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
For the full resolution of this Question the Sacred Scriptures are not the sole Competent Judge or Rule Nor doth the determination of it belong to the Cognizance of such as are the best Interpreters of Sacred writ for the true Grammatical or Litteral sence of every proposition contained in it This Case must be reserved to the Schools of Arts or to the certain Rules of true Logick and Philosophy which are the best guides of Reason in all discursive faculties But here I am engaged to do that which in other cases I have endeavoured to avoid that is to make repetition of two great Problems in the Science or Faculty of Theologie heretofore in their several places handled and in some ensuing meditations to be hereafter inculcated The first Problem is In what sense or with what limitations the Scripture is held by all reformed Churches to be the only Rule of Faith The Second In what sense or how far it is true that Recta ratio Reason rectified or rightly managed may be admitted a competent Judge in Controversies belonging to the Faculty of Theologie 2. To the First Problem In what sence the Scripture is held by us to be the sole and competent Rule of Faith and manners I have no more to say for the present then hath been long ago published in the second book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed Sect. 1. Chap. 11. The summe of all in that place delivered is to my best remembrance This No Christian is bound to admit or receive any Doctrine or proposition as an Article of his Faith unlesse it be contained in the Old or New Testament either Totidem verbis or may be Concludently or Demonstratively deduced from some Sacred Maxim or proposition expresly contained in the Canonical Books in the Old and New Testament Such Maxims as are expresly and plainly contained in Scripture Every Christian Man is bound to believe absolutely But such propositions or Conclusions as may be demonstratively inferred from Canonical unquestionable Maxims they only are bound absolutely to believe which have so much use of Reason or skill in Arts as may enable them clearly to discern the Necessity of the Consequence or concludent Proof of the Deduction The ignorant or illiterate are only bound to believe such Deductions Conditionally See the second Book chap. 2. chap. 4 c. or to practise according to their Teachers instructions with such Reservation or under such Conditions as have been expressed in the second and third Book of these Commentaries 3. But what Propositions though expresly contained in Scriptures be Negative or Affirmative Vniversal Indefinite Particular or Singular Or how any or all of these be Convertible whether Absolutely by Accident or by Contraposition or how to Frame a perfect Syllogism out of them These or the like are points which the holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets and other Pen-men of Sacred and Canonical Writ did never undertake or professe to teach The discussion or determination of Questions of this nature must be had from the Rules of Reason sublimated or regulated by good Arts or faculties And for the bettering or Advancing of Natural Reason in this search the most learned or most sanctified Christian this day living should be very unthankful to the only Lord his Redeemer and Sanctifier if he do not acknowledge it as an especial branch of his All-seeing Providence in raising up unto the World such Lights of Nature and Guides of Reason as Aristotle Plato and others of the Ancient Philosophers were True Reason in whomsoever seated Whether in the Natural or Regenerate man unlesse it be advanced and guarded by such Rules of Arts as these Sages of the old World have by Gods Providence invented or bettered can be no fit Judge but being so advanced and guarded is the most Competent Judge of Controversies in Divinity of such Controversies I mean as arise from Consequences or Deductions made by way of use or application out of the uncontroverted Maxims of sacred Writ And if we would sequester Grammatical or Rhetorical Pride and partialitie to the several Professions wherein respectively men glory we might easily discern all or most of those unhappy Controversies which have set the Christian World for these late years in Combustion to have been hatched maintained and nourished by such pretended Favorites of the Spirit as either never had faithfully Learned any true Logick Philosophie or ingenuous Arts or else had utterly forgotten the Rules which they had learned or heard before they begun to handle controversies in Theologie or entertain disputes about them 4. Obliquity can have no other Cause beside that which is the Cause of the Act whence it necessarily results The Hypothesis for whose clearer discussion these last Theses have been premised is this Whether it being once granted or supposed that the Almighty Creator was the Cause either of our mother Eves desire or of her Actual Eating of the Forbidden Fruit or of her delivery of it to her husband or of his taking and eating it though unawares the same Almighty God must not upon like Necessity be acknowledged to be the Author of all the Obliquities which did accompany the positive Acts or did necessarily result from them This is a Case or Species Facti which we cannot determine by the Rule of Faith It must be tried by the undoubted Rules of Logick or better Arts. These be the only perspective Glasses which can help the Eye of Reason to discover the truth or necessity of the Consequence to wit Whether the Almighty Creator being granted to be the Cause of our Mother Eves first Longing after the forbidden Fruit were not the Cause or Author of her sin Now unto any Rational man that can use the help of the forementioned Rules of Arts which serve as prospective Glasses unto the Eye of Reason that usual Distinction between the Cause or Author of the Act and the Cause or Author of the Obliquity which necessarily ensues upon the Act will appear at the first sight to be False or Frivolous yea to imply a manifest Contradiction For Obliquity or whatsoever other Relation can have no Cause at all besides that which is the Cause of the Habit of the Act or Quality whence it necessarily results And in particular that conformity or similitude which the First man did bear to his Almighty Creator did necessarily result from his substance or manhood as it was the work of God undefaced Nor can we search after any other true Cause of the First mans confirmity to God or his integrity besides him who was the Cause of his manhood or of his Existence with such qualifications as by his Creation he was endowed with In like manner whosoever was the cause whether of his coveting or eating of the Tree in the middle of the Garden was the true Cause of that Obliquity or crooked deviation from Gods Law or of that deformity or dissimilitude unto God himself which did necessarily result
knows Israel knows not Jerem. 8. 7. The Stork c. Serpents sting not Serpents nor bite one another with their venemous teeth Nay the very Monsters and huge fishes of the Sea war not amongst themselves in their own kind But believe me Man at mans hand receiveth most harm and mischief Thus far Plinie 4. Heathen Naturalists hold better Consort with the Primitive church concerning the nature of Sin Original then the Socinians do We have no reason sufficient to perswade us to believe or to suspect that this great Naturalist did ever peruse any part of the Booke of Grace not so much of it as is contained in the History of Moses much less such passages in it as concern this Point as are comprehended in the Prophets in the Evangelists or in S. Pauls Epistles Or if any man have better reasons then I have to believe or suspect that he might have read them all or the most part of them It would notwithstanding be a groundlesse surmise to imagin that he had been Catechized by Christs Apostles or their Deputies or that he had received any spiritual Grace either by Baptism or Imposition of Their hands Now albeit we suppose or grant that he had read the Books of Moses or some passages in the Prophets but deny what I think no man will affirm that he was Baptized or made partaker of Grace by Christ the Cause is clear that he could have no better guide for searching after or finding out those Orthodoxal Truths or Notions which he hath most Elegantly exprest then Recta Ratio that is the right use of Reason which Nature though corrupted in him had not utterly extinguished but much weakned And here I can rather wish then pray that this man had lived in this Age or might be restored to Life again to encounter those Semi-Christians which contend for the Soveraignty of Recta Ratio as if It were the onely Guide or Rule of Christian Faith But albeit I dare not pray nor can I hope to hear Plinie speak to this or any other good purpose in this Life Yet I verily believe that the writings which this Vncatechized Heathen hath left and he himself shall rise up in Judgement against those proud Phantastick spirits which having been Baptized in the name of Christ and Catechized in the fundamental points of Christian Faith do either flatly deny or captiously question Whether our Nature were so deeply tainted with that Sin which we call Original or so far deprived of Freedom or power to restore our selves to our primaeval state of Nature as that the Death and Resurrection of a Redeemer more then meer man and his Everlasting Priesthood were necessarily required for freeing us from the bondage of Satan 5. Seeing this Modern Sect of men as Pelagius their Father whose errors concerning the state of the First man and of Sin Original have been mightily improved by them have been S. Austin not the First that did maintain Original sin and are such notorious Trewants in the Book of Nature and such Schediastick Surveyors of the Book of Grace as none have been or can be beside such as in their sceptical contrivances hold it a part of Policy or state to draw all or most such forces of Reason as Nature or Grace had implanted in their breasts to guard their Brains or fortifie the inventions of their Fancies It is not to be expected that they should much regard the Unanimous consent of the Orthodoxal and Primaeval Church Some of this Sect are well contented to oppose the consent of such Antiquity as in other points they slight against those who reverence the memory of the Ancient Martyrs or Fathers especially before S. Austins time Others of them are not ashamed to accuse this great and Learned Father for being the First Author of that Doctrine which we maintain Concerning the Nature of Sin Original Now to presse them with his Authority whom they accuse as an Author of Errour would be bootlesse Wherefore waving his Authority for the present for being any competent Judg or Advocate in this Controversie No ingenuous or sober man can except against him as an unfit Witness in this Cause concerning the Tenents of the Ancient Church or against others whom he produceth as witnesses beyond all Exception which either Pelagius himself his Followers or the Manichees could have taken against them in his time Neque enim ex quo esse coepit Manichaei pestilentiosa doctrina ex illo coeperunt in Ecclesta Dei parvuli baptizandi Exorcizari exufflari Vt ipsis mysteriis oftenderetur non eos in regnum Christi nisi erutos à tenebrarum potestate transferri Quid autem dicam de ipsis divinarum scripturarum tract atoribus qui in Catholica Ecclesia floruerunt Quomodo haec non in alios sensus câ—nati sunt vertere quoniam stabiles erant in antiquissima robustissima fide non autem novitio movebantur errore Quos si Colligere eorum testimoniis uti velim nimis longum erit de Canonicis autoritatibus à quibus non debemus averti minus fortasse videbor praesumpsisse quam debui Veruntamen ut omittam beatissimum Ambrosium cui Pelagius sicut jam commemoravi tam magnum integritatis in fide perhibuit testimonium qui tamen Ambrosius nihil aliud defendit in parvulis ut haberent necessarium Medicum Christum nisi Originale Peccatum Nunquid gloriosissimae coronae Cyprianus dicetur ab aliquo non solùm fuisse sed vel esse potuisse Manichaeus cum prius iste sit passus quà m illa in orbe Romano pestis apparuit tamen in libro de Baptismate parvulorum ita defendit Originale peccatum ut propterea dicat ante oct avum diem si necesse sit Parvulum batizari oportere ne pereat Quem tanto vult intelligi ad indulgentiam Baptismi facilius pervenire quanto magis ei dimittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata Hos iste audeat dicere Manichaeos antiquissimam Ecclesiae Traditionem isto nefario crimine aspergat qua Exorcizantur ut dixi Exufflantur parvuli ut in regnum Christi à potestate tenebrarum hoc est Diaboli Angelorum ejus eruti transferantur Aug. l. 2. de nuptiis concupiscentia c. 29. CHAP. IX Of the properties or effects of Sin Original known by the light of Nature and by Scripture 1. The Propertie of Original Sin is to Lust after things forbidden by the Law of God and of Nature ENough it is to perswade any reasonable man That Original Sin is not A meer privation or a proportioned shadow of Being without a Reality answering to it seeing that in man the Note or Character of whose distinction from or excellency above all other visible Creatures is the use of Reason there usually is such a Lethargie or sloathful deadnesse to do that which the very Law of Nature or Reason doth dictate unto him or
Reconciliation of mankind to God the Father there had been no election in Christ So that though it be most True that Christ was Agnus occisus ab origine mundi the Lamb slain from the beginning of the World yet was it not necessary from eternity that this Lamb should be slain For Christs death was no more necessary then Adams death or Transgression was Now no man I hope well advised will affirm that God did destinate Adams Transgression as a necessary Means that Christ should dye for so he should make him the Author of sin in Adam before he became the Fountain of Mercy in Christ The Truth then is That Adam having sinned not of necessity but Freely God out of his Free Mercy and Compassion towards man-kind did destinate the Incarnation the Death and Passion of his only Son as the Only Means of our Redemption and Reconciliation to himself And did likewise Destinate the Consecration of his Son by his death unto his everlasting Priesthood as the only means for the accomplishing of our Redemption that is for making our election sure and Absolute As Christs Priesthood is then most unchangeable and most necessary yet was it not necessary from eternity that he should be made a Priest by the suffering of death So our estate of election in him is most Absolute and necessary after we attain unto it yet was it not necessary from eternity that we should attain unto it not absolutely necessary that any should attain unto it but necessary only upon Supposal of Adams Transgression which was no way necessary but Free and Contingent and of Gods infinite wisdom and mercie in sending Christ Jesus our Lord. 16. If no mans Destination or designment to the Absolute State of election in Christ were absolutely necessary from Eternity but necessary only upon the Supposals last made which were not necessary much less was the Designment of any mans Individual nature or Person to the Absolute State of Reprobation or damnation absolutely necessary from Eternity Damnation as all grant is the end of Sin or rather an endlesse misery into which no man can fall but by sin whence if this endless misery had been absolutely necessary from Eternity or Decreed by God as the Goal of any mans Course of life the means likewise or only way by which men come unto this end or Goal must have been by a like degree of necessity destinated and decreed by God and the only way or means by which men come unto this end is sin So that God by this Opinion or Doctrine should have been as Immediate a Cause of Sin and death as he is of the Punishment of sins or of non-Repentance for sins committed And this is Contrary to the fundamental Principles of Christianity of Religion it self By both which we are taught that God as a Righteous Judge is the sole Author of the Decree or Sentence against impenitent sinners but no Cause at all no Author of their sins or Impenitency and therefore no Cause much lesse any necessary Cause of any mans Falling into the Absolute state of Reprobation Our Saviour Christ as then designed to be the Future Judge of quick and dead did pronounce that Woful Sentence against Judas and against him alone for ought we read It were good for that man if he had never been born Judas not Reprobated from Eternity We may hence safely conclude that Judas from that time was in the Absolute State of Reprobation and had now deserved without hope of Pardon this fearfull Sentence as having now resolved in his heart without Remorse or Compunction to betray the Son of God into the hands of sinners He became an Absolute Reprobate by resolving to betray the Son of God he did not resolve to betray the Son of God because he was an Absolute Reprobate from Eternity or from his birth He was not lyable to this wofull Sentence from his birth or in his Infancy for if it had been better for him from his birth or from his calling to the Apostle-ship not to have been born at all or not to have been so called God howsoever most gracious and good in himself had not been good or gracious unto Judas in giving him Being in making him an Apostle seeing it had been much better for him not to have been either a Man or an Apostle if from the time of his Birth or Apostle-ship he had been inevitably designed to the absolute estate of Reprobation to a greater measure of everlasting punishments then other men ordinarily are But the Truth is the greater measure of his punishment did presuppose a greater measure of his unthankfulness the greater measure of his unthankfulness in respect of other men did presuppose a greater measure of Gods Favour and goodness towards him in giving him birth and being in the days of his Sons Incarnation or in calling him to the Fellowship of his Apostles or Ambassadors And thus we come a Thesiad Hypothesin from the general Speculative Truth unto the Particular Use or Application 17. All of us do I am perswaded unfeignedly acknowledge our selves to have been by Naturall birth the Sons of wrath and to be the sons of wrath includes in it some work of Satan wrought not in Adam only but in our Nature Satans work two-fold Sin and Curse which we derive from him and this work of Satan is Twofold Sin Original and the Curse thereunto annexed this Latter Part to wit the Curse must be dissolved by Faith as by the Instrument For he that believeth not saith S. John Chap. 3. ver 36. shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him that is It was upon him from his First Being and rests upon him until it be removed by Faith in the Son of God Now in that this work of Satan that is the Curse due to Sin Original is removed by Faith in the Son of God the Son of God is the Principal Cause or Agent which removes it by his Sacerdotal or Princely Blessing upon our Ministerial Act or Function of Baptism It is a Truth unquestionable especially in the Doctrine of the Church of England that as many as are Baptized are from their Baptism and by their Baptism translated from the Estate or Condition of Sons of wrath to the Estate or Priviledge of the Sons of God This Doctrine of our Church is necessarily grounded upon the Saying of our Apostle Gal. 3. 27. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ Now it is impossible that any should put on Christ and not receive him And to as many as receive him saith S. John cap. 1. ver 12. to them he gives power Right or Priviledge to become the Sons of God 18. But here some will demand If all that are Baptized become the sons of God do they not all likewise by this new birth become heires with Christ Yes all that are Sons are likewise Heirs but not therefore un-disinheritable because
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
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
from sin that is Albeit he was not from his Creation either by nature or by supernaturall endowment utterly impeccable yet by the assistance and benignity of his Gratious Creator he might have attained unto such a perpetuall estate or immunity from falling into sin 4. The question about merit of works no way concerns the First man in his primaeval Estate Suppose he had preserved or imployed the Talent concredited unto him at his first creation aright should the superaddition or crowning of his First Estate with perseverance have been a meer gift of grace or rather a kinde of merit This is a Question not very pertinently moved by some Schoole-men and the Contradictory to their determination more inconsiderately maintained by some modern Disputants or Logical Criticks For seeing Adam received that great Talent concredited to him in his creation not absolutely or to use it as he pleased but at his perill or under express penalty that if he misimployed it or contemned his Commandement which bestowed it upon him he should dye the death it is no way improbable that if he had improved his Talent for some competent time that the state wherein he was created should have been hereditary to him and his not by such free Grace as is bestowed upon us under the Gospell but by way of Merit de congruo though not according to Commutative yet to Distributive Justice rather then by meere Mercy or benignity But this opinion I vent not with any intention to move or abett disputes or controversies already moved about this curious Question but rather to perswade the Reader that all questions concerning the Merits of works or of perseverance in that Grace by which all good works are wrought must be reduced or confined to the estate or condition of mankinde since Adams Fall Of which Question thus stated or limited I shall I hope be able to give the Reader or any that will soberly dispute or conferr with me in it better satisfaction Vivâ voce then this Treatise without digression will permit me to do The principall Points in it or which I had in my thoughts either to prosecute or propose The First man was neither necessitated to continue good nor to become Evil. are these following First That albeit the First man were by vertue of Creation righteous and just yet were neither his perseverance or non-perseverance in this righteousnesse absolutely necessary both of them possible That both were possible hath been declared at Large before in the sixth book of Commentaries upon the Creed In the 2 Part 2 Sect. Chap. 13. c. of the Attributes unto which I referr the Ingenuous Reader where he may finde this proposition as I take it demonstrated That to decree or appoint a mutual or reciprocal Possibility between our First Parents perseverance or non-perseverance was Facible to the Omnipotent Creator because it neither implies nor presupposeth any Contradiction in Terminis And whatsoever effect or praenotion answerable unto it implies no Contradiction either in it self or to the Goodnesse of the Divine Nature or Deity is Facible by Power Omnipotent that is The Almighty Creator might have decreed or yet may decree it when he pleaseth The Second Principle or supposition in this place to be handled is Whether the Almighty Creator did de Facto decree or ordain that neither the Perseverance or non-perseverance of the First Man or of our First Parents should be absolutely Necessary but contingent Or in other terms thus That the Estate or condition wherein they were created might have continued to this day for them and their successors undefeatable That their Perseverance or the perseverance of their Posterity in the state of Righteousnesse wherein they were created was not necessary by any Divine Ordinance or decree is clear from the Event because the First man and the First woman did fall de Facto from that Estate wherein they were created which neither of them could have done if their First Estate had been by vertue of the Almighties Decree or any ordinance from him Immutable or absolutely Necessary But can it be as strongly proved That the fall of our first Parents or their eating of the Forbidden Fruit did not proceed from any necessitating Decree or undefeatable contrivance of the Almightie Creators Wisdom To perswade men which have not their senses exercised in points of Logical or Scholastick disputes that the Fall of our First Parents was not necessary no not in respect of the Divine Decree or ordinance would be a harder task then to prove that their Perseverance was not in respect of that Decree necessary That our First Parents did fall from their Estate is a Question of Fact of which every honest good man may be a competent Judge at least able enough to resolve himself But whether it was as possible for them not to have fallen as it was to fall is Questio Juris or more then so a point of Metaphysical or Theological disquisition wherein it would be very hard to find a Grand-Jury of Profest Divines in any one County almost throughout this Kingdom which could be competent Judges or fit Inquisitors Not that they want either skill or industry for interpreting sacred Scripture which is the only true rule of Faith and manners aright but for want of skill or memory in Secular Arts how to examine or determine what Consequences or inferences are consonant or dissonant to the undoubted Rule of Faith or to the unquestionable Maxims contained in it For deciding or waiving such Controversies as are emergent not so much out of the sence of Scriptures as out of such Inferences or Consequences whether negative or affirmative as contentious or unresolved spirits would fasten upon it Recta ratio that is Reason regulated by Rules of unquestionable Arts or Sciences is the most competent Judge That there is but one God and one Lord That the only God is a God of Goodness and willeth no wickednesse are positive points of Faith and Christian Belief Fundamental Maxims in Theologie To dispute or move any question directly about the truth or limitation of these Maxims would be a branch of Infidelity or which perhaps is worse an approach to Blasphemy CHAP. V. Of the Right use of Reason or Rules of Art for determining Controversies in Divinity whereof the Sacred Scripture is the sole Rule 1. Of the use of Arts in discussing Controversies in Theologie BUt admit this Maxim There is but one God and he a God of Goodness no Author or abetter of evil were undoubtedly believed by all Yet this inference or Consequence might be as it hath long time been controversed Whether he that avoucheth This only God to have decreed the Fall of the First Man to have been necessary or inevitable might be demonstratively convinced to make him the Author and Cause the only Cause of the First Mans sin and of all the sins which necessarily issue from it or from the Nature of man corrupted by it
from the Forbidden Act or desire It was impossible there should be one Cause of the Act and another Cause of the Obliquity or deformity whether unto Gods Laws or unto God himself For no Relation or Entity meerly relative such are obliquity and deformity can have any other Cause beside That which is the Cause of the Fundamentum or Foundation whence They immediately result It remains then that we acknowledg the old Serpent to have been the First Author and Man whom God created male and female to have been the true positive Cause of that Obliquity or deformity which did result by inevitable Necessity from the forbidden Act or desire which could have no Necessary Cause at all For the Devil or old Serpent could lay no absolute necessity upon our First Parents Will which the Almighty Creator had left Free to eat or not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit. That they did de Facto eat of it was not by any Necessity but meerly Contingently or by abuse of that Free-will which God had given them Briefly to say or think that our First Parents were necessitated by the Divine Decree to that Act or any part of that Act or desire whence the First sin did necessarily result or to imagine that the Act or desire was necessary in respect of Gods Decree is to lay a deeper and fouler charge upon the Almighty That Holy One then we can without slander charge the Devil withall 5. Charity binds me to impute the harsh Expressions of some good Writers and wel-deserving of all reformed Churches Yea the Errors of the Dominicans or other Schoolmen which were more faulty then Zwinglius or his followers in this point rather unto Incogitancy or want of Skill in good Arts then unto Malice or such malignancy as the Lutheran long ago had furiously charged upon the Calvinist as if they had chosen the Devil not the Father of lights Much wrong done to worthy writers by unskilful Apologizers for their harsh expresons maker of heaven and earth to be their God And I could heartily wish that Pareus had not entered into that Dispute with Becanus about this Controversie But seeing I cannot obtain my wish I must be sorry that he came off no better then he did especially for Calvins Credit or for his own I did not believe the relation of the conference which I read long ago in Canisius until I read the like set forth by * Tum D. Serarius Scimus Vestros ita distinguere quod non improbamus Calvinus vero in scriptis suis omnem Dei permissionem in peccatis simpliciter rejicit Et opera malorum etiam quoad malitiam efficaciae Dei tribuit atque sic Deum Authorem Peccari manifestè facit Ego verò Utrum haec sit Calvini sententia quam Vos Eitribuitis postea videbimus Jam accipio quod datis Nostros quos Calvinistas vocatis â—o modo quo dixi distinguere Quódque distinctionem nostram non potestis improbare Hinc verò evidentèr conficitur Calvinistas quos vocatis Deum peccati Autorem nequaquam facere Ac proinde salsam esse D. Becani Minorem quòd Calvinistae faciant Deum Authorem peccati eóque Conclusionem esse calumniosam quòd Calvinistarum Deus sit Diabolus Pareus himself wherein he professeth that he likes better of Cardinal Bellarmines opinion then of Calvins Concerning the Controversies or Questions about the First Cause of sinning But were it any part of my present task I could easily make it appear even by the Testimony and Authority or which is more by the concludent Arguments of some learned Jesuits themselves That Cardinal Bellarmin and many others of Aquinas his followers do make God to be the Author of sin Ibi D. Serarius pro ingenio suo intelligens nodum Ergo inquit deleatur illud starum Erit tamen Diabolus Calvini si non Calvinistarum Deus Quo dicto D. Becanus subrubescens cum Socii ingenuitatem improbare non auderet subjecit ipse Benè deleatur starum Manebit tamen Deus Calvini Diabolus Tum Ego dextra eis praebita pro tanta liberalitate gratias agens Satis mihi nunc est inquam quòd fatemini starum delendum esse ut jam non Calvinistarum sed Calvini Deus secundum Vos sit Diabolus Pareus Act. Swalbacen Parte 1. Coll. 2. De Autore Peccati by as clear infallible Consequence as either Zwinglius or Piscator have done And he that would diligently peruse Aquinas his writings and in particular his resolution of that Question An detur Causa Praedestinationis may find him as strait-lac'd as Calvin was one and the same girdle would be an equall and competent measure for both their Errors The best Apology that can be made for Either must be taken from the Romane Satyrists charity Opere in longo fas est obrepere somnum Calvin and Aquinas were Homines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is somewhat more then Authors of long works Authors of many various works in respect of the several subjects or arguments which is the best apologie that Jansenius could make for St. Jeromes contradicting of himself in several works as Espenseus doth the like for Saint Austin 6. But of that Pardon which learned Men that wrot much and handled many much different matters may justly challenge such as stand to be their followers though afarr off are no way Capable Men I meane who having other ordinary works or vocations to follow do busie their braines and abuse their Auditors or Readers with idle and frivolous Apologies for those slips or errors of worthy writers which stand more in need of ingenuous censure of mild interpretation or Correction then a Justifiable Defence More there have not been as I hope nor more peccant in this kinde in any of reformed Churches then In this Church of England though not Of it Some Treatises I have read and heard for justifying the Escapes or ill expressions of Calvin and Beza by improving their words into a worse and more dangerous sense then they themselves meant them in or their Followers in the Churches wherein they lived did interpret them Had these Vnscholastick Apologizers been called to a strict account or examination of their Doctrine by the Rules of Art this haply would have bred a new Question in our Schooles Whether to attribute such Acts or decrees unto God as they do and yet withall to deny that they concludently make him the Author of sin doth not argue as great a measure of Artificiall Foppery or which is more to be feared in some of Supernaturall Infatuation as it would do of impietie toresolve dogmatically in Terminis terminantibus That God is the Author of Sin CHAP. VI. The usuall distinction between the Act and obliquitie of the Act can have no place in the first oblique Act of our first Parents 1. The Illustration of the forementioned distinction retorted upon such as use it THe former Question or Probleme might
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
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
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
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