Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A34850
|
Vindiciæ veritatis, or, A confutation [...] the heresies and gross errours asserted by Thomas Collier in his additinal word to his body of divinity written by Nehemiah Coxe ...
|
Coxe, Nehemiah.
|
1677
(1677)
|
Wing C6719; ESTC R37684
|
130,052
|
153
|
which they were equally with others by their own nature into a condition of futurition and there can be no cause assigned of this migration or passage without God for there was nothing before time but himself It remains therefore that the cause thereof was in God and indeed it was the will purpose or decree of God that some things should be others should not that alone made this change So that the foreknowledge of things to be that is in God supposeth his Decree that they shall be and in truth the foreknowledge or Decree of God considered as in him is the same and the Scripture indifferently useth either term to denote the same thing though we because of the imbecility of our understanding form differing conceptions of them we conceive of the Decree as an act of God willing that such things should be and of Divine prescience as an act of God foreseeing or knowing the coming to pass of the things willed by him Amongst things future some are good some are evil viz. morally Those that are good God decreed to effect those that are evil to permit or suffer to be done knowing how and having purposed in himself to order them and over rule the doing of them for his own glory in the end Again some things we see are the effects of causes that work necessarily necessitate consequentis others of free agents which are to us wholly contingent yet do also necessarily come to pass necessitate consequentiae And things are therefore thus effected in time because God had decreed this order before time Hence is the certainty of Gods foreknowledge which dependeth not on any thing without himself and so a necessity as to the event that whatsoever hath been or shall be should so come to pass as it doth But this is a necessity of infallibility not of coaction and doth establish not infringe the liberty of free agents I shall briefly apply these things to the case in hand It will be granted I suppose that the utmost end intended by God in all that comes to pass is his own glory He hath made all things for himself and in the making of man God had an eye to the manifestation both of his mercy and justice Rom. 9. 22 23. In order hereunto he purposed to create man upright but mutable and to permit his temptation and falling by sin and to save a remnant of fallen man-kind by Jesus Christ through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth that his free grace might be everlastingly glorified in the Vessels of mercy which he before prepared untoglory so also he purposed to leave the rest in their fallen state to the wickedness of their own hearts and justly to punish them for it therein shewing his wrath and making his power known on the Vessels of wrath which he had endured with much long-suffering who were fitted for destruction Thus the end of all men is foreknown unto God and nothing falls out casually unto him yet is there no force put upon man nor injustice or hard dealing from God for him to complain of But Mr. Collier saith p. 36. It is dishonourable unto God and pernicious to men and layeth all the wickedness and plagues of the world at Gods door to affirm as some do That God decreed Adams fall before he made him or at least so far foreknew it as that it must be i. e. so as to necessitate it An heavy charge And we know right well who M. Collier intends it against But it will be far more easie for me to manifest That the men of his controversie have no concernment in it then for him to vindicate his own truth and honesty inasmuch as what they hold infers no such thing as you may see by what I have already written of this matter and whatsoever in his report of their opinion looketh this way is untruly imputed to them His best plea will be that he slandered them by hearsay and that himself knew not nor understood what they affirmed of this matter yet will not this excuse him But to the business Himself confesseth That God foreknew that Adam would fall I ask then Could the Almighty have prevented this or not If he could and yet did not we conclude that he willed or decreed not to prevent it though no ways approving thereof having determined to raise glory to his own name out of it And if the most high decreed to permit it and so from Eternity foreknew it as future this infâ—rs a necessity of Infallibility that in time it would so come to pass but leaves man as a free agent to the liberty of his own will without any coaction thereto This notwithstanding therefore the sin and plagues of the world lye at the door of rebellious man And if Mr. Collier mean by foreknowing it so as to necessitate it such a foreknowledge or decree of God concerning it as in the execution thereof man should be compelled to sin and his fall effected by God I detesâ— such a notion and so do all those whom he reflects upon And it is expected that he either make good his charge out of their Writings or else right them by a publick acknowledgement of his fault in thus misrepresenting their Doctrine And if Mr. Collier cannot yet conceive of a necessity of infallibility respecting the event of things arising from the decree or foreknowledge of God without a necessity of coaction respecting those that are to act in the accomplishment of them I will endeavour to help him by one plain instance Act. 4. 27 28. For of a truth against thy holy Child Jesus whom thou hast anointed both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and People of Israel were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done It is evident their design was not to fulfill the counsel of God But thus it fell out for whatsoever they did to the Lord Jesus God had in his counsel determined before to be done yea had foretold by the mouth of all his holy Prophets that so it should be unto every circumstance of Christs passion viz. his Crucifying having Gall and Vinegar given him to drink the parting of his Raiment piercing of his side c. Now either these things must so come to pass or else the counsel of God must be disappointed and his word falsified will Mr. Collier then lay the Murther of Christ at Gods door were not all the agents by whose hands these things were immediately done free from coaction and therefore responsible for their wickedness all this notwithstanding And to make this yet more clear I will transcribe a few lines from Mr. Norton in his Orthod Ev. p. 75. These two proposioions 1. Adam might not have sinned 2. It could not be but that Adam would sin are both true and notwithstanding they may so seem yet they are not opposite one unto the other not being both of the same kind Adam might
form of God long before he was a Creature His 6th position is answered before He adds 7thly That he is the Son of Man in both natures As to his Humane nature and that only he was â—â—â—e of the seed of David But the union of both natures was so strict and indissoluble in the person of Christ that it is truly said That holy thing that was born of the Virgin was the Son of God The person who as to his Humane nature was formed of the seed of the Virgin being Gods 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper Son begotten of his own substance from Everlasting as to his Divine nature And this distinction of natures in Christ strictly observed doth not at all infer a plurality of Persons or Sons as Mr. C. vainly imagines p. 8. in his Question For the Humane nature hath no subsistence of its own It is the same person who is the Son of God and the Son of David yet is he the Son of God in his Divine nature in contradistinction from the Humane and the Son of David with respect to our nature that he took of the Virgin in contradistinction from the Divine nature though these natures since the Incarnation cannot possibly be divided or separated And if this be not owned we must bring in a confusion of natures in the Person of Christ As to what he adds about Justification it shall be taken notice of in a more convenient place Whereas Mr. C. closeth this Chapter with an affirmation That he cannot yet be convinced of any thing written in his Body of Divinity wherein himself owneth these things are found of which he yet seeth cause to repent Truly his blindness renders him an object of pity And because he supposeth these strange Heterodoxies have proceeded from his being inriched in knowledge beyond all others his case is the more dangerous But oh that he would be advised to go to Christ for Eye-salve that he might see and then we should hear another story from him While I was engaged in my answer to Mr. Collier I received from the hand of a Friend some Animadversions on this Chapter of his especially respecting his second position concerning the Person of Christ which because they are not long and may give some farther Light into this matter under debate I have here annexed Mr. Colliers Add. word p. 2. That which I shall endeavour to demonstrate from Scripture iâ— That he is the Son of God only as considered in both natures And if this be proved if he be tâ—e Son of God in both natures only then he is not the Son of God in the Divine nature only and to prove that he is the Son of God in both natures only the Scripture so presents him to us and no otherwise And as the Scripture presents him to us so ought we to believe him to be and no otherwise Before I enter upon the consideration of what the Scriptures say in this important Article of our Faith let us hear what Mr. Collier himself saith in his Body of Divinity under this Title How this one God subsisteth in three Persons p. 44. The sum of all is this That God is one Eternal infinite substantial Being distinguished into Father Son and Holy Spirit and in all three are Divine and distinct relative properties and operations yet in all no one wills no one acts without the other Gen. 1. 1 2 26. Heb. 1. 2. Job 33. 4. And p. 43 And this truth i. e. a plurality in one infinite and eternal God is clearly to be proved from the Old Testament even from the Creation It might be supposed by this his brief description of the Deity that Mr. Collier is Orthodox in his opinion concerning the Divinity of the Son of God though in many places he be singular in his expressions And that his design wherein he is singular and different from others is very charitable viz. That his supposed absurdity of making two Sons or the Sonship of Christ not to be the same at first as it was at last might be avoided Yet whosoever throughly weighs his whole discourse cannot but observe that he speaks at least very doubtfully concerning any existence that the Son of God had in the Divine nature before he was made or manifest in flesh Add word p. 11. § 6. That this word God-man was made flesh Here it seems lyeth the blâ—ck in the way that he that was a man was made a man The resolve is clear from Scripture he that was God and man in Gods eye was made so in our eye when made or manifested in flesh It were to be wished that Mr. Collier would yet speak more plainly that if he think a right a wrong opinion may not be conceived of him from his seemingly affected obscurity in his expressions What is the meaning of this He that was God and man in Gods eye was made so in our eye Is it that God the Father always saw him as he was from Eternity existing with him in the Deity in both natures God-man or never existing â—s God the Son till he was made or manifest in the flesh Because of this obscurity and the jealousies justly conceived that Mr. Collier is very corrupt in his opinion concerning the pre-existence of the Son of God in the Divine nature before he assumed flesh let it now be considered whether the Scriptures present the Lord Christ to us as being the Son of God in both natures only even those places of Scripture among others which Mr. C. by his false glosses would have us to think do so only present him to us Heb. 1. 8. But unto the Son he saith Thy Throne O God is for ever and ever a scepter of Righteousness is the scepter of thy Kingdom thou hast loved Righteousness and hated Iniquity therefore God thy God hath anointed thee with the Oil of gladness above thy fellows Herein we have not only the unction of the Son of God mentioned but the reason of it And that is plainly taken from his Everlasting Divinity Regality and Righteousness Because he that is the Son of God is God that made and upholds and rules over the world in Righteousness and loveth it and hateth iniquity therefore as the only fit person is he anointed by God the Father his God and our God to the Office of Mediatorship which the whole Chapter treats of And from the dignity of his Person as the Son of God is divine adoration given to him when as the Son of man he came first into the world And from thence also his preheminence notwithstanding his debasement in the flesh continues with him above all his fellows Heb. 2. 16. He took not on him the nature of Angels but he took on him the Seed of Abraham If the question be asked as the Eâ—nuch did Philip in the like case of whom does the Apostle here speak The answer is plain from the context of the Son of God He is the person assuming