Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Section 23
SECT. XXIII. More neceſſary Conceſſions.
332. But yet all this is not enough to prove that any of the juſtified do totally or finally fall away. The controverſie muſt not be decided by arguments from convenience, but by Scripture aſſertion; where the difficulty is very great, becauſe no ſmall number of Texts ſeem to favour both the opinions, the reconciling of which is not the work of every ordinary underſtanding. Thoſe that are brought for the certain Perſeverance of all the juſtified may be ſeen in Zanchy's Diſputes with Marbachius, (the firſt hot and high agitation of this controverſie as a matter of great moment and neceſſary determination, which I remember to have found among us). And thoſe on the other ſide, Bertius, Thompſon, and the Arminians commonly have collected. My own opinion about it I have ſo largely ſhewed in a Book called My preſent Thoughts of Perſeverance, before-mentioned, that I need not here again deliver it. Though between that and this laſt opinion, as wiſe a man as I may be in doubt when he hath done his beſt for a ſatisfactory reſolution.
333. I take Augustine's opinion ſo far as it is for Perſeverance to be a certain Truth, viz. That All the Elect ſhall certainly perſevere, and that the Grace of Perſeverance is the conſequent of Election, and not Election the conſequent of foreſeen Perſeverance, (unleſs you mean only that part of Election which determineth of Glorifying, and exclude that which decreeth to give Perſeverance.) But the difficulty is about the non-elect. And it is moſt probable that where God decreeth Perſeverance, he decreeth to give Grace ſuitable thereto; As when he decreeth the Immortality of the Soul, he giveth it a Nature apt for Immortality. And therefore that ſuch have Confirming Grace. But the controverſie is, whether all true Grace do ſo confirm?
334. That an Argument cannot be fetcht for Perſeverance from the meer Nature of the Grace received, ſeemeth plain, by Adam's fall, and probable from the Angels.
335. Some *Vid. Mr. George Walker of the Sabbath.to avoid this, deny Adam to have been Holy, and ſuppoſe him only Innocent, and Neutral, and capable of Holineſs (worſe than thoſe Papiſts †Petavius in Elench. Ther. Vincent. Len…s c. 23. p. 97. Saith that Adam had 1. Exteriour Grace, viz. his outward bleſſings. 2. Interiour: And that, 1. Permanent, which was Bona Voluntas, vel Juſtitia Originalis ex omnium virtutum, fidei, ſpei, Charitatis, tum caeterarum quae in mente aut Voluntate reſident, concurſu concentuque colle…ta. 2. Tranſient, that is, Actual influx or inſpirations. But whereas he bitterly cenſureth Vincent: for ſaying that Grace was in ſome reſpect natural, it is but de nomine that he quarrelleth. And it is as if we diſputed whether Health and Food were natural to Adam? They were not eſſential to his nature; but the rectitude of it concreated with nature, and given by the Creator for nature: And yet of Grace, becauſe ſine merito, though not as now, contra meritum. God made all very good. In illa …um ſecerat qui fecerat rectum. Auguſt. ab ipſo citat.who feign his Holineſs to be a ſupernatural addition to his natural ſtate, thereby preparing men to believe that man was not made Naturally with an Immortal Soul, for Immortal happineſs). But, 1. If Adam had an immediate Moral diſpoſition to love God as God, and acted this, he was Holy: If he had not, it muſt needs be a Privation in him, and not a meer Negation: For a rational creature muſt needs be naturally obliged to love his Creator; yea, this is the firſt and ſummary Law of Nature to him: Therefore not to do it muſt needs be Sin, and the ſum of all Sin: Therefore Adam thus is made a great Sinner ab origine before his fall. 2. If Adam loved not God in his weakeſt degree of recovering Grace, he was unſanctified: But if he did (as certainly he did) then it is not like that in his leaſt degree of his recovering Grace, he was Holyer than in Innocency (though he might ſtand on ſurer grounds). 3. And this opinion maketh unholineſs of Nature to be no part of Original Sin: Becauſe it would be no Privation, but a Negation: For our Nature in Infancy is not obliged to have that holineſs which it never had and loſt in Adam. And ſo Original Sin is almoſt all denyed, and an unholy heart is made as innocent therein. 4. We are renewed according to the Image of him that created us, in wiſdom, righteouſneſs, and true holineſs, Col. 3. 10. Therefore it was holineſs which was the Image of God which we loſt, and needs renewing.
336. The Argument for Perſeverance from Gods Immutability will hold as to all the Elect as ſuch, but not to all the ſanctified or juſtified as ſuch. For the Angels and Adam's fall did not prove God mutable. And God can judge a thing or perſon to be changed, without being himſelf changed; but only denominatione extrinſeca a relatione ad mutatum, is variouſly denominated. And even his Law or Covenant which ſaith He that believeth ſhall be ſaved, and he that believeth not ſhall be damned, will not at all be changed if it juſtifie a Believer to day, whom it condemned as an unbeliever yeſterday, and ſhould condemn him again to morrow if he ſhould apoſtatize; or if it conclude us guilty every day anew of every new Sin which we commit.
337. It is a very hard thing to confute an Anabaptiſt, without granting that Infant Juſtification may be loſt. For experience proveth * Brianſon in 4. q. 4. 1. Corrob. fol. 36. Handling the queſtion why the baptized Infants have infuſed Habits of Grace, and Virtues, citeth their opinions that hold the contrary, but inclining to the affirmative, he hath no better anſwer to them that object experience, which ofteſt findeth no ſigns of ſuch habits when they come to age, than that they are known to us only by Faith. Matth. 28. 19, 20. Eph. 4▪ 2, 3.that the Children of Godly Parents too often prove ungodly: And if they had Justifying Grace in Infancy, they loſe it: And if they have not, then the Covenant in which they are entered doth not certainly Juſtifie them. And if ſo, then it is either the very ſame Covenant which the adult are baptized into, or another. If it be another then their Baptiſm is another thing: For Baptiſm is but the celebration of our Covenant with God. And another Covenant in ſpecie maketh another Baptiſm in ſpecie. And if ſo, it ſeemeth to be no Baptiſm of Gods appointing: For he hath but One Covenant of Grace to be entered by us, and ſealed; nor but one Baptiſm: Indeed on man's part, there is a Covenanting with the Heart and with the mouth, an outward as well as an inward Covenanting, or Conſenting: But it is all to one and the ſame Covenant of God. It is the ſame ſpecies of Faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt which baptized Hypocrites and true Christians do profeſs. And Infants have no Faith of their own to profeſs, but are dedicated by another's will; the title-condition of the Adult is their own conſenting Faith; but the title-condition of Infants, is nothing in themſelves, but their Parents conſenting Faith without them, which dedicateth them to God. Now we ſuppoſe the Parents to do this ſincerely. If then the Covenant aſcertain not preſent Juſtification to the Infant, who hath all the condition required by the Covenant, how can we ſay that it any more aſcertaineth Juſtification to the adult, it being proved to be the very ſame Covenant and not another. But if it do aſcertain it, then many loſe it. I run not into their error, who tell us (and would have none of us Preach Chriſt's Goſpel that will not ſay the ſame) that It is certain by the Word of God that Infants baptized dying before actual Sin are certainly ſaved] without excepting the Children of any Infidels, Pagans, or Apoſtates, which I cannot prove of the Infants even of Hypocrites or unſound Chriſtians, or that the Child can he ſaved by that falſe Faith, which will not ſave the Parent or him that dedicateth him to God; or that the Children of Hypocrites or Infidels have the condition of Juſtification: And if that Word of God had been cited, that maketh the aſſertion certain, it would have been a great kindneſs to us from thoſe whoſe Juſtice muſt go for ſuch: (But we are thought unworthy of it.) For my part, I determine not the difficult caſe of Infants loſs of Juſtification. Their caſe is left dark to us in the Scriptures: But my judgment is fullieſt expreſſed by the words of the Synod of Dort, Art. 1. §. 17. And Davenant's Treatiſe on that point is very judicious, and conſiderable, if wherever he ſpeaketh of Baptized Infants, you will but ſuppoſe him to mean the Infants of true Christians, and not all.
338. It ſeemeth a hard ſaying that any member of Chriſt ſhould be cut off, and become a member of Satan, and periſh, though he were but an Infant member. But we muſt not let the Metaphor deceive us: It is not a Natural member of Chriſt's Perſon that periſheth, as if part of Chriſt himſelf fell off: But a Metaphorical Myſtical Political Member. And Chriſt thought it no abſurdity, Joh. 15. to warn his chief Members that they fall not off, and to ſpeak by way of ſuppoſition of his branches as cut off, withered and burned. And Adam and the faln Angels, before their fall, were the Beloved of God, and his Children, and yet fell from that love. There muſt be therefore ſtronger Arguments than this, to turn the Scales.