of Soul and self-Dominion yet he grants that the Kings heart was not exemted therefrom 2 By the Heart we must understand according to the Hebraic mode the whole soul and al its movements imaginations ratiocinations contrivements purposes and undertakements 3 In the hand of the Lord i. e. under his efficacious predeterminative influxe or concurse The Hand being the instrument of our most potent operations it 's usually put in Scripture for the energetic potent and predeterminative Concurse of God So Hab. 3. 4. He i. e. Christ whose brightnesse was as the light had hornes i. e. beams as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes coming out of his hands i. e. most potent wil the spring of al his efficacious operations whence it follows and there was the hiding of his power i. e. his most potent efficacious predeterminative concurse lay hid in the beams irradiated from his omnipotent hand or wil. So Act. 11. 21. And the hand of the Lord was with them i. e. the efficacious predeterminative power of Divine Grace the hand being the instrument whereby man exertes and puts forth his power So Solomon saying That the hearts of Kings are in the hand of God it must be understood of Gods puissant predeterminative Concurse whereby he applies the heart to its acts conduceth and guideth it therein and determineth it as he pleaseth So it follows 4 As the rivers of waters he turneth it whithersoever he wil. How easie is it by Aquaducts to turne waters this or that way as men please And is it not infinitely more facile for the wise omnipontent God to turne the hearts of men and al their natural conceptions products and issues which way he listes Al this may be evinced from Strangius's glosse on this Text lib. 1. cap. 9. pag. 50. where having given us the mention of Gods preserving and directing the wils of men even in evil actions he addes a third and more special mode of Divine influence whereby God doth bend impel and incline human wils which way he please not by proper compulsion but by sweet inspiration and motion For albeit God doth never take away that libertie which is essential to the wil yet he doth at times and when he please efficaciously move and impel the wils of men and what Solomon predicates of the Kings heart Prov. 21. 1. that very same may on a greater account be affirmed of the heart of every man So Augustin de Grat. Liber Arbitr cap. 20. If the Scripture be diligently inspected it shews that not only the good wils of men but even the bad are so in the power of God that where he wil and when he wil he causeth them to be inclined either to performe benefits or to inflict punishments by a most secret yet just judgement So again August de Corrept Grat. cap. 6. God hath in his power the wils of men more than they themselves without dout having most omnipotent power to incline mens hearts where he pleaseth What could be said more categorically and positively to evince Gods efficacious and predeterminative Concurse to al the natural products and issues of mans heart even such as have intrinsecal evil as they cal it appendent to them Yea Strangius lib. 2. cap. 7. p. 182. grants That God doth sometimes efficaciously move and predetermine the wils of men not only to supernatural workes but also to natural and civil as oft as it seems good to him to performe certain ends which he has preordained So Prov. 16. 7. He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him And how so Surely by over-ruling their hearts even in the sinful movements Thus he bent and determined the revengeful mind of Esau to embrace his brother Gen. 33. So he gained the hearts of the Egyptians towards the Israelities Exod. 11. 2 3. 12. 35 36. Thus God determined the wil of Cyrus to bring back the Captivitie of the Jews 2 Chron. 36. 22. Ezra 1. 1. Thus God bent the mind of Darius and Artaxerxes to grant the Jews libertie for the rebuilding the Temple Ezra 6. 1 c. 7. 2. Neh. 2. 4. So God dealt with Jeremy's enemies Jer. 15. 11. Al these predeterminations even in civil and natural actions are allowed by Strangius whence we argue That it is impossible but that God should predetermine to the substrate mater of sinful actions for al these actions being exerted by wicked men had nothing of moral or supernatural good in them albeit God made use of them for the succour of his people yea they were ful of hatred against God To these Scriptures we may adde Act. 17. 28. For in him we live and move and have our being Not only Being in general and Life which implies more than simple being but also al our movements or motions are from God as the prime Motor which Paul demonstrates out of one of their own Poets for we are also his off-spring As if he had said Do not your own Poets tel you that we are the off-spring of God Is he not then the first Cause and Motor of al our motions Doth not Aristotle Phys 8. also strongly demonstrate That al our natural motions must arise from one first immobile Motor And to whom doth this Prerogative belong but to God Must not then the substrate mater of al sinful motions even such as are intrinsecally evil be reduced unto God as the prime Motor I shal conclude this first Head of scriptural Arguments with Jam. 4. 15. For that ye ought to say If the Lord wil we shal live and do this or that There were a number of Free-willers who proudly conceited that they had an absolute and plenary dominion over their own wils and actions whom James rebukes and tels them they ought to say If the Lord wil c. So that he plainly resolves al the acts of mans wil into the wil of God as the original Cause and Principe But let us see how poorly Strangius shifts off the force of this Argument lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 227. he saith Who ever understood these words if God wil i. e. if God predetermine my wil to do this or that Then he addes his own glosse But truly nothing more can be understood by that condition IF GOD WIL than this if God shal permit or wil permit as it is elsewhere explicated Act. 16. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 7. I must confesse I cannot but wonder that a person of so great reason and under so many advantages and assistances from Divine Revelation should satisfie himself with so slender an evasion which not only Reason and Scripture but even Pagan Philosophemes contradict For 1 it is most evident that James here as Luke Act. 16. 7. and Paul 1 Cor. 16. 7. speakes not of a mere permissive wil but of an efficacious influential concurse arising from the wil of God which is the alone principe and spring of Divine concurse for al actions both natural civil and supernatural
greatly gloriose as means to procure our salvation and therefore God is deservedly judged the cause and author of them as Act. 2. 23. And 2 we denie with him that the wickednesse and malice of those acts was from God 3 He also grants That the occision or killing of Christ considered absolutely was not sin Whereunto we retort That neither the hatred of Christ considered absolutely without relation to its object is sin But 4 he concludes But to prosecute Christ out of hatred and il-wil is intrinsecally evil c. Whence we argue That the crucifying of Christ was a sin intrinsecally evil and yet as to its substrate mater and entitative acts from God For did not the Jews prosecute Christ out of hatred and malice yea malice blowen up to the sin against the Holy Ghost in some of them And was not in this good work of crucifixion the good action of God and the evil action of the Jews the same as to the substrate mater or natural entitative act This pincheth Strangius closely and therefore he seems to make the natural entitative act of God distinct from the natural entitative act of the wicked Jews For he saith Here truly in the same work the good action of God is distinguished from their evil action and therefore their wickednesse and malice was not from God Here we grant 1 his consequence or conclusion That their malice was not from God 2 We thus far also grant his Antecedent That the good action of God considered both naturally and morally was distinguished from their evil action considered formally and morally for the malice and vitiositie which formalised the action as theirs is no way imputable to Gods act considered either naturally or morally 3 But yet we stil avouch and no way dout but to demonstrate in its place that in the crucifixion of Christ the act of the wicked Jews considered materially naturally and entitatively was one and the same with Gods act So much al these Texts clearly evince so much also reason dictates For if there were two acts the one primarily yea only from the wicked instruments the other from God the prime Efficient then how could they be said to be the instruments of Gods Efficience Must we not then also suppose two Crucifixions one from God and the other from the Jews What a world of absurdities would follow this Hypothesis That the action of God in the Crucifixion of Christ considered entitatively materially and naturally was really distinct from the action of the Instruments considered entitatively materially and naturally But to conclude we find an excellent solution to al these evasions and subterfuges in Augustin Epist 48. ad Vincentium thus When the Father delivered his Son and Christ his own Bodie and Judas his Lord why in this Tradition is God just and man guilty but because in one and the same thing which they did the cause was not one and the same A solution sufficient to satisfie any sober mind Wherein note 1 That the act of Tradition and so of crucifying Christ was one and the same entitatively and physically considered both in regard of God and the sinner 2 That the difference sprang from the Causes God delivered his Son to Death thereby to bring about the greatest good that Sinners could wisn for their Salvation but Judas and the malitiose Jews delivered the Lord of Glorie to death with wicked hands out of an avaricious humor malice c. Hence 3 The Action was most just and gloriose on Gods part but most unjust and wicked on the Sinners part This answer of Augustin is so great that it might serve to answer al the objections against our Hypothesis were not men bent to cavil against the truth § 3. I come now to a third Head of Scriptural Arguments namely such wherein God is said to make use of wicked Instruments for the punishing or afflicting his people in such a way wherein the Instruments could not but contract guilt I shal divide this Head into two members 1 Such Scriptures wherein God is said to make use of wicked Instruments for the punishing his sinful people 2 Such as mention Gods afflicting his righteous People by sinful Instruments 1. We shal begin with such Scriptures wherein God is said to make use of wicked Instruments for the punishment of his sinful people So Esa 10. 5 6. O Assyrian the rod of mine anger I will send him against an hypocritical Nation The Assyrian is sent by God as his rod to punish his sinful people and every stroke of this rod was from God his hand guiding ordering and actuating the rod in al its motions And yet how much sin was there committed on the Assyrians part in punishing Israel How little did he intend to serve God herein were not Pride and Ambition the main springs of his action Thence it 's added v. 7. Howbeit he meaneth not so neither doth his heart think so c. whence v. 12. God threatens to punish him for his sin So that it 's evident this sending of the Assyrian by God mentioned v. 6. cannot be meant of any legal permission or commission given him by God but of the secret efficacious predeterminative concurse and Providence of God ordering what should come to pass So Jer. 16. 16. Behold I wil send for many fishers saith the Lord and they shal fish them and after wil I send for many hunters and they shal hunt them from every mountain c. Note 1 That these words contain not a promisse but threat begun v. 9. This is evident from v. 17. 2 By Fishers and Hunters in the general we must understand enemies to the Jews To fish and to hunt is to take and destroy War has a great ressemblance with fishing and hunting which is a kind of war against bestes as war is a kind of fishing and hunting of men whence Nimrod the first Warrier after the Floud is stiled Gen. 10. 9. a mighty hunter i. e. of men Ay but more particularly 3 Who are these fishers Why as it is supposed the Egyptians who are called Fishers Esa 19. 8. 4 And who are the Hunters The Babylonians as it is generally said But 5 Who is it that sends for these Fishers and Hunters It is God I wil send c. 6 Why doth God send for them To punish his sinful People and that by those very Nations in whom they had so much confided and to whom they had so much conformed as is intimated v. 17. And what more just than that Professors should be punished by such Instruments as have been the ground of their confidence and the exemplars of their sins 7 How doth God send for these Fishers and Hunters Surely not by any legal Act or formal Commission given to them but providentially by exciting their minds applying their wils and drawing forth yea determining the same to the substrate mater or material entitative act of afflicting the Jews whereunto there was
efficacious Moderation and Direction of the sinful act denotes his efficacious Preservation of the act which is as sinful as the effection or production of the Act. But more of this hereafter Chap. 5 6. Another Scripture which speaks Gods immediate predeterminative concurse in the entitative act of Sin is 2 Sam. 16. 10. where David saith of Shimei That the Lord said unto him Curse David And v. 11. Let him curse for the Lord hath bidden him Now the force of this argument dependes on the explication of this word or command of God to Shimei which must be here taken either morally for a divine precept and injunction or physicly for an efficacious Concurse and influence 1 That it cannot be here taken morally for a preceptive word is most evident because had God commanded Shimei to curse David he had been the moral cause and so the Author of his sin 2 Therefore it remains that it be here taken only physicly for Gods efficacious Concurse secretly and powerfully inclining and applying Shimei's wil to the entitative act of this cursing And in this sense the Word of God is frequently taken in Scripture namely for his efficacious predeterminative concurse in the Creation Conservation and Gubernation of things Now what doth Strangius replie to this Why l. 4. c. 4. p. 786. he saith That Shimei's Cursings being intrinsecally evil we may not say that God did move or impel him thereto in a proper manner of speech neither that Shimei was the Instrument of God in these actions as they were determined to such an object but only as directed by God to his just judgements and that most certain direction of God with the administration of Circumstances and Occasions was as a Precept In which Response note 1 That he grants that Shimei his cursing was an action intrinsecally evil which is a great concession and wil clearly overthrow his own Hypothesis and prove ours That God doth predetermine the wil to the substrate mater of actions intrinsecally evil For if Shimei's Cursing was an action intrinsecally evil then surely such also was the Vendition of Joseph and the Crucifixion of our Lord which were both as to their entitative acts predetermined by God But 2 he denies that Shimei was the Instrument of God in these actions as determined to such an object In the last clause of this Antithesis lies the spirit and force of al his objections against predetermination to the substrate mater of sin which we intend more fully to examine Chap. 6. § 1. at present we say 1 That Shimei was not the instrument of any moral but physic influence from God the precept or bidding here specified was not moral but physic and real God did not morally command Shimei to curse David but physicly and naturally incline him to the entitative act of Cursing him which was as a Precept this Strangius grants in the close as to Gods direction 2 Hence if we consider Shimei's cursing as physicly determined to such an object it was not morally evil but good and so from God It 's true as it was morally determined by Shimei the moral Agent to its object David so it was intrinsecally evil but as it was physicly or naturally determined by God for the punishment of David so it was both naturally and morally good and from God 3 He placeth the whole of Gods Influence to this act in directing his Actions to his just judgements c. To which I answer 1 How could God direct these actions of Shimei specially the immanent acts of his wil which were the worst part of his malediction but by an efficacious predeterminative influence on his wil and its acts 2 He grants that this Direction of God was most certain and efficacious if so then certainly predeterminative and if the direction be predeterminative is not Gods concurse to the sinful act considered materially and entitatively predeterminative 3 If Gods directive concurse be predeterminative as Strangius must by his concessions grant wil not those ugly consequences which he lodes our Hypothesis with be al retorted on him Did not Gods efficacious direction termine on Shimei's cursing as determined to such an object namely David And was he not the Instrument of this efficacious direction Baronius Metaph. S. 8. Disp 3. p. 158. answers this Text thus To that malediction of Shimei it is answered That God commanded Shimei to curse David not by bending his wil but by opening to him the way to this evil and by shutting it to al other evils i. e. by permitting him to act this only whenas he was ready for many other evils A poor evasion indeed and such as if admitted would make the whole Scripture but as a Nose of Waxe 1 Doth not David say categoricly that God bid i. e. not morally but physicly Shimei to curse And what can this implie but the bending his wil to the substrate mater or entitative Act 2 Can it be imagined that David could mean only a mere otiose and speculative permission and not an active concurrence to the act it self entitatively considered 3 Doth not Baronius confess that God opened to him the way to this evil And if so must he not then open Shimei's heart to the mater of it Did not the main act of malediction arise from his wil And if that were not opened to the entitative act would the way to this evil have been ever opened Again Gods immediate predeterminative hand in those acts whereunto sin is necessarily appendent may be demonstrated from 2 Sam. 24. 1. And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he moved David against them to say Go number Israel and Judah Here it is expressely said that God moved David to number the people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he moved or excited i. e. efficaciously determined and applied his wil to the substrate mater of this command to number the people Hence Strangius pag. 790. answers 1 That the He here must be meant of Satan who is said 1 Chron. 21. 1. to stir up David to number the people And he cites for this Comment Junius with others But alas what poor subterfuges wil men flie unto to avoid the force and evidence of Divine light Doth not Grammatic construction as wel as the mind of the words utterly reject such a glosse The Particle He here is not a distinct Pronoun as our English Version reads it but included in the Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is by the Copulative ו joined to the former part and the anger of the Lord was kindled so that if the passive was kindled belongs to the Lords anger then also must what follows and he moved Neither is this sense aliene from other Scriptures for 1 Sam. 26. 19. David saith That God had stirred up Saul against him i. e. efficaciously moved him to the entitative act of persecuting David Thence 2 Strangius fearing the ruinous downfal of this refuge flies to another thus But if
we follow the commun interpretation it appears that the same fact is ascribed to God and Satan and therefore it must be on a different account and here also the varietie in the end and mode makes the unspotted Justice of God to shine forth and the malice of Satan and pravitie of man to discover itself For 1 the action of numbering the people was not in itself evil 2 Divines distinguish between tentation of probation and seduction 3 Here the sane things concur which were before explicated of the same sense whereby God is said to incline to evil namely the permission and laxation of the reins to Satan the oblation of occasions and irritaments impediments being removed and the suspension of Divine Grace which things concurring with the pravitie of nature sin necessarily follows 1 We grant that the same fact is ascribed to God and Satan on different accounts God put the thought entitatively considered into Davids heart but Satan stirred up his heart to the act of numbering the people God in judgement gave over David to this sin that it should be at this time when God was angry with Israel There is a special providence of God even in the ebullitions of lusts in the hearts of his own people Thus also in the wicked who put that thought of murder considered materially into the heart of Esau When my father is dead I wil slay my brother Jacob Was it not from God Whence came that motion into the heart of Judas to betray Christ with al the circumstances materially considered referring thereto were they not from God Thus here God put the entitative thought of numbering the people into the heart of David albeit Satan stirred it up and God was the Orderer albeit Satan the Abettor and in some sense the Author of it for God is only the prime physic cause of the natural entitie but Satan the moral cause or Author of the vitiositie again the concurse of God to the natural entitative act is immediate efficacious and predeterminative but Satans concurse only mediate objective and suasive though with more or lesse degrees of moral efficacitie as Eph. 2. 2. Again 2 we grant that the different ends and modes of operating make Gods unspotted Justice and mans pravitie to shine forth 3 We are glad that Strangius wil grant the action of numbering the people not to be in itself evil Whence by a paritie of reason we argue That no action though never so intrinsecally evil is in itself i. e. as considered in its physic entitative act and according to its substrate mater sinful for certainly if Davids numbering the people which was a sin attended with so much pride vain-glorie and confidence in an arme of flesh with other aggravations which so greatly provoked God were not in itself evil no other sin considered in its mere entitative and physic act is such Yea I as yet see no reason why this sin of David considered in its individual circumstances and moral relation to its object and principes may not be estimed a sin intrinsecally evil as wel as Shimei's cursing David But 4 Strangius's summary conclusion That Gods concurse to Davids sin was only an idle permission laxation of the reins to Satan and oblation of occasions with suspension of Divine Grace is very contradictory both to the letter and mind of the Text which saith positively that God moved or excited and stirred up the mind of David not morally but physicly to the entitative act of numbering the people Certainly when the Scripture speakes so categoricly and positively of Gods moving the wil to its act to restrain such moving influences and causalitie only to mere idle permission or objective oblation of occasions or negative suspensions of Divine Grace what is this but to make the Scripture contradictory to itself or affirmation and negation applicable to the same words How easily might an Atheist hence take advantage to elude al Scripture But to passe on to other Texts that clearly expresse Gods immediate predeterminative concurse to the substrate mater of sinful acts 1 Kings 11. 31. the Lord saith I wil rend the kingdome out of the hand of Solomon So vers 37. to Jeroboam I wil take thee and thou shalt reigne c. Whence 1 Kings 12. 15. it 's said that the cause why Rehoboam hearkened not unto the people was from the Lord that he might performe his saying c. So vers 24. God saith expressely The thing i. e. the revolt of Israel is from me So of Jehu God saith 2 Kings 9. 3. I have anointed thee King and chap. 10. 30. Jehu is said to do unto the house of Ahab al that was in Gods heart From these Texts it's most evident that the holy God assumes to himself the production of such entitative natural acts which had sin necessarily appendent to them Now let us examine what response Strangius gives hereto l. 4. c. 4. p. 793. rejecting the answer of Bellarmine which to me is as good as his yea not really different he answers It is not unlikely but that Jeroboam and Jehu albeit in taking the Kingdome they sinned not as to the thing itself and substance of the act because instructed by Gods-command yet in manner of acting as they were profane men they variously sinned by mingling their own ambition and depraved affections with the worke of God Thence he concludes That whatever their sins were yet the justice of God sufficiently shines forth in the whole of this Administration because God used both the Kings and people in this worke only as instruments to execute his just judgements c. To give a brief replie hereto it is very evident that al that Strangius hath given us in answer to these Texts doth but more confirme us in the true sense we give of them For 1 it is manifest that Jeroboam and Jehu with the Revolters their Adherents sinned not only in the mode or manner but in the very substance of their acts For is not High treason against a lawful King an act sinful as to its substance And were not Rehoboam and Ahab both lawful Kings Was not Rehoboam Solomons Son whom God made King It 's true Jeroboam and Jehu had private prophetic Instructions and Unctions but yet those gave them no real title before the people but only secret intimations what God would in his providence bring to passe David had a promise of the Kingdom and also Divine Unction and yet he confesseth that God gave him no actual title to the Kingdom in the eyes of men but he stil ownes Saul as his Soverain King and the Lords Anointed and so ought Jeroboam and Jehu their lawful Soverains til God had given them a legal title before men 2 But suppose Jeroboam and Jehu's sin were only in the manner not in the substance of the act yet certain it is that the peoples sin before God had declared his soverain wil to them was high Treason and so substantially
ours 2 How doth God judicially punish one sin by another but to use his own words by delivering such up to a reprobate mind and the efficace of error And if so then must not the substrate acts of such judicial dereliction be from God Of this hereafter § 6. But 2 I passe on to his second answer whereon he seems to lay the most weight though indeed most feeble But saith he because those words Rev. 17. 17. are immediately subjoined to vers 16. and are connected therewith by the rational Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which points out the reason of that which next follows namely that those ten Kings having changed their opinion should destroy the Whore and Antichrist it seems to me more commodious if in that vers 17. there be a reason given of this famose change that they who were before the friends and vassals of Antichrist should be afterwards enemies and adversaries to him namely because God hath put this into their heart And the first words of vers 17. sufficiently accord to this Exposition But what is subjoined That they might give their Kingdome to the Beste until the word of God should be consummate I should think ought to be expounded negatively c. Thus Strangius A strange comment indeed let us a little inquire into it 1 How infirm is his argument from the rational particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make what follows the fulfilling of Gods wil to refer only to the destroying of Antichrist whereas the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems rather to refer to the whole verse and more particularly to the last clause until the Word of God shal be fulfilled and so it notes that God put it into their hearts to fulfil his Wil 1 In agreeing to give their Kingdom to the Beste and 2 When the words of God were fulfilled i. e. Antichrists reign expired then to hate the Whore c. And this makes the whole contexture of the words natural and evident So that v. 17. is not only a reason of the change mentioned v. 16. but also an account of the whole series of their actions both whiles friends to and enemies against Antichrist 2 As for what is subjoined v. 17. That they might give their Kingdome to the Beste I cannot but admire with what shadow of reason Strangius can understand this negatively as if they should not give their Kingdom to the Beste certainly if such glosses should be admitted we might easily find in Scripture subterfuges for the worst Heresies and Immoralities Why may not the most profane debauched wretch when he is pressed with those Commands Thou shalt not commit adulterie Thou shalt not kill c. replie that these Scriptures must not be taken negatively but affirmatively Thou shalt commit adulterie c But Strangius saw ful wel that the affirmative sense of those words That they might give their Kingdome to the Beste would quite subvert his forced sense of the foregoing words and therefore he saw no way left but to secure himself by reducing this later affirmative clause to a negative though contrary to the expresse letter and mind of the words But 3 being after al his glosses sensible of the infirmitie and invaliditie of this response he p. 856. flies again to his old refuge telling us That if any shal think this exposition of the last member not sufficient but that beyond it there must be also signified that God did put it into their hearts to give their Kingdome to the Beste I have no mind to contend about this mater sithat the sense is sufficiently sane which ever way the words be understood In evil works God is not the cause of the moral evil but of the substrate act and punishment or Judgement which is annected to the sin but in good works not only of the substrate act but also of the moral Bonitie c. Who of us denies this would our Adversaries but stick here how soon would our Controversie be ended But here lies the sting even in this plausible concession Strangius with the rest would fain perswade us that there are some acts of sin so intrinsecally evil as that you cannot separate the physic natural act from its moral Vitiositie § 5. We descend now to such Scriptures as mention Gods efficacious Permission of sin The former Heads regard only the substrate mater or entitative act of sin but this sin in its formal nature Our Adversaries the Pelagians Jesuites Arminians and Semi-Arminians or New Methodists al grant Gods permission of Sin but only such as is otiose speculative negative and naked without any efficacious active Influence for the production of its entitative act or direction of it to its proper ends But the sacred Scriptures ascribe to God a positive efficacious directive and ordinative permission of sin arising from his positive absolute volition to permit it So it 's said of Eli's Sons 1 Sam. 2. 25. They hearkened not to the voice of their father because the Lord would slay them The conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is Causal and resolves their sin into the efficacious permissive Wil of God The Soverain Lord had by an absolute peremtorie decree predetermined to leave the Sons of Eli to this sin of Disobedience both against their Father and God which should prove the cause of their temporal and eternal ruine and thence it 's said they hearkened not because the Lord would slay them the wil of God was not properly the cause of their sin or slaughter yet their sin was a consequent of Gods Wil efficaciously permitting it to be I am not ignorant that some of late have endeavored to give the causal particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a more soft as they phrase it Version and among these some make it conclusive and so render it ideo idcirco quapropter others render it quamvis as Turnovius others otherwise But certainly our English Version which renders it causally because seems much more agreeable to the mind of the Words and al the ancient Versions So the LXX who render the words thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Lord in willing willed to destroy them In willing willed i. e. according to the Hebraic Idiome peremtorily efficaciously immutablely and absolutely willed Thus also the ancient Syriac and Arabic Versions with some later Munster Pagnine Arias Montanus Junius and Tremelius Osiander Piscator Malvenda with the Tigurine and Belgic Versions yea Castalio not excepted render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causally because according to our sense and interpretament Let us examine now what Strangius returns in answer to this Text lib. 4. cap. 6. pag. 809 c. He answers 1 That the sons of Eli were for their flagitiose impieties destined and devoted by God to ruine 2 That the punishment of death here mentioned seems properly and directly to be understood of temporal not eternal 3 That however it be as it is manifest that sin precedes damnation and the inflicting
point about Gods predeterminative Concurse to the substrate mater of sin do greatly accord And let our Adversaries say what they list against the Dominicans it 's certain that in this mater they have done great service to the cause and interest of Truth and particularly Alvarez who is principally struck at by the adverse partie deserves great honor and diligent inspection by those who have any kindness for our Hypothesis or any part of the Doctrine of Efficacious Grace I am not ignorant what an heavy load of Imputations Strangius and a Reverend Divine of Name among our selves have laid upon him in their Oppositions to what he has writ in the defense of our Hypothesis but the Jesuites themselves who are his most puissant Impugnators give him a more candid and favorable treatment For in the treaty between them and the Jansenists begun Feb. 18. 1663. the Jesuites rejecting the Arbitrament of Gregorie Ariminensis and Estius whom they judged more severe they pitcht upon Alvarez as the more moderate to whom they required the Jansenists to conforme in those points controverted in order to an accommodement and the reasons they allege are of moment For say they Alvarez having assisted at the Congregations de Auxiliis there is a grand apparence that he and those others who writ at the same time and since took up this mode of speech to salve Libertie according to the movements and sentiments which the Popes Clement 8 th and Paul 5 th had albeit they made no Decree on this mater of which see Refutat de Pere Ferrier Chap. 6. and Idea of Jansenisme p. 82. wherein remarque 1 That the Jesuites Alvarez's sworne enemies give him a more favorable character as one who for his moderation was employed by the Popes to assist at the Congregations de Auxiliis for the composing the differences in those points in controversie between the Dominicans and Jesuites about Predetermination Yea 2 That the Popes themselves Clement 8 th and Paul 5 th had the same sentiments with Alvarez Is it not strange then that the Jesuites who are professed enemies to Predetermination and the Popes themselves who have been generally favorers of Pelagianisme should have a greater kindnesse for Alvarez's sentiments about Predetermination than Protestant Divines whose Doctrine against the Pelagians and Jesuites can never be defended but by those principes on which Alvarez bottomes his Predetermination For mine own part I cannot but confesse that in those Notions about Efficacious Grace and Predetermination I read Alvarez with al possible diligence and exactitude of spirit and found therein so penetrant an acumen so profound soliditie and such masculine Demonstrations as that I never met with his equal excepting Bradwardine and Ariminensis This Justice I conceive my self under an essential obligation to do him to wipe off those undeserved clamors and aspersions which Strangius and another Divine of note among us have loaded him with His own Sentiments in the defense of our Hypothesis are laid down in his excellent Disputations de Auxil l. 3. Disput 24. where he doth with a great deal of moderation and yet invincible force of argument demonstrate That God doth by a previous motion truely and efficiently or according to the mode of a physical cause premove free-wil to the act of sin as it is an Act or Being His Arguments for the demonstration of this Thesis are weighty and invincible namely from the Participation Limitation and Dependence of every Second cause c. Of which hereafter c. 5. Lastly that the Scholemen generally besides such as are Pelagian assert divine Predetermination to the material entitie of Sin see Twisse Vind. Grat. l. 2. Digress 2. I now passe on to Jansenius and his Sectators who are brought upon the Theatre by our Adversaries as Patrons of their Antithesis but this is so great a mistake in mater of fact that I cannot but admire any learned man should take refuge under it Yet thus Strangius l. 2. c. 14. p. 318. brings in Jansenius opposing Augustin both to the Dominicans and Jesuites as to the point of Predetermination The like is urged by a Reverend Divine of repute among us But this mistake is too obvious and great to take place among diligent and impartial Inquirers For 1 It 's evident that Jansenius rejected the terme Predetermination as maintained by the Dominicans not the thing it self as asserted by Augustin Thus in his August Tom. 3. l. 2. c. 22. pag. 77 c. he proves That there is no manner of speech among the Scholemen so efficacious and pregnant to expresse Predetermination by but Augustin useth the same to illustrate Gods efficacious concurse And Tom. 3. l. 8. c. 1. p. 343. he acknowledgeth That those learned men the Dominicans have reached the Marrow of Divine Adjutorie and thence the true opinion of Augustin Again cap. 3. p. 346. he saith expressely that herein Medicinal Adjutorie agrees with physic Predetermination that the office of physically predetermining the wil doth truely belong unto it and it may be termed by that name taken not only in the abstract but also in the concrete Whence in the same Chapter he useth the very terme of physic Predetermination to expresse efficacious Concurse by albeit not in the same manner as it is used by the Scholemen So that it 's evident he was not averse from the thing albeit he but seldome used the terme to avoid the cavils of Scholastic Theologues as also to confine himself to the termes used by Augustin 2 That reverend Divine among us who makes use of Jansenius's name against physic Predetermination doth yet grant that Jansenius held the existence of sin to be necessary as a Punishment Wherein he opposeth Jansenius and also Augustin who held that sin as a punishment was willed and caused by God as before 3 Jansenius August de Statu Nat. Laps l. 4. c. 21. p. 264. assures us That men in their lapsed state before Faith be introduced are under the captivitie of lust and can do nothing but sin which captivitie is the same with that foresaid necessitie and coaction whereby sins committed by unbelievers are said to be necessary and therefore they have no power to abstain from sin And Tom. 3. de Grat. Christi l. 10. he stoutly maintains these following assertions about Reprobation which clearly evince Gods efficacious predeterminative concurse to the substrate mater of sin 1 He proves cap. 2. pag. 420. That Gods negative Reprobation is also positive 2 He demonstrates cap. 4. pag. 423. That the cause of Reprobation according to its comparative consideration is the absolute wil of God This is owned by reverend Mr. Baxter Cathol Theol. part 3. Sect. 7. § 22. pag. 93. in these words Jansenius's Doctrine is that the Reprobation of men was by Gods positive absolute wil of men in original sin and the effect of it excecation and obduration This being his proper opinion it necessarily follows that he asserted Gods predeterminative
possibilitie to a state of futurition c. Whence he concludes Thes 43. Sithat there is so much darknesse on every side there is nothing more safe than to professe our Ignorance in this particular And this indeed is the best refuge these New Methodists have when they see themselves involved in so many self-contradictions and absurdities to professe their Ignorance as to the Mode of Divine Prescience Yea some of them procede so far in this pretended modestie as to professe That the mode of Divine Prescience is not determined in Scripture Thus Strangius l. 3. c. 5. p. 576. That God is omniscient is put out of dout but touching the mode and manner of Prescience nothing is expressely delivered in Scripture The like others But is it so indeed Doth not the Scripture declare expressely the mode of Prescience Why then 1 are our Adversaries so dogmatic and positive in their new modes and measures of Divine Prescience contrary to the received Sentiments of the Church in al Ages How comes it to passe that they contend with so much heat and passion for that which they confesse is not expressely delivered in Scripture Were not a modest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suspension of assent more agreeable to such a Confession But 2 We easily grant them that the mode of Divine Prescience is unsearchable and past finding out as indeed al Divine Perfections are but yet must we thence necessarily conclude that nothing of the mode of Divine Prescience is expressely delivered in Scripture 1 Doth not the Scripture evidently declare That the mode of Gods Prescience is far above yea opposite to that of Mans science as much as Heaven is above the Earth yea infinitely more 2 Doth not the Scripture also remove from the mode of Divine Prescience al manner of Imperfections much more Contradictions And is not the mode of Gods Prescience in his own Essence and Decrees much more perfect than that which makes his Infallible immutable Prescience dependent on the mutable fallible Wil of Man But see more hereof Court Gent. P. 4. B. 2. c. 5. § 2. § 3. We passe on to our third Argument which shal be taken from the Divine Wil and Decrees and more particularly from the Decree of Reprobation And here we shal lay down this Principe which is granted by Strangius and others of the New Method That Divine Predetermination is adequate and commensurate to Divine Predefinition or Predestination So Strangius l. 3. c. 2. p. 547. We easily grant saith he that the predefinition of God from eternitie and the predetermination of the create wil in time mutually follow each other so that if God doth absolutely predefine any particular and singular act to be brought about by us he must also determine our Wil to the same This he inculcates c. 5. p. 584. Now this ingenuous Concession is as much as we desire to build our Demonstration on for we no way dout but to demonstrate That God doth absolutely predefine the material entitative act of Sin Which we shal endeavour to make good in the following Propositions 1 Prop. Reprobation admits no formal motive proper condition or cause This Proposition is generally denyed by the New Methodists who grant That God decrees al good absolutely but as for Sin say they God decrees that only respectively and conditionally So Strangius l. 3. c. 2. p. 546-548 But we no way dout but before we have finisht this Demonstration to make it evident that Gods Decree of Reprobation whereby he determines to leave men to sin is absolute as wel as the Decree of Election Yea it is to me a thing altogether impossible to defend an absolute Decree of Election and yet to make the Decree of Reprobation conditional and respective for if the absolute good pleasure of God be the only cause why some are elected must it not also be the only cause why others are rejected Doth not the Election of the one necessarily implie the Reprobation of the other It 's true our Divines that follow the Sublapsarian mode as Davenant c. speak of Sin as a commun condition belonging to the whole masse of corrupt nature yet they allow not of any distinctive condition or formal cause or motive which should incline the divine wil to reprobate one rather than another for nothing can move the divine Wil but what is some way antecedent to it Now the consideration of al sin is subsequent to some act of Gods Wil. 2 Prop. The act of Reprobation is not merely negative but positive and efficacious It 's granted that some of our Divines make mention of a negative act of Reprobation which they terme Non-election or Preterition yet hereby they intend not a suspense act of the Divine wil but include also a positive efficacious act Thus Jansenius August de Grat. Christi l. 10. c. 2. pag. 420. proves out of Augustin That Gods negative Reprobation is positive So Davenant Dissert de Elect. Reprob p. 113. But we must take heed saith he lest with Scotus we think that the Wil of God in regard of Reprobates which he electes not but passeth by is merely negative for in this very act which we expresse by a Negation is contained an expresse and affirmate Wil of God So in his Determinations Quaest 25. p. 117. he tels us That it 's most certain there can be no Decree permitting sin to which there doth not adhere some efficacious Decree And p. 118. he instructs us That this Decree of permitting sin is efficacious not in a way of efficience but by directing and ordaining to extract good out of evil 3 Prop. In the mater of Reprobation God is considered as a soverain Absolute Lord not as a Righteous Judge The Pelagians Molinists Arminians and New Methodists consider God in the act of Reprobation as a just Judge not as a supreme absolute Lord whence they conclude that it is unjust with God to reprobate any but on the prevision of their sins not considering that Reprobation is not an act inflicting punishment but of denying Benefits wherein the Libertie and Dominion of God is only to be attended according to that of the Apostle Rom. 9. 21. Has not the Potter power over the clay c What is soverain Dominion but an absolute right to dispose of what is our own And shal we not allow the same Dominion to God which is allowed to the Potter over his Clay Is the soverain Lord tied to his Creature by any Law more than what is in his own nature and wil Hence it follows 4 That the Decree of Reprobation is most absolute and Independent as to al distinctive conditions or causes in man Thus Jansenius August de Grat. Christi l. 10. c. 4. p. 423. proves out of Augustin That the absolute Wil of God is the alone cause of Reprobation And Augustin complains That it is a great injurie to God when men search for causes of things superior to his soverain Wil for his Wil