Church call Original should be no more then a meer Privation of Original Justice Of the Inconveniencies which will follow upon the affirmative Opinion that is of that Image of God wherein the First Man was Created But the Ingenuous Reader wil perhaps demand what further Inconvenience wil follow upon the yielding or granting of the former Postulatum or Supposition unto them This in the Second place That Adams Successors whether immediate or intermediate unto the worlds End should have a greater measure of that which they call Liberum Arbitrium or Free-will then the word of God doth acknowledge or any Ingenuous Man that will subjugate his Reason to be Regulated by the written word or Ancient Rules or Canons of Faith can allow or approve This deduction following is clear by Rules of Reason viz. If the Righteousnesse of the First Man did consist in a Grace Supernatural or in any quality additional to his constitution as he was the Work of God This Grace or Quality might have been or rather was lost without any Real wound unto our Nature Or without any other Wound then such as the Free-will or right use of Reason or other Natural parts which after the losse this of supposed Supernatural Grace or Quality were left might instantly have cured or yet may cure Or in other terms more Scholastical perhaps Thus If the Integrity or Righteousnesse of the First Man were lost only demeritoriè by way of Demerit without any physical or working cause of its expulsion or without any wound made in our nature by such positive cause The same Righteousnesse which the First Man had might have been regained by the right use of Reason which was left unto him or of those natural faculties which he had pro primâ vice abused From these premisses the necessary consequence will be this That the satisfaction of our Lord Christ for sin original at least had been superfluous And according to this Tenet the Opinion of the Socinians would be more tolerable and more justifiable then the Doctrine of the Romish Church so far as it concerns the Valew or Efficacy of Christs Sufferings or Satisfaction by his Merits or Justification by works rather then by faith especially works of the Moral Law or observance of those two great Commandments To love God above all and our Neighbours as our Selves or of that other whatsoever you would that men should do unto you even so do unto them 3. Lastly if all or any of these Opinions were granted to the Church of Rome we of Reformed Churches should be concluded to yield That Adams posterity or as many of them as are or shall be justified were to be Formally justified by inherent Righteousnesse that is they have or might challenge absolution from the first sentence denounced against Adam by way of legal plea or satisfaction The deduction or remonstration of this demonstrative inference is clear to any Artist to any reasonable man unlesse his Reason be overgrown by faction or by mingling of passions with his understanding The Remonstration of this demonstrative inference is thus It is in confesso and more then so an undoubted Maxim subscribed unto by the Church of Rome That the grace which is infused by and from our Lord Jesus Christ is a supernatural quality or a qualification more soveraign then the first grace which God the Father bestowed upon the First Man Now if that Grace were a super addition to his Nature or Constitution as he was the work of God the losse of this Grace or quality could not have made any wound in the humane Nature which the least drop of that Grace which daily distilleth from the second Adam might not more then fully cure Yea such grace would sublimate our Nature so cured unto an higher pitch or fuller measure of Righteousnesse then that which was bestowed upon our Father Adam In respect of these and many other Reasons which might be alledged all such Congregations or Assemblies of Christian Men as have departed or have been extruded out of the Romish Church stand deeply engaged to deny that the Righteousnesse of the First Man was a Grace or quality supernatural CHAP. III. Whether Original Righteousness were a quality Natural or a mean betwixt Natural and supernatural 1. TO affirm that the Righteousnesse wherein the First Man was created was a gift rather Natural then supernatural would be no solaecisme no assertion any way more incongruous then many Resolutions of the Roman Doctors in like Cases are no grosser blemish or deeper impression then might easily be salved or wiped off with that distinction usual amongst them in other the like or rather the same Cases The true state of the Question proposed That the righteousness wherein Adam was created was natural quoad terminum productum non quoad modum productionis A natural Endowment in respect of the essential qualitie produced albeit the manner of producing it were somewhat more then supernatural But this is a dispute which for the present shall be waved because the Original difference betwixt us and them may be more punctually stated and the Questions dependent on it may be more clearly resolved from these Postulata or presumed Maxims First That God did make the First Man after his own image Secondly That the First man being so made was righteous and just Neither of these are denied by any The state of the Original Controversie unto such as are disposed to have it plainly propounded in constant or unfleeting Terms is thus Seeing man was made after the image of God and being so made was just and righteous Whether there were two works of God or two distinct effects of his work of creating the First Man in righteousness and in his own image And whether the one of them was terminated to his own image imprinted in man and the other to his original justice If these two expressions made by Moses of Gods image and mans righteousness expresse or include no more then one and the same work of God or effect of his work in man The losse of Original justice or defacing of Gods image enstamped upon him was more then a meer privation and necessarily presupposeth a positive Cause in our First Parents and a positive Effect wrought by that cause whereunto the privation of Original justice was Concomitant or rather Consequent Whatsoever Controversie may be moved concerning the Cause or manner how this Effect was wrought the effect it self was a deadly wound in our Nature a multitude of wounds all by Nature or any endeavour of Nature or performances of such Free will as was left to mankind after these wounds were once made altogether incurable without the help or assistance of better Grace or endowments then were bestowed upon the First Man The cure of these wounds wholly depends upon that grace whose Being and bestowing the second Adam did merit from the Father of Lights or from the Divine nature or Deity 2. To win the Assent of
indeed any other Cause of Actual or Habitual sins Praeter Diabolum seducentem Hominent liberè consentientem that is besides the Devil who still laboureth to seduce or tempt us and mans Free consent or voluntary yielding to his temptations 2. Adam First Sin did pollute our Nature Our Actual Sins pollute our Persons Between Sin Original which is the Effect and the sin of the First man which was the Cause of it ‖ Vid. Locorum Theologicorum Compendium Pro Scholis Wraâ—islaviensibus concinnatum some have acutely observed This Distinction That the Person of the First man by his sin corrupted our Nature and our Nature being corrupted by him corrupts all our Persons that come by Natural Descent from him Unto which they adde that Every one of us by committing Actual sin doth corrupt or pollute his Person But whether any Person besides our Father Adam do or may by frequent Commission of Actual sins without any Necessity derivable either from our First Parents sin or from the Effect of it which is Sin Original corrupt or pollute the Nature of such Persons as lineally descend from him is a point capable of Question and worthy of more accurate discussion then my Abilities afford or my years will permit me to bestow any long or serious studies in Such as are or shall be disposed to handle this or any of the former Questions proposed more exquisitely must make their entrance into this Search by the same plain way which I intend to follow that is to guesse at the Cause by the Effect or at the Nature or Essence of Sin Original by the known Properties or Symptomes of it And in this plain Search an Observant Student shall hardly find such fair hints or good helps from the School-men The pregnant testimonies of Heathens Poets Naturalists c. concerning sin Original Ancient or Modern as he may from some School-Boyes or at least from some Good Books which they usually read and better remember then the School-men do 3. As for the Substance or Realty of that which we call Original Sin though unknown to them by that name and of our Natural Servitude to sin a serious Divine may find more solid and lively * Terence Andr. Act. 1. Sc. 1. Ingenium est Omnium HominuÌ„ à labore proclive ad libidinem Hor. Serm. l. 1. Sat. 3. Nec natura potest justo secernere iniquum Dividat ut bona diversis fugienda petendis Ovid. Metam l. 7. Me trahit invitam nova vis aliudque Cupido Mens aliud suadet Video meliora probôque Deteriora Sequor Hor. Epist. 8. lib. 1. Quae nocuere sequar fugiaÌ„ quae profore credaÌ„ Parallel to that of S. Paul Rom. 7. 21 22 23. Ovid. Alibi Nitimur in vetituÌ„ semper cupimúsque negata Sic interdictis imminet Aeger aquis c. Parallel to Rom. 7. 8 9. Mans servitude to sin is well set down by Horace Serm. Lib. 2. Sat. 7. and in Persius Sat. 5. v. 75 c. consonant to John 8. 34. And that in Pers 2. Sat. v. 60. O curvae in terris animae caelestium inanes Quid juvat hoc TeÌ„plis nostros immittere mores Et bona Diis ex hac scelerata ducere pulpa Is parallel to Psal 50. 21. Thou Thoughiest wickedly that I was such an One as thy self Expressions in some Heathenish Naturalists or in the Romane Orator or Ancient Latine Poets then he can do in the great Master of the Sentences in Aquinas though Sainted as much for Learning as for sanctity by the Romish Church or in their Followers or such as Comment upon their Writings And no marvel if so it be seeing the Naturalist as his profession leads him hunts after the Truth upon a Fresh-unfoyled Sent alwayes insisting upon those which we call the First Notions whereas the School-men the Later especially have been delighted to draw all Doubts or Quaeries about the most solid Points in Divinity or matters most capable of Philosophical Expressions into second Notions or Termes of Art or Artificial Fabricks of words as if they meant to rend or resolve strong and well woven Stuffe into small and raveled threds to intangle themselves and their Readers in perpetuall Fallacies A rebus ad voces Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata was a Good Lesson which the Facilo Romane Poet had not learned by Heare-say or got by Rote but had got it by Heart from a good instructor as willing and ready to teach us as him that is from undoubted Experience of his own or other mens dispositions or affections This good Poet with some other of his profession Isaiah 1. 3. and other Heathen Orators or Philosophers have excellently observed that The nature of man was farther out of Tune or Frame Jer 8. 7 had greater discord or Contrariety of inclinations within it self then the Nature of any other living thing besides But unto the Nature or Reality of that which Divines call Original sin the Roman Naturalist Plinie I meane in his Proaeme to the seventh book of his Natural History speaks most fully and most appositely The passage is for ought I know well translated into our English Or if ought be amisse the Latine Reader may correct or amend it by the Latin Copie hereto annexed Thus as you see Mundus in eo terrae gentes Maria Insulae insignes Vrbes ad hunc modum se habent Animantium in eodem natura nullius prope partis contemplatione minor est siquidem omnia exequi humanus animus queat Principium jure tribuetur Homint cujus causâ videtur cancta alia genuisse natura magnâ saevâ mercede contra tanta sua munera ut non sit satis aestimare Parens melior Homini an tristior Noverâ—a fuerit Ante omnia unum animantium cunctorum alienis velat Opibus caeteris variè tegumenta tribuit testas cortices coria spinas villos setas pilos plumam pennas squamas vellera Truncos etiam arboresque cortice interdum gemino à frigoribus calore tutata est Hominem tantùm nudum in nuda humo natali die abjicit ad vagitus statim ploratum nullumque tot animalium aliud ad lachrumas has protinus vitae principio At Herculèrisus praecox ille celerimus ante quadragesimum diem nulli datur Ab hoc lucis rudimento quo ne feras quidem inter nos genitas vincula excipiunt omnium membrorum nexus At Homo infoeliciter natus jacet manibus pedibusque devinctis flens animal caeteris imperaturum à suppliciis vitam auspicatur unam tantum ob culpam quia natum est Heu dementiam ab iis initiis existimantium ad superbiam se genitos Primarâ—boris spes primumque temporis munus quadrupedi similem facit Quando Homini incessus Quando vox we have in the former Bookes sufficiently treated of the universal World of the Lands Regions Nations Seas Islands and
Sensitives then any way supereminent to them Now there is not at least there ought not to be any scruple or Question Whether every man which hath attained to the use of Reason or of ordinary discretion have not the same Power or Faculty to correct or improve his own natural Dispositions ' or Sensitive Inclinations which Lycurgus practised with good successe upon his Two Whelps of the same kind No Question again there is or ought to be Whether Parents or other Instructers have not the like Power to correct or alter the inclinations of Children in their Minority or Nonage by good Discipline or Education Whence if we should grant that Postulatum or supposition which Galen that great Philosopher and Physitian with much diligence hath endeavoured to Demonstrate Mores animi sequuntur temper amentum Corporis that the manners or dispositions of men unto moral vertues or vices necessarily depend upon the Temperature of the body Yet can it never be evinced or made Probable that the Peculiar Temperature of any mans body may not be altered by the forementioned Reflective Power which every man hath and may exercise over his own senses humours or manner of dyet or to ruminate upon the Advertisments given him by Philosophers or Physitians either for correcting his inordinate appetites or dispositions or for improvement of such seeds of vertue as are in some degree or other by nature implanted in men or Children of the worst Temperature of Body And though Galen for ought we know did dye uncured of that Erronious or Heretical Opinion which was the scope of his Book or of that distemperature whether of body or of mind which did breed that Opinion Yet a Late Learned †Baptisâ—a Persona Commentator hath so cured his Book that sober young Students may peruse or visit it without danger of infection from it 8. But the Principal if not the only Stem of the fore-mentioned Freedom consists in mans Power to Reflect upon his own Rational Thoughts or Projects And this Power or Faculty no man no power on earth can alter or take from another how mean soever For it is truly said if it be rightly applied that Thought is Free not from Punishment if we think amisse For the Searcher of Hearts will Judge the most Secret Thoughts but Free from Coaction from constraint or inforcement We may be commanded or inforced to Do what another will have us to do but we cannot be compelled to think what another would have us think or to Will what they would have us to Will They may Propose some Particular unto us being in it self very Good and agreeable unto our desires yet the Goodness of it unlesse we please cannot constrain or enforce us to desire it for that time If we want some other Particular Good of the same kind to Counterpoyze or withdraw our Desire from it the very Goodness of the Free exercise of our own Will will suffice The very Trial or Experiment of this our Freedom and Power to abstain from many things in themselves desireable and with which most men are tempted and overswayed is oft-times more Pleasant then any Particular Sensitive Good 9. This is all I had to say Concerning such several Kinds or Degrees of Freedom or Power in Visible Creatures or of Free-Will a Faculty Peculiar to man as may be Learn'd from the Book of Nature All these several Sorts or Degrees of Freedom hitherto expressed in English are answerable to that which the Latines call Spontaneum Liberum or Libera Voluntas But whether Liberum Arbitrium an Expression used by many good Latin-Writers of the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be a Style whereof men in this Life be capable Or what Ranks of Men be Capable of It is a Point which cannot be determined without Examination of the Properties of Free Causes or Agents CHAP. XXVI Containing the Definition and Properties of Free Causes or Agents properly so called 1. CAusa Libera est quae Freedome or Liberty of choice positis omnibus ad agendum requisitis potest agere vel non agere This Definition of a Free Cause so far as it concerns Man whether Regenerate or Unregenerate is Orthodoxal and Sound but not so Orthodoxal and sound in respect of all Free Agents at least not so unquestionable in respect of them For there is all Free Agrents an Agency as well Immanent as Transient That we call as our betters before us have done An Agency Immanent Which produceth no Effect save only in the Agent Agencie Immanent Transient But every true Cause whether Free or Natural is alwayes presumed able to produce some Effect Extra Se which shall not be terminated Within its Self Concerning this Definition See victoria in His 13. RelectioÌ„ upon that of Ecclus. cap. 15. Deus ab initio constituit hominem reliquit illum in manu consilii fui but such as doth or may appear in the Visible Book of the Creatures 2. The Omnipotent Agent or Supreme Cause of Causes throughout all Eternity can work or not work Whatsoever Whensoever it pleaseth him without any Matter Praeexistent to his Work or any Condition requisite or Praerequired to his working He Freely that is without Necessity made all things of Nothing without any Counsellor or Adviser either for proposing or solliciting much lesse for Limiting or prescribing the Laws or manner of all secondary Causes workings or of the Effects possible to be wrought by them The Bounds or Limits of all Secondary Agents Operations are Necessity and Contingency Such Agents as by the Laws respectively given unto them by the Supreme Agent and Lawgiver are said to produce their Operations by Necessity or by Determination to This or That purpose and to no other cannot without Solecism be accounted or called Free Agents or Causes The premised Definition then Causa libera estquae positis omnibus ad agendum requisitis c. must be restrained to the Angelical and Humane Nature The Former Definition restrained to the Angelical Humane Nature Neither of these two Natures or Agents can produce any Real Effect Extra Se Without Themselves unlesse they have some Matter praeexistent to work upon nor any Immanent Action Within themselves without such Concomitancies or Assistancies as are requisite to the Use or Exercise of their natural Freedom So that both of them are only so farr Free in their Actions or Choices as the Omnipotent Creator shall permit or give them leave to use or exercise their natural Freedome Now their Natural Freedom as it is opposed to that which we call Spontaneum or Lubency in Vegetables only or meer Sensitive Creatures is but a Branch as hath been intimated before of Contingency Contingertia est duplex Intrinseca ex Electione Extrinseca ex casu orta See Suarez Metaphys Disp 19. Sect. 10. Num. 4. so that we cannot annoy and hurt the One but we must annoy and hurt the Other Id Contingens est quod potest esse
of Moral Philosophie their power 3134 Pelagius his quarel about Free will the occasion of it 3081 Perseverance no Indivisible Term. Queries about it 3147 c. Pilate transported with Ambition passion c. 3066 Popes infallibilitie an improvement of Jewish heresie 3067 obliges succeeding popes to continue in errour if their Predecessors did confirm any 3068 Pharaoh one Religious in his kind 3190 Second Pharaoh his Projects Infant-killing 3191 A third Pharaoh the Subject of hardening c. ibid. This Pharaoh and his people bound to make restitution to the Israelites for their predecessors wrongs ibid. A fame of an Hebrew Child to be born c. made Pharaoh kill the Infants 3192 Pharaoh's hardening wrought by Gods gentle Checks 3193 3196 3197 Degrees of Pharaoh's hardening 3198 3200 Pharaoh's repentance like the Divels vow 3199 Process of Pharaoh's hardening 3201 Pharaoh infatuated ibid. and 3204 retaliated ibid. Pharaoh's itch to see more miracles 3202 Pharaoh hardened by Gods irresistible will 3225 Pharaoh no absolute Reprobate from the womb nor born to be hardened 3226 3232 to 3242 Gods hardening Pharaoh justifiable by Rules of equitie 3230 Pharaoh in his Infancie was not excluded from possibilitie of repentance by Gods irresistible will 3240 c. Once Possible alwaies possible to God 3241 The Fallacie upon it Ergo possible to save Pharaoh having filled up his measure of sin 3242 Logical possibilitie presupposed to the working of Gods Power 3176 c. Possibilities both waies supposed in monitions 3246 Polemo mutatus 3138 Potter and vessel a dialogue 3228 Two Postulata 3249 Phâ—lo Judaeus probably the Author of the Book of Wisdom 3205 Physitians Rules applyed to Spiritual matters 3120 Plinie his sense of mans disorder 3020 Plinie Junior his saying of Affliction 3121 Plerophorie See Faith Predestination See Election Premisses must be recanted before conclusions 3185 Professors zealous to mens eyes may be servants to sin 3078 Prodigalitie 3065 A Prayer Lord deliver me from my self 3039 A Church Prayer decides the case about Grace and Free-will 3131 Two Church prayers more commended to use 3269 More Church prayers explicated c. 3271 Gods promises without oath revocable under oath not so 3148 Gods promise to Abraham ratified by Degrees 3152 In Promises seek your salvation not in Parcarum Tabulis 3267 Proposition universal Negative simply turned The Foul Fallacie made out of it 3162 3185 3275 Libertie of Prophesying had sad effects 3274 Protopatbie 3119 Pulpit-pride 3024 Man purges himself how 3111 Pythagâ—ras his Cure his precepts his Scholars honestie 3135 3137 Of Christs everlasting Priesthood Read the seventh and eighth Sections beginning Fol. 3252 The high preeminencie of Christs Priesthood above the Legal 3261 c. Wherein the Exercise of Christs Priest-hood doth consist 3301 c. and how fore-shadowed ibid. He cures our soules by the exercise thereof 3303 Our Ministerie vain without That ibid c. the use of Christs Priest-hood and the Efficacie of his Sacrifice two different things 3301 His vertual presence is a Real presence 3298 3303 c. Local presence implies not alwaies Real and vertual presence 3304 Christ is a perennal perpetual purification for sin 3300 3295 Q. A Question named 3013 Another Question stated c. 3283 Mr. Burtons quarel with the Author 3175 Novatianus his quarel with Cornelius Bishop of Rome 3281 Novatus his quarel with or feare from St. Cyprian 3291 R. REcta ratio 3022 Ratio recta a competent witness for though no Rule or Judge in Divine Mysteries 3073 Right Reason and Rules of Art needful for such as are called to studie Controversies in Divinitie 3010 c. Rules of Art tell what Scripture-Propositions be universal particular c. Affirmative Negative c. ibid. Rules of Art good perspective Glasses and shew the Legal descent of Consequences 3011 Guides of reason Artistotle Plato c. provided by God and thankfully to be acknowledged 3011 Want of these rules of Art in pretended Favourites of the Spirit the occasion of many Controversies ibid. Of this want in others the effects 3012 A rule of St. Ambrose his Finis dicendorum ratio dictorum 3160 c. A rule of the Authors Search the places of the Old Testament to which places in the New Testament relate 3227 Chemnitius his rule State questions upon Texts 3017 A rule of Hemingius his Seek salvation in promises not in Parcarum Tabulis 3267 Ad quid teneatur homo cum primùm ad usum rationis pervenerit 3100 3130 3146 As reason ripens sin quickens 3159 St. Basilâ—s Testimonie of that assertion 3163 Reflexive power the root of freedom 3086 To reflect upon and revise what has befaln us a dutie of Concernment 3085 3108 c. 3038 Reconciliation two-fold 3267 again two-fold 3278 Reconciliation how wrought the ground of hope ibid. Red Heifer see Heifer See Parallels Regenerate and unregenerate how corrupted with sin 3036 c. Rom. 7. meant of a man inter Regenerandum 3026 Regeneration The same measure of it wil not serve men as will save Infants 3101 3159 Even Regenerate ones need daily cleansing by the Bloud of Christ our High-Priest 3269 3287 c. Reiteration of Sacrifices a sure Argument of their imperfection 3263 3290 Rhemists distinction vain 3291 Relations have no Cause but that which caused their Foundation 3012 Reprobated from Eternitie how men are said to be 3167 Though men be Reprobated from eternitie yet if any born Reprobates none Reprobates at point of Baptism ibid. Absolute reprobation the Effects and Consequences of that Tenet 3186 c. Absolute reprobation no print of it in Pharaoh or in the eleven first Chapters of Exodus 3205 Causes of reprobation to assign them without warrant of Scripture dangerous 3204 Reprobation See Election Judas Decree Rigid Tenets See Decree Righteousnesse Original See Adam Reviviscentia meritorum 3285 Revolters to Heathenism denyed by the Primitive Church admission to Penance Absolution 3282 God rewards according to works not Entities or Natures 3167 3284 Roman Ritual cited 3114 Romish slaverie 3066 c. S. SAcrament None to be admitted to the Lords Table before they Ratifie their Baptismal vow 3272 Sacrament See Baptism Body and Bloud The one Sacrifice of Christ of the Alsufficiencie Eminencie Efficacie infinite vertue and value of it read the seventh and eighth Sections beginning at Fol. 3252 more particularly Fol. 3262 3266 c. 3293 c 3288 c. The infinite value and everlasting Efficacie of Christs one Sacrifice be two distinct things 3267 3294 c. so be the Efficacie of his Sacrifice and use of his Priesthood 3301 Christs one Sacrifice much wronged by the Doctrine of the Masse 3262 More Errors against his Sacrifice and Priesthood 3263 c. 3266 c. 3279 3280 3289 c. 3298 Sacrifices that did need reiteration were imperfect 3263 3290 c. Sacrifices were favorabilis commutatio poenae what they taught 3293 of Christs Sacrifice the perennal and perpetual Efficacie foretold by Zacharie 3300 By his Sacrifice on the Cross
from sin that is Albeit he was not from his Creation either by nature or by supernaturall endowment utterly impeccable yet by the assistance and benignity of his Gratious Creator he might have attained unto such a perpetuall estate or immunity from falling into sin 4. The question about merit of works no way concerns the First man in his primaeval Estate Suppose he had preserved or imployed the Talent concredited unto him at his first creation aright should the superaddition or crowning of his First Estate with perseverance have been a meer gift of grace or rather a kinde of merit This is a Question not very pertinently moved by some Schoole-men and the Contradictory to their determination more inconsiderately maintained by some modern Disputants or Logical Criticks For seeing Adam received that great Talent concredited to him in his creation not absolutely or to use it as he pleased but at his perill or under express penalty that if he misimployed it or contemned his Commandement which bestowed it upon him he should dye the death it is no way improbable that if he had improved his Talent for some competent time that the state wherein he was created should have been hereditary to him and his not by such free Grace as is bestowed upon us under the Gospell but by way of Merit de congruo though not according to Commutative yet to Distributive Justice rather then by meere Mercy or benignity But this opinion I vent not with any intention to move or abett disputes or controversies already moved about this curious Question but rather to perswade the Reader that all questions concerning the Merits of works or of perseverance in that Grace by which all good works are wrought must be reduced or confined to the estate or condition of mankinde since Adams Fall Of which Question thus stated or limited I shall I hope be able to give the Reader or any that will soberly dispute or conferr with me in it better satisfaction Vivâ voce then this Treatise without digression will permit me to do The principall Points in it or which I had in my thoughts either to prosecute or propose The First man was neither necessitated to continue good nor to become Evil. are these following First That albeit the First man were by vertue of Creation righteous and just yet were neither his perseverance or non-perseverance in this righteousnesse absolutely necessary both of them possible That both were possible hath been declared at Large before in the sixth book of Commentaries upon the Creed In the 2 Part 2 Sect. Chap. 13. c. of the Attributes unto which I referr the Ingenuous Reader where he may finde this proposition as I take it demonstrated That to decree or appoint a mutual or reciprocal Possibility between our First Parents perseverance or non-perseverance was Facible to the Omnipotent Creator because it neither implies nor presupposeth any Contradiction in Terminis And whatsoever effect or praenotion answerable unto it implies no Contradiction either in it self or to the Goodnesse of the Divine Nature or Deity is Facible by Power Omnipotent that is The Almighty Creator might have decreed or yet may decree it when he pleaseth The Second Principle or supposition in this place to be handled is Whether the Almighty Creator did de Facto decree or ordain that neither the Perseverance or non-perseverance of the First Man or of our First Parents should be absolutely Necessary but contingent Or in other terms thus That the Estate or condition wherein they were created might have continued to this day for them and their successors undefeatable That their Perseverance or the perseverance of their Posterity in the state of Righteousnesse wherein they were created was not necessary by any Divine Ordinance or decree is clear from the Event because the First man and the First woman did fall de Facto from that Estate wherein they were created which neither of them could have done if their First Estate had been by vertue of the Almighties Decree or any ordinance from him Immutable or absolutely Necessary But can it be as strongly proved That the fall of our first Parents or their eating of the Forbidden Fruit did not proceed from any necessitating Decree or undefeatable contrivance of the Almightie Creators Wisdom To perswade men which have not their senses exercised in points of Logical or Scholastick disputes that the Fall of our First Parents was not necessary no not in respect of the Divine Decree or ordinance would be a harder task then to prove that their Perseverance was not in respect of that Decree necessary That our First Parents did fall from their Estate is a Question of Fact of which every honest good man may be a competent Judge at least able enough to resolve himself But whether it was as possible for them not to have fallen as it was to fall is Questio Juris or more then so a point of Metaphysical or Theological disquisition wherein it would be very hard to find a Grand-Jury of Profest Divines in any one County almost throughout this Kingdom which could be competent Judges or fit Inquisitors Not that they want either skill or industry for interpreting sacred Scripture which is the only true rule of Faith and manners aright but for want of skill or memory in Secular Arts how to examine or determine what Consequences or inferences are consonant or dissonant to the undoubted Rule of Faith or to the unquestionable Maxims contained in it For deciding or waiving such Controversies as are emergent not so much out of the sence of Scriptures as out of such Inferences or Consequences whether negative or affirmative as contentious or unresolved spirits would fasten upon it Recta ratio that is Reason regulated by Rules of unquestionable Arts or Sciences is the most competent Judge That there is but one God and one Lord That the only God is a God of Goodness and willeth no wickednesse are positive points of Faith and Christian Belief Fundamental Maxims in Theologie To dispute or move any question directly about the truth or limitation of these Maxims would be a branch of Infidelity or which perhaps is worse an approach to Blasphemy CHAP. V. Of the Right use of Reason or Rules of Art for determining Controversies in Divinity whereof the Sacred Scripture is the sole Rule 1. Of the use of Arts in discussing Controversies in Theologie BUt admit this Maxim There is but one God and he a God of Goodness no Author or abetter of evil were undoubtedly believed by all Yet this inference or Consequence might be as it hath long time been controversed Whether he that avoucheth This only God to have decreed the Fall of the First Man to have been necessary or inevitable might be demonstratively convinced to make him the Author and Cause the only Cause of the First Mans sin and of all the sins which necessarily issue from it or from the Nature of man corrupted by it
or Idols Who then Qui colit ille facit He or they alone turn Images or Pictures into Idols or false Gods Qui fingit sacros auro vel marmore vultus which worship or adore them Non facit ille Deos qui colit ille facit But the former Opinion or imagination whether in respect of God as he was the First mans Creator or of the wisdom of God Martial as he is our Lord and Redeemer is Intrinsecal and Formal Idolatry or Idolatry in the Abstract without any external Object to dote upon or to entice men to bestow worship upon it The Heathens committed Idolatry in their Temples or in their houses but this Idolatry is committed within his Brain that entertains it The Essence of it formally consists in the Reflexion of the Imagination upon it self or in the complacency which men take in such Reflexions if any man happily which I much doubt can be delighted with such imaginations The very height of Heathenish Idolatry as our Apostle instructs us Rom. 1. 23 c. did consist in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four-footed beasts and creeping things Now if the wisdom of God had sent wise-men and Prophets unto the Jews unto the End that Jerusalem should be destroyed and righteous bloud required of them His weeping over Jerusalem had better resembled or expressed the disposition of a Crocodile then the Nature either of God or any good Man Nor was it greater Idolatry in the Heathen to change the glory of the uncorruptible God into the image or likenesse of a Crocodile as the Egyptians did then it is to ascribe the properties of this noysome beast or any such disposition as the Historical Emblem of the Crocodile doth represent unto the Son of God who came into the world not to destroy or hurt but to save sinners and to be consecrated to be the * Heb. 5. 9. Author of Everlasting Salvation to all that Obey him These Two Branches of Idolatry The One planted in the Egyptian who worshipped the Crocodile for his god The other in such as worship or nourish such sinister imaginations of the Son of God as have been specified differ no more then the way from Athens to Thebes doth from the way from Thebes to Athens 5. The original occasion of the former errors or ill expressions The main head or source original whence all or most of the harsh expressions whether of Reformed writers or of Roman Catholiques whence all the aspersions which both or either of them indirectly or by way of necessary consequence cast upon our Lord Creator and Redeemer naturally issue is that Common or Fundamental Errour That all things the changes and chances of this inferior World not excepted are necessary in respect of God or of his irresistible Decree That nothing not humane Acts can be Contingent save only with reference to Second Causes Now if there be no Contingency in humanc Acts there neither is nor ever was nor ever can be any Free-will in man The original of this common Error That all things are Necessary in respect of the Divine Decree hath been sufficiently discovered in the sixth book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed Sect. 2. Chap. 12. Where the Reader may find the Truth of this Proposition or Conclusion clearly demonstrated That to Decree a Contingency in some works or Course of Nature in Humane Acts especially was as possible to him unto whom nothing is impossible as it was to decree a Necessity in some others works or Courses of Nature As for instance To Decree or constitute that our Father Adam should have a Free power or Faculty either to eat or not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit doth imply no Contradiction and therefore was absolutely possible to the Almighty Creator so to ordain or Decree But many things as the observant Reader will except are possible which are not probable or never are brought into Act. True Yet that the Almighty Creator did de Facto or actually decree a Mutual Possibility of Adams Falling and not Falling or between his Fall and Perseverance hath been in this present Treatise and in some others demonstrated from the Article Concerning The Goodness of God or his Gratious providence by such Demonstration as the Case now in handling is capable of that is by Evident Deduction of the Contradictory Opinion to this Impossibility That God otherwise was the only Cause of our First Parents sins and of all other sins which necessarily issue from their sins unlesse it be granted and agreed upon that Adams Falling or not Falling should both be alike possible that neither should or could be necessary either to the First or Second Causes To deny that God did ordain or constitute a true and Facible Mean between the Necessity of Adams Perseverance in the State wherein he was created and the Necessity of his Falling into sin that is a mutual Possibility of falling or not of Falling into sin would imply as Evident a Contradiction unto or impeachment of his Goodness as it would do to his Omnipotency if any man should peremptorily deny that the Constitution or Tenour of such a Decree were possible to his Almighty power To say God could not possibly make such a disjunctive Decree or such a Tenour of mutual possibility betwixt things Decreed as hath been often mentioned would be a grosse Error yet an error I take it not so dangerous as to deny that he did de Facto make such a Decree For our Gratious Creator Redeemer and Sanctifier is doubtless more jealous to have his Goodness impeached or suspected then to have his Almighty Power questioned 6. Thus much of the main general Query Concerning the manner how sin or that evil which we call Malum culpae did find First entrance into the works of God and in particular into the nature of Man from the first moment of whose creation he and all the rest of Gods visible works had this Elogium or commendation that they were Exceeding Good No entrance of sin into the works of God into man especially was possible without the Incogitancy or Inadvertency of a Free Cause or Agent The true nature of the first sin and of its haynousnesse did especially consist in this that whereas our gratious Creator had endowed our First Parents with a Power or faculty to Doe well exceeding well and given them good encouragement to persevere in so doing they should so incogitantly and quickly abuse this power and the Divine Concourse or assistance that did attend it to do that which was evil that which the Lord their Creator had so peremptorily forbidden them to do under commination of a dreadful punishment to ensue upon the doing of it The difficulty or main Querie which remains all that hath been said being granted is principally this How this one sinful Act of our First Parents could possibly produce an Habit
knows Israel knows not Jerem. 8. 7. The Stork c. Serpents sting not Serpents nor bite one another with their venemous teeth Nay the very Monsters and huge fishes of the Sea war not amongst themselves in their own kind But believe me Man at mans hand receiveth most harm and mischief Thus far Plinie 4. Heathen Naturalists hold better Consort with the Primitive church concerning the nature of Sin Original then the Socinians do We have no reason sufficient to perswade us to believe or to suspect that this great Naturalist did ever peruse any part of the Booke of Grace not so much of it as is contained in the History of Moses much less such passages in it as concern this Point as are comprehended in the Prophets in the Evangelists or in S. Pauls Epistles Or if any man have better reasons then I have to believe or suspect that he might have read them all or the most part of them It would notwithstanding be a groundlesse surmise to imagin that he had been Catechized by Christs Apostles or their Deputies or that he had received any spiritual Grace either by Baptism or Imposition of Their hands Now albeit we suppose or grant that he had read the Books of Moses or some passages in the Prophets but deny what I think no man will affirm that he was Baptized or made partaker of Grace by Christ the Cause is clear that he could have no better guide for searching after or finding out those Orthodoxal Truths or Notions which he hath most Elegantly exprest then Recta Ratio that is the right use of Reason which Nature though corrupted in him had not utterly extinguished but much weakned And here I can rather wish then pray that this man had lived in this Age or might be restored to Life again to encounter those Semi-Christians which contend for the Soveraignty of Recta Ratio as if It were the onely Guide or Rule of Christian Faith But albeit I dare not pray nor can I hope to hear Plinie speak to this or any other good purpose in this Life Yet I verily believe that the writings which this Vncatechized Heathen hath left and he himself shall rise up in Judgement against those proud Phantastick spirits which having been Baptized in the name of Christ and Catechized in the fundamental points of Christian Faith do either flatly deny or captiously question Whether our Nature were so deeply tainted with that Sin which we call Original or so far deprived of Freedom or power to restore our selves to our primaeval state of Nature as that the Death and Resurrection of a Redeemer more then meer man and his Everlasting Priesthood were necessarily required for freeing us from the bondage of Satan 5. Seeing this Modern Sect of men as Pelagius their Father whose errors concerning the state of the First man and of Sin Original have been mightily improved by them have been S. Austin not the First that did maintain Original sin and are such notorious Trewants in the Book of Nature and such Schediastick Surveyors of the Book of Grace as none have been or can be beside such as in their sceptical contrivances hold it a part of Policy or state to draw all or most such forces of Reason as Nature or Grace had implanted in their breasts to guard their Brains or fortifie the inventions of their Fancies It is not to be expected that they should much regard the Unanimous consent of the Orthodoxal and Primaeval Church Some of this Sect are well contented to oppose the consent of such Antiquity as in other points they slight against those who reverence the memory of the Ancient Martyrs or Fathers especially before S. Austins time Others of them are not ashamed to accuse this great and Learned Father for being the First Author of that Doctrine which we maintain Concerning the Nature of Sin Original Now to presse them with his Authority whom they accuse as an Author of Errour would be bootlesse Wherefore waving his Authority for the present for being any competent Judg or Advocate in this Controversie No ingenuous or sober man can except against him as an unfit Witness in this Cause concerning the Tenents of the Ancient Church or against others whom he produceth as witnesses beyond all Exception which either Pelagius himself his Followers or the Manichees could have taken against them in his time Neque enim ex quo esse coepit Manichaei pestilentiosa doctrina ex illo coeperunt in Ecclesta Dei parvuli baptizandi Exorcizari exufflari Vt ipsis mysteriis oftenderetur non eos in regnum Christi nisi erutos à tenebrarum potestate transferri Quid autem dicam de ipsis divinarum scripturarum tract atoribus qui in Catholica Ecclesia floruerunt Quomodo haec non in alios sensus câ—nati sunt vertere quoniam stabiles erant in antiquissima robustissima fide non autem novitio movebantur errore Quos si Colligere eorum testimoniis uti velim nimis longum erit de Canonicis autoritatibus à quibus non debemus averti minus fortasse videbor praesumpsisse quam debui Veruntamen ut omittam beatissimum Ambrosium cui Pelagius sicut jam commemoravi tam magnum integritatis in fide perhibuit testimonium qui tamen Ambrosius nihil aliud defendit in parvulis ut haberent necessarium Medicum Christum nisi Originale Peccatum Nunquid gloriosissimae coronae Cyprianus dicetur ab aliquo non solùm fuisse sed vel esse potuisse Manichaeus cum prius iste sit passus quà m illa in orbe Romano pestis apparuit tamen in libro de Baptismate parvulorum ita defendit Originale peccatum ut propterea dicat ante oct avum diem si necesse sit Parvulum batizari oportere ne pereat Quem tanto vult intelligi ad indulgentiam Baptismi facilius pervenire quanto magis ei dimittuntur non propria sed aliena peccata Hos iste audeat dicere Manichaeos antiquissimam Ecclesiae Traditionem isto nefario crimine aspergat qua Exorcizantur ut dixi Exufflantur parvuli ut in regnum Christi à potestate tenebrarum hoc est Diaboli Angelorum ejus eruti transferantur Aug. l. 2. de nuptiis concupiscentia c. 29. CHAP. IX Of the properties or effects of Sin Original known by the light of Nature and by Scripture 1. The Propertie of Original Sin is to Lust after things forbidden by the Law of God and of Nature ENough it is to perswade any reasonable man That Original Sin is not A meer privation or a proportioned shadow of Being without a Reality answering to it seeing that in man the Note or Character of whose distinction from or excellency above all other visible Creatures is the use of Reason there usually is such a Lethargie or sloathful deadnesse to do that which the very Law of Nature or Reason doth dictate unto him or
command him to do and such an eager pronenesse or appetite to do those things which the Law of Reason or of Nature forbids him to do and those things with greatest Eagernesse which the same Law of Reason or other positive Laws derived from it most peremptorily and upon severest penalties forbid him to do It hath been observed by many Authors that the Unnatural sin of Parricide wilful Murther of Father or Mother or of Superiour Kindred did not become rife or frequent amongst the Romans until they had upon particular sad accidents enacted a publick Law and ordained a special kind of torment for transgressors in this kind Lucius Ostius was the first amongst the Romans that did commit this Unnatural sin And He lived almost six hundred years after the City was founded a little after the second Punick War Some good ‖ See Plutarch in the Life of Romulus Laertius in the Life of Solon and Tully in His second Oration Pro Roscio Amerino who gives the true Character or Expression of that speech of Laertius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 untowardly rendred by the Latin Interpreter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. in Rom. pag. 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Solon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Diog. Lacrt. l. 1. in Solone Is Solon cùm interrogaretur Cur Nullum supplicium constituisset in Eum qui Parentem necâsset respondit se id neminem facturum putasse Sapienter fecisse dicitur cùm de eo nihil sanxerit quod antea commissum non erat ne non tam Prohibere quà m admonere videretur Tull. Orat. 2. Pro Sext. Roscio Amerino Writers ascribe the long abstinence from this unnatural sin unto the wisdom of Romulus their Founder who enacted no Law against much lesse appointed any peculiar kind of death unto this Crime which He expected should never be committed by His Posterity Certain it is that Solon for the like reason did not so much as mention this Crime in His otherwise most severe Laws But this observation was taken from the Heathen Romans in times ancient and far more remote and doth not as happily will be objected hold in these times or places wherein we live Yet the Ingenuous and Learned French †Thuanus Historian who meddles with the History of his own times only tels us that the like unnatural sin towards Children or Infants did never come to so high and far-spreading a Flow in the great City of that Kingdom until the State or Parliament had erected a peculiar Court to be held for examination or trial of such Cruel Mothers as sought to salve the breach of one Commandment by the violation of another to cover the shame of their own wantonnesse by murthering the tender fruits of their folly as if the Damme which the Law had set for repressing or stopping the Course of this bloudy sin had but provoked the stream or Current to swell higher and greater to overburst all obstacles or inhibitions which the Laws of God the Laws of Nature and of the Kingdom had set against it 2. Again why Pulpit-pride why Clergie-cunning insolency or malice should grow into a Proverb throughout most Christian Kingdoms or Provinces as if these or like transgressions in our profession were of such a scantling as could hardly be matched by the Laitie I cannot give a more probable reason if the imputation be true or the occasion of the Proverbe just then this That Men of our profession who are Gods peculiar Inheritance are bound by the Lawes of God to more strict observance of our Saviours praecepts concerning Humility Meeknesse Brotherly-love and Charity or peaceable disposicion towards all then ordinary Men or men of other Callings or professions are And we know whose saying it is That if we do not continue as we are by the place wherein he hath set us the Salt of the Earth and Light of the World We shall become the most degenerate unprofitable members of the Land and Church wherein we Live And if the whole Tribe were to beare peculiar Armes as some other ingenuous Professions doe No Device could so well befit us as Jeremiah's two Baskets of Figges Then saia the Lord unto me What seest thou Jeremiah and I said Figgs the good Figgs very good and the evill very evill that cannot be eaten they are so evill Jer. 24. 3. The bad Figs were the Emblem of the disobedient refractory as the good Figs were of the obedient and beleeving Jewes in the Prophets time Both parts of the Embleme are as applyable to the Sons of Levi in our dayes Such of this Tribe as suffer sin to raigne in their Mortall bodies are generally the worst of sinners Such as mortifie the workes of the flesh by the spirit by prayer and other good services of God and seeke their Freedome or manumission by the Son of God Working out their Salvation with feare and trembling are the Best of all Gods Saints on Earth 3. The proper effects or Symptomes of Sinâ— Original described by S. Paul But the greatest part of the Induction hitherto made for finding out the properties or Symptomes of Sin original will be excepted against especially by such as are meer strangers to their own Breasts or dispositions of their hearts because the particular observations or Experiments whereof the Induction consists have been made by the Heathen or related by Authors not Canonicall But the Exception will voyd it self if we shall make it cleer to men altogether unexperienced of themselves that the like Experiments or observations have been made and more fully expressed by one whose Authority is Canonical whose Testimony of Experiments made in himself and taken by himself is most Authentick it is St. Paul That sin Originall was in the world before the Law was given is cleer from this Apostle Rom. 5. 13. For untill the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed when there is no Law So our English and most other Modern translations render the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 None of them altogether so well as it might be rendred Better thus There is not there cannot be any true estimate or full reckoning made of sin where there is no Law to give the * The Syriack reades it Usque enim ad Legem peccatii quum esset in mundo non reputabatur peccatum propterea quòd nâ—n erat Lex That is Sin though it were in the world untill the Law yet was it not reputed or reckoned for sin untill the law was given But if it be true which the Appostle Saith that sin raigned unto death untill the Law I hope it was imputed with a Witnesse Charge And againe Ver. 20. Moreover the Law entred that the offence might abound This abounding of the offence whereof he speakes was the issue or effect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the End or Finall Cause why the Law was given For so the Law-giver might be suspected to have been the Author of sin
was tainted by tasting or eating of it For of it he did eate as much as Evah did if not more though she were more in the transgression because she had plucked it from the tree And I cannot conjecture any ground why any ingenuous Reader of the sacred Story should peremptorily reject this opinion which I for my poore talent in Divinite hold in some better esteem then a meere or probable conjecture No Article of Christian Faith it is though we should suppose Faith it self to be no more then an Opinion yet to be admitted into the List of piè Credibilia or to be ranked amongst such opinions as may be more piously and more safely beleeved then peremptorily rejected or derided The Consequence of this Opinion or Supposition is That Adam did become his own Executioner Or as the Canonists speak incidere in Canonem did absolutely inflict that punishment upon himself unto which his Creator had but conditionally sentenced him Gen. 2. 17. But of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evill thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye There was no Necessity Laid upon him by his Creator that he should eat of it but such a peremptory Restraint or Command to the Contrary that whensoever he did eat of it Death should necessarily follow And so it did for Mortality and Corruption did enter into his Nature with the Figg or Apple which he tasted not only upon the same day wherein he tasted it but in the very same moment And the same mortality and corruption are propagated to all his Sons from the first moment or point of time wherein they begin to be his Sons Or more briefly The Forbidden Fruit of what sort soever it were did as truly beget or bring forth corruption and Mortality in our Nature as Adam did beget Cain or Evah bring him forth 2. Objections that are or can be made against the former Resolutions answered But it may be and I presume will be Objected That not the Forbidden Fruit only but the whole Tree whereon it grew root and branch were immediately created by God before Adam could taste or eat of it And if it were for specifical quality poysonous or did necessarily taint the whole humane Nature being once tasted of How can either Fruit or Tree be conceived to be any part of Gods six-days-works all of which were very good Or how shall we salve or be able to maintain that Maxim of the Wise man God did not create death Wisd 1. 13. seeing he did create that poysonous Fruit by which our Nature was deadly poysoned Facilis Solutio the answer is ready Albeit deadly poyson be not Good to him that takes it yet that there should be poyson or herbs and fruits in their nature poysonous as well as medicinal or wholsom is and from the beginning was very Good Good likewise it was exceeding Good that the First man should have death as well as Life proposed to his Free or unnecessitatible choice So the whole fault was in himself no part in the fruit which God had forbidden him to eat For he by thus eating of it did chuse death before life And however the fruit which we suppose to have carried deadly poyson with it into his body were immediately created by God Yet that of the Prophet is more remarkably true of our first Parents then of Israel unto whom it was directed Perditio tua ex te O Adam Thou wast the cause of thine own and of our destruction But of our salvation in and through the promised seed Our gratious Creator is the sole Cause and Author Again Albeit Adam did exceeding ill in chusing death before Life yet This in the Consequence by special dispensation of divine Mercy was Good for us Our Nature was not so much wounded or made worse by that unhallowed Food as our persons are bettered and our estate amended by the new Covenant in Christs bloud unlesse we abuse those Talents which our Gratious Creator and Redâ—emer hath given us as Adam did his Were Free choice left unto us which now are living Whether we would accept that estate or Condition of life wherein Adam was created or that which is granted us by the new Covenant in Christs bloud He should commit as great a folly as our First Parents did that would not embrace the later Condition and refuse the Former 3 But for the former Difficulty How more then a Habit of sin an Hereditary disease of nature should be produced by one or two Acts I am afraid some men make it seem a great deal greater then it is more by their own incogitancy then by any positive Argument that can be brought to enlarge or presse it further then at the first sight it appears to every young Student First these men take it not into consideration that our First parents might commit more Actual sins then that One often mentioned before the corruption of nature was propagated to their Successors Besides The Alteration of their diet change of dwelling and air might depresse their nature and dispose then to a deeper degree of Mortality and Corruption then they were subject unto when they were first driven out of Paradise And Paradise for ought we know or can possibly object to the contrary might for many conveniences and conducements to preservation of health whether of body or minde exceed all other habitations as far as Princes Palaces do common Gaoles What further impressions other occurrences besides these mentioned intervenient between our First Parents Grand-sin and the birth of Cain of Seth or others of their Children from whom all the Kindreds of the earth Lineally descended might make in the nature propagated from them or what effects or Symptomes our mother Evah's Longing after the forbidden Fruit might leave in her self or in her Children is unknown to us yet a Point to be considered by such as think it scarce possible for one Act to produce a Habit. This we know in general That the eager Longings of Mothers or distastes or affrightments taken by them do often imprint many hereditary dispositions in their Children And from this original all or most of those strange Antipathies unto meats or drinks in themselves good and wholsome and unto other Live or Livelesse creatures no way noysome do as Learned Physitians resolve us naturally issue Yet no Antipathies in private families can be so perpetually hereditary as those inclinations unto Evil or Antipathies unto goodnesse which proceeded from the First well-head or spring of our Nature to wit from our mother Evah That being once corrupted could not but corrupt the whole current As for Evah's Lusting after whatsoever other unlawful pleasures her Longing after the Fair-seeming Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge we may hence gather to have been very intemperate and exuberant beyond the ordinary size of unruly appetites in that Holiness with sobriety is more specially at Least under more expresse
For Righteousness original to speak properly could be no other work or Effect imaginable save only the Resultance of that image of God wherein our Nature was first moulded And this Resultance was as immediate unto and as unseparable from the image of God wherein the first man was created as Roundness is from a perfect sphere or well moulded bullet or as Equality is from Identity of quantity Of none of which there can be two distinct Causes or Operations 2. To make the Image of God or that righteousnesse which by immediate necessity resulted from Gods image or work the substance nature or essential form of man quâ talis as he is man would be a grosse Error or grievous Soloecism in Philosophy For so Adam should not have been the same individual Party or Person after his Fall which he was before And this Error in Philosophy uncontrol'd would necessarily induce a more dangerous Heresie in Divinity to wit That the same party which was made righteous by God should not be punished for losing this Righteousnesse but some other for him By the same reason the Humane Nature it self which is now polluted by sin should not be so much as specifically the same with that which God did in the beginning create Our Nature as now it stands should be wholly a work or Creature of the Devil 3. But this Good writer I mean Illyricus iterum identidem often and again disclaims all Opinion or thought conceived by him of any Specifical change of the Essence or nature of mankind from the first Creation to the worlds End or of any Essential Change or destruction of the Individual Nature or Persons of our First Parents Yet his Expressions of his meaning sometimes may seem to infer either a change of Nature or a destruction of the Two Individuals first created by God It may be that Opinion of some late Philosophers Principium Individuationis est à materia that The root of Individuation or distinction of one particular Person from another was wholly from the Matter not from the Form which is the principal paâ—t of every mans Essence or person was imbraced by him But seeing he utterly disclaims the former Conclusions or Inferences which some would put upon him it would not be ingenuous to charge him with them upon Consequences not of his own but of other mens making The Learned and ingenuous Reader will easily excuse him from this One Error in Philosophie seeing he hath taught such as will be taught by him so many good useful Lessons as no Divine which I have read in modern Churches hath taught more for avoyding Sceptical or meerly Dialectical and making solid and theological Definitions in substantial or Fundamental points of Divinity â— or no Definition of sin especially or of Free-will or other Controversie depending upon their Determination can be truly Theological or such as a professor of Divinity if he be a true Artist can brook unlesse it be truly and solidly Philosophical 4. The difference between a Nominal or meerely Dialectical and a true Philosophical or Physical Definition of one and the same Reall Effect affection or propertie The difference between meerly Dialectical and Philosophical or Theological Definitions is Excellently set down in sundry Treatises by the Great Philosopher If this question Quid est ira what is that which we call Wrath or Anger were proposed to a meere Logician or Dialecticall Grammarian His answer is upon his tongues end Ira est appetitio vindictae Vâ— rath or Anger is a esâ—â—e or appetition of revenge But this is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a meere Expression what the Word doth signifie or at the â—est but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Definition only of the Abstract Essence of the Accident or Affection But if the same question were proposed to a true Philosopher to a good Naturalist or Learned Physitian his answer would be Ira est ebullâ— tio sanguinis circa cor Wrath or Anger is in truth and indeed neither lesse nor more then the boyling of the blood about the heart This is the only root or Real Cause whence Anger immediatly growes Yet if we would take a full Definition of this most unruly passion which is the usual Commander in chief of greatest Commanders it must be This according to the rules of Art Ira est appetitio vindictae propter Ebullitionem sanguinis circa cor Wrath or Anger is an appetition of revenge caused by the boyling of blood about the heart And from this Definition Every good Moralist such all true Divines should be and somewhat more may Learne in part how to curbe or tame This unruly Beast according to the old proverb Equo ferocientisubtrahendum pabulum by abstaining from all Cholerick meates and by withdrawing his self from all probable occasions which by one sense or other may set his best blood on boyling 5. He that saith An Eclipse is the privation of light in the moone or other heavenly starr speakes properly Enough For this is the Essential Definition of that which we call an Ecliose whether in the Sun or in the Moone Yet but a Nominal Definition which every young Scholar or Academick may Learne out of his Lexicon What more then is required to a Philosopâ—icall or Real Definition of an Eclipse whether in the Moon Sun or other stars Nothing besides the assignation of the Reall Cause by which this defect of light is wrought whether in the Sun or Moon The Reall cause of this privation of Light in the moon is the Diametral interposition of the shadow of the earth between the Moon and the Sun from whom as from the Fountain of Light this second Light or Governesse of the night doth borrow its Light or Splendor Albeit of these two Definitions the Grammatical or Nominal be most proper Yet the Causal though taken alone as Philosophers use to express it is most Reall and more satisfactorie An Eclipse in the Moon is the interposition of the Earth betwixt the Sun and it The Eclipse of the Sun is the interposition of the body of the Moon betwixt the Sun and us that be inhabitants of the Earth Hence we may Learne that however the Nominal or Essential Definition of an Eclipse whether in the Sun or Moon or other Starr that is a Privation of Light be One and the same Yet we may Learne more from the Causal Definition of either of them then we can from the Nominal Definition of both In an Eclipse of the Sun there is no defect or privation of Light in it We inhabitants of the Earth onely are deprived of the light or Lustre of this glorious starr by the interposition of the body of the Moon between it and our bodily sight Whence we may truly inferr that the body of the Moon is in it self as impenetrable by Light or as uncapable of Transmission or free passage of Light through it as the body of the Earth is That the surface only of this
great starr is capable of Light by reflexion as a Globe of steel or other solid Body whose surfaces are smooth and Equable It doth not it cannot transmit Light or suffer it to be transfused through it after the manner of glass Yet if we should give a perfect and absolute Definition of an Eclipse in the Moon we must add the Abstract or nominal Definition of the Eclipse unto the Reall or Philosophicall As thus The Eclipse of the moon is a true and reall privation of light or splendor not in respect of us only but in it self caused by the interposition of the body of the Earth which hindereth the transmission of light which it borrowes from the Sun But the Eclipse of the Sun is only a privation of our sight or view of it occasioned or caused by the interposition of the dark body of the Moone betwixt this glorious Starr and fountaine of light and our eyes 6. The maine businesse wherein Illyricus is so Zealous was to banish all such Nominal or Grammatical Definitions as have been mentioned out of the precincts of Theologie and to put in continual Caveats against the Admission of Abstracts or mere Relations into the Definition of Original Sin or of that Unrighteousnesse which is inherent in the man unregenerate And however St. Austin Aquinas and Melancthon say in effect as much as Illyricus did if their meanings were rightly apprehended or weighed by their Followers Yet his Expressions of the Nature Cause and Properties of Original Sin were to his own and so they are to my apprehension more cleare more full and real then any Definitions of Aquinas or Melancthon Even where they speake most fully according to their own Principles unto this point Aquinas as this Author quotes him some where grantes Originale peccatum non esse meram privationem justitiae originalis that Original Sin is not only a meere privation or want of Original Righteousnesse but a positive or forcible inclination contrary to it Melancthon with many Others of the most Learned writers which have been in the Germane or French Church since Luther began to renounce the Romish Church acknowledge and Define the same Sin to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Disorder of our faculties and Affections or which is more a Depravation of our nature Or in other tearmes whether Greek or Latin fully equivalent unto these Wherein then doth this singular writer as some do censure him either differ from or go beyond Aquinas Melancthon or Others all of whom respectively grant as much and some of them more then is included in the Definitions or descriptions of Sin forecited out of Aquinas and Melancthon 7. Illyricus defines Originall Sin not by the Abstract but by the Concrete as thus Original Sin is the Nature of man corrupted or the affections or Faculties of our soules and bodyes disordered and depraved c.. He no where defines it to be the Nature the Substance or Faculties of men absolutely considered or without Limitation Yet to be All these so farr as they are depraved and corrupted or transformed out of that Image of God which was seated in them by Creation into the image or real similitude of Satan In man considered as he was the work of God or made after his image there was an exact Harmony or consonancie of Will unto the Law and Will of God an Exact Harmonie of Faculties and Affections amongst themselves and a sweet subordination of them unto the reasonable will or conscience whil'st that held consort with the will and Law of God But by the First Mans Fall or willfull transgression all parts of this Harmony are lost The sensitive desires Faculties or Affections are at continuall jarr and discord amongst themselves The best consort they hold is to fight joyntly against the Reasonable Soul and Conscience or spirituall part of our nature especially so far as it holds any Consort with the Will of God His Definition then of Sin by the substance or Nature of man as that is depraved or corrupted and the Definitions of other Writers which define it to be the Depravation of our nature or the difference between him when he defines it by the Faculties or parts of our nature as these are disordered or instamped with the image of Satan and other Divines who define it to be an Ataxie or disorder of the Affections and Faculties if we calculate their severall Expressions aright they come all to one Reckoning there is no more materiall question or reall difference betwixt them then if we should dispute whether Three times foure or foure times three Or two times six or six times two do better expresse or decipher the number of twelve Or whether Harmonie be a Consonancie of true voices or sounds Or true voices or sounds perfectly Consonant CHAP. XIII Calvin and Martyr c. consent with Illyricus in the Description of Original Sin How farr Sin Original may be said to be the Pollution of thewhole Nature and Faculties of man or the Faculties of man as they are polluted 1. The opinion of Calvin and Martyr concerning the nature of Original or acquired Sin BEsides many Other good Writers Calvin and Martyr in their Definitions or descriptions of Sin in the unregenerate man consort so well with Illyricus that he that will condemne any One of them will be concluded not to acquit either of the other Two He that approves One of them cannot but approve the Other if he either understand himself or them Calvin defines Sin Original to be a Pravity Corruption of nature Calvinus definit Peccatum Originale esse naturae pravitateÌ„ ac corruptionem ac mox exponens se dicit Imo tota hominis natura quoddam est peccati semen ideo non odiosa abominabilis Deo esse non potest Quae profectò ipsissima ratio formaque peccati originalis est ipsam certe essentiaÌ„ hominis pessimam describit Martyr quoque super Rom definiens Peccatum Originale eamque definitionem explicans non obscurè id ponit in ipsa mala Essentia hominis dicit enim totum hominem corruptissimum esse definit verò inquiens est ergo peccatum totius hominis naturae depravatio à lapsu primi parentis in posteros traducta per generationem c. Et mox definitionem explicans inquit In hac Definitione omnia genera Causarum habentur pro materia aut subjecto habemê° omnes hominis partes aut vires Forma est earuÌ„ omniuÌ„ depravatto c. En audis ei originale peccatum complecti etiam ipsas hominis partes ac vires quatenus sunt corruptae ac depravatae Illyricus in libello cui Titulus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Basileae impresso anno 1568. pag. 140. 141. and presently explaining himself saith yea the whole nature of man is a Kinde of Seed of Sin and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God which truly is the very Forme Essence or Definition of
vel non esse That only in true Philosophie and Divinity is properly Contingent which heretofore so hath been as it might not have been or hereafter may as well not be as really be or come to passe So far then is that Vulgar but lately received opinion That nothing is Contingent save only in respect of Second Causes from all shew of Truth or Probability that all things indeed besides the Supreme Agent or Causes of Causes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are in respect of Him Contingent For HE alone being Absolutely Independently and Uncontrollably Free in all his Actions had an Absolute Freedom either to Create or not to Create this World as now it is an Absolute Freedom Likewise to endow Angels or men with such a Freedom as now they have that is a Power of Contingency in their Operations or rather of producing Effects Contingent that is such Effects as have been so produced by them as that they might not have been produced or may hereafter alwayes presupposing the Limitation or moderation of the Supreme Cause or Agent be produced or not produced 3. This kind of Freedom is of Two Sorts or rather hath two Branches It is either of meer Contradiction Free-Will of Two Sorts or of Contrariety Or in other Termes it is either Quoad Exercitium or Quoad Specificationem As for Example It is Free for us to walk or not to walk in the morning And if we resolve not to walk not determining what else to do this is Libertas Contradiction is or quoad Exercitium It is likewise Free for us to read or not to read And after we have resolved to read some Book or other it is Free for us to make choice of some Godly Treatise or of some Lascivious Pamphlet In choosing the one and refusing the other we are said to do Freely Libertate Contrarietatis or quoad Specificationem 4. All the Controversie amongst Divines is about the Second kind of Freedom which is opposed to Necessity About this the Question is Whether it be Common to every Rational or Intelligent Nature Or if in some Degree or other it be Common to all how far Communicable to every such Nature according to their several states or Conditions 5. Without prejudice to other Mens Opinions which we rather seek to Reconcile to be reconciled unto then to Contradict or to be Contradicted by them Our First Assertion shall be This. There is no Rational or Intelligent Nature but is Free according to the Second Kind of Freedom that is It is Freed from all Necessity of doing or not doing of what it doth or doth not in Respect of some Acts Operations or Objects This Assertion we take as granted out of the Grounds of Philosophie For this Freedom whereof we treat is one of the most Essential if not the very First and Radical Prerogative which Reason hath above Sense 6. Our second Assertion shall be This The most Excellent Intellectual Nature the very Excellency of Nature Essence and Intellection is not Free with this Freedom of Indifferencie or Option in respect of Every Object God Almighty himself is not Free with this kind of Freedom to Act or intend Good or Evil. The Infinity of his Transcendent Goodnesse or which is all one the Immensity of his All-Sufficiency absolutely exempts him from all Temptation or Possibility of intending harm to any of his Creatures which are capable of wrong In that he is the Infinite Fountain of Goodnesse Moral he cannot be the Author or Abetter of any thing which is Morally Evil Nay the very best Operation that can be ascribed to the Almighty Father to wit the Eternal Generation of his only Son is not Free in the Second but only in the Former Sense above mentioned He was begotten of the substance of his Father before all Worlds by Necessity more then Natural And He that from Eternity thus begat Him doth so infinitely and Eternally Love his only Begotten Son as he can never cease to Love Him or begin to hate Him So that the Almighty Himself in respect of his Love to his Only Son was never Free according to either Branch of Freedom mentioned to wit either with the Freedom of contrariety or contradiction But as the Apostle saith Of his own Will begot he Vs with the word of Truth We are his Sons by Adoption not by Nature nor by any Necessity Equivalent to that which is Natural It was more Free for him to adopt or not to adopt us then it is for any Father to appoint his Heirs or Executors or to Estate or dispossesse his Children 7. In as much as Goodnesse is the Essential Object of our heavenly Fathers most Holy Will it is most Essential and most Necessary to Him to Will nothing but that which is Good Yet is He not hereby either Essentially or necessarily tied to will This or That Particular Good All things that are truly Good were Created by Him Nor was it Necessary that he should Create these Particulars and no others Yea it was Free for him to create or not to create any thing at all So then within the Sphere of Goodnesse He is Liberum Agens An Agent most Free It was Free for him to create or not to create us It is Free for him to preserve or not preserve us yea to preserve or destroy us It is Free for him to Elect or not to Elect us or to destinate us to Life or Death Eternal He woundeth and he maketh whole He giveth Life and taketh it away at his pleasure He bringeth down unto the grave and raiseth up the Dead again ‖ Spiritus est ubi vult sua munera dividit u◠vult Dat cui vult quod vult quantum vult tempore quo vult He Freely bestows his Blessings on whom he will when he will and in what measure he will It was Free for him to Decree or not to Decree any thing concerning us Nor hath he Decreed any thing for us or against us which may be prejudicial to his Eternal Liberty For if his supposed Decrees should Necessitate His Will in those Particulars wherein it was absolutely and from Eternity Free he should Freely make himself or his Will Mutable whereas we are bound to Believe that His Will is immutably Free or that the very Freedom of His Will is Immutable 8. No Agent Free in respect of All Every Rational Agent Free in respect of Somé Objects The Angelical Nature was created Free in respect of Good and Evil. Every Angel had a Twofold Power or Possibility One of continuing in Goodnesse or in the Way of Life Another of diverting from it to the Wayes of Death Satan and his Angels have lost all Freedom in respect of Goodnesse in the Wayes of Life but not all Freedom Simply For albeit they have no Possibility left them of doing or willing any Good yet have they manifold Possibilities of doing several Evils more Free to Sin then before They have brought
earth tanquam ex Termino positivo as of the Terme or Object unto which his Creation of them had Reference that is He did not decree to make them untill the earth was made Or he did not determine to make them but out of the Earth not of the Water or other Element as he made the Fishes of the water not of the earth So that grass was made of the earth and fishes of the Sea not as of any Cause concurrent to their making or production but tanquam ex Termino aut Objecto praeviso The Whales and great fishes which God created on the fift day were not from the time of their Creation so much as a material Cause of the Fry or Spawn which proceeded from them untill God bestowed his Blessing upon them saying Be fruitfull and multiply and fill the waters in the seas The Effect of this Blessing was a true and proper Creation For hereby they became in their kinds Efficient and material Causes And from this Blessing they received the first Possibilitie of Propagation or continuance of their kind by succession or generation of the like Admitt then our Mortification as well as our Vivification is a work of Creation God Createth life in Baptized Infants And this production of life spiritual in them is like unto the Creation of the heaven and Earth or of the First Masse that is not ex praevisis operibus neither by their works nor from Gods Foresight of their works Thus much the Romish Church confesseth in the prayer used at the Burial of Infants Baptized Omnipotens mitissime Deus qui omnibus parvulis Renatis fonte Baptismatis dum migrant à saeculo sine ullis Eorum meritis vitam illico largiris aeternam sicut animae hujus Parvuli hodiè credimus to fecisse Ex Rituali Romano Pauli quinti impresso Antuerpiae 1635. in 8. Ex Offic Plantiniana Moreti in Officio Defunctorum De Exequijs Parvulorum Pag. 244. In this Creation there is no * Quaere if it be not otherwise in a Pagan â—f yeares Coming to Christianitie Without Baptisme either Obteined or Desired He cannot be saved And Baptisme he may not have without Qualifications preparative professed to the Church that he may be admitted to it And Reall in his Soul that he may have Rem Sacramenti that is become partaker of the Inward and Spiritual Grace Qualification or disposition praecedent either by way of Title or by way of Term or Object Or if we grant any Term or Object of this creation it must be the Entitie of the Infant or its Capacitie of Baptisme or the Baptisme it self 3. How it is said All things were created of Nothing But as it was the Almightie Creators pleasure not to make herbs untill he had made the earth nor fishes untill he had made the Sea out of which he made them tanquam ex termino as of a positive Term or Object praeexistent though not positively concurring to their Creation or Co-working with him So as we suppose it was his pleasure not to work Mortification or to Create Life in such as are capable of Reason untill some works which he requires be done by them albeit the best works which any can do be as little Conducent by way of Causalitie or Title to the production of Life or Mortification Spiritual as the Red Earth was to the Creating of Adam or Adam in a dead sleep was to the Creation of Eve Adam was the sole work of God and so was Eve though made of Adam aswell as the heaven and the earth were the sole works of God And so is our Election so is our New Life so is our Mortification spiritiual as truely and intirely the work of God though not wrought without some works of ours praeexistent as the Creation of Life in Infants is Gods Work although they have no workes praeexistent And as Adam though Eve was made of him had no more share with God in her Creation than Nothing had with Him in the Creation of the heavens and the Earth So neither have we after we have done the works required to Mortification any greater share or Title of Causalitie in the production of Life or Mortification Spiritual than Infants have in their Regeneration 4. It may be Objected That the works prerequired by us to Mortification spiritual are more truely Ours than any Action that can be imagined as requisite in the heavens for Creation of the Sun Moon or Starres Or in the Earth for the Creation of herbes and trees T is true Some Actions are required in us * See the 2. note at the end of this Sect chapt 36. that Grace may be created in us yet not to make us more Capable naturally of Grace but to make us Meere Passives not uncapable of it or not Positively Contradictorie to his Majestie or eternal aequitie Man from the beginning had a Freedome of Will to deprive himself of such Blessings as God in his Bounty had provided for him Our first Parents by the Abuse of their Free Will betwixt Good and Evill made themselues uncapable of any Blessing or Reward from Gods Justice or meer Bountie yet were they not hereby made uncapable of his Infinite Mercy Nor are his Posteritie made uncapable of it by Sin meerely Original but by Abuse of that Free-Will which is left them as the proper Fruit of Sin Original that is a Free-Will to do Evill We have a Power or Freedome left us to make our selves more Uncapable of Gods Mercy than we were in Adam no Power at all to make our selves more Capable of it it is God alone which increaseth this Capacitie in us That of St. Austin is notwithstanding most true in respect of All that are come to years of discretion Deus qui fecit te sine te non salvabit te sine te God which made thee without any endeavours of thine own will not save thee without thine own endeavours And yet the best of our endeavours are but to keep our selves in the same state wherein we were when we had no works no endeavours that is when we were Infants And happie is he that doth not by lewd endeavours or ill works ☜ evacuate the Fruits of Baptisme in himself For him that doth finally so Cassate or Voyd them it had been better if he had never been baptized if he had never been born For by frustrating the hopes which he had in Baptisme he makes himself more uncapable of Gods mercy for having the Spirit of Life created in him than the Earth was of Gods Power to have Man created of it CHAP. XXXIII By what Spirit we are said to Mortifie the Deeds of the Bodie 1. Of the difference betwixt the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Man IF the deeds of the Body or the Flesh must be mortified by the Spirit of man then man hath not only Freedome of Will but Liberum Arbitrium an Abilitie to Mortifie his own
Flesh or to Free himself from the Servitude of the Flesh These and the like Inconveniences have perswaded some to attribute this whole work unto the Spirit of God which is able to do all things without the Coagencie or Consort of the Spirit of Man But thus to avoyd the former Inconveniences is but as if a man having found a Way out of a thicket of Thornes should instantly intangle himself in the Bryars For it is not so Great a Solaecisme to say That the Spirit of Man or man himself should be an Agent in this businesse As to Affirme That whence it would follow that The Spirit of God should in this work of Mortification be mans Instrument For that which Man worketh by the Spirit Man is more properly said to work it then the Spirit Now our Apostle saith that we must mortifie the deedes of the Body And he that Mortifieth is the Agent That by which we work this Mortification is but our Instrument And better it were to say That the Spirit of Man should be mans Instrument in this work rather than the Spirit of God 2. It were according to our Former Principles easily answered that Wee by Our spirit Mortifie the Deedes of our Bodies Consecutivè non Formaliter aut Efficienter that is not by any Efficacie in us or Influence derivable from us The Spirit of God must directly work or Effect it But though this be True yet is it not Punctual to the point proposed For by this Answer the Spirit here meant should only be the Spirit of man For by this Spirit only we work our Mortification Consecutivè That which the Spirit of God doth work in us it works Directly Immediatly and Entirely and in produceing its proper Effects it hath no Partner or Co-Agent It may notwithstanding be yet further replyed that we must Mortifie the Flesh by the spirit of God not as by any Instrumental Cause subordinate to us but in such a sense as we say Inferiour Magistrates do the Acts of the Magistracie by the Kings or Supreme Magistrates Authoritie unto which they and their Magistracie are Subordinate Thus some good * Pasqualius Interpreters upon this place say that we must Mortifie the Flesh by our own Spirit but by our own Spirit as it is Subordinate to the Spirit of God and Consequently to this Assertion it must be granted that this Subordination of our Spirit to the Spirit of God is in this place necessarily included or persupposed though not expressed by our Apostle All this for ought I know may be most True and Orthodoxal but withall too General For Inferiour or subordinate Magistrates are more properly said to be the Agents Even in those things which they do by the Authoritie and warrant of the Superiours whereas the Spirit of God is not only the Author or sole Authorizer but the Principal Actor or Agent in this work of mortification For a more particular and punctual Resolution of the Question proposed we are to unfold the divers acceptions of these Words or Termes to wit THE SPIRIT and MORTIFICATION 3. There is the Spirit of God and there is the Spirit of man Both of them have their several and divers Importances in scripture The Spirit of man may be considered as it is in the Natural Man or in the man altogether unregenerate and This Spirit is at Enmitie with God or in the Man as yet unregenerate yet in the way to Regeneration And the Spirit of this man is privatively opposite to the Spirit of God so as Darknesse is to Light Blindnesse to Sight or Death to Life There is a Spirit likewise in the man Regenerate the same for Substance with the Spirit of the Natural Man the same for Substance that it was in himself before Regeneration but altered in Qualitie And This Spirit though it cease not to be in man yet is it not usually called The Spirit of Man as being no way opposite unto the Spirit of God but Subordinate unto it so Subordinate unto it that it is called The Spirit that is of God and sometimes The Spirit of God 4. These diverse Acceptions of the word SPIRIT as likewise the Distinction or Opposition between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of man are set down by our Apostle 1. Cor. 2. from the ninth verse unto the end of the Chapter What Man knoweth the things of a man save the Spirit of man which is in him Even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God ver 11. He doth not say the spirit of God which is in God or with God And when He saith What man knoweth the things of man save the Spirit of Man he supposeth there is even in the Natural and unregenerate Man a Spirit able to discerne the secret thoughts and imaginations of his heart though blind and ignorant in the things concerning God Againe when he saith the things of God knoweth no man he excludeth the Natural man only or the man to whom God hath not imparted the Gifts of the Spirit For so he hath said ver 9. Eye hath not seen nor Ear heard neither have entred into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for them that love him Into What Mans heart have they not entred Or unto What Man doth this Negative belong Only to the Natural or unregenerate Man For so he adds verse 10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit For the Spirit searcheth all things yea the deep things of God 5. What Spirit is this which searcheth all things Even the deep things of God the Spirit of God which is without Vs or which communicateth knowledge and reveales things hidden unto us If this Spirit were here meant How should those deep things of God be revealed unto us Revealed to us they cannot be unlesse they be known by us and known by Us they cannot be but by the Spirit which is in us So he adds more expressly Ver. 12. Now we have received not the Spirit of the world that is the Spirit which is of man but the Spirit which is of God that we might know the things that are freely given to Vs of God If by the Spirit which we have received we know the things which are freely given to us of God This Spirit must be made Ours it must be One with Our Spirit it is not the Spirit of God which is Without Vs or which works our Regeneration but the Spirit by which we become formally Regenerate and Spiritual And Punctually to this purpose the Apostle haveing said ver 14. The Natural Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishnesse unto him Neither can he know them so long as he remaines a Natural Man because they are Spiritually discerned he adds by way of opposition ver 15. 16. But he that is Spiritual judgeth or discerneth all things Yet He himself is judged of no man For who hath known the mind of the Lord
Doctrine handled First Vnto what Condemnation they were of Old ordained Secondly How or in what manner they were ordained unto it 2. There is An English Note upon this Place A very strange One yet gathered as it seems from some good Writers vvho did not so clearly express themselves in their Comments upon this Place as might have been desired See the 1. note at the end of this Chapter and yet are farre vvorse understood by many of their Follovvers then they meant The English Note seems to imply that these men were Ordained to trouble the Church or to follow those lewd Opinions or Practises whereby the Church was troubled and the Faith of many brought into manifest hazard Yet to say that any man is ordained by God to this or the like end will be very harsh to any Christian eares and was I am perswaded either a branch of their Heresy which are here said to be ordained to Condemnation or a Branch of the same Root worse then any Heresy God ordains no man to sin which they maintained And yet to say That men are ordained to trouble the Church to be ungodly and to deny Christ is but the Necessary Consequent of their Opinion who hold That all things every Action of Man even sinfull Actions are so ordained and determined by God that they cannot come to pass otherwise then they do in the Individual either for the Matter Substance or for the circumstance of the action Thus to write thus to speak some are emboldened because nothing can fall out without Gods Foresight yea without his Co-operation For in him all things living do live all things endued with motion do move and have their being And in that nothing can be done without him in that he is Omnipotent and supporteth the world by the Word of his Power they do not collect amisse that they cannot lay a load too heavy upon him But they should consider God is no lesse holy and just then powerful that seeing he is Holy and Just no lesse Holy and Just then he is Powerfull they may lay that upon him which is a great deal too foul for him to bear The foulest Aspersion that can be cast upon his Holiness is to make him the Author of sinful Actions To say or think he did Ordain men to trouble the Church or to be as these men were ungodly Persons denyers of Christ 3. To avouch in plain Terms That God is the Author of sin is as most confesse a dangerous Heresy a sign of a darkned mind in spiritual knowledge And yet the blindnesse or ignorance would be more gross if any man should grant the Antecedent and deny the Consequent That is if one should grant that God did ordain any man to persecute the Church to turn his Grace into wantonness and yet withall deny that God in thus doing should be the cause and Author of Sin See the 6. Chapter He that is the Author or Cause of any Action which is Essentially evill or universally inseparable from evill is the Author and Cause of all the evill which is inseparable from the Action even in that he is the Cause of the Action For that which they call the Obliquity of the Action or Malum Formale Formally Evill can have no other cause at all then that which is the Cause of the Action from which this Formal evill is unseparable So that if Gods Ordinance be the Necessary Cause of such an Action to wit of Troubling the Church the same Ordinance must be the cause of the Obliquity or evill which is annexed unto it Satan and wicked men should be but Causes Instrumental at most that is such a cause as the sword is of the murther which a man commits with it So that the Case is clear that if to trouble the Church with lewd Opinions be a sinfull Action then God who is no Author of Sin did never ordain men unto that action For whatsoever God doth ordain or decree God is Author of that which be ordaineth he is the Author of it These Inferences will admit no Plea or Traverse amongst such as are instructed in the Fundamentall Rules of Art or Nature For all do grant that which they call Obliquity or Formal Evil to be a Relation that is such an entity or Being unto which no Action can be immediatly terminated it hath its Being only by Concomitance or resultance from some other Effect which hath a direct and Immediate Cause Of this Nature are Equality or Inequality of bodies Similitude or Dissimilitude Now it is impossible that man or Angel or any Cause whatsoever should produce an Equality between two bodies formally unequal by any other means then by altering the Quantity of one or both or to make one body dislike unto another but by altering their Qualities Altogether as Impossible it is to produce an Obliquity or Crookedness in mens wayes by any other means then by producing those Actions which are in their Nature Perverse and crooked He which is the Cause of such Actions in the Individual is the Cause of that crookedness or Obliquity which is inseparably annext unto them 4. That God is not the Cause not the Author of such Actions or that such Actions are not necessary in respect of his Decree Christianity it self or the Rule of Catholick Faith binds us to believe as firmly as that there is a God who is the Author or Fountain of Goodnesse Hence saith St. James Cap. 1. ver 13. Let no man say when he is tempted he is tempted of God for God cannot be tempted with evill neither tempteth he any man unto evil but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and inticed And unto this inconvenience of being tempted by his own lust man was not subject untill he was beguiled by Satan nor could this great tempter work evill in man immediatly or directly but only by tempting or inticing him to that Action to which evill was unseparably annexed that is to tast of the fruit which God had forbidden The Tempter knew that if he could intice our first Parents unto this Action there was no possibility of shedding the Obliquity or Formal evil from it which was essentially annext unto it Now if God had ordained man to this Individuall Action or to the condemnation which was due to this Action without possibility of avoiding it His Ordination had been a more true Cause of the first mans sin and of his death and ours then Satan was For Satan had no power either naturall or permitted him by God to make any ordinance or decree for man no power either given or permitted to lay a necessity of sinning upon our first Parents All that he was able or permitted to do was only by way of temptation or inticement Adam as all grant had a Freedom of Will in respect of Satan or any inticement that he could propose unto him But Freedom of Will he
That there could be any Goodness in the Creature before the Creature was or had actual being no man did ever avouch That any creature could possily have Actual Being or Goodness Actual or existent in it without some Precedent Act of Gods Will I had expresly denyed in the Proposition immediatly precedent to the Proposition which the Author of the Epistle hath falsified by inserting these words In the Creature He might by the like Omission of the Proposition precedent without any intersertion or falsification have proved this Proposition to be Davids There is no God For this Proposition is expresly set down by David Psal 14. 1. Non est Deus And this Proposition would well please an Epicure or Atheist if he took not the words precedent into consideration with it Dixit insipiens in corde suo non est Deus The Fool hath said in his heart there is no God And when I shall avouch the Proposition wherewith he chargeth me otherwise then with this addition An ignorant or unwise man hath said it or laid it to my charge Let me be censured for a Fool for a Blasphemer or what you will 6. The Proposition delivered by me is so clear that no Artist if he be a Christian can deny it The Proposition consists of these Two Parts First There is a Logical Possibility presupposed to the working of the Almighty Power Secondly There is an Objective Goodness precedent in order of nature to the Act or exercise of Gods Will. Against the first part I do not hear of any exception made or taken yet to make it plainer unto those who are not willing to except against it I will explicate the meaning of it in a particular Instance The First Man was made of the earth by the working of the Almightie power and the earth whereof he was made was by the same power made of nothing Both were made by the working of the Almighty Power within the compasse of these 6000. years Current But before Time had any Being even from Eternity there was a Logical Possibility That the Earth might be made of Nothing and that Man might be made of the Earth He unto whom nothing is impossible He unto whom all things are possible did know the making of both to be Logically Possible that is to imply no Contradiction before he made them much better then we know that they were made by him For this we know and must believe that the Almighty Power worketh nothing maketh nothing without Fore-knowledge not only of it as Possible but as Future Not the Creation of Man only but the Creation of Man after Gods own Image was Logically possible that is it did implie no Contradiction from Eternitie The Possible Creation of Man after this manner was the Object of Gods Power before he said Let us make Man after our own Image and similitude This was the Act or Exercise of Gods Power or Will For the power whereby he is able to do all things never worketh without some Act or exercise of his Will For as the Apostle saith Ephes 1. 11. He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will The Second part of the Proposition was There is a Goodness Objective precedent in order of nature to the Act or exercise of Gods Will. For further declaration of This Truth I added This Proposition Unto some things considered as Logically possible this Goodness Objective is so essentially annexed that if it be his Will to give them actuall Being they must of necessity be Actually Good nor can he that can do all things will their contraries For example The Creation of man after Gods own Image was Logically possible from eternity and was the Object of Gods Power of his knowledge and Will before man was thus created Now unto this possibility of mans Creation after Gods Image which was objectively in Gods knowledg from eternity there was a Goodness also Objective so essentially annexed that whensoever God should be pleased to make man after this Pattern he was of necessity to be actually Good 7. Not to conceal any part of my meaning in this 13. Chapter Unto the former Proposition The creation of man after Gods image was Logically Possible before the Act or exercise of Gods Will before the working of his Almighty power by whose concurrence man was upon the sixt day created I will adde these Propositions following 1. To create Man after Gods own Image and not to create him good was never Logically Possible it could be no Object either of Gods Almighty Power or Will This Proposition had no Objective Truth in his Foreknowledge whose Knowledge is Infinite whose Power is Omnipotent whose Will is Irresistible 2. The Act or exercise of Gods Omnipotent Will was the true Cause the only cause why man was created after his Image But that man being created after his Image should be good the Act or exercise of Gods Will or Omnipotent Power were not the cause 3. The connexion between the Image of God and that goodness which was in Man created after his image albeit we consider this connexion as possibly future from Eternity was essential and eternal and was the Object of Gods eternal Prescience or foreknowledge which in order of nature is precedent to the Acts or exercises of Gods Will. 4. Gods Will or the Act or exercise of Gods Will is the Cause why man was made why being made Good he was tyed to the observance of Gods moral Law not the Cause why mans Observance of the Moral Law was or is in its nature good 5. The end of the Moral Lavv or of Precepts Evangelical is to frame us to a conformity vvith our heavenly Fathers Nature to be holy as he is Holy Gods Will declared in the Moral Lavv and vvorking in us both the Will and the Deed to observe it is the Cause by vvhich vve are made conformable to the Divine Nature but Gods Will declared in that Lavv enacted is not the Cause vvhy our conformity to the Divine Nature is good He rather vvills us to be conformable to his Nature to his Will That is to be holy as He is Holy because such conformity vvas essentially and eternally good All Goodness in the creature vvhether actually existent or considered as possibly future is unseparable from this conformity or consonancy to infinite and eternal goodness vvhich is the infallible Rule of all created goodness the eternal Rule from vvhich the acts or exercises of Gods Will either in making in preserving or governing the creature take their validity Objective Being or Logical Possibility of Being is opposed to Actual Being or existence Goodness Objective is opposed to Goodness Subjective that is to goodnesse actually inherent or existent in any substance In the Divine and Infinite Essence nothing is or can be Subjectively all things are in him Objectively and were so in him before they had Actual Being And if all things had an Objective Being in him before they were then the Goodness
because it was thus peremptorily willed commanded or required by God not Objectively Good from eternity the observance of the same thing commanded is now as dangerous and displeasing to God as the neglect or Non-Observance of it in Abrahams in Mosess in the Prophets times had been Hence is that wish of our Apostle Gal. 5. 12. I would they were even out off that trouble you that is I would that they which presse Circumcision upon you and upon your children might be sentenced according to Gods Law enacted against such as during the First Covenant did omit or neglect it 10 Partly from ignorance of this Distinction between the nature of things commanded and forbidden by the Moral and Ceremonial Law partly from ignorance why obedience to the Law of Ceremonies was so strictly enjoyned and the neglect of it so severely punished oft times by Gods immediate hand the Jews were drawn to place as great Sanctity in the observance of Rites and Ceremonies as in sincere obedience to the Moral Precepts This was one main root of their Hypocrisie a sin from which it is scarce possible any hearer of the Word should be free unlesse he be taught to put some difference between the Nature of things Good and Evil of things commanded and forbidden besides the Will or authority of the Commander If the Acts or Injunctions of Gods Will were the onely Rule of Goodnesse and had not eternal Goodness rather for their Rule it would be hard to avoid the Stoical error that all sins are equal besides a kinde of Fatality in humane affairs worse then Stoical The Turks acknowledge Gods Will to be a Rule of Goodnesse as soveraign as the author of the forementioned Epistle doth to be such a Cause of Causes as he would have it But being ignorant or not considering that there is an Immutable goodnesse precedent to the Act or exercise of Gods Wil a Goodness whereof his Wil however considered is no Cause For it is Coeternal to his Wil to his Wisdom and Essence they fall into grosly absurd errours And consequently unto this their ignorance or to the common error that all things are Good onely because God willeth them they sometimes highly commend and sometimes deeply discommend the self same practises for quality and circumstances with as great vehemency of zeal and spirit and with as fair Protestations of obedience in all things to Gods Will as any other men do For Selimus to attempt the deposition of his Father was in their Divinitie a good and godly Act. For Bajazet to take arms against his Brother vvas an abominable impietie What vvas the reason Injects sortè Bajazetis mentione coepit Chiaussus in eum inclementiùs invehi quod arma sumpsisset contra fratrem Ego contrà dicebam videri mihi miseratione dignum cui inevitabilis necessitas imposita esset aut capiendorum armorum aut certae pestis subeundae Sed cum Chiaussus nihilominùs exeerari pergeret Vos inquam immanis facinoris reum facitis Bajazetem At Selimum hujus Imperatoris patrem qui non modò contra patris voluntatem verùâ—s etiam salutem arma tulit nullius criminis arguitis Rectè inquit Chiaussus nam rerum exitus satis docuit illum quod fecit divino fecisse instinctu coelitùs fuisse praedestinatum Tum ego si hoe more agetur quicquid quamvis pessimo Consilio susceptum si benè cedat rectè factum interpretabimini Dei voluntati adscribetis Deum facietis authotem mali nec quicquam benè aut sequiùs factum nisi ex eventu pendetis Sumus aliquandiu in hoe sermone commorati cum uterque non sine animorum vocis contentione quod proposuisset defenderet Collecta utrinque plura sacrae scripturae loca Nunquid potest vas dicere figulo Cur me ita finxâ—sti Indurabo cor Pharaonis Jacob dilexi Esaâ— odio habui atque alia ut veniebant in mentem Auger Busbequ Epist 4. Selimus his attempt found good successe for he prevailed against his Father and this vvas an Argument that it vvas Gods Wil that he should so do But Bajazet miscarries in his attempt against his brother and his disaster vvas a proof sufficient that God vvas displeased vvith his attempt it vvas not his Will that he should prosper And seeing his Will is the only Rule of Goodnesse seeing he did predestinate these tvvo Princes as he did Jacob and Esau the one to a good end the other to an Evil the self same Fact or Attempt vvas good in the one but vvicked in the other We all condemn it as an error in the Turk for measuring the difference betvveen good and evil by the Event But even this errour hath an Original which is worse They therefore measure all good and evill by the Event because they ascribe all Events without exception to the Irresistible Will of God Ex quo satis constitit non Avi misericordin eó usque Nepoti parcitum sed ex opinione quae Turcis insedit ut res quocunque consilio institutas si benè cadunt ad Deum auctorem refarant Proptoreà quamdio incertum suit quem exitum Bajazetis conatus sortirentur abstinendas ab insantis injuria manus Suleimannus statuit nesi postmodùmres meliùs vertisser obniti voluntati Dei voluisse videretur Sed nunc illo extincto ac veluti divina sententia damnato causam esse non putabat cur filio diutiùs parceretur Ne malum ovum ex malo corvo relinqueretur Ibidem and think that nothing can fall out otherwise then it doth because every thing is irresistibly appointed by Gods Will which in their Divinitie is such a necessarie Cause of Causes and by Consequence of all Effects as the Author of the said Epistle would have it to be Whosoever he be whether Jew Turk or Christian which thinks that all Events are so irresistibly decreed by God that none can fall out otherwise then they do must of necessity grant either that there is no moral evil under the Sunne or that Gods will which is the Cause of Causes is the only Cause of such evil 11 But is the like sin or errour expresly to be found in Israel Do any make the same Fact for nature qualitie and substance to be no sin in one man and yet a sin in another or to be a little sin in one man and a grievous outcrying sin in another Though they do not avouch this of rebellious attempts against Prince and State or of other like publick Facts Cognoscible by humane Law yet the Principles of Praedestination commonly held by them and the Turk draw them to the like Inconveniences in transforming the immutable Rule of Goodnesse into the similitude of their partial affections in other Cases The Adulterie and murther which David committed had been grievous sins in any other man but in David being predestinated they were but sins of infirmitie sins by which the outward man was defiled not the inward man Such
a sin was incest in Lot such are all the sins committed by the Elect And so were all the sins of the Elect remitted before they were committed But the Question is Whether God did so absolutely decree the remission of any mans sin from eternitie as that their remission was from eternitie absolutely necessarie If God did absolutely decree that the sins of the Elect should be remitted Sin not remitted before committed then he did absolutely decree that they should be committed For even in Gods eternal Foreknowledge of all things that fall out in time the Commission of sins hath precedencie of their Remission and if their Remission were in respect of his Foreknowledge or decree absolutely necessary their Commission was as necessarie It is impossible there should be any Remission of sins without a presupposal of their Commission Yet are the former Conclusions not muttered in corners but maintained as part of that holy doctrine which hath been delivered unto us by the masters of Israel approved by the best writers in reformed Churches These and the like Doctrines are held in so precious esteem that if the lawful Pastor seek to root them out where they have been planted by others or to prevent their growth or spreading he shall be traduced for an Arminian and as they hope be so censured by the high Court of Parliament But my hope is that no Loyal Elder of Israel shall ever so far forget himself as either to attempt or seek to have those and the like Conclusions ratified by our great Josuahs Royal consent Sure I am these are no branches of that Ancient Catholick Apostolick Faith of which we acknowledg our Soveraign Lord to be the defender and God grant that he may ever defend and keep it pure and undefiled from these and the like Conclusions that it may defend him and his people from their adversaries 12 Yet to seek the Correction of these and the like Conclusions though malapertly maintained by some of the Flock against most of their Pastors or the punishment of those which so maintain them until the Principles from which they naturally issue be checkt or inhibited were but Tyrannie These here related are the least not the worst part of those noysom branches which spring from this one root That Gods irresistible decree for the absolute Election of some and the absolute Reprobation of others is immediatly terminated to the Individual Natures Substances or Entities of men without any Logical respect or reference to their qualifications This Principle being once granted what breach of Gods moral Law is there whereon men will not boldly adventure either through desperation or presumption either openly or secretly For seeing Gods Will which in their Divinitie is the only Cause why the one sort are destinated to death the other to life is most immutable and most Irresistible and seeing the Individual Entities or natures of men unto which this irresistible Decree is respectively terminated are immutable let the one sort do what they can pray for themselves and beseech others to pray for them they shall be damn'd because their Entities or Individual Substances are unalterable Let the other sort Live as they list they shall be saved because no corruption of manners no change of morality breeds any mutability or change in their Individual Natures or Entities unto which Gods immutable Decree is immediatly terminated Whatsoever become of good life and manners so the Individual Nature or Entity fail not or be not annihilated salvation is tyed unto it by a necessity more indissoluble then any chains of Adamant 13. This Assertion Whosoever is Elected from Eternity was never the child of wrath save only in the esteem of men I found delivered in certain papers at my first entrance upon my Pastoral charge in the Town of Newsastle written by one that had been a great Rabbi in some private Conventicles in and about that Town And for the refuting of this Opinion and the Principles out of which it doth most necessarily follow it was presently conceived by some of my Auditors that I went about to refute the Doctrine of all Reformed Churches concerning Election and Reprobation And Amongst the Doctrines of Reformed Churches which it was vehemently suspected I went about to refute this was expressed for one That the sins of the Elect or Regenerate were remitted before they were committed A doctrine which for my part I dare not charge any one reformed Church with though some in reformed Churches have stifly maintained the Principle out of which this Conclusion will necessarily follow and some few have in expresse Termes delivered the Conclusion but so hath not to my knowledge any reformed Church or entire Congregation besides the Familist to which this errour properly belongs The Council of Dort hath expresly delivered the contrary so have others which write against the Arminians But in this Point a Reverend and Learned Pastor in the City of London hath saved me a Labour The false Principle from which both these Conclusions 1. The sins of the Elect are remitted before they are committed 2. Whosoever is Elected being elected from eternitie never was never could be never can be the child of wrath will most necessarily follow is the forementioned Errour which tyes or terminates Gods Eternal and irresistible Decree for the absolute Election of some and the absolute Reprobation of others to the Individual Natures persons or Entities of men elected or reprobated But to omit for the present the question concerning such absolute Election not the most Tyrannical Lawgiver that to this day hath breathed on earth did ever declare himself to be so farre the son of the Divel as to make solemn decrees against mens persons without respect or reference to their Qualifications It is the propertie of the enemy of mankind to delight in mans punishment as he is a man or a reasonable creature to desire to have any man as he himself now is but sometimes was not a vessel capable only of vengeance or punitive justice alltogether uncapable of Gods free bounty mercy or favour And seeing this most Honourable Court of Parliament now happily assembled to make wholesome Lawes doth not intend to make any Punitive Lawes or decrees specially capitally punitive against any mens Persons or Nature but against mens ill Qualifications misdemeanors I am confident that every member of it doth firmly believe that our heavenly Father did never make any such Decree or Law Again seeing God hath revealed his good Will and pleasure to be this To reward every man according to all his wayes I shall find no opposition or Contradiction to this Conclusion as I hope among good Christians God did from eternity decree to reward every man not according to his Individual Nature but according to his wayes his works or qualification which he did no lesse certainly foresee then he did his Individual Nature He hath decreed from eternity to revvard the vvicked and the ungodly for their vvicked vvorks
after the same manner some good Writers maintain the universal Negative God never hardens positively but privatively only only by substracting or not granting Grace or other means of repentance or by leaving nature to the Bent of its inbred corruption Vide Lorinum in vers 51. cap. 7. Act. Apost pag. 322. Colum. 1. Others of as good note and greater desert in Reformed Churches better refute this defective Extreme than they express the Mean between it and the contrary extreme in excesse with the maintenance whereof they are deeply charged not by Papists only but by their brethren How often have Calvin and Beza c been accused by Lutherans as if they taught That God did directly harden mens hearts by infusion of bad qualities or That the production of a reprobate or impenitent temper were such an immediate or formal Term of his positive action as heat is of calefaction or drought of heat But if we take Privative and Positive Induration in this sense and set them so farr asunder the Division is altogether imperfect the former member comes as farr short of the Truth as the Latter overreacheth it God sometimes hardens some men neither the one way nor the other that is as we say in Schooles datur medium abnegationis between them And perhaps it may be as questionable whether God at any time hardens any man merè privativè as it is whether there can be Peccatum purae omissionis any sin of meer Omission without all mixture of Commission But with this question here or elsewhere we are not disposed to meddle God sometimes hardens privatively only being rather willing to grant what is confessed by all or most That he sometimes hardens privativè if not by meer substraction of Grace or utter denyal of other meanes of repentance yet so especially by these meanes as may suffice to verifie the truth of the Proposition usually received or to give the denomination of Privative hardning But many times he hardens Positivè not by infusion of bad qualities God usually hardens positively but not by his Irresistible Will but by disposing or inclining the Heart to goodness that is by communication of his favours and exhibition of motives more than ordinarie to repentance not that he exhibits these with purpose to harden but rather to mollifie and organize mens hearts for the receiving of Grace The natural effect or purposed issue of the Riches of Gods Bounty is to draw men to repentance But the very attempt or sway of meanes offered provokes hearts fastned to their sinnes The manner of Gods positive hardening to greater stubborness in the Rebound Hearts thus affected treasure up wrath against the day of wrath in a proportioned measure to the riches of bountie offered but not entertained by them And such a Cause as God is of their treasuring up of wrath he is likewise of their hardening no direct no necessary Cause of either yet a Cause of both more than privative a positive cause by Consequence or Resultance not necessary or necessary only ex Hypothesi Meanes of repentance sincerely offered by God but wilfully rejected by man concurre as positively to induration of heart as the heating of water doth to the quick freezing of it when it is taken off the fire and set in the cold aire Both these Actions or rather both these qualities of heat and cold have their proper influence into this effect If a Physician should minister some physical drink unto his patient and heap clothes upon him with purpose to prevent some disease by a kindly sweat and the Patient throughly heated wilfully throw them off both may be said positive causes of the cold which would necessarily ensue from both actions albeit the Patient only were the true moral Cause or the only blame-worthy Cause of his own death or danger following Iust according to the importance of this supposition or similitude is the cause of hardening in many cases to be divided betwixt God and man The Israelites did harden their own hearts in the wilderness and yet their hearts had not been so hardened unless the Lord had done so many wonders in their sight In every wonder his purpose was to beget Beleife but through their wilfull unbeleife the best effect of his greatest wonders was induration and impenitencie Now as it suits not with the Rules of good manners for Physicians to tie a mans hands of discretion or place lest he may use them to his owne harm so neither was it consonant to the Rules of eternal equitie that God should necessitate the Israelites Wills to a true Beleif of his wonders or mollifie their hearts against their will that is He neither hardens nor mollifies their hearts by his Irresistible Will nor did he at all will their hardning but rather mollification 5. All this is true of Gods ordinary manner of hardning men or of the first degrees of hardning any man But Pharaohs Case is Extraordinary Pharaoh was hardned by Gods Irresistible Will Beza rightly inferrs against Origen and his followers that this hardening whereof the Apostle here speaketh was Irresistible that the party thus hardened was uncapable of repentance that God did shew signes and wonders in Egypt not with purpose to reclaim but to harden Pharaoh to drive him headlong into the snare prepared for him from everlasting All these Inferences are plain First that Interrogation Who hath resisted his Will is equivalent to the universal negative No man no creature can at any time resist his will That is according to the interpretation premised Whatsoever particular Gods Will is to have necessary or so to be as the Contrary or Contradictorie to it shall not be the Existence of it cannot be prevented or avoyded Now that God did in this peremptory manner will Pharaohs hardening is evident from the Emphasis of that message delivered unto him by Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euen for this very purpose and for no other end in the world possible have I raised thee up that I might shew in thee my power and his power was to be shewed in his hardening For from the Tenor of this message the Apostle inferres the latter part of this Conclusion in the Text Whom he will he hardneth yea he so hardneth as it is impossible they should escape it Whether Pharaoh were an absolute reprobate or created to be Hardened or his judgments due unto it In all these collections Beza doth not erre Yet was Beza with reverence be it spoken more fowly to blame then this filthy Writer for so it pleaseth him to entitle Origen in that he referres these threatnings For this very purpose have I raised thee up that I may shew my power in thee not only unto Pharaohs Exaltation to the crown of Egypt as I think Origen did but we need not we may not grant but to his Extraction out of the womb yea to his first Creation out of the dust as if the Almighty had moulded him by his
goe out from him to her alone It is true then for our Saviour saith it her Faith did make her whole and yet she was made whole by the Vertue which went out from him this was the fruit or effect of her Faith or rather the Reward or Consequent of her Faith In like sort as many as are healed from their sinnes whether by the Sacrament of Baptism or the Eucharist are healed by Faith relatively or instrumentally Faith is as the mouth or organ by which we receive the medicine but it is the Vertual influence derived from the Body and Blood of Christ which properly or efficiently doth cure out soules and dissolve the works of Satan in us This woman as St. Matthew relates the storie had said within her self if I may but touch the hemme of his garment I shall be whole She wanted either the opportunitie or boldness to touch the fore-part of his garment or to come into his sight or presence Yet he then knew not onely that she had touched the Hemme of his garment but what she had said within herself and out of his knowledge of this her faith and humilitie he did pronounce and make her whole Now it is but one and the same Act of one and the same Divine Wisdom to know the hearts and secret thoughts of men a farre off and neere at hand And therefore a matter as easie for the Son of God or for the man Christ Jesus in whom the Godhead dwelleth bodily though still remayning at the right hand of God to know the hearts and secret thoughts of all such as present themselves at his Table here on earth aswell as he knew the secret thoughts of this woman which came behind him What need then is there of his Bodily Presence in the Sacrament or of any other presence than the influence or emission of vertue from his heavenly Sanctuary unto our soules He hath left us the consecrated Elements of bread and wine to be unto us more than the hemme of his garment If we do but touch and tast them with the same faith by which this woman touched the hemme of his garment this our faith shall make us whole and stanch the running issues and cleanse or cure the leprous sores of our soules as perfectly as it did this womans issue of blood But of Christ's Presence with us Especially in the B. Sacrament of his Body and Blood we shall take occasion to speake somewhat more in Handling the Article of His Sitting at the Right-Hand of God which may perhaps give the Reader some degree of Satisfaction and Line out the Right Mean betwixt Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation or between the Romanist and the Lutheran at least between the Lutheran and other reformed Churches A Note relateing to the precedent Chapter First Paragraph or Number 1. Those words St. Cyrill in his Parallels c. I Conceive the Author meanes St. Cyrill's Comments or Strictures upon Genesis and in them This Place or These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in These words his Eye was fixt upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exâ—ulit or proâ—ulit it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obtulit That is Melchisedek Brought out or Caryed forth not OFFERED Bread and Wine Cyrill Alex. Tom. 1. Glaphyrorum Lib 2. Paris Edit 1638. Fol. 47. To which I may adde that the same S. Cyrill in the same Book p. 62. Sayes That Melchizedek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. according to Sylburgius Suidas and Hesychius Procuravit Adornavit Exportavit Commeatum Commodavit not obtulit as Andr. Schotus translates it there And again p. 63. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. apportantem afferentem not offerentem as the same Schotus translates it also But it is the Roman Ingenie to Catch at this place So Maldonate to despight Calvin corrects the Magnifyed Vulgar Latin altering it to et erat Sacrificans but partially for his Criticism Being given it will amount to no more then erat ministrans See this Author 's 9. Book Chap. 10. Where he cites Philo Judaeus Lib. 2. S. leg Allegor Making Melchizedeks Bringing forth Bread and Wine not an Act of Pietie and Religion but of Hospitalitie Opposite to Ammons Churlish niggardliness who afforded not the posteritie of Abraham in their travel Bread and Water Though he that only reades this Author by Index is unworthy both of him and it and though the observant Reader may serve himself well of the Contents of the Chapters the Table of Texts of Scripture the Titles of every Page and the Marginal Breifes yet for his further Advantage is made this ensuing Table To which every Reader may adde what he pleases space being left for that purpose at the end of every Letter in the Alphabet A. A Aronical Priesthood farre inferior to Christ's 3268 c. Aaron see Priesthood Abraham in Gods promises to him assurance of faith to be sought 3267 Abrahams Bay 3256 Abraham see promise Active passive see Conversion Some Actions required in us that Grace may be created in us viz. To make us meere passives 3107. c 3115. 3143 These Actions or Endeavours necessary necessitate praecepti nâ—cessitate medii 3191 Adam like his Maker 3091 Adam God dealt not so hardly with him as some say he did 3015 Adam's first sin Actual and voluntarie 3101 Adam's Prerogatives Opinions about them Compatible contending not contradictory 3003. 3008 Adam's Righteousnesse not Supernatural 3004 3033 Church of Rome bound to maintain that it is supernatural 3004 Reformed Churches that it is not so 3005 Three inconveniences follow the Affirmamative ibid. Righteousness as connex to Gods Image in Adam as Rotunditie to a Sphere 3006 3178 Adams losse of Righteousness had a positive cause wrought a positive effect a wound many wounds in mans nature 3006 How Adam had been rewarded had he stood 3008 Neither Adams Fall nor standing necessary both possible ibid. 3009 He that sayes Adams fall was necessitated by Gods Decree lays more to Gods charge then we can truly lay to the Divelâ—s 3012 That God de facto did decree a mutual possibilitie of Adams Falling or not Falling demonstrated 3016 More of that point 3226 Whether he that sayes God decreed Adams Fall inevitably may be demonstrated to make God Author of sin 30â—0 Author of Sin see Sin Adams Inadvertencie and Evah her contempt let sin into the world 3008 The sinfulnesse of Adams sin wherein it did consist 3017 How Adams one sinfull Act could produce an Habit and more then an Habit 3017 3019 3029 c. Act see Obliquitie Adams first sin did pollute our Nature now our nature defiles our persons 3019 Admonitions vain where no freedom is 3129 Admonitions presuppose possibilities to good and evill 3246 Advocate his Office 3288 No Advocate pleades for pardon of sin already forgiven ibid. Aestunare res humanas norunt pauci 3001 Affections indifferent differenced by their Objects must be wonne to the Spirit 3125 Of Affections strange effects and alterations 3073