Selected quad for the lemma: doctrine_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
doctrine_n	church_n	england_n	reformation_n	4,105	5	9.0185	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41639	The court of the gentiles. Part IV, Of reformed philosophie. Book III, Of divine predetermination, wherein the nature of divine predetermination is fully explicated and demonstrated, both in the general, as also more particularly, as to the substrate mater [sic] or entitative act of sin.; Court of the gentiles. Part IV. Book III	Gale, Theophilus, 1628-1678.	1678 (1678)	Wing G143; ESTC R16919	203,898	236

herein Whence in the following Chapters 9 10 11 12. he answers the Objections and Arguments of the Papists whereby they endeavor to prove That the Calvinists make God the Author of sin which imputations are stil fastened on us by the Arminians and new Methodists We may adde hereto the sentiments of Ludovicus Crocius Professor at Breme and a Member of the Synod of Dort who in many points specially that of middle Science and universal Grace follows the new method yet in this of Gods concurse to the substrate mater of sin seems orthodox and concurrent to Calvins Doctrine So in his Duodecas Dissertat Exegetic De voluntate Dei Dissert 8. thes 74. pag. 415. where he tels us That the fundamen of clearing God from being the Author of sin is the distinction of the material and formal part of sin namely of the action and the vitiositie which is in the action for that not this he wils and decrees and this not that he permits And his reason is invincible for otherwise there should be an action independent as to God and the efficacious providence of God should be denied which is Epicurean And then thes 99. pag. 426. he tels us That as to the act of the Divine wil about sin the Scriptures seem to contradict themselves in that some Scriptures assure us that God doth not wil sin but hate it with those that commit it as Psal 5. 5 6 7. Zach. 8. 17. and yet other Scriptures say that God wils creates and effects sins as Esa 45. 7. Lam. 3. 37 38. Amos 3. 6. Then he solves these seeming contradictions by distinguishing between the act and the vitiositie of the act also between the act as it procedes from God and as from the Creature lastly between the decreeing wil of God and the preceptive wil of God Whence he concludes thes 100. thus ` For God both wils and produceth the act as an act of it self indifferent to moral bonitie and evil c. And he addes thes 101. ` That this act in itself essentially good even as it is contaminated by the creature God wils it as a punishment and useth it as an ordained convenient means for the best ends The like thes 112. p. 430. where he shews how God wils sin not as sin but as a punishment c. of which more fully hereafter Chap. 5. § 5. These sentiments of Lud. Crocius I rather chuse to cite because he in other points follows the new method and is cried up by some of that partie As for the Judgement of the Synod of Dort touching our Hypothesis it is sufficiently evident by their Determinations as also by the oppositions the Arminians made against them in this point both whiles they sate and afterwards I am not ignorant that some of our Adversaries are so confident as to cite the Synods testimonie in favor of their Antithesis but this is so false an imputation as that I judge no intelligent impartial Reader can give credit to it There needs no more to evince the Synods concurrence with us in this point than their stout defence of absolute Reprobation of which see Davenants Animadversions on Gods love pag. 242. We might adde almost an infinitude of Testimonies from Reformed Divines Churches and Synods for the confirmation of our Hypothesis but in what remains we shal confine our selves to the Doctrine and Testimonie of the Church of England and those renowned Professors of Theologie who have maintained and vindicated our Hypothesis The Church of England as to Doctrine imbibed even in her first Reformation the sentiments of Calvin and the Reformed Churches in France Holland Helvetia and Germanie albeit as to Discipline she stuck unto Episcopal Jurisdiction This is evident by that noble designe of Cranmer and our first Reformers to reduce the Doctrine of al the Reformed Churches unto one Confession I shal here only cul out a few Testimonies of some great Professors of Theologie both in Oxford and Cambridge who were of an Episcopal Judgement as to Discipline yet stout Champions for our Hypothesis We shal begin with Davenant a great Master of Reason and one that went as far as he could and I think as far as any ought in compliance with those of the New Method yet he stil asserted and with great strength of reason defended absolute Reprobation and Gods predeterminative concurse to the substrate mater of sin Thus in his Determinations when Professor of Theologie at Cambridge Quaest 22. In evil acts saith he God hath decreed to permit the event to concur with the Agent as an universal Motor and lastly to order the event itself according to that of Hugo de sacr fid lib. 1. cap. 13. God wils that sin be and yet he wils not sin i. e. with a wil of approbation So Quaest 25. pag. 118. he grants That Gods decree to permit sin is efficacious so as to extract good out of it But he speakes more fully for the defense of our Hypothesis in his Animadversions on Gods love to mankind pag. 72. But those who derive the evil actions of men from their own free wil as the proper efficient cause and the existing or coming of such actions in eventum à Decreto Dei permittente ordinante are in no error at al. But if any shal go about to set mans wil at libertie and to tie up short the decreeing and determining wil of God as if this had not the determining stroke amongst al possible evil actions or events which shal infallibly be and which shal infallibly not be he may avoid the suspicion of Stoicisme and Manicheisme but he wil hardly avoid the suspicion of Atheisme For the greater number of mens actions being wicked and evil if these come into act without Gods determinate counsel and decree human affaires are more over-ruled by mans wil than by Gods What could be said more acutely and distinctly for the demonstration of our Hypothesis He here alsertes 1 That the existence of evil actions is from Gods decree permitting and ordering of them 2 That Gods decreeing wil doth determine or predetermine al possible evil actions or events which shal infallibly be And do or need we assert more than this And frequently in that Book Davenant assertes and demonstrates That the decree of Reprobation is absolute determining sinful acts and events yet so as that it leaves no man under a compulsion to sin So pag. 253. he saith Gods decrees carrie with them a necessitie of infallibilitie as to the event but not a necessitie of compulsion as to the manner of acting And elsewhere he frequently inculcates That let Reprobation be absolute or conditional it leaves the same possibilitie and the same libertie to the Agent So pag. 333 340 341 351 360. Yea he proves That the Arminians must and do grant immutable absolute decrees which admit the same objections and difficulties as those of the Antiarminians So pag. 354 400 418 419. Lastly he proves

imputed to him the same odiose and forged consequences which have been ever since imputed to the Assertors of Predeterminative Concurse As 1 They falsely charged on him that he asserted a fatal Necessitie and said that God compelled mon to sin Whereas Augustin l. 1. q. 2. ad Simpl. answers in the same manner as we now adays That God is said to harden some Sinners in that he has not mercie on them not that he impels them to sin c. 2 The Pelagians charged on Augustin That he denied to sinners the Libertie of their Wil c. It 's true when he discourseth of Moral Libertie consisting in Adherence unto God he denieth that sinners have any such Libertie but yet he fully asserts a Natural Libertie that which is essential to the wil to belong to al sinners of which see Jansenius August Tom. 3. l. 7. c. 12. p. 330. To conclude there is scarce any imputation falsely charged on those that assert predeterminative Concurse to the substrate mater of sin now a-days but it was also imputed to Augustin by the Pelagians of old and wiped off by him as by us which sufficiently demonstrates that his Sentiments were as to this Hypothesis the same with ours He that wil see more of Augustins mind about this mater may consult Rutherford de Providentia cap. 30. Chamier Panstrat Tom. 2. Lib. 3. c. 8. Next to Augustin follow his Sectators and Disciples Prosper and Fulgentius whom our Adversaries would fain make to be of their persuasion but without shadow of Truth or Reason As for the sentiments of Prosper touching our Hypothesis they are to be seen ad capitula Gallorum where following Augustin he makes God to wil sin as the punishment of sin So Fulgentius l. 1. ad Monimum c. 26. God albeit he be not the Author of evil cogitations yet he is the Ordinator of evil Wils neither doth he cease to work good out of the evil work of every evil man neither in the very injust works of the Wil doth he relinquish the just order of his own works because this he hath in that very order that he doth justly desert the evil Wil and in the very injust wil of the sinner he fulfills his own Justice c. What could be said more evidently to demonstrate our Hypothesis Is God the Ordinator of evil Wils doth he not then efficaciously yea predeterminatively move and order them in their very evil acts And doth he not cease to worke good out of their evil workes Must he not then applie their wils to the entitative act of those evil workes And what is this but to predetermine their wils to the substrate mater of those evil workes Again if God in the very injust workes of the Wil doth not relinquish the just order of his workes then surely he must of necessitie applie and predetermine the wil of the Sinner to the entitative act of the worke thereby to maintain his own just order § 2. We now passe on to such as succeded the Fathers and albeit they lived in the bosome of the Roman Church yet they stil defended the Doctrine of Augustin and our Hypothesis as to Gods efficacious predeterminative Concurse to the substrate mater of sin I shall begin with Anselme Bishop of Canterburie who flourished about the year 1095 an Italian by Nation Monke by profession of a most acute Ingenie devotional Sanctitie conjoined with great Prudence and Humilitie according to the character given him by Baronius This Anselme de Concord Praescientiae Praedestinationis Gratiae Liberi Arbitrii c. 1. thus speaketh God worketh althings which are wrought by a just or unjust Wil i. e. both good and evil workes In good workes truely he causeth both that they are and that they are good but in evil workes he causeth that they are but not that they are evil Herein he gives us the difference between Gods Concurse to good and evil acts as also the demonstration of our Hypothesis for if God causeth evil acts that they are then certainly he efficaciously moves and applies the wil to the act which is al that we mean by Predetermination Next follows Hugo de Sancto Victore by Nation a Saxon and so allied to us by profession a Monk contemporary with Bernard who flourished about the year 1130. This Hugo de Sacr. Fid. l. 1. c. 13. faith That God wils there should be evil and yet he doth not wil evil He wils there should be evil because it 's good there should be evil but he wils not evil because evil it self is not good An excellent description of Gods predeterminative wil and concurse to the substrate mater of sin so as to vindicate his Sacred Majestie from any hand in the moral vitiositie thereof 1 God wils there should be evil i. e. he doth by an omnipotent efficacious decree wil the existence of evil in willing the substrate mater thereof and yet 2 He doth not wil evil i. e. he doth not with a wil of approbation or any way morally wil evil as to its moral vitiositie or formal reason 3 It 's good there should be evil i. e. as it conduceth to the illustration of Gods glorie and so God wils it But 4 evil itself morally considered as evil is not good and therefore not willed by God as such The same Hugo de Sacramentis par 5. cap. 29. affirmes That God by presiding over evil wils doth by an occult and invisible operation temper and incline them to his own wil. What could more expressely be said for the asserting Gods efficacious predeterminative concurse to the substrate mater of sin Doth God indeed preside over the evil wils of men and so by an occult and invisible operation temper and incline them to his own wil how is it possible then but that he applie and determine them to the entitative act of their sinful workes And whereas Hugo foresaw many would be then as now also scandalised at this doctrine touching Gods efficacious concurse to the substrate mater of sin he addes this as the reason of the offense Not because that which is spoken is not wel spoken but because that which is wel spoken is not wel understood I wish our Adversaries would wel consider this prophetic reflexion of Hugo of which more hereafter in Bradwardines sentiments We passe on to Thomas Aquinas whom some of our Adversaries would fain conjure into their Campe and make a Patrone of their Antithesis but this is so great an imposition on the intelligent world that I cannot but admire at the confidence of those who make use of it Yet this has been the attempt not only of some lesse conversant in Aquinas's Workes but even of learned Strangius who is oft more candid and ingenuous than others of his persuasion Thus Strangius lib. 2. cap. 14. from pag. 313. to 317. endeavors to demonstrate That Thomas doth not admit that physic predetermination of

concurse to the entitative act of sin for as it is granted by Strangius and others efficacious predetermination always follows as a necessary consequent of absolute predefinition if God absolutely decrees to leave men to sin it necessarily follows that he efficaciously determine men to the entitative act of sin 3 He goes higher than most of our Divines dare do in this point in asserting cap. 5. pag. 424. That damnation excecation obduration are the effects of Reprobation But yet cap. 7. pag. 427. he answers the objection of such that argue hence That God lies in wait to destroy such as are reprobated assuring us that the sinner only is the culpable criminal cause of his own damnation And cap. 10. pag. 433. he demonstrates That Reprobates are not created unto damnation i. e. damnation as such is not the end of their creation which sufficiently vindicates the holy God from being the cause of their sin or damnation As for the Jansenists that they are of the same persuasion with the Dominicans as touching our Hypothesis is evident from their concessions to the Jesuites in their Treatie begun Febr. 18. 1663. mentioned in the Refutation of Pere Ferrier Chap. 6. also Idea of Jansenisme pag. 82. The sum was this The Bishop of Comenge a friend of the Jansenists proposed this as an expedient to reconcile the two Parties That the Jansenists declare that they had no other sentiment about this mater but what was taught by the Thomists And because some of the Thomists flie higher than others the Jesuites demanded That the Jansenists should reduce themselves to the forme of speech used by Alvarez So that it seems the Jansenists in the point of efficacious Concurse are looked on by the Jesuites as indeed they are as those that went beyond the very Dominicans The Jansenists replied That the doctrine of Jansenius was not different from that of the Thomists albeit it was not his designe to render himself conforme to them but to Augustin And the true reason why the Jansenists do not maintain greater correspondence with the Dominicans is not their difference in doctrine but because many of the Dominicans have by a Spirit of Cabal or of Faction joined with the Jesuites Lastly that our Hypothesis touching Gods efficacious Concurse to al actions even to such as have sin appendent to them was generally owned not only by single Sects or Parties but by the generalitie of the Roman Church before the rise of the Jesuites is evident from the Doctrine of the Roman Catechisme published by the command of the Council of Trent where in the explication of the Apostles Creed about the end of the first Article par 1. cap. 2. § 20. pag. 23. edit 1619. we find this great testimonie to confirme our Hypothesis God doth not only preserve and administrate althings that are by his providence but also doth by an intime virtue impel those things that are moved and do act any thing to motion and action so that albeit he doth not impede the efficience of second causes yet he prevents them in as much as his most secret force reacheth unto althings and as the Wise-man testifies Wisd 8. 1. He reacheth from one end to another mightily and sweetly doth order althings Wherefore it is said by the Apostle Act. 17. 21. For in him we live and move and have our being What could have been said more clearly and fully for the asserting a predeterminative Concurse to al actions and motions of the creature even such as have sin annexed to them And by whom is this Doctrine taught By the Council of Trent which is the standard and measure of the Roman Faith and no great friend to the Doctrine of Christ Is it not strange then that Reformed Divines yea such as would be accounted Calvinists cannot allow the efficacious Concurse of God so much as Trent-Papists allow § 3. We have seen how far the Latin Fathers and those who lived in Communion with the Roman Church have openly espoused our Hypothesis let us now descend to Reformed Theologues and examine what their sentiments have been hereof And here indeed we have an ample field to exspatiate in albeit our Adversaries the new Methodists would confine us to a smal number of Adherents We shal begin with John Wiclef our first English Apostolic Reformer who following Bradwardine his Collegue in this as in many other points about Grace asserted That as God necessitates the futuritions of instants so also he necessitates al the events which in those instants are futures Art Constant damnat 278. Again he held That God necessitates al active creatures to each of their acts as Walden tom 1. cap. 21. pag. 35. cap. 23. pag. 37. also Wideford pag. 240 248. Again he asserted That to whatever Gods permission reached to that also his actual volition reached as Walden tom 1. pag. 39. which clearly demonstrates our Hypothesis But we passe on to John Calvin whom some new Methodists particularly Strangius would force into their Campe. Thus Strang. pag. 384 554. where he endeavors to take off Calvin from our Partie but he that looks into Calvins Institutions l. 1. c. 18. wil find our assertion not only nakedly owned but fully explicated and demonstrated and that by a multitude of scriptural instances Particularly he proves 1 That God wils the existence of mens sins so that things repugnant to Gods wil of precept are yet brought about by his efficacious wil of Decree and Providence 2 That Gods permission of sin is not otiose but active and energetic 3 That Gods providence moderates and orders the sins of men And he concludes the Chapter with this seasonable caution As for those to whom this Doctrine of Gods judicial induration may seem rigid let them but a little think how tolerable their morositie may be who reject a thing attested by such clear testimonies of Scripture because it excedes their capacitie and count it a crime to bring to light things which if God did not know to be profitable for our knowlege he would never have reveled them by his Prophets and Apostles So in other parts of his Works as Resp contra Pighium de Libr. Arbitr pag. 225. also Tractat. de occulta Dei providentia he clearly asserts and demonstrates our Hypothesis This is wel taken notice of by judicious Davenant in his Animadversions on Gods love c. p. 322. It is saith he Calvins opinion de occult Dei provident resp ad 2. Lapsum Adae non fortuitum esse sed occulto Dei decreto ordinatum God foresaw Adams fal he had power to have hindred it but he would not because himself had decreed otherwise This is the effect of Calvins doctrine But as for the involving of men in sin and damnation out of his only wil and pleasure these are consequents falsely inferred upon Calvins Doctrine by himself disclaimed c. How much Zuinglius favored this opinion of Gods efficacious