The Court of the Gentiles Part 4:2, Treatise · Part 4 · Book 3 · Chapter 7

The Court of the Gentiles Part 4:2 · Treatise · Part 4 · Book 3 · Chapter 7

p. 193CHAP. VII. The Theogonie of the Phenician and Egyptian Gods, with their Hebrew origination.

Baal from foreign, and Bel from foreign El. Beelſamen from foreign Beelzebub, 2 King. 1. 2. foreign. Baal Peor, Pf. 106. 28. Numb. 25. 1, 2, 3. Moloch the ſame with Baal. Adramelech and Anamelech. 2 King. 17. 31. Eſa. 30. 33. Tophet and Gehinnom, whence foreign. The Samothracian Cabiri, Phenician Gods. foreign from foreign God's name, Pſ. 119. 137. Cabiri from foreign. Axieros foreign. Axiokerſos from foreign. Cadmilus from foreign, the miniſter of God. Eliun from foreign, God's name. foreign from foreign, Jud. 8. 33. Plautus's Paenulus: Alonim &c. from Gen. 14. 19. Ilus from foreign; whence alſo foreign, and Heliogabalus. foreign from foreign Elohim. foreign from foreign, Gen. 28. 18. The Egyptian Gods, their original Hebrew. Apis, a ſymbol of Joſeph; ſo Serapis, from foreign, Gen. 45. 8. Oſiris the ſame with Moſes or Adam, as Iſis with Eve, from Iſcha. Mnevis the ſame with Joſeph. Of Orus, Remphan, &c. The Metamorphoſes of the Gods in Egypt. The cauſes of Mythologick Theologie▪

§. 1. HAving gone through Helleniſme, or the Grecian foreign,The Theogonie of the Phenician Gods Hebraick. we now paſſe on to the Oriental Gods, with endeavors to demonſtrate how their Genealogie, Names, and Attributes, received their derivation from the ſacred Language and Oracles: We ſhall begin with the Phenician Gods, which were the firſt, if not as to time, yet as to dignitie; whence the Grecians traducedOf Baal from foreign, and Bel from foreign. the chiefeſt of their Gods. And amongſt the Phenician Gods, the chief was Baal, Bel, or Belus; concerning which there is ſome difference amongſt Philologiſts; yet all unanimouſly concur p. 194in this, that its origination was from ſome Hebrew and ſacred name; which will evidently appear from the notation thereof. Damaſcius, in the life of Iſidore, mentioned by Photius, tels us, foreign The Phenicians and Syrians call Saturne El, Bel, and Bolathen. Voſſius makes Bel the contract of Beel, from foreign Baal, the Lord, which name belonged originally to God, as it appears from Hoſea 2. 16, 17. But Servius, on Virgil, ſuppoſeth Bel to come of foreign El, Hoſ. 2. 16, 17.Hos 2:16Hos 2:17Gods name; whence the Greek foreign El, and the Digamma being added, foreign Bel, and ſo Belus. Bochart, in a perſonal conference he favored me with, gave me a good conciliation of theſe two opinions, by affirming, that there was originally a twofold Belus, the one Aſſyrian, from foreign, Heb. foreign, originally foreign, the Aſſyrian God; whence Nimrod, the firſt of the Aſſyrian Monarchie, was called Belus: the other Belus was a Phenician, from foreign Baal, the Phenician God; whence Ithobaal, King of Tyre, and Jezabel his daughter; as alſo many of the Phenician Kings, who were called Belus. Tis true; Bochart makes the Phenician foreign Baal, to have had its original from the firſt Phenician King of that name; but yet I conceive it not improbable, but that the firſt Phenician King, might be ſo called from their Gods name foreign Baal; which was the title they gave the Sun, from his office, Gen. 1. 16. as he was reputed the Lord of Heaven: or elſe, which ſeems moſt probable, we may ſuppoſe the Phenicians to have had various foreign Baalim; ſome ſupreme, which they ſtiled foreign, natural and immortal Gods; ſuch were the Sun and Moon: others, which they ſtiled foreign, mortal Gods, viz. the ſouls of their great Heroes and Kings. As for the former ſupreme natural Gods,▪ they called the Sun Baal, and the Moon Baaltis or Beltis, that is, in the Scripture language, the Queen of Heaven. As for the mortal or made Baalim, they were no other than the Souls of their chief Heroes, or Princes, which after their death received an foreign, or Deification; and ſo became a kind of midling Gods, or Mediators betwixt the ſupreme p. 195Gods and men, (which the Greeks called foreign Demons) whereof we find frequent mention in Scripture as Jud. 10. 6.The Supreme Baal ſtiled Beelſamen. 13. The Phenicians ſtiled their ſupreme Baal foreign Baal Samen. So Sanchoniathon, according to the Verſion of Philo Byblius, in Euſebius praepar. lib. 1. cap. 7. foreign A drought happening, they lift up their hands to heaven, to the Sun. For this (ſaies Sanchoniathon) they account the only God; calling him Belſamen, the Lord of Heaven. Beelſamen here, according to Philo Byblius's explication, is in the Phenician Tongue foreign beelſamen i. e. the Lord of Heaven: whence Philo Byblius immediately ſubjoins. foreign which is in the Phenician Tongue, Lord of heaven. To which he addes: foreign, but in the Greek tongue, he is zeus Jupiter. So that Belſamen is the ſame with foreign Jupiter Olympius. So Voſsius, de Idolol. lib. 2. cap. 4. This (ſaies he) we may confirme from the Hebrew Tongue, which differs in dialect only from the Phenician. For what the Phenicians pronounce Beelſamen, the Hebrews write foreign baal Schamaim, i. e. Lord of heaven &c. Thus alſo Bochart (Can. lib. 1. cap. 42.) And indeed all this touching Belſamen, Sanchoniathon ſeems to have evidently traduced from that function or Office, which God had laid on the Sun, mentioned Gen. 1. 16. the greater light to rule the day as Pſal. 136. 8.

§. 2. This Phenician God Beelſamen, the Jews called Beelzebub, The Theogonie of Baalzebub. 2 King. 1. 2.2 Kgs 1:2as 2 King. 1. 2. Baalzebub the God of Ekron. Concerning the Etymon of Baalzebub, various are the conjectures of the Learned. The additament foreign zebub ſignifies a flie: whence ſome think it was added by the Jews in a way of opprobium, or ſcorne; as if one ſhould ſay, the Lord of a flie. It is moſt probable, that this name Beelzebub was given this Idol God, not by the Accaronites or Phenicians, but by the Jews; and that from a great contempt and juſt hatred of the Accaronitick Idolatrie. p. 196Yea Voſſius (de Idolol. lib. 2. cap. 4.) following the conjecture of learned Joſ. Scaliger herein, thinks that this name Beelzebub was curtaild by the Jews; who, by an eaſy mutation, turned the Accaronitick name (according to Scaliger) foreign baal zebahim, the Lord of Sacrifices, into the contemptuous Title of foreign Baal zebub, the Lord of flies, i. e. a God that regarded only flies; or that could not drive away the flies, by reaſon of their multitude, from the Sacrifices. This name Beelzebub is, in the New Teſtament, changedinto foreign Beelzebul. foreign being made foreign zebul, for greater contempt ſake: for foreign ſignifies dung or abominable, by which name the Gentile Gods are characterized, 2 King. 23. 24. whence this name foreign is in the New Teſtament2 Kings 23. 24.2 Kgs 23:24 applied to the Prince of the Devils: as indeed this Accaronitick Beelzebub was the chief of their Idols. Hence alſo Hell was by the Greeks called Accaron, according to that of the poet, Acheronta movebo; becauſe Beelzebub the Prince of thoſe Demon Idols, was God of Accaron, as M…de and Bochart. The like Glaſsius (lib. 4. Grammat. S. Tract. 3. obſerv. 4.) The name Baalzebub 2. Kin. 1. 2. which in the New Teſtament is written foreign,2 Kings 1. 2.2 Kgs 1:2 B being changed into L. Mat. 12. 24. Luk. 11. 15. refersMat. 12. 24.Matt 12:24 to the Idol of Ekron, and ſignifies the Lord of a flie or flies: peradventure becauſe it was thought to drive away thoſe pernicious flies which infeſted the Ekronitiſh countrey, as Hercules was ſtiled foreign, from his driving away Locuſts, and Apollo foreign, from diſperſing the Phrygian mice.—The Jews traduced the name of this Idol to expreſſe the Devil by, and moreover changed Beelzebub into Beelzebul, which ſignifies the Lord of dung. See more of this in Selden de Diiſ. Syrum Syntag. 2. p. 211. That Beelzebub was the ſame with Beelſamen &c. See Owen de Idolol. lib. 5. c. 5.

§. 3. This Phenician Baal paſſed amongſt the Moabites andThe Theogonie of Baal Peor Hebraick. Num. 25. 2, 3, 6. Hoſ. 9. 10.Num 25:2Num 25:3Num 25:6Hos 9:10 Midianites under the Name of Baal Peor. So Numb. 25. 2, 3, 6. Pſal. 106. 28. Hoſ. 9. 10. foreign Baal peor, which the LXX render foreign. He was called Baalpeor from the mountain p. 197Peor, where he was worſhipped as Num. 23. 28. So Apollinaris Pſal. 106. 28.Ps 106:28(Catena patrum Graecorum) on Pſa. 106. 28. And they were joined to Baal peor] foreign: The Idol of Baal is in the place of Peor; but the Greeks call Baal Belus, whom they affirme alſo to be Saturne. Joſeph Scaliger makes Baal Peor to ſignifie the ſame with foreign Thundering Jupiter. Jerom on Hoſ. 9. lib. 2. tels us, that Baal peor the Idol of the Moabites, is the ſame with Priapus. So Iſidorus Orig. lib. 8. cap. 11. Baal peor (ſaies he) is interpreted an image of ignominie; for it was an Idol of Moab, ſirnamed Baal, on the mount of Peor, which the Latins call Priapus, the God of Gardens, &c. That this Baal peor was the ſame with the Grecian Priapus, ſeems evident by their parallel ſacrifices and worſhip. For, as fornication was a main piece of worſhip, they performed to their laſcivious God Priapus, ſo we find the ſame performed to Baal peor, even by the Iſraelites. So Numb. 25. 1. Iſrael is ſaid to commit whoredom Num. 25. 1, 2, 3.Num 25:1Num 25:2Num 25:3with the daughters of Moab: which is explicated v. 2. by bowing down to their Gods]. i. e. in a way of fornication: whence 'tis ſaid verſ. 3. Iſrael joined himſelf to Baal peor] i. e. worſhipped him by fornication. We have it expreſſed in the ſame manner, Pſal. 106. 28. By, joining themſelves to Baal peor, is ment theirPſal. 106. 28.Ps 106:28 worſhipping him by fornication: and by eating the ſacrifices of the dead we muſt underſtand (with Auſtin on this place) their ſacrificing to dead men, as to Gods or Baalim. They worſhipt Baal peor, their chief God, (which Voſsius makes to be the Sun) by fornication and ſacrifices: or elſe we may refer theſe ſacrifices of the dead to thoſe they performed to their inferior Baalim, which were but ſome noble Heroes or Princes; who after their death were deifyed, and ſo became midling Gods or Mediators; as elſewhere. But thus much for Baal peor, concerning whom, ſee more Voſsius de Idololatr. lib. 2. c. 7.

§. 4. The Phenician Baal paſſed amongſt the Ammonites Moloch amongſt the Ammonites the ſame with Baal.under the name of Moloch, from foreign Melek, the King. So p. 1981 King. 11. 7. Moloch is ſtiled the Abomination of Ammon, 1 King. 11. 7. Lev. 18. 21. Lev. 20. 2, 3, 4, 5. 2 Kings 23. 10. Amos 5. 26. Act. 7. 43.1 Kgs 11:7Lev 18:21Lev 20:2Lev 20:3Lev 20:4Lev 20:52 Kgs 23:10Amos 5:26Acts 7:43which v. 5. is ſtiled Milcom, &c. So Lev. 18. 21. Lev. 20. 2, 3, 4, 5. 2 Kings 23. 10. Thus Amos 5. 26. with the parallel, Act. 7. 43. we find mention of the Tabernacle of Moloch; where Iunius and Tremelius ſubjoin this exegetick Note: You have miniſtred in ſhew in the Tabernacle of the Living God; but you have worſhipped really Moloch, the God of the Ammonites, (which by your impietie you have made yours) and other Gods of the Heathens, Synecdochically. This God of the Ammonites the Prophet, in this place onelyonly, mentions, becauſe the Ammonites being their neighbors, he would more ſharply ſtrike at their Idolatrie. Tarnovius ſaies, that the Affixe in foreign notes, that the Iſraelites framed an Idol proper to themſelves, according to the forme of the Ammonitick Idol. See more Glaſſius Gram. S. lib. 4. Tract. 3. obſerv. 17. (pag. 867. edit. 2².) That Moloch is the ſame with Baal or Belus, appears 1. from the parallel import of the names: for as Baal ſignifies Lord, ſo Moloch King. 2. We find them alſo both joined in one word, Malech Belus, i. e. Lord King. 3. Their identitie is farther evident from the image of Moloch; which conſiſted of 7 conclaves, relating to the Sun, Moon, and 5. Planets; anſwerable to that of Baal. 4. Baal and Moloch had alſo the ſame reference: for as Baal paſſed for the Sun and Saturne, ſo Moloch. 5. Their Identitie is farther apparent from the ſamenes of their worſhip. So Owen (de Idololatr. lib. cap. 7.) That Moloch (ſaies he) is the ſame with Baal, ſeems to be evident from the ſamenes of their worſhip: for they ſacrificed alſo their ſons to Baal and that in the valley of Hinnom, as Jer. 7. 31. &c. As for the worſhip performed to Moloch, we have a general account thereof in the Scriptures above named; namely, that the Parents in honor of this Idol God, were wont to traduce their children through the fire. This Traduction, as Voſſius (de Idolo. lib. 2. cap. 5.) will have it, was not a burning of them, but februation, i. e. purgation of them; or a certain kind of expiation, wherein the children were led or drawn by the Prieſts, or parents, through a ſpace p. 199between two great fires, &c. This he conceives is the meaning of all theſe Scriptures which mention their paſſing through the fire, not their combuſtion. Though he denies not, but that, beſides this kind of Februation, there were alſo expiations made by burning of perſons in times of calamitie, &c. This explication of that Learned man ſeems not to anſwer fully the mind and import of thoſe Scriptures, which mention the ſacrificing their children to Moloch: for Pſal. 106. 37, 38. tis ſaid, they ſacrificed Pſ. 106. 37. 38.Ps 106:37Ps 106:38their ſons and daughters to Devils, and ſhed innocent bloud, the bloud of their ſons &c. Unto Moloch we may refer the Gods of Sepharvajim, Adramelech, and Anamelech; to whom alſoAdramelech and Anamelech. 2 King. 17. 31.2 Kgs 17:31 they burned their ſons, as 2 King. 17. 31. Adramelech, from foreign, ſignifies the great and valiant Moloch, or King. foreign Addir is an attribute given unto God, which ſignifies properly potent, valiant, great, excellent, as Pſal. 93 4. Anamelech imports the oracle, or anſwer of Moloch: for foreign implies an anſwer. Or elſe it may be derived from the Arabick foreign, which ſignifies rich, as Voſſ. lib. 2. c. 5. Bochart (Can. lib. 1. cap. 28. fol. 584.) tels us, that Adranus is the name of a Syrian or Phenician God, as the Compound Adra-melech, 2 King. 17. 31. which Idol, ſome of the Hebrews make to have the effigies of a Mule, others of a Peacock. This Adramelech ſignifies a magnifick King, &c. I ſhall conclude this of Moloch, with that account I find of him in Bochart, (Can. lib. 1. cap. 28. fol. 528.) Tophet, amongſt the Hebrews, is foreign the fire of Gehinnom, i. e. the valley ofJob. 17. 6. Eſa. 30. 33.Job 17:6Isa 30:33 Hinnom, or Hell, as they take it Job. 17. 6. and Eſa. 30. 33. the tranſlation being taken from the valley of Tophet, which is alſo Gehinnom; in which they were wont to caſt their children alive into the fire, in honor of their Idol Moloch, as 2 King. 23.2 King. 23. 10. Jer. 7. 31, 32.2 Kgs 23:10Jer 7:31Jer 7:32 10. and Jer. 7. 31. 32. which cuſtome the Phenicians uſurped before Moſes's time; as it appears Levit. 18. 21. Deut. 18. 10. and the Carthaginians reteined this impious ſuperſtition even unto Hannibal's time. Thus Bochart.The Samothracian Cabiri, Phenician Gods.

§. 5. Amongſt the Phenician Gods we may reckon the fourſeth p. 198the Sinceritie and Fidelitie of God, in giving Laws with ſevere Prohibitions againſt ſin, Promiſes and Invitations unto Sinners to repent, &c. To this firſt branch of their Objection we ſhal anſwer more diſtinctly and in its parts in what follows, §. 3, 4, 5. at preſent let this general Reſponſe ſuffice, that the Sinceritie and Faithfulneſſe of God is ſufficiently vindicated, in that Gods Commands, Promiſes, and Invitations unto Sinners, flow from his complacential, legiſlative Wil, which is the Meaſure, Rule, and Reaſon of our dutie and actings towards God; but his Predeterminative Concurſe flows from his Beneplacite Decretive Wil, the Rule and Meaſure of his own actings towards his Creature: Now theſe two wils, albeit they are not repugnant each to other, becauſe they are not ad idem, yet they are diſparate and diverſe: the things commanded by God may be repugnant to the things predetermined by him, yet his wil commanding is not repugnant to his wil predetermining. Indeed Gods preceptive wil is only in an analogic, figurative improper ſenſe termed the wil of God, as ſignificative of his ſoverain pleaſure for the Government of his Creature; and therefore Gods predetermining men to the material act of what is ſinful, implies not the leaſt ſhadow of repugnance to his Sinceritie and Fidelitie in giving Laws and Prohibitions againſt Sin, or Promiſes to penitent Sinners. Yea, there is nothing that our Adverſaries can urge againſt us for aſſerting a predeterminative Concurſe, but may be retorted againſt them for aſſerting an immediate previous Concurſe to the ſubſtrate mater of Sin: Yea, let them but grant, as they do, Gods certain preſcience of ſin, and the ſame black Imputations which they lode us with, wil al fal with as much weight on themſelves, as before Chap. 5. §. 2.

2. As for what they urge from the Juſtice of God, that our 2. From Divine Juſtice.Hypotheſis is contradictory thereto, in that he cannot in Juſtice puniſh that Sin, which he predetermines men unto, we anſwer, (1) That Gods Predetermination lays no violent force or compulſion on the wil to ſin: he doth only as the firſt cauſe and God of Nature ſweetly though potently applie the wil to its act. (2) The wil doth in the very ſame moment, wherein it is predetermined by God, voluntarily and freely, as a deficient depraved facultie, elect the very act it is predetermined unto; ſo that it doth as freely, deliberately, and fully eſpouſe the act, as if there were no Predetermination on Gods part: and what more juſt than p. 199that the Sinner ſhould be ſeverely puniſhed for that ſinful act which he doth deliberately and voluntarily exert? (3) Here is in this objection a poor Sophiſme, which they cal No-cauſe for a cauſe: For Gods predeterminative Concurſe is not the cauſe of mens ſins, albeit mens ſins be a neceſſary conſequent thereof. (4) The ſame difficulties, which our Adverſaries urge us with in point of Divine Juſtice, return on them, who aſſert an immediate previous Concurſe to the Mater of Sin; neither can they without apparent violence to their own Reaſon impute this objection to us, which their own Hypotheſis is as much obnoxious unto.

3. They urge us with an Imputation on the Clemence and MercieMercy 3. From Gods Clemence and MercieMercy.of God, in that predeterminative Concurſe to the entitative Act of Sin, makes the bleſſed God to be cruel towards his poor Creature; and this two ways: As (1) In that it makes God abſolutely to predeſtine or reprobate men to eternal Puniſhment, without regard to their Sins. (2) In that it ſuppoſeth the bleſſed God to threaten and puniſh Sin with eternal Torments, and yet irreſiſtibly to predetermine yea impel men thereto, as Baron. Metaph. p. 151. This Objection our Adverſaries adorne and exaggerate with many ſpecious and plauſible pretextes for the Vindication of Divine Clemence and Mercy, as they pretend, and for our confuſion; Yet we no way dout but to make it appear, that al is but as emty vapor before the Meridian Sun. Therefore to anſwer, (1) to the firſt branch of the Objection, That our Hypotheſis makes God abſolutely to predeſtine or reprobate men to eternal Puniſhment, without regard to their ſins, [1] We grant, that the Decree of Reprobation is, and muſt be according to our Hypotheſis, abſolute, becauſe there is an adequate commenſuration between abſolute Predefinition and Predetermination, as our Adverſaries alſo maintain; of which before Chap. 5. §. 3. [2] Yet we peremtorily denie, that God reprobates or predeſtines men to eternal puniſhment without any regard to their ſins. Divines ſay, that albeit ſin be not the motive or ground moving God to reprobate men, yet it is conſidered in the Decree of Reprobation as that for which God wil at laſt condemn men. It's true, the Supralapſarian Divines, who make man as labile the object of Reprobation, differ ſomewhat from thoſe of the ſublapſarian perſwaſion, who make the corrupt maſſe, or lapſed man the object of Election and Reprobation; yet they both take in the conſideration p. 200of ſin in the Decree of Reprobation; and they both make the Decree of Reprobation in it ſelf abſolute: for the Sublapſarians make ſin only a commun condition of the corrupt Maſſe, not diſtinctive or diſcriminative of Reprobates from the Elect; as Davenant, Animadverſ. on Gods Love, p. 84. proves, That the Supralapſarians charge not Gods Reprobation with mans deſtruction; Though he himſelf goes the Sublapſarian way. But, [3] Here lies the bitter root of this forged Imputation affixed on us by our Adverſaries, that they conſider the Decree of Reprobation as an act of Divine Juſtice, which regards the object as already conſtituted, and not the conſtitution thereof. This is incomparably wel obſerved by judicious Davenant in his anſwer to Hoard, Animadverſ. p. 229. For thoſe Inferences therefore, That if abſolute Reprobation be granted, God may be properly called a Father of Crueltie, foreign, I marvel how he trembled to thinke of them, and how he never trembled to utter them. That wherein he perpetually is miſtaken, is, the making of Non-election or Negative Reprobation a Vindicative act, the confounding it with the judicial Sentence of Damnation, the conceiving it to worke in the Non-elect an invincible neceſſitie of committing Sin, with ſuch like monſtrous fanſies, which he takes for Principles needing no proof, whereas they are ſuch groſſe errors as need no confutation. (2) The ſecond part of the Objection, which ſuppoſeth the bleſſed God to threaten and puniſh Sin with eternal torments, and yet irreſiſtibly to predetermine and impel men thereunto, has been ſufficiently refuted in what precedes, §. 1. and indeed throughout this whole Diſcourſe, and wil alſo come under conſideration in what follows.

4. Our Adverſaries charge alſo our Hypotheſis with a Repugnance4. From Divine Sanctitis. to the Sanctitie and Puritie of the Divine Nature, in that, by aſſerting Gods predeterminative Concurſe to the ſubſtrate mater of Sin, we make the act of ſin to be wel-pleaſing to God. This objection is greatly aggravated by a Reverend Divine among our ſelves, who in the confutation of Twiſſe, argues thus: If God willeth that ſin exiſte by his Permiſſion, (1) He willeth Sin. Yea, (2) God wils ſin as much as man. Yea, (3) This makes God equally to wil Sin and Holineſs. Yea, (4) Then God takes complacence in Sin. Anſwer. Theſe are high charges indeed, and if they could be made good againſt us, we ſhould not deſerve protection from any wel-governed Kingdome or State: for what more inconſiſtent p. 201with civil Government, than to make the Supreme Rector and Governor of Mankind equally to wil Sin and Holineſſe? But theſe Calumnies and Reproches are not of yeſterday, but have been time out of mind imputed to the aſſertors of Efficacious Concurſe, and therefore we have been more large in the refuting of them, §. 1. of this Chapter. Thus Bradwardine, De Cauſ. l. 2. c. 28. p. 572. When it is argued, ſaith he, that the ſinful act doth pleaſe God Wel, (1) The Adverbe Wel may determine the Verbe to pleaſe God, in regard of the Divine complacence, and ſo there is no dout, but that as the evil Act [entitatively conſidered] doth pleaſe him, ſo it is highly wel-pleaſing to him: or (2) in regard of the Act that is wel-pleaſing; and that either in regard of the ſubſtance of the act, or in regard of its vitioſitie: [1] If we regard the act naturally, ſo it's true, that it is wel-pleaſing to God, but if we regard it morally, ſo it's falſe. [2] If we regard the vitioſitie of the act, ſo it is not properly effected by man, nor yet by God, it being not properly an effect, but pure Privation only. An acute and excellent Deciſion of this Controverſie, were not the minds of men eaten out with Prejudices; the ſum whereof is this, The Act of ſin entitatively and ſubſtantially conſidered is naturally good, and ſo wel-pleaſing unto God, the Author of Nature; yet if we conſider it morally in regard of its Vitioſitie, ſo it is infinitely diſpleaſing to God. This is as a Key to open the dore to a more ful ſolution to al objections againſt us: ſo that at preſent we need ſay no more than this, that our Hypotheſis is no more obnoxious to theſe aſperſions, than that of our Adverſaries. Is not the Divine Sanctitie as illuſtrious in Gods predetermining to the ſubſtrate mater of Sin, as if we held only with our Adverſaries an immediate previous concurſe thereto? Are not thoſe very Acts, which are morally evil as to the Sinner, both naturally and morally good as to God? Suppoſe he predetermine to the entitative act of ſin, yet muſt we thence neceſſarily conclude, that he predetermines men to ſin formally conſidered? Muſt not the ſinful qualities of al moral effects be imputed to the ſecond particular cauſe, and not to the firſt univerſal cauſe? It's true, the Sinner comes ſhort of the Divine Law, and therefore ſins, but doth God come ſhort of any Law? Has not his Wil the ſame Rectitude which his Nature is inveſted with, and therefore whatever he wils muſt be right and holy, even becauſe he wils it? The ſin which he governs, p. 202is it not only ſin in regard of the Creatures wil, not in regard of his wil? It is confeſt, that God and the Sinner concur to the ſame ſinful act materially conſidered; but yet is their Concurſe the ſame? Yea is there not morally an infinite diſtance between the one and the other? Doth Sin as to Gods Concurſe, include any more than a natural act, which is in regard of God and the conducibilitie it has to his glorie morally good? but doth it not, as to mans Concurſe, ſpeake moral vitioſitie? Again, what doth Gods permiſſion of ſin implie, but a natural or judiciary Negation of that Grace he is no way obliged to give? But doth not ſin as to the ſinner denote a moral privation or deficience of that rectitude which ought to be in his act? Is there any thing in the world purely, ſimply, and of it ſelf ſinful, without ſome ſubſtrate mater naturally good? What reaſon therefore can our Adverſaries allege, why God may not predetermine the wil to the ſaid ſubſtrate mater, without prejudice to his Sanctitie?

§. 3. We deſcend now to a third objection taken from theObject. 3. From Gods word. Word of God, both Preceptive and Promiſſive, which divine Predetermination of the wil to the ſubſtrate mater of ſin, doth, according to the Antitheſis of our Adverſaries, render uſeleſſe, impoſſible, yea colluſive and unſincere. For ſay they, Gods Precepts, Promiſes and Comminations, whereof mans Nature is capable, ſhould be al made Impertinences, through his conſtant overpowering thoſe that ſhould neglect them.

1. As to Gods Laws and Prohibitions they urge, That our …. Preceptive.Hypotheſis renders them altogether uſeleſſe, yea naturally and ſimply impoſſible. This they exaggerate with many fine words and rhetoric flouriſhes, which are the beſt armes they have to defend their declining cauſe with. But having God and Truth, though naked and ſimple, on our ſide, we no way dout but to ſtand our ground againſt al their fiery, or venimous darts. And in anſwer to the firſt part of their Objection from the Impoſſibilitie of divine Precepts and Prohibitions, we anſwer, (1) That our Adverſaries greatly pleaſe themſelves in their falſe ſophiſtic Ideas and Notions of what is poſſible, or impoſſible; which we have endeavoured to clear from that ambiguitie and confuſion, Chap. 1. §. 4. with endeavors to explicate what is poſſible and what impoſſible to corrupt Nature, as to divine Commands. (2) We are to know, that the Laws of God in their Second Edition were primarily intended to ſubſerve the ends of the Goſpel p. 203as to the heirs of Salvation, to whom they are by Grace in an Evangelic way made poſſible. The Law is ſaid to be given in and by the hands of the Mediator, i. e. to ſubſerve his ends, which principally regard the Elect. (3) Yet we grant, that the Law is alſo of great uſe even unto Reprobates, [1] In that it lays a great reſtraint on them, not only as to wicked actions, but alſo as to luſts in ſome meaſure, as Exod. 34. 24. The Autoritie and Majeſtie of Divine Precepts, backed with many ſevere Curſes, leaves a great awe and reſtraint ſometimes on the moſt debaucht ſpirits, and ſo keeps their luſts from open violences. [2] The Precepts are ſo far uſeful to Reprobates, albeit they have no power to obſerve them, in that they are thereby inſtructed, how much obedience is wel-pleaſing to God, and how ungrateful they are in not performing of it: whereby they are left without al Apologie or Excuſe. The Precept ſhews us what we ought to do, not what we can do: it is always imperative, albeit not always operative: and may not the Soverain Lord require of man the payment of his debts, although by reaſon of his profligate bankrupt humor he hath diſabled himſelf from the payment of them? What excuſe is it for the Sinner to ſay, it is impoſſible for him to obey the Precept, whenas the impoſſibilitie lies in his own wil, not in any force or defect on Gods part? Doth he not in that very moment, wherein he is predetermined by God to the entitative act of Sin, voluntarily eſpouſe and wil that act? And doth not this leave him without al ſhadow of Excuſe? Where can he loge the blame of his Sin but on his own crooked depraved wil, which electively and freely determines it ſelf to the Sin, in the ſame moment of time, though not of nature, that it is predetermined by God to the entitative act? (4) We affirme, that Gods certain Preſcience of Mens ſins, with the conditional Decree of Reprobation, Gods immediate previous Concurſe to the entitative act of ſin, and mans univerſal impotence to perform what is ſpiritually good, which are al granted by our Adverſaries, bring ſinners under as great impoſſibilitie of obeying Gods Commands, as abſolute Reprobation and predeterminative Concurſe to the mater of Sin aſſerted by us. This is wel demonſtrated by a judicious and awakened Author in his late Letter touching Gods Providence about ſinful Acts, &c. from p. 67. to 74. But becauſe he is a party, I ſhal mention only the Reſponſe of Davenant, Animadv. p. 341. As p. 204for Gods Law, which cannot be kept without ſupernatural Grace, we ſay, that men are as capable of any ſupernatural Grace, conſidered under the abſolute Decrees maintained by S. Auguſtine, and by the Church of England, as conſidered under the conditional Decrees of late framed by Arminius. And p. 418. he ſtrongly proves, That Divine eternal Preſcience of future Actions or Events infers as abſolute a neceſſitie of ſuch events and impoſſibilitie of the contrary, as the Decrees of abſolute Predeſtination and Reprobation do▪ of which hereafter, §. 8.

2. As for the later part of our Opponents Objection, From 2. From Gods Promiſſes and Invitations.the Promiſſes and Invitations of God, which are made uſeleſſe and colluſive by our ſuppoſed divine Predetermination to the ſubſtrate mater of Sin, we anſwer,

(1) That al Gods Promiſſes and evangelic Invitations, which(1) Al Promiſſes primarily intended for the Elect. are but branches of the Covenant of Grace, are primarily intended for the elect Heirs of Salvation, to whom they are many ways uſeful, notwithſtanding Divine Predetermination: For the bleſſed God promiſeth life and happineſſe on the condition of Repentance and Believing, not as if there were any potence or abilitie in corrupt nature, by its own free-wil, to accept of theſe offers, or performe the Condition on which the offers depend, but thereby convincing the Soul of its extreme impotence, he doth together with the offer and invitation made conveigh Grace into the elect Soul, for the inabling of it to performe the Condition: So that theſe general and conditional Promiſſes are in reference to the Elect, for whom they are primarily deſigned, operative of Grace, albeit as to others they are only exactive of dutie: whence the impoſſibilitie which attends corrupt Nature is taken off as to the Elect by Divine Grace.

(2) Neither are thoſe general evangelic Promiſſes and Invitations(2) The uſe of evangelic Promiſſes as to Reprobates. uſeleſſe as to Reprobates: for, [1] They declare the infallible and eſſential connexion which there is between the condition and the thing promiſed therein, namely, Life and Salvation. And to make this more clear, we are to remember, that both Logic and rectified Reaſon aſſures us, that a conditional enunciation doth not always note a poſſibilitie of the Antecedent, and Conſequent, but only their neceſſary connexion: that in al conditional Propoſitions, on which evangelic Exhortations and Invitations are founded, there cannot be ſuppoſed an indifferent and indeterminate poſſibilitie of the Antecedent and Conſequent, p. 205but only the connexion of the Antecedent with the Conſequent, is evident from that of our Lord, John 15 6. If a man abide not in me he is caſt forth, &c. Whence it is apparent, that a ſolid and ſerious Invitation unto Sinners may be built on a Condition in ſome mode impoſſible: The God of al grace has, by his evangelic Conſtitution and Covenant, eſtabliſhed an inviolable connexion between Faith and Salvation, ſo that this Propoſition is infallibly true, If thou believeſt, thou ſhalt be ſaved: and the holy God has given his Miniſters Commiſſion to preach it to al Mankind, neither is there the leaſt colluſion or fraudulent intention on Gods part, albeit he doth predetermine the Moſt of men to the ſubſtrate mater of Unbelief: for the ſinceritie of Gods intention appears in the realitie of the offer, which conſiſtes in the infallible connexion of the Conſequent with the Antecedent, grounded on the evangelic Pactum or Ordination, as Davenant wel obſerves, Animadverſ. on Gods Love, p. 377. where he ſhews, That the Decree of God, permitting Pharaoh to abuſe the gifts of God to his own deſtruction, was not contrary unto the end or uſe whereunto thoſe gifts and actions of God had a fitting ordination in their own nature. So p. 387, 388. he demonſtrates, That Divine eternal Decrees, whereupon may infallibly be inferred the abuſe of Grace temporally offered, do not croſſe the end for which ſuch Grace is adminiſtred to perſons not elected. And he gives this reaſon for it, p. 352. God meaning muſt be always interpreted according to the known nature of the Means, and not according to the unknown Wil of God concerning the infallible event or ſucceſſe of the Means. Gods meaning, when he offers any Grace unto men, is that they ſhould performe ſuch actions whereunto ſuch grace conduceth: and his meaning when he promiſeth glory unto any man, if he believe and perſevere, is truely to performe it if he ſo do. But it is not always Gods abſolute wil to cauſe men to uſe his Grace to their own good.—If the Remonſtrants wil have nothing termed Gods meaning but his abſolute Wil, in their opinion as wel as in ours it wil follow, that God had no meaning to give Cain or Judas ſaving Grace or Glorie. Laſtly, p. 392, 393, 394. he proves, That God doth by his wil of Approbation and Complacence unfeignedly wil what he commands and exhorts men to, albeit he decree the contrary event. Hence, [2] Theſe general Promiſſes and Invitations have this uſe alſo as to Reprobates, that it leaves p. 206them without the leaſt ſhadow of pretence or Excuſe for their unbelief: for if God doth by ſuch Promiſſes and Invitations declare his real intention to ſave men if they believe, and withal an expectation that they accept his offers, yea, his complacence in ſuch an acceptation in order to life, with a proviſion of al means neceſſary thereto, what excuſe can men have for unbelief? Wil they ſay, that Gods predetermining men to the entitative act of unbelief contradicts ſuch a real intention? Take the Replie of Davenant, Animadv. p. 271. We anſwer, that God is no otherwiſe ſaid to intend outward events, than by providing orderly means for the producing ſuch events. Non-election provideth no means of making men ſin, and therefore it includeth no intention of God to make men ſin, though it include a previſion of ſinful Events, and a Decree to permit them, &c.

(3) The Hypotheſis of our Adverſaries in granting Predetermination(3) The Antitheſis of Antipredeterminants deſtroyeth the uſe of Promiſſes, &c. as much as our Hypotheſis. to what is good, and Divine Preſcience of ſinful acts, doth as much diſpirit and deſtroy the uſe of Divine Promiſſes and Invitations as ours. For, [1] In that they aſſert none can performe the condition required, and ſo embrace the evangelic offer made, without efficacious predeterminative grace, do they not leave al Reprobates under as great an impoſſibilitie of Believing as we do? Are not al offers, for want of this predeterminative Grace, altogether uſeleſſe to them, for whom it never was intended? [2] So alſo as to Gods certain Preſcience of their Sins, did not God, according to their Conceſſions, certainly foreknow, that they would never, yea never could accept of the offers made to them, without predeterminative Grace, which he decreed never to give them? Hence doth not this certain Preſcience infer as natural and abſolute impoſſibilitie, as our predeterminative Concurſe to the entitative act of Sin? This is wel argued by Davenant, Animadv. p. 242. His [Hoard's] nibbling at the Synod of Dort, and charging them with mantaining a fatal Decree, is to little purpoſe. If he cal that fatal, which is certain and immutable, we are not afraid to affirm, that al Gods eternal Decrees are certain and immutable; and that very eternal Decree of Reprobation, which he imagines to follow upon the foreſight of mens final impenitence, is as abſolute and immutable, and in this ſenſe as fatal as that which we defend. Thus alſo p. 332. The Remonſtrants (we adde alſo the New p. 207Methodiſts) dare not promiſe Salvation to any perſons reprobated, according to their decree founded upon the previſion of their final Infidelitie and Impenitence, but under theſe Conditions, Si crediderint & poenituerint, if they ſhal believe and repent: we aſſure them of Salvation under the ſame conditions, notwithſtanding the abſolute Decree of their Non-election, we adde, and Gods Predetermination to the entitative act of Sin.

(4) To put a period to the vain Cavils of our Adverſaries,4. What Power we allow to Reprobates. we grant, that even Reprobates, notwithſtanding Gods abſolute Reprobation, and Predetermination unto the entitative act of ſin, ſtil retain a remote radical power and Indifference of wil to embrace the good things offered in the Goſpel. For neither doth the natural corruption of the wil, nor yet Divine Predetermination to the ſubſtrate mater of ſin take away the radical Indifference or Flexibilitie of the Wil, or the paſſive, natural remote power it is naturally inveſted with, as a rational elective facultie, to embrace whatever good, whether natural or ſpiritual, that is abſolutely or conditionally tendered to it: and this ſufficeth to ground divine Exhortations and Invitations on; for the Propoſitions and Offers being made to rational Creatures, they might, were they but willing, embrace the things that belong to their peace tendered to them; but here lies the Plague of their hearts, Joh. 5. 40. They wil not, &c. So that the bleſſed God making ſuch gracious offers, ſo ſuitable to the needs of a rational creature, and having given him a remote, paſſive, natural power of underſtanding and wil ſuited thereto, doth not this ſuffice to leave him without al excuſe for his wilful Impenitence and Infidelitie, notwithſtanding the predeterminative Concurſe of God to the entitative act of his Sin? And that this is the Doctrine of the Calviniſts and Church of England, we are aſſured by Davenant, Animadv. p. 257: They confeſſe, that under the Evangelical Covenant, Si credideris, ſalvus eris, If thou believe, thou ſhalt be ſaved, every man hath a true claim to Eternal Life: They confeſſe, that whereſoever is Chriſts Church, there is ſuch a ſufficient adminiſtration of Grace as would have ſaved the Non-elect, had they not oppoſed a malignant voluntary act of their own wil againſt the motions and operations of Divine Grace; according to thoſe words of our Saviour, Joh. 3. 17. & 12. 47, 48. & Act. 13. 46. Calvin ſaith as much, in p. 208Joh. 3. Mundi nomen iterum iterum que repetit, ne quis omnino arceri ſe putet, modò fidei viam teneat. He therefore, as wel as the Remonſtrants, grants a conditional poſſibilitie of Grace and Salvation to al men; but we ſay, the non-elect are always permitted to fail in the performance of the condition. And doth not this ſufficiently vindicate the ſinceritie of God in al his Evangelic promiſſes, invitations, and tenders of grace and happineſſe, yea every way as much as the new Method of our Adverſaries, who grant certain preſcience and predetermination to what is good?

§. 4. Another Objection urged by our Opponents againſt predeterminationObject. 4. From the overthrow of Religion. to the ſubſtrate mater of ſin, is, that is overthrows al Religion, and makes mens faculties, whereby they are capable of moral government, remiſſe, ſluggiſh, uſeleſſe and vain; yea they ſtick not to avouch, that this our Hypotheſis opens the dore to Familiſme, Enthuſiaſme, and the moſt prodigioſe impieties and enormities: This they aggravate with many rhetoric aggravations. Anſwer, This Objection is grounded on the ſame falſe Hypotheſis with the precedent, namely, that the wil predetermined by God is moved only by an inward violent impulſe, which makes al Gods precepts, promiſſes, and comminations mere impertinencies, and mens faculties uſeleſſe and vain. What a groſſe Sophiſme this is, and how much the Hypotheſis of our Adverſaries fals under the force of it, as wel as ours, we have already, in what precedes, ſufficiently demonſtrated, and ſhal do again in what follows. We ſhal only adde at preſent an excellent demonſtration and ſolution given by judicious Davenant, Animadv. pag. 418. For the ſecond branch of this reaſon, whereby he goeth about to prove that abſolute predeſtination and reprobation deſtroy both Hope and Fear; it is grounded upon an error confuted and rejected by the commun conſent of al Divines, namely that the eternal Decrees of God concerning future events make the contrary events impoſſible, do make the temporal and immediate Agents to do al they do out of an abſolute neceſſitie, having no libertie in modo agendi to abſtain from ſo doing, or to do the contrary. Were this true, the Remonſtrants, who acknowlege eternal and abſolute Decrees, upon a preſuppoſal of an eternal abſolute preſcience, ſhould by their Doctrine deſtroy hope and fear (the nerves of Religion) as wel as we. But more of this in anſwer to the next Objection.

§. 5. The laſt Objection we ſhal mention, (which is indeed firſtObject. 5. From the libertie of the Wil. in order of nature) is, that our Hypotheſis overthrows the libertie of p. 209the wil, introduceth a fatal neceſſitie, and is the darling of Hobbes, with the like unjuſt and ſcandalous reproches. This is much urged by Strangius, Baronius, and ſome of name among our ſelves. Anſwer, (1) In this I confeſſe the ſpirits and principal forces ofThe injuſtice of the New Methodiſts in urging this objection, and its inconſiſtence with their own ſentiments. al their Objections centre, and that which the Defendents of efficacious concurſe have been in al Ages urged with by the Pelagians and Patrones of free wil. Thus Auguſtin was ever and anon upbraided by the Pelagians with a deſigne to introduce a fatal neceſſitie: the like the Synod of Dort has been reproched with by the Arminians: and now, becauſe the name of Hobbes ſounds very harſh in Chriſtians ears, therefore that is faſtened on us. But this is no new method, but long ſince invented by the Accuſer of the Brethren, for the oppreſſing of this ſuffering truth. (2) What the true Idea and notion of Libertie includes, and thence how little our Hypotheſis doth infringe the ſame, we have ſufficiently demonſtrated in the explication of the libertie of the wil, Chap. 1. §. 3. (3) We anſwer with Bradwardine, lib. 3. cap. 29. pag. 739. that God violently impels no man to ſin, albeit he ſpontaneouſly impels or draws the wil voluntarily to the ſubſtance of that act which has ſin annexed to it; of which ſee what precedes Chap. 4. §. 2. (4) Our Adverſaries ſeem herein very unjuſt, in that they faſten their falſe Ideas of predeterminative concurſe and libertie on us, and ſo make us to hold what follows upon their ſentiments. For they placing the wils libertie in an actual indifference and indetermination; as alſo making al predeterminative concurſe to acte by violent impulſes on the wil, which being ſo impelled remains no longer free, but is acted as a machine, &c. it's no wonder, if from ſuch falſe principes their forged conſequence and concluſion follows naturally. Thus Strangius, lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 243. makes Gods predetermination to the entitative act of ſin, to be an impulſion to ſin. The like is urged by one and another Divine of name among us, who wil allow no predetermination to the entitative act of ſin, but what is violent impulſion. It's true Bradwardine, lib. 9. cap. 29. pag. 739. uſeth the word impel for Gods predetermining concurſe, and the like Twiſſe; but then they limit it to ſuch a ſpontaneous voluntary impulſion, as is no way prejudicial to the wils libertie: But our Adverſaries make al predeterminative concurſe, even in the ſupernatural acts of Grace, to be by violent impulſes, ſuch as leave the wil no more power to acte in a contrary way, than a mere Machine, which is impelled p. 210by a vis impreſſa, a force impreſſed from ſome extrinſec efficient: for thus they expreſſe themſelves, that to be predetermined even in the ſupernatural acts of Grace, is to be conſtantly managed as mere Machines that know not their own uſe. I muſt confeſs had we ſuch Ideas of predeterminative concurſe, it would neceſſarily follow, that the human wil is thereby diveſted of al its libertie; neither can I ſee how our Adverſaries wil be ever able to defend themſelves againſt the Pelagians and Arminians on their principes, which ſuppoſe al predetermination to be a violent impulſion like that of Machines. I ever diſliked the Carteſian Hypotheſis, which makes the ſouls of Brutes to be but Machines; but to make the human ſoul and wil of man to be but a Machine in the reception of predeterminative grace or concurſe introduceth that fatal neceſſitie the darling of Hobbes, which is injuſtly fathered on us. We ſay, that predeterminative concurſe is as to its principe and mode of working the ſame as to natural and ſupernatural acts; neither doth it in the one or t'other at al infringe the libertie of the wil, but fortifie and confirme the ſame, in that it workes ſweetly according to the indigence of the wil. And this I ſhal with much confidence aſſert, that we can with as much reaſon defend the conciliation of human libertie with Divine predetermination of the wil to the ſubſtrate mater of ſin, as our Adverſaries the New Methodiſts can defend the conciliation of human libertie with Divine predetermination to the ſupernatural acts of Grace: for albeit the termes produced be different, the one a ſupernatural, the other only natural good; yet predetermination as to its principe the Divine wil, as alſo as to its manner of working, which is agreable to the condition and libertie of the wil, admits no difference. And this Baronius was ſufficiently apprehenſive of, and therefore denied al predetermination; and I no way dout but that in the iſſue our Adverſaries wil be forced to denie al predetermination, or to grant us what we contend for as to the ſubſtrate mater of ſin. Yea, (5) we ſhal yet aſcend a degree higher and affirme, That Gods certain preſcience of ſin, which our Adverſaries generally allow, infers as much a neceſſitie on the wil, as predeterminative concurſe to the entitative act of ſin. This we have ſufficiently demonſtrated, Chap. 5. §. 2. and therefore ſhal here only ſuperadde an excellent demonſtration of judicious Davenant, Animadv. pag. 418, 419. For the Divine eternal preſcience of future actions or events inferreth as abſolute a certaintie, immutabilitie, p. 211neceſſitie of ſuch events, as the Decrees of abſolute Predeſtination and Reprobation do; (we may adde, by a paritie of reaſon, predetermination which is adequate to abſolute Decrees) And therefore the Schole-men are as much troubled in anſwering the Queſtion, Whether the Divine preſcience, or providence brings a neceſſitie to the things foreknowen? as in the other, Whether Divine predeſtination impoſeth a neceſſitie on things? And the Philoſophers, who never dreamed of Predeſtination or Reprobation, were yet much troubled to ſhew, how any thing could be fortuitous or contingent, admitting an eternal and infallible preſcience of al future events in God—So that if this Author, or any other Remonſtrant, wil but take the pains to conſider, how the Schole-Divines clear the eternal and infallible preſcience, wil, and providence of God from impoſing fatal neceſſitie upon events foreſeen, willed, provided, he may with the ſame facilitie know how to clear the eternal abſolute Decrees of Predeſtination and Reprobation from impoſing on mens actions any fatal irreſiſtible neceſſitie. As Gods abſolute preſcience doth not take away the poſſibilitie of the contrary action or event, no more doth his abſolute Decree. Thus our judicious Davenant, in vindication of the abſolute Decree of Reprobation, which holds moſt true alſo of Divine predetermination as to the ſubſtrate mater of ſin: for according to the confeſſion of our Adverſaries, Strangius and others, abſolute Reprobation neceſſarily infers Divine predetermination as to the entitative act of ſin.