Catholic Theology Plain Pure Peaceable, Conference 8 · Accusation 2
The ſecond Crimination.
C.
But I fear many of them with Pelagius by GRACE do mean nothing So Dr. Twiſſe frequently repeateth that mee… poſſe credere is but Nature and not Grace, becauſe it is equally a poſſe non credere. But 1. A natural power reprieved by Grace, and preſerved and given for gracious ends. 2. And many and great helps of Grace to excite and rectifie it, may be called an effect of Grace.but Nature it ſelf, at least when they ſpeak of the Heathens, who they ſay have ſome kind of Grace.
B.
Turn your eyes a little from the name of Pelagius, and every thing elſe that uſeth to blind Diſputers with prejudice and partiality, and then anſwer me theſe following queſtions.
Quest. 1. Do you think that Mercy contrary to ſinful Commerit is not properly Grace?
C.
I confeſs it is?
B.
Quest. 2. Is not the whole frame of Humane Nature (and our Utenſils) put into the hand and power of Chriſt the Redeemer, to be managed by him to his Mediatory ends, Joh. 17. 2. Math. 28. 19, 20. Joh. 13. 3. Epheſ. 1. 22, 23. Phil. 2. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. For this end he died, roſe and revived, that he might be Lord both of the Dead and Living. Rom. 14. 9. Joh. 5. 22, 23, 24. The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all Judgment to the Son, &c. And is not the very reprieval of the World from deſerved ruine and miſery ſo many thouſand years an Act of Grace? and Nature now continued, uſed and improved by Grace, and ſo far may be ſaid to be of Grace?
C.
This is plain truth, and muſt not be denied.
B.
Queſt. 3. Is it not undeſerved Mercy to all Mankind, that ever ſince Adam's Sentence, Gen. 3. 15. they are all ruled by a Law of Grace, and not the Law of Innocency alone, and by that Law of Grace muſt all be judged?
C.
If you before evinced that any thing is truly mercy to the Reprobate, I muſt confeſs it. But I have not before ſo much thought of this, what Law the World is under, as the caſe deſerveth: But I remember Camero in the fragments of his diſpute with Courcellaeus taken by Teſtardus, though he deny not that the Covenant of Grace was made with all mankind in Adam and Noah, yet ſaith, That by or for their nearer Parents ſins the Infants of Infidels are out of that Covenant.
B.
1. It's well you note, that it is not only Augustine (Enchir. ad La… rent.) and I that are for the Imputation of nearer Parents ſin, in ſome Vid. Pet. Martyr in Rom. 5. confeſſing Auguſtine's judgment.ſort, as well as Adam's. 2. He ſpeaketh there of the Covenant as mutual, and not as a Law, or an offered Covenant, or Divine Diſpoſition, foreign ▪ (of which Grotius ſpeaketh at large in his Preface to Annotat. in Evang.) And ſo I ſay the ſame as Camero: which is but this, that though it be a Law or offered Covenant of Grace, and not the ſole Law of Innocency, which the whole World are now under as Subjects to be ruled and judged by it. Yet no Parent that conſenteth not, hath any right to the promiſed benefits, nor is in it as a mutual Covenant (unleſs as any counterfeiting conſent may oblige themſelves) nor are the Children of ſuch Parents any true Heirs of the ſaid promiſed benefits for the ſake of remote Anceſtors, as long as their neareſt Parents are Infidels. This is all that Camero there maintaineth.
Queſt. 3. Are not all the teachings, helps, means, time, and innunerable Mercies which Heathens and Infields have contrary to their Commerits, and conſequently truly Grace?*Le Blank tells you that Polanus diſtinguiſheth Grace into natural and ſupernatural, Theſ. 27. diſt. Grat. 2.
C.
They are at beſt but common Grace. But I am loth to grant that Nature is ſo much, if I could deny it.
B.
I am ſorry that unwillingneſs and willingneſs can do ſo much with you about theſe matters. But I pray tell me, Quest. 4. What is it that you mean by Nature?
C.
I mean that fixed order of being and operation which God put all things in at their Creations at the beginning.
B.
You have done as the Incendiaries of the Church have done from the beginning of contentious Diſputes: you have choſen a word unexplained Media a…tem deſtinat… & propria & foreign ſunt verbum et ſpiritus: Quibus etiam jungi poſſunt bona & mala hujus animalis vitae, quibus Deus ad eundem finem utitur. Armin. Diſput. Privat. Theſ. 41. Sect. 8.to make a ma…ter of reproach of, which hath ſo many ſignifications, and is ſo uncertainly uſed, that Philoſophers themſelves, even in their greateſt accurateneſs, know not what to fix upon; though there are few words which they are more concerned to be agreed in, if they could. But where the thing is unknown, no wonder if there be diſcord about the Name. Fortun, Licetue alone de natura primo move…te may ſuffice to evince this. But I perceive you take not Nature for Principium motus et quietis, &c. nor for the eſſence of things, matter or form, or both▪ nor with Scotus de potentia for the paſſive power, nor in other ſenſes uſually intended by various Writers: But for the created ſtatus & ordo rerum, and the motus thereby alone cauſed. And if this he NATURE with you, you caſt your ſelf into inextricable difficulties to know what you ſay. For 1. We are very much ignorant of ſecond Cauſes, and their concatenation and co-operations; who ever took in pieces this great Engine of the Univerſe (as men do a Clock or Watch) to find out the form and compagination of each part? or ever underſtood it. 2. Who can tell certainly what is done by this compagination of Cauſes and Author fidei eſt ſpiritu… ſanctus quem filius mitti… a patre tanquam advocatum & vicarium ſuum, qui ipſiu… cauſam in mund… ▪ & contra mundum agat… Inſtrumentum eſt evangelium ſeu verbum fidei, continens ſenſum de Deo & Chriſto quem ſpiritus intellectui proponit & perſuadet. Arminius Diſput. Privat. Theſ. 44. Sect. 6.co-operation according to its primitive ſtate, who knoweth not the whole Engine, but ſome parts alone (not ſo much as one ſand is to the whole Earth) ſeeing that it is the whole that co-operateth to the foredeſcribed motions? And 3. Who knoweth how far God hath fixed the ſtate and operation of ſecond Cauſes? and how far he is pleaſed to alter them from their firſt ſtate and courſe of motion, or daily doth it? 4. And who is ſo well acquainted with the ſtate of the Univerſe in the Creation, and the ſtate of it now, as to be able to make an ac…rate compariſon, and tell whether or how much it is ſince then altered? or whether all things continue juſt as in the beginning. 5. Yea it is certain, that a great alteration was made both on mans Soul and Body, and on the Earth by the ſin of Adam, and the Curſe. 6. And it is certain, that God maketh much uſe of the Miniſtry of free Agents in the affairs of the World, even of Angels, Devils and Men, whoſe voluntary contingent acts (and conſequently their effects) go not as a Watch or Cl…k in one conſtant natural courſe of motion. How then can you tell here what is natural as to a great part of the changes upon man?
C.
You would make me believe that WORDS are ſo defecti… as to delude us and befool us all, and that nothing men ſay can be underſtood. Doth not all the World diſtinguiſh between Nature and Grace?
B.
The vanity of ſpeculative Sciences, and the miſery of Mankind thereby, and the reaſon of Paul's contempt of the Philoſophy then predicated, and the cauſe of all our love-killing Contentions, cannot be Sine hoc ſpeciali auxilid Gratiae nihil boni poſſe ab ulla creatura rational… …eri eſt certiſſ…um. …ed an hoc auxilium Gratiae ſit voluntatis Divi… volentis illud abſolute communicare, & per illud communica… abſolute bonum …p…rari, eſt in controverſia po…itum Thealogis: nec immerito, cum vox abſolute in Scripturis non inve…iatur▪ &c. Armin. exam Perkinſ. de praed. Sect. 6. pag. 501. Among many others, read but Vaſqu…z in 1 Tho. & Pet. a S. Joſeph de Auxil. divin. (in Theſ. Univerſ. & ſpec. & moral.) & Ruiz, & Bellarmin. de Auxil. And you may ſee how much ſupernaturality the Papiſts ſtand for: Indeed for more th… the Proteſtants in ſome caſes, as in aſſerting the ſupernaturality of Adam's firſt Righteouſneſs, &c. And many of the Scho… men ſpeak higher of Infuſion than moſt Proteſtans, ſo that this a…ti… will not prove the difference.readilier aſſigned than by charging them on the lamentable defectiveneſs and ambiguity of words next to the darkneſs of Humane Intellect. But the diſtinguiſhing of Nature and Grace is needful; but muſt be rightly underſtood. 1. Principally as Nature ſignifieth the conſtitution of man and all things as made by their Creator, and GRACE the medela or medicinal Operation of God, by which he recovereth the lapſed ſinful and curſed World. 2. And as any Motus, Action or Change, can be ſaid to be from the firſt natural Principles of Action, ſo far they may be called natural: If from Nature alone, they are only natural. But as they come from recovering Grace they are gracious: If from Grace alone, without Nature, they are only gracious (whether there be any ſuch, or any but Miracles, I paſs by.) But as they are by and from Nature, either ſanctified, or ordered and over-ruled by Grace, ſo they are both natural and gracious in ſeveral reſpects.
C.
This ſeemeth plain and true: and what do you hence infer.
B.
1. All degrees of the medela or recovery of Nature are ſo many degrees of Grace.
2. Exparte Dei efficientis, the operations of Grace and Nature really are all one, and differ not: That is, God doth per eſſentiam operate in both, and his operating Eſſence is the ſame. But as the nature of a thing in its original or conſtitutive Principles are one thing, and the recovery of it from its vitiated ſtate another; ſo relatively the ſame God, and his Will and Operations are to be variouſly denominated; even as he is the God and Fountain of Nature, and as he is the God and Giver of Grace.
3. I think it is paſt mans ſkill to prove that moſt Miracles themſelves have no part of natural Operation in them. It is ſufficient of God interpoſe and over-rule the matter by any other immediate Operation of his own: yea or that he put natural Operations themſelves out of that courſe, in which they would have gone if he had not ſo altered it.
4. By this you may plainly ſee that though all natural Operations are not gracious; All gracious Operations are alſo natural, except the higheſt ſort of Miracles: that is, they are the Actions of ſome natural Principles, ordered by Gods gracious Will to a gracious end, in a gracious manner. I alſo except ſuch Operations of God alone, in which he uſeth no ſecond Cauſe, but himſelf immediately without any inſtrument produceth the effect. But note, 1. That this is only in the Reception of the Divine immediate influx it ſelf on the Soul, antecedent to our very firſt Acts: For our firſt Act (e. g. of Faith) is from Gods Influx on our own natural faculties, and ſo from thoſe faculties themſelves as ſuſcitated by God. 2. Note that this is no diſtinction between natural and gracious Operations, to be ſo immediate: For God doth as immediately operate in the natural: As in the Creation he made all the World by ſuch immediate efflux, ſo he ſtill operateth immediately on the firſt created Cauſe (whatever that is), and ſay almoſt all Divines) even when he uſeth ſecond Cauſes, he himſelf is as near the Recipient and Effect, & immediatione ſuppoſiti & virtutis, as if he had uſed no ſecond Cauſe at all: The difference being not in his diſtance or proximity, but in his uſing or not uſing a ſecond Cauſe together with himſelf.
5. Moreover it is utterly unknown to us how far God operateth without Vocatio ad communionum Chriſti & beneficiorum ejus, eſt grati…ſa …ctio Dei qua homines peccatores re…s condemnationis & ſub domin…o peccati conſtitntos, ex animalis vita conditione, ex mundi hujus inquinamentis & corruptelis, …t per verbum & piritum ſuum ad vitam ſupernaturalem in Chriſt… per poenitentiam & fidem conſequendam, ut in illo tanquam capit… ſ… ad…o deſtinato & ordinato unir…, & beneficiorum ejus communion… …rui que…nt, ad gloriam Dei, & ipſorum ſalutem. Armin. Diſpur. Privat. Theſ. 42. Sect. 1.any ſecond Cauſe, even on the Soul it ſelf. As we know that Devils do much on the wicked, ſo we know not how far he uſeth the Angels or ſuperior Intelligences in operating on the Elect: And yet we will not go ſo far as Aristotle did, in aſcribing to the primum mobile. But as God is ſaid to write with his own Finger the Law on the two Tables, and yet that Law was delivered by Angels; and as God is ſaid to appear and ſpeak to Adam and many others, when yet it muſt needs be quid creatum, which Humane ſenſes could ſee and hear; Even ſo we know not when God operateth on the Soul, what ſpiritual Miniſtry he may uſe.
And now tell me again, what it is that you accuſe them of, that you think turn Nature into Grace?
C.
According to your explication I muſt mean nothing elſe, but that the name of Grace is given by them to Nature alone, with the natural operation is not gracious.
B.
Wherein is it that they thus err? Inſtance in particulars.
C.
1. When they make Gods common Providences to be Grace: 2. When they make the preaching of the Goſpel to be Grace. 3. When they make Reaſon and Free-will to be Grace.
B.
I. Do you not believe that all Gods merciful Providences are acts of Grace? Are they not mercy contrary to merit, which is the definition of Grace in the general? And have they not an aptitude and tendency in medelam animarum to mans Recovery, which is the ſpecification of Evangelical Grace?
C.
Yes, I grant all this: But we take Grace for the inward ſaving work of Gods ſanctifying Spirit on the Soul.
B.
1. You do not only ſtrive about words; but perverſly abuſe words, that you may have matter of ſtrife. Will you confine the general name of Grace, not only to a Species, but to one inferior Species, and then accuſe your Brethren for giving the name to other Species? As if you would accuſe them for calling any beſides a Philoſopher or a Souldier a man? And 2. Do you know either Jeſuite, Lutherane or Arminian, that holdeth that outward common Providences are inward Sanctification?
C.
Let that paſs, and go to the ſecond.
B.
II. Do you doubt whether the preaching of the Goſpel be Grace? either as to the general or ſpecial definition?
C.
I deny not that the definitions agree to it; but I doubt whether it be a fit name, when uſe hath appropriated it to the inward Sanctification.
B.
1. Here again you are convinced of ſtriving about words: 2. And till you are forced, you confeſs it not, but make it ſeem a material difference. 3. You confeſs that your Adverſaries name agreeth with the definition. 4. When you have abuſed the name your ſelves by erroneous confinement of it to one ſpecies of Grace, you then plead your own ſinful uſe as a reaſon ſufficient againſt Etymology, Definition, the cuſtom of all the Chriſtian Churches from the beginning to this day; yea and againſt Scripture it ſelf. 5. For the Scripture ſo uſeth the word, as you may ſee (ſometimes for merciful Providences, ſometimes for the Goſpel, ſometimes for Church-Priviledges, for Gifts, ſometimes for Favour, and oft for recovering mercy in the general) Ezra 9. 8. Zech. 4. 7. Joh. 1. 16, 17. Act. 4. 33. & 14. 3. & 20. 24, 32. Rom. 1. 5. & 5. 2. & 20. & 6. 14. 15. & 11. 5, 7. & 12. 3. 6. & 15. 15. 1 Cor. 10. 30. 2 Cor. 8. 19. Gal. 1. 6. 15. & 5. 4. Eph. 3. 8. & 4. 8. & 4. 7. Phil. 1. 7. Jud. 4. 1 Pet. 4. 10. & 5. 12. Tit. 2. 11. Eph. 3. 2, 7. Col. 1. 6. 2 Cor. 6. 1.
C.
Go on to the third instance.
B.
1. Who do you know that calleth Reaſon and natural Free-will in it ſelf conſidered, by the name of Grace: I know not any ſuch? 2. But 1. Reaſon as reprieved in order to recovery, and Reaſon as illuminated by common Grace, (and ſo Free-will) are certainly a ſort of common Grace. 2. And Reaſon as ſpecially illuminated, and the Will as freed from Sin, are ſpecial Grace.
But now you ſee the injury of your Charge, will you ſearch and fear, leſt even by contending, it's you that have run into worſer than the Error which you declaim againſt as other mens. Is it not you that call a great deal of Gods Grace by the name of Nature, yea ſometimes of Wrath; and as I before evinced, deny much common Grace to be any Grace at all? And who wrongeth God more? He that honoureth his Works of Nature with an undue title (of Grace)? or he that utterly diſhonoureth his Grace, and ſaith that it is no Grace?