have followed thereupon The just Extenuation of this last Controversie IN all these things following the parties are agreed for the most considerable 1. That Adam fell from true Righteousness and Holiness and lost the Spirit 2. That therefore we cannot argue from the Nature of Holiness alone to prove that it cannot be lost 3. That as the word Possible relateth to man's Power to do evil and omit good it is not only Possible to fall away but too easie yea it is not opus potentiae sed Impotentiae except as Natural Power is exercised in the meer Act with Moral Impotency 4. Yea without Gods preserving Grace it is not possible to persevere 5. God hath appointed us much duty to be done that we may not fall away And among the rest to discern and fear the danger of falling away and in that fear to depart from evil and temptations 6. God hath promised us Salvation on Condition that we persevere 7. God oft threatneth the faithful with damnation if they fall away and describeth to us the sin and misery of Apostates 8. The Justified may lose many degrees of true Grace and dye with far less than once they had and so become uncapable of that Greater Glory which they were morally capable of before 9. It 's too possible for them to fall into heinous sin They are not certain that they shall never commit Adultery Incest the Murther of Parents Wife or Children c. nor certain just how oft they may so fall or not 10. Such Sins make them so far morally uncapable of Glory as that See the Brittish Divines Suffrages at Dort of perseverance a sound Repentance for them and from them and a renewal of Faith are necessary to full right or moral capacity 11. God doth not decree any man's perseverance let him live never so securely negligently or vitiously For those that do so are faln already It is a contradiction to persevere in holiness and to live unholily But Gods Decree is ever entire that such a one shall fear danger fly temptations live holily in the use of means and therein persevere unto the end He never separated these in his Decrees 12. Except Hierome truly accuse Jovinian with it there is not that I know of any Father Christian or Heretick that hath written that Lege Vossi Histor Pelag de Perseverant no truly Justifyed persons fall finally away from Grace and perish for above a thousand years after Christ And it 's commonly granted that generally they held the contrary Even Augustine Prosper and Fulgentius not excepted 13. It is confessed to be a sad clog to the contrary opinion that it is held against the Judgment of the Universal Church for above a thousand years and so seemeth to bear the imputation of novelty and singularity Though that be not a sufficient confutation of it 14. It is confessed that the Greek and Roman Church the Lutherans and Arminians and most Anabaptists are against this Doctrine 15. It is confessed that all these Fathers and Churches of old and all these Churches and Christians of late are not void of the Christian comforts of the Gospel even of faith and hope of Glory 16. It is confessed that the Scripture hath many passages so much seeming to favour both the opinions as hath made the controversie thus difficult to so many Learned Godly Men And what the Scripture is it will be to the worlds end 17. It is confessed that none can be sure of Salvation or perseverance who are not first sure of their Sincerity and Justification 18. And to be uncertain whether one be a true believer and justified is more uncomfortable than to be sure of that and uncertain of his perseverance 19. No man can ordinarily be certain that he is Sanctified and Justified that is not certain of the truth of the Gospel and hath Grace somewhat strong and active not clouded by great Soul-wounding Sins nor frightful or melancholy passions nor any that through Ignorance is uncertain of the true Nature of the conditions of the Covenant of Grace 20. Certain experience of the defect of these qualifications and of mens own Consessions assureth us that not one of a multitude of the strict Religious sort have that which we call proper certainty of their Sincerity Justification and Salvation though they hold against the Arminians that certainty of perseverance must be asserted as that which may be attained by them that are first certain that they are in a state of life 21. Yet the fore-mentioned knowledge of Gods Mercy Christ's Love and Covenant with experience and many evidences of great probability may cause even such as are uncertain of their Justification to live in some good measure of true Christian peace though mixed with some doubts and fears Because their Probability is much greater than their cause of fear And much more may they do so that doubt only of their perseverance 22. It must be confessed that the Doctrine that none fall from Justification hath its temptation also to discomfort as in the two or three fore-mentioned particulars which I 'll not repeat 23. It is confessed that if God should condemn those whom he before Justified it would argue no change in Him or his Word but in them alone 24. It is confest that some Justified persons who live in as much sin as will stand with sincerity are at present unfit for assurance of perseverance and salvation For it would not stand with that humbling correction which they are then most fit for 25. Lastly it is confest that this point is no Article of our Creed nor is an agreement in it necessary to Church-communion or Christian Love but difference in it must be accounted tolerable In all this the moderate are commonly agreed On the other side 1. It is commonly granted that all that are elected to salvation shall persevere though how far that election is upon foresight they quarrel Cur ergo id quod Apostolis tunc fecit Christus non concedemus pro omnibus praedestinatis fecisse ut peculiari modo sua merita illis applicaret perseverantiam eis obtineret nam si multi sancti pro aliis orantes conversionem eorum perseverantiam impetrarunt cur dicemus Christum pro omnibus praedestinatis non orasse peculiari suâ oratione tantam gloriam gratiam illis obtinuisse Vasquez in 1 Tho. q. 23. a. 8. d. 94. c. 3. 2. It 's granted by all that not only such election but fore-knowledge of salvation and perseverance maketh it Logically Impossible quoad consequentiam not to persevere that is It Necessarily followeth God foreknoweth it Therefore it will come to pass 3. It is commonly granted that God forsaketh none till they forsake him 4. And that so great is his Goodness that no willing â—oul that solidly understandeth the Grounds of the Christian faith and hope and is in Love with God and Holiness and willing to use means and avoid temptations hath any
Head and of Pardon and Salvation 8. It is Christ's stated Constitution that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and be that believeth not shall be damned Mar. 16. 16. That if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the heart man believeth Christ's resurrection unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation Rom 10. That except you repent you shall all perish Luke 13. 3 5. That men must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins Acts 2. 38. And repent and be converted that their sins may be blotted out Acts 3. 19. So Rev. 22. 14. Matt. 6. 14 15. Ezek. 33. 14 16. 1 Tim. 4. 8. Godliness is profitable to all things having the promise of the Life that now is and of that which is to come Call these Laws or Covenants or what you will we are agreed that all this is the word of God 9. These terms of life and death are the rule of our practices and our expectations by which we must live and by which we shall be judged and therefore we may truly say that they are Christ's Law And they are God's signified determination of the conditions of life and death and his donation of our right to Christ Pardon and Life is contained herein and therefore this may truly be called Christ's Testament and Covenant in several respects 10. Though all duties be prescribed by God's Law and so each Precept is a material part yet formally or specifically the Laws to which these material parts belong must be distinguished by the distinct conditions of life and death 11. God hath made more Promises Donations and Covenants than one or two which must not be confounded 1. His Law and Covenant made to and with man in innocency is one 2. And his Law and Covenant made to and with Christ as Mediator is another 3. And his absolute promise of a Saviour to the World with the conditional promise or Law of Grace conjunct was the first edition of another And the Gospel as after the incarnation promulgate was a more perfect edition of it to pass by Abraham's Covenant of Peculiarity and the Mosaical Law as such 12. Though Christ be promised in one of these and be God's antecedent gift he may nevertheless be the Author of another and so far the foundation as well as the meritorious cause 13. That may be of free Grace which is merited by Christ yea and that which is annexed to the Evangelical worthiness of a believer 14. That may be a condition required of us to be done by the help of Grace which yet is the effect of that Grace and given us by God 15. It is a true Covenant between God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and man which is solemnly entred into in Baptism And this is a Covenant of Grace even that proceedeth purely from Grace and of Grace as given by God and by us accepted He that will confound these various Covenants Promises and Laws on pretence of their unity though there is doubtless a wonderful unity of all the parts both of God's moral signal means and his physical works shall confound much of Theology 16. The Law made to Adam never said either thou or another for thee shall obey but it bound man to perfect perpetual personal obedience 17. Therefore that Law as it obliged us is not fulfilled by the obedience of Christ but only as far as it obliged him nor can any man be justified by it as a fulfiller of it by himself or by another nor did Christ fulfil it in any other mans person though in his stead so far as is aforesaid 18. The Law doth not command any man since Adam perfect personal obedience as the means or condition of life nor promise any life on such a condition as is now naturally impossible but though it be not repealed by God is so far ceased by the cessation of the subjects capacity to be so obliged 19. The Laws obligation of us to punishment is dispenced with and dissolved by a pardon purchased by our Mediator 20. Christ's righteousness is nevertheless the meritorious cause of our righteousness or justification though he justify us by the instrumentality of his donative Covenant as giving us right to our Union and Justification and Life and though our Faith and Repentance be the condition of our Title 21. We accept two Concessions as containing that truth which sheweth that we do not much differ de re could we more happily order our organical conceptions 1. That Christ's righteousness is not the formal cause of our Justification 2. p. 596. Seeing the satisfaction was not made IN THE PERSON of the offender but his substitute it was necessary that THE BENEFIT of ANOTHERS satisfaction should be communicated in such a way as might best please that God whose Grace was the only motive to his acceptation of a substitute It is the undoubted priviledge of the Giver to dispose of his own gifts in his own way And it was absolutely and indispensibly necessary that the sinner should be duly qualified to receive such transcendent favours purchased at so dear a rate and fitted to return the glory to a Redeemer which an unhumbled unbelieving unconverted and unsanctified sinner could not possibly be He that writeth this cannot sure much differ from me hereabouts But he is charitably uncharitable when he saith Never any man in his wits affirmed it so that the righteousness of Christ is the formal cause of our Justification It 's too charitable to hide that which cannot be hid of so great a number whom it seems he never read for all his Commission from all the Systematical Divines of Germany c. p. 696. And it 's too uncharitable to judge so many excellent men out of their wits The truth is so many speak so that I have been doubtful I should be smartly censured for saying otherwise Forma qua justificamur est misericordia Patris perfecta Justitia filii saith Ant. Fayus in his Accurate Theses Th. 60. p. 280. And by misericordia Patris being the form you may see how he understood Imputation The number that thus speak are too great here to be recited so that even the most judicious Davenant lest he should go out of the road was fain to make this the Theses to be proved by him Imputatam Christi obedientiam esse causam formalem justificationis nostrae probatur Cap. 28. p. 362. c. de Instit habit But let none turn this to our reproach nor take all these for mad for it is but an unapt name and by him and many others soundly meant for the greater part of these Divines say but that Imputatio Justitiae Christi Remissio peccatorum are the form not of Justification as in us but as it is Actus Justificantis as Altingius Maresius Sharpius Bucanus Spanhemius Nigrinus Sohnius
and the Collation is according to the order of his Will though the Things Given have their intrinsick difference 115. All men confess that this Moral Reception is an Act and therefore hath an object which Physical Reception is not And that thus to Receive doth suppose a Moral Gift which Gift maketh not the thing ours necessarily as physical operation doth but on supposition of our voluntary Reception or Consent And all confess that Gods Donation is by his Covenant Testament or Promise and this Covenant hath its proper nature and mode that is the Condition as imposed antecedent to our Receiving Therefore as the thing Given is made ours by the Donation so according to the order appointed by it and our Consent no otherwise maketh it ours than as the Condition of the Gift performed But Gods Covenant doth Give us Christ and Life that is Justification Sanctification and Glorification in tithe or right in one Gift to be Accepted by one entire faith as the Condition not making at all the order of the Gifts and faiths respect to them in that order to be any of the Ratio proprietatis 116. This will be plainer by humane instances A Servants Relation is founded in his consent to be a Servant a Wifes Relation is founded in her Marriage-consent to be a Wife and to take that man for her Husband simply without any more adoe Now if the Master of that Servant or the Husband of that Wife be a noble man a rich man a wise man a good man and they knew all this and by knowing it were induced to consent and are to have their proportionable benefits by his Nobility Riches Wisdom Goodness yet their title to these benefits ariseth not from the act of their consent as it respected these benefits severally and distinctly but meerly by consent to their Relation as being his Condition of Collation The Wife is made Noble by her Husbands Nobility she is made Rich by his Riches she is instructed by his Wisdom c. But she hath no more Right to his Riches for marrying him in the notion of Rich or for consenting to him for Riches than for marrying him in the notion or thought of his wisdom or goodness On her part it was not consent to be Rich by him that gave her right to his Riches and consent to be Noble by him that gave her right to Nobility but consent simply to be his Wife that gave her right to all 117. This is yet fullyer evident in that most usually men make consent to one thing to be the condition of their Receiving or Right to another And usually that which one is most backward to is made the condition of their Right to that which they are most forward or willing to have The Master doth not say If thou wilt have thy wages thou shalt have right to it But if thou wilt do my work thou shalt have thy wages The condition of Marriage is conjugal Love and fidelity q. d. I will be thy Husband and give thee right to all that I have if thou wilt be and do what is essential to a Wife and not if thou wilt have my Riches c. If a Father give a Child a free gift on any condition it will likely be If thou wilt be a thankful and obedient Child and not If thou wilt have it Or if meer consent to have it be put it is usually when it is some gift which it is supposed that the person is not very willing to have As if a Sick man will have Physick if an ungodly man will have Teaching Books or Godliness it self But to this usually they are induced by the Promise of somewhat else which they are willing of As to the Sick If thou wilt take this Physick thou shalt have health To the ungodly If thou wilt have Christ and holiness thou shalt have pardon and happiness Now in the sence of Physical Receiving He that receiveth Physick hath Physick and He that receiveth health hath health c. But in the moral sence of Receiving which is Accepting as it is the condition of a gift so He that receiveth the Physick shall have the health and He that receiveth Christ and his sanctifying Spirit shall have Pardon Justification and Salvation Not that his willingness to have pardon and happiness is the chief or only condition of his pardon and happiness But his Accepting Christ and his Spirit which men are naturally unwilling of is the condition of that pardon and happiness which men would have By all which it appeareth that to say Faith justifyeth me as it is the Receiving of Christs Righteousness and not as it is the Receiving of Christ as a Teacher Ruler c. is a confounding or seducing saying For 1. If it intimate that Faith Justifyeth us as an efficient cause principal oâ— Instrumental it is false * * * Unless by Justifying they mean the acts of Love Hope Obedience called Hâ—â—iness 2. If it mean that Faith is the Condition of Justification quatenus as it receiveth Christs Righteousness only it hath either one or two falshoods 1. If it mean that Faith 's receiving act is the formalis ratio Conditionis or that it justifyeth not qua conditio dâ—â—ationis but quae Receptio Justitiae Christi it is false Therefore qua here can signifie nothing but the Aptitude of faith to be made the condition and so Qua Quae here are all one 2. And then that only the Accepting of Righteousness justifyeth us that is Is the condition of our Justification is a falshood 118. Therefore our consent to be a Holy and obedient people or to take Christ for our Teacher Exemplar Ruler Sanctifier by his Word and Spirit and Judge hath at least as great a hand in our justification being principally the Condition of the Promise as our belief in our acceptance of Christ's Righteousness hath SECT VIII Of Justification by Christ's Righteousness imputed 119. Christ's personal Righteousness Divine or Humane habitual active How little the Papists differ from the Imputation which they quarrel with See in Bellarm. words cited and approved by Davenant de Justit And Pet. a S. Joseph Theol. Speculat l. 4. c. 10. saith Obj. Pâ—ccatum remitti non potest quamdiu homo manet conversus ad creaturam aversus a Deo At semper aversus erit a Deo nisi mutatur Resp Sufficere mutationem moralem quae per solam Dei condonationem fieri potest ut jam homo non dicatur aversus a Deo This is Antinomianism and false As if God called not him averse who is really averse Obj. 2. Si peccatum remitti potest sine actu aut habitu per solam imputationem erit quae est â—aereticorum sententia Resp Haereticos loqui de facto non de imputatione peccati remanentis vere non remissi nos de possibili de verâ— remissione qua peccatum tollatur See how the case is turned and wranglers
really all is but a Thankful Accepting of the mercy of the new Covenant according to its nature and use as it is offered 196. It is a great question whether a man may Trust to his own Faith Of Trusting in our own faith repentance holiness c. Repentance or Holiness But some men still trouble the world with unexplained words where no sober men differ No wise man can dream that we may Trust to these for more than their proper part as that we may Trust them to do any thing proper to God to Christ to the Spirit to the Promise c. And to use the phrase of Trusting to our own faith or Holiness when it soundeth absolutely or may tempt the hearers to think that they may Trust them for Gods part or Christ's part and Of which see more in my Life of Faith Tollit gratia Meriâ—um non quod omnino nihil agamus sed quia non satisfacimus legi procul absumus a perfectione Melancth in Loc. Com. de lib. arb c. 7. not only for their own is a dangerous deceiving course But that really they may be Trusted for their own part and must be so no sober person will deny For so to believe obey pray to God c. and not to Trust to them in their place that is not to think that we shall be ever the better for them is unbelief and indeed distrusting God and saying It is in vain to serve him and what profit is it that we call upon him And such diffidence and despair will end all endeavours Let every man prove Gal. 6. his own work and so shall he have rejoycing in himself and not in another This is our Rejoycing the testimony of our Consciences that in simplicity 2 Cor. 1. 12. and Godly sincerity we have had our Conversation in the world If we are Justified by faith we may Trust to be Justifyed by it But the rare use of such a phrase in Scripture and the danger of it must make us never use it without need As if we were disputing whether the Popish or Protestant Religion be that which a man may trust for his Salvation or the like And when ever it 's used it implyeth our Trust in God and our Saviour only for their part 197. To conclude this great point of Imputed and Inherent Righteousness The last objection of the mistakers of Imputation To save me that much labour of citations I desire the Reader to see in Guil. Forbes Consider Pacific the Concessions of Vega Pighius Stapleton and other Papists about Imputation of Christ's Righteousness as granting us all that Protestants mean as Bellarmine expresly doth as Davenant Nigrinus Joh. Crocius and many others have observed it may be objected that The same man may well be judged a Sinner deserving hell never fulfilling the Law nor satisfying Justice nor deserving Heaven in himself that is in his Natural person and yet be Judged one that never sinned but fulfilled the Law is perfectly holy and righteous and merited Heaven in his Legal or Civil person in and by Christ To which I answer One man is but one and hath but one person But if you take the word Person equivocally as signifying another that is made like him in some respects or that hath his Nature or doth somewhat in his stead and for his benefit as a second person say so and we will strive with no man about words If you will say we are now on earth in our Natural persons and are in Heaven in Christ or that we are Redeemed in our Natural persons but Redeemed our selves in Christ or that you are sick in your Natural person and well in your person in Christ c. I like not your language but there are scarce any words so bad which a man may not put a good sence on But we would be understood and plainly ask whether Christ was properly every sinners or believers person in Law-sence so that ipso facto God accounteth us to have been habitually and actively perfect in Him and to have merited and satisfied in him If so the Law can look on one man but as one And he that paid a debt by his Servant or any other as his Legal person cannot be required to do it again in his Natural person unless you will say that God loveth our Legal person and will save it and may hate our Natural person and damn it The Scripture useth no such contradictory subtleties as these SECT XI How faith Justifieth 198. The common saying that faith justifieth as an Instrument might pass as tolerable if too many did not strain it to a wrong sence and raise Note that when we call faith an Accepting it relateth to the Donation of the Covenant and the Donatum which is a Jus ad beneficia Renovation is effected by faith as a second cause but Pardon is Accepted by it And we fully grant the Papists that Renovation and pardon go together whatever they call them And some of themselves do speak just as we de Remissione Macula which others are confounded about Vid. Wotton's citations out of the Schoolmen de Macula de Reconcil pec And Brianson saith in 4. q. 8. fol. 116. that sin as â—emitted or guilt is Tantum quaedam Relatio rationis in quantum est objectum intellectus Voluntatis divinae Quia postquam commissit peccatum Dei voluntas ordinat ipsum ad poenum correspondentem peccato Intellectus praevidet pro omni tempore donec poena debita sit soluta Videre peceata Dei est ad â—oenam imputâ—re Avertere faciem est ad poenam non reservare August Ergo niâ— aliud est post actum câ—ssantem pâ—â—catis offâ—nsa Macula reatus nisi ista relatio rationis Sâ—d hujus Ordinatio ad â—oenam ut est disconveniens ipsi animae dicitur ejus Macula ut autem est obligatio formaliter ad istam poenam dicitur Râ—atus Et ut est divinae voluntatis c. dicâ—tur Offensa Nil n aliud est Offendi vel Irasci in Deo quam vâ—lle Vindicare ista poena But he after owneth that the culpa is another thing unwarrantable Doctrines from it and harden the Papists by unwarantable Answers A Justifying Instrument properly is an efficient Instrâ—mental cause of Justification which I have elsewhere too largely proved that faith is not either Gods Instrument or ours Physical or Moral noâ— any way efficiently justifieth us But justifying is one thing to Receive justification is another thing and to be justified is a third Faith iâ— no justifying act But faith is in its Essence the Acceptance of an offered God Christ Spirit for Life This Acceptance is by the Covenant made the condition of our passive true Reception and Possession of Right before opened To be such a Condition performed is to be a removens prohibeâ—s of the said Reception which is strictly to be Dispositio materiae recipientiâ— And so it
may be called 1. A Receiving Cause 2. And a mediâ—â— or dispositive Cause of the effect Justification as Received but not as Given As I said Dr. Twisse chooseth to call it But this causa Dispositiva is pâ—â— of the causa Materialis viz. Qua disposita A cause or more properly a condition why I receive Justification and by receiving it am Justified which is their meaning who call it A Passive Instrument that is A â—â—ceiving Instrument 199. The plain easie truth is that Faiths Nature which is to be â—â—lieving Acceptance of Christ and Life offered on that Condition being â—â— very essence is but its Aptitude to the office it hath to our Justification by which the Question is answered why did God promise us Christ and Life â—â— the Condition of faith rather than another Because of the congruity of its Nature to that office But the formal Reason of its office as to our Justification is Its Being the performed Condition of the Covenant And if God had chosen another condition a condition it would have been Now the true notion in Law being a Condition Logicians would call this improperly a Receiving cause and more properly A Receptive Disposition of the matter reducing it to Physical notions But the most proper term is the plainest We are justified by that faith which is the Believing Practical Acceptance of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as Given us on that condition in the Baptismal Covenant because or as it is made by God the condition of his Gift thereby Understand this plain doctrine and you have the plain truth 200. They that say contrarily that Faith justifieth proximately as it is an Instrument or a Receiving Accepting act and not as a Condition of the Covenant do evidently choose that which they vehemently oppose viz. that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere justifieth For the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere or the â—â—â—â— of Faith is to be an Acceptance of Christ given But if they will to avoid this say that By Faith they mean Christ believed in then they say that by Receiving Christ they mean not the receiving of him but Christ himself And why then do they not say so but trouble the world with such unintelligible phrases But to open the senselessness and coâ—sequents of that Doctrine would but offend All know that Chriâ—â—â—â— the object is connoted as essential to the act of Faith SECT XII How Repentance is joyned with Faith 201. Repentance is a Dispositio materiae recipientis too and a part of the condition of the Covenant And so far a Material or dispositive Receiving Cause But not an Acceptance of the Gift formally in its averting act 202. Faith and Repentance are words used in Scripture in divers significations Saith Malderus Gu. Amesius a parte recedit ab antiquo Calvinismo quiae requirit ad justitiam bonae operâ— tanquam conditionem praerequisitam quod â—tiam extendit ad ipsam â—lectionem See here how little the Papists understand us As Faith is sometimes taken for bare Assent as Jam. 2. and usually for Affiance or Trust and always when it denominateth a Christian or Justified Believer as such it essentially includeth all the three parts Assent Consent and Affiance but yet denominateth the whole by a word which principally signifieth One act which commonly is Affiance as including the other two so Repentance is sometime taken comprehensively for the whole Conversion of a Sinner to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and so it includeth Faith in the narrower sence and is the same thing as Faith in the larger sence but express'd under another formal notion Sometimes it is taken more narrowly and that 1. As to the Act. 2. As to the Object 1. As to the Act and so the word Repentance signifieth only the Aversion of the Soul from evil by sorrow and change of mind And this is the strict formal notion of the word though usually it be taken more largely as including also the Conversion of the Soul to Good which is the usual Scripture and Theological sense though the word it self do chiefly signifie the Averting act 2. As to the Object 1. Repentance sometime signifieth the Turning of the Soul from Sin and Idols to God as God And so Repentance towards God is distinguished from Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ 2. And sometimes it signifieth only the turning of the Soul and life from some particular Sin 203. Repentance as it is the turning of the Soul from sin and Idols * The Papists take Repentance it self to be part of the Remission of Sins And let the Reader note for the fuller opening of what I have said of their darkness thereabouts that Jansenius Aug. To. 1. li. 5. c. 22. p. 126. maketh four things to be inseparably conteined in Remission though distinguishable 1. The Conversion of the Soul to God 2. The abstersion of the Macula or filth 3. Reconciliation or the remission of Gods offence 4. The relaxation of the aeternal punishment That all these are then at once given us we are all agreed But whether the name Remission or Pardon of sin â—e meet for them all we disagree Is it not visible then how unhappily we strive about words wheâ— we talk like men of several Languages But all is but removation and remitting the penalty of which Gods offense is the first part And Macula is either the sin it self or the relative consequents to God is the same with Faith in God in the large Covenant-sence and includeth Faith in God in the narrower sence Repentance as it is our Turning from Infidelity to Christianity is the same with Faith in Christ in the large Covenant-saving-sence and includeth Faith in Christ in the narrower sence as it is meer Assent Repentance as it is a Turning from the Flesh to the Holy Ghost as our Sanctifyer is the same thing as our Faith in the Holy Ghost in the large Covenant sence and includeth Faith in the Holy Ghost in the narrower sence But when they are the same thing the ratio nominis or formal notion is not the same As man's mind is not so happy as to conceive of all things that are one by one entire single Conception so we are not so happy in our language as to have words enough to express things entirely by one name but we must have several words to express our inadequate conceptions by And so that is called Repentance as the Souls motion from the Terminus a quo which is called sometimes Faith or Affiance and sometimes Love from the motion of the Soul to the Terminus ad quem though the Motus be the same But when Faith and Repentance are distinguished as several parts of the Condition of the new Covenant the common sence is that Repentance signifieth the Conversion of the Soul from Sin and Idols to God as God which is or includeth Faith in God And Faith signifieth specially Faith in Christ as the Mediator and way
in the heart and so maketh the Creed to be more properly this Law than the Scriptures as being written only on particular occasions But though we thankfully confess that the essentials of Christianity are so plain and few as may be remembred yet the Creed is contained and explained in the Scripture and without written Records our Faith would have been but ill preserved as experience and reason prove 7. That their Law as such discovered sin but gave not the Spirit of Grace to overcome it Insomuch as though he himself desired perfectly to fulfil it without sin yet he could not but was under a captivity that is a moral necessity of imperfection or sins of infirmity from which only the Grace of Christ could as to guilt and power deliver him 8. That no man ever came to Heaven by that way of merit which they dreamed of but all by the way of Redemption Grace free Gift and pardoning Mercy Therefore their conceit that they were just in the main and forgiven their sins and so justifiable by the meer dignity of Mose's Law which they kept and by the Works of the Law and not by the free Gift Pardon and Grace of a Redeemer and by the Faith and practical belief of that Gift and acceptance of it with thankful penitent obedient hearts was a pernicious errour But the true way of Righteousness was to become true Christians that is with such a penitent thankful accepting practical belief or affiance to believe in God as the Giver of Salvation in Christ as the Redeemer and his Spirit as our Life and Sanctifier and to accept Christ and all his procured Benefits Justification and Life as purchased by his Sacrifice and meritorious Righteousness and given in the New Covenant on this condition and so to give up our selves to his whole saving-work as to the Physician of our Souls and only Mediator with God This is the sum of Paul's Doctrine on this point 363. I say again therefore for any man to say that some one physical act either assent or consent or affiance upon one particular Object Christ's Righteousness as offered us is the instrumental cause of our Justification and that to look to be justified by any other act of Faith on Christ or on the Father or Holy Ghost or on Heaven the final Object God in Glory or secondarily as subsequent parts of the condition of Salvation by Repentance by praying for Pardon by forgiving others by Obedience to Christ c. is to look to be justified by Works in the sense that Paul excludeth them this is but to abuse the Gospel and the Church by a scandalous misinterpretation of a great part of the New Testament 364. St. James therefore having to do with some who thought that Leg. Placeum in Thes Salvin de hâ—sce Vol. 1. Conrad Bergium in Prax. Cathol â— e Blank Thes de Just and our Mr. Gibbon's Serm. Of Justif in the Morning-Exercises at Giles in the Fields Paraeus de Justif Cont. Bellarm. l. 2. c. 7. p. 469. Nos imputari nobis Christi justitiam ut per â—am formaliter justi nominâ—mâ—r simus neque diximus unquam neque sentimus ut aliquoties jam ostendimus Id enim pugnaret non minus cum recta ratione quam si reus in judicio absolutus diceret se clementia judicis donantis sibi vitam formaliter justum esse c. the bare profession of Christianity was Christianity and that Faith was a meer assent to the Truth and that to believe that the Gospel is true and trust to be justified by Christ was enough to Justification without Holiness and fruitful Lives and that their sin and barrenness hindered not their Justification so that they thus believed perhaps misunderstanding Paul's Epistles doth convince them that they were mistaken and that when God spake of Justification by Faith without the Works of the Law he never meant a Faith that containeth not a resolution to obey him in whom we believe nor that is separated from actual Obedience in the prosecution But that as we must be justified by our Faith against the charge of being Infidels so must we be justified by our Gospel personal holiness and sincere Obedience against the charge that we are unholy and wicked or impenitent or Hypocrites or else we shall never be adjudged to Salvation that is justified by God 365. All this then is past controversie among considerate understanding men 1. That Works justifie us not as perfect according to the Covenant of Innocence because we have them not 2. That the Works or keeping of Mose's Law as conceited sufficient or as set in opposition against or competition with a Saviour or free Gift or any otherwise than as the exercises of meer Obedience under Christ as Mary â—â—chary Elizabeth Simeon John Baptist David c. used them could justifie no man 3. That consequently no other Works set up either in the said opposition or competition or as any thing of Merit or worth is ascribed to them which is proper to Christ or any part of the honour of Gods free Gift can justifie no man nor any other way than as meer conditions and exercises of thankful obedience or acceptance in pure subordination to God's Mercy and Christ's Merits and the free Gift But that Works are not excluded from being conditions of our justification or the matter of it in any of these following respects 1. That Faith it self which is our act and an act of Obedience to God and is the â—iducial accepting belief in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost for the benefits of the Covenant is the condition of our first Covenant-right to these Benefits 2. That this Faith is not actual Obedience to Christ as Christ at first but only to God as God But it is the Souls subjection to Christ as Christ which is our Covenant-consent to our future Obedience and virtually though not actually containeth our future Obedience in it 3. That there is somewhat of love consent or willingness of Desire of Hope of Repentance which goeth to make up this moral work of Faith as it is the condition even our first Christianity it self 4. That as the making of a Covenant is for the performing of it and subjection is for Obedience and Marriage for conjugal Duties so our said first Covenanting-Faith is for our future Faith Hope Comfort and grateful Obedience and Holiness And these are the secondary parts of the condition of Salvation And so are the secondary parts of our Justifications condition as continued or not-lost and consummate For to justifie us is as is said to justifie our Right to Impunity and Glory â— That as is said our own performance of the condition of the free Gift of Impunity and Glory by the New Covenant purchased by Christ's Righteousness is the thing to be tried and judged in Gods judgment And therefore we must so far be then justified from the charge of â—ot performing that condition of
faith mentioned so oft in Scripture that is Upon and by believing we are first made just by free-given pardon and right to life and true sanctification with it and we are sentenced just because so first made just But this is not without our Faith and Repentance 2. And that Faith and Repentance are a Righteousness Evangelical that is a performance of the conditions on which the Covenant of Grace doth freely give us right to Christ pardon and life and so are the Constitutive causes of that subordinate Justification Lib. But your subordinate Righteousness hath no hand in our Justification P. This is but singing over the old Song by one that will not consider what is answered Have you thought on all the Texts even now cited Hath faith no hand in our Justification Hath the performance of a Condition and the Moral Disposition of the Receiver no hand in the Reception of a Gift What think you is the meaning of Christs words Matth. 12. By thy words thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned What meaneth St. James that a man is justified by works and not by faith only Are men justified by that which hath no hand in their Justification Lib. Christ meaneth before men and so doth James and not before God P. This is notoriously false as contrary to the plain Text Christ speaketh of the Account to be given of our words in the day of Judgement vers 36. And James speaketh of that which men are saved by vers 14. and that Justification which Abraham had and that in an instance where Man did not justifie him and of that which was faiths life and perfection vers 17 22. and of Gods imputing faith for righteousness as to a friend of God vers 23. And is this nothing but Justification before men Lib. This is not the justifying of the man but of his faith P. 1. You contradict the Text which saith Abraham Rahab A man is justified by Works 2. You contradict your self For if the faith be justified the man is justified to be a true believer For how could a man that fulfilled the Law as Christ and Angels did be justified but by justifying his actions And how can he that fulfilleth the Gospel conditions be justified in that point but by justifying that he fulfilled them Lib. At least I may say that this is not the great and notable Justification which is only by Christs Righteousness P. We are not contending for its preheminence but its truth and necessity in a subordinate place Indeed we have one Justification by our Judges sentence which hath many parts and causes God as Donor is one cause and God as Judge another And Christ as meriting is the only meritorious cause of the Justifying Gift and Covenant and Christ as Intercessor another cause and Christ as Judge another And our Righteousness as it is our Right to Impunity and life another and our faith and Repentance are conditions All this is sure Lib. But the Justification by faith is our Universal Justification and that can be only by Christs Righteousness And we are not to trust to a Righteousness mixt of Christs and ours nor doth Christs Righteousness need to be patcht up with our menstruous rags P. 1. No question but Christs Righteousness is perfect and ours imperfect and ours is no patch or supplement to Christs He is not made righteous by our righteousness but we by his 2. But that which is perfect in him is not made perfectly ours nor formally ours in it self as distinct from its merited effects It is not ours as it is Christs Christ that is our Righteousness is also made of God to us wisdom and sanctification And will you say therefore that we are not to be Wise or Holy by any Wisdom or Holiness of our own for fear of adding our patch to Christs 3. You use to say that Christs Righteousness is ours as Adams sin is ours and say some as Adams Righteousness would have been had he persevered But 1. Adams Righteousness would have indeed made an Infant initially just by propagation that is the innocent Child of an innocent Parent But as soon as that Infant had the use of Reason and Choice he must also have a Righteousness of his own or perish And this is no patch to Adams righteousness And indeed in his Infancy he must have a seminal Holiness of his own to justifie him as well as the relation of a Son of Adam 2. So also though we are guilty of Adams sin by propagation yet we have with that guilt 1. An inherent pravity of our own 2. And at age our actual sin And both these are our unrighteousness as well as Adams sin imputed to us Even so Christ the second Adam is a Root of a righteous seed Our Contract by faith is as to him what our Natural propagation is as to Adam that is the Condition of our Interest in his merits We have as believers an initial righteousness in our relation to Christ But we have also from him 1. Inherent habitual righteousness 2. The actual righteousness of faith and true obedience and love And these have their proper use and office without which we must perish 4. And I must tell you that the word Universal is too big to be properly given to any mans justification or righteousness but Christs Properly he only is Universally justified or righteous who hath no unrighteousness at all imputable to him and is justifyable in all things But the best believer 1. Was once a sinner originally 2. Did oft sin actually 3. Hath still sin in him 4. And for some sin may be punished by the Magistrate 5. And for sin is judged and punished by chastisements and death by God 6. And the earth still cursed for our sake 7. Yea which is worst of all we are still under the penaâ—ty of some privations alas how great of Gods Spirit and its Grace and our Communion with God And all this must be confessed And such a one is not Universally justified or just Lib. But still our own Righteousness doth but make us such as thankful persons must be for their Justification by Christ and is no part of that Justification by faith For if faith it self be that Righteousness we have not faith by faith and faith is not imputed to faith but Christs Righteousness is it that is imputed P. Of Imputation in due place 1. What need you talk against that which none of us assert Do we not all hold that our personal Gospel-Righteousness is subordinate to Christs and is by his Gift as ouâ— Wisdom and Sanctisication is Who dreameth that our faith is any part of Christs Righteousness But why do you waste time in vain cavilling against plain certain truth Is there any thing in Name or Thing asserted by us that you can deny or question Quest 1. Do you deny that Scripture commandeth us to Believe that we may be justified Lib. No. P. Quest 2. Or
that we are commanded not only Thankfully to Accept but Thankfully to obey our Lord Redeemer and Saviour Lib. No. P. Quest 3. Date you deny that life or death eternal dependeth on this as a Condition or Moral means and that we shall be judged according to it Lib. No. I deny it not P. Quest 4. Is it not a Law that thus commandeth us and by which we must be judged Lib. Yes If it were no Law there were no duty and sin in belief and unbelief P. Quest 5. Is not a man so far just and justifyable by that Law as he keepeth it and justifyable against the charge of being one that must be Damned by producing the Condition of pardon and life performed Lib. Yes I deny it not P. Quest 6. And doth not the same Law virtually justifie the performer now whom it will justifie as the Rule of Judgement at last Lib. Yes no doubt P. Quest 7. And is not the Name of Righteousness many score times given in Scripture to our own actions done by Grace and measured by the New Covenant Lib. Yes I cannot deny it P. Why then while you deny neither Name nor Thing what wrangle you about And let me plainly tell you that such men as you by indiscreet ever-doing are not the least of Satans instruments to bring the Gospel under scandal and harden the world in Infidelity and the scorn of Christ while you would so describe the Christian Religion as if this were the very heart and summ of it Believe that all the Elect have fulfilled perfectly all Gods Law by another and that Christ did it as personating each of them and therefore no crime of their own is imputable to them nor any kind or degree of Goodness or Righteousness in and of themselves is at least required of God as any means or condition of their present or future justification by their Judge or as having any hand therein As if God were become indifferent what we all are so that Christ be but Righteous for us when as it was Christs grand design to restore lapsed man to God which he doth not only by Relative benefits but by Renewing them to his Image in love and holy obedience Lib. Have you not lately and oft been told that holiness and obedience are necessary now but it is to other Ends than to justifie us as for Cratitude c. P. 1. We easily grant it is for other Ends than Christs Merits were and not to justifie us as they do nor in that Causality They are not to purchase for us a free gift of pardon and life nor the Holy Ghost c. as Christ did 2. But again tell me Hath not Christ a Law that commandeth our obedience to those ends as Gratitude which you mention And is not the keeping that Law a thing that the same Law will so far justifie us for Yea a Condition that life dependeth on And if the Cause in Judgement be Have you kept it or not must you not in that be accordingly Justified or Condemned Give over cavilling against plain necessary truth Lib. By this you will fall in with the Papists who take Justification to be partly by Christs Righteousness and partly by our own and partly in pardon and partly in faith and holiness P. Tell not me of the Names of Papists or any to frighten me from plain Scripture truth 1. Why may not I rather say Why go you from all the antient Writers and Churches even Augustine himself by your new and contrary opinion Was true Justification unknown for so many hundred years after the Apostles 2. The most zealous Antipapists do confess that some Texts of Scripture do so take the word Justification And multitudes of Texts so take the words Righteous and Righteousness And he that will impartially consider them may find that more Texts than are by us so confessed do by Justifying mean Making us Just and so Accounting us on all these causes conjunct 1. As being Redeemed by Christs Merits 2. And freely pardoned 3. And having Right to life 4. And renewed to Gods love and Image 5. And so justifyable at the Bar of Grace by the Law of faith and liberty 3. And the reality of all the Matter of this Doctrine is past doubt if the Controversie de nomine Justificationis were not so decided CHAP. IV. Whether the Gospel be a Law of Christ Lib. III. YOu bring in your doctrine of personal Righteousness to Justification by feigning Christ to have made a new Law whereas the Gospel is but a Doctrine History and Promise and not a Law and so no Rule of Righteousness and Judgement And this many Protestants have asserted P. I have read some such sayings in some men And some I think meant no more but that Christ did only expound and not add to the Law of Nature called by them the Moral Law And these I have excused for their unhappy kind of expression But for the rest that mean as the words sound universally they subvert Christianity and as the Arrians denyed Christs Godhead so do they his Office and Government and are somewhat worse than the Quakers who say that the Spirit within us is the Law and Rule of Christ which is better than none I pray answer me Quest 1. Is Christ the King and Ruler of the Church Lib. Yes P. Quest 2. Is not Legislation the first and principal part of Government Lib. Yes P. Quest 3. Do not they then that deny Christs Legislation deny his Government Lib. Yes P. Quest 4. Is it not essential to Christ as Christ the name signifying Relatively his Office to be King Lib. Yes P. Quest 5. Do they not then by this deny Christ to be Christ Lib. No for they confess that he hath a Law but not that he made any since his birth P. We grant 1. That the Law of Nature now is His Law 2. And that the first Edition of the Law of Grace to Adam after the fall was his Law 3. And Moses Law was partly his But you will not say that we are under this last nor I hope that he hath no other than the two first Lib. Why what other can you prove P. It is the Name or the Thing that you deny for you use to confound the cases 1. Whether the name be fit judge by these Texts Gal. 6. 2. Bear ye one anothers burdens and so fulfil the Law of Christ James 1. 25. The perfect Law of Liberty Rom. 8. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus c. Rom. 3. 27. Boasting is excluded By what Law Of Works Nay but by the Law of faith Mic. 4. 2. For the Law shall go out of Zion c. So Isa 2. 3. 8. 16 20. 42. 41. The Isles shall wait for his Law 1 Cor. 9. 21. We are under the Law to Christ Heb. 8. 10 16. I will put my Laws into their minds and hearts James 4. 12. There is one Law-giver c. Isa 33.
better than themselves Look not every man on his own things but every man also on the things of others Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus Who made himself of no reputation 1 Cor. 1. 10 11 12 13 14. Now I beseech you brethren by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you but that ye be perfectly joyned together in the same mind and in the same judgement For it hath been declared to me of you brethren that there are contentions among you that every one of you saith I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ Is Christ divided Was Paul crucified for you or were you baptized into the name of Paul I thank God that I baptized none of you c. 1 Cor. 3. 1 2 3 4. I could not speak to you as unto spiritual but as unto carnal as to babes in Christ For whereas there is among you envying and strife and divisions are ye not carnal and walk as men See Eph. 4. 1 c. after John 17. 20 21 22 23. I pray for them which shall believe on me that they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in Thee that they also may be One in us that the world may believe that thou hast sent me And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them that they may be one even as we are one I in them and thou in me that they may be made perfect in one and that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them as thou hast loved me Matth. 5. 9. Blessed are the Peace-makers for they shall be called the children of God Rom. 12. 18. If it be possible as much as in you lyeth live peaceably with all men 2 Cor. 12. 20 21. I fear lest when I come I shall not find you such as I would lest there be debates envyings wraths strifes backbitings whisperings swellings tumults Lest God will humble me among you and I shall bewail many c. Gal. 5. 19 20. The works of the flesh are manifest hatred variance emulations wrath strife seditions heresies envyings 1 Cor. 14. 33. God is not the Author of Confusion but of Peace as in all Churches of the Saints Acts 20. 30. Of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them Phil. 1. 15 16. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife and some also of good will The one preach Christ of contention not sincerely Rom. 16. 17 18. Now I beseech you brethren Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ but their own bellies and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple Luke 9. 55. Ye know not what manner of Spirit ye are of The Angelical Gospel of the Ends of Christs Incarnation Luke 2. 19. GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST ON EARTH PEACE GOOD WILL TO MEN or WELL-PLEASEDNESS IN MEN. John 20. 26. Peace be unto you Grace Mercy and Peace with all that are in Christ and Love Gal. 6. 16. Eph. 6. 23. 1 Pet. 1. 2. 5. 14. 2 Pet. 1. 2. 1 Thess 5. 13. 2 Cor. 13. 11. Finally brethren farewell be perfect be of good comfort be of one mind Live in Peace and the God of Love and Peace shall be with you Amen 1. Assert THe BAPTISMAL COVENANT expounded in the antient CREED is the summ and Symbol of Christianity by which Believers were to be distinguished from unbelievers and the outward Profession of it was mens Title to Church-communion and the Heart-consent was their Title-condition of Pardon and Salvation And to these ends it was made by Christ himself Matth. 28. 19 20. Mark 16. 16. 2. All that were baptized did profess to Believe in God the Father Son and Holy Ghost and devoted themselves to him with profession of Repentance for former sins and renouncing the Lusts of the Flesh the World and the Devil professing to begin a new and holy life in hope of everlasting glory 3. This form of Baptismal Covenanting and Profession begun with Christianity and called our Christening or making us Christians hath been propagated and delivered down to us to this day by a full and certain tradition and testimony and less alterations than the holy Scriptures 4. The Apostles were never such formalists and friends to ignorance and hypocrisie as to encourage the baptized to take up with the saying I believe in the Father Son and Holy Ghost without teaching them to understand what they said Therefore undoubtedly they expounded those three Articles And that exposition could be no other in sense than the Creed is And when Paul reciteth the Articles of Christ 1 Cor. 15. and mentioneth the Form of sound words we may be sure that they all gave the people one unchanged exposition as to the sense Christianity was one unchanged thing 5. Though I am not of their mind that think the twelve Apostles each one made an Article of the Creed or that they formed and tyed men to just the very same syllables and every word that is now in the Creed yet that they still kept to the same sense and words so expressing it as by their variation might not endanger the corrupting of the faith by a new sense is certain from the nature of the case and from the Agreement of all the antient Creeds which were ever professed at baptism from their dayes that cited by me Append. to the Reformed Pastor out of Irenaeus two out of Tertullian that of Marcellus in Epiphanius that expounded by Cyril that in Ruffinus the Nicene and all mentioned by Usher and Vossius agreeing thus far in sense And no one was baptized without the Creed professed 6. As Christ himself was the Author of the Baptismal Creed and Covenant so the Apostles were the Authors of that Exposition which they then used and taught the Church to use And they did that by the Holy Ghost as much as their inditing of the Scripture 7. Therefore the Church had a Summary and Symbol of Christianity as I said before about twelve years before any Book of the New Testament was written and about sixty six years before the whole was written And this of Gods own making which was ever agreed on when many Books of the New Testament were not yet agreed on 8. Therefore men were then to prove the truth of the Christian Religion by its proper Evidences and Miracles long before they were to prove that every word or any Book of the New Testament was the infallible perfect Word of God 9. Therefore we must still follow the same Method and take Christs Miracles to be primarily the proof of the Christian Religion long before the New Testament Books were written 10. Therefore if a man should be
more are Godly vulgar people ignorant and consequently erre in many things Even they that cry out against the vulgar Ignorance and insufficient Teachers know far less than they are Ignorant of themselves 5. He that mistakingly thinks any thing is Good or Bad Duty or Sin which is not so will be zealous in pursuit of his mistake if he be serious for God A good principle will hasten him on in a wrong way whatever it cost him 6. Ignorance and timerousness cause superstition which is a conceit that God is pleased by overdoing in external things and observances and laws of their own making and so they that make part of their own Religion superstitiously as most good people do in some things through ignorance will censure all others as Good or Bad by the measure of their own mistakes 7. He that thus mistakingly thinks that men sin when they do not will have a proportionable dislike of them and aversation from them And will be ready to speak as he thinks of them and so will be guilty of calumny and calling Evil Good and Good Evil. 8. The World will abound still with real evil and scandals And all parties will be faulty And usually the greater part of the Clergie in the Christian World will be guilty of so much Ignorance pride contentiousness worldliness and sensuality as will greatly grieve and offend good people And this will occasion alienation and separations even with Godly persons The sacrifice of the Lord was abhorred through the sins of Eli's sons The case of the Clergie at this day in the Greek Church in Moscovie Armenia Syria Abassia c. yea among too many of the German Churches is very lamentable by Ignorance and scandal And the corruption of the Roman Clergie was it that facilitated the revolt from the Papacy at Luther's reformation He that readeth Cornel. Mus Ferus Espencaeus Erasmus Alvan Pelagius Clemangis and such others describing their own Clergie and Jos Acosta of them in India c. will see much of the Cause of the Divisions in the World And all the old Writers that write against the Waldenses do make us understand that the ignorance and wickedness of the Clergie then was it that drove them from the Roman Church Saith Wicelius Meth. Concord c. 11. p. 39. Quum tales ad nullum honestius vitae institutum idonei sunt mirum sit si bonos sacerdotes praestabunt sic itaque procedente tempore regetur Ecclesia ab asinis praedicabunt imperitissimi misero populo quod nunquam didicerunt ipsi Adolescentes optimi quique abhorrent propterea ab instituto illo quod nolint suam libertatem sibi eripi c. I have oft said what caused St. Martin to separate during life from the Synodical Bishops about him And what Gildas saith of such that no excellent Christian will call them Ministers And it 's very observable not only as Dr. James in the Margin of Wicelius hath cited that there are many Canons against wicked Priests celebrating and Massing but Wicelius himself saith p. 17. Non admittantur sacra concubinariorum quos Deus pejus odit atque manifestarios incestus Meminerimus in Decretis Pontificum piè caveri Ne quis Missam ejus Presbyteri audiat quem scit indubitanter concubinam habere aut subintroductam mulierem And yet there are now men pretending to piety among Protestants that speak of and use those Godly persons more hatefully who refuse to hear such wicked Priests than they do those Priests themselves Light and Darkness have no Communion And the Church will alwayes have bad Ministers and Members And many good people through Ignorance will think that they should go further from them than they ought And will not distinguish between that private familiarity which is in their own power and that publick Church Communion which the Church Pastors are the guides and judges of And so the honesty and the ignorance of these good men meeting with the vulgar wickedness will be as the congress of fire and water and will occasion ruptures and parties in the Churches 9. The carnal Clergie will usually hate and persecute Godly zealous Preachers As even the case of Ph. Nerius and Baronius at Rome sheweth which had almost made disturbance And then sufferings will be a stronger temptation to hard thoughts and too much alienation than most are able well to overcome 10. And the Godly people will adhere to their Godly suffering Teachers and run further in bitterness against the carnal and persecuting party than their suffering Leaders do desire 11. Yet interest and temptations will prevail with too many of the sufferers to connive at the bitterness and alienation of the people if not to countenance it which they do not justifie And so the rupture will grow still greater 12. And all men have some Pride And Godliness being the best thing may become the object of Pride as well as Knowledge and Power And so many will affect to have their Piety Conspicuous and therefore to be singular or of some small party that is eminent and so by separation to stand at a more conspicuous distance from the vulgar sort of Christians than Christ would have them And so many a good man hath more of Pride in his profession and separation than he is aware of 13. And because Gods word and his last judgement and Heaven and Hell do make so great a difference between the Godly and ungodly it occasioneth many to think that they must difference men by their own censures and separations farther than indeed they ought 14. And it greatly promoteth Schisms that good people are unacquainted with Church-history and know not how just such Opinions and Schisms as their own have in former ages risen and how they have miscarryed and dyed and what have been their fruits 15. And few men have that humble sense as they ought of their own Ignorance and badness which would keep their suspicions and Censures more at home and make them more compassionate to others 16. And few love their Neighbours as themselves nor consider while they hate mens sin what is lovely in their Natures and Capacities of grace 17. And the Piety of almost all Sects of Christians on Earth is already corrupted with so many humane superstitious additions that few can escape the temptation of Censuring accordingly 18. And the Church will alwayes have many hypocrites who quiet their Consciences by adhering to the strictest Ministers and Churches instead of a mortified holy and heavenly heart and conversation 19. And lastly Persecution and hatred from others and the due Love of Godly persons tempteth too many Ministers to over-run their own judgements and follow the more censorious sort of persons further than they ought at least by connivence and to be ruled by those whom they should rule And thus Divisions are occasioned even by Piety it self II. But yet were the Principles of Division never so many and pernicious Interest might have led
him But it followeth not necessarily that this will be done because it 's possible no nor because it is easie or not difficult to be done 150. * * * Ruiâ— de praedet Tr. 2. diâ—p 12. §. 1 2. p. 172. so defineth Permission as I confess so it is positively decreed viz. Increatam permissionem Deus non praedâ—finit Creata permissio simul complecâ—itur quâ—rundam rerum productionem aliarum rerum negationem quibus positis peccatum permittitur And if by permission they will mean quid positivum it must have a positive Will and Cause but what 's that to the Negative or meer non impedire Thus still all our wranglings shall be but about ambiguoâ—s words His reason §. 2. is Permission of sin is good 1. Negatio Volitionis essicacis qua Deus impediret peccatum And he said that permissio increata is not decreed 2. Negatio motivorum c. 3. Prodâ—ctio Constitutio circumstantlarum 4. Generalis concursus Ans 1. Nothing is not Good meer Negations are Nothing 2. Moral Negations or Logical that is Denyal and restraints are something and have a Cause 3. Production and Concursus are something and have a Cause but so is not a meâ—r non-impedition which is proper permission But the Case differeth as to permitting of a propense agent and an indifferent agent and a contrarily disposed agent To permit a stone to ascend will not make it ascend To permit the Air to move will not make it move But to permit a stone in the Air to fall I think with Durandus is enough to make it fall supposing the continuation of the Nature of it and all circumstances And so is it in permitting some sinners to sin 151. But yet here we must distinguish 1. Between a necessary and a free agent 2. Between Adams sinning and ours 3. And between the sin of a man strongly inclined or but weakly or that hath many disswasions or but few 1. Though a bad man be under a moral necessity of sinning in the general that is of not living innocently yet he is not under a necessity of committing every sin that he committeth nor is it a valid consequence He is a bad man Ergo he will do this and that and the other Sin Because a free agent oft acteth contrary to his habits 2. And some Sinners have so great impediments in sinning that they stand long in aequilibrio before the act 3. And Adam had no more propensity to his first sin than to the contrary So that bare permission will not inferr the Certainty of all sin atleast and therefore will not here serve turn 152. But saith Rada it is not common permission but also a withdrawing of effectual helps against sin Answ 1. God did not so by Adam at first 2. But are sufficient or necessary helps also withdrawn as well as effectual If so then Adam was as much necessitated to sin by God as he was to dye by Gods withdrawing his Vital influx or sustentation and it would have been as naturally Impossible for him not to sin as to live without God But if not so then while Necessary Grace called sufficient is continued the withdrawing of any other inferreth not a necessity of sinning But indeed it is an unproved and improbable fiction that God withdrew from Adam any Grace which he had given him till Adam cast it away It is therefore no good Illation Deus permittit aliquem peccare ergo peccat unless by permitting you mean withholding necessary help which is more than proper permission 153. And it must be remembred that God is far from a total permission or non-impedition of sin He alwayes hindereth it so far as to forbid it to threaten damnation to affright men from it to promise salvation and all felicity to draw men from it He tells men of the vanity of all which would allure them to it And his daily mercies and corrections should withhold men from it Only by doing no more nor effectually changing or restraining sinners but leaving them to their own choice under all these moral restraining means he permitteth sin 154. But it is also confessed that when by great sin these means themselves are forfeited some of them are oft-times withdrawn or not given And so some are without that Teaching those mercies or those corrections which others have But yet they are still under a Law of Grace 155. And it is still supposed that God as the first Cause of Nature upholdeth man in the Nature which he gave him and concurreth with it as the first Mover and Universal Cause And therefore that mans Inclination to Felicity Truth and Goodness which is Natural doth continue Otherwise it is confessed that Permission would inferr sin materially but no sin formally if by permission be meant Gods withdrawing Reason Free-will or executive power 156. But I easily confess that if the Dominicans predetermining Premotion * * * Or Bradwardines Effective Volition as necessary and productive of all that cometh to pass in sinful actions could be proved that would certainly inferr the event of sin And if God decreed so to pre-determine the will sin may be fore known in that decree And if Scotus or the rest had been of that mind they had never omitted that easie solution of the Case How God fore-knoweth sin But this I have elsewhere confuted and shall add a little here 157. But first having disproved all these presumptions of Gods way of fore-knowing future sin I shall in a word tell you the answer which may and must satisfie us which is That Gods Understanding is Infinite and therefore extendeth by its own perfection unto all things intelligible But How his understanding reacheth them what Idea's he hath of them how they are Intelligible to him with such like are sinful presumptuous questions of blind men who know not their own ignorance And no manner of understanding is properly Divine which mortals can comprehend SECT IX Of Predestination and Free-will of which see more Sect. 20. against Mr. Rutherford 158. THough Pre-determination belong to Gods Execution and be after his Volitions in order yet because I am now only to speak of it as a pretended medium of his knowledge of sin and as quid decretum I shall touch it here It is confessed that there is no substance which God is not the Maker of besides himself Nor any Action of which he is not the first Cause 159. God may well be called the perfect first Cause of humane Actions in that he giveth man all his Natural faculties and a Power to Act or not act at this time or to choose this or that and as the Fountain of Nature and Life and Motion doth afford his Influx necessary to this free agency So that when ever any Act is done as an Act in genere God is the first Cause of it For it is done by the Power which he giveth and continueth and by his Vital Influx And there is
no Power used to produce it which is not given by God 160. An Act as such hath no Morality in it but is quid naturale And so it is from God as he is fons naturae But the Morality of an Act is formally the Relative Rectitude or obliquity of it referred to Gods Governing Will or Law and to his amiable Goodness or Will as it is mans End And Materially it is not the Act as such but the Act as exercised on an unmeet object rather than on a meet one or to an undue End rather than a due End or else the Omission of the Act as to the due End and Object which is the sin and the fundamentum of the sinfulness and so è contra 161. This Comparative mode of exercise addeth no proper Physical Entity at all to the General nature of the Act as such In Omissions of Loving Trusting Fearing Serving God there is no Natural Act but a privation of it In committed sins to Love this Object rather than that hath no more Natural Entity than to Love that rather than this and no more than is in the general nature of Love as such A modus Entis is not Ens But this Comparative choice is but the Modus Modi entis For an Action is but Modus Entis and this is but a modus actionis 162. It is therefore an invalid argument which is the All of the Dominicans that Man should be a Causa prima and so be God if he could determine his own will without Gods pre-determining pre-motion and there should be some being in the world which God is not the Cause of For this morality and modality is no proper being above the Act as such 163. If any will litigate de nomine entis let them call it Being or no-being as they please but it is such as God can make a Creature able to do And he that dare say that God Almighty who made all the World is not Able to make a Creature that can determine his own will to this object rather than to that under Divine Universal Influx without Divine pre-determining pre-motion on pretence that his wit doth find a contradiction in it is bolder against God than I shall be And if God can do it we have no reason to doubt whether it be done 164. Men seem not in denying this to consider the signification of the word * * * It is a contradiction therefore of Dr. Twisse who oft saith that God denyed to Adam no grace ad posse but he denyed him grace necessary ad agere For he hath not the Power who hath not that which is necessary to the act Vid. Rad. li. 1. Cont. 29. art 1. pag. 457. POWER when they confess that God giveth man the Power to choose or refuse and yet say that it is Impossible for him to Act by it without the said pre-motion If so It was only a Power to Choose when predetermined to it He that hath a proper Power to Choose is Able to Choose and Can Choose by that Power 165. God therefore is truly the first Cause of the Act by Giving the Power and doing all that belongeth to the fons naturae to the exercise And he is the first Cause of our Liberty in making us free-agents and he is the first Cause of the Moral Goodness of our actions by all that he doth by his Laws Providence and Grace to make them good But he is no way the first Cause of them as evil 166. When we say that God causeth the Act of sin as Causa universalis * * * Bellarmin's Universal Cause seemeth the same wiâ—â— what Durandus meaneth And Pennottus denying Durandus's opinion saith l. 4. c. 16. p. 212. Non quod evidenter sequatur ex hac opinione dari duo prima rerum principia Multi enim Philosophi ut Plato Aristot â—gnoverunt unum primum principium omnium tamen non agnoverunt istud primum principium essâ— causam immediatam omnium esseâ—luum Causarum secâ—ndarum the sense of this word must needs be opened by this distinction A Cause is called Universal 1. In praedicando Logically And so Artifex is causa universalis rei artificialis Statuarius est Causa particularis Polycletus est causa singularis hujus statuae 2. In causande as to the effect And so that is an Universal Cause whose causality extendeth to many effects And this is two-fold 1. When it is the cause of some-what common to all those effects but not of all that is proper to each unless its causality be otherwise as by the dispositio recipientis determined And so the Sun is causa universalis of the sweetness of the Rose and the stink of the Dunghill c. And so God is the Causa universalis ut fons naturae by his common sustaining and moving Influx of all sinful actions 2. When it is the Cause of those actions not only as to that which is common to them all but as to that which is proper to each by which they differ from one another and that of it self and not as determined by the dispositio recipientis or by any other cause And so God is the Universal Cause of all that is meerly physical in all beings and actions As in Generation c. which is properly to say that he is at once both Cause universalis particularis singularis And how far he is thus also the Cause of all the moral Good of all Actions I must open to you more distinctly in the third part But of the sinful morality of Actions he is not such a Cause but only a meer Universal as aforesaid 167. They that denying our self-determining power do make Volition and free-Volition to signifie the same and Cogency to be nothing but to make men willing and unwilling both at once in the same act do seem rather to jeast than seriously dispute And to define Free-will to be only Lubentia vel Volitio secundum rationem is no other For Velle juxta rationem is no more than Velle the Will being the Rational Appetite distinct from the sensitive And if Velle and Libere Velle be all one why do we blind the World with words and do not plainly put the case whether man hath any will and not whether his Will be free And if to take away its Liberty or constrain it be nothing else but to make the same numerical act which is a Volition simultaneously to be no Volition or not the Volition of another thing the question whether the will may be constrained is ridiculous If the will be not forced as long as it willeth or willeth juxta rationem then to question whether it can will by constraint is to question whether it can at once will and not will †††Of this see Ie Blanks excellent Theses de lib. arbitrio absolut The definition of Alvarâ—â— of Free-will is lib. arbitrium est facultas voluntatis
Gods will hath a final cause meaneth but a final object as he confesseth A Tree is a passive recipient cause of the Termination of the Suns calefacient act and of the â—ffect as received but not of the act ex parte solâ—â— 283. Even the Acts of Gods free-will or Decrees have no Cause even in God himself no more than those called Necessary For we must not say that any thing in God is an effect 284. Yet as Gods Acts are oft denominated by Connotation from the object which in man is a constitutive Cause of the Act loco materiae so extrinsick objects may be called The Causes but rather the Objects of God Will Love or Knowledge not as his Essence but only as so denominated by that Connotation of the object 285. These distributions of Gods Volitions in Number and by specifying objects and individuating objects which are called material constitutive causes of the act are all according to humane weakness in us who know God but enigmatically and in a glass But yet if any man use such words in a broader manner than we think fit before we censure and condemn him we must hear his sence explained For all that ever we can say of God is improper analogical yea metaphorical And it is but in degrees of impropriety that all words about Gods attributes and actions differ For as is oft said no man hath formal proper conceptions of any thing in God If God should not speak to us in this improper language of our own he must not speak intelligibly to us unless he create another understanding in us And he himself in Scripture using such language of himself alloweth us to use it while we profess to disclaim ascribing to God any of the imperfection which it seemeth to import 286. On these terms not only Various Volitions are ascribed to God in Scripture and exteriour causes of them as John 16. 27. the Father Loveth you because ye have loved me and believed c. * * * So Gen. 22. 16. 26. 5. Prov. 1. 24. Luke 11. 8. 19. 17. Gal. 4. 6. Eph. 5. 6. 1 Sam. 28. 18. 1 King 9. 9. 11. 34. 20. 42. 2 King 10. 30. 2 Chron. 34. 27. Psal 91. 14. But also Fear Affliction Grief Hatred Repenting Rejoycing c. Deut. 32. 27. Isa 63. 9. Gen. 6. 6. Psal 5. 5. Gen. 6. 7. 1 Sam. 15. 11. Joel 2. 13. Jer. 15. 6. Hos 11. 8. Zeph. 3. 17. Jer. 32. 41 c. and exteriour causes of them 287. That which is to be understood by all these is 1. That man is so far the Cause of the Effects of Divine Volitions as the Dispositio receptiva may be called a Cause And I before shewed in the instance of the effects of the Suns Influx how great a hand the various Dispositiones materiae receptivae have in the diversifications of effects 2. And that Gods Volitions themselves are hence relatively denominated 288. Therefore we must say that Gods electing Peter and his rejecting Judas his Love to Peter and his hatred of Judas are not in specie the same act of his will nor his Loving Peter and his Loving Paul the same Numerically As his knowing of Peter to be a Saint and his knowing Judas to be a Saint is not the same numerical act of knowledge Though as they are Gods Essence all are but one And we must say that he Loveth one because he is good and hateth another because he is evil and he justifieth men because they believe and condemneth men because they believe not that he forgiveth a sinner because he repenteth c. Though Gods Will have no efficient Cause 289. Those Volitions of God which are but Immanent as to Efficiency but Transient Objectively are some of them to be denominated as before the thing willed and some as after The Will of effecting is before the thing willed The Will ut finis or Complacency and Displicency as also Intuitive Knowledge of the thing as Existent estimation approbation reprobation of it the Will of Continuing modifying altering perfecting destroying suppose the existence of the thing willed in esse objectivo And so many Volitions may be denominated as beginning in time as connoting the objects †††Pennottus li. 4. c. 24. p. 235. confidently argueth that because God can Love him that he hated or Loved not he can therefore Predestinate him whom he reprobated or change his decrees without any change in himself I answer 1. I grant that God can Love a Saint whom he hated as a sinner before and cease hating him without any change save relative and by extrinsecal denomination 2. But his inference seemeth to me false and dangerous unless he had meant it of executive Election and Reprobation which he doth not For 1. Proper Love and Hatred connote an Object as existent and by such connotation are named And his fourth supposition is false that Love is nothing but Gods Will to give a man life Eternal For the formal Act of Love is Complacency And the Velle Bonum is another thing as I think an effect of Love or at the most another act of Love And we deny that any absolute Velle bonum alicui is ever changed though displicence be changed Because it is the same with Decree 2. And the reason why the said Decree or Volition if absolute and proper may not be denominated changed is because it maketh its own object and so supposeth it not pre-existent and dependeth not on it denominatively And therefore it would inferr God to be mutable to change it But it is not so in the other which as to the Relation and Name followeth the Mutable creature as doth Gods Knowledge of present existents and preteritions as to denomination and connotation And it is no more wrong to Gods Immutability so to name them than to his simplicity to name them many and divers 290. And in this sense it is no more wrong to Gods Immutability to speak of Him as being before in Potentia only as to such Relative denominations As the Rock in the Sea hath not yet that proximity to the Wave which a twelvemonth hence will touch it and yet is not therefore mutable Or as you are yet but in potentia to the termination of his Relations who will pass about you before and behind on the right hand and on the left So God was but Potentially the Creator and Redeemer of the World from Eternity Though as to any real passion God hath no passive power 291. In this sense of relation to the objects and effects it is that we conceive of Gods acts of Knowledge and Volition in a certain order of nature as one being before and one after another Though not as they are Gods Essence 292. Yet because the use and truth of words or names is their signification of Things as indeed they are and we should put no name on any creature but what is adapted to notifie it aright
ipsa Dei essentia quae est necessaria Alliac Camer in 1. q. 12. D. See in Ruiz de Vol. Dei disp 24. how they are confounded about the ordering of Gods decrees as to the order of Intention and Execution His Solution supposeth that Unius objecti Volitio est ratio determinans ad aliorum volitionem When as ex paâ—te Dei there is but One Volition and that hath no cause and the Ratio is a deceiving ambiguous word and his Decrees are his Will and therefore are all but one 374. 4. They cannot deny but that all our conceptions of God are improper and analogical or metaphorical more or less and that what Knowledge and Will in God is formally no mortal knoweth And should we dispute then audaciously about this Order 375. 5. None can deny but that these Mysteries require the highest reverence and that it 's dreadful to take Gods Name in vain and dally with the Consuming fire And yet shall we presume 376. 6. They all confess that our Lord Jesus his Prophets Apostles or Scriptures lead them not this way and decide not these Controversies so as that they can stand to their decision alone 377. 7. They cannot deny but that desiring arrogantly to be as Gods in Knowledge was our first Parents sin that ruined them and us and that this was Satans first successful game And that our disease is like to be such as its original 378. 8. Lastly They cannot choose but know that it is the troubling of the Church with new Articles and new practices and leading them from the simplicity that is in Christ even as the Serpent beguiled Eve with the promise of more knowledge which hath been the great plague and divider of the Churches in all Ages though the Apostle foretold them that It was this that he feared of them And are we not self-condemned if after all this we will censure and reproach one another and foment divisions for that which most certainly no mortal understandeth 379. I. And first your very foundation is uncertain that God doth properly Intendere finem Nay it is certain that as Aquinas afore-cited Vasquâ—z saith that Gods own Goodness is not a final Cause of his Volition supposing that movere ad Electionem medii is final Causality Ruiz asserteth the contrary taking final Causality to be first esse primum objectum And thus men strive about artificial notions Vasq 1. d. 82. c. 1. Ruiz de Voâ— Dei d. 15. §. 1. p. 159. But that nothing is the Ratio Volendi but his own Goodness see Albert. 1. p. tr 20. q. 19. m. 1. a. 1. Alex. 1. p. q. 35. m. 3. Henric. quodl 4. q. 19. Gabr. 1. d. 14. q. 1. a. 2. Dried de Concord p. 1. c. 3. Vasq disp 82. Scotus 1. d. 44. Molin 1. q. 19. a. 5. saith though Vult hoc esse propter hoc non tamen propter hoc vult hoc He prescribeth Ends to Man and setteth Ends to Means which are fiâ—es operis But that he Intendeth an End Himself must be said very improperly or very uncertainly or not at all The truth is that we must say that God doth finem intendere because we must speak of him after the manner of men or not at all But it is not true in the same sense as we speak it of man and as the word properly signifieth but equivocally 380. For 1. To Intend an End is to make that End a Cause why we choose the means as most say But Gods Election or Actions have no Cause All deny that there is in God Cause and Effects or that propter hoc vult hoc 381. 2. In man to Intend an End doth imply that a man yet wanteth his end and that it is somewhat that he needeth or at least doth not yet obtain But God needeth nothing and hath no end that is desired or wanting nor but what he continually possesseth or enjoyeth as well now as hereafter 382. 3. We know no such thing as Intendere finem where the Act and the End are the same Intendere is not the same with Finis But in God they are the same He that is most simple hath no Intention which is not Himself and no End which is not Himself and so both are one 383. 4. Our Intendere finem is not the same really with Electio mediorum But God hath no Intention but what is really the same with Election though not denominatively connotatively and relatively 384. 5. Divines usually say that Nothing below God himself can be his End But where there is no means there is no End or intention of it But to God there is no Means He is not a Means of himself And no creature can be a means of him If we say that any thing can be a means ut Deus sit vel ut sit Maximus Sapientissimus Optimus it were no better than Blasphemy God then hath not an End like man 385. Yet necessity constraineth us to use the phrase but these things must still be understood when we use it 1. That no creature can be Gods End unless you will call an object as terminative an End or else an Effect 386. 2. That it is not Gods Essence and perfections that is an end as to any medium But it is his Will For his Free Will is the Beginning and the Complacency of that Will is the End of all things But if you call God his own Object and so call the final Object an End so we must consider God as Loving Himself and Himself is the End or final object of his own Love or Complacency and he himself as Loving himself is said to Act on that End or Object And indeed eternal self-knowledge and self-love which some of old ventured to call the second and third Persons are the Great Immanent Acts of the Divine Essence with the sibi vivere And it seemeth the chief Notion of Holiness in God that he Loveth Himself in primo instanti and that he is most Amiable to his Creatures in secundo instanti and that he is the Cause and End of all that is good in them Thus a final object of his own and our Love or Complacency God is past all doubt And secondarily his Will is pleased and fulfilled in all his works 387. 3. Yet by that Complacency we mean not that God is passive or receiveth any Delight from the Creature or hath any addition by it to his felicity But as he is a Communicative Good by way of Efficiency as the first efficient Cause so is he a felicitating Good to the Creature as its End and he is Love taking the creature into its nearest Communion with him which is his Complacency and the End of all things And hence it is that God is said when he had finished his works to Rest complacentially in all as very Good 388. 4. As the Complacency of Gods Will is his End in the formal notion so far as it may be said of God
noxious evils we must not ascribe such Imperfections to God but only such Nolitions as his Actions as Rector per Leges Judicia have made to signifie no imperfection as being not contra nocumenta but only contra injurias as against himself contra nocumenta as against his creatures i. e. contra peccatum And now I may answer the solitary argument of Vasquez mentioned in the Margin that non entia non dare gratiam non impedire peccatum c. may have aliquam rationem boni amabilitatis and so may be Willed Loved or Decreed Answ 1. In meer Naturals Negations are not properly any way good or evil but Privations are Natural Evils and not good 2. To be occasio sinè qua non of good as sickness is of the Physicions honour and sin of Gods is not any true ratio boni vel amabilis The bonum amabile is only the good that on that occasion is done The occasion is neither efficient constitutive or final cause of any good nor any causal proper medium 3. In Morals meer Negations are neither good nor evil nor have any Morality but only Positives and Privations 4. In morals God judicially doth that whence Penal privations follow and he may penally non agere non dare gratiam to execute his Law and demonstrate his truth and Justice on sinners and occasion the perception of his mercy to others And here the non-agere non-dare permittere being loco materiae volitae may after our mode be said to be Volita seu decreta bona But properly it is not the non-entity that is bonum or Volitum but the positive Law and Judgement and the relatio debiti pâ—nae and the ratio poenae in the privation and the demonstration of truth justice holiness c. therein 5. But sinful privations that is sinful Volitions nolitions or non-Vâ—litions of the Creature are not properly per se or per accidens propter se vel propter aliud good or amiable or willed or decreed of God And they that prove that God cannot be the Author of sin because he cannot be Causa deficiens must mean as much or speak impertinently and deceitfully It is not impertinent which Judicious Strangius saith Lib. 3. c. 13. p. 677 678. If Scientia Media be an useless conceit how much more cum extenditur ad ejusmodi infinitas vanissimas connexiones rerum disparatarum quae nunquam futurae sunt He instanceth in many and addeth De hac re Ariaga disp to 1. d. 21. sect 7. dicit non sibi videri in Deo esse scientiam harum quia talis scientia videtur plane impertinens Ad quid enim nosceret Deus quid Chimaera esset factura sub tali conditione impossibili c. Et ipse D. Twissus de Scient Med. p. 472. Si plures Angelos Deus condidisset certe decrevisset ut etiam illi agerent aliquid in Gloriam Dei Nec tamen decretum aliquod hujusmodi Deo decenter tribui potest c. I know the case is not just the same with that before us but the reason is the same for both But still I profess that If it be not an injurious imputing imperfection to God to assign him positive Volitions of every negative I shall concurr with them that do and extend Gods Volitions as far as ever the object and his perfection will allow And say of them as Judicious Blank doth of Gods knowledge De Concord lib. cum decret 1. n. 64. Saltem ille minus periculose errat qui putat Deum scire ea quae forte scibilia non sunt quam qui negat Deum scire quae revera scit quae intra Divinae omniscientiae objectum continentur So here so be it that God be not feigned to will sin I contend the less against them that say He positively willeth Infinite numerical Nothings and his own non-acting ††††††Bradward l. 1. c. 13. Cor. 10 11. brings in too profoundly like one of Thom. Anglus his Ergo's that God is the Causa prima of every nothing non esse because he is so of negations As if Nothing could be an effect and have a Cause or as if a negative conception or proposition were not something viz. a Thought or a Word as well as an affirmative Such workmen make the world with words 509. BEing afraid of wearying the Reader I pass by other School-controversies here and only propound to each mans Conscience whether 1. He that is the affirmer of unproved acts of God 2. And that about his secret unsearchable Volitions 3. And of such acts as make the difficulties inextricable about Gods being the Cause of sin be not on the far unsafer side than he that only saith Quae supra nos nihil ad nos If these be not certainly false they are certainly unproved and therefore not to be here received 510. And I say here as Buridane saith about the forementioned nature of Liberty Ethic. li. 3. qu. 1. p. 152. Simpliciter firmiter credere volo quod Voluntas caeteris omnibus eodem modo se habentibuâ— potest in actus oppositos Et nullus debet de via communi recedere propter rationes sibi insolubiles specialiter in his quae fidem tangere possunt aut mores Qui enim credit se omnia scire in nulla opinionum suarum decipi fatuus est De festuca enim tibi sensibiliter praesentata formabuntur centum rationes vel quaestiones de quibus contraris sapientissimi doctores opinabuntur propter quod in qualibet harum deceptus erit alter ipforum vel ambo Ideo non miror si in hac altissima materia non possum per rationes solutiones satisfacere mihi ipst 511. To proceed in the application * * * Vasquez in 1. Tho. q. 23. a. 3. d. 95. c. 1. Sunt non-nulli Thomistae qui tam severe hanc sequuntur opinionem ut affirment â—undem ordinem servasse Deum in reprobatione quem in praedestinatione tenuit scil ut ante praevisa peccata sola sua Voluntate decreverit quosdam à regno Coelorum excludere licet non ad poenam sensus destinaverit Deinde quos voluit excludere permiserit labi in peccatum ea intentione ut eos excluderet à regno sicut decreverat Et c. 2. Parum ab hac sententia dissert Scotus qui qu. 1. d. 41. asserit in Deo duplicem esse Reprobationem alteram vocat Punitivam alteram permissivam Et punitivae dari causam ex praevisis peccatis factam fuisse Permissivae non dari causam quia quod homo permittatur labi in primum peccatum nulla ex parte illius datur causa hujus enim solum nititur Scotus causam negare Hinc ordinem hune in mente Divina assignat c. ut alibi Scotum sequuntur Bassolis Corduba c. Objicit Bradward Privationes ut eclipses mors c. habent
528. 3. Others say as Camero that the Intellect necessitateth the will and the Objects and temptations necessitate the Intellect and God causeth the Objects and Laws and permitteth the Tempter 529. 4. Others say that God only as the Cause of Nature 1. By Support and Concurse necessary to all agents causeth the Act as an Act in general 2. And giveth Power also to act or not act freely 3. And as Governour of the World doth that which he knew men would make an occasion of their sin 4. And also by his Providence causeth many effects of which mens sins are also a cause 5. And after bringeth good out of their evil 6. But as to the sin it self he is no cause of it either as sin or punishment either of the form or of the Act as morally specified that is as it is about this Forbidden object or End rather than another And this opinion I take to be the undoubted truth 530. Let it here be noted 1. That the five things here granted are all certain truths 2. And that they are as much as is necessary on Gods part in respect to the events which we see And unnecessaries are not to be asserted 3. That they fully shew God to be the perfect Governour of the World and all therein 4. And yet to be no Author of sin Let us consider of the particulars 531. I. It is certain that God as Creator hath made man a Vital Agent and therefore a self-actor under him and an Intellectual Agent and therefore is not tyed to follow the perceptions of sense alone And a Free-willing Agent and therefore hath a Power to Act or not Act hic nunc or to choose or refuse or to choose this rather than that as far as consisteth with his Necessary Volitions which I acknowledged and enumerated before which is part of Gibieufs and Guil. Camerarius Scot. meaning by their servato ordine finis Though I think that Annatus doth not unjustly accuse Gibieuf of confusion and unskilfulness in the managing of that matter 532. II. It is certain that as Motus vel Actio is quid Naturale it is of God as the first Cause of Nature * * * Vid. Gregor Arim. in 2. d. 28. q. 1. a. 3. ad arg 8. 12. whose judgement many Schoolmen follow Vasquez thus abbreviateth and reporteth him in 1 Tho. q. 23. d. 99. c. 4. Mâ—tionem Dei ordine causae priorem esse co-operatione determinatione nostra in operibus bonis at in operibus peccati etiam secundum substantiam seclusa malitia priorem esse nostram determinationâ—m codem ordine baec inter se comparari in aeternitaâ—â— Ex quo inserunt Deum praefinisse opera bona ante detâ—rminatiâ—nâ—m nostram ullo modo praevisam sed mala secundum substantiam nequaquam nisi praecognita determinatione nostrae voluntatis Vid. Marsil in 1. q. 45. ar 2. post 4. conclus And so when a sinner acteth it is not without this Universal first Cause Whether God do it only as Durandus thought by the meer continuation of the nature of all things Active and Mobile or by any superadded concurse besides is nothing to our present business which only sheweth that God is the Cause 533. III. It is certain that Governing Providence by doing good doth set before men that which they make an occasion of all their evil Every thing is turned into sin by sinners †††Titus 1. 15 16. and to the unclean all things are unclean through the uncleanness of their own minds and consciences As to the pure and holy all things are pure and sanctified Bad stomachs corrupt the wholsomest food All Gods mercies are abused to sin 534. It is certain that God fore-knew this And yet that he is no way obliged to deny men life or take it away lest they abuse it or deny men all those mercies or remove them which he foreseeth that they will turn to sin 535. IV. It is certain that God often concurreth to the causing of the very same effect which sin also causeth and so is as a concause of it with sin And this effect is so near to the Act of sin as that the sin it self is ost called by its name as if it were its nearest matter which it is not And this is the occasion of the Great mistake of men in this case that cannoâ— distinguish Of which more anon in the instances 536. V. And it is certain that God as the Governour of the World doth do much good by the occasion of mens sin But this is not to turn the sin it self into good 537. VI. And to these five operations of God I add as to his Volitions that all this which he doth he willeth or decreeth to do And he hath no contrary will at all 538. But that which we deny is that He is any proper cause of the sin it self efficient or deficient culpable or not culpable Physical or Moral For the opening of which we must enquire what sin is and what goeth to its being or constitution 539. All grant that God is our Ruler by a Law and also our ultimate End as he is Optimus Amabilissimus and that he is our absolute Owner And that as rational free agents we that are his own are also his Subjects and Beneficiaries and made capable of Loving him as our ultimate end and of obeying his Laws And that sin is our Disobedience to these Laws with our denying God our selves as his Own and withholding or perverting the Love which we owe him as our End 540. As Logick hath confounded us in most other cases by arbitrary unsuitable second notions making us a Shoo not meet for the Foot so that it 's easier to know Things without those unfit notions than with them so hath it done here Men may more easily know what sin is and what it is to disobey a Law and that either by doing what we should not or by not doing what we are commanded than they can know by what Logical or Metaphysical name it should be called Whether a privation or a relation an act or no act c. But it is not only for Logicians that God made his Laws nor is it only a Metaphysical Conscience that will accuse men or condemn them and torment them for their sin 541. No Act meerly as an Act in genere is forbidden of God For the soul is an Active nature and can no more cease all action than to be though it can forbear a particular act as to this object and at this time And God is the Cause of Acts as such 542. I have shewed before that as Action it self is no substance but the mode or motion of a substance so to choose this object rather than that hath no more of Action in it than to have chosen the other or than Ex to verb quod Dâ—us concâ—â— at nobiscum ad actum peccati prout facultas liberi
move another to do it will not stand with proper permission 585. Obj. But God preserveth our own Liberty in acting Answ 1. By Liberty you mean nothing but Willingness as such that God doth not make mens Nilling to be a Willing or contra in the same act Which is but to say that God causeth me to Will sin and not to Will-nill-it 2. If you mean more I deny that ever God gave Power to the Will to Will or Nill contrary to the Volition and phâ—sical premoving predetermination of the first cause 3. But if all this were so it 's nothing to the present case and doth not prove that God is not the Cause of the sin but only that man is a Cause also caused by the first Cause and that God Willeth and Causeth us to sin willingly and freely 586. 3. By this means they make God equally to Will and Cause our Holiness and our sin For they cannot possibly tell us what he doth more to Cause our Holiness than to Will it and to predetermine the will of man to it besides commanding it which is a moral act and we speak only of proper efficiency He doth but will that Holiness be and cause all that hath any entity in it And so they say he doth about sin 587. Obj. He loveth our Holiness for it self and so he doth not sin Answ The first is denyed by themselves if you speak of Gods end For they confess that God only is his own end for which he loveth all things 2. And his Love is either his efficient or complacential Volition 1. The efficient which is all that is now in question they must confess is equal to both if he equally will the existence of both Object But he hath a Complacence in Good only Answ 1. He hath a Complacence in the fulfilling of his own will as efficient Therefore if sin be the fulfilling of his Will he hath a complacency in it The formal reason of a pleasing object to God is as it is the fulfilling of his own Will And to break his Law they make to be such ergo pleasing 2. But if it were not so that 's nothing to our Case of the efficient Will 588. 4. To avoid tediousness in sum This opinion seemeth to me to leave very little or no place for the Christian Religion For 1. It overthroweth the formale objectum fidei which is Veracitas Divina and leaveth no certainty of any word of God For if he do will and predetermine by premotion ut fiat omne mendacium quod fit then we have no way to know that he did not so by the Prophets and Apostles 2. It maketh the Scripture false which saith so much of Gods hatred and unwillingness of sin 3. It obliterateth the notion of Gods Holiness which is made the great reason of our holiness 4. It maketh mans Holiness to be no Holiness but a common or indifferent thing 5. It maketh sin so little odious as being a Divine off-spring as will destroy the hatred of it and care to avoid it 6. It will thereby nullifie all our Godly sorrow repenting confession and all practice of means against any sin 7. It will hardly let men believe that Christ came into the world and did and suffered so much to save men from sin and to destroy it 8. Or that it is the work of the Holy Ghost to sanctifie souls and mortifie sin 9. It will hardly let men believe that there is any Hell and that God will damn men for ever for that which they did upon his prevolition and predetermination unavoidably 10. It seemeth to give Satans description to God and more For Satan can but tempt us to sin but they make God absolutely to will that it be and physically to predetermine us to it And so Christ that came to destroy the work of the Devil the father of lies malice and murder should come to destroy the work of God 11. It taketh away the reason of Church discipline and purity and of our loving the Godly and hating wickedness 12. It would tempt Magistrates accordingly to judge of vice and vertue good and bad in the Common-wealth 589. Now to their arguments 1. Rev. 17. 17. God put it into their hearts to do his will and to agree to give up their Kingdoms to the beast Answ 1. He that readeth Dr. Hammonds exposition applying this to Alaricus sacking Rome with the effects will see that the very subject is so dubious and dark as not to be fit to found such a doctrine on 2. It was the effect of the sin that God willed and not the sin 3. He is not said to put the sin into their hearts whether pride covetousness cruelty c. but only to do his pleasure and agree or make one decree to give up c. which he could most easily do by putting many good and lawful thoughts into their hearts which with their own sins would have that effect which he willed If a thief have a will to rob God may put it into his heart to go such or such a way where a wicked man to be punished will be in his way 590. But for brevity besides what is said I shall farther direct the â—mpartial Reader how to answer all such objections And withall let the â—onfounding cavillers against distinguishing see what blasphemy and subversion of Religion may enter for want of one or two distinctions which â—onfused heads regard not 1. Be sure to distinguish the name of sin from the nature 2. And â—emember that no outward act is sin any further than it is Voluntary by privation or position of Volitions 3. Distinguish between the Act as it â—s Agentis and as it is in Passo 4. And between the Act and the effect 5. Between the effect of a single cause and of divers causes making a compound effect 6. And between a forbidden object compared with the â—ontrary and one forbidden object compared with another 591. And then all this satisfying Truth will lye naked before you 1. That the same name usually signifieth the sin and the effect of sin or the Act as Acted and as Received Adultery Murder Theft usually signifie the Acts of the Adulterer Murderer Thief as done and as received â—n Passo and as effecting 2. That the former only is the sin viz. first the Volition Nolition or Non-Volition and secondarily the imperate act as animated by the Will And no more The reception of this act in Passo is not sin as such nor the most immediate effect of this act It is but the effect of sin 3. And you will see that the same effect may have several causes a Good and bad And so God may be a cause of that effect which mans sin also concurreth to cause And God doth not therefore Will or Cause the sin 4. And you will see that God may morally cause the effect as it is on this object rather than another forbidden though both make the act sinful and yet
no warning take what thou gettest by it Can you prove that it is his Will that this man eat the poyson prohibited 608. Next he citeth Augustines thred-bare sayings and blameth Aquinas and Arminius for denying his Authority and commendeth the greater reverence of Bellarmine And so Anselm Hugo c. Answ 1. We stick not on one mans Authority God holdeth not his Holiness and the Church its Religion on Augustines authority 2. Augustine hath ten times more plain enough for what I hold See the places cited in Paul Eiren. Triad Patrum 3. He knew it's like that Estius and many more expound Augustines words as terminating Gods Volition on his own permission and not on the sin or fieri 4. I think plainly that Augustine there spake not of inward Volitions but outward Acts and that not as Agentis but in passo or the effects And so it is true that no murder theft treason or other effect is produced in the world but what God positively decreeth shall be produced either by doing some effects himself as drowning the world or permitting sinners to do them while he causeth not their act but the Receptivity of the Passum and so the effect c. 609. Pag. 194. Retorting on Aquin. he thus argueth Because God doth will his own Goodness therefore it is necessary that God will that sin be done he permitting it For it is not to will his essential Goodness which needeth no acquisition but he willeth to manifest his Goodness But the evil of sin is not opposite to the manifesting of Gods Goodness Yea nothing is more * * * So Twiss contr Armin. pro Junio pag. 91. dissenteth from Jâ—niuâ— that saith peceatum ad rationem universi facere per accidens and saith Mibi vero dicendum videtur Peceatum conducibile esse per se ad bonum universi quatenus conducit ad illustrandos tales divinae majestatis radios And if so it must per se be Loved of God as Good Yet contr Corvin he saith that No sober man saith that sin is a medium of the execution of Reprobation but only the Permission of sin Reconcile them that can conducible to it than this I say to the manifesting of Gods Goodness by way of mercy in sparing or by way of Justice in punishing Answ Horresco recitans 1. Gods Volition of his Essential Goodness is his Necessary Volition 2. God hath no End to acquire but alwayes hath his end and is never without it 3. If God had necessarily willed the particular way of manifesting his Goodness then he doth all things necessarily and could do no otherwise and it seems by you could not manifest it without sin 4. Doth he not manifest his Goodness as much to the Innumerable Glorious Angels who never sinned And would it not have been as much manifested to us if we had been as they 5. The very indetermination of the will and its mediate Liberty is not the highest excellency of his Creatures It is better than the sensitive Necessity of Bruits and lower than the confirmed Necessity of the blessed It is our defectibility And the excellentest or Best of his works most honour Gods Goodness 6. Is it not the strongest temptation that men have in this world to doubt of or dishonour the Goodness of God to think how he permitteth the world to be drowned in wickedness and be so like to hell 7. Doth not Christ turn the Prayers of all Christians against your doctrine viz. that Gods name may be hallowed his Kingdom come and his will done on earth as it is in Heaven which is not by any sin 8. Do not your words tempt men to be indifferent to sin if not to love it if nothing be more conducible to honour Gods Goodness 9. Is not that conclusion a great wrong to Christ Scripture Ministry and Holiness as being no more conducible to manifest Gods Goodness than sin is 10. It is not true that sin is any Cause or true Means at all of glorifying God or doing any good It is but a presupposed Evil by delivering us from which God is glorified As your eating poyson may occasion the honour of an Antidote and Physicion It is no Cause or proper medium of it but only an occasion and mischief sine quo non But if God had not saved us from sin committed he could have glorified himself in saving us from committing it God loveth and is glorified most in that which is most like him as his Image which is the Holiest sinless soul To be a medium to Gods glory is to be good To be as conducible to it as any thing is to be as good as any thing save God and his glory But sin hath no Good much less such good Why else doth not God equally delight in sin and in the death of the wicked as in holiness repentance and our life seeing all things are for himself and that which glorifieth him most is best 11. Here also confusion causeth mischief one distinction might have scattered this mist viz. Between sin indeed and sin in notion Sin indeed or essence and existence never did good nor honoured God Sin in notion or in esse objectivo is no sin but the Matter of Vertue and 80 Joh. Ã Combis compend Theol. l. 3. c. 1. tells us that sin is profitable three wayes 1. Ut bene ordinatur ut fur in patibulo 2. Propter co-actionem amaritudinem 3. Propter mall considerationem And many popular Books say the like But this is but abusive language tending to deceive As if sin did good because punishing sin and repenting of it and hating it do good As if hating sin were sin Thus unhappily is the world troubled by abused words Holiness and doth much good When you say God knoweth sin from eternity you 'l say with Scotus that in esse cognito sin was in God from Eternity But so sin is not sin David saith My sin is ever before me Psal 51. And we daily Repent of it and confess it But this is but to have the Idea or conception of it in the mind and so it is not sin indeed but the notion of it which is in esse objectivo Else it would defile us to think of it and repent of it whereas thus sin objectively is the matter of the grace and duty of Repentance Hatred fear watchfulness prayer confession c. And so sin in esse objectivo as a grace may glorifie God 610. To Aquin. that saith Malum non est appetibile he saith that Malum moris quod opponitur bono est proprium uniuscujusque meum malum bono meo Though the sin of a man willing that which is forbidden him be his sin yet it followeth not that God may not will this Evil of another The Reason is because it is not forbidden to God to will it wherefore though it be evil and dishonest in man to will it to whom it is forbidden yet not to God And seeing
proâ—â—de futuritiâ— quae ab aeterno fuisse dicitur vel nihil reale fuit vel fuit ipse Deus Quod est Causa cur res in tempore existat idem plane Causa est cur res ab aeterno extitura fuerit Sicut quod Causa est quod res aliquando fuit Causa est cur in aeternum dicetur praeterita Ad effectum futurum sufficit Causa futura sicut ad praeteritum sufficit Causa praeterita This is plain and easie truth to his Ends and saith It is not evil to me though it be to you I 'le â—â—â—ment you for doing it though it was by my Will and predetermination And what Justice should Kings rather imitate than Gods 6. Sin is not malum Deo so as to Hurt him or make him Guilty But it is so as to be a Violation of his Laws and a contempt and dishonour to his Wisdom Goodness Greatness Authority Justice Mercy Truth c. If all the World joyned in hating and blaspheming God that made them though you say that this is not malum Dei but malum nostri and therefore God may will it ut fiat as a desirable thing we cannot be content with such confusion Malum is either Physicum vel morale and either in aliquo or contra aliquem God is not capable 1. Of Physical Evil in himself and therefore we cannot hurt him 2. Nor of Moral Evil and therefore he can have no sin or malignity 3. But he is capable objectively of Injury we can wrong him when we cannot hurt him 4. And we are capable of being Reputativè vel moraliter Hurters and destroyers of God whom we cannot hurt Because the sinner doth it quantum in se and therefore is called an Enemy to God It is no thanks to the wicked that there is a God who would have none as to his Holiness and Justice if it were in his power Moreover God is Good and doth good And though he made Man freely yet supposing that he will make him Man a Rational free agent in his Image to Know and Love him it necessarily followeth that he must make him Holy God cannot make a man in the Image of the Devil and call it his own As Parents generate Children in their own likeness so God doth regenerate his own in his Image He that thought it a good argument What Communion hath light with darkness Christ with Belial c. would sure have taken our part in this that God cannot be the Author or Cause of the Image of the Devil and of the works of darkness 611. Therefore where he addeth that God Willeth Malum esse that sin be as the Matter of exercising his mercy and justice not as his sin but tantum vult fieri malum alterius I deny it with horror as a reproach of Gods holiness The terminus à quo is not the Materia misericordia vel justitiae exercendae God willeth the glory of his Mercy and Justice in pardoning and punishing foreseen presupposed sin But he willeth not the sin but only our deliverance from it or punishment for it Suppose per impossible that the King had power to restrain all men from offending him and yet saith I will do only what is Congruous to the Rational free nature of my subjects as such and not all that I can do and therefore will restrain them only by Laws except some few beloved ones but I will honour my Mercy and Justice on offenders Can you hence prove that he willeth decreeth or loveth ut appetibilia all the Treasons Rebellions Murders and Blasphemies that are committed It is not these that he willeth ut Materiam but deliverance from these as from the malum à quo If your prodigal Son be addicted to Robbing and you could lock him up but you resolve that you will try him once more and if he roâ— you will let him suffer imprisonment and come to the Gallows and then beg his Pardon that suffering may hereafter be his warning Here if you choose rightly it is not his Robbing that you will no not ut sit vel fiat for you had rather he would forbear But only his forsaking it and his suffering to that end on supposition that he rob again 612. Pag. 105. He saith that By the same reason as God might not will the being of sin by his permission he might not permit it Answ A raw unproved assertion God might not make an Indifferent free-will left to its own liberty with a thousand warnings and helps against sin unless he may also Desire them to sin Prove this else you say nothing 613. He addeth that sin be or exist is not only Bonum per accidens because God will make it the matter of glorifying his mercy and justice but it is ex natura sua quoddam ordinabile ad Gloriam Dei consequenter Bonum est ex natura sua in genere conducibilis Answ All unproved and false 1. Sin is not so much as Bonum per accidens 2. God doth not make it the Matter of glorifying himself but only glorifyeth his Mercy and Justice against it as the terminus à quo and not by it as the matter though it may be called an Occasion sine qua non as to this particular act and way of his said glorification 3. Much less is it conducible hereto which implyeth a Medium that hath some natural or moral causality 4. And least of all is it ex sua natura conducibile It is not sin but 1. Some effects or consequents of sin 2. Our deliverance from sin and the punishing of sin which are conducible to Gods glory 614. Next he insulteth over Aquinas twice as unhappy and vain in his censures with a Magna est Veritas praevalebit laborare potest vinci non potest And argueth that because ex permissione infallibiliter sequitur peccatum therefore to permit sin is the same as to will that sin shall be ipso permittente Answ 1. It 's pity that sin should have so good an Advocate and Gods Holiness so good an Adversary through mistake And that so unhappy a Cause should be managed so confidently and triumphantly though it 's well that it 's done so weakly 2. The falshood of his assertion about permission as general I have opened before 1. Three sorts of things may be said to be Not hindered which is all that Permission signifieth 1. Things bent to a certain motion 1. By Natural inclination as a Stone in the Air to descend 2. Or by Moral Vitiosity as the Will of a wicked man 2. Things meerly indifferent 1. Naturally as some think the Air is to motion 2. Morally as suppose a Will such to Good or Evil. 3. Things averse to that Motion as 1. Naturally a Stone to ascend 2. Morally as the will of an Angel or Saint to hate God or the will of a wicked man to Love him Also you must distinguish between Not-hindering at all and not hindering effectually And so
willing â—is at all And we have hitherto thought that Gods holy Wisdom and will is the Cause of his holy Law and much more against sin than mans is And that God willeth not and causeth not the sin of man And is it now come to â—his that sin is contrary indeed to our right reason but not to Gods because â—e is no subject You may next say that Holiness is meet for man but not â—or God 618. Pag. 197. Again he is at it Bonum esse ut sint mala Quia bonum est ut Deus finem sibi praefixum assequatur At hoc sine interventâ— mali peccati nullo modo potest Repl. 1. It is not per peccatum ut medium though not sine peccatâ— 2. Interventus therefore implyeth a falshood For in esse cognito sin is antecedent or presupposed to the way of glorifying Justice and Mercy upon sinners sinners are the object And consequently you must take it as before proved for antecedent to the Volition or simultaneous 619. He urgeth Oportet haereses esse ut qui probati sunt manifesti fiant Answ That neither meaneth that men ought to be Hereticks nor yet that God loveth willeth or approveth that there be heresies But only 1. God decreeth to manifest the difference between the sound Christians and the rest 2. And he foreseeth that there will be heresies 3. Therefore he decreeth to try them by the occasion of those heresies which he foreseeth and hateth The same is the case of all tryal by persecutions And God willeth not the sin of active perâ—ecution but only the effect or passive part So that the oportet by your own confession of it signifieth no more than a Logical necessitas consequentiae which â—ore-knowledge without Volition will inferr 620. He addeth Obj. It sufficeth that God permit sin and not will it Resp But either the existency of sin infallibly followeth the Permission of it or not If not Gods Intention may be frustrate If yea What matter is it whether God will that sin shall be he permitting or sâ— permit it as that infallibly it will be so we obtain either of these it 's all one to our cause of predestination Repl. 1. If it be all one take up with that agreement and make â—â— further difference with them that grant you enough 2. In case of veâ—â—ment Inclination to a sin it would follow upon Gods total permission but God never totally permitteth sin But in other cases it will not follow that is It is not a good consequence that This or that sin will be done because God doth no more to hinder it than that which sometime hindereth it not And yet Gods Intention is not frustrate For â—â— will infallibly come to pass from its proper cause which God foreknoweth And the consequence is good from his fore-knowledge And is not that all one as to the certainty of Gods intentions 3. You phrase it as if sin followed Gods permission as a deficient cause or as that which cannot be otherwise unless God do more to hinder it and so weâ—â— necessary thence necessitate consequentis or as others call it necessitate â—â—tecedente which is false and oft denyed by your self 4. The very truth is Permission is a word of so great ambiguity and laxity as relating to so many sorts of Impedition that it is but delusory withâ—â— much distinguishing to say sin will or will not follow it If you restraâ— it to a non efficaciter impedire as is usual it taketh not away the ambâ—guity much For still the question is What must make it effectual unless you call any impedition effectual meerly ab eventu whatsoever it be â—â— it self 621. He saith that the Universe would not be perfect if there werâ— perfect holiness and no sin and so no pardon or punishment But â—â— giveth us no proof but confident assertion at all I need not say thâ— It would be more perfect if there were no sin It sufficeth me to say thaâ— It would be as perfect And so that it is not Necessary to the World perfection that there be sin or Hell God could have freely willed the contrary And Gods Goodness could have been as fully manifested if iâ— had so pleased him and his Holiness too without sin or Hell It 's unpleasing to me that this good man pleadeth so hard against a necessity of Christs satisfaction for sin in another digression and yet pleadeth as hard for a necessity of sin As if it were more necessary to Gods Glory than Christ 622. It is very observable in all this controversie that he asserteth pag. 198. That it 's past all controversie that neither God nor the most sinful creature do will any thing but as Good And that no man can be instigated to malice or evil but only to the Act which is evil because he that is instigated is instigated to do something But to the evil of an act no efficiency is necessary but deficience only How far this is true or false I have opened before I here only note that he confesseth that he that causeth the Act of sin which he saith God doth more than man causeth all that is causable 623. Yet p. 199. he saith Sin is of man only as the cause when he professeth that man doth nothing but what God doth to cause it yea as the first total cause and that as to Deficiency man can do no more than he doth without predetermination which if God withhold man can no more help it than make a World So that all the mysterie of his language is this that because man is under a Law and God is not therefore man doing the same act as moved by God must be called the only cause of sin because it is no sin in God But if we spake as plain men ought to do should it not rather be thus exprest by you God is the chief cause of sin in man but not in himself 624. Pag. 200 201. he hath the same over and over again that Non abhorret à recta ratione Dei velle peccatum fieri ab hominibus Quod ex se habet quod conducibile est ad â—onum tanquam Materia scilicet non tantum idonea sed necessaria exercendae divinae justitiae misericordiae and that this manifestation conjunct with sin is Deo multò appetibilius than that Good which sin depriveth us of that is Holiness Because this Holiness is only the Creatures Good and the other is the Creators Good Answ But as the assertion is all false so the reason is vain For if he distinguish the Creator and Creature as subjects he is quite mistaken For both is the Creatures good and neither the Creators For to manifest Justice and Mercy is not Gods Essence as in it self but his Work of Punishment and Mercy And the glory of this is but the resplendent excellency of it as it is the appearance or Image of God And all this is in the Creatures
Rutherfords charge of Camero and his followers in France Amyraldus c. with Semipelagianism and Arminianism and filthy opinions it is but the effect of the good mans overweening and conceitedness of his own apprehensions which must be allowed or endured in most of these contenders And the fruits of such disputes is like to be little better But the worthy praises of Blondel Dallaeus Placeus Capellus Amyraldus Testardus c. shall survive such reproach And a thousand pitties it is to read a good man Voluminously proving God to be a Willer of sins existence and a prime-predetermining Cause of all prohibited Volitions and acts and reproaching the Jesuits Lutherans Arminians and Socinians as the great enemies of Gods Providence for denying this As if he would tempt the World to think that Socinians were in the right and that Jesuites Lutherans and Arminians were the only defenders of the Holiness of God whilst Calvinists made him the Lover of all the sin in the World as the most appetible conducible Medium to his Glory 649. But to proceed his next Argument is cap. 23. Sin conferreth something to the splendor ornament and plenitude of the Universe Eâ—go See Bonavent well confuting this in 1. d. 46. q. 3. Malum fieri nullatenus bonum esse sed bene occasio boni God willeth its existence This is answered before The antecedent is utterly unproved Sin addeth nothing to the ornament or perfection of the World His word is no proof 650. Afterwards he heapeth up many frivolous arguments against that which he calleth reproachingly The Idle Permission of sin and saith that it frustrateth the prayers of the Saints and their patience their gratitude trust hope fear joy alloweth the arrogance of the persecuters fighteth with Gods Wisdom Clemency Justice Providence with the Ministry of the Word the Promises Threatnings with Ministers confirming â—â—â— against sufferings and it is blasphemously injurious to God and contrary to the order of things in the world that he should permit sin and not will the being of it Resp What is it that a man yea a pious man in a blind zeal of God and self-conceit may not pour out confident words for What a case is the poor Church in when the unlearned people must be on both sides charged by their Teachers with blasphemy what way ever they go This man will tell them that they are * * * Pag. 370. blasphemous and overthrow all reason and Religion if they say that God only Permitteth sin and doth not himself will the being of it and move unavoidably all wills and tongues and hands to all the blasphemies persecutions and murders that are done and damn men for it when he hath done And others will as confideâ—â—ly say that he is a Blasphemer for charging God to be much more the cause of all forbidden acts of wickedness than Devils and men are and theâ— damning them for it and for putting God into the shape of the Devil and painting him odious to humane nature that man may not love him What shall poor people think when they are thus torn and tormented by their holy Guides But all his arguments are before answered when I shewed him how many wayes God hath to secure the Effects and Events in the world and attain all his Ends and yet only Permit and neither Will nor Love nor Cause the sin 651. Cap. 26. he cometh to plead for Predetermination and saith p. 385. God predetermineth us to the Act of hating God in linea meâ—â— physica non morali Meer delusory words He maketh it by the Law of Nature a sin to hate him and then he maketh men hate him â—â— linea physica non morali as if the moral sinfulness resulted not from the Law and act that is here from Nature it self viz. of the Man and act both which God made 652. Pag. 386. he saith that Directa expressa efficax Dei Vâ—litio qua Vult ut sit seu fiat actus Dei odii non facit Deum Malitia qâ—â— I confess Gab. Biel in 2. d. 37. speaketh too like these several atheological assertions as do many others per accidens sequitur actum authorem Resp But that per accidens is no reason of the denyal if God cause that accident also as the first cause If he make a Law and make the forbidden act the relation of sinfulness is an Accident indeed but ariseth from the said fundamentum so necessarily that it cannot be otherwise But it should have made a holy Divine to tremble to have said that God directly expresly and effectually willeth mens Act of hating God viz. that it exist or be 653. And it is false that he saith that God is equally the Cause that men hate him if he will the Act hypothetically ineffectually and determiâ—ably by anothers will as if he willed it efficaciously And so when he maketh the Doctrine of Universal Concurse and Causation as guilty as â—is predetermining pre-motion As if God could not make man a free-â—iller and agent and as the spring of Nature enable him and concurr â—o his Act as an Act in genere without causing it to terminate on the forbidden object in specie As if it were impossible for the Sun to be â—n universal cause of the stinking of a Dunghill and Weed without being â—he special or as if God must be made the cause of every blasphemy unless â—e will make the blasphemer speechless and of every villany unless he will strike men dead to prevent it This is not reverent and holy judging of the most holy God the Judge of all 654. The summ of all his Vindication of God from being the chief Author of all sin pag. 387. passim is but this one reason God is under no Law But if this be all why do you not speak out what you mean but hold that which you dare not name viz. That God is the chief So Bannes in 1. q. 23. â— 3. p. 270 271. Voluntas hominis malâ— est quia exercet actum odii Dei sine regula rationis immo contra legem Dei Deus autem bona vol untate vult fieri illum actum permittens defectum Causâ— secundâ— in ipso ut inde aliquod majus bonum faciat which is true of the act in genere but not as it is Odium Dei. For so if he will it and cause it he doth more than permit and the defectus Causae secundae is that very odium as against God And doth God cause the greatest sin that he may do good by it He can do as much good without causing the evil â—nsuperable cause of all the sin of Devils and men for which he damneth â—hem and that both as to the matter and form but yet thus to do is no sin in God himself because he is under no Law This is your most â—lain undoubted sense or else your Book is non-sense What need we then any further enquiry what you hold It is
case 661. I intreat the Reader that is inclining to any extreams but to read â—over first those short answers of Prosper ad Capitulâ— Gallorum and ad Objectiones Vincent And most of the Sententiae de Capit. I shall think it worthy my labour to recite to force them on the Readers observation and let him see the highest old Doctrine of Gods Decrees Sent. 1. Whoever saith that by Gods Predestination as by fatal necessity men compelled into sins are constrained to death is not a Catholick For Gods Predestination doth by no means make men bad nor is the cause of any mans sin Sent. sup 2. He that saith that the Grace of Baptism received doth not take away Original sin from them that are not predestinated to life is not a Catholick For the Sacrament of Baptism by which all sins He meaneth that those that sincerely covenanted with God in Baptism were truly pardoned though he thought some of them fell away and perished are blotted out is true even in them who will not remain in the truth and for them that are not predestinated unto life Sent. sup 3. He that saith that they that are not predestinated to life though they were in Christ regenerated by Baptism and have lived piously and justly it profitteth them nothing but they are so long reserved till they fall to ruine and they are not taken out of this life till this happen to them as if the ruine of such men were to be referred to Gods constitution is not a Catholick For God doth not therefore prolong the time of any mans age that by long living he should fall to ruine and in his long living fall from the right â—aith seeing long life is to be numbered with the gifts of God by which a man should be better and not worse Sent. sup 4. He that saith that all are not called to Grace if he speak of such as Christ is not declared to is not to be reprehended Sent. sup 5. He that saith that they that are called are not equally called but some that they might believe and some that they might not believe as if to any man the Vocation were the cause of his not believing saith not right For though faith be not but by Gods Gift and Mans Will yet Infidelity is by mans will alone Sent. 6. He that saith that Pree-will in Man is Nothing but it 's Gods predestination which worketh in men whether it be to good or to evil is not a Catholick For Gods Grace doth not abolish mans choice or free-will but perfecteth it and revoketh and reduceth it into the way from error that that which was bad by its own liberty may by the operation of Gods Spirit be made right And Gods predestination is alwayes in Good which knoweth how either to pardon with the praise of mercy or punish with the praise of Justice the sin which is committed by mans will alone Sent. 7. He that saith that God for this cause giveth not Perseverance to some of his Children whom he regenerated in Christ to whom he gave faith hope and Love because by Gods fore-knowledge and predestination they were not differenced from the mass of perdition If he mean that God endowed these men in Goodness but would not have them remain in it and that he was the cause of their tâ—rning away he judgeth contrary to the Justice of God For though Gods Omnipotence could have given the grace of standing to them that will fall yet his grace doth not first forsake them before they have forsaken it And because he foresaw that they would do this by a Voluntary desertion therefore he had them not in the Election of Predestination Sent. 8. He that saith that God would not have all men saved but a certain number that are predestinate speaketh hardlier of the altitude of Gods unsearchable grace than he should speak Who would have all men to be saved and to come to the acknowledgement of the truth and fulfilleth the purpose of his will on them whom being foreknown he predestinated and being predestinate he called being called he justified and being justified he glorified Losing nothing of the fulness of the Gentiles and of all the seed of Israel for whom the eternal Kingdom was prepared in Christ before the foundation of the World For all the World is chosen out of all the World And out of all men all men are adopted So that they that are saved are therefore saved because God would have them saved and they that perish do perish because they deserve to perish Sent. 9. He that saith that our Saviour was not Crucified for the Redemption of the whole World looketh not to the Virtue of the Sacrament that is Sacrifice but to the part or participation of the unbelievers When as the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is the Price of the whole World From which Price they are Aliens who being either delighted in their Captivity will not be redeemed or when they are redeemed return again to the same Captivity For the Word of the Lord falleth not nor is the redemption of the World evacuated For though the World in the vessels of wrath knew not God yet the World in the vessels of mercy knew him Which God without their preceding Merits took out of the power of darkness and translated into the Kingdom of the Son of his Love Sent. 10. He that saith that God substracteth from some the preaching of the Gospel lest perceiving the preaching of the Gospel they should be saved may decline the envy of the objection by the paâ—â—onage of our Saviour himself who would not work Miracles with some that he saith would have believed had they seen them And he forbad his Apostles to preach to some people and now suffereth some Nations to live without his Grace Sent. 11. He that saith that God by his Power compelleth men to sin is deservedly reprehended For God who is the Author of Justice and Goodness and all whose Statutes and Commands are against sin is not to be thought to compell any to sin and precipitate them from innocency into crimes But if there be any of so profound impiety as that they are reckoned to be beyond the remedy of correction they receive not an increase of their iniquity from God but are made â—â—â—â— by themselves because they deserved to be left of God and given up to themselves and to deceivers for their former sins that so their sin should be a punishment of their sin Sent. 12. He that saith that obedience is withdrawn from some that are called and live piously and righteously that they may cease to obey doth think ill of Gods Goodness and Justice as seeming to constrain the godly to ungodliness and to take away good mens innocency from them When as He is the Giver and Keeper of godliness and innocency He therefore that adhereth to God is acted by the Spirit of God but he that departeth from God doth fall from his obedience
at his left hand shall be damned because he executed not Gods will but his own Obj. 11. When incest is committed between Fathers and their Daughters Mothers and their Sons it is therefore done because so God fore-decreed that it should be done or come to pass Resp †††Let the Dominicans not◠this If it were objected to the Devil himself that he is the author and incenter of such villanies I think that with some reason he might discharge himself of the envy and overcome the committer of such wickedness by his own willing of them Because though he be delighted with the madness of sinners he can yet prove that he forced them not to sin With what folly and madness then is that ascribed to God which may not be wholly ascribed to the Devil who is but the adjutor of the baits of sin and not the Causer Generater of the Will God then fore-decreed not that any such businesses should be done nor prepared that soul to any such end who will live wickedly and filthily But he was not ignorant that it would be such and he fore-knew that he would justly judge of such So that to his fore-decree nothing else can be referred but either 1. That which belongeth to the due retribution of Justice 2. Or to the not due bestowing of grace Obj. 12. That by Gods fore-decree men are made of Children of God to be Children of the Devil and of Temples of the Holy Ghost the Temples of Devils and of members of Christ members of a Harlot Resp Gods Predestination though to us while we are in the perils of this life it be uncertain with him is unchangeable But those of whom it is said They went out from us because they were not of us did willingly go out and willingly fall away And because they were foreknown to be such as would fall away they were not predestinate But they had been Predestinated if they had been such as would have returned and remained in holiness and truth So that Gods fore-decree is to many a cause of standing and to none a cause of falling Obj. 13. That all those faithful and Saints who are fore-decreed to eternal death when they return to their vomit seem indeed to do it by their own vice but the cause of that vice is the fore-decree of God which secretly withdraweth from them good wills Resp Indeed to all that relapse from faith to infidelity from Holiness to filthiness and are not purged by emendation before the end of their lives nothing but eternal death is due But it is wickedness to ascribe the cause of such ruines to God who though he foreknow by his eternal knowledge what reward he will give to every mans deserts yet this his Impossibility of being deceived doth not bring into any man either a necessity or a will * * * Note this you that are for his first predetermining all forbidden Volitions and acts of sinning If therefore any man fall from Godliness he is carryed headlong by his own will he is drawn by his own concupiscence he is deceived by his own perswasion There the Father doth nothing the Son doth nothing the Holy Ghost doth nothing nor doth any thing of the will of God intervene in such a business by whose help we know many are kept from falling but none impelled to fall Obj. 14. That this great part of Christian faithful Catholicks and Saints who are fore-decreed to ruine and perdition if they beg of God perseverance in Holiness shall not obtain it Because Gods decree cannot be changed by which he fore-ordained prepared and fitted them to fall away Resp To the breach of the Law to the neglect of Religion to the corrupting of discipline to the forsaking of the faith to the perpetrating of any sin whatever there is no predestination or fore-decree of God at all Nor can it be that men should fall into such evils by him by whom men rise out of such If therefore men live in holiness if they profit in virtue if they remain in good studies it is the manifest gift of God without whom the fruit of no good work is acquired But if men fall away from these and pass over to vice and sin God there sendeth them no evil temptation nor doth he forsake him that will fall away before he be forsaken by him And for the most part he keepeth men from forsaking him or if they depart doth cause them to return But why he upholdeth one and not another it is neither possible to comprehend †††N. B. nor lawful to search seeing it may suffice to know both that it is of him that men stand and it is not of him that they fall away Obj. 15. That all the faithful and Saints who are predestinated to eternal death when they fall are so disposed of by God that they neither can nor will be delivered by repentance Resp Falsly said and foolishly For they that fall away from faith and holiness as they fell by their Wills so by their Wills they rise not But God taketh the way of amendment from none not depriveth any of the possibility of good For he that turneth himself from God taketh from himself both the will and the power of good It 's no good consequence as the Objecters think that God taketh away repentance from men because he giveth it them not and that he casteth down those that he taketh not up For it is one thing to act the innocent into a crime which God cannot do and another not to pardon the Criminal which is the desert of sin Obj. 16. That this great part of the faithful and holy which is fore-decreed to eternal death when they pray to God in the Lords prayer Let thy will be done do only pray against themselves viz. that they may fall and be ruined because it is the will of God that they perish by eternal death Resp The Truth saith not this that it is the will of God that the faithful and Saints do fall from faith and innocency and perish But Truth saith This is the will of the Father that sent me that of all that he hath given me I should lose none But if by the generality of Vocation and the abundance of Gods goodness even those that will not persevere are mixt with the persevering when these fall away from Godliness they fall not or are not forsaken of Gods help but of their own wills nor are impelled to fall nor cast off that they may forsake but yet are fore-known to fall away by Him that cannot be deceived And when they pray Thy will be done they pray not that they may fall Which God will not do or Cause any way by any means For this by their own naughtiness their own liberty will do But this they pray against themselves which doubtless is Gods will that when the Son of man shall come in his Majesty c. they that will not
I am told to my face that our Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation we have learned from the Papists Another professeth that the Jesuits ten of them for one favour the absolute irrespective decree follow herein as they think S. Austin but especially their S. Thomas and Scotus with all the rabble of rotten Schoolmen and the whole tribe at this day of the Dominicans who are busie Zealots for the Cause of whose consent some among us are not ashamed to brag Twisse against Hoard li. 1. pag. 85. This reporter maketh us at one with Jesuites and Dominicans And yet may we not be so with Protestants that he must have a subtile contentious wit that can find any great intolerable difference herein between him and the Synod of Dort I Write not for them that will revile Gods truth if Bellarmine do but own it De Grat. lib. arb li. 2. cap. 9. this is his proposition Though a Grace sufficient be given to all yet no reason from us or our part can be given of Gods predestination By which we exclude not only Merits properly so called but also the good use of free-will oâ—â—â— grace or both as foreseen of God though it be not called Merit but de congruo and though it be not called a Cause but a Condition â—â—â—â— qua non praedestinaretur And what else would you have excluded And he goeth on in divers Chapters at large to prove from Scriptures Augustine Tradition Reason that there is no foreseen Cause or Condition of predestination in our selves 685. And I desire the Reader to note his Order of the Decrees for they must all be medling with the Order of Gods inward acts But he doth iâ— most briefly and plainly thus ib. cap. 9. According to our mode of understanding this seemeth to be the Order of Predestination in Gods mind 1. God foreseeth that if he make man he will fall with all his posterity And withal he seeth thâ—â— he can deliver all or some as he please 2. He decreeth or willeth to create man and to permit him to fall and mercifully to deliver some of the number of the fallen leaving others justly in the mass of perdition 3. He contrived apt remedies for the saving of the elect Iâ— which the incarnation and passion of our Saviour hath the first place 4. He approved those remedies and then chose Christ and us in him before the Constitution of the World 5. He disposed ordained and in a sort commanded that so it should be done Is not this as high as the Synod of Dort goeth yea more rigid than many of the Suffrages For he mentioneth no giving of Christ or any remedy at all to any but the Elect nor carrying the rest any further thaâ— the common mass of perdition before they be forsaken contrary to what Martinius Crocius Molinaeus the Brittish Divines and others delivered to or in that Synod And indeed it is unsound 686. If you say that he begins with a Scientia Conditionalis I answer It 's no more than what all sober men will grant de re that is that God knew from eternity that if he so made man as he did he would fall or if there were eternal propositions God eternally knew the truth of this hypothetical proposition If I so make man he will fall If this was quid intelligibile no doubt but God knew it But de ordine de nomine whether it be fit to parcell out Gods knowledge and Volitions into such shreds and atoms and so denominate them let them look to it on both sides that trouble us with their divisions 687. And note Bellarmines further explication Of these acts saith he the first is of the understanding the second of the will the third of the understanding the fourth of the will and the fifth of the understanding and in that last the essence of predestination especially consisteth 688. Yea cap. 15. whereas many distinguish predestination to faith or grace from election to glory and say that the latter is upon the foresight of faith as a condition though the first be absolute he opposeth them and copiously laboureth to prove that election to glory is absolute without any foreseen condition in us as well as that to grace Though without something in us we have not a Right to glory Even saith he as if a Physicion were sure that by such a Medicine he can cure a man and so resolveth to give it him the Medicine is the Cause that he is cured but not that it was ascertained by the decree of the Physicion before 689. And c. 15. ad obj 2. he proveth Gods certain foreknowledge â—erein because Though all have pro loco tempore sufficient grace to be converted if they will yet indeed no man is converted and no man persevereth but he that hath the special gift of Repentance and Perseverance which is not given to all but to those only for whom God decreed it 689. And to them that say the Elect can refuse grace he answereth â—hat They can indeed but it 's certain that they will not because God will call them so as he seeth so congruous that they may not refuse his call For thus true grace is refused by no hard heart because it is given with a purpose to mollifie it And there is no danger lest God should want skill or arguments to perswade any man to what he please 690. And indeed before de Gratia efficaci li. 1. cap. 12. he tells us that â—here are three opinions wherein the efficacy of grace consisteth The first is that it is called effectual only from the event through mans conâ—ent which he disproveth The second that it is only efficacious by necessitating physical predetermination which he thinks to be an error on â—he other extream And the third which he defendeth is that it is efficacious by Gods will that it shall be so and by the Congruity or moral â—ptitude of inward and outward perswasions and means which God useth with a decree to turn the will And who can say that God cannot do this or if he can that he doth not Is here yet any room left for quarâ—elling and bitter censures in this point * * * When even Bradwardinâ— holdeth that Gods Volition of mans act alone which Bellarmine includeth is the effectual unresistible Grace â—â— parte Dei operantis 691. Lib. 2. cap. 16. he maketh two acts of Reprobation the very same that almost all the suffrages in the Synod of Dort assign and the same doctrine that Davenant and the Synod deliver His first act of Reprobation is Negative the second Positive 1. Non habet Voluntatem eos salvandi 2. Habet Voluntatem eos damnandi And as to the first Nulla datur ejus causa ex parte hominum sieut neque praedestinationis Posterioris causa est praevisio peccati They are unmerciful contenders that this much Reprobation will not satisfie 692. He proveth as the Calvinists do that it
was not so much as for original sin foreseen that God is said to hate Esau because then he would have hated Jacob also but it must be referred to the â—eer will of God that one was loved to salvation and the other so hated as not to be saved Just as the Synod of Dort saith 693. Francisc à Sancta Clara alias Davenport a Learned Scotist in his Deus Nat. Grat. Probl. 1. pag. 3. describing Predestination out of Augustine Arriba Scotus Suarez c. saith And with all these agreeth the description of Predestination Art 17. of the English Confession 694. And Probl. 2. of the Causes of Predestination he noteth that We mean not the Causes of Gods will ex parte actus volendi sed ex parte volitâ—rum in quantum Deus vult unum esse propter aliud And on that supposition how easie is it to agree 695. But he addeth If you had rather say as Suarez 1. p. l. 2. de praed c. 1. that also ex parte actus divini there is a Cause it must be not as Gods act is absolutely considered for so it is his essence that hath no cause but as terminated on the Creature 696. Pag. 7. he himself professeth that when the Protestants say that on the part of the Predestinate there is not so much as any meritoâ—â—ous Cause Disposition or Condition they speak but the common opinion of all the School Doctors taking it properly and in Scripture senâ—e And what Montague and the Arminians speak of foresight he disowneth as contrary to Paul August Aquin. 1. p. q. 23. a. 5 c. Scotus Bradwardine Estius Smisings Yea he rejecteth Abbot Joachim who denying any Cause of predestination in God yet asserted a cause of it by an aptitude in the Predestinate and the Reprobate one being foreseen more humble and prepared for Grace and the other more proud and unprepared pag. 5 6. 697. Yea ordering Gods Decrees after the usual presumption be Ruiz de Praedefin tr 2. disp 6. sect 2. p. 86 87. Deus pro suo beneplacito decrevit ab aeterno efficaciter causare liberas operationes honestas prius ratione quam illas praevideret ut absolute futuras Unde infallibiliter sequitur liberi arbitrii operatio necessitate consequentiae Pag. 87. 1. Scriptura fidem sanctitatem quodlibet discrimen sanctorum à reprobis reducit ad electionem gratuitam 2. Ex vi sortis c. 3. Divina electio absque meritis est causa quae discernit justos ab impiis Quamvis n liberum arbitrium sit secundaria causa sâ—ipsum discernens qua potuit resistere vel consentire Haec tamen liberi arbitrii cooperatio revocatur in Deum ut in primariam causam suaviter praedefinientem Eâ— Tr. 3. d. 18. sect 3. p. 222. Ea merita nihil obsunâ— quidditati gratiae quae tanquam ex prima radicâ— nascuntur ex prima gratid data absque ullo prorsus merito Atâ—amen quodlibet etiam levissimum remotissimum meritum de congruo si ex illo nascitur prima gratia vel propter illud datur obesse quidditati gratiae Yea he addeth p. 223. Conditio ratio vel occasio prorsus separata à merito impetratione dispositione adhuc repugnaret primae gratiae quoniam adhuc maneret debitum connaturalitatis quamvis abesset debitum obsequii asserteth that God first intendeth our blessedness as the end before he intendeth us grace faith c. as the means And therefore cannot do it for foreseen faith c. Yea that he first decreed to give us blessedness before he decreed to create us as Scotus 3. d. 7. and Ovanâ—â— ibid. q. 3. a. 2. Yea that God willeth all this before he knoweth that it will be as Scotus 1. d. 39. And that seeing all Gods Volitions of giving any good are free without any precedent Cause in man it must needs be that the Decree of glory and not of grace only must be without Merit And he concludeth p. 13. that they have no quarrel here with the Doctrine of the Articles of the Church of England 698. Probl. 3. he resolveth with Smisings that the reason why this absolute decree of God consisteth with free-will is because that God doth not only decree the event but also the mode that it shall be freely done And therefore his decree doth not only consist with Liberty but maketh it necessary 699. His feigned order of the decrees is pag. 27. that 1. God decreeeth to glorifie 2. To give grace and merits to obtain it and that definitively 3. Then he foreseeth that they will concurr with grace 4. Then he decreeth the execution that glory shall be given them by the means of their operations And of Reprobation 1. That God effectually decreeth to do so much as he doth on his part to give them glory 2. And also so far to give them grace 3. Then he foreseeth that they will not co-operate with that grace 4. He decreeth to permit them to fall into sin 5. And then decreeth their damnation I would not cite this man if he were a Thomist or Dominican who are known to go higher than the Synod of Dort though their reputation at home with their party tempt them to rail at the Calvinists But as he is a Scotist and so of a middle profession Though Dr. Twisse perceived how much their founding Gods foreknowledge in his Volitions advantaged him 700. Supposing you to remember the ordo signorum of his Master Scotus before cited I adjoyn the order Doctoris illuminati viz. Fraâ— Mayronis in li. 1. d. 41. q. 4. Sunt quatuor signa Est ergo priâ—â—â— in quo Judas Petrus offeruntur Voluntati Divinae ut neutri tâ—â— Voluntas Divina ordinavit Petrum ad gloriam nullum autem actum positivum habuit circa Judam secundum Augustinum Secundum signum esâ— in quo ordinavit Petrum ad gratiam tunc circa Judam nullum actâ—â— positivum habuit Tertium signum est in quo relinquuntur sibi ipâ—â—sâ—â— uterque cadit in peccatum Quartum signum est in quo Petrus resâ—â—git Quia non potest permanere quia praedestinatus intelligitur ex primo signo Judas autem non resurgit eo quod non habet relevantem in Deo ideo reprobatur Here you see a Reprobation that is no Act of God but a non-acting or is negative quoad actum and not only quoad objectum And he before saith out of Scotus and with him Ideo dico sicut dicit Doctor noster Quod prius Deus videt merita quam reprobum licet prius non vide at merita quam eligat which is the commonest Doctrine of the Schoolmen and other Papists as well as Augustines 701. So D'Orbellis in 1. d. 41. Et dicunt quidam quod non est alia ratio quare Deus istum elegit non illum nisi quia placet Eo enim ipso quod placet ideo rectum est propter summam
ipsius Voluntatis rectitudinem Sic dicit Scotus quod licet non videatur aliqua ratio praedestinationis à parte praedestinati aliquo modo prior praedestinatione Reprobationis tamen est aliqua ratio propter quam scilicet ista actio terminatur ad hoc objectum non ad illud Cum Reprobare sit Velle Damnare Reprobatio habet ex parte objecti rationem scilicet peccatum finale praevisum Non videtur autem dicendum conformiter de Praedestinatione Reprobatione Quia Bona Deo principaliter attribuuntur Mala autem nobis Quia tamen Apostolus videtur totum hoâ— imperscrutabile relinquere Rom. 9. O altitudo c. ideo dicit Scotus quod eligatur opinio quae magis placet Dum tamen servetur Libertas Divina absque injustitia Hoc autem debet fieri absque assertione pertinaci Rationes namque particulares propter quas ex parte diversorum Divina inferuntur judicia sunt imperscrutabiles But note that as to the first part of Reprobation non velle dare gratiam Scotus Mayro c. hold it to be nothing or no act at all 702. And what D'Orbellis next addeth of Bonaventure setteth us at no further odds Bonav dicit quod licet non sit aliqua ratio Causalis seu meritoria praedestinationis à parte praedestinati quia siquis posset de condigno mereri primam gratiam tunc Gratia non esset Gratia Potest tamen esse aliqua ratio congruitatis condeoentiae praedestinationis Non quantum ad significatum quod est Volitio Divina sed quantum ad Connotatum quod est Gratia Gloria Potest enim dici quod Deus praedestinat istum proper praevisionem bonorum operum ut aliquo modo sunt à libero arbitrio Licet enim Gratificatio vel Justificatio sit principaliter à Divina Voluntate hoc tamen est cum cooperatione praeparatione liberi arbitrii quia ut Aug. Qui fecit te sine te non justificabit te sine te Unde cum peccator facit quod in se est meretur de congruo justificari seu secundum quid ex condecentia Divinae liberalitatis But the true meaning of this is no more than Protestants commonly hold that God giveth special Grace usually to such only as are prepared for it by more common Grace and so this preparation is quid praevisum in Gods decree but no Cause of his Act of Volition or decree 703. And in the next words he granteth that even this Preparation to special grace is not alwayes necessary Deus tamen sine aliqua praeparatione cooperatione aliquos justificat ut patet de sanctificatis in utero de parvulis post baptismum ad coelum evolantibus aliis sine baptismo decedentibus c. 704. And though they oft say that God would have all men saved quantum in se they mean not that God doth all to it that he can but that he maketh all capable of salvation and so far helpeth them that the failing shall not be on his part For so Bonavent ubi supra in 1. d. 47. a. 1. q. 1. explaineth it plainly adding that here Gods will connoteth not salvation it self but only the said Capacity and helps 705. Obj. But many say that Predestination doth not necessitate the eveâ— Answ Twisse told you before that we are agreed all in this It inferreth a Logical Necessity Consequentiae though not a physical Consequentis As Bonavent 1. d. 40. q. 2. Ex parte rei evenientis nullam ex parte Deâ— praescientis aliquam scilicet immutabilitatis certitudinem Yea as to grace and salvation it is certainly Causal as they confess 706. Obj. Many say that a predestinate person may be damned Answ Even as D'Orbellis in 1. d. 40. a. 2. Ista propositio Pradestinatus potest damnari est falsa in sensu composito vera in sensu divise Vide explicat It is unchristian and unmanly to revile men that say the same that we do meerly through distaste or because we will not be at the labour to understand them 707. Obj. We cannot be reconciled to them that give so much to mans free-will Ans How much do you mean It 's a dreadful thing to hear some good men ignorantly blaspheme God as the chief cause of every villany in the World meerly â—poh a factious prejudice and partial opposition to other men whom they never understood Would it please you to hear that God draggeth men into sin as by the hair of the heaâ— when the Devil himself can but allure them I know it would not Dâ— but make it plain as a granted thing that God doth not Will or Love sin and do more to Cause it than the Devil or the wickedest sinner himself doth and you can scarce tell how to differ from the greater part of the Schoolmen themselves or sober moderate Lutherans that are thought to be dissenters Let it be the Devils work and no good Christians to paint God in the shape of the Father of lies and all iniquity Our God is Holy and Holiness becometh all that draw near him and is the mark of all that shall see his face Dear Brethren let not us that daily and justly condemn our selves for sin and take such odious titles to our selves make our selves yet Holier than God and make God a far greater Lover and Causeâ— of sin than we are I will add one description of Free-will out of the last named Schoolman D'Orbellis a Scotist in 2. sent d. 25. dub 2. And tell me what the most rigid opposer of Free-will can desire more Q. Whether Free-will be equally in all that have it Ans Free-will may be compared 1. To that which it is free from 2. And to that which it is free to 1. In the first sense there is a threefold Liberty 1. From constraint 2. From sin 3. From misery Liberty from sin is not equally in good and bad nor in man on earth and in Heaven As Aug. Enchir. That 's the freest will that cannot at all serve sin And Liberty from misery is not equally in all But Liberty from constraint is equally in all because the will cannot be forced Though in God and the blessed there be a Necessity of Immutability yet not of Co-action And necessity of Immutability repugneth not Liberty For the will is called Free simply not because it so willeth this as that it can will the contrary but because that whatever it willeth it desireth it by its own Empire Because it so willeth any thing that it willeth to will it And therefore in the act of willing it moveth it self and useth dominion on it self And so far it is called Free though it be immutably ordained to it * * * But it were not so if it were immutably ordained and moved to sin 2. But if free-will be compared to that to which it is free viz. To do right for as Anselm saith It is a faculty or
power to keep rectitude so it is not equally in all For this Power is in God of Himself and in the Creatures received from God And it is more in the confirmed than the nonconfirmed and in the good than in the bad And seeing to be able to sin is a diminution of Liberty therefore according to Anselm to be able to sin is no Liberty nor part of liberty taking Free-will according to the Common Reason of it But to have power as to the Act which deformity is annext to may well be a part of Liberty not simply but of Created Liberty And so the deformity in the Act more agreeth with free-will as it is a Creature or as it is of Nothing than as it is Free. Dub. 3. Can free-will be compelled Answ God can destroy it but not force it for that is a Contradiction But he can well effectually incline it and make it move it self freely to which part God will * * * But to sin he will not so incline it I think this is as high as you can desire And yet there is nothing in all this but what both parties may well bear with and it hath indeed much soundness in it But here he treateth only about equality of Liberty but how much of it the unsanctified have he elsewhere sheweth and I have oft told you how much the most are agreed in it 708. To conclude The heart and summ of all our differences is how to make God the total first Cause of all Good and not to make him the Cause of sin and the damner of man for that which he himself insuperably causeth I hope both sides hold fast both the conclusions that our sin and destruction is chiefly of our selves but in God is our help and our good and happiness is all from Him And if they both hold this it is not the difficulty of joyning them together and opening Gods unsearchable methods that must disjoynt us and draw us to withdraw our Love or contemn each other or disturb the Churches peace and unity 709. Gregory Ariminensis and Gabr. Biel have come so near the rigid Dominicans that the Reader may think that they plainly say the same of Gods Causing all the Act of sin as Alvarez Twisse and Rutherford say But let the Learned Reader note these things 1. That over and over they affirm that though God Cause all the Act of sin yet he is but the Causa partialis I like not the phrase my self for the reasons before given but by this they do greatly differ from the aforesaid Authors see Greg. 2. d. 34 35. ar 3. frequently saying that God is Causa partialis And in answering Aureolus ad nonum he thus fully explaineth it Dicendum quod Causa dupliciter potest accipi Totalis Uno modo Totalis totalitate relata ad Causam id est sufficiens Causare effectum absque concursu alterius Causae praecise causando sicut Causat sic neganda est ista Consequentia Quoniam nec Deus nec Creatura est sic Totalis Causa actus mali Nunquam enim talis actus fieret si Deâ—s non Causaret â—um Neque etiam si Creatura non causaret Deus non aliter causaret quam nunc de facto causat concurrendo cum Creatura Alio modo Totalis totulitate relata ad effectum id est totum effectum causaus Et ejusdem possâ—nt esse plures totales Causae ejusdem enim Volitionis secundum totum est Causa Notitia etiam Voluntas Here note that 1. He taketh not Causa totalis for the same with Solitaria 2. That he asserteth only that God causeth the Totum of the Act but not by a total Causation of it And that Gods way or sort of Causation is not sufficient to cause it if man concurred not which they say he freely doth and could do otherwise 710. So that these mens way of freeing God from being the cause of sin is like Scotus his As if as I before made the similitude a Father to try his Childs obedience bids him lift up a Stone which he cannot do of himself and the Father holdeth his hand and joyneth his strength yet not ad ultimum posse but with a purposed restraint so far that if the Child will not put forth his degree of strength it shall not be done But who can comprehend the wayes of Divinè concurse 711. And it is to be noted that when Aureolus argueth that if God immediately concurr either he determineth mans act or man determineth Gods act or neither which are all absurd here Biel citeth Scotus as holding the third and answering Neither as no absurdity But Greg. Arim. that seemeth to go higher yet saith * * * Ubi suprae ad 8. Juxta modum loquendi arguentis dico quod Deus sequitur determinationem Voluntatis non quâ—â— determinatio Voluntatis fit aliqua Entitas distincta à Voluntate actâ— ejus quia primo fiat à voluntate nec intelligendo quod prius natura Viluntas agat actum quam Deus proprie loquendo de priori natura Quoniam tunc sequeretur quod posset illum agere Deo non coagente Sed ad hunc sensum dico Deum sequi Determinationem Voluntatis Quoniam ideo Deus agit illum actum quia †††I think it should be Eum. cum Voluntas agit Et non ideo quâ—â— Deus agit ideo Voluntas agit ideo magis proprie dicitur Deus coagerâ— Voluntati in talem actum causandi quam Voluntas dicatur coagere Deâ— You see that these Nominals do toto coelo differ from Alvarez Tâ—isse and Rutherford And yet Alvarez would fain be moderate in that one Disputation which Dr. Twisse in a peculiar Digression oppugneth 712. And note that the thing which moved Gregory to go so far as he doth is Lest God should be denyed to be the Cause of all Natural Entity But if you set before the will the Creator or Chief Good and the Creature or sensual pleasure the Act in genere as a Volition is an Entity or modus entis But who can prove that comparatively as it is terminated on the Creature rather than on the Creator it hath any Natural Entity more than the act in genere or any modality which God is not able to give a Creature power to cause or not cause withoâ—â— predetermination from God or any other 713. Yea Ariminensis seemeth to mean this himself when ibid. d. 34 35. a. 2. ad 5. he saith Deus â—potest solus actum illum causare actâ—â— odiendi id est qui est odium Dei mendacium etiam potest causare Non tamen potest causare actum odiendi Deum seu odium Dei neqâ—â— potest Causare Mendacium vel mentiri neque potest causare actum â—â—lum Quare quemcunque actum causaret solus licet ille nunc sit Odiâ—â— Dei vel mendacium vel aliquis actus malus
by two sort◠of Doing Principally by the Merit of Christ's perfect Righteousness and subordinately by our fulfilling the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace which Baptism celebrateth 4. Gods Will approveth of all that is good so far as it is good It approveth of habitual Holiness in Adam and would have done in his Infants had he stood and doth so in all Christians now And I will believe that Christ before he actually obeyed was under Gods approving Will. But not as one that had merited by Obedience For God doth not suppose any to do that which they do not nor oblige them to do to-morrows work to-day § 44. M. S. The issue in a word is 1. Suffering for Sin is not doing nor equivalent in point of Justification 2. Nor can God having satisfaction for what was done cross to his Law lay aside that in order to the conveying of Life and substitute believing instead of it Therefore Faith justifieth ratione objecti only Now we Do in another Christ instead of doing in our own persons An. I doubt this is another Gospel than the Apostles delivered us though I hope that practically we meet in one 1. To the first I answer It 's true but you do ill to intimate that we think otherwise Suffering by the Sinner never satisfieth because it must be everlasting Suffering by Christ satisfieth not meerly as suffering but as the voluntary suffering of God-Man aptly glorifying Justice and Love and securing the ends of Government This Satisfaction is not equivalent to doing in Justification For Doing all required would have justified us against this Charge Thou art a Sinner by Omission and Commission and thou hast deserved Death and hast not deserved Life according to the Law of Works Against this Charge I look for no Justification but confess it is all true But Christ's Satisfaction justifieth us against this Charge God must damn thee by paine of loss and sense or else he is not just because thou hast deserved it And Christ's perfect Righteousness also justifieth us against this Charge God must damn thee and deny thee life because thou didst not merit it by perfect Obedience The Justifier says No because Christ's Merit in Doing and Suffering hath glorified the Law and Justice of God instead of my Merit and hath procured us Pardon and Life given by the New Covenant 2. To the second I answer 1. God did not lay aside his first Covenant but man by sin did lay it aside by making the Condition impossible 2. You overturn the Gospel too much by thinking that the Law is not laid aside as a Covenant or Promise though I grant that the Precept as a Rule of Life continues To say that the sense of Adam's Law was Thou or another Christ for thee shalt obey And that we are justified by that Law is to confound Law and Gospel and make a Gospel of that Law and make the Covenant of Works not to condemn us or both to condemn and justifie and to feign man to live and be judged by the Covenant that is ceased God saith now to no man living Be innocent and so merit life that thou maist live And God doth not repute us innocent at all 3. To the third I answer It is notoriously untrue that Faith justifieth only ratione objecti unless you mean that efficiently it justifieth not at all which is true For we are justified by it also ratione foederis because that which is materially Faith in Christ a justifying Saviour and so connoteth its Object as the meritorious Cause of the free Gift and Pardon is by reason of this aptitude made the Condition of that New Covenant or Gift which is its nearest interest or reason of our being justified by it And it is the Law of Grace by which we must be judged and justified And at that Bar the question which Life or Death dependeth on will be supposing Christ's Merits whether we are penitent Believers or impenitent Unbelievers and so have part in Christ or not And if Satan accuse us as being impenitent Unbelievers and the question be whether we have true Faith or not my Opinion is that we cannot be herein justified by pleading the Object when the Act is questioned and saying That Christ fulfilled that Law unless you could prove that he justifieth impenitent Infidels and as Saltmarsh said repented and believed for us But the grand Case remaineth Whether we are justified by the Law of Innocency by fulfilling it and meriting in another without any sort of doing of our own by our selves Mr. Wotton Mr. Gataker and abundance more have long ago said much to confute your Error besides Mr. Bradshaw whom you name But I add I. I have before proved that by the deeds or sentence of the Law of Adam or Moses no man can be justified 1. He that hath sinned against it cannot be justified as not having sinned For factum infectum fieri is impossible to God himself 2. The Law that condemneth us doth not justifie us 3. What Paul Rom. 3. 4. frequently saith against Justification by the Law of Moses will hold here a fortiori And Christ keeping Moses Law as far as he was capable of Obligation that also would else have been imputed and so we should have been justified by that Law also which the Scripture copiously denieth He that saith He hath no sin deceiveth himself and is a lyar and the truth is not in him And the Law of Adam justifieth no man that hath sin II. We did not fulfil it and merit in Christ But Christ did in the Person of a Mediator voluntarily undertaking it on his Fathers terms and not as our Instrument or in our Persons I have else-where given abundance of Arguments against that which I must not here repeat This Author took notice of my Objection that he that is reputed perfectly Innocent and Obedient is uncapable of Pardon and needeth no satisfaction or remitting or rewarding Covenant besides that which he kept but answereth it not This subverteth the Gospel and Religion Quer. If there be no Reward nor Life but of Justice and no Reward but for Christ's Merits and all Believers equally merited in Christ as fulfilling all the Law 1. Whence cometh the inequality of Grace and Glory 2. How come any Believers to be left long under sins and weakness of Grace and temporal punishments III. The Merits of Christ have procured us the New Covenant sealed in Baptism by which we have a new Rule offiicii judicii for such is every Law Christ is not the only Subject of God He made us not lawless or Rebels God still ruleth the Church by a Law or Covenant This is the Law or Covenant of Grace Deny this Covenant and you deny the Gospel This Covenant or Law obligeth us to Duty And it promiseth and giveth Pardon and Life in and with Christ This Covenant hath Conditions various conditions of various Benefits Our first true consent which Baptism celebrateth that is
he will have all condemned whom he doth condemn But then it must be understood that this distinction iâ— not applyed to the Will of God as he is meerly an Absolute Proprietary or Benefactor but as he is the King or Rector of the world and so his Legislation is his Antecedent Will and his Judgment is his Consequent Will And no man of Religion can deny either that Gods Law is the signification of his Will or his Will signifyed or that his Judgment and â—â—cution is his Will declared or that Gods Law of Grace doth conditionally give pardon and salvation to all antecedently to man's performance or rejection of the condition or that God condemneth Infidels consequently to their Infidelity The Law Antecedently to Mans part acted saith He that believeth shall be saved and the Sentence consequently to his fact saith Judas an unbeliever or impenitent shall perish And thus the distinction hath no doubt or difficulty 103. God by commanding faith and repentance and making theâ— necessary conditions of Justification and by commanding perseverance and threatning the Justified and Sanctified with damnation if they fâ—â— away and making perseverance a condition of Salvation doth thereby provide a convenient means for the performance of his own Decree of giving Faith and Repentance and perseverance to his Elect For he effecteth his ends by suitable moral means and such is this Law and Covenant to provoke man to due fear and care and obedience that he may be wrought on as a man 104. To be justifyed by Faith in general agreeth to the ages before Of Justification by Faith c. Christ's Incarnation and those since But so doth not the special kind of faith by which they are justifyed For much more is Essential to that faith which we must be justifyed by to them that are under the last edition of the Covenant of Grace than was or is to them that were under the first alone Abraham believed not all our essential Articles of faith 105. To be justified by faith in Paul's sence is all one as to be justified What that Faith is by becoming Christians To be a Believer a Disciple and a Christian are all one in the Gospel sence 106. The faith by which we are justified as is aforesaid is best understood The Controversie between the Papists and us about Justification is agitated iâ— vain till we agree of the sence of the words Justification and Remission As I said elsewhere they take not only Justification for a qualitative change such as we call Sanctification but Remission of Sin for they know not what themselves most of them talk as if it were a putting away the Sin in its essence which can be meant of nothing but the Habit for the fact cannot be infectum Others seem to take it for remitting the punishment also with that change Malderus most plainly in 1. 2. q. 113. a. 1. and p. 567. saith that Remission of Sin is Ablatio Reatus culpae At esse longe aliud quam Nolle illud punire non enim tantum facit Hominem non puniri sed etiam non esse Poena dignum Minus tamen est quam in amicitiam recipi though yet no man is in a middle state neque Dâ—i amicus neque inimicus yet cogitations possunt seterari Peccata Remittere idem est quod non imputare si hoc non accipias pro dissimulare sed pro desinere esse offensum cum per Remissionem Deo non imputante est quasi non fuerit By this you may see that these Papists hold the same with those Protestants whom they seem most to resist and cannot hide it But 1. It will be true to eternity that Peter sinned 2. To say so is to blame him 3 His sin deserv'd death 4. The Law and the nature of sin past are the same after pardon as before 5. God doth not change his mind of sin 6. Gods offence or displeasure is not a passion or mutable but his essence as denomina ed from the object to be his Velle punire and Justice that must punish 7. For God to be appeased and no more offended is but his Nolle punire peccatorem and not to be obliged in Justice to punish him but by his Covenant related to him as one that will not punish 8. This change is in the sinner becoming not punishable 9. That is not worthy of it in the Gospel-sence though worthy by the Law of Innocency 10. All this is but that the Reatus pâ—na culpae quantum ad poenam is remitted but not the Reatus culpae simpliciter in se And thus we are all agreed by the Baptismal Covenant and is essentially a Believing Fiducial consent to our Covenant relation to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as our Reconciled Creator and Father our Saviour and our Sanctifyer connoting the forsaking of all inconsistents For it must needs be the same faith by which we have right to the benefits of that Covenant and by which we are justified because we have our remission and justification by the Instrumental donation of the Covenant it being one of the benefits given by it But Practical Faith or Believing-consent is our condition of receiving our Covenant right to all the benefits in general therefore to Justification in particular 107. The Phrases of Justifying faith and Faith justifying us are humane and not Scriptural at all And though they may be well used with explicatory caution as being well meant yet they are more lyable to mislead men than the Scripture phrase that we are justified by Faith Because the former phrases are apter to insinuate an Efficiency than the other whereas faith is no efficient cause of our Justification nor any other act of Man And the Scripture that speaketh of Justification by Faith sometime useth the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which no more signifyeth any Instrumental efficiency of Justification than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex operibus And though sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be used it is to signifie no more than that God hath appointed it to be the Medium of our Justification as a condition but not as any efficient cause 108. The Faith by which we are justified as I touched before hath God the Father for its object as essentially as Christ the Saviour as the said Baptismal Covenant sheweth and that not only secondarily as Christ being the Mediator and way to the Father our faith in Christ connoteth the final object but also directly and primarily as the Father is the first in Trinity and as Creator first related to us and as the end is first in our intention Joh. 17. 3. This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou bast sent Joh. 13. 1. Let not your hearts be troubled you believe in God believe also in me 109. And as essential is it to this Faith to believe in Christ as the Purchaser of Holiness and Heaven as to
reject and resist Gods Grace and break his Covenant he forfeiteth Gods further Grace And I have noted 1. That most Children which I have seen very early wicked have been such whose Parents grosly neglected their Duty and Covenant as to a holy prudent careful Education of them as if God must needs save their Children because they were the Children of Believers who thus betrayed them 2. And those that were well educated by their Parents usually shew hopeful signs at first till their own lusts grow up and deceive and overthrow them The nature of the mutual Covenant and the sad experience of the case of many baptized Children maketh me incline to this Opinion which I do not peremptorily assert but humbly propose to better judgments with submission â—ut what-ever we say of the Parents I doubt not but to the person at age future benefits have future conditions 174. Though Gods Decree is that his Elect shall persevere yet I conceive with submission to better information that the Baptismal-Covenant as such doth not absolutely promise or give right to so much Grace as shall certainly cause the baptized to persevere that is all that are rightfully baptized even coram Deo as well as coram Ecclesia have not perseverance secured to them by baptism But only the Holy Ghost is given to them by Covenant to be their Sanctifier and carry on his work to their Salvation if they will use those means which God hath appointed and doth enable them to use in attendance on his Spirit Though Election infer the certainty of perseverance I never saw their assertions proved who say 1. That if Adam had once obeyed say some or overcome that one Temptation say others God promised confirmation to him and all his Posterity 2. That the Baptismal-Covenant promiseth confirmation and certain perseverance to all the baptized regenerate or justified What God doth I am not now questioning but what in that Covenant he promiseth to do 175. It is plain in the Scripture that when men are converted and baptized the particular helps of Grace are promised them upon further particular conditions And that the continuance of Pardon and Right to Life is promised them upon the continuance of their Faith and use of means And that actual Glorification is promised them on condition of overcoming and persevering And therefore that we must use and take all these as conditions 176. It is ordinary with some Writers and Preachers to tell men What must be in our selves that no part of their Righteousness is in themselves and with others that at least none which they are justified by in any part is in them and that it is all in Christ only And that nature is loth to yield to this but thinketh it a fine thing to have some little part of the honour to it self And as to the honour of a good Action if it be but 999 parts that it ascribeth to God and taketh one part of a thousand to our selves it is a dangerous arrogation we must have none This well explained may be made sound But thus grosly delivered it is but a popular cheat under the taking pretence of self-abasement and giving Christ all The Devil is as willing as any one that you should have nothing honourable or praise-worthy in you and be as vile as he can make you It is God who honoureth those that honour him and praiseth his Saints as the excellent on Earth and his Jewels and peculiar Treasure adorned with his own lovely Image and partakers of the Divine Nature and members of Christ as his own Flesh And it is Satan and wicked men that vilifie and dishonour them And I have oft lamented it that these very men that hold this kind of Doctrine of self-abasement as having no part of Righteousness nor share at all in any good work are yet too oft so proudly conceited of their own goodness even for holding that they have none for which they are praise-worthy as that their pride is no small trouble to the Churches and all about them 177. What-ever is of God is good and what-ever is good is laudable or praise-worthy and meriteth to be esteemed as it is 178. All the sanctified are inherently righteous But with an imperfect righteousness which will no further justifie them in Judgment save only against this Accusation that they are unholy 179. There is no Righteousness which will not justifie him that hath it in tantum so far as he is righteous For the contrary is a contradiction For to be just is to be justifiable He that gave but six pence to the poor is justifiable against this Accusation that he did not give it 181. All the Righteousness which formally justifieth us is our own or on our selves where it justifyeth us For to be made just or justified in the I would here cite the words of Bâ—za Paraeus Dr. Field Bonhaus Bâ—llinger Alberius Zanchy Aepinus Spangâ—â—bergius Brentius Coâ—fess Augustan c. Asserting that Justification is oft used as Sanctification in Scripture and that plenary Justification hath three parts 1. Pardon 2. Accepting us into favour and life 3. The gift of the Holy Ghost or inherent righteousness but that Guil. Forbes hath largely done it Consid Pacific 2 Thes 1. 9 10. first sence constitutively is nothing else but to be made such as are personally themselves just Pardon of sin is made our own Right to Christ and Glory is made our own Though Christ's Righteousness was the only meritorious cause of all this which therefore is and may be called our Material Righteousness as that which meriteth it is the matter 182. He that is no cause of any good work is no Christian but a damnable wretch and worse than any wicked man I know in the world And he that is a Cause of it must not be denyed falsly to be a cause of it Nor a Saint denyed to be a Saint upon a false pretence of selâ—denyal 183. As God is seen here in the Glass of his works so he is to be loved and praised as so appearing Therefore he that dishonoureth his work dishonoureth God and hindereth his due love and praise And his most lovely and honourable work on earth is his holy Image on his Saints And as Christ will come to be admired and glorified in them at last so God must be seen and glorified in them here in some degree And to deny the Glory of his Image is the malignants way of injuring him and that in which the worst will serve you He that will praise God as Creator and Redeemer must praise his works of Creation and Redemption And is it the way of praising him as our Sanctifyer to dispraise his work of Sanctification 184. Those poor Sinners of my acquaintance who lived in the grosseâ—â— sins against Conscience as Drunkenness Whoredom c. have been glad enough of such doctrine and forward enough to believe that there is nothing in man that in any part can justifie
supposed in Gods Law which is the reason of our participation in his Sin and not any Will or Judgment of God without or beyond our Natural interest For else it should be God most properly who by his arbitrary imputation should either make us Sinners or repute us such when we are none But yet when we become Persons it is by Derivation from Adam and so the effect can be no better than the cause and as soon as we are Persons we are Guilty persons having Guilt with personality from him though we were not persons in him 3. So Christ is though not the Natural yet the Federal Adam or Root of Believers when he satisfied and merited we were not in him either as in Adam seminally as in a natural Generator nor as existent Persons nor did God falsly so repute us to be But he was then the Cause materially or had that Virtus effectiva which would Justifie and Sanctifie and Glorifie us in due time It was the Nature of Sinners though not a sinful Nature which he assumed But that Nature which he undertook was existent in his Individual person and no other Individual person was existent in his existent personal Nature So that when we say it was the common Nature of Man we mean only specifice that Nature which is of the same Species with all other mens but not that which existed individually in any but himself and a Species extra individuum is nothing but an ens rationis or a notion But it was individual Persons in whose stead or place Christ suffered and whom he undertook to Justifie Sanctifie and Save and gather into a holy Society to that end and to that end he undertook and performed his office and merited all this by his perfect righteousness So that hereby he made Himself a Federal Head and Root of a holy Society his Church And whenever any person doth Believe and is united federally to him he then receiveth the effects of that which was before in Christ as a Virtus effectiva The Law made to Adam or to us did not assign Christ to this office nor oblige him to suffer or merit for sinners according to it Therefore by so doing he fulfilled not the Law as it obliged us that is by that obligation nor suffered by that obligation which bound us to suffer But by the obligation of his own Consent and that Law which was peculiar to himself as to the formal obligation though materially he was bound by it to fulfill the Law of Nature and of Moses The Law of Innocency then or Works took not Christ for the Civil or Legal Person of such Sinner or Believer no more than it made him such 4. As Gods Law to the Mediator made him this office so Christ's Law of Grace doth quod jus Relationem give to every true believing Covenanter first Christ himself in union to be their federal Head and with him title to his Grace Spirit and Glory And now they are Personally and actually his federal Subjects Friends and Members and have right to all his conferred gifts 5. But this right floweth not immediately to them from what Christ did or suffered for them but from his Law or Covenant of Grace by which as his Donative and Ruling Instrument he conveyeth that title to them 6. And therefore they have no right before the Time nor any but on the Conditions and Measure specified in that Covenant or Law so that Righteousness is not theirs because it is Christs nor in the manner or measure and to the ends of the donation 7. This much containeth the matter of this Doctrine of the Collation and Imputation of Christ's righteousness still remembring that as no one till he was a Person could be a person-guilty of Adam's sin not when he was a person any sooner than he was also guilty of his own inherent pravity and none that had the use of Reason was guilty of either or both these only without the guilt of his own Actual Sin and all three together 1. Adam's sin justly imputed to us 2. And our innate Pravity 3. And our actual Sin are the parts which constitute our plenary guilt even so no one till he is a Believer is related as a Member of a Perfectly Righteous Saviour and that is done no sooner in time that he hath the Inherent Righteousness of his personal faith and federal consent and that obligeth him to the further active righteousness of a holy life and all these three conjunct though not co-ordinate make up the total Righteousness of a Saint viz. 1. Our Relation to Christ in Union as to a perfectly Righteous Head who fulfilled all righteousness for us to merâ—â— our Justification which is called Christ's Righteousness Imputed to us as being thus far reputed ours 2. And our penitent believing consent to his Covenant which is the condition of the foresaid Relation to Christ 3. And our after Sanctification and obedience to Christ's Law 8. And when we are commonly thus far agreed of the Matter if any will contend for their self-coyned phrases and words and not being content to call Christ our Redeemer Saviour Teacher King Priest Head Lord Teâ—â—ator Sponsor or Surety Ransom Price Sacrifice c. as the Scripture doth will needs plead that he is or was our Person or was holy obedient suffered in our Persons Legal or Civil or was our Substitute Delegate Instrument c. his contention will be both corrupting and dividing And yet I will acknowledge that among Lawyers the word Person hath so many senses that in some of them were they our way of speech here it might be said that Christ did in some things personate each Sinner or each believer limitedly in tantum ad hoc non simpliciter aut ad omnia And all verbal quarrel I would shun even with them that speak ineptly and dangerously and injuriously to â—he truth and Church so they will but by a sound and necessary explication vouchsafe us an Antidote against the hurtful tendency of their â—hrases 9. Obj. If Christ's person be given us then his personal Righteousness is given us with it Ans Yes as his Person is He is not given us as Proprietors and Lords to become our Own at our dispose Nor is his Person made one Person with each or any of us His Person is not turned â—nto ours nor ours into his As the Husband is not the person of the Wife nor the King of each Subject But as one that hath a Great Wise Learned Bountiful Holy King or Husband hath also his Greatness Wisdom Learning Bounty and Holiness as they have him that is As his perfections for their good as far as his Relation binds him but not as â—f his endowments were removed from him to them or falsly reputed to â—e in them or his person to be their persons so here as we have a Christ â—o we have a perfect Righteous Christ given us to be our federal Head when we believe
I believe I grant it if 1. This be in it self as evident 2. And as certain to me as Gods Word is otherwise I deny it 236. Obj. A man cannot believe and not know that he believeth Ans But a man may sincerely believe and yet through ignorance either of the Scripture or himself be uncertain that indeed his Faith is sincere and not such as is common to the justified 237. Some Protestants by erring in this point and saying that justifying Faith is a certain perswasion or belief that we are justified and that it is Gods own Word that I or you are actually justified or are sincere Believers and that the believing it is properly fides Divina have greatly scandalized and hardened the Papists to our disgrace 238. And so have those that say that in the Creed the meaning of I believe the Remission of Sin is I believe that my sins are remitted actually And that all must thus believe 239. Some say that the Spirit within them saith that they are sincere Believers and the Word of the Spirit is the Word of God and to believâ— it is to believe God Ans This is the Enthâ—sâ—asts conceit which if true all such have prophetical Inspiration For the Spirit to bring any new word from God is one thing and to give us the Understanding Love and Obedience to such a Word is another thing The Spirit doth indeed assure us of our sincerity but not by a new Word from God to tell us so but 1. By giving us that sincere Faith it self 2. By acting it and increasing it 3. By helping us to know it 4. By giving us the love of God and other Graces 5. By giving us the comfort of all But the reception and perception of these internal Operations is not properly called a Belief of the Word of God Else when we make Gods Word the adequate Object of Faith we shall be still at an uncertainty what that Word is 240. Yet this perswasion that we are sincere and justified is divine where the Spirit causeth it but not a divine Faith Yea it is participatively of divine Faith because Gods Word is one of the premises though the weaker must denominate the conclusion * * * Of this see Albertinus's Disp at large 241. Obj. A Reprobate or Devil may believe all the Articles of Faith without application but justifying Faith applieth Christ and his benefits to our selves Ans It 's true But this application is not a certainty nor a perswasion nor a believing that I am justified no more than that I am glorified no nor that I shall be so neither But it is an accepting of Christ offered that I may be justified and saved So that here are all these applying acts in it 1. I believe that Christ as the Saviour of the World is my Saviour as he is all other mens and is not the Devils that is that he hath done that for me which he hath done for all mankind 2. I believe that he is offered to me personally in the Promise or Covenant of Grace on condition of believing-acceptance and that with and for all his purchased benefits and so for my Justification 3. I believe that if I so accept him I shall be justified 4. By true consent I do accordingly accept him to justifie sanctifie and save me But when all this is done 1. I do not believe that God hath said in his word that I am justified nor that my Faith is sincere 2. And my Faith is so weak that I may long doubt of that sincerity which I have and so of my Justification 3. And when I come to be certain of my Faith it is not by believing God as saying that I do certainly believe but by experience of its sincerity upon just trial by the Spirits help 242. No man can be sure that his Faith is sincere and saving who is not assured that it will help him to love God as God above all yea already doth so and that it mortifieth selfishness and will prevail with him to deny even life it self and all the world for Christ and Salvation So far as a man doubteth of any of this he must needs doubt of his own sincerity 243. So weak is Faith in most that are sincere and so little kept in exercise and so strong is sense and self and flesh and worldly bâ—its and interest and Satan's temptations that in my experience who have conversed with as many that are careful of their Souls as most have done I think it is a very small number that I could ever hear say I am certain of my Justification and Salvation But a great number who have lived in holy confidence hope and peace and some in great joy but most in tollerable fears and doubting and some few oppressed by those doubts So that certainty of Salvation is very rare 244. When Bellarmine saith that our assurance more belongeth to Hope than Faith and that it is but moral certainty by signs that we have of our Justification Sincerity and Salvation he so little differeth from the sense of almost all godly Protestants that were it not through other distances and partiality we had never read in Luther's days that for this one point alone we have cause enough of our alienation from the Romanists 245. They err on one extream who say that all are commanded to believe that they are justified or any as if it were Gods Word And they err on the other hand who command doubting or commend it as if it were a duty or a benefit And they speak the truth who say that our doubting of our own Sincerity and Justification if we are sincere is a sin of Infirmity and a Calamity proceeding from weakness of Faith Hope Love and Self-acquaintance which we should use all possible diligence to overcome But they that are not sincere are bound to know it And first to seek and get sincerity and then discern it 246. It is by the Spirit that all Christians must come to their assurance But not by the Spirit as speaking this in us as a word from God Thou art justified or shalt be saved or art sincere But by the aforesaid Acts The Spirit in us is first Christ's Agent Advocate and Witness to assure us that he is the Saviour of the World And next he is our Witness to assure us that we are Gods adopted Children which he doth by being in us Gods Mark and the Pledge First-Fruits and earnest of our heavenly Inheritance by effectual habituating our Souls to the predominant love of God and Holiness and Heaven Where-ever this Sanctification is there is the Evidence and Witness of our Adoption He that findeth by the Fruits that he hath the Spirit findeth the certain proof of his Justification and earnest of Glory SECT XVII Of Love as the end of Faith 247. This predominant Love of God and Holiness is so proper a Cui non unus idemque vitâ— scopus est hic
There is no Place where any Corporeal being is where some Active created Nature is not with it so that considering the proximity and the natures we may well conclude that we know of no corporal motion under the Sun which God effecteth by himself alone without any second Cause § 6. Joh. Sarisburiensis and some Schoolmen liken Gods presence with the Creature in operation to the fire in a red hot Iron where you would think all were Fire and all Iron But the similitude is too low The SUN is the most Notable Instrument in visible Nature And GOD operateth on all lower things by its virtue and influx God and the Sun do what the Sun doth and we know of nothing that God moveth here on earth that 's corporeal without it § 7. But the Sun moveth nothing as the Cartesians dream by a single Motive Influx alone but by emission of its Threefold Influx as every Active Nature doth that is Motive Illuminative and Calefactive which are One-radically in Three-effectively § 8. This Efflux of the Sun is universal and equal ex parte sui But causeth wonderful diversity of effects without diversity in God the prime Cause or in it self The same Influx causeth the Weed and Dunghill and Carrion to stink and the Flowers of the sweeter Plants to be sweet some things to live and some to dye some things to be soft and some hard c. In a word there are few changes or various actions below in bodies which the Sun is not the Cause of without difference in it self But not the specifying Cause § 9. The reason why one equal Influx causeth such wonderful diversity of motions is the DIVERSITY of RECEPTIVE DISPOSITIONS and natures Recipitur ad modum recipientis So one poise maketh various Motions in a Clock c. § 10. God operateth on second Causes as God Omnipotently but not ad ultimum potentiae but Freely as he pleaseth § 11. God worketh by second Causes according to the said Causes aptitude so that the operation of Infinite power is limited according to the quality of the second cause which God useth § 12. There is a superiority and inferiority among Spirits as well as Bodies And whether God work on all our souls by superiour Spirits as second Causes is unknown to us It is not improbable according to the order of his providence in other things But we know little of it certainly § 13. But certain we are that superiour Voluntary Agents Angels and Devils have very much to do with our souls and operate much upon them It is a wonderful power which wise observers perceive Satan hath upon the Imagination or Thinking faculty of which I could give some instances enough to convince a rational Sadducee And it is not like that good Angels have less power skill or will § 14. And we are sure that God hath ordained One Great Universal second Cause to convey his Spirit and Grace by which is JESUS CHRIST As the Sun is an Universal Cause of Motion Light and Heat to Inferiour creatures and God operateth by the Sun So is Christ set as a Sun of Righteousness by whom God will convey his spiritual Influx to mens souls and there is now no other conveyance to be expected § 15. Christs Humane Nature united personally to the Divine and Glorified is by the Office of Mediator Authorized and by Personal Union and the Fulness of the Holy Spirit enabled and fitted to this communication of Gods Spiritual Influx to mankind § 16. Object A Creature cannot be a Cause of the Operation of the Holy Ghost who is God the Creator Sending is the Act of a Superiour But Christs humanity is not superiour to the Holy Ghost Answ 1. Christ as a Creature is no Cause of any Essential or purely Immanent Act of God for that hath no Cause But 1. He is a Cause of the Spirits operation as it signifieth the effect 2. And so the cause why his Act is terminated on the soul and 3. Of the ordering of these effects why rather on this soul than on that and at this time measure c. And 2. This Christ doth not as a superiour sender of the Spirit but a Ministerial and a second cause As a Master payeth his servants as his Steward determineth § 17. It is certain that Christ is the Political Cause or Head of this spiritual Influx on souls that is As Mediator is Authorized to determine of the Persons measure time conditions of the Communication of the Spirit But whether he be a Physical Head of this Influx by proper efficiency giving the Spirit from himself as the Sun giveth us its Influx is all that is disputable That is Whether the Spirit be first given Inherently to Christ and pass from his person as his unto us as the Spirits do from the Head to the Members § 18. This question may be put either of all Natural Being and Motion or only of Spiritual Motion in the soul of man Whether Christ be so the Head of Nature as that all Nature in Heaven and Earth is sustained and actuated by him as the physical efficient Cause or whether this be true of this Lower World which was curst for sin or whether it be true at least of Humane nature or whether it be true only of Gracious operations § 19. 1. That Christ hath the Political dispose of the whole Universe contained in the words Heaven and Earth the Scripture seemeth to assert 2. That he hath the Political disposal of humane nature and of all other creatures that belong to man so far as they belong to him Angels Devils Sun Air Earth c. is past dispute 3. That the real â—hysical effects acts and habits of the Spirit on mens souls are caused by Christs Moral Causation by his Merit and his Political Mission is past dispute 4. That besides all this the Spirit it self by Baptism is in Covenant with all the members of Christ and that as they are such and is in a prior Covenant first Related to Christ himself and so by this Covenant given us in relation as we are united to Christ is past dispute 5. And that Christ himself doth make such Physical changes on our souls by Means and by the foresaid Political Mission of the Spirit by which we are made Receptive of more of the Spirits operations is past dispute 6. But whether moreover any Action of Christs own Humane soul glorified do physically reach our souls or whether the Holy Ghost may in its own essential Virtue which is every where be said to be more in Christ than elsewhere and communicated to us as from the root or the Spirits effects on the soul to come by Reflection from the first effects on Christ as Light and Heat from the Sun by a Speculum or Burning-glass are questions not for me to determine § 20. Christs spiritual Influx on souls is not single but is ever Three in One as the Sun 's aforesaid which are according to
these following evidences § 6. 1. In that he hath made so large provision of means and that in an admirable frame which is as it were a Moral world Which he would never do in vain nor if he ordinarily workt without them that work which he hath appointed them to do It is the reason of the Brittish Divines in their suffrages at Dort Had not God decreed to work Grace by means he could have done it with a fiat § 7. 2. The Glory of this Kingdom or Sapiential Rule which is so constantly and largely given him in the Scripture Psal 103. 10. and 145. and 119. throughout and Matth. 25. As the Ship master or Pilot is praised who by a Helm can turn about the Ship as he will Jam. 3. 4. § 8. 3. God worketh on all things according to their nature And this is suitable to the nature of man And the Causation is answerable to the effect And ORDER is a moral effect which needeth not a Creation but a moral ordering Causation § 9. 4. Experience telleth us that those prosper best in grace that most faithfully and diligently use the means And we never knew of any man 1 Tim. 4. 15. Prov. â— 20 21. 3. 5. 8. 13. 4. in the world that came to Actual knowledge faith or Love without means but all by the causality of them § 10. 5. We find that the greatest neglecters and despisers of means are every where most graceless and the worst of men § 11. 6. We have Ministers and people frequent and strict commands to use means most diligently constantly and carefully § 12. 7. We have abundance of promises of Gods blessing upon the Licet omnis causa secundâ— proprie dicta causet effectum ex natura rei tamen quod ipsa sit causa non est ex natura rei quia solum ex voluntate Dei Alliac in 4. q. 1. F. use of means Act. 26. 17. I send thee to open their eyes and turn them Rom. 10. How shall they hear without a Preacher c. Isa 55. 2 3. Hear and your souls shall live Matth. 28. 20. I am with you alwayes c. Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me Psal 19. 7 c. The Law of the Lord is pure Converting the soul 1 Pet. 1. It is the incorruptible Seed that regenerateth us Heb. 4. The word is powerful and a searcher of the heart c. § 13. 8. When God will save a people he sends them the Gospel and Amos 8. 11. Prov. 29. 1â— when he will forsake them he taketh it away § 14. 9. The Devil sheweth his malice to souls and grace by opposing the means depriving men of them or keeping them from them or from the faithful using of them § 15. But it is none of my meaning that the bare means of it self doth change the soul or that it is the principal cause But only that God operateth Moral effects by Moral means as he doth Natural by Natural means being still the prime Cause of all himself § 16. If we thus conjoyn all Causes and separate not what God hath conjoyned it will help us the better to escape errour in this matter But if men will dream that all the honour or action that is ascribed to second causes is a derogation from God and a dishonouring of him they forsake the truth and injure him § 17. For if this were true that to honour the means or acknowledge Though God be proxiâ—uâ—â— not as in loco in all his operations yet seeing he operateth by second causes he doth it according to them as all experience tells us Therefore to end these Controversies we should consider more how those causes operate second Causes and their aptitude and efficacy is to dishonour God then God should be the greatest dishonourer of himself by making and using such causes and means And so many Creatures as there be in the world so many dishonours are cast on God and the excellentest Creatures would dishonour him most which sottish conceit must needs be joyned with Manichaeism that an ill God was the Maker of the World God is Glorious in all his works and shineth to us in them all SECT V. Of the Causes of the different Effects of Grace and Means § 1. * * * Gerhard Tom. 2. de lib. aâ—b cap. 6. §. 1. supposeth that no cause of the efficacy of Grace is found in the will of man as being dead and vicious but yet that Grace doth not physically determine the will but so work as leaveth it a power to resist and that resistance is it that maketh the difference between man and man by making Grace uneffectual And Georg. Calixtus was of the same mind as you may see in his words de Minist Verbi p. 241. in Judic de Controvers num 33. See â—e Blank Thes de distinct Gratiâ— ALl that is Good in the Difference between man and man is Willed by God and Caused by him But nothing that is Morally Evil. § 2. As in Nature God seemeth to Cause Motion in genere by an equal universal Influx of the Sun which maketh no difference per se but per accidens But the wonderful variety of motions and effects is otherwise caused So it seemeth that Christ the Sun of Righteousness affordeth by his Means of Nature which he Politically manageth an indifferent influx or help for Action as Action to the souls of men which as Dr. Twisse frequently saith well is to be called Nature rather than Grace except as the repriving of Nature is Grace so far as it is meer Power to Act because it is equally indifferent to a good act as a bad and to do or not do § 3. The Power of Action as such being given by an equal Natural Universal Influx it is the ORDER of Actions where we must enquire of the difference and its Cause § 4. Action it self is not a proper substantial being but a Modus Rei But yet it is such a Mode as by the Cartesians leave requireth more Causation to it than a meer non agere doth But ORDO Actionum is but a modus modi § 5. ORDO is the beauty of the World and soul the genus of all Relation in fundamento and of all morality and worthy to have had a notable place in the predicaments And yet we know not what to call it whether any thing or nothing The ORDO Rerum is not Res And it is Rerum status which we better know in se than we know with what Logical Notion to cloth it § 6. This excellent Nothing is the summ of Morality in its form and the business of frail man on earth and much of the glory of the Church triumphant in Heaven It is Gods work and not ours to make new substances It is ours to keep ORDER in our selves as Gods work yea in the Actions which God by Nature enableth us to So vain a thing is man that
make this motion to be somewhat received before we act and yet nothing but our act which is absurd IV. Other Thomists hold that It is somewhat really distinct from our operations and that is Quoddam complementum virtutis activae quo actualiter agat And he that knoweth what predicament this complementum belongeth to and what it is let him take this opinion for more than a meer complement And here they tell you that they speak not of Gods simultaneous concurse for that Alvarez confesseth is nothing besides Gods essence and mans act But of his previous motion which he saith is somewhat more So Amesius Antisynod de Grat. c. 2. pag. 255. Satis esset apud omnes pios dicere Dei Velle sine ulla Impressione intercedente certe posse efficere ut Voluntas consentiat ipsius Vocationi I now meddle not with the truth of this and Twisses argument is easily answered But I intreat the Reader to note into what all our controversies are by these excellent men reduced who yet most aggravate them What now is the Gratia efficax ad credendum Nothing besides Gods esse but ipsa fides Is faith effective of it self No. Is Gods essential will effective of it Who ever denyed it What place is there for Controversies of sufficiency and efficacy when it is but Gods essence and the known effect of which they speak and hold not as Alvarez doth any motion or Impress made by God upon mind or will at all Gods will then is effectual quia vult effectum and it is virtually sufficient for whatever he willeth not but could will But then no man can possibly do any more good or less evil than he doth because no more or less is willed of God which volition is the first necessary Cause of all things And is not all their Volumes de Auxiliis Gratiae and the several sorts previous simultaneous operating co-operating c. meerly vain when there is no such thing as any Grace besides Gods meer will and the Act of man And yet Dr. Twisse elsewhere saith that Gods Decrees do nihil ponere in objecto As if they differed in the nature of motion And he saith that this is true both of supernatural acts which are from Infused habits as faith hope Love and of Imperfect supernaturals as fear of hell and attrition by which man is remotely prepared for Justification ◠which proceed not from supernatural habits but from the spirits special impulse not yet inhabiting but moving And Alvarez thus concludeth I. That which God doth in second causes by which these act is Aliquid habens esse quoddam incompletum per modum quò colores sunt in aere virtus artis in instrumento artificis It is Aliquid incompletum transiens cum ipsa operatione Are you ever the wiser for all this II. Hoc ens incompletum praevium actioni causae secundae producitur in illa effective à solo Deo nullo modo dependet efficienter ex influx◠ipsius causae secundae And therefore herein the will is passive though not in its own Act as he falsly affirmeth Luther to assert for what can act and not be active III. When second causes natural or supernatural have by their inherent form sufficient Active virtue per modum actus primi proportioned with the effect then Gods premotion is not a Quality but proprio vocabulo dicitur Motio Virtuosa by which the universal cause maketh the second actually operate according to its proper mode Therefore it is not a Habit or disposition or natural power IV. Yea in Imperfect supernatural acts as fear of hell which go before habits and by preventing grace are elevated to the acts it is not a Quality but Motio Dei virtuosa by which they are done and is of the same sort with that which causeth acts from habits V. This previous Motion is Really distinct from the operation of the second cause and is not our act it self but is immediately from God Which he useth many arguments to prove And can all this give any man a formal conception what it is which he calleth aliquid incompletum and Motio Virtuosa We know not what the Vis projectis impressa is in corporeals And can we tell how spirits and how the God of spirits maketh his Impressions or what the word Impression or Motion here signifieth We know that we know it not if we know what we know and know-not And why is it called Motio Virtuosa Virtus he maketh a quality It is no quality and yet Virtuosa Omnis motio est Actio Is it Actio Increata Then it is God himself which he denyeth and speaketh of somewhat between God and mans Act. Is it Actio creata Then it is a Modus Agentis for so is every Action as such as distinct from its effect in patiente And if so it cannot be modus Dei for then it is Ipse Deus And if it be modus hominis it is either homini◠agentis vel patientis If the first then it is mans Action If the second it is formally no action For modus patientis is passio though many would confound action and passion with saying after their Masters that Actio est in patiente which is equivocation So that the plain truth is that mans understanding can reach no further than to conceive 1. That our souls are the termini of Gods Volition and Active power 2. That though God act not on us by corporeal contact yet we must call our selves Patients and think of the Attingency of his Active essence with its effects by some Analogie of Corporeal attingency contact and impressed moving force But truly to know how God toucheth moveth operateth on any Creature and by what Impressions or what there is indeed between Gods essence and mans Act we know not at all And if Christ had never said Joh. 3. so is every one that is born of the spirit our own experience might have told us that we know it not Boldly then tell our Church-distracting wranglers that contend about the nature sufficiency efficacy resistibility of this Act of Grace that they know not the very subject of their disputes And shall we still fire the Church by striving about words that profit not but subvert the hearers and tend to the increase of ungodliness Yea and shall bold blind zeal use the Reverend names of God and his precious Truth to colour and countenance these pernicious contentions I grant that the nature of Grace and the concord of it with Free-will may be soberly treated of But when men have followed the controversie beyond the ken of humane understanding and there will proceed to build great Fabricks upon unknown suppositions and perversly contend for them against Love and peace they do but serve Satan against God under the colour of his sacred truth and name And I think it not amiss here to tell you what Alvarez saith to this Question de Aux l. 12. disp 118. p.
cessationem aâ— vaâ—ationem ab aâ—â—u boâ— necessitate naturaliter praecedentâ— cor p. 649. Omnia quâ— sunt fiunt aut eveniâ—â—t sunt â—â—â—â— eveniunt â—â— aliquâ— necessitate ipâ—â— naturalâ—tâ—r praecedentâ— This is just Hobbs Soâ— 5. â—â— 654 that No creature hath simple liberty of Contradiction or Contingency but only secundum quid in respect to second causes but only Gods acts of will ad extra are simply free and contingent As if God had given no creature Liberty to forbear sin or do good but doing it or not doing it were from Gods necessitation though not from the creatures The Dominicans the Masters of the Inquisition and Murderers of the Waldenses and Albigenses of old and therefore faulty as well as the Jesuits though there are very Learned men among them both do commonly hold that No Creature natural or free can act unless God by Immediate physical efficient premotion predetermine it to that act both in the act as such which they call the substance of it and all the modes circumstances and order of it 3. Augustine and Jansenius after him with their true followers hold not this necessity of predetermining premotion to all acts natural or sinful but only to spiritual good acts which is not from the Nature but the Corruptâ—â—n of â—â—an and therefore the predetermination is not made say they by Gods Common Natural Motion but by Medicinal Grace 4. Durandus and his followers as Lud. à Dola and Aureolus partly do hold that if God do but uphold â—ll creatures as compaginate in the Universe in the Nature he made them in and so natural Inclination and media and objects all supposed this sustentation and Influx maintaining their Active Natures and means is sufficient to cause an Act without another particular predetermining premotion of God As e. g. in Naturals they think that if a Rock were violently held up in the Air God continuing its Natural Gravity and all other circumstant Natures and Concauses this Rock if loosed can fall down of it self without another predetermining premotion of God And that a new Act of God supposing the said support of Nature is more necessary to the not-falling than to the falling of it As it was to the fires not burning the Three Confessors Dan. 3. And I am unable to see the error of this Opinion And so in Free agents they think that if God continue the Nature of a free-will with all circumstants and necessary natures it can freely determine it self without another act of predetermining premotion And doth so in each act of sin Though as Jansenius saith by accidental corruption for Conversion we need Medicinal Grace 5. The Jesuits and all others explode this Opinion of Durà ndus as singular but give so little and slender reason of their dissent as would draw one the more to suspect their cause Instead of it they scarce know what to assert But Bellarmine and the chiefest of them under a pretended opposition speak I think the same in other words Even an Universal Concurse like that of the Sun which operateth in specification according to the nature of Recipients which specifie the effect Which Universal Influx no doubt Aureolus and Durandus include in Gods sustentation of Nature For to sustain an Active Nature in all its Active disposition by a suitable active Influx is universally to cause its motion The difference they are unable to assign 6. After these come Hobbs Cartesius and Gassendus with a swarm of Epicureans a Sect commonly despised even in Cicero's time and yet called Wits in ours by men that have no more wit than themselves and some of these say that Motion needeth no continued cause at all any more than non-movere But when a thing is in motion it will so continue because it is its state without any other continued cause than the motion it self And so they may as well say and some do that when a thing is in Being it will so continue till it be positively annihilated without any continued causation of its being As if esse existere were nothing more than non esse and agere were no more noble a mode of Entity than non agere and so needed no more that is no Cause For non esse non agere need no Cause When this distraction is worn out and shamed the next Age will reproach us for attempting the confutation of it And yet the Wits of this delirant Age have not the wit to understand a Confutation Some of them say that Spirits cannot move bodies for want of Contact as Gassendus Some say that Matter and Motion are eternal and that of themselves As if there were no God but Matter and Motion Some say that there is a God who gave matter one push at first and so set it in that motion by which one body by a knock will move another to the end And some say There is no other Intellect but the wonders of wisdom and order in the World are done by such fortuitous motion But Hobbes meeteth the Predeterminants and saith that the Will is free in that its Act is Volition but that this Volition is necessitated by superiour or natural Causes as much as any motion in a Clock or Watch and that it is unconceivable that any Act or Mode of Act can be without a necessitating efficient cause But he differs from them in his consequents and in the Notion of a Spirit acknowledging no being but Corporeal § 2. The Predeterminants commonly build not their doctrine on Gods free-will but on the Necessity of the thing As if it were a contradiction which God cannot do for God to make a creature that can Determine it self ad ordinem actionis without his particular predetermining premotion or to make a Stone that can fall from the Air of it self unless he move it downwards besides his sustentation of its natural gravity and all other natures by his Influx or universal Concurse § 3. But till they can prove the Contradiction they must pass for the denyers of Gods Omnipotency which is to deny a God § 4. * * * Let the Reader note 1. That all the rest of their arguments save this one are of no value 2. And that Dr. Twisse affirmeth that God is not alwayes the effector of all Good either of Profit or Pleasure which yet he saith are Good Now if there be no such Entity in Bonum conducibile vel Bonum Jucundum as necessarily to require God to be the Cause of them tell us if you can Why there is so much entity in Malum morale as that man is not able to cause it unless God predetermine his will Yea as to Entity there is no more in Bonum honestum than in the rest fore-named His words are Nos tueri poterimus Malum fieri esse Bonum per se neâ—â—pe in genere Boni conducibilis ad certum aliquem fiâ—â—m sed arguit adversarius Ergo Deus esset non modo
have of help to it is caused otherwise not by this common Influx of God as the root of Nature but by a special Gracious Influx with and by special supernatural means And this it doth only to Good and not to Evil and not alwayes with a causally necessitating influx as to our act § 12. He addeth If the will need not Gods motion to its Act in specie it is either in genere entis or in genere moris The first cannot be said For the special Nature includeth the General and more And the species in genere moris are no species of acts but only accidents of humane acts and that only by extrinsick denomination as to the Law c. Answ 1. The vanity of arbitrary Logical notions is a wood for you to hide the matter in You are not able certainly to define what physically specifieth an Action and what not To say that one is the species of an Act and the other is but an accident and no species is but to say that you will say what you list We use to say that Acts are specified by their objects And so when objects differ specie physica vel morali the acts do so But when the question is with Judas shall I betray my Master or not with another shall I be perjured or not with another shall I commit this Adultery or not with another shall I pray in season or out of season to another shall I love God or the creatures more shall I will or not will this shall I will it or nill it c. Here you are so much at liberty that you may please your self with saying that to betray and not betray to forswear and not to forswear to love more or less in degree c. are physical species of entity and so make physical species of Action But I will not say that non agere non ens is a species of Entity physical Nor do I believe that we need Gods Influx ad non agendum as such And as for your Accidents of Actions if you mean Relations it is their fundamentum that we are questioning The extrinsick denomination is founded in Relation or else it 's Causeless In a word Man by Common Influx can determine his own will to go this way rather than that and also not to go and this without a further physical predetermining premotion of God § 13. But here let the Reader note that when he maketh Moral Good and Evil no species of Actions but an extrinsick denomination which is true abstracting the relation from the fundamental difference of the Acts and maketh God the Naturally necessitating Cause of all that is physical in the acts he maketh God equally the necessitating prime Cause of Good and Evil which are but relations resulting from the specified acts § 14. He addeth If God move the will it is to that same act which it doth or to another If to another why should it be said that God moved it to that which is not done rather than that which is done when we speak not of moral but necessary physical motion Answ The Particle To doth cheat you by ambiguity 1. As to noteth the effect of God alone it is to the Impress which he maketh on the soul which effect he still obtaineth which urgeth it towards its own act 2. The same I say if to signifie an absolutely intended end 3. But if to signifie the natural tendency of Gods Impulse as to an effect possible and desirable yea and due by command from the subordinate cause mans will then it was to our act of repentance faith duty that God moved us That is he gave us that Power and necessary influx by which it might and ought to have been done by us § 15. It is but to make toil for the Reader to answer all these fallacies and quibbles founded in some false supposition or ambiguous word else I would answer the rest of that Digression and his Digres 5. li. 1. p. 2. contra Alvar. Only here I must take notice that in this Digr 9. he himself rejecteth Greg. Arim. and Hurtado's assertion of Gods Determining us to this or that Numerical Act as distinct from another ejusdem speciei ut merum figmentum ad curiositati hominum nimium infoelici satisfaciendum duntaxat introductum Whereas were it not for wearying the Reader I might shew that the same Reasons will hold for or against this numerical as are for or against his specifical predetermination And the species having no existence but in the individuals and himself saying that Gods motion is ad actus singulares if he say that it is not to that singular act that is done rather than that which is not done he giveth up his whole cause § 16. But to this he hath an answer that it is a fiction and unsound to say that Possibilia quae nondum existunt do differre numero cum differre numero est tantum existentium Answ 1. He may as well say that esse possibile is a fiction when possibile is terminus diminuens ad esse And is not possibile as much a fiction de specie as de numero That which is not neither is in specie nor in numero But there is a Possibilitas numeri as well as speciei Yet with this answer he oft insulteth over the Schoolmen when at another time he would have said that Possibile hath an esse cognitum in both respects § 17. And I think the good man forgat that by this he quite overthroweth his Book de Scientia Media and much of all his other Books which are animated with the supposition of Gods Will causing faturition from eternity For if only existentia differunt numero futura non sunt existentia And if the futurition of differentia numero be not decreed nor eternal as of this Sun this Earth Paul Peter and their singular acts c. then nothing is future from eternity And so we are brought to the Arminians election of species only and not of individuals in primo instanti which is rejected Sure God electeth Individuals or none And if so it is future individuals Individuation existeth not but in existentibus But if foreknowledge and Decree may be of futures and non-existents it may be of individuals that are such as well as of species § 18. Yea he proceedeth to say pag. 412. Deum scire plura esse possibilia quam sunt non est scire multitudinem rerum possibilium sed tantum scire se praestare posse ut detur major multitudo rerum existentium quam actu sit Quare multitudo rerum individuarum Deo notum est tantum existentium sive ea sit multitudo actualis sive potentialis c. And yet the soul of his Book de Scientia Media is Causa transitionis rerum è numero Possibilium in numerum futurorum And my foresaid opposition to his Eternal Causation of futurity is hereby confirmed 2. It 's
an Infinite effect But the world is not Infinite § 4. As to the second question it is either de nomine or de re If the former let every man speak as he list for me rather than I will contend with him whether Creation of faith be a fit name As to the matter 1. It is agreed on that faith is not a substance 2. Nor an Accident con-created with a substance 3. Nor a composition of substances into one done by secondary Creation Generation or Art 4. But that it is the right ordered Act of a substance whose natural power which performeth it was pre-existent though without that act and the moral disposition Therefore it being a Modus entis or modus modi that we talk of the common name is Alteration and suscitation actuating and ordering But if men sober sometime call it a New Creation as indeed the whole frame of holiness together is called the New Creature in the Scriptures and sometimes the Divine nature sometimes Regeneration sometimes a Divine Artifice Alteration Conversion Sanctification c. it is the same thing that is meant by all their several names § 5. As to the third Question Whether it be a Miracle * * * Justificationem non esse proprie Miraculum Vid. Malder ib. p. 578. Et Brâ—anson in 4. q. 8. Cor. 2. fol. 144. confessing it above the power of a Creature to justifie us but not properly a miracle p 1. As a Miracle signifieth a wonder a thing is wonderful either for the Rarity or for the Great appearance of Gods power in it In the first respect faith is not so Rare as to be a miracle In the second the Sun and Heavens are a greater wonder than faith 2. But as a Miracle signifieth that which is done by second Causes but unknown to us and out of Gods ordinary way of working so it is no miracle 3. And as some men call that a Miracle which exceedeth the power of the second causes so all things would be Miracles that God doth For they are effects of his power as exceeding the power of second causes 4. As a Miracle is that which is done by God without any second causes †††Many good people would never be so much against the acknowledgement of second Causes if they understood the matter But they ignorantly think it derogateth from God the first cause so some think that the propagation of souls is a miracle But of souls and faith it is much unknown to us how far God useth second causes But that Generation as to one and Preaching and all other means to the other are some sort of second causes * * * We have no reason to think that God useth no second cause in working faith It is much to be noted which Pet. de Alllaco saith in 4. q. 1. E. Plus facit Deut faciendo aliquem effectum mediante causa secunda quam si faceret euâ—dem effectum se solo Quia in prima factione sunt plures termini divina actionis quam in secunda For as he said before Quandocunque Deus facit aliquem effectum mediante causa sceunda ipse non solum facit illum effectum sed etlam facit causam secundam esse causam illius effecti Marâ— this well is sure 5. And lastly if by a Miracle be meant that effect which God produceth both above the power of second causes and by a more glorious exertion of his own power than in his Course of Nature and Government he useth by and with second causes so it is not a Miracle because in the way of his ordinate co-operation with his Gospel he ordinarily produceth it § 6. So that as all Christians must confess that we had never believed if God had not wrought it in us by that spirit of Wisdom and Love which is Omnipotent so to contend any further whether it be a Miracle and a proper Creation or an effect of Omnipotency as such c. are such questions as presumptuous Schoolmen heretofore and hot-headed Sectaries in our times have used to afflict the Church of Christ with and to tempt their ignorant zealous followers into such employments as most effectually destroy their charity and injure others and scandalize the world SECT XV. Of the sufficiency and efficacy of Grace § 1. I Have said so much of this before as that lest I be tedious by repetition I must be but brief * * * Malderus against the Synod of Dort and 1. 2. q. 111. art 3. dub 8. bestirs himself with special industry to tell what Gratia efficax is And he concludeth that it is afflatus gratiae praevenientis sub genere gratiae excitantis quae non respuitur cum respui possit rather praeparans voluntatem quam adjuvans rejecting Valentia who placeth it in the Habit of Grace caused by excitation and à Lorca who takes it to be adjuvant and those that make it co-operant and those that place it in praedetermination physical of which he confuteth four opinions p. 502. and saith Probabilior sententia est quae negat omnimodam gratiae infallibilitatem adeóque efficaciam sumi posse ex sola reali aliqua differentia considerata ex parte gratiae praevenientis And that Just and unjust have effectual grace and therefore it differeth not from sufficient really And he resolveth all per scientiam mediam that Grace is effectual because ex proposito convertendi Deus it a hominem trabit sicut aptum novit ut sequatur certissime secuâ—urum and so that Grace iâ— effectual er natura sua and not so called only ex eventu I. By sufficient Grace is meant that which is necessary to the effect and without which it Cannot be but with it it may be though it sometimes be not § 2. That there is such a sufficient Grace not alwayes effectual to mans act is before proved by Adams Case And that no man hath such now for any means or duty in order to his recovery as Adam had to stand when he fell is not to be asserted or received And that no prepared soul hath such sufficient Grace to believe that yet believeth not is a thing that is past our reach to know § 3. This sufficient Grace consisteth in a Power to the act when the Indisposition of the natural power is so far altered or repressed as that by the means and helps vouchsafed by God the act is Morally possible to be done For he that truly can do it all things considered is well said to have such necessary grace § 4. But God of his bounty usually giveth men more than such a meer moral possibility by many additional helps and urgencies to the act which I mentioned before § 5. But by sufficient is not meant As much as is useful yea or needful to the Ascertaining of the Event much less to the meliority of the act § 6. II. The EFFICACY of Grace relateth to the effect And
cause Moral Good and hinder Moral Evil and by which as our Lover and End he will draw mans soul to himself in Love § 20. God as Rector though he vary his Laws in some things to several ages and places and promulgate the same Gospel with inequality on several accounts yet according to the respective Laws that they are under dealeth with all men in a certain equality which is called Justice that is His Laws antecedently to mans acts make not difference and as Judge he maketh none but what mans different actions require according to the said Laws and Justice But yet as Owner and as Benefactor he is free not against but above his Laws to make many inequalities which are no injustice they being not acts of formal Government and so he may do with his own as he list And thus though God give all their due according to his Law of Grace yet he giveth to his Elect such proportions of Grace as he gave them no antecedent Right to by his Law or at least to many of them passing by the controversie now whether he do so to them all § 21. God could cure and sanctifie all men if it were his Absolute will but he doth not and will not being no way obliged And he will be no loser nor sufferer by the creatures sin § 22. Gods absolute will is as fully accomplished by mans free acts as if they were all necessitated and Natural And mans actions are as free as if God had made no Absolute Decree of their futurity as in Good he hath done if we may so ascribe futurity to his Decrees § 23. It seemeth that all sin beginneth in the wills omission of what it was able to have done Even when Adams appetite was to the forbidden fruit and some think that this was the first part of the sin it seemeth that it was rather in the Wills not restraining that appetite when it could have done it And then positive sins do follow thereupon § 24. There is more Brutishness in sin and consequently more privative and less positive faultiness of the Reason and Will than many do consider which Paul partly meaneth Rom. 7. For it is certain 1. That a passion e. g. anger or fear may be forced on a man suddenly as â—n a Brute without Reason As if you come behind one and affright him or strike him suddenly no Reason raised that passion and consequently no Rational Will 2. It is certain that this passion without Reason can cause despotically a corporal motion as the fearful will start and run and the angry strike without any reason or rational will but as a Beast doth 3. It is certain that it is the office of the Will to Rule this passion and these motions 4. And that it must have due information from the understanding that so to do is good and best 5. If this information of the understanding did never miss of determining the Will then man would never sin but when the understanding failed of its necessary office before the will which would resolve all sin into the will of God as much as if he directly moved the will to it by necessitating unresistible predetermination For the Intellect as such hath no Liberty but is necessitated by objects further than it is under the Empire of the Will And the Objects and Intellect are made by God 6. Therefore it followeth that there is a certain measure of Intellecâ—â—â—l true apprehension according to which the will can excite and determine it self without â—â—y thing which it hath not and yet can forbear And that this not-willing what and when it should is the beginning of all sin § 25. God is no Efficient or Desicient cause of this first Omission of the will For efficient it hath none And deficient God is not who gave man power to have done it But man is the deficient Cause § 26. Man 's not believing not knowing not loving not obeying not desiring trusting fearing c. being the far greatest part of the sins of his life * * * Which made the worthy Bishop Usher dye with these words as his last But Lord in special forgive my â—â—â— of omission we see by this are not at all of God § 27. Though multitudes of positive Acts of sin do follow such omissions and go before some of them yet they being not sinful as Acts but as Disordered against the Rule and End and upon undue objects and especially comparatively preserring the wrong object before the right it seemeth that in their first instances they are all Omissive and Positive in the second only which maketh the Schoolmen so commonly say that sin is a Privation § 28. Yet the Moral formal Relation of sin is not only Privative but a Positive Disobedience or Disconformity And so as Quid Morale formaliter sin hath as much Relative being as Duty hath viz. 1. As contra Legem significantem 2. Contra Voluntatem Dei significatam 3. Et contra Jâ—â— Divini Dominii Imperii Amoris § 29. If any be unsatisfied in this it is certain that in the Velle hoc prohibitum potius quam hoc imperatâ—m there is no more physical entity than in the Velle imperatum no nor than there is in the Velle indefinitely considered as on any object Or if any deny that it is certain that there is no such addition of Entity it being but ordo modi in any such sinful Act from which as such the formal obliquity or sin resulteth but what man can do and doth without Gods causing the Act as so ordered and terminated So that God is no way the cause of formal sin § 30. †††Bradwardiâ— dealeth more plainly and maketh Gods effectual Volition to be the total immediate cause that man sinneth though it be no sin in God to do so and saith that God willeth it for good uses as the sinner doth or if he do not it is because God maketh him unavoidably do otherwise They that say He causeth all that man causeth and that as the first necesâ—itating or insuperable cause but yet is not the cause of the form of sin contradict themselves seeing that form is but a Relation which resulteth ipso facto from its fundamentam and terminus and nè per divinam potentiam cannot but do so And hath no other cause but what causeth them § 31. And they that say that yet God is not the Author of sin because he is under no Law do but sport with dreadful things And they mean that God is the chief Cause of all mens sins in the world but not of any sin of his own which is none of the question § 32. God doth neither Cause the sin nor the futurity or existence of it as some vainly distinguishing maintain especially Dr. Twisse and Rutherford For as Estius and others truly say to cause the sin is nothing but to cause the existence of it And sin as sin Dr. Twisse often
yet he commandeth it and requireth it of us But exciting and adjuvant Grace are all one on Gods part And if you will difference the same things as connoting divers effects you must denominate it more fitly from the effects by words that notifie the difference IX Adjuvant Grace and Free-will are not Partial Causes of supernatural Consent as two drawing a Boat so as neither is premoved by the other or maketh it co-operate with it Answ True For God premoveth the will of man though through mans fault it be not ever effectual And though Gods will and mans be two Causes of the same effect the term Partial is scarce fit while man hath his whole power and activity from God X. Scientia media is not to be ascribed to God But all prescience of the future co operation of the will even from the foresaid Hypothesis presupposeth in signo rationis the free decree of Gods will by which absolutely or granting that Hypothests he will in us and with us effect that operation if Good and permit it if Evil. Answ Here come in your presumptions of things unknown or false 1. That God knoweth future contingents and conditionals is certain But I think this scientia media unfitly named and an unnecessary distribution and insufficient to the Jesuits ends 2. And your fiction of signa rationis and the necessary antecedence of a decree of Gods to his knowledge of every Volition of man is a more ungrounded and perillous figment which you have not proved It seemeth a denyal of Gods Omniscience or perfection that he cannot know an act future as future but only as decreed to be so 3. You deceitfully talk of permitting evil while you plead for the irresistible predetermining premotion of the will by God to every evil act with all its circumstances Is that but Permitting 4. To permit is Nothing no act of God but a non-agency not to hinder And how prove you that God must of necessity have a Positive Decree for every Nothing or non-agency Is not the not-willing or not-decreeing to hinder a lye e. g. supposing natural concurse or to make more worlds enough to the production of that lye by an ill inclined nature or to the not-being of more Worlds We are in the dark and God is infinitely above us and these tremendous mysteries are not to be so presumptuously handled by unproved assertions XI There is on our part no Cause Reason or Condition assignable for which Gods supernatural providence in comparison of this or that hath the formal reason of predestination or retaineth the common reason of providence but predestination is to be reduced into the sole free-will of God Answ Most of this is about meer words The word Predestination connoteth various effects and objects and so is called various Acts. There is no efficient Cause in the Creature of any act of God But there are objects without which Gods Acts have not their special denominations and these objects are the termini and called Material Constitutive Causes of those various acts as denominated various specially or numerically And so Gods Decree or Will to Justifie and Glorifie man hath something in the object as a necessary condition of it * * * That is of that object which is not â—â— the object of his decree of giving faith And that hath something in its object which is not in the object of the decree of giving a Redeemer to the World or making the World c. if you will at all distinguish Gods decrees by their objects or effects But if not there will be no matter for any Controversie And Predestination is an ambiguous word If it be taken for All Gods fore-decreeing or all about man or all of Good to us then our Being is the first effect of it in us and the making of the World a preparatory effect c. And so no doubt the first effect supposed us no men before and therefore no condition in us But if you take Predestination for Gods decree of Giving us Grace and Glory only then it is presupposed that we are lapsed sinners And the decree of damning men is exercised only on them as foreknown damnable sinners And the decree of penal denying Grace or faith to sinners for sin supposeth them such punishable sinners But the bare Negation of a Decree to give faith to one to whom the absence is no privation is unfitly called Reprobation though men may talk at their own rates And we grant that some such no-decrees have no condition in the objects for they have no objects e. g. If you will feign that God decreed from eternity to give me no faith before the Creation or before I was born or to give Innocent Adam no faith in a Saviour as dying for him this were no reprobating act But when God hath given men a Saviour with his common grace to believe in and accept here if he deny them necessary grace to believe it is a penal act And note that Christ and Common grace as absolutely given to mankind and offered to individuals ever goeth before mens accepting or refusing him And no man to whom he is offered refuseth him for want of necessary help till by sin against that grace he forfeit it XII God by an absolute and efficacious decree of his Will antecedently to the prescience of the future good use of free-will predetermined all good acts which are done in time specially those by which the predestinate come to eternal life Answ The substance of this seemeth true only 1. Whether you fitly denominate a decree efficacious from eternity which effecteth nothing till the Time I leave to them that dispute of words 2. You presumptuously determine Gods Decrees to be antecedent to his prescience herein when they are neither before nor after one another 3. If by predetermining you mean more than predecreeing or prevolition as if mans will was predetermined when it was not determined or determined before it had a being you speak contradictions But Gods own will was eternally determined if we may so say of that which was never undetermined to give all the grace that he giveth in time and to cause all the good acts that he causeth as he causeth them XIII The Co-operation of free-will with the gifts of grace is in the predestinate an effect of predestination and efficiently proceedeth from God making us by the help of grace freely to co-operate and consequently dependeth not on the sole and innate liberty of the will Answ I think so too XIV We must necessarily distinguish of a twofold help of Grace one sufficient by which man may be converted to God or work piously The other effectual by which God effecteth that he be actually converted and act piously Answ Hold to that and contradict not the terms in your description and all 's well XV. The effectual help of preventing or preoperating grace moveth mans free-will to act not only by perswading alluring inviting or other
causeth no antecedent necessity but concomitant existentiae 3. This supposeth Gods Scientia futuri conditionalis Against this Dr. Twisse hath said much in a peculiar Digression And surely God ever operateth as God which is ut Causa prima But how far he determineth is the doubt i a capable object of knowledge And therefore he knoweth what conditional propositions of future contingents are true 2. Whether this should be called scientia media or not is a vain question 3. Gods acts ex parte sui being but his Essence and all one can no otherwise be distinguished nor ordered as to the denominations of priority or posteriority than as the objects are distinct and by their order of priority and posteriority allow us by Connâ—tation so to denominate the acts 4. The Intelligibility and the Amability of things are in themselves simultaneous though from the order of humane operations we say that things are first Intelligible before they are Amiable And so we may say of God after the manner of men but not otherwise 5. God doth not will the form or the act of sin as circumstantiated and as the form necessarily resulteth from it neither for it self nor propter aliud the essence or existence 6. Therefore God doth not foreknow sin as willed and decreed by him nor therefore foreknow it because he willeth it 7. God fore-knoweth or knoweth the formale peccati as well as the materiale yet almost all confess that he willeth not the formale Therefore he knoweth that which he willeth not Therefore his Volition of it is not necessary to his knowledge of it 8. There is no effect in God for all that is in God is God who is not effected Therefore there is no Cause in God of any thing in God Therefore Gods will or decree of Good is not the cause that he foreknoweth it noâ— his foreknowledge the cause that he willeth it But he both knoweth and willeth all that is Good at once 9. Gods inward operations on the soul are real efficiencies and yet moral and to us unsearchable They cause the will to determine it self to Good when it doth so but how we know not But we know that he ordinarily worketh by means and according to their aptitude 10. God useth such means with the free wills of his elect as he foreknoweth will prevail with them and setteth them in such circumstances as he foreknoweth they will freely act aright in But his inward grace is the principal or chief cause And he doth not will or decree to give them such means and circumstances because he foreknoweth they will prevail That is Gods will and decree as in him hath no cause 11. But the word because is in Scripture applyed sometimes to Gods Love or hatred and sometimes to his outward acts as John 16. 27. The Father loveth you because ye have loved me and believed And in the first case that which is meant is that the qualification of the object is the material constitutive cause of the act of God not as it is Himself but as relatively denominated ab extra from the object in specie vel individuo And in the second case It meaneth that the effects of God ad extra called his transient acts as in passo have their proper uses and we our commanded ends in using them And so God is said to send Ministers e. g. because he would save the hearers that is the Ministry is a cause of mens â—â—lvation 12. From all this it appeareth that they err who think that their scientia media is equally useful in the points of Election and of Reprobation and that they run pari passa For all Good is both willed and known and so Election supposeth not the foresight of our faith or obedience as causal or antecedent if we speak of that Act of Election which is to faith and obedience But Evil is foreknown and not willed at all And therefore there is no such Reprobation which is a will or decree that men shall sin And the non-impedition of sin being no act needeth no positive act of will or decree * * * Yet none of the stress of their differences lyeth on this And the Jesuits with the rest assert a Positive Volition de peccato permittendo without proof which I leave to â—uens various opinions But Reprobation which is the decree of damning ever supposeth the object to be a foreseen-sinner finally rejecting grace The rest about this is spoken to sufficiently before §. IV. II. Of Durandus 's way II. AS to the way of Aureolus Durandus Ludov. à Dola c. I conceive it is commonly rejected because not understood or because the wording of it soundeth disgracefully But it is a great matter that all confess how easily it would end all these controversies were it true And by Lud. à Dola's Explication and what Capreolus saith of Aureolus I conceive that they are commonly mistaken Durandus thinketh that to the motion of the Creature it is necessary 1. That God by his continued No doubt but God is quoad praesentiam Immediate in all his efficiency and as Near to the effect as if he used no second cause But yet he is not so immediate as to exclude second causes as media And while he useth them he operateth on us according to their kind of operations even as if they were between him and the effect And this is the sense of Durandus and à Doâ—a and easily reconcileth all Amyraldus de lib. Arbit c. 4. concurreth with Durandus It is consâ—derable that all confess that if Durandus's way did hold it easâ—ly ended all the controversie As Lud. le Blank noteth Thes 3. de Concurs Juxta hos doctores nulla est difficultas in conciliando divino concursu cum libertate c. And this way is as consistent with Gods certain disposal of events as predetermination it self influx continue the being and the nature and properties of the agent 2. And that he continue all the circumstant creatures concauses and objects and the media of action 3. And that no powerful impediment hinder the action Now say the Jesuits and Dominicans and the rest God doth moreover concurr as the first cause to the Act it self by an Immediate efficient Influx besides that by which he upholdeth the Power and second Causes But I think that Durandus meaneth as much as they that is that God doth not only uphold the creature in its meer esse but in its Nature which is its Mobility and its principium motus And this Nature is not only a Power to Action but also an Inclined Power So that for God by constant Influx to continue a Natural Power and Inclination to Action or motion with all necessary concurrents without impediments is truly by his Influx to concurr to the motion as the first Cause while his Influx is not only as to Being but as to the Motive force and inclination And no more than this doth seem to me
to be simply necessary to motion Here the Reader must know that the Controversie is equally of Natural and Free agents and action And first let us enquire of natural action I. Fire is an Active nature as much Inclined to Action as Earth to non-action or rest Yea it s Active Virtue and Inclination is its very Essential Form and this as to a threefold action viz. Motion Light and Heat If God then make Fire and continue its Nature or Essential Inclination For I have before shewed how many wayes this is certainly done The whole experience of the world sheweth that God doth operate by second causes according to their natures and wayes of operation Therefore it more concerneth us here to know what second causes do on the soul in good and evil actions than in these disputes is usually observed Adrian Quodl 3. fol 18. Sententia Durandi plurium aliorum certum tenet c. Quam opinionem ultimo tradit Magister 37. d. 2. judicium relinquens prudentis lectoris examini to these acts and continue fuel approximate with all necessary concauses and media without impediments to say that this Fire yet cannot burn or act without another kind of Divine premotion besides all this even an Immediate physical impulse besides the described Influx is a plain contradiction For Fire is essentially an Inclined Power to act And that which hath a true Power to act can act It 's a contradiction to say It hath power but it cannot And a Power naturally inclined to act will act caeteris paribus The question then is Whether it be an impossibility for fire to burn if God do but as the first Cause of Nature continue its burning power and inclination with all concauses or rather Was it not a Miracle for the three Confessors Dan. 3. not to be burnt in that fiery Furnace If you say that the Miracle was in Gods withholding his additional premotion you then imply that God as principium vel causa prima Naturae doth ordinarily give that additional premotion For that is no Miracle which is not dissonant from the common course of nature But nothing can belong to God as the Cause of Nature but to continue Nature as he made it and he actually premoveth and concurreth while by his Influx as the first cause he continueth all its Moving Nature both Power and Inclination In the motus projectorum so far as the moving vis impressa continueth and prevaileth the motion continueth accordingly And who can prove that though the vis impressa continue e. g. in a Bullet shot out of a Gun and all concauses yet there can be no motion unless God otherwise thrust it on or move it by some other impulse Suppose a Stone or Rock hang in the Air quasi per filum or by somewhat that hindereth its descent If God continue the Natural Gravity of that Rock which is not only a power but an inclination to descend and if he continue all concauses and media and if the thred be cut or the impediment removed that held up the stone yet saith the Dominican this Stone cannot fall unless God moreover by another action thrust it down or by an efficient physical premotion predetermine it or as the Jesuits say unless God concurr with a further moving Impulse A plain contradiction That a Power of motion strongly inclined to act so as a greater power is necessary in the impediment that will hinder it and this in genere Agentis continued by Divine Influx yet cannot act unless otherwise moved God worketh so constantly by Natural Inclinations of second causes as fully proveth to us that ut prima Causa Naturae he hath decreed so to work And how is that then but by his Influx into Nature as Nature If my house cannot fall when the foundations and pillars are gone unless God otherwise thrust it down If I cannot fall though I leap down from the house top unless God otherwise thrust me down If the Town cannot be fired unless God predetermine it or concurr besides his continuation of Nature why should we fear it when we know not that God decreeth any more than the continuation of natural causes and that action which is by them and by him as the upholder of them II. And the case of Free-agents is here confessed to be the same The Influx into their Natures and Virtues is it that continueth them in esse substantiali and in esse movente moto An Act is but the modus substantiae And it surpasseth my understanding to conceive what it is for God physice influere in actum immediate non in potentiam seu virtutem agentem nor how he can be said to move the faculties to act that doth cause the act and not meddle with and therefore not move the faculty Nor know I how an Act immediately and not the agent can be the terminus of a physical motion Though it 's easie to conceive how God should cause an act by moral and extrinsick objective means Therefore as God moveth things Natural by his Influx into their moving Virtues or into the moving Virtues of second Causes which being Active operate on passive matter so as the Soul and its Will is quadam natura inclined to Action in genere and to will good in special God as the cause of nature moveth it by his Influx into the faculty as he doth other natural agents But having made it a Free self-determining Agent his Influx upholdeth and moveth it as such And the same Influx is upholding and moving and moving as upholding seeing God as Motor also doth influere in naturam vitalem liberam Besides which supporting and moving Influx no other predetermining premotion is necessary to an Act as an Act that I know of But the very natures or dispositions of lapsed man being depraved the reparation of them is necessary to holy actions And here also God operateth on the faculties by right disposing them and by that grace which Augustine and Jansenius well call Gratia medicinalis his special Influx causing maintaining and actuating it he causeth the holy actions of believers I do verily believe that Durandus and his followers under the name of supporting the natural and free faculties did mean inclusively that which Bellarmine pleadeth for A General Concurse to the Act as an Act And that they differ in words and not in sense And if his doctrine hold not true I cannot see how God can be said to Permit mens sinful Actions or any action at all For if neither the Inclination of natural agents as of Fire to burn a Stone to descend c. nor the Inclination of the most wicked nature would cause any act unless God otherwise cause it by premotion then there is no place for Impedition for we cannot be said to Hinder a Stone from speaking or a Mountain from walking nor anything from any act which it could not as And permittere is non impedire And
charge them not to say all the words which I here lay down but only that the reason why I my self do above all others shun their principles is because I take this following to be the true sense and complexion of them which I must also believe if I do believe them And I suppose the Reader to be acquainted with their own words and to have their Books at hand * * * At least that he have read Bradwardine and Alvarez and Dr. Twisse and Rutherford de Prov. Better saith Joh. Racon in 1. sent d 40. art 2. Deâ—s aliqua futura non vult vâ—lie efficaci sed soluâ— permissive respectu sic productorum voluntas divina est Causa per Generalem trâ—buens agenti particularâ— facultatem agendt sic vel sit non tamen determinat agens ad aliquam neque efficienter vult banc vel illam istâ— modo Voluntas divina est causa actuum nostrorum quantumcunque deformium Talium actuum est causa determinans Voluntas humana praesuppositâ influentiâ generali Del Unde ideo pecco quia volâ— pèccáre ità quod actus voluntatis mâ—ae est jam determinans me ad peccandum And Gab. Biel post Scotum Ità est caâ—sa effectiva rectitâ—dinis quod quantum est de se daret illam actâ—â— sâ— voluntas cooperaretur Universaliter enim quicquid Dâ—us dedit antecedenter daret etâ—am consequenter qâ—antum est ex sâ— si non esset impedimentum Vcluntas autem quantum est ex sâ— non dat rectitudinem actul Gal. in 2. d. 37. a. 3. q. 1. dub 1. Ità Okam in 1. d. 46. 38. ferâ— iisdem verbiâ— Orbellis m. 2. d. 37. ita Fr. Mayro 1. d. 37. q. 1. ad 4. q. 2. ad 4. q. 3. concl 4. Greg. Arim. 2. d. 37. q. 1. a. 3. d. 28. q. 1. a. 3. ad arg 12. alil quamplurimi â— Bradwardine l. 1. c. 34. p. 300 301 c. speaketh too plainly to this purpose with Hugâ— 1. de Sacâ— 4. part 1â— being more careful to make people think well of his Deus vult malum than to deny it Non quia quod dicitur non bene dicitur sâ—d quia quod bâ—ne dicitur non recte iâ—telligitur And his mollification is that God willeth sin only secundum quid for Gods Velle simplicâ—ter as it 's commonly taken is to Love and approve it as good and to reward it And because the Vulgar so take it we must not before them say that God wiâ—â— leth sin because they too much abhorr it No act is unjust simply but all just and all the consequents of it just in respect of God the Author Therefore simply in the Universe there is no sin or deordination God willeth sin as a Physicion doth poyson in his medicine for the exercise of the good the punishment of the evil the contemplation of the beauty of the world He is not the author of evil as he is of good for of that he is the sole giver of faith charity c. creating it And God constraineth not men to sin against their wills nor doth he cause it unjustly and culpably c. Is not this meer Hobbs 1. Doth God will any thing but good Is not sin good then if he will it 2. Is Gods not Rewarding it a not willing it What if he rewarded not men for loving him You feign God to will and cause all sin and then damn men for it and then prove that he is not culpable or did not properly will it because he damned men for it 3. Do you not make God as much the cause of evil habits and acts as of good when you make him the total cause of all that is in them 4. Do you not say that the sinner doth evil for good ends and not for evil as well as God 5. Is not man an agent in Loving God as well as in hating him 6. Is it any better to make a man sinful and miserable by making him willing than to make him so by force against his will Nay could a man be made a sinner by force without making him willing Is it not a contradiction 7. Why call you it poyson which God maketh a medicine of You mean not that there is any evil in it which God caused not as you say more immediately than man and so that God first made it poyson and then put it into his medicine 8. And why are you afraid of speaking your opinion to the world Is it not because you are conscious that you speak against the common principles of nature in which the vulgar are founder than your self 9. And much of this is because you cannot tell how God punisheth sin with sin unless he cause sin What if by the Law of nature in Creation he ordain that he that is a glutton shall be sick and that Arsenick shall corrode his bowels that eateth it c. and drinking too much Wine shall breed the Gout c. Doth he therefore cause men to eat and drink too much or is not the excess from them and yet the penal relation and consequents from God And suitably to all this he defineth Grace and Free-will viz. Grace effectual without which no one sin can be avoided is Gods will that it shall be done And so no man can any more do any thing than what he doth than he can make a world And free-will li. 2. c. 1. is Potentia rationalis rationaliter judicandi voluntarit exeâ—quendi so that to will and freely to will is all one And so man is moved to every sin by necessitating premotion to do it freely that is he is made willing that is sinful So c. 32. In omni nonactione Deo creaturae communi prius naturaliter est Deum non-agere quam ipsam quia Deus certam actionem per creaturam non agit ideo creatura illam non agit non è contra So that all omissions of faith repentance obedience c. are fully resolved into Gods first non-agency p. 611. Quis nesciat quod quia Deus non fecit unum Angelum aliam Stellam coelum majus ideo non facta sunt Ità quioquid non fit à causa secunda Deus vult non fieri non vult positivé Scilicet habet nollâ— illud fieri ab ta Prius ergo naturaliter causaliter est Deum nolle positive quare non vâ—lle non facere causam secundam agere quam ipsam non agere This is plain dealing All men that Love not God and all that hate him are such because God will have it so and make them do as they do It would save many tedious volumes and intricate disputes if all would speak as plainly But what is the Christian Religion then I. Their fundamental Principle is that It is naturally Impossible for any agent Natural or free to do any act or vary any comparatively or
think a good thought by any help that God can give him unless he physically predetermine him to it then the reason why man doth it not is as notoriously to be resolved into Gods not-predetermining him to it as the reason why he doth it into his predetermination and as it is night because the Sun shineth not XVII But at least we can say that God is not the cause of sin because he is under no prohibiting Law Though it be true 1. That his nature or perfection the root of all Laws is more than a Law 2. And we know indeed that this proveth him not at all to be no cause of the sin of man but only to be no sinner himself though he cause it which is none of the question XVIII And from this necessity of predetermination it followeth that all that part of our holiness and obedience which consisteth in not sinning is not at all caused by God e. g. that we hate him not nor his truth and wayes and servants that we murder not commit not adultery steal not lye not covet not blaspheme not wrong none do no evil c. we need no help of God for this Because if he will not move our wills by efficient predetermination to do them it is impossible for us to do them at all XIX And though we say that God willeth sin to be by his permission only and not by his efficience yet indeed predetermining by efficiency as the first cause is the principal efficiency And properly we must say that God permitteth no sin at all For we say that his permission proveth the consequence of the thing permitted And therefore we must say that he permitteth no sin but what is done And that which is done by commission positively he effecteth by effecting the fundamentum and therefore permitteth not And men sin by omission because God doth not make them sin and not because he meerly permitteth it For permission is not de impossibilibus XX. God willeth not sin because he willeth it not as sin in its formale which also we must confess that the wicked themselves do not XXI And whereas we hold that God cannot foreknow things future but as he willeth or decreeth them we must confess that the formale peccati as well as the materiale was such as it is quid futurum if it was but futura privatio And therefore this would inferr that God willed and decreed the formale peccati also XXII Gods Will is his Love and what he Willeth he Loveth XXIII God willeth the futurity and existence of sin not only of the materiale but the formale even of all the sin that ever is done XXIV The existence of sin is Good and Amiable not only by accident but per se as being very conducible to the Glory of Gods Justice and Mercy and therefore is per se Willed and Loved of God XXV It is incomparably much more sin than Holiness which God willeth and Loveth and by predetermination causeth in mankind on earth For it is much more sin than Holiness that existeth in man And all that existeth God causeth as aforesaid the circumstantiated act and so the resultancy of the relative form And he willeth and Loveth the existence of all and the thing existing so far as he causeth it XXVI God Willeth Loveth and Causeth sin incomparably more than wicked men do For they Will and Love it with a humane mutable dependent will but God with a Divine primary immutable will Man causeth the forbidden act whence the relation resulteth with a Will that is irresistibly moved so to do by God as the pen writeth only sâ—o modo with Volition But God causeth it as the first omnipotent unresistible cause of all that the Creature doth in sinning XXVII The same must be said of God and the Devil who can no more commit one sinful act till God unavoidably predetermine his will to it by his premotion than sinful man can XXVIII God by his Law doth strictly forbid all those sinful acts which he principally and unavoidably causeth And he strictly commandeth all those good acts whose contraries he thus causeth us to do XXIX Though there is nothing in sin which can have a cause of which God is not the Principal cause and though he Willeth and Loveth all that he causeth yet the Scripture saith that God hateth sin and cannot behold it and hateth all the workers of iniquity and that it is abomination to him that he is as one laden with it and wearied provoked and offended by it And that he Loveth the Acts of obedience and holiness when he will not cause them but doth cause and will the contrary XXX Pardon and salvation is promised and earnestly offered by God to the Reprobate themselves on condition that they will believe and repent when God doth unavoidably as the first cause determine their wills to the contrary acts even to disbelief and impenitent hatred of God and holiness XXXI The Law of God is that all the Reprobates shall be damned to hell fire if they will not believe and repent when his omnipotence doth unavoidably premove and determine them to unbelief and impenitence and if they will not give over those acts of sin to which God doth thus unavoidably move and determine them XXXII Gods executions are answerable to these Laws and all save Christians and all professed Christians saving the sanctified are to be punished in hell fire for ever only for not doing the acts of Faith Love and obedience when God as the first cause predetermined them to the contrary and for doing the acts of sin when God unavoidably moved them to it and made them do it so that consequently all that are damned suffer in hell for not being Gods even the first sufficient causes of their own acts and for not being above God or stronger than he that is for not overcoming or avoiding his invincible and unavoidable predetermining premotion unto evil acts XXXIII The same must be said of the Devils who sin and suffer on the same terms XXXIV Q. What kind of torment then will there be in Hell Can Conscience torment men for doing that which they were unavoidably made to do by Omnipotency and for not doing that which without Divine predetermination they could no more do than make a world or for not doing that whose contrary they were thus predetermined to that is for not overcoming God when they know the case Or must we not more congruously say that the state of Hell torments lyeth in a most vehement hatred of God for so using them and a justifying of themselves Or will every mouth be thus stopt in judgement XXXV Q. Is not Divine Justice the most perfect Justice and the exemplar of all humane Justice allowing for disparities And should Kings and Judges imitate this fore-described course And how then would they be esteemed XXXVI Q Is not that best which is most agreeable to Gods Will and Love And therefore sin better than
And who it is that erreth indeed the Light must discover and the studious impartial prepared Children of the Light must discern and the Father of Lights must finally judge Note that in the first part I speak as in the name of the Predeterminants till I come to the Questions and thence-forward I speak as in my own name which the Reader may easily perceive §. VII Of Jansenius his way of reconciling Grace and Free-will § 1. BUt after all these cometh Jansenius and justly blaming Philosophy as the great occasion of our heresies and errours which misled the Schoolmen Jesuites and others he goeth to Augustine alone as Lombard thought he had well done before him and disgraceth his cause by saying that Augustine first taught it to the Church as if Grace had been unknown by the former ages And because many will not be at the labour to know his mind by reading so big a volume I shall briefly select what concerneth the matter in hand and animadvert upon it 1. His first Tome describeth the Heresie of Pelagius wherein he proveth that Pelagius held all this that followeth concerning grace 1. The Remission of sins containing 1. Conversion to God 2. The abstersion of the blot and filth 3. Reconciliation or remission of Gods offence 4. And of the eternal punishment Jansenius Aug. To. 1. l. 5. c. 22. p. 126 127. 2. That Pelagius owned the Infusion of habitual grace And that God in Baptism did blot out all sins purge cleanse and expiate them save and renew the soul restore nature deliver from the body of this death and from the contracted custome of sinning He held that Grace doth Regenerate Illuminate cause Faith Justifie even Infants Sanctifie make us new Creatures incorporate us into Christ as his members give us the anointing of the Holy Ghost not only restoring us to the state that we were in in Adam but to a better and to be adopted sons of God and saved cap. 24. And 25. as to the Relative effects that Grace Reconcileth man to God maketh him an adopted Son of God and the Temple of the Holy Ghost an Heir of God and co-heir with Christ So that they acknowledge not only Habitual Infused Grace but more even in Baptism As also the Assisting motions of the spirit to good acts making them possible Also that after Pope Zozymus had condemned the Pelagians they went further and that their design was but to lay mens salvation or damnation on free-will lib. 6. c. 7. c. And when he cometh to characterize Pelagius he doth it as he doth elsewhere the Protestants and as Malignants do Religious persons by presumptions viz. that he was indeed as Augustine saith Temperate and of a good life but singular and very proud which he proveth by his opinion and because he was against Swearing and said that Gods servants mouths should vent no bitter thing but only that which is sweet and that Christians must be so patient as readily to let go what is taken from them and that gallantry and gay cloathing is contrary to God and that enemies must be loved as friends and yet not believed and that Riches must be forsaken c. as holding nothing mean and moderate that he affected novelty and yet his â—rrours were old coming from Origen â—uffinus Palladius Evagrius Jovinâ—an and the Philosophers that he affected fame admiration hypocrisie pretending to more holiness than others under the garb of poverty c. over-â—alued Reason Logick Syllogismes Philosophers c. All which I mention not to abate any mans dislike of any one errour of Pelagius but to shew that it is so usual for dissenters to make one another seem odious and to feign or aggravate faults and to vilifie or deny Gods grace in others that he that would not be tempted into malice uncharitableness and slander must take heed what he believeth even of men accounted most abominable hereticks Doubtless Pelagius his denying original sin and his laying too much on mans will and too little on grace are things to be detested II. Jansenius asserteth that the Angels and Adam had such Free-will as could obey or disobey and so could determine it self to good and persevere therein without any more grace than they had when they did it not And that by this Free-will some Angels stood and some fell and Adam fell when he might by it have stood and thereby fell from a nobler sort of Free-will which consisteth in a due subservience to God and fell to the Love of Himself not primarily of external things instead of God and to selfdependency and dominion De Grat. primi hom c. 6. p. 40 41 42. c. 7. Nos hic asserimus tanquam sine dubitatione verissimum juxta doctrinam sancti Augustini ecclesiae omnia hujusmodi opera adeoque ipsam fidem dilectionem Dei ab eo potuisse per arbitrii libertatem fieri sic ut ea non donaret ei gratia Dei vid. c. 7 8 c. The reason of this was sanitas Voluntatis Adami c. 9. III. Yet Grace was necessary to man and Angels both to perseverance and to every good act c. 10 11. And c. 12 13 c. this Grace necessary to all was not Habitual Grace for that they had nor general concurse which none denyed but it was Actual Adjuvant Roborating help But the Grace given to Angels and Adam was Adjutorium sine quo non giving the will power to determine it self but not Adjutorium quo which ever determineth it One giveth the Power and the other the Act. The same that is meant by the common distinction of Grace sufficient and effectual by the Dominicans Yet this Adjutorium sine quo non did with free will procure the Act in the standing Angels and Adam while he stood But that made it not Adjutorium quo because it is not so called efficax only ab eventu but because it so helpeth that illo praesente continuo fiat id propter quod datur illo absente nunquam fiat p. 63. c. 14 15. One is like Light and the visive faculty ad videndum the other ut ipsa visio such as all formal causes are and Gods simultaneous efficiency The difference is c. 15. that Adjutorium sine quo non doth but perfect the power and the chief honour belongeth to the will that useth it and could choose But contrarily the adjutorium quo is the principal cause of the Act and leaveth not the event to the will but useth it effectually to the act intended Therefore merit and perseverance in Innocency were no special gifts of God IV. That without or before faith no good work is done but lies and sins l. 3 4. c. 1. p. 223. no nor without true Godliness p. 261. passim To think that Infidels and ungodly have any true virtue is dotage c. 17. V. The first sin had no necessity being meer sin and no punishment and so easily avoidable and wholly voluntary Other sins
sinners find a good will to goodness and like it and many years perhaps are wishing and purposing to leave their sins for it and turn to God till at last Love prevaileth And this though imperfect is true sincere Love not from a perfect habit but from the excitation of the Holy Ghost It hath the same object as perfect Love that is Justice for Justice or God for God not loved on consideration of any other reward which proveth it sincere Love Such wish to live chastely temperately justly but cannot come to it Out of this imperfect love springs faith faith may be habitually many years before Justification Justification is the grace of perfect Love to God above all Hope and Perfect Love also come from this initial Love c. 7 8 9. XVIII As Hope so Reward and respect to it may stand with this grace of Love For the Reward is not desired ex amore concupiscentia for our selves only cum enim charitatis proprium sit unica voluptas diligere Deum non quia hoc sibi suave vel utile vel gloriosum est vel alia quacunque consideratione redundat in se sed quia ita est ordo creaturâ— sub creatore qui propter seipsum super omnia ex superexcellenti bonitate diligendus est ita unicum praemium est veritatem bonitatem Dei facie ad faciem contemplando ardentius amare lauaare Deum non quia utile est beatificum diligenti sed quid aeâ—â—rnae veritati congruum dilecto debitum c. Amoris hic inchoati Amor futurus consummatus unica merces Praemium Dei ipse Deus est Quisquis delabitur ab illa charitatis puritate ut amore concupiscentiae incipiat velle concupiscere sibi Deum totum dilectionis ordinem quem natura docet Lex aeterna praecipit diligendi perversitate perturbat Nam Deum ad se refert seipso fruitur quorum utrumque aeterna indispensabili lege proscriptum est c. 10. XIX The fear of punishment and attrition is good being fâ—gâ— mali an Antecedent of wisdom It is from a certain general grace but not that properly called the grace of Christ The Spirit of the Old Testament even of fear is Gods Spirit not that which Christ dyed to give men which is contrary delectation but another much inferiour grace which after the firm belief of Gods judgement and eternal punishment fortassis Gratiam peculiaris cujusdam providentiae operationis non excedit They that have but the Righteousness of fear by knowing the Law have not Gods righteousness but their own Indeed they have faith and that radicated but not Christs proper grace but that which may come ex proprii arbitrii viribus excited by providence or if you will inspired fear no sin can be avoided by it but by other sin c. 22 23 c. It is but of self-love It is Legal righteousness and our own c. 31 32. XX. Liberty of will is either meer Voluntariness whose contrary necessity is involuntarii coactio or that free state which is the Love of God consistent with simple necessity lib. 7. XXI Gratia Christi est Praedeterminatio voluntatis sed non Dominicanorum praedeterminatio 1. Praedeterminatio physica est motio nescio quae virtuosa habens esse incompletum ut colores in aâ—re impetus in impulso Gratia Christi est verissimus motus voluntatis ineffabilis viz. delectatio c. 2. Praed physica non est eis actus Vitalis animi sed aliquid cui voluntas tantum passive subjacet Gratia contra c. 3. Praedet physica in quibuscunque circumstantiis voluntas collocetur omnem superat resistentiam semper facit effectum contra delectatia victrix si alter ardâ—ntior est in solis inefficacibus desideriis haerebit animus 4. Praed physica est instar concursus cujusdam generalis Dei in ordine supernaturali Adjutorium Christi non ita 5. Praed physica necessaria statuitur omnibus agentibus ex vi causae secundae c. Christi adjutorium laesa tantum voluntati propter vulnus necessarium est 6. Praed physica propter naturalem indifferentiam voluntatis exigitur Gratia non ita 7. Praed physica statui innocentiae necessaria dicitur Gratia Christi non ita ergo hi Dominicani magis Aristotelici quam Augustiniani sunt Gratia tamen est Praed physica And grace and free-will are reconcilable as Predetermination and free-will are l. 8. c. 2 3 4. Summa est quod Gratia Amantem Volentem facit non tantum posse velle dat In conclusion he belyeth Calvin 1. As denying in man boni mali electionem and so in many â—ther points cap. 21. XXII His doctrine of Predestination as congruous to this I pass by â—nly adding that he denyeth Angels to be elected of grace or to perseveâ—ance which was but foreseen and they were made to differ not by â—race but by merits Man is elected to merits and glory but to glory â—efore the foresight of merits The Reprobation of Angels was after the â—urpose of giving them sufficient grace and the foresight of sin Permisâ—â—on of sin was no effect of it But the Reprobation of men was by Gods positive absolute will of men in original sin and the effect of it excaecation and obduration but not the permission of the first sin lib. 10. This is the Epitome of Jansenius as far as concerneth our present business The Animadversions § 2. I. IT seems Augustine and Pelagius were both pious men that differed in the methodizing and wording those fundamental conceptions in which they agreed by which Pelagius ran into errors And I doubt he was not so innocent as Jansenius intimateth when he maketh Augustine to be the first true Teacher of grace and Pelagius his Opinion to have been so antient And if it were not too bold to say so against one that read over all Augustine ten times and all his writings against the Pelagians thirty times I would say that I think that Austin owned more universal grace and free-will than Jansenius supposeth him to have owned Of Prosper and Fulgentiuâ— it cannot modestly be denyed who I think were of Augustines mind II. He confesseth that self-determining free-will and sufficient Grace were the condition of the Angels and innocent man and so that it is not alien to Gods government or prerogatives for subjects to be so Ruled and Judged III. He seemeth to me to ascribe far too much to innocent man and Angels in using sufficient grace when he maketh their wills the chief laudable cause of the effect I rather think that no Angel ever did any good the chief praise of which was not due to God as the principal first cause God giveth them all the power liberty help means motives by which they do it Besides that they did nothing but what he fore-decreed and willed they should eventually do Therefore there is no good but of him as the first cause though not
doctrine of faith and Law and promises of Christaâ—e the Means which the Spirit useth in operating our Faith Love and Obedience And it is not two Covenants that give these two but as soul and body make one man so the Word of Christ and his Spirit make up one total cause of our sanctification The Spirit causeth us to believe that which the Word revealeth and to love the good which it proposeth and to obey the Precepts of the Word Therefore the Gospel is Grace and the Spirit is Grace that is a free gift of God to miserable sinners for their recovery and inward holiness is the effect of both And to feign that all obedience as it is performed to Christs Law upon its proper motives is therefore not of the Spirit or is our own Righteousness opposed to Christs because our own reason and free-will is exercised in it is Phanaticism and subverteth the Gospel and the Prophetical and Kingly Office of Christ II. God never gave a Law no not to the Jews only to convince them that they could not keep it but to be the Rule of their obedience And the Just did keep it in sincerity But the Law of Moses as separated by the ignorant Jews from the promise and grace of Christ could not be kept by any to Justification To say that Christs Laws now have no higher end than to tell us that we cannot keep them is Antichristianity Are we commanded to repent believe love God only to tell us that we cannot do it It 's true that without the Spirits help we cannot But it 's as true that the Command is the Rule of our duty and all the Gospel and Covenant of Grace is the means of exciting us to our duty by which the Spirit worketh in us faith repentance love and obedience But saith Jansenius the Law of Christ is to humble men in the sense of their disability and drive them to seek to Christ for his grace I answer 1. Is not humbling men and driving them to Christ a good effect If so then his Law is the means of all that good 2. Were the Gospel and all the Apostles Epistles written only to drive men to Christ and not to edifie them and make them perfect to salvation Were not the Precepts of Love and Holiness means of working Love and Holiness in men Is not the Word the seed that begetteth men to eternal life and is not the receiving of this seed into good and honest hearts made by Christ the cause of holiness and salvation Were not the Disciples clean by the word that Christ spake to them and doth he not say that his Word was spirit and life as being the concause of the Spirits vivification He that never received more benefit by Christs Doctrine Law and Gospel than to be convinced that he cannot believe repent obey or love God hath not yet the benefit which they are principally intended for But suppose that by Law he had meant the meer penal part or threatning as some words would make a man suspect 1. It 's a strange description of a Law to exclude the precept and premiant part and include only the penal part which is the last and least 2. As it is the same Man that hath Love and Hatred Hope and Fear so it is the same Law of Christ which hath precept and prohibition promise and penalty And it is the same Holiness or New Creature which is a conformity to all together Of which more anon III. He can never prove that all unbelievers have no Power to â—â—e any means which tendeth to â—aith by a preparatory grace nor that the use of all such means is Impossible to them XIII His distinction of Natural and Moral Impotency is good But then that Moral Impotency it self must not be made the same with the Natural else there will be the same reason for excusing sin by it If mans Will had been made by God such as could not possibly love him or holiness it would not have left a man unexcusable in judgement that his enmity was Voluntary It is reason enough for a man to kill a â—oad or Serpent as malum sibi naturale because it is a hurtful creature But this is no Moral Evil in them nor is their death their punishment nor yet in any ravenous creature which preyeth on the rest that are innocent And so would it be with bad men if God had made them bad Indeed if Adam have made them all bad and God have given no Saviour Grace or Remedy they are conâ—emnable and unexcusable as they were virtually in Adam if judged only by the Law of Innocency as made to Adam But they are excuseable if judged by Christ by the Law of grace which condemneth no man meerly as not innocent or a sinner but as a rejecter of grace These things are so plain and weighty that Jaâ—senius should not joyn with the Antinomians in opposing them XIV While he confesseth that Christ so far dyed for all as to procure them all the mercy which he giveth them I have no further quarrel with him but to prove that a Condition pardon of sin and grant of Life eternal with much means and help to make men perform the Condition which is but a suitable Acceptance is indeed mercy XVI That Christs grace is Love or Complacency in good is a truth which I highly value but with all these exceptions to his doctrine 1. It is the Heart of the new Creature and that which must communicate it self to all the rest or else they are lifeless and unacceptable For the will is the man in Gods account And complacency or love or appetite is the first act of the will which is it that he calleth with Augustine Delectation Grace lyeth principally in a Placet But the man hath more parts than his Heart And all other parts of sanctification are graces of Christ in their several places and not love only 2. Though no man is to love himself as God nor instead of God nor above God nor as the noblest ultimate object of his love yet all men are necessitated by nature to love themselves and therefore to desire their own felicity in loving God next to God as the final object of that love And so our end is finis amantis vel amicitiae which includeth mutual complacency and union though not in equality And to such an end grace causeth us to use the means And Christ is proposed to us as our Saviour and all his grace as for our good and all Gods commands as necessary for our happiness and sin is described to us to be hated as our oâ—â— evil and destruction and against our good as well as against Gods will and honour And with us this is denyed scarcely by the Antinoâ—ians themselves Much less by any judicious Christians 3. It is past the reach of any of us to prove that our actual love is the first effect of the sanctifying Spirit on the soul
become parties in such daring medlings with the Consuming Fire Notes on some passages of Mr. Peter Sterries Book of Free-will § 1. IT is long since I heard much of the name and fame of Mr. Peter Sterry long Chaplain to Robert Lord Brook and after to Oliver Cromwel when he was Protector as then called His common fame was that his Preaching was such as none or few could understand which incensed my desire to have heard him of which I still mist though I oft attempted it But now since his death while my Book is in the Press unfinished a posthumous tractate of his cometh forth of Free-will upon perusal of which I find in him the same notions for so far as he meddleth with the same subjects as in Sr. H. Vane and somewhat of what Dr. Gibbon seemeth to deliver in his Scheme but all handled with much more strength of parts and raptures of highest devotion and great candour towards all others than I expected His Preface is a most excellent Perswasive to Universal Charity Love was never more extolled than throughout his Book Doubtless his head was strong his wit admirably pregnant his searching studies hard and sublime and I think his Heart replenished with holy Love to God and great charity moderation and peaceableness toward men In so much that I heartily repent that I so far believed fame as to think somewhat hardlier or less charitably of him and his few adherents than I now hope they did deserve Hasty judging and believing fame is a cause of unspeakable hurt to the world and injury to our brethren § 2. But I find that it is no wonder that he was understood by few For 1. His sublime and philosophical notions met not with many Auditors so well studied in those things as to be capable of understanding them It is a great inconvenience to men of extraordinary discoveries and sublimity that they must speak to very few 2. And though he cloud not his matter with so many self-made names and notions as Behmen Paraâ—elsus Wigelius and some others yet those few that he hath do somewhat obscure it 3. But above all the excessive pregnancy of his wit produceth so great a superabundance of Metaphors or Allegories that about the description of Christ especially they make up almost all his style so that to any ordinary Reader his matter is not so much cloathed in Metaphors as drowned buried or lost And though I confess my wit being to his but as a barren Desart to a florid Meadow may be apt to undervalue that which it attaineth not yet I do approve of my present judgement in thinking that seeing all metaphorical terms are ambiguous he that excessively useth them befriendeth not the Truth and the hearers intellect but while he is too much a Rhetorician he is too little a good Logician aâ—d as he is hardly understood by others I should fear lest he feduce his own understanding and can scarce have clear mental conceptions of that matter which he utters by a torrent of ambiguous Metaphors if he think as he speaketh and his words be the direct expressions of his mind I had rather be instructed in the words of the most barbarous Schoolman adapted to the matter than to be put to save my self from the temptation of equivocations in every sentence which I hear and to search after that Truth which is known only naked under so florid a disguise and paint § 3. But I cannot deny that though my temptations before were very great to doubt whether the Doctrine of Universally-necessary Predetermination as delivered by Bradwardine the Dominicans Dr. Twisse Rutherford and Hobbes were indeed to be rejected the Reading of Mr. Sterry increased my temptation not by any new strength of argument which he hath brought but by the power of his pious florid Oratory by which while he entitleth God to the necessitating causation of all sin and misery he seemeth to put so honourable and lovely a cloathing on them from their relative order to God to the Universe and to their End as that I felt my hard thoughts of both to abate and I was tempted to think of them as part of the amiable consequents of the Divine Love and of the Harmâ—nious order caused by the manifold wisdom of God § 4. And by this I see of how great importance it is in the world not only what Doctrine is taught and with what proof but who speaketh it and in what manner For as I found the same things reverenced in Dr. Twisse and Rutherford which were not so in Alvarez or Jansenius or Thom. White so I found the same Doctrine of Predetermining Necessitation almost commonly brought into greater dislike by Hobbes and Benedictus Spinosa's owning it and applying it to it s too obvious uses than all In Tract Polit. Theol. argumentations had ever before brought it And I see it as likely to recover its honour by the pious and florid dress put upon it by Mr. Sterry as if some new demonstrations for it were found out § 5. If I should recite Mr. Sterries mind in his own Metaphors the Reader may not understand it If I Epitomize him and change his words some may say that I misunderstand and wrong him But I will not do it willingly and if I do it necessarily his stile is my excuse He that would be seen must come into the light § 6. The summ of that which I am now concerned in in Mr. Sterry's Treatise is That the Freedom of all things is to act according to their natures and so is that of the will of man and that in God and man Necessity and Liberty concurr and that whatever we do or will we do or will it necessarily as being moved to it by the first causâ— and a chained connexion of necessitating causes by which all things in the world are carryed on That a will not determined by God but left to a self-determination without Gods predetermining causality is not to be asserted as contrary to Gods Goodness Wisdom power c. That sin is a privation formally and all that is positive in it is directly and not by accident of Gods positive causation else with the Manichees we must hold two first causes And that the formal privation is from the wiâ—lidrawing of necessary Divine causation of the contrary and God is the Negative necessitating cause of it Even as he causeth Light by the shining of the Sun and causeth darkness by its setting or not â—hining or as he causeth substances and shadows Life and death And that all sin thus as necessarily followeth Gods not giving the contrary or his leaving the defectible Creature to itself as the darkness folâ—oweth the Lights removal And this was the entrance of sin into the world the Woman being Necessarily deceived necessarily sinned and all good and evil is thus as to necessity equally to be resolved into Gods causing and not causing Will what he will cause cannot but be and what
first giveth all creatures what they have and next faileth them and leaveth them in darkness as the Sun setteth and then Rising again revolveth all things into his original pure spirituality like the revolution of day and night Summer and Winter it is sure another thing than the Scripture describeth it which maketh it a noble part of that Sapiential frame of Moral Government which some despise § 37. IX But let it be noted that we hold that as the Almighty Father is the glorious Creator Motor and Life of Nature and the Eternal Wisdom Word and Son the Glorious Ordinator Rector and Redeemer so the Eternal Love and the Holy Ghost is the final Perfecter of believers even of Gods Elect and that this Sanctification and proficiency is by more than Moral Sapiential Regiment even by the Real shedding abroad Gods Love upon the soul or by a Quickning Illuminating felicitating Communication of Divine Life and Light and Love which yet maketh not the Sapiential Regiment vain § 38. And as to Free-will I further say that we are far from holding that it is a state of man in which he is Above God or Independent and as a God to himself or that God is any way a defective or idle as they call it Spectator of mans sins or free acts But that this rank and state of free agents is Gods own wisely-chosen work in which he is delighted And that he doth truly attain his ends in all § 39. Therefore as Mr. Sterry magnifieth the harmony which aâ—â—seth from Moral Good and Evil as designed and necessitated by God so we first admire the harmony which ariseth from Natural and free agents and their works which must not be dishonoured and left out § 40. And more than so we doubt not but all Gods works are perfect it being their perfection to be suited to his own will And the difference between us and Mr. Sterry Dr. Twisse c. is not Whether God be Glorious in all his works or they be perfect For we say that though mans sin be found upon Gods works and that sin be none of his works nor any means properly so called of Pleasing or Glorifying him nor at all willed or caused by him but hated and punished yet he loseth none of his complacency or glory by it but notwithstanding its malignity shineth gloriously in the perfection of all his works § 41. Yea more we say that men sin under his Disposing power and that he will make use of their evil unto Good and sin shall become an occasion of that Glory to God as sickness to the Physicion of which it is no Cause or proper Means nor of it self condâ—ceth thereunto Yea and that no Act as an Act how sinful soever is done but by Gods causation as he is the fountain of nature and prime Motor Yea more that all the Effects and Consequents of sin that are not sin it self are under the Causal Government and disposal of God who will attain his Ends in all § 42. Therefore we differ but in this Whether God get not all that glory which Mr. St. floridly describeth notwithstanding sin or on supposition of it as barely permitted negatively but with a Decree or Volition of all the good consequents occasioned by it rather than by sin it self as a willed designed effect of his own necessitating Negations and in the positive part of the acts as circumstantiated of his determining premotion Whether mans permitted sin be any of Gods works And whether Gods glory be not rather non obstante peccato and also by occasion of it supposed to be mans work only and by all the good consequents caused by God than by the sin it self as a Means conducible or a Cause § 43. For we deny not that God could have prevented all sin if he had so resolved and yet we believe not that such a permission is equivalent to a necessitating Motion or Privation as Mr. Sterry would perswade us To make a creature no better than such as can do good if he will and can be willing with a decree to make many willing is much different from making the creature bad and then condemning him to Hell for being so as an act of Justice Yet we doubt not but the Divine Light will shortly give us all a fuller discovery of that which shall vindicate the Wisdom Goodness and Justice of God in his Government of man than yet the wisest mortals have § 44. Either you suppose that God doth all that he can do or not If yea then you suppose that he cannot nor ever could make any one Creature Worm or Grass more or less greater or smaller sooner or later or otherwise than he doth which few will believe It being not for want of Power but through perfection of Wisdom and freedom of Will that he doth no more But if God can make one creature more or one Motion more and yet doth not I ask Whether you dare call that non-agency by the name of Idleness or deficiency If not why should the Non-causation of sinful Volitions in specie morali or the leaving free-will to its own determination be so called Not to make more creatures or more physical motion or not to give more Grace and Glory is as much a non-agency as not to determine a sinning Will. § 45. As to all Mr. Sterry's Reasons against Free-will they are so Rhetorically rather than Logically delivered that I think it not meet to trouble the Reader with any further answer of them or to suppose them to have any more strength than those that other men plainlier have delivered § 46. I conclude with this repeated profession that I am fully satisfied that all the rest of the Controversies about Grace and Nature and Predestination and Redemption as they stand between the Synod of Dort and the Arminians are of no greater moment than I have oft expressed in this Book nor worthy any of that stir and contention which men that sufficiently difference not Words Methods and Matter have made to the mischievous injury of the Church And that the true life of all the remaining difficulties is in this controversie between the defenders of Necessary Predetermination and of Free-will that is not What free-will sinners have left but Whether ever in Angels or Innocent man there was such a thing as a will that can and ever did determine it self to a Volition or Nolition in specie morali without the predetermining efficient necessitating premotion of God as the first Cause or as Hobbes speaketh Whether ever a created will did act without a necessitating premotion And whether to will and to will freely be all one And whether the will except as to the kind of action be not as much necessitated to will or not will as my Pen to write or not write are we call not its acts Contingent or free either because they are what they are Volitions or though Ignorance because we see not the moving Causes § 47. And if
Opinion hold it will allow no other Religion in the World but this much To believe that moral Good and Evil are but like natural Good and Evil which God doth cause aâ— a free Benefactor differencing his Gifts in various proportions as he seeth meet as he differenceth Stars from Stones and Men from Dogs and equally causeth the wisdom of Man and the poyson of the Toad or Serpent and so will make such differences in this World and the next if there be any as pleaseth him as he doth here between one Horse that 's pampered and another that is tired out with labour Well may they cry down the Doctrine of Merit and Demerit that go this way It hath pleased God by permitting Hobbs to reduce this Principle of the Wills necessitation unto its proper practice thereby to cast more shame upon it in our Times for this Authors sake than we could have expected if none but such excellent persons as Alvarez * And more plainly yet Bradwardine who maketh the necessitating cause of Sin and Hell that God will have it so and none can resist him and his Brethren Dr. Twisse and Rutherford had maintained it But as Davenant well saith It is an Opinion of the Dominicans which Protestants have no mind to own And there are two sorts that thus subject the Will to absolute caused necessity 1. Those aforesaid the Dominicans who assist the predetermining premotion of God as necessary to every act natural and free 2. Those that make the Will as much necessitated by a train of natural second Causes which is Hobbs his way and alas the way of great and excellent healing Câ—mero For they hold That the Will is necessitated by the Intellect and the Intellect by the Object â— and God made both Will and Intellect and Object and Law And so Camero hath nothing to resolve the necessitating cause of Adams sin into but the Devil But who necessitated the Devil to sin This will be all one when it is discussed And if self-determining freedom of Will in Man be impossible it will be impossible in the Angels for they are not Gods Therefore I now deal with none but those who confess that God made Man's Will at first with a natural self-determining power and freedoâ— suited to this earthly state of government and that Adam's Will by that same measure of Grace which he had could have forborn his sin at the instant when he sinned II. The other extream which I reconcile not but confute * Yet I am not â—â—â—tating the old way of anaâ—â—â—â—a thing all the hard sayings or opinions of others that being it that I write this against of which course the Epistles of Joan. Antioch 5. 6 c. and of cyril Aâ—ix to Proâ—â—â—s against his so using Theoaâ—â— Mops in Proâ—â—â—â—â—â—â— are worth the reaâ—â—ing besides the fore named T is the Pelagians who deny Original Sin and acknowledge not the pravity of vitiated nature and consequently must deny the need of Grace in the same proportion and so far the need of a Saviour and a Sanctifier And how far this also subverteth Christianity you may perceive A. But both these Parties have a great deal of very plausible reason for their Opinions as you may see in the Domâ—nâ—oans on one side and Hobbes against Braâ—hall and in Dr. Jeremy Taylor his Treâ—â— of Repentance on the other and therefore are not to be so slighted B. I do not slight them but confute them I confess that the cases are not without difficulty yea not a little But I am surer that Religion is not to be renounced than they can be of the truth of their Opinions And do you think that if one of them had written for the Cause of â—â— liâ—n Porphyrie or Celsus against Christ that they would not have spoken as plausibly and made the case seem as difficult at least to be argumentatively answered as they here do A. Now let us here your way or terms before mentioned what they are B. II. I suppose every sober man will allow me 1. To distinguish Names and Words from Things and * Vasâ—u in 1. Tho. q. 2â— a. 3. d. 4â— c. 1. Bona pars hujuâ— controversiâ— an reprobationis detur causa ex partâ— reprobi dâ— vâ—ce est nominal Controversies from real and to that end to open the aâ—biguity of words as I go along And to â—â—ew when it is an arbitrary Logical notion or an enâ— rationâ—â— only that men contend about instead of a reality 2. I may be allowed when confusion lapeth up many doubtful questions in one to distinguish them that each may have its proper answer 3. I may be allowed to â—ast by as unfit for contention all those unâ—evealed and unsearchable Points which none of the Contenders know at all nor ever will do in this World 4. And I will take leave to lay by the rash words of particular Writers as not to be imputed to any others nor to the main Cause or as that which I am not obliged to defend reconcile nor at all to meâ—dle with 5. And when all this is done you shall see what Aâ—toâ—â— the remaining differences will prove A. Begin then with the first Article of Prâ—dâ—stination B. Remember my â—ndertaking that it is not to justifie every â—â—â—â— words that hath written on the Point and therefore I will not lose time in citing or defending Authors But produce you all your Accâ—sations as against the Cause of the sober moderate Calâ—â—â—ists and suppose me to be the person with whom you have to do The first Crimination A. 1. My first Charge is That you hold that God doth from eternity Decree to damn in Hell fire the far greatest part of men without respect See the conclusion of the Canons of the Synod at Dort where this very Charge is denied with detestation And can you tell better what men hold than they themselves Episcop Justit Theol. l. 4. Sect. 5. cap. 6. p. 412. Col. 2. 52. Sect. 2. Statuitur Deum cos secundum â—perasua judicare â—b rebellionem contumaci-am corum dolere irasci c. damâ—are c. cum tamen non modo absolute eos perirâ— peccare voluerit sed originario tali labe infectos nasci fecâ—rit unde omnia ista peccata scaturire ac fluere inevitabiliter necesse erat Quod quid aliud esse potest quam histrionica quaedam scâ—nica actio to any fore-seen Sin or cause in them but meerly because â—â—â—â— pleaseth him to do it This is your Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation B. That words may not deceive us let us in the beginning onâ—â— for all know what you mean by the word Decree A. I mean the resolution or purpose of his Will de eventâ— thaâ— this shall be B. And I suppose we are agreed 1. That Gods Will is nothing but his Essence denominated with respect to some Good as its Object 2. And there was no Object really existent from eternity
but God himself 3. That Understanding and Will are not univocal terms spoken of God and of man nor of the same formal Conception And 4. That our formal Conception of Understanding and Will is only of them as they are in man and not as in God and so this to us is the prius significatum 5. And therefore that God doth not understand or will in our sence formaliter but only eminenter 6. And lastly That Mortals know not just how Gods eminent Intellection and Volition differ from the formal in Man All this you must grant me or be singular and ignorant A. All this is past denial but proceed to the Case B. Do you differ from us de eventu whether there be a Hell or yet of the number of those that are damned A. No or if we do about the Case of Heathens that belongeth not to this Point B. Do you differ from us about the Cause of mens Damnation We say that God damneth no man but for Sin yea for Sin impenitently continued in to the last against all the mercy which tended to their Cure A. So far we are agreed But it 's not the cause of damnation which I speak of but the cause of the Decree B. Do you not hold that what ever God doth he willeth to do A. Yes God doth nothing without a will to do it at least consequently B. Do you think that God willeth any thing to day which he willed not yesterday and so from eternity A. No we do not with Vostius make God mutable B. Good still you grant then that God damneth men that he damneth them for sin that he doth it willingly that he willed it from eternity And do you think that from eternity here was any thing but God A. No. B. Then can that which is not be a cause was there any thing but God himself to be the Cause of Gods Will from eternity A. Not in esse reali but there was in esse cognito B. So now the game begins Thus the World is cheaâ—ed and troubled by Logical Notions and meer words Is that esse cognitum any thing or nothing If nothing it is no Cause If any thing is it God or a Creature It can be no Creature because it is eternal If God you do but say That God caused his own Will A. It is Gods fore-knowledge of Sin which causeth his Decree or Will B. 1. Even fore-knowledge it self say the Schools is but the same with knowledge and spoken say they but to the respect and sense of man There being neither priâ—s vel postoriâ—s before or after in eternity But this I now insist not on 2. It is commonly taken for blasphâ—my to talk of a Cause of God or any thing in God If Gods Will be his Essence it hath no Cause He causeth not himself being no Effect 3. If this were so as you say yet still you make but God himself the Cause of his own Will by his knowledge * Vasquer in 1. Thâ— d. 91. saith of the Cause of Gods Decree Divinâ— voluntatis non solum nullam esse causam finalem motivam per modum objecti sed etiam nullum esse objectum creatum quod possit Deo esse ratio volendi aliud sed solam suam bonitatem Posse tamen unum creatum objectum esse rationem causam alterius italicet Deus non velit unum objectum creatum propter aliud velle tamen unam rem creatam esse propter aliam quia â—na est causa altâ—rius Non ergâ—â—â—â—â— mus an aliud â—â—â—â— ratio â—â—tiva Deo per modum â—â—â—â— ut velit nos prâ—dâ—stinare praeter suam bonitatem nihil enim esse potest Id. ib. disp 91. c. 4. Respectu voluntatis Dei nihil creatum est id cujâ—s gratia ratio nolendi aliquid sed propter quod câ—tera esse vult Deus For Siâ— fâ—re-seen is no Sin and nothing is no Cause so that you your self resolve all into God And indeed what can be a cause of the first Cause or any thing in him Use not tergiversation and vain words now and tell me what you have to say A. A thing not existent but fore-seen may be â— moral Cause though not a physical and so fore-seen Sin may be to God B. 1. Yet dare you talk of a Cause of God There is nothing in God but God To be a cause of his Will is commonly said to be a cause of his Essence And shall so base a thing aâ— Sin cause God 2. We are still at the cheating Game of playing with â—rbitrary Notions What mean you by a moral Cause If a true cause of moral Being that 's one thing If any thing that is not physically or properly but by moral imputation only a cause of any event that 's another thing The first you dare not own as if any thing which is nothing Sin not existent were a Cause of Gods Will. The second Cause is called Cause metaphorica It is really no Cause but that for which the Agent shall have such praise or dispraise as belongeth to one that â—â—â—â— equivocally a Cause 3. Therefore if you use not the word Cause equivocally your rule is false Nothing is no moral Cause You will instance in good destrâ—d in fine nondum existente c. But I answer you Good and amiable are Accidents or Modes which are never found but in an existent entity or subject A negatione subjecti ad negationem accidentis à negatione est secundi Adjecti ad negationem est tertii valet argumentum That which is not is not good or amiable Therefore that which existeth not is no Cause But if we will let go the toy and come to the matter It is no other good but the desire of good or the apprehension of the â—â—â—â—rity of good which causeth so that all the Cause is in the Agent 4. The common reason of man must acknowledge that when any mâ—n saith That sin which is no sin and nothing as fore-seen is the moral cause of Gods Will he must needs mean no real cause Because to be a cause is tertium Adjectum and presupposeth to be That which is not is not a cause much less of God or of his Will A. I can shew you that you overthrown the Christian Religion by your Logick For if this hold true then the fore sight of Christ's Incarnation and Sufferings c. was no moral true cause of Gods Will to pardon Sin and save Souls to â—hose under the Promise before the Incarnation B. Your diversion turneth us from the matter but advantageth you not at all Would you bring it to deny so evident a Principle as this that nothing can do nothing nor cause nothing It was not Christ's Body or actual Suffering not yet existent that caused Gods Will tâ— pardon Sinners Nor had Gods Will any proper cause But seeing God willed one thing to be the means of another he willed that
the moderatest that he * Vid. Episcopii Resp ad qu. 64. qu. 33. pag. 32. â—bi dicit Deum decrevisse ut Judaei Christum e medio tolleren ex praescientia quod id liberâ— voluntate facturi essent atque inde praedictiones certas natas esse decreed the event that Sin should come to pass ipso permittente quamvis non efficiente or at least that he decreed his permission of it B. I. The first sort are those few whom I in the beginning renounced of whom the Dominicans and good Dr. Twisse and Rutherford his Follower de providentia are the chief I easily confess to you that God made the Law and God made man and God maketh the Objects and God causeth the Act as a natural Act in genere by a natural general concourse And if it could be also proved that God were the chief efficient Determiner of the Will and that by necessitation to this Act or Object comparatively rather than to that e. g. that David willed the Acts which were Murder and Adultery I could never deny that God is the chief Author of the Sin For the formal reason of Sin is Relative viz. Its disconformity to the Law of God And the Relation resulteth without any new Act or Agent Posito fundamento omni absoluto And neither God nor Man do or can do more to cause the Relation And Dr. Twisse and Rutherford so far saw this that the up-shot of all their Vindication is 1. That God causeth not sin as sin but as a means to his Glory 2. That God is under no Law as we are and therefore can be no Author of Sin But to the first I answer It 's one thing to will Sin as Sin and another thing to cause Sin as Sin We charge them not with inferring that God willeth Sin as Sin but Nullus est Catholicus qui ignoret peccatum non esse effectum praedestinationis etiam si praedestinatus occasionem ex eo saepius capiat suae salutis Nam cum Deus causa peccati esse nequeat efficitur ut Deus peccatum nulla ratione praedestinare possit Neque actus ipse peccati secundum esse naturale non est effectus praedestinationis quamvis sit hoc modo effectus divinae voluntatis Vasquez in Tho. 1. q. 23. cap. 2. disp 93. if he will it and cause it for another end he causeth the formal nature of Sin that we may not play with the ambiguity of Quatenus and that 's as much as man doth For Sinners do not all if any will sin as sin under this formal notion as it is a breach of the Law of God and displeaseth him but as it bringeth them some seeming good And by doing evil for that good they are Sinners To the second we do not charge the Dominicans with making God a Sinner But with making him the chief cause of the sin of man even in its form II. But this is nothing to the Calvinists in general Therefore I say that your selves hold the same that they do in this point Q. 1. Do not all the Jesuites and Arminius hold That God is the Decreer of what he is the Author of And that God is the Author of the Act as an Act natural in the general See but Rob. Baronius his Metaphysicks and Bellarmine whom he followeth A. That is nothing to the moral specification of the Act. B. And Dr. Twisse hath oft enough told you where Arminius saith That God would have Ahab to fill up the measure of his Sin A. That is not that he willed the sin but that Ahab having made himself wicked God decreed not to stop him but let him go on B. Either you mean that the Object of Gods Decree was but his own permission as the Arminians use to say or else that it was the Sin it self matter and form permitted not because it is sin or evil for so man oft willeth it not at least but as an occasion of Gods Glory Arminius his words import the latter And then you go as high as Dr. Twisse or Rutherford But if you say that it was but a rash word of Arminius which you stand not to to make plain and short work with you I am so far from being liable to your charge that I charge you as presumptuous if not erroneous in saying that God decreeth or willeth to permit Sin And I assert 1. That God doth not Decree the form of Sin as Sin 2. Nor yet the event of that form for any good end For Ut peccatum eveniat is but peccatum futurum and what is it to decree Sin but to decree that it shall be Nor 3. Hath he decreed that this Act which is the Sin shall come to pass in its comparative circumstantiated state from whence it is that Sin in its form resulteth And so Augustines saying so much decantate by Dr. Twisse and others * As Bradwardine who also tells us That if God damn the Innocent his Will is the rule of justice and equity But I think they that so describe his Justice do rather think that none are damned than that the Innocent are or may be as an act of Justice whatever a meer Proprietor may do is not found that nothing cometh to pass but what God willeth either effecting it or permitting it It cometh to pass without Gods willing it or decreeing it so that he permitteth it but decreeth not that it shall come to pass Not that it is against his contrary absolute Decree but as Lombard from other places in Austin telleth you plainly God neither willeth that it shall be because it is sin nor properly and simply willeth that it shall not be for his Will is not overcome 4. Yea he cannot be proved to decree his own permission Because to permit is but not to hinder which is nothing but a negation And we have no ground to feign that God hath Volitions or Decrees of nothing or of negations So that I say that Sin cometh to pass without Gods Decree of the event or of his permission Though not without his Decree of the good which cometh by it of which more when I speak to the other extream And of this also more anon The third Crimination A. III. You make God necessitate mens sin and damnation by your negative decrees as well as others by their positive For you hold That no man can believe and repent but such as God decreeth to give Faith and Repentance to And no man can do any more good than God decreeth that he shall do And some say that God decreeth Not to give men any more Grace than he giveth them which is a Decree objectively negative de non dando And you and others say That he doth not Decree to give them more And so as a stone is not culpable for not flying no more are Sinners not elected for not believing and obeying God * Note what Vasquez granteth in 1. Tho. q. 23. a. 5.
that all mankind are now from under the meer Covenant of Innocency and that none perish but for the abuse of mercy which had a tendency to their recovery The case of Infants must be spoke to in its place once for all But all this belongeth to the Case of Grace and Free-will * How Augustine distinguished Election to Justification and to Glory See him lib. 1. ad simplic q. 2. Et quae de â—o habet Vasquez in 1. Thom. disp 89. cap. 6. And 2. As for Election we say that 1. The Object of Gods Will to glorifie men is man sanctifying and persevering in an immediate capacity for Glory in esse cognito 2. The Object of Gods Will to give the Grace of perseverance is a fore-seen sanctified person in the next capacity 3. The Object of Gods Will to justifie sanctifie and adopt is a fore-seen Believer 4. The Object of Gods Will to give special Grace which shall effectually cause men to repent and believe is ordinarily a fore-seen disposed Sinner prepared by his common Grace but sometimes an unprepared Sinner whom of his free will he will suddenly convert as it pleaseth him freely to distribute his benefits all being unworthy 5. The Object of Gods Will to give the highest degrees of common Grace external in the purest preaching of the Gospel and other mercies and internal in greater helps of the Spirit is sometimes a Sinner in esse cognito who hath not grosly rejected lower helps and sometimes freely the worser sort of Sinners who have abused former mercies 6. The Object of Gods Will to give the first common mercy which hath a tendency in its use to mens recovery and Salvation is all mankind fallen in Adam For all are under the New Covenant of Grace made with Adam Gen. 3. 15. in some degree and with Noah and all have much mercy tending to Repentance and none are left as the Devils in dispair without any offered remedy or help 7. The Object of Gods Will to give man the Covenant of Innocency was Adam fore-seen as meer man 8. The Object of Gods Will to create man was nothing in the sense that we now take an Object in that is for the materia circa quam But if you will call the intended effect the Object then the Object of Gods Will here and in the rest is the thing willed But if you will needs presume to seek one higher in the Mind of God * Man knoweth by Reception and so hath Ideas But God can be no Recipient you must say that it was man as conceived fit to be as well as possible For we can think no otherwise of the Divine Conceptions and Volitions but as we are led by the analogy of humane acts And so we must say that 1. Gods Power maketh it possible for all things to be 2. Next God knoweth them possible 3. He knoweth what is convenient or fit to be made to his unsearchable ends 4. He willeth that they shall be and man among the rest and so on If you will needs have the order of Decrees this is all that we can say of them A. All this pleaseth us well but it will not please your own Party or the Calvinists that you make so many acts of Election which they tell you is but one entire thing as mentioned in Scripture Nor yet that you lay every Decree or Will upon fore-sight B. You are mistaken No moderate considerate man of them will deny any thing that I have said For 1. As to the Scripture use of the word Election it is not the meer name that we are now opening but the matter in question Nor is it the expounding of particular Texts that I am upon And if I were no man will deny but that the word Election is variously used in the Scripture Sometime for Gods eternal Will to make us Christians of Infidels and to save us by Christ and sometime for actual choosing us by converting Grace in time and sometime for actual choosing men in time by Vocation to some office or special work c. 2. And as to the distinguishing of all these Volitions of God no man will deny the effects to be distinct undoubtedly these are various effects of God 1. To make man 2. To give him the Covenant of Innocency 3. To give him the Covenant of Grace with all the common mercies of it 4. To give some Persons and Nations the Gospel and other mercies above the greatest part of the World with answerable helps of the Spirit 5. To give men special Grace effectual for Faith and Repentance 6. To give men Pardon Adoption and Sanctification 7. To give men Perseverance 8. To give them Glory And if these are various works either you will distinguish of Gods Will by his various works or not * Sive secundum nostram rationem distinguamus illud decretum in plura five dicamus esse unicum non est multum curandum Certum enim est apud omnes Deum omnia singula volutsse unico simplicissimo acta suae voluntatis Est enim ipsius voluntas voluntatis operatio idem quod sua essentia simplex individua si aliquis contenderet esse etiam nostro modo intelligendi esse unicum actum simplicissimum voluntatis ego non cur abo Vasquez in 1. Tho q. 14. a. 13. disp 65. And is not this à short end of many Controversies If you do not our whole Controversie about the Order of the Decrees is quickly at an end and I am content with the abreviation For where there is no Distinction there is no Order And when I distinguish them never so much I say as well as any that they are all one in regard of the one Will or Essence of God that willeth them In God there is no real diversity but his Will is thus variously denominated extrinsecally from its respect to the various objects to which it doth transire and of the various effects which it produceth And thus do all men talk of God Else they could not distinguish his saving Will from his damning Will nor Election from Rejection in his Decree So that no man can tell how to differ here 3. And as to fore-sight you as much mistake For 1. I say not that God fore-seeth any good in any man but what he giveth him and willeth to give him But we speak of the Order of those Volitions in the way of execution * Alex. Ales is noted by Vasquez and others as singular for holding that Predestination to the first Grace was upon fore-sight of the future good use of that Grace as the cause But he denieth that the first Grace is actually given on the same Cause Therefore Vasquez thinks he changed his mind 2. And all men that ascribe Intentions Volitions or Purposes to God do and must make the Object of them as such to be Quid cognitum or something which some call an Idea in the Mind of God It
less a cause in man least of all in man when he is no man 5. The word Condition either respecteth 1. The thing or event willed 2. Or the Will as relatively denominated with respect to that event 3. Or that Will radically consider'd in it self I opened this before but think of it again for the reason of the distinction is very plain And 1. God damneth no man but for sin nor privatively denieth any necessary Grace but for sin Therefore the event no doubt is before-hand conditional that is dependeth on a condition God decreeth to damn them if they live and die impenitently and not else 2. The Act of Gods Will as denominated from the said Effect or Object particularly may be called A conditional Act or Will But if any think otherwise it is but de nomine 3. The radical essential Will or Act of God as in himself can have no cause or condition * Though sin be acknowledged to be the cause of the Will of God in Reprobation quoad res volitas that is in respect of the punishment willed thereby this hindreth not the absoluteness of reprobation quoad actum reprobantis And unless we understand the Fathers thus we must charge them with an Opinion which Aquinas is bold to profess that never any man was so mad as to affirm c. Twisse against Hoord li. 1. pag. 49. But 1. The actus reprobantis as really distinct from the effect is nothing but Gods Essence And who saith that sin causeth Gods Essence 2. And the effect of Reprobation as it is said to be a Decree not to give Faith or Grace is nothing and therefore that nothing cannot aptly so much as extrinsically denominate Gods Will or Essence as an Act. Is not here then a fair agreement Ruiz de praedef d. 9. p. 150. Quantum ad negationem electionis quantum ad permissionem peccati finalis praedâ—finitus suit reproborum numerus Dr. Twisse denieth none of this 6. That God willeth or decreeth not sin formally all the Christian world almost confess And what loveliness is there in that only odious thing that should tempt good people to father it on God or attribute the being of it to his Will or to be zealous Reproachers of those that say otherwise 7. And if God will and decree the Act not only as an Act in general but with all its modes and circumstances he undeniably willeth or decreeth the form of sin or the immediate necessary cause of it which in the case of efficiency will more evidently appear C. God willeth not the Form that is sin as sin and yet he willeth the Act with all its circumstances B. I have told you before that a wicked man may will sin in matter and form and yet not will it as sin To will it as sin is to take the form of sin as such to be good and so to be the ratio volendi which few if any Sinners ever do But to will both matter and form in one not as the formal reason of Volition but making total sin the matter chosen as a means to some other desired end this is possible for a very wicked man to do But I think the ordinary case of Sinners is not at all to will the form of sin but cast that by and to will the matter of it for the carnal pleasure or inferior good which it seemeth to tend to Now this excuseth not their will from wickedness that they will not malum sub ratione mali or sin because it is sin but for another end And shall we charge God of willing sin as the wicked do C. God willeth it to a good end and they to an evil end B. As evil must not be done that good may come by it so neither must it be willed to that end Man may need such a * Sure Arminius granteth enough and that which â—theâ—us and many School-men deny and for my parâ— I cannot grant when he saith At per accidens bonum est ut malum siat propter Det saptentiam bonitatem potentiam secundum quam Deus expeccato materiam gloriae suaeillustrandae sumit Est ergo peccatum isto respectâ— non medium per se illustrandae Gloriae Divinae sed occasio tantum non data in hunc finem neque natura sua ad illum accommodata sed a Deo arrepta horsum mira arte landabili abusu usurpata Armin. exam Perkins pag. 508. An occasion it is indeed but I will not grant that ex peccato God setcheth matter for his Glory nor that by accident it is good ut fiat Caeterum peccata etiam secundum rationem malitiae moralis objecta sunt seu materia circa quam divina praedestinatio versatur â—o modo quo versatur poenitentia Vasqu in 1. Tho. q. 23. a. 5. dâ—sp 93. c. 2. means to his ends but so cannot God Yea men have oft good ends for evil Acts Many lye to glorifie God and sin for his Cause and Church and for their own and other mens Salvation Much of the Blood and Cruelties and Superstitions in the World have had good ends which yet excused not the things from sinfulness C. God is under no Law and therefore cannot sin But man is B. 1. That proveth God no Sinner but not that he causeth or willeth not the sin of man 2. Gods natural essential Perfection is his Law and more than a Law to him And from that Perfection all Laws in the world that are just and good have their Original that is Gods own Laws are the expressions of his holy perfect Will and Nature and Mans Laws are authorized by and subservient to and derived from the Laws of God in Nature and Scripture So that when the Apostle would describe a man best and likest unto God he saith That the Law is not made for the Righteous 3. If Gods Holiness and Wisdom make man a Law forbidding sin on pain of Hell the same Wisdom and Holiness with his Justice and Mercy will not will the sin so forbidden nor cause it nor consist with so doing C. It is not the form or essence of sins that God willeth but the existence and futurity or event not sin but that sin be B. I many a year studied thinking to prove that true But I doubt it is but a game at words and groundless distinguishing for a false conclusion For 1. Sin is a Relation formally even a disconformity of an Act or disposition and so of the person to Gods Law It can no otherwise be caused but by making the Law and causing the Act in the circumstances disconform God maketh the Law and God maketh man and his faculties and God causeth the Object and God permitteth the tempter If God also cause the Act in the prohibited circumstances he doth all that can be done in the causation of sin And so of his Volitions or Decrees As for the essence of sin in notion without the existence more
may be said that God indeed is some cause of that without culpability yea by his Holiness and Power For as the Relations of Curvitude and Dissimilitude result from the Relate's fundamentum as compared to the Correlate or terminus so he that causeth any of them hath some hand in causing the Relation as a Relation And so God by forbidding Adultery Lying c. by his Law doth by Institution make those acts to be sin that is He layeth down the rule from which they are so denominated when committed That Adultery is committed is long of man that it is a sin when committed is long of God and man God by his Law and man by his Act. So that when you say God causeth not the essence but the existence or futurity you are so far out as that less of causality is to be ascribed to him as to the existence than the essence 2. But what is the existence but the essence existing or extra causas And what is it to cause sin but to cause it to exist And what is it to cause it to exist but to cause it or give it a being And what is it to will that sin shall exist but that the essence of it shall exist And what is it to will the event or futurity but to will that sin shall be And what more can man will or do about it to shew himself to be bad as Estius and others fully manifest C. I cannot but think that God may will that Act which is sin so he do not will it * Twiss Vind. li. 2. Digress 4. p. 201. Falsum est peccatum fieri ab hominâ— ut est peccatum Licet sit peccatum ut fit ab homine non tamen fit ab homine ut est peccatum hoc est sub ratione peccati Quanto minus in divinam voluntatem cadit cum hoc â—â— in humanam voluntatem competat as sin and so may cause it Quod peccatum but not Qua peccatum B. Here are three things before us 1. The common substratum or â—atter of the sin which is the Faculty and the Object and the Act only in genere act us or as not cloathed with the forbidden circumstances 2. The Act thus circumstantiated 3. The Relative form of sinfulness 1. No doubt but God doth cause all the first the Faculty Object and the Act as an Act e. g. In David's Adultery and Murder and Peter's denying Christ God gave them the Faculty by which they did it He â—pheld their natural power and as the Fountain of Nature concurred with it in and to the Act as an Act But 2. The Act as thus circumstantiated he neither caused nor willed but permitted only that is that David should hic nunc lust after her that was another mans wife that he should vitiate her that he should choose out Uriah to the Sword that Peter should speak those particular words c. In the first sense God willeth the Act which is sin and the Faculty which is sinful but not in the second as sinfully circumstantiated And as for your Qua peccatum I tell you again few Sinners if any will it qua peccatum C. What say you to this undeniable Argument If God will not that Act which is sin he willeth almost nothing that men do For we sin in all someway or other And so God hath little to do in the world B. The last answer fully serveth to this If we sin in every Act yet all that is in every Act is not sin or prohibited All that is good in the Act is of God and willed by him But it is the prohibited circumstances of the Act which God doth not cause or Will which morally specifie it as sin As when I pray I sin in praying coldly unbelievingly with wandring thoughts God causeth not these though he cause the Prayer Or to come from compound Acts to simple Those wandring thoughts are not my sin as they are thoughts but as they are upon an undue Object A lye is not a sin as it is a word but as this word which is false And so in all others C. But some Acts are simply forbidden in themselves and not only in their circumstances Therefore if God there cause the Act he causeth the Sin B. No Act as an Act is forbidden but as circumstantiated by Object Time Mode Place c. Mr. Capell * Lib. of Tempt chooseth lying only as an instance of prohibitum per se But I answered before that all the Act in lying is Volition Intellection and Speech And these as such are not forbidden But only these particular words which are false The common instance is Odisse Deum But here hatred in it self is not the sin but â—s unduly terminated on God as the Object And this God willeth not C. By this you deifie man For you make him the cause of something which God is no first cause of And so man is made a first cause that is a God For the particularizing of the Object and the circumstantiating of the Act is aliquid something and must have some first cause B. The truth is this one Objection is all that is considerable in the whole cause of the Dominican Predeterminants Which I have answered in due place and here briefly tell you 1. That when two Objects are before me a commanded and a forbidden one there is * I have noted after that Dr. Twisse saith Non necesse esse ut Deus sit effector omnis Boni in genere conducibilis Vix enim datur aliquod peccatum quod non est alicui conducibile neque necesse esse ut Deus sit Auctor omnis Boni jucundi magis quam ut sit author peccati And these have as much entity as Bonum vel malum morale Armi. dic Grat. li. 1. p. 1. sect 7. pag. 133. It is true that the Will is free ad actum utile jucundum in many instances And God maketh the Object e. g. Honey or Eves fruit and God maketh the Appetite so that by making Nature God antecedently maketh the jucundity that is that if thou wilt eat Honey it shall be sweet or pleasant unto thee But whether thou wilt eat it he hath left free so that if God also caused that determinate act he caused all And so it is confessed that God maketh the Law the Object and the man and thereby maketh that if thou wilt cause such an Act so disordered it shall be thy sin and misery so that if God would as much cause the Act also he did cause all in sin And they that ascribe the Act in suo modo to him ascribe all to him But as to Bonum utile he ill nameth it Bonum conducibile For it may be Conducibile ad malum interitum But it is not utile unless it be conducibile ad bonum yea ad finâ—m ultimum For all is not profitable that accomplisheth a mans ends or will And God is the Author
of all true profit to us no more true natural entity in my choosing the forbidden one than in my choosing the commanded one To hate God and love sin hath no more natural entity than to love God and hate sin To speak an Oath or Lye than to speak Truth and Holily To will a forbidden Act than to Nill it and to will a good one So that it is no deifying man to make him a first cause of that which hath no natural entity that is of an Act not as an Act but comparatively as rather this way than that way exercised And Dr. Twisse hence saith That moral specification of Acts is no true specification of them And it 's true that it is not a Physical specification 2. If you say that we have a Liberty ad exercitium as well as of specification or of Contradiction as well as of Contrariety Even to will or not will do or not do And in this case to do or will when forbidden is more than not to do or will I answer 1. The Soul is naturally an active vital power and it is as natural to it to be in act as to a stone to lie still And the Cartesians will tell you that Action needeth no more cause than Rest But I rather say that God never forbiddeth Action in general to the Soul but only this or that Action upon this or that Object at an undue time So that no man ever sinned by meer Action as such whether Vital Intellectual or Volitive The Action which God commandeth he willeth The Action which he forbiddeth is but this or that upon an undue Object Adam had this liberty of contradiction to will or not to will this particular Act of eating the forbidden fruit but not to will or not will simply Now for Adam to will to eat that fruit instead both of nilling it and of willing to please God by nilling or refusing it had no more natural entity in it than if he had not willed it but willed somewhat else at the same time 3. An Action it self is not properly Res but modus Rei and if any should say that God is not able to make a Creature that supposing God the cause of its Power continued shall be the first cause of its own Act or exercise of that Power he saith that which no mortal man can prove The Glory of Gods Works is their likeness to Himself And as Intellection and Free-will are parts of this likeness we know not just how far God can go in such Communications I see no contradiction in it to say that a faculty maintained by God in its natural force with necessary though not determining concurse can determine it self without any more causation And if it be not a Contradiction God can do it 4. But this is all prevented by considering that mans Soul is never out of Act. It s active force is never idle though it act not always the same way nor with the same extension or intension so that to reduce it into act is not to reduce it from a meer potentia in actum but from a power acting one way or slowly to act another way or more intensly 5. Yea this is all answered by considering that as I said while God continueth the Soul in its nature it continueth a naturally active force or power inclined essentially to activity So that though I say that Action needeth more cause than non-action that is here done in God still causeth the active disposition But supposing that upheld I say that there is oft more need of other causality or strength to keep it from Action than to cause it to act Whatever the world talketh against Durandus they are never well able to answer à Dola though in sense they that factiously oppose him mean the same as he And if a Rock hanged in the Air by something that might be cut off or removed as a threed supposing God to continue the nature of it and all things else there is more strength and causality needful to hold it from falling than to make it fall when the threed is cut It was a work of Gods Power to keep the fire from burning the three Confessors Dan. 3. and the Lions from devouring Daniel Dan. 6. and the Sea from flowing on the Israelites and the Sun from moving in Joshuah's fight 6. And yet consider that it is not so much as an Action which is but modus rei that is in question but only the comparative circumstantiating of that action so that it is but modus modi rei 7. And lastly The denial of the matter of our power and liberty in this I have else-where proved overthroweth the certainties and fundamentals of all our Religion Now whether any man should deny all our Religion and certain necessary Truths for such a metaphysical uncertain notion as this that God is not able to make a Creature that can cause a modus modi in determining its active nature to this Object rather than to that without Divine predetermination let sobriety be judge C. But thus you make man the specifier of his good acts without Gods determination as well as of the evil B. Jansenius is in the right in this we have more need of Divine help to the willing and doing of good than of evil We cannot do evil without his natural support and concurse But we cannot do good especially spiritual saving good unless we have moreover his medicinal special Grace To the specifying of good actions there must ever concur Gods natural help Gods gracious help and mans free-will or self-determination It is not two or three determinations of the Will which are made by these several Causes but one determination So that under God man is the specifying determiner of his Will to good or else he were not a Believer nor rewardable or punishable And that he cannot determine his Will to good as well as to evil proceedeth not from the Original nature of the Will for with that such a determination was consistent but from its Pravity or Corruption But how Grace and Free-will concur is after to be handled C. Dr. Twisse Vindic. Grat. lib. 2. p. 190. Vol. minoris hath a full digression 4 to prove that God willeth that sin shall come to pass he permitting it and saith Nostri Theologi affirmanâ— Arminiani â—ontificii negant * This Digression of Dr. Twisse is answered in the first Book His Friend Alvarez de Aux li. 11. disp 110. p. 442 c. discusseth the Qu. An detur ex parte nostra causa reprobationis and concludeth that Reprobatio qua Deus statuit non dare aliquibus vitam aeternam et permittere peccatum eorum non est conditionata sed absoluta nec praesupponit in Deo praescientiam demeritorum ipsius reprobi 2. In Angelis qui ceciderunt nuâ—la datur causa reprobationis ex parte ipsorum quantum ad integrum effectum c. 3. Et ita de reprobatione parvulorum
and Arminians have run out into the contrary extream and so the difference hath been made and maintained So that with most Christians the controversie is not whether Christ be the Saviour of the World or died for all men but how far and in what sense he did so that this Article may agree with the rest of our Theology A. The sense is all If we agree not in sense we agree in nothing B. The few extream Contenders agree not in sense But the generality of Christians much more may I say Protestants do in all that is necessary to our common concord If really you differ tell me your self What do you hold that Christ purchased for all men more than the Synodists do Name me one benefit if you can A. You would perswade me that we differ not indeed 1. We hold that Christ procured and made the first Covenant of Grace with all Mankind in Adam and Noah and so do not the Synodists B. I think you can name few Protestants that deny it Beza himself in that Edit of his Annot. in Eph. 2. 12. which H. Stephanus printed 1588. saith This Covenant was made in the beginning Gen. 3. 15. with Adam and all that should be born of him and afterwards Gen. 9. 10. with Noah the other Parent of Mankind as we have else-where noted plainly they say that it is made to all men as a Law then promulgate to Adam and Noah even a Law of Grace which Mankind was put under And as an offered Covenant and conditional Promise But as 1. A mutual Covenant 2. And as giving right to Life it is made only with Consenters Tell me whether you differ from this sense A. No this sense is according to the Scriptures But moreover 2. We hold that the second Edition of the Covenant also is made to all B. It 's granted you that it 's made to all that hear it as far as aforesaid and that Ministers should do their best to preach it to all And do you hold any more A. No But 3. We hold that this Covenant pardoneth all mens sins on condition of Faith and Repentance and not only the Elect. B. So do they unanimously I told you Twisse twenty times over saith the same No man can deny that which is the very plain scope of the Covenant it self to pardon all if they will repent and believe A. 4. But We hold also that Christ purchased for all men sufficient Grace to enable them to repent and believe B. I told you that is the Controversie of the third and fourth Articles what Grace Christ giveth all he procured for all which is not here to be anticipated but opened in due place And if I then manifest that in that point also you differ not I shall prove that you differ not at all in these Points of Christ's Death and Universal Grace A. But they say That Christ died only for the Elect effectually and with a purpose to save them and purposed to save no other B. You carry back the Controversie to Gods Decrees which we dispacht before Tell me 1. Do you hold that all are saved by Christ A. No that 's none of the Controversie B. Why then quarrel you with them that say He died but for the Elect effectually when they mean but that he saveth no other A. But his death effected something for them viz. the new Covenant and common Grace though it effect not their Salvation B. Who denieth any of this not the Synod of Dort But 2. Do you hold that God absolutely purposed to save any by Christ that never are saved A. No but conditionally he purposed it B. Have we not before proved that your quarrel about conditional Decrees is but a strife about words in the dark A. But they say Christ died not equally for all B. Do you or dare you say otherwise your selves 1. You confess that his Death doth not equally save all 2. You confess that from eternity God fore-knew who would believe and be saved and who not Now the question is of equality of benefit before denied and equality of Intention And can you think that Christ as God at the time of his Death or before did equally intend or decree to save those that he fore-knew would neither believe nor be saved and those that he knew would believe and be saved You cannot you do not imagine this A. We do not But we say that as to Gods antecedent Will he both elected and redeemed all alike and the inequality is only in his consequent Will But the Synodists say otherwise B. 1. If you understand the distinction aright they say the same as you that is If you thus distinguish only of the Will of God as Rector or his governing Will and by the Antecedent Will mean only the Legislative which making our Duty goeth before our doing or not-doing it and by the consequent Will mean only the judicial which followeth Duty and Sin God dealeth equally by all men in the first as to the tenour of his Law though the different promulgation make a difference of Obligations but unequally in the second 2. And if you distinguish thus of his eternal Decrees either they respect Damnation or Salvation And by his Antecedent Will you mean that which goeth before the fore-sight of mans Will and by the consequent that which followeth this fore-sight Now 1. Have I not said enough to convince you that as it is Actus Agentis in God we cannot prove any diversity or priority But only ex connotatione objecti 2. And as to Damnation I have proved that they commonly agree with you that God decreeth not Sin but fore-seeth it and decreeth Damnation only as for fore-seen Sin What-ever Piscator and a few more say this is the common Doctrine of Protestants and Fathers 3. But as to Election dare you say your self that God decreeth to change no mans Will but upon fore-sight that the person himself will first change it * Vasqu and many Jesuits profess that Gods first Grace is given without any cause condition or occasion in man And saith Malderus in 12. Tho. q. 110. a. 1. pag. 469. Deus non praesupponit in creatura bonum quo ad ipsius dilectionem moveatur sicut voluntas hominis benefactoris sed bonum creaturae provenit ex voluntate Dei qui vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam ea quae sunt That is Gods efficient Will of Beneficence is first and then his final Will of complacence first God maketh us good and then loveth us as good If man change it first God need not to come after to change it If God change it first then he decreed first to change it and did not first fore-see it changed A. Neither But he fore-seeth mans concurrence or not-concurrence with his changing Act of Grace B. But can you think that he equally operateth on all and that all the inequality is in their concurrence Doth he do as much on every Persecutor
peruse the Citations of them in Jansenius and see specially Alex. Al. 2. p. q. 72. numb 3â— a. 3. Aquin. qu. 10 de Potent a. 2. ad 1. ejus sequacem Viguerium Institut c. 3. sect 3. vers 1. Cum plu ibâ—â— aliis Thomistis Bonavent in 2. d. 7. 4. 3. d. 25. q. 2. And the Scotists and some Nominals I have else-where cited Especially Reader if you would see more on the Subject Ripalda nameth you enow Expos Magist l. 2. d. 5. qu. 12. that go several ways But note with Jansenius de Grat. Salv l. 6. c. 37. that the necessity of voluntary acts as Scotas saith is not previous to the Will that the Will should be thought to fall under necessity as impelling it to and fixing it in the act For if it were so Voluntas ageretur non ageret nec staret in tali actu libertas sed est necessitas concomitâ—â—â— it a quod ipsa intelligatur cadere sâ—b voluntate sic quod voluntas propter firmitatem libertatis sua sibi ipsi necessitatem impoâ—it in eliciendo actum in perseverandâ— If we are agreed in all these twenty particulars and that in some of them we are under necessity and in some next to it and in others are under no small dangiâ— and that none of all these denied is the Liberty of Will which you contend for we are very unhappy if we do not all agree of the necessity of Gods Grace and if yet there remain any other sort of Liberty about which we must needs contend I pray you now tell me What Liberty it is that you accuse your Brethren for denying Is it a Liberty to good or unto sin A. Both 1. They make mans Will necessitated to sin and good to be impossible to it And 2. They make Gods Grace to work so irresistibly as to take away the liberty of sinning B. 1. What necessity is it that you mean Is it more than in all that aforesaid your self hath granted 2. And who thinketh that man obeyeth Grace and forbeareth resistance or committeth sin for want of either Power or Liberty O that we could be so happy as to take away our own and other mens Liberty to sin and to resist God and to undo themselves A. Tell me first what Liberty of Will you maintain and then I shall best tell you in what in we differ even as I have told you what Liberty we deny B. The method is convenient I. We grant that we have a Will which is naturally a self-determining Principle and Lord of its own acts able to determine it self with due Objects and helps without extrinsick predetermining physical motion either of God or Creatures II. We grant that this Will hath the command of other faculties respectively that is of some politically as they use to say and indirectly or imperfectly and of others despotically or directly and more perfectly III. We hold that this Will is directly and properly subject to none but God IV. For instance neither Angels or Devils can determine it antecedently to its own self-determination to its hurt though Angels may help it and Devils may tempt it V. No men by the greatest Power or Violence nor by the subtilest Oratory or Deceit can necessitate or predetermine it though they may do much to induce it to self-determination VI. No Objects though they necessitate the sense and appetite and the first apprehension of the Intellect can necessitate the Will to Election or comparative self-determination nor do Objects carry us by necessity as they do the Bruits VII Neither our external or internal senses or imagination can predetermine or necessitate the said elective or comparative Will VIII Though our passions and motions of the Spirits may much molest and hinder the Will they cannot necessarily predetermine it in the said election and comparative acts IX Though the Intellect may direct it to that which it will determine it self to in some cases necessarily ex principiis naturae and in others not necessarily and being it self deceived may mislead it to mischoosings and refusings yet is it not the commander of the Will but the guide as the eye to the Body which causeth us not to go but to go the right way And being it self under the Wills command quoad exercitium doth not efficiently predetermine it nor can necessitate it to sin or misery unless it be first the culpable unnecessitated cause it self X. And as none of these can necessitate the Will originally to evil Acts so much less can they necessitate it to any evil habits or inclinations nor take away those that are good XI I hold that this Free-will is joyned with necessity not constrained but convenient by its nature or inclination 1. In the specification of simple Volition of our own felicity 2. In the specification of simple Volition or Love to sensible good as such 3. In the specification of the Volition of that which is fully perceived to be the only means of our only felicity and to be only good But that it is separated from natural necessity and such necessitation as is before denied 1. In its subjection and love to God as its Creator or first efficient of good 2. In its love to and simple Volition of God as our Ultimate end 3. In the election of any end where divers things are Competitors to be our end besides our felicity whether God or the Creature 4. In the election of means where divers are offered 5. In the exercise of the act of intending our end 6. In the use of the means and commanding the imperate faculties therein XII I hold that this Liberty of the Will is of three sorts though but two are commonly held 1. Contradictionis vel exercitii viz. Velle aut non velle nolle aut non nolle 2. Contrarietatis seu specificationis quoad Actum viz. Velle aut nolle hoc 3. Competitionis vel comparationis i. e. Contrarietatis seu specificationis quoad Objecta viz. Velle aut hoc aut illud nolle aut hoc aut illud vel hoc potius quam illud XIII Out of all these freedoms of the Will it self resulteth the Liberty of the PERSON usually called largely Liberum Arbitrium or Free-choice which is 1. That no man can be compelled to moral good or evil against his Will 2. No man can deserve Rewards or Punishments of God against his Will 3. No man can be happy against his Will nor unhappy unless it be the Cause XIV All this that I have hitherto named is but mans natural liberty as a man which all men have and is part of that common natural Image of God which differenceth us from Bruits and is mentioned Gen. 9. 6. XV. Besides this there is a political or civil Liberty according to which no Man or Angel hath power to command us to sin against God or to cast away our Innocency or Happiness or undo our Souls XVI And God as our Governour
but meer power For morality consisteth formally and primarily in the Will or Voluntary And to be able to do Good or Evil as such is not formally any moral Good or Evil but natural But Disposition is 4. Power is called Moral Analogically and Reputatively as causa finalis is said to cause when it is called a moral cause and the operation metaphorical or as he is called a moral cause who perswadeth to the End or Object And so we take the word Moral Power in our question And so the received Impress or Influx of Divine Agency as also the habits of Grace in the Soul are an Analogical Power because they are necessary to the natural powers performance of the Act And so the suscitation as received of a dormant active power may be called Analogically a Power And the right disposition of a power may be called a power And the deep fore described Action of the Soul may be called a power to other sensible Acts. XXVII Next to this moral power is potentia logica which is but the name of Power given extrinsically from some other thing without which the effect will never be though it be possible and the Causes have power sufficient And the name of Impossibility de effectu is oftner and more tollerably here used than of impotency as in the cause So we say that whatsoever God willeth or decreeth is possible and what he nilleth absolutely is impossible And thence some say That God can do it because be will and he cannot do what he will not And so we say that in sensâ— composito an undisposed or averse Will cannot love or will aright when perhaps no more than a Logical impotency is meant viz. That these two Propositions cannot possibly be both true Judas is undisposed to Love and Justice and Judas at the same time doth exercise Love and Justice speaking of a predominant disposition And this is but a denomination of the same sense as necessitas consequentiae vel logica is as distinct from necessitas consequentis vel effecti And so we say that he that is fore-decreed yea or fore-known to be good cannot be bad The meaning is not that he wanteth true power to be bad But that in ordine dicendi these two cannot possibly be true Peter is decreed by God or fore-known to be a Saint and Peter will not be a Saint And this logical impossibility is meant oft in Scripture as Joh. 12. 39. Therefore they could not believe because that Isaiah saith c. not that this hindered them but logically de consequentia both these could not be true that Esaia's Prophecy should be true and yet that the Person prophesied of should be Obedient And so the words the Scripture must be fulfilled and that the Scriptures might be fulfilled are oft used as to the inference XXVIII Thus by extrinsick denomination and connotation impotency is oft imputed to the Agent from the incapacity of the Recipient As it is said Mark 6. 5. That Christ could do no mighty work there because of their unbelief When as this was not from a disability in Christ to have done it if he would But here it is first supposed that God hath ordinately fore-decreed to do no such Works but where the persons were so qualified as to be capable of them And then that the persons there were unqualified And so the Effect was logically impossible in sensu composito Thus we say That God cannot save Unbelievers he cannot hear the prayers of the Wicked he cannot forsake the Faithful that is His Ordination and Decree supposed logically such a thing cannot consist with it in verity XXIX When something else and not impotency doth ascertain an event by omission or something besides Power ascertaineth the contrary efficiently yet the effect is oft denominated possible or impossible and ascribed to Power or Impotency by a conjunction of this moral and logical denomination So we say That God 's pure eyes cannot behold Iniquity that God cannot love the Workers of Iniquity as such Not for want of Power but by reason of his perfect Will and Nature So God cannot lye Tit. 1. 2. And it is impossible for God to lye God cannot deny himself 2 Tim. 2. 13. God cannot be tempted with evil Jam. 1. 13. So Joh. 10. 35. The Scripture cannot be broken Isa 1. 13. Your Assemblies I cannot away with No wonder also if this be said of men As 1. Joh. 3. 9. He cannot sin because he is born of God Not for want of power but partly he will not and partly logically these cannot consist So of the wicked Joh. 7. 7. The World cannot hate you XXX Oft times the word Cannot is taken politically I cannot that is I must not or I cannot lawfully Quod turpe impossibile Gen. 19. 22. I cannot do any thing till thou be come out Act. 10. 47. Can any man forbid water c. that is lawfully 2 Cor. 13. 8. We can do nothing against the Truth that is by Authority from God XXXI Oft times in Scripture the word Cannot is meant only of that which a man cannot do without suffering or loss or difficutly So Act. 4. 16. We cannot deny it that is without the shame of falshood Luk. 14. 20. I cannot come that is without such inconvenience as I am unwilling to bear Jer. 29. 17. They cannot be eaten that is without loathing 1 Sam. 25. 17. He is such a Son of Belial that a man cannot speak to him that is without inconvenience by it 2 Sam. 23. 6. They cannot be taken with hands that is without hurt Gen. 34. 14. We cannot do this thing that is without God XXXII Oft times this inconvenience procuring unwillingness this unwillingness is named like impotency and it is said Men cannot because they will not And so it is in divers of the last cited instances Joh. 3. 9. They cannot sin that is They will not Luk. 14. 20. I have married a wife and therefore I cannot come that is I will not because I cannot without this inconvenience Neh. 6. 3. I cannot come down that is I will not Gen. 44. 26. We cannot go down Josh 24. 19. Ye cannot serve the Lord for he is a holy God that is you are not disposed to do it holily and then he will destroy you Joh. 6. 60. This is a hard saying who can hear it that is willingly Isa 49. 15. Can a woman forget her sucking-Child that is will she forget it Jer. 2. 32. Can a Maid forget her Ornaments Mar. 2. 19. Can the Children of the Bridegroom fast c. Mar. 9. 39. Can ye drink of the Cup that I drink of and be baptized c. 39. They said unto him we can that is Have you Wills disposed for such sufferings and will you go through them And this unwillingness when it is habitual and prevalent is it that is commonly called mans moral impotency as to believe love obey c. XXXIII This impotency which is
that die unbaptized they â—â—â—â—only declare See â—â—â—â— in 12. q. 111. â—â—â—â— 7. p. 496. of being damned A. This answereth the fourth Question as to the Adult But what remedy is there for Infants especially among Heathens and Unbelievers B. The same that is for their Parents They have no sin but by their Parents and God hath told us of no remedy but that they be the Children of Believers dedicated to God It is meet that their remedy come as their sin did They have no Wills of their own but be at the will of others They are in Infancy as if they were members of their Parents And as the Hand and Heart doth fare as the Head conducteth them so may Infants here A. But it 's sad that all Infants shall be unsaved if the Parents consent not B. It is sad that men destroy themselves And it is sad that they corrupt their Infants But what way else would you wish God to save them A. Certainly to save all dying in infancy B. 1. And why not as well all at Age 2. Then men would be tempted to think it the greatest act of mercy in the World to go with an Army and kill all the Children of Infidels and Heathens certainly to save them A. So you may say by the Children of Believers then if they be saved B. No for they have holy Education under Gods Promise Ordinances and Blessing and so are in great hope of being publickly serviceable to the Church and also of attaining a greater degree of Glory But it 's an hundred to one but the Children of Heathens and Infidels are bred up to be also such themselves The fifth Crimination A. They suppose that no man can do any more good than he doth nor Quod Reproâ—us non possit gratiam adipisci non est intelligendum secundum impossibilitatem absolutaâ— sed conditionatam quiâ— reprobatio non subtrabit aliquid de potentia reprobati Idem dicendum est de praedestinato quem salvari necesse est Carbo Thom. Compend 1. q. 23. â— 3. Bradwardine and some Dominicans are liable to this Objection but so are few Protestants and the Synod of Dâ—rt rejecteth it forbear any more evil than he forbeareth Because he is not only predestinated to do just what he doth and no more or less but also predetermined physically in the practice so that he cannot possibly do more or less than God predetermineth him to And 1. Gods Decrees having fixed all future events all that man can do will not alter them Beverovicius may tire the World of Divines with his question de termino vitae before he will ever get satisfaction how Physick can prolong a predestinated term of life And 2. By this means God who set man upon a course of impossibilities or vain means with great and urgent exhortations is made a dissembler and his revealed Will and his secret supposed contradictory and the latter false And how then can such a God be believed B. These are but the bold effusions of a misunderstanding contentious temerarious passion Here are set together several things which must distinctly be considered I. Whether man can do no more good and forbear no more evil than he doth II. Whether means to lengthen life or save Souls be vain III. Whether Gods secret and revealed Will be contrary and the revealed false I. As to the first this unhappy syllable CAN by its ambiguity is the cause of all our silly quarrels 1. If by CAN you mean a physical power or faculty man can not only do more good than he doth but he can repent and believe who doth not 2. If you mean a moral power that is such a degree of disposition to good as may be excited or such an indisposition as may be overcome as to the act without any more supernatural Grace than he hath so all men can do more good and less evil than they do And therefore the Synod of Dort rejecteth your accusation as a calumny And men should know their own minds best 3. If by Cannot you mean only a logical impossibility that these two Propositions be both true Judas will believe and be saved or Herod will not be eaten with Worms And God decreeth that Judas shall not be saved and that Herod shall be eaten by Worms I confess your charge and say that Arminius saith the same upon the supposition of Gods fore-knowledge And how are you concerned to prove God to be either fallible in his fore-knowledge false in his Predictions or mutable in his Purposes By this rule all Prophesies take away mens power and make it impossible to do the contrary But you mistake For they assert mans power He that fore-knoweth and fore-telleth that Judas will abuse his power and decreeth to damn him only for abusing his power doth imply that he hath such power But Ergo. II. Beverovicius and other mens question de utilitate mediorum Aegid Col. Quodl 1. q. 2. Precibus sanctorum potest juvari praedestinatio Non tamen sic ut hae Divinum propositum immutent sed quod taedem velut media illud ipsum propositum adimpleant mediantibus enim talibus orationibus fit de nobis quod Deus disposuit Si Divina praedestinatio dicat Divinum propositum in se acceptum non juvatur precibus quia nullum aeternum juvatur per aliquod temporale sed si dicant divinum propositum non absolute sed ut impletur mediantibus causis in effectu sic praedestinatio juvatur precibus operibus sanctorum need no very learned Pens to determine it He did well to make that learned and pious Lady Maria Van Schurman one of his Casuists What can be plainer than that means are made most necessary and also the liberty of our Wills in the use of means when God doth make this one Decree e. g. Peter shall hear believe repent freely but certainly and be saved Noah shall make an Ark freely but certainly and be saved from the deluge Noah shall plant a Vineyard and water and dress it in due season freely but certainly and it shall bear him fruit And fore-seeing that Judas will freely betray his Lord I will condemn him Such a Sluggard will not plow and sow and therefore shall have no crop Such a man will not use any meet remedy against his Disease and shall die by it It 's strange that nothing can please you unless God be ignorant or mutable and over-rule not all the World III. I have made it plain that there is no shew of contradiction between Gods secret and revealed Will. What contradiction is it to say Judas I command thee do not murder thy self and I know that Judas will betray his Lord and will dispair and do that which tendeth to his own murder and for his sin he shall be so self-murdered Or Judas will betray Christ and shall be damned for it and I forbid Judas to betray Christ Plainly 1. About punishment Gods revealed Will in
pâ—â—supponit opus miserecordiâ— in ea â—undatur tanquam iâ— prima radice quia ne procedatur in infinitum deveniendum est ad aliquid quod ex sola bonitate divinae voluntatis dâ—pendeat B. I hope you have no malignant desire to extenuate Gods Grace but are willing to acknowledge it to be as great and large as indeed it is if you can discern the proof C. God best knoweth how to honour himself B. Quest. 1. Do you think that all the World or all that shall perish yea or any part of the World is under the meer Curse of the Law of Innocency as violated by Adam without any remedy or mercy C. I think they are without real Remedy though not without all Mercy for a delay of punishment is mercy B. Quest 2. Do you think that they are only under the Curse of that Law as the Devils are without any possibility or offers of a remedy or that they are also still under the Covenant-Offers of Life upon condition of Innocency C. I cannot suppose God now to offer a man Life on condition he be no Sinner whom he knoweth to be a Sinner For such an Offer is equivalent to a sentence of Death or denial of Life Nor can I say that they are as desperate as the Devils because they know not the desperateness of their case B. Quest. 3. Do you think all the difference between them and Devils lieth in delay and ignorance of their misery Then the most ignorant and presumptuous of them is the least miserable though the most sinful which cannot be Quest 4. But do you think that no Meâ—cy is to be offered â—o such C. Yes because we know not who are Elect and who not B. Quest. 5. Are we to offer men mercy only as Elect or rather as Sinners and miserable under a Law of Grace and as Subjects of God obliged by that Law to accept it C. We offer it to all Sinners that the Elect may receive it B. Quest. 6. Are none but the Elect under a Law of Grace as the rule of their Duty their expectation and of Judgment C. Others may be under the Obligations of it but not under the Gâ—aâ—e of it B. Remember then 1. That they are not lawless 2. That they are not under that meer violated Law of Innocency Be innocent and live 3. That they are under the Obligations of the Law of Grace Quest 7. Is there any of them that are not bound to use certain means appointed of God in order towards their own Salvation C. They are bound to intend their own Salvation and with that intention to use some means But God intends it not B. Quest. 8. Doth God command men on pain of damnation to any vain endeavours or use of means C. He commandeth it not in vain for it shall make them unexcuseable 2. They are not to judge their endeavours vain because they know it not 3. But in the issue all will be in vain to them B. Quest 9. Would it be in vain to them if they really did the utmost that common Grace enableth any men to do C. It is not properly Grace to them and so not common 2. It would be in vain to them B. Quest 10. Is that vain which bringeth a man into the nearest preparation for special Grace and nearest to the Kingdom of God C. To the Elect it is not vain Nor to others for their sakes Nor to others as to the lessening of their pains in Hell But as to their Salvation it is B. Quest 11. Who would it be long of or be reputed the Cause if it be in vain C. Of themselves who are born in sin from Adam and are Unbelievers B. You suppose it impossible for them to believe and impossible for them not to be the Children of Adam They made not themselves and you suppose that for want of Grace they cannot believe Quest 12. When Death shall acquaint them with the impossibility that they were under do you think 1. That it will be the way of glorifying the Justice of God in Judgment to have the World know that he condemneth Sinners meerly because he will condemn them for that which they never had any more true power to avoid than to make a World 2. Or will their Consciences in Hell accuse them or torment them for that which they then know was naturally impossible and caused by God C. We know not how God will glorifie his Justice or how their Consciences will torment them It may be they shall then be as ignorant of the necessitating cause as now B. 1. Do you know it now and shall not they know it then 2. God telleth us the contrary That all hidden things shall be brought to light and that God will justifie his own proceedings by proving that mens destruction is of themselves that every mouth may be stopped and all the World be guilty before God And he calleth it his Righteousness in judging to give to every man according to his Works and that mens Consciences shall then excuse them or accuse them when God shall judge the secrets of their hearâ—s and not when he shall torment them by deceiving them Rom. 2. 2 Thess 1. 6 7 8 9 10. Matth 25. 7. 23 24. 2 Tim. 4. 8 9. Rom. 14. 10. Gen. 18. 24 25. Quest 13. Do you believe that none but the Elect have now any real mercy besides a delay of their future misery and hopes of its abatement C. I do For all things are to be judged of by the end And that is really no mercy which is not intended to a mans happiness but his misery As Afflictions are no evils to the Elect because they are intended and work together for their good B. Is the offer of Christ and Life no mercy Is all Gods patience and forbearance as a means to lead them to repentance no mercy Is all the teaching perswading intreating condescension of Christ no mercy See what error here you run into and how contrary to Scripture and to nature it self 1. You contradict Gods Word which frequently calleth them mercies Psal 145. 9. 106. 7. 45. Neh. 9. 19 27 28 31. Jon. 4. 2. Rom. 2. 4. Matth. 18. 33. Isa 63. 9. Ezek. 16. 2. You deny the chiefest part of mens duty even to accept of mercy to improve mercy to be thankful for mercy to be led by Gods good-ness to Repentance to use mercies as Gods Talents to his Glory c. If you say They know not but they are mercies you feign God to bind men to duty but by deceit It is as mercies and not as that which for ought they know may be mercies that they are to be valued used c. 3. You excuse men from the greatest aggravation of their sin even sinning against Mercies How can they sin against them that have none 4. You feign Gods Justice to be stragely glorified by damning men in Hell for ever for sinning against mercy who never had any
proportion of gracious means * Protestant Divines do commonly conjoyn the operation of the Spirit and Word as well as Papists and in some cases more Thom. docet q. 22. de Ver. a. 8. Deum inclinare Voluntatem ad aliquid appâ—tendum eam â—fficaciter physice praedeterminando non solum immediate sed etiam mediate aliqua entitate recepta in voluntate ex mente D. Tho. Deus movet omâ—â—s causas secundas eas applâ—â—a ' ad suas operatioâ—â— ita ut etiam quando â—â—â—â—â—t voluntatem aliquid â—â—â—imit in illam per moâ—â—â— transeuntis Alvaâ—ez de Aux disp 23. p. 114. and helps than to others but leaveth them under the common helps which convert the more prepared Souls Not that God always doth so For oft times to his Elect he doth as he did by Paul or the Eunuch vouchsafe them extraordinary means For as a Benefactor he is free and may do with his own as he list and may make Vessels of Mercy and Honour of them that deserved worst And the case of the Tyrians and Sidonians compared with theirs of Capernaum and Bethsaida doth prove that less means are proportionable to some as being less ill-disposed when greater to others may be uneffectual III. And then as to objective Grace it being the same God the same Heaven the same Christ and the same Promise which is set before all that have the Gospel this cannot be the Controversie Though the revealing means be divers with many so is not the Object nor the Means to all IV. All that remaineth then to be questioned is the Effect which is subjective Grace whether that Grace in one man which is but sufficient be efficient in another or in the same man at several times And here by this subjective Grace is meant either 1. The vis impressa 2. Or the Power 3. Or the Act produced 4. Or the Disposition or Habit. The two latter are shut out of the question which is not whether the Act or Habit be sufficient and effectual but whether the Grace be so that is to cause them Whether this vis impressa be always caused by means with Gods Power set home as the impress of a Signature by the Arm and Seal or be caused immediately by God without any proper means the word being but a Concomitant and not mediate Operator is made a Controversie by some But he that well considereth the Scripture here abouts and the experience of man will be likelier to think that it is God by means that ordinarily maketh the impress on the Soul and that the same impress is the effect of both though extraordinarily God can do without means For 1. It is most likely that God should work on man most agreeably to his nature and to his subject state under God his Governor 2. And Christ himself as our Teacher and Example and all his Gospel are appointed to this use 3. The Ministry and Ordinances are appointed to the same end And Ministers commanded to fit their teaching to that end 4. No man can prove that ever any came to actual Knowledge Faith or Love but by some means Experience telleth Gods Servants that he worketh by them 5. The most apt and powerful usually have best success and those prosper most in Grace that use means best and those speed worst that use them least 6. God strictly commandeth the use of the means as means for that end that his Grace may be wrought by them 7. God promiseth his blessing on the means Act. 26. 17 18. 1 send thee to open their eyes c. Rom. 1. 16. The Gospel is the Power of God to Salvation 2 Tim. 4. 16. Thou shalt save thy self and them that hear thee Jam. 6. last He that converteth a Sinner saveth a Soul from death c. 8. When God forsaketh a Nation by taking away the means he usually forsaketh them as to further Grace 9. The Devil seemeth to know this by his earnest opposition to a holy powerful Ministry and other means throughout the World so that we may say with Cypriam Epist. 69. ad Pupian Ut etiam qui non credebant Deo Episcopum Constitâ—enti vel Diabâ—lo credebant Episcopum proscribenti But whether it be by means or not it must be somewhat different from Gods own Essence which is imprinted or communicated And to get a formal conception of it what it is if it be not the Power Disposition Act or Habit is past mans reach Whatsoever it is this is certain 1. That God doth not give an Act as a thing pre-existent but giving Faith is but causing us to believe or do that act our selves which was none till we performed it 2. That quoad effectum disposed Power and Act also are more than Power and Disposition without the act 3. Undoubtedly Dr. Fairfax Of the Bulk c. of the World pag. 5. 6 7 c. Though God be the Maker of every Being that is physicaly so it follows not that he is so of every Being that is morally so It is enough that God is the Maker of the Power to do evil which being good may spring from him c. All that God doth towards sin is to leave us to our selves to bring it forth if we will and instead of driving on to it as a fellow-helper or procatarktick cause he draws from it and towards the good with unspeakable endearments of wooing and drives from it by forbidding the Evil with all that earnestness of threatning which may beget in man the utmostness of dread Nor is he any nearer the physical cause of it than to give that good power which is not the cause at all as it looks towards him for by giving this power he is at the same time the evil is done as much the cause of the good that is not done therefore he is not the cause at all Besides this power is not only good but also needful For though the the perfection of the Will in the next life will not be in a wavering alike towards Good and Evil but only in a selfwillingness to Good yet in this life I think it mainly does and must For this is a life of doing or believing as it looks on to reward in that to come and that is a life of rewarding as it looks back to doing or believing here c. Hence we may answer the old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For â—s sin is a moral thing c. unbounded Wisdom and Goodness having â—aid out endless happiness as a reward for Obedience and endless wretchedness as punishment for sin without this Obedience there could be no Heaven without Sin no Hell And without a power not to do in both there could be neither So then that God may have leave to make man happy for holiness man must needs have power to make himself wretched for sin That evil should always flow from evil in a chain of Breeders is a great misunderstanding Object Then man may
thank himself too for all the good he does that Being as much of him as the other c. Answ It follows not For 1. Of all the good that man doth God is still the moral Cause egging on to it by all c. 2. And the same Almighty Hand that barely upheld while Sin was done doth over and above further the thing that good is by enlightning the Mind renewing the Will healing the spring in man of that all which inbred Sin hath brought upon it and in a word making it every way more it self God must be more an Owner than man And thence the thing done falls in with the Divine Will because it flowed from Divine Goodness That which is good in man by way of Off-spring being so in God by way of Well-spring Ibid. p. 10. the same degree of impress or influx or force which causeth one man to believe or act is not sufficient to cause any other worse disposed man to believe or act nor the same man when he is more ill disposed and hindered 4. If we put the case of men equally disposed it is impossibly to prove that any two men in the world are equally disposed Nay it is most probable that they are not Their minds having far greater variety of thoughts to cause a difference than their countenances have of particles making the wonderful diversity which we see Nor is the same man long equally disposed 5. Men equally disposed if such there were may have unequal impediments without and in their bodies and temptations which may cause them to need unequal help of Grace 6. The same individual Impress which causeth no more than a Power causeth not the Act also For that is a contradiction to cause the Act and not to cause it 7. But a less degree of impulse or help may cause the act in one when a greater degree causeth it not in another 8. A wonderful difference therefore is made in this as well as in â—ll other diversities in the World by the diverse receptive dispositions of the Patient Which made Johan Sarisberiensis in Nugis Curial and many School-men to liken God with some acknowledged difference in his Operations to the Sun which by one invaried efflux of motive illuminative and calefactive power causeth innumerable varieties of effects as all the particular Creatures have various Natures and receptive Dispositions 9. But all good disposition or preparation is of God But by such ways of operation as we are searching after But all ill disposition is from our selves 10. To conclude God giveth men sometimes as much power to Will or Act when they do not as they have when they do But usually not an equal predisposition some having more indisposed themselves which is to be changed by contrary acts But whether de facto men equally enabled predisposed helped and hindered do yet without any cause but their own free-will it self act or will variously is a question that these Controversies need not come to That such were there such in the World could do it I take for granted what-ever they do The Controversie is well known which Hobbes hath raised in the World who saith That to be free and to be willing is all one and that every act of the Will is as truly necessitated by physical premotion as the motions of any Engine are And that we talk of liberty and contingency in the dark not that there is any such thing indeed but when we know not the train of Causes we use those names which signifie but our ignorance And that the first Cause and other superior Causes do by premotion as much necessitate each Volition as the Archer doth the motion of his Arrow And the Dominicans predetermination and Camero's necessitation by a train of second Causes is the same I think But I think God hath made a very good use by his over-ruling ordination of the Doctrine of Hobbes learnedly and timerously or cautelously seconded by Gassendus and improved by Benedictus Spinosa an Apostate Jew in his Tractatus Politico-theologicus For the goodness and learning of such worthy men as were Alvarez Twisse Camero in all other points moderate and admirably judicious hath been the grand temptation to the Church to receive that Doctrine which Hobbes and Spinosa having plainly and nakedly propounded is now detested by almost all good men For from thence they have plainly inferred the subversion of all morality as distinct from physical motion and consequently of all true Religion I deny not that I find my self the Controversie in it self exceeding difficult and that I have not been without temptations to their Opinion nor yet am And that indeed all pretended middle ways between Hobbes his Necessitation Physical and true Free-will are but fancies as far as I can perceive And if I leave true Free-will I must turn to their necessitation I confess their arguing is very plausible that there is no Effect without a Cause and that when ever the Will chooseth one thing and refuseth another there is some antecedent Cause in the power disposition or external things and that the same Cause in the same state and mode having no difference in it self doth always produce the same effect Otherwise the diversity should have no cause And that the Will being in the same disposition and having all the same objects helps impediments and other circumstances will have the same acts All this is plausible But 1. If I receive it I must let go almost all Religion as well as Christianity of the truth of which I have a better proof than they can give for their Opinion And we must not reduce certainties to the obscurest unsearchable uncertainties 2. And in God himself their foundation is confuted For he that is the first Cause eodem modo se habens sine ulla diversitate unicus plurima immo omnia causat Therefore their Principle is false 3. And finding man made after the Image of God not only as holy but as man Gen. 6. I have great reason to think that Free-will is part of his natural Image and that as God is a causa unica plurimorum so may Free-will be And that as a God is causa prima entium so Free-will may be a kind of causa prima not actionis qua talis but of the comparative moral species of its own acts as choosing this thing rather than that which is no addition to real entity but a wonderful mode of it which man cannot tell whether he should call something or nothing 4. I say therefore that here is no Effect without a Cause Free-will may be the cause of various Effects without a various predisposition C. Doth not the Will act as it is disposed to act B. That it acteth not always according to Habits which are more than dispositions is certain by experience For objects oft prevail against habits and habits do not necessitate C. That is because the Will is otherwise disposed by some contrary stronger habits As either
so doing it was not a Will but bruitish Appetite B. The Understanding said truly It is pleasant and Appetible and so the Will in its initial desire sinned not But that it looked no further and excited not the Intellect to remember and it self to desire more to please God was by an abuse of its power and liberty of self-determining and so the sensible good prevailed because the superior good was forgotten and neglected And the Will may thus suspend its act after an intellectual perception without being bruitish though it so â—ar disobey Reason its guide C. These things are exceeding intricate and difficult for all that you say B. They are so * The same I say of objective and intellectual necessitation of the Will saith H. Kipping truly Inst Philos Nat. li. 9. c. 10. pag. 416. Errant Scholae reformatâ— doctores qui asserunt voluntatem ad actum suum determinari a judicio intellectus ita ut voluntatic libertas nulla sit constricta vero sit ad intellectus ductum a quo semper determinatur Joh. Camero Mart. Schogkius Hornbeck Maccovius Heerbord Hos prolixe bene refellit Episcopius But forget not that the great difficulty is between us and the Hobbists or Infidels and Fatists and not between the true Christians among themselves as to our present Controversies I confess that the confuting of their Opinion that all Volitions are necessitated unavoidably by Gods Operation is a far harder work than the reconciling of the Lutherans and Calvinists who go upon no such Principles Tell me Is this it that you would come to or not If you once perswade me that God causeth all sinful Volitions as necessarily as he causeth a Tree to grow and that man can no more avoid them and that liberty of Will signifieth no more than velle or not nolens velle and so that God is the prime irresistible cause of all Sin as much as of all Good so far as it is capable of a Cause I must needs next believe 1. That God hateth not his own Work yea that he loveth it 2. That he hateth no man for it 3. That moral Good and Evil is nothing in man but such as obeying or disobeying proportionably in a Horse or Dog 4. Yea far less because man doth â—ut as my pen which writeth as I move it in respect to God But so is not my Horse or Dog to me 5. And how then to judge of all the Scripture the Ministry of the Incarnation and Death of Christ of the Duties of a Christian life of Hell c. it 's easie to perceive viz. That as God differenceth Men and Toads meerly because he will do so even so doth he the good and the bad in the World and that Sin is no evil any way but to our selves and that God is as much the cause of it as of Sickness and is as well pleased with the Worlds Infidelity and Impiety as with the Churches Sanctity And that he will no otherwise damn men for Sin than erbitarily to make such baser than others as Dogs are than men Benedictus Spinosa hath given you the Consectaries more at large O how heartlesly should I preach and pray how carelesly should I live if once you brought me to this Opinion that all sin is the unresistible Work of God so far as it is a work as much as holiness is C. If there be no middle between Free-will and this Impiety as I confess I cannot disprove your Consectaries it's time for us to turn our studies against the common Enemies of all Religion and Morality instead of contending with one another specially when they have so much to say B. And do you think they do well and friendly by the Church who take these mens part and own their Cause in the foundation and entangle poor Souls in such intricate difficulties when we that know not the least of Gods Creatures or the mysteries of any of his Works do little know all the quick and intricate actions of our own Souls In a word man hath more power to good than he useth and that power is called sufficient or necessary Grace to the act though there be many difficulties which no one of either side can resolve The second Crimination C. But I fear many of them with Pelagius by GRACE do mean nothing So Dr. Twisse frequently repeateth that meeâ— posse credere is but Nature and not Grace because it is equally a posse non credere But 1. A natural power reprieved by Grace and preserved and given for gracious ends 2. And many and great helps of Grace to excite and rectifie it may be called an effect of Grace but Nature it self at least when they speak of the Heathens who they say have some kind of Grace B. Turn your eyes a little from the name of Pelagius and every thing else that useth to blind Disputers with prejudice and partiality and then answer me these following questions Quest. 1. Do you think that Mercy contrary to sinful Commerit is not properly Grace C. I confess it is B. Quest. 2. Is not the whole frame of Humane Nature and our Utensils put into the hand and power of Christ the Redeemer to be managed by him to his Mediatory ends Joh. 17. 2. Math. 28. 19 20. Joh. 13. 3. Ephes 1. 22 23. Phil. 2. 7 8 9 10 11 12. For this end he died rose and revived that he might be Lord both of the Dead and Living Rom. 14. 9. Joh. 5. 22 23 24. The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all Judgment to the Son c. And is not the very reprieval of the World from deserved ruine and misery so many thousand years an Act of Grace and Nature now continued used and improved by Grace and so far may be said to be of Grace C. This is plain truth and must not be denied B. Quest 3. Is it not undeserved Mercy to all Mankind that ever since Adam's Sentence Gen. 3. 15. they are all ruled by a Law of Grace and not the Law of Innocency alone and by that Law of Grace must all be judged C. If you before evinced that any thing is truly mercy to the Reprobate I must confess it But I have not before so much thought of this what Law the World is under as the case deserveth But I remember Camero in the fragments of his dispute with Courcellaeus taken by Testardus though he deny not that the Covenant of Grace was made with all mankind in Adam and Noah yet saith That by or for their nearer Parents sins the Infants of Infidels are out of that Covenant B. 1. It 's well you note that it is not only Augustine Enchir. ad Laâ—rent and I that are for the Imputation of nearer Parents sin in some Vid. Pet. Martyr in Rom. 5. confessing Augustine's judgment sort as well as Adam's 2. He speaketh there of the Covenant as mutual and not as a Law or an offered Covenant or Divine
will in the use of such Power as he hath is a condition sine qua non ut dispositio Gratiae receptiva ordinarily 8. But that God is not tied to this but may extraordinarily do otherwise 9. But that this * Ruiz de praedif tr 3. d. 18. p. 222. Resp dispositiones proximas proâ—ertionatas ad gratiam nâ—â—il ob esse quidditati gratiae quoniam ex prima radice nascuntur ex prima gratia quae absque ulla dispositione quasi creata est a Deo sine materia At pugnabit cum quidditate gratiae quaelibet dispositio etiam remota si ab illa sumit initium gratia ita ut prima gratia detur intuitu talis dispositionis Iâ— not this enough pre-requisite disposition and the concurse of mans will is only the use of a power freely before given of God with all necessary helps to use it 10. And therefore that God is from first to last the first cause of all that 's good in man though not the only cause and that of himself man can do nothing Have I not taken your meaning right B. Yes so far as you have recited it C. But methinks yet you answer not the great question which Camero baffled Tilenus with It is not why Paul believeth Nor why Nero believeth not as singly considered But comparatively why Paul believeth rather than Nero Speak to that B. Camero and Tilenus were great and excellent wits But if you can forgive the Truth I must add that which they said nothing to which will prove that a few degrees more of acuteness might have shortned or better ended their dispute It is the Comparatio personarum that is now the subject of that Controversie why this man rather than that as compared Here then we are to consider 1. The Comparabilitas 2. The Ipsa Comparatio 1. The question as to the first is either 1. Whether there was antecedently any such ratio comparandi in them as might be a reason or motive to God himself quoad actum ex parte agentis why he should decree to give or actually give Faith to one man rather than to another 2. Or else whether there were any such difference antecedent as might be Ratio discriminis ineffectis the reason why one received or had Faith and the other not II. And then quoad actum comparandi the question is whether God in his Decree or mind did truly compare the persons antecedently and say not only I will cause this man to believe and say I will not cause that man to believe or not say I will But also said I will cause this man to believe rather than that To these several questions then I answer 1. Negatively to the first For Gods acts ex parte agentis are his essence and as he hath no cause but is the cause of all things so thus far nothing in the world is a causal reason or motive to God He willeth because he willeth or rather without cause II. To the second There are in the Creatures different capacities for terminating Godâ— will and action objectively and accordingly denominating his Volitions and Actions variously And so this question must be divided into three 1. Whether always 2. Whether ordinarily 3. Whether sometimes there be an objective ratio comparabilitatis and of preferring one before another as to the effect of believing or why Gods operation should effect Faith rather in this man than in that To which I answer Ad primum 1. There are nearest Reasons in the immediate aptitude of the receiver Such as is the highest degree of preparing Grace in one which another hath not And there are remote reasons or aptitudes As e. g. A man of great learning wit and zeal or some other remote aptitude will be a fitter person for Gods work than another when he believeth 2. It is not known to any mortal man what different aptitudes in both these kinds God the only heart-searcher seeth which no man can see And therefore this question cannot certainly be answered as to both sorts 3. But as far as our blind eyes can reach it seemeth most probable to us that God doth not always effect Faith according to the degrees of receptive aptitude of either sort Because we see that sometimes he suddenly calleth very great sinners and also some that are silly and little serviceable in the world But yet what special aptitudes God may see in them we know not Ad secundum Qu. I answer That it is Gods ordinary way to give Faith according to the first sort of predisposition alone were there no difference in the last that is To those that have the highest degrees of moral preparation or Common Grace I take to be a certain truth 1. Because in all Gods Works we see that he operateth by degrees in order and on predisposed matter and that efficit juxta dispositionem recipientis 2. But specially because he hath himself appointed a course of means for the obtaining of his special Grace to be used by all men And he cannot be thought to do all this in vain nor to set men on doing their part in vain And all practical Divines who preach so much for the souls preparation are of this mind that such preparation is the ordinary predisposition Ad Qu. 3. I answer That at least sometimes it is so is past question with any sober man For it is a contradiction to call it preparing Grace or Disposition and yet to say that by it no man is made ever the more receptive or nearlier capable of Faith or special Grace So much to the two questions de Comparabilitate * Mark what Bannes himself saith of Common Grace in q. 23. pag. 274. Pie credi potest quod omnibus venientibus ad usum rationis Deus opem aliquam ferat supernaturali quodam auxilio secreto instigante ad operandum bonum 2. Si vera est opinio Thomae c. necesse est dicâ—re quod omnis qui justificatur receperit gratiam praeparantem saltem prius natura quam praeceptum naturale adimpleverit 3. Quotiescunque aliquis pecâ—at speciale peccatum contra supernaturale praeceptum vel fidei vel pâ—nitâ—ntiae c. necesse est ut ille de facto receperit aliquam divinam inspirationem illuminantis Dei dut vocantis aut incitantis ad fidem c. Immo necesse est hominem tangi aliqua supernaturali inspiratione ut nullam â—abtat excusationem Possibile est seâ—undam legem ordinariam quemlibet dum est in hac vita salvari Dâ—us paratus est dare omnibus quamdiu sunt in hâ—c vita auxilium quo fiant potentes converti immo auxilium specialius quo convertaâ—tur si velint I cite this because for his Doctrine of Predetermiâ—ation Protestants much value Banâ—es a boasting Author who thanketh God that their King burneth Protestants Indeed the Dominioâ—â—s commonly confess sufficient Grace which is not effectual III. But as to the third question
Whether God Actually in his mind thus Compare men and prefer one before another and say I will cause this man to believe rather than that I answer 1. There is no Act in God but his Essence which is invariable and indivisible 2. But because his operations as terminated and productive ad extra are various and have objective material causes of their diversity in the recipients therefore we usually thence denominate Gods volitions as various And so when we see that one man hath Grace given him to believe when another hath not we hence say that God mentally and by Decree preferreth one before the other when the difference is not at all in God not his Act ex parte agentis but only of and by God in the Recipients C. But come yet nearer the heart of the case and tell me plainly 1. Whether the difference of Effects be more from the will and action of God or from mens different Receptive dispositions And 2. Whether all these different Receptivities be not of God B. Order bids me begin with the latter 1. The different Dispositions are of two sorts Good and Bad. God is not the cause of the Indisposition or illdisposition of any And as to the good disposition or Preparation of Souls no doubt but he is the principal Cause of it all but not the sole Cause nor always at least the necessitating Cause but oft giveth men that necessary help by which they might have been prepared for more when yet they are not through their wilful resistance or neglect For few men will deny that men have sufficient uneffectual Grace for some preparatory acts though not for faith Ad. Q. 2. I told you that the difference in the effects resulteth from the Causes in both Subjects and not in one only That which maketh one a believer and the other an unbeliever maketh them differ And I have told you what these Causes are But further I suppose as aforesaid a certain established order and degree of universal help external and internal by Christ to the Soul as the Sun affordeth to inferior Bodies This stablished order of Grace universally affordeth such a degree of Divine Influx and help as will cause faith in a prepared Soul and will not cause it in some much unprepared Souls For if as little help would serve the unprepared as the prepared to what use is preparation quomodo recipitur ad modum recipientis In this case now the efficient of Grace is God and not Man but * That even Jesuits confess in their way of scientia media that the Ratio discriminis why one person rather than another hath Grace is from God initially and principally and not from any beginning in man See Ruiz proving it at large in all his Tract 3. Disp 18. 19. De Praedest exordio So that this is no difference between us Yea more he maintaineth that ante fidem niâ—il est dispositionis meriti aut impetrationis Sect. 3. Disp 19. 24. And one would think that this should satisfie even the Antinomians But he meaneth only that this disposition is not always necessary He that will in brief see what the Schoolmen say of preparative Grace may find abundance of them cited by Ruiz ibid. d. 21. per totam and what nature can do in preparation Greg. Armin in 2. d. 28. q. 1. a. 1. speaketh most like the Reformed Aug. de bono persever c. 8. Sed cur Gratia Dei non secundum merita hominum datur Resp Quia deus miserecors est Cur ergo non omnibus Et hic respondeo Quoniam Deuâ— justus Judex est the Ratio proxima of the difference in the event and effects is the Diverse disposition of the Recipients But here mark well that it is not the good disposition or preparation of one party that is the only and I think not the chief reason of the difference but the Privative and Positive indisposition of the other party is as much if not the chiefest reason If one man shut his eyes against the light when another doth not the Ratio discriminis why one man differeth from another in seeing and not seeing is on both parts but principally on his part that shutteth his eyes because the other doth but what he was made to do and all living creatures should do But the other absurdly crosseth nature So that under an universal Influx and help the said Influx is the efficient of the action or effect but the disposition of the Recipients are the Occasions and Reasons to be assigned of the various effects but especially the incapacity of the defective party As the reason why the Sun doth make a Tree bear fruit and not a dead stock is because the Tree is an apt recipient of its influx but the stock or stone is not 2. But Note that in case that God operate not by such an universal Influx only but also by superadded special or extraordinary degrees of particular Grace which by a difference from the universal Influx or degree is peculiarly apt to procure the effects here the ratio discriminis is principally to be ascribed to that special Grace and not to the preparations on the Soul C. Tell me then what you think whether God works by such an universal Grace or by such a special Grace 1. How far doth he work by universal Grace 2. Is that universal Grace ever effectual of it self on prepared Souls 3. How far doth he also use the special particular Grace which you mentioned B. I. To your first Qu. I answer 1. God in the beginning made mankind upright in Adam and Eve and made no difference as to the present case 2. Eve having first sinned did make a difference between her self and Adam which God made not nor altered first his universal Grace 3. Adam next without Gods alteration by Sin did difference himself from himself as he was before 4. God then set up a new universal Grace even Christ with the new Covenant and Recovering means to give out universal help suited to his Covenant and means to be the Giver of the Spirit and the Light of the world we cannot have time now to open the difference between Christ's administrations before and after his Incarnation There was at first an universal sufficiency in this Recovering help of Grace 5. Cain that could have done otherwise wilfully sinned against this universal Grace and Covenant and so made a difference between him and the rest of mankind when God made none 6. Whether Abel did offer his acceptable Sacrifice by this same universal Help alone or by any special extraordinary Grace ex parte mediorum vel Influxus primi recepti is a thing unknown to us because unrevealed 7. The Posterity of Cain as of Adam at first because Seminally in him and personally from his very guilty essence were justly deprived of some of that Grace both Subjective and Objective which Cain had deprived himself of Their natures were more vitiated and so
Glory as the materia objectiva actus humani where I conclude the Causa finalis as the chief object Thus I have shewed you truly and plainly unde fit fides as that is all one as unde hic effectus and that is all one as unde Gratia fit efficax as to this secondary effect C. But I conceive that the sense of the question rather iâ— which of all these is the chief cause or reason of the existence of the effect B. Pardon my impatience of Confusion The chief cause and the chief reason are not always the same There is no question but God is the only and total Causa prima from whom all the rest have all their power and force But by the Reason of the existence is often meant that which in discourse must be assigned proportionately in answer to the question Why is one converted rather than another supposing Gods Influx on them both And this is oft the Receptive disposition as is said for Reciptur ad modum recipientes C. Well But the question recurreth what is the chief Cause and Reason that one not another hath that preparatory Receptivity B. The chief Cause is God why one hath it The chief Cause why another hath it not is himself that is the Moral deficient cause The Ratio differendi I opened to you before The most notable if we suppose Gods Influx to be of it self universal and equal is the Indisposition of the Sinner whence he doth difference himself from those that God causeth to receive even preparing Grace But the true Ratio effectus is from all the Causes conjunct C. But you must come at last to some prime difference And if you will say that the reason of our Preparatory effect or degree of Grace is because I used a former well or did not refuse it or was prepared for it what will you say of the first degree B. I say that the first preparatory Grace or help was given to Adam and all in him as the first natural goodness was C. But where came in the first difference B. By Cain's wilful Sin against God and his Grace C. But though you do with Augustine hold a communicated guilt of the sins of other Parents than our first and so a difference between persons yea and Kingdoms thence arising yet some Children as Esau and Jacob born of the same Parents must have in them some other cause of difference even as to preparatory Grace B. Suppose Gods fixed equal Influx universal there are two Causes of difference herein 1. One is the meer sinful wilfulness of one party that doth not do what that Grace enabled him to do by which a difference is made C. You mean that Jacob better used his help than Esau B. Not so but that Esau more abused it than Jacob. Suppose Jacob had slept out his youth or done no good and Esau had rebelled against God also and done much mischief Esau had hereby made a difference which is assignable without commending Jacob. C. Well what is the other Cause B. 2. Gods own free differencing Will and Grace who is a free Benefactor and may do with his own as he list and therefore freely loveth Jacob with the electing special love and decree which he hath not to Esau For though I have all this while discoursed with you of the Ratio Efficaciae of an Universal Grace I say not that there is no other C. O Now you come to the matter indeed B. II. The Question Unde fit Gratia efficax * Blank de Dist Grat. Thes 79. Naturam Gratiae efficacis Thomistae ponunt in motione quadam virtuosa quae est in voluntate per modum quo impetus in re quae impellitur Jansenius in â—ffectibus Amoris desiderii boni coelestis spiritualis quibus suaviter sursum rapitur animus humanus Discipâ—li Cameronis in potâ—nâ—â—ssima mentis illuminatione persuasione quae voluntatem â—ffectus secum rapit Alii in omnipotenti efficacissima Dei operatione qua novum principium spiritualis vitae Cordi hominis vocati inditur homo simâ—l excitatur ad actus eliciendos quae hic plerique vâ—i docti proferunt componenda potius quam opponenda videntur Even they that are for Physical praedetermination are not agreed what it is some make it a transient quality passing with the act Some say it is only mans Act it self as from God the first cause Some with Alvarez say It is Aliquid quod habet esse incompletum as colours in the air that is They know not what and yet venture on hot contentions about it And Jansenius who maketh it to be Delectatio or Complacentia saith it is Actus vitalis indeliberatus animo quidem amoris desiderii praecedentis consensum ac delectationem illam quae quies animi gaudium dicitur De Grat. Christi l. 4. c. 11. Much like to Vasquez save that Vasq calls it but an indeliberate prime motion of the affection and Jansenius calls it Indeliberate Delectation or Complacency which certainly is an Act of man and the Scotists say that all the Wills Acts are free though not all its inclinations But thus we strive about that which none of us understand viz. How God moveth his Creatures and our Wills in special being put of Gods special Grace by which he arbitrarily maketh a difference and is more than his Universal Grace must be thus resolved That though other Causes concur to the effect the Great over-ruling differencing and ascertaining Cause is the very quality and aptitude of Gods operation it self as proceeding from an absolute volition of the effect and in the Means and Influx fitted to ascertain the effect C. Wherein consisteth this differencing special Grace B. Deceive not your self No mortal man can know in what it ordinarily constantly or chiefly consisteth We know 1. That though God as Rector per Leges keeps one even and constant course yet as Proprietor and Benefactor he may vary as he please And that a Benefactor may give unequally to men of equal merits And that God really doth so de facto And that his Will hath no Cause 2. We know that God hath innumerable ways to fulfil his Will and make a difference between man and man which are beyond the search of Mortals 3. And though we can name divers which he can take we know not de facto which he doth take hic nunc C. What differencing free acts of Grace do you observe B. None which violate Gods established order or diminish his universal Grace But such as are superadded specially to some As 1. To Children of the same Parents he giveth to divers a temperament of Body as in one much more conduceth to thoughtfulness tenderness meekness sobriety chastity zeal honesty c. than in the other He is a stranger to man that knoweth not this 2. He sometime giveth them various Education One is piously educated Another is snatch'd away and
How will you prove it against them that think Solomon had but common Grace till he wrote Ecclesiastes or repented of his Fall A. He was a pen-man of the Scripture the Proverbs before And he was beloved of God and excelled all others in Wisdom B. 1. Whether he wrote or only spake the Proverbs you prove not 2. You cannot prove that writing part of the Scripture is a more certain sign of a Saint than speaking part of it And Balaam spake part of it what Job's Friends were I know not And if many Workers of Iniquity did by the Spirit prophesie and cast out Devils in Christ's Name how prove you that they may not write part of the Scriptures To pass by that Pilate Festus Claâ—dius Lystaâ— and other such wrote part of it And an ungodly Preacher may now speak and write excellent things 3. His Wisdom which he begged and is magnified for is described objectively to be political physical and ethical but how far spiritual the Text doth not speak 4. God might be said to love him as Christ did that man that was not far from the Kingdom of God Complacencially according to the good that was in him And benevolently as he purposed his future Sanctification and Salvation I write not this as my own Opinion but to tell you that you cannot prove so much as you think you can The fifth Crimination A. * Even Bradwardine l. 2. c. 15. who goeth as high against Free-will as Hobs or any man doth yet confidently holdeth the Apostacy of Saints though not of the Elect and questioning what causeth perseverance in Glory he consuteth all thâ—t lay it on any thing as sufficient but Gods Will which he calleth his Love and the Holy Ghost 1. Them that lay it on the nature of Grace 2. Or the degree of Grace 3. Or the sight of God 4. Or the intenseness of that sight 5. Or the delight in God 6. Or the degree of that Delight 7. Or on uniting adhesion to God 8. Or the degree of that adhesion 9. Or on our not seeing any good which we want 10. Or the fear of misery by sinning 11. Or that the joy taketh away Free-will 12. Or on a perfect beatitude in all these All which he saith are insufficient and Gods Will is the cause though using these And so in this life men stand or fall not because God giveth some his inward Grace for that may be lost and others not but because God willeth the persevering and obedience of one and willeth it not to another This is over-doing of the Champion of Grace against Free-will They shew exceeding much immodesty 1. In holding an Opinion which is contrary to the Doctrine of the universal Church from the Apostles till of late times neither Orthodox nor Heretick being ever known to hold it unless perhaps Jovinian alone till above a thousand years after Christ No not Augustine and his Disciples who were thought by many to run towards an extream in over-pleading for Grace so that they were called by some Predestinarian Hereticks 2. And yet they have the face instead of being ashamed of their own singularity to revile others as heterodox if not heretical who will not be as singular as they and set as light by the judgement of Christs Church B. I am not one of them that will cite any scraps of the Fathers contrary to their current expressions to contradict you Vossius hath copiously related their judgments in his Pelagian History and that as favourably for perseverance as there was cause And Dr. Twisse who frequently speaketh his distast of him saith nothing to prove his History false Which in this he that readeth the Fathers must confess to be true But this should somewhat moderate you in your censure 1. That the Writers of the first three hundred years are few and their Writings except Tertullians Origine and Cyprian very short even Clements Alexand. and Justins not long And few of them very learned and accurate Writers who are the common Managers of Controversies nor was this Controversie started in their times and therefore not accurately searcht into 2. And if you say that this is the more for your cause if it were not so much as made a Controversie I add that the Platonick Philosophy which then most prevailed might do somewhat to dispose them that way For as Grotius de fato hath copiously proved out of above thirty Philosophers and philosophical Christians most of all the Philosophers especially Platonists were for Free-will and most learned Christian Doctors came out of Plato's School and most of the learned Hereticks too 3. And yet Laertius in Zenone tells us That the Stoicks were against falling away and taught that no truly virtuous man did ever cease to be such 2. But above all I would have you consider 1. That this Point was not held by these consenting Doctors for an Article of Faith and necessary to Church-Concord and Salvation but as one of those many Opinions which were left free 2. And that many or most of these Fathers did agree in some Opinions that are not true 3. Yea that the greater part of them are by the Papists themselves charged with several Errors and some and not a few with Heresies 4. And that therefore the holy Scriptures being the only and sufficient Rule of Faith we need not be so much ashamed as you intimate in some things to differ from the generality of those Fathers if the Scripture be more for us than them There is many a Text of Scripture which Papists themselves interpret contrary to most of the Fathers notwithstanding their Trent Oath to the contrary Therefore your heavy Accusation of immodest singularity is too keen But as for their Cross-Accusation of you as heterodox I now meddle not with the truth nor excuse any uncharitableness therein The sixth Crimination A. They contradict abundance of express Scripture which asserteth that the godly may fall finally from true Grace B. And they think that you rather contradict abundance of Texts that speak expresly for the contrary It is none of my work now to defend either them or you I have long ago written a peculiar Tractate of my own Opinion herein Who is in the right I am not now determining But that you over-magnifie the difference on both sides usually I shall shew you in the end No doubt but the Scripture is of it self sufficient to decide all Controversies as a Rule of sound Doctrine so far as God would have them clearly decided But yet he that denieth that some things in Scripture are hard to be understood will contradict not only Peter's words but his own and all mens experience For as it pleased God to make up the World of variety of Creatures so also to make up the Scripture of Truths of various degrees of necessity and evidence And in this Point there are so many Texts that both Sides think do favour their Opinions that we have not the same certainty
22. 2. For Name and Thing note the terms of Equivalence and Connotation 1. All the Texts where Christ is called a King and his Kingdom named why should I needlesly recite them 2. All the Texts that mention his Commanding and Commandments the same which we mean by a Law Matth. 28. 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you Acts 10. 42. 13. 47. Acts 10. 33. 1 Cor. 7. 10. John 15. 14. If ye do whatsoever I command you 17. These things I command you So John 15. 12. 14. 21 31. 1 Tim. 1. 1. Titus 1. 3. 1 John 3. 23. 4. 6. John 13. 34. 1 John 5. 3. 2. 4. 3. 24. 1 Cor. 14. 37. Acts 1. 2. Acts 17. 30. Blessed are they that do his Commandments c. Rev. 22. 14. 3. All the Texts that mention his Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a Legal institution Heb. 8. 6. He is the Mediator of a better Covenant 8. 13. 8. 10. 10. 16. 12. 24. Gal. 4. 24. 4. All those Texts that not only call him Lord of all but say that All power in Heaven and Earth is given to him therefore Legislative power Matth. 28. 18. and all Judgement committed to him John 5. 22. The Government is laid upon his shoulders and of the increase of his Government there shall be no end Isa 9. 6 7. 5. De re how can that man be a Christian that denyeth that Christ hath made us any Law and so denyeth his Kingdom and our obedience I argue from the definition That which hath the essential parts of a Law is a Law But Christ hath made that which hath the essential parts of a Law Therefore he hath made a Law The Major is past dispute The Minor I prove That which hath a Precept making Duty and a Promise and Threatning instituting the Retribution by Rewards and Punishments as an Instrument of Government hath all the Essentials of a Law But such is made by Christ Ergo The Minor which only needs proof I prove by parts and instances 1. There is a Command to believe in God as our Reconciled Father by Christ 2. To believe in Christ as Incarnate and the Mediator conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary fulfilling all righteousness dying buried for us justifying us by his blood rising ascending glorified interceding that will raise the dead and judge the world c. We are commanded to believe all the Gospel And to give up our selves to Christ in the Covenant of Baptism to trust in him to pray in his name c. We are commanded to believe in the Holy Ghost as the Spirit of Christ and to live in Communion with the Christian Church to observe the Lords day the first of the Week to preach and hear the Gospel to receive the Lords Supper to imitate Christ to receive his Apostles and Ministers to relieve his members as such to take Moses Law as abrogated or ceased And do you that are so strict in condemning all humane impositions as bold additions believe that Christ himself hath made no Laws for Ordination Sacraments Preaching Worship and why fear you adding then can one add to Nothing And what a lawless sort of persons are you if you will neither have Christ nor Man to make Laws for you 2. And as to Promises and Threats or Penalties of a far sorer punishment Heb. 10. I am ashamed to stand to prove them to you He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned is sure a Law How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation See that ye reject not him that speaketh Heb. 4. 10. These mine enemies that would not that I should reign over them bring them hither and slay them before me Luke 19. 27. with abundance such Pardon here that my indignation suffereth me not to be longer or colder but shortly to tell you further that to deny Christs Law is 1. To deny him to be a King and to be Christ 2. To deny his Kingdom 3. And his Government 4. And his Gospel 5. And his Officers power both Kings and Pastors 6. And your own subjection 7. And all duty and obedience to him 8. And the being of all sin as against his Laws 9. And all Judgement according to his Laws 10. And all reward for keeping his Laws 11. And all punishment for breaking them 12. And all duty to preach learn or meditate on them 13. And all blame on such as silence such preaching 14. And indeed the very being of all Law and Government in the world For since the Promise Gen. 3. or at least now there is no Law of God in the world but what is the Redeemers Law Even the Law of Nature now is in his hand and is the Law of the Redeemer to lapsed Nature And all the world had a new Law of Grace made to Adam in the first Edition and the Church hath it now in the second Edition And now what part of Christianity do you not destroy Choose you now whether you will come off by confessing that you erred and differed from us but in a word not understood or whether you will allow us to take you for downright Hereticks And bethink you whether those rash and self-conceited Divines that have reviled Papists and Arminians for saying that Christs Gospel was a Law or that he made a new Law have done good service to the Christian or the Protestant Cause or have rather done much to harden the Rapists into a more confident conceit that Protestants are Hereticks CHAP. V. Whether Christ be the only Party in Covenant with God and not Believers or lapsed man Lib. IV. Mr next Charge it that you feign the Covenant to be made with us which is made only with Christ Do you not remember that even the Westminster Assembly say in their larger Catechism that The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam and in him with all the Elect as his seed But you feign it to be made with the Elect nay to others immediately and not only as Christs seed in him nor to Christ at all P. I will not waste time in expounding or censuring other mens words but as to the matter is it not a most shameful thing that a man of your profession and pretensions to knowledge should confound those two Covenants which children should be taught in their Catechism to distinguish By a Covenant here we mean 1. A Covenant offered and imposed which is also a Law 2. A Covenant consented to and mutual And now tell me Quest 1. Was it not a distinct Law that was made to us from that which Christ was obliged by I mean the Law of Grace and Faith Was Christ commanded to Repent of his sin or accept a Saviour or pray for pardon or mortifie his lusts or trust another to reconcile him to God or be Thankful for such mercies or any such like
me of my error 6. Is not unrighteousness a sin in your judging and reports as it is in publick Judgements Should not a man be heard before he be condemned especially a Minister of Christ 7. What a sin is it to receive false reports from others and encourage backbites whom you should rebuke and frown away 8. What a heinous sin is it thus to destroy the Hearers souls and as those that have the Plague to carry your infection from house to house and kill mens Love and breed in them false conceits and bitter injurious thoughts of others 9. What a sin is it with such unthankfulness to requite Christs servants that spend their dayes and strength and estates in labouring for mens good When I take none of your money when I have these twelve years preached as I had liberty freely without hire when I had been put on to plead the Non-conformists Cause in the costliesâ— circumstances and to bear the greatest odium for it when I was I think the first that was silenced on such accounts when I have been twelve or fourteen years deprived of all Ecclesiastical maintenance when I refused a Bishoprick when I have laboured in Writings and other duties to the consuming of my flesh in daily and hourly pain and weakness and now look every Sermon for my last and am ready to appear before my Judge to be to the very last thus calumniated and reviled by pievish Sectaries would be a sad reward were your favour my reward But is this just or grateful or shall the unrighteous and unthankful be accounted the best men I know I could have been one of the highest in your favour and applause if I would have humoured and followed you But I had rather that God should keep me from your honour than buy it at so dear a rate 10. And is it no sin thus to hinder the success of our labours by making us odious or suspected by them that should profit by us 11. Is it not hypocrisie to cry out of the Bishops for silencing us when you shew that you would fain do it your selves Would not you silence me now if it were in your power Yea I doubt not but when I die some of you will rejoyce and say that God did it in judgement on me 12. And thus to make divisions among Christians that should hold the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace will one day be known to be a sin 13. And so it is hereby to harden the enemies of Religion by your clamours and the divisions which you cause and tempt them to hate both you and us 14. And it is worst of all to father all this on God and Truth and Godliness and use such holy Names for so bad a Cause 15. And it aggravateth your sin that you take no more notice of all those plain and terrible Scriptures which as openly condemn your sin as the sin of Drunkards or Swearers is condemned were it but James 3. it would leave you utterly without excuse 16. Yea and that you can see the sins of such Drunkards and Swearers yea and see the Mote in the eyes of one that doth but use a Form or Ceremony which you dislike and cannot see these Beams in your own For all these sins I admonish you presently to repent S. Who is it that is censorious you or I It is sin with you to open your sin P. I desired you to open it But see now how hard a work Repentance is when in a Professor such sins as these will not be confessed S. Well come to the cause it self Is it I or you that comply with Papists P. I make that the business of this Conference with you It is not you only but some wiser men than you that look so much at the evil of Popery that they forget the evil of an unrighteous opposition and of the other extream And they do as one that by labouring to cure another of a Dead Palsie casteth himself into a Phrensie or a Feaver or like one that to avoid a Carrion that stinketh in the Ditch doth run himself into the Ditch on the other side the way Gods Truth must be vindicated only by Truth and Wisdom is best justified of her own children by Wisdom God hath no pleasure in fools noâ— doth his Glory need our lye There is a time when the Devil will seem to be against error and sin and so against Popery but it is in a way which shall promote it which commonly is by ill-doing and over-doing I tell you plainly the Cause of Truth and Reformation gets nothing by some men that seâ—m most zealous for it For an unstudied half-wise honest Minister or private man to believe false reports of the Papists and to mis-state Controversies and to rail on them on such suppositions and to mix many errors of his own in his opposition and to backbite those that know more of the matter as symbolizing with the Papists this is certainly serving the Devil how honest soever the instruments in the main may be S. I perceive that you have an aking tooth at the Protestant Divines as well as at me Are you wiser than all they or are you not warping to Grotianism which you have written against P. Among the Protestant Divines there are well studied knowing solid men that understand what they say such as Bishop Usher Dr. Chaloner Dr. Field Dr. White Chillingworth Morton Davenant Andrews and many such and abroad Camero Dallaus Blondell Drelincourt Amyraâ—dus Placaeus Vâ—ssius Junius Martinius Crocius Bergius Bucer Musculus Melanchthon and many others and there are ignorant hot-headed self-conceited men that rave in extreams as Gallus Ambsdorsius and their companions did against Georg. Major for saying Bona opera sunt necessaria ad salutem And it is no wonder that the best Churches have many such and if such are the forwardest to judge and cry down all that are not as ignorant as they And in our times the World is more beholden to the fewness of buyers and the wit of Booksellers refusing to Print them than to the humility or modesty of such men that the Shops do not abound with such furious Writings â—s Mr. Brownes Antichristomachus Mr. Danvers Mr. Bagshaw c. and that Antichrist Antichrist is not made in Print the Universal Consutation of sober truth as commonly as it is bawled out in words S. Is it not safest to get far enough from Antichrist and Popery Your study is to teach men how near they may come to sin without sin and how to dance about the brink of Hell For my part I will be one of them that shall come out of Babylon and partake not of her sins nor touch the unclean thing and that keep their garments undefiled and not one that like you is grown Lukewarm by being over-fond of Unity and Peace You will follow Grotius it's doubt at last P. Uncleanness must not be touched nor sin partaked of nor lukewarm indifferency
being superstitious by a great deal of self-made Duty and Sin only theirs and yours are not in the same things They say Touch not taste not handle not some things and you other things while you say that God hath forbidden forms of prayer and many lawful circumstances of Worship and other such like And I now intreat you and all the servants of Christ soberly to consider whether a wild injudicious calling sound Doctrine and Practices Antichristian and using that name as a bugbear for want of solid argument and an injudicious running from Papists into the contrary errors and extreams hath not brought on many the guilt and misery which in all the following particulars I shall open to you 1. Such men have corrupted the Gospel of Christ by bringing in many doctrinal errors and opening a door to the heretical to bring in more Almost all the Libertine Antinomian errors have come in by an injudicious opposition to Popery as if they were the Vindication of Election Free Grace Christs Righteousness Justification by faith Perseverance against mans Works and Merits And it is not to be denyed that the said Libertine Doctrines do more contradict the Doctrine of the Gospel even Christianity it self than the Doctrine of the Papists about the same subjects do I know this to be true who ever is offended at it Aquinas Scotus Gabriel Bellarmine Pererids Tolet yea Vasquez Suarez and Molina are not near so erroneous about Justification Grace Faith and good works as Richardson Randal Sympson Towne Crispe Saltmarsh and many such others are Yet how many Religious people have I known that have gloried in these errors as the sweet discoveries of free grace 2. Such erroneous extreams in opposition to Popery have greatly dishonoured the Reformers and Reformation When it cannot be denyed but such and such errors are found among them it maketh all the Reformation suspected as Illyricus his Doctrine of the substantiality of sin and the non-necessity of Good works to salvation and as Andr. Osianders Doctrine of Justification by Gods essential righteousness did and as many harsh passages in Piscator and Maccovins do to name no more besides those before named What a stir have our later Divines still with the Papists in defending some few harsh sayings of Luther Calvin and Beza about the Cause of sin and some such subjects But downright errors cannot be defended 3. Your injudicious opposition greatly hardneth the Papists and hindereth their conviction When they find some errours in your writings as that all are bound to believe that they are elected and Justified that this is the sense of the Article I believe the forgiveness of sin that this is sides divina that we are Reputed of God to have fulfilled all the Law of Innocency habitually and actually in and by Christ c. and then when they read that such men lay the great stress of the Reformation upon these as the very cause of our rejecting Rome and the artiouli stantisaut cadentis Ecclesiae what can more harden them to a confidence that we are hereticks and that they are in the right As I have known the persons that had been in danger of turning Papists if the errour of Transubstantiation and some few more had not been so palpable as to resolve them These men cannot be in the right even so many Papists were like to have turned Protestants had they not met with some notorious errours in such injudicious adversaries 4. Yea we too very well know that your extremities have occasioned divers Protestants to turn Papists Yea some Learned men and such as have zealously run through many Sects in opposition to Popery themselves And some of my acquaintance that went as far in the profession of Godliness as most that I have known They have been so confounded to find partly palpable errours taken for sound doctrine and sound doctrine railed at as Popery and partly to see the shameful diversity and contentions of all the Sects among themselves that it hath drawn them to think that there is no prosperity of the Church and Godliness to be expected but where there is unity and Concord and no Unity and Concord to be hoped for among Protestants And therefore they must return for it to Rome And Grotius professeth that it was this that moved him to go so far towards them as he did And I must needs say that I believe from my very heart that the shameful divisions contentions backbitings revilings censurings persecutions errours and scandals of Protestants among themselves is a far stronger temptation to turn men to Popery than any thing that is to be found among the Papists to turn men to it and that many are thus driven to it that would not have been drawn 5. And by calling good and lawful if not necessary things Antichristian and Popish you have made Religious people ridiculous and a scorn to many that have more wit than Conscience as if we were all such humorous Novices as would run mad by being frightned with the name of Antichrist And as they deride you for it as Fanatical so they the less fear Popery it self 6. And by these extremities you corrupt the peoples minds with a wrathful and contentious kind of Religion which â—s easily taken up in comparison of a holy and heavenly mind When you should kindle in them a zeal for Love and Good Works the mark of Gods peculiar people you are killing Love and kindling wrath Gunpowder may be set on fire without so much blowing of the coal Long experience assureth us that a siding angry contentious zeal is easily kindled but a lively faith a confirmed hope of Glory a Love to God and man needs more ado S. Stay a little in the midst of your reproofs Would you perswade us to a Union with Antichrist and to live in Love and Concord with the members of the Devil Are not the Papists such Have you no way to reconcile us to Rome but by pleading for Love and peace Must we not contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints and not be Lukewarm to the doctrines of Jezabel that seduceth the people of God to Idolatry P. 1. Were you perswadable I would perswade you not ignorantly to contradict the truth of God and call it Popery nor to set up certain false or incongruous notions and pretend them great and necessary verities nor to make a stir for some odd unsound opinions received upon trust from those that you thought best of and to buzz abroad suspicious of Popery against those that have more understanding and conscience than to imitate you nor to fly in the faces of Gods faithfullest servants much less to use your tongues to backbite them as if they were Antichristian because they are not as shamefully ignorant and deceived as you are And I would perswade you to study and digest well what you take the boldness to speak against and not to talk confidently and furiously against that which you never
against those things which their ignorance misrepresenteth to themselves And so Gods ordinances are made a snare to souls which are appointed for their salvation and the man that can kindle in his hearers a transporting passion against this or that opinion or form as Popish is cryed up for an excellent preacher and seemeth to edifie the people while he destroveth them 11. And by this means you seem to justifie the Papists lyes and calumnies against the Protestants by doing as they do They belye Luther Zuinglius Calvin Beza c. with just such intentions and such a kind of zeal as some over doing Sectaries belye them And is it bad in them and good in you 12. You teach the people a dangerous and perverse way of reasoning à minùs notis which will let in almost any errours From a dark text in the Revelations or Daniel or from the supposition that the Pope is the Antichrist and all Papists have received the mark of the beast you gather conclusions against the notorious duties of Love and peace which the light of nature doth commend to all Not that I am perswading you that the Pope is not Antichrist but that all things be received but according to their proper degree of evidence S. Now you open your self indeed All that revolt to Popery begin there with questioning whether the Pope be the Antichrist and telling men of the darkness of the Book of Revelations P. I tell you I will abate no certainty that you have but increase my own and yours if I could but I would not have any falsly to pretend that they are certainer of any thing than they are And no certainty can go beyond the ascertaining evidence And if all Scriptures be equally plain St. Peter was deceived that tells us of many things hard to be understood which the unlearned wrest as other Scriptures to their own destruction And if the Revelations be not one of the hardest I crave your answer to these questions 1. Why are five Expositors usually of four opinions in the expounding of it when it is those that have spent much of their lives in studying it as Napier Brightman c. who are the Expositors 2. Why will none of you that find it so easie at last write one certain Commentary which may assure which of all the former if any one of them was in the right 3. Why did Calvin take it to be too hard for him and durst not venture to expound it 4. And if you take it to be so necessary as you pretend tell me whether it was so necessary and so taken by all those Churches that for a long time received it not as Canonical Scripture Surely they were saved without believing it Though no doubt but the book of Revelation is a great mercy to the Church and all men should understand as much of it as they can But all that I blame you for here is the perverting of the order of proof in arguing à minùs notis 13. And these over-doers that run things into the contrary extreams do most injuriously weaken the Protestant cause by disabling themselves and all men of their principles to defend it and arming the Papists against it by their errors When it cometh to an open dispute by Word or Writing one of these mens errors is like a wound that lets out blood and spirits and puts words of triumph into the adversaries mouth A cunning Papist will presently drive the ignorant disputant to resolve his cause into his mistake and then will open the falshood of that and thence inferr the falshood of all the rest And what an injury is that to the souls of the auditors who may be betrayed by it and to the cause it self For instance If one of our over-doers hold that we are reputed to have kept all the Law of Innocency and merited salvation our selves by Christ or that no act of faith is Justifying but the accepting of his righteousness or that faith Justifieth only as the efficient instrumental cause or that we have no righteousness which hath any thing to do in our Justification but only Christs imputed Merits or that mans faith Love or obedience are not rewardable c. how easily will a Papist open the falshood of such an opinion to the hearers and then tell them that they may see by this who is in the right And alas what work would one Learned Papist make in London by publick disputing if we had no wiser men to deal with him than these over-doers They may call Truth and Sobriety Antichristian and talk nonsence as against Popery successfully to their own party but I hope never to see the cause managed by their publick disputes lest half the Congregation turn Papists on it at once If Chillingworth had not been abler to confute a Papist than those that used to calumniate him as Popish or Socinian he had done less service of that kind than he did 14. And it is an odious injury that these Over-doers do to the ancient and the universal Church while in many cases they ignorantly or wilfully reproach and condemn them as if they were all the favourers of Popery and call their ancient doctrine and practice Antichristian Some of them ignorantly falsifie the Fathers doctrine and upon trust from their Leaders aver◠that they held that which they plainly contradict and that which they held indeed they cry out against as Popery Such an instance we have newly in a Souldier Major Danvers an Anabaptist which I have detected And will Christ take it well to have almost all his Church condemned as Antichristian 15. And hereby what an honour is done to Popery and what a dishonour to the Reformed Churches when it shall be concluded that all the Churches heretofore even next after the age of the Apostles and almost all the present Churches were and are against the doctrine of the Protestants and on the Papists side And yet how many do us this injury and the Roman Church this honour About the nature of Justifying faith and its office to Justification and about the nature of Justification it self and Imputation of Righteousness and free-will and mans Works and Merits and about assurance of salvation and perseverance how many do call that Popery which the whole current of Greek and Latine Fathers do assert and all the ancient Churches owned and most of all the present Churches in the world And those that call all forms of prayer Popery or the English Liturgie at least when almost all the Christian world have forms and most such as are much worse do but tell men that the Christian world is on the side that they oppose and against their way 16. And it is a crime of infamy to be taken for Separatists from the universal Church And in doctrines and forms of Worship not only to avoid what we take to have been a common weakness but also to condemn them as Antichristian or as holding pernicious errours is but
to perswade men that we are not of the same body and to own a sinful dishonourable separation 17. And by all these means these Over-doers do greatly increase Atheism and Infidelity and prophaneness among us while their zeal against Truth and reproaches of sound doctrine do make men think that our Religion is nothing but proud humour and self-conceit and while they see us so boldly condemn almost all the world except our selves they will think that so few as we deserve not to be excepted 18. By this injurious extremity against the Papists we do but kindle in them a bitterer enmity to us and hatred of them breedeth hatred in them of us and so we set them on plotting revenge against us as implacable injurious enemies when we should deal soberly and righteously with all men and seek to win them by truth and gentleness 19. I And such dealings with them do draw Persecution on the Protestants that live under their Dominions and if we refuse to use them here as Christians no wonder if abroad they use not the Protestants as Men. 20. And by such great abuses of Reformation men hinder Reformation for the time to come and do their part to make it hopeless while they discourage such attempts by dishonouring the Reformation which is past Even as David George and Muntâ—er and the Munster Doâ—ages and Rebellions do hinder the â—eviving of Anabaptistry in the world and the shame of their old practices and successes is as a Grave stone upon the Sepuleher of their Cause so do these men do their part to make it with the whole Reformation that none hereafter may date to own or meddle with such work These that I have opened briefly to you are the real fruits of false injurious and ignorant zeal and over-doing against the Papists And if Popery revive it 's like to be by such men S. But Popery is an heinous evil and corrupt nature is so prone to evil thaâ— you need not thus disswade men from going too far from it or from over-doing against it no more than from being overmuch religious P. You may say the same as truly of the errors on the contrary extream All of them are evil and men are prone to evil But 1. Little know you how common it is in the world to spend mens zeal against the real or supposed evil of other mens Opinions and thereby to strengthen the mortal evil of their own carnal affections and passions and worldly lives and to take a zeal for Truth and Orthodoxness for real Holiness while usually such miss of Truth it self 2. And you know not the wiles of Satan how ordinarily he betrayeth a good Cause by the ill management of its most zealous friends and doth undo by over-doing When he will play the Devil indeed with Eve he will seem to be more than God himself for Knowledge of Good and Evil and for the advancement of mankind to be like God and God shall be accused by him as if he were untrue and envyed our perfection When he will play the Devil indeed with Christ he will seem to be more for valiantness and trusting God than Christ was and pleadeth Scripture for tempting God When he will play the Devil indeed in the Pharisees he will be stricter for the â—abbath and for Discipline in avoiding the company of the Publicans and sinners and stricter in fastings and dyet and other observations than Christ himself And he will be a zealous enemy to Blasphemy and a zealous Royalist for Caesar and a zealous honourer of the Temple and the Law when Christ or Paul or other Apostles are to be destroyed by it And when he will play the Devil in the Nicolaitans Simonians and Gnostick Hereticks he will seem to be for higher knowledge and greater liberty than the Apostles were And so when he would sow discord among Christians and would kill their Love and divide Christs Church and set them in a mental and oral War against each other he will aggravate the errors and faults of others and he will seem a more zealous friend of Truth and enemy to Popery Heresie Error Superstition false Worship or other faults than Christ is But he knoweth why S. But God telleth us himself that he is jealous about his Worship and hath in Scripture more severely executed his Justice upon the corrupters of his Worship than almost any other crime P. No doubt but God is jealous against Idolatry He that knoweth not the true God from Idols cannot honour him And he that worshippeth him not as a most Great and Holy God dishonoureth or blasphemeth him on pretence of worshipping him And to worship him by an Image is to perswade men that God is like that which that Image doth represent which is to deny him to be God And no doubt but the Jews great temptations to Idolatry from the Nations about them were to be oppugned by great severities of God And no doubt but Moses Law was to be honoured by Gods severe executions on the breakers of it But when you come to Christs preaching you find how oft he teacheth the Pharisees to go learn what that meaneth I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice When he conferreth with the Woman of Samaria John 4. she presently turneth from the doctrine of faith as Sectaries do among us to the Controversies of the times Our Fathers say In this Mountain and you say At Jerusalem men ought to worship But Christ calleth her off such low discourse and teacheth her to worship God as a Spirit in spirit and truth if ever she would be accepted of him S. But it is a time now when Popery is striving to rise again and how unseasonably would you abate mens zeal against it P. No more than he was against his Lawyers Zeal who grew hoarse with senseless bawling for him saying I am glad he hath lost his voice or else I might have lost my Cause I am so much against Popery that I wish it wiser and abler adversaries than self-conceited unstudied Zealots who will honour Popery by entitling it to the Truths of God and the Consent of the Antient or Universal Church or would make people believe that it consisteth in some good or indifferent things as in some Doctrines Forms or Government which others can see no harm in And so teach men to say If this be Popery we will rather be Papists than of them that rave as in their sleep against they know not what Could these men be perswaded to lay out their Zeal and diligence in propagating the practical knowledge of Christianity it self and let things alone which they understand not and SUSPEND TILL THEY HAVE THROUGHLY STUDIED or at least to forbear hindering wiser men and calumniating and backbiting those that would by wisdom defend that truth which by folly and rashness they go about to betray they might be meet for their share of that honour which now they forfeit S. You strive against Gods Judgements by which he
imputed to us for righteousness If it be only the object and not faith why is it so often called faith believing being perswaded c. Will you say that It is not faith as an act of ours only Whoever dreamt it was For à quatenus ad omne If as an act then every act even plowing and walking and sinning would justifie us Will you say that It is not Faith as a Moral Virtue or Good act only Who saith it is For then every moral good act would justifie men Do you say that It is not by faith as faith in genere It is granted you For else à quatenus ad omne any act of faith would justifie even believing that there is a Hell Will you say that it is not any other species of faith besides our baptismal faith We grant it you But if you will also say that It is not this species even the Christian faith neither that is meant but only the object of it then 1. Why say you that it is Faith as connoting the object contradicting your self for if be not faith at all it is not faith as connoting that which is not doth not connote 2. And why say you that it is not faith it self essentially Is not the object essential as an object to the act in specie Is it not essential to our Christian faith to be a Believing in Christ 3. But what sober unprejudiced Christian that readeth the Text throughout and hath not been instructed to pervert it can choose but see that it is Faith it self that the Apostle speaketh of and that it is our personal Relation of Righteousness that it is said to be imputed for And who can believe that this is the sense Abrahams faith was imputed to him for Christs Righteousness or this either His faith that is Christs Righteousness and not his faith was imputed to him for Christs Righteousness Undoubtedly by faith is meant faith and by Righteousness is meant our own Relation But it is most easie to discern that the plain sense is Christ being presupposed the Meriter of our Justification and Salvation which he hath given the world conditionally by a Law of Grace or Covenant Donation by which now he ruleth and judgeth us all that this Covenant Gift or Law requireth on our part to make us Righteous and entitle us to the Spirit and everlasting life is that as Pâ—nitent Believers we accept Christ and life according to the nature ends and uses of the gift and this also by his grace Reader hold close to this plain Doctrine which most of the lower sort of Christians know who have not faln into perverters hands and youâ— will have more solid and practical and peaceable truth about this point than either Dr. Thomas Tullie or Maccovius or Mr. Crandâ—â— or Dr. Crispe or the Marrow of Modern Divinity * Written by an honest Barber Mr. Fisher as is said and applauded by divers Independent Divines or Paul Hobson or Mr. Saltmarsh or any such Writers do teach you in their learned Net-work Treatises by which being Wise or Orthodox overmuch being themselves entangled and confounded by incongruous notions of mans invention they are liker to entangle and confound you than to shew you the best method and grounds for the peace of an understanding dying man Christs Righteousness is Imputed or Reckoned to be as it is the total sole Meritorious Cause of all that Grace and Glory given us in and by the Conditional Law or Covenant of Grace and of our Grace for performance of the Conditions and it needeth nothing at all of ours to make it perfect to this use nor hath our faith any such supplemental Office But this condition of our part in Christ and of our Right to his Covenant-gifts must be performed and the sentence of Absolution or Condemnation life or death must be passed on us accordingly it being not Christ but we by this very Law that are to be Judged Justified or Condemned And this is the Condemnation that light is come into the World and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil But to as many as Received him he gave Right to become the Sons of God even to them that believe in his name And there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit For being perfected he is become the Author of eternal Salvation to all them that obey him And it is not they that cry Lord Lord that shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but he that doth the will of our heavenly Father For Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is and of that to come CHAP. X. Whether Gods justifying those to day that were yesterday unjustified signifie any change in God P. IX OF this also I have said so much in my Apologie to Dr. Kendall and in the two first parts of this Book before that I shall now put you off with this short notice 1. There is nothing changed or new in God That which on his part is in God the Cause of our Justification is his eternal simple essence 2. But Gods Essence Understanding or Will considered simply in it self is not to be called Mans Justification But the effect produced by it And partly the extrinsick object as terminating Gods act and so by extrinsick denomination or connotation Gods Essential Intellect and Will is said de novo to justifie But it is only man that is really changed 3. The New effect in man from which God is said de novo to justifie him is 1. A new Right or Relation to Christ pardon and life and to the Father and the Holy Ghost 2. A new objective termination of Gods estimation acceptance and complacency And 3. A new heart hereupon at the same instant given us I think none of this is from eternity And that as God did de novo make the world and judge it existent and love and order it as existent without any change in him as also millions of creatures proceed from his simple Unity so is it here And this needeth no more words with knowing or teachable men And to others there is no end CHAP. XI Whether a Justified man should be afraid of becoming unjustified Lâ—b THis fear of losing our justification which you teach men is most injurious to Gods free grace and immutability and a rack for Conscience to destroy mens peace P. I have said so much of this before about Perseverance and Assurance as forbiddeth me tedious repetitions Here needeth no more but this explication of the matter which you confound 1. Fear is either Causeful or Causeless 2. Fear is either such as hindereth comfort or such as helpeth it 3. Fear is either a Duty or an unavoidable natural passion or a sin of unavoidable infirmity or a more deadly or heinous sin 4. It 's one thing to cause and cherish Fear and another thing to teach men that cannot avoid
it how to deal by it And now I assert 1. Too many are confident that they are justified who ought not only to Fear that they are not but to know it 2. Too many that are Justified fall into such decayes of Grace and heinous sin as that it becometh thereupon their duty to fear lest their hearts should deceive them and they prove unjustified till they rise by repentance and revived Faith The uncertainty becoming unavoidable some Fear in an uncertain person is a duty without which he would shew a contempt of God and his salvation 3. Too many Justified persons have Grace so weak and unactive and sin so strong as that in that case both uncertainty and fears are unavoidable to them A Certainty beyond fear supposeth a very high proportionable degree of all other Graces For the new creature in the chief parts useth to increase or decrease together But few have such high degrees of Grace 4. A fear of particular great and heinous sins which must be Repented of if you will be saved must be moderately feared by all Christians none being certain that they shall escape them 5. A believing lively apprehension of the dreadfulness of Gods Judgement as he is a consuming fire and one that can cast soul and body into Hell with so much as is necessary to vigilancy and labour for prevention is all mens duty Luke 12. 4 5. Heb. 12. 28 29. And on this consideration if we will serve God acceptably it must be with reverence and godly fear And we must keep under our bodies with Paul and bring them into subjection lest having preached or professed we should yet be cast awayes 6. Needful cleansing repenting and preventing fear doth secure and further our comforts by removing the sin and danger that would hinder them 7. All our enemies and dangers are not overcome till the end And danger must be escaped by moderate fear God who brings his servants over all their dangers will save them by a sober fear and vigilancy and not by fearlesness of the evil 8. But all that fear which includeth error or unbelief or distrust of Christ is sinful and to be resisted with all our care And the more distrust the greater is the sin 9. All Fear that driveth from Christ and faith and hope and love and true consolation we cry down daily as injurious to God and man 10. We teach all Christians to contend with utmost diligence to get up to the highest Trust Love Joy Thanksgiving and Praise as the proper Evangelical excellency nearest Heaven and to get as fast as they can above that fear which hath torment which is cast out as love groweth perfect and to pray and seek for the Spirit of Adoption of Power and Love and a sound mind instead of the Spirit of fear and bondage And not to place too much of their Religion in that very fear which in its season is a duty much less in hurtful sinful fear But alwayes and in all things to Rejoyce in the Lord with Love and Gratitude and confidently to cast all their cares on him 11. But as all men here are imperfect in Holiness Faith and Assurance and in their doubts some fear of the event besides meer reverence of God is their duty so we teach men how so to live in an uncertain fearing state as safeliest to get above it 12. And we know that sin wickedness presumption self-deceit and pride are so common in the world that Fear is very needful to the most and we have cause to call with Paul to many proud Professors Be not high minded but fear even lest God should cut them off as he did the Jews and Having a promise of entring into his rest let us fear lest any of us come short of it Heb. 4. 1. And Christ thrice over reciteth his urgent exhortatory words Luke 12 4 5. I say to you my friends I will tell you whom you shall fear Fear him who when he hath killed hath power to cast into Hell yea I say unto you the third time fear him Is not this authority full and these words plain and very earnest even to his friends 13. And it is not fit to make such a Doctrine a fundamental certainty which we find none of all the Churches of Christ held from the Apostles dayes for many and many hundred years that ever I could read or hear of I mean that all the Justified persevere Be it never so clear to you that which now is and so long was thought so far from clear and sure to the Churches of Christ as it is no fit foundation for the Churches Concord so neither for a Christians everlasting hopes to be so much laid on it as by some they are CHAP. XII Of Mans Power to believe and of calling the unregenerate to Duty P. X. XI OF the first of these I have said so much before that I will here pass it by And as to the second you are a man of pernicious principles and downright heretical and damnable if indeed you would have us call no unregenerate persons to any duty whatsoever Answer me these Questions Quest 1. Would you not have your Wife Children and Servants taught that it is their duty to love honour and obey you and your neighbours to deal justly with you and the Rulers to protect you and the Judges to do you Justice Lib. I speak only of Religious and not Civil duties P. You are indifferent it seemeth as to the Interest of Gods honour and mens salvation Let those alone so be it your own interest be secured Duty to you must be preached but not to God But would you not have them taught to do you service as to the Lord and as such as from him shall have punishment or reward and to submit themselves to the Higher Powers for conscience sake as to the Ministers of God and â—o Honour Father and Mother in obedience to God and that by his reward their dayes may be long Should not all be done to the Glory of God Lib. Yes it should be but the wicked cannot do it Therefore they must be first made Godly and the Heart renewed that the life may be amended P. We are as much and more for Heart-work and for beginning there than you are â—â— we know that God accepteth not the hypocrite that draweth near him and honoureth him with the lips when the heart is far from him The outward actions are no further Good or Bad than they are â—â—â—â— or from the Will The Divine Nature and Image of God and life of the new creature is the new heart by the Love of God shed abroad upon it by the Holy Ghost But Quest 2. Are we to call men to no duty at all to the getting of a new heart Should we not perswade them to hear Gods Word Lib. Yeâ— How shall they believe unless they hear P. Quest 3. Must we call them from the Tavern Ale-house Gaming-house Play-house Whore-house yea