3164 3173 Novatian's Error or Heresie 3280 c. Novatian's quarel with Cornelius Bishop of Rome 3281 Novatus and Novatianus two several Persons 3291 Novatus his Character 3291 O. MAns Tye by oath tempts to unfaithfulness why 3026 Oath makes promise or threat irreversible 3148 Oath of God to Abraham to requite him in kind 3302 The great Objection why doth he yet find fault 3226 c. Answered 3228 3230 Obliquitie necessarily resulting from the Act is Caused by the Cause of the Act 3011 The Cause of any Action Essentially evil or inseparable from evill is the Cause of evill 3165 Obliquitie did necessarily result from the forbidden act exercised yet was not the Act necessarie 3012 The distinction of the Act and obliquitie has no place in the first sin of Man 3013 Act and obliquitie as Connex as Roundness and Sphere 3013 c. Oecolampadius his observation 3187 Often offering an argument of imperfection 3263 3290 Ex operibus praevisis whether mortification be so tanquam ex Titulo or tanquam ex Termino 3113 3218 Opera quae renunciamus opus quo renunciamus 3219 Object See Decree Ordained to Condemnation how ungodly men are 3164 God ordaines no man to trouble the Church 3165 Yet if God ordains all Actions so that they could not come to passe otherwise then they do That would follow 3164 c. What God ordains that he is Author of 3165 c. Every Ordination to Everlasting death is not Reprobation 3166 Ordination to life and predestination ordination to death and reprobation differ as Genus and Species 3166 Origen See Beza Original See sin P. PAcuvius See Calavius Parable that of our Saviour Matth. 12. 43. applyed 3277 Paraeus his Dispute with Becanus 3012 Parallels betwixt Jews and Modern Christians 3187 The Hardening of the Jews and the Egyptians 3206 c. Moses and Christ 3207 Passeover and the Lords Supper between the two Inheritances bequeathed by Moses and Christ 3261 The Mundane Tabernacle and Celelestial the Rites and Priests of that and Christ 3253 3257 3259 3261 The Red Heifer and Christ 3261 3267 3270 3299 3302 Pardon due to Learned Authors which their Followers cannot claim 3013 No Pardon Antedated by God 3283 Some Popes denyed to Antedate Pardons ib. Pardon See Sin remitted c. Parents may by Lewdness improve the venom of sin Original in their Children 3019 3031 Parricide not rife till forbidden by Law 3024 3145 Sin irritated by Precepts more by Negative Precepts 3025 c. It is easier to avoid the first occasions then the insuing opportunities of Sin against Negative Precepts 3094 Precepts