I need not use means to avoid it But also if I must use means I must if I must not I must not Seeing Gods decree necessitateth as much to use or omit the means as to obtain or lose the end For if their opinion be true all things whatsoever end or means of little or great moment come to passe necessarily and unavoidably by reason of Gods eternal Decree Here they have two Evasions Evasio 1 The first is this Albeit say they God hath most certainly determined what shall or what shall not be done concerning us yet his Decree is hid from us and we must use lawful and ordinary means for the obtaining of such and such good Ends keeping on the ordinary course which he hath revealed to us Confutatio See the vanity of this shift our Opposites teach that whatsoever God hath decreed shall be done and whatsoever is omitted shall be undone If therefore God hath determined that we should not use such and such means it is impossible for us to use them if he hath decreed that we should it is impossible that we should omit them And therefore it is more than ridiculous to say that although God in his secret will hath determined that we should not do such a thing yet we are to do it seeing his decree though it be secret yet it will have its effect and it is absolutely impossible we should do that which God hath determined we shall not do Evasion 2 Howsoever say our Opposites our opinion is far from Stoicism for the Stoicks thought that all things came inevitably to pass by reason of an indissoluble Chain and Connexion of natural causes but we teach that all events are irresistably necessary by reason of Gods everlasting decrees and His Omnipotency daily executing them ConFutation This reason is so poor a one and yet so much made on by some worthy men that I am more troubled to wonder at it than to confute it yet that I may satisfie it distinctly I will divide the opinion of the Stolcks into two particular Tenets 1. They hold that all things come to pass inevitably 2. They thought the reason of this inevitablenesse of events to be an unchangeable connexion of natural causes Our Opposites stisly maintain the former of these Tenets Now let the Reader observe that the most prodigious absurdities accompanying this Stoical error follow the first part of their opinion though sequestred from the second For if all things come to pass unavoidably what need I care what I do yea if I shall care I shall care whether I will or no and a thousand the like horridconceits follow the opinion of the necessity of events whatsoever we make to be the cause of this necessity It is a great point of Turkish Divinity at this day that all things are done unavoidably and they with our Opposites make Gods will to be the cause of this unavoidableness and therefore they judge of Gods pleasure or displeasure by the event Yet there is no Christian but abhorreth this Turcism and gives it no better entertainment than Anathema Mararatha It s too apparent therefore that albeit our Adversaries are true Christians yet in this point their opinion is guilty by reason of its consequence both of Stoicism and Turcism Again if we consider the second part of the Stoicks opinion we shall perceive that the opinion which we confute cannot be minced but that it will be compleat Stoicism The Stoicks thought the connexion of causes to be the cause of the necessity of events its true but what did they think to be the connexion of causes doubtless the eternal Laws of Nature which they supposed to be a Deity It is very probable they thought the Fates to be but Natures Laws but whatsoever they meant by the Fates its evident they made their decrees to be the cause of the connexion of causes How often read we both in Philosophers and Poets of Fatorum Decreta Parcarum Leges c. Yea the word Fatum it self is as much as a Decree as Edictum from Edicere so Fatum from Fari Quid aliud est Fatum quam id quod ' Deus de unoquoqut fatur saith Minutius Well then to apply Do not our Adversaries in this point suppose an inviolable linking of all things together one necessarily following in the neck of another Do they not make the cause of this linking to be Gods irresistable decree Do they not defend compleat Stoicism What part of Stoicism do they disclaim Do they not maintain inevitable necessity Do they not teach an indissoluble connexion of all things Do they not believe divine decrees to be the cause of this connexion Certainly they must needs confess themselves Stoicks in this point unless we will give them leave to grant the premises and deny the conclusion I know the Stoicks had mis-conceits concerning the Deities as accounting those to be Deities which are not whose decrees they made the causes of all things but they were the common errors of Paganism and are beside the point in hand And truly these set aside I see not wherein our Adversaries differ from the Stoicks I have prosecuted this Argument more copiously because it includeth many others I mean all those which Scripture or Reason furnish us with against the error of the Stoicks and they are many for I think verily there are few opinions which have a greater retinue of ridiculous and erroneous consequences than this of the un avoidable necessity of events Some of them may make one laugh and some of them may make one tremble I omit the former because they are obvious to every mans conceit and I would not willingly make sport of so serious a matter Of the last sort I will specifie one in a second Argument Arg. 2 That opinion which being admitted maketh God the Author of sin is gross and erroneous that I may say no worse but so I speak it with horror doth the Opinion of our Opposites I know they are renowned Christians and as they abhor Stoical errors so they hold this damnalbe doctrine which is worse See this Argument confirmed in the Answer to the 4th Objection than ever any Heretick held which transformeth God into a Devil to be most accursed yet so the case standeth that as the error of fatal necessity so this of the cause of sin fatally followeth their opinion which I prove thus They teach That nothing is done in the world not can be done but what God hath decreed to be done Now it 's too certain that three quarters of the things which are done in the world are sins therefore according to this opinion God is the principal cause of sins Devils and Men are but His Instruments Evasio The usual Answer is That God is the cause of all the actions that are sinful but not of the sinfulness of the actions of all our works but not of our obliquities and imperfections As one that rides upon a halting Jade
of sins questionless they make God according to their own Argumentation the cause of sins But they have a limitation for this Rule and say that it holdeth in causis essentialiter subordinatis as they say that God is the cause of all those things which are essentially and districtly done by our wills but sins proceeding from the depravation of our wills are effects of a cause not directly subordinate to God The limitation is sound but not applicable to their instance yea the limitation it self quite spoileth them For 1. While Adam's will was yet sound they teach that God decreed that Adam should eat the forbidden fruit now at that time they cannot say but that Adam was a cause essentially subordinate to God 2. They teach that God is a cause not onely of our actions but also of our volitions as I may say then these being the causes of our sins are directly subordinate to him 3. Let us consider not onely the subordination between God and our wills but also between our actions and their moralities and we shall perceive that according to the abuse of these Rules they make God the cause of our sins For that Rule Causa causae est causa causati is infillibly true expounded thus The cause of any effect is the cause of all such events as necessarily follow that effect Now then if as they say God be a necessary cause of all our particular actions seeing our actions in reference to such and such objects must needs be sinful it is manifest what followeth For example Though to take money in general be no sin yet to take this or that money being none of our own is a sin Now then if God be a cause of this action in reference to this object as he is if he be the cause of this particular action it is impossible their Doctrine should excuse God from sin Eating in reference to the forbidden fruit was a sin but according to them God was a principal cause of eating the forbidden fruit Ergo. Minor prob They say he was the necessitating cause of this particular action Eating was a natural action the individuation of this eating by an unlawful object was a moral obliquity But God was the cause of this individual Ergo. The like may be said of all our sinful actions When I have drunk sufficiently both for the necessity and comfort of nature to drink a cup more is sin But our Opposites teach that I cannot take up this superfluous cup without Gods speciall determination Ergo. This Doctrine is enough to make ones hair stand an end making God whatsoever they say the cause not onely of our actions but also of our obliquities for what are the obliquities of our actions but the placing of them upon wrong objects If therefore they make God the principal cause of all our particular actions most of which are particularized by bad objects what do these men make of God But Recrimination is no answer Hitherto I have shewed though perhaps without method yet I hope not without profit how our Opposites are wounded with their own weapons Now I will take their weapons out of their hands and teach them the right use of them shewing how God is the cause of all things onely not the cause of sin a cause of all good things yet so as that many good things are contingent also We have shewed in the third Argument how God hath ordained that all sorts of Inferior or second causes should work according to their proper kinds that voluntary Agents should work voluntarily c. God then is the first cause that all things do work and that they do work in certain kinds If so then God is the cause that many things are done contingently one of the chiefest sorts of second causes by this appointment working voluntarily and therefore contingently which connexion we have formerly justified This being well understood will instruct us not onely that it may be so but also that it must be so That God being the necessary cause of all good things yet all such things are not necessary effects of Him For example It is impossible that man should do any thing without God therefore God is a cause necessary to the being of all things effected by him yet because many things done by the free choice of man might as well have been omitted God no ways constraining him to them these are not necessary effects of God The Reason of this is because God hath decreed that man should work voluntarily having liberty to do as well one thing as another yet so that God giveth him the strength to do whatsoever he chooseth to do and ability to choose what he will without limitation of his choice ☜ for this were else to take it away and to make man an involuntary Agent For example God hath given thee strength of body he hath given thee also ability to choose in what exercise thou wilt employ it thou choosest to Ring or Dance God then the Author of thy strength is the chief cause of these exercises yet so as they are contingent in respect of Him because thou mightest have omitted them hadst thou pleased By this we may plainly see how God is the principal cause of all things of which he is capable to be a cause and yet many things are contingent in respect of him This being cleared we may with more facility conceive how and in what sense God is the cause of all we do and yet we onely the cause of sin God sustains us when we are about our sins even then in Him we live and move and have our being as well as when we are better busied God giveth that strength by which we commit any sin yet because he doth not necessitate or incline unto it but we of our selves abuse it to wickedness God hath still the part of a Creator we onely are sinful An example will make this clear Suppose a King delivereth to his Subject Men Weapons Mony and Warlike provision that he may fight for his Honor against his enemies his Subject proves a Traitor and useth all his Soveraigns strength against himself His Soveraign here is a cause that he hath the command and doth the Office of a Captain but he is no cause of his Treachery the offence is onely the Captains and the wrong is onely the Soveraigns This is just the case between God and us God hath given us many excellent faculties both of body and soul which he intended we should use to his Glory in obedience to his commandements and resist His and our enemy the Devil we most traiterously siding with Satan have abused His gifts to His Dishonor God did the part of a Creator we of Rebels A man lives intemperately God gave him not strength to this purpose he necessitated not the man to this intemperancy Man therefore onely sinned God is dishonoured The King made his Subject able to rebel against him by delivering his military furniture
according to the natural and eternal customs Even so if according to the opposite Tenet God hath ab aterno prefixed an irresistible tenor and method agreeable to which all things should for ever necessarily come to passe God might ab aeterno also from the same instant He made His Decrees let all things alone according to Epicurus his conceit * For our Opposites say Quae Deus decrevit sponte fluâ—nt seeing all things must come orderly to pass by vertue of His Decree though he slept all the while Object 2 But our Doctrine they say contradicteth the Scriptures our Saviour telleth the Apostles that the hairs of their head were numbred that not so much as a contemptible Sparrow falleth without his Father Therefore the pettiest matters in the world are determined by God Himself I remember the Marginal Note indeed in the Protestant Italian Bible upon Matth. 10.29 upon these words Yet not one of them falleth to the ground without your Father saith thus Che nou ' intra venga it decreto ela volenta sua c. i. e. But so that His decree and will came between But this gloss is impertinent The meaning of the place is this Not one of them falleth without Gods privity and permission The scope of our Saviour was to comfort and encourage his Disciples whom he was now sending abroad into the world as sheep among wolves to this purpose he tells them that the hairs of their head were numbred c. the number of them was known to God without whose permission they could not lose one of them That not so much as a Sparrow falleth without their Father c i. e. without the knowledge and permission of Him who was their loving Father And therefore he bids them not to be afraid seeing if such trifles could not be without Gods permission doubtless God who was their more special observer would not suffer men to meddle with them more than should be for His glory and their good So that it cannot without absurdity be hence concluded that God hath made any speciall decree concerning Sparrows for as St. Paul saith Doth God take care for Oxen so say I Doth God take care for Sparrows Here it is worth the observation that the Arguments for the most part which our Opposites produce for the necessity of all events and their kind of particular providence are such which as one saith Aut nihil concludunt aut nimium conclude either not so much or more than they would have them being much like the garments which were made for the Moon either too big or too little for their conclusions for either they are drawn from particular examples and prove nothing at all as when Calvin proveth that there ariseth no wind without a special decree from God because he caused the South-wind to bring the Israelites Quails and sent the tempest which caused Jonas to be cast into the Sea or else they are deduced out of such reasons and Scriptures which as they handle them prove God to be the Author of sin and so a great deal more than they are willing they should Object 3 But our opinion may seem to patronize the proud error concerning Free-will for if God doth not Necessitate our Actions but leave them to our inclinations so that it is in our power to work or not work we have freedom of will to do or not to do whatsoever we do contingently Solution These words which we do contingently are well put in for we say many things are done contingently in respect of God yet many we say are done by Gods special determination But 't is most certainly true that good duties properly so called to which we are tied pro hoc statu are never performed without choice and freedom Which therefore amongst other priviledges of Christs purchasing are restored under the spiritual Jubilee of the Gospel and instated on us by the holy Ghost as one special part of our Redemption If the Son make your free then are you free indeed And Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty In answer then to the Objection I say That for our natural actions as eating walking c. I believe that ordinarily we perform them freely and contingently in respect of God Likewise I doubt not but as the antient Heathens Aristides Socrates Cato Fabritius so many now a days perform many things civilly and morally good being left alone * I do not reject the opinion of restringent grace if it be well expounded to their contingent educations and complexions But for matter of grace and salvation I confess to the glory of God that in us being dead in sins and trespasses dwelleth no good That we cannot so much as think much less do any good unless the holy Ghost giveth us the power both to will and to do it Adam before his fall * The opposite Tenet alloweth not Adam Free will in his innocency as I could easily prove and is partly affirmed already by the third Argument was equally poised between perseverance and defection but he falling by the freedom of his choice lost those perfections which made him free so that if his posterity do any thing truly good it is from God not from themselves whatsoever bad they do it is from themselves not from God Here it may be noted that we may do many things contingently in respect of God which yet we do not freely but necessarily in respect of our selves as our sins are contingent in respect of Him because he never imposed any necessity of sinning upon us yet they are necessary in respect of our selves seeing we being left to our selves cannot but sin So many things which are contingent in respect of our nature may be in some sort necessary in respect of our persons as those things which our complexions or customs and habits necessitate us to But this is an impertinency Object 4 They say moreover that our opinion contradicteth both Scripture and Philosophy 1. For Scripture it is said Act. 14. that in him we live move and have our being by which words we are taught that all our motions of what kind soever either natural or moral vital or rational are not onely guided but also caused by God Himself 2. Both in Logick and Metaphysicks there are divers Rules consonant to this Scripture as Causa causae est etiam causa causati causa secunda non agit nisi meta à prim c. Therefore man doth no kind of thing but God is the first cause of it and consequently whatsoever we do we do necessarily in respect of Him Answ This is one of the Arguments which proveth more than our Adversaries would have them and by these Rules have I formerly in the second Argument proved that they make God the Author of sin for if causa causae be causa causati as doubtless it is while they make God the cause of all those actions which either are sins or the causes
unto him the verier miscreant he that did rebell against him So God made Adam indeed able to sin but he never intended that he should sin with that ability God then is the cause of all those things in which we sin and yet whatsoever he doth is exceeding good he is not the cause that we intend any sin but the cause that we are able to commit those sins we intend and yet he intended not our abilities for sin but for his Service Of all our good actions he is the first cause we are the second of all our sins we are the proper cause he is onely the Conditio sine qua non But here some man may say That choice or election of an unlawful object upon which we misplace our actions is that which maketh us sinners now this being an act of our will it must suppose also the concourse of God how then doth our opinion clear the point The same Answer abundantly sufficeth God made Adam able to be willing to sin but he made him not to will sin God set before him life and death that he did choose death it was by the strength of will given him of God but God did not bind him to choose death for that were a contradiction a necessitated choice Object ult Briefly whatsoever we choose we do it by the power by which we are voluntary Agents yet if we choose death God is not to be blamed for he made us voluntary and therefore it was as possible for us to have chosen life If the nature of a voluntary Agent be well observed this point will be most evident The last objection is this Gods fore-knowledge of all futures is most infallible and necessary Ergo All futures in respect of him fall out necessarily otherwise it is possible God may be deceived yea if many things fall out contingently Gods fore-knowledge of them can be but contingent depending after a sort on mans free-will This Argument is plausible at the first view but if it be touched it falls to shatters It is one thing to know that a thing will necessarily be done and another to know necessarily that a thing will be done God doth necessarily and certainly foreknow all that will be done but he doth not know that those things which shall be done voluntarily will be done necessarily he knoweth that they will be done but he knoweth withall that they might have fallen out otherwise for ought he had ordered to the contrary So God necessarily knew that Adam would fall and yet he knew that he would not fall necessarily for it was as possible for him not to have fallen It was the antient and is still the true opinion That Gods Praescience is not the cause of Events he fore-knoweth all things because they will be done things are not done because he fore-knoweth them The infallibility of his knowledge consisteth not in the immutability of his decreee but in the prerogative of his Deity it is impossible therefore that any man by his voluntary manner of working should delude Gods fore-sight not because God doth necessitate his will to certain effects for this were indeed to take it away but because his fore-knowledge is infinite Let our hearts therefore be never so full of Mazes and Meanders turning and winding yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use the Poets language the al-seeing Eye of God cannot but espy them long before not because he himself contrived them for then it were no wonder if he were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but because to Him who is every way infinite all things cannot be but present and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the significant word of the Author to the Hebrews signifying open by a metaphor or similitude drawn from a word that signifies having the faces laid upwards because such as lye so have their face exposed to the sight of all men FINIS Books Printed or sold by William Leake at the sign of the Crown in Fleetstreet between the two Temple-gates YOrks Heraldry fol. A bible of a very fair largo Roman Letter 4. Orlando Furioso fol. Callis learned readings on the Statute 21 H. 8. Cap. 5. of Sewers Perkins on the Laws of England Wilkinsons Office of Sheriffs 8. The book of Fees Parsons Law 8. Mirror of Justice 8. Topicks in the Laws of England 8. Skene de significatione verbarum 4. Delamans use of the Horizontal Quadrant Mathematical Recreations Wilbey second Set of Musick 3 4 5 and 6 parts 4. Corderius in English 8. Dr. Pulk's Meteors Malthus Artificial Fireworks Nyes Gunnery and Fireworks Cato Major with Annotations by William Austin Esquire Mel Heliconium by Alex. Ross 8. Nosce te ipsum by Sir John Davis 8. Animadversions on Lillies Grammer 8. The History of Vienna and Paris The History of Lazarillo de Tormes Hero and Leander by George Chapman and Christopher Marlow Mayer's Catechism 8. Exercitatio Scholastica Bishop Andrews Sermons Adams on Peter Posing of the Accidence Amadis de Gaule Guillims Heraldry fol. Herberts Travels fol. Boccas Tables Man become guilty by John Francis Senalt and Englished by Henry Earl of Monmoth The Idiot in four books first and second of Wisdom third of the mind fourth of the experience of the ballance The Life and Raign of Hen. 8. by the Lord Herbert fol. Aula Lucis or the house of Light The Fort-Royal of holy Scriptures or a new Concordance of the chief heads of Scripture by J. H. A Tragoedy written by the most learned Hugo Grotius called CHRISTUS PATIENS and translated into English by George Sandys The Mount of Olives or Solitary Devotions by Henry Vanghan Sylurist with an excellent Discourse of the blessed estate of Man in Glory written by the most Reverend and holy Father Anselm Arch bishop of Canterbury The description and use of the double Horizontal Dyall by W.O. whereunto is added the description of the General Horological Ring The Rights of the People concerning Impositions stated in a learned Argument by a late eminent Judge of this Nation France painted out to the life the second Edition The Garden of Eden both parts or an accurate description of Flowers and Fruits now growing in England by Sir Hugh Plat Knight Exercitatio Scholastica Book of Martyrs fol. Willet on Genesis and Exodus PLAYES The Wedding Philaster The Hollander The Merchant of Venice The strange discovery Maids Tragedy King and no King Othello the Moor of Venice The grateful servant These Books are lately come forth and sold by Will. Leak at the Crown in Fleet-street The Solemne League and Covenant Arraigned and Condemned by the sentence of the Divines of London and Cheshire c. by Lawrence Womack now D.D. and Arch-deacon of Suffolk Amorea the Lost Lover or the Idea o Love and Misfortune being never before printed written by Patherick Jenlyn Gent. An exact Abridgment of the Records in the Tower of London from the Raign of K. Edward the second to K. Richard the third of all the Parliaments holden in each Kings raign and the several Acts in every Parliament by Sir Robert Cotton Kt. and Baronet An Apology for the Discipline of the antient Church intendep especally for that of our Mother the Church of England in answer to the Admonitory Letter lately published by William Nicolson Arch-Deacon of Brecon and now Lord Bishop of Glocestet Le Prince d' Amour or the Prince of Love Wa collection of several Ingenious Poems and Songs by the Wits of the Age. 8. A learned Exposition of the Apostles Creed delivered in several Sermons by William Nicholson Archdeacon of Brecon and now Lord Bishop of Glocester