Irresistible Will in the eternal Idea of Reprobation before man or Angel had actual Being as if the only end of his Being had been to be a Reprobate or vessel of wrath Beza's Collections to this purpose unlesse they be better limited than he hath left them make God not onely a direct and positive Cause but the immediate and onely Cause of all Pharaohs tyrannie a more direct and more necessary Cause of his butchering the Israelites infants than he was of Adams good actions during the space of his innocencie For of those or of his short continuance in the state of integritie he was no necessarie nor immutable Cause that is he did not decree that Adams integrity should be immutable But whether Gods hardening Pharaoh by his Irresistible Will can any way inferre that Pharaoh was an Absolute Reprobate or born to the end he might be hardned we are hereafter to dispute in the third Point All we have to say in this place is this If as much as Beza earnestly contends for were once granted the Objection following to which our Apostle vouchsafes a double answer had been altogether as unanswerable as impertinently moved in this place Let us then examin the Pertinencie of the Objection and unfold the Validitie of the Answers The second General Point concerning the Pertinencie of the Objection 6. VVHy doth he yet find fault 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Why doth he yet chide with whom doth he find fault or whom doth he chide See Lib. 7. Ch. 19. Numb 4 5 6. All that are reprobates doth he only chide them is this all that they are to fear the very worst that can befall them were this speech to be as farre extended as it is by most Interpreters no question but our Apostle would have intended the force and acrimonie of it a great deal more than he doth thus farre at least Why doth he punish why doth he plague the reprobates in this life and deliver them up to everlasting torments in the life to come seeing they do but that which he by his Irresistible Will hath appointed Or suppose the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might by some unusual Synecdoche which passeth our reading observation or understanding include as much or more than we now expresse all the plagues of this life and all the torments which befall the reprobates in the life to come That the Objection proposed hath referrence only to Pharaoh or to some few in his Case not al that perish or are reprobated yet it is questioned what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath here to do It must be examined whence it came and whither it tends It naturaly designes some definite point or section of time and imports particulars before begun and still continued it can have no place in the immoveable Sphere of eternitie no reference to the exercise of Gods everlasting wrath against Reprobates in General 7. These Queries which here naturally offer themselves though for ought that I know not discussed by any interpreters have occasioned me in this place to make use of a Rule more usefull than usual for explicating the difficult places of the New Testament The Rule is this To search out the passages of the old Testament with their historical Circumstances unto which the speeches of our Saviour and his Apostles have special Reference or Allusion Now this Interrogation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was conceived from our Apostles meditations upon those expostulations with Pharaoh Exod. 9. 16. And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up for to shew in thee my power and that my name may be declared throughout all the Earth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet exaltest thou thyself against my people or oppressest thou my people that thou wilt not let them go Chap. 10. vers 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he yet chides and threatens him again how long wilt thou refuse to humble thy self before me Let my people go that they may serve me Else if thou refuse to let my People go behold to morrow I will bring the Locusts into thy coasts That which makes most for this interpretation is the historical circumstance of time and manner of Gods proceeding with Pharaoh For this expostulation whereunto our Apostle in this place hath reference was uttered after the seventh wonder wrought by Moses and Aaron in the sight of Pharaoh upon which it is expresly said that The Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh that he hearkened not unto them Whereas of the five going before it is only said That Pharaoh hardened his heart or his heart was hardened or he set not his heart to the wonders See Chap. 40. Numb 15. The Spirits Censure likewise of Pharaohs stupiditie upon the first wonder may be read impersonally or be referred to the wonder it self which might positively harden his heart in such a sense as is before expressed Nor is it to be omitted that upon the neglect of the seventh wonder the Lord enlargeth his Commission to Moses and his threats to Pharaoh Exod. 9. 13 c. Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrewes Let my people go that they may serve me For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart and upon thy servants and upon thy people that thou maiest know that there is none like me in all the earth For now I will stretch out my hand that I may smite thee and thy people with Pestilence and thou shalt be cut off from the earth or as Junius excellently rendreth it I had smitten thee and thy people with pestilence when I destroyed your cattel with murrain and thou hadst been cut off from the earth when the boyles were so rife upon the Magicians but when they fell I made thee to stand for so the Hebrew is Verbatìm to what purpose That I might shew my power and declare my name more manifestly throughout all the earth by a more remarkable destruction than at that time should have befallen thee 8. The true Occasion of the former Objection This brief survey of these historical Circumstances presents unto us as in a Map the just Occasion the due force and full extent of the Objection here intimated in transitu Thou wilt say then unto me why doth he yet find fault As if some one on Pharaohs behalf had replied more expresly thus God indeed had just cause to upbraid Pharaoh heretofore for neglect of his Signs and wonders for it was a foul fault in him not to relent so long as there was a possibilitie left for him to relent But since God hath thus openly declared his Irresistible will to harden him to destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why doth he chide him any longer Why doth he hold on to expostulate more sharply with him than heretofore for that which is impossible for him to avoid For is it possible for him to open the door of repentance when God hath shut it or to mollifie his heart whose hardening
Doctrine handled First Vnto what Condemnation they were of Old ordained Secondly How or in what manner they were ordained unto it 2. There is An English Note upon this Place A very strange One yet gathered as it seems from some good Writers vvho did not so clearly express themselves in their Comments upon this Place as might have been desired See the 1. note at the end of this Chapter and yet are farre vvorse understood by many of their Follovvers then they meant The English Note seems to imply that these men were Ordained to trouble the Church or to follow those lewd Opinions or Practises whereby the Church was troubled and the Faith of many brought into manifest hazard Yet to say that any man is ordained by God to this or the like end will be very harsh to any Christian eares and was I am perswaded either a branch of their Heresy which are here said to be ordained to Condemnation or a Branch of the same Root worse then any Heresy God ordains no man to sin which they maintained And yet to say That men are ordained to trouble the Church to be ungodly and to deny Christ is but the Necessary Consequent of their Opinion who hold That all things every Action of Man even sinfull Actions are so ordained and determined by God that they cannot come to pass otherwise then they do in the Individual either for the Matter Substance or for the circumstance of the action Thus to write thus to speak some are emboldened because nothing can fall out without Gods Foresight yea without his Co-operation For in him all things living do live all things endued with motion do move and have their being And in that nothing can be done without him in that he is Omnipotent and supporteth the world by the Word of his Power they do not collect amisse that they cannot lay a load too heavy upon him But they should consider God is no lesse holy and just then powerful that seeing he is Holy and Just no lesse Holy and Just then he is Powerfull they may lay that upon him which is a great deal too foul for him to bear The foulest Aspersion that can be cast upon his Holiness is to make him the Author of sinful Actions To say or think he did Ordain men to trouble the Church or to be as these men were ungodly Persons denyers of Christ 3. To avouch in plain Terms That God is the Author of sin is as most confesse a dangerous Heresy a sign of a darkned mind in spiritual knowledge And yet the blindnesse or ignorance would be more gross if any man should grant the Antecedent and deny the Consequent That is if one should grant that God did ordain any man to persecute the Church to turn his Grace into wantonness and yet withall deny that God in thus doing should be the cause and Author of Sin See the 6. Chapter He that is the Author or Cause of any Action which is Essentially evill or universally inseparable from evill is the Author and Cause of all the evill which is inseparable from the Action even in that he is the Cause of the Action For that which they call the Obliquity of the Action or Malum Formale Formally Evill can have no other cause at all then that which is the Cause of the Action from which this Formal evill is unseparable So that if Gods Ordinance be the Necessary Cause of such an Action to wit of Troubling the Church the same Ordinance must be the cause of the Obliquity or evill which is annexed unto it Satan and wicked men should be but Causes Instrumental at most that is such a cause as the sword is of the murther which a man commits with it So that the Case is clear that if to trouble the Church with lewd Opinions be a sinfull Action then God who is no Author of Sin did never ordain men unto that action For whatsoever God doth ordain or decree God is Author of that which be ordaineth he is the Author of it These Inferences will admit no Plea or Traverse amongst such as are instructed in the Fundamentall Rules of Art or Nature For all do grant that which they call Obliquity or Formal Evil to be a Relation that is such an entity or Being unto which no Action can be immediatly terminated it hath its Being only by Concomitance or resultance from some other Effect which hath a direct and Immediate Cause Of this Nature are Equality or Inequality of bodies Similitude or Dissimilitude Now it is impossible that man or Angel or any Cause whatsoever should produce an Equality between two bodies formally unequal by any other means then by altering the Quantity of one or both or to make one body dislike unto another but by altering their Qualities Altogether as Impossible it is to produce an Obliquity or Crookedness in mens wayes by any other means then by producing those Actions which are in their Nature Perverse and crooked He which is the Cause of such Actions in the Individual is the Cause of that crookedness or Obliquity which is inseparably annext unto them 4. That God is not the Cause not the Author of such Actions or that such Actions are not necessary in respect of his Decree Christianity it self or the Rule of Catholick Faith binds us to believe as firmly as that there is a God who is the Author or Fountain of Goodnesse Hence saith St. James Cap. 1. ver 13. Let no man say when he is tempted he is tempted of God for God cannot be tempted with evill neither tempteth he any man unto evil but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and inticed And unto this inconvenience of being tempted by his own lust man was not subject untill he was beguiled by Satan nor could this great tempter work evill in man immediatly or directly but only by tempting or inticing him to that Action to which evill was unseparably annexed that is to tast of the fruit which God had forbidden The Tempter knew that if he could intice our first Parents unto this Action there was no possibility of shedding the Obliquity or Formal evil from it which was essentially annext unto it Now if God had ordained man to this Individuall Action or to the condemnation which was due to this Action without possibility of avoiding it His Ordination had been a more true Cause of the first mans sin and of his death and ours then Satan was For Satan had no power either naturall or permitted him by God to make any ordinance or decree for man no power either given or permitted to lay a necessity of sinning upon our first Parents All that he was able or permitted to do was only by way of temptation or inticement Adam as all grant had a Freedom of Will in respect of Satan or any inticement that he could propose unto him But Freedom of Will he
of every creature which is good had an Objective being in him before it could have any Subjective being in the creature The Beautie of Salomons Temple whilst it stood was Subjectively in the materials rightly proportioned and adorned but Objectively in the Spectators or Surveyors eye The same Beautie was Objectively in the Architects Brain or Fancie before it could be either Subjectively in the material Temple or building or Objectively in the Spectators eye In like manner Justice or goodnesse Original was Subjectively in the first Man after his Creation but was Objectively in God before the First Man was created 8 Yet if another man had written That there was an Objective Goodnesse in the Creature precedent to the Act or exercise of Gods Will I should not have had the malitious wit or invention to have charged him as the forecited Author hath done me with the overthrowing of any Divine Attribute or with making the Creature a God or with Blasphemous Arminian Heresie Charitie would rather have moved me to make this construction of his words If we consider these Three Man the Image of God Goodness as all of them were Objectively in God before they had any actuall being Gods Image might be said to be in the Man and Goodnesse in Gods Image in such a sense as every Attribute is said to be in the subject of aproposition abstract from sense He that saith Socrates is a reasonable creature must acknowledge reason to be in Socrates The connexion between the Subject and the Attribute in Abstract Propositions is Essentiall and Eternall So necessarie so eternal was the Connexion between Man made after Gods Image or so considered and Goodness that whensoever it should please God to give this Subject Man after his Image actual Being the Attribute likewise to wit Goodness was of necessitie to have actuall Being or Coexistence with its Subject without intervention or interposition of any other cause If besides the Act or exercise of Gods Will by which man was created after his Image any other Act or exercise of his Will had been necessary or useful to make him actually Good then Goodness or Justice original should not have been Natural but Supernatural to the First Man which no good Protestant may grant The First Mans Goodness so long as it continued was continued by preservation of Gods Image in him and cannot be renued otherwise then by renovation of the same Image in him so that the Goodness of God is the Rule of Goodness the Ideal Form or patern of Goodness in the Creature The Act or exercise of the Divine Wil makes no creature morally or spiritually good but by making it conformable unto his own Goodness This and no other was my meaning in that 13. Chapter and this my meaning as I thought was sufficiently exprest by me and is so acknowledged by ingenious and understanding Readers 9. Nihil In bonis numerandum nisi quod per seipsum sit Laudabile i. e. sponte suâ possit laudari Tull. de Leg. L. 1. p. 163 quod a. laudabile sponte suâ illud ante sine praecepto bonum Laudabile If any man be disposed to except either against any Particular Proposition in this 13. Chapter or against my Generall declaration in what sense Gods Will is said to be the Rule of Goodness I shall request him positively to set down the Proposition Contradictory to any Proposition of mine which in that Chapter he thinketh to be Erroneous And if he can Concludently draw any such dangerous Consequence out of the Propositions avouched by me as I shall do out of his I faithfully promise to retract what I have said But until I see better Proofs then this obiector brings any I rest confident that howsoever some Divines of our Times will be ready to Contradict this Proposition All things are not Good only because God willeth them but God willeth somethings because they are Good Whiles this controversie is only betwixt him and me in this Particular yet I shall be sure to finde the same man to Contradict himself and to confesse as much as I here avouch whensoever he shall have occasion to dispute with the Jew or to assign the difference between the Ceremonial and the Moral Law or the Reason why The One is to be perpetually observed The Other not so The shedding of innocent Blood was evil before any Law was made against it before Gods Will was declared to the contrarie Cain did suffer punishment for the Fact before any positive Law and before any Act of Gods Will declared to prohibit it The shedding of innocent blood then was not evil because it was forbidden but it was afterwards peremptorily forbidden because alwaies Evil. Cains Enterprise against his innocent brother was Objectively Evil before there was any man that could commit this or the like enormitie Charitie Peace Brotherly Love are Good not onely because God hath commanded them or willed us to follow them but God by his Law doth will and command us to follow after these things because they were alwayes good even before he willed or commanded us to follow them The time will never be wherein Innocencie Brotherly Love Charitie Peace and loving kindnesse shall be as displeasing to God as Murther Hatred Malice Crueltie and Uncharitablenesse hitherto alwaies have been He cannot enact a Law either to authorize these or the like practises or to prohibit the contrarie vertues But in as much as Râ—ites and Ceremonies Sacrifices Circumcision c. which God sometimes did will and command men to observe were onely Good because God did will and command them Hence it is that they are now abrogated and their use inverted without any change of Gods eternal Will or of his Divine Nature The Negative Precepts concerning Rites and Ceremonies have been turned into Affirmatives and the Affirmatives into Negatives because the One containeth no other Goodnesse nor the Other any Evil in them which did not entirely depend upon Gods Positive Will to command or forbid them And seeing His Will though most Immutable is immutably Free though not to do Good or Evil yet Free to make that which is not in its nature or essentially Good to be Good for One Time or Season not for Another and that which is not in its nature or essentially Evil but of an indifferent nature to be sometimes Good and sometimes Evil therefore hath he made the Omission of some Ceremonies to be as Good in latter times as their observance was in former and the Observance of others to be as evil as their former Neglect or contempt were under the Law or from the Date of Gods first Covenant with Abraham until the Ratification or publication of the New Covenant made in Christ The uncircumcised manchilde saith God to Abraham Gen. 17. 14. whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people But seeing the observance of that which is here commanded was onely Good
Church call Original should be no more then a meer Privation of Original Justice Of the Inconveniencies which will follow upon the affirmative Opinion that is of that Image of God wherein the First Man was Created But the Ingenuous Reader wil perhaps demand what further Inconvenience wil follow upon the yielding or granting of the former Postulatum or Supposition unto them This in the Second place That Adams Successors whether immediate or intermediate unto the worlds End should have a greater measure of that which they call Liberum Arbitrium or Free-will then the word of God doth acknowledge or any Ingenuous Man that will subjugate his Reason to be Regulated by the written word or Ancient Rules or Canons of Faith can allow or approve This deduction following is clear by Rules of Reason viz. If the Righteousnesse of the First Man did consist in a Grace Supernatural or in any quality additional to his constitution as he was the Work of God This Grace or Quality might have been or rather was lost without any Real wound unto our Nature Or without any other Wound then such as the Free-will or right use of Reason or other Natural parts which after the losse this of supposed Supernatural Grace or Quality were left might instantly have cured or yet may cure Or in other terms more Scholastical perhaps Thus If the Integrity or Righteousnesse of the First Man were lost only demeritoriè by way of Demerit without any physical or working cause of its expulsion or without any wound made in our nature by such positive cause The same Righteousnesse which the First Man had might have been regained by the right use of Reason which was left unto him or of those natural faculties which he had pro primâ vice abused From these premisses the necessary consequence will be this That the satisfaction of our Lord Christ for sin original at least had been superfluous And according to this Tenet the Opinion of the Socinians would be more tolerable and more justifiable then the Doctrine of the Romish Church so far as it concerns the Valew or Efficacy of Christs Sufferings or Satisfaction by his Merits or Justification by works rather then by faith especially works of the Moral Law or observance of those two great Commandments To love God above all and our Neighbours as our Selves or of that other whatsoever you would that men should do unto you even so do unto them 3. Lastly if all or any of these Opinions were granted to the Church of Rome we of Reformed Churches should be concluded to yield That Adams posterity or as many of them as are or shall be justified were to be Formally justified by inherent Righteousnesse that is they have or might challenge absolution from the first sentence denounced against Adam by way of legal plea or satisfaction The deduction or remonstration of this demonstrative inference is clear to any Artist to any reasonable man unlesse his Reason be overgrown by faction or by mingling of passions with his understanding The Remonstration of this demonstrative inference is thus It is in confesso and more then so an undoubted Maxim subscribed unto by the Church of Rome That the grace which is infused by and from our Lord Jesus Christ is a supernatural quality or a qualification more soveraign then the first grace which God the Father bestowed upon the First Man Now if that Grace were a super addition to his Nature or Constitution as he was the work of God the losse of this Grace or quality could not have made any wound in the humane Nature which the least drop of that Grace which daily distilleth from the second Adam might not more then fully cure Yea such grace would sublimate our Nature so cured unto an higher pitch or fuller measure of Righteousnesse then that which was bestowed upon our Father Adam In respect of these and many other Reasons which might be alledged all such Congregations or Assemblies of Christian Men as have departed or have been extruded out of the Romish Church stand deeply engaged to deny that the Righteousnesse of the First Man was a Grace or quality supernatural CHAP. III. Whether Original Righteousness were a quality Natural or a mean betwixt Natural and supernatural 1. TO affirm that the Righteousnesse wherein the First Man was created was a gift rather Natural then supernatural would be no solaecisme no assertion any way more incongruous then many Resolutions of the Roman Doctors in like Cases are no grosser blemish or deeper impression then might easily be salved or wiped off with that distinction usual amongst them in other the like or rather the same Cases The true state of the Question proposed That the righteousness wherein Adam was created was natural quoad terminum productum non quoad modum productionis A natural Endowment in respect of the essential qualitie produced albeit the manner of producing it were somewhat more then supernatural But this is a dispute which for the present shall be waved because the Original difference betwixt us and them may be more punctually stated and the Questions dependent on it may be more clearly resolved from these Postulata or presumed Maxims First That God did make the First Man after his own image Secondly That the First man being so made was righteous and just Neither of these are denied by any The state of the Original Controversie unto such as are disposed to have it plainly propounded in constant or unfleeting Terms is thus Seeing man was made after the image of God and being so made was just and righteous Whether there were two works of God or two distinct effects of his work of creating the First Man in righteousness and in his own image And whether the one of them was terminated to his own image imprinted in man and the other to his original justice If these two expressions made by Moses of Gods image and mans righteousness expresse or include no more then one and the same work of God or effect of his work in man The losse of Original justice or defacing of Gods image enstamped upon him was more then a meer privation and necessarily presupposeth a positive Cause in our First Parents and a positive Effect wrought by that cause whereunto the privation of Original justice was Concomitant or rather Consequent Whatsoever Controversie may be moved concerning the Cause or manner how this Effect was wrought the effect it self was a deadly wound in our Nature a multitude of wounds all by Nature or any endeavour of Nature or performances of such Free will as was left to mankind after these wounds were once made altogether incurable without the help or assistance of better Grace or endowments then were bestowed upon the First Man The cure of these wounds wholly depends upon that grace whose Being and bestowing the second Adam did merit from the Father of Lights or from the Divine nature or Deity 2. To win the Assent of
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
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
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
by his Law allot the First-born a double Portion and give him in every respect the Preeminence of his brethren If this Law were just and right were it not unrighteousnesse in God to bereave Esau of his Birth-right or other Prerogative before he had offended the Law or the Lawgiver before he had done good or evil No He bestowed a greater Inheritance upon Esau then either his Father Isaac or his brother Jacob lived possessed of greater then by any customary Lawes of Nations he could lay claim unto And the First-born among the sons of Jacob were bound to blesse him for his Goodnesse in allowing them a double Portion in blessings temporal But he had forewarned them as well by his own practise in Jacobs Case as by his Instructions given to Moses not to seek his special Goodness by Plea of Law or by custom of Nations not to urge his own Law concerning Blessings temporal to Over-rule his Will in bestowing Blessings Spiritual All then which our Apostle meant in his Reply to this Objection Is there unrighteousnesse with God is no more in effect then This God hath reserved it as an Eternal Prerogative to himself To have mercy on whom he will have mercy and to have compassion on whom he will have compassion not on them whom the present sons of Jacob think worthyest of mercy and compassion because they are Abrahams seed or because they being Gentiles love their Nation and build them Synagogues Cerah and Dathan with their Complices because some of these men descended from Levi as Moses and Aaron did others from Reuben Jacobs eldest son thought themselves men as holy and just at least as capable of Gods Favour and Graces as Moses was But Gods judgment of them was farre otherwise And when man hath done what he list or what he can God will use his own judgment and not his in the disposing of mercy and judgment for he worketh all things according to the counsel of his Will Whatsoever the devices of mans heart be That must stand So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy 10. What is not of him that willeth what is not of him that runneth Neither Election nor Salvation nor any Spiritual Grace thereto tending The Proposition is Vniversally Negative neither First Plantation nor Increase neither the Beginning Middle or Ending nor any other part of any Spiritual blessing is in the Power of Man All and every Parts is from God alone that sheweth mercy And so I come to the second Inquirie The second Enquirie To what end or purpose this universal Assertion is referred The discussion whereof will justifie my interpretation of former Passages For surely our Apostle intended no more in the Premisses then is contained in the main Conclusion Non est volentis c. Is it then to no purpose what End the man as yet unregenerate Propose to his Will whether good or bad Or after the End proposed skils it nothing what choise he make of Meanes Or after choise of meanes no matter how he prosecute them whether carelesly and slothfully or with diligence and alacritie See Chap. 32. and Fol. 3143. 2. Note Suppose we were to preach to a Congregation of which the most part were not for ought discreet Charitie could presume in the State of Grace nor assured of their salvation and yet desirous to use the Meanes for attaining this Assurance should we from this Doctrine tell them all were one in respect of their Conversion or Regeneration whether they confessed one God or no whether they sware by His Name in Truth and judgement or use it rashly and vainly whether they prophane the Sabbaths or religiously observe them whether they run to suspicious houses or repaire to the Temple whether they be willing to hear a lascivious song or a Sermon Common talk or Common Prayers upon Festival or solemn dayes Or doth the undoubted truth of this Doctrine to witt Jacob was elected before he had done good or evill sufficiently warrant us to make this Vse of it to an unregenerate Audience Seek ye neither to do good nor evil till ye be elected for do ye what ye can if Gods Will be to convert you ye shall be converted at the time appointed if it be not his Will to have you converted do what you can ye shall never be converted No Minister of God that understands himself but would be more affraid of these Consequences then Moses was of his Rod when it was turned into a serpent And yet unlesse these Inferences be true Every Will every Purpose and endeavour of man is not Excluded by the former Vniversal Negative from being availeable as Meanes ordinarily necessary but only from being Meritorious Causes of Regeneration or Legall Titles to Election Some Will and some kind of endeavours are in their kind as effectual as others are idle and impertinent or demeritorious of Gods Grace to convert us 11. If we consider in heart that the principal and last End of our Apostles endless Pilgrimages and indefatigable labours in the Gospel was to gain multitudes of soules unto Christ that the meanes subordinate to this End was to encourage all without exception to come and to shew them the way as he doth in this Epistle by which they must come to wit not by Workes but by Faith We shall much wrong St. Paul and our own soules more if we apply these words It is not of him that willeth c. to any other purpose or stretch them further then thus Every man must sincerely and truely renounce his own will that he may unfeignedly submit himself to Gods will Every man must utterly revoke his own waies and abandon those courses wherein flesh and blood most delight that he may run as we say with Might and Maine to Gods mercies and freely denying himself wholly betake himself unto them Or taking the whole Proposition It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy It s all one as if he had said It is to no purpose what ye will or whither ye run unlesse ye run unto Gods promses made in Christ By proving most excellent in any other course of life though in the excellent knowledge of the Law unlesse withall ye bend your course unto this mark which I set before you you may make your selves such as God hath decreed to harden for as he sheweth mercy on whom he will shew mercy So whom he will he hardeneth 12. But doth this Conclusion of the Apostle's any way import that God should deny mercy to any that unfainedly seek it It rather implies that he shewes mercy to all such in abundance The Principal and most Pertinent Sense of Gods Words urged by our Apostle as they respect Mose's Petition concerning himself is this Where I shew mercy I will shew mercy to the purpose For when He had told Moses that he would proclaim His Name
after the same manner some good Writers maintain the universal Negative God never hardens positively but privatively only only by substracting or not granting Grace or other means of repentance or by leaving nature to the Bent of its inbred corruption Vide Lorinum in vers 51. cap. 7. Act. Apost pag. 322. Colum. 1. Others of as good note and greater desert in Reformed Churches better refute this defective Extreme than they express the Mean between it and the contrary extreme in excesse with the maintenance whereof they are deeply charged not by Papists only but by their brethren How often have Calvin and Beza c been accused by Lutherans as if they taught That God did directly harden mens hearts by infusion of bad qualities or That the production of a reprobate or impenitent temper were such an immediate or formal Term of his positive action as heat is of calefaction or drought of heat But if we take Privative and Positive Induration in this sense and set them so farr asunder the Division is altogether imperfect the former member comes as farr short of the Truth as the Latter overreacheth it God sometimes hardens some men neither the one way nor the other that is as we say in Schooles datur medium abnegationis between them And perhaps it may be as questionable whether God at any time hardens any man merè privativè as it is whether there can be Peccatum purae omissionis any sin of meer Omission without all mixture of Commission But with this question here or elsewhere we are not disposed to meddle God sometimes hardens privatively only being rather willing to grant what is confessed by all or most That he sometimes hardens privativè if not by meer substraction of Grace or utter denyal of other meanes of repentance yet so especially by these meanes as may suffice to verifie the truth of the Proposition usually received or to give the denomination of Privative hardning But many times he hardens Positivè not by infusion of bad qualities God usually hardens positively but not by his Irresistible Will but by disposing or inclining the Heart to goodness that is by communication of his favours and exhibition of motives more than ordinarie to repentance not that he exhibits these with purpose to harden but rather to mollifie and organize mens hearts for the receiving of Grace The natural effect or purposed issue of the Riches of Gods Bounty is to draw men to repentance But the very attempt or sway of meanes offered provokes hearts fastned to their sinnes The manner of Gods positive hardening to greater stubborness in the Rebound Hearts thus affected treasure up wrath against the day of wrath in a proportioned measure to the riches of bountie offered but not entertained by them And such a Cause as God is of their treasuring up of wrath he is likewise of their hardening no direct no necessary Cause of either yet a Cause of both more than privative a positive cause by Consequence or Resultance not necessary or necessary only ex Hypothesi Meanes of repentance sincerely offered by God but wilfully rejected by man concurre as positively to induration of heart as the heating of water doth to the quick freezing of it when it is taken off the fire and set in the cold aire Both these Actions or rather both these qualities of heat and cold have their proper influence into this effect If a Physician should minister some physical drink unto his patient and heap clothes upon him with purpose to prevent some disease by a kindly sweat and the Patient throughly heated wilfully throw them off both may be said positive causes of the cold which would necessarily ensue from both actions albeit the Patient only were the true moral Cause or the only blame-worthy Cause of his own death or danger following Iust according to the importance of this supposition or similitude is the cause of hardening in many cases to be divided betwixt God and man The Israelites did harden their own hearts in the wilderness and yet their hearts had not been so hardened unless the Lord had done so many wonders in their sight In every wonder his purpose was to beget Beleife but through their wilfull unbeleife the best effect of his greatest wonders was induration and impenitencie Now as it suits not with the Rules of good manners for Physicians to tie a mans hands of discretion or place lest he may use them to his owne harm so neither was it consonant to the Rules of eternal equitie that God should necessitate the Israelites Wills to a true Beleif of his wonders or mollifie their hearts against their will that is He neither hardens nor mollifies their hearts by his Irresistible Will nor did he at all will their hardning but rather mollification 5. All this is true of Gods ordinary manner of hardning men or of the first degrees of hardning any man But Pharaohs Case is Extraordinary Pharaoh was hardned by Gods Irresistible Will Beza rightly inferrs against Origen and his followers that this hardening whereof the Apostle here speaketh was Irresistible that the party thus hardened was uncapable of repentance that God did shew signes and wonders in Egypt not with purpose to reclaim but to harden Pharaoh to drive him headlong into the snare prepared for him from everlasting All these Inferences are plain First that Interrogation Who hath resisted his Will is equivalent to the universal negative No man no creature can at any time resist his will That is according to the interpretation premised Whatsoever particular Gods Will is to have necessary or so to be as the Contrary or Contradictorie to it shall not be the Existence of it cannot be prevented or avoyded Now that God did in this peremptory manner will Pharaohs hardening is evident from the Emphasis of that message delivered unto him by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen for this very purpose and for no other end in the world possible have I raised thee up that I might shew in thee my power and his power was to be shewed in his hardening For from the Tenor of this message the Apostle inferres the latter part of this Conclusion in the Text Whom he will he hardneth yea he so hardneth as it is impossible they should escape it Whether Pharaoh were an absolute reprobate or created to be Hardened or his judgments due unto it In all these collections Beza doth not erre Yet was Beza with reverence be it spoken more fowly to blame then this filthy Writer for so it pleaseth him to entitle Origen in that he referres these threatnings For this very purpose have I raised thee up that I may shew my power in thee not only unto Pharaohs Exaltation to the crown of Egypt as I think Origen did but we need not we may not grant but to his Extraction out of the womb yea to his first Creation out of the dust as if the Almighty had moulded him by his
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