〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes to effect any thing in the most efficacious manner so as to overcome al resistence made against the force of the Agent So 1 Cor. 12. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who efficaciously worketh althings The like v. 11. of which hereafter This efficacious concurse as it cooperates with the second cause is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cooperation or concurse and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to cooperate So Mark 16. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord cooperating or efficaciously concurring So elsewhere that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as applied to God notes his actuose efficacious and predeterminative concurse in and with althings is evident from the use of the word both in sacred and profane Authors So with Phavorinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to work readily It 's rendred by the Syriac sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to work as 1 Cor. 12. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it notes not only an universal general concurse but a particular present certain efficacious force or efficacitie of Divine Concurse exerting it self in al individual acts and effects Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendred by the Syriac Rom. 7. 5. and 2 Cor. 4. 12. by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to work to act with diligence to be efficacious as Boderianus And 1 Cor. 12. 11. it is rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to act to work to perform to effect as Boderianus Lastly it is rendred by the Syriac Ephes 1. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who hath efficaciously wrought althings Which sufficiently demonstrates the predetermination of Gods concurse as to al second causes and acts Hence 2. This efficacious Concurse as it determines and applies the second cause to act is both in sacred Scripture and by scholastic Theologues termed Determinative and Predeterminative We find both these termes in Scripture applied to Divine Concurse Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a terme or limit 1 primarily and properly signifies to termine set bounds or limits to any cause effect or thing So Acts 17. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation i. e. God has determined or predetermined to every Man Nation and Kingdome their fixed termes of duration and life So Arrian Epictet lib. 1. cap. 12. speaking of God he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Virgils Song is remarquable Stat sua cuique dies Every ones day stands fixed or determined which Servius understands of the fixed determined period of human life So that we see that not only sacred Philosophie but the very Pagans by their dim light asserted a fixed period of Divine life as determined by God albeit some that professe themselves Christians denie the same Then he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the bounds or the position of termes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies the position of termes or limits to any cause action effect or thing God by his eternal Decree has predetermined or set termes and limits to al second causes their actions effects and events there is nothing so contingent in nature but it is predetermined by the Divine wil. We find the Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applied to times and places as wel as to causes and acts So Heb. 4. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he determines or limits a day Thence in the Glossarie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a stated or determined day and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I termine or limit as to place Whence Hesychius makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he determines to be the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he gives terme or limit Thence also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the LXX answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to termine determine or constitute termes to any place or thing Num. 34. 6. Josh 13. 27. 15. 11. also to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be bounded or determined Whence lastly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a definition which is the terme or boundary of an essence according to Cicero who renders it the circumscription of a thing 2 From this primary notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows a secondary namely to decree destine to a certain end predestine predetermine In which sense it signifies the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to predetermine and so it is transferred to predestination predetermination or the decree and purpose of the Divine wil even about the substrate mater or entitative act of sin as Luke 22. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it was determined or predetermined decreed Our Lord speaks of his Crucifixion which was the greatest of sins and intrinsecally evil and yet lo as to the substrate mater or entitative act predetermined and decreed by God The same Acts. 2. 23. Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that defined determined or predetermined counsel of which more Chap. 3. § 2. Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decree deliberate determine is expounded by Theodotion Job 22. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Hesychius makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he determines synonymous to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which when applied to the Divine wil note predefinition and predetermination As the simple 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so also the composite 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to predestine or predetermine is used six times in the N. T. 1 of things appertaining to salvation 1 Cor. 2. 7. 2 of persons elect Rom. 8. 29 30. Eph. 1. 5 11. 3 of the substrate mater or entitative act of sin yea that which was intrinsecally evil So Act. 4. 28. For to do whatsoever thine hand and thy counsel determined before or predetermined to be done For so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may more properly be rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primarily signifies to predefine predestine predetermine to set limits bounds termes to persons or things Thence as to this present text and point when it is said here that those who crucified Christ did what Gods hand and counsel predetermined to be done it must be understood of the substrate mater or entitative act which was predetermined by God as in what follows Chap. 3. § 2. The Syriac version interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to seal constitute or make firm any thing which is rendred by the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to order dispose constitute institute The Divine Wil and Decree gives order constitution limitation determination yea predetermination to althings al persons and things times and places ends and means receive termes limits destination and predetermination from the Divine Wil and Decree Hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the N. T. is made synonymous to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to foreknow 1 Pet. 1. 20. to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preordain Act. 17. 26. to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to propose or purpose Rom.
of God as the word importes according to our former explication of it on Luk. 22. 22. whereto this Text seems to answer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by Glossaries made synonymous to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ordain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to preordain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to constitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to establish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to predetermine Among the LXX it answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to termine determine predetermine as Num. 34. 6. Josh 13. 27. and elsewhere By which it is most evident that it is here by Luke used to denote Gods efficacious absolute predeterminative counsel and purpose touching the crucifixion of our Lord. 2 Then he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and foreknowlege of God Note here that Gods foreknowlege or Prescience of Christs crucifixion and so by consequence of the sin annexed thereto follows the predetermination or determined counsel of his own wil God therefore foreknew because in his determined counsel he foreordained or decreed the Passion of our Lord. And yet 3 this necessary predefinition and predetermination of Gods wil with his infallible prescience touching the crucifixion of Christ did no way lessen their sin for addes Peter Him ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain Albeit he was predefined and predetermined by God to go as himself declares Luk. 22. 22. to the Crosse yet they by their wicked bloudy hands took him as voluntarily yea with as much bloud-thirsty greedinesse as if there had been no predefinition and predetermination of the act by God Lo what a plain conciliation is here of efficacious predefinition and predeterminative concurse of the substrate mater of sin with the voluntary and free election of the sinner as to his part in this bloudy Tragedie 4 Note that phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by wicked hands i. e. sacrilegious bloudy God-murdering hands Which certainly denotes their sin to be of the first magnitude and intrinsecally evil And that this Text fully demonstrates the predefinition of Christs Passion Strangius lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 563. freely acknowlegeth So lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 768. he saith That it is not to be douted but that the whole humiliation and passion of Christ flowed from the decree and wil of God and what God from Eternitie decreed the same he executes and procures in time But what his replie is to the force of our argument from this absolute Decree of God we shal examine anon 5 I come now to that other parallel Text which fully demonstrates the predefinition and predetermination of Christs crucifixion by God Act. 4. 28. For to do whatsoever thine hand and thy counsel determined before to be done He speaks of the gathering together both of Jews and Gentiles for the crucifying the Son of God as vers 26 27. he saith They did nothing but what Gods hand and counsel predetermined to be done 1 By the counsel of God we may here understand his Decretive counsel or the counsel and purpose of his wil whereby he predefined and predetermined the crucifixion of our Lord. Thus some terme Gods efficacious predeterminative Concurse quoad attingentiam activam as to active attingence which is nothing else but the very wil of God according to his eternal counsel predetermining and foreordaining al future events as Scotus and others assure us Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood Act. 2. 23. as before Whence 2 by the Hand of God we are to understand his most efficacious and potent execution of his decretive counsel predetermining the whole substrate mater or al entitative acts and circumstances in the crucifixion of our Lord which they terme his predeterminative Concurse quoad attingentiam passivam as to passive attingence For mans hand being the instrument of operation whereby he puts forth his power and force it is thence applied to God to denote his most potent execution of his Decrees in predetermining and applying al second causes to their act as before § 1. of this Chapter We find a very good glosse hereon in Strangius lib. 4. cap. 2. pag. 769. In the other place saith he Act. 4. 28. there is mention made not only of the counsel of God but also of the hand of God that counsel may be referred to the Decree and hand to the execution To decree is presupposed the wise counsel of God and to execute the power of the Divine right hand And here truly what God hath decreed in his counsel he also by his hand hath executed For in this whole work the hand of God hath appeared howbeit many wicked hands did concur So the Hand of God here is opposed to wicked hands Act. 2. 23. The hand I say of God appeared in moderating ordaining governing and directing al the machinations endeavors sayings and deeds of his enemies that they should wil and perfect that very same thing which he willed though with a far different counsel and purpose whatever their malice were Lo what a ful testimonie is here who would not think Strangius orthodox in this point did he acquiesce here But there lies a Snake in the grasse he elsewhere starts off from what he here grants as hereafter Only this note that he here as elsewhere strongly impugnes and opposeth that passive crucifixion which Bellarmine and a reverend Divine of repute among us only ascribe to God for he expressely saith That the very act of crucifixion was executed by the hand of God yea al the machinations endeavors sayings and deeds of Christs enemies moderated ordained governed directed by the same Divine hand What could be said more for the predefinition and predetermination of the substrate mater of an act intrinsecally evil But I passe on to the act of Divine predetermination expressed in the Text before us by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What the genuine import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is we have shewen Chap. 1. § 6. In the general it signifies to predefine predestine predetermine it 's applied in the N. T. both to persons and things and these both good and evil It is here limited and confined to Gods predefining predestining and predetermining the substrate mater or entitative act of Christs crucifixion which was a sin of the first magnitude containing in its pregnant wombe blasphemie hatred of God murther yea God-killing bloud-guiltinesse The Syriac turnes it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to seal constitute and make firme any thing And surely if the blessed God ever sealed constituted made firme or predetermined any thing in the world it was the crucifixion of his Son on which the salvation of al his Elect dependes Augustin renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here praedestinavit he has predestined So the old Latin renders it 1 Cor. 2. 7. And Strangius lib. 3. cap. 5. pag. 582. is herein as in some other points very ingenuous and free in confessing That Augustin doth use the words to predestine predefine determine constitute ordain and dispose indifferently so as
Actions and particularly to the substrate mater of sinful acts 1 We may consider the object althings i. e. whatever is clothed with the Notion and Idea of real positive entitie althings must be here taken distributively into al singulars there is no Being that partakes of real entitie but is wrought by God 2 Here is to be considered the Act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who worketh energetically or efficaciously for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to work with an invincible efficace and thence it is oft joined with words denoting infinite power and activitie as before c. 1. § 6. It notes here Gods efficacious predeterminative Concurse working in and with althings according to their natural propensions Thence 3 follows the original principe of this predeterminative efficacious operation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the counsel of his own wil. Which notes that Gods efficacious predeterminative wil is the supreme and first cause of althings there is no executive power in God distinct from his Wil his Concurse in regard of its active attingence is no more than his simple volition so that divine Predetermination is the same with divine Predefinition as we have largely demonstrated Court Gent. P. 4. c. 7. § 3. Whence also it follows that Gods working althings according to the counsel of his wil has one and the same Idea with his predetermining al actions and effects even such as have sin appendent to them Strangius p. 560. replies to the Argument drawen from this Text thus From this place nothing more can be collected than that God has decreed those things that he worketh as it is certain that God hath decreed nothing which he doth not execute not that God worketh sins c. 1 This Text speaks more than what Strangius allows it to speake namely that God has not only decreed those things that he worketh but also that he works by his Decree or omnipotent Volition for we owne no other executive power in God but his divine Wil as Scotus Bradwardine and some of the greatest Scholastic Theologues demonstrate 2 Who saith that God worketh Sins surely none but Marcion or Manes or such as hold Sin to be a positive real Being 3 But yet we do with the Orthodoxe affirme and prove from this Scripture that God worketh that entitative natural Act whereunto sin is appendent for otherwise how can he be said to worke althings Is this good sense or Logic to say God workes althings not only according to their generic or specific distribution but also according to their distribution into each singular for so the Syncategoreme Al is here taken but yet he worketh not al singular entities namely the substrate mater of Sin Doth this amount to less than a down-right contradiction He workes althings but yet doth not worke althings What Logic or wit of man can reconcile these Notions 2. Unto our first Head we may also reduce such Scriptures as in a more particular manner mention Gods efficacious predeterminative concurse to al human actions and effects even such as are most contingent and dependent on the ambulatory wil of man Thus Psal 33. 15. He fashioneth their hearts alike he considereth al their works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who fashioneth formeth frameth as the Potter doth his clay it notes not only yea not so much the first Creation of the human Soul as its actual figments frames imaginations and thoughts this is evident from the scope and contexture of the words for what is the Psalmists intent and undertakement but to demonstrate Gods infinite prescience and its perfect comprehension of al the figments frames thoughts intentions and affections of the heart as vers 13 14 And how doth he prove this Why because he fashioneth their hearts alike i. e. puts al the first thoughts inclinations intentions and movements of the heart into what forme frame or fashion he pleaseth There is also a great Emphase and significance in that terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render alike but may be as properly rendred together as it is by the Latine simul neither is it to be referred to the Verbe frameth but to the object Hearts and so it notes an universalitie distributive into al singulars without the least exception of any And then the sense wil be who fashioneth formeth or frameth the hearts of al mankind in al their very first motions conceptions imaginations resolutions end interests contrivements ebullitions affections prosecutions and fruitions or other actions whatsoever Whence he addes He considereth al their works what works doth he mean Surely not only the works and labors of mens hands but also the workings movements and figments of their hearts and how can God consider them if he did not forme frame and fashion them Yea there yet lies a deeper notion in the coherence of these parts namely that Gods forming framing and fashioning the hearts of al men is the ground and cause of his considering their works For how God can perfectly consider and know the works of mens hearts unlesse he be the former framer and fashioner of them al as to their real entitative acts al the wit of man can never devise or make clear unto us So that Gods Science of Vision or Prescience as to the figments of mans heart ariseth from this that God is the framer former and fashioner of mens hearts and al their natural movements which also implies his predefinition and predetermination of mans heart and al its first motions inclinations and affections So then to forme and sum up our Argument from this Text Doth God indeed fashion forme and frame the hearts of al men in al their natural motions imaginations and affections And may we without apparent contradiction to the light of this Text exclude the entitative acts of any sins though never so intrinsecally evil What is this but to exclude the far greatest part of human acts from being formed and framed by God Or how can the omniscient God consider al the works of mens hearts if he be not the former and fashioner of them al as to their natural entitie I must confesse the validitie of this argument from Gods prescience is to me so firme and great as that should it be baffled I see no way left but to turne Socinian and so to denie the certaintie of Gods prescience as to the contingent imaginations of mans heart which implies much Atheisme Another Text that proves Gods efficacious and predeterminative Concurse as to al human acts is Prov. 21. 1. The Kings heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water he turneth it whithersoever he wil. 1 He mentions the Kings heart as the measure of al other mens because Kings generally have a greater Soveraintie and Dominion over their own hearts than other men if any mens hearts may plead the privilege of exemtion from Gods efficacious predeterminative Concurse surely Kings may specially such as Solomon was who obtained from God such an amplitude
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
predetermined by God 2 Another Texte that evidently demonstrates the Crucifixion of Christ to be predefined and predetermined by God is Luke 22. 22. And truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined but wo unto that man by whom he is betrayed This Text is the same and refers to the same passage with that before of Matthew yet with this difference Matthew saith As it is written of him but Luke As it was determined which puts it out of al dout that Christs crucifixion was determined or predetermined by God And for the more ful explication and demonstration hereof we are to remarque that Luke being a Physician was most intimely versed in the Greek Tongue for a Physician in those days was of little repute if not wel acquainted with the Grecanic Monuments relating to medicine And thence we find even by the confession of some Atheistic spirits that Lukes Greek both in this his Evangel as also in the Acts of the Apostles is most pure elegant and significant And among other this notion here used gives us a specimen of his accurate skil in the Greek For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is a philosophic notion of much use among the Grecians to signifie that which is defined determined predetermined predestinated decreed constituted and ordained by an unalterable Decree as we have more copiosely demonstrated from the genuine import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cap. 1. § 6. Of determinative Concurse And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here may be properly rendred predetermined is evident from the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 4. 28. To do whatsoever thine hand and thy counsel determined before to be done Where it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 predetermined And indeed Determination and Predetermination as to the Divine concurse admit not so much as any mental distinction according to the confession of some Adversaries The Syriac Luk. 22. 22. renders it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the O. T. signifies to expand to make clear to explicate more fully and clearly by the distribution of al parts c. Whence it is rendred by the LXX Ezech. 37. 12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to separate and Num. 15. 34 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decree which sense agrees with the mind of our Lord Luk. 22. 22. So that it is most evident that this notion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here considered in itself and in al its synonymies notes the Crucifixion of Christ in al its circumstances both active and passive to be determined predetermined and foreordained by God Yea we have for this a great concession of Strangius lib. 3. cap. 13. pag. 665. But that the workes of Christ specially his Passion and voluntary death were absolutely predetermined by God is manifest from Scripture Luk. 22. 22. Act. 2. 23. 4. 28. Whence I argue that if the death and crucifixion of Christ were absolutely predetermined by God then the substrate mater of a sinful act yea of an act intrinsecally evil was absolutely predetermined by God How poor and evanid the evasions of Strangius and others are as to this Text we shal examine and lay open when we have explicated the following Texts which demonstrate the same 3 I passe on to the Conference between Pilate and our Lord Joh. 19. 10. Then saith Pilate unto him Knowest thou not that I have power to crucifie thee and have power to release thee Pilate having power of life and death committed to him by Tiberius Cesar he threatens our Lord therewith and what replie doth our Lord make vers 11. Jesus answered Thou couldest have no power at al against me except it were given thee from above therefore he that hath delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin We find several particulars here very remarquable for the demonstration of our Hypothesis 1 Whereas Pilate boasted of his power to crucifie or release our Lord he tels him plainly that he could have no power against him except it were given him from above The power that Pilate pretendes unto was legal Autoritie backed with an executive power committed to him so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes our Lord doth not denie his claim of legal Autoritie as commissionated by Cesar but yet confines and restrains the execution thereof to Gods predeterminative Concurse As if our Lord had said I grant thy power and autoritie of life and death as Cesars Commissioner and Minister yet know thou couldest not execute this thy power on me unlesse the providential concurrence of my Father did efficaciously move and predetermine thee thereto 2 Observe here the double negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which among the Grecians implies a more vehement negation As if he had said Alas thou hast not the least umbrage or shadow of power to execute against me but what is dispensed forth unto thee by the efficacious predeterminative hand or providential concurse of my Father whose wise and omnipotent hand has put in every bitter ingredient into the Cup I am to drink of 3 Neither doth al this excuse Judas the Jews or Pilate as to their guilt in crucifying the Lord of Glorie no Gods predeterminative concurse is so far from excusing these Traitors as that it aggravates their sin So it follows Therefore he that hath delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin Therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this very reason because my Father hath left that traiterous wretch Judas to be hurried by his own avaricious lust into this horrid Treason of betraying me and predetermined thine execution thereof his guilt is the greater 4 Lastly hence also we may argue that this sin of crucifying our Lord was intrinsecally evil So much that last clause hath the greater sin implies As if he had said Oh! what a world of treason murder blasphemie hatred of God and al manner of sin is involved in the wombe of this sin 4 We find the predefinition and predetermination of Christs crucifixion more expressely explicated and demonstrated Act. 2. 23. Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain What could more plainly be said for the predefinition and predetermination of our Lords crucifixion as to its substrate entitative act and yet for the aggravation of their sin in acting their parts in this bloudy Tragedie Let us examine the particulars 1 It 's said he was delivered by the determinate counsel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 primarily notes counsel with a decree or a decreed fixed counsel from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the cast of an arrow or the like Whence the formal act of the wil is termed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is but a derivation from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Luke to expresse Peters mind more significantly addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that determinate defined firme immutable decretive predeterminative counsel
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
evil 3 Yea further grant that they al sinned but in the mode not in the substance of their acts yet whether the act be substantially or modally only sinful it comes al to one in this case of Divine concurse and predetermination For if God concur to the substrate mater of acts modally sinful why may he not as wel concur to the substrate mater of acts substantially sinful Do not our Adversaries hereby according to their Principes make God the Author of modal sins Or is not the entitative act of modal and substantial sins the same as to kind namely a real physic or natural good and therefore if God concur to the one why not also to the other Assuredly the most refined Wits wil never find out a sufficient disparitie between acts modally and substantially sinful so as to allow God an efficacious concurse to the substrate mater of the one but not of the other 4 Strangius grants in the close That God used both these Kings and their mutinous Adherents as instruments in this worke to execute his just judgements c. Did he so indeed Did he not then also make use of their politic contrivements ambitiose wils and rebellious affections as instruments in this worke And if so did not God also move excite applie yea predetermine their wils to the substrate mater of their traitorous rebellious designes and exploits Do not al these consequences hang together in an indissoluble chain of invict Reason To close up these arguments with that of Calvin Institut lib. 1. cap. 18. § 4. pag. 78. But now how it may be from God and governed by his secret providence which men wickedly undertake we have an illustrious document in the Election of King Jeroboam in which the madnesse and temeritie of the people is severely condemned because they perverted the order established by God and perfidiosely departed from the familie of David and yet we know that God would have him anointed whence in the words of Hosea c. 8. 4. there appears a kind of repugnance because God there complains That that Kingdome was erected contrary to his wil and knowlege and yet c. 13. 11. he declares That he gave Jeroboam to be King in his wrath How can these things agree Thence he concludes We see therefore that God who nilled the perfidie or treacherie yet for another end justly willed the defection And if God justly willed the defection he also justly moved and predetermined them to the substrate mater thereof for predetermination answers adequately to God predefinition or absolute volition as Strangius grants We adde to the fore-cited Texts 1 King 22. 23. Now therefore behold the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of al these thy Prophets and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee 1 The Lord hath put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath given forth delivered or put LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath given It notes here an efficacious enthusiastic infusion which of al kinds of predetermination is most prevalent and irresistible 2 Note also the sin it is a lying spirit which certainly denotes an act intrinsecally evil For is it not a sin of the first magnitude to forge lying Prophecies and impose them on men as the Oracles of God thereby to delude their souls into Hel Such was the case here and yet lo it's said that this very sin was as to its substrate mater or entitative act from God can any thing be spoken more nakedly and clearly to evince and demonstrate the truth of our Hypothesis What doth Strangius replie to this His answer we find lib. 4. cap. 4. pag. 788. We must note that this oration from the Prophet Micaiah is parabolic in which various things are spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to our capacitie and in a Parable althings are not to be cut open to the quick but that only must be regarded which belongs to the scope of the Parable But in that God said vers 22. Go forth and do so it must be understood of Divine permission for we use the Imperative Mode not only in commanding but also in permitting or giving licence And albeit there be mention made of a Divine precept yet that is not otherwise to be taken than for the efficacious direction of God for the execution of his just judgement that God delivered Ahab and his false Prophets left by God to be deceived by Satan of which Tradition afterward In answer hereto 1 what Strangius means by his parabolic Oration is not easie to divine For we know that al Parables consiste of two parts the Proposition and Reddition or moral and what is there to be found of these in this Text or Contexture But this seems most like to Strangius's design to bring this Text to a parabolic image thereby to elude its argumentative force for Divines grant That parabolic or symbolic Theologie is not argumentative further than the scope and mind of the Symbol reacheth That here is something spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or according to human capacitie I easily grant but this doth not at al invalidate the argument but rather confirme it The wise God speakes according to the manner of men inquiring examining and expecting what the issue would be thereby the more fully to demonstrate his efficacious predeterminative concurse to the substrate mater of this sinful act 2 As for the command of God vers 22. Go forth and do so it can in no sober sense be understood of a mere permission For al permission is either moral or Physic and natural it cannot be meant of a moral permission which Strangius seems to incline unto for if God had given the lying spirit a licence or legal permission to deceive how could he be vindicated from being the Author of the sin Is not lying a sin intrinsecally evil Should not the holy God then according to this sense be the Author of a sin intrinsecally evil Neither can it be meant of a mere speculative physic permission as to the substrate mater for it 's expressed in a terme of the most active import the Lord hath put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Divine precept therefore must denote an efficacious real influence such as predetermined those lying spirits to the substrate mater of their sin Yea 3 is there not so much included in the last clause of Strangius's replie wherein he grants This Divine precept to be taken for the efficacious direction of God for the execution of his just judgement Now what is Gods efficacious direction but a part of his efficacious predeterminative concurse And how could God efficaciously direct these lying spirits in Ahabs false Prophets but by a predeterminative influence applying their minds and wils to the substrate mater of their false prophetic inspirations I shal conclude this Head with Rev. 17. 17. where speaking of the ten Hornes which gave their power to the Beste he saith God hath put into their hearts to fulfil his wil and to
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
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
called Belus T is true Bochart makes the Phenician 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baal to have had its original from the first Phenician King of that name but yet I conceive it not improbable but that the first Phenician King might be so called from their Gods name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baal which was the title they gave the Sun from his office Gen. 1. 16. as he was reputed the Lord of Heaven or else which seems most probable we may suppose the Phenicians to have had various 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baalim some supreme which they stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natural and immortal Gods such were the Sun and Moon others which they stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mortal Gods viz. the souls of their great Heroes and Kings As for the former supreme natural Gods they called the Sun Baal and the Moon Baaltis or Beltis that is in the Scripture language the Queen of Heaven As for the mortal or made Baalim they were no other than the Souls of their chief Heroes or Princes which after their death received an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Deification and so became a kind of midling Gods or Mediators betwixt the supreme Gods and men which the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demons whereof we find frequent mention in Scripture as Jud. 10. 6. 13. The Phenicians stiled their supreme Baal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baal Samen So Sanchoniathon according to the Version of Philo Byblius in Eusebius praepar lib. 1. cap. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A drought happening they lift up their hands to heaven to the Sun For this saies Sanchoniathon they account the only God calling him Belsamen the Lord of Heaven Beelsamen here according to Philo Byblius's explication is in the Phenician Tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beelsamen i. e. the Lord of Heaven whence Philo Byblius immediately subjoins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in the Phenician Tongue Lord of heaven To which he addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in the Greek tongue he is zeus Jupiter So that Belsamen is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jupiter Olympius So Vossius de Idolol lib. 2. cap. 4. This saies he we may confirme from the Hebrew Tongue which differs in dialect only from the Phenician For what the Phenicians pronounce Beelsamen the Hebrews write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baal Schamaim i. e. Lord of heaven c. Thus also Bochart Can. lib. 1. cap. 42. And indeed all this touching Belsamen Sanchoniathon seems to have evidently traduced from that function or Office which God had laid on the Sun mentioned Gen. 1. 16. the greater light to rule the day as Psal 136. 8. § 2. This Phenician God Beelsamen the Jews called Beelzebub as 2 King 1. 2. Baalzebub the God of Ekron Concerning the Etymon of Baalzebub various are the conjectures of the Learned The additament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zebub signifies a flie whence some think it was added by the Jews in a way of opprobium or scorne as if one should say the Lord of a flie It is most probable that this name Beelzebub was given this Idol God not by the Accaronites or Phenicians but by the Jews and that from a great contempt and just hatred of the Accaronitick Idolatrie Yea Vossius de Idolol lib. 2. cap. 4. following the conjecture of learned Jos Scaliger herein thinks that this name Beelzebub was curtaild by the Jews who by an easy mutation turned the Accaronitick name according to Scaliger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baal zebahim the Lord of Sacrifices into the contemptuous Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baal zebub the Lord of flies i. e. a God that regarded only flies or that could not drive away the flies by reason of their multitude from the Sacrifices This name Beelzebub is in the New Testament changedinto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Beelzebul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zebul for greater contempt sake for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies dung or abominable by which name the Gentile Gods are characterized 2 King 23. 24. whence this name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the New Testament applied to the Prince of the Devils as indeed this Accaronitick Beelzebub was the chief of their Idols Hence also Hell was by the Greeks called Accaron according to that of the poet Acheronta movebo because Beelzebub the Prince of those Demon Idols was God of Accaron as Mâ—de and Bochart The like Glassius lib. 4. Grammat S. Tract 3. observ 4. The name Baalzebub 2. Kin. 1. 2. which in the New Testament is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B being changed into L. Mat. 12. 24. Luk. 11. 15. refers to the Idol of Ekron and signifies the Lord of a flie or flies peradventure because it was thought to drive away those pernicious flies which infested the Ekronitish countrey as Hercules was stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his driving away Locusts and Apollo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from dispersing the Phrygian mice The Jews traduced the name of this Idol to expresse the Devil by and moreover changed Beelzebub into Beelzebul which signifies the Lord of dung See more of this in Selden de Diis Syrum Syntag. 2. p. 211. That Beelzebub was the same with Beelsamen c. See Owen de Idolol lib. 5. c. 5. § 3. This Phenician Baal passed amongst the Moabites and Midianites under the Name of Baal Peor So Numb 25. 2 3 6. Psal 106. 28. Hos 9. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baal peor which the LXX render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He was called Baalpeor from the mountain Peor where he was worshipped as Num. 23. 28. So Apollinaris Catena patrum Graecorum on Psa 106. 28. And they were joined to Baal peor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Idol of Baal is in the place of Peor but the Greeks call Baal Belus whom they affirme also to be Saturne Joseph Scaliger makes Baal Peor to signifie the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thundering Jupiter Jerom on Hos 9. lib. 2. tels us that Baal peor the Idol of the Moabites is the same with Priapus So Isidorus Orig. lib. 8. cap. 11. Baal peor saies he is interpreted an image of ignominie for it was an Idol of Moab sirnamed Baal on the mount of Peor which the Latins call Priapus the God of Gardens c. That this Baal peor was the same with the Grecian Priapus seems evident by their parallel sacrifices and worship For as fornication was a main piece of worship they performed to their lascivious God Priapus so we find the same performed to Baal peor even by the Israelites So Numb 25. 1. Israel is said to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab which is explicated v. 2. by bowing down to their Gods i. e. in a way of fornication whence 't is said vers 3. Israel joined himself to Baal peor i. e. worshipped him by fornication We have it