The Riches of Gods Love, Part 2 · Section 7
Sect: 7.
There are two things ſay they in every ill act. Firſt, the materiall part which is the ſubſtance of the action. M. Maſon's Addit. p. 34. 35.Secondly, the formall part which is the evill or obliquitie of it. God is the Authour of the action it ſelfe, but not of the obliquitie and evill that cleaveth to it, as he that cauſeth a lame horſe to goe, is the cauſe of his going, but not of his lame going. And therefore it followeth not from their opinion that God is the Authour of ſinne. Firſt, all ſinnes receive not this diſtinction, becauſe of many ſins, the acts themſelves are ſinfull; as of the eating of the forbidden fruit, and Saul's ſparing of Agag, and the fat beaſts of the Amalekites. Secondly, It is not true that they make the decree of God only of actions, & not of their aberrations. For they make it to be the cauſe of all thoſe meanes that lead to damnation and therefore of ſinfull actions, as ſinfull, and not as bare actions. For actions deſerve damnation, not as actions but as trangreſſions of Gods law. 3. To this ſimile I ſay that the Rider or Maſter that ſhall reſolve firſt to flea his horſe, or knock him on the head, and then to make him lame, that for his halting, he may kill him, is undoubtedly the cauſe of his halting: And ſo God if he determine to caſt men into hell, and then to bring them into a ſtate of ſinne, that for their ſinnes he may bring them to ruine, we cannot conceive him to be leſſe then the Authour, as well of their ſins, as of thoſe actions to which they doe inſeperably adhere, and that out of Gods intention to deſtroy them.
This diſtinction of that which is materiall and that which is formall in ſinne is commonly uſed by Aquinas 1. ſecun: q: 71. art: 6, in corp: Auguſtinus in definitione peccati poſuit duo, Anſwer.Unum quod pertinet ad ſubſtantiam actûs humani, quod eſt quaſi materiale in peccato; cum dicit dictum vel factum vel concupitum; Aliud autem quod pertinet ad rationem mali quod eſt quaſi formale in peccato cum dixit contra legem aeternam. So then the ſubſtance of the act is the materiall part in ſinne; And the oppoſition of this act to the law of God is the formall part of it, both according to Aquinas; and according to Auſtin alſo. And q: 75. art: 1. corp. He defineth ſinne to be Actus inordinatus, an inordinate act, and diſtinguiſheth the act from the inordination of it. q: 79. art: 2. He propoſeth the queſtion, whether the act of ſin be from God? and in the concluſion reſolves it thus, Cum actus peccati ſit ens, neceſſariò eſt à Deo, Conſidering that the act of ſinne is a thing having being, neceſſarily it is of God. And in the body of the Article, Dicendum quod actus peccati & eſt ens, & eſt actus, & ex utro que habet quod ſit à Deo; The reſolution is that the act of ſinne, is both a thing that hath being, and an act, and in each condition it hath, that it is of God. And he proves this both by authority and by reaſon. As for the defect of this act, that non reducitur in Deum tanquam in cauſam, ſed in liberum arbitrium, that is not charged upon God as the cauſe thereof, but on a man's free will. And he illuſtrates it thus, Sicut defectus claudicationis reducitur in tibiam curvam ſicut in cauſam, non autem in virtutem motivam à quâ tamen cauſatur quicquid eſt motionis in claudicatione. Like as the defect called halting is charged upon a crooked legge as the cauſe thereof, and not upon the motive faculty, though from it proceeds all the motion that is found in the halting: Neither did I ever read any School. Divine that contradicted this diſtinction. Mr. Maſon doth without alleadging any authority for it. Yet he might have alleadged Arminius oppoſing after this manner, though before him, that I know, not any.
1. We ſay not only of many ſins, but of every ſinne, which hath any act therein, that the Acts themſelves are ſinfull, becauſe every ſuch ſinne, being actuall, it is Actus cum defectu, an act with a defect, that is an act defective. As Aquinas ſpeakes in the place immediatly before alleadged, and this defect is in reſpect of the law of God. As Auſtin defineth ſinne to be, dictum, factum, concupitum contra legem Dei, A thought, word, or deed againſt the law of God. And this is enough I thinke to denominate it ſinfull But the argument uſed by this Authour is the very ſame which was formerly uſed by Arminius, and whereunto I have anſwered; lib. 2. de permiſſ. Sect: 21, and that after this manner. Be it ſo that the act it ſelfe is forbidden, and conſequently the act it ſelfe is inordinate; but what will it therefore follow that theſe two are not to be diſtinguiſhed, to wit, the act, and the inordination of it? a ſtrange liberty of diſputing. A man's hand is ſometimes inordinate, as being monſtrous, either having too much, or too little; as either wanting five fingers, or having more then five: what therefore ſhall it not be lawfull for us to diſtinguiſh between the hand and the monſtroſity of the hand? 2. The wall it ſelfe is white; what therefore ſhall we not diſtinguiſh between the wall, and the white colour of it? A man himſelfe is vertuous and vicious; ſhall this hinder us from due diſtinguiſhing between the man and his morall condition, whether vertuous or vicious; Many other arguments are repreſented by Arminius which this Authour toucheth not; yet in the place forementioned I have ſhaken them all to peeces, ſuch is the rotten condition of them. And over & above I have proved, not that in every ſin the act is to be diſtinguiſhed from the inordination of it; but that in every ſin of commiſſion there is place for this diſtinction, and that after this manner. Every ſinne of commiſſion, is an act inordinate; but in every inordinate act we are to diſtinguiſh between the act it ſelfe, and the inordination of it. And that the act and the inordination of it are two, I prove thus. That if they are one and the ſame then we may well ſay that the act is an inordination; but this is moſt falſe. For nothing can be affirmed or predicated of the ſame thing both in the abſtract, and concrete (God himſelfe excepted) As for example you may ſay of a wall, that it is white, you cannot ſay of it that it is whitenes. For the wall is in the predicament of ſubſtance, but whitenes being a colour is in the predicament of quality. 2. Againe an inordination is a privation of order. But no act is formally a privation, and conſequently neither can it be formally an inordination. 3. An entitie poſitive, & a terme privative cannot be one and the ſame formally, but two diſtinct notions. Now every act is a poſitive thing, but inordination is a mere privation. 4. Laſtly God is confeſſed by all to be the cauſe of the act, but if the act be all one with the inordination, he ſhould be the cauſe not of the act only, but of the inordination, that is of the ſinfullnes alſo.
2. Obſerve his ſhifting carriage. It is our Tenet that God is the Authour of the action it ſelfe, but not of the obliquity: and himſelfe hath expreſly acknowledged this to be our tenet in the beginning of this Section Now whereas he makes ſhew here of proving that we make God the Authour not of the action only, but of the obliquity alſo, he performes no ſuch matter; but only this, that we make the object of God's decree, not the action only, but the aberration alſo; but in all this there is no contradiction unto us; We willingly grant that in as much as God permits ſinne, he will have ſinne come to paſſe, by his permiſſion, every good thing that comes to paſſe, he will have it come to paſſe by his being the Authour of it and effecting it; the evill that comes to paſſe, he will have come to paſſe alſo, not by his being the Authour of it and effecting it, but only by his permitting of it. So that ſtill that of Auſtin holds good. Non aliquid fit niſi omnipotens fieri velit. Not any thing comes to paſſe unleſſe God will have it come to paſſe. And according to the eleaventh article of religion eſtabliſhed in the Church of Ireland, God from all eternity did by his unchangeable counſell ordaine whatſoever in time ſhall come to paſſe; and according to the expreſſe word of God teſtifiing that the tenne Kings in giving their Kingdomes did herein doe the will of God. And that the horrible outrages committed upon the perſon of Rev: 17. 17.the holy Son of God by Herod. Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and people of Iſrael were by the hand and counſell of God before determined to be done We ſay ſinfull courſes (not hand over head) but unrepented of, lead unto damnation, but not as meanes. For they are neither man's meanes; for if they were, then the end alſo whereunto they tend, ſhould be intended by him; Neither are they any meanes of God: For all meanes are the workes of him that intends the end; So is not the ſinne of man the worke of God, but the permiſſion of ſinne is his worke: And this is the meanes which he intends thereby to bring to paſſe his intended end, which yet on the part of Reprobates is not the damnation of them, but the manifeſtation of his glory in the way of vindicative juſtice, which in Scripture phraſe is called the Declaration of his wrath. For God made all things for himſelfe, even the wicked againſt the day of evill. And to this end he doth not only permit them both to ſinne, and to Ro. 9. 23. Prov: 16. 4.perſevere therein without repentance, but alſo to damne them for their ſinne. And this worke of God namely the permiſſion of ſinne is as requiſite for the manifeſtation of his mercy on the part of his Elect, as for the Declaration of his wrath, on the part of reprobates. Yet who was ever found ſo abſurd as to ſay that we make the ſinfull actions of men to be the meanes which God uſeth to bring about the ſalvation of his Elect. So little cauſe have we to make uſe of this diſtinction as the action it ſelfe and the ſinfullneſſe thereof, to ſhew in what ſenſe it is a meanes which God uſeth whereby to bring about the damnation of man. For we utterly deny ſinne to be any ſuch meanes of God, but the permiſſion thereof only is the meanes whereby to bring about not their damnation, as this Authour ſuggeſteth, but the meanes (together with the damnation for ſinne) whereby he bringeth to paſſe the declaration of his juſt wrath. But men of this Authours ſpirit; unleſſe they be ſuffered to calumniate at pleaſure; and corrupt their oppoſites Tenet at pleaſure, they can ſay juſt nothing. It is true actions deſerve damnation only as they are tranſgreſſions of God's law, but we deny that theſe tranſgreſſions are God's meanes, but only the permiſſion of them is his meanes; and by permitting theſe tranſgreſſions, as alſo by damning for them, he brings to paſſe his glorious end, to wit, the declaration of his juſt wrath. 3ly, It is moſt untrue that God brings any man into a ſtate of ſinne; He brings himſelfe into it moſt freely, God having no other hand in the ſinne but as permitting it, that is as not preſerving from it. Indeed if he did bring men into ſinne, and they not rather bring themſelves thereinto, he were the Authour of it. But it is well knowne that ſinne cannot tranſcend the region of acts naturall. All acts ſupernaturall muſt needs be the worke of grace, and truly good; But every ſinfull act is merely naturall, never ſupernaturall. Now never any of our Divines denyed a man liberty in his greateſt corruption, unto acts naturall; the Devill himſelfe hath liberty thus farre. It is true originall ſinne is brought upon all by the ſinne of Adam; For hereby the fountaine of humane nature became corrupted; but in this very ſin of Adam we had an hand, if there be any truth in Scripture which teſtifies that, In Adā we all have ſinned. This is the doctrin which the Author ſpights, though he be more wiſe then to publiſh to the world his ſpleen againſt it: And I have Ro. 5. 12.ſeen under his hand where he denies originall ſinne to be veri nominis pecatum, ſinne truly ſo called And albeit M. Hoord makes a flouriſh in ſaying that God might juſtly damne all man-kind for the ſinne of Adam; and that alſo was this Authour's doctrine in the lectures which he read at Magdalen Hall; yet I have good cauſe to doubt whether this be his opinion now, and not rather the ſame with Pelagius his opinion, ſaving the difference which Pelagius did put between not entering into the Kingdome of heaven and damnation. As for all other ſins which we call actuall, they are, as I ſaid, naturall only, and not ſupernaturall; and therefore no man wants liberty, as to doe them, ſo to abſtaine from them; Only he wants a morall and Spirituall liberty to abſtaine from them in a gracious manner, according to that of Aquinas. Licet aliquis non poſſit gratiam adipiſci qui reprobatur à Deo, tamen quod in hoc peccatum vel illud labatur, ex ejus libero arbitrio contingit. Thom: 1: p. q: 23. art. 7. ad tertiū.Though a man who is reprobated of God cannot obtaine grace, yet that he falleth into this or that ſinne it comes to paſſe of his own free will. It is true alſo even in God's providence concerning acts naturall, there is a great myſtery. For as God foretold David that, his neighbour ſhould 2 Sam: 12. 11. 12.lye with his wives; and though he ſinned ſecretly, yet the Lord would doe this openly. So he foretold that, upon that Altar which Ieroboam erected, a child that ſhould be borne of the houſe 1 Kin: 13. 2. Eſ: 45. 13. Ezra: 1, 2 King: 23. 16. 2 Sam: 16. 22.of David, Ioſiah by name, ſhould burne the Prophets bones. And that Cyrus alſo ſhould build him a Citty and let goe his captives: Yet who doubts, but that Cyrus did freely deliver the Jewes out of Babylon? and Ioſiah did as freely burne the Prophets bones upon the alter in Bethel, as ever they did action in their lives? So Abſalom did as freely defile his Fathers Concubines. Then againe we deny that the damnation of any man is the end that God intends, but the manifeſtation of his own glory. And therfore though he hath made the wicked againſt the day of evill; yet both that, and all things he hath made for himſelfe. And to this tends both the permiſſion of ſinne, and the damnation of Reprobates for their Prov: 16. 4.ſin; And in no moment of nature, are either of theſe intended before the other, both being joyntly meanes for the procuring of another end. And if permiſſion of ſinne were firſt in intention with God, and then damnation as theſe men would have it, it followeth evidently by the moſt generally received rules of Schooles that permiſſion of ſinne ſhould be laſt in execution, that is men ſhould firſt be damned, and afterwards permitted to fall into ſinne. This is the iſſue of theſe men's Orthodoxy and accurate Divinity.