Part 17

He speaketh of God’s goodness and mercy, as if they were no part of his power. Is not goodness, in him that is good, the power to make himself beloved, and is not mercy goodness? Are not, therefore, these attributes contained in the attribute of his omnipotence? And justice in God, is it anything else, but the power he hath, and exerciseth in distributing blessings and afflictions? Justice is not in God as in man, the observation of the laws made by his superiors. Nor is wisdom in God, a logical examination of the means by the end, as it is in men; but an incomprehensible attribute given to an incomprehensible nature, for to honour him. It is the Bishop that errs, in thinking nothing to be power but riches and high place, wherein to domineer and please himself, and vex those that submit not to his opinions.

(_d_) “Thirdly, this opinion of absolute necessity destroys the truth of God, making him to command one thing openly, and to necessitate another privately, &c. It destroys the goodness of God, making him to be a hater of mankind, &c. It destroys the justice of God, making him to punish the creatures for that which was his own act, &c. It destroys the very power of God, making him to be the true author of all the defects and evils which are in the world.”

If the opinion of absolute necessity do all this, then the opinion of God’s prescience does the same; for God foreknoweth nothing, that can possibly not come to pass; but that which cannot possibly not come to pass, cometh to pass of necessity. But how doth necessity destroy the truth of God, by commanding and hindering what he commandeth? Truth consisteth in affirmation and negation, not in commanding and hindering; it does not therefore follow, if all things be necessary that come to pass, that therefore God hath spoken an untruth; nor that he professeth one thing, and intendeth another. The Scripture, which is his word, is not the profession of what he intendeth, but an indication of what those men shall necessarily intend, whom he hath chosen to salvation, and whom he hath determined to destruction. But on the other side, from the negation of necessity, there followeth necessarily the negation of God’s prescience; which is in the Bishop, if not ignorance, impiety. Or how “destroyeth it the goodness of God, or maketh him to be a hater of mankind, and to delight in the torments of his creatures, whereas the very dogs licked the sores of Lazarus in pity and commiseration of him”? I cannot imagine, when living creatures of all sorts are often in torments as well as men, that God can be displeased with it: without his will, they neither are nor could be at all tormented. Nor yet is he delighted with it; but health, sickness, ease, torments, life and death, are without all passion in him dispensed by him; and he putteth an end to them then when they end, and a beginning when they begin, according to his eternal purpose, which cannot be resisted. That the necessity argueth a delight of God in the torments of his creatures, is even as true, as that it was pity and commiseration in the dogs that made them lick the sores of Lazarus. Or how doth the opinion of necessity “destroy the justice of God, or make him to punish the creatures for that which was his own act”? If all afflictions be punishments, for whose act are all other creatures punished which cannot sin? Why may not God make the affliction, both of those men that he hath elected, and also of those whom he hath reprobated, the necessary causes of the conversion of those he hath elected; their own afflictions serving therein as chastisements, and the afflictions of the rest as examples? But he may perhaps think it no injustice to punish the creatures that cannot sin with temporary punishments, when nevertheless it would be injustice to torment the same creatures eternally. This may be somewhat to meekness and cruelty, but nothing at all to justice and injustice: for in punishing the innocent, the injustice is equal, though the punishments be unequal. And what cruelty can be greater than that which may be inferred from this opinion of the Bishop; that God doth torment eternally, and with the extremest degree of torment, all those men which have sinned, that is to say, all mankind from the creation to the end of the world which have not believed in Jesus Christ, whereof very few, in respect of the multitude of others, have so much as heard of his name; and this, when faith in Christ is the gift of God himself, and the hearts of all men in his hands to frame them to the belief of whatsoever he will have them to believe? He hath no reason therefore, for his part, to tax any opinion, for ascribing to God either cruelty or injustice. Or how doth it “destroy the power of God, or make him to be the author of all the defects and evils which are in the world”? First, he seemeth not to understand what _author_ signifies. _Author_, is he which owneth an action, or giveth a warrant to do it. Do I say, that any man hath in the Scripture, which is all the warrant we have from God for any action whatsoever, a warrant to commit theft, murder, or any other sin? Does the opinion of necessity infer that there is such a warrant in the Scripture? Perhaps he will say, no, but that this opinion makes him the cause of sin. But does not the Bishop think him the cause of all actions? And are not sins of commission actions? Is murder no action? And does not God himself say, _non est malum in civitate quod ego non feci_; and was murder not one of those evils? Whether it were or not, I say no more but that God is the cause, not the author, of all actions and motions. Whether sin be the action, or the defect, or the irregularity, I mean not to dispute. Nevertheless I am of opinion, that the distinction of _causes_ into _efficient_ and _deficient_ is _bohu_, and signifies nothing.

(_e_) “How shall a man praise God for his goodness, who believes him to be a greater tyrant than ever was in the world; who creates millions to burn eternally without their fault, to express his power?”

If _tyrant_ signify, as it did when it came first in use, a king, it is no dishonour to believe that God is a greater tyrant than ever was in the world; for he is the King of all kings, emperors, and commonwealths. But if we take the word, as it is now used, to signify those kings only, which they that call them tyrants, are displeased with, that is, that govern not as they would have them, the Bishop is nearer the calling him a tyrant, than I am; making that to be tyranny, which is but the exercise of an absolute power; for he holdeth, though he see it not, by consequence, in withdrawing the will of man from God’s dominion, that every man is a king of himself. And if a man cannot praise God for his goodness, who creates millions to burn eternally without their fault; how can the Bishop praise God for his goodness, who thinks he hath created millions of millions to burn eternally, when he could have kept them so easily from committing any fault? And to his “how shall a man hear the word of God with that reverence, and devotion, and faith, which is requisite, who believeth that God causeth his gospel to be preached to the much greater part of Christians, not with any intention that they should be converted and saved,” &c.; I answer, that those men who so believe, have faith in Jesus Christ, or they have not faith in him. If they have, then shall they, by that faith, hear the word of God with that reverence, and devotion, and faith, which is requisite to salvation. And for them that have no faith, I do not think he asketh how they shall hear the word of God with that reverence, and devotion, and faith, which is requisite; for he knows they shall not, until such time as God shall have given them faith. Also he mistakes, if he think that I or any other Christian believe, that God intendeth, by hardening any man’s heart, to make that man inexcusable, but to make his elect the more careful.

Likewise to his question, “how shall a man receive the sacrament with comfort, who believeth that so many millions are positively excluded from the benefit of Christ’s passion, before they had done either good or evil”; I answer as before, _by faith_, if he be of God’s elect; if not, he shall not receive the sacrament with comfort. I may answer also, that the faithful man shall receive the sacrament with comfort, by the same way that the bishop receiveth it with comfort. For he also believeth that many millions are excluded from the benefit of Christ’s passion, (whether positively or not positively is nothing to the purpose, nor doth positively signify any thing in this place); and that, so long before they had either done good or evil, as it was known to God before they were born that they were so excluded.

To his “how shall he prepare himself with care and conscience, who apprehendeth that eating and drinking unworthily is not the cause of damnation, but because God would damn a man, therefore he necessitates him”: I answer, that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, does not believe that God necessitates him to eat and drink unworthily, because he would damn him; for neither does he think he eats and drinks unworthily, nor that God intends to damn him; for he believeth no such damnation, nor intendeth any preparation. The belief of damnation is an article of Christian faith; so is also preparation to the sacrament. It is therefore a vain question, how he that hath no faith shall prepare himself with care and conscience to the receiving of the sacrament. But to the question, how they shall prepare themselves, that shall at all prepare themselves; I answer, it shall be by faith, when God shall give it them.

To his “how shall a man make a free vow to God, who thinks himself able to perform nothing, but as he is extrinsically necessitated”: I answer, that if he make a vow, it is a free vow, or else it is no vow; and yet he may know, when he hath made that vow, though not before, that it was extrinsically necessitated; for the necessity of vowing before he vowed, hindered not the _freedom_ of his vow, but made it.

Lastly, to “how shall a man condemn and accuse himself for his sins, who thinks himself to be like a watch which is wound up by God,” &c.: I answer, though he think himself necessitated to what he shall do, yet, if he do not think himself necessitated and wound up to impenitence, there will follow upon his opinion of necessity no impediment to his repentance. The Bishop disputeth not against me, but against somebody that holds a man may repent, that believes at the same time he cannot repent.

(_f_) “Observe what a description he has given us here of repentance: ‘It is a glad returning into the right way, after the grief of being out of the way.’ It amazed me to find _gladness_ to be the first word in the description of repentance.”

I could never be of opinion that Christian repentance could be ascribed to them, that had as yet no intention to forsake their sins and to lead a new life. He that grieves for the evil that hath happened to him for his sins, but hath not a resolution to obey God’s commandments better for the time to come, grieveth for his sufferings, but not for his doings; which no divine, I think, will call Christian repentance. But he that resolveth upon amendment of life, knoweth that there is forgiveness for him in Christ Jesus; whereof a Christian cannot possibly be but glad. Before this gladness there was a grief preparative to repentance, but the repentance itself was not Christian repentance till this conversion, till this glad conversion. Therefore I see no reason why it should amaze him to find gladness to be the first word in the description of repentance, saving that the light amazeth such as have been long in darkness. And “for the fasting, sackcloth, and ashes”, they were never parts of repentance perfected, but signs of the beginning of it. They are external things; repentance is internal. This doctrine pertaineth to the establishing of Romish penance; and being found to conduce to the power of the clergy, was by them wished to be restored.

(_g_) “It is a returning; but whose act is this returning? If it be God’s alone, then it is his repentance, not man’s repentance; what need the penitent person trouble himself about it?”

This is ill argued; for why is it God’s repentance, when he gives man repentance, more than it is God’s faith, when he gives man faith. But he labours to bring in a concurrence of man’s will with God’s will; and a power in God to give repentance, if man will take it; but not the power to make him take it. This concurrence he thinks is proved by Revel. iii. 19, 20: “Be zealous, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock. If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him”. Here is nothing of concurrence, nor of anything equivalent to it, nor mention at all of the will or purpose, but of the calling or voice by the minister. And as God giveth to the minister a power of persuading, so he giveth also many times a concurrence of the auditor with the minister in being persuaded. Here is therefore somewhat equivalent to a concurrence with the minister, that is, of man with man; but nothing of the concurrence of man, whose will God frameth as he pleaseth, with God that frameth it. And I wonder how any man can conceive, when God giveth a man a will to do anything whatsoever, how that will, when it is not, can concur with God’s will to make itself be.

The next thing he excepteth against is this, that I hold, (_h_) “that prayer is not a cause, nor a means of God’s blessing, but only a signification that we expect it from him.”

First, instead of my words, “a signification that we expect nothing but from him,” he hath put “a signification that we expect it from him”. There is much difference between my words and his, in the sense and meaning; for in the one, there is honour ascribed to God, and humility in him that prayeth; but in the other, presumption in him that prayeth, and a detraction from the honour of God. When I say, prayer is not a cause nor a means, I take _cause_ and _means_ in one and the same sense; affirming that God is not moved by any thing that we do, but has always one and the same eternal purpose, to do the same things that from eternity he hath foreknown shall be done; and methinks there can be no doubt made thereof. But the Bishop allegeth (2 Cor. i. 11): that “St. Paul was helped by their prayers, and that the gift was bestowed upon them by their means;” and (James v. 16): “The effectual and fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much”. In which places, the words _means_, _effectual_, _availeth_, do not signify any causation; for no man nor creature living can work any effect upon God, in whom there is nothing, that hath not been in him eternally heretofore, nor that shall not be in him eternally hereafter; but do signify the order in which God hath placed men’s prayers and his own blessings. And not much after, the Bishop himself saith, “prayer works not upon God, but us”. Therefore, it is no cause of God’s will, in giving us his blessings, but is properly a sign, not a procuration of his favour.

The next thing he replieth to is, that I make prayer to be a kind of thanksgiving; to which he replies, “he might even as well tell me, that when a beggar craves an alms, and when he gives thanks for it, it is all one.” Why so? Does not a beggar move a man by his prayer, and sometime worketh in him a compassion not without pain, and as the Scripture calls it, a yearning of the bowels; which is not so in God, when we pray to him? Our prayer to God is a duty; it is not so to man. Therefore, though our prayers to man be distinguished from our thanks, it is not necessary it should be so in our prayers and thanks to God Almighty.

To the rest of his reply, in this No. XV, there needs no further answer.

NO. XVI.

[Sidenote: The Bishop’s reply.]

_J. D._ “Fourthly, the order, beauty, and perfection of the world doth require that in the universe should be agents of all sorts, some necessary, some free, some contingent. He that shall make, either all things necessary, guided by destiny; or all things free, governed by election; or all things contingent, happening by chance: doth overthrow the beauty and the perfection of the world.”

_T. H._ The fourth argument from reason, is this. The order, beauty, and perfection of the world requireth that in the universe there should be agents of all sorts, some necessary, some free, some contingent. He that shall make all things necessary, or all things free, or all things contingent, doth overthrow the beauty and perfection of the world.

In which argument I observe, first, a contradiction. For seeing he that maketh anything, in that he maketh it, he maketh it to be necessary, it followeth, that he that maketh all things, maketh all things necessary to be. As if a workman make a garment, the garment must necessarily be. So if God make every thing, every thing must necessarily be. Perhaps the beauty of the world requireth, though we know it not, that some agents should work without deliberation, which he calls necessary agents; and some agents with deliberation, and those both he and I call free agents; and that some agents should work, and we not know how; and those effects we both call contingent. But this hinders not, but that he that electeth, may have his election necessarily determined to one by former causes; and that which is contingent, and imputed to fortune, be nevertheless necessary, and depend on precedent necessary causes. For by contingent, men do not mean that which hath no cause, but which hath not for cause any thing which we perceive. As for example; when a traveller meets with a shower, the journey had a cause, and the rain had a cause, sufficient enough to produce it; but because the journey caused not the rain, nor the rain the journey, we say, they were contingent one to another. And thus you see, though there be three sorts of events, necessary, contingent, and free, yet they may be all necessary, without the destruction of the beauty or perfection of the universe.

_J. D._ “The first thing he observes in mine argument, is contradiction, as he calls it; but in truth, it is but a deception of the sight, as one candle sometimes seems to be two, or a rod in the water shows to be two rods; _quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis_. But what is this contradiction? Because I say, he who maketh all things, doth not make them necessary. What! a contradiction and but one proposition! That were strange. I say, God hath not made all agents necessary; he saith, God hath made all agents necessary. Here is a contradiction indeed; but it is between him and me, not between me and myself. But though it be not a formal contradiction, yet perhaps it may imply a contradiction _in adjecto_. Wherefore to clear the matter, and dispel the mist which he hath raised, it is true, that everything when it is made, it is necessary that it be made so as it is, that is, by a necessity of infallibility, or supposition, supposing that it be so made; but this is not that absolute, antecedent necessity, whereof the question is between him and me. As to use his own instance: before the garment be made, the tailor is free to make it either of the Italian, Spanish, or French fashion indifferently; but after it is made, it is necessary that it be of that fashion whereof he hath made it, that is, by a necessity of supposition. But this doth neither hinder the cause from being a free cause, nor the effect from being a free effect; but the one did produce freely, and the other was freely produced. So the contradiction is vanished.”