Infinite Power moreover to the act and none to the cessation And by this Rule it would follow that all Motion in the World is supernatural For if God cause it ut sons naturae he causeth it in the natural course if he do not it 's all supernatural and miraculous Moreover if all this satisfie not Disputes if it be worth the Cost they may try the Case thus Supposing that God hath told no man his Secrets when he will immediately move any thing without second Causes and that no second Causes nor his own Operation by them can move any thing without another immediate Motion Let them cut down the Pillars or undermine their Houses and say that by meer natural Causes the House cannot fall Let them set fire on their Houses and say that by meer natural Causes they cannot be burnt Let them drink Poison and say By meer natural Causes it cannot hurt us Or let them cut their Flesh c. For God never told them that he will immediately concurr and then there is no danger Perhaps they will say That Experience telleth us that God doth usually concurr with them I answer And is not that because he worketh by them What Experience or Reason have you that God should still work immediately with them and yet not by them We can prove that He worketh as the first Cause But if you will prove that He doth it not as the first Cause moving the second Causes but by immediate concomitancy let us hear your proofs Lastly let it be noted that when they that affirm all Motion to be by immediate concomitant Concourse or Predetermination do pretend that they do it lest God's Causality should be denied or extenuated it is a meer deceit For all are agreed that there is no less of God in the Operations done by second Causes or Nature than in immediate Operations without second Causes such as God exerciseth on the first created Motor and how else he please God is as much in one as in the other § 14. For the understanding of the nature and use of miraculous acts of Providence it must be considered 1. That God that made the World of Natural Agents and things Passive moved by the Active is not to be feigned without good proofs to alter any of the Works which he hath made which we see he continueth in the course that he made them without any mutation of their Natures § 15. God can change and cross and use as he pleaseth the Actions of Natural Agents without changing their natures and inclinations One Natural Agent or moved Passive may be resiâ—ed and turned back or overcome by another â—nd yet there may be nothing but natural motiâ—n in them all A stronger Stream may drive â—ack a weaker A Canon may cross the ordiâ—ary motion of the Air As a great Dog may â—aster a little one or a Woolf devour a Lamb â—nd a Bird a Worm or Fly and yet there be â—one but natural and sensitive motion So God â—an dry up or stop the Red Sea or Iordan and â—y Winds carry Caterpillars to and from Aegypt and such like and by one natural â—otion overcoming another It 's hard for us â—n most Miracles to say that God doth more than this § 16. But it is certain that God hath a rank of free Agents that act arbitrarily and that these have a great measure of power over natural and necessary Motions As man is a free Agent and driveth his Sheep to what Pasture he pleaseth and guideth his Horses and Oxen in their way and furrow to do his will by their natural and sensitive necessitated motion and as a Miller can make the natural course of the Wood and Water and Mill-stones and Horse all to serve his intention without changing the nature of any one of them so much more can God and free Agents under God attain their freely chosen ends by Ordering and not Changing Natural and Sensitive Movers § 17. We so little know what Arbitrary Free Agents that are invisible Spirits God hath set over this Passive World and what power he hath given them to use Natural Agents as they themselves freely will that it greatly disableth us to resolve all the Difficulties of the Cause of Sin and Misery and about the nature of Miracles But it is a clear truth that it is by such Free Arbitrary Agents primarily that natural Agency is crost and overcome in Miracles the one Natural Agent be employed to resist another as to quench the heat of Fire to stop the course of Winds and Water c. Yet it is some voluntary free Agent that thus useth natural Agents against each other Scripture tells us that God useth Angels as Rulers and Protectors of lower Agents And that there is a kind of a war between these and Devils And how far the prevalent Wills of good and bad Angels or voluntary Agents may be the Cause of Evil or be the Actors of Miracles by setting one moved Agent against another and yet all but Natural motion that is caused by these free Agents Mortals do not know and therefore should not be peremptory in judging § 18. But though we know not that in Miracles God useth not second Causes some natural and some free in waies unsearchable to us yet may we be assured by Miracles of his will and attestation when we find that things are done quite out of the way of his ordinary Providence in the uncontrouled confirmation of some prophetical Revelation For God is the Governour of the rational World and his moral Government must be by the intelligible signification of his will de debito what shall be due from us and to us And if Miracles be used to deceive us they cannot be done without him whatever second Cause there be And if he should use them tho' by second Causes to deceive us we are utterly remediless and therefore guiltless And God that 〈…〉 at h neither impotency ignorance nor badness cannot need a Lye to govern Man when he hath 〈…〉 de it part of his Image on Man and needful to Mens Justice to each other to hate Lying § 19. A Miracle controuled by contrary Evidence is no notification of God's Attestation It may be permitted for several good ends For God by controuling it giveth us sufficient remedy against Deceit And there are two waies by which a Miracle may be controuled First by greater conquering Miracles used for some contrary Doctrine or Cause so the Aegyptian Magician's Miracles were controuled by Moses Secondly when it is some unquestionable Truth or Duty or Word that is already better proved which that Miracle pretendeth to contradict As if a Miracle were done by a Deceiver to prove that there is no God no Life-to-come or against Mercy or Justice or to disprove Christianity the greater Miracles which have confirmed the Gospel and the evident Light of Nature which proveth the Deity and Life-to-come and the Duty of Love and Justice do controul such deceiving
no Cause nor Dependance upon any Creature § 12. But there are other Acts of God's justice which are comprized in Reprobation or Rejection as the word is commonly understood As 1 Cutting off a sinner untimely in his Impenitency 2. Denying him some inward helps of Grace which once he had or was fair for so far as that is quid positivum and depriving him positively of some Means of Grace for his sinful refusal or abuse or for abuse of other Means and Mercies And all these punishments God so far decreeth as he Executeth which is upon none but such as by sin against the Law of Grace deserve them § 13. But where Negations are no Punishments nor Privations they fall not under the notion of Positive Effects or Objects and so are not fit to denominate a Positive Decree or Will Therefore when it is not a Punishment Not to give Faith Repentance Preaching c. is no act of Reprobation As not to give that Faith Repentance and Pardon which he needed not to Adam in Innocency not to give them in act to Infants c. § 14. Yea when a Penal Privation is only the consequent of God's not Acting and not of any Positive Act there the Ratio Poenae is of God and is quid positivum and God causeth it by that Law which did make the debitum poenae But yet the Negation or Privation in which it consisteth is Nothing or nothing of God's causing and therefore not fit to denominate a distinct Decree e. g. Not to give special Grace Pardon Iustification Glory to Iudas is nothing and so as nothing not the object of a positive Decree But both the positive acts by which any Mercy is withdrawn and also the relation of Punishment which is in these Nothings or Privations is caused by God and therefore Decreed by him As if God say This shall be his punishment that will not Eat that he shall die of Famine Here not eating is nothing but the penal reason which is in Famine which is but the privation of Meats resulteth from the Law of Nature and will of God § 15. By all this it appeareth that Election and Reprobation go not pari passu or are not equally ascribed to God For in Election God is the Cause of the means of Salvation by his Grace and of all that truly tendeth to procure it But on the other side God is no cause of any sin which is the means and merit of Damnation nor the Cause of Damnation but on the supposition of Man's sin So that sin is foreseen in the Person Decrâ—e'd to Damnation but not Caused seeing the Decree must be denominated from the Effect and Object But in Election God decreeth to give us his Grace and be the chief Cause of all our Holiness and doth not elect us to Salvation on foresight that we will do his Will or be Sanctiâ—ied by our selves without him Therefore Augustin Prosper and Fulgentius still make this difference That the decree of Damnation goeth on foresight of sin but the Decree of Salvation containeth a Decree to give that Grace that shall certainly Save us An ANSWER TO Mr. Polehill's Exceptions about Futurition SIR IAm much chidden already for writing many Books and Answering so many that object and am told That if the Case well Stated will not satisfie men no Answer will do it bâ—eause it is for want of their Receptive Capacity which long and right Studies must help them to and not a meer Answer to their Objections I very highly value the worthy Gentleman whose Papers you sent me hearing of few if any among us more commended for Knowledge and Piety The question is but whether it be he or I that by half confused conceptions of the matters in question speaketh in the Dark or which of us hath the more ripe digested and ordered thoughts hereof And must others be troubled with such Cases It is those that he pleadeth for that have made the edge of the Razor so thin that they or I do Cut our Fingers with it and have spun such subtile Notions which if their wits when they have done be not subtile enough to manage they will oft slip through or be as Spiders Webs As to the first Controversie of Futurity or Possibility this Gentleman's method will do me no good being no whit fitted to that which I expect I should expect from him that he had taken notice of my Distinctions and Explications â—f Futurity and that he had directly pleaded only for that sort or sence which I deny and had Answer'd the Reasons which both in the First and Second Part I bring against it But it is not so And to Dispute at such rates is but to try who shall live longest to have the last word it being easie at this rate to talk against one another as long as we live which I cannot expect and therefore shall give any man herein the best All that he hath said against me is materially Answered in the Book already and if he perceive it not how can I help that More Books are not like to do it nor have I leisure for such tasks Yet briefly I return I. As to my sence of the words Future and Possible 1. As they are predicated of the thing future or possible they are termini diminuentes quod realitatem existentem and futurity as it is rei ipsius futuritio is nothing 2. Whether Time be any thing distinct à re durante or Nothing is a Controversie which I conjecture Mr. P 's Pen and mine are never like to decide It is enough for me now to say that I take it for nothing Distinct 3. Yet shallow man that seeth not uno intuitu the Universe as God doth nor hath his essential Eternity is in motion where there is mensura motus and must think of things by partial Conceptions and must make past present and future his differing Notions in Duration 4. The internal Conceptâ—â— in man of a thing as future that it will be is quid reale for it is an act of the mind and a Verâ—um mentis and an act dâ— niâ—ilâ— A mental Negation is a real act To think and say in the mind the World was not from Eternity Darkness Death c. are nothing are real thoughts 5. The verâ—â—â— prolatum ore vel scripto sin will be c. the Suâ— will rise c. is quid reale It is a Word a Proposition 6. The fundamentum or premises from which such a Conclusion may be fetch'd iâ— quid reale e. g. God's Will or Knowledge or any necessitating Cause 7. God that knoweth man knoweth all his mental Conceptions and his Propositions de futuro without Imperfection knowing our Imperfection and so knoweth whether they are true or false 8. God's willing and knowing that things were are or will be are all one ex parte Dei being nothing but his simple perfect Essence thus knowing and willing But ex parte rei cognitae aut
Non-futurity or Nothing be therefore any thing God's knowing that it will be and yet is not proveth that the thing future is nothing and therefore Futurity no modus rei but a Name put by us on Nothing from God's Will to make it Supposing it be not Sin which God will not make but hath another Cause I had thought you had known how commonly the School-men prove That things that are not may be certainly known by God yea how the Nominals prove his Knowledge of future Contingents from his meer Perfection so that Socinus is not unanswered in those things and yeâ— Futures and Futurity are no beings At least you may see Answer enough in Strangius and Le Blank 〈…〉 two Authors well worth your reading Those 〈…〉 hings are certo futura which God will certainly make or certainly knoweth will be done and 〈…〉 et Futurity be nihil reale I would you had told me whether you take the Reality of Futurity to be 〈…〉 n esse rei extrinsecae or in esse objectivo intrinseco The former you are not able considerately to believe that nothing can have any real mode accident or affection if none of these what is 〈…〉 t then You must needs hold to the latter and then in man the futurity of things is nothing real â—ut the mode of his Cogitation or Conception as I have afore said we may have real thoughts that here is not such or such a thing but will be in which we frame a real Idea of that which will be and is not in our minds from the helps of similitudes or words and so say Such a thing thought on and named but not in being will be But in God there is nothing but God the Creature is of him and is in him dependently as their Cause and Comprehender but not as constituent of his immanent acts Why you add Suppose nothing to have some Verity is above my reach I think Nothing hath no Verity But 1. God's Knowledge that it will be hath Verity 2. The Proposition This will be may have Verity 3. But the thing future hath not Veritas rei Futurity as in re hath no more Entity than Possibility But to will or know that quid nominatum can be and that it will be are two real acts in Man and two extrinseck Denominations of the Divine Will and Intellect When you have answered what I said of Dr. Twisse I may review it Ad 4. You say Future is nothing ergo â—â—thing is future I am glad that the Creed a 〈…〉 Bible are not thus worded Future in your fir 〈…〉 Proposition signifieth the Affection or somewh 〈…〉 real of the thing future and so it is nothing 〈…〉 you take future so in the second it is fuâ—ile 〈…〉 true being but a gross expression of Nothing hath real Futurity which is aliquid rei But according to common use your second Propositio 〈…〉 will be taken for a denial of the Saying Somewhat will be and this is a real truth You say th 〈…〉 Proposition is identical as Nothing is Nothing We speak not of the Being or truth of Propositions or Conceptions but of futurity it self as incomplexum You after confess I told you so May you not equally say Negations Non-existents Non-futurity are nothing ergo Nothing is a Negation Non-existent Non-future Answer one and you answer the other Negations in mente are Thoughts and in the Mouth they are Words but in re negata they are nothing So I say of Non-futurity and Non-existence Frail Man dreameth that the mundus naturalis is the same with the mundus fantasticus notionalis in his Brain and Oh! how commonly do Words and Thoughts go in Disputes for Extrinseck Realities Ad 5. Because God decreeth to do any thing you and I when we know it may truly say This will be and will be is no being but Gods will and our knowledg and our words are Alas that so much skill is necessary not to be deceived by ambiguity of words God's Knowledg and your Knowledge and your Words may be all true and yet Futurity ex parte rei futurae hath no proper Verity metaphysical physical or moral being no subject capable of any such You say Did not the Futurity of the World result from a Decree It 's 〈…〉 earisome at every Sentence to repeat Distinction and open Confusion The futurity of the World is nothing Extra mentem Divinam humanam extra propositionem de futuritione Why talk you of our designing another Origin when we are proving that it 's nothing and needs no Cause And why answer you not what I wrote against Dr. Twisse before you call for an Answer to him Or at least why answer you not Strangius but impertinently talk of the Serpent Socinus If Socinus had no more wit than to take the Futurity of Sin for a Being Substance Accident or Mode no wonder if he knew not how to deny that God is the Cause of it And why do you not attempt to answer me who tell you That if you take it to be a real Being and eternal you must take it to be God himself for nothing else is eternal But I pray you say not like your former arguing about nothing The eternal Futurity of Sin is God himself ergo God is the eternal Futurity of Sin The Subject and Predicate are not so convertible as you seem to make them You say if we say Futurity is nothing then it is a wonder an independent on God and his Will self-originated and unpreventable c. You write no wonders to me this rate of Discourse being common in the World and hath been in most Ages Is Nothing a wonder Is it a wonder for nothing to be independent but yet that which hath no dependent Being may so far as a Nothing be at God's will that he continue nothing or make something the first non agendo the second agendo as he pleases that is by willing or not willing And it were a wonder indeed for Nothing to be self-originated or that Nothing should spring from any thing as an efficient Cause But reductively some Nothings may be ascribed to God's Non-agency as Beings good are to his action As God is improperly called the Cause of Darkness because he there maketh not Light so improperly he may be said to be the Cause of Nothings because he made not the contrary Something 's You say then there is fatum Stoicissimum on God and all his Works and this Futurity binds the Almighty that he cannot do as he pleaseth in Heaven and Earth This is a wonder indeed that Nothing should be stronger than God and rule him and the World If Dr. Twisse hold Sin to be nothing doth it follow that it binds God because it 's nothing Doth Death bind God because it is but the privation of Life or vacuity si detur vacuum because it is nothing Or when there was nothing but God did Nothingness bind God Is that God
bound or conquer'd that can turn Nothing into Something at his pleasure Non-futurity is nothing therefore it hath no Cause Is this Nothing the Ruler of God and All things because he causeth not that which is not causable Alas that good men should keep up dividing Controversies at this rate of reasoning You say If it have no Cause it can have no Impediment and so there is Fatum Stoicissimum We all talk at the rate that we understand The World was nothing before it was made and so had then no Cause in the esse causae as being no effect Relations in esse being simultaneous Doth it follow that God was subject to Fate There was no Impediment indeed to Nothingness it is not necessary that Nothing be hindred lest it become Something God can make somewhat where there is nothing at his pleasure and can make a future Nothing to become an existent Something And what should be the medium I wonder that tempted you to think otherwise Did the nothingness of Angels before their Creation hinder God from making them Or can nothing have a ruling Power Ad 6. Again you stick not at the repeating of the contradiction of a self-originated Future or Nothing and think God's Decrees endangered by nothing because it hath no Cause What a dreadful thing is this Nothing To be self-originated is to be Something of it self And if Futurity be nothing then it is something of it self And you offer not a Syllable to prove these Contradictions You add To what purpose shall Decrees be Ans. To produce the thing decreed in its proper time and place and not to make them something before they are any thing nor to make an ens Rationis to be a real extrinseck Entity You strangely say To decree such a Futurity is a nullity for it can never come to pass What can never come to pass Futurity Say also To decree Non-futurity or that there shall be to us but one Sun but one Saviour is a nullity because Nothing can never come to pass What is it for Nothing to come to pass It is come to pass without a Cause that there is but one Sun to us but one Saviour and other Nothings The Decree or Will of what shall come to pass is no nullity for it shall all come to pass and yet the Decree made not the word shall be to signifie a real Entity distinct form or model of the thing that shall be The Decree that there shall be a World was fulfilled and yet shall be was not a being before t 〈…〉 World unless it was God's Essence You Phrase importeth as if Futurity must come to pass as a thing Decreed and question whether there was a futurity of that futurity and so in infinitum For the word Coming to pass importeth futurity of futurity and not eternity You say To decree in compliance with it is below God over All for it will come to pass whether God decree it or no. Alas that Speaking should be so hard an Art What iâ— it to decree in compliance with nothing Hath it any sence How is it that Nothing will come to pass It 's true that Nothing will be Nothing without a Cause and therefore without a Decree And therefore let the reverence of God make you consider whether it be meet for us in the dark to ascribe to God such Decrees of nothing and to number Nothings and make as many Decrees Such a dance and game of notions we may more boldly use about our selves than about God till we know him better You add God in decreeing doth not decree the thing into being in the instant of decreeing but He decreeth the Futurity of it and if that be nothing he decreeth nothing Ans. Wrong thoughts will have wrong words All that you should have inferred is That His Decree effecteth nothing till the time come which is true For He decreed only to effect it at such a time But doth it follow that God decreeth nothing but Futurity because the thing decreed is not presently done Thus you must say That God decreed not the World nor CHRIST nor Salvation but Futurity only The Decree or Will of God was That the World CHRIST Resurrection c. shall be at such a time shall be is no being and yet it is a being when existent which God decreed but his Decree maketh it not a being till it exist Dr. Twisse will over and over tell you that God's immanent acts do nihil ponere in objecto And I have oft told you truly that you or I little know what we say when we divide God's Eternity into parts and assign him his praeteritum futurum And it would put you hard to it to tell me clearly and surely what God's Eternal Decree is before the effect exist our present common-received School-Divinity will call us Blasphemers if we say that before the Creation there was any thing but God and any thing in God but God and that God had any real accidents And therefore it saith that he doth operari per essentiam and not per accidentia And therefore that God's Decree before the effect was nothing but his Essence But it is his Essence denominated not as such but as related to the things decreed though yet they be not If you will forsake this common Theology and place acts in God which ex parte agentis are but Accidents and not his Essence and say This is consistent with his Simplicity and Perfection you will let in a Body of new Divinity and we shall not know when we have all God's Accidents noâ— how to order them His freest Acts are his Essential Will freely acting but those free acts themselves before the effect are nothing but God himself We must not place in God a number of Thoughts Images Notions Accidents as we do in Man But your Phrase savoureth of other Thoughts Ad 7. Here you are for yea and nay you will suppose no Propositions in God and yet you argue that then what will remain of a Decree I said But that God knoweth not by Propositions bâ—â— yet that he knoweth Propositions If you hold That God knoweth by Propositions and Argumentations say so that I may know what to speak to If you hold That He hath no Decrees what is it that you plead for But to answer your Question God's Decree is not a forming of Propositions in his mind or any change in himself or addition to his Being But it is His simple will that such and such things shall be emanative communicative productive of them in their season There are some that think that as Time-Divisions are the measures of imperfect Creatures and God's Eternity hath none such so that it is an ascribing Imperfection to God to say That he hath Decrees de futuris distinct from a productive Volition which in the most proper sence should be denominated from the produced Existent as such But in this I interess not my self as knowing that we
Miracles Therefore a Servant of Christ may most comfortably suffer Martyrdome for his testimony to the Deity Christianity the Life-to-come or Charity and Justice against Malice and Persecution and Cruelty which even a Miracle would not justifie more than for a disputable Opinion § 20. It 's a great Question How a true Prophet might be known antecedently before his Prophecy was fulfilled And it 's of great moment to consider the difference between a Legislative Prophet and a meer particular Message Moses and CHRIST the Legislators confirmed their Laws and Word by multitudes of uncontrouled Miracles For Life and Death lay upon mens Obedience or Disobedience to them And if a Prophet did reprove any Sin against that Law the Miracles that confirmed the Law did justifie them But if it were but a Prophecy about some other temporal Event as Ieremy's of the Captivity it needed no Miracle for it was but a temporal Suffering that followed the not believing them The Law of God which should here be handled I shall speak of afterward CHAP. VIII Of God's causing or not causing Sin § 1. HOw certainly the Doctrine of the necessity of immediate efficient physical predetermining Premotion doth make God the principal Cause of all Sin I have so oft shewed and so fully proved that I shall here be very short upon that Subject § 2. To say that God is the principal determining Cause of every sinful act with all its Objects and Circumstances called the materiale peccati and also the Cause of the Law that forbiddeth it and the Person that committeth it is to make him the chief Cause of Sin as far as it is capable of a Cause even of the formal Cause § 3. To say That such a Cause is the Cause only of the Act but not of the Obliquity is absurd because the obliquity is a Relation necessarily resulting from the Law and Act with all its modes and circumstances And the obliquity can have no other Cause § 4. To say That God willeth and loveth and causeth Sin not as Sin but for good ends and uses is to say no more for God than may be said for wicked men if not for Devils save only that God's Ends are better than theirs § 5. To say That God willeth not Sin but the Existence and Futurity of Sin is but as aforesaid to say that He wills not Sin as Sin or sub ratione â—ali but that it exist for better ends or else it is a contradiction For to will or cause Sin is nothing else but to will and cause the existence of Sin § 6. They that say That God willeth the Existence of Sin as it is summe conducibile to the Glory of his Justice and Mercy yea and that per se and not only per accidens do wrong the Glory of God's Holiness and Wisdom A Physician can love his own skill and compassion and the honour that cometh to him by curing a Disease without loving or willing the Disease it self but only supposing it as an Evil which he can turn to Good § 7. They that say That God is the Cause indeed of our Sin but is no Sinner himself because he is under no Law say nothing in the latter but what all grant and nothing in the former but what God's Church doth commonly abhorr excepting some few singular presumers § 8. They that hold That God doth by immediate physical efficient predetermining Premotion principally and unresistibly cause every sinful act with all its modes and circumstances do certainly deny all certainty of Faith and so subvert all Christianity For the formal Object of all Divine Faith is God's Veracity that God cannot lye if God could lye our Belief could have no certainty Now God speaketh to us but by inspired men and not by an essential voice of his own And if God cause as aforesaid all the Lyes that ever were spoken by Men or Devils in the World then no man can be sure that he doth not so by Prophets and Apostles or that ever they say true And God's Veracity then is gone § 9. They that think â—o evade this Evidence by the difference of Predetermination and Inspiration and say God inspireth no Lyes though he predetermine all by physical Premotion do labour in vain For 1. No man can ever prove that any Inspiration doth interest God more in the Act or Lye than physical Predetermination doth For how can God be more the Author of any Act than by effectual premoving the Creature to act it and that by immediate physical Predetermination What doth Inspiration do but so move the Mind Will and Tongue of a Prophet No man can name more that Man is capable of 2. But if there were a difference we are not capable of understanding that difference so well as to prove that God can cause all the Lyes in the World by predetermining Premotion and yet can cause none by Inspiration shall none believe him that know not this difference 3. And were it intelligible it would be only to inspired men themselves So that I am past doubt that we must part with all Certainty of Christianity and of all Divine Belief if we receive this Doctrine of Predetermination because the objectum formals fidei is then gone § 10. They that say that if we make not God the Predeterminer to every act in specie morali and in every comparative respect and mode we shall make Man a God by making him a Causa prima do thereby as much conclude God to be the first and principal predetermining efficient Cause of every wicked Habit as of Malignity or Hatred of God c. because a Habit hath as much Entity as an Act Therefore if it deifie Man to make him the first Cause e. g. of a Lye or Murder in specie then so it will do to make him the first Cause of the Habit. § 11. If it be as impossible for Man to do any thing but what he doth or not to do all that he doth without God's foresaid predetermining Premotion as it is to be Gods or to overcome God or make a World then if Men are counted Sinners and condemned it is for not doing such impossibilities for not doing what God alone can do or for not overcoming Almighty premoving Power § 12. â—t cannot rationally be expected that they that believe that God is the chief Cause and Willer of all Sin should think it very bad or themselves bad for it or that when God hath unresistibly made all men to sin he yet hateth it and sent his Son into the World to testifie his Hatred by dying for it and that he is serious in all that he saith against it in his word nor that such men should hate it and rather die than sin § 13. Therefore as the Church of God hath ever abhorred to make God the Cause of Sin and kept up the sence of the Evil of Sin for our hatred of it and departing from it and our Humiliation as a
Word of God And I think that I have elsewhere proved that Generative Traduction of Souls and yet God's present yea immediate Causation of their Essence which may be called Creation are here Consistent Which here I must not now repeat Vid. Meth. Theol. and Reasons of Christian Religion CHAP. XI Of our Redemption by Christ. § 1. SIN having made Man guilty and depraved unfit for duty and felicity odious to the most Holy Righteous God and lyable to his Justice the eternal Wisdom and Word of God did interpose and by Mercy did save Man from the deserved rigour of Justice promising Actual Redemption in the fulness of time and on that supposition giving fallen Man a pardoning and saving Law or Covenant of Grace with answerable help of his Spirit and Means and outward Mercies fitted to his Recovery and Salvation § 2. But God would not have this Recovery and Salvation to be perfect at the first but gave Man a certain proportion of Common Deliverance and Mercy binding him to a Course of Duty in the performance of which he should receive more by degrees till he were perfected As Phisicians cure their Patients § 3. Therefore God did enter into Judgment with fallen Man and did sentence him absolutely to some degree of Punishment even to Labour Pain the penalty of the Cursed Earth and finally to Death which Temporal Punishment God would not remit nor give him a Saviour to procure the pardon of it but only to the Faithful to turn all this unto their Benefit and to deliver them from the greater everlasting Sufferings § 4. And their own sinful pravity and privation of Holiness and communion with God which also was their greatest punishment by Consequence God would not at once nor in this Life perfectly save them from and therefore accordingly pardoned them their punishment but by the forementioned degrees For he is not perfectly pardoned or saved who is yet left under so much penalty § 5. Some thinking it hard that for 4000 Years the World should have no Existent Mediator and that an Existent Faith in the future Mediator should be more necessary than an Existent Mediator and his Work and thinking withal that it would solve many Textual Difficulties objected by the Arians and explain the Appearances of Christ to the Patriarchs have conceived that Christ hath a threefold Nature viz. The Divine Nature a created Super-Angelical Nature to which the Divine Nature was united before the Incarnation and the Humane Nature assumed at the Incarnation and that so we had an Existent Mediator from the time of the Fall But whatever conveniences this Opinion may seem to have I find no satisfactory proof of it in Scripture nor that the Christian Church did ever hold it And it is overmuch boldness to take up so great a Doctrine as a third Nature in Christ which the Church of Christ was never acquainted with And the Texts that seem to be for it are capable of the common Exposition § 6. If any think that this was the Judgment of abundance yea the most of the Antient Writers before the days of Arius because they have such unhappy expressions of Christ which the Reader may find truly Collected to his hand by Petavius de Trinitate and that it is fitter to Expound them as speaking only of Christ's second Nature than to account them all Arians or to honour the Arians by making them on their side I answer I leave every Man to his own judgment upon perusal of the Fathers words allowing all Charity that hath sufficient ground But I cannot perceive that these Writers talk of any more Natures in Christ than two and pious ends must be served by no Fictions and Untruths I think that we must rather gather with Petavius there that the Votes in the Nicene Council tell us that then the greater part of the Church were against Arius and therefore they were so before because they held in so great a point the Faith which they had received from their Fathers And that the greater part of Writers might differ from the greater part of the Church And withal these Writers having more than other men to do with the Heathen Philosophers and Orators who were prejudiced against the Doctrine of the Trinity did shun their Offence by too much stretching their speeches to that which they thought they could easilier digest which gave Arius his advantages The Conclusions either way are harsh and sad but I leave others better to avoid them § 7. The Deity it self may not unfitly be called our REDEEMER before the Incarnation though not so fitly a MEDIATOR and though Redemption by Christ's Death and Merits in the Flesh was not then wrought Because the word Redeeming is oft taken for a merciful Delivering though without a price and also because the Price was promised from the beginning But thus the word REDEEMER is equivocal signifying either the Deity as a promising undertaking Saviour or the Mediator who was promised and who performed the undertaken means § 8. The MEDIATOR himself being purely the Gift of the Divine Love and Mercy it was no inconvenience that God then had all the Glory and that Faith then acknowledged no other existent Saviour but God himself the infinite Good § 9. It troubleth men much to open how Christ was any true Cause of our Pardon and Salvation as a Mediator before his Incarnation And what his merits sacrifice and intercession could do before they did exist And the common Answer is That Moral though not Physical Causes may cause before they exist and so operate as foreseen foredecreed or willed But these Logical notions must not be used to put off the Question instead of satisfactorily answering it This tells us not whether by a Moral Cause they mean a True Cause of some moral Being or something morally called a Cause which indeed is not so but quasi causa Nor yet whether they mean a Cause efficient final or constitutive Nor yet whether they mean a Cause of any thing in God or only of some following effect § 10. It must be concluded that Christ's merits sacrifice and Intercession make no real Change in God his Understanding or Will and therefore have no such Causality § 11. But God's Promise first and Christ's Merits and Sacrifice next make a Change in the state of things laying that Ground-work or necessary Antecedent and Condition upon which it becometh meet right and just for God to give the rest of his mercy which this is the Condition of and the true meritorious Cause And so the Change was neither on GOD nor immediately on Man but for Man on the state of things which God and man were both concerned in It is a causa ordinis while that is done first which is prerequisite to what is to follow And it is a causa rei benefici◠while it not only removeth moral Impediments of our Pardon and Salvation but also setteth matters in such a state in which it becometh congruous
extend to the Justification must extend to if perfect § 41. But no man is perfectly and absolutely just or justifiable For instance 1. If we be accused to have sinned we cannot be justified directly against this Accusation but must plead guilty by Confession For factum non potest fieri infectum and that Fact will for ever be culpable Adam did sin will for ever be a true assertion The Guilt of fact or fault is never done away in it self that it was really a fault and that we really did it will be an everlasting Truth Of which more afterward § 41. 2. If the Accusation be That in Adam we deserved Death it must be confessed Yea temporal Death and correcting Punishments are not only deserved but inflicted and not pardoned nor we justifiable herein § 42. 3. If the Accusation be that we deserved to have Abatements of Grace With-holdings of the Spirit and abatement of what Glory we might else have had all this must be confessed § 43. 4. Yea if it be said That our Sin primo instanti deserved Hell it must be confessed and against all this there is no direct Justification § 44. But against these Accusations we must be justified 1. If it be said that we are of Right to be damned or have no Right to Heaven but to Hell this must be denied And we must be justified by these several Causes 1. Because God's Iustice and the Ends of the violated Law are satisfied by Christ and by his Righteousness a free Gift of Pardon and Life are merited for us 2. And this free donation is the Law that we are to be judged by which giveth us Christ to be our Head and Pardon and Life with him § 45. 2. If it be said That we are Unbelievers impenitent or unholy and did not fulfill the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace we must deny it and be justified against this by our Faith Repentance and Holiness it self or else we must be condemned and perish for nothing else will do it § 46. And seeing it will be the work of the day to judge men as performers or non-performers of the said Conditions of the Law of Grace therefore it is that the Scripture speaketh so much of inherent or performed Righteousness and of Christ's judging men according to their works that is their works which are the performance of that Condition § 47. To be judged according to our Works is to be justified or condemned according to our Works For to be judged is the genus and to be justified or condemned are the species Iudging is justifying or condemning § 48. While all are agreed that all men shall be justified or condemned according to their Works it is unreasonable to quarrel at that height that many do about the syllable BY whether men be justified and condemned by their works as if according to them and by them had a different sence when as to judicial justification the sence is the very same though as to the making of men just the sence may differ § 49. We are commonly agreed that no man is justified by Works in any of these following sences 1. No man is justified either constitutively or judiciarily by his Works done according to the Law of Innocency that is by perfect personal Obedience and Love because we have it not 2. No man is justified constitutively or judiciarily by his Works done according to the Mosaical Iewish Law as such 3. Much less by any Works of his own or other mens invention which he accounteth good and are not so 4. No man is justified by any Works set in opposition to or competition or co-ordination with Christ but only in subordination to him and his Righteousness by which we are redeemed and for which we are all first conditionally pardoned and justified by the Law of Grace 5. No man could be justified by his Gospel-Obedience or his Faith if he were to be judged by the Law of Innocency as not redeemed 6. No man's Faith or Obedience will justifie him in Judgment against this accusation Thou art a Sinner or this Thy sin deserved Death Nor as one that hath fulfilled all the preceptive part of the law of Christ. 7. No Works do justifie us as meriting Life of God in proper commutative Justice 8. No man is justified by Tasks of working as contradistinct from believing and trusting on Free Grace or by external works without Christ's Spirit and spiritual Evangelical Duties 9. No good Work or Act of Man was a Condition of God's giving us a Redeemer or giving us a conditional justifying Law of Grace 10. Man's true Faith and Repentance is not before the Grace which worketh it and therefore is no Condition of that Grace 11. Man's antecedent common Works while he is impenitent merit not properly the special Grace which causeth Faith and Repentance 12. We have no Works that are acceptable to God but what are the fruits of his Spirit and Grace § 50. And on the other side we are agreed 1. That we are justified by the Works of Christ as the Meritorious Cause of our Justification 2. That the Justification purchased and given us by Christ is given us by a Law or Covenant of Grace which giveth as God's Instrument Right to Impunity and to Life to all true penitent Believers And therefore he that is justified according to this Law of Grace from the charge of Impenitence and Unbelief must be justified by his Repentance and Faith materially as being the Righteousness in question as is aforesaid 3. That without Holiness none shall see God And if any be accused as unholy and on that account no Member of Christ or Child of God or Heir of Heaven his Holiness must be the matter of his Justification 4. That though our Faith Repentance and Holiness be no universal absolute Righteousness yet they are that on which the judiciary Scrutiny must pass and which will be the question of the great day on which our Life or Death will depend as on the Condition or moral Qualification of the Receiver 5. That in this sence all men shall be judged by Justification or Condemnation according to their Works or what they have done that is as they have performed or not performed the Conditions of that Law of Grace which they were under as aforesaid 6. That therefore they that will be justified at last must trust in Christ that redeemed them and be careful to perform the Conditions of his Law of Grace and both must concurr 7. That that which is the Righteousness which must justifie us in Judgment is the same that must now constitute us just 8. That when our Right to Salvation is the thing in question to be judged that which justifieth our Right to Salvation justifieth the Person as to that Right and so far the same thing is the Condition of our Right to Salvation and to our Justification 9. And if any with Augustine will mean by Iustification God 's making us such
Flesh and the Devil and take God and Glory for thy all § 18. Christ's own righteousness being not essentially given to us in it self but given for us and to us in the Effects to say That the receiving of that which is not given is the only justifying act of Faith is to say That we are not justified by Faith at all But if they mean the Effects of Christ's Righteousness then it is but to say We are justified by no act of Faith but by consenting to be justified by Christ's Merits Which is not true § 19. They contradict themselves that make Christ's Priestly Office the only Object of Justifying Faith and yet make his whole Righteousness and Merit that Object For who knoweth not that all Christ's Righteousness was not performed by him only as Priest § 20. And Christ's Priesthood hath many other actions belonging to it besides his Merits offered for us Even his present Intercession Which must be excluded if Christ's Righteousness here as under the Law were the only Object of this Faith § 21. II. The second Question I had never troubled the World about so much as I have done had I not found too many Protestants scandalize the Papists by laying too much on the Nation of Instrumentality ill explained But the judicious are here all in sence of the same mind § 22. For by an Instrument they mean not 1. an instrumental efficient Cause of Justification 2. Nor of making Christ's Righteousness ours For we give it not to our selves 3. But they take the word Instrument mechanically or less accurately and tell us that they mean a receiving Instrument as a Boy catcheth a Ball in his Hat But so as that it is a moral Instrument that is both materially a moral act and the Instrument of a moral not physical reception § 23. But when they have all done they do but entangle and trouble themselves and others with an unapt Logical notion For as it is so easie to confute the gross Conceit That Faith is an instrumental efficient Cause either God's or Man's of our Justification which I have done so oft that I will here pretermit it so this Notion of a Passive Instrument is unapt because 1. The Act of Assent is essential to this justifying Faith as well as Acceptance and so is Trust which yet are no more Instrumental in reception than many other Acts even Love Desire Hope 2. Because our Consent to other things as well as to be justified and our Faith in God the Father are as truly the Condition of our Iustification as our Consent to be justified 3. And because this Metaphorical use of the Word Instrument leadeth people to dream of proper Instrumentality and misleadeth them from the apter Notions The Covenant-Donation is the justifying Instrument § 24. I conclude therefore summarily 1. Faith as Faith in the Father Son and Holy Ghost in the Sence of the Baptismal Covenant is the apt Matter to be the Condition of our Justification by the Gift of that Covenant 2. If Justification be taken for making us just Performers of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace so Faith justifieth us 1. Constitutively initially as it is the beginning of that Righteousness it self 2. And by a moral efficiency as it is a cause of Love and Obedience 3. If Justification be taken for the Gift or right to Impunity and Life in and with Christ so Faith is the Condition of it and no otherwise justifieth 4. But if any will call this by the name of a Submerit with the Ancients meaning but that it meriteth Justification as a Child meriteth a piece of Gold from his Father by putting off his Hat and saying I thank you and humbly taking it instead of scornful or neglectful refusing it I will not quarrel with any such § 25. But remember that as wise men seldom make any thing a Condition of a gift which hath no worth in it to please them so God saw and put such a worth or aptitude in Faith or else he had not so much as commanded it § 26. But yet a Condition simply as such signifieth neither Merit nor Causality at all but only the terms on which the gift shall be suspended till they be performed And so the performance of a Condition as such is no efficien 〈…〉 of the gift but a removing of the suspending impediment § 27. Therefore Dr. Twisse oft calleth Faith Causam dispositivam justificationis which belongeth not to the efficient but material or recipient Cause and the true Legal Notion of its next Interest in our Justification is its being Conditio praestita and the true Logical Notion is to be Dispositio moralis materiae sive subjecti recipientis call it Causam vel Conditionem dispositivam as you please And I think this Question needs no more § 28. III. As to the third Question the truth is obvious That Christ's righteousness is imputed and yet Faith is imputed to us for righteousness in several Sences that is each is reputed to be to us what indeed it is Two things make up the Sence of Faith's being imputed to us for righteousness 1. Faith is really the Condition of the Covenant of Grace which whoso performeth he is righteous against the Charge of Non-performance of that Condition and it is reputed our subordinate Evangelical personal righteousness 2. And supposing Christ's Merits and our Redemption by him this Gospel-righteousness is all that is required of us on our parts instead of all that perfect Obedience which the Law of Innocency required So that our Faith taken in the Scripture-sence is our real righteousness related to the Condition of the New Covenant and instead of a more perfect righteousness of Innocency forasmuch as after Christ's Redemption is required to be performed by our selves § 29. This no Christians that are sober can deny as to the thing And as to the Name it is plain to the impartial that will see that Paul Rom. 4. 22 23 24. and Iam. 2. 23. by Faith means Faith it self indeed and not only Christ the Object of Faith as some affirm with too great Scandal read over the Texts and try what Sence it will be if you put Christ instead of Faith § 30. Obj. But it is not Faith in and of it self that 's meant but as connoting the Object Ans. The latter clause is true it is Faith as connoting the Object Christ But the former is a contradiction For Faith it self essentially connoteth the Object If you speak not of Faith in genere for it is not any kind of Faith that is our righteousness but of the Christian or New Covenant Faith in specie who knoweth not that the Object specifieth it And therefore if it be Christian faith as connoting the Object it is Christian faith as Christian faith § 31. But will any sober Christian deny that 〈…〉 ur righteousness in one sence and Faith 〈…〉 inate 〈…〉 in another and that both are accord 〈…〉 ed to us