The Riches of Gods Love, Part 56 – Part 58
IEANES.
THis only prooves, what will eaſily be granted, that Chriſt prayed not for all his perſecutors, with a prayer proceeding from an abſolute and effectuall will. But there is one thing which I ſhall not diſſemble, but freely acquaint the Reader with; And it is, that many great Scholers both Papiſts and Proteſtants doe deny, that the propoſall, expreſſion, or repreſentation of a conditionll and uneffectuall will or deſire, is properly a prayer: I ſhall alleadge but two; the firſt ſhall be a Papiſt, to wit, Becanus Sum. Theol. Tom. 5. cap. 17. q. 3. Licet in Chriſto (ſaith he) diſtingui debeat duplex voluntas; una efficax, altera inefficax: non tamen diſtingui debet duplex oratio, una procedens ex efficaci voluntate, altera ex inefficaci. Nam oratio ſi vere oratio est, ſemper procedit ex abſoluta & efficaci voluntate orantis, nunquam ex inefficaci. Qui enim petit aliquid fieri, efficaciter illud deſiderat, & ideo adhibet orationem, tanquam medium quoddam ad obtinendum id, quod petit; hinc ſolet dici, orationem natura ſua utilem eſſe ad impetrandum. Unde ſic concludo: qui vult aliquid voluntate inefficaci nullum medium adhibet ad illud obtinendum; quia ſi adhiberet aliquod medium, jam vellet illud voluntate efficaci: at qui orat, adhibet aliquod medium ad obtinendum, nempe ipſam orationem: ergo qui orat, non vult voluntate inefficaci, ſed tantum efficaci. Although in Chriſt there ought to be diſtinguiſhed a two-fold will, one effectuall, another uneffectuall; yet notwithſtanding, prayer ought not in the like manner to be diſtinguiſhed: for there are not two ſorts or kinds of Prayer, one proceeding from an effectuall, the other from an uneffectuall will; for prayer, if it be truly prayer, alwaies proceedeth from an abſolute and effectuall, and never from an uneffectuall will of the party praying: For he that petitioneth for the doing of any thing, doth effectually deſire it, and therefore uſeth Prayer, as a meanes for the obtaining of that which he requeſts: Hence it is wont to be ſaid, that Prayer is in its own nature uſefull or profitable for obtaining or procuring. Whence I conclude thus; He who willeth any thing with an uneffectuall will, applyeth or uſeth no meanes for the procurement thereof; becauſe if he ſhould make uſe of any meanes to procure it, he ſhould will it with an effectuall will: but he who prayeth, makes uſe of a meanes for the obtaining of what he Praye's for, to wit, Prayer it ſelfe: therefore he who Prayeth, willeth that he prayes for, only with an effectuall, and not with an uneffectuall will. He goes on in the confirmation of this opinion. Haec ſententia est probabilior: pro quâ nota, aliud eſſe orare; aliud, ſimplex ſeu inefficax deſiderium proponere: quod facile in nobis ostendi & explicari potest. Nam nostra oratio debet eſſe conjuncta cum certâ ſpe ſeu fiduciâ conſequendi id quod petimus. Iacobi 1. 6. poſtulet autem in fide, nihil haeſitans. Et Math. 21. 22. Omnia quaecunque petieritis in oratione credentes, accipietis. Quando autem proponimus ſeu manifeſtamus alteri ſimplex ſeu inefficax deſiderium noſtrum, non facimus id cum certâ ſpe, ſeu fiducia conſequendi illud, ſed potius cum contrario affectu: ut ſi dicam,
O mihi praeteritos referat ſi Jupiter annos.
This opinion is the more probable, for the opening of which we muſt marke, that it is one thing to pray, another thing to propound a ſimple or uneffectuall deſire; which may eaſily be ſhewen and explained in our ſelves; for our Prayer ought to be conjoyned with a certain hope or aſſurance of obtaining that which wee pray for. Iam. 1. 6. Let him aske in faith nothing wavering or doubting. Math. 21. 22. And all things whatſoever ye ſhall aske in prayer believing, ye ſhall receive. But when we propound or manifeſt a bare, ſimple, uneffectuall deſire, we doe not doe it with a certain confidence of obtaining what is ſo deſired, but rather with aſſurance of the contrary.
A ſeond teſtimony ſhall be taken out of Doctor Ames, an acute and learned Proteſtant. Coron. art. 5. c. 5. Juxta ſententiam Arminii &c. nulla propria est oratio, quae non ſit abſoluta: quae etiam ſententia non eſt temerè damnanda, cum inniti videatur rationibus non contemnendis; praeſertim illà, quae deducitur ab orationis natura: Oratio enim est ſubmiſſa repraeſentatio voluntatis noſtrae apud Deum ut ab ipſo perficiatur. Explicatio velleitatis, quâ quid vellemus, ſi aliud non obſiſteret, non est oratio proprie dicta. jam vero nihil volumus proprie, quod non abſolute volumus; atque adeo nil petimus quod non abſolute petimus, Quamvis in diſpoſitione precantium conditionis ratio virtualiter ſaepe contineatur. Petimus quidem nonnunquam, ut unum fiat ſi alterum contingat; cujus quidem conſequentis rei futuritio ut conditionata ſit rogamus: Sed ipſa tamen petitio est abſoluta, quoniam abſolute petimus, ut poſito uno, ponatur & alterum.
According to the opinion of Arminius, there is no proper prayer, but what is abſolute; which opinion is not raſhly to be condemned; ſeeing it ſeems to be grounded upon conſiderable reaſons, eſpecially that which is drawn from the nature of prayer: for prayer is a ſubmiſſe and lowly repreſentation of our wills before God, to the end, it may be performed by him. The unfolding of a velleity, whereby we would will a thing if ſomething did not hinder, is not prayer properly ſo called: But now we will nothing properly, which we doe not abſolutely will; and therefore we pray for nothing properly, which we doe not abſolutely petition for, although the nature of a condition be often virtually contained in the diſpoſition of the parties praying, who may be ready to ſubmit their wills unto Gods. Indeed we ſometimes pray that one thing may be done, if another thing come to paſſe; and here we pray, that the futurition of the following thing be conditionall, but the prayer it ſelfe is abſolute, becauſe we pray abſolutely that one thing doe exiſt upon the poſiture or exiſtence of another. If this which theſe men ſay be true, then Chriſt prayed for the juſtification of all his crucifiers, as a private man, only improperly, and not in the proper and strict acception of Prayer; for which improper notion of the word, we have warrant from Scripture, when Chriſt ſaid, Father, if it be poſſible, let this cup paſſe from me, Non oravit (ſaith Becanus) ſed ſimplex naturae deſiderium propoſuit: He did not pray but propound the ſimple, bare, and naked deſire of his nature: but though this his expreſſion of his naturall deſire and love of life, be not a prayer in regard of either a criticall or Phyloſophicall uſe of the Word, yet you ſee, tis agreeable enough unto the language of the holy Ghoſt in ſcripture, to inlarge the ſignification of the Word ſo farre, as to apply it thereunto: for Mathew ſaies expreſly that he prayed. Math. 26. 39, 42.
But here for mine owne part, I muſt freely profeſſe that I better like Aquinas his interpretation of the place; that Chriſt prayed not for all his Crucifyers, but only for thoſe of them, that were predeſtinate unto the obtaining of eternall life, by and through him.
And of this prayer what a fruitfull and plentifull Harveſt he reaped, you may read in the 2, 3, and 4. Chapters of the Hiſtory of the Acts of the Apoſtles. There you ſhall read, that the Lord daily added to the Church ſuch as ſhould be ſaved; at one time three Thouſand, and another time five thouſand; of whom a great and conſiderable number denyed the Holy one and the juſt, and deſired a murtherer to be granted to them, and crucified and killed the Prince of life. Acts 2. 36. Acts 3. 14, 15. Rivet on Pſal. 2. quotes a teſtimony of Auſtin favouring this gloſſe: videbat quoſdam ſuos, inter multos alienos: illis jam petebat veniam, a quibus accipiebat injuriam.
In making good this to be the ſenſe and meaning of the place, I ſhall proceed by degrees: proving firſt, that it cannot be gathered out of the Text, that Chriſt prayed univerſally for all that crucified him.
Secondly, That the contrary may be cleared from the Text, both conſidered in it ſelfe, and compared with other places of Scripture, as alſo by reaſon.
Thirdly, That thoſe of his perſecutors for whom he prayed were ſuch as belonged unto the election of grace.
Firſt, All the Logick in the World, though racked never ſo much, cannot inferre out of the Text, that Chriſt prayed univerſally for the pardon of all his Crucifyers: for out of an indefinite terme, a univerſall cannot be concluded, ſaith our Author, in defence of Moulin his denyall that Chriſt prayed for all without exception. Vindic. l. 1. part. 2. Digreſ. 7. p. 136.
Secondly, That Chriſt prayed not for all his Crucifiers without exception, may be cleared from the Text, both conſidered in it ſelfe, and compared with other places of Scripture, as alſo by reaſon.
Firſt, From the Text conſidered in it ſelfe; Father forgive them, for they know not what they doe: Here Moulin, from the reaſon adjoyned to the Petition, concludes, That he prayed not for all that had a hand in Crucifying him, but only for thoſe who did it out of ignorance; and in all probability ſome of them, eſpecially ſome of the rulers, did it out of pure malice. And whereas Corvinus objecteth out of Acts 3. 17. againſt Moulin; That even the Rulers did it through ignorance: Doctor Twiſſe upbraideth him with his unskilfullneſſe in framing conſequences, and making an indefinite propoſition equivalent unto an univerſall. It doth not follow, (ſaith he) The Rulers did this through ignorance, therefore all the Rulers did it through ignorance. That ſome did, is certain from that place; and ſo it is, that ſome of them were converted, and obedient to the Faith Act. 6. 7.
Beſides he addes, that the Rulers, in all likelyhood, did it out of affected ignorance, reſiſting the evidence of the holy Ghoſt, ſpeaking in, and by Chriſt, and bearing witneſſe to the divine Authority of his Doctrine by miracles: Whereas 'tis poſſible that Chriſt might pray for the executioners, that aſſiſted and acted in his crucifying, perhaps not out of malice, but meerely in the ſimplicity of their hearts, in obedience to their Superiours, not knowing any thing. Tum vero ad ignorantiam iſtam quod attinet, quam populo Iudaico, & primoribus populi vitio vertit Apoſtolus; quid obſtat, quo minus affectata fuerit in multis, (reſiſtendo ſcilicet evidentiae Spiritus ſancti per Chriſtum loquentis, & per miracula doctrinae ipſius teſtimonium ferentis) praeſertim in primoribus. Qui vero ipſum in crucem egerunt, (pro quibus etiam oravit) erant illi miniſtri, & ſuperiorum mandatis ex officio inſerviebant: poterat ergo Chriſtus oraſſe pro iis, qui non malitia pulſi, Sed cordis ſimplicitate in Superiorum obſequium ducti Chriſtum in crucem ſuſtulerunt. He alſo addeth, that he prayed only for them that were preſent at his Death; and 'tis probable that the Rulers, at leaſt ſuch of them as were not afterwards converted, were not preſent at his Death. Eſto vero, non fuerint converſi, ſed & nihilo minus probabile eſt, primores iſtos non adſtitiſſe preſentes Chriſto, qui crucifixionem ipſius promoverent, pro quibus tamen & ſolis oravit Chriſtus in cruce.
Secondly, that Chriſt prayed not for all and every one of his crucifyers, D. Ames confirmeth, from compariſon of this text with other places of Scripture. Coron. Art. 2. c. 9. Art. 5. c. 5. Amongſt theſe his enemies there might be ſome that had committed that great and unpardonable ſinne againſt the holy Ghoſt Math. 12. 24, 31, 32. There were ſome, by the confeſsion of Arminius himſelfe, that were finally impenitent; and finall impenitency in generall, and the ſinne againſt the holy Ghoſt, which formally includes finall impenitency, are ſinnes unto death, for the pardon of which, if knowne, prayer is not lawfull. 1 Iohn 5. 16. And therefore (ſaith Auſtin) if Gods Church knew, who were predeſtinated to be ſent into eternall fire, with the Divell, and his Angells, they would no more pray for ſuch then they would pray for the Divell himſelfe. Now Chriſt knew who had committed the ſinne againſt the holy Ghoſt, and who would be finally impenitent; for he himſelfe knew full well what was in man. Ioh. 2. 28. Yea he knew from the begining who they were that believed not. Ioh. 6. 64. See the Learned and reverend M. Owen in his Treatiſe of Univerſall Redemption. p. 44. 45.
Thirdly, that Chriſt prayed not for all his crucifyers, may be confirmed by an argument ſhaped in imitation of that, which Doctor Twiſſe urgeth againſt a common and generall interceſsion, which Corvinus aſcribeth unto Chriſt. If Chriſt prayed, that all who crucified him ſhould be forgiven, then it was either that they ſhould be forgiven abſolutely or conditionally; not abſolutely, for then all of them were pardoned; if conditionally upon condition, then this condition was either on Gods part, or elſe to be performed on his crucifyers part: it could not be on Gods part, modo ſcilicet ipſi viſum fuerit, for then all of them ſhould be pardoned according to your opinion; for you hold, that God truly and unfainedly deſires the ſalvation, and juſtification of all and every one of the Sonnes of Men: If you ſay that 'tis a condition on the part of his crucifyers, why this condition can be nothing elſe but faith and repentance; and then I demand, whether he prayed for their faith and repentance or no? If you anſwer, that he did not pray for the Faith and Repentance of all and every one of them, then ſay I, neither did he pray for their pardon; for he that truly and ſincerely prayeth for any thing, prayeth alſo by juſt & undeniable conſequence for all the neceſſary antecedents and conſequents, cauſes and meanes, fruits and effects thereof: If you hold, that he prayed for the faith and repentance of all and every one of his crucifyers, then the argument may be renewed as in the begining; for I aſke you againe, whether he prayed for their faith and repentance abſolutely or conditionally; if abſolutely, then all and every one of them did believe and repent, which the Remonſtrants themſelves deny: if conditionally, then this condition is either on Gods part, or elſe on the part of the crucifyers of Chriſt; if upon condition on the part of God, it can be nothing but this, if he will or pleaſe, and then all of them ſhould believe and repent, for (as Arminians gloſſe that text 1 Tim. 2. 4) God will have not only all ſorts and kinds of men, but alſo all and every individuall man to be ſaved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth: if it be a condition on the part of thoſe who crucified him, then pray doe you aſſigne that condition, and either I ſhall drive you upon the ſame rock of abſurdity, upon which Doctor Twiſſe forceth Corvinus, to wit, that Chriſt prayed for his Crucifiers, that they ſhould believe and repent, upon condition that they doe believe and repent; or elſe I ſhall renew the argument, ſo as that a progreſſe from one condition to another, and that without end, ſhall be unavoydable.
Laſtly, that he prayed only for thoſe of his crucifiers, who belonged to the election of grace, is evident from what hath been already ſaid out of D. Twiſſe upon Ioh. 17. 9. For thence I have inferr'd, that he prayed only for his elect as Mediator, that Chapter being the platforme of Chriſts interceſsion, as mediator for his Church: and you affirme it to be improbable, that Chriſt prayed under the notion and capacity of a private man, for any for whom he did not pray as Mediator.
But now in the laſt place, let us heare how you expound this prayer of Chriſt.
Mr GOODWIN.
BVT the intent of Chriſts prayer for thoſe that crucifyed him, was not that all their ſinnes ſhould be forgiven them, much leſſe, that ſimply and abſolutely, that is, without any intervening of faith and repentance, they ſhould be forgiven; (which had been to pray for that which is expreſly contrary to the revealed will of God) but that that particular ſinne of their crucifying him ſhould be forgiven them, i. e. ſhould not be imputed unto them by way of barre unto their repentance, either by any ſuddaine or ſpeedy deſtruction, or by delivering them up to ſuch a ſpirit of obſtinacy or obduration, under which men ſeldome or never repent.
IEANES
FIrſt, I ſay of this your comment, as you did of D. Twiſſe his notion upon the place, this is ſaid but not proved, Nor indeed probable, becauſe
Firſt, Scripture is a ſtranger to this acception of remiſſion.
Secondly, 'tis very irrationall to take remiſſion in this ſenſe, which by your Doctrine may be conſiſtent with its contrary: to wit condemnation. Though this particular ſinne of their crucifying him, were not imputed to them by way of barre unto their repentance, either by any ſudden or ſpeedy deſtruction, or by delivering them up to ſuch a ſpirit of obſtinacy or obduration, under which men ſeldome or never repent. yet according unto what you teach of grace, and aſcribe unto the power of mans will, they might notwithſtanding all this not believe and repent, but reſiſt the grace of God, and dye in finall unbeliefe and impenitency, even for this ſinne, and ſo conſequently be condemned for it. Chriſts prayer might be granted, this particular ſinne of their crucifying Chriſt might be forgiven unto them, and yet they might be everlaſtingly damned for it, and their other ſinnes. How you can reconcile theſe things paſſeth my underſtanding, but I ſhall not be unwilling to learne.
Laſtly, you ſeem to intimate, that ſome ſinnes are ſo foule, as that they are of themſelves a bar to repentance, for the deſert of which God doth ſometimes deny men either time for, or the grace of repentance.
And hereby you entrench upon the freeneſſe of Gods grace in mans effectuall vocation, which is the free gift of God, and therefore diſpenced, not according to mens preceding carriages good or bad, but meerely according to the good pleaſure of his will: but this argument I ſhall ſpare farther to proſecute, and referre you to our Doctor, who hath abundantly laboured herein, as in other places, ſo eſpecially in his examination of Mr Cotton his Treatiſe of Predeſtination, a pag. 190. uſque ad 204. and againe, p. 234, 235. &c. uſque ad 246.
As for that which followeth, as alſo that which is in the beginning of this Section, the examination of it is beſide my preſent deſigne, which is to vindicate Doctor Twiſſe from what you object againſt him.
Yet if the Reader deſire ſatisfaction thereabouts, he may meet with it in Doctor Ames his Coronis ad Coll. Hag. Art. 5. c. 5. Whither I ſhall in this haſt referre him.
And thus have I done with the defence of Doctor Twiſſe againſt your oppoſition of him: when I conſider your fluent Wit, and ready Penne, I may expect from you a very ſpeedy reply, Which may be, as ſharpe, ſo ſpecious and Rhetoricall enough. I ſhall deſire this favour of the judicious Reader, that he would ſuſpend his cenſure untill he hath my rejoynder, which I ſhall not deferre long, if God grant me his aſſiſtance.
FINIS.
End of the text · William Twisse, The Riches of Gods Love (1653)