An exact collection of the works of Doctor Jackson ... such as were not published before : Christ exercising his everlasting priesthood ... or, a treatise of that knowledge of Christ which consists in the true estimate or experimental valuation of his death, resurrection, and exercise of his everlasting sacerdotal function ... : this estimate cannot rightly be made without a right understanding of the primeval state of Adam ...

SECT. I.

Of the First Mans Estate, and the Manner How He lost it. How Sin found Enterance into the World. Of the Nature of Sin. How it was, and is, propagated unto Adam's Posterity.

CHAP. I.

Of the Primaeval Estate of the First Man, and of the variety of Opinions about it.

1. ABout the Prerogatives or Praeeminences of the First Man, over and above all others, which by Natural Descent have sprung from him, a great variety of Opinions there is; more then is about the Limitation or Extent of the Prerogative Royal in most Kingdoms Christian, as now they stand. But the several Opinions contained within this great and spacious variety, concerning the Estate or Prerogatives of the First Man, are (in my opinion) very compatible: Few or none of them contradict others. And it is the Part of Divines by Pro∣fession, not to sow any seeds of contention between the Authors or Abet∣ters of several Opinions, which in their nature imply no Contradiction. Yea in times Ancient and unpartial, it hath been accounted one special part of Priests or Profest Divines, to solicite or Mediate for Compromise between Parties at difference, whether in Matters Civil or Criminally Capital; much more to Endeavour for Reconciliation of Opinions or Controversies proper∣ly belonging to their own profession.

2. Now it is confessed by all good Christians, that the First man was made, in, or according to, the Image of God, which made him. But wherein this Image of God, or the Live Copy of it exhibited in the First Man, did properly or chiefly consist, is a Probleme wherein Many good Writers. both Ancient and Modern, do sowmewhat Vary. Some would have the Prerogatives, which did result from the likenesse of God imprinted upon the First Man, to consist principally in that Power or Dominion which He had over all other visible or sublunary Creatures. But though it be true of these present times as it was of former, That Dominium non fundatur in Fide, id est, Kings and Supream Governours have their Right of Dominion over their Subjects or Inferiors, albeit such Kings and Governours, have not at any time been true Christians, or have degenerated from such Chri∣stian Faith as they have sometimes professed or maintained: yet without all controversie, that Soveraignty or Dominion, which the First Man had over all other visible Creatures, was founded upon that Integrity of soul, or Righ∣teousnesse inherent, which He lost. Since the First Man and his Successors, became Corrupt in all their wayes; that Primaeval Dominion which the First Man had, did cease by Degrees to be so entire, as once it was: Nor is there any Hope to have it fully restored unto any Soveraignty, or prvate Mem∣bers

of any Soveraignty or Kingdom in this Life. Nor are all they, which well agree in this General [That the First Mans Similitude with his Maker, did radically and punctually consist in Righteousness and Integrity of Soul and Body] at so fair accord among themselves, Wherein this Righteousnesse or Integrity did properly or formally consist; or of what Rank or Order it was.

CHAP. II.

Wherein the Righteousness of the First Man did Consist.

1. MAny Great Divines or Doctors heretofore have been, and some, or rather Many, to this day, there be, who peremptorily determine, and would perswade Others, either by their Authority, or by Reason, to believe; That the Righteousnesse of the First Man did formally consist in a peculiar Grace, Supernatural, even to Him. If this Opinion were true, the same Grace should have been more then Supernatural to his successors; sup∣posing that they continued by natural propagation, in the same State and Condition wherein the First Man was Created. To maintain this opinion; That the Righteousnesse or Integrity of the First Man did consist in a super∣natural Grace, the Romish Church (specially since the publishing of the Ca∣nons of the Trent Councel) is deeply engaged. For unlesse this Postulatum or Supposition be granted; Many Dogmatical Resolutions which the whole Christian World, is, by the Romish Church, bound to believe sub poenae Anathematis, that is, under penalty of that Churches solemn Curse or ever∣lasting Damnation, cannot possibly, or with any Mediocrity of Probability be maintained. The Points of Belief which from this Postulatum or suppo∣sition. [That the Righteousness wherein the First Man was Created, was a Grace Supernatural] might with some probability be maintained, are principally these.

2. First, That, Sin, which we and the Romish Church call Original, should be no more then a meer Privation of Original Justice, that is, of that Image of God wherein the First Man was Created. But the Ingenuous Reader wil perhaps demand, what further Inconvenience wil follow upon the yield∣ing or granting of the former Postulatum or Supposition unto them? This in the Second place; That Adams Successors whether immediate or interme∣diate unto the worlds End should have a greater measure of that which they call Liberum Arbitrium or Free-will, then the word of God doth acknow∣ledge; or any Ingenuous Man, that will subjugate his Reason to be Regula∣ted by the written word, or Ancient Rules or Canons of Faith, can allow or approve. This deduction following is clear by Rules of Reason, viz. [

If the Righteousnesse of the First Man did consist in a Grace Supernatural, or in any quality additional to his constitution, as he was the Work of God: This Grace or Quality might have been, or rather, was lost, without any Real wound unto our Nature; Or without any other Wound, then such as the Free-will, or right use of Reason, or other Natural parts (which after the losse this of supposed Supernatural Grace or Quality were left) might instantly have cured, or yet may cure.]

Or in other terms (more Scho∣lastical perhaps) Thus:

If the Integrity or Righteousnesse of the First Man, were lost, only, demeritoriè, by way of Demerit, without any physical or working cause of its expulsion, or without any wound made

in our nature, by such positive cause: The same Righteousnesse which the First Man had, might have been regained by the right use of Reason which was left unto him, or of those natural faculties which he had pro primâ vice abused.

From these premisses the necessary consequence will be this; That the satisfaction of our Lord Christ, for sin (original at least) had been superfluous. And according to this Tenet, the Opinion of the Socini∣ans would be more tolerable, and more justifiable, then the Doctrine of the Romish Church, so far as it concerns the Valew or Efficacy of Christs Sufferings, or Satisfaction by his Merits, or Justification by works, rather then by faith, especially works of the Moral Law, or observance of those two great Commandments, To love God above all; and, our Neighbours as our Selves: or of that other, whatsoever you would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them.

3. Lastly, if all or any of these Opinions were granted, to the Church of Rome: we of Reformed Churches should be concluded to yield; That Adams posterity, or as many of them as are, or shall be, justified, were to be Formally justified by inherent Righteousnesse; that is, they have, or might challenge, absolution, from the first sentence denounced against Adam, by way of legal plea or satisfaction. The deduction or remonstration of this demonstrative inference, is clear to any Artist, to any reasonable man, unlesse his Reason be overgrown by faction, or by mingling of passi∣ons with his understanding. The Remonstration of this demonstrative in∣ference is thus: It is in confesso, and more then so, an undoubted Maxim subscribed unto by the Church of Rome; That the grace which is infused by and from our Lord Jesus Christ, is a supernatural quality, or a qualification more soveraign, then the first grace which God the Father bestowed upon the First Man. Now, if that Grace were a super addition to his Nature, or Con∣stitution, as he was the work of God; the losse of this Grace or quality could not have made any wound in the humane Nature, which the least drop of that Grace, which daily distilleth from the second Adam, might not more then fully cure. Yea, such grace would sublimate our Nature so cured, un∣to an higher pitch or fuller measure of Righteousnesse, then that, which was bestowed upon our Father Adam. In respect of these and many other Reasons, which might be alledged, all such Congregations or Assem∣blies of Christian Men, as have departed, or have been extruded, out of the Romish Church, stand deeply engaged, to deny, that the Righteous∣nesse of the First Man was a Grace or quality supernatural.

CHAP. III.

Whether Original Righteousness were a quality Natural, or a mean betwixt Natural and supernatural.

1. TO affirm that, the Righteousnesse wherein the First Man was created was a gift rather Natural then supernatural, would be no solaecisme: no assertion any way more incongruous, then many Resolutions of the Roman Doctors in like Cases are: no grosser blemish or deeper impression then might easily be salved or wiped off with that distinction, usual amongst them, in o∣ther the like or rather the same Cases: [That the righteousness wherein Adam was created was natural, quoad terminum productum, non quoad modum pro∣ductionis; A natural Endowment in respect of the essential qualitie produced;

albeit the manner of producing it were somewhat more then supernatural. But this is a dispute which for the present shall be waved, because the Original difference betwixt us and them may be more punctually stated, and the Questions dependent on it, may be more clearly resolved from these Postulata or presumed Maxims: First,

[That God did make the First Man after his own image.]

Secondly, [That the First man being so made, was righteous and just.] Neither of these are denied by any. The state of the Original Controversie unto such as are disposed to have it plainly propounded in constant or un∣fleeting Terms, is thus;

[Seeing man was made after the image of God, and being so made, was just and righteous; Whether there were two works of God or two distinct effects of his work of creating the First Man in righteousness and in his own image: And whether the one of them was terminated to his own image imprinted in man, and the other to his original justice.]

If these two expressions made by Moses of Gods image and mans righteousness, expresse or include no more then one and the same work of God, or effect of his work in man: The losse of Original justice or defacing of Gods image enstamped upon him, was more then a meer privation, and necessarily presupposeth a positive Cause in our First Parents, and a positive Effect wrought by that cause whereunto the privation of Original justice was Concomitant or rather Consequent. Whatsoever Controversie may be moved concerning the Cause or manner how this Effect was wrought: the effect it self was a deadly wound in our Nature; a multitude of wounds, all by Nature or any endea∣vour of Nature or performances of such Free will as was left to mankind after these wounds were once made, altogether incurable, without the help or assistance of better Grace or endowments then were bestowed upon the First Man. The cure of these wounds wholly depends upon that grace whose Being and bestowing the second Adam did merit from the Father of Lights, or from the Divine nature or Deity.

2. To win the Assent of every Rational Christian man unto the former part of this determination; [That Original justice did consist in that image of God wherein the First man was created, and did not imply any other work of God whether preccdent or consequent, besides the speciall work of his creation:] no other Argument is either necessary or so available, as the taking of the words of Moses, where he describes the manner how the First man was creat∣ed, into serious consideration. For Original Justice had more Essential de∣pendence upon the image of God in Man, then Rotunditie hath with a Sphere; or Globositie with a Globe. Now in the making of a Sphere or body perfectly round, there be not two works, nor two distinct effects of the Artificers skill; one in making a Round-Body, another in making Rotunditie. And it is a grosser Soloecism in Divinity to say or think, that the Image of God in man was One work of God, and Original Justice Another, then it would be to maintain that the Rotundity of a Sphere, and the Sphere, are two works of the same hand, severally intended by the Artificer which makes the Sphere.

3. To evince the later part of the former Assertion; [That Original sin is more then a meer Privation; more then a meer want of Original Justice; a multiplicity of wounds or diseases in our nature:] any man living which hath so much memory or reason as to reflect upon his own disposition or unto∣wardlinesse in his childhood; or skill to contemplate the Estate or condition of poor Infants, will easily subscribe unto that great Roman Naturalists judge∣ment or observations, in his Preface to the seventh book of his natural History, to be insisted upon hereafter when we come to treat of the Symptomes or pro∣perties of sin Original. The next Enquirie according to the Method proposed is, How sin did enter into the world.

CHAP. IV.

Of the manner how Sin found Entrance into the works of God, and did seize upon all mankind, The Man Christ Jesus only excepted.

1. THe highest Offer of any which I have read for the resolution of this Pro∣blem, is that inquisition made by some School-men, [An dari possit creatura impeccabilis, so they render the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] The problem in distinct and plain English is thus. [Whether it be possible according to the Rules of Reason, that any created substance should be from its creation totally se∣cured or absolutely freed from all possibility of falling into sin.] Some of the Ancient and most Orthodoxal Fathers of the Church, as their opinions are alledged by some School-men, stand for the Negative Part of this Problem, to wit, [That it is not possible for any meer Creature to be from the moment or first time of his creation altogether impeccable, or secured from all possibility of falling into sin.] But whether the reasons or expressions of these Ancient Fathers will reach home, or amount unto the Tenents of such School-men as avouch, not only their reasons, but Authority, is not so clear; but that the discus∣sion whether of their Authorities, Meanings, or Expressions, might breed more quarrels then the School-men have already begun. However; The disputes already moved about this Point, must in the first place be restrained to meere Creatures rationall, that is, to Angels and Men. The Rational Creature, or son of man, who is likewise the Son of God, must be exempted from this enquiry And this Additional must in the second place be admitted; [Whether it were possible that any man or Angel could be perpetually freed from all possibility of fal∣ling into sin, and have been withall from the first moment of his creation intrin∣secally just and righteous.

2. That Men and Angels might (by the power of God, or special contri∣vance of his Providence) have been secured from all possibility of falling into sin, is a Position amongst rationall men unquestionable: But it is not so, whether men or Angels being so secured from all possibility of sinning could have been intrinsecally or formally righteous, or by the eternall rules of Justice and Equity it self, truly capable of everlasting punishments or tor∣ments, or of joy and happinesse everlasting. The Negative part of this Pro∣bleme is in my judgment far more probable then the Affirmative. For if the First-man, or Angels which fell, had been either by the power of their Al∣mighty Creator, or by the undefeatable contrivance of his wisdome, abso∣lutely freed from all possibilitie of sin from the first creation unto this day, they could neither have deserved any great blame or praise by continuing after this manner righteous or conformable to the divine nature for integrity of life. The case of the First-man, if he had lived to this instant without sin by such contrivance or necessitating guidance of Gods providence, had been the same, as if the child whiles his master leads his hand should write a Faire Copie, being otherwise unable to cast a letter aright when his masters hand should betaken off from his. Now if the Child or young Clerk should not in good time learn to cast his letters or draw his lines aright, he could not pretend any title to commendation or reward, how well so ever his work were performed; the whole praise would of right belong unto the manu∣duction or guidance of his Master. But if the young Clerk growing stron∣ger, should disturb or wrest the hand of his guide awry, or not suffer him to rule his hand as before he had done: by thus doing he would deserve both blame and correction.

3. Our father Adam in his first Estate had a great deale more power to regulate his own thoughts and actions by the ordinary Guidance of Gods Providence, then a child hath either to cast his Letters or draw his Lines a∣right by the sight of a Copie or ordinary direction of his master. Yet this same First Man had a power withall to neglect the guidance, or slight the di∣rections of his Creator; a power much greater to do both these wayes a∣miss, then a child hath to refuse or resist the Manuduction of his writing∣Master. By the First womans ignorance or contempt, through her husbands negligence or inadvertence to that First and Great Commandement, which was given to both of them [Of the tree in the middle of the garden ye shall not eat &c.] that which we call Originall sin, or the maine roote of all sins, found en∣trance into the visible world, that is, into the nature of man. The extract of what we have said, or have to say, Concerning this point, is very well set down by St. Austine and some others of the Ancients; [That the First Man was truly endowed with a Free-will or power, not to have sinned at all: That if he had used this power aright, or implored the assistance of his Creator in competent time, for so using it; he should have been endowed with a perpetuall immunity from sin: that is; Albeit he was not from his Creation either by nature or by supernatu∣rall endowment utterly impeccable; yet by the assistance and benignity of his Grati∣ous Creator, he might have attained unto such a perpetuall estate or immunity from falling into sin.]

4. Suppose he had preserved or imployed the Talent concredited unto him at his first creation, aright: should the superaddition or crowning of his First Estate with perseverance, have been a meer gift of grace, or rather a kinde of merit? This is a Question not very pertinently moved by some Schoole-men, and the Contradictory to their determination more inconsi∣derately maintained by some modern Disputants or Logical Criticks. For seeing Adam received that great Talent concredited to him in his creation, not absolutely, or to use it as he pleased, but at his perill or under express pe∣nalty, that if he misimployed it, or contemned his Commandement which bestowed it upon him, he should dye the death: it is no way improbable, that if he had improved his Talent for some competent time, that the state wherein he was created should have been hereditary to him and his; not by such free Grace as is bestowed upon us under the Gospell, but by way of Merit de congruo; though not according to Commutative, yet to Distributive Justice, rather then by meere Mercy or benignity. But this opinion I vent not with any intention to move or abett disputes or controversies already moved about this curious Question; but rather to perswade the Reader, that all questions concerning the Merits of works, or of perseverance in that Grace by which all good works are wrought, must be reduced, or confined to the estate or condition of mankinde since Adams Fall. Of which Questi∣on thus stated or limited, I shall (I hope) be able to give the Reader, or any that will soberly dispute or conferr with me in it, better satisfaction, Vivâ voce, then this Treatise without digression will permit me to do. The prin∣cipall Points in it, or which I had in my thoughts either to prosecute or propose, are these following.

First, That albeit the First man were by vertue of Creation righteous and just, yet were neither his perseverance or non-perseverance in this righteousnesse absolutely necessary; both of them possible. That both were possible hath been declared at Large before in the sixth book of Commenta∣ries upon the Creed: unto which I referr the Ingenuous Reader, where he may finde this proposition (as I take it) demonstrated; [That to decree or

appoint a mutual or reciprocal Possibility between our First Parents perseverance or non-perseverance was Facible to the Omnipotent Creator, because it neither im∣plies nor presupposeth any Contradiction in Terminis.] And whatsoever ef∣fect or praenotion answerable unto it implies no Contradiction either in it self or to the Goodnesse of the Divine Nature or Deity, is Facible by Pow∣er Omnipotent: that is, The Almighty Creator might have decreed, or yet may decree it when he pleaseth.

The Second Principle or supposition in this place to be handled is; [Whe∣ther the Almighty Creator did de Facto decree or ordain that neither the Perseve∣rance or non-perseverance of the First Man or of our First Parents, should be ab∣solutely Necessary, but contingent.] Or, in other terms thus; [That the Estate or condition wherein they were created might have continued to this day for them and their successors undefeatable.] That their Perseverance or the perseve∣rance of their Posterity in the state of Righteousnesse wherein they were created, was not necessary by any Divine Ordinance or decree, is clear from the Event; because the First man and the First woman did fall de Facto from that Estate wherein they were created, which neither of them could have done, if their First Estate had been by vertue of the Almighties Decree or any ordinance from him Immutable, or absolutely Necessary. But can it be as strong∣ly proved, That the fall of our first Parents, or their eating of the Forbidden Fruit did not proceed from any necessitating Decree, or undefeatable con∣trivance of the Almightie Creators Wisdom? To perswade men which have not their senses exercised in points of Logical or Scholastick disputes, that the Fall of our First Parents was not necessary, no, not in respect of the Divine Decree or ordinance, would be a harder task, then to prove that their Per∣severance was not in respect of that Decree, necessary. That our First Pa∣rents did fall from their Estate, is a Question of Fact of which every honest good man may be a competent Judge, at least able enough to resolve himself. But whether it was as possible for them not to have fallen, as it was to fall, is Questio Juris, or more then so, a point of Metaphysical or Theological disquisition; wherein it would be very hard to find a Grand-Jury of Profest Divines in any one County almost throughout this Kingdom, which could be competent Judges or fit Inquisitors: Not that they want either skill or in∣dustry for interpreting sacred Scripture, which is the only true rule of Faith and manners, aright; but for want of skill or memory in Secular Arts, how to examine or determine what Consequences or inferences are consonant or dissonant to the undoubted Rule of Faith, or to the unquestionable Maxims contained in it. For deciding or waiving such Controversies as are emergent not so much out of the sence of Scriptures, as out of such Inferences or Conse∣quences (whether negative or affirmative) as contentious or unresolved spi∣rits would fasten upon it, Recta ratio, that is, Reason regulated by Rules of unquestionable Arts or Sciences, is the most competent Judge. That there is but one God and one Lord; That the only God is a God of Goodness and willeth no wickednesse, are positive points of Faith and Christian Belief; Fundamental Maxims in Theologie. To dispute or move any question directly about the truth or limitation of these Maxims, would be a branch of Infidelity, or, which perhaps is worse, an approach to Blasphemy.

CHAP. V.

Of the Right use of Reason, or Rules of Art for determining Controversies in Divinity, whereof the Sacred Scripture is the sole Rule.

1. BUt admit this Maxim, [There is but one God, and he a God of Goodness, no Author or abetter of evil] were undoubtedly believed by all: Yet this inference or Consequence might be (as it hath long time been) contro∣versed; Whether he that avoucheth [This only God to have decreed the Fall of the First Man to have been necessary or inevitable,] might be demonstra∣tively convinced to make him the Author and Cause, the only Cause of the First Mans sin, and of all the sins which necessarily issue from it, or from the Nature of man corrupted by it. For the full resolution of this Question, the Sacred Scriptures are not the sole Competent Judge or Rule. Nor doth the determination of it belong to the Cognizance of such as are the best Inter∣preters of Sacred writ, for the true Grammatical or Litteral sence of every proposition contained in it. This Case must be reserved to the Schools of Arts, or to the certain Rules of true Logick and Philosophy, which are the best guides of Reason in all discursive faculties. But here I am engaged to do that which in other cases I have endeavoured to avoid; that is, to make repetition of two great Problems in the Science or Faculty of Theologie, here∣tofore in their several places handled, and in some ensuing meditations to be hereafter inculcated. The first Problem is [In what sense or with what limi∣tations the Scripture is held by all reformed Churches, to be the only Rule of Faith:] The Second, [In what sense or how far it is true, that Recta ratio, Reason re∣ctified or rightly managed, may be admitted a competent Judge in Controversies belonging to the Faculty of Theologie.]

2. To the First Problem, [In what sence the Scripture is held by us to be the sole and competent Rule of Faith and manners,] I have no more to say for the present, then hath been long ago published in the second book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed, Sect. 1. Chap. 11. The summe of all in that place delivered, is, to my best remembrance, This: No Christian is bound to admit or receive any Doctrine or proposition, as an Article of his Faith, unlesse it be contained in the Old or New Testament, either Totidem verbis, or may be Concludently or Demonstratively deduced from some Sa∣cred Maxim or proposition expresly contained in the Canonical Books in the Old and New Testament. Such Maxims as are expresly and plainly con∣tained in Scripture, Every Christian Man is bound to believe absolutely. But such propositions or Conclusions as may be demonstratively inferred from Canonical unquestionable Maxims, they only are bound absolutely to be∣lieve which have so much use of Reason or skill in Arts, as may enable them clearly to discern the Necessity of the Consequence, or concludent Proof of the Deduction. The ignorant or illiterate are only bound to believe such Dedu∣ctions Conditionally, or to practise according to their Teachers instructions, with such Reservation, or under such Conditions as have been expressed in the second and third Book of these Commentaries.

3. But what Propositions, though expresly contained in Scriptures, be Negative or Affirmative; Vniversal, Indefinite, Particular, or Singular; Or how any or all of these be Convertible, whether Absolutely, by Accident, or by Contraposition; or how to Frame a perfect Syllogism out of them; These or the like are points which the holy Ghost, who spake by the Prophets and

other Pen-men of Sacred and Canonical Writ, did never undertake or pro∣fesse to teach. The discussion or determination of Questions of this nature must be had from the Rules of Reason, sublimated or regulated by good Arts or faculties. And for the bettering or Advancing of Natural Reason in this search, the most learned or most sanctified Christian this day living, should be very unthankful to the only Lord his Redeemer and Sanctifier, if he do not acknowledge it as an especial branch of his All-seeing Providence in rai∣sing up unto the World such Lights of Nature and Guides of Reason as Ari∣stotle, Plato, and others of the Ancient Philosophers were. True Reason in whomsoever seated, Whether in the Natural or Regenerate man, unlesse it be advanced and guarded by such Rules of Arts, as these Sages of the old World have by Gods Providence invented or bettered, can be no fit Judge; but being so advanced and guarded, is the most Competent Judge of Contro∣versies in Divinity; of such Controversies, I mean, as arise from Consequences or Deductions, made by way of use or application out of the uncontrovert∣ed Maxims of sacred Writ. And if we would sequester Grammatical or Rhe∣torical Pride, and partialitie to the several Professions wherein respectively men glory, we might easily discern, all or most of those unhappy Contro∣versies which have set the Christian World for these late years in Combusti∣on, to have been hatched, maintained, and nourished by such pretended Fa∣vorites of the Spirit, as either never had faithfully Learned any true Logick, Philosophie, or ingenuous Arts, or else had utterly forgotten the Rules which they had learned or heard, before they begun to handle con∣troversies in Theologie, or entertain disputes about them.

4. The Hypothesis, for whose clearer discussion these last Theses have been premised, is this;

[Whether it being once granted or supposed, that the Al∣mighty Creator was the Cause either of our mother Eves desire, or of her Actual Eating of the Forbidden Fruit, or of her delivery of it to her husband, or of his taking and eating it, though unawares; the same Almighty God must not upon like Necessity be acknowledged to be the Author of all the Obliquities which did accompany the positive Acts, or did necessarily result from them.]

This is a Case or Species Facti which we cannot determine by the Rule of Faith: It must be tried by the undoubted Rules of Logick, or better Arts. These be the only perspective Glasses which can help the Eye of Reason to discover the truth or necessity of the Consequence; to wit, [Whether the Almighty Creator, being granted to be the Cause of our Mother Eves first Longing after the forbidden Fruit, were not the Cause or Author of her sin.] Now unto any Rational man that can use the help of the forementioned Rules of Arts (which serve as prospe∣ctive Glasses unto the Eye of Reason) that usual Distinction between the Cause or Author of the Act, and the Cause or Author of the Obliquity which neces∣sarily ensues upon the Act, will appear at the first sight to be False or Frivo∣lous; yea, to imply a manifest Contradiction. For Obliquity, or whatsoever other Relation, can have no Cause at all, besides that which is the Cause of the Habit, of the Act, or Quality whence it necessarily results. And in particular, that conformity or similitude which the First man did bear to his Almighty Creator, did necessarily result from his substance or manhood, as it was the work of God, undefaced. Nor can we search after any other true Cause of the First mans confirmity to God, or his integrity, besides him who was the Cause of his manhood, or of his Existence with such qualifications as by his Creation he was endowed with. In like manner whosoever was the cause whe∣ther of his coveting or eating of the Tree in the middle of the Garden, was the true Cause of that Obliquity or crooked deviation from Gods Law, or of that

deformity or dissimilitude unto God himself, which did necessarily result from the Forbidden Act or desire. It was impossible there should be one Cause of the Act, and another Cause of the Obliquity or deformity, whether unto Gods Laws or unto God himself. For no Relation or Entity meerly relative (such are obliquity and deformity) can have any other Cause, beside That which is the Cause of the (Fundamentum or) Foundation whence They im∣mediately result. It remains then that we acknowledg the old Serpent to have been the First Author; and Man (whom God created male and female) to have been the true positive Cause of that Obliquity or deformity which did result by in∣evitable Necessity from the forbidden Act or desire, which could have no Necessary Cause at all. For the Devil or old Serpent could lay no absolute necessity upon our First Parents Will, which the Almighty Creator had left Free to eat or not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit. That they did de Facto, eat of it, was not by any Necessity, but meerly Contingently, or by abuse of that Free-will which God had given them. Briefly, to say or think that our First Parents were necessitated by the Divine Decree to that Act or any part of that Act or desire, whence the First sin did necessarily result; or to imagine that the Act or desire was necessary in respect of Gods Decree, is to lay a deeper and fouler charge upon the Almighty, That Holy One, then we can, without slander, charge the Devil withall.

5. Charity binds me to impute the harsh Expressions of some good Wri∣ters, and wel-deserving of all reformed Churches; Yea, the Errors of the Dominicans or other Schoolmen, (which were more faulty then Zwinglius or his followers in this point) rather unto Incogitancy or want of Skill in good Arts, then unto Malice or such malignancy as the Lutheran long ago had furi∣ously charged upon the Calvinist; as if they had chosen the Devil, not the Father of lights, maker of heaven and earth, to be their God. And I could heartily wish that Pareus had not entered into that Dispute with Becanus about this Controversie: But seeing I cannot obtain my wish, I must be sor∣ry that he came off no better then he did, especially for Calvins Credit, or for his own. I did not believe the relation of the conference which I read long ago in Canisius, until I read the like set forth by Pareus himself; wherein he professeth, that he likes better of Cardinal Bellarmines opinion then of Calvins, Con∣cerning the Controversies or Questions about the First Cause of sinning. But were it any part of my present task, I could easily make it appear, even by the Testimony and Authority, or which is more, by the con∣cludent Arguments of some learned Jesuits themselves; That Cardinal Bellarmin, and many others of Aquinas his followers, do make God to be the Author of sin, by as clear infallible Consequence, as either Zwin∣glius or Piscator have done. And he that would diligently peruse Aquinas his wri∣tings, and in particular his resolution of that Question, [An detur Causa Praedestina∣tionis,] may find him as strait-lac'd as Cal∣vin was; one and the same girdle would be

an equall and competent measure for both their Errors. The best Apology that can be made for Either, must be taken from the Romane Satyrists cha∣rity, Opere in longo, fas est obrepere somnum. Calvin and Aquinas were Ho∣mines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, somewhat more then Authors of long works; Au∣thors of many various works in respect of the several subjects or arguments: which is the best apologie that Jansenius could make for St. Jeromes contra∣dicting of himself in several works; as Espenseus doth the like for Saint Austin.

6. But of that Pardon which learned Men that wrot much and handled many much different matters may justly challenge, such as stand to be their followers (though afarr off,) are no way Capable. Men, I meane, who having other ordinary works or vocations to follow, do busie their braines and abuse their Auditors or Readers with idle and frivolous Apologies for those slips or errors of worthy writers which stand more in need of ingenuous censure, of mild interpretation or Correction, then a Justifiable Defence. More there have not been (as I hope) nor more peccant in this kinde in any of refor∣med Churches, then In this Church of England, though not Of it. Some Treatises I have read and heard for justifying the Escapes or ill expressions of Calvin and Beza, by improving their words into a worse and more dange∣rous sense, then they themselves meant them in, or their Followers in the Churches wherein they lived, did interpret them. Had these Vnscholastick Apologizers been called to a strict account or examination of their Doctrine by the Rules of Art, this haply would have bred a new Question in our Schooles; [Whether to attribute such Acts or decrees unto God as they do, and yet withall to deny that they concludently make him the Author of sin, doth not argue as great a measure of Artificiall Foppery, or, (which is more to be feared in some,) of Supernaturall Infatuation, as it would do of impietie, toresolve dogma∣tically in Terminis terminantibus, That God is the Author of Sin]

CHAP. VI.

The usuall distinction between the Act and obliquitie of the Act, can have no place in the first oblique Act of our first Parents.

1. THe former Question or Probleme might justly be allowed in any Aca∣demicall Act or Commencement, albeit the Answerer or Defendant were furnished with no other grounds or occasions of his Theses, besides that usually avouched Distinction between the Act and Obliquitie of the Act; specially if the Distinction were applyed unto the First Sin of our First Parents. In that sin whether we refer it to our Father Adam, or to our Mother Eve, the Act and the Obliquitie are altogether as unseparably annexed, as Rotun∣ditie or roundnes is with a Sphere or moulded Bullet. And to imagine there should be one Cause of the Act, and another of the Obliquitie or sinfulness of the Act, would be as gross a Soloecisme, as to assigne or seek after any other Cause of the Rotunditie or roundnesse of a Sphere or Bullet, besides him that frames the one or moulds the other: or as it would be to enquire any other Cause of the equality between two bodies before unequall, be∣sides him that makes the quantity to be of one and the same-size or scant∣ling; or of the similitude between the Fleece of a black sheepe, and of a white sheep perfectly dyed black, besides the Dyer. Now the similitude betwixt that which is perfectly dyed black and that which is black by na∣ture,

doth inevitably result from the Dyer without the intervention of any other Cause imaginable. Easie it were to produce a volume of like instan∣ces in the workes of nature, or of mens works and practises upon them; all of them concludently enforcing the resolution of the former Probleme to be allowable in Schooles, by most perfect and absolute Induction, if Arts or Sciences were once so happy as to have none but true and accurate Artists to be their Judges. As indeed they are the sole competent Judges in like Cases, and Judges they are within these precincts as Competent, as the Reverend Judges of this or any other Land are in Causes Civil, Municipal, or Criminal.

2. Admit then a man were found guilty of murther by a Jury of his honest Neighbours upon the Authentick Testimonies of two or three witnesses which had seen him run his Neighbour through the body in some vitall part, or to cleave his head in two, and a Philosopher or Physitian should undertake to arrest the Judgement or make Remonstrance to the Judge, that the Delin∣quent arraigned, and convicted by the Jurie, was not the true or immedi∣ate Cause of the others death, upon these or the like allegations out of his own facultie;

That death properly consists in the dissolution of naturall heate and moysture, whereas the party arraigned did never intend to make any such dissolution, or to terminate his Action to the point of death, but onely to thrust his sword through him or to knock him in the head, which Actions can have no direct Terme, besides the Vbi or Terme of lo∣call motion:

Can we imagine that any Judge could be so milde as not to censure such an Apologizer for a saucy Artificiall Foole or a Crack'd-brained Sophister? And yet this Apologie is not, cannot be in vulgar judgments so Censurable of Artificiall folly, as the former Apologie for salving the Es∣capes, Errors, or ill Expressions of some Learned and Pious Men, by nice distinctions betwixt the Act, and the Sinfulnesse of it, in our First Parents Case, was. For there is not so immediate or so absolute or necessary connexion between death and the deadliest wound that can be given to any man, as there is between Acts peremptorily forbidden by the Law of God, and the Obliquitie or sinfulnesse of them. For there is not, neither is it possible there should be, any minute of time, or, which is less then the least part of a minute, any moment of time, betwixt such Acts, and the Ob∣liquitie resulting from them. Both of them come together, both in respect of order of time, and of nature, by absolute indispensable Necessity: Where∣as between death and wounds given meritorious of Capital punishment, there usually is a distance of time, and oftentimes no absolute or unpreven∣table necessity, that the one should follow within a year and a day of the other.

3. But the best Method to convince such as Invented or used the former Distinction, of gross error and somewhat more then so, will be to retort their own Illustrations or justifications of it, upon themselves; as I have learned by successefull Experience upon some learned Ingenuous students which have revoked their own opinions, and reclaimed others upon the reading of my meditations upon this argument in another Dialect. One of the most usuall Illustrations or intended corroborations of the former di∣stinction is borrowed from a Man, that rides a Lame or halting horse. Such a rider, say they, (especially if he ride with switch and spur,) is the Cause why the horse goes or runs as fast as he can, but not the Cause of his lame∣nesse or of his halting. Of his lamenesse, supposed he was lam'd before, the Rider (I confess) is no Cause: yet of his actuall halting down-right, or of

the increase of the lameness which will follow upon the unseasonable riding or over-riding, he is the only Cause. For if the poor Beast might have rest∣ed his bones when he was enforced to trot or gallop, he would not have halt∣ed at all at that time, nor would he have been so grievously lame, as by such unseasonable usage he is. But this instance or Illustration, suppose it were not much amisse in respect of men now living, can no way sute or fit the Question concerning the sin of our First Parents. For Adam at his crea∣tion was no way lame or defective either in soul or body, before he tasted of the forbidden Fruit. Now if the Almighty Creator had been the cause of this Act, he had been as true a Cause of the First sin, or of Adams halting in his service; as he that bestrides a sound and lusty horse, and runs him upon the spur in a rugged and stony ground, or in a deep way, is of the lame∣nesse, of the death, or any disease which ensues such desperate riding.

4. To imagin that God should deal so hardly with the First Adam, as to give him a Law which he intended to make him break, and yet to punish him with death for the breach of it; Or that the Second Adam, the wisdom of God should send wise men and Prophets to Jerusalem, to the intent or End that She should stone or put them to death; or for this purpose, that their bloud should in later dayes be required of Her, (as some in our times have publick∣ly taught) is an Imagination in it self much worse and more dangerous then the erection of Images (though Roman-wise) in Reformed Churches; A greater Abomination then any Idol of the Heathens. For Images or Idols are but the External Objects of, or enticements unto grosse Idolatry. Nor was it the Carpenter or Statuary that did make the Heathen gods or Idols: Who then? Qui colit, ille facit; He or they alone turn Images or Pictures into Idols or false Gods, which worship or adore them. But the former Opinion or imagination, whether in respect of God, as he was the First mans Crea∣tor, or of the wisdom of God, as he is our Lord and Re∣deemer, is Intrinsecal and Formal Idolatry, or Idolatry in the Abstract, with∣out any external Object to dote upon, or to entice men to bestow worship upon it. The Heathens committed Idolatry in their Temples, or in their houses: but this Idolatry is committed within his Brain that entertains it: The Essence of it formally consists in the Reflexion of the Imagination upon it self, or in the complacency which men take in such Reflexions; if any man happily (which I much doubt) can be delighted with such imaginations. The very height of Heathenish Idolatry, as our Apostle instructs us, Rom. 1. 23, &c. did consist in changing the glory of the uncorruptible God, into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Now if the wisdom of God had sent wise-men and Pro∣phets unto the Jews, unto the End that Jerusalem should be destroyed, and righteous bloud required of them, His weeping over Jerusalem had better resembled or expressed the disposition of a Crocodile, then the Nature either of God or any good Man. Nor was it greater Idolatry in the Heathen, to change the glory of the uncorruptible God into the image or likenesse of a Crocodile, as the Egyptians did; then it is to ascribe the properties of this noysome beast, or any such disposition, as the Historical Emblem of the Cro∣codile doth represent, unto the Son of God, who came into the world, not to destroy or hurt, but to save sinners, and to be consecrated to be the Author of Everlasting Salvation to all that Obey him. These Two Branches of Idolatry; The One planted in the Egyptian, who worshipped the Crocodile for his god; The other in such as worship or nourish such sinister imaginations (of

the Son of God) as have been specified; differ no more, then the way from Athens to Thebes, doth from the way from Thebes to Athens.

5. The main head or source original whence all or most of the harsh ex∣pressions whether of Reformed writers, or of Roman Catholiques; whence all the aspersions which both or either of them indirectly, or by way of ne∣cessary consequence, cast upon our Lord Creator and Redeemer, naturally issue, is that Common or Fundamental Errour, That all things, (the changes and chances of this inferior World not excepted) are necessary in respect of God, or of his irresistible Decree: That nothing, not humane Acts, can be Con∣tingent, save only with reference to Second Causes. Now if there be no Con∣tingency in humanc Acts, there neither is, nor ever was, nor ever can be, any Free-will in man. The original of this common Error; [That all things are Necessary in respect of the Divine Decree,] hath been sufficiently discovered in the sixth book of these Commentaries upon the Apostles Creed, Sect. 2. Chap. 12. Where the Reader may find the Truth of this Proposition or Con∣clusion clearly demonstrated; [That to Decree a Contingency in some works or Course of Nature, in Humane Acts especially, was as possible to him unto whom no∣thing is impossible, as it was to decree a Necessity in some others works or Courses of Nature.] As for instance, To Decree or constitute that our Father Adam should have a Free power or Faculty either to eat or not to eat of the Forbid∣den Fruit, doth imply no Contradiction; and therefore was absolutely pos∣sible to the Almighty Creator so to ordain or Decree. But many things (as the observant Reader will except) are possible which are not probable, or never are brought into Act. True; Yet that the Almighty Creator, did de Facto, or actually decree, a Mutual Possibility of Adams Falling and not Falling, or between his Fall and Perseverance, hath been in this present Treatise, and in some others demonstrated from the Article Concerning The Goodness of God or his Gratious providence, by such Demonstration, as the Case now in handling, is capable of: that is, by Evident Deduction of the Contradictory Opinion, to this Impossibility,

That God otherwise was the only Cause of our First Parents sins, and of all other sins which neces∣sarily issue from their sins; unlesse it be granted and agreed upon, that Adams Falling or not Falling should both be alike possible; that neither should or could be necessary either to the First or Second Causes.

To deny that God did ordain or constitute a true and Facible Mean between the Necessity of Adams Perseverance in the State wherein he was created, and the Necessity of his Falling into sin, that is, a mutual Possibility of falling or not of Falling into sin, would imply as Evident a Contradiction unto, or impeachment of his Good∣ness, as it would do to his Omnipotency, if any man should peremptorily deny that the Constitution or Tenour of such a Decree were possible to his Almighty power. To say, God could not possibly make such a disjunctive Decree, or such a Tenour of mutual possibility betwixt things Decreed, as hath been often mentioned, would be a grosse Error, yet an error (I take it) not so dan∣gerous, as to deny that he did de Facto make such a Decree. For our Gratious Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier is doubtless more jealous to have his Goodness impeached or suspected, then to have his Almighty Power questioned.

6. Thus much of the main general Query, Concerning the manner how sin (or that evil which we call Malum culpae) did find First entrance into the works of God, and in particular into the nature of Man: from the first mo∣ment of whose creation, he and all the rest of Gods visible works, had this Elogium or commendation, that they were Exceeding Good▪ No entrance of sin into the works of God, into man especially, was possible, without the

Incogitancy or Inadvertency of a Free Cause or Agent. The true nature of the first sin and of its haynousnesse did especially consist in this, that whereas our gratious Creator had endowed our First Parents with a Power or faculty to Doe well, exceeding well; and given them good encouragement to per∣severe in so doing, they should so incogitantly and quickly abuse this power, and the Divine Concourse or assistance that did attend it, to do that which was evil; that which the Lord their Creator had so peremptorily forbidden them to do, under commination of a dreadful punishment to ensue upon the doing of it. The difficulty or main Querie which remains (all that hath been said being granted) is principally this: [How this one sinful Act of our First Parents could possibly produce an Habit of sin, or that which is more then a Ha∣bit, an unmoveable custome of sin, or an Hereditary disease of sinfulness through∣out all the successions of the sons of Adam, to the worlds end.] The second Querie, (yet in the first place to be discuss'd) is this, [Wherein the nature of that hereditary disease which we call Sin Original doth properly consist.] The third, [How this hereditary disease doth bring all mankind into a true and pro∣per servitude to sin, and by sin, unto Satan &c.] In the discussion of this and many other difficulties depending upon it, I shall endeavour to observe that Rule which Chemnitius in many of his works hath commended to the obser∣vation of every Student in Divinity; and his Rule is this: To state all Que∣stions upon those places of Scripture out of which they are naturally emergent, or out of those passages, upon whose mistakings or non-observance of them, many Theological controversies were first occasioned, and are to this day abetted or maintained with eagerness of dissension. To begin first with that most hea∣venly discourse of our Saviour, John 8. 30, &c.

Notes

• More Conten∣tion then Contradicti∣on about the First Mans E∣state.
• Original righ∣teousnesse no supernatural Grace.
• Of the Incon∣veniencies which will follow upon the affirma∣tive Opinion.
• The true state of the Questi∣on proposed.
• Original sin more then a meer priva∣tion.
• Plinie.
• No Creature from the first moment of its Creation was altoge∣ther impec∣cable.
• The question about merit of works, no way concerns the First man in his primae∣val Estate.
• The First man was neither necessitated to continue good, nor to become Evil.
• In the 2 Part, 2 Sect. Chap. 13. &c. of the Attributes.
• Of the use of Arts in discus∣sing Contro∣versies in The∣ologie.
• See the second Book, chap. 2. & chap. 4, &c.
• Obliquity can have no other Cause beside that which is the Cause of the Act whence it necessarily results.
• Much wrong done to worthy writers by un∣skilful Apolo∣gizers for their harsh expres∣ons.
• Tum D. Serarius: Scimus Vestros ita distinguere, quod non improbamus. Calvinus vero in scriptis suis om∣nem Dei permissionem in peccatis simpliciter rejicit: Et opera malorum, etiam quoad malitiam, efficaciae Dei tribuit: at{que} sic Deum Authorem Peccari manifestè facit. Ego verò: Utrum haec sit Calvini sententia quam Vos Eitribuitis, postea videbimus. Jam accipio, quod datis, Nostros, quos Calvinistas vocatis, ••o modo, quo dixi, distinguere; Quódque distinctionem nostram non pote∣stis improbare. Hinc verò evidentèr conficitur, Calvi∣nistas, quos vocatis, Deum peccati Autorem nequaquam facere: Ac proinde salsam esse D. Becani Minorem, quòd Calvinistae faciant Deum Authorem peccati: eóque & Conclusionem esse calumniosam, quòd Calvinistarum Deus sit Diabolus.
• Ibi D. Serarius, pro ingenio suo intelligens nodum: Ergo, inquit, deleatur illud—starum: Erit tamen Dia∣bolus Calvini, si non Calvinistarum Deus. Quo dicto D. Becanus subrubescens, cum Socii ingenuitatem im∣probare non auderet, subjecit & ipse: Benè, deleatur—starum; Manebit tamen Deus Calvini Diabolus. Tum Ego, dextra eis praebita, pro tanta liberalitate gratias agens, Satis mihi nunc est, inquam, quòd fatemini,—starum delendum esse, ut jam non Calvinistarum, sed Calvini Deus, secundum Vos, sit Diabolus. Pareus Act. Swalbacen. Parte 1. Coll. 2. De Autore Peccati.
• The Illustrati∣on of the fore∣mentioned distinction re∣torted upon such as use it.
• In solenni Lectione
• Many commit more gross Ido∣latry with their own fancies, then the Hea∣then did with their Idols.
• Qui fingit sacros, auro vel marmore, vultus,
• Non facit ille Deos; qui colit, ille facit.
• Martial.
• Heb. 5. 9.
• The original occasion of the former errors or ill expressi∣ons.