The riches of Gods love unto the vessells of mercy, consistent with his absolute hatred or reprobation of the vessells of wrath, or, An answer unto a book entituled, Gods love unto mankind ... in two bookes, the first being a refutation of the said booke, as it was presented in manuscript by Mr Hord unto Sir Nath. Rich., the second being an examination of certain passages inserted into M. Hords discourse (formerly answered) by an author that conceales his name, but was supposed to be Mr Mason ... / by ... William Twisse ... ; whereunto are annexed two tractates of the same author in answer unto D.H. ... ; together with a vindication of D. Twisse from the exceptions of Mr John Goodwin in his Redemption redeemed, by Henry Jeanes ...

Sect: 7.

There are two things say they in every ill act. First, the materiall part which is the substance of the action. * 1.1 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 go∣ing, 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. Se∣condly, 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 hal∣ting: 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 common∣ly used by Aquinas 1. secun: q: 71. art: 6, in corp: Augustinus in definitione peccati posuit duo, * 1.2 Unum quod pertinet ad substantiam actûs humani, quod est quasi materiale in peccato; cum di∣cit 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 for∣mall 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} ha∣bet 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 clau∣dicatione. 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 hal∣ting: 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 Ar∣minius 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 defe∣ctu, an act with a defect, that is an act defective. As Aquinas speakes in the place immediat∣ly 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 li∣berty 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 co∣lour 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. A∣gaine an inordination is a privation of order. But no act is formally a privation, and consequent∣ly neither can it be formally an inordination. 3. An entitie positive, & a terme privative can∣not 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 acti∣on 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 on∣ly, but the aberration also; but in all this there is no contradiction unto us; We willing∣ly grant that in as much as God permits sinne, he will have sinne come to passe, by his per∣mission, 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 un∣changeable counsell ordaine whatsoever in time shall come to passe; and according to the ex∣presse word of God testifiing that the tenne Kings in giving their Kingdomes did here∣in doe the will of God. And that the horrible outrages committed upon the person of * 1.3 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 inten∣ded 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 a∣gainst the day of evill. And to this end he doth not only permit them both to sinne, and to * 1.4 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 repro∣bates. 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) where∣by he bringeth to passe the declaration of his just wrath. But men of this Authours spi∣rit; 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 on∣ly 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 permit∣ting 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 su∣pernaturall. Now never any of our Divines denyed a man liberty in his greatest corrup∣tion, 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 * 1.5 seen under his hand where he denies originall sinne to be veri nominis pecatum, sinne tru∣ly 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 lec∣tures 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 damna∣tion. 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 repro∣batur à Deo, tamen quod in hoc peccatum vel illud labatur, ex ejus libero arbitrio contingit. * 1.6 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 * 1.7 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 * 1.8 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 * 1.9 sin; And in no moment of nature, are either of these intended before the other, both be∣ing 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 evi∣dently 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.

Notes

• * 1.1

  M. Mason's Addit. p. 34. 35.
• * 1.2

  Answer.
• * 1.3

  Rev: 17. 17.
• * 1.4

  Ro. 9. 23. Prov: 16. 4.
• * 1.5

  Ro. 5. 12.
• * 1.6

  Thom: 1: p. q: 23. art. 7. ad tertiū.
• * 1.7

  2 Sam: 12. 11. 12.
• * 1.8

  1 Kin: 13. 2. Es: 45. 13. Ezra: 1, 2 King: 23. 16. 2 Sam: 16. 22.
• * 1.9

  Prov: 16. 4.