Selected quad for the lemma: kingdom_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
kingdom_n	act_n	king_n	lord_n	2,428	5	3.6568	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41639	The court of the gentiles. Part IV, Of reformed philosophie. Book III, Of divine predetermination, wherein the nature of divine predetermination is fully explicated and demonstrated, both in the general, as also more particularly, as to the substrate mater [sic] or entitative act of sin.; Court of the gentiles. Part IV. Book III	Gale, Theophilus, 1628-1678.	1678 (1678)	Wing G143; ESTC R16919	203,898	236

we follow the commun interpretation it appears that the same fact is ascribed to God and Satan and therefore it must be on a different account and here also the varietie in the end and mode makes the unspotted Justice of God to shine forth and the malice of Satan and pravitie of man to discover itself For 1 the action of numbering the people was not in itself evil 2 Divines distinguish between tentation of probation and seduction 3 Here the sane things concur which were before explicated of the same sense whereby God is said to incline to evil namely the permission and laxation of the reins to Satan the oblation of occasions and irritaments impediments being removed and the suspension of Divine Grace which things concurring with the pravitie of nature sin necessarily follows 1 We grant that the same fact is ascribed to God and Satan on different accounts God put the thought entitatively considered into Davids heart but Satan stirred up his heart to the act of numbering the people God in judgement gave over David to this sin that it should be at this time when God was angry with Israel There is a special providence of God even in the ebullitions of lusts in the hearts of his own people Thus also in the wicked who put that thought of murder considered materially into the heart of Esau When my father is dead I wil slay my brother Jacob Was it not from God Whence came that motion into the heart of Judas to betray Christ with al the circumstances materially considered referring thereto were they not from God Thus here God put the entitative thought of numbering the people into the heart of David albeit Satan stirred it up and God was the Orderer albeit Satan the Abettor and in some sense the Author of it for God is only the prime physic cause of the natural entitie but Satan the moral cause or Author of the vitiositie again the concurse of God to the natural entitative act is immediate efficacious and predeterminative but Satans concurse only mediate objective and suasive though with more or lesse degrees of moral efficacitie as Eph. 2. 2. Again 2 we grant that the different ends and modes of operating make Gods unspotted Justice and mans pravitie to shine forth 3 We are glad that Strangius wil grant the action of numbering the people not to be in itself evil Whence by a paritie of reason we argue That no action though never so intrinsecally evil is in itself i. e. as considered in its physic entitative act and according to its substrate mater sinful for certainly if Davids numbering the people which was a sin attended with so much pride vain-glorie and confidence in an arme of flesh with other aggravations which so greatly provoked God were not in itself evil no other sin considered in its mere entitative and physic act is such Yea I as yet see no reason why this sin of David considered in its individual circumstances and moral relation to its object and principes may not be estimed a sin intrinsecally evil as wel as Shimei's cursing David But 4 Strangius's summary conclusion That Gods concurse to Davids sin was only an idle permission laxation of the reins to Satan and oblation of occasions with suspension of Divine Grace is very contradictory both to the letter and mind of the Text which saith positively that God moved or excited and stirred up the mind of David not morally but physicly to the entitative act of numbering the people Certainly when the Scripture speakes so categoricly and positively of Gods moving the wil to its act to restrain such moving influences and causalitie only to mere idle permission or objective oblation of occasions or negative suspensions of Divine Grace what is this but to make the Scripture contradictory to itself or affirmation and negation applicable to the same words How easily might an Atheist hence take advantage to elude al Scripture But to passe on to other Texts that clearly expresse Gods immediate predeterminative concurse to the substrate mater of sinful acts 1 Kings 11. 31. the Lord saith I wil rend the kingdome out of the hand of Solomon So vers 37. to Jeroboam I wil take thee and thou shalt reigne c. Whence 1 Kings 12. 15. it 's said that the cause why Rehoboam hearkened not unto the people was from the Lord that he might performe his saying c. So vers 24. God saith expressely The thing i. e. the revolt of Israel is from me So of Jehu God saith 2 Kings 9. 3. I have anointed thee King and chap. 10. 30. Jehu is said to do unto the house of Ahab al that was in Gods heart From these Texts it's most evident that the holy God assumes to himself the production of such entitative natural acts which had sin necessarily appendent to them Now let us examine what response Strangius gives hereto l. 4. c. 4. p. 793. rejecting the answer of Bellarmine which to me is as good as his yea not really different he answers It is not unlikely but that Jeroboam and Jehu albeit in taking the Kingdome they sinned not as to the thing itself and substance of the act because instructed by Gods-command yet in manner of acting as they were profane men they variously sinned by mingling their own ambition and depraved affections with the worke of God Thence he concludes That whatever their sins were yet the justice of God sufficiently shines forth in the whole of this Administration because God used both the Kings and people in this worke only as instruments to execute his just judgements c. To give a brief replie hereto it is very evident that al that Strangius hath given us in answer to these Texts doth but more confirme us in the true sense we give of them For 1 it is manifest that Jeroboam and Jehu with the Revolters their Adherents sinned not only in the mode or manner but in the very substance of their acts For is not High treason against a lawful King an act sinful as to its substance And were not Rehoboam and Ahab both lawful Kings Was not Rehoboam Solomons Son whom God made King It 's true Jeroboam and Jehu had private prophetic Instructions and Unctions but yet those gave them no real title before the people but only secret intimations what God would in his providence bring to passe David had a promise of the Kingdom and also Divine Unction and yet he confesseth that God gave him no actual title to the Kingdom in the eyes of men but he stil ownes Saul as his Soverain King and the Lords Anointed and so ought Jeroboam and Jehu their lawful Soverains til God had given them a legal title before men 2 But suppose Jeroboam and Jehu's sin were only in the manner not in the substance of the act yet certain it is that the peoples sin before God had declared his soverain wil to them was high Treason and so substantially

agree and give their kingdome unto the Beste That phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is very emphatic and notes not the infusion of any vitiositie but the efficacious predetermining their wils to the substrate mater or entitative act and permission of the vitiositie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here exactly answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Kings 22. 23. which the LXX render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and here signifies to cause the mater effectually to be brought about as the same word signifies Mat. 12. 39. 16. 4. 24. 24. Mar. 13. 22. Act. 2. 19. 14. 3. Rom. 15. 5. Rev. 3. 4. and elsewhere Whence it follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fulfil his wil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here signifies powerfully to effect or to performe with singular efficace in which sense it is used also Mat. 7. 22. 13. 58. or to effect with labor and industrie as it 's used Act. 9. 39. 19. 24. Heb. 8. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly a decree sentence or confirmed purpose so here So that the mind of this Text seems this The blessed God passed an absolute irreversible decree or purpose that the Adherents of Antichrist should give up their Power and Kingdome to him and thence he by an efficacious concurse predetermined their wils to the substrate mater of those acts whereunto sin was annexed for the glorifying of his Justice on Antichrist and his power and mercie towards his afflicted Churches Now let us examine the subterfuges men shelter themselves under to avoid the force of this Text. A reverend Divine of name among us replies thus 1 He that readeth Dr. Hammonds Exposition applying this to Alaricus sacking Rome with the effects wil see that the very subject is so dubious and dark as not fit to found such a Doctrine on 2 It was the effect of sin that God willed and not the sin 3 He is not said to put the sin into their hearts but only to do his pleasure and agree to give up c. which he could most easily do by putting many good and lawful thoughts into their hearts which with their own sins would have that effect which he willed if a thief have a wil to rob God may put it into his heart to go such or such a way where a wicked man to be punished wil be in his way Thus that reverend Divine In answer hereto we say That whatever mens Comments may be yet certainly the subject is not so dark but carries evidence enough with it that it can be meant of no other than of the ten hornes which give up their Kingdome to the Antichristian Beste 2 Whereas he saith It was the effect of their sin that God willed and not the sin this seems contradictory to the very letter as wel as to the mind of the words for it 's said 1 God hath put it into their hearts i. e. not only the effect but the very material entitative act Then 2 to fulfil his wil i. e. his decree so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here must note Now God decreed the very act and not only the effect and therefore his predetermining concurse must also reach the very act according to that great theologic Axiome allowed by Strangius and others That predetermination necessarily follows predefinition or Gods absolute Decree Yea 3 it's said That God put into their hearts not only to fulfil his wil but also to agree and give their Kingdome to the Beste To agree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unanimously to make one Edict or Decree and that at a Council-table Which clearly denotes a deliberate firme unanimous consent of giving up their power to the Beste And doth not this clearly speak the act of their sin as wel as the effect And is not this act as to its entitative mater said to be put into their hearts by God So much also the next Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importes namely their deliberate free donation of their power wherein the formalitie of their sin lies and yet this very act as to its substrate mater is said to be from God Whence 3 whereas he saith God is not said to put the sin into their hearts but only to do his pleasure and agree c. I easily grant 1 That God did not put the sin formally considered into their heart for God temtes no one to sin but yet he put the material entitative act of the sin into their heart For wherein lay the malignitie of their sin but in this that they unanimously and peremtorily agreed or decreed to give up their power to the Beste And is not this very act entitatively considered said to be put into them by God And was it not also Gods pleasure or stated Decree that they should thus agree c. And 2 whereas he saith God could make them do his pleasure most easily by putting many good and lawful thoughts into their hearts c. is not this a very slender evasion what the least mention is there of any such thing in the Text Yea is it not expressely said That God put into their hearts to agree c And did not the poison of their sin lie in this maligne bloudy agreement Albeit the holy God be sufficiently vindicated from the least imputation of any hand in this conspiracie in that he decreed and produced only the entitative act not the vitiositie 3 His instance or similitude from the Thief that hath a wil to rob c. is extreme lame and nothing to the purpose for it 's evidently said in the Text that God not only concurred to the externe acts and effects but that he put it into their hearts to agree c. So that the very wil and consent entitatively considered was from God Let us now examine what Strangius replies to this who lib. 4. cap. 10. pag. 855. acknowlegeth this Text Rev. 17. 17. to be meant of the ten hornes giving their power to the Beste but yet so as that if we understand the words 1 of Gods putting it into their minds to agree c. then the sense must be no other than 2 Thes 2. 11. Rom. 1. 28. and like places which speak of Gods delivering men up to a reprobate mind and sending the efficace of error that they might serve Antichrist And here the distinction must always concur when in the same action sin and punishment concur that not mens sins but Gods judgements and punishments must be ascribed to God In this sense God is said to excite impel and incline to sin Before we passe on to Strangius's second answer let us a little examine this 1 He grants that God judicially may and doth concur to sin yea excite impel and incline men to it And doth not this fully overthrow his own Hypothesis and confirme ours For if God in judgement impel excite and incline men to one sin as a punishment of another is he not then as much the Author of sin in this way as in

is such a supreme Rule of Justice as that whatever he wils is for that very reason because he wils it to be accounted just So Bradwardine de Causa Dei l. 1. c. 47. proves strongly That albeit God punisheth no man eternally without sin committed in time yet he doth not eternally reprobate any for sin as a Cause antecedently moving his divine Wil. So Alvarez de Auxil Disput 109. 3 a Conclus The positive act whereby God from eternitie would not admit some into his Kingdome was not conditionate but absolute antecedent in a moment of Reason to the il use of Free-wil And it is proved 1 Because there can be no cause of Reprobation 2 Because supernatural Beatitude is not due to any upon the account of natural improvements Therefore God could from al eternitie without any Injurie before the Prescience of the good or il use of free-wil elect some to life eternal and by a positive act wil not to admit others And our Divines generally grant That there can be no other cause assigned of Reprobation than the absolute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or good pleasure of God But none is more categoric and positive in this than judicious Davenant who yet in some points came nigh the new Methodists in his incomparable Animadversions on Gods love to mankind Wherein he doth puissantly defend the following particulars greatly conducing to the establishment of our Hypothesis 1 That Gods secret wil of good pleasure is very different from his reveled preceptive complacential wil as pag. 221 349 376. 2 That Gods reveled complacential approbative wil is the measure of our dutie but not of Gods decrees or operations pag. 222 356 391 399. 3 That Gods beneplacite wil or good pleasure is only properly his wil pag. 392. 4 That Gods beneplacite wil or good pleasure is moved by nothing but itself pag. 375 376. 5 That the absolute Decrees of God contradict not general conditional promisses of life and threats of death pag. 241 332 375 387 398. 6 That God may be said according to his wil of complacence and approbation to intend the salvation of sinners yea Reprobates by providing the means of grace conducing thereto pag. 271 376 394. 7 That the externe means and offers of grace must be measured and interpreted according to the knowen nature of the means not the unknowen wil of God pag. 353. 8 That God by his approbative complacential wil unfeignedly wils what he commands pag. 329 393 394 401. 9 That al under the means of grace are under some remote conditional possibilitie of salvation pag. 256 257. 10 That Gods evangelic providential intention of saving sinners is oft frustrated as to its events by mans sin although his decretive beneplacite intention is never frustrated p. 377 381 387 388 395. 11 That absolute Election and Reprobation may stand with a possibilitie to contrary events though not with contrary events pag. 240 333 341 360 402 253. 12 That absolute Decrees oppose not the Justice of God with its difference from that of men pag. 232 321 336 339 342. 13 That absolute Decrees oppose not Gods Holinesse pag. 240-272 14 That absolute Decrees oppose not the Mercie of God pag. 277-310 15 That mere conditional Decrees are inconsistent with Gods soverain Being and Independence pag. 226. 16 That absolute Reprobation is not repugnant to Gods Truth pag. 349-362 17 That absolute Reprobation takes not away the end and use of Gods gifts pag. 374-404 18 That absolute Reprobation leaves no man under an absolute necessitie or compulsion to sin pag. 253. 19 Let Reprobation be absolute or conditional it leaves the same possibilitie and libertie to the Agents pag. 333 340 341 351 360. 20 That the Arminians grant an absolute immutable fixed Decree of Reprobation which admits the same objections that they urge against the Calvinists p. 302 332 333 340 351 354 400 418 419. 21 Infallible Prescience granted by the Arminians infers as much necessitie on the wil and compulsion to sin as absolute Reprobation pag. 418 419 442 462. 22 Lastly he shews us What is the right use and abuse of absolute Decrees pag. 454-526 These Propositions clearly and fully explicated by our judicious Davenant give great evidence and demonstration to our Hypothesis as also distinct solution to the objections of our Opponents of which hereafter Chap. 6. § 4. Our next Argument shal be taken from Divine Concurse its Principe Nature and Efficace the explication whereof wil give us a ful demonstration of our Hypothesis which we shal endeavor to lay down in the following Particulars 1. That God predetermines the wil to the substrate mater or entitative act of that which is sinful may be demonstrated from the Principe of al Divine Concurse What is the active principe of al Divine Concurse but the Divine wil Doth not sacred Pagine expressely speak so much So Eph. 1. 11. Who worketh althings after the counsel of his own wil. And more particularly as to the substrate mater of sin it 's said Act. 4. 28. that those who crucified our Lord did acte but what Gods hand or wil and counsel predetermined to be done of which before And Strangius himself grants us lib. 1. cap. 11. pag. 63. That concurse as to its prime act is in God and the same with God Now such is the Omnipotence of the Divine wil that althings must necessarily be done which he wils to be done and in that manner as he wils them as Aquinas wel determines How then is it possible but that if God wil that the substrate mater of sin existe it must necessarily existe and in that manner as he wils it Can any person or thing resiste the Divine efficacious wil And what is al active concurse but the determination of the same efficacious wil See more of Gods wil being the spring and principe of Divine concurse Court Gent. P. 4. B. 2. C. 7. § 3. 2. That God predetermines the wil to the substrate mater of sin may be demonstrated from the nature of Divine concurse as to its Totalitie Vniversalitie as to effects Particularitie as to manner of working Immediation Antecedence and soverain absolute Independence 1 The Totalitie of Divine concurse sufficiently demonstrates its predetermination as to the substrate mater of sin That Gods concurse to al second causes acts and effects is total we have sufficiently demonstrated Court Gent. P. 4. B. 2. C. 7. pag. 417. Thus much is also granted by Strangius lib. 1. cap. 10. pag. 55. where he assertes That the whole action dependes on God as also on the creature otherwise God should not concur immediately Though I am not ignorant that a Divine of name among us as also of the same partie with Strangius denies Gods concurse to the substrate mater of sin to be total yet because he is singular therein and different from his own partie I shal take it for granted that Gods concurse is