The Period of Human Life Continued, Appendix
AN APPENDIX.
WHEREIN SEVERAL OBJECTIONS, URGED In private Conferences, are examined. TOGETHER WITH A Survey of Mr. GALE'S severe, but groundless charge.
THE great desire I have to clear all doubts which can be urged against the opinion I defend, has engaged me in several private conferences to try what arguments men of better judgment than my self can produce.
But the truth is, instead of arguments, all I could hear urged was odious censures, which as I have always accounted unquestionable evidences of a bad cause, so do I apprehend that method very incongruous, either to convince others, or to find out the truth.
And although I have no great desire to put my hand into a Hornets Nest, yet because I now intend to put a close to this debate, I shall briefly examin all those particular charges I have met with, hoping that henceforth men will shew more candor and ingenuity, and not rashly and inconsiderately calumniate an Author they know not, nor condemn an opinion with hard words, when they can urge nothing of reason against it.
The first heavy charge I met with, is, that the opinion I defend is not Orthodox, and that the Author is an Arminian; this censure I have in part already considered, I shall therefore now only desire to know by what rule they measure an opinion to be true or false? If they will make Scripture judge, I am sure their charge is false; see Period of Humane Life, pag. 118, 119, &c. Nay, if they will but stand to the determination of reason, they will find themselves at a loss; but if they run from Scripture and reason, and make their own crooked fancy the rule, I cannot help the matter.
Common experience convinceth us, that the most uncouth notion is judged Orthodox by some men, and that the best opinion has not had the good hap to be entertained by all men; but the odious censures of men is not enough to make a good opinion bad, otherwise we should be continual seekers, but never find one Truth.
I confess they are but little acquainted with the Writings of Orthodox Divines, who say they oppose the mutability of the Period of Humane Life; for my own part I could never find any condemn it but the Stoicks of old and of late Mr. Hobbs, and his Disciples, and those who run up to the absolute decrees of Election and Reprobation. And although it be rejected and disallowed by such, yet I hope they are not the only Orthodox Divines.
The present age (God be thanked) is wiser than to be affrighted with the word Arminian; those who use such Objections may please themselves to dispute with Children; but if they combat with Men, they will be but jeered and contemned. I confess some few years since it was scandal enough to be called an Arminian; but those dark days are gone, and I hope in after ages that which some men account an opprobrious charge, shall be esteemed Honourable.
Notwithstanding all this, I do not say that I am an Arminian, nor am I offended at others who call themselves Calvinists: But methinks it were more Christian like to reject all such names which keep up differences amongst us, than to say, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and a third distinct from both, I am of Cephas.
2. Some men have told me, if the shortning or lengthening out of our life doth depend upon our use, or neglect of the means, then Gods particular providence in Governing the World is enervated, if not quite destroyed.
Answ. I have been far rather induced to believe, that the Antithesis of the opinion we defend, opposeth the Divine providence; for truly if all things are fatally fixed from Eternity by an absolute Decree, whether there be any providence or not, things must come to pass according to that sempiternal series and concatenation of causes; but by maintaining the mutability of the Period of Human Life, the Divine providence doth most conspicuously appear, sometimes in removing those things which should have put a Period to our Being; sometimes permitting us to be exposed to unseen and unexpected dangers. O how wonderful, wise, and mysterious are the ways of God! His Providence is universal, and extending to the most inconsiderable actions. But yet we must not foolishly imagin, men are acted like meer Machins. The Divine providence doth not destroy the innate freedom of Human natures. It is indeed evident by the light of nature, that the great Creator of the World should order and govern it. No Parent is so regardless of his Children as to expose them to the dangers of the World. The very Brutes by a natural instinct guard, secure, and take care of their young. And can we think that our kind Creator who has implanted these principles of Care and Kindness in his Creatures towards their off spring, shall be less regardless of his own Creatures.
We then heartily accord that the Divine providence is vigilant and universal, and the opinion we maintain gives us all the encouragements that can be, to entertain so noble and generous thoughts of that adorable Being, who upholds us in Being. How frequently had a Period been put to our lives, if his watchful eye and careful providence had not red us from imminent dangers.
When I consider that the Period of my life is not immutably and absolutely fixed, but may be Millions of ways shortened, this encourages me to cast my self upon the Divine eare and providence. But for others who are of a contrary opinion, I confess I cannot see how they have any motive to do so, for they being once confirmed in that opinion, that their days can neither be extended nor shortened, they need use no diligence for their safety; they cannot be encouraged to address themselves to their Heavenly Father by Prayer, since all Care, Diligence, Prayer, &c. are ineffectual, and cannot alter the determination.
3. Others have told me, that I make the Creature independent.
Answ. They may as well say, I make the Creature the Creator, for both are equally false. I confess it is not in my power to keep men from deducing illegal consequences, and leading an opinion with inferences it is utterly unacquainted with: yet, since they are pleased to observe this method, I will first vindicate my own opinion, and then examin whether theires can be more justly condemned.
First, then altho I grant that the Period of Humane Life, is for Ordinary, Mutable; yet, I constantly affirm, That God is the Supream Moderator and Governer of the world, and is this to make the Creator independent? nay, Almighty God not only adhibets a general concurse, but he also in a more special and particular providence, either affords or withdraws occasions of Safety: It is in his power to Shorten or Prolong our lives, and this he does many different wayes, which because they are sometimes ordinary and common, we but seldom regard them, but when by an extraordinary providence he affords us unexpected deliverances, we are then more Sensible that his hand brought us help; And is all this a deifying of the Creature?
That Man, Created a free agent should be absolutely and Physically predetermined to act, is a harsh notion, quite contradictory to the common sentiments of mankind, and yet by opposing this Predetermining influx, I do not make man an independent Creature; for an independent Creature is a plain contradiction; but it is evident enough, that it implyed no contradiction, for God to Create a free agent, who shall not stand in need to be Physically predetermined to every act. Now this once being admitted, it may easily appear, that the Period of Humane Life is not immutably fixt; for since man acts freely, he may either chuse or reject, this or the other means▪ upon which the extention, or abbreviation, of his Life consists.
And yet Man is not hereby made an independent being; for as God hath set bounds to him, over which he cannot pass, It being appointed for all men once to die; So hath he also absolute rule of him, and may say, return ye Children of men. And thus although man is made a free agent, yet he is not exempted from the Divine Providence.
But, Those who defend the contrary opinion, although they grant that man does in all his actions depend upon God, yet, they of necessity must deny that he immediatly depends upon him: for, besides the Divine eternal Volition, they more over add a Physical predetermining influx, efficaciously and irresistably moving the will, which must necessarily mediate between the Creator and Man.
And thus, although God has not absolutely decreed the Period of every Mans Life, nor does by a Physical predetermining impulse move him to act, which should make him rather a Machin than a Man, yet Man is not independent in acting, but depends immediately upon the Divine Will, as I have already explained.
Indeed he who thinks the Creature is independent, if it be not Physically predetermined to act, entertains a strang notion of independency: for it is certain that the Humane Will is not thus predetermined to sinful acts, and I also desire to know if necessary agents be thus acted: methinks such a superadded determination is very needless since that natural propention, which the great Creator endued them with, is fixed and permanent and sufficient enough to determin them to act: for instance the Fire, by it's natural determination, necessary burns the wood, and it needs no impulse, or superadded motion to determin it, and yet neither the Human Will nor free agent are independent beings.
But not to insist in the refutation of such trivial censures, which the Authors can never form in mode and figure against what I have laid down in that discourse, I shall now in the close examin Mr. Gales severe charge laid down in his Court of the Gentiles part 3. page.
As an Appendix (Says he) to natural Philosophy, we may add Medicine which has had a powerfull influence upon Atheisme in this regard, because these proud Naturalists observing by long experience many excellent qualities, virtues and Medicinal influencies, in several Minerals, Stones, Plants, Animals, &c. hence would fain perswade themselves and the World, the term of Mans Life was not fixt but variable and determinable by their art and Medicaments, which piece of Atheism continues to this very day very common.
Methinkes Mr. Gale if he had been so good natured, might have very well spared this Scandalous language and not have treated those Learned men so contemptuously; but I see it is his humor to make every thing have an influence upon Atheism, and to quarrel with all Philosophy but his own Reformed Scheme: and yet it is ten to one if some ill natured Inquisitive men find not out some vanity, and malignity in his own, which whether it may arise from the vanity and malignity of the object. Or 2. From the vanity and malignity of the subject. Or, 3. from the curse of God or both, is an Enquiry I shall not determin in, till I better understand what sence these phrases can admit.
But methinks it is a strange thing why he is so much offended with Pagan Philosophers, since he alleadges as a prime cause of vain Philosophy, the innate, congenite darkness or the native ignorance of the understanding; now how unreasonable is it to challenge men for erring if ignorance be congenite or native to the understanding? He may as well be angry with them because they had not these clear revelations of the Divine mind we are now blessed with.
And yet, although there were many errors in their Philosophy, we must not therefore condemn natural Philosophy nor reject all those arts and sciences which have errors necessary (in this imperfect state) annexed to them; if we do so we must reject all arts and sciences and even his (I had almost mistaken and said) own reformed Philosophy. That Idolatry, Atheism, &c. are the effects of natural Philosophy, is a dangerous position of the Authors; for by the dark light of nature men may know that there is a God and that Divine worship and adoration is only to be given to that Supream and Adorable Being, and if natural Philosophy be rejected how shall we be able to dispute with Atheists who wickedly deride Sacred Writ.
But as natural Philosophy hath no powerful influence upon Atheism, so neither hath Medicine, which he adds as an appendix to the former, however the Authors unbounded Zeal transports him beyond the just bounds of civility and moderation.
And now, that I may more particularly examin this censure, I shall first shew that Mr. Gales memory is as weak as his judgment▪ and that he has quite forgot that he makes this piece of Atheism the effect of Pagan Philosophy. Secondly, I shall make it evident that those proud (as he imprudently and with more arrogance calls them) Naturalists were neither proud in there observations he contemns, nor proud in the inference deduced from thence: and Thirdly, I shall make it plain that Mr. Gale may be justly charged with maintaining more dangerous opinions.
I begin with the First, to shew that Mr. Gale elsewhere seems to condemn himself for saying, that it is the effect of Pagan Philosophy to say, the Period of Humane Life is variable; to make out this I shall only desire him to review part 4, page 455. Where he will find himself saying I am not ignorant (the words are Mr. Gales) how much some of late, as well Divines as Phisitians, have essayed to exempt the Period or term of Humane Life from the immutable determination of Divine providence; but how much this hypothesis contradicts both Pagan and Sacred Philosophy, will be more fully evident, by what followes.
Now, methinkes the Author took too much pains to note, that an effect of Pagan Philosophy, which he confesseth, is contradicted by it: but not to take any more notice of the Authors fighting with himself: I shall proceed to the Second; Namely, that Phisitians were neither Arrogant in there observations▪ he is pleased to mention none yet in that inference deduced from hence.
First they were nor proud in their observations; for to take notice of the excellent qualities and virtues of Herbs, Minerals, Animals, &c. is so far from being discommended and reprehended, that it is rather to be regrated, that men of learning and abilities should want encouragements to proceed in such enquiries: and truly those who lay out there time in such a commendable study, will unquestionably be celebrated by posterity, when the names of those who discourage them shall be unsavory if not extinguished.
Can it be questioned by any, who pretends reason, that there are excellent noble and specifick vertues in some Plants, Animals, and Minerals against several destempers? if this be doubted common experirience will abundantly attest it; but since this is so plain and evident is it not lawfull from hence to infer that the Period of Human Life, is not absolutely fixt: for if this were true it were needless to search out the vertues and effects of those things, which can be used to no purpose.
But the great charge is, that to affirm the term of Mens lives is mutable, is a piece of Atheism.
To prevent such calumnies there is no help but according to the old saying si accusasse sat esset quis foret innocens? And I am sure the Scriptures teach us another lesson and right reason too; as for Pagan Philosophy I confess I am not so much concerned to examin it. I Know he has the Stoick Philosophers Patronizing his notion, while in health, but I doubt if sickness does not alter there judgments. It is indeed good company to see the most strict Stoick and those of that perswasion, post away messingers for the Phisitian when under diseases; which is evidence enough that they do not believe the truth of what they maintain.
That the Hypothesis we defend contradicts neither natural nor Sacred Philosophy, has been plainly enough demonstrated in our former discourse, neither doth Mr. Gale for all his promise, urge it with any argument, but in stead of doing so he himself seems to be guilty of that which he injuriously blames in others: And thus I am led to the third thing proposed to be discussed; namely, that Mr. Gale may be justly charged with maintaining more dangerous opinions; and to make good this charge I shall only (because of the intended brevity) mention two particulars.
The first is laid down in the Court of the Gentiles page 367. where distinguishing Gods Justice in Absolute and Ordinative he adds, that God by his absolute justice and dominion can inflict the greatest torments even of Hell it self on the most innocent Creature. This is indeed a morsel which sober men cannot well swallow; it being so quite contrary to that common notion which all mankind entertain of God, and to those excellent attributes of his glorious nature; by which he has discovered himself to the world both by his word and workes.
That Almighty God is to be admired for his excellent power and works of wonder, no sober man ever doubted, but to admit an unlimitted power incompatible with the principle attributes and perfections of his Glorious nature, such as his Goodness, Holiness, Mercy and Justice, this were instead of exalting his excellent power, a denying of a Deity or at least a making him, who is altogether Holy, merciful and Good, seem (it is horrid to speak it) Savage and Cruel. The Divine goodness, truth and sanctity assure us that he can do nothing that is unbecoming his Glorious nature nor repugnant to his chiefe perfections displayed in his Sacred Word and dayly evident by his Workes.
Let us here appeal to judicious Mr. Calvin lib. de Etern. Dei predest. Sorbonicum illud dogma in quo sibi plaudunt Papales Theologastri detestor, quod potentiam absolutam Deo affingit: Solis enim lucem à calore evellere facilius erit, quam Dei potentiam separare à justia and page 191. facessant ergo procul à pijs mentibus, monstrosoe illoe Speculationes, plus aliquid Deum posse quam conveniat, veleum sine modo ac ratione quicquam agere, &c.
Surely if to distroy the righteous with the wicked temporally was rejected by Abraham as a piece of injustice, unbecoming the Divine goodness. Gen. 18 25. That be far from thee to slay the righteous with the wicked, Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right: how much rather may we say so, when men tell us that God can inflict the greatest torments even of Hell it self on the most innocent Creature; it were easie to answer all the silly instances brought in defence of this horrid Doctrin, but I have said enough in the passing against it, only I must add that this is a most dangerous opinion inclining men to entertain unworthy conceptions of a Deity. Plutarch lib. de Superst. discoursing of the folly of the Pagans, to pacifie there offended Gods Sacrificed men and women to them, adds that Diagoras, and his Followers more reasonably maintained the Being of such Gods than those who confessed a God, and believed they could be appeased by such Savage cruelty.
The Second particular I shall instance, is laid down pag 483. and frequently else where, God (says he) is the prime efficient cause of the material entitive act of Sin. I know some others have undertaken the defence of this infamous Tenet, but patronize it who will, it is an uncouth opinion and chargeth the Holy Lord, who is not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness, with Mens Sins.
I confess, I could never yet understand what more was asserted by those blasphemous Hereticks, who boldly affirmed that God was the Author of Sin; for which pious antiquity did jointly condemn them; for if the evil or obliquity of Sin be (as they say) either privation or relation, it is evident that they necessarily result from the placing of such actions and cannot but follow their acts.
It is indeed pity, that our Reformed Divines should be all blamed for the faults only of a few who have imbibed this Dominican venom, and I have often regrated to see the Iesuits so miserably baffle men, maintaining this odd and uncouth notion, and yet it is but unhandsom dealing to charge that notion upon all reformed Churches, which has been alwayes condemned by the most Judicious Writers we have.
But to dispatch this as quickly as I can, I shall only desire a satisfactory Answer to the few following Queries.
First, If God be the prime efficient cause of the material entitive act (that I may use his phrase) of Sin, does not God necessitate the Will to Sin? since Man is hereby made the Instrumental cause and God the principal overruling efficient cause; and do you think that the Instrumental cause, can resist when the principle cause irresistably determins it to act?
Secondly, Is not the act prescinded from the object? A meer fancy and notion: Can there be either Love or hatred when their is no object to terminate them upon?
Thirdly, If the material act of Sin be Good, is not every sinfull act Morally Good as well as Morally Evil.
Fourthly, When we enquire if there be any thing in the hatred of God that is good, do we not Speak of a particular act terminat upon its object, and not of a Chimerical act which can have no being?
Fifthly, Is not that Sinfull which is prohibited? but the act it self is forbidden Men, or forbidden to do such and such things, and their doing or acting makes them lyable to punishment. Do not Men by doing or omitting that which the Divine precepts forbid, become guilty? Is not Sin a transgression of the Law, and do not men transgress and violate the Divine precepts when they either commit or omit the forbidden action? Hence is it that very many Learned Men rationally conclude that Sin is not a privation, but a positive thing, since the act is alwayes forbidden, and therefore it must be formally evil; and I confess it is a hard matter to conjecture what can be the foundation of that privation; or if the act be placed, how the obliquity does not necessarily result.
Sixthly, To permit is properly a not hindring or impeding Men to act; therefore the act is permitted, for what can be hindered cannot be properly said to be permitted, but the obliquity is such.
Seventhly, If it were the obliquity and not the act that is permitted, then neither Devils nor Men could tempt us to Sin, for they cannot do any more but Intice and Allure us to the committing or omitting of the Acts, which being placed, the obliquity does necessarily result.
Eigthly, Are Man any other waies said to be hindered from Sinning, but because they are impeded from commiting the Act; how then can the Holy Lord, be the prime efficient cause of the substrate matter, or material entitative Act of Sin?
I have indeed seen an excellent M. S S. where this odious opinion, which has made our Church is solidly rejected; till such time as that become publick, these few Arguments I have pitched upon, may be of use to convince us that Mr. Gale is in a mistake.
I should now have proceeded to the consideration of those Arguments he brings in defence of his opinion, but I find this will be more pertinent afterwards, when a more fit occasion may offer.
Now to conclude, it is my hearty desire that we may not, while we are disputing about the Period of our Lives, forget our Mortality. Ere it be long a Period will be put to our beings; and is it not our greatest concernment to mind this in time, that when this Life is ended we may be admitted into that glorious assembly of the Saints above, who Live, but can die no more?
FINIS.
Books Printed, and are to be Sold by Enoch Wyer, at the White Hart in St. Pauls Church Yard.
Folio.
CLARKS General Martyrology 1 l. 10 s.
Baylii Opera Chronolog. & Hist. Amsterdam. 1663. price 8 s.
Twisse de scientia Media, 1639. 7. s.
Quarto.
Strodes Doctrine of Combination of Qualities, price 1 s. 1677.
The Life of Herod the Great, Wherein his Inhumane Cruelties are briefly but Accurately related. With an account of his fatal and miserable End.
Lightfoots Horae Hebraicae & Talmudicae, in Corinthios, quarto, Paris. 1677, price 4 s.
A Letter to a Gentleman, in Answer to a late Book, Entituled, A discourse concerning the Period of Humane Life.
Apollonius Magnus Gregorianus & Cardanus promotus à Tho. Baker. now in the Press.
Octavo.
Galei Philosophia Generalis, 1677. price 9 s.
Eustathii Ethica 1677. price 1 s.
A discourse concerning the Period of Humane Life, whether mutable, or immutable: By the Author of the Duty of Man, &c. the Second Edition, 1677. 1 s.
A Short Compendium of Chirurgy, containing, the Grounds and Principles thereof, collected out of the best Authors, by J. S. M. D.
Twelves.
A Description of the Islands of Foerooe in the King of Denmarks Dominions, illustrated with Maps, 1677. price 2 s.
Martials Epigrams for the use of Westm. School. 1677. price 1 s. 6d.
Galei Idea Theologiae, 1676. price 3 s. 6 d.
End of the text · Richard Allestree, The Period of Human Life Continued (1678)