case 661. I intreat the Reader that is inclining to any extreams but to read â—over first those short answers of Prosper ad Capitulâ— Gallorum and ad Objectiones Vincent And most of the Sententiae de Capit. I shall think it worthy my labour to recite to force them on the Readers observation and let him see the highest old Doctrine of Gods Decrees Sent. 1. Whoever saith that by Gods Predestination as by fatal necessity men compelled into sins are constrained to death is not a Catholick For Gods Predestination doth by no means make men bad nor is the cause of any mans sin Sent. sup 2. He that saith that the Grace of Baptism received doth not take away Original sin from them that are not predestinated to life is not a Catholick For the Sacrament of Baptism by which all sins He meaneth that those that sincerely covenanted with God in Baptism were truly pardoned though he thought some of them fell away and perished are blotted out is true even in them who will not remain in the truth and for them that are not predestinated unto life Sent. sup 3. He that saith that they that are not predestinated to life though they were in Christ regenerated by Baptism and have lived piously and justly it profitteth them nothing but they are so long reserved till they fall to ruine and they are not taken out of this life till this happen to them as if the ruine of such men were to be referred to Gods constitution is not a Catholick For God doth not therefore prolong the time of any mans age that by long living he should fall to ruine and in his long living fall from the right â—aith seeing long life is to be numbered with the gifts of God by which a man should be better and not worse Sent. sup 4. He that saith that all are not called to Grace if he speak of such as Christ is not declared to is not to be reprehended Sent. sup 5. He that saith that they that are called are not equally called but some that they might believe and some that they might not believe as if to any man the Vocation were the cause of his not believing saith not right For though faith be not but by Gods Gift and Mans Will yet Infidelity is by mans will alone Sent. 6. He that saith that Pree-will in Man is Nothing but it 's Gods predestination which worketh in men whether it be to good or to evil is not a Catholick For Gods Grace doth not abolish mans choice or free-will but perfecteth it and revoketh and reduceth it into the way from error that that which was bad by its own liberty may by the operation of Gods Spirit be made right And Gods predestination is alwayes in Good which knoweth how either to pardon with the praise of mercy or punish with the praise of Justice the sin which is committed by mans will alone Sent. 7. He that saith that God for this cause giveth not Perseverance to some of his Children whom he regenerated in Christ to whom he gave faith hope and Love because by Gods fore-knowledge and predestination they were not differenced from the mass of perdition If he mean that God endowed these men in Goodness but would not have them remain in it and that he was the cause of their tâ—rning away he judgeth contrary to the Justice of God For though Gods Omnipotence could have given the grace of standing to them that will fall yet his grace doth not first forsake them before they have forsaken it And because he foresaw that they would do this by a Voluntary desertion therefore he had them not in the Election of Predestination Sent. 8. He that saith that God would not have all men saved but a certain number that are predestinate speaketh hardlier of the altitude of Gods unsearchable grace than he should speak Who would have all men to be saved and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth and fulfilleth the purpose of his will on them whom being foreknown he predestinated and being predestinate he called being called he justified and being justified he glorified Losing nothing of the fulness of the Gentiles and of all the seed of Israel for whom the eternal Kingdom was prepared in Christ before the foundation of the World For all the World is chosen out of all the World And out of all men all men are adopted So that they that are saved are therefore saved because God would have them saved and they that perish do perish because they deserve to perish Sent. 9. He that saith that our Saviour was not Crucified for the Redemption of the whole World looketh not to the Virtue of the Sacrament that is Sacrifice but to the part or participation of the unbelievers When as the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the Price of the whole World From which Price they are Aliens who being either delighted in their Captivity will not be redeemed or when they are redeemed return again to the same Captivity For the Word of the Lord falleth not nor is the redemption of the World evacuated For though the World in the vessels of wrath knew not God yet the World in the vessels of mercy knew him Which God without their preceding Merits took out of the power of darkness and translated into the Kingdom of the Son of his Love Sent. 10. He that saith that God substracteth from some the preaching of the Gospel lest perceiving the preaching of the Gospel they should be saved may decline the envy of the objection by the paâ—â—onage of our Saviour himself who would not work Miracles with some that he saith would have believed had they seen them And he forbad his Apostles to preach to some people and now suffereth some Nations to live without his Grace Sent. 11. He that saith that God by his Power compelleth men to sin is deservedly reprehended For God who is the Author of Justice and Goodness and all whose Statutes and Commands are against sin is not to be thought to compell any to sin and precipitate them from innocency into crimes But if there be any of so profound impiety as that they are reckoned to be beyond the remedy of correction they receive not an increase of their iniquity from God but are made â—â—â—â— by themselves because they deserved to be left of God and given up to themselves and to deceivers for their former sins that so their sin should be a punishment of their sin Sent. 12. He that saith that obedience is withdrawn from some that are called and live piously and righteously that they may cease to obey doth think ill of Gods Goodness and Justice as seeming to constrain the godly to ungodliness and to take away good mens innocency from them When as He is the Giver and Keeper of godliness and innocency He therefore that adhereth to God is acted by the Spirit of God but he that departeth from God doth fall from his obedience
Some of you will grant that as motion causeth motion by contact of bodies so the first effect on the soul can cause the second And others of you will deny it and say that Gods Actions being diversified only by the diversity of effects and objects that which causeth the second effect is to be denominated a second Action and not the same numerically which caused the first no nor specifically if the effects specifically differ And so as scholastick wits here exercise their curiosity without respect to Arminianism or Calvinism you will here fall into notional Controversies in the way § 20. 2. But granting that the first effect is that efficacious Grace which must cause the second how shall we know what the first effect is and what the second Gods Grace like the Sun is still shining though we are not still receiving it When it worketh but the commoner sort of effects these tend to more and more The first Gracious effect may be forty years before Conversion But this is not your meaning But I suppose you will say that it is the first special effect or gratia operata that is proper to the saved which you mean But to pass by that Augustine Prosper Fulgentius much more their predecessors held that sincere faith Love holiness Justification present right to Life if they so dyed are not proper to the saved but that some lose all these If you say but proper to the Justified or Sanctified or Converted or it be the first effect which is proprium Justificandis which you mean Are we agreed what that is § 21. Either the first effect on the soul or the first Gratia operata is the Act of faith it self or somewhat antecedent If the Act as many subtilly maintain then it were a foolish question to ask Whether the Act of faith be Effectual to cause it self and How Therefore it must be somewhat antecedent or we can find no matter for our Controversie de efficacia Gratiae ad credendum § 22. If somewhat antecedent to the Act it is either a Disposition or Infused Habit or an Impression Impulse or Influx which is neither Disposition nor Habit. * * * Dico 1. Non certo constare ex divinis literis esse hujusmodi Habitus supernaturales 2. At baptizatis infunditur Gratia â—o sensu quod efficiuntur Dâ—o grati consortes divinae naturae renati 3. Conceditur Dei adjutorium ut credamus velimuâ— diligamus per inspirationem infusionem spiritus sancti 4. Dei adjutorium desuper infusum est omnino necessarium ut credamus diligamus c. non tantum ut facilius credamus Medina in 12. q. 51. p. 282. See many definitions of a Habit confuted in Medina 1. 2. p. 271. and that which he resteth in is Aristotles Qualitas quâ rectè vel malè afficimur § 23. 1. A proper Habit of faith it is not Though Mr. Pemble singularly seem so to think yet he meaneth but a seminal disposition And it 's commonly held that the Habit is given by sanctification after the Act given in Vocation 2. But if it were otherwise the Habit is not alwayes sufficient to ascertain the Act. For holy men oft sin against a Habit and believers do not alwayes exercise it Habits Incline per modum naturae but do not certainly determine to the act 3. And of a Disposition it must be so said much more § 24. 2. And if it be an Impulse or Influxus Receptus as I think we must affirm this is but a general notion of which our understanding is very crude or small A meer Motus it is not For as was said in the beginning the Divine Influx is threefold viz. From Vital-Activity or Power Wisdom and Love to Life Light and Love in man Now as I said if there be no such Impulse besides the Life Light and Love produced our Controversie is at an end For these are not efficacious or efficient of themselves But if such a different Impulse there be it 's hard to know what it is in man I conceive it best expressed by all these inadequate notions conjunct 1. An inward urgency to this threefold act which is called in the Schools both auxilium concurse and Influx 2. By which Urgency the soul is more Disposed to the Act in hoc ordine than it was before 3. Which Disposition containeth in it a Moral Power to that Act so ordered and somewhat more even some Inclination to perform it If any man can tell me better what that Divine Impulse is which is antecedent to mans Act I am willing to learn § 25. Now if this be the question Whether this Divine Impulse which is the first effect of Gods spirit be of its own nature efficacious to produce According to Jansenius the first Grace is Necessary Delectation or Love in act before that which is free and full And if so then there is no grace causing this grace and so none to be the subject of this question Whether it be more or less sufficient or effectual operating or co-operating grace which maketh one man love God initially rather than another For it is no Grace bâ— Gods essential will this Love be the first Grace and no received Impulse antecedent to it our Faith Love c. as the second effect I answer 1. Sometimes Gods Impulse is so Great as propriâ vi doth change mind and will and overcome resistance and procure our act 2. Sometimes it is so strong as that it prevaileth against the contrary ill-disposition so far as to give man a Moral Power to the Act with some Inclination which yet contrary habits and temptations do overcome and the Act doth not follow which yet was not for want of Power to have done it And this is called sufficient Grace 3. We have great reason to believe that as in some Instances Gods greater Impress is the chief differencing Cause so in other Instances an equal Impulse of God on unequally disposed subjects doth produce the Act of faith c. in one of them which it produceth not in the other through the incapacity of the recipient 4. Therefore there is a double degree of efficacy or Vis One which only so far moveth and helpeth the will as that it can do the act and sometime doth it without more Another which is so strong as that the second effect alwayes followeth it 5. But whenever the Act of faith is produced by force or Impulse more or less God is the first and principal cause of it and man but the second and the praise of it is accordingly due And I think this decision accommodateth both sides of our contenders § 26. The foresaid Impulse or first effect is only the work of God and the means and not ours But the Act of Faith Love c. is Gods work and ours and ours as Free-agents Therefore that Impulse of God which is Aptitudinally efficacious on supposition of mans due reception and self-excitation
the Synod of Dort and been as far from Tyranny as they should have been matters had never come so oft to Blood or Tumult among them as they have done nor Grotius and the Arminians had so much to say against them I will not meddle with the matters of this Island in our times seeing they sufficiently speak themselves But how cometh this Clergie Tyranny to be so common so long and so powerful in the World to make Parties and draw Princes into Wars 1. It must be remembred that true Godliness is not common in the World Too many take up Christianity as in the Eastern parts the posterity of the old famous Christians are now Mahometans 2. The Gospel and true Spirit of Christianity is contrary to the minds and worldly interests of carnal ambitious covetous voluptuous men So that they profess a Religion which their own hearts abhorr as to its serious practice 3. Every unrenewed man hath such a worldly fleshly nature and is voluptuous proud and covetous And none of them love to be reproved or crossed in their way 4. Church Honours Dignities and great Revenues and Clergie-ease in an idle life are a great bait or temptation to a carnal mind And the worse men are the more they will desire and seek Church preferments and make all the friends they can to get them And the more self-denying men will not do so but perhaps avoid them 5. The diligent seekers are liker to obtain and find than the neglecters and avoiders And so the Churches to be usually in the power of the worser sort of men and Religion to be under the Government of its enemies 6. Men in power and the Major Vote have great advantage to execute their own wills and to put Laws on others and bring them under what Characters they please and so to affix the names of Hereticks or Schismaticks on them if they fulfil not all their wills yea to silence them and suppress their Writings and make them to be little understood in the World yea or by their neighbours round about them 7. The Vulgar as they are for the Conquerour in the Wars so usually are for the upper and stronger side in peace that have Power to hurt them and have the Major Vote And also easily believe them and think men that suffer are like to be guilty of what they are accused 8. Godliness being against a worldly mind and interest and the Rabble usually for it hence ariseth a Conspiracy of carnal Clergie-men and the Rabble against those that are most seriously Godly as if they were their enemies and a surly proud intractable sort of people As Sulpitius Severus describeth Ithacius and his followers and even Mr. Hooker out of him Eccl. Pol. Praefat. 9. Such men in Power never want flatterers at their ears to praise all that they do and to exasperate them by slandering and reviling sufferers 10. The long possession since the dayes of Constantine of Great Places and Power by the Clergie within the Roman Empire now the Greek and Latine Churches doth seem to justifie mens Usurpations and Tyranny and make all dissenters seem singular and Schismatical which was and is the Papal strength against the Reformed 11. Too many of the Secular Rulers of the World have much of the same Spirit And find also their interests so twisted in shew with the Papal Clergies that they dare not cross them 12. The faults of those that suffer by them in doctrine and imprudent carriages use to give them great advantage and make all their odious characters and names of them believed and received as the case of the Waldenses and of the Lutherans and Calvinists in Germany too fully prove II. The second Rank of Church-disturbers are DOGMATISTS or men that profess exceeding zeal for ORTHODOX Opinions or Theological Knowledge And thus three instances tell us of the Cause of our Calamities 1. That of Gnostick and Heretical persons who account every new Conceit of theirs to be worthy the propagating even at the rate of Theological Wars and Church Confusions and cry out But the Truth and sell it not when it is some error of their own or some unprofitable or unnecessary notion 2. The case of the Romanists to say nothing of all the old contentious Bishops and Councils and the controversies about Persona and Hypostasis and about many words and forms of speech What do the Roman Councils for many hundred years last but on pretence of preserving the faith uncorrupted multiply divisions and new Articles of faith quoad nos And while they cry down most of Christs Church as Heretical or greatly erroneous they have run themselves into the grossest errors almost that humane nature is capable of even to the making it necessary to salvation to deny our own and all the sound mens senses in the World in the case of Transubstantiation 3. The case of the Schoolmen and such other Disputing Militant Theologues who have spun out the Doctrine of Christianity into so many Spiders Webs and filled the World with so many Volumes of Controversies as are so many Engines of contention hatred and division And I would our Protestant Churches Lutherans and Calvinists had not too great a number of such men as are far short of the Schoolmens subtilty but much exceed them in the enviousness of their zeal and the bitterness and revilings of their disputes more openly serving the Prince of hatred against the Cause of Love and Peace O how many famous Disputers in Schools Pulpit and Press do little know what Spirit they are of and what reward they must expect of Christ for making odious his Servants destroying Love and dividing his Kingdom How many such have their renown as little to their true comfort as Alexanders and Caesars for their bloody Wars But how cometh this Dogmatical Zeal so to prevail Consider 1. Nature it self is Delighted in Knowing much Else Satan had not made it Eves temptation Without Grace even Theological Speculations may be very pleasing to mens minds Morality and Holiness is principally seated in the Will 2. Satan hath here a far fairer bait than worldly Wealth and Pleasures and Honours to tempt men and steal away their hearts from that Love and Practice which is Holiness indeed All men are bound to Love Gods Word and his Truth must be precious to us all and now it is easie for the hypocritical Dogmatist to take up here and make himself a Religion of Zeal for those opinions which he entitleth God to And O that I could speak this loud enough to awaken the Learned World of Disputers to so much jealousie of their own hearts as is necessary to their own safety as well as to the Churches peace This thing called Orthodoxness Truth and Right-believing precious in it self if it be what it is called is made by Satan an ordinary means to deceive Learned men and keep them from a holy and heavenly mind and life when grosser cheats would be less effectual
the believing sinner may stand before this righteous and holy God is to affirm the eternal damnation of all the World VII The Covenant mentioned justifieth not but declareth our Justification which is the immediate proper effect of Christ's righteousness VIII Never any man in his wits affirmed that the righteousness of Christ is the formal cause of our Justification Give us but leave to call it the material cause or the meritorious cause immediately and properly of Justification c. Some will think that they are great and heinous errors which either these words or some of mine that seem contrary import But I must crave leave here to follow my usual method in separating the Controversies de re de nomine and then I think that even these strange words prove not him and me at so great a distance as they seem to intimate For I grant him as followeth de re 1. That God hath such a decree of Election or eternal purpose as he describeth and calleth the Constitution of the Covenant 2. That God doth wisely and graciously execute this Decree 3. That all Grace and Mercy is given by Christ And therefore so far as Mercy is common Christ is the common cause of it 4. That Christ himself is a blessing or gift decreed and also freely given by God even from his love to the World Joh. 3. 16. 5. That God's electing Act or Decree as in him hath no condition nor his purpose to give Christ as a Saviour to mankind 6. On our part no condition is required either that God may elect us or that the first promise of a Saviour be made or that Christ come into the World or that he fulfill all righteousness or that he obey or die or rise or be glorified or come to judgment or raise the dead or that he enact it as his Law of Grace that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned 7. Nor is any condition on our part necessary absolutely necessitate medii that the Gospel or the first Grace yea the first special Grace be given us 8. That Christ by his suffering and merits hath procured to his elect not only pardon and life if they believe and obey him but Grace to cause them effectually and infallibly to believe repent obey and persevere 9. That no man can or will believe and repent but by his Grace 10. That to give men a promise of pardon and life if they will believe repent and obey the Gospel is not the whole of Christ's Grace to any but where-ever he giveth this he giveth also much means and gracious help by which men may do better than they do and so be more prepared for his further Grace 11. That if God only gave men a promise of pardon if they believe and gave them no Grace to enable or help them to believe it would be no saving Covenant 12. God did not repeal his Law of Innocency or as he had rather call it of Perfection nor did properly dispense with or relax the preceptive part of it Nor is it absolutely ceased as to a capable subject And therefore Christ was bound to perfection 13. God would not have his Law to be without the honour of the perfect performance of mans Mediator though it be violated by us all 14. No man is saved or justified but by the proper merit of Christ's perfect obedience yea and his habitual holiness and satisfactory sufferings advanced in dignity by his divine perfection 15. This merit as related to us supposeth that Christ as a Sponsor was the second Adam the Root of the justified the reconciling Mediator who obeyed perfectly with that intent that by his obedience we might be justified and who suffered for our sins in our room and stead and so was in tantum our Vicarius poenae as some phrase it or substitute and was made a curse for us that we might be healed by his stripes as he was obedient that his righteousness might be the reason as a meritorious cause of our Justification which supposeth the relation of an undertaking Redeemer in our nature doing this and in our stead so far forth as that therefore perfect obedience should not be necessary to be performed by our selves And righteousness therefore is imputed to us that is we are truly reputed righteous because we as believing members of Christ have right to impunity and life as merited by his righteousness and freely given to all penitent believers And Christ's own righteousness may be said so far to be imputed to us as to be reckoned or reputed the meritorious cause of our right or justification as aforesaid Thus far we are agreed de re And then de nomine I willingly leave men to their way of speech 1. If he will call God's Decree his Covenant in Constitution 2. If he will call the execution of his Decree his Covenant in execution 3. If he will call nothing else the Covenant of Grace or at least nothing of narrower extent but what comprehendeth God's eternal Decrees and the promise and gift of a Redeemer and so of the rest I cannot help it his language is his own But I shall tell you further my thoughts de re de nomine 1. De re 1. God's eternal decrees purposes or election give no one right to Christ Pardon or Life and so justifie no man 2. The execution of God's Decrees yea of Election hath many Acts besides Justification 3. It must therefore be some transient Act done in time ad extra by which God justifieth men 4. There are divers such acts concurring in several sorts of causality or respect 5. Christ's meritorious righteousness and satisfaction are the sole proper immediate causemeritorious of all the Grace or Mercy procured and given by him there being no other meritorious cause of the same kind either more immediate or at all co-ordinate and copartner with him 6. As Christ giveth us Holiness qualitative and active by the real operation of his Spirit though he merited it immediately himself so doth he give us right to impunity to the further Grace of the Spirit and to Glory by the instrumentality of his Covenant as by a Testament Deed of Gift or Law of Grace Which by signifying God's donative will doth not first declare us justified or to have the foresaid right to Christ and Life but doth first give us instrumentally that right and so immediately justify us And God's will giveth us not right as secret or of it self but by such instrumental signification 7. God hath signified his will to us partly by absolute gifts and promises and partly by conditional that such there are he that denieth must deny much of the Scripture Christ was absolutely given to fallen mankind for a Redeemer and so was the Conditional Law or Covenant of Grace and many other mercies But he hath made and recorded a conditional Gift of Christ as in special Union to be our
Gods will hath a final cause meaneth but a final object as he confesseth A Tree is a passive recipient cause of the Termination of the Suns calefacient act and of the â—ffect as received but not of the act ex parte solâ—â— 283. Even the Acts of Gods free-will or Decrees have no Cause even in God himself no more than those called Necessary For we must not say that any thing in God is an effect 284. Yet as Gods Acts are oft denominated by Connotation from the object which in man is a constitutive Cause of the Act loco materiae so extrinsick objects may be called The Causes but rather the Objects of God Will Love or Knowledge not as his Essence but only as so denominated by that Connotation of the object 285. These distributions of Gods Volitions in Number and by specifying objects and individuating objects which are called material constitutive causes of the act are all according to humane weakness in us who know God but enigmatically and in a glass But yet if any man use such words in a broader manner than we think fit before we censure and condemn him we must hear his sence explained For all that ever we can say of God is improper analogical yea metaphorical And it is but in degrees of impropriety that all words about Gods attributes and actions differ For as is oft said no man hath formal proper conceptions of any thing in God If God should not speak to us in this improper language of our own he must not speak intelligibly to us unless he create another understanding in us And he himself in Scripture using such language of himself alloweth us to use it while we profess to disclaim ascribing to God any of the imperfection which it seemeth to import 286. On these terms not only Various Volitions are ascribed to God in Scripture and exteriour causes of them as John 16. 27. the Father Loveth you because ye have loved me and believed c. * * * So Gen. 22. 16. 26. 5. Prov. 1. 24. Luke 11. 8. 19. 17. Gal. 4. 6. Eph. 5. 6. 1 Sam. 28. 18. 1 King 9. 9. 11. 34. 20. 42. 2 King 10. 30. 2 Chron. 34. 27. Psal 91. 14. But also Fear Affliction Grief Hatred Repenting Rejoycing c. Deut. 32. 27. Isa 63. 9. Gen. 6. 6. Psal 5. 5. Gen. 6. 7. 1 Sam. 15. 11. Joel 2. 13. Jer. 15. 6. Hos 11. 8. Zeph. 3. 17. Jer. 32. 41 c. and exteriour causes of them 287. That which is to be understood by all these is 1. That man is so far the Cause of the Effects of Divine Volitions as the Dispositio receptiva may be called a Cause And I before shewed in the instance of the effects of the Suns Influx how great a hand the various Dispositiones materiae receptivae have in the diversifications of effects 2. And that Gods Volitions themselves are hence relatively denominated 288. Therefore we must say that Gods electing Peter and his rejecting Judas his Love to Peter and his hatred of Judas are not in specie the same act of his will nor his Loving Peter and his Loving Paul the same Numerically As his knowing of Peter to be a Saint and his knowing Judas to be a Saint is not the same numerical act of knowledge Though as they are Gods Essence all are but one And we must say that he Loveth one because he is good and hateth another because he is evil and he justifieth men because they believe and condemneth men because they believe not that he forgiveth a sinner because he repenteth c. Though Gods Will have no efficient Cause 289. Those Volitions of God which are but Immanent as to Efficiency but Transient Objectively are some of them to be denominated as before the thing willed and some as after The Will of effecting is before the thing willed The Will ut finis or Complacency and Displicency as also Intuitive Knowledge of the thing as Existent estimation approbation reprobation of it the Will of Continuing modifying altering perfecting destroying suppose the existence of the thing willed in esse objectivo And so many Volitions may be denominated as beginning in time as connoting the objects †††Pennottus li. 4. c. 24. p. 235. confidently argueth that because God can Love him that he hated or Loved not he can therefore Predestinate him whom he reprobated or change his decrees without any change in himself I answer 1. I grant that God can Love a Saint whom he hated as a sinner before and cease hating him without any change save relative and by extrinsecal denomination 2. But his inference seemeth to me false and dangerous unless he had meant it of executive Election and Reprobation which he doth not For 1. Proper Love and Hatred connote an Object as existent and by such connotation are named And his fourth supposition is false that Love is nothing but Gods Will to give a man life Eternal For the formal Act of Love is Complacency And the Velle Bonum is another thing as I think an effect of Love or at the most another act of Love And we deny that any absolute Velle bonum alicui is ever changed though displicence be changed Because it is the same with Decree 2. And the reason why the said Decree or Volition if absolute and proper may not be denominated changed is because it maketh its own object and so supposeth it not pre-existent and dependeth not on it denominatively And therefore it would inferr God to be mutable to change it But it is not so in the other which as to the Relation and Name followeth the Mutable creature as doth Gods Knowledge of present existents and preteritions as to denomination and connotation And it is no more wrong to Gods Immutability so to name them than to his simplicity to name them many and divers 290. And in this sense it is no more wrong to Gods Immutability to speak of Him as being before in Potentia only as to such Relative denominations As the Rock in the Sea hath not yet that proximity to the Wave which a twelvemonth hence will touch it and yet is not therefore mutable Or as you are yet but in potentia to the termination of his Relations who will pass about you before and behind on the right hand and on the left So God was but Potentially the Creator and Redeemer of the World from Eternity Though as to any real passion God hath no passive power 291. In this sense of relation to the objects and effects it is that we conceive of Gods acts of Knowledge and Volition in a certain order of nature as one being before and one after another Though not as they are Gods Essence 292. Yet because the use and truth of words or names is their signification of Things as indeed they are and we should put no name on any creature but what is adapted to notifie it aright
Holiness The Holiness of Christs Humane Nature and of Angels and Saints in Heaven is as much the Creators as is his Works of Mercy and Justice And Gods glory shineth as much in them And it is the glory of his Goodness if not of Mercy which preventeth sin and misery yea and of Mercy too For though mercy relate to misery it is as well to possible misery prevented as to existeâ—â— misery removed And if he speak not of Subjects but Proprietors the Boâ—um Creaturae is also Creatoris SECT XIX The same doctrine in Rutherford de providentia confuted 625. I Have been too long in confuting this Digression of Dr. Twisse which is contrary to the commonest doctrine of Protestants and The summ of their opinion I think soundeth not well in Christians ears The summ of which is this Neither God nor Devil do will sin as it is evil but God is the first willer of its existence because it is in its own nature summe unice conducibile to the manifestation of his Justice and mercy And willing and Loving being all one in God he thus singularly Loveth the existence of sin above its contrary holiness for this end And by Predetermining premotion which he much more largely writeth for elsewhere he causeth as the first total Cause all that man Causeth But it is sin in man because forbidden him but not in God because not forbidden him And therefore God is not to be said to cause sin though he cause all that is caused but to permit it because he causeth it not in himself nor is he to be called a Deficient cause of our omissions because he is not bound to Actuate us but man is to be called the efficient and deficient cause because he is under an obliging Law Though God made that Law And though he can no more than a stone act without physical predetermination nor forbear acting when so acted yet he is to be called free because he is actually willing or his will doth act and because he is predetermined by none but God This is the true sence of their opinion as opened by themselves I shall now briefly consider what Rutherford saith to the same sence 626. Cap. 15. pag. 186. To Annatus charging Twisse as denying Gods permission of sin because he maketh him the * * * Nec omnino negari potest Voluntatem Dei esse Causam rerum omnium quas fieri velit Twiss recitante etiam Rutherf de Prov. c. 15. p. 186. See all their Reasons for Gods causing sin or willing its existence answered by Ruiz de Vol. Dei disp 26. p. 262 263 264 265. As also against Gods predetermining to the immediate materiale peccati disp 27. p. 270 c. disp 28 29 30 c. usque ad p. 580. As to the common saying that God willeth not sin as sin all men will confess Dr. Twiss often that neither doth a wicked man do so Peccans ut sic non intendit peccatum quoad illud quod est formale in peccato seu carentiam conformitatis sed intendit actum ut est in genere moris inquit Aureolus in 2. d. 42. a. 3. pag. 319. I will not conceal a more difficult argument than most of theirs which may occurr to others God caused e. g. in Nathanaâ—l Peter c. this act of saith before Christs coming the Messiah is to come hereafter When Christ was come this was false and so evil God still caused the faith which he gave them Therefore he caused an untrue belief and evil and that supernaturally But I answ 1. God caused the habit of their faith and the act The nature of the habit was in general A belief of all divine revelations and in special A belief in the promised Messiah The termination of the act on the Messiah as future rather than as Incarnate required nothing positive in the Habit The same Habit served to both acts unless the latter being for the nobler act had some addition but the former needed none 2. And that this Habit might bring forth the act in that circumstance no more was necessary but 1. Gods word Christus venturus est 2. And Gods influx on the habited faculty to cause it to act according to that habit So that when God had reversed that word Christus venturus est he was no longer the cause determining the mind to believe that word but only the cause that the habit of faith was still towards Christ But not at all sub ratione venturi For the determining word was called in and it was an imperfection not to know so much where it was not a sin Cause of the Act the Liberty and the Prohibition and to Cause is not to Permit he hath no better answer than to say that God doth not permit the Act nor the Evil of the Act but he permitteth the evil act and 2. To say that the Dominicans and Jesuits hold the same as he Which is to jest with holy things and not to argue As if he said God made neither the soul nor the body and yet he made the man What! is it as it 's said that non animased unio est vita so Doth God permit the Union of Actum and Malâ—m No that he pretendeth not 627. To prove that God willeth the existence of sin he bringeth the instance of Joseph's case Gen. 45. To which I say that the text saith not at all that God willed the Will or Act or Sin of Joseph's brethren but only the Venditio passiva or effect and the consequents Nay only the consequents are mentioned in the Texts His replyes to the answers prove no more than the five things which I before asserted about sin Nothing so much deceiveth them as not distinguishing between the sinful act and the effect or passion when they are called by the same name as Selling Killing c. 628. His next instance is of Christs death of which I said enough before But 1. He understandeth his adversaries as ascribing only the Consequents of Crucifixion to Gods will which is his mistake It is Crucifixion it self passivè sumpta which they ascribe to it some of them at least And let men too wise against God deride it as much as they will God can will and Love that Christ be Crucified and yet hate and not will the will and act of the Crucifiers but only foresee it as aforesaid And let them jeer God as Idle or asleep if he neither will nor effectually nill the sin we will believe it to be his perfection and liberty which they so deride 2. And whereas he addeth that Active Verbs are used as Gen. 45. Misit me Deus Isa 53. Deus voluit eum conterere Zech. 13. Ego percutiam Pastorem and God delivered Christ to death I answer It is too too gross to perswade us hence that any of these Texts say that God willeth the sinners will or Act. God sent me speaketh Gods act that is his disposal
and the Collation is according to the order of his Will though the Things Given have their intrinsick difference 115. All men confess that this Moral Reception is an Act and therefore hath an object which Physical Reception is not And that thus to Receive doth suppose a Moral Gift which Gift maketh not the thing ours necessarily as physical operation doth but on supposition of our voluntary Reception or Consent And all confess that Gods Donation is by his Covenant Testament or Promise and this Covenant hath its proper nature and mode that is the Condition as imposed antecedent to our Receiving Therefore as the thing Given is made ours by the Donation so according to the order appointed by it and our Consent no otherwise maketh it ours than as the Condition of the Gift performed But Gods Covenant doth Give us Christ and Life that is Justification Sanctification and Glorification in tithe or right in one Gift to be Accepted by one entire faith as the Condition not making at all the order of the Gifts and faiths respect to them in that order to be any of the Ratio proprietatis 116. This will be plainer by humane instances A Servants Relation is founded in his consent to be a Servant a Wifes Relation is founded in her Marriage-consent to be a Wife and to take that man for her Husband simply without any more adoe Now if the Master of that Servant or the Husband of that Wife be a noble man a rich man a wise man a good man and they knew all this and by knowing it were induced to consent and are to have their proportionable benefits by his Nobility Riches Wisdom Goodness yet their title to these benefits ariseth not from the act of their consent as it respected these benefits severally and distinctly but meerly by consent to their Relation as being his Condition of Collation The Wife is made Noble by her Husbands Nobility she is made Rich by his Riches she is instructed by his Wisdom c. But she hath no more Right to his Riches for marrying him in the notion of Rich or for consenting to him for Riches than for marrying him in the notion or thought of his wisdom or goodness On her part it was not consent to be Rich by him that gave her right to his Riches and consent to be Noble by him that gave her right to Nobility but consent simply to be his Wife that gave her right to all 117. This is yet fullyer evident in that most usually men make consent to one thing to be the condition of their Receiving or Right to another And usually that which one is most backward to is made the condition of their Right to that which they are most forward or willing to have The Master doth not say If thou wilt have thy wages thou shalt have right to it But if thou wilt do my work thou shalt have thy wages The condition of Marriage is conjugal Love and fidelity q. d. I will be thy Husband and give thee right to all that I have if thou wilt be and do what is essential to a Wife and not if thou wilt have my Riches c. If a Father give a Child a free gift on any condition it will likely be If thou wilt be a thankful and obedient Child and not If thou wilt have it Or if meer consent to have it be put it is usually when it is some gift which it is supposed that the person is not very willing to have As if a Sick man will have Physick if an ungodly man will have Teaching Books or Godliness it self But to this usually they are induced by the Promise of somewhat else which they are willing of As to the Sick If thou wilt take this Physick thou shalt have health To the ungodly If thou wilt have Christ and holiness thou shalt have pardon and happiness Now in the sence of Physical Receiving He that receiveth Physick hath Physick and He that receiveth health hath health c. But in the moral sence of Receiving which is Accepting as it is the condition of a gift so He that receiveth the Physick shall have the health and He that receiveth Christ and his sanctifying Spirit shall have Pardon Justification and Salvation Not that his willingness to have pardon and happiness is the chief or only condition of his pardon and happiness But his Accepting Christ and his Spirit which men are naturally unwilling of is the condition of that pardon and happiness which men would have By all which it appeareth that to say Faith justifyeth me as it is the Receiving of Christs Righteousness and not as it is the Receiving of Christ as a Teacher Ruler c. is a confounding or seducing saying For 1. If it intimate that Faith Justifyeth us as an efficient cause principal oâ— Instrumental it is false * * * Unless by Justifying they mean the acts of Love Hope Obedience called Hâ—â—iness 2. If it mean that Faith is the Condition of Justification quatenus as it receiveth Christs Righteousness only it hath either one or two falshoods 1. If it mean that Faith 's receiving act is the formalis ratio Conditionis or that it justifyeth not qua conditio dâ—â—ationis but quae Receptio Justitiae Christi it is false Therefore qua here can signifie nothing but the Aptitude of faith to be made the condition and so Qua Quae here are all one 2. And then that only the Accepting of Righteousness justifyeth us that is Is the condition of our Justification is a falshood 118. Therefore our consent to be a Holy and obedient people or to take Christ for our Teacher Exemplar Ruler Sanctifier by his Word and Spirit and Judge hath at least as great a hand in our justification being principally the Condition of the Promise as our belief in our acceptance of Christ's Righteousness hath SECT VIII Of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed 119. Christ's personal Righteousness Divine or Humane habitual active How little the Papists differ from the Imputation which they quarrel with See in Bellarm. words cited and approved by Davenant de Justit And Pet. a S. Joseph Theol. Speculat l. 4. c. 10. saith Obj. Pâ—ccatum remitti non potest quamdiu homo manet conversus ad creaturam aversus a Deo At semper aversus erit a Deo nisi mutatur Resp Sufficere mutationem moralem quae per solam Dei condonationem fieri potest ut jam homo non dicatur aversus a Deo This is Antinomianism and false As if God called not him averse who is really averse Obj. 2. Si peccatum remitti potest sine actu aut habitu per solam imputationem erit quae est â—aereticorum sententia Resp Haereticos loqui de facto non de imputatione peccati remanentis vere non remissi nos de possibili de verâ— remissione qua peccatum tollatur See how the case is turned and wranglers
unus idemque per vitam totam esse non potest Non est satis quod dixi nisi illud etiam adjeceris qualis scopus hic esse debeat M. Antoninus li. 11. sect 21. p. 113. fruit of the Spirit that it is the very heart of the New Creature the sum of Sanctification as love is the sum of the Law So that to give the Spirit of Adoption to cry Abba Father and to sanctifie and to work in us the love of God and holiness are three phrases of the same signification in the Word of God 248. As Christ as Mediator is the summary means and way to the Father to bring man home to his Creator so Faith in Christ is a mediating Grace to work in us the love of God And as else-where I have oft said The bellowes of Faith kindling Love and Love working by holy Obedience Patience Mortification Gratitude and Praise is the substance of all true Religion 249. Love being the final Grace and Faith in Christ but a means to 1 Cor. 12. last 13. 1. 2. 2. Whether the habit of Love in patria be better than that of Faith and Vision in genere moris only or also in genere rei the School-men are utterly disagreed Cacere's sum Theol. 22. q. 5. a. 1. Utrum in sola charitate supernaturali sit amicitia hominis ad Deum Affirm Quia Dâ—us ut aâ—â—hor natura non ea communicat quae sunt propria ejus sed solum esse naturale potentias quae c. The Reason is not so good as the Assertion Vid. Bradward li. 1. c. 1. cor 30. Contra indoctos artis amandi nâ—scientes Deum esse propter seipsum amandum câ—tera propter Deum omnesque actus humanos ad ipsum propter se finaliter ordinandos ipsumque esse super omnia diligendum and his following proof that God is not to be sinned against in the smallest of his Precepts or in the smallest thing to avoid the greatest pain oâ— obtain the greatest good imaginable it the end must needs be more excellent than the means as such And thus Paul giveth the pre-eminence to Love 250. And no wonder if he prefer it also for duration For Love is Heaven or felicity it self yea somewhat higher than felicity as such For as God is our End for and in himself above the ratio foelicitatis so God is our End as he is to be loved And God the Ultimate Object and Love the Ultimate Act and Gods Love communicated perfectly to us and Gods Will pleased in all this are the inadequate Conceptions which make up the Ultimate End supposing the perfection of Nature and of the Intellect in the sight of God as subservient hereunto 251. Man therefore hath a degree of fruition or attainment of his Ultimate End in this life so far as he hath a delightful love of God Though this be but the foretast and First-fruits 252. Therefore it is not by Faith only that we know what Heaven is and are drawn to seek it and hope for it but also by this earnest and foretast of love which worketh by a spiritual gust and sweet inward experience The Intellect first hath Faith and the Will hath Love And a promise and earnest is more a promise alone 253. When Faith hath wrought this holy Love in the Soul it doth as much if not more to keep us from Apostacy than Faith it self Therefore many unlearned Christians by the power of holy Love stand fast when subtile disputing Doctors may cleave to the world and fall away 254. Though it be an ill expression of those School-men that say Love is the form of every Grace that which I suppose they mean is true that love being the final Grace the rest as they are means to it or the effects and expressions of it are what they are partly in that Relation The means is a means only by its Aptitude to the end And is never loved as such for it self but for the end And what the effect hath it hath from its efficient Cause And it is true that no Faith no Fear no Obedience no Praise no Suffering is further accepted of God and a part of true Holiness nor will prove our Salvation than it participateth of predominant love to God But this predominant Love is always an evidence of Life 255. Qu. What if a man should by Faith in Christ be brought to the love of God and after fall away from Faith in Christ and yet retain his love to God would that love save him Ans When you can prove that ever there was such a man I will answer you Till then such false suppositions are no otherwise to be answered than by telling you that if God should permit a man to fall from Christ that man would lose the Spirit of Christ and the sight and sense of all Gods Love and Goodness manifested in Christ and in all the Work of Redemption And therefore he would lose the love of God 256. How far Holiness is the design of Christianity I have opened in a small Tractate on that Question And how far Sanctification is to be preferred before Pardon as such and yet Christ's Glory in pardoning us I have shewed there and in my Confession and therefore will not here repeat it SECT XVIII Of Perseverance and the certainty of it in order to certainty of Salvation and true Comfort 257. No man can be further certain of his final Salvation than he is certain of his perseverance in Faith and Love 258. Therefore it is a small number of Christians comparatively that ever were certain of their Salvation For 1. No one that is uncertain of his sincerity is certain of his Salvation 2. No one that holdeth this Doctrine That the Saints that are justified may fall away and that we cannot be sure of perseverance can be sure of his own Salvation It 's hard to conceive how he can be certain who holdeth that no man can be certain Now those that hold this Doctrine are almost all the Papists the Arminians the Lutherans and as far as I can learn by their Writings all the ancient Writers for a thousand years after Christ And the Semipelagians and Pelagians no man will put in as an exception except Jovinian alone against whom Jerome writing his second Book chargeth him as holding that a man truly baptized by the Spirit could not sin No doubt he meant to damnation or mortally But it 's doubtful what his Opinion was Augustine's report of him is of no great moment who as Erasmus noteth in his Argum. in Hier. adv Jovin neither had seen Jovinians Book or Hieorm's but spake by report And Austin Prosper and Fulgentius thought that all the Elect persevered as Elect being chosen to perseverance but that more were truly sanctified justified and in a state of Salvation had they so died than were elect That all these fell away and perished That no man could be certain whether or no he were
the Natural power in it self but by so doing formaliter relativè it maketh it no power ad hoc to the contrary in that instant Of which more anon § 10. Such grace of God as cometh from his Absolute Will or Decree of the due Event is never overcome For Gods decree is not frustrate § 11. Gods gracious operations are never overcome by any contrary Act but what he himself is the Agent Cause of as an Act For in Him we Live and Move and Be. Yet man is the only Cause of the Inordination of that act by which it is set in opposition to Gods other acts For God doth not militate against himself § 12. The case lyeth thus God antecedently to his Laws framed Nature that is the Being and Natural Order of all the World and so he became the Head or Root of Nature the first Cause who by his wise decree was to concurr to the end with that Natural frame and to continue to things their proper forms and motions And man is one of his creatures having a Nature of his own to which God as the God of Name doth Antecedently concurr By this natural concurse of God the fomiâ— cator the murderer the thief c. are naturally able to do those acts But being free agents that can do otherwise God maketh them a Law to restrain and regulate them And when they break this Law they resist that gracious concurse which suitable to the organical cause God conjoyneth with the means But they do this by their Natural power and activity not used as God requireth them but turned against his own Law So that if God would withdraw his sustentation and destroy mâ—ns Nature they could not resist his grace But that he will not do being his antecedent work and so God is resisted by his own-given-power and act disordered and turned against his grace § 13. The Will of God which is thus resisted is only 1. His Preceptive or Legal will de debito 2. And his will of purpose to give man so much help and no more by which he can and ought to believe and Repent is said to be resisted or frustrate so far when by mans fault it doth him not that good which it might have done § 14. Gods Grace and Spirit are said to be resisted when the Word and other Means are * * * That God doth govern inseriora per superiora and work by means not for want of them but from the abundance of his Goodness so as to communicate to his creatures the dignity of causality See Aquin. 1. q. 103. a. 8. q. 104. a. 2. Alexand. 1. p. q. 26. m. 5. a. 2. 3. m. 7. Albert. 1. p. q. 67. m. 4. a. 1. Richard 1. d. 39. a. 2. q. 3. d. 45. a. 2. q. 2. Agid. Rom. 2. d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. a. 6. ibi Gabritl d. 1. q. 2. resisted which call him to his duty For these themselves are gifts and acts of grace § 15. But it is not the barâ— Word or Means alone but the Spirit working in and by those means which is so resisted For though no moâ—tal man can clearly know just how the Spirit concurreth and operateth by the Word and Means yet we may know that God doth limit his own operation to the aptitude of the means ordinarily and that he worketh with and by them not according to his Omnipotency in it self considered but according to the means or organs And as in Nature he operateth nor quantum potest but agreeably to the order and aptitude of Natural Causes so in Grace he operateth non quantum potest but according to the aptitude and order of the sapiential frame of Governing-means of grace § 16. When the preaching of the Word Education Company and other visible Means seem equal God hath innumerable means supernal internal external invisible and unknown to us by which he can make all the difference that he maketh in men So that we cannot prove that ever he worketh on souls without any second cause or means at all though we cannot prove the contrary neither And therefore he that resisteth all means for ought we know in so doing resisteth all Gods gracious operations on his soul § 17. * * * I know not how to find both sense and concord in the words of your Alvarez de Aâ—x l. 7. disp 59. p. 264. Eadâ—m contritio que est ultima dispositio ad gratiam in genere cause materialis antecedit illam In genere tamen causae formalis efficientis est effeclus ejusdem gratiae propterea quamvis non sit meritoria gratiae est tamen meritoria vitae aeternâ— Et p. 265. Contritio qua penitens disponitur ad infusionem gratiae habitualis est meritoria vitae aeternae ut Thom. 1. 2. q. 112. a. 2. ad 1. Ergo est effectus gratiae habitualis Nulla enim operatio hominis est-meritoria vitae aeternae nisâ— procedat à gratiâ— habituali ordine saltem naturae sit ea posterior How can the Act be the ultima dispositio to the infusion of that habit which it floweth from Unless he mean eadem specie and not numerically which yet is false For it is not eadem or else he falsly supposeth that the same Love of God may go before Grace Whereas Dr. Twisse so frequently asketh Whether Gods condional will and so his operation be Volo te velle modo velis or credere modo credas to give us faith if we believe and so maketh non credere or non velle to be the only resistance and the Arminians to be ridiculous in making the effect antecedent to the cause as a condition of the causation and itself This semi-subtilty though it beget voluminous confidence must cry peccavi if a little more subtilty do but detect the defectiveness of it We are not now enquiring of the Rationes fidem habendi but of the Rationes non habendi nor are we enquiring Whether God have made a Covenant or formal Promise of giving faeith upon antecedent conditions But whether he deny or give-not grace for actual faith effectual or sufficient to any but those that resist and wilfully omit the preparatory acts which they were able to perform even preparatory Volitons Or if you will make the question to be de ratisnibus fidem habendi not de causis Actus donandi Whether God do not ordinarily give or produce the act of faith in that soul which doth not wilfully resist and omit such preparatory acts as it could do even Volitions And so I answer 1. It is not I will give thee faith if thou wilt believe or I will make thee willing if thou be willing of the same thing But it is 1. If by resisting common preparing grace thou so harden â—hy heart or increase the privation of receptive aptitude in thy self as that the same degree of grace means help impress will not change thee which otherwise would
is oft not Actually effectual for want of that Voluntary Reception and self-excitation § 27. As to the various effects of Grace fore-mentioned 1. As to the preparation of Means and Gracious medicine Christ the Covenant c. Grace is efficient of it self and doth it 2. As to the first Impulse or Impress on the soul God certainly effecteth it in some degree wherever his spirit worketh on the soul 3. Some Urgency and some degree of disposition to the act is constantly contained in this Impulse And usually it giveth a moral power to the Immediate Act-required 4. The Act of faith sometimes followeth this Impulse through its invincible force And sometime it followeth it through its sufficient force and the due Reception * * * Omne agens requirit de necessitate aliquam dispositionem in suo passo Maximè si illud pà ssum habeat dispositiones actionâ— illius agentis contrarias ut patet de igne c. Ergo cum Gratia non sit minus inmo magis quam naturalis forma Certum est quod Gratia requirit majorem dispositionem in passo Et voco illam dispositionem Libertatem arbitrii sui Deo submittere se ad alteram partem declinare scilicet ad volendum Gratiam recipere dolere de culpa commissa voluntarie libere per attritionem Brianson in 4. q. 8. cor 3. fol. 152. This is just the doctrine of our Protestant Preachers supposing that Common Grace must make this preparation which the Papists grant of the subject And sometimes it followeth it not at all through the Recipients indisposition 5. The Habit of faith ever followeth a special Act through the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost But usually it goeth not before the Act Man hath not a fixed Habit to promptitude and facility of believing before he believeth but after 6. The Habit ordinarily procureth following acts by the way of Inclination but not necessarily nor alwayes For by strong temptations Habits are oft born down § 28. If the question then be Whence Gods Grace is Aptitudinally and Potentially efficacious able and fit to effect It is because God is God that he is Able and his Impulse is such because he maketh it such And if the question be Whence Grace is Actually efficient of its first effect the Impulse It is because God will so do and his will hath no Cause being the first Cause And if the question be Whence Grace is Actually efficient of mans faith It is by its Impelling man to believe But if you ask Whence faith it self is or of what cause is it an effect I answer of God as the first cause and the Means as his Instrument and of the Believer as a free second Cause And if the question be Why sufficient Grace which is Effectual ad Posse is not effectual ad agere It is because being but sufficient mans Indisposition and wilful neglect or opposition maketh him an unfit Receiver § 29. There being nothing then but Gods essence and the means antecedent to the first effect on the soul and that effect ever following where God worketh and the second effect being the effect both of God by the first and of man as a free agent the questions unde efficatia Gratiae and unde effectus are thus healingly answered § 30. Obj. But the will of God is the first differencing and effectual Cause And that not as it is his essence but as it is terminated on the Creature and decreeth such an effect Answ 1. It is no will but his essence which is so terminated or decretive 2. That termination maketh no difference at all that 's real in the will of God but only in the effect or object 3. What is the difference then between Gods will simply in it self and as willing from eternity a thing not yet existent None really at all And that which is not yet being Nothing what Relative Connotative and Denominative difference such Nothings can make on the will of God besides the variety of imperfect notions in mans frail Intellect let the wise consider § 31. From whence it is that School-divines after Augustine say that with God there is no futurum velpraeteritum no fore-knowledge or fore-decrees properly because no difference of time but only knowledge and will of things as present § 32. Yet Gods Vital Activity Knowledge and Will as he himself is the object of them have a Greater distinction because to be self-living self-knowing and self-loving are his Essential Acts on himself the eternal object which made many Ancients account them the Trinity of persons And also to Will an existent Creature is an extrinsick denomination from existence But to will that which is not that man shall be that he shall believe hereafter c. as it is nothing really different from Gods essence so it is but an extrinsick denomination of his essence from nothing SECT XVI Of Infused Habits and the Holy Ghost Given us The Schoolmen that speak most for the necessity of Infused Habits cannot agree what use they are for Aureolus supposeth chiefly for the right circumstantiating of Acts rather than for promptitude to them and pleasure in them And when all is said they give men but small comfort from them saying as Aureolus Brianson c. that no man can be sure that he hath them seeing acquired Habits may do the same things that Infused do Utrum Beatitudo supernaturalis hujus vitae sit magis in Habitibus quam in operationibus vid. Suarez Metaph. disp 44. sect 8. n. 18. Molina 1. p. q. 12. ar 5. disp 2. ar 2. pro habitibus Sed contra inquit Aegid de Sancta Praesentatione Li. 4. de beatit q. 5. a. 3. pâ— 471. His non obstantibus oppositum affirmant omnes Theologi qui bac de re scripserunt nec videtur posse de hoc dubitari And yet Alens 2. p. q. 104. m. 3. Aquin. 1. 2. q. 51. a. 2. ad 3. q. 63. a. 2. ad 3. Valentiâ—â— To. disp 4. q. 3. punct 2. c. are for preferring Habits Idem Aegid de Praesentat li. 4. p. 443 444. tells us that by Grace God is Present in the soul as his Temple otherwise than by Immensity and sustentation But his praesentia Amicitia can mean nothing but the special effects of Gods Love Nostrâ tempestate non solum est temerarium periculosum sed ferè hareticum habitus insusos negare Nam Concil Vienens c. universi Theologi uno consensu affirmant dari habitus insusos Medina in 1. 2. q. 51. a. 4. 282. But Soto li. 2. de nat grat c. 17 18. saith that the Concil Trid. purposely forbore to define the case of infused habits Let the Reader note that Jansenius proveth that Pelagius himself asserted infused Habits given in baptism and that without merit Jans Aug. To. 1. li. 5. c. 22. p. 126. § 1. EVery operation of the Holy Ghost is not the Giving
causeth no antecedent necessity but concomitant existentiae 3. This supposeth Gods Scientia futuri conditionalis Against this Dr. Twisse hath said much in a peculiar Digression And surely God ever operateth as God which is ut Causa prima But how far he determineth is the doubt i a capable object of knowledge And therefore he knoweth what conditional propositions of future contingents are true 2. Whether this should be called scientia media or not is a vain question 3. Gods acts ex parte sui being but his Essence and all one can no otherwise be distinguished nor ordered as to the denominations of priority or posteriority than as the objects are distinct and by their order of priority and posteriority allow us by Connâ—tation so to denominate the acts 4. The Intelligibility and the Amability of things are in themselves simultaneous though from the order of humane operations we say that things are first Intelligible before they are Amiable And so we may say of God after the manner of men but not otherwise 5. God doth not will the form or the act of sin as circumstantiated and as the form necessarily resulteth from it neither for it self nor propter aliud the essence or existence 6. Therefore God doth not foreknow sin as willed and decreed by him nor therefore foreknow it because he willeth it 7. God fore-knoweth or knoweth the formale peccati as well as the materiale yet almost all confess that he willeth not the formale Therefore he knoweth that which he willeth not Therefore his Volition of it is not necessary to his knowledge of it 8. There is no effect in God for all that is in God is God who is not effected Therefore there is no Cause in God of any thing in God Therefore Gods will or decree of Good is not the cause that he foreknoweth it noâ— his foreknowledge the cause that he willeth it But he both knoweth and willeth all that is Good at once 9. Gods inward operations on the soul are real efficiencies and yet moral and to us unsearchable They cause the will to determine it self to Good when it doth so but how we know not But we know that he ordinarily worketh by means and according to their aptitude 10. God useth such means with the free wills of his elect as he foreknoweth will prevail with them and setteth them in such circumstances as he foreknoweth they will freely act aright in But his inward grace is the principal or chief cause And he doth not will or decree to give them such means and circumstances because he foreknoweth they will prevail That is Gods will and decree as in him hath no cause 11. But the word because is in Scripture applyed sometimes to Gods Love or hatred and sometimes to his outward acts as John 16. 27. The Father loveth you because ye have loved me and believed And in the first case that which is meant is that the qualification of the object is the material constitutive cause of the act of God not as it is Himself but as relatively denominated ab extra from the object in specie vel individuo And in the second case It meaneth that the effects of God ad extra called his transient acts as in passo have their proper uses and we our commanded ends in using them And so God is said to send Ministers e. g. because he would save the hearers that is the Ministry is a cause of mens â—â—lvation 12. From all this it appeareth that they err who think that their scientia media is equally useful in the points of Election and of Reprobation and that they run pari passa For all Good is both willed and known and so Election supposeth not the foresight of our faith or obedience as causal or antecedent if we speak of that Act of Election which is to faith and obedience But Evil is foreknown and not willed at all And therefore there is no such Reprobation which is a will or decree that men shall sin And the non-impedition of sin being no act needeth no positive act of will or decree * * * Yet none of the stress of their differences lyeth on this And the Jesuits with the rest assert a Positive Volition de peccato permittendo without proof which I leave to â—uens various opinions But Reprobation which is the decree of damning ever supposeth the object to be a foreseen-sinner finally rejecting grace The rest about this is spoken to sufficiently before §. IV. II. Of Durandus 's way II. AS to the way of Aureolus Durandus Ludov. à Dola c. I conceive it is commonly rejected because not understood or because the wording of it soundeth disgracefully But it is a great matter that all confess how easily it would end all these controversies were it true And by Lud. à Dola's Explication and what Capreolus saith of Aureolus I conceive that they are commonly mistaken Durandus thinketh that to the motion of the Creature it is necessary 1. That God by his continued No doubt but God is quoad praesentiam Immediate in all his efficiency and as Near to the effect as if he used no second cause But yet he is not so immediate as to exclude second causes as media And while he useth them he operateth on us according to their kind of operations even as if they were between him and the effect And this is the sense of Durandus and à Doâ—a and easily reconcileth all Amyraldus de lib. Arbit c. 4. concurreth with Durandus It is consâ—derable that all confess that if Durandus's way did hold it easâ—ly ended all the controversie As Lud. le Blank noteth Thes 3. de Concurs Juxta hos doctores nulla est difficultas in conciliando divino concursu cum libertate c. And this way is as consistent with Gods certain disposal of events as predetermination it self influx continue the being and the nature and properties of the agent 2. And that he continue all the circumstant creatures concauses and objects and the media of action 3. And that no powerful impediment hinder the action Now say the Jesuits and Dominicans and the rest God doth moreover concurr as the first cause to the Act it self by an Immediate efficient Influx besides that by which he upholdeth the Power and second Causes But I think that Durandus meaneth as much as they that is that God doth not only uphold the creature in its meer esse but in its Nature which is its Mobility and its principium motus And this Nature is not only a Power to Action but also an Inclined Power So that for God by constant Influx to continue a Natural Power and Inclination to Action or motion with all necessary concurrents without impediments is truly by his Influx to concurr to the motion as the first Cause while his Influx is not only as to Being but as to the Motive force and inclination And no more than this doth seem to me
Pardon and Salvation on condition they will repent and believe but he died moreover for the Elect to procure and give them Faith and Repentance also Know you not that Paraeus in his Irenicon saith That the Sins of all the World lay on Christ on the Cross as the cause of his Death Know you not that it is the commonest Doctrine of the Protestants That Christ died for all men as to the sufficiency of his death but for the Elect only as to the efficiency of Salvation And what can you say more or less than those few words signifie Know you not that the Synod at Dort it self saith That Christ's satisfaction is of infinite value and price abundantly sufficient to expiate the Sins of all the World and that the Promise is That whosoever believeth shall not perish And this is to be preached to all And that many yet repent not believe not but perish is not through any defect or insufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice but by their own default Musculus his words for Universal Redemption are Loc. Commun c. de Redemp Gen. hum p. mihi 326. c. Redemptio est generis humani Geâ—â—s humanum Complectitur non unam aut alteram Gentem sed mundum â—niversum omnes viz. totius orbis nationes cunctos homines à primo usque ad novissimum Generaliter est omnium Scimus non omnes Redemptionis hujus fieri participes Verum illorum perditio qui non servantur haud quaquam impedit * It seems there were but few in Bradwardin's days who were of his mind in confessing the antecedent natural impossibility of any ones Salvation or any good act which cometh not to pass seeing li. 3. c. 29. p. 735. he answereth them that say why should the Opinion of a few trouble the Church and the far greater number that is against it by referring them to the paucity of wise men and Believers and saying that truth must be preached for the few Elect that will receive it And p. 737. tells us how Aristophanes contrary to the six Judges appointed by Ptolomy did adjudge the Crown to that Poet that the people liked worst quo minus Universalis vocetur Redemptio Resolutio illa telluris qua passim omnia ad germinandum astate solvuntur recte Universalis dicitur etiamsi multae arbores non germinent c. Anno Jubilâ—o Generalis omnium servorum liberatio erat etiamsi multi in servitute maâ—â—â—tes gratiam liberationis respuebant Ad eum modum habet Redemptio istageneris humani Quod illam homines reprobi deploratè impii non accipiunt neque defectu fit Gratiae Dei neque justum est ut illa propter filios perditionis Gloriam ac titulum UNIVERS ALIS REDEMPTIONIS amittat cum sit parata cunctis omnes ad illam vocentur c. sic cuim cavebimus ne Catholicae Gratiae Gloriam obscuremus in arctum Constringamus vel cum phanaticis hominibus neminem prorsus damnari dicaâ—us Bullinger A. You may spare your labour of citing Bullinger and Musculus or Melanchthon or Bucer or such moderate men But what are they to the rigid Calvinists B. Calvin saith in Rom. 5. 18. Communem omnium gratiam facit quia omnibus exposita est Non quod ad omnes extendatur reipsa Nam si passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi atque omnibus Indifferenter Dei benignitate offertur non tamen omnes apprehendunt And in 1 Cor. 8. 11. Dictum memorabile quo docemur quam Chara esse debeat nobis fratrum salus nec omnium modo sed singulorum quando prounoquoque fusus est sanguis Christi And in 2 Pet. 2. 1. Non immerito dicuntur Christum abnegare à quo redempti sunt And in 1 Joh. 2. 2. He saith That qui dicunt Christum sufficienter pro toto mundo passum esse sed pro elect is tantum efficaciter say true and that which commonly obtaineth in the Schools though he otherwise expound that Text. A. You need not cite Calvin Grotius said truly that he had his Lucida intervalla and though Amyraldus seek to defend him from self-contradiction Petavius calls him all to nought for it But what can you say for your high Antiarminians such as Paraeus Molinaeus c. B. Paraeus let all mark it saith Irenic cap. 24. pag. 142. Quod Christus pro solis electis satisfecit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est vel falsa accusatio Omnium peccata Christus portavit dissolvit expiavit si magnitudinem pretii seu 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sufficientiam spectemus Non omnium sed tantum fidelium si 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 efficaciam fructum applicationem To which he citeth Ambrose Innocent Lyra adding Juxta hunc intellectum nulla est dissensio Art 6. itidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est vel falsa accusatio Promissiones Gratiae sunt Universales pertinentque ad omnes quoad praedicationem invitationem mandatum credendi And on 2 Pet. 2. 1. Erant Redempti respectu sufficientiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Molinaeus Anatom Arminianis saith cap. 27. sect 8 9. When we say that Christ died for all men we take it thus that the Death of Christ is sufficient to save whosoever do believe yea and that it is sufficient to save all men if all men in the whole World did believe in him And that the cause why all men are not saved is not in the insufficiency of the Death of Christ but in the wickedness and incredulity of man Finally Christ may be said to reconcile all men to God by his Death after the same manner that we say the Sun doth enlighten the eyes of all men though many are blind many sleep and many are hid in darkness c. That most methodical acute Divine Georg. Sohnius saith Tom. 1. Thes de Justific mihi pag. 104. Satisfactio illa justitia pro omnium temporum hominibus omnium hominum peccatis peccatorum omnium cum culpa tum poena sufficit quia ab infinita persona dependet Matth. 18. 11. 12. 31. Rom. 5. 18. 8. 32. 2 Cor. 5. 15. 1 Tim. 2. 6. 1 Joh. 1. 7. 2. 2. Tit. 2. 14. Errant igitur qui Christum pro omnibus hominibus passum esse negant A. But such violent men as Zanchy the grand Patron of the impossibility of falling away talk not at this rate B. Zanchy saith Thes Vol. 3. fine Thes 13. 16. de Volunt Dei Eadem de causa dici non potest Dei voluntatem proprie simpliciter fuisse ut Christus pro salute omnium moreretur id est ut omnis per ejus mortem servaretur ac proinde Christum secundum propositum patris pro salute omnium mortuum esse sed tantum ut loquuntur sufficienter Caeterum damnari etiam illi non possunt qui spectata revelata voluntate Dei docent Deum velle omnes homines salvos
believe so that Faith is a fruit of the Death of Christ in a remoter secondary sense And in all this Name me any Christian Churches that are disagreed C. To bring it only to a mans free will whether he will believe or not is not to give him Faith and to purchase no more is not to purchase it B. Do you not perceive that here you divert to the Controversies of the Decrees and of effectual Grace Of the first we have said enough already of the other after in due place The sixth Crimination C. They feign Christ to purchase only a conditional Pardon Justification and Salvation and so to leave it uncertain to the corrupt Will of man whether any shall be saved or not B. This also concerneth the Decrees and is fully answered before 1. That Christ hath purchased and God given a conditional Act of Oblivion or Pardon and Life to all is the very Gospel it self and to be questioned by no Believers 2. None of them all do suppose Christ to die at uncertainties as to the success for they suppose that he fore-knew the success from eternity 3. They suppose not that the success was undecreed For they that presuppose fore-sight of mans concurrence yet assert an * Episcop Instit Theol. l. 4. sect 5. cap. 6. Certum est posito decreto conditionato omnes ac singulos qui vel ad vitam electi sunt vel ad mortem reprobati recte ab aeterno praedestinatos dici posse debere eternal Decree of his Conversion upon such fore-sight And it is not on the fore-sight of Faith that they say God decreeth to give men Faith but on fore-sight that the will of the Sinner will concur or not obstinately resist the Spirit that is drawing him to believe And the Jesuites and Arminians by their Scientia media do hold God to be the chief cause of mens believing For they say That God foreseeing that man will believe if he have such a measure of help and such means and circumstances doth freely decree to give him that help of the Spirit and those means by which he knoweth it will be done So that here is no uncertainty but different thoughts of the ascertaining decrees and ways 4. And lib. 1. I have shewed you that not only the Schoolmen but Bellarmine Ruiz Suarez and many of the most famous Jesuites do assert effectual Grace to be such both ex voluntate operantis and ex vi operationis absolutely And where then is this feigned difference The seventh Crimination C. They make Christ to do no more for Peter than for Judas for those in Heaven than for those in Hell while they say that he died equally for all B. * Vasq in 1. Thom. q. 23. a. 8. disp 94. c. 2. Perantiqua Theologorum sententia quam ego Catholicam existimo est non solum Christum nobis meritum ut a Deo diligeremur praedestinaremur per gratiam ejus ad gloriam sed etiam ut eligeremur ex massa perditionis electione gratiae suae Note that he speaketh only of the effect of Gods Decree and so it is all one as to say that differencing Grace is merited by Christ which is that which you would have Equality here is meant either of his Intention or of the benefits given Those benefits are of several sorts 1. No doubt but they err who feign God equally to decree and Christ to intend the eventual absolute Salvation of all 2. And they err that say that he bestoweth equal benefits on all even in this life yea antecedently to mans Will But the New Covenant or conditional Promise doth equally as to the tenor of it give Pardon and Right to Life to all But who is it that holdeth this equality of Intention or Benefit Not the greater part of the School-men or other Papists no not the learnedst Jesuites Not the Lutheran Churches But some few Arminians that run into one extream as you do into the other Nay how can they hold an equality of Intention when they confess that upon foreknowledge of their Unbelief the condemnation of many was eternally decreed C. Yes they hold that antecedently to fore-sight Gods Intention is equal B. 1. That fore-sight it self is from eternity 2. Who can frame out Orders of antecedency in the mind of God between his fore-sight and his Will without confessing great darkness and impropriety of Speech 3. And he that first giveth man to believe and will doth not first foresee that he will believe and will before he decree to give it him The eighth Crimination C. They make Christ's sheep to know him before he know his sheep that is to believe before he decree to give them Faith B. This is but the same in sense with what is before answered And it belongeth to the controversie of Gods Decrees They all say that God decreeth to give them sufficient Grace to enable them to believe before he fore-seeth their belief And most say more as is aforesaid The ninth Crimination C. Some of them say that Christ's Death did actually deliver * Vid. Episcop Resp ad qu. 64. qu. 38. supposing the Salvation of all that die in Infancy all men in the World from the guilt of Original Sin and so that none perish for Original Sin because what Adam did Christ undid B. You can name no Church that doth hold such Doctrine And we have nothing to do with singular odd Persons 1. Millions were unborn when Christ died and were not guilty of Original sin till afterwards and therefore were not capable of Pardon 2. The Papists who damn unbaptized Infants cannot be of that Opinion 3. What Adam brought upon us Christ did deliver us from upon his terms and in his way and by his degrees but not immediately He hath given all men a conditional Pardon of Original Sin as he hath done of Actual and no other The Unregenerate are under the guilt of all Sin whatsoever 4. But it is certain that no man except Infants doth perish for Original Sin alone For all men at age have other sins And it being certain that God offereth all men a recovery or remedy mediately or immediately it is certain that Infants perish not meerly for Adam's sin iâ—puted as a remediless evil but that their non-liberation or not being pardoned and saved is long of their Parents Unbelief and not entering them into the Covenant of God who is the God of the Faithful and their Seed The tenth Crimination C. They make Christ to have died for the Serpents Seed against whom the enmity is proclaimed when the new Covenant was first made Gen. 3. 15. B. 1. If by the Serpents Seed you mean such as are Gods Enemies no doubt but Christ died for them Rom. 5. 1. to 12 c. What need reconciliation else 2. If by the Serpents Seed you mean Reprobates as such you can never prove it to be the meaning of the Text. 3. If you mean fore-seen final
stir up their distast of others B. The question may have three several senses of passiveness as man is considered 1. In his Nature 2. In his Action And therein 1. In the reception of the Divine Influx 2. In the acting thereupon And so the questions are 1. VVhether mans Soul be an active nature or passive matter only 2. VVhether mans Soul be meerly passive in the reception of the Divine Influx ad agendum 3. VVhether mans Soul be meerly passive in its own first act of Faith or Repentance Tell me Are not these three distinct questions And are they not all that you can devise unless you will make another whether we are merly passive in the preparatory part And are you not now ashamed to confess that you need any answer to any one of these three questions I. All the world is agreed save the Hobbists and Somatists and Sadduces that mans Soul is not meer passive nature but is an active nature inclined to Action as passive Elements are to non-action And that when God moveth it he moveth not Earth Water or Air but a Spirit whose nature is self-moving as fire under the first mover II. All the world is agreed that the Soul and all Spirits are not so purely and meerly active as God is but are partly and first passive and that they do and needs must be receptive of the Divine Influx before they can act For all Creatures depend on the first Cause and both Being Nature and Action would cease if Gods emanation to it ceased And all the world agreeth that no man before Conversion or after doth any act of Faith Love c. no nor eating and drinking and going c. but he is in the first instant passive as influenced by God before he is active Who ever doubted whether physice recipere be pati Did you ever know such a man III. All the world is agreed that man is not meerly passive when he acteth An Act is an Act sure And to believe repent and love is an Act and an act of mans Soul And Scotus who thinketh that immanent Act are qualities as we think of habits yet thinketh that the Soul is truly active antecedently to that quality Where now is there any room for a Controversie C. You would make me believe that we are very ignorant Wranglers that make a noise in our dream and will not suffer others to rest Do not the Arminians say that man concurreth with God to the first act of his own Faith yea that he maketh Gods Grace effectual B. You shall not again tempt me to anticipate the question of effectual Grace though enough is said before to it as far as this Objection is concerned in it Gods Influx on the Soul is one thing mans natural faculty receiving that Influx passively is another And mans Act is another To thrust in here a general word man concurreth and so to run away from clear and necessary distinction is not the part of a man of knowledge Did ever man yet deny that man herein concurreth as aforesaid 1. Man concurreth not to make his Soul nor to continue it in being or power 2. Man concurreth not as any efficient of Gods Influx on his Soul ad agendum 3. But man receptively or passively concurreth as a Receiver of that Influx 4. And man actively thereupon concurreth to believe and repent Is not all this true But you would tempt the Arminians to say that it is you and not they that are herein to be accused For what mean you else by confining the Controversie to the first act of Faith or to our first Conversion Would you make men believe that a converted man is not as truly passive in believing loving God c. as the unconverted is Must not the holiest person be passive in receiving the Divine Influx on his Soul before he do any holy Act You seem to deny this and then you are the person that err by ascribing too much to man If not shew the difference C. There is a habit of Faith goeth before the first Act And it is in respect to that habit that the Arminians say we are active procurers of it which we deny But the godly operate from a habit B. You speak a private Opinion of your own brain against the sense of the Concordant Churches Where doth Scripture say that a habit of Faith goeth before the first Act Mr. Pemble * Vind. Gratâ— saith so indeed yet he sometime calleth that but a Seed which at other times he calleth a habit Dr. Ames in his Medulla contradicteth it Bishop Downame * In the end of his Treatise Of Perseverance Le Blank de diss Grat. 2. Thes 22. speaking of our being passive as to operating Grace saith truly Non videntur hac in parte Reformati a sanioribus inter Scholasticos dissentire licet aliis verbis mentem suam exprimant The School-men and Protestants little differ in the method of operations of Grace and all are drawn by Controversies too near curiosity beyond their reach hath written a large Confutation of Mr. Pemble The generality of Protestant Divines contradict it and thus with Rollock de Vocat distinguish Vocation from Sanctification that they suppose Vocation to cause the first act of Faith and Repentance and Sanctification to give us the fixed habit the act intervening Mr. Tho. Hooker is large upon it in his Souls Vocation Will you start one mans Opinion which Calvinists and Arminians are against and feign this to be a difference between Calvinists and Arminians And perhaps Mr. Pemble himself by his first semen or habit meaneth no more than the Divine Influx ad actum received I have before told you how unsearchable the nature of that Influx is and how hard it is to know the true nature of an Habit. C. But Mr. Pemble saith It is the Spirit that is given before we believe B. Away with Ambiguity By the Spirit is meant either the meer received Influx of the Spirit ad agendum and so it is granted Bad men receive the Spirits Influx to such acts as he moveth them to Or else you mean the foresaid fixed Habits and Dispositions to a ready and facile ordinary Operation Or else you mean the Spirit given relatively by Covenant undertaking to be the Sanctifier and Preserver of the Soul In both these latter senses the Spirit is not given before the first act of Faith to Infidels They have not the fixed habits of Holiness Love Hope Obedience c. Otherwise they were holy Infidels No Scripture speaketh it nay contrarily it promiseth the Spirit as to Believers and affirmeth it given after Faith Eph. 1. 13. Joh. 14. 17. 15. 26. Gal. 3. 14. 4. 6. Joh. 7. 39. And that the Holy Ghost is not given in Covenant to Infidels I need not prove to them that will not baptize Infidels The sixth Crimination C. They hold that none are damned only for Adam's sin imputed * Yes Vasqu and other
never read that any mans damnation was any whit the more increased for not performing these acts And again page 170. It is true there is a Faith infused by the Spirit of God in regeneration But who ever said that any man was damned because he doth not believe with such a Faith As much as to say that non-regeneration is the meritorious cause of damnation C. I am amazed at this especially his supposing that no man ever said that which I thought no man of us had denied B. I would think that his meaning is that men are not condemned for want of Gods infusing act but their own believing act or for the privation of Infusion but for the privation of Faith or of Faith not quatenus infused but as they ought to have believed without infusion But he was not so wanting in accurateness but that he knew how to have exprest himself had that been his meaning And then I know not how his words will consist with this sense I never read that any mans damnation was the more increased for not performing these acts where changing their own hearts is one And whoever said that any man was damned because he did not believe with such a Faith Here it is the Faith as such which is supposed spoken of the privation whereof is not the meritorious cause of damnation And indeed though the power of this Faith would have been in us had there been no Sin or Saviour yet there would have been no obligation to believe in Christ as Mediator And therefore if the Law of Innocency had stood alone even the want of an acquired Faith in Christ would have been no sin But this is the unhappiness of such as must read Controversial Writings There is no end of searching after the Writers meaning But the thing it self I think is plain c. that only an effectual special Faith will save us and it is such a Faith of which Christ speaketh Mat. 16. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned though he believe with any other Faith whatsoever which he calleth acquired Perhaps this his opinion hath some dependance on what he saith before ibid. He punisheth the disobedient with eternal death True but according to what Covenant Not according to the Covenant of Grace that is only a Covenant for Salvation but according to the Covenant of the Law the Covenant of Works Woful error and confusion The Covenant of the Law is almost as bad a phrase as the Covenant of the Covenant 1. Gods Law of Innocency was a Law and Covenant in several respects 2. So was the Jewish Law which Paul meaneth by the Law of Works 3. So is the Christian Law of Christ and of Grace No man is now condemned by the Jewish Law of Works as such it being ceased and never did it bind the Gentile world The Law of Nature and of Innocency indeed condemneth the disobedient but the Law or Covenant of Christ or of Grace doth condemn them to much sorer punishment Luke 19. 27. Those mine enemies that would not I should reign c. Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not shall be damned Heb. 10. 29. Mat. 25. throughout But this confounding of the Covenants I must not here rectifie But yet I hope he meant only that men suffer not for want of Gods Regenerating Infusing Act but for want of their own act of Faith The fifth Crimination C. I find Dr. Twisse ibid. alibi saepe charging it on them as holding that Grace is given according to Works which is Pelagianism For they think that God looketh at some preparation in the Receiver and giveth it to some because they are prepared for it and denieth it to others because they are unprepared whereas it is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but in him that of his meer good pleasure sheweth mercy B. There is enough said of this after about differencing and effectual Grace But if we must say more I ask you Quest. 1. Do you by this phrase according to Works mean to urge the Scripture that speaketh in that phrase in its proper sense or do you Vulgatum illud facientâ— quod in se est Deus non denegat Gratiam intelligitur de faciente â—â— gratia auxilie Pet. â— S. Joseph Thes Univers de auxil pag. 83. Idem pag. 90. Nequidem ipsius Christi opera fuerunt actu meretoria citra promissiâ—nem Dei usi ex se essent valoris inâ—â—â—iti which needeth explication only use the phrase in some other sense of your own C. I use Scripture phrase in Scripture sense because I rest on its Authority B. Quest 2. Are we not also saved without Works in Scripture sense And would it be contrary to Paul to say we that we are saved by Works yea or according to them in that sense that he speaketh of them See James 2. 14 c. Tit. 3. 5. Ephes 2. 5 8 9. Gal. 3. 2. 5. 10. Acts 15. 11. c. and 16. 31. Rom. 5. 10 And yet saved according to Works in another sense James 2. 14 c. Phil. 2. 12. Gal. 6. 4. Rom. 20. 12 13. 2 Cor. 5. 10. C. In several senses of Works we deny it not B. Quest 3. At least you will grant that we are not justified by Works and yet that we are justified by Faith yea in another sense by Works Quest 4. Is not believing and repenting in order to Justification and all holy obedience in order to Salvation as truly opâ—â— a work and in a far nobler sense than preparation for Faith is C. That cannot be denied B. Then you cannot affirm that the phrase not according to Workâ— which excludeth not Faith Repentance holy Obedience to justification and salvation doth intend the exclusion of all preparation in order to Conversion or Faith in Christ when by Works excluded it meaneth the same thing or sort in all C. But saith Dr. Twisse ibid. page 154. Pardon and Salvation God doth confirm only on condition of Faith and Repentance But â—â— for Faith and Repentance doth God confer them conditionally also If so whatsoever be the condition let them look to it how they can avoid the making of Grace to wit the Grace of Faith and Repentance to be given according to Works B. I know he frequently saith the same But 1. I speak now only of the sense of that Scripture and say that this goeth upon a most false and dangerous supposition that Justification and Salvation are given according to Works though Faith and Repentance be not whereas in the sense of Works there meant by Paul no man can be justified by Works And though Christ saith This is the work of God that ye believe in him whom the Father hath sent yet it is not that which Paul meaneth Let not therefore Scripture words be abused to mislead mens understandings 2. But as to the matter of the Controversie I spoke to it enough
a long answer B. Not as Paul meant it but as our troublesome Contenders use it in Even those that found the infallibility on scientia media make congrous Grace ex proposito convertendi to be the cause of the difference So Malderus 1 2. q. 111. a. 3. p. 517. Quod hic credat prae alio indubie venit de misericordia Dei ipsum siâ— vocantis ut accomodet assensum misericordia inquam qua nos in Câ—risto elegit Totum est miserentis Dei ipse vocat ipse facit â—t vocatus veniat ipse â—t currat ipse nolentem praevenit ut velit volentem subsequitur nâ— frâ—fira velit vi sua Gratia it a sibi aptat liberum arbitrium ut a nâ—llo dâ—ro corde respâ—â—tâ—r quod diciâ—â—s provenire ex â—o quod meris inâ—â—â—abilibus occultis modis noverit Deus ita hominis â—over sensum ut accomodet assensum Fatemur Dei omnipotentiam Dominium quod habet in voluntates hominum manifestari in gratiae effâ—catia Et consensus homiâ—is est donâ—m Dei descendens a Patre luminum â—llumque consensum Deâ—â— vult â—acit quia facit â—ominem viribâ—â— gratiâ—â—acerâ— Yeâ— he yieldeth to â—radwardines Doctrine supposing him only to intend necessitatem quandam consequentiae necessarium esse hominem libere velle illâ—d ipsum quod Deuâ— cujuâ— omnipotentia quaecunque voluit facit praevoluit ipsum ville libere Item gratiam efficacem derâ— intuitâ— meritorum Christi non tantum quatenuâ— est sufficiensâ—sed etiam quatenus est eâ—â—iâ—ax dum seeundum propositum â—â—â—â— â—â—â—m cura Dâ—â— non est aqualis do omnibus another sense the answer must be suited to the question And here note that really it is the state of both parties compared and not of one of them that constituteth the dissimilitude as is said And the efficient causes of both states are the causes of the difference And so truly the cause of Nero's unbelief and the causes of Paul's Faith which are many as aforesaid all set together are the causes of the differences or rather all make up one cause of it This no Logician can deny But yet in vulgar speech we use to say that that person or thing is the cause of the difference 1. Which is the cause of the singularity 2. Or which causeth the state of the second person compared supposing the state of the first person to be already existent And so you will find yet several senses of the question C. Explain it by some instances B. 1. As to the cause of singularity If one man be born an Ideot or a Monster when we ask what made him differ from other men though really the causes of the dissimilitude be to be assigned on both parts yet we mean only on his part why is he not like others So if one Child be unlike to all his brethren or one Scholar in the School be much better or much worse than all the rest or if one in a Family be sick he that asketh what maketh him differ doth mean what made him sick c. 2. And so as to Posteriority of State if you suppose one of the dissimiliar parts pre-existent and ask what maketh the other to differ from it as if you ask why the Scholar writeth not like his Copy why the Son is so unlike to the Father why this age is so unlike the last c. We mean only what causeth the difference ex parte subsequente C. Apply it to the case in hand B. If you ask what made the difference between the Devils and the persevering Angels In the full and proper answer you must assign the reason on both parts But according to the usual sense of the question you must say The wilful sin of the Devils made the difference For the equal state of uprightness went before the difference So if you ask what made the difference between the world after the fall and before it vulgarly we must say sin because that came last So if you ask what made the difference between Noah and the world between Lot and Sodom Ans Indeed that which made one part sinful and the other righteous But according to the vulgar sense of the question it was the Righteousness of Noah and Lot and the causes of that righteousness So what made the difference between Judas and the eleven Apostles Ans Judas his wilful sin and Wickedness though indeed the cause is on both sides So what maketh the difference between Believers and the Unbelieving world Really the unbelief of the world and the Faith of Christians with their causes But it 's like the speaker meaneth only ex parte credentium And then the cause of their Believing is the cause of their differing But now if it hold true that God giveth a sufficiency of Grace ut causa universalis ex parte donantis antecedently to mens accepting or rejecting equally then if one ask what maketh the difference you would understand him why have not unbelievers Faith as well as others And then the answer would be wilful resisting or refusing Grace or the moral special indisposition of the Recipients makes the difference or else all would be alike believers But note that we ask not What maketh the difference between Believers and unbelievers but do particularize the subject and ask what maketh the Believer differ from the Unbeliever or what maketh the unbeliever differ from the believer It is then supposed that we mean only ex parte nominata And thus in the vulgar sense the questions what maketh the believer differ from the Infidel and what maketh the Infidel differ from the believer must have various answers C. I understand you thus in brief 1. You say that constitutively it is Faith that is the difference on Paul 's part and unbelief on Nero ' s. 2. The causes of the said Faith and unbelief are the causes of the difference As the causes of the whiteness of one wall and of the blackness of the other cause their difference 3. That to ask why the Believer differeth from the Unbeliever is but to ask why he is a Believer when the other is not 4. Here you say the two Relations of dissimilitude in two ubbjects make the questions two in one viz. 1. Why or whence is Paul a Believer 2. Whence is it that Nero is an Unbeliever 5. You say that Nero is an Unbeliever through his own wilfulness and illdisposition resisting Grace Satans temptations concurring And that Paul is a Believer from many conjunct causes 1. Gods Grace by his Spirit 2. Christs Merits 3. Christs donation of that Spirit 4. The means by which he worketh 5. The concurse of Pauls will To which efficients you add in most a competent Receptive disposition in genere causâ— materialis both passive and active 6. You say that in all this Gods Grace is incomparably the greater cause than man's will 7. But yet not the sole cause and that some free-not-necessitated concurse of mans
that we are commanded not only Thankfully to Accept but Thankfully to obey our Lord Redeemer and Saviour Lib. No. P. Quest 3. Date you deny that life or death eternal dependeth on this as a Condition or Moral means and that we shall be judged according to it Lib. No. I deny it not P. Quest 4. Is it not a Law that thus commandeth us and by which we must be judged Lib. Yes If it were no Law there were no duty and sin in belief and unbelief P. Quest 5. Is not a man so far just and justifyable by that Law as he keepeth it and justifyable against the charge of being one that must be Damned by producing the Condition of pardon and life performed Lib. Yes I deny it not P. Quest 6. And doth not the same Law virtually justifie the performer now whom it will justifie as the Rule of Judgement at last Lib. Yes no doubt P. Quest 7. And is not the Name of Righteousness many score times given in Scripture to our own actions done by Grace and measured by the New Covenant Lib. Yes I cannot deny it P. Why then while you deny neither Name nor Thing what wrangle you about And let me plainly tell you that such men as you by indiscreet ever-doing are not the least of Satans instruments to bring the Gospel under scandal and harden the world in Infidelity and the scorn of Christ while you would so describe the Christian Religion as if this were the very heart and summ of it Believe that all the Elect have fulfilled perfectly all Gods Law by another and that Christ did it as personating each of them and therefore no crime of their own is imputable to them nor any kind or degree of Goodness or Righteousness in and of themselves is at least required of God as any means or condition of their present or future justification by their Judge or as having any hand therein As if God were become indifferent what we all are so that Christ be but Righteous for us when as it was Christs grand design to restore lapsed man to God which he doth not only by Relative benefits but by Renewing them to his Image in love and holy obedience Lib. Have you not lately and oft been told that holiness and obedience are necessary now but it is to other Ends than to justifie us as for Cratitude c. P. 1. We easily grant it is for other Ends than Christs Merits were and not to justifie us as they do nor in that Causality They are not to purchase for us a free gift of pardon and life nor the Holy Ghost c. as Christ did 2. But again tell me Hath not Christ a Law that commandeth our obedience to those ends as Gratitude which you mention And is not the keeping that Law a thing that the same Law will so far justifie us for Yea a Condition that life dependeth on And if the Cause in Judgement be Have you kept it or not must you not in that be accordingly Justified or Condemned Give over cavilling against plain necessary truth Lib. By this you will fall in with the Papists who take Justification to be partly by Christs Righteousness and partly by our own and partly in pardon and partly in faith and holiness P. Tell not me of the Names of Papists or any to frighten me from plain Scripture truth 1. Why may not I rather say Why go you from all the antient Writers and Churches even Augustine himself by your new and contrary opinion Was true Justification unknown for so many hundred years after the Apostles 2. The most zealous Antipapists do confess that some Texts of Scripture do so take the word Justification And multitudes of Texts so take the words Righteous and Righteousness And he that will impartially consider them may find that more Texts than are by us so confessed do by Justifying mean Making us Just and so Accounting us on all these causes conjunct 1. As being Redeemed by Christs Merits 2. And freely pardoned 3. And having Right to life 4. And renewed to Gods love and Image 5. And so justifyable at the Bar of Grace by the Law of faith and liberty 3. And the reality of all the Matter of this Doctrine is past doubt if the Controversie de nomine Justificationis were not so decided CHAP. IV. Whether the Gospel be a Law of Christ Lib. III. YOu bring in your doctrine of personal Righteousness to Justification by feigning Christ to have made a new Law whereas the Gospel is but a Doctrine History and Promise and not a Law and so no Rule of Righteousness and Judgement And this many Protestants have asserted P. I have read some such sayings in some men And some I think meant no more but that Christ did only expound and not add to the Law of Nature called by them the Moral Law And these I have excused for their unhappy kind of expression But for the rest that mean as the words sound universally they subvert Christianity and as the Arrians denyed Christs Godhead so do they his Office and Government and are somewhat worse than the Quakers who say that the Spirit within us is the Law and Rule of Christ which is better than none I pray answer me Quest 1. Is Christ the King and Ruler of the Church Lib. Yes P. Quest 2. Is not Legislation the first and principal part of Government Lib. Yes P. Quest 3. Do not they then that deny Christs Legislation deny his Government Lib. Yes P. Quest 4. Is it not essential to Christ as Christ the name signifying Relatively his Office to be King Lib. Yes P. Quest 5. Do they not then by this deny Christ to be Christ Lib. No for they confess that he hath a Law but not that he made any since his birth P. We grant 1. That the Law of Nature now is His Law 2. And that the first Edition of the Law of Grace to Adam after the fall was his Law 3. And Moses Law was partly his But you will not say that we are under this last nor I hope that he hath no other than the two first Lib. Why what other can you prove P. It is the Name or the Thing that you deny for you use to confound the cases 1. Whether the name be fit judge by these Texts Gal. 6. 2. Bear ye one anothers burdens and so fulfil the Law of Christ James 1. 25. The perfect Law of Liberty Rom. 8. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus c. Rom. 3. 27. Boasting is excluded By what Law Of Works Nay but by the Law of faith Mic. 4. 2. For the Law shall go out of Zion c. So Isa 2. 3. 8. 16 20. 42. 41. The Isles shall wait for his Law 1 Cor. 9. 21. We are under the Law to Christ Heb. 8. 10 16. I will put my Laws into their minds and hearts James 4. 12. There is one Law-giver c. Isa 33.
against those things which their ignorance misrepresenteth to themselves And so Gods ordinances are made a snare to souls which are appointed for their salvation and the man that can kindle in his hearers a transporting passion against this or that opinion or form as Popish is cryed up for an excellent preacher and seemeth to edifie the people while he destroveth them 11. And by this means you seem to justifie the Papists lyes and calumnies against the Protestants by doing as they do They belye Luther Zuinglius Calvin Beza c. with just such intentions and such a kind of zeal as some over doing Sectaries belye them And is it bad in them and good in you 12. You teach the people a dangerous and perverse way of reasoning à minùs notis which will let in almost any errours From a dark text in the Revelations or Daniel or from the supposition that the Pope is the Antichrist and all Papists have received the mark of the beast you gather conclusions against the notorious duties of Love and peace which the light of nature doth commend to all Not that I am perswading you that the Pope is not Antichrist but that all things be received but according to their proper degree of evidence S. Now you open your self indeed All that revolt to Popery begin there with questioning whether the Pope be the Antichrist and telling men of the darkness of the Book of Revelations P. I tell you I will abate no certainty that you have but increase my own and yours if I could but I would not have any falsly to pretend that they are certainer of any thing than they are And no certainty can go beyond the ascertaining evidence And if all Scriptures be equally plain St. Peter was deceived that tells us of many things hard to be understood which the unlearned wrest as other Scriptures to their own destruction And if the Revelations be not one of the hardest I crave your answer to these questions 1. Why are five Expositors usually of four opinions in the expounding of it when it is those that have spent much of their lives in studying it as Napier Brightman c. who are the Expositors 2. Why will none of you that find it so easie at last write one certain Commentary which may assure which of all the former if any one of them was in the right 3. Why did Calvin take it to be too hard for him and durst not venture to expound it 4. And if you take it to be so necessary as you pretend tell me whether it was so necessary and so taken by all those Churches that for a long time received it not as Canonical Scripture Surely they were saved without believing it Though no doubt but the book of Revelation is a great mercy to the Church and all men should understand as much of it as they can But all that I blame you for here is the perverting of the order of proof in arguing à minùs notis 13. And these over-doers that run things into the contrary extreams do most injuriously weaken the Protestant cause by disabling themselves and all men of their principles to defend it and arming the Papists against it by their errors When it cometh to an open dispute by Word or Writing one of these mens errors is like a wound that lets out blood and spirits and puts words of triumph into the adversaries mouth A cunning Papist will presently drive the ignorant disputant to resolve his cause into his mistake and then will open the falshood of that and thence inferr the falshood of all the rest And what an injury is that to the souls of the auditors who may be betrayed by it and to the cause it self For instance If one of our over-doers hold that we are reputed to have kept all the Law of Innocency and merited salvation our selves by Christ or that no act of faith is Justifying but the accepting of his righteousness or that faith Justifieth only as the efficient instrumental cause or that we have no righteousness which hath any thing to do in our Justification but only Christs imputed Merits or that mans faith Love or obedience are not rewardable c. how easily will a Papist open the falshood of such an opinion to the hearers and then tell them that they may see by this who is in the right And alas what work would one Learned Papist make in London by publick disputing if we had no wiser men to deal with him than these over-doers They may call Truth and Sobriety Antichristian and talk nonsence as against Popery successfully to their own party but I hope never to see the cause managed by their publick disputes lest half the Congregation turn Papists on it at once If Chillingworth had not been abler to confute a Papist than those that used to calumniate him as Popish or Socinian he had done less service of that kind than he did 14. And it is an odious injury that these Over-doers do to the ancient and the universal Church while in many cases they ignorantly or wilfully reproach and condemn them as if they were all the favourers of Popery and call their ancient doctrine and practice Antichristian Some of them ignorantly falsifie the Fathers doctrine and upon trust from their Leaders aver◠that they held that which they plainly contradict and that which they held indeed they cry out against as Popery Such an instance we have newly in a Souldier Major Danvers an Anabaptist which I have detected And will Christ take it well to have almost all his Church condemned as Antichristian 15. And hereby what an honour is done to Popery and what a dishonour to the Reformed Churches when it shall be concluded that all the Churches heretofore even next after the age of the Apostles and almost all the present Churches were and are against the doctrine of the Protestants and on the Papists side And yet how many do us this injury and the Roman Church this honour About the nature of Justifying faith and its office to Justification and about the nature of Justification it self and Imputation of Righteousness and free-will and mans Works and Merits and about assurance of salvation and perseverance how many do call that Popery which the whole current of Greek and Latine Fathers do assert and all the ancient Churches owned and most of all the present Churches in the world And those that call all forms of prayer Popery or the English Liturgie at least when almost all the Christian world have forms and most such as are much worse do but tell men that the Christian world is on the side that they oppose and against their way 16. And it is a crime of infamy to be taken for Separatists from the universal Church And in doctrines and forms of Worship not only to avoid what we take to have been a common weakness but also to condemn them as Antichristian or as holding pernicious errours is but
God do intendere finem and what is his End The Order and Objects opened p. 57. Sect. 16. What Election and Reprobation are The order of the Decrees called Reprobation and of the Objects Of Negations of Decree p. 66. An Additional Explication of Divine Nolitions p. 76. Sect. 17. Whether God Will Decree or Cause Sin Five Acts of God in and about Sin What Sin is Many wayes God can cause the same thing that the sinner causeth and so fulfil his Decrees without Willing or Causing the Sin Objections answered God freely not idlely or impotently restraineth his own possible operations sometimes that he do not such or such an act at all and sometime that he do but so much towards it and no more Whether God be ever Causa partialis p. 84. Sect. 18. A Confutation of Dr. Twisses Digress 5. li. 2. sect 1. Vindic. Gratiae where he asserteth that God Willeth the existence of Sin and that sins are a medium sua natura summe unice conducibile to the Glorification of his Mercy and Justice p. 92. Sect. 19. The same Doctrine in Rutherford de Providentia confuted Whether things be good because God willeth them or willed by him because good resolved Whether there were eternal rationes boni mali Dr. Field vindicated p. 106. Sect. 20. The old Doctrine of Augustine Prosper and Fulgentius thought by some Jesuits too rigid but indeed Conciliatory for absolute Election to Faith and so to Salvation and for no reprobating Decree but only of Punishment for Sin foreseen but not decreed Prosper ad Cap. Gall. Sentent translated p. 115. Sect. 21. The summ of Prospers Answer to Vincent 16. Object p. 118. Sect. 22. Fulgentius words to the same sense p. 121. Sect. 23. The healing Doctrine and Concessions of many called Calvinists of the Synod of Dort Pet. Molinaeus c. p. 124. Sect. 24. And of Petr. á Sancto Joseph Suarez Ruiz c. on the other side especially Bellarmines at large and others p. 127. ERRATA PART 1. pag. 10. l. 38. in marg for Reason Being r. Relation being p. 24. l. 25. r. those Causes l. 26. r. first Case p. 27. l. 2. r. Of predetermination Reader Pain and Greater business forbad me to gather the Errata some are gathered by a Friend out of the first Book many more I must leave to your ingenuity I see in the Premonition p. 4. l. 22. for Mr. W. Mr. D. l. 47. for Armatus Annatus Also Dial. 11. p. 231. l. 30. r. refuse Dial. 13. p. 291. l. 13. for not r. done Catholick Theologie The First BOOK PACIFYING PRINCIPLES Collected from the common Notices of Nature the certain Oracles of GOD in the Holy Scriptures and the common Consent of Christians For the RECONCILING OF THE CHURCH-DIVIDING and DESTROYING CONTROVERSIES especially about PREDESTINATION PROVIDENCE GRACE and FREE-WILL REDEMPTION JUSTIFICATION FAITH MERIT WORKS CERTAINTY OF SALVATION PERSEVERANCE and many others In Three Parts I. Of Gods Nature Knowledge Decrees and Providence about Sin with Mans Free-will as the Objects of the former II. Of Gods GOVERNMENT and MORAL Works III. Of Gods Operations on Mans Soul By RICHARD BAXTER An earnest Desirer of the UNITY LOVE and PEACE of Christians For endeavouring of which he expecteth with resolved Patience still to undergo the Censures Slanders and Cruelties of IGNORANCE PRIDE and MALICE from all that are possessed by the Wisdom and Zeal which are from beneath Earthly Sensual and Devilish the Causes of Confusion and every evil work James 3. 14 15 16. LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevill Simmons at the Princes Arms in S t. Pauls Church-yard MDCLXXV The First Part OF THE NATURE KNOWLEDGE WILL AND DECREES of GOD As far as is needful to the intended CONCILIATION and CONCORD SECT I. Of our Knowledge of God as here attainable THough it be about the Knowledge Will and Decrees of God that our Controversies are agitated yet because the consequent Verities are scarce ever well understood without the understanding of the Antecedents out of which the Consequents arise and without the just order place and respect which the later have unto the former and unless things be understood in their true Method I will therefore expose my self to the obloquy of those who will call it Over-doing so far as to premise somewhat of the Deity it self But not what is necessary to the full explication of the Divine Attributes as we are capable as must be in a Method of Theologie which I have attempted elsewhere but only so much as lyeth under our Controverted Subject And when I have done that I shall leave the rest Thes 1. To Know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent is Life Eternal * * * John 17. 3. Bradward l. 1. c. 11. p. 198. The first necessary incomplex Principle is God and the first complex simply is of God Deus est c. But yet it is not to us the primum cognitum 2. To †††Exodus 20. know GOD is to know his Being Nature and Relations For though those Relations that are to Man be not essential to his Divine Nature yet are they essentially contained in the signification of the name GOD as he is the object of our Faith and Religion For to be OUR GOD doth speak his Relations to us as well as his Nature As the name KING and FATHER doth among men 3. We neither have nor can have here in flesh any one proper formal Conception of the Divine Nature that is formally suited to the truth in the object But only Metaphorical or Analogical Conceptions borrowed from things better known 4. Yet nothing beyond sense at least is so certainly known as GOD so far as we can reach though nothing be less perfectly or more defectively known or less comprehended Even as we know nothing Visible more certainly than the Sun and yet comprehend nothing Visible less 5. It is not true which many great Metaphysicians assert that the Quiddity of God is totally unknown to us For then it could not be life eternal to know him nor would a meer Negative knowledge cause in us a sufficient Positive Love or Joy or Trust c. But to know that we cannot know him would but inferr that we cannot Love him For we Love not an unknown Good 6. Nor is it true that Pet. Hurtado de Mendoza in fine Disput and some others say that the Notions of Life and Intellect are all that we have of the Quiddity of God and that the Divine Will is not a Quidditative notion 7. God is here seen in the Glass of his Works with the Revelation of his Word and Spirit And from these works we must borrow our conceptions * * * The doubt is How Imperfect works can notifie the perfect God And the Schoolmen manage it as an insuperable difficulty Whether God could have made the World or any thing better than it is If you will pardon me for making
ipsa Dei essentia quae est necessaria Alliac Camer in 1. q. 12. D. See in Ruiz de Vol. Dei disp 24. how they are confounded about the ordering of Gods decrees as to the order of Intention and Execution His Solution supposeth that Unius objecti Volitio est ratio determinans ad aliorum volitionem When as ex paâ—te Dei there is but One Volition and that hath no cause and the Ratio is a deceiving ambiguous word and his Decrees are his Will and therefore are all but one 374. 4. They cannot deny but that all our conceptions of God are improper and analogical or metaphorical more or less and that what Knowledge and Will in God is formally no mortal knoweth And should we dispute then audaciously about this Order 375. 5. None can deny but that these Mysteries require the highest reverence and that it 's dreadful to take Gods Name in vain and dally with the Consuming fire And yet shall we presume 376. 6. They all confess that our Lord Jesus his Prophets Apostles or Scriptures lead them not this way and decide not these Controversies so as that they can stand to their decision alone 377. 7. They cannot deny but that desiring arrogantly to be as Gods in Knowledge was our first Parents sin that ruined them and us and that this was Satans first successful game And that our disease is like to be such as its original 378. 8. Lastly They cannot choose but know that it is the troubling of the Church with new Articles and new practices and leading them from the simplicity that is in Christ even as the Serpent beguiled Eve with the promise of more knowledge which hath been the great plague and divider of the Churches in all Ages though the Apostle foretold them that It was this that he feared of them And are we not self-condemned if after all this we will censure and reproach one another and foment divisions for that which most certainly no mortal understandeth 379. I. And first your very foundation is uncertain that God doth properly Intendere finem Nay it is certain that as Aquinas afore-cited Vasquâ—z saith that Gods own Goodness is not a final Cause of his Volition supposing that movere ad Electionem medii is final Causality Ruiz asserteth the contrary taking final Causality to be first esse primum objectum And thus men strive about artificial notions Vasq 1. d. 82. c. 1. Ruiz de Voâ— Dei d. 15. §. 1. p. 159. But that nothing is the Ratio Volendi but his own Goodness see Albert. 1. p. tr 20. q. 19. m. 1. a. 1. Alex. 1. p. q. 35. m. 3. Henric. quodl 4. q. 19. Gabr. 1. d. 14. q. 1. a. 2. Dried de Concord p. 1. c. 3. Vasq disp 82. Scotus 1. d. 44. Molin 1. q. 19. a. 5. saith though Vult hoc esse propter hoc non tamen propter hoc vult hoc He prescribeth Ends to Man and setteth Ends to Means which are fiâ—es operis But that he Intendeth an End Himself must be said very improperly or very uncertainly or not at all The truth is that we must say that God doth finem intendere because we must speak of him after the manner of men or not at all But it is not true in the same sense as we speak it of man and as the word properly signifieth but equivocally 380. For 1. To Intend an End is to make that End a Cause why we choose the means as most say But Gods Election or Actions have no Cause All deny that there is in God Cause and Effects or that propter hoc vult hoc 381. 2. In man to Intend an End doth imply that a man yet wanteth his end and that it is somewhat that he needeth or at least doth not yet obtain But God needeth nothing and hath no end that is desired or wanting nor but what he continually possesseth or enjoyeth as well now as hereafter 382. 3. We know no such thing as Intendere finem where the Act and the End are the same Intendere is not the same with Finis But in God they are the same He that is most simple hath no Intention which is not Himself and no End which is not Himself and so both are one 383. 4. Our Intendere finem is not the same really with Electio mediorum But God hath no Intention but what is really the same with Election though not denominatively connotatively and relatively 384. 5. Divines usually say that Nothing below God himself can be his End But where there is no means there is no End or intention of it But to God there is no Means He is not a Means of himself And no creature can be a means of him If we say that any thing can be a means ut Deus sit vel ut sit Maximus Sapientissimus Optimus it were no better than Blasphemy God then hath not an End like man 385. Yet necessity constraineth us to use the phrase but these things must still be understood when we use it 1. That no creature can be Gods End unless you will call an object as terminative an End or else an Effect 386. 2. That it is not Gods Essence and perfections that is an end as to any medium But it is his Will For his Free Will is the Beginning and the Complacency of that Will is the End of all things But if you call God his own Object and so call the final Object an End so we must consider God as Loving Himself and Himself is the End or final object of his own Love or Complacency and he himself as Loving himself is said to Act on that End or Object And indeed eternal self-knowledge and self-love which some of old ventured to call the second and third Persons are the Great Immanent Acts of the Divine Essence with the sibi vivere And it seemeth the chief Notion of Holiness in God that he Loveth Himself in primo instanti and that he is most Amiable to his Creatures in secundo instanti and that he is the Cause and End of all that is good in them Thus a final object of his own and our Love or Complacency God is past all doubt And secondarily his Will is pleased and fulfilled in all his works 387. 3. Yet by that Complacency we mean not that God is passive or receiveth any Delight from the Creature or hath any addition by it to his felicity But as he is a Communicative Good by way of Efficiency as the first efficient Cause so is he a felicitating Good to the Creature as its End and he is Love taking the creature into its nearest Communion with him which is his Complacency and the End of all things And hence it is that God is said when he had finished his works to Rest complacentially in all as very Good 388. 4. As the Complacency of Gods Will is his End in the formal notion so far as it may be said of God
God is Morally and most fitly said to Nill such Nothings it is not as Nothings but as Possible Evils For only Evil is the proper object of Positive Nolition so that it may be spoken fullier of sin than of other Nothings even fitly in a Moral sense 494. VII Lastly Acts of Will are ordinarily ascribed to God when it is meer operations or privations that are meant and so the phrase is as they say ab effectu ad affectum When a man 1. Denyeth his aid 2. And actually hindereth it is a sign of nolition And so from Gods 1. Not causing 2. And his hindering he is said to Nill that Nothing that never shall be So much of the phrase 495. Now for application 1. Non-dare fidem aut gratiam not to convert is Nothing Therefore it is not Positively willed or decreed of of God or at least no man can prove it so to be So not-to give the Gospel the Spirit c. 496. Yet note that when mans sins have so forfeited such gifts that they are penally withheld this non-agency hath the denomination of a Moral Act. And also that the making of the Penal Law which maketh this Privation due as a punishment was a positive act of God and had a positive Volition But Negations not-penal are not so 497. 2. Not to hinder sin or to Permit sin barely as permission is Nothing As elsewhere I have proved Therefore it hath no Positive Decree or Will save that when it is penal and the execution of a Law that Law being a real natural being and the Jus thence resulting a real relation and the executive Privation quid Morale they are Willed and Decreed answerably as they are To permit a man to be spiritually Dead is not-to make him alive To permit his Darkness or Ignorance is not-to give him Light or Knowledge To permit his unbelief is not-to cause him to believe To permit his want of Love is not-to give him Love To permit his positive sins of Malignity or Carnality is but not-to cure and hinder them by Grace or Providence supposing the Natural support and concurse whith the Author of Nature giveth to all things 498. Therefore when Gods Acts in themselves are his Essence and all one and are diversified but by connotation of divers objects relatively and denominatively when he knoweth all things uno intuitu and willeth all that he willeth unica Volitione when nihil physicum is no denominating terminus of a physical act though so far as it may be called Moraliter id est Reputative aliquid as a Privation it may be said to denominate reputatively as a quasi aliquid and that which is moraliter vel imputative nihil cannot morally denominate when both Non dare spiritum gratiam fidem vitam c. and permittere infidelitatem peocatum c. are truly Nothing and even in Reputative Moral sense are wihil morale when they are not penal And as antecedent to sin they are not penal Judge now impartially whether 1. Those men deal not presumptuously with God 2. And troublesomely with his Church who assert the Being of Positive Decrees and Volitions in God about such Nullities and raise Controversies about the Reasons and the Order of them yea unto dangerous inferences when as 1. They can prove no such thing in God as they assert 2. Nay when we say so much to prove the contrary 499. And here consider whether Scotus himself assert not without all need or proof that God hath a positive knowledge and reflexive Volition of his own Non-Volition and so that a Nullity as to his own act must be the terminus of a positive act When that Nullity is neither God nor a Creature nor aliquid vel Dei vel Creaturae and so seemeth to be no denominating terminus of a distinct act Yet no doubt God is not to be called Ignorant of such Nullities or Idle for those are terms of privation If God be said either not to Know nothings or not to Wilâ— or Nill them it is because it signifieth his Perfection And no part of perfection is wanting to him But we must not place his perfection in a conformity to our imperfect mode of knowing or willing 500. For we dare not here presume peremptorily to determine Negatively that God doth not positively Will his own non-agency or non-volitions because we know how dark we are and distant from God and unfit to say any thing but certainties of him as certain truth But we abstain from the contrary assertion as utterly unproved and we will impute no needless acts to God as his Perfection Though we yield to reputative moral denominations 501. And so I contradict not the language of Aquinas 1. q. 14. 9. who saith that God knoweth such non-entities as never will be ut possibiliâ— And esse in potentia quamvis non in actu is more than nothing But remember that esse in potentia speaketh the esse Potentiae but the possibile is a pure nothing So that this is but to know the Potentia and not any thing else Yet no doubt but God knoweth all things as they are in himself that is he knoweth that he can do all things and knoweth what he knoweth and willeth but this is no esse creatum but God himself at least as to that which never will be But if any will call it a knowing of things possible which are nothings when God knoweth his own Power to make them we quarrel not with words while the sense is known 502. But remember that it is not the Knowledge but Decrees and Volitions of God that our enquiry now is about And Aquinas and his followers commonly say that Gods will goeth not so far as his knowledge and that he knoweth indeed mala ex bonâ— of which they are the privation as no doubt he doth so far as it is not imperfection to be said to know them or as they are objects of knowledge but yet that Mala neque vult neque â—â—lit sed tantum non-vult as Lombard said 503. Ockam Quodlib 3. q. 6. hath the question Utrum Cognitio intuâ—tiva potest esse de objecto cognito And he 1. concludeth that per potentiam divinam potest esse de objectâ— non existente but he meaneth only quod fuit vel fuerit 2. That naturally it cannot be And faith that Contradictio est quod visâ—o sit tamen illud quod videtur non sit in effectâ— nec esse possit Ideo contradictio est quod chimaera videatur intuitive fed non est contradictio quod illud quod videtur nihil sit in actu extra caâ—som suam dummodo possit esse in effectu vel aliquando fuerit in rerum natura Unde Deus ab aeterno videt omnes res factibiles tamen â—unc nullâ— fuerunt By which it is plain that he meaneth as Aquinas that it is not as Nothings but as Possibles and Futures they are known even by God saving that Aquinas and
positivas causas To which what I have said is a sufficient answer And 1. Sometimes they have not but only the cessation of a causation 2. They never have a positive efficient of themselves for nothing is not made but only a positive remover of the cause of that which the subject is deprived of or an interposer or hinderer of the causation of it e. g. of Light or life And death hath no cause but that which ceaseth the causes of life Reprobation is commonly looked at in the two most notable parts as called 1. Gods Reprobating men to unbelief and impenitency 2. His Reprobating men to final damnation The last of these also is considered in the execution 1. As Privative 2. As Positive called Poena damni sensus And both especially the Privative part are considerable 1. As executed by man himself on himself freely 2. Or as executed by God Concerning each of these observe 512. 1. Not to Believe and Repent is no real entity And not to Give faith and Repentance as is said is no real entity And to Permit Infedelity and Impenitency is no real entity as is proved And not to Decree the Giving of saith and the hindering of unbelief is nothing And most clearly besides these four nothings nothing can be proved either existent or needful All that cometh to pass will come to pass without any more ado Therefore 513. As far as any mortal man can prove God hath no such Act of Reprobation at all as is 1. Either a Decree that a man shall not eventually Repent 2. Or a Decree not to give him Repentance 3. Or a Decree to Permit his Impenitence 4. Nor can we prove an after Volition of his own former non Volition which is asserted by Scotus But the three first we have great reason to lay by and so not only to say as Davenant that this part of Reprobation is an Act negative quoad objectum but that it is no Act and there is no other Reprobation as to this part save 1. Gods not decreeing to give faith 2. And his not giving it 514. 2. And as to Damnation so much of it as consisteth in sin it self God no otherwise causeth than as he doth all sin which is properly not at all It being but the Act as an act which he causeth as the Cause of Nature and not as sinfully qualified and so no more decreeth this than other sin 515. And most men little think how much of damnation lyeth in sin it self and the privative consequents which need no other cause 1. To be ignorant of God and Goodness 2. To be void of the Love of God and Holiness and Holy persons and all the Holy employment of Heaven 3. To be thereby void of all the Delights of Holy ones which consist in such Knowledge Love and Employment Praise Obedience and holy Communion 4. To be uncapable of the Reception of Divine complacency as he that maketh himself blind is uncapable of the light or he that maketh himself unlovely is uncapable of immediate Love 5. To be defiled and diseased with all kind of sinful lusts and malignity and made like the Devil 6. To have all sorts of Lusts in violence when they can have no fewel or satisfaction and so to be tormented with these lusts To have extream selfishness and Pride when they have cast themselves into the utmost shame and misery 7. To see that no Creature can deliver them and to despair of ever being better as having no hope from God or any other 8. To see or know that others enjoy the Glory and everlasting felicity which they have lost 9. To think how easily once they might have attained it and how it was offered freely to their choice 10. To think of all the solicitations of mercy that importuned them and all the time and means they had 11. To think for how base a vanity they lost it and that misery was their wilful choice 12. To be tormented with envy and malice against God that forsaketh them and against his Saints And to feel conscience awakened setting home all their former folly All this is nothing but sin and its own effects which hath no Causation at all from God but to continue the nature which he gave them and is not bound to destroy And how great a part of hell is this 516. Nay we know not how much sensible Pain may be the consequent of their own sin without any other Act of God than his common continuation of nature it self As a man that eateth Arsnick or unwholsome meat is tormented by it without any other act of God than as the universal Cause of Nature 517. All this much of Damnation then being meerly the work of the sinner himself so far as there is no Act of God in the execution so far no man can prove any Positive Act of Volition or Decree 518. But 1. As God in these is the universal cause of Nature and so of natural acts 2. And as in other instances he actually further punisheth them 3. And as he actually made that Law which made these penalties the sinners due so far God hath a Positive Decree and Volition that these persons shall be damned And moreover as improperly or morally his not sanctifying them and not saving them is called his Act and is really their penalty even so may his not-willing to save or glorifie them be called his Decree and will to damn them if you will 519. By this time we are ready to answer our first question What are the objects of these several acta of God so far as connotatively we must call them several And 1. * * * Besides all before cited against Volitions de nihilo see Ruiz de Vol. Dei disp 6. §. 1. p. 36. Antiquorum gravissimi sentiunt Deum non omnia Velle sed ea duntarat bona quae in aliqua differentia temporis existunt proinde possibilia que nunquam futura sunt non amari à Deo â—â—â—â— Mala inde Deum not esse omni-volentem nâ—llam creaturam à Deo amari necessario Ita Albertus Alexand. Boâ—â—vent Richard Gaby Bannez Zumel Molina Valentia Scotus Against which he bringeth frivolous reasons and asserteth that God willeth as a material object the Goodness which the Creature would have if it were made and this as to all Creatures which never will be What putid contradictions are here to will Goodness which is no Goodness of all Creatures which are no Creatures as material objects which are nothings God willeth his own Power whence man calleth that Possible which is nothing But was there from Eternity any Possibles not-future to be willed What was there from Eternity but God And are all theâ—e Nothings God himself Gods not giving the Gospel to any persons is no Act and so hath no object But reductively or improperly the object is Man sinning against the grace of the first edition of the Law of Grace that is These are the
arbitrii postulat sive prius sive posterius sive simul non sequitur malitiam Deo esse tribuendam cum illa solum ex modo operandi creaturae sequatur Vasquez in 1 Tho. q. 23. d. 99. cap. 4. the general nature of action when existent hath So that this Moral specification addeth not to the natural generical entity 543. It is therefore 1. Acting 2. Not acting 3. Moral disposition which are Commanded and Forbidden by God And not any one only and these not in themselves but about the Materials commanded or forbidden Objectively in the Law To Act on a forbidden object Not to Act on an object when commanded and to be viciously disposed to either is a sin 544. You may see then that sin is a Connotative notion yea and a Relative notion It connoteth a Ruler a Law and End a Subject and is thus variously Related 545. As Subjection is the Root of Obedience and all obedience Virtually being A Consent to obey and Love is the Root of benefits so to forsake God simply as our Rector or our End or our Owner is Atheism practical and all sin in one But to violate only a particular precept de mediis is but a particular sin 546. God is the Cause of the Law which commandeth and forbiddeth and God is the Cause of Nature and Objects and Action as Action That therefore which he hath made mans part is to Love God and Holiness and not to over-love the creature nor to love it as our End or in his stead and to do all that he commandeth and not to do the particular acts about such particular objects as he forbiddeth 547. The remote subject or relatum then of sin is the person sinning But the nearest is the Act Omission or disposition The fundamentum or ratio referendi is the said Acts Omissions or dispositions as such or such about such or such objects commanded or forbidden which is a Relation And the form of sin is the Moral Relation of Disobedience or Disconformity to the Law So that if you must needs have it in Logical notions Sin is a Moral Relation resulting from a Physical relation of Actions Omissions or dispositions of Gods subjects which are modified contrary to his Law 548. It is a Moral Relation as it is Disobedience found in a Moral agent against a Law and Rector as such It is a Physical Relation as the Act c. is prius naturâ quid naturale about an object that is quid naturale It s fundamentum of both relations And one Relation may be sounded in another is the Mode of the Act Omission or disposition as to an undue object c. as it is forbidden by the Law Of the subjects and relatum I have spoken before 549. So that the form of sin being Relative can have no Cause but that which causeth its fundamentum and cannot possibly but result when that is laid 550. It were an injury to God to feign him to make such a Law as should say Though thou hate me see that that hatred be not Related formally as a breach of my Law or I forbid thee not to commit Adultery but only forbid that thy Adultery be quid prohibitum or a sin For if God forbid not the act it cannot be a sin and if he forbid it it must needs be sin And so of omissions 551. They therefore that tell us that sin is nothing but a Privation speak not satisfactorily nor altogether truly It is no substance indeed nor any such Reality as Man cannot Cause without Gods Causing it supposing his Universal Natural Support and Concurse But the thing forbidden is often Acts and Dispositions as well as Omissions and the form of sin is a Moral Relation which hath so much reality as a Relation hath if that be any And that Relation hath a positive name It is not only a meer Non-conformity but also a Disconformity becaused founded in See Dr. Wallis against the Lord Brooke of this very well Actual Volitions and Nolitions as forbidden and not only in Omissions 552. Subtile Ockam Quodl 3. q. 15. disputing Utrum rectitudo deformitas actus differant à substantia actus denyeth it and after a Confutation of the common saying that Deformitas est carentia rectitudinis debitae distinguitur ab actu quod in peccato Actus est materiale carentia justitiae debitae inesse est formale concludeth Quod deformitas non est carentia justitiae vel rectitudinis debitae inesse actui sed est carentia rectitudinis debitae inesse voluntati Quod non est aliud dicere nisi quod voluntas obligatur aliquem actum elicere secundum praeceptum Divinum quem non elicit ideo rectitudo actus non est aliud quam qui debuit elici secundum rectam rationem But I conceive 1. That the rectitude of the Will can be nothing else but the rectitude of its acts suspensions and dispositions 2. That Ockam here describeth only sins of omissions whereas the Rectitude of the Will is ofren also materially in not doing or willing what is forbidden And with these two animadversions I am reconciled to Ockam who addeth Ad aliud dico Quod illud dictum de Materiali Formali est falsum Quia aut est peccatum commissionis aut omissionis si primo modo est Materiale sine formali quia ibi non est carentia rectitudinis debitae inesse actui si secundo modo tunc est ibi carentia quae est formale sine materiali Resp 1. To the first I add that It had been true if it had been the Act as an act that had been forbidden or else the species of the act as quid naturale But it being the Act not as an act in genere but as this act thus modified or specified by an undue object that Act with its Relation as quid physicum are presupposed as the relatum to the moral relation of Pravity or Disconformity And to the second I say that it 's true that Omission is not Materia Physica but it is an inadequate first conception of sin and so is materia moraliter dicta vel loco materiae And the Omission being considerable 1. Quatenus Non-agere 2. Qua privatio naturalis 3. Qua Privatio disconformitas moralis these three inadequate conceptions take up the whole nature of the sins of omission 553. The same Ockam Quodl 1. qu. 20. Utrum actus exterior habeat propriam bonitatem vel malitiam moralem even as dependent on the Will And he denyeth it against Scotus who affirmeth it I will not trouble the Reader with their reasonings not doubting but Ockam erred and that it 's true 1. That no exterior act is Morally good or evil primarily 2. But that secondarily and participatively as it is voluntary there is a morality in the acts Words and deeds and passions are under Law next to the Will and in dependance on it As the body conjunct with
naturally happy is proper to God therefore Adam was to be led to it freely by a Covenant An. To be happy necessarily and independently and primarily is proper to God But you can never prove it any contradiction or impossible for God to make a Creature naturally happy nor that there are not such § 9. Here the M. S. citeth some words of his Gibieuf making our Being in God initially and finally to be our state of amplitude and liberty and our going out from God to be our particularity and state of necessity as if we were pre-existent in God and our individuation ceased upon oâ—â— return into him as our End An. But these are Platonick Phantasms And Gibieuf who was a devout Oratorian and talketh too oft of our Deification as Benedictâ—â— de Benedictis Barbanson Baker and other Fryers that talk phanatically must be read with caution and exception and as the Soul need not fear too near a Union with God as the loss of its individuation so neither must it desire or hope for such § 10. M. S. An unchangeable state of Happiness in the love of God is called Eternal Life An. No doubt but that is called Eternal Life in the fullest sense which actually endureth to eternity as to that particular Subject And so 1. The life of Glory perfectively 2. And a confirmed state of Sanctity here initially are usually called Eternal Life But 3. Whether the lossable state which the Angels fell from and Adam fell from or that measure of Grace which the ancient Fathers thought the justified may fall from be never so called also I cannot prove § 11. M. S. Adam's promised Happiness was 1. Essential in this perfect holiness or love of God 2. Complemental in the enjoying God iâ— all the sanctified Creatures in that Paradise but not to be translated to Heaven which Christ only procureth us An. I inclined to that Opinion 26 years ago when I wrote the Aphorisms which you oppose But I now incline more to the contrary and rather think man should have been translated to Heaven as Henoch and Elias were upon many reasons which I now pass by Though I take it yet to be scarce certain to us § 12. M. S. The Holiness of God is his loving himself as his End And the third Person proceeding by a reflex act of the infinite Will and self-love of God is therefore called the Holy Spirit An. 1. This notion of Gods Holiness that it is his Self-love is not to be contemned It seemeth to be so with this limitation that you confine not his Holiness to this but take this only as the most eminent among the inadequate conceptions of it For his whole Transcendency in Being Life and Knowledg as being adoreable by the Creature and its End and the Fountain of all created Goodness and specially of Morality is also Gods Holiness 2. But the saying that God is his own End seemeth improper though tolerable if spoken but analogically For God neither hath nor is to himself a Cause nor an Effect a Beginning nor an End 3. That the third Person proceedeth by a reflex Act of the infinite Will many School-men boldly say And so some say that he is Gods actual self-self-love which is â—he same that you call his Holiness And some say that he is the Divine Will or Love considered in it self as distinct from Vital Power and Intellect or Wisdom But of this I have spoken more largely else-where § 13. M. S. Adam's promised Reward was to be fixed in an unchangeable state of pleasing God by this Holy Spirit not by infusing any new quality which should unchangeably fasten him to the Rule for no created thing can unchangeably keep a man from falling An. 1. The promise to Adam is very obscure But Happiness it must needs be and everlasting 2. But it is past my reach to conceive how the Spirit of God can fix man in perfect holiness without any fixing quality as it 's called on his Soul A constant Act the Soul must have And 1. If that Act be caused by any Divine Impulse disposing the Soul so to act then that disposition is a quality 2. And if there be not both disposition and habit then the Soul will not in Glory be habitually or qualitatively holy but only actually 3. And a habit-acting being perfecter than an act without a habit or inclination the Soul will be more imperfect in Glory than in this state of Grace 4. Operari sequitur esse God fitteth all his Creatures to their works And as when he will give Immortality he will give a Nature fit for Immortality even indissoluble and incorruptible so when he giveth perpetuity of Love he giveth a nature or habits fit for perpetual Action Christ saith A good Tree bringeth forth good fruit and an evil Tree evil fruit Make the Tree good and his fruit good 5. The Operations of Love in Glory should be ex potentia aut violentia aut neutra if there were no intrinsick disposition or inclination to them In a word it is a contradiction for a Soul to be perfectly holy and not have the perfection of inclination to its Acts. 3. But if the meaning were that no holy quality alone sufficeth without Gods Influx that were no more than what must be faid of every Creature without Divine Influx no Creature can be or operate a moment No created thing of it self without God can continue How then should it keep a man from falling But if the Soul have any more goodness of nature or inclination in it than the Devils have it must be a created thing or God himself If only God that proveth not a Saint to be himself better than a Devil as to nature or disposition but only that God in him is better His reason why the Sun is naturally fixed to its Operations but not a glorified Soul is § 14. M. S. that one is a natural and the other a voluntary Agent One as Gibieuf saith Non agit sed agitur the other doth agere non tantum agitur An. 1. Gibieuf and you were deceived in thinking that such naturals non agunt Passive matter doth not Act ex principio essentiali unless Dr. Glissons and Campanellas Doctrine hold true But the three Active Natures Intellectual Sensitive and Vegetative and so Fire and the Sun do ex principio Activo essentali agere but nothing doth Act without an Antecedent Influx to action from the first Cause in which it is passive For no Creature is Independent 2. Voluntas est quaedam Natura quamvis libera To move naturally only and not freely is proper to Agents meerly natural distinct from free But to move freely and yet from a fixed principle which shall infallibly determine the Soul to act freely is not a contradiction nor that which Gibieuf should deny to the glorified § 15. M. S. Man though a Creature is the first Cause of his own action He moveth and sets himself on work else he were
si in Ecclesia Christi ut talis est aliquae leges judiciales siâ—t necessariae ad politicum regimen Ecclesiasticum quod suo modo spirituale est nihilominus noluit Christus dominus per se ipsum illas leges ferre sed id Vicariis suis commisit potestatem ad illas ferendas eis tribuendo Et ideo illae Leges non sub Lege Divina sed sub canonica computantur Prâ—prie igitur loquendo de Lege divina nova in illa non inveniuntur praecepta judicialia So that Christ never made the Papacy nor any of its Laws But indeed he appointed Baptism as our Church-entrance and more than a Ceremony and the state of Câ—uâ—ch Officers and their work and discipline Mat. 18. And what his Spirit did in the Apostles he did in another sort than he doth by any ordinary Ministers that have but the Spirits ordinary help b b b Aquinas and many other Papists â—oyn with some late Secâ—aâ—ies and say that it 's the Spirits Operation on the Heart that is the Lex nova and that it is not written But he could not deny but that yet the Gospel is Lex nova Scripta But falsly de nomine taketh this but for the secondary sense of the lâ—x which is the first and that the obliging Law and the other the effects of it as various as persons are that have it and not the Rule of Obligation And else-where I have shewed also de Lege natura As to the question Whether Christ's Law be exterior insignis vocal and written or in the Heart by the Spirit Suarez truly saith That lex imperans is in signis in Scripture words but lex impellens is the Spirit which though here the chief yet is not properly but metaphorically called a Law pag. 819. li. 1. in principio Though he add that it was eight years before the Gospel was written by Matthew and longer by the rest and that all that time and since it is written in the Heart But memory may retain a vocal Law before the Heart by love and subjection do receive it 61. In this Law or Covenant is made a free universal Deed of Gift of Christ first and of Pardon Spirit and Glory in and by him to all Mankind without exception who will believingly accept it in its true nature as it is offered therein Or If they will so accept it as Believers 62. This Covenant is to be preached by Christ's Ministers and men invited to believe and consent And all that so do are to profess that consent by a solemn Covenant in their Baptism and so to give up themselves devotedly to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost renouncing the Devil Flesh and World 63. For Faith in God the Father is as essential a part of that Faith which we must profess in Baptism and is called commonly justifying as Faith in Christ is And so is Faith in the Holy Ghost in its place For it is not possible to believe in Christ without believing first in God to whom he is the way and with whom he is our Mediator nor to believe in him fully as Christ unless we believe in him as giving us the sanctifying Spirit 64. This Covenant is nevertheless free as to the donation of the Gifts for being conditional For the Condition is not the purchase procurement by efficient causality or any way a proper cause of the Gift as given but only a dispositive cause of our reception of it and of the Gift as received It is a removens prohibens The Condition as imposed and as the mode of the Promise is only a suspension of the Donation and Right till it be performed The Condition as performed is a removing the suspension And so it is a receiving cause which is but dispositio materiae receptivae of which more in due place 65. And the Gift is nevertheless free because the Condition is but such as is morally-antecedently necessary to the reception of free Gifts For though physical Donation oft make its own way and pre-require not such Conditions as these at least yet moral Donation by Deed of Gift supposeth that the person will receive it and despising or unthankful refusal or turning it against the Donor nullifieth such a Donation in the Civil Laws of men 66. And the Benefits are nevertheless conditionally given though the Spirit of Christ cause us to perform the Condition For they are called conditional from the mode or form of the Covenant which giveth men Right to Christ and Life expresly on condition of believing 67. Though this believing be sometimes described as the assent of the Intellect and sometimes as the consent of the Will and sometime as a practical affiance trusting Christ as a Saviour to save us with Soul and Body to the renouncing and letting go all other trust Yet when ever Justification and Life is promised to Faith all these three are the essential parts of it 68. The clearest discovery of the true nature of Gods Covenant with man and of that Faith by which we partake of the benefits of it is in Baptism it self which hath ever been the entrance of men into Gods Covenant as consented to and mutual and so into a visible state of Christianity and membership of Christ and the Catholick Church And therefore it is happy for us that Christ so expresly delivered the form of the Baptismal Covenant and the Universal Church hath so safely in her practice kept it 69. This Baptismal Covenant which is conditional and the consent to which doth make us Christians must be still distinguished from the Covenant between the Father and Christ or his Law of Redemption And God promiseth not to us all that he promiseth to Christ for us nor giveth all to us which he giveth to him 70. And it must be distinguished from Gods meer Predictions concerning his Elect that he will call them renew them and save them or if those Predictions run in the form of a Promise either as they are promises to Christ concerning the Elect or as promises to the Church in general how God will perfect it still they give no man a Law-Title or Right to any of the Benefits till he is a Believer They justifie and pardon no man And so they must not be confounded with the Baptismal Covenant which is Gods stated Instrument of Justification and of Government and the Law by which he will Judge us at the last 71. This Baptismal Covenant is the character and test by which we must judge who are Christians and members of the Catholick Church of Christ and not by their Subjection to a pretended vicarious universal Monarch And this is the character with consent to his relation there by which every mans fitness for membership in a particular Church must be judged of And not by other Covenants besides that consent and proofs of Conversion not here included And this containeth the true Characters by which every man may know himself
him total resignation and use as such 2. As our Ruler we owe him â—ubjection and Obedience as such 3. As our Friend Benefactor Amaâ—â—lissimus we owe him Gratitude and Love as such which yet is part â—f Obedience too Now Sin being the privation of all this God is to â—e satisfied for it as such in all these three Relations And is pars laesa â—â— all these three Relations that is he is injured though not hurt It is â—â—ue that Government and punishing Justice formally as such belong to God only as Rector And satisfaction is made him eminently in that Reâ—ation yet also to compensate the injury done by sin to him in the other â—wo Relations also SECT IX Of the nature and distinctions of Justification 152. Justification is a word of many significations the Scheme whereof And 1. Of constitutive Justification should I give them all would seem to most Readers a troublesome diâ—tinguishing Therefore I take up with these three most notable senses â— Justification constitutive 2. Sentential 3. Executive The first is to make a man righteous The second is to judge him righteâ—us The third is to use him as righteous 1. By Impunity 2. Reward * * * The Papists are confounded in the point of Justification by sticking to confounding words They talk of Justification and remission of sin but cannot tell men intelligibly what they mean They say that Remission is a putting away the sin it self and not only the Reatum poenae and yet say many that it may be done without any physical change of the Sinner 1. By sin they mean not the Habit for that cannot be removed without a physical change 2. Nor the act For that is past as soon as done 3. When they say it is macula moralis habitualiter remanens they talk gibberish and play with a metaphor and the word habitualiter A true habit is quid physicum and what macula is they can tell no man besides a habit disposition privation â—r relation If they mean that it is the Reatus culpae or culpability that is done away and not only the Reatus poenae they hold â—he same thing which they oppose in those Protestants that go too far from them And it is not sound For the pardoned Sinâ—er will be culpable though not punishable for ever that is will be really the man that sinned and it will be an everâ—asting truth This man sinned though he be pardoned See Pet. a S. Joseph Theol. Speculat l. 4. c. 10. pag. 509 510 511. The Papists say Homo est formaliter justus per formam gratiae ipst exâ—riâ—secam non tantum per justitiam Christi illi imputatam And yet Nullus actus quantumvis perfectus sive sit contritio sive Amor Dei super omnia est causâ— formalis justificationis Patres diâ—entes charitatem esse perfectam justitiam intelligendi sunt dispositive non autem formaliter Because it is in the Habit and not in the Act â—r rather as others of them say in some internal inclination antecedent to the habits of Faith Hope and Love that they place Justification or as we call it Sanctification Pet. a S. Joseph Thes Univers de grat Hab. pag. 88 89. 153 God never judgeth a man righteous either by secret esteem or open sentence till he have made him such 154. To be made righteous is to be justified in Law-sense which is To be justifiable or justificandus by sentence 155. A man is righteous 1. Particularly secundum quid as to some particular cause that he is accusable of 2. Or universally as to all causes 3. Or eminently as to all those causes that Heaven or Hell depend upon 156. 1. No man is universally righteous really or reputatively God judgeth no Saint in Heaven to be one that never sinned And he that hath once sinned is unavoidably under the Relation of â—â—â—â— that sinned to eternity ex necessitate existentiae which Relation is the very Reatus ipsius peccati though all the ill effects be remitted 157. 2. Every man hath some particular righteousness For the worst man may be falsly accused and be righteous as to that false accusation But this will not save him 158. 3. That eminent Righteousness necessary to our Salvation though it be not universal or perfect else we should never be afficted by chastiâ—â—ments or denials of Grace or permissions to sin yet is it at least perfect as to its proper use and to our glorious perfection And may be called our universal Righteousness because it is all that we have And â—â— consisteth not of any one or two Causes but of many Of which no oâ—â— must be excluded or set against the rest As there are several Allegatioâ—â— or Accusations against us so there must be several parts of the matter of our Justification 159. Not only an actual Accusation but a possible or a virtual oâ—â— which we are liable to sufficeth to denominate Justification as its contrary in the first Law-sense of Justification 160. It is our Right to Impunity and to the heavenly Glory which is to be justified finally in Judgment and our persons as the Subjects of that Right And our Actions but mediately in order to that end 161. It is only at the Bar of Christ as Redeemer that we are to be judged and justified and not by God only as a Creator Therefore it is by the Law of Grace that we must be judged to life or death finally and not by the sole Law of Innocency 162. Therefore no man is justified by the Law of Innocency either by the preceptive or retributive part But we are justified only by the Lâ—â— or Covenant of Grace against the Accusation which may be brought against us from the Law of Innocency Against it not by it 163. We are liable to all these following Accusations which will opeâ— to us the correlate Justifications and the matter of each part 1. It may be said by the Accuser of the Brethren Thou art a Siâ—â—â—â— against the Precepts of Nature and Grace He that denieth this is a Lyar Against this Charge there is no Justification for ever But we must â—â— Heaven confess that we have sinned but Glory be to him that washed â—s from our sins in his blood by Pardon and Sanctifiation 164. 2. Next it may be said that We did deserve Hell by our Sin This also is to be confessed for ever 165. 3. It may be said that by Gods Law of Innocency Hell is ouâ— due and therefore we are to be condemned to it To this we deny the consequence because we have right to Impunity and to Glory freely given us by God our Redeemer by a Covenant of Grace merited for us by the Obedience and Satisfaction given for us by Christ our Saviour Where note that here in this first part of our Justification there are all these conjunct necessary Causes 1. Gods Love and Mercy giving 2. Christ's Righteousness and Satisfaction meriting 3. The Covenant
elect and should persevere So that they denied all certainty of Salvation by ordinary means And that none of all the Greek or Latin Fathers then or long after went further from the Pelagians than Augustine did I think I need not perswade any that hath read them 259. This historical Truth is useful to be known From whence I infer that it is possible for Christians to live in setled peace and comfort in respect to their heavenly Felicity without a certainty of perseverance and Salvation For to think that no Papists no Greeks no Arminians no Protestant Lutherans nor any of the ancient holy Doctors nor any of all the Martyrs or other Christians of their judgment did attain to such holy peace and comfort is unreasonable and contrary to all Church-History and to experience 260. And though it were a far more joyful state to have proper certainty yet reason and experience in other cases tell us that without certainty a man may live a joyful and peaceable life where probability is strong enough to remove all reasonable cause of fearfulness though there be a possibility of the worst As we see that men in youth and health though they may possibly die or fall into torments the next hour yet do not therefore cast off comfort and live in such trouble as they would do if they had probable cause to expect it There is no wife living is certain that her own Husband will not murder her the next night nor no Child certain that the Parents will not cast them off or kill them nor no Friend certain that his dearest Friend will not do so And yet few but melancholy people will therefore take up sorrow and cast away all their comfort in life and peace and in these Friends Even these persons are their trust and joy There is no man sure but he may be executed among Malefactors And yet while there is no reason to expect it a man may live a comfortable life There is no man certain that he himself shall not fall into a particular crime of Murder Theft Perjury or the like And yet we live not therefore uncomfortably For mens affections follow the powerfullest cause 261. Hence also I conclude that certainly the denial of certainty of persevering and Salvation is not a thing that should break the love peace or concord of the Christian Churches or for which they should cast off or revile each other For what sober man could do so by all those that I have instanced in 262. It is a shameful self-delusion of some Disputers who think when they have once believed that certainty of Salvation may be had that they are then certain themselves or next to certain of their own Salvation But he that hath no more certainty to be rich or healthful thaâ— to believe that Health and Riches may be got is far from having them 263. Who was more full of confidence and joy than Luther who speaketh more against the Papists commanding men to doubt of the pardon of sin who speaketh of a higher Faith than he on Galat. Yet he with Melancthon and all the first Protestants in the August Confess Art 11. saith They damn the Anabaptists who deny that those that are once justified can again lose the Holy Ghost 264. If Adam in Innocency had neither solid comfort or cause of such the state that we fell from was not so good as we commonly believe But Adam had no assurance of his perseverance in that state For he fell from it 265. No man as is said is certain that he shall not fall into such a Vid. Judic Theol. Palat. de persever in Synod Dord p. 1. pag. 208. pr. 3. hainous sin as Peter David c. did 266. The Synod of Dort saith By such enormous sins they greatly offend God they incur the guilt of death they grieve the Holy Ghost they interrupt the exercise of Faith they most grievously wound Conscience sometimes they lose the sense of Grace for a time till by serious Repentance returning into the way Gods fatherly countenance again shine upon them And the Brittish Divines in their Synodic Explic. say They contract damnable guilt and lose their present aptitude to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Adding So that while they remain in that state of Impenitence they neither ought nor can perswade themselves otherwise than that they art obnoxious to death Rom. 8. 13. If ye live after the flesh ye shall die For they are bound in a capital Crime by the desert whereof according to Gods Ordination they are subject to death though they be not yet delivered to death nor shall be if we respect Gods fatherly love but shall be pluckt out of this sin that so they may be pluckt out of the guilt of death Lastly For their present condition they lose their aptitude to enter into Heaven c. And Thes 4. p. 193. Gods unmovable ordination requireth that a Believer thus exorbitant do first return into the way by renovation of Faith and the act of Repentance before he can be brought to the ways end which is the heavenly Kingdom By the Decree of Election the faithful are so predestinated to the end that they can no otherwise be brought to it than by Gods instituted means as by the Kings high way And Gods Decrees of the means and of the end and order of events are as firm and certain as those of the end and of the events themselves If any man therefore go on in a way contrary to Gods Ordination as the broad way of uncleanness and impenitence which directly leadeth to Hell he can never come that way to Heaven Yea if death surprize him wandering in Luk. 13. 3 5. 1 Cor. 6. 9. Heb. 12. 14. 2 Tim. 2. 19. Act. 27. 31. that out-way he cannot but fall into everlasting death This is the constant and clear voice of the Scripture As Paul said of those in the Ship c. Act. 27. 31. It is certain that David and Peter Gods Elect Servants were to come to Heaven But it is as certain that if one had remained impenitent in his Adultery and Murder and the other in his denial of Christ and perjury neither of them could have been saved Providence and Mercy unty this knot by providing that no elect person die in that state in which according to any Ordination of Gods Will he should have been shut out of Heaven And Thes 5. In that interspace which is between the guilt of sin contracted by a grievous sin and the renewed act of Faith and Repentance such a Sinner standeth a person to be damned by his own desert but by Christ's Merit and Gods firm purpose a person to be saved but not before by excited Faith and Repentance he hath obtained pardon is he actually absolved But in such guilt the condition of the Faithful and of the Wicked is not the same To the Unbelievers is wanting the inward principle of Faith without which the
the Threefold Divine Excellencies Communicated and the Threefold humane Receptive faculties viz. LIFE LIGHT and LOVE or spiritual Vivification Activity and Power spiritual Illumination of the Intellect and spiritual Conversion or Sanctification of the Will by holy Love § 21. It is certain that it is not only on believers that Christ operateth by the spirit For he draweth men by it to believe and many wicked men that are not his elect have common even miraculous gifts of the spirit * * * Mat. 7. 21 22 23. Gal. 3. 1 2 3. Heb. 6. 5 6. 1 Cor. 14. which are all communicated by Christ § 22. As Nature it self is in his Political power and is delivered to him so far as it is reparable and belongeth to the reparation of man so all gifts and operations Received by any in the world which are Mercies contrary to commerit are the effects of Christ Even as the Sun shineth in the night by the Moon and in the dawning of the day by it self unseen and after by it self appearing so Christ shineth to the Heathen world in abundance of natural and providential mercies and by the help of many Creatures and experiences and to some by nearer approaches as well as to the Church by the manifestation of himself All which is evident 1. Because the whole lapsed world in Adam and Noe were brought under his own Covenant of Grace according to which he operateth 2. In that so much mercy after sin will not stand with Gods regiment by the meer Law of Innocency violated 3. In that Christ is expresly called the Saviour of the World and the Saviour of all men especially of them that believe who dyed for all in that all were dead that they that live should live to him who tasted death for every man c. And Joh. 1. 9 10 11 12. That was the true light which lighteth every man coming into the world or coming into the world lighteth every man He was in the world and the world was made by him and the world knew him not And v. 4 5. In him was life and the Life was the Light of man and the Light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not c. § 23. This threefold Influx of Christs Spirit for LIFE LIGHT and LOVE is not equally effectual on all nor equally effectual on the same person at several times nor each part of the influx equally effectual on the same person at the same time The Reasons anon SECT III. Of the Operations and Principles as compared § 1. THough Power Wisdom and Goodness or Love all co-operate by the spirit of Christ yet in the work of Mans Recovery their Impressions are not equal But as POWER with Wisdom and Love more appeared in the CREATION as is aforesaid so WISDOM with Power conveying Love appeareth more in our Redemption and LOVE with Power and Wisdom is most conspicuous and illustrious in our Renewed state begun indeed by Sanctification but perfect in our GLORIFICATION * * * As to the Question between the Schoolmen define beatitudin undoubtedly the Thomists err in placing it chiefly in the Intellect And Medina and others give silly reasons for it and the Scotists of whom Rada well handleth it are far righter And Agid. Romanus briefly and clearly tells us the truth Quodlib 3. q. 18. p. 187. Btatitudo est in aliquo finaliter in aâ—â—quo formaliter Naâ— si ipsum objectum principaâ—â— Voluntatis prout habit rationem finis sit beatitudo oportet quod beatitudo principaliter sit in hoc objecto coâ—sequenter formaliter in actu Voluntatis Nam Voluntas in suum objectum tendit finaliter sed per suum actum teadit in objectum formaliter Ex quo apparet quod be â—titudo sit magis in ipso objecto Voluntatis quam in actu quia ratio finis est magis in objecto quam in actu This is clear truth if you put but finis alone for beatitudo For Beatitudo qua talis is not the principal end of man but God as God in his perfect Goodness and the fulfilling of his will next and then our own beatitude with that of the blesâ—ed And he maketh Vision and not Love to be the secondary final object of all The Omnipotent Father as is said Createth Nature with the Son and Holy Spirit The Son the Wisdom of the Father is the Physicion of souls and healeth them by SKILL with Power and Love The Holy Ghost called by the Schoolmen The LOVE of God dwelling and working peculiarly in us to and in perfection with power and Wisdom is the PERFECTION of the soul And so Natura Medela Sanitas are the various effects of the Divine operation § 2. Therefore the SONS operation in procuring and communicating the SPIRIT of Love and Holiness is eminently sapiâ—â—tial § 3. The Impressions of all the Divine Virtues are excellent in their several kinds And it 's hard for us to say that this is simply more excellent than that But we can say which is more suitable to the nature of man to be esteemed and Loved by him And so we esteem the Impressions of Wisdom and Love as most suitable to us § 4. A Horse or Oxe excelleth Man in strength and a Bird or Hare or Dog in swiftness and a Mountain and an Oak in Greatness And yet we account the Wisdom and Moral Goodness of man to be a greater excellency and to make him the more noble Creature § 5. And God seemeth to tell it us 1. By calling these his Image 2. And by making man the Lord of these stronger Creatures § 6. And among men we take him not for the most excellent who is the strongest but who is the Wisest and the Best And therefore the Wisest and Best are by Aristotle said to be born by Nature to Rule the rest and by all sober men are thought to be the Fittest to Guide and Rule others how seldom soever it cometh to pass while the Robuster sort are Labourers and Mechanicks § 7. Yet I deny not but the effect is answerable to the Cause And as Active-Power causeth Action and Wisdom and Government causeth the Order and Rectitude of action and Love and Goodness the Perfection of it and the agent so Gods Vital-Power Wisdom and Goodness are equal which are the Principles of all As the Father Son and Spirit are coequal And God is indeed glorious in the Motion of Sun and Stars c. as well as in the Wisdom and Holiness of man But besides the foresaid suitableness this difference must be considered that as Life Intellect and Will Power By special Grace some mean two distinct things viz. 1. Our Love to God and other holy Habits and acts or an Inclination to them 2. Gods favour to us and acceptation of us and that as relating to the Glory which he will give us so that the first they call the Habit of Grace quâ— ens qualitas
481. An Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratia pâ—ssit demonstrari naturali ratione vel cum Infallibilitate Praescientiae Providentiae praedestinationis Divinae Where he tells you that one opinion of some Catholicks is that It is certain by the doctrine of faith that man hath Free-will but it cannot be proved by natural reason The second opinion is contrary that It is not only evident to natural reason that man hath free-will but also the concord of it with the infallibility of Divine prescience and providence may easily and clearly be made out by Scientia Media which is the Jesuites way But the third opinion which he defendeth is that Free-will may be evidently known and proved by natural reason alone But how the actual use of it consisteth with the infallibility of the prescience providence and predestination of God and with the efficacy of the helps of grace cannot be perfectly known or comprehended by natural light alone and therefore the reason of it must be Believed and the understanding captivated to the obedience of Faith Where note 1. That though he say perfectè he proveth that it cannot be known by that which is below a perfect knowledge 2. And that he denyeth not only a practical saving knowledge but a proper theoretical or dogmatical knowledge For this he citeth those words of Cajetan at large in 1. p. q. 22. art 4. which many others cite and commend In ignorantia sola quietem invenio c. And there is no man besides Alvarez higher for the Dominicans way of Absolute predetermination than D. Bannes who is of Cajetans opinion in 1. p. q. 23. art 5. 2. 2. q. 10. art 1. Siquis non intelligit quomodo usus liberi arbitrii sit liber nihilominus sit effectus jam praedefinitus à Divina providentia oportet eum credere Primum omnium debuisset credere quod aiunt se non posse intelligere Credimus enim Catholicum mysterium Trinitatis etiamsi non intelligamus And Alvarez citeth Calvin lib. de aetern Dei praedest cont Pigh p. 136. saying Siquis hoc mentis suae captu superius esse excipiat idem de me fateor Sed quid mirum si modulum nostrum imcomprehensibilis immensa Dei majestas exsuperet Atqui tantum abest ut pro carnis ratione explicandum suscipiam sublime istud reconditúmque arcanum ut quod initio praefatus sum assiduè in memoriam redire velim desipere qui plus scire appetunt quà m Deus revelaverit Quare nos potiùs docta ignorantia delectet quam intemperans ebria plus quam Deus permittit curiositas What Augustine confesseth you may see a little in Alvar. ib. p. 482 483. but more in himself often What Suarez Hurtado Mendoz. and other the most subtil philosophical Divines confess commonly of the incomprehensibility of these things and the darkness and uncertainty of our conceptions I have elsewhere partly cited and any that readeth them may find Now all this being so notorious and their ignorance commonly confessed may I not confidently inferr 1. That then seeing all must be reconciled by Believing we must have nothing obtruded on us herein which is not to be proved by the Word of God What the Word saith of Predetermination of the manner of Gods operation on second causes and influx on souls and of the nature of his first effect or Vis Impressa c. we will receive But yet men must not snatch up a metaphorical expression in one or a few Texts and urge that against the frequent and plain expressions of the Scripture of the spirits Operation on souls Christ himself saith which is more than all forecited The wind bloweth where it listeth and ye hear the sound thereof but ye know not whence it cometh and whither it goeth so is every one that is born of the spirit But as for the operations of God by the word preached and other means and the Holy Ghosts operation by and with those means and the Holy Ghosts indwelâ—â—ng and operating after in Believers these are frequently asserted in Gods Word And that all Christs members have his Spirit regenerating illuminating quickning sanctifying them both as he is in Covenant with them to be the sanctifier of their souls and as the Love of God and all his Graces are by him caused in us all this is sure But if men will go further with us and give us as many distinctions of Gods Grace as Alvarez doth and tell us that besides God himself one of them simultaneous operation is nothing but mans act and another previous motion is somewhat else but no man knoweth what but may be named motio Virtuosa though it be neither God nor a quality nor a humane act And then will dispute how much of this some thing this motio virtuosa will serve to such an effect and how much to another and how and by what reason it is efficacious and will build on his assertions such a systeme of consequents as shall make up the doctrines of a sect or party which shall set up with this stock to militate against the Love and unity of Christians this is the course that I oppugn Once more Let the Reader note that the waies of reconciling Grace and Free-will as Alvarez mentioneth them are these four I. The Jesuits way by scientia media which I need not recite to the Learned but think it meet to recite Alvarez words of their description of Grace Supponunt gratiam praevenientem excitantem esse formaliter actiones quasdam vitales quas Deus in nobis sine nobis operatur sine nobis inquam libere co-operantibus non tamen sine nobis vitaliter efficienter concurrentibus consistere in illustratione illuminatione Intellectus atque excitatione suasione voluntatis quae efficienter procedunt ab intellectu voluntate non quidem ut Libera sed ut Natura est quamvis antecedenter dependeant à Voluntate ut Liberum arbitrium est quatenus viz. ex ejus libertate fuit dependens quod homo compararet notitias mysteriorum fidei vel eorum quae facienda erant accedendo ad praedicatores vel alio modo eos propriâ industriâ acquirendo quibus notitiis Deus se insereret eas elevando suo speciali influxu ut supernaturales sint quales ad salutem oportet sic sortiantur naturam gratiae praevenientis Suppositâ ergo Illuminatione quâ Deus illuminat Intellectum proponit Voluntati bonum ut sibi conveniens affirmant quod statim absque ulla libertate oritur merè naturaliter in voluntate motus affectionis ad bonum sibi propositum quo motu allicitur quasi invitatur ad amandum illud bonum imperandum potentiis executivis ut illud exequantur ut v. g. ad imperandum intellectui ut assentiatur rebus fidei propositis explicatis In his ergo duobus motibus viz. in illustratione Intellectus affectione
an Infinite effect But the world is not Infinite § 4. As to the second question it is either de nomine or de re If the former let every man speak as he list for me rather than I will contend with him whether Creation of faith be a fit name As to the matter 1. It is agreed on that faith is not a substance 2. Nor an Accident con-created with a substance 3. Nor a composition of substances into one done by secondary Creation Generation or Art 4. But that it is the right ordered Act of a substance whose natural power which performeth it was pre-existent though without that act and the moral disposition Therefore it being a Modus entis or modus modi that we talk of the common name is Alteration and suscitation actuating and ordering But if men sober sometime call it a New Creation as indeed the whole frame of holiness together is called the New Creature in the Scriptures and sometimes the Divine nature sometimes Regeneration sometimes a Divine Artifice Alteration Conversion Sanctification c. it is the same thing that is meant by all their several names § 5. As to the third Question Whether it be a Miracle * * * Justificationem non esse proprie Miraculum Vid. Malder ib. p. 578. Et Brâ—anson in 4. q. 8. Cor. 2. fol. 144. confessing it above the power of a Creature to justifie us but not properly a miracle p 1. As a Miracle signifieth a wonder a thing is wonderful either for the Rarity or for the Great appearance of Gods power in it In the first respect faith is not so Rare as to be a miracle In the second the Sun and Heavens are a greater wonder than faith 2. But as a Miracle signifieth that which is done by second Causes but unknown to us and out of Gods ordinary way of working so it is no miracle 3. And as some men call that a Miracle which exceedeth the power of the second causes so all things would be Miracles that God doth For they are effects of his power as exceeding the power of second causes 4. As a Miracle is that which is done by God without any second causes †††Many good people would never be so much against the acknowledgement of second Causes if they understood the matter But they ignorantly think it derogateth from God the first cause so some think that the propagation of souls is a miracle But of souls and faith it is much unknown to us how far God useth second causes But that Generation as to one and Preaching and all other means to the other are some sort of second causes * * * We have no reason to think that God useth no second cause in working faith It is much to be noted which Pet. de Alllaco saith in 4. q. 1. E. Plus facit Deut faciendo aliquem effectum mediante causa secunda quam si faceret euâ—dem effectum se solo Quia in prima factione sunt plures termini divina actionis quam in secunda For as he said before Quandocunque Deus facit aliquem effectum mediante causa sceunda ipse non solum facit illum effectum sed etlam facit causam secundam esse causam illius effecti Marâ— this well is sure 5. And lastly if by a Miracle be meant that effect which God produceth both above the power of second causes and by a more glorious exertion of his own power than in his Course of Nature and Government he useth by and with second causes so it is not a Miracle because in the way of his ordinate co-operation with his Gospel he ordinarily produceth it § 6. So that as all Christians must confess that we had never believed if God had not wrought it in us by that spirit of Wisdom and Love which is Omnipotent so to contend any further whether it be a Miracle and a proper Creation or an effect of Omnipotency as such c. are such questions as presumptuous Schoolmen heretofore and hot-headed Sectaries in our times have used to afflict the Church of Christ with and to tempt their ignorant zealous followers into such employments as most effectually destroy their charity and injure others and scandalize the world SECT XV. Of the sufficiency and efficacy of Grace § 1. I Have said so much of this before as that lest I be tedious by repetition I must be but brief * * * Malderus against the Synod of Dort and 1. 2. q. 111. art 3. dub 8. bestirs himself with special industry to tell what Gratia efficax is And he concludeth that it is afflatus gratiae praevenientis sub genere gratiae excitantis quae non respuitur cum respui possit rather praeparans voluntatem quam adjuvans rejecting Valentia who placeth it in the Habit of Grace caused by excitation and à Lorca who takes it to be adjuvant and those that make it co-operant and those that place it in praedetermination physical of which he confuteth four opinions p. 502. and saith Probabilior sententia est quae negat omnimodam gratiae infallibilitatem adeóque efficaciam sumi posse ex sola reali aliqua differentia considerata ex parte gratiae praevenientis And that Just and unjust have effectual grace and therefore it differeth not from sufficient really And he resolveth all per scientiam mediam that Grace is effectual because ex proposito convertendi Deus it a hominem trabit sicut aptum novit ut sequatur certissime secuâ—urum and so that Grace iâ— effectual er natura sua and not so called only ex eventu I. By sufficient Grace is meant that which is necessary to the effect and without which it Cannot be but with it it may be though it sometimes be not § 2. That there is such a sufficient Grace not alwayes effectual to mans act is before proved by Adams Case And that no man hath such now for any means or duty in order to his recovery as Adam had to stand when he fell is not to be asserted or received And that no prepared soul hath such sufficient Grace to believe that yet believeth not is a thing that is past our reach to know § 3. This sufficient Grace consisteth in a Power to the act when the Indisposition of the natural power is so far altered or repressed as that by the means and helps vouchsafed by God the act is Morally possible to be done For he that truly can do it all things considered is well said to have such necessary grace § 4. But God of his bounty usually giveth men more than such a meer moral possibility by many additional helps and urgencies to the act which I mentioned before § 5. But by sufficient is not meant As much as is useful yea or needful to the Ascertaining of the Event much less to the meliority of the act § 6. II. The EFFICACY of Grace relateth to the effect And
cause Moral Good and hinder Moral Evil and by which as our Lover and End he will draw mans soul to himself in Love § 20. God as Rector though he vary his Laws in some things to several ages and places and promulgate the same Gospel with inequality on several accounts yet according to the respective Laws that they are under dealeth with all men in a certain equality which is called Justice that is His Laws antecedently to mans acts make not difference and as Judge he maketh none but what mans different actions require according to the said Laws and Justice But yet as Owner and as Benefactor he is free not against but above his Laws to make many inequalities which are no injustice they being not acts of formal Government and so he may do with his own as he list And thus though God give all their due according to his Law of Grace yet he giveth to his Elect such proportions of Grace as he gave them no antecedent Right to by his Law or at least to many of them passing by the controversie now whether he do so to them all § 21. God could cure and sanctifie all men if it were his Absolute will but he doth not and will not being no way obliged And he will be no loser nor sufferer by the creatures sin § 22. Gods absolute will is as fully accomplished by mans free acts as if they were all necessitated and Natural And mans actions are as free as if God had made no Absolute Decree of their futurity as in Good he hath done if we may so ascribe futurity to his Decrees § 23. It seemeth that all sin beginneth in the wills omission of what it was able to have done Even when Adams appetite was to the forbidden fruit and some think that this was the first part of the sin it seemeth that it was rather in the Wills not restraining that appetite when it could have done it And then positive sins do follow thereupon § 24. There is more Brutishness in sin and consequently more privative and less positive faultiness of the Reason and Will than many do consider which Paul partly meaneth Rom. 7. For it is certain 1. That a passion e. g. anger or fear may be forced on a man suddenly as â—n a Brute without Reason As if you come behind one and affright him or strike him suddenly no Reason raised that passion and consequently no Rational Will 2. It is certain that this passion without Reason can cause despotically a corporal motion as the fearful will start and run and the angry strike without any reason or rational will but as a Beast doth 3. It is certain that it is the office of the Will to Rule this passion and these motions 4. And that it must have due information from the understanding that so to do is good and best 5. If this information of the understanding did never miss of determining the Will then man would never sin but when the understanding failed of its necessary office before the will which would resolve all sin into the will of God as much as if he directly moved the will to it by necessitating unresistible predetermination For the Intellect as such hath no Liberty but is necessitated by objects further than it is under the Empire of the Will And the Objects and Intellect are made by God 6. Therefore it followeth that there is a certain measure of Intellecâ—â—â—l true apprehension according to which the will can excite and determine it self without â—â—y thing which it hath not and yet can forbear And that this not-willing what and when it should is the beginning of all sin § 25. God is no Efficient or Desicient cause of this first Omission of the will For efficient it hath none And deficient God is not who gave man power to have done it But man is the deficient Cause § 26. Man 's not believing not knowing not loving not obeying not desiring trusting fearing c. being the far greatest part of the sins of his life * * * Which made the worthy Bishop Usher dye with these words as his last But Lord in special forgive my â—â—â— of omission we see by this are not at all of God § 27. Though multitudes of positive Acts of sin do follow such omissions and go before some of them yet they being not sinful as Acts but as Disordered against the Rule and End and upon undue objects and especially comparatively preserring the wrong object before the right it seemeth that in their first instances they are all Omissive and Positive in the second only which maketh the Schoolmen so commonly say that sin is a Privation § 28. Yet the Moral formal Relation of sin is not only Privative but a Positive Disobedience or Disconformity And so as Quid Morale formaliter sin hath as much Relative being as Duty hath viz. 1. As contra Legem significantem 2. Contra Voluntatem Dei significatam 3. Et contra Jâ—â— Divini Dominii Imperii Amoris § 29. If any be unsatisfied in this it is certain that in the Velle hoc prohibitum potius quam hoc imperatâ—m there is no more physical entity than in the Velle imperatum no nor than there is in the Velle indefinitely considered as on any object Or if any deny that it is certain that there is no such addition of Entity it being but ordo modi in any such sinful Act from which as such the formal obliquity or sin resulteth but what man can do and doth without Gods causing the Act as so ordered and terminated So that God is no way the cause of formal sin § 30. †††Bradwardiâ— dealeth more plainly and maketh Gods effectual Volition to be the total immediate cause that man sinneth though it be no sin in God to do so and saith that God willeth it for good uses as the sinner doth or if he do not it is because God maketh him unavoidably do otherwise They that say He causeth all that man causeth and that as the first necesâ—itating or insuperable cause but yet is not the cause of the form of sin contradict themselves seeing that form is but a Relation which resulteth ipso facto from its fundamentam and terminus and nè per divinam potentiam cannot but do so And hath no other cause but what causeth them § 31. And they that say that yet God is not the Author of sin because he is under no Law do but sport with dreadful things And they mean that God is the chief Cause of all mens sins in the world but not of any sin of his own which is none of the question § 32. God doth neither Cause the sin nor the futurity or existence of it as some vainly distinguishing maintain especially Dr. Twisse and Rutherford For as Estius and others truly say to cause the sin is nothing but to cause the existence of it And sin as sin Dr. Twisse often
therefore Gods moving a man to the Act of sin is not a permitting him to sin Motion being one thing and the not hindering of motion another thing or nothing §. V. III. Of the Scotists and Nominals way III. ANd as to the third way ascribed by Alvarez to the Scotists and Nominals I think that de nomine it is not a proper expression to call God causa partialis But if we agree of the sense we may bear Vasqu ubi sup taketh Alex. Al. 1. p. q. 26. n. 7. a. 2. ad 1. Ronavent 1. d. 40. a. 2. q. 1. to be for him because they say Actus nostros esse liberos quia Divina voluntas non est Tota Causa sed cum libero arbitrio quod cum sit proxima causa modificatur concursum primâ— But if this be his opinion he joyneth with these Scotists and Nominals de causa non-totali So Pet. à S. Joseph Thos Univ. de Deo saith that God is Causa totius effectus sed non tota Causa sed partialis with improper expressions about God of whom we can say nothing without some impropriety Doubtless God and man are not to be accounted co-ordinate concauses of the act but whatever man doth he doth it in subordination to God But God operateth 1. As the prime cause of Nature in a stablished way by natural causes And so he giveth man his Natural vital power and the Liberty of using it and by this Power and Liberty a man can do more than he alwayes doth So that Gods natural causality and concurse doth not bring all the Power which he giveth men into proportionable adequate Action but men freely exercise the same power sometime more and sometime less 2. And in the like manner God causeth gracious or holy acts Rectifying our Powers and fortifying them by holy habits and preserving and actuating them by the Holy Ghost Yet the Spirit is to Grace as God the prime cause is to Nature He giveth us more Gracious Power than we use and than his own concurse alwayes reduceth into adequate act So that Gods operations in Nature and Grace are not ad ultimum posse Dei nor ad ultimum posse hominis but limited by his most wise and holy will And man as a free agent is not only Able but obliged to use his power further than by all Gods concurse or premotion it is used And in this sense I conceive it is that Scotus and others call God and man Causae partiales in that there is a certain proportion of premotion and help which God as the first Cause of Nature and Grace doth afford to man And there is moreover a certain use of Gods help and Grace beyond what God predetermineth man to as comparative to this object rather than that c. which man can do and is bound to do Not independently or in co-ordination with God but by the Power and Liberty which God only giveth and upholdeth and affordeth him sufficient help to actuate Now if man do this Part which is left to his liberty the effect alwayes followeth If he do not it may not follow though God gave him that necessary help or grace or premotion which is commonly called sufficient And when Scotus likeneth God and man to two drawing a Boat where the strength of both must concurr I believe he meant no more than I have said 1. All the Power is of God as the total first cause 2. All the Grace that rectifieth and disposeth our faculties is of God as the total first cause 3. All the Act as an Act in genere is of God as the total though not the sole cause 4. All the Holiness or Moral Goodness of the Act is of God as the total first cause though not the only cause 5. But all the sinfulness or moral evil of Acts and Habits is from Man 6. And that implyeth that mans free will is not so much freed from sin mutability and infirmity but that it can neglect to use well the power and helps of grace afforded But of total and partial Causality I have spoken more fully in the first Book And of their opinion that Gods Influx puts nothing into the will but only is ad actum seu effectum if it be true it easily endeth the controversie of the difference of sufficient and effectual grace as to that Act But it is to me unintelligible and the thing quite above all our understandings and very unfit for bold disputes or mutual censures §. VI. The true face or Scheme of the Dominican predeterminant way as to the sense and consequents I Do readily confess that as the summ of all the Controversie is Whether man have truly any Free-will that is not moved as necessarily as any natural motions are caused so the arguments of Hobbes and the Dominicans and Dr. Twisse are not easily answered And had we not better proof of all that Morality and Religion which is inconsistent with this opinion I should my self be inclined also to think that we must be contented with the naked name of Liberty there being nothing indeed but Volition necessitated and that man is an Engine moved by God and other causes no less necessarily and physically than a Clock or Watch but only by more invisible causes and to us unknown and therefore our Volitions are called Contingent and free when truly there is nothing contingent in the World We that converse in the body with things corporeal are so much strangers to our selves and to all the race of Intellectual-free Spirits that we are very prone to such gross corporeal imaginations and to think that all action is like the motus projectorum violent and necessitated and that it belongeth to the perfection of the first mover that it should be so yea that he himself should be in all things the most necessary agent and consequently all things necessitated by him But as Alvarez confesseth Free-will is proved by Aquinas and many others by natural proofs and no Predeterminant or Hobbist can give the tenth part so full and certain proof of the necessitation of all Volitions as we can give of all the contrary principles in Morality which are overthrown thereby And therefore whatever some think of the fatum Stoieorum the Light of Nature taught almost all the Philosophers in the World the Freedom of mans will and the morality there founded of which Grotiâ—s hath collected so full a Volume of testimonies in his Book entituled De fato that it shall save me the labour of transcribing any Yet though I think Christianity inconsistent with their opinion I doubt not but many of the Predeterminants are good Christians and excellently learned and acute Divines as not apprehending the inconsistency of their own thoughts And I confess that there is a Religion consistent with their fundamental error which I shall therefore put into the Scheme lest any think that none but Hobbes hath made the right deductions from it And remember that I
think a good thought by any help that God can give him unless he physically predetermine him to it then the reason why man doth it not is as notoriously to be resolved into Gods not-predetermining him to it as the reason why he doth it into his predetermination and as it is night because the Sun shineth not XVII But at least we can say that God is not the cause of sin because he is under no prohibiting Law Though it be true 1. That his nature or perfection the root of all Laws is more than a Law 2. And we know indeed that this proveth him not at all to be no cause of the sin of man but only to be no sinner himself though he cause it which is none of the question XVIII And from this necessity of predetermination it followeth that all that part of our holiness and obedience which consisteth in not sinning is not at all caused by God e. g. that we hate him not nor his truth and wayes and servants that we murder not commit not adultery steal not lye not covet not blaspheme not wrong none do no evil c. we need no help of God for this Because if he will not move our wills by efficient predetermination to do them it is impossible for us to do them at all XIX And though we say that God willeth sin to be by his permission only and not by his efficience yet indeed predetermining by efficiency as the first cause is the principal efficiency And properly we must say that God permitteth no sin at all For we say that his permission proveth the consequence of the thing permitted And therefore we must say that he permitteth no sin but what is done And that which is done by commission positively he effecteth by effecting the fundamentum and therefore permitteth not And men sin by omission because God doth not make them sin and not because he meerly permitteth it For permission is not de impossibilibus XX. God willeth not sin because he willeth it not as sin in its formale which also we must confess that the wicked themselves do not XXI And whereas we hold that God cannot foreknow things future but as he willeth or decreeth them we must confess that the formale peccati as well as the materiale was such as it is quid futurum if it was but futura privatio And therefore this would inferr that God willed and decreed the formale peccati also XXII Gods Will is his Love and what he Willeth he Loveth XXIII God willeth the futurity and existence of sin not only of the materiale but the formale even of all the sin that ever is done XXIV The existence of sin is Good and Amiable not only by accident but per se as being very conducible to the Glory of Gods Justice and Mercy and therefore is per se Willed and Loved of God XXV It is incomparably much more sin than Holiness which God willeth and Loveth and by predetermination causeth in mankind on earth For it is much more sin than Holiness that existeth in man And all that existeth God causeth as aforesaid the circumstantiated act and so the resultancy of the relative form And he willeth and Loveth the existence of all and the thing existing so far as he causeth it XXVI God Willeth Loveth and Causeth sin incomparably more than wicked men do For they Will and Love it with a humane mutable dependent will but God with a Divine primary immutable will Man causeth the forbidden act whence the relation resulteth with a Will that is irresistibly moved so to do by God as the pen writeth only sâ—o modo with Volition But God causeth it as the first omnipotent unresistible cause of all that the Creature doth in sinning XXVII The same must be said of God and the Devil who can no more commit one sinful act till God unavoidably predetermine his will to it by his premotion than sinful man can XXVIII God by his Law doth strictly forbid all those sinful acts which he principally and unavoidably causeth And he strictly commandeth all those good acts whose contraries he thus causeth us to do XXIX Though there is nothing in sin which can have a cause of which God is not the Principal cause and though he Willeth and Loveth all that he causeth yet the Scripture saith that God hateth sin and cannot behold it and hateth all the workers of iniquity and that it is abomination to him that he is as one laden with it and wearied provoked and offended by it And that he Loveth the Acts of obedience and holiness when he will not cause them but doth cause and will the contrary XXX Pardon and salvation is promised and earnestly offered by God to the Reprobate themselves on condition that they will believe and repent when God doth unavoidably as the first cause determine their wills to the contrary acts even to disbelief and impenitent hatred of God and holiness XXXI The Law of God is that all the Reprobates shall be damned to hell fire if they will not believe and repent when his omnipotence doth unavoidably premove and determine them to unbelief and impenitence and if they will not give over those acts of sin to which God doth thus unavoidably move and determine them XXXII Gods executions are answerable to these Laws and all save Christians and all professed Christians saving the sanctified are to be punished in hell fire for ever only for not doing the acts of Faith Love and obedience when God as the first cause predetermined them to the contrary and for doing the acts of sin when God unavoidably moved them to it and made them do it so that consequently all that are damned suffer in hell for not being Gods even the first sufficient causes of their own acts and for not being above God or stronger than he that is for not overcoming or avoiding his invincible and unavoidable predetermining premotion unto evil acts XXXIII The same must be said of the Devils who sin and suffer on the same terms XXXIV Q. What kind of torment then will there be in Hell Can Conscience torment men for doing that which they were unavoidably made to do by Omnipotency and for not doing that which without Divine predetermination they could no more do than make a world or for not doing that whose contrary they were thus predetermined to that is for not overcoming God when they know the case Or must we not more congruously say that the state of Hell torments lyeth in a most vehement hatred of God for so using them and a justifying of themselves Or will every mouth be thus stopt in judgement XXXV Q. Is not Divine Justice the most perfect Justice and the exemplar of all humane Justice allowing for disparities And should Kings and Judges imitate this fore-described course And how then would they be esteemed XXXVI Q Is not that best which is most agreeable to Gods Will and Love And therefore sin better than
become parties in such daring medlings with the Consuming Fire Notes on some passages of Mr. Peter Sterries Book of Free-will § 1. IT is long since I heard much of the name and fame of Mr. Peter Sterry long Chaplain to Robert Lord Brook and after to Oliver Cromwel when he was Protector as then called His common fame was that his Preaching was such as none or few could understand which incensed my desire to have heard him of which I still mist though I oft attempted it But now since his death while my Book is in the Press unfinished a posthumous tractate of his cometh forth of Free-will upon perusal of which I find in him the same notions for so far as he meddleth with the same subjects as in Sr. H. Vane and somewhat of what Dr. Gibbon seemeth to deliver in his Scheme but all handled with much more strength of parts and raptures of highest devotion and great candour towards all others than I expected His Preface is a most excellent Perswasive to Universal Charity Love was never more extolled than throughout his Book Doubtless his head was strong his wit admirably pregnant his searching studies hard and sublime and I think his Heart replenished with holy Love to God and great charity moderation and peaceableness toward men In so much that I heartily repent that I so far believed fame as to think somewhat hardlier or less charitably of him and his few adherents than I now hope they did deserve Hasty judging and believing fame is a cause of unspeakable hurt to the world and injury to our brethren § 2. But I find that it is no wonder that he was understood by few For 1. His sublime and philosophical notions met not with many Auditors so well studied in those things as to be capable of understanding them It is a great inconvenience to men of extraordinary discoveries and sublimity that they must speak to very few 2. And though he cloud not his matter with so many self-made names and notions as Behmen Paraâ—elsus Wigelius and some others yet those few that he hath do somewhat obscure it 3. But above all the excessive pregnancy of his wit produceth so great a superabundance of Metaphors or Allegories that about the description of Christ especially they make up almost all his style so that to any ordinary Reader his matter is not so much cloathed in Metaphors as drowned buried or lost And though I confess my wit being to his but as a barren Desart to a florid Meadow may be apt to undervalue that which it attaineth not yet I do approve of my present judgement in thinking that seeing all metaphorical terms are ambiguous he that excessively useth them befriendeth not the Truth and the hearers intellect but while he is too much a Rhetorician he is too little a good Logician aâ—d as he is hardly understood by others I should fear lest he feduce his own understanding and can scarce have clear mental conceptions of that matter which he utters by a torrent of ambiguous Metaphors if he think as he speaketh and his words be the direct expressions of his mind I had rather be instructed in the words of the most barbarous Schoolman adapted to the matter than to be put to save my self from the temptation of equivocations in every sentence which I hear and to search after that Truth which is known only naked under so florid a disguise and paint § 3. But I cannot deny that though my temptations before were very great to doubt whether the Doctrine of Universally-necessary Predetermination as delivered by Bradwardine the Dominicans Dr. Twisse Rutherford and Hobbes were indeed to be rejected the Reading of Mr. Sterry increased my temptation not by any new strength of argument which he hath brought but by the power of his pious florid Oratory by which while he entitleth God to the necessitating causation of all sin and misery he seemeth to put so honourable and lovely a cloathing on them from their relative order to God to the Universe and to their End as that I felt my hard thoughts of both to abate and I was tempted to think of them as part of the amiable consequents of the Divine Love and of the Harmâ—nious order caused by the manifold wisdom of God § 4. And by this I see of how great importance it is in the world not only what Doctrine is taught and with what proof but who speaketh it and in what manner For as I found the same things reverenced in Dr. Twisse and Rutherford which were not so in Alvarez or Jansenius or Thom. White so I found the same Doctrine of Predetermining Necessitation almost commonly brought into greater dislike by Hobbes and Benedictus Spinosa's owning it and applying it to it s too obvious uses than all In Tract Polit. Theol. argumentations had ever before brought it And I see it as likely to recover its honour by the pious and florid dress put upon it by Mr. Sterry as if some new demonstrations for it were found out § 5. If I should recite Mr. Sterries mind in his own Metaphors the Reader may not understand it If I Epitomize him and change his words some may say that I misunderstand and wrong him But I will not do it willingly and if I do it necessarily his stile is my excuse He that would be seen must come into the light § 6. The summ of that which I am now concerned in in Mr. Sterry's Treatise is That the Freedom of all things is to act according to their natures and so is that of the will of man and that in God and man Necessity and Liberty concurr and that whatever we do or will we do or will it necessarily as being moved to it by the first causâ— and a chained connexion of necessitating causes by which all things in the world are carryed on That a will not determined by God but left to a self-determination without Gods predetermining causality is not to be asserted as contrary to Gods Goodness Wisdom power c. That sin is a privation formally and all that is positive in it is directly and not by accident of Gods positive causation else with the Manichees we must hold two first causes And that the formal privation is from the wiâ—lidrawing of necessary Divine causation of the contrary and God is the Negative necessitating cause of it Even as he causeth Light by the shining of the Sun and causeth darkness by its setting or not â—hining or as he causeth substances and shadows Life and death And that all sin thus as necessarily followeth Gods not giving the contrary or his leaving the defectible Creature to itself as the darkness folâ—oweth the Lights removal And this was the entrance of sin into the world the Woman being Necessarily deceived necessarily sinned and all good and evil is thus as to necessity equally to be resolved into Gods causing and not causing Will what he will cause cannot but be and what
Opinion hold it will allow no other Religion in the World but this much To believe that moral Good and Evil are but like natural Good and Evil which God doth cause aâ— a free Benefactor differencing his Gifts in various proportions as he seeth meet as he differenceth Stars from Stones and Men from Dogs and equally causeth the wisdom of Man and the poyson of the Toad or Serpent and so will make such differences in this World and the next if there be any as pleaseth him as he doth here between one Horse that 's pampered and another that is tired out with labour Well may they cry down the Doctrine of Merit and Demerit that go this way It hath pleased God by permitting Hobbs to reduce this Principle of the Wills necessitation unto its proper practice thereby to cast more shame upon it in our Times for this Authors sake than we could have expected if none but such excellent persons as Alvarez * And more plainly yet Bradwardine who maketh the necessitating cause of Sin and Hell that God will have it so and none can resist him and his Brethren Dr. Twisse and Rutherford had maintained it But as Davenant well saith It is an Opinion of the Dominicans which Protestants have no mind to own And there are two sorts that thus subject the Will to absolute caused necessity 1. Those aforesaid the Dominicans who assist the predetermining premotion of God as necessary to every act natural and free 2. Those that make the Will as much necessitated by a train of natural second Causes which is Hobbs his way and alas the way of great and excellent healing Câ—mero For they hold That the Will is necessitated by the Intellect and the Intellect by the Object â— and God made both Will and Intellect and Object and Law And so Camero hath nothing to resolve the necessitating cause of Adams sin into but the Devil But who necessitated the Devil to sin This will be all one when it is discussed And if self-determining freedom of Will in Man be impossible it will be impossible in the Angels for they are not Gods Therefore I now deal with none but those who confess that God made Man's Will at first with a natural self-determining power and freedoâ— suited to this earthly state of government and that Adam's Will by that same measure of Grace which he had could have forborn his sin at the instant when he sinned II. The other extream which I reconcile not but confute * Yet I am not â—â—â—tating the old way of anaâ—â—â—â—a thing all the hard sayings or opinions of others that being it that I write this against of which course the Epistles of Joan. Antioch 5. 6 c. and of cyril Aâ—ix to Proâ—â—â—s against his so using Theoaâ—â— Mops in Proâ—â—â—â—â—â—â— are worth the reaâ—â—ing besides the fore named T is the Pelagians who deny Original Sin and acknowledge not the pravity of vitiated nature and consequently must deny the need of Grace in the same proportion and so far the need of a Saviour and a Sanctifier And how far this also subverteth Christianity you may perceive A. But both these Parties have a great deal of very plausible reason for their Opinions as you may see in the Domâ—nâ—oans on one side and Hobbes against Braâ—hall and in Dr. Jeremy Taylor his Treâ—â— of Repentance on the other and therefore are not to be so slighted B. I do not slight them but confute them I confess that the cases are not without difficulty yea not a little But I am surer that Religion is not to be renounced than they can be of the truth of their Opinions And do you think that if one of them had written for the Cause of â—â— liâ—n Porphyrie or Celsus against Christ that they would not have spoken as plausibly and made the case seem as difficult at least to be argumentatively answered as they here do A. Now let us here your way or terms before mentioned what they are B. II. I suppose every sober man will allow me 1. To distinguish Names and Words from Things and * Vasâ—u in 1. Tho. q. 2â— a. 3. d. 4â— c. 1. Bona pars hujuâ— controversiâ— an reprobationis detur causa ex partâ— reprobi dâ— vâ—ce est nominal Controversies from real and to that end to open the aâ—biguity of words as I go along And to â—â—ew when it is an arbitrary Logical notion or an enâ— rationâ—â— only that men contend about instead of a reality 2. I may be allowed when confusion lapeth up many doubtful questions in one to distinguish them that each may have its proper answer 3. I may be allowed to â—ast by as unfit for contention all those unâ—evealed and unsearchable Points which none of the Contenders know at all nor ever will do in this World 4. And I will take leave to lay by the rash words of particular Writers as not to be imputed to any others nor to the main Cause or as that which I am not obliged to defend reconcile nor at all to meâ—dle with 5. And when all this is done you shall see what Aâ—toâ—â— the remaining differences will prove A. Begin then with the first Article of Prâ—dâ—stination B. Remember my â—ndertaking that it is not to justifie every â—â—â—â— words that hath written on the Point and therefore I will not lose time in citing or defending Authors But produce you all your Accâ—sations as against the Cause of the sober moderate Calâ—â—â—ists and suppose me to be the person with whom you have to do The first Crimination A. 1. My first Charge is That you hold that God doth from eternity Decree to damn in Hell fire the far greatest part of men without respect See the conclusion of the Canons of the Synod at Dort where this very Charge is denied with detestation And can you tell better what men hold than they themselves Episcop Justit Theol. l. 4. Sect. 5. cap. 6. p. 412. Col. 2. 52. Sect. 2. Statuitur Deum cos secundum â—perasua judicare â—b rebellionem contumaci-am corum dolere irasci c. damâ—are c. cum tamen non modo absolute eos perirâ— peccare voluerit sed originario tali labe infectos nasci fecâ—rit unde omnia ista peccata scaturire ac fluere inevitabiliter necesse erat Quod quid aliud esse potest quam histrionica quaedam scâ—nica actio to any fore-seen Sin or cause in them but meerly because â—â—â—â— pleaseth him to do it This is your Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation B. That words may not deceive us let us in the beginning onâ—â— for all know what you mean by the word Decree A. I mean the resolution or purpose of his Will de eventâ— thaâ— this shall be B. And I suppose we are agreed 1. That Gods Will is nothing but his Essence denominated with respect to some Good as its Object 2. And there was no Object really existent from eternity
us in all this * Vid. Episcop Instit Theo. li. 4. sect 5. cap. 7. pag 415. col 1. 4. But as to presumption hereupon I answer you 1. That there is no mercy which Satan will not tempt men to abuse even Christ and the hopes of Heaven it self 2. As long as wickedness is that evil which Election decreeth to deliver us from he that is wicked may be sure that he hath not the benefit nor mark of Election and cannot have the least assurance that he is elect 3. And while he that is truly godly knoweth that he is no further elected to Salvation than he is elected to persevere in godliness this is no rational inducement to him to forsake godliness any more than to renounce Heaven but rather to conclude I am decreed to persevere in holiness therefore I must so do 4. And to pass by the Controversie of perseverance till we come to it it is as all confess so few of the Elect that are certain of their own Election that this Objection can extend but to a few 5. Lastly None are certain of their Election but such as have strong clear active Grace and evidence that believe firmly and love God much and obey him carefully And such as these are fit to improve assurance and to live in the fruits of love and gratitude Did you ever know what love and thankfulness and delight in God and holiness are and yet can you think that they are the way to sin You know nothing in Religion if you know not that they are the life and soul of true Religion and the most powerful principles of Obedience and Perseverance Nor do you understand the Gospel-design if you know not that the greatest manifestation of the love of God is the greatest means of love and thankfulness and desire and delight in God and goodness unto man The ninth Crimination A. At least thus * Suetonius saith Tiberius was a neglecter of Religion because he thought that all things were ruled by fate Fate is set up in the World and all things are under necessity and unavoidable B. You had this Objection about necessity before and to the answer of it I refer you further 1. Immutable Election doth set up but a consolatory quietting certainty in the World without which mans mind must still be in troublesome unquiet if not tormenting terrours Is it a wrong to you if you can be sure to be saved Had you rather live and die under these apprehensions I know not whether I shall be in Heaven Kipping Philonatur l. 9. c. 11. p 431. voluntas ista absoluta hominem cum effectis suis ineluctabiliter necessitat hoc est ad unum oppositorum necessario constringit determinat omnia ejus acta eventa ut non aliter evenire queant quam eveniant where he confuteth Piscators Arguments for such necessitating Decrees p. 432 c. or Hell for ever If you have not certainty or a hope that is somewhat near it I think this conclusion if you be awake and in your wits must needs make your life a constant bondage and the fear of death your constant misery and must blast all the pleasures of your fulest Prosperity Thank God that his Foundation standeth sure and the Lord knoweth who are his and see that you keep his mark upon you professing Christ and departing from iniquity And do not cry out as if you were fatally carried to Heaven against your wills 2. As for the word Fate it is ambiguous Some by fate mean but the certainty that God's Predictions shall be fulfilled Quod fatur eveniet Some mean only the certain connexion of Causes and Effects under Gods sapiential Government of the World As Campanella maketh Necessity Fate and Harmony to be the result of Power Wisdom and Love but not accurately enough And some say but how truly I know not That the Stoicks took Fate for some primary necessitating Cause which did necessitate all Acts of the Gods and Men. It is a word that we have no need of they that will play them with it may 3. But as to Necessity again I say 1. Election maketh no mans sin or misery necessary nor tendeth to it 2. It maketh no mans Salvation Thus Fewrbornius in Fascicul Disser de termino vitae useth 17 Arguments contra sententiam Calvinianam de fatali simpliciter necessario termino vitae quasi Deus ex absoluto simplici decreto absque ullo ad causas secundas physicas voluntarias respectu câ—ique hominum genus horam mortis praesixerat And all upon the encouragement of some ill and unsound words of Piscator who is most extream in this whereas this is none of the Calvinists sense commonly who hold that sin is only fore-seen and not decreed but all true means are decreed with the end in one Decree therefore respected as decreed necessary against his will in sensu composito 3. The more it maketh our Salvation necessary that is certain and insuperable the greater is Gods mercy the greater our happiness and cause of gratitude and Joy The Saints in Heaven are not offended at the certainty of their persevering blessedness If you shall Object That it necessitateth the perishing of all others because none can be saved who are not Elect. Remember that this was your third Crimination and is answered before I say again 1. Necessity and Impossibility are either Logical in ordine probandi or Physical in ordine causandi The first sort followeth upon your own Doctrine He that God fore-knoweth shall sin and perish it necessarily followeth Necessitate consequentiae and it is impossible but it should follow that he will sin and perish but not by Gods fore-knowledge Causal necessitating either taketh away the true power of escaping or depriveth of such power by prevention But so doth not the Election or Decree of God 2. Though we hold such absolute Election as hath been opened to you and that God decreeth to cause men to believe before he fore-seeth that they will believe in order of Nature according to humane Conception yet we hold as you do that Reprobation doth not so proceed but that God decreeth men to Hell only on fore-sight of final wickedness which he never caused or willed And if in this we agree with you you must accuse your selves as much as us 3. God doth both Decree to give and actually give men power to do more than they do And his decreeing that another man shall well use that power which he hath doth sure take away no power from you 4. Yea Gods not decreeing to cause you to use your own power well doth take none of it from you But includeth that such power you have much less his Decree to do more for others 5. All the World acknowledgeth that a Benefactor as such is free to give his own benefits as he pleases unequally And giving more to one taketh nothing from another Suppose that
is the greatest Lover of Sin in all the world judge by their confuted words in the former Book 1. They deny not nor can do that Love and Volitiâ—â— in God are all one Gods Love is not a Passion but his Will 2. They say that God willeth that sin exist 3. And that as summè unicè conducible to his Glory 4. And that this great conducibility is a great good 5. That God is pleased finally in what he willeth antecedently 6. And that as God is infinitely above man in his Being so is he in the greatness and power and efficacy of his Volitions 7. And that man loveth not nor willeth not evil as evil or sin as sin but for inferior good infinitely below Gods Glory for which he willeth its existence And is not this to say that he is the greatest Lover of it that is C. Yet it sticks with me that God should be the Omnipotent Governor of the World and all Sin which is the common work of the World should be without or against his Will Providence is wronged by this B. You mistake the matter 1. That he decreed to leave any men ordinarily to their Free-will under moral Government was not from impotency as if he could have made man no better or more necessary an Agent But of his Wisdom and Freedom by which he made the Bruits without Reason and Stones without Sense 2. All sin is done against the Law or commanding Will of God which determineth only of Duty and not directly of Event But it is not done against his absolute Will de eventu For God is not overcome nor frustrate of his Decrees 3. I pray you once for all remember what I have told you in the first â—ook that Gods Providence doth about mans sin and then you will â—ot say that he is Idle or neglecteth his Government unless he cause Sin I. It is God that made man an Intellectual free Agent in his own Image and the Lord of his own Acts as a Creature morally governable by Laws And so all his free power is of God who still upholdeth it II. As God is the Fons Naturae he is the Principium motus and he concurreth as the first cause to all Action as Action in genere and so to all that hath a physical entity and reality in sin And I do not believe that Aureolâ—â— Duraâ—d or Lud. à Dola thought otherwise though they differ in expressing the mode of concurse III. God giveth men all the mercies which they turn to sin and is the cause of all those Objects which they inordinately love and abuse IV. God himself concurreth with Sinners in causing the same effects which they cause also by prohibited Volitions and Actions as in generation c. even when custom giveth one name to the sin and the effect And that by all the ways fore-named and many more V. God as the Worlds Governor and Benefactor maketh mens sins the occasions of much good and ordereth and over-ruleth all Wills and Events so as not to miss of any of his ends But will attain all his ends while the Sinner seeketh his own VI. All this that God doth he decreeth to do And all that Sinners do he fore-knew And neither his Wisdom Goodness or Power is ever over-come by sin or defective in any thing about it And is not all this enough for you but yet God must be the chief willer of sin C. I confess that God can govern the sinful World by this much B. Take in but one thought more which I afterward suggest Ockam laboriously endeavoureth to prove that the outward Act hath no peculiar sinfulness in it self distinct from that of the Will I have told you my Opinion of his tenet But this is granted him that no outward Act hath any sinfulness but secondary and participative as animated by the Will and that sin is primarily in the Will alone Now in abundance of the Scripture Texts alledged by Dr. Twisse and Rutherford it is not the Will of the Sinner that God is made the Author of but seemingly of the Act indeed of the Effect Now God cannot be the cause of any mans sin unless he cause the sinful Volition But I have anticipated our Dispute of Providence in all this because it is here usually handled as the matter decreed And therefore when we come thither you must excuse me from repeating it or pardon what you put me to do The sixth Crimination C. My next offence against them is that they make Gods Will and Decrees conditional and so make God dependent upon man B. This is opened in the Second Book * Vasquez in 1. Tho. disp 91. c. 1. Cum quaeritur an divinae praedestinationis detur causa qu. non est de actu divinae voluntatis quatenus est ipsa essentia divina res increata sic notant scholastici omnes clarum enim est divinae praedestinationis hoc modo non esse causam sed est de effectibus Et perinde est quaerere causam praedestinationis ex parte nostra atque causam aliquam totiuâ— effectus praedestinationis in nobis quae effectibus illis non sit annumeranda Nam si quidpiam ponitur effectus praedestinationis nequit illud ulla ratione esse causa totius effectus In Deo 1. Ipsa essentia Dei 2. Respectus rationis ad res cognitas et volitas Hic nascitur ex objectis Ejus igitur possunt esse causae Indeed they differ not from the Synodists or Dr. Twisse himself I think in this That is 1. They hold that God hath made conditional Donations Promises and Threatnings in his Word 2. And that God may truly be said to Will and Decree his own Word and all that is in it with its conditional mode 3. And as Aquinas and Twisse and all say Deus vult hoc esse propter hoc sed non hoc vult esse propter hoc Gods Will doth not depend on the Condition but Gods Will is that the Effect or Event shall depend on the Condition When the Condition is performed it is not a medium of Gods Volition but of the Effect 4. But yet this all must confess that as to the bare extrinsick denomination from the Object as Gods Will is variously denominated from things past present and future so it may be from absolute and conditional Grants and Promises which you will not deny but God hath made 5. And in case of sin and damnation sin fore-seen is an objective condition disposition or qualification sine qua non of such as Gods velle damnare is immediately terminated on as they confess at the Synod at Dort and Molinaeus there openeth in his judgment at large C. But this decreeing upon fore-sight of somewhat in man maketh God to follow the Creature and depend upon it B. It maketh him no way dependant at all For the Creature neither causeth any Act of God nor hindreth him from any thing which he would do It is
yet hereby confesseth that he willeth or decreeth that permission You say then that he decreeth to permit mens unbelief and this is all that the Synod saith of non-Election or leaving men out of the number of the Elect. 2. If you yourselves believe all this with what face can you oppose the same in others If you do not either you believe that none are Infidels and damned or you believe that God doth not permit it to be so but it is done by conquering his Omnipotency or else you know not what you believe choose which you will 3. Do you really differ as Episcopius pretendeth about the cause of Reprobation As to the cause of Damnation all are agreed that sin is the true meritorious cause The question is only of Gods Will or Decree of it And it is not of his sententia prolata or Decree pronounced by Christ in Judgment for of that also it is agreed that sin is the meritorious cause Your oft recurring to your Objections when they have been fully answered puts me on the rediousness of repeating the same Answers Gods * The cause of Gods Will in reprobating Will is considered either ex parte volentis essentially or as extrinsically denominated from the connotation of the Object In the first sense you have not yet declared your selves to deny the common Doctrine of the Christian World that Gods Will is his undivided most simple Essence and that God hath no cause and so his Will in it self hath no cause that in God there is nothing but God Dare you say that a Creature made God yea that so base a thing as Sin made him How then doth it cause his Will which is himself Is Gods Will such a mutuable thing as mans And is it not the first cause of all things And shall men pretending to Learning reproach others for not assigning a cause of the first cause and that Sin which is baser than a Creature causeth the Creator But if you speak of Gods Will as denominated by connotation of the Object mark what we grant you viz. that as thus only Gods Will or Volitions are denominated diverse so are they denominated to be of this or that sort and numerically also distinguished And so they may be said to have a cause but not an efficient cause but only an * Arminius and Arnoldus Corvinus frequently affirm that Faith is not the cause of Gods Election to Glory but only a condition in the object objective cause And what Cause is an Object To let pass the Error of many Logicians it is only as an Object a material constitutive cause at least here And so sin is the objective material cause of that extrinsical denomination and relation of Gods Will called Reprobation to damnation It is that dispositio objecti which is essential to the Object And so as Gods Will may any way be said to have a cause we will say freely after the manner of men that sin is the objective cause of the Decree of damnation And speak now with shame can you say more or less Do you or any of us that are sober and understand our selves differ at all in this 4. And you cheat your selves and others more in saying Not from any ill desert of theirs more than others When if you would speak congruously you should only say that when all deserved to be utterly forsaken God effectually prevaileth with the Wills of his Elect not for any good desert of theirs above others You would infinuate that God must punish no man unless he deserve worse than every man whom he forgiveth which is false Do you not your selves believe that all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God and that God might justly have let them perish Do you not hold your selves that all men are guilty of resisting or sinning against Grace it self as well as against Nature and that God may justly with-hold his Grace from the Rejecters of it and if he did so by all he did not wrong them If God then leave not all as he might do but resolve to prevail with some infallibly do you represent this mercy as if it were cruelty to others What if it be apparent that you your selves charge God with as much of that which you call cruelty to all the World as the Synod doth to the Reprobate alone or as many of us do For they do but say that God leaveth the Reprobate to their own free Wills And you say that he doth so by all the World You say that God giveth all men that hear the Gospel so much Grace as that they may have Christ and Salvation if they will And they say so too as confidently as you do Tell me if you can then what Mercy or Grace you plead for as common more than they you cannot tell me And will you wrangle as if you differed when you do not Only they say and think that they give more to Gods Grace as to the Elect than you do which is to be examined anon And then you will quarrel about the Cause of the first Cause the Will of God and dream of it as if it were like the Will of Man which is an effect and that of many Causes Is it not enough for you that sin is the cause of all punishment but it must also be the efficient cause of Gods Will which is God Yet again I tell you that all sobeâ— men will agree with you that Gods Volitions of extrinfick Objects viz. Reprobations denominate not Gods Essence as such for we use not to say God is Reprobation or Election but only his Essence as terminated ad extra And to gratifie you to the utmost we distinguish an operating efficient Cause from a recipient Cause And we maintain that a Sinner is the recipient Cause of Gods damning Volition or Reprobation As shutting the Windows is the cause that my Room is dark and opening them is the cause that they are light not by causing the Sun to shine but by receiving or not receiving it so man is a receiving Cause of the Effects of Gods Will and Operation and of the Will and Operation it self as extrinsically denominated and diversified by the Effects But this recipient Cause is nothing but cause materialis objectiva which hath two parts the ipsa materia and the materiae dispositio Take not on you still to differ where you do not The third Crimination A. * Of that Deus vult omnes salves fieri saith Alliaco 1. q. 14. F. 1. Potest exponi de voluntate signi vult id est praecipit vel obligat c. 2. Si exponitur de voluntate beneplaciti potest intelligi de Vol. antecedente 3. Si de Vol. beneplaciti proprie dicta debet intelligi ut dicit Magister i. e. nulli salvantur nisi quos Deus vult salvari 4. Vel de generibus singulorum sed at singulis generum By denying Universal Redemption they deny that
I pray you tell me A. It is an idle question For that is but necessitas existentiae He that is ungodly is necessarily ungodly while he is so B. II. VVe hold moreover that the same man will certainly all that time omit the prevalent love of God and all acts proper to the godly A. That 's but the same else he were a godly man B. III. VVe hold also that yet this man may forbear many acts of sin and do many things commanded and so is not under a vicious necessity of committing all Sin or omitting all Duty IV. VVe hold also that his vicious necessity of disposition is curable and not remediless and desperate V. VVe hold also that it is not curable without Gods saving sanctifying Grace proportioned to his disease or pravity VI. VVe hold also that God hath appointed every man certain Duties and Means to be used in order to his cure VII VVe hold that he giveth much outward help and some inward commoner Grace antecedent usually to sanctifying Grace by which much of these Duties and Means may be used VIII And we hold that God appointeth no means in vain nor commandeth any unprofitable Duty or which man hath not sufficient encouragement to use with hope of success and is not unexcuseable if he neglect Do you differ from us in any of this Or is there any thing more that we must have to be capable of your love and concord A. Though I granted you a necessitas existentiae that a wicked mans life while such be wicked in the main for that is but to say that a wicked man is a wicked man yet I grant you not a necessitas effecti as if his pravity made his wicked life unavoidable or necessary as a necessitating cause B. His wicked life is considerable 1. As to his inward actings or to his outward 2. As to the immediate or next Acts and as to the remote 3. And the necessity is voluntary or involuntary And so I say 1. He is under no natural or involuntary necessity but under a * Etsi Amor ille non excedat vires physicaâ— voluntatis humanae per se spectatae eas tamen superat si spectentur difficultates quae occurant Unde fit ut sine speciali auxilio non possit ad actum reduci naturalis inclinatio Dâ—um super omnia diligendi Non potest homo credere mysteria â—fidei â—t oportet ad salutem sine gratiae auxilio etiam quum sufficienter sunt proposita probatum a Deo esse revelatum Non potest homo servare quoad substantiam ullum praeceptum affirmativum supernaturale de interno actu sine auxilio gratiae etiam de singulis Pet. a S. Joseph Thes general de aux p. 81. 82 83. vicious inclination or habit which will produce some effects certainly and others uncertainly 2. The certain effects of the habitual privation of the love of God and enmity to him and to holiness is that his Soul will not in statu praesenti immediately nor till it be cured or over-swayed by a superior cause â— love God above all nor love holiness nor live a holy life Because the Soul will not go contrary to its habitual inclination without somewhat to over-power that habit An effect will not be contrary to the fixed inclination of its cause 3. And another certain effect of a Soul predominantly habituated to sensâ—ality is that it will live a sensual life constantly as to the bent of inward Volitions and ordinarily as occasion serveth in outward actions 4. But being not so necessitated to every Sin nor against every Duty and means of Cure this Soul is not under a necessity of so continuing uncured Now if it be the present voluntary ascertaining Disposition which you deny then 1. You must hold that an Enemy of God can immediately love him above all and live a holy life 2. And that there is some cause in a man most habitually sensual by which he can forbear both the inward desires and outward acts of sensuality which are contradictions to him that knoweth what a prevalent fixed habit is 3. And that all wicked Enemies of God have in them a cause that can immediately cure all their own enmity and pravity without Gods Spirit of Grace or else have his Spirit and Grace immediately at an instant at command And if all a mans Original Sin and contracted habits be so easily laid by at any minute the cure seemeth much easier than the depravation which perhaps hath been a long time growing to that strength which is contrary to all the Worlds experience As it is easier to kindle a fire in the City than to quench it and to catch the Plague or any Disease than to cure it or to wound the Body than to heal it or to pull down a House than to build it to drown a Ship than to make it c. So all Ministers Tutors Parents Christians yea persons find how wofully hard it proveth to cure one Sin To cure the Ignorant the Unbelieving the Hard-hearted the Proud the Lustful the Covetous the Passionate much more the malignant Enemies of God and holiness What need of the sanctification of the Holy Ghost or the medicinal Grace of Christ if the very depraved Will can do all in a moment of it self and depose its enmity A. You speak to me as if I were a Pelagian I am not for any of this But will rather yield to what you say B. II. And as for your second Charge * Vid. quae haâ—â—t Ruiz de praedefin tr 2. d. 8. per tot de necessitate vaga consistentâ— cum libertate secundum quid Et a. 9. p. 137. That all good actions are fore decreed of God proved and multitudes cited that defend it that they assert unresistible necessitating Grace I pray you leave it to the Fourth Article which is its proper place to avoid repetition But here let me remember you by the way 1. That not to love God not to believe not to repent not to live holily are no Acts and therefore no Effects of power but a privation 2. That therefore Gods causing a man to love him to Believe to Repent to be Holy is not to deprive him of any power but to give him act and power 3. Therefore it is not a depriving him of any true Liberty For true Liberty is the Liberty of some faculty or power 4. But if you will call a voluntary Impotency and Viciousness by the name of a free-power then God taketh away such Power by giving us Power and such Liberty by making us free But proceed to the next Crimination The second Crimination A. * The Arminians say that God giveth a supernatural power even to the Will it self and that by immediate operation Synod art 3. 4. p. 15 c. And they add Mente illuminata voluntati concessa supernaturali potentia partim per illuminationem partim per virium immediatam insusionem
usu ut in auditâ— verbi cum attentione meditatione virâ—ute sua efficaci singulis excitis liberrime sine coactionis impulsu raptâ— nova luce accensa in mente nova vero virtute voluntati communicata c. Qui assentiuntur obsequâ—ntur spiritui sancto virtute ejusdem id faciunt non tamen sine actione motu annixu Id. p. 722. Still note that the Grace called sufficient is that which giveth the Power without the Act Therefore as many things concur to denominate us able so do they to sufficiency of Grace Malderus in 12. qu. 111. â— 3. d. 3. saith Recte quidam eruditus annotavit neque praedicationem aut excitationem externam neque internam illuminationem intellectus simpliciter esse gratiam sufficientem quamvis in sâ—o genere quaeque sufficiens dici potest c. sed voluntas per boni affectus aspirationem supernaturali motione excitanda est Our Bradward shortneth all the Controversie li. 13. cor p. 208 109. telling us that Gods Will is the cause of every future and so of the future form of sin and that if there were no God there would be no Impossibile Whereas I think there would be nothing but impossibles For it would be impossible that any thing should ever be But there would be no propositions de impossibili Nay he talks of a non-posse esse impossibile and calls this mirum corrollarium Adrian Quodl 3. fol. 16. Quis duplicitur potest crederese a peccatis abstinere non posse 1. Quod non posset sine speciali Dei gratia adjutorio sic non errat 2. Absolute credendo se non abstinere posse a peccata aut non posse ad vitandum peccata a Deo sufficiens auxilium impetraâ—â— etiamsi fecerit quod in se est Et hic error est species infidelitatis opposita fidei ad quam obligatur credendo Deum juste pie miscricorditer mundum gubernare Illi-enim manifestissime repugnat apud nunquemque sanae mentis Deum homini imputare ad culpam ad quod vitandum nec dedit nec dare paratus est sufficientem facultatem homini inquam facienti totum quod in se est medium helps concauses c. B. You say true But remember still that this is from no change in the natural faculty as you confess For it was never in any man a power e. g. to act without dependance on God nor to act without an Object in Specie nor to act on an incongruous uncapable Object nor without a due medium and necessary concauses Now if you mean that the change is not on mans faculties but on the Objects Medium Causes c. that men do not love God while unholy you are notoriously mistaken For it is Sin that hindereth And God is the same God and Christ the same Christ and the Word the same and oft the preaching the same to a Believer and an Unbeliever So that though outward helps and hinderances do much the inward cause is most considerable And if all were right within it were no sin in us to be disabled by outward changes It is no sin not to hear without a Preacher or not to see that which is invisible or not to understand that which is not Intelligible or not to love that which is not Amiable or that which is by distance or unfit mediums made no Object of our Acts no more than not to touch the Moon or not to see into the bowels of the Earth Therefore though it 's true that the Will is related as a power to capable Objects and not as a power to things that by incapacity are no Objects yet the change that is made on it self by Sin and Grace doth not make it no power and a power in this natural essential sense It is one thing that is called natural power or faculty and another thing that is called Aright disposition or habit Therefore as to the first the Soul of every man hath a true natural power to repent believe and love God and they omit it not for want of natural power but of something else A. Call it then a moral power if you will B. We must so call it But you must know what that is It is not a power of the same sort with the natural power The very word Power is equivocal or analogous to them Else Grace should increase the Essence of the Soul or make a man to be more a man than he was before And Dr. Twisse derideth the Arminians for saying that potentia fundatur in potentia viz. Moralis in naturali which were very just if it were powers of the same kind that were spoken of but now being otherwise it is unjust for no doubt but potentia moralis is in potentia naturali as health is in the Body Quest 4. But I further ask you Do you think that any men do now in an unregenerate state love God above all and live a holy heavenly life yea or effectually and savingly believe by the meer power of their natural faculties till they are changed A. No that 's a contradiction to be unholy and holy I am none of those Pelagians that make Grace unnecessary to mans cure B. Are you not convinced then that where the natural power is existent something is wanting without which the acts of Holiness will not be performed Tell me then what that is A. That which is wanting to a man that hath sufficient Grace is nothing but his own Concurrence or Will For without any special Grace differing from sufficient he can believe But that which is wanting to them that have it not is sufficient Grace it self for believing which they want for abusing the antecedent Grace sufficient for preparation B. We speak not now of Grace as efficient ex parte Dei agentis But of Grace as it is in us or an effect of the former what is it in man that is wanting to believing Is it a natural Power or a right Disposition or what A. Till a man have sufficient Grace to believe it is proper strength or power it self that he wanteth and sufficient Grace is such a power But when he hath it he wanteth nothing but the Act which he can excite and doth not B. I confess I find Arminius Arnoldus Corvinus and others granting that all men are unable to believe till Grace enable them and more than so saith Arnoldus There is more strength or power necessary now to believe in Christ than was necessary to Adam to keep all the Law partly because of the mysteriousness of Faith and partly because we must first be restored to a new ability which requireth more power than to keep what we had A sly equivocation turning the question from the potentia operata to the potentia operans If it did require more power in the efficient so to renew us it followeth not that he thereby putteth more power into us than Adam had But Gods Power hath no degrees
of common Grace 2. And Reason as specially illuminated and the Will as freed from Sin are special Grace But now you see the injury of your Charge will you search and fear lest even by contending it 's you that have run into worser than the Error which you declaim against as other mens Is it not you that call a great deal of Gods Grace by the name of Nature yea sometimes of Wrath and as I before evinced deny much common Grace to be any Grace at all And who wrongeth God more He that honoureth his Works of Nature with an undue title of Grace or he that utterly dishonoureth his Grace and saith that it is no Grace The third Crimination C. They make Grace to be but a moral Operation or swasion and seem to deny that physical operation which is eminently Grace or at least take it to be but a physical use of moral means And indeed I doubt whether some of them confess any other Grace than the Gospel and other means of Grace And so the Spirit must work only on the Preacher or on the sound of words if he work not immediately and physically on the heart * The untruth of this common Charge appeareth in the following citations Vocatio ista tum externa est tum interna externa per ministerium hominum verbum proponentium Interna per operationem spiritus sancti illuminantis cor afficientis ut attendatur iis quae dicuntur fidesque verbâ— adhibeatur ex utriusque concursu efficacitas vocationis existit I st a distributio non est generis in speciâ—s sed totius in partes hoc est totalis â—ocationis in partiales actiâ—nes c. Armin Disput Privat Thes 42. Sect. 10 11. Remonst Synod art 3. 4. p. 15 c. Si quaeratur ex nobis an Dei convertentis actio tantum moralis sit suadendo proponendo inviâ—ando Respondemus Plusquam moralem esse si excitantem spectemus gratiam dicimus in ipsam voluntatem quoque potentiam supernaturalem insundi distinctam ab illuminatione si vero co-operantem dicimus cam physicam vocari posse realem ac propriam habere efficientiam Note here their plain profession of physical and infused Grace Si quaeratur an praeter mentis illustrationem â—ffectuum excitationem voluntatis invitationem nihil faciat Gratia per modum principii vel antecedenter ad conversionem Respondemus facere Id. ibid. B. Still I fear that you are guilty of striving about words to no profit but subversion of the peoples Charity 1. Moral hath usually three different senses 1. Moral is as much as Reputative As he that concealeth or encourageth a Traytor or Murderer or defendeth not the assaulted is ex lege morum reputed and judged as guilty of the Treason or Murder And thus causa moralis is usually but causa ex lege morum reputata 2. Moral is oft taken for Ethical or that which is ex genere moris either Good or Evil Virtue or Vice which contain all morality 3. Moral is oft opposed to meerly natural forced bruitish c. and meaneth the action of a free Agent as such In which of these senses or what other do you take it C. I mean the first that God doth but operate ut causa moralis per modum proponentis objectum which Dr. Twisse saith is but in genere causae finalis and so is but operatio metaphorica B. It 's pity that Christ's Disciples must be troubled with such uncertain arbitrary notions without necessity But what remedy 1. I know no Law that forbiddeth me to dissent from Dr. Twisse or you in Logick or Physicks I do not believe that objectum qua tale is causa finalis And no wonder For 2. I hold that to be no proper cause which you call commonly causa finalis And instead of advancing each Object to the dignity of a final cause I take down the final cause to the order or rank of the prime Object of Volition or Intention To be optimum is the Ratio objectiva primaria it being most suitable to the Will To be medium ad optimum is the Ratio objectiva secundaria Bonum qua tale non agit in voluntatem sed voluntas in bonum cognitum Though the cognitio boni doth dirigere voluntatem When it is commonly said Ob finem amatum volo medium the preposition deceiveth us as if the causalitas sinis were upon the Will But it meaneth no more but that the Aptitude of the means ad finem is the Ratio bonitatis and so the Ratio objectiva medii I will or choose it because it is apt or conducible to the end or chief object that is That it is Goodness for which I will it Which speaketh no more but Rationem objectivam 3. And all objects of the intellect and will are causes indeed of the act in specie but what causes Receptive and Terminative such as we must call Material so far as an act may be said to have matter of which more anon And if the object be no other than a material or receptive cause constituting the act in specie then the proposer of the object who operateth but in subservience to it can be no other than a preparer and offerer of the matter But how great a hand this receptive cause hath in the mutations and diversities in the world is little considered by the most 2. But I pray you tell me How many and whom do you find that hold that God doth no more but proponere objectum I remember none C. What say they less when they call it Moral suasion when suadere is but proponere objectum B. So then your accusations are your own Inferences and not their words But do they not commonly tell you of an inward suasion by the Spirit and Conscience as well as an outward by the word C. Yes they do so but that inward is but suasion still B. But are you sure that by suasion they mean nothing but proposing the Object to the Intellect and by it the Will C. What else can they mean if they speak congruously B. As far as I can understand them they mostly differ not from the Synodists at all in their meaning much less do the School-men and Lâ—therans who use not the word suasion so much as they For the thing that they mean is 1. That Gods Spirit worketh on the Intellect by objective means though not only propounding that object but also assisting and exciting the mind 2 That by the apprehension of the Intellect the wills object is offered to it And as Camero copiously pleadeth the act of the will is ever excited by the act of the Intellect Or indeed the object is so aptly presented as that the will shall or may either by Natural or Gracious Inclination excite it self supposing Gods assistance But that the will is not moved to any but an Apprehended Good 3. And that God doth this work on the will in
And the sum of his opinion about the nature and cause of our holy actions is 1. That Gods universal influx or causation is necessary on our will to make them acts 2. That Free-Will is the cause that they are these particular acts about this object rather than another 3. That Gods particular or special influx of Grace is the cause that they are supernatural acts And that preventing Grace doth give men good thoughts and the first motion of the affections before deliberation and choice or liberty as Vasquez also saith which seemeth the same with the Doctrine of Ockam Buridane and the rest of the Nominals who call it Complacency as antecedent to Election yea and Intention To be pleased with the thing simply on the first apprehension they call a necessary natural act Though the Scotists say that quoad exercitium actus vel libertatem contradictionis even that is free And it seems the same which Augustine and Jansenius call primam aelectationem But converting Grace it self Molina takes to be a habit wrought by Gods special help in and with the word or means His words are of men that are hearing Gods Word or thinking on it Influit Deuâ— in â—easdem notitias inâ—luxâ— quodam particulari ac supernaturali quo cognitionem illam adjuvat tum ut res melius dilucidius expendatur peâ—etret â—umâ—etiam ut notitia illa jam limites notitia supernaturalis ad finem supernaturalom in suo ordine attingat Inde oritur in voluntate motus affectionis c. Yet no Jesuite is supposed to go further from the Calvinists than this man In truth I cannot perceive but that Jesuites Arminians Lutherans and all such are willing to ascribe as much to Gods Grace as they think consistent with mans Free-will and Gods not being the cause of sin which is the same thing that the Calvinists also endeavour thoughâ—hey seem not to hit on the same names and notions to do the thing desired save themselves and those that hear them 1. Tim. 4. 16. And that he that converts a sinner doth save a soul from death James 6. ult And that the word is the immortal incorruptible seed by which we are begotten again and which remaineth in us Are you now in doubt of this C. It is one thing for God to work with the Word and another thing to work by the Word The first we confess But if God work by the Word then he must operate first on the Word which is the Preachers act and so by that Word on the soul and not immediately Therefore I rather think that the word is a concomitant than an instrumental cause B. 1. You wrong your self and Christ in that you will not believe him John 3. that we mortals know not the way and manner of the Spirits accesses and operations on the soul any more than the cause of the wind whose sound we hear Do you not know that you do not know how Gods Spirit moveth our intellect and wills and how he maketh use of instruments except secundum quid in some particles revealed 2. An hundred Texts of Scripture which I omit lest I be tedious tell us that the Word is a means or subordinate cause to God of his informing and reforming operations on mens souls And it 's dangerous to dream of any second cause that is so concomitant as to be but co-ordinate with the first cause and not subordinate to it And the word is not only subordinate to God as Instituter by Legislation and Declaration but also to God as efficient operator 3. God can work two ways by the Word which are within our reach besides others 1. As it is the act of the speaker by exciting and illuminating him 2. As it is the species as they call it received by the senses and imagination which God can by his power set home to the attainment of the due effect 4. And yet I know not any or many of your Adversaries that deny that besides this Divine operation by the VVord God hath another immediately on the soul exciting it to operate upon the VVord as the vis plastica vitalis materna operatur in semen jam receptum But I will here forbear to trouble you with the physical difficulties whether the VVord heard be only objectum intellectus or also causa efficiens as light is both to the eye And whether it be operative on the intellect or only terminative with other such like C. Well I must grant you that all Infused Faith as to the act is Acquired But all Acquired Faith not Infused but infusion is added to our own endeavours like the creation of the humane soul B. I am glad that we are got so far on towards peace But Quest. 4. What mean you by Infusion Is it not a Metaphor C. Yes and we mean that immediate perswasion of God which you even confess to be besides his operation by the Word and by our Cogitations Even a Creation of an act or habit B. Quest. 5. Is it the name Infusion or the thing that you plead for C. The name though I confess Metaphors must not be used unnecessarily in Disputes is yet convenient but that I leave indifferent B. Quest 6. Do you not think that the act of Faith is the act of mans own Intellect and Will or Soul and that immediately C. Yes that cannot be denied B. If so then when you say that our act is Infused I hope you will confess the term to be none of the plainest and you only mean that Gods Grace doth so operate on the faculty as to excite it so to act and consequently that the thing first and properly infused is not the act of Faith it self but the vis impressa facultatem before described by which the act is caused And so in a secondary sense the act may be called Infused but not most immediately C. I confess it is the habit which we commonly take to be Infused and therefore we use to distinguish habitus infusos ab habitibus acquisitis rather than actus infusos ab actibus acquisitis B. Is that Habit before the Act or after it C. You know that it is a Controversie among our selves Mr. Pemble saith it is before and the common opinion is that it is after the first special Act. B. 1. I once received that from Mr. Pemble ignorantly But that cometh to us by not distinguishing the vis impressa or first received influx of the spirit from a Habit when as Amesius well saith it is fitter called semen fidei vel dispositio quaedam than a Habit of Faith For 1. no man can prove such an antecedent habit and therefore none should assert it 2. The true nature of a Habit consisteth in a promptitude to perform that special act with facility But that we should have such a promptitude and facility not only while we are Infant Christians but no Christians as having not yet believed in Christ is not probable according to our
the production of Faith and Holiness So it is the will of God that they shall have answerable noble special effects which effects besides his operation on and by the means the said Volition of God it self produceth immediately operating on the Soul not as a meer volition alone but as conjunct with his Wisdom and Vital Power or Activity by which he operateth all in all I could here say that God doth concur with these supernatural means on his Elect with a stronger greater special energy force or influx But I am loth to deceive you with bare words for this force energy or efflux is either God or something created God operateth by that Wisdom Will and Power or Activity which are his Essence therefore there are here no degrees in any operation And in the effects the degrees are not denied The sum of all is then but this natural effects are natural effects and Faith is Faith the difference we partly perceive the means also are various but in God the operator there is no diversity And so you may see what the stir about Infusing and Acquiring is come to C. I dare not deny this because it is agreed on by all Philosophical Divines and I should be called a Blasphemer if I affirmed any real diversity in God at least besides the Trinity of Persons called by the School-men Real Relations and by some real modes of being But it surpasseth mans understanding to conceive that the same cause no way differing ex parte sui should produce variety of effects By which it seemeth that when there was nothing but God his love to Jacob and his hatred to Esau his decree to save and to damn his will to make the world and to destroy it his fore-knowledge of good and evil had no real difference at all And is it not somewhat of a lye then in us to call those acts different or by different names which really have not the least difference at all But of this before B. God were not God if mans shallow wit could comprehend him All this must be confest unless you will be a Vorstian But if our conceptions be not false our diversity of names here is no lye because we intend but to denominate Gods knowledge and decrees or will but by the relative connotation of the things known and willed And though those things were nothing before the Creation and so the difference between Gods Decrees c. was really none at all and the esse cognitum was nothing but Gods simple Essence Yet as Greg. Armin. hath disputed there be some kind of Relations which are nothing themselves and consequently denominations which may be terminated on nothing as praeteritu futura are But if your understanding rest not here do as I do rest in a necessary and willing ignorance and be but so wise as not to trouble the Church with that which you know not nor imitate them that can shew the valour of their raging zeal by Writing or Preaching against them as the enemies of the Grace of God which dote not as confidently as themselves C. But what say you to Dr. Twisse 's words against Hord l. 1. p. 156. Albeit it be not in the power of nature to believe fide infusa yet is it in the power of nature to believe the Gospel fide acquisita which depends partly on a mans Education and partly on Reasons considering the credibility of the Christian way by light of natural observations above all other ways in the world B. 1. * Pet. a S. Joseph Thes univers de Grat. habit p. 86. Datur aliquod donum Gratiae Divinitus infusum quod post operationem in anima nostra habitualiter permanet Dari gratiam habitualem jam videtur esse de fide post Concil Tridentiâ— antea tamen non erat habitus gratia sanctificantis realiter a charitate distinguitur which others deny Gratia habitualis constituit hominem in statu supernaturali c. The Reader that will peruse Casp Peucer's Hist Carcer pag. 692 693 c. may see that the Luthorans were more for Infusion and miraculous operations of Grace and may see a handsom explication of Conversion and the operation of the Word and Sacraments and pag. 698. De viribus humanis in renascentibus renatis dum fit conversio deinceps ad sinem Credo quod gratuiti beneficii ac meriti Christi salvatoris applicatio naturae mortuae vivifitatio in regeneratione non fit actione physica brâ—ta aut raptu Enthâ—stastico aut Stoica coactione aut Magico affâ—atu verbi Sacramentorum sp sancti Neâ— mutatione Physica aut Mâ—gica hyperphysica substantiâ— temperamenti viriuâ— seu facultatem hâ—minis sentientis quidem nec moventis se nec quiâ—quam agentis sed sustinentis tantum impressionem ut subjectum pations sicut ranâ— reviviscunt a tepore solis c. By this you may see what this excellent man Melanâ—â—hons Son-in-law suffered his ten years cruel imprisonment for by the instigation of Schmidelinus and other Lutherans to their perpetual shame and who was then as the Papists still are most for Physical infusions ex opâ—re operato in Word and Sacraments Not only he but all the School-men distinguish acquired and infused Faith But though the names sound otherwise the difference meant by them is in the effects only and the means and not in God He meaneth that a slight ineffectual belief may be performed by that disposition or moral power which is found before special Grace as excited by good Education and helps But an effectual saving Faith must be the product of a special impress of Gods Spirit on the Soul which is a special disposition and moral power to that act And this is true And no more can be truly meant or said 2. But I will tell you a mystery added oft by Dr. Twisse which may much moderate your judgment about the cause of mens condemnation if it be true He holdeth that no man is condemned for want of an infused Faith C. How why no man is condemned at least that hath the Gospel but for want of it For if it be only an infused Faith that justifieth then it is the want of an infused Faith by which men are unjustified And if as you say Infused and effectual or special Faith be all one sure men are condemned for want of special effectual Faith B. His words are these against Hord l. 1. p. 156. Neither have I ever read or heard it taught by any that men shall be damned for not believing fide infusa which is as much as to say because God hath not regenerated them but either because they refused to believe or else if they have embraced the Gospel for not living answerable thereunto which also is in their power quoad exteriorem vitae emendationem though it be not in their power to regenerate their wills and change their hearts any more than it is to illuminate their minds Yet I
have reason to conceive that he doth some such thing in the methods of Grace as he doth in nature viz. That he hath instituted a frame of means which are the established way in and with which he will convey his Grace And that he hath decreed to concur with a certain congruous universal influx which shall afford to all such a degree of suscitating illuminating and converting attractive force as his wisdom seeth meet to be the established measure for the redeemed World And this universal Influx is the sole efficient of all the good that is found in the redeemed But 1. It is but a certain convenient proportion and therefore will not do all that God can do nor do the same on one man as on another nor at one time as at another on the same man 2. And recipitur ad modum recipientis The diversity of second effects may oft be most assigned to the diversity of receptive Dispositions It is a wonder to see how the same causes variously work on mens minds that are dispositively diversified but by some preconceived opinion You Remonstr Declar. p. 17. Huic sua conversionâ— homo ex insita sibi pravitate in res mundanas affectu obicem impedimentum liberum opponere potest ponit sape five voluntas praedicationem Evangelii externam neglegat susque dequeâ—abeat tum quum ejus audiendi copiae fit homini aut auditum verbum perfunctorie traâ—â—â—t magis rebus mundanis intentus aut aliâ— modo impediat quo minue ipsi doctrina Evangelicâ— veritas necessitas utilit as a spiritu sâ—persuadeatur sivt verbo assentiatur sed voluntatem c. laxatis carni babenis spiritum extinguat spiritui resistat bona desideria cogitationesque sâ—pius calituâ— infusas oblatas volent elidat extermenet may see two men learned sober pious in doubt whether the Arminians or Calvinists the Conformists or Non-conformists yea perhaps the Papists or Protestants be in the right One is before hand more inclined one way and the other the other way yea perhaps not inclined in will but have received in judgment a great apprehension that some one Principle is right which more induceth to one side than the other They both pray and meditate and resolve to read and search the Scripture and Controversal Writings with all possible diligence and impartiality They set upon it and one seeth all along as he goeth the fullest evidence as he thinketh for the one side and the other seeth all go on the other side through the difference of Receptive disposition I have had sufficient notice of two Non-Conformist Ministers that had favoured in mind the late cause of the Parliament in the Civil War and by the face of the dreadfulness and heynousness of the guilt if it should prove that their cause was bad were brought to resolve to do all that possibly they could to be resolved They both set themselves to Fast and Pray they searched the whole Scripture read over the Statute-Book and all the Common Law-Books and Cases that they could get and all the History of our ancient Government and of our late Transactions they read what was said on both sides and one saw all as clear as the light go for the King against the Parliament wondering that any should make a doubt of it and the other though still not fully certain was more confirmed in his old apprehensions the other way yet both learned able judicious godly and truly desirous to know the truth and many and many years begged it of God and unweariedly followed on the search and no carnal interest I am fully perswaded made the difference And what then shall we ascribe it all to immediate operations of God without any more ado No as far as I could perceive the difference arose from hence One of them was first deeply possessed with the sense of Gods late Judgments Spiritual and Corporal on the Religious party which adhered to the Parliament and thought these Judgments indicated their sin Their Scandal Divisions Confusions Matual Censures and Errors were still before his eyes and the Laws of Order and Government and Obedience and Patience lay in greatest power on his heart The other lookt all abroad the world to Infidel Heathen Mahometan and Popish Kingdoms and thought that tyranny was the grand sin on the earth which kept out the Gospel and consequently Godliness and Salvation from the generality of mankind that kept up Popery and kept out Reformation that silenced powerful Preachers Suffrag Theol. Britt in Synod Dord art 3. 4. Sunt quaedam effecta interna ad conversionem praevia quae virtute verbi spiritusque in nondum justificatorum cordibus excitantur qualia sunt notitia vâ—luntatis divinae sensus peccati timor poenae cogitatio de liberatione spes aliqua veniae Quos Deus mediante verbâ— per spiritum sâ—um hunc in modum afficit eos ad fidem conversionemque vere serio vocat invitat Quos ita afficit Deus non deserit nec desistit in vera ad conversionem via praemovere priusquam ab illis per neglectionem voluntariam art hujus gratiae initialis repulsam deseratur and kept up Ignorance that most served Satan and fed the jaws of Hell He thought of all the inhumane consequents of unrestrained Tyranny He read Politicks more than the other and read more of the Greek and Roman History and regarded more the Judgment of the several Parties and Religions among mankind and he fell upon Bilson and Hooker the chief Prelatists and he thought that Gods Judgments consequential to those Wars had been incomparably less than the mercies and benefits and that there were now proportionably multitudes more of Godly Ministers and People than there were before the Wars And these different pre-conceptions and pre-possessions made them have quite different Interpretations of all the Scriptures the Statutes the Law Books c. which they read And as the Proverb is As the Fool thinketh so the Bell tinketh So it is wonderful to see in all things how much the divers disposition of the Recipients doth occasion diversity of effects from the same cause C. But I hope you would not make us believe that all diversification is from man Though the Sun be but an universal cause yet God is also a particular cause and a specifying and who is it else that caused that diversity in the Creatures which turneth the Suns universal Influx into various effects As God created the variety of Recipients so he doth by Grace diversifie mans Receptive dispositions B. These are weighty matters and deeply to be considered with many thoughts and cautelous sobriety We have two questions fallen before us 1. How far Gods Grace is resistible 2. How God or man do cause diversities Though I have been drawn on to speak much to the last it is here but in order to the resolving of the first The last is to be spoke to
I see more than ever I before observed that God indeed hath set up a Sun an universal medium a Christ who in our nature is a Creature to be the Donor and Convey or of all Recovering Grace to man and to give out the Spirit in that stated order and measure as is suitable to his design and Subjects And as on earth he gave out much light and help which was resisted and rejected I now less wonder that it is so now he is in heaven even as to his Spirit as well as his Word When I consider that though God be Infinite his Grace is given out to mankind finitely by a finite Creature Christ as man even as God shineth to us not immediately but by the Sun I will no more then account it an injury to God that he should be said to give limited and resistible degrees of Grace by Christ but repent that I have so much grieved and resisted the Spirit of Christ my self B. Proceed now to your other accusation The eighth Crimination C. They make mans Free-will and not Gods differencing Grace to be the cause that one man by Faith doth differ from another that hath Remonstr Synod ubi supra Si quaeratur quae sit causa cur hic convertitur non autem ille Respondemus hic convâ—rtitur quia Deus bunc non apponentem novam contumaciam convertit Ille non convertitur quia novam contumaciam opponit Quaeres cur hic opponit novam contumaciam alter nons Respondemus Hic opponit quia oppoâ—ere vult Ille non opponit quia a gratia movetur ne opponere velit Quaeres annon ille qui non opponit novam contumaciam per consequens convertitur majorem â—abebat gratiam quam qui opponit per consequens non convertitur Respondemus Antecedentem praevenientem gratiam aequalem esse posse sed coopelantem habâ—t prior non posterior no Faith Contrary to Paul's supposition who made thee to differ Tilenus could not answer Camero to this charge B. I doubt here again is a Controversie about words I will speak to you as to one that would know the truth 1. De re as to the Controversie 2. As to the meaning of the Text. I. Let us here consider 1. What it is to Differ 2. What are the causes of such difference I. To DIFFER is nothing but to be dissimile unlike Dissimilitude or Difference is a Relation This Relation as Ockam truly and largely sheweth is nothing extra intellectum besides its fundamentum subjectum terminus the Absoluta II. Difference then being a Relation is the dissimilitude of divers persons compared Here the natural numerical difference of persons and abundance of other differences are presupposed And it is the Difference between a Believer and an Unbeliever the Penitent and Impenitent as such that we have to consider of Now here are two Subjects differing and in each one if not two differences from the other So that here are two if not four several Relations of dissimilitude between them 1. Paul is a Believer by which he differeth 1. From Nero as a Privative Unbeliever 2. As a Positive Unbeliever On the other side Nero 1. as a privative Unbeliever 2. and a positive differeth from Paul Now every one of these Differences or dissimilitudes have a several cause 1. The fundamentum of both Paul's differences from Nero are hiâ— own Faith and the Termini are Nero's Privative and Positive unbelief 2. The fundamenta of Nero's difference from Paul are his Privative and Positive unbelief and the Termini are Paul's Faith to both Now if the question be what doth Constitutive make Paul differ from Nero it must be answered Paul's Faith and Nero's unbelief For dissimilitude resulteth from the one compared with the other And if both had been Believers there had been no difference And so were this the question there were no difficulty in it at all But the meaning of the question is not of the constitutive cause of the dissimilitude or the fundamentum but of the efficient cause of that fundamentum or else of the diversifying Dispositiv Receptiva Now supposing that Faith and Unbelief are the constitutive differencing causes the efficient causes of both must be sought as the Ratio discriminis and not of one only Quest 1. What is the cause efficient of Nero's unbelief Ans His own will or wicked heart Quest 2. What is the efficient cause of Paul's Faith Ans 1. The Principal efficient is God by his Spirit 2. The meritorious cause is Christ 3. The chief ministerial efficient is Christ as giving the Spirit to work it 4. The Instrumental efficient is the Gospel 5. The Immediate efficient is Paul For it is he that believeth and not God Is there any one that denieth any of this C. I doubt they think that mans will is more the cause than the Spirit because they suspend the Spirits success upon mans will B. Accuse not men by suspicions and doubts without proof yea contrary to their own professions Your crime of uncharitableness is not theirs nor doth it follow that they are faulty because you are suspicious * Alliac Camer â— â— q. 12. B. Dâ—us nullum praedestinavit ant praedestinat accipiendo predestinationem secundo modo propter aliquod bonum aut aliquâ—m causam praevisam in praedestinato quia non stat aliquem noviter aliquod bonum habere quin Deus prius voluerit aâ—â—terno c. You may read Corvinus to Tilenus expresly assigning the efficiency of all that Grace that maketh us to differ principally unto God Some of them only say man cannot effect or convert himself but he can resist and so require no more of man to his conversion but not to resist yea not to resist in an obstinacy and high degree Others of them require of man also an actual concurse of his will by his power received with the concurse of God But they make God here incomparably the chief efficient not only as to Priority of operation but as to his causation of the effect And they use to illustrate it some time as Scotus by the similitude of two drawing at a Ship sometime by a Father that should bid his Son lift at a heavy weight and resolveth to put to 900 degrees of the force himself if his Son will but endeavour and put forth one degree In this case if the Son will not put forth that one which he can do and so the event fail it is not by the Impotency nor absolute unwillingness of the Father And if the child do put forth that one degree will you say that he doth more to the effect than the Father that doth 900 parts and that only because that the Father would not do all himself But this carrieth us from the matter in hand and is after to be spoken to C. But if you make so many things go to make the difference the question who made thee to differ must have
will in the use of such Power as he hath is a condition sine qua non ut dispositio Gratiae receptiva ordinarily 8. But that God is not tied to this but may extraordinarily do otherwise 9. But that this * Ruiz de praedif tr 3. d. 18. p. 222. Resp dispositiones proximas proâ—ertionatas ad gratiam nâ—â—il ob esse quidditati gratiae quoniam ex prima radice nascuntur ex prima gratia quae absque ulla dispositione quasi creata est a Deo sine materia At pugnabit cum quidditate gratiae quaelibet dispositio etiam remota si ab illa sumit initium gratia ita ut prima gratia detur intuitu talis dispositionis Iâ— not this enough pre-requisite disposition and the concurse of mans will is only the use of a power freely before given of God with all necessary helps to use it 10. And therefore that God is from first to last the first cause of all that 's good in man though not the only cause and that of himself man can do nothing Have I not taken your meaning right B. Yes so far as you have recited it C. But methinks yet you answer not the great question which Camero baffled Tilenus with It is not why Paul believeth Nor why Nero believeth not as singly considered But comparatively why Paul believeth rather than Nero Speak to that B. Camero and Tilenus were great and excellent wits But if you can forgive the Truth I must add that which they said nothing to which will prove that a few degrees more of acuteness might have shortned or better ended their dispute It is the Comparatio personarum that is now the subject of that Controversie why this man rather than that as compared Here then we are to consider 1. The Comparabilitas 2. The Ipsa Comparatio 1. The question as to the first is either 1. Whether there was antecedently any such ratio comparandi in them as might be a reason or motive to God himself quoad actum ex parte agentis why he should decree to give or actually give Faith to one man rather than to another 2. Or else whether there were any such difference antecedent as might be Ratio discriminis ineffectis the reason why one received or had Faith and the other not II. And then quoad actum comparandi the question is whether God in his Decree or mind did truly compare the persons antecedently and say not only I will cause this man to believe and say I will not cause that man to believe or not say I will But also said I will cause this man to believe rather than that To these several questions then I answer 1. Negatively to the first For Gods acts ex parte agentis are his essence and as he hath no cause but is the cause of all things so thus far nothing in the world is a causal reason or motive to God He willeth because he willeth or rather without cause II. To the second There are in the Creatures different capacities for terminating Godâ— will and action objectively and accordingly denominating his Volitions and Actions variously And so this question must be divided into three 1. Whether always 2. Whether ordinarily 3. Whether sometimes there be an objective ratio comparabilitatis and of preferring one before another as to the effect of believing or why Gods operation should effect Faith rather in this man than in that To which I answer Ad primum 1. There are nearest Reasons in the immediate aptitude of the receiver Such as is the highest degree of preparing Grace in one which another hath not And there are remote reasons or aptitudes As e. g. A man of great learning wit and zeal or some other remote aptitude will be a fitter person for Gods work than another when he believeth 2. It is not known to any mortal man what different aptitudes in both these kinds God the only heart-searcher seeth which no man can see And therefore this question cannot certainly be answered as to both sorts 3. But as far as our blind eyes can reach it seemeth most probable to us that God doth not always effect Faith according to the degrees of receptive aptitude of either sort Because we see that sometimes he suddenly calleth very great sinners and also some that are silly and little serviceable in the world But yet what special aptitudes God may see in them we know not Ad secundum Qu. I answer That it is Gods ordinary way to give Faith according to the first sort of predisposition alone were there no difference in the last that is To those that have the highest degrees of moral preparation or Common Grace I take to be a certain truth 1. Because in all Gods Works we see that he operateth by degrees in order and on predisposed matter and that efficit juxta dispositionem recipientis 2. But specially because he hath himself appointed a course of means for the obtaining of his special Grace to be used by all men And he cannot be thought to do all this in vain nor to set men on doing their part in vain And all practical Divines who preach so much for the souls preparation are of this mind that such preparation is the ordinary predisposition Ad Qu. 3. I answer That at least sometimes it is so is past question with any sober man For it is a contradiction to call it preparing Grace or Disposition and yet to say that by it no man is made ever the more receptive or nearlier capable of Faith or special Grace So much to the two questions de Comparabilitate * Mark what Bannes himself saith of Common Grace in q. 23. pag. 274. Pie credi potest quod omnibus venientibus ad usum rationis Deus opem aliquam ferat supernaturali quodam auxilio secreto instigante ad operandum bonum 2. Si vera est opinio Thomae c. necesse est dicâ—re quod omnis qui justificatur receperit gratiam praeparantem saltem prius natura quam praeceptum naturale adimpleverit 3. Quotiescunque aliquis pecâ—at speciale peccatum contra supernaturale praeceptum vel fidei vel pâ—nitâ—ntiae c. necesse est ut ille de facto receperit aliquam divinam inspirationem illuminantis Dei dut vocantis aut incitantis ad fidem c. Immo necesse est hominem tangi aliqua supernaturali inspiratione ut nullam â—abtat excusationem Possibile est seâ—undam legem ordinariam quemlibet dum est in hac vita salvari Dâ—us paratus est dare omnibus quamdiu sunt in hâ—c vita auxilium quo fiant potentes converti immo auxilium specialius quo convertaâ—tur si velint I cite this because for his Doctrine of Predetermiâ—ation Protestants much value Banâ—es a boasting Author who thanketh God that their King burneth Protestants Indeed the Dominioâ—â—s commonly confess sufficient Grace which is not effectual III. But as to the third question
Whether God Actually in his mind thus Compare men and prefer one before another and say I will cause this man to believe rather than that I answer 1. There is no Act in God but his Essence which is invariable and indivisible 2. But because his operations as terminated and productive ad extra are various and have objective material causes of their diversity in the recipients therefore we usually thence denominate Gods volitions as various And so when we see that one man hath Grace given him to believe when another hath not we hence say that God mentally and by Decree preferreth one before the other when the difference is not at all in God not his Act ex parte agentis but only of and by God in the Recipients C. But come yet nearer the heart of the case and tell me plainly 1. Whether the difference of Effects be more from the will and action of God or from mens different Receptive dispositions And 2. Whether all these different Receptivities be not of God B. Order bids me begin with the latter 1. The different Dispositions are of two sorts Good and Bad. God is not the cause of the Indisposition or illdisposition of any And as to the good disposition or Preparation of Souls no doubt but he is the principal Cause of it all but not the sole Cause nor always at least the necessitating Cause but oft giveth men that necessary help by which they might have been prepared for more when yet they are not through their wilful resistance or neglect For few men will deny that men have sufficient uneffectual Grace for some preparatory acts though not for faith Ad. Q. 2. I told you that the difference in the effects resulteth from the Causes in both Subjects and not in one only That which maketh one a believer and the other an unbeliever maketh them differ And I have told you what these Causes are But further I suppose as aforesaid a certain established order and degree of universal help external and internal by Christ to the Soul as the Sun affordeth to inferior Bodies This stablished order of Grace universally affordeth such a degree of Divine Influx and help as will cause faith in a prepared Soul and will not cause it in some much unprepared Souls For if as little help would serve the unprepared as the prepared to what use is preparation quomodo recipitur ad modum recipientis In this case now the efficient of Grace is God and not Man but * That even Jesuits confess in their way of scientia media that the Ratio discriminis why one person rather than another hath Grace is from God initially and principally and not from any beginning in man See Ruiz proving it at large in all his Tract 3. Disp 18. 19. De Praedest exordio So that this is no difference between us Yea more he maintaineth that ante fidem niâ—il est dispositionis meriti aut impetrationis Sect. 3. Disp 19. 24. And one would think that this should satisfie even the Antinomians But he meaneth only that this disposition is not always necessary He that will in brief see what the Schoolmen say of preparative Grace may find abundance of them cited by Ruiz ibid. d. 21. per totam and what nature can do in preparation Greg. Armin in 2. d. 28. q. 1. a. 1. speaketh most like the Reformed Aug. de bono persever c. 8. Sed cur Gratia Dei non secundum merita hominum datur Resp Quia deus miserecors est Cur ergo non omnibus Et hic respondeo Quoniam Deuâ— justus Judex est the Ratio proxima of the difference in the event and effects is the Diverse disposition of the Recipients But here mark well that it is not the good disposition or preparation of one party that is the only and I think not the chief reason of the difference but the Privative and Positive indisposition of the other party is as much if not the chiefest reason If one man shut his eyes against the light when another doth not the Ratio discriminis why one man differeth from another in seeing and not seeing is on both parts but principally on his part that shutteth his eyes because the other doth but what he was made to do and all living creatures should do But the other absurdly crosseth nature So that under an universal Influx and help the said Influx is the efficient of the action or effect but the disposition of the Recipients are the Occasions and Reasons to be assigned of the various effects but especially the incapacity of the defective party As the reason why the Sun doth make a Tree bear fruit and not a dead stock is because the Tree is an apt recipient of its influx but the stock or stone is not 2. But Note that in case that God operate not by such an universal Influx only but also by superadded special or extraordinary degrees of particular Grace which by a difference from the universal Influx or degree is peculiarly apt to procure the effects here the ratio discriminis is principally to be ascribed to that special Grace and not to the preparations on the Soul C. Tell me then what you think whether God works by such an universal Grace or by such a special Grace 1. How far doth he work by universal Grace 2. Is that universal Grace ever effectual of it self on prepared Souls 3. How far doth he also use the special particular Grace which you mentioned B. I. To your first Qu. I answer 1. God in the beginning made mankind upright in Adam and Eve and made no difference as to the present case 2. Eve having first sinned did make a difference between her self and Adam which God made not nor altered first his universal Grace 3. Adam next without Gods alteration by Sin did difference himself from himself as he was before 4. God then set up a new universal Grace even Christ with the new Covenant and Recovering means to give out universal help suited to his Covenant and means to be the Giver of the Spirit and the Light of the world we cannot have time now to open the difference between Christ's administrations before and after his Incarnation There was at first an universal sufficiency in this Recovering help of Grace 5. Cain that could have done otherwise wilfully sinned against this universal Grace and Covenant and so made a difference between him and the rest of mankind when God made none 6. Whether Abel did offer his acceptable Sacrifice by this same universal Help alone or by any special extraordinary Grace ex parte mediorum vel Influxus primi recepti is a thing unknown to us because unrevealed 7. The Posterity of Cain as of Adam at first because Seminally in him and personally from his very guilty essence were justly deprived of some of that Grace both Subjective and Objective which Cain had deprived himself of Their natures were more vitiated and so
Glory as the materia objectiva actus humani where I conclude the Causa finalis as the chief object Thus I have shewed you truly and plainly unde fit fides as that is all one as unde hic effectus and that is all one as unde Gratia fit efficax as to this secondary effect C. But I conceive that the sense of the question rather iâ— which of all these is the chief cause or reason of the existence of the effect B. Pardon my impatience of Confusion The chief cause and the chief reason are not always the same There is no question but God is the only and total Causa prima from whom all the rest have all their power and force But by the Reason of the existence is often meant that which in discourse must be assigned proportionately in answer to the question Why is one converted rather than another supposing Gods Influx on them both And this is oft the Receptive disposition as is said for Reciptur ad modum recipientes C. Well But the question recurreth what is the chief Cause and Reason that one not another hath that preparatory Receptivity B. The chief Cause is God why one hath it The chief Cause why another hath it not is himself that is the Moral deficient cause The Ratio differendi I opened to you before The most notable if we suppose Gods Influx to be of it self universal and equal is the Indisposition of the Sinner whence he doth difference himself from those that God causeth to receive even preparing Grace But the true Ratio effectus is from all the Causes conjunct C. But you must come at last to some prime difference And if you will say that the reason of our Preparatory effect or degree of Grace is because I used a former well or did not refuse it or was prepared for it what will you say of the first degree B. I say that the first preparatory Grace or help was given to Adam and all in him as the first natural goodness was C. But where came in the first difference B. By Cain's wilful Sin against God and his Grace C. But though you do with Augustine hold a communicated guilt of the sins of other Parents than our first and so a difference between persons yea and Kingdoms thence arising yet some Children as Esau and Jacob born of the same Parents must have in them some other cause of difference even as to preparatory Grace B. Suppose Gods fixed equal Influx universal there are two Causes of difference herein 1. One is the meer sinful wilfulness of one party that doth not do what that Grace enabled him to do by which a difference is made C. You mean that Jacob better used his help than Esau B. Not so but that Esau more abused it than Jacob. Suppose Jacob had slept out his youth or done no good and Esau had rebelled against God also and done much mischief Esau had hereby made a difference which is assignable without commending Jacob. C. Well what is the other Cause B. 2. Gods own free differencing Will and Grace who is a free Benefactor and may do with his own as he list and therefore freely loveth Jacob with the electing special love and decree which he hath not to Esau For though I have all this while discoursed with you of the Ratio Efficaciae of an Universal Grace I say not that there is no other C. O Now you come to the matter indeed B. II. The Question Unde fit Gratia efficax * Blank de Dist Grat. Thes 79. Naturam Gratiae efficacis Thomistae ponunt in motione quadam virtuosa quae est in voluntate per modum quo impetus in re quae impellitur Jansenius in â—ffectibus Amoris desiderii boni coelestis spiritualis quibus suaviter sursum rapitur animus humanus Discipâ—li Cameronis in potâ—nâ—â—ssima mentis illuminatione persuasione quae voluntatem â—ffectus secum rapit Alii in omnipotenti efficacissima Dei operatione qua novum principium spiritualis vitae Cordi hominis vocati inditur homo simâ—l excitatur ad actus eliciendos quae hic plerique vâ—i docti proferunt componenda potius quam opponenda videntur Even they that are for Physical praedetermination are not agreed what it is some make it a transient quality passing with the act Some say it is only mans Act it self as from God the first cause Some with Alvarez say It is Aliquid quod habet esse incompletum as colours in the air that is They know not what and yet venture on hot contentions about it And Jansenius who maketh it to be Delectatio or Complacentia saith it is Actus vitalis indeliberatus animo quidem amoris desiderii praecedentis consensum ac delectationem illam quae quies animi gaudium dicitur De Grat. Christi l. 4. c. 11. Much like to Vasquez save that Vasq calls it but an indeliberate prime motion of the affection and Jansenius calls it Indeliberate Delectation or Complacency which certainly is an Act of man and the Scotists say that all the Wills Acts are free though not all its inclinations But thus we strive about that which none of us understand viz. How God moveth his Creatures and our Wills in special being put of Gods special Grace by which he arbitrarily maketh a difference and is more than his Universal Grace must be thus resolved That though other Causes concur to the effect the Great over-ruling differencing and ascertaining Cause is the very quality and aptitude of Gods operation it self as proceeding from an absolute volition of the effect and in the Means and Influx fitted to ascertain the effect C. Wherein consisteth this differencing special Grace B. Deceive not your self No mortal man can know in what it ordinarily constantly or chiefly consisteth We know 1. That though God as Rector per Leges keeps one even and constant course yet as Proprietor and Benefactor he may vary as he please And that a Benefactor may give unequally to men of equal merits And that God really doth so de facto And that his Will hath no Cause 2. We know that God hath innumerable ways to fulfil his Will and make a difference between man and man which are beyond the search of Mortals 3. And though we can name divers which he can take we know not de facto which he doth take hic nunc C. What differencing free acts of Grace do you observe B. None which violate Gods established order or diminish his universal Grace But such as are superadded specially to some As 1. To Children of the same Parents he giveth to divers a temperament of Body as in one much more conduceth to thoughtfulness tenderness meekness sobriety chastity zeal honesty c. than in the other He is a stranger to man that knoweth not this 2. He sometime giveth them various Education One is piously educated Another is snatch'd away and
and not have spoken evil of what you understand not But it 's better now than not at all Our judgement is as followeth I. That God hath three Essential Attributes which he expresseth and glorifieth in his works His Vital Power or Activity his Wisdom and his Will or Love That all these are and operate conunctly but yet each appeareth in eminency in its special effects That Gods Power eminently appeareth in the Being and Motion of things and his Wisdom eminently in the ORDER of things and his LOVE in the Goodness and Perfection of things That accordingly he is 1. The first Efficient 2. The chief Dirigent 3. The ultimate Final Cause of all II. That as to man he is Related to us 1. As our Creator the Cause of our Being Nature and natural Motion as the Fountain of Nature where Power is most Eminent 2. As our Governour and the God of ORDER and the Dirigent Cause where all Attributes concurr but Wisdom is most Eminent 3. As our most Bounteous Benefactor and most Amiable Good and End where Goodness or Love is most eminent III. That accordingly God is the Author of Nature Grace and Glory and since the fall of Natura Medela Sanitas of our Nature our ORDER and Gracious Government and of our Holiness and Happiness and so is our Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier IV. That neither Man Angel or any Creature can possibly have any good but by Gods gift any more than they can make themselves or a World And this Gift must needs be free seeing the Creature hath nothing that is good but what it hath of God and nothing to give him that can add to him or but what is absolutely his own V. God is to us 1. Our OWNER 2. Our RULER 3. Our BENEFACTOR antecedently And no man can Merit of God as he is an Owner or a meer Benefactor for so he freely disposeth as he pleaseth of his own But only of God as a Ruler as is after opened VI. Therefore it is blasphemy to hold that man or Angel can Merit of God in point of proper Commutative Justice which giveth in exchange one thing for another to the benefit of the receiver For as is said God cannot Receive any addition to his perfection nor have we any thing but his own to give him Luke 17. 10. we are thus unprofitable servants as to a Proprietor in point of Commutation though the unprofitable servant be daâ—â—ned Matâ—h 25. 30. in another sense that is who improveth not his Masters stock to the benefit of himself and others and the pleasing of his Ruler VII Mans Duty therefore meriteth only in point of Governing distributive Justice And not every way neither in respect of that For Governing Justice is distinguished according to the Law that governeth us which is either 1. The Law of Innocency or 2. The Law of Grace And no man since the fall can Merit of God according to the Justice of the Law of Innocency which exacteth personal perfection VIII The Law of Grace is in its first notion a free gift of Christ Pardon and Right to Life Eternal by Adoption to all that will Accept it believingly as it is offered that is according to the nature of the Gift And this Gift or Conditional promise and pardon no man can merit For Christs perfect Righteousness and Sacrifice hath already merited it for us and so hath left us no such work to do Nor is there the least place for any humane Merit or Rewardableness from God but on supposition of 1. Christs Merits and Meritorious Righteousness 2. And of this free gift or Act of Oblivion and Life already made to us without our desert IX But yet this is not a meer Gift but also a true Law God is still our God and Governour and Christ is Lord of all Rom. 14. 9. He that is a King and Ruler hath his Laws and Judgement That which is a Gift in the first respect hath 1. It s condition 2. Many commanded duties and so is a Law of Grace in other respects And it is only in respect to this Law of Grace that man is Rewardable or can Merit X. The Gift is from God as Benefactor considered as Good and in it self But it is from God as Sapiential Rector quoad ordinâ—m conferendi as to the Order and Reason why one man rather than another receiveth it So that we Merit not of God as Benefactor nor as Rector by the Law of Innocency or Works nor yet as to the Value or Goodness of the Benefit which is a free Gift But only of God as Rector by the Law of Grace which regulateth the Reception of his free gifts merited by the perfect Righteousness of Christ and so only as to the Order and Reason why one more than another receiveth that free gift As if a Father hath many Sons One living obediently Others playing the prodigals and upon his freely-offered pardon and grace one receiveth it thankfully and the other refuseth it scornfully Here both the obedient and the penitent son have all upon free gift as to Commutative Justice but on various terms And yet both merit in point of paternal Governing Justice but very differently One meriteth of strict Fatherly Justice The other only of a forgiving Father quite on other terms And it is a Comparative Merit by which he is fitter for pardon than the Sons that despise it and spit in the Fathers face XI God as a Benefactor and a Governour giveth some benefits Antecedently to any duty of man And these are never a Reward to us but of Christ perhaps in some instances As Legislation so the benefits of it and that attend it are before Reward and Judgement But other benefits are given by God both as Benefactor and Legislator upon condition of some duty of ours in the Antecedent gift and so in the Judicial sentence and execution that duty is rendered as the reason of our actual Right to them And these are a Reward XII Our first Grace is no Reward nor merited because it antecedeth all conditional duty of ours XIII Our first Reception of Right to Christ Pardon and Life being given on the condition of penitent Acceptance in faith may be called a Reward because they are consequent gifts on condition But because the condition is so slender a thing as the thankful Acceptance of a free gift Divines agree not of the fitness of the name Reward and Merit while they wholly agree about the thing But our after-mercies and final Glory being promised on the condition of such a faith as worketh by Love obedience and improvement of Gods mercies in good works and patience perseverance and conquest of the Flesh the World and the Devil therefore they have more unanimously agreed not only de re but that the names of Reward and Rewardableness or Merit and Worthiness are here fit but used only in the fore explained sense XIV And though the Scripture oftest use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Decree and free acceptation L. I am sure your own friends say that These are few and too modest and indeed half Hereticks for their pains R. I love not to perswade the World that men mean worse than they speak What you mean by too modest I know not but it is not true either that they are few or taken by their Church for half hereticks And truth is well served by nothing but truth But the author you mean doth well in not opposing those that are of this mind nor those that deny all merit of congruity and in acknowledging that such there are He is a stranger to the Popish Doctors who either taketh the Scotists themselves to be few or judged half hereticks or else that it is they only that are of that opinion of which more anon L. But what mean they that say it is ex Dignitate if not as profiting God R. 1. I tell you they almost all conclude against commutative merit and who is so mad as to think that we profit God 2. I tell you that you may also ask what the Scripture meaneth by worthiness And how else will you translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but worthy or deserving And what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but Merâ—â— 3. They mean the Moral aptitude of Well-doing for the promised Reward And do you deny that L. But some of them say plainly that it is of Debt R. Yes they oft say with Augustine that God by his promise hath made himself as a Debtor L. But some say that Merit of condignity is ex proportione operum to the reward R. It 's impossible to know what every man meaneth and impossible to make all men speak congruously But as far as I can discern most of them that so speak mean that the most wise God doth all things in order and harmony and as he suiteth natural causes and effects so he doth gracious ones And that his free grace putteth into mans holiness a suitableness to the Reward which is but a suitableness of the habit and act to the object And that he that Loved God much shall be much happy in that Love and be much beloved by him And so every Saint enjoy God according to the proportion of his Love or holiness and Glory be varyed according to the degrees of Grace L. This we all hold But you make them sounder and wiser than they are R. Many of them and us want skill to speak very clearly Confusion and darkness is found in all our conceptions and expressions so far as we know but in part Those that you can prove to me are worse prove it by them I take this to be the common sense of those few that talk of Meritum ex proportione For they most commonly disclaim the word equality and all disclaim it as to commutation And what else can they mean And here I offer you an argument for Reward even in this sense of proportion which all the world cannot answer supposing that God will freely continue man in life and immortality If the Reward be essential to or necessarily inseparable from true love and obedience then true love and obedience have certainly a Reward and a moral aptitude for that Reward or a Rewardableness called Merit But the former is certain For 1. To Love God is the souls health pleasure and felicity it self including the Knowledge of him And perfect Knowledge and love is perfect happiness 2. To obey God is formally to do that which Pleaseth him pleasedly because it pleaseth him And to Please God is mans ultimate End and Reward 3. It is impossible but that God by his perfection should Love and be pleased with every thing that is Good according to the proportion of its goodness and therefore with the Love and obedience of his Children So that all those arguments of Protestants which well prove Holiness to be Happiness it self prove the Reward to be essential or inseparable L. If this be all that those few highest Papists mean then they are but more zealous in commending holiness than the looser sort as the Religious Preachers with us are And if this be indeed their meaning they are unhappy in expressing themselves or we in understanding them and our hearers unhappy that upon such misunderstanding are taught to abhorr them R. You know 1. That by Justification they mean Remission of sin and Holiness 2. And that they hold that no works merit but those that are done by the members of Christ and by his spirit in love and holiness 3. And that they merit nothing but what is primarily Gods Gift 4. Nor any thing but what is merited by Christ by another sort of merit to which ours is but subordinate 5. And that they commonly say that even faith it self doth not merit Justification or Holiness because though it have a Promise of it and so ex pacto it is due yet there is in the nature of the things no necessary connexion between them And now what can they mean after all this by condignity ex proportione operis ad prâ—mium but this which I have described Holiness is happiness and connexed to happiness in its various degrees L. But some say that they are so Impudent as to say that from the intrinsick worth of the work setting aside the consideration of the promise it is meritorious R. 1. Their commonest opinion is that the natural Aptitude of Holiness and obedience and the Promise of God set together make them rewardable or meritorious as they call it which is most certain God promiseth not his blessings and happiness to men for things evil or worthless and indifferent But 2. Some among their Doctors say that Were there no promise Holiness would be Rewardable that is that Gods perfection proveth that he is Pleased with it and Loveth the holy 2. And that it is happiness it self as is aforesaid And as this doth but speak the suitableness of Gods Image to be the object of his Love and of obedience to be the Pleasing of his will so it seemeth to me only to mean that Were there no Positive supernatural promise yet the very Law of nature which is Gods first Law containeth such a signification of his will that he will love and bless those that love him and obey him as is indeed a kind of natural promise And it is to be noted that all the Heathen World who know not the written promise do agree in this as a natural Verity that God loveth and is pleased with Goodness love and obedience and that it shall go well with them that are so qualified And if we should forget the Papists and preach to religious people with us that there is no Goodness in the Divine Nature and Image of God and in Holy love and obedient fruitful lives for which God would love or be pleased with such as have them supposing Redemption and the merits of Christ any more than with the wicked if it were not that he hath
as those as that Accusations against adversaries are to be believed without proof on one side and not on the other Gods Rule against receiving evil reports will be cast out and Charity and Justice will be cast away and meer siding and saction will possess the place And then all the question will be Who are those Accusers that are to be believed And if you think that it is your Teachers the Papists that have many more will think that they have more reason to believe them And â—â— the Anabaptists will believe theirs and the Separatists theirs and the Quakers theirs and what falshood and evil will not then be believed against all parties and how odious will they appear to one another and consequently all Christians to Infidels and Heathens L. A man that is set upon a sodering design may palliate any Heresie in the world and put a fair sense on the foulest words but God hateth such cloaking of sin and complyance with it R. May not Papists Familists Seekers Quakers and all Sects say the same against Concord and Complyance with you I pray you tell me what you think of these following words before you know who wrote them and take heed what you say of them lest you strike you know not whom Quest How is Justification free seeing faith and repentance are required to it Answ There are two answers given One is from Augustines doctrine Epist 105. the summ is As Justification is taken inclusively taking in Faith and Repentance as its beginning it is free because faith is free But as it is taken narrowly for Justification following faith that is for Remission of sin and Reconciliation with God it is merited by faith But the other solution I more approve and it seemeth more agreeable to Scripture to wit that even Remission of sin it self and Reconciliation with God are given freely no Merit of ours going before and that neither by faith nor repentance we do merit the gift of this grace For understanding of which Note that Faith hath not of it self any efficacy as it is our act to Remit or Reconcile but all the Vertue proceedeth from the object it self that is Christ whoâ—e Vertue and Merit God hath determined to apply to a sinner for his justification by faith in him And what I say of Faith I say of Repentance and other dispositions as in the example of them that looked to the Brazen Serpent who were healed by looking not that looking as it was an act of the eye had such a healing force but the efficaâ—y was from the Serpent which God had appointed for the Ioure So we say of Faith which hath not in its nature and from its entity any power to Remit and Reconcile but as the Vertue of Christ doth this in believers And so I answer that If Faith justified as an act and of it self Justification were not free But so it doth not but is a Mediâ—m by Gods good pleasure by which the Vertue of Christ Justifieth believers therefore faith or repentance make it not lâ—ss free â— g. I give a Beggar a gift He puts forth his hand and taketh it If one tell me Thou gavest it not freely because he took it or else had not had it it were a ridiculous objection For putting forth the hand doth not of it self bring him a gift else every time that he puts forth his hand it would bring in a gift But it is from the vertue and bounty of the giver So is it as to faith and the dispositions by which the vertue of Christ and the free mercy of God do give Remission and Reconciliation to believers and disposed persons so that it taketh not away Christs Merit nor maketh Grace less free that faith or these dispositions are asserted L. I know not how much men may mean worse than they speak but these words are such as the best Protestants use R. They are the words translated of the aforesaid Fr. Tolet a Jesuit and Cardinal on Rom. 3. pag. 157 158 159. But still remember that by Justification they mean the holy effect of the Spirit on the soul and indeed by Remission of sin they most commonly mean the destroying or mortifying sin within us and ceasing to commit the act And they are dark and confused in these matters L. But do not Papists hold forgiveness of deserved punishment R. Yes but they bring it in disorderly and on other occasions But if they did not how could they hold that any sin past from our childhood till Conversion is Remitted or pardoned For the Act is past as soon as done factum infectum fieri non potest and so such past sins can have no remission but forgiving the penalty and healing the effects And wrangling Papists consider not that this is the Remission that Protestants mean who call their kind of Remission by the name of mortification And so we endlesly quarrel about words through our unhappy imperfection in the art of speaking and words being arbitrary signs the world is come to no agreement of their sense L. You confess then their confused Doctrine and you cannot excuse many of their Doctors from gross error herein R. No nor many honest pious persons that go for Protestants What Papists have more plainly subverted the Gospel by their Doctrine on these subjects than many of those called Antinomians have done by the contrary extream And who can justifie all the sentences and phrases of many eminent Divines among us yea or of many of the most wise and accurate For when all are much ignorant who can say I do not err L. But undoubtedly you will be as bitterly censured for these your favourable interpretations of the Papists in the point of Merit as if you were half a Papist your self and were but such a Mongrel as Erasmus Wicelius Cassander or Grotius or as if your Conciliatory designs would carry you as far at last as Grotius Mileterius Baldwin or at least as Mountague Guil. Forbes and such others went And others will then say that you are justly served for writing so much against Grotius and his followers on this account as you have done of which Bishop Bramhall and his Epistoler have already told you R. Truth honesty and Gods approbation change not as mens interests minds or tongues do Time will come that Truth will be more regarded when Love and Peace are to be revived unless God will forsake this contentious and unrighteous World And I am so near so very near that World where there is nothing but Truth Love and Righteousness and where God is All and the Fulness and felicitating object of holy souls and where the censures of men are of no signification that I am utterly unexcusable if I should betray the Cause of Truth Love and Concord to avoid the obloquy of men who speak evil of the things which they never understood The Thirteenth Dayes CONFERENCE Of the great errours sin and danger which many Ignorant Professours fall
to Angels nor to Brutes For as God made one sort of creatures naturally determined to things sensible and another sort necessarily though freely determined to things spiritual so it pleased him to make a middle sort endued with Reason and free-will undetermined as to their choice and able freely to determine their own Volitions without any predetermining premotion of their Creator or any other That so they might be fit subjects to be governed in this Life by Laws and other moral means § 4. God as Creator maketh substances with their necessary Accidents and as the Natural Orderer of them placeth them in their natural order and as Motor or Actor he causeth Action as such But as Moral Rector he causeth only the Moral Order of Actions as far as belongeth to a Rector the rest being presupposed in Nature and leaveth it to man to cause the rest § 5. Seeing God is not to be blamed for making such a creature as man of a middle defectible undetermined Will left to his free choice with necessary helps it being part of the beauty of his works to be diversified He is not then to be blamed for any of the sins of such a creature because he supporteth his Being and his Active Nature and is his first cause of Action § 6. God could prevent all future sin if he absolutely willed so to do either by destroying the World or disabling the sinner or by withholding his Moving Influx or by such a change of his nature as should make him indefectible But he that made man in this Middle state will so continue him and not make a change in the frame of Nature to fulfil our wills § 7. No Act as an Act no Vital Act as Vital no Intellection no Volition as such is Virtue or Sin And therefore to cause it as such is not to cause either moral good or evil § 8. As God is Related to us as our Owner Ruler and our chief good efficiently as our Benefactor and finally as our End so to consent to these Relations and to the Duties of our correlations and to Practise them is the summ of all Moral Good even Dispositively and Actually to be Resigned and devoted to God as our Owner to obey and please him as our Ruler and to be Thankful to Him and totally Love Him as our Benefactor and our ultimate End All Moral Goodness lyeth in this § 9. By which it appeareth that Morality consisteth in the due or undue ORDER of our actions and dispositions as they are a Moral Agent 's related to God himself in these three Relations and to his Actions therein viz. his Disposals his Laws and his Attractive final Goodness with his Benefits § 10. In these the Morality consisteth as simpliciter talis in all three inseparably as Gods Relations are inseparable and our correlations But the Relation of our Actions to any one of them is Morality secundum quid § 11. And among them all our Action submission resignation patience to God meerly as our Owner is Moral but in the slenderest initial sense And our Actions as related to him as our Rector are Moral in the fuller formal sense And therefore by most accounted the only formal Morality as being a relation to a Law But yet our Actions as Related to God our Benefactor Lover and End are Moral in the highest most perfective notion § 12. It is not only sub rationâ— obedientia as it is a thing commanded by a Law that Love to God is Morally good but also in that superiour sense formally as it is the Love of God And therefore Love is called the Law of Laws and the fulfilling of the Law not only as commanded by a Law but as being the End of the Law and the state of perfection above it as Christ is to the Law of Moses and also as being a Law eminenter something greater though not formaliter § 13. But as there is an Order in these Relations so is there in the Morality of our Actions as towards them So that the Last still includeth the rest foregoing All Love is Obedience and all Obedience is submission to our Owner But all Obedience is not Love nor all Submission or Resignation formal obedience to a Rector Though they must all concurr and not be divided when they are formally distinguished § 14. I have thought it necessary though I be guilty of some repetition to open here the Doctrine of formal Morality Virtue and Vice because we cannot understand how God is vindicated from being the Author of sin till we know what sin is which we cannot do till we know what Virtue is which we cannot do till we know what Morality is And also because the Schoolmens most subtile elaborate enquiries into this point especially de naturâ— peccati are generally too little subtile or accurate as comparing it with this little you may perceive § 15. From all this it is plain 1. That God as the meer Author and Motor of Nature doth not cause us to Obey or Love him And therefore that these must be caused by another superadded operation § 16. Yet when we Obey and Love him the Generical Nature of the Act is from God as the God of Nature viz. as it is Intellection Volition Action But that these Actions are so duly ordered as to be thus terminated on God and things commanded is otherwise caused For though the Generical nature of Action Intellection and Volition as such be seldom found but in some Moral species and that be never found but in singular acts yet can one causality procure the Generical nature and another the Specifical and another the singularity in the same action As the Sun is the Generical Cause and the Virtus Seminalis the specifying and the Individuatio seminis the Individâ—â—aâ—ing of Plants Animals c. § 17. As God is the God of Nature so he hath setled Nature in such a constant course of motion as that we have small reason to expect that he should there make any ordinary mutations And therefore as the Sun aforesaid he doth by his Generical Influx concurr with all Specifying and Individuating Causes according to their several natures or receptivities § 18. They therefore that suppose that God as the Cause of all Action must of natural necessity ad esse by physical efficient premotion predetermine every Act natural and free to its object compared with other possible objects and that in all its modes and circumstances do confound Nature and Morality and leave nothing for God to do in causing Holiness but what he must needs do to cause all action that is caused allowing the difference of the second effects â— yea but what he doth in causing every sin For his Pracept is not with them the Causing predetermination § 19. Jesus Christ and his Gospel with all the fore described frame of moral means and the Spirit to co-operate are the proper second causes by which God as RECTOR will on his part ordinarily