A92141:58
Influences of the life of grace
Influences of the life of grace. Or, A practical treatise concerning the way, manner, and means of having and improving of spiritual dispositions, and quickening influences from Christ the resurrection and the life. By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.Influences of the life of grace. Or, A practical treatise concerning the way, manner, and means of having and improving of spiritual dispositions, and quickning influences from Christ the resurrection and the life. By Samuel Rutherfurd, Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of St. Andrews in Scotland.
London: printed by T.C. for Andrew Crook, 1659
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Ans. 1. The virtual demerit is not the adequate cause why the sin is ascribed to Adam, but the actual crooking and deviating of the mind, will and affections from God, as the true nearest cause, especially since Adam is under a Law not to sin, nor to refuse virtually the Lords influence; and because the Lord is under no Law to give influences, his free withdrawing can never make the sin to be imputed to God, for God doth nothing contra debitum in withdrawing his influence, but Adam against a law virtually rejects the influence, and formally sins. So there is no reason why the good work should not be ascribed to God for power to act, to wit, the image of God, and actual acting are his free gift; but a power of sin and actual sin are wholly from us, only not from God at all; I speak of the power formal to sins, which is a crookedness of power, such as is a power to blindness.
Ans. 1. The virtual demerit is not the adequate cause why the sin is ascribed to Adam, but the actual crooking and deviating of the mind, will and affections from God, as the true neerest cause, especially since Adam is under a Law not to sin, nor to refuse virtually the Lords influence; and because the Lord is under no Law to give influences, his free withdrawing can never make the sin to be imputed to God, for God doth nothing contra debitum in withdrawing his influence, but Adam against a law virtually rejects the influence, and formally sins. So there is no reason why the good work should not be ascribed to God for power to act, to wit, the image of God, and actual acting are his free gift; but a power of sin and actual sin are wholly from us, only not from God at all; I speak of the power formal to sins, which is a crookedness of power, such as is a power to blindness.
Ob. Whereas they say that Adam materially and interpretatively in the effect wants the praedeterminating influence of God. I ask whether they understand the effect and material and interpretative consent or the formal and direct actual consent, if the former be said, it is a ridiculous clavering, for they say that Adam desired interpretatively ⟨image 16⟩and materially to want the influence of God quatenus in se, as he desired to want the influence of God, if the latter be said, the necessity of sinning stands, for if God deny his influence to one of the opposites, and giveth it to the other, it is a necessity the strength of our argument is that, that is not to be imputed to Adam as sin, which was both necessary and inevitable.