signifies our nature and its faculties as under corruption The faculties in which the sinfull privations are by reason of those privations doe lust against the working of the Spirit And now I might take my leave of Mr. P. but that I am told of no lesse than 17 cogent Arguments used by him in his Divine Philanthropie which I had not the courage to venture on When Mr. B. told him that he durst not quote the Assemblies Confession he is made a lyar for that speech If he deserve such a censure so I am sure doth Mr. P. How could I be said to want courage to meddle with that which I had never read over And which now that I have been forced to read over hath rather exercised my patience than my courage so far am I from looking upon them as convincing Demonstrations that I think I should honour them sufficiently if I but say that they are good enough for a Sophister to use when he is put to course in the Horse-fair ex tempore He ptetends to have proved in ample manner That sinne hath an efficient cause properly so call'd being angry it seems with the saying of Augustin that makes it to have a deficient rather than an efficient properly so call'd Pag. 145. If man be not the efficient cause saith our doughty Disputant then he is either the material or formal or final Rather than we will seem to be too much frighted we will say that man is the material or subjective cause of the action such a material or subjective cause as evill can have And he is the efficient cause too of the evil of the action if by an efficicient he meane no more than that unto which it may be ascribed But he and I both were best not to make too much noise least wee should awaken the youngsters to fall aboard us with such an Argument as this If man be the efficient cause either of a good action or a bad action then hee doth effect it by another action and so we may proceed in infinitum To let that pass the deficient cause is reduceable to the efficient and this is to be said Suppose the first sin of Angels to have been a proud desire to be equal unto God the cause of this proud desire was the will of the Angel but it was the cause of the action in such a sense as a causality may be said to have a cause per se of the vitiosity of the action it was onely the cause per accidens per concomitantiam nor doth the vitiotsiy of the effect alway suppose a vitiosity in the cause though it alway pre-supposeth an imperfection in the cause and where the cause it self is vitious its vitiosity is not the cause of the vitiosity of the effect for vitiosity of it self neither can effect nor be effected but the vitious cause taking together the being and the supervenient privation is the cause of the vitious effect taking it in like manner for the beeing and the superadded privation But if we contradict him we must say that God damns men for nothing Anselm in the place I before referred my Reader to makes this objection and laugheth at its weaknesse De Con. vir c. 6. Quidam cum audiunt peccatum nihil esse solent dicere si peccatum nihil est cur punit Deus hominem pro peccato cum pro nihilo puniri nemo debeat quibus quamvis humilis sit quaestio tamen quia quod quaerunt ignorant aliquid respondendum est What doth hee mean when he saith that God then must punish men for nothing If he meane that God would punish men because they have not that in their faculties habits actions which should be in them what absurdity is there in that Is not the punishment just except it be for positive entities How many men have been imprisoned for not paying summes of money which they did owe Yea I beleeve Mr. P. could well enough bear my being punished for not paying him his Arrears which he vainly enough fancyeth to bee due to him and yet non-payment cannot be accounted a positive entity nor doth Mr. P. know how to place it in any predicament of Beeings Siu is a punishment but punishment is a positive entity erg There is a punishment of losse which scarce ever any man said was positive There is a punishment of sense and this we say is no other way an evil or a punishment unto us than as it doth deprive us of some perfection of which we are capable The punishment of sense may be said to be positive as to its foundation not in its formality that is it is not positive if wee consider that in which the very evill of that punishment formally consists As to the rest of his Arguments they are partly such as I have met with before and partly such as others upon whose expressions they are grounded are more concerned in than my selfe When Mr. P. will undertake to vindicate every expression that hath been used in the managing of these controversies by men of his opinion then may I perhaps sense some kind of obligation to try whether I can justifie every thing that hath fell from Mr. W. and Mr. B. in the mean time they are of age let them speak for themselves if they count it needfull if they count it not needfull why should I spend labour about that â—n the doing of which I cannot take any great pleasure and for the doing of which â—hey will con me no great thanks This I â—annot but observe that though none durst undertake Dr. Twisse in the Arminian Conâ—roversies whilest he was alive yet since his death every puny will be nibling at him upon all occasions which puts me in minde of that paltry fellow in Pausanias who being never able to get the mastery in his life time of one Theagenes a famous Wrestler came many a night after hee was dead and scourged his Statue which was erected in the honour of him Paus in Attic. If Mr. T. P. or Mr. I. G. doe verily believe Dr. Twisse to be an enemy of that Divine grace which he pretends to have maintained let them follow him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he did those with whom hee tooke occasion to deale and when they shall have so done Mr. Jeanes a person of a very scholastical head will not long let them be without an answer And so I leave my Combatant resolving if it may be never more to come so near him till I am told by others that his breath smels sweeter Upon the review of my book J cannot but recal what I have often read from Gilbertus Cognatus of a man with an ulcer in his face who passing over a Bridge where the passengers were to pay a certaine piece of mony for every malady of body found upon them was required to pay the accustomed tribute for the ulcer in his face but hee refusing to pay it the Officer pulls off his
by every one of those 7. writers that undertook the answer to Mr. Mountagues appeal yet they never thought it incumbent upon them to alter their minds Mr. Mountague saith both in his Gag appeale that our Church hath left this undecided and in the conference at Hampton-Court I find Dr. Reynolds moving that the words totally and finally might be added for explication of the Article and that the Lambeth Articles might be in serted The King then unacquainted with the Lambeth Articles thought not meet to put them in But liked it well enough in his Clergy of Ireland that they took them into their confession Dr. Overall said something touching an opinion of his about which he had been questioned by some but concluded that the elect do never fall away totally or finally The Bishop of London said he knew there were some that did make an ill use of the decrees But had before the conference agreed to the Lambeth Articles and after the conference when he was Archb. his Chaplain with his good liking and approbation published the exposition and Analysis of our Articles in which he gives the Calvinist as fair quarter as could be wished And now I would faing know why I am sent to the conference at Hampton-Court Mr. Hooker had I warrant you read Artic. Homilies forme of Baptism and seeing he could scarce tell how to speak not judiciously we will consult him the rather because it seems this Author was by the late King commended to his Children as an antidote against the poison of Popery Disc of justifi p. 506. As Christ beeing raised from the dead dyeth no more death hath no more power over him So the justified man beeing allyed to God in Iesus Christ our Lord doth as necessarily from that time forward allwayes live as Christ by whom he hath life liveth allway I might if I had not other where largely done it allready shew by many and sundry manifest and cleer proofs how the motions and operations of this life are sometimes so in discerneable and so secret that they seem stone dead who are notwithstanding still alive unto God in Christ For as long as that abideth in us which animateth quickeneth and giveth life so long we live and we know that the cause of our faith abideth in us for ever If Christ the Fountain of life may flit and leave the habitation where once he dwelleth what shall become of his promise I am with you to the end of the World If the seed of God which containeth Christ may be first conceived then cast out how doth St. Peter terme it immortall How doth St. John affirme it abideth If the Spirit which is given to cherish and preserve the seed of life may be given and taken away how is it the earnest of our in heritance untill redemption Anno 1625. one Mr. Damport did answer on this Question An renati possint totaliter finaliter excidere à gratiâ His opponent one Mr. Palmer of Lincolne Colledge urged out of Mr. Mountagues appeal the Article of our Church the Homilies the book of Common prayer the Dr. of the Chair handled the Appellator shrewdly saying he was Merus Grammaticus a fellow that studied Phrases more than Matter that he understood neither the Articles nor the Homilies or at least perverted both And what thinkes Mr. P. of the University of Oxon did not shee know the opinions of the Church of England or would she countenance any thing that had so much as the appearance of contrariety to our Church How came it then to passe that her congregations appointed questions to be disputed of at the publick acts in which are the greatest confluence of the of Sons of Levi. That proceeders maintained in a Calvinistical way How many are now alive that can remember this Question an ex Doctrina reformatorū sequatur Deū esse autorē peccati held Neg. And maintained to the satisfaction of the hearers the Arminian Doctors mean while shewing themselves rather angry than able opponents Let any one who questioneth the truth of what I now say consult the Act Papers that are printed as often as those Academical solemnities are celebrated What should I say more we know when Arminianisme began under whose wings it was sheltered viz. the D. of Buck. and Bishop Laud of whom the first had so much of an Herod in him as would not have suffered him so long to continue friendship with the latter if he had not had too little of a St. Ioh. Baptist whilest they did rule not before nor since passages in books against Arminianisme were blotted out reflections in Sermons upon Remonstrants were disliked by Bishop Lauds meanes Dr. Downhams book against the Totall finall Apostasy of the saints from grace was called in in his dayes Mr. Ford of Mag. H. Mr. Thorn of Baliol Mr. Hodges of Exeter were censured but let it be observed that the ground of the Censure was not their having preached any thing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church which is the forme of the censure possed upon Arminians by the ancient Protestants but onely their going against the Kings Declaration which determined nothing but onely injoyned silence in these points Now I hope the Church did not live and dye with B. and C. Nay their flourishing was the decaying and languishing of Church and State too nor could either body vell recover but by spewing out such evill instruments Obj. The Church of England is for universal redemption the Calvinists that are Antiarminian are against it Ans Mr. P. indeed is hugely confident that it we grant him universall redemption the cause is yeelded to him But I am all most as confident that to grant him universall redemption is to grant him just nothing at all for what though Christ did so far die for all as to procure a salvation for all upon the conditions of faith and repentance what 's this to the absolutenesse of Gods decrees or to the insuperability of converting grace or to the certain infallible perseverance of Gods elect after conversion King Iames understood these controversies far better then either Mr. P. or I. and yet he even at that very time when he sent his Divines to the Synod of Dort to determine against the Arminianisme that was then growing in the Low Countries gave it them in charge not to deny that Christ died for all as I my self was told by Bishop Vsher the first time I had the happinesse to have any personall discourse with him who also further then told me that he gave in his own judgement to Dr. Davenant for universall redemption but withall added that there were a certaine number upon whom God absolutely purposed to bestow his Spirit taking away the heart of stone and giving them an heart of flesh and we know that Dr. Davenant in that very dissertation in which one conclusion is Mors sive passio Christi ut universalis causa salutis humanae deum patrem
words Dr. Crakanthorpe thought meet to use against him Mr. Barlee hath already told Mr. Pierce I shall onely adde the Book was dedicated to King Charles and hath this title put to it Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae of which Church Mr. P. professeth himself a dutifull and obedient son and that Dr. Abbot saith of that Treatise that it was the most accurate peece of controversie that was written since the Reformation Next let us hear the most learned and peaceable Dr. Sanderson con 2. ad Clerum p. 29 30. Sundry of the Doctors of our Church teach truly and agreeably to Scriptures the effectual concurrence of Gods will and power with subordinate agents in every and therefore even in sinfull actions Gods free election of those whom he purposeth to save of his own grace without any motives in or from themselves the immutability of Gods love and grace towards the Saints Elect and their certaine perseverance therein to salvation the justification of sinners by the imputed righteousnesse of Christ apprehended and applied unto them by a lively faith without the works of the Law These are sound and true and if rightly understood comfortable and right profitable doctrines and yet they of the Church of Rome have the forehead I will not say to slander my Text alloweth more to blaspheme God and his Truth and the Ministers thereof for teaching them Bellarm. Gretser Maldonate and the Jesuites but none more than our own English Fugitives Bristow Stapleton Parsons Kellison and all the rabble of that crew freely spend their mouthes in barking against us as if we made God the author of sinne as if we would have men sin and be damned by a fatal necessitie sinne whether they will or no be damned whether they deserve it or no as if we opened a gap to all licentiousnesse and prophanesse let them believe it is no matter how they live heaven is their own cock sure as if we cried down Good Works and condemned Charity Slanders loud and false yet easily blown away with one single word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these imputations upon us and our doctrine are unjust but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let them that misreport us know that without repentance their damnation will be just Dr. Field B. 3. p. 117. The next Heresie which they say we are fallen into is the Heresie of Florinus who taught that God is the author and cause of sinne This saith Bellarm. Calvin Luth. Martyr have defended in their writings of this sinfull and wicked and lying report we are sure God is not the author but the devil pag. 140. Cal. Then is not worse than the Manichees in making God the author of those evils which the Manichees attribute to an evil beginning as Bellarm. is pleased to pronounce of him but is farther from that hellish conceit than Bellarm. is from hell it selfe if he repent not of these hellish slanders Dr. Ward prae de pecca orig p. 148. Prodiit non ita pridem clanculum liber quem author intitulavit amor dei erga genus humanum qui acriter contendit ex concessis sublap satis evidenter inferri omnium peccatorum hominum reproborum deum esse verum principalem authorem Audax assertum vel verius impudens calumnia I might mention more but I forbeare and doe earnestly desire those Episcopall Divines who close with us in the points of present contest that they would bethink themselves and consider what favour they must expect from these Arminian Ardelio's no more than what Polyphemus promised Ulysses to be last devoured If they cannot fall down and worship the Idols which these men have set up they must expect to be thrown into the fierie furnace nay they are tormented in it already in Augustines sense who calls the mouth of an angry adversary by that name for mark his word ch 2. p. 61. Whatever dishonours have been done unto the Protestant name by those of the Kirk or Consistory or their adherents here in England yet the dutifull sons of the Church of England have ever been free from any part of that guilt This doth expunge Bishop Hall Bishop Morton Bishop Brownerig whom we as they deserve call Fathers out of the number of the dutifull Sonnes of the Church of England Nay he sticketh not in the Preface to the Reader p. 6. to place them among the very unsound and unruly members of this Church Let me take the boldness to beseech them who are of any authority in that party as they love the truth than which nothing ought to be more precious as they tender the wellfare and safety of poor soules for whom Christ dyed that they would either plainly say that they have all this while been mistaken and through ignorance Preached and Printed Blasphemy or else brand this false accuser with the letter K which when the I aw I allude to was made was the first letter of the word Calumniator 3. I have spent more time in reading the Authors Pro Con about these points than ever I intend to doe being of opinion that the greatest Scholars will never be able fully to satisfie their own or other mens Reasons about them Nor should this seem any wonder to us who cannot be ignorant how many points there be in Natural Philosophy in which a man plungeth himself into inextricable difficulties whether he affirm or deny them With what confidence have I heard one young Sophister maintain that continuum fit ex indivisibilibus and another that continuum non fit ex indivisibilibus both thought themselves in the right but men of mature judgements standing by could easily see that neither the one nor the other could free his Assertion from the common Objections brought against it I thank God I have not the least temptation to doubt concerning the Trinity of the Persons nor the Hypostatical Union of the two Natures yet I never thought my self able to vindicate those mysteries from all the subtile Arguments and niceties of unbelieving sophisters The like I think concerning the Doctrine of Gods Decrees and the manner of the Spirits working Grace in the hearts of the Elect these are matters so very mysterious and my understanding so dark that I can scarce hope ever in this world to be freed from all scruples about them Would you therefore know why I hold Absolute Eternal Personal Election Efficacious determining Grace and the certain infallible perseverance of all Believers Truly because I finde these opinions most agreeable to Scripture to the communis sensus fidelium the instinct and impulse of the new creature in all ages and because I finde they doe most tend to the debasing of sinfull man and to the exaltation of Christ my Saviour and that free Grace of his by which I hope to be acquitted at the last day To this end I will relate two Historicall passages with which J have been much taken the one from Father Paul who hath filled the Christian world with his
the Readers purse and patience that I fill it no fuller Secondly I might strengthen my opinion from the Schoolmen amongst whom I have an Army to a man as is confessed even by Arriaga The first that ever was against me as Faventinus thinks was Cajetan and those that assert the positivity of sin are by Rada called Cajetanistae so that I may say to Mr. P. where was your opinion before Luther for Luther and Cajetan are known to be contemporaries Yet not to wrong Cajetan he onely holds the essence of the sin of commission to be positive but that the sinfullnesse of omission was so he never dreamed Do these authorities signify nothing with Mr. P hear him Pag. 174. If either the Schoolmen erre or were mistaken or were never read who can help it I see judgement often varieth with interest and things acquire a price not so much for what they are in themselves as for what they are relatively to our ends and purposes The Schoolmen's authority is no good money when he should take it is currant coyne when he should pay it I must needs say that the generall suffrage of the Schools doth signify much to me in matters where they are not overawed by a Church Canon But he hath a prettier evasion than this Pag. 170. The Jesuits in waggery did purposely propagate many blasphemies arising from the tenet of unconditionall reprobation in Protestant parts of the Christian world that by making them odious they might fright men from thence into the Church of Rome If there be any Jesuits that do propagate what they apprehend to be blasphemy I should think a fitter name might be given to so Devilish a practice than that of waggery Who betrayed him into this observation Dr. Jackson who yet doth not bluntly say that it 's the designe of the Factours for the Church of Rome to have this Doctrine generally embraced or acknowledged by us but inserts these words of Caution or at least to have the World believe that it were generally acknowledged by us Beshrew Mr. Bar who put Mr. P. upon a necessity of reading this Author if he can make no better use of him The Jesuits are generally reputed very Politick but if this be the best policy they have I should think we need not much fear their plots For what if they should fasten the Doctrine of absolute reprobation upon the Church of England Why thence it would follow that the God of heavē were worse than an incarnate Devil yea thou any wicked Spirit or the Devil himself can without stander be supposed to be But doth he not think that men would enquire whether that frightfull conclusion were rightly deduced from the former principle would they not tell those Popish factours that their Pastours teach them to confesse their sins and to take the shame of them to themselves Would they not bid them dwell at home and take notice of their own Dominicans who as strenuously assert the Doctrine of absolute reprobation as any that go by the name of Calvinists the same Dr. Jackson saith Pag. 3012. He that would diligently peruse Aquinas his writings and in particular his resolution of that Question An detur causa praedestinationis may finde him as strait lace't as Calvin was one and the same girdle would be an equall competent measure for both their errors Nay the Dr. saith the Dominican's and other Schoolmen were more faulty than Zuinglius or his followers But with Mr. P. Doctor Twisse is worse than the Jesuit's though the Jesuit's and Dominican's are too bad Pag. 170. Let me adde that two Papists as learned as ever did engage for upholding the Popish cause do acquit us of this imputation the making of God the Author of sin Suarez opus lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 111. The Hereticks potestants know well that God intendeth not that which is formall in sin nor inclineth the will of man to intend it Vasquez dis 99. cap. 4. n. 22. Calvin Zuinglius Beza do plainly affirm that sin as sin is not to be referr'd to God as the cause thereof both these Testimonies I take upon trust from D. F. Wh. P. 145. Having not the books themselves by me at the present But to requite him for this observation out of Dr. Jackson who attempts not the proof of it by any one example I shall give him another That the Popish Priests will sometimes go over to the Lutherans and pretend a conversion whereas their designe is onely to blow up the coals of contention betwixt them and the Calvinists And at the managing of such a designe I am sure Mr. P. hath as good a faculty as any man alive What successe can Mr. Duree expect in his negociations for peace when as men of bitter Spirits from among our selves do not stick to make the opinions of the Calvinists worse then those of the Atheists And that the Arminians are the consin-germanes to the Jesuits and do underhand aime at the introducing of Popery I shall give him the opinion of the whole house of Commons whose word 's in a Declaration of theirs to his Majesty are The hearts of your subjects are perplexed when with sorrow they behold a dayly growth and spreading of the faction of the Ariminians that being as your Majesty well knows but a cunning way to bring in Popery and the Professors of those opinions the common disturbers of the Protestant Churches and incendiary's of those states in which they have gotten any head being Protestants in shew but Jesuit's in opinion and practice Vid. a necessary introduction to the Archbish tryall by Mr. Prinne If he except against the house of Commons let him learn the same from a Jesuit's letter to the Rector at Bruxells Father Rector c. We have now many strings to our bowes and have strongly fortify'd our faction and have added two Bulwarkes more for when K. James lived we know he was very violent against Arminianisme and interrupted with his pestilent wit and deep learning our strong designes in Holland now we have planted the soveraigne drug Arminianisme which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresy This letter was seized in the Archbish Study and attested against him at the Lords bar If yet there be not witnesse enough wee 'l call in the Lord Falklands speech p. 7. As Sir Tho. Moor sayes of the Casuists their businesse was not to keep men from sinning but to inform them quam prope ad peccatum sine peccato liceat accedere so it seemed their worke was to try how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery and to destroy as much as they could of the Gospell without bringing themselves into danger of being destroyed by the Law Mr. Speaker to go yet further some of them have so industriously laboured to deduce themselves from Rome that they have given great suspicion that in gratitude they desire to return thither or at least to meet it half way Some have evidently laboured
is therefore not caused by God because it is not ens but non ens as they commonly call that which is but a privation e g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. contra gentes p. 6. De incar verbi p. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nys Tom. 2. 490. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Who is such a stranger to St. Augustin that hath not read such sentences as these from him de lib. arbit lib. 1. Credimus ex uno Deo esse omnia quae sunt tamen non esse peccatorum auctorem Deum in 1 cap. Joh. v. 1. Peccatum quidem non per ipsum factum est quia peccatum nihil est Mali author non est qui omnium quae sunt author est quia in quantum sunt in tantum bonâ—… sunt 83 Quaest It would be endlesse to put together all sayings of the Ancients that are of this nature I shall take off my Pen when I have only transcribed the remarkable determination of Aquinas 1ª 2 ae q. 79. ar 2. in corpo actus saith he peccati est ens est actus ex utroque habet quod sit adeo omne enim ens quocunque modâ—… sit oportet quod derivetur a primo ente-omnis autem actio causatur ab aliquo existente in actu quia nihil agit nisi secundum quod est actu omne autem ens actu reducitur ad primum actum sc Deum sicut in causam quâ—… est per suam essentiam actus unde relinquitur quod Deus sit causa omnis actionis in quantum est actio peccatum nominat ens actionem cum quodam defectu Defectus autem ille est ex causâ creatâ sc libero arbitrio in quantum deficit ab ordine primi agentis i. e. Dei unde defectus iste non reducitur in Deum sicut in causam sed in liberum arbitrium sicut defectus claudicationis reducitur in tibiam curvam sicut in causam noâ— autem in virtutem motivaÌ„ a qua tamen causa tur quicquid est motionis in claudicatione secundum hoc Deus est causa actus peccati non tamen est causa peccati quia non est hujus quod actus sit cum defectu Nor secondly do I know any other way of defining what ens primum is but this that it is such a being which is not from any other being and which is the cause of all the beings that are Thirdly this positive being of sin is it a finite and participate being If not how is it not God if How is it not from the Fountain of all essences Fourthly I am the more confirmed that ther 's no medium betwixt Deus creatura because Mr. Pierce after all his enquiry hath not been able to finde any For whereas he doth tell me that the works of the Devill are a medium he could not sure but think that I would distinguish in blasphemy lying c. Betwixt the vital act and it's deficiency and dissonance from the Law of God the act it self I hold to bee positive and from God the irregularity of that act from which it is denominated blasphemy lying c. I would derive onely from mans corruption and the Devills temptation If he will not take this from me let him take it from those Gamaliels at whose feet he'el not account it any disparagement to sit as a disciple Dr. Fr. White Pag. 104. Defence of his Brother whereas sin is a deficience and aberration from the rule of justice it cannot subsist alone but even as halting must necessarily be joyned with some motion of the body hoarsnesse of speech with the action of speaking so the evill of sin is conjoyned with some action or motion of the Soul or body which hath a naturall and positive being and where unto there hapneth a going astray from Divine Law even as it hapneth to a lame mans naturall motion to have halting concurring with it Of that which is positive naturall in sinfull actions Divines acknowledge God to be the Author both in that he perserveth mans will and faculties whereby he is enabled to his operations and also because as the first cause he produceth together with the 2d. cause all positive motion Dr. Sand. 1 Tim. 4.4.5 Ser. Ad pop there is a naturall or rather transcendentall goodnesse honitas entis as they call it in every action even in that where to the greatest sin adhereth and that goodnesse is from God as that action is his creature but the evill that cleaveth unto it is wholy from the default of the person that commiteth it and not at all from God Dr. Abbot answer to Bishop Pag. 124. We say and you will say no lesse that God is the Author of all the actions in the World yet we say that sin is wholly and onely of man himself distinguish the accident from the subject the sin of the action from the action it self God in the one shall be glorified man justly condemned for the other Nay what if M. Pierce himself say that the sinfull action so far as it is an action is from God He saith that every good action of man is from the special grace of God Now seeing all the good actions that are done per gratiam viatoris be and must necessarily be on some account sinfull concerning these actions I demand are they from God If not how is every good action from God If they be then he spits in the face of his judicious Dr. Jack who saith exact Col. p. 3013. To imagine there should be one cause of the act and another of his obliquity or sinfullnesse of the act would be as grosse a solaecisme as to a assigne or seek after any other cause of the rotundity of a sphere or bullet besides him that frames the one or moulds the other or else he must say that the action that in perfect morall goodnesse which is in it are from God but the sinfull imperfection it self is from man through Gods permission and this he doth say 172. But then he ought not to be offended if we take the same liberty Pag. 158. He saith God made idolaters men And 159. men themselves are the works of God onely which is to grant more then with truth can be granted But thus I argue if God be the cause of men than of Davids child begotten by the action of Adultery for Scripture will alow me to call that child so soon as borne a man John 16.21 If the cause of that child undoubtedly then the cause of the action of generation by which as by a causality that child was produced Yet was he not the cause of the adulterious pravity cleaving unto that action Quid mirum si dicaemus deum facere singulas actiones quae fiunt malâ voluntate cum fate amur eum facere singulas substantias quae fiunt injustâ voluntate in honest â actione Ans de casu
diab c. 10. So that we are but where we were at the first setting out For the actions in which the evill of sin is subjected I 'le grant to be positive but from God as well as the creature the evill of sin from which they are denominated sinfull is but a privation and requireth no proper efficient cause at all such as it hath man is and not God But I have obstructed his good nature in working Pag. 157. He goes on further to tell me that res in Metaphysicks hath three acceptions in the first of wich it comprehendeth entia rationis as opposed to nihil Before he tell what the other two acceptions are he corrects himself my design is to convert and not confound him this charity as is more than probable did both begin and end at home had any benefit been intended to me by it you should have ceased sooner For I was confunded before that politick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was made For let any one tell mee how this discourse about ens rationis is here brought in First was it to let the World understand that our Author knew what ens rationis meant That 's but a low design and yet he cannot accomplish it neither for he placeth the model of an house to be built hereafter among entia rationis yet that is as far from being onely objective in intellectu from not being longer than it is thought on as the East is from the West Secondly hath he a mind to insinuate that sin is ens rationis if so it must either be privatio which is that he all along denieth or a negation against which his arguments militate with more strength or a relatio rationis which is affirmed by Vasquez but against all good reasons as I shall soon shew him if forced to so great severity by his owning such a paradox Thirdly was it his businesse to intimate that all the entia rationis are so the works of men as that God cannot be termed the cause of those actions by which they are made I will not torture his ingeniolum with that perplexed question whether the Divine intellect do fabricate ens rationis but without all peradventure the action of the understanding though not the imperfection is from God are not all our notiones 2 ae in Logick entia rationis yet is the act of the understanding causing them so far from not being from God that God hath indeed a more than ordinary common concourse to it The privative nature of sin may be thus further evicted If a thing be therefore sinfull because it wants some perfection that it ought to have and cease to be sinful when it hath all the perfection which it ought to have than is sin a privation but a thing is therefore sinfull c. Ergo the consequence of the proposition is as clear as the noone day light the assumption also needs rather explication than confirmation ther 's not a novice but knows the old rule bonum ex integrâ causâ malum ex quolibet defectu To make an action good there must be a concurrence of all the three goods object end circumstances the mere want of any of these three makes the action sinfull because the Law requires that all the three goodnesses should be in the action the want of that which the Law requires to to be in any subject is a sin or else we must reject not onely Aristotle but the Apostle who saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This argument is used by Greg. Arim. a noble and ancient Schoolman and largely insisted upon by Faventinus the most acute Scotist I 'me not ignorant that various replies are made to the argument but answers also are commonly given to those replies which to transcribe would be a matter of more trouble than profit My fourth and last argument against the pretended positivity of sin I dispose in this enthymem Original sin is not positive ergo sin as sin is not positive The consequent I conceive will be yeelded sine sanguine sudore otherwise the old Canon a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia would soon command it as to the antecedent I deny not but our Protestant Divines in their disputes against the Papists doe make a positive as wel as a privative part of original sin but how that terme may be understood so as not to prejudice my assertion in the least is largely shewed by Gisber Voetius in his accurate discourse de propagatione peccati originalis He that calls it a privation of Gods image saith the whole nature of it is a sentence of Mr. John Calvin That I may prove original sin not to be positive in the sense we now use the word positive I must lay down this as a postulatum That the soul is not by propagation or ex traduce as they speak but immediately created by God If this postulatum should not be granted me I should not fear the demonstrating of it by evidence of Scripture and strength of reason to any gain sayer but such my charity forbids mee to think Mr. P. This supposed I thus argue If original sin be a thing positive 't is either the soul it self or some of its faculties or some accident or adiunct agreing immediately to the faculties mediatly to the soul it self but none of all these ergo To say with Flaccius Illyricus that it is the soule it self were with more than heathenish impiety to calumniate the goodnesse of our Creator and the like absurditie will follow if we assert it to be one of the faculties of the soul If we say it is an accident inhering in the faculties of the soul then it was either put into them by God which will make God the Author of the worst of sins or else it is caused in them by the souls presence in and union to the body or from some action of the soul it self Not by any action of the soul it self for it's faculties are sinfull before it put forth any one act of reason Not from its presence in or union to the body for who can imagine how the soul which is spiritual and immaterial should be defiled by being joyned to a body which thoughfull of naturall imperfections is not sinfull and if it were sinfull could nor communicate its sinfullnesse to the soule that informes it But now holding original sin to be a privation in an active subject we do avoid all these inconveniences by saying that Adam by his first transgression did sin away the image of God from himself and his posterity who were in him not onely as a naiurall but as a federal head also and so God createth the souls of men void of his image and yet justly looks on them as sinners for wanting this image because they ought to have it and by their own folly deprived themselves of it As for the reasons Mr. P. hath against the privative nature of sin he hath so slipt glided them
be the want of conformity in this action to the Law of God and so they labor to shew or rather to feigne some conditions in the concurrence whereof such an act is seperated from it's pravity Let the Reader if he please to satisfie his curiosity consult Greg. valent 2. Tom. in Tho. dis 6. q. 9. puncto 1. Or Bradwardine lib. 1. cap. 26. I recite not their words because I need not their helpe and because they seem to make impossible hypotheses as if the hatred of God were produced by God in a stone whereas it cannot be that there should be the hatred of God in a stone which neither hath nor can have any knowledge nay the beasts though they have love and hatred yet cannot be said to hate God of whom they have no knowledge or representation I say therefore that the hating of God is complexum quid and must not be spoken of as if it were one the vital action of hatred is a thing positive but the undue referring or terminating of that act to such an object which is altogether lovely that 's the sinfulnesse of the action and not positive but privative indeed omne esse morale est valde jejunum diminutum moral goodnesse and evill are rather modi entium than entia which made Vasquez though otherwise a very acute Doctor place them as I noted before among entia rationis Yet because it belongs to the Universality of the first cause to produce not onely every reall being but also the reall positive modifications of beings Therefore we say that in good workes both the workes themselves and their rectitude are positive and are from God in evill workes there are also two things considerable the workes themselves and their pravity the workes themselves we doubt not are positive and from God as all other positive things but their pravities adde no new entities to them but consist in a meer privation in those things which are to be done according to a rule good consists in a conformity to and convenience with the rule but evill in a difformity or discrepance from the rule conformity is positive difformity is privative And in this Answer I am very much confirmed by the sayings of Anselm and Twisse Thus Anselm deconc Praedest liberi arbitrii cap. 1. God caused all things which are done either with a just or injust will that is good workes and evill in good workes he both causeth that they be and that they be good in evill he onely causeth that they be not that they be evill adding this reason of the difference because to be evill is to be nothing Dr. Twisse vind lib. 2. There is a twofold actual concourse of God one of Generall influence the other of speciall grace the concourse of generall influence is necessarily required to every action whether good or evill but the concourse of speciall grace is onely required to a worke throughly good every good work therefore needs a twofold help one of generall influence as it is a work another of speciall grace as good but an evill work requires onely the concourse of generall influence as it is a work but that it be evill no more is required than the denyall of speciall grace Thomas speak to the same purpose 2 Senten dist 37. art 2. p. 2. A 5. thing which Mr. P. would fain have to do the office of an argument is this if every sin be privative than there will be no difference betwixt sins of omission and sins of commission but a difference there is betwixt them therefore c. I suppose those words Pag. 167. Would if reduced to mood and Figure appear before us in such a form as I have now represented he makes no difference betwixt not blessing and cursing God betwixt ceaseing to give almes and grinding the faces of the poor betwixt not saving and killing another man Answ Sins of omission and commission are sufficiently distinguished notwithstanding they be both made to consist in privation Omission will be the transgressiō of an affirmative precept commission the trangression of a Negative precept 2ly They differ in respect of their immediate foundation the fundamentum proximum of a sin of commission is some act or habit but these are not the fundamenta proxima of a sin of omission it vexeth me that I am forced to inculcate these so vulgar and obvious things which none are ignorant of but those who never learned the A B C. of Philosophy To the same Cluster I may reduce what he hath P. 146. Murder must have something in it of positive to distinguish it in specie from all other sins But Scotus in 2. dis 35. will tell him that the specifical distinction of sin is taken from the different privation of different rectitude Joh. Rada will tell him that there is no reall difference betwixt Thom. him in this deafnesse and blindnesse are privations yet speeifically distinct because one is the privation of the power of seeing the other of the power of hearing But how then are the two extreme vices distinguished e. g. Covetousness prodigality seing they are privations but of the same habit of liberality Answ Because covetousnesse is a privation of liberality as it puts a man upon honest spending prodigality is a privation of liberality as it doth incline a man to avoid superfluous spending Thus I have eked out my adversaries argument which was somewhat short and scanty this made him seek to peece it with a patch of Grammar for so it follows some are not onely positively but superlatively evill the jest lieth in positive and superlative I am content he should thus use his wit with out any rival But I have been told that some years since there was one T. P. lived near the Schools who would have made such clenches with him and given him 3. for one A 6. argument that he will needs presse to fight for the positivity of sin is taken from those Scriptures which do speak of greater and lesser sins Pag. 163. At this I would strike with my Answer if I could find where the veine of proof did lye if I may ghesse it lyes in this that there can be no degrees in a privation but this is a meer mistake Among privations some are greater some lesse with relation to that forme unto which they are opposed if the forme have degrees of intention that may Physically be accounted the greater privation which removes more degrees of the Form from the Subject that the lesse which removes fewer if we reckon morally then we may also calculate the degrees of privation from the greater or lesse obligation that the subject is under to have that form which for the present he wants A. 7. If sinne be a privation how are actions and operations ascribed to it How doth the Apostle say sinne wrought in him all manner of concupiscence Rom. 7.8 Answ In such speeches sin signifies not abstractly and formally but it