A. Gen. ii. 24.
Q. Where did God put man after he was created?
A. Gen. ii. 8.
' Vid. Rod. de Arriaga. disp. Log. xiv. sect. 5, subsect. 8, p. 20-5 ; Suarez. in Opus, lib. i. de Prsescientia Dei, cap. ii. ; Vasquez. 1, Part. disp. G6, cap. ii. ; Pet. Hurtado de Mend. disp. 9, de Anima. sect. 6.
OF MAN S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 1 41
Q. What commandment gave he to the man when he put him. into the garden f
A. Gen. ii. 16, 17.
Q. Was the man deceived to eat of the forbidden fruit?
A. 1 Tim. ii. 14.
Q. By whom u<as the woman deceived?
A. 2 Cor. xl. 3.
Q. How ivas the woman induced to eat of the forbidden fruit? and how the man?
A. Gon. iii. 6.
Q. What effect followed upon their eating?
A. Gen. iii. 7.
Q. Did the sin of our first parents in eating of the forbidden fruit bring both upon them and their posterity the guilt <f hell-fire, deface the image of Ood in them, darken their understanding, enslave their will, deprive them of power to do good, and cause mortality ? If not, what are the true penalties that God denounced against them for the said offence?
A. Gen. iii. 16-19.
EXAMINATION.
Having delivered his thoughts concerning God himself, his nature and properties, in the foregoing chapters, in this our catechist pro- ceeds to the consideration of his works, ascribing to God the creation of all things, especially insisting on the making of man. Now, although many questions might be proposed from which Mr B. would, I supjiose, be scarcely able to extricate himself, relating to the impossibility of the proceeding of such a work as the creation of all things from such an agent as he hath described God to be, so limited both in his essence and properties, yet it being no part of my busi- ness to dispute or perplex any thing that is simply in itself true«and unquestionable, with the attendancies of it from other corrupt notions of him or them by whom it is received and proposed, I shall wholly omit all considerations of that nature, and apply myself merely to what is by him expressed. That he who is limited and finite in essence, and consequently in properties, should by his power, without the help of any intervening instrument, out of nothing, produce, at such a vast distance from him as his hands can by no means reach unto, such mighty effects as the earth itself and the fulness thereof, is not of an easy proof or resolution. But on these things at present I shall not insist. Certain it is that, on this apprehension of God, the Epicureans disputed for the impossibility of the creation of the world.^
His first question, then, is, " Were the heaven and earth from all eternity, or created at a certain time ? and by whom ?" To which he answers with Gen. i. 1, " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
' " Quibus enim oculis animi intueri potuit vester Plato fabricam illam tanti ojieris, qua construi a Deo atque sedificari niundum facit ? Quas molitio ? Qu83 ferranicnta ? Qui vectes ? Quae niachiiios ? Qui ministri tauti muneris fuerunt ? Quemadniodum nutem obetlire et parere voluntati architccti aer, ignis, aqua, terra, potuerunt ? " — Velloius apud Cicer. de Nat. Deer. lib. i. 8.
142 VINDICT^ EVANGELIC^.
Right. Only in the exposition of this verse, as it discovers the principal efficient cause of the creation of all things, or the author of this great work, Mr B. afterward expounds himself to differ from us and the word of God in other places. By " God" he intends the Father only and exclusively, the Scripture plentifully ascribing this work also to the Son and Holy Ghost, manifesting their concurrence in the indivisible Deity unto this great work, though, by way of eminency, this work be attributed to the Father, as that of redemp- tion is to the Son, and that of regeneration to the Holy Ghost, from neither of which notwithstanding is the Father excluded.
Perhaps the using of the name of God in the plural number, where mention is made of the creation, in conjunction with a verb singular, Gen. i. 1, and the express calling of God our Creators and Makers, Eccles. xii. 1, Ps, cxlix. 2, Job xxxv. 10, wants not a significancy to this thing.^ And indeed he that shall consider the miserable evasions that the adversaries have invented to escape the argument thence commonly insisted on must needs be confirmed in the per- suasion of the force of it.^ Mr B. may haply close with Plato in this business, who, in his " Timajus," brings in his drj^aiovpyog speaking to his genii about the making of man, telling them that they were mortal, but encouraging them to obey him in the making of other creatures, upon the promise of immortality. " Turn you," saith he, "according to the law of nature, to the making of living creatures, and imitate my power which I used in your generation or birth ;"^ — a speech fit enough for Mr B.'s god, " who is shut up in heaven," and not able of himself to attend his whole business. But what a sad success this demiurgus had, by his want of prescience, or foresight of what his demons would do (wherein also Mr B. likens God unto him), is farther declared ; for they imprudently causing a conflux of too much matter and humour, no small tumult followed thereon in heaven, as .at large you may see in the same author. However, it is said expressly the Son or Word created all things, John i. 3 ; and, "By him are all things," 1 Cor. viii. 6, Rev. iv. 11. Of the Holy Ghost the same is affirmed. Gen. i. 2, Job xxvi. 13, Ps. xxxiii. 6. Nor can the Word and Spirit be degraded from the place of principal efficient cause in this work to a condition oiinstrumentality only, which is urged (especially in reference to the Spirit), unless we