An Apology for the Nonconformists Ministry, Treatise · Part 1 · Objection 23
23 Obj. But the grand accusation against us by Dr. Heylin in his life of A. B. Laud, and elsewhere, is for Calvinism, or Puritanism in Doctrine, against that which is commonly called Arminianism; which he maketh the matter of our great contentions and calamities: And many other say as he: And Mr. Thorndike carrieth it yet much higher, accusing us not only of the Doctrine of imputed Righteousness, but others in which we have departed from the Church of Rome. See his Just Weights and Measures, and his Greater Volume.
Ans. 1. By this it further appeareth, how unjustly and partially we are used, and how unnecessary they themselves hold Unity in Doctine it self to be, in matters which some account so great to the liberty of Preaching the Gospel. For in all the Arminian Controversies, the Conformists differ among themselves as much as we do from any of them, if not more. Nothing more common now in our Pulpits, than for one man to preach up Freewill, and another to preach it down (and neither of them know what Free will is); and for one to preach for absolute Election, perseverance of all Saints, &c. and another to preach the contrary, and shew the tendency of these opinions to all wickedness. And yet all these men are suffered to preach, because they all subscribe the same doctrine, though they neither believe nor preach the same: The Articles of the Church of England are subscribed by them all: They Assent and Consent to all the Doctrine of the Church. And indeed, is it because the Articles are not intelligible? or have they contrary meanings to fit the use of every subscriber? Are they hot to one, and cold to another? Or rather, do many of the Subscribers take heed of Tenderness of Conscience, because it is but tenderness of Head, and is more sensible of hurt and smart than a feared Conscience is, or is a word and thing that is grown into disgrace and scorn in our times?
For my own part, I doubt not but the Compilers of the Articles and Liturgy were in these things of Augustines judgment, who was for absolute Election, but for no other Reprobation but non-election, and the decree of damnation and desertion only upon foresight of sin. But as to the differences themselves, it would grieve a man of any understanding to read such a History as Dr. Heylins Life of the Archbishop, which intimateth to the world, that such points as these were the occasion of all the contrivances against each other, and of the enmities and calamities which these Kingdoms have undergone! When-as the things are such as never bred any such dissention in the first ages of the Church, nor would do among us, if we had their piety and simplicity.
I long ago began a Treatise (which the agitations of my Troublerspage missingy Gods merpage missingy, since thepage missingriting of this have publipage missinghed it, called page missingatholick Thepage missingogy. have interrupted) to reconcile the Arminians and Anti-Arminians in these matters, in which I should easily have manifested, how unfit such Subjects were to be so fiercely and implacably contended about. And because I know not whether ever I shall live to re▪assume it (being toss'd about, and having neither health nor liberty for any setled habitation), I must give the judicious a few hints of the Media of Conciliation which I would have used.
1. I would have distinguished and reduced the Controversies unto three sorts: First those that are only de nomine, and seem to the unskilful to be de rebus, which are more than most imagine: And these an explication would have ended. Secondly, Those that are about things unrevealed, and unknown to mortals; which are some that are hotliest contended about: And these all must grant are to be cast aside. Thirdly, those that are real differences, fit for our disputes: which I should prove, 1. to be very few. 2 Far from the foundation, and of no such moment as ignorant, self-conceited, furious disputers would make the world believe they are. 3. And that they are of so great difficulty, that all sober Christians should easily bear with one another about them.
2. I would shew the necessity of beginning our Controversies about the temporary Effects, and not about the eternal Decrees, because as the first do more concern us; so they are natiora, more within our knowledge: And then the questions about the Decrees, will more easily be decided.
3. I would open distinctly the Covenant of Grace made universally with mankind, 1. Before Christ. 1. With Adam▪ 2. With Noe. And 2. after Christs Incarnation: and distinguish it from the narrower particular Covenant with Abraham and the Israelites. And I would open the nature of the Universal pardon and Gift of life, which God hath made through Christ in the Gospel, to mankind, upon the Conditions which are to be punctually explained; which Conditional Justificaton or Pardon is acknowledged by all.
4. I would open the nature and extent of that common operative Grace of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those that are yet unsanctified; And I would prove from the case of Adam, that there hath been such a thing as Grace sufficient, or necessary to the effect, which through mans fault was not effectual; and which without any more helps, man could and ought to have made effectual, or to have acted by. And then I would prove that ad aliquid, there is still such a thing as Grace necessary or sufficient, (that is, without which men cannot, and by which they can, use certain means which God hath made the duty of all mankind to use, which have a tendency to their recovery): And that certainly no part of the world is left under the first Covenant of innocency, (though under the precept or duty of it) but are under a Law or Covenant of Grace, as that Law by which they are governed and judged (though all Consent not); And therefore that all are under such obligations, to use such means for their recovery as are vouchsafed and appointed them; and are condemnable if they use them not; and need not fear using them (faithfully) in vain.
5. I would open the nature of Liberty and Free-will, and above all make plain the distinction between the Essential, Natural Liberty, and the mutable Moral Liberty; and shew that mans will is a self-determining faculty, supposing the necessary objects, and intellectual apprehension; and that it is part of Gods Image on it, so to be Dominam suorum actuum; and that every man hath this natural liberty of willing, not willing or nilling (which Mr. Le Blank hath most judiciously opened in his late Theses); But no man hath more of the Moral liberty, which is a freedom from a vicious disposition, than he hath (either special or common) Grace.
6. I should shew how the want of the Natural liberty is a full justification for omission or action; and that the want of Moral liberty, being nothing else but want of Dispositive willingness, or of a right will, is the very matter of guilt, and aggravateth all actual and omissive sin.
7. I should open the nature of [Power], and shew what goeth to make [Power] in a proper sense: And whether God may be said to give sufficient Grace to believe, when he giveth proper Power to believe? And that Grace sufficient ad agere, est efficax ad posse: And what Austin meant by Posse Credere est omnium; Credere vero fidelium. Especially I should distinguish of Natural and Moral Power, and shew that no man wanteth the former, which is the faculty it self; And I should shew, that Moral Power sometime signifieth strength, which not only can perform an act, but do it easily; and so it is nothing but special Grace, or the Holy disposition and liveliness of the Soul, by which it hath such a degree of power to things spiritual: But sometimes Moral Power signifieth no more, but that the Natural Power is not so far destitute of Moral helps, and disposition to the action, but that it may be properly said to be a Power Morally, with that measure of Moral helps it hath; and that it is not a thing impossible properly, for the effect to be produced without any more grace. And I would shew how far this extendeth. But above all, that confused Disputers are never in one sentence to be suffered to cheat their Readers or Hearers, with [Can] and [Cannot] with [Power and Impotency] unexplained, but still forced to shew what sort of Power or Impotency they mean. Every one hath the Natural Power of Repenting and believing, which is not plenarily and properly called a Power to that which from any other Cause remaineth simply and naturally impossible; nor is it a Moral Power to that which remaineth Morally impossible: Every man hath a Moral Power so far as he hath Grace, and that is in all men to be better than they are, and omit more evil, and to do more good; but only the faithful have Moral Power in the more excellent degree.
8. I should shew that the disputes about the manner of Gods operation or influx on the soul, whether Physical, or Moral, are usually managed to more deception than instruction: And that no mortal man can tell just how God worketh on the Soul.
9. I should shew what acts God doth in his three distinct Relations, as Owner, Ruler and Benefactor: And how equally he dealeth as Ruler, both in his Laws and Judgment, avoiding all respect of persons: But how far as Owner and Benefactor he is free, and maketh an Inequality in the distribution of his Mercies, and giveth more to some than to others, without respect to Merit.
10 And that accordingly, 1. he giveth the Gospel to one Nation, rather than to another; and to one person, rather than to another, without any different demerit of theirs. 2. And also giveth such Grace to some as shall infallibly convert them, with an absolute will to accomplish the effect, when that person no more deserveth it, than some that never have it.
11. But yet that no man is shut out of a state of Grace, but for or by his wilful refusal or neglect of it; nor any man denied any necessary Grace, but for the neglect or abuse of some sufficient antecedent grace: And though God give grace without and against desert, he never denieth it to any without desert; and that more than the desert of Original sin (not now interupting our discourse with the Case of Infants).
12. That when common Grace hath brought one man much nearer the Kingdom of God, than another, the same degree of further Divine operation and help, which would be uneffectual to make a distant and unprepared man a believer, may make him a believer that is nearer and more prepared.
13. All effectual grace proceedeth from an effectual will of God to work it.
14. The great question therefore, Whether none are converted but by special effectual grace? or any also by that which in its own nature is meerly sufficient, and made effectual by mans will? is captious, and partly past the reach of man: It being certain, 1. That Grace is the chief agent in all that believe; 2. That the will and mind of man is the immediate actor in believing, 3. That whoever believeth hath such grace as cometh from an absolute, certain, fixed will of God, that it shall attain the effect. 4. And that in what degrees of influx God worketh on one that is converted, more or less than on another, is no enquiry for any man that knoweth what he talketh of? Nor can we well tell when one mans will deth do its part better than anothers, by the same degree of Grace.
15. I should shew when Free-will and Necessity are consistent, or inconsistent.
16. And also how God hath his will, as much when man hath greatest freedom, as if he had none; and that man hath as much freedom under the will and decrees of God, as if they were none; Nay without them as a cause he could have no freedom.
17. I should shew that the Calvinists (that run not with some few into extremity) do acknowledge as much common Grace to all men, as the Arminians do; For they confess the universal, conditional promise or Covenant; and they say, that all men that hear the Gospel have pardon and sanctification, and salvation brought to their own wills; and that if they refuse it not, they they shall have it, and that they have the posse credere: And the difference is, that the Arminian thinketh that none ordinarily have any more than this, with such perswasions as make it possible antecedently; but the Calvinists think the elect have more, that is, that Grace maketh them actually willing; which is certain: But how Grace and the will concur, is as uncertain as aforesaid.
18. All creatures are Passive or Receptive as to Gods efficiency, or influx on them; And so is mans soul; And therefore it is true that it is meerly Passive not only in receiving the first gracious influx of God, but in all the influxes which it is under in every action of our lives: But it is a truly vital, active soul or power, which is thus passive first; and therefore is ever the next agent in all its Acts of believing, &c. and never meerly passive; for that were a contradiction. Nor can it be proved that the soul is meerly recipient or passive as to the true habits of Grace, but only as to that Influx which exciteth us to act, and by that act (done by God and the Soul) the habit is produced; which yet is called Infused, because it is caused by a special Influx; what ever more than this is possible, no more can be proved de facto.
19. Our differences about Universal Redemption, and of the Decrees, depend on those about Operations, and are easily reconciled with them. Christ died for all men, so far as to procure them all the Grace that he giveth them. And he giveth all men the Universal Grace fore described; the Conditional pardon, &c. therefore so far he died for them. But of this I have written a peculiar Treatise (not yet published.)
20. The Doctrine of Gods antecedent and consequent will must be better explained, as being but his governing will, so called from Legislation and Judgment, which are the antecedent and consequent parts of Government.
21. So must Gods will de naturalibus & moralibus, and his Legislative antecedent will be well opened, and the uselesness and confusion of the distinction of signi & bene placiti manifested.
22. I would prove that God hath no Decree or will of meer Negatives, as not to give grace, faith, glory, not to save, &c. and therefore hath no Decree to permit, because permitting is but nothindering, which is nothing. By which one sort of Reprobation (as now called) will be disproved.
23. That Reprobation to positive damnation, is only upon foreseen, and not decreed impenitency or unbelief.
24. That Election and Reprobation therefore go not pari passu, but as Austin and Prosper taught, the one is a positive absolute Will or Decree of God, the other only upon fore-sight.
26. Predetermination by Physical premotion to evil materially, and as necessary to all actions natural and free, is to be left to the Dominicans, and not owned by any that know the consequences.
27. The numbering and ordering of Decrees secundum ordinem intentionis & executionis is to be discussed, and the vanity of mens fictions here about made known.
28. The nature of futurition, and the falshood of founding it necessarily in an eternal cause, is to be opened.
29. The foolish disputes of the manner of Gods knowing future contingents, are (by clear reason) to be cast out of the Church and Schools.
30. In a word, a convenient explication will manifest that the difference in all these Controversies really is next to none, except in the point of Perseverance; and that in that point those that hold with Augustine and Prosper, that not all the truly justified, and sanctified do persevere, but all the Elect; and those that hold that all the justified and sanctified are Elect, and do persevere; have great reason to number this difference among those Schooldisputes which should break no charity nor communion among Christians. But of Perseverance I have long ago published my thoughts in a peculiar Treatise.
I have said thus much to shew the world not only that we ought not to be silenced or oppressed as an odious sort of people, for those Doctrines which some abhor (when we subscribe to the same Articles of the Churches Doctrine as they do); but also that it is a mixture of that ignorance and pride which is the disease and calamity of Church-men as well as of the world, which hath caused most of the heats on both sides, and the Cruelties in Holland, or in England, thence proceeding about these Controversies. And that when men have more Understanding or Humility, these differences will but little disturb the Church.
And again I say, that those Church snuffers who put out the lights, should have remembered our moderation in this point, that whereas Parliaments have complained so long and zealously against Arminianism, and when Bishops have been so hot about it against each other, (as Heylin will tell you of Abbot and Laud, &c.) and when yet the Conformists preach against one another about it, yet did we never speak a word to the King or them of any such matter. Because if all men will subscribe the same wholsome Doctrine of the Articles, we cannot hinder any from dissembling, and destroying what they do subscribe.