Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	work_n	work_v	worthy_a	16	3	6.1832	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A65924	A vindication of the doctrine of Gods absolute decree and of Christs absolute and special redemption. In way of answer to those objections that are brought against them by Mr. Tho: Pierce, in his treatise, entituled, The divine philanthropy. By Tho: Whitfeld, minister of the gospel.	Whitfield, Thomas, Minister of the Gospel.	1657 (1657)	Wing W2011A; ESTC R222306	60,986	90

were stirred up betwixt nearest relations upon occasion of it or that Christ was the Author of these persecutions and enmities and of those stirs and troubles that were raised up in the world when he caused his Kingdom to be set up or that the Apostles were the Authors of those divisions and tumults which were stirred up at Ephesus and other places by occasion of their Preaching Acts 19.23 and that they were truly charged by their adversaries to be subverters of the state of the world Acts 17.6 yet upon the very like ground doth he charge many Orthodox Divines to make God to be the Author of sin because they teach that he hath some kinde of efficiency in it by administring occasions as the Preaching of the Apostles was the occasion of these tumults when as all the occasions that he administers tend to good as the Apostles Preaching did 2. God may be said sometimes to administer occasions of sinning by his works As 1. by his works of mercy Because sentence against an evil work is not speedily executed therefore the hearts of the sons of men are fully set to do evil Eccles 8.11 These things thou hast done and I was silent and thou thoughtest that I was such an one as thy self Psal 50.21 When Jeshurun waxed fat he kicked the heel Deut. 32.15 The bountifulness goodness and long-suffering of God do in their own nature lead to repentance yet here they are made occasions of sinning 2. As the works of his mercy so of his justice are sometimes made occasions of sinning When God led his people through the wilderness he suffered them sometimes to want water otherwhile to want flesh for their food and this was to humble them and prove them that he might do them good in their latter end Deut. 8.2 But the bad ones amongst them hence took occasion to murmure and to open their mouthes against God When the Lord pours out the vials of his wrath upon the followers of the beast hence they take occasion to blaspheme the God of heaven for their pains and sores and repented not of their works Rev. 16.9 11. 3. The works of Gods Providence are sometimes also made occasions of sinning it was the work of Gods power and providence that made the Israelites multiply so exceedingly in Egypt which should have made Pharaoh so much more to respect them yet hence he takes occasion to oppress them It was a work of providence that brought David to Ahimelech the priest for relief in his flight at such a time as Doeg the Edomite was there this might have stirred him up to succour at least to pity David in his distress but hence he took occasion by his false slanders to stir up Saul to murther all the Lords Priests at Nob 1 Sam. 23.18 It was a work of providence that brought the wise men to Jerusalem to enquire after the king of the Jews that was then born yet hence Herod takes occasion to seek to kill Christ and rather then fail to kill all the male-children that were in Bethlehem and in the region round about that were two years old and under Mat. 2.16 Thus we see that God by the works both of his Mercy Justice and Providence may administer occasions of evil to evil minded men now shall we say that he is therefore the Author of the evil which they do when all these occasions are such things as do in their own nature tend to good and by accident onely are made occasion of evil Quest But how is it possible that God and man should work together in the same action and the one be blame-blame-worthy and the other blameless Answ Because they differ both in the ground maner and end of their working 1. They differ in the ground the ground of Gods working is the counsel of his own will Eph. 1.11 which is always most holy and just the ground of wicked mens actions is the motion of their own wicked wills they seek to fulfil the will of the flesh and of their mindes Eph. 2.3 in their evil actions they do that which is contrary to the revealed will of God and his secret will they know not if they do the same things that God wills yet not because he wills them but upon some other grounds When Josephs brethren sold him into Egypt they did it out of envy against him but God did it out of love to him and his father Jacob and his whole family 2. The differ in the maner of their working for in sinful actions God works with wicked men not as a moral cause but a natural cause onely he doth no where command counsel or perswade men to do evil but altogether the contrary and when they do evil they are carried on by the dictate of their depraved judgements and sway of their own corrupt wills and disordered affections God being the Author of Nature it belongs to him to uphold the creature in all its natural motions and actions and he moves the creatures with a motion agreeable to their several natures both irrational and rational creatures When he moves good men that are guided by his Spirit they work according to their natures when he moves bad men they also work according to their natures and this without any iniquity or injustice in God for of the natural motion he is the Author and proper Cause of the obliquity of it he is onely an accidental cause and therefore not the Author 3. They differ in the end for the end of all Gods actions is himself and his own glory Prov. 16.4 but wicked men aim at themselves at their own glory or some other base respect of their own Is not this great Babel which I have built for the honor of my Majesty saith that proud King Dun. 4.27 When the High Priests and Elders delivered up Christ to be crucified they did it out of envy and hatred against him to the end they might be rid of him but God did it out of love that by this means all his elect might come to be saved out of their lost condition Object 2. A second principal Objection brought against Gods absolute Decree is That it infers a necessity of sinning and so frees man from all blame in all his sinful actions because what God hath decreed must necessarily come to pass This Mr. P. often urgeth Cap. 1. pag. 13. touching at it almost in every other page and making us to say that men shall sin of necessity do what they can to the contrary Answ 1. If Mr. P. had pleased to stoop so low as to take notice of that distinction usually given by our Divines betwixt necessitas absoluta hypothetica or which is the same necessitas consequentis vel causae necessitas consequentiae he might have been convinced of the weakness of this Objection and of the falseness of that imputation which thereby he seeks to fasten on us 2. It hath been already proved to him that Gods Decree doth no

ends as should make most for his glory 2. That which the Scripture plainly clearly and positively asserteth that God doth we ought not to deny that he doth it though we cannot discern the maner how he doth it It rather beseems us humbly to acknowledge our ignorance in apprehending the maner of his working then to deny any of his works then to deny that he worketh all things according to the good pleasure of his will or to deny that a sparrow falls not to the ground or an hair from our head without the will of the Father or that he worketh most determinately certainly and infallibly in the various and mutable motions of mans will yea most holily justly and righteously in those very actions wherein man works most perversly unjustly and unrighteously how else can it be said when Josephs brethren sold him into Egypt out of envy that God sent a man before c. and vvhen David numbred the people it is said not onely that Satan stood against Israel and provoked David to number the people 1 Chr. 21.1 but that the Lord moved David against them in that he said Go number Israel 2 Sam. 24.1 Miro ineffabili modo Euchirid ad Laurent cap. 100. id non fit praeter voluntatem Dei quod fit contra voluntatem ejus saith Austin 3. The sum of what Mr. P. or any of his predecessors in this Controversie about Gods absolute Decree hath objected against it is included in that which the Apostle objects against himself speaking of this subject Rom. 9.14 Is God unjust and who hath resisted his will Which he answers with an Absit and Quis tu es God forbid that there should be any unrighteousness in him and Who art thou O man that pleadest with God vouchsafing no other answer but this whereby he gives a sharp check to the malepert boldness and audacious insolence of those that shall dare thus to quarrel with their Creator as if the sheard should strive with the Potter And if we should give no other answer but this having the great Apostle for our example it might suffice But for further satisfaction we shall endeavor to give a particular answer to the particular objections that it may appear we desire not to decline any thing that carries with it any weight of truth Object 1. The first and principal Objection against the Doctrine of the absolute Decree is That it makes God is be the Author of sin For if in the first place he decrees to glorifie his Justice in the just condemnation of some men which is the decree of Reprobation then it follows that in order to this he must decree the permissiin of sin without which there can be no just condemnation and if he decrees the being of sin then he is the author of it Answ For answer It cannot be denied that God doth permit sin for if he did not permit it he could easily hinder it so that without his permission sin could not be 2. If he doth permit it he hath decreed to permit it for he works by counsel and what he doth in time he hath determined before all time And the Scripture is plain that God decrees those actions which when men do they do very sinfully What worse action then the crucifying of Christ yet it is said he was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God Acts 2.23 here is not onely knowledge but a determination of the thing to be done And it is said That Herod Pilat and the Jews did that to Christ when they crucified him which the hand of God and his Counsel had determined before to be done cap. 4.27 28. Besides if God doth permit sin he doth willingly permit it otherwise it should come to pass whether he will or not Enchirid. cap. 95. and so he should not be omnipotent Nihil fit saith Austin nisi quod omnipotens fieri velit vel ipse faciendo vel ab aliis fieri permittendo 2. But though God hath decreed that sin shall be and therefore hath decreed to permit it without which it could not be yet it doth not follow that he is the Author of it Object But if he hath willed and decreed it Ad amitam collat Vorst s●ct 17. his decree is an energetical operative decree therefore he hath some hand in working and effecting of it as Calvin Piscator and others teach who are for the absolute decree Negari non potest illum aliquo modo procurare negotium cujus consilio decreto negotium geritur saith Piscator And if his decree be operative so as he hath any hand at all in the working of it then he must needs be the Author of it Answ For answer of this Two things are to be cleared 1. That Gods permission is not such a bare permission as is without all action and operation 2. That though his permission be accompanied with some kinde of operation yet he is no author of evil That Gods permission of sin is accompanied with some kinde of operation appears Argument 1 Because when he permits sin he doth volens permittere he doth willingly permit it else it should be against his will August in Enchirid. ad Laurent cap. 100. which cannot be as was shewed If he doth willingly permit it then there is some act of his will about it Deus permittit saith Austin aut volens aut nolens in vitus non certè invitus quia id esset cum tristitia potentia se majorem haberet si voleus permittit est genus quoddam voluntatis Here Austin grants that God hath some kinde of will in the permission of sin if any kinde of will this must needs be a perfect will for no imperfect will agrees to God who is perfection it self And how can he be said to will any thing without any act of his will Scripture-expressions do constantly hold forth Gods maner of working in sin Argument 2 by way of action It doth not say that God suffered Josephs brethren to sell him into Egypt but that God sent him It was not you that sent me hither but God Gen. 45.8 It doth not say that God suffered Pharaoh to harden his own heart but that God hardned it Exod. 9.12 That he suffered the Canaanites to harden their hearts against Israel but it was of the Lord that they should harden their hearts against them that he might destroy them Josh 11.20 That he suffered Absolom to defile his fathers concubines but he tells David What thou hast done in secret I will do in the sight of this Sun 2 Sam. 12.12 So it is said that God bade Shimei curse David That he bade the evil spirit go and deceive Ahab 1 King 29.22 Go forth and do so Job saith that God had taken away his cattel when the Caldeans and Sabeans took them away Job 1. The Prophet complains that the Lord had hardned their hearts against his fear Isa 63.13 It is said that the

the Apostle are the same with Election and Rejection for the Apostle makes this the ground why one was loved and the other hated before they had done either good or evil namely That the purpose of God according to Election according to which Jacob was elected might remain and that it might appear that this was not of works but by him that calleth Rom. 9.11 And this holds as well in the hatred of Esau as in the love of Jacob he was hated before he was born that the purpose of God according to rejection might remain Contra Donat lib. 1. cap. 16. To this purpose Austin makes Esau together with Cain and Judas to belong to the Malignant Church Object Though Jacob and Esau had not actually dont good or evil yet they had done it in Gods foresight according to which God might love the one and hate the other Answ This still crosseth the Apostles Scope which is to shew that the first ground of putting a difference betwixt these two in loving the one and hating the other was not in themselves but in God not of works saith he but of him that calleth that the purpose of God according to Election and so also his purpose according to Rejection might remain firm For if this difference should arise from foreseen works yet it should be of works which the Apostle here wholly rejecteth not of works saith he Many who renounce foreseen works as the ground of Election yet make Original sin the ground of Reprobation but the Apostle here excludes both alike namely all foreseen works from the hating of Esau as from the loving of Jacob before they had done either good or evil saith he speaking of both of them alike Learned D. Whitaker brings this as an Argument to prove that Original sin is not the cause of Reprobation Causa illius odii quo Deus Esavum prosequutus est nondum natum Cygna cantio pag. 7. non fuit peccatum originale quia tum aequaliter odisset Jacobum quare si quaeras cur Esau non invenerit nec acceperit misericordiam oportet causam aliquam assignari quae non conveniat Jacobo The cause saith he of that hatred wherewith God hated Esau before he was born was not Original sin for then he should have alike hated Jacob wherefore if you ask why Esau neither found nor received mercy some cause must be assigned which agrees not to Jacob. Now if some other cause must be assigned for the same cause brings forth the same effect what can this be but the good will and pleasure of God who hath mercy on whom he will and whom he will he hardens 2. This conditional Decree crosseth the Apostles Doctrine because it makes the difference betwixt vessels of honor and dishonor to arise from the disposition of the matter whereas the Apostle makes it to arise from the will of the Potter Hath not saith he the Potter power to make of the same lump one vessel to honor and another to dishonor Rom. 9.21 Unbelievers and believers are not the same lump but these are a better qualified and more refined lump then the other but the Apostle makes both sorts of vessels to be made of the very same lump 3. There had been no ground at all of quarrelling at the Will of God or saying Who hath resisted his Will if his Will had not been the cause of difference betwixt one and another And the Apostle might easily have answered Yea for vindicating the Justice of God he was bound to have done it that God did earnestly will and desire their salvation but they resisted his will Yet he goes not this way to work but answers them by checking their malepert and audacious insolence that dare enter into contest with their Creator What art thou c. 4. This Doctrine is easie and obvious to every mans apprehension that hath any use of his rational faculty namely That it is just with God to decree that mans damnation who willingly rejects Christ and salvation when they are offered unto him and God seriously desires that he might be saved and therefore the Apostle needed not to have cryed out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O the depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God his judgements are unsearchable and his ways past finding out Rom. 11.33 this being the great abyss and hidden depth of the Apostles Doctrine namely How God should hate any man before he was born or had done either good or evil To this purpose Austin saith truly Eos evacuare verba Apostoli Ad Bon●ifa l. 2 c. 7. qui judicium divinae discretionis ad opera reducunt aut praevisa aut praeterita That they make the Apostle speak to no purpose who reduce the judgement or cause of Divine difference of one from another unto Works whether foreseen or already done Argument 8 This conditional Decree cannot stand with the absolute liberty and independency of the Will of God For whereas he saith I will do this because I will Rom. 9.15 this makes him to will because the creature wills and confines the liberty and freedom of his Will to the motions of mans will so that he cannot absolutely and positively determin and will mans salvation till man hath first willed it himself by being willing to believe and to persevere in doing so Pet. Mart. loc commun loc de praed sect 24. According to this opinion as Peter Martyr saith well Deus non operaretur juxta suam voluntatem sed juxta alienam God should not act or work according to his own will but according to the will of others Yea this imposeth a necessity upon the will of God which is the fountain of all freedom for it makes his will and decree to be grounded upon his foreknowledge and his foreknowledge to be grounded upon mans actions and motions So that if he foresees man to persevere in believing he must of necessity determine his salvation and that not because it is his good will and pleasure to save him and in order thereto to work faith in him but because he foresees him to persevere in believing and if he foresees him to do otherwise he must of necessity decree his destruction and can do no otherwise He cannot have mercy on whom he will have mercy and harden whom he will till mans will hath made way for him The Assertors therefore of this Doctrine while they are sollicitous about maintaining the Liberty of Mans Will and tender of the least touch that may tend to the contrary they minde not that they bereave God of the Liberty of his Will and do as it were cast fetters upon it so that he can move no otherwise in point of mans salvation then man shall give him leave This conditional decree cannot stand with the infinite and most perfect Wisdom of God Argument 9 For 1. It makes him to fetch the Idea the model and plot according to which he will frame his greatest works and those