Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Conclusion
The Concluſion, Summing up the ſeveral wayes of the Contenders.
I Shall conclude with a further Explication, 1. What the Judgement▪ of the Proteſtants was in the Synod of Dort about the nature of Grace (beſides what I have cited of theirs before.) 2. I ſhall give you ſome Animadverſions on the Epilogue of Alvarez, 3. And of the Jeſuites way of Scientia Media: 4. And of Aureolus and Durandus's way: 5. And of the Scotiſts and Nominals Cauſa Partialis: 6. I ſhall fullyer give you the ſumm and Conſectaries of the Dominican Predetermination, and the reaſons which alienate me from their way. 7. I ſhall Epitomize Janſenius, with ſome Animadverſions on his way: 8. And ſumm up in few words what ſober minds may reſt in.
§. 1. AND that you may ſee how little difference there is even in this point of Effectual Grace, where all the difference ſeemeth to be founded, 1. See what the Brittiſh Divines ſay in the Synod of Dort; de art. 3. & 4. ſuffrag. p. 124.
Th. 1. There are certain outward works, ordinarily required of men, before they are brought to the ſtate of Regeneration Rom. 10. 14. Mat. 6. …. Act. 13. 46. Pſa. 58. 5.or Converſion, which uſe to be ſometime freely done by them, and ſometime freely omitted: as to go to Church, to hear the Preaching of the Word, and ſuch like.
Th. 2. There are certain inward effects, which are excited in the hearts of thoſe that are not yet juſtified, previous to Converſion and Regeneration, Act. 2. 37.by the virtue of the word and ſpirit: ſuch as are, the knowledge of Gods will, the ſenſe of ſin, the fear of puniſhment, the thoughts of deliverance, ſome hope of pardon. To the ſtate of Juſtification—Gods grace uſeth not to bring men by ſudden Enthuſiaſm, but prepared and fitted (or diſpoſed) by many previous actings by the Miniſtry of the word. As in natural Generation there are many previous diſpoſitions 1 Cor. 4. 15.before the reception of the form; ſo in the ſpiritual we come to the ſpiritual birth by many foregoing actings of Grace. If God would immediately Regenerate and Juſtifie a wicked man, not prepared by any knowledge, any ſorrow, any deſire, any hope of pardon, there were no need of the Miniſtry of man and the Word Preached to do it—
Th. 3. Thoſe that God thus affecteth by his ſpirit by means of the Word, them he truly and ſeriouſly calleth and inviteth to faith and converſion. We muſt judge of the helps of Grace by the nature of the offered benefit and by Gods plain word, and not by the abuſe and event. Se…ing the Goſpel of its own nature calleth men to Repentance and Salvation, ſeeing the excitements of grace tend to it, we muſt not think that 2 Cor. 5. 20. 2 Cor. 6. … Gal. 1. 6. Rev. 3. 2.God here doth any thing diſſemblingly—Nor can it be imagined that that calling by the word and ſpirit can make men unexcuſeable, which is given only to that end to make them unexcuſeable—
Th. 4. Thoſe whom he thus affecteth, God forſaketh not, nor ceaſeth to promote them in the true way to converſion, before he is forſaken by them, by voluntary neglect, or the repulſe of this initial grace. The talent of grace once given men of God, is not taken away from any man, till he bury it by his own fault. Therefore we are oft warned in Mat. 2…. 2….Scripture, not to reſiſt or quench the ſpirit, nor to receive the grace Heb. 3. 7. Prov. 1. 24. 2 Chron. 24. 20.of God in vain, nor to fall from God. Yea it is plainly given as the reaſon of Gods forſaking men that they firſt forſake him—
Th. 5. Many loſe theſe beginnings—Mat. 13. 19. Heb. 6. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 21.
Th. 6. The Elect do not ſo behave themſelves under theſe preparatory workings, but that for their negligence and reſiſtance, they might juſtly be forſaken of God: But ſuch is Gods ſpecial mercy to them, that though Joh. 6. 37. …er. 14. 7. & 32. 39. Phil. 1. 6.for a time they may repel or ſuffocate this exciting and illuminating grace, yet God doth urge them again and again, and ceaſeth not to promove them, till he fully ſubjugate them to his grace, and place them in the ſtate of regenerate ſons.
Th. 7. All men reſiſt Gods grace, and God might juſtly forſake all, Rom. 9. 18. & 11. 35. Act. 28. 27.—but doth not—]
By all this it is evident that they took not man to be forſaken of God in the ſtate of meer original ſin, or the corrupt maſs, but as a wilful reſiſter and refuſer of offered Grace, and oft after the receiving of much preparing grace; and that God forſaketh none till they forſake his grace.
2. To the ſame ſence our Engliſh Divines commonly tell us how, ordinarily God prepareth, men for converſion before he convert them; and how far perſons unconverted may go in common grace: He that readeth Mr. Hooker of New England, Mr. John Rogers his doctrine of faith, Mr. Boltons inſtructions for comfort—Mr. Meads Almoſt a Chriſtian, and abundance ſuch, will ſee that they were of the ſame mind.
3. Hence it is plain, that thoſe perſons that reſiſted this further work of grace, and forſook God firſt, had true Power to have done otherwiſe; and could have gone further than they did, without any other grace than they had: (Though quoad neceſſitatem ſequentem vel conſequentiae, it might be inferred even from Gods preſcience, that it could not be.)
4. They here deſcribe Gods effectual grace by moral titles, of Gods urging them till they yield; though (as after they open it) Gods renewing active influx, maketh new creatures, and is not a meer moral indetermining ſuaſion leaving the will indifferent.
5. The truth is (as is aforeſaid) no mortal man can tell of any difference on Gods part between his common and ſpecial agency on ſouls, but only on the part of the work done; Nay it is againſt the doctrine of all …orts of Divines both Papiſts and Proteſtants as to the generality, that there is any difference at all. For they all ſay that all Gods actions ad extra are no…hing but his eſſence (viz. his eſſential knowledge, will and power) which is undividedly one, as terminated, effecting, related and denominated variouſly: E. g. by one Volition he willeth divers products, but not by divers volitions See the Concluſion of the firſt Chapter.ex parte ſui, either conſidered ſpecifically or numerically; but the ſpecification and individuation is only in the effects, and in Gods will as relatively denominated. And if this be all mens doctrine, what an unhappy caſe is the Church faln into, that the very ſame men that ſay this, ſhould yet intolerably quarrel, Whether this one Divine attingency or operation ſhall be called Creation, infuſion, urgency, excitation, perſwaſion, phyſical, hyperphyſical, moral, or what elſe, when all are agreed that all are one and the ſame ex parte Dei.
And as to the effects, I do my ſelf think that a certain Impulſe received on the ſoul, is the firſt effect, and the Act of man (as faith) is but a ſecond, and that of both Cauſes: But we cannot tell well what that Impulſe is; And therefore muſt diſpute in the dark about the differences of it. And this is nothing to them that own nothing but Gods eſſence as the cauſe of our act, as the firſt effect: If their opinion hold true that as in Creation there was no mediate Impulſe between the Creator and the Creature (for there was no recipient,) ſo here there is no effect on the ſoul before the Act and habit of faith it ſelf, then what is that Grace whoſe Ratio efficaciae we can make a Controverſie of? Ad hominem at leaſt I may ſay that it is common acts and habits, overtopt by fleſhly intereſt and concupiſcence, which are wrought by common grace; and that it is ſpecial acts and habits overcoming the fleſh and world, which are wrought by ſpecial grace. So that thoſe firemen that are reſolved that yet differ they will, and implacably differ, and their adverſaries ſhall be enemies of Gods Grace whether they will or not, are yet defective in that acuteneſs and pregnancy of wit which is neceſſary to pretend a real diſagreement, and are forced to ſay that they diſagree when they have not wit enough to ſeem to prove it to any but thoſe that take their cholerick zeal and reproach for proof: For in this there is no difference among us.
6. Obj. At leaſt we can prove that we differ in this, about the effects, that one ſide make Gods gracious habits given to believers to be, ſuch as may be loſt and dye, and the other do not.
Anſw. That is no difference: You ſtill want wit to make differences though you want not will. For both ſides are agreed that perſeverance ariſeth not from the meer nature of the Habit of grace, but from Gods ſuperadded ſuſtentation. For Adam and the faln Angels had (as is commonly held) ſuch kind of habitual grace as we (though objectively differing.)
7. Seeing there is no difference, on Gods part (as they all conclude,) Reſiſtible grace and irreſiſtible, ſufficient and effectual, can have no difference, but in the very effect or event, and the connotation of mans Power or impotency to the contrary. I know (as I have ſaid) that not only the Dominicans and Calviniſts, but Suarez and other Jeſuits, ſay that Effectual Grace is ſuch ex parte principii as is forcibler for faith as the effect. But they contradict themſelves, who confidently ſay, that beſides that effect, it is nothing but Gods eſſence which hath no degrees or real differences. And mans power of Reſiſtance and fruſtration is none as to Gods will and eſſence, but only as to the effect; When he could have done otherwiſe.
8. The ſame Vanity they declare in the queſtion, Whether the ſame degree of Divine Grace, help, or operation, would Convert one man as doth another, or would Convert as doth not Convert. When they are agreed that the effect is not the ſame; and that the cauſe hath no degrees of difference.
9. And though it's paſt mans underſtanding to comprehend how all the various effects in the world ſhould be produced without the leaſt diverſity in the Cauſe (Will or Action) ex parte agentis, and that Velle ſalvare Petrum, & velle damnare Judam, ſhould be perfectly the ſame Volition ex parte Volentis; yet it is the liker to be true becauſe man cannot comprehend it; as long as he hath no evidence to prove that it is not true. For God is incomprehenſible.
10. Seeing then that we muſt concent, 1. That God Decreed to do all that he doth, and properly and abſolutely no more; 2. And that Chriſts death is the cauſe of all that it effecteth, and properly of no more (Of which the conditional gift of pardon and life is part,) And ſo that all the Controverſie 1. Of Decree, 2. Of Redemption, is reſolved into that of the effects; 3. And ſeeing all the effects are ſuch whoſe difference we little differ about, if at all; and ex parte Dei agentis they agree that there is no difference: where then is the Difference among all the contenders?