De Moor X:9: Providential Preservation, Part 1

[A fundraising update: We have almost reached 50% of the fundraising goal! Thanks be to God!

We still have some ground to cover. If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

The Act of Providence is threefold.  With the simplicity of this Action on the part of God being no barrier, that almighty Command of the divine Will, according to the diversity of Objects with which it is conversant, and of Effects which it brings forth, is observed to produce in Creatures a threefold Act, Preservation, Cooperation, and Government.

In the first place Conservatio/ Preservation comes to be considered.  To some the language of Conservatio/ Preservation in this place has appeared less appropriate, as if it were denoting the cooperation of multiple associated causes in the preservation of one and the same thing,[1] while nevertheless that is the act of God alone, concerning which the term is here used.  But this act of God is rightly called Conservatio, the servatio/ preservation of a thing cum/with that Essence, which it received at its beginning through Creation.

For its Object it has the continued Existence of things, the Essence and Perfections given to each and all by Creation, to which in the various creatures pertains the Power of operation.  And Preservation is that efficacious act, whereby, as God in creation first caused a thing, not existing of itself, to exist; so then God in preservation causes the thing, not continuing to exist of itself, to persist in existence.  By the Scholastics it is also called Manutenentia/Upholding, holding-in-hand, because God tenet/holds all things in his powerful manu/hand, as it were, lest they fall to ruin:  in opposition to the relaxation of the divine hand, which has for its certain effect the creatures’ destruction, crushing, Job 6:9.[2]

That Preservation is asserted with resplendent clarity in various passages and expressions.  It is expressed as vivification, restoration to life, preservation in life, by the verb חִיָּה in Nehemiah 9:6;[3] as preservation, by the verb הוֹשִׁיעַ in Psalm 36:6, ‎אָ֤דָֽם־וּבְהֵמָ֖ה תוֹשִׁ֣יעַ יְהוָֽה׃, thou, Jehovah, preservest man and beast.[4]  In Romans 11:36, all things are not incorrectly understood to be in Preservation Through God, as they are Of Him through Creation.  In Colossians 1:17, all things are said συνιστάναι, to consist, to hold together, in the Son of God.  In Hebrews 1:3, the Son of God is said φέρειν, to uphold, all things τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, by the word of His power:  which passage has regard to the proof of Preservation, when φέρειν there is explained as to carry, and not as to move, in which sense it would pertain to the second act of Providence.  Now, that this passage in the words cited is rightly explained concerning the universal Providence of God, against the Remonstrants, Apologia, chapter VI, page 68a, who deny the same, is confirmed by TRIGLAND, Antapologia, chapter IX, pages 121, 122.  In Acts 17:28, we are said to live and to be in God.  In Revelation 4:11, the continued Being of all things is conjoined with the first Creation.

And it is an altogether Positive Act, etc.  Concerning this there is controversy with those Pelagianizing;[5] that is, whether for the Preservation of creatures a Positive and real Act and Influx is continually required; as opposed to Annihilation as a merely Negative Act, to which nothing pertains except a pure Non-influx of the first Cause? which is the opinion of the Orthodox.  But whether Preservation is a pure negation of Annihilation and destruction; in such a way that the creature, after it has begun to exist by Creation, is so sufficient unto itself to exist thereafter, that it does not require any further help from God for that, but only His mere indulgence, which without action allows it to remain what it is:  as the Pelagianizers maintain.  This was the opinion of Nicolaus Taurellus, Physician and Philosopher of the Sixteenth Century, who taught publicly in the Academy of Altdorf; found in his Triumpho Philosophiæ.[6]  The Remonstrants, as we have already heard in § 8, in their Apologia call these idle disputations, which they do not think important enough that they wish to dispute on account of them.  At the same time, they assert, that it is argued not without great appearance of truth, that Preservation is to be considered as a mere negative Act of the will, whereby God wills not to destroy or annihilate the things created.  Similarly by Limborch,[7] Theologia Christiana, book II, chapter XXV, § 7-10:  he thinks, that this question is able to be left undecided, and that the Dependence of the Creature is not removed by the Remonstrants, since they acknowledge, 1.  that each and every thing, at least with respect to its origin, depends upon God:  2.  they recognize well enough that it also depends upon God in Preservation, since, if God should will to destroy it, it would not be able to subsist even for a moment; contrariwise, He is now unwilling to destroy it, hinders its destruction by others, indeed, supplies all things necessary for its subsistence.  But, whatever fair words they might give, it is certain that the Remonstrants thus argue, as far as their strength goes, for the Independence of Creatures, which in all the controversies regarding Providence is their πρῶτον ψεῦδος, fundamental error.

We ourselves acknowledge with our AUTHOR:

1.  A real and continued Positive Act and Influx in Preservation, without which the creature is not able to be even for a moment, not mere non-destruction; just as the Sun preserves the day, while it lasts:  which by no means merely non-destroys the meridian light, but works for its preservation by an altogether positive virtue, no less efficacious than that whereby it produced the first dawn.

2.  On the other hand, we believe Annihilation to be non-action, even indeed non-preservation, as it were, the mere cessation of the influx of the first cause:  just as the matter stands with the darkening of the sky at evening time, which argues no abolition through positive action of the diurnal light, which previously existed; but the mere non-influx, non-illumination, of this into our hemisphere is sufficient.  We prove this opinion,

α.  From the Positive expressions concerning Preservation used in Sacred Scripture and just now recounted by us; while, on the other hand, Scripture supplies the true idea of Annihilation for us, describing it by the mere relaxation of the divine hand, Job 6:9, or by the hiding of the divine face, Psalm 104:29, while Positive expressions, if any are employed elsewhere concerning the Annihilation of creatures, are accommodated to human capacity and ought to be explained θεοπρεπῶς, in a manner worthy of God.

β.  From the Nature of all Created Things, and the comparison of their permanence with the various imperfections of the same.

              a.  Every Created Thing, because it is created, is Dependent on the Creator, and can possess nothing real except in dependence upon Him.  But now the duration of a thing is not nothing, but is something true and real:  continued duration is really distinct from the first moment of the same, since a particular thing is able to receive the beginning of its duration, yet in such a way that it is not prolonged to the extent that it could be prolonged.  Hence permanence in existence is not able to obtain in a creature, unless it proceeds from the Independent God as the true and real cause, through true and real influx.

b.  Every Creature exists Contingently.  Now, what endures contingently, of itself is no more determined for continuance in its being, than non-continuance; otherwise it would not endure contingently, but necessarily.  But if a thing does not endure by intrinsic necessity, it will have to be attributed to the influx of some cause:  namely, that which, as it caused to exist by Creation a thing possible and not existing of itself; so also causes to endure the same, contingent and not enduring of itself.

γ.  Annihilation, on the other hand, is not able to be considered as a Positive Act,

a.  If the Dependence of the Creature in its continued duration upon the Preservation of God be rightly acknowledged:  for thus, with the divine Influx ceasing, its effect will of itself also cease to exist, that is, the creature hitherto preserved; consequently, a Positive Act of annihilation is completely unnecessary.

b.  Indeed, the concept of Annihilation as a Positive Act is absurd:

For No positive act is terminated on Nothing:

Annihilation is terminated on Nothing:

Therefore, Annihilation is not a positive act.

The Major is readily apparent:  because everything that posits something as a terminus unto which is thus called Positive Action:  but what is terminated upon nothing, like Annihilation, posits Nothing:  and so that Act is not able to be called Positive.  Again,

If Preservation were the mere negation of Annihilation, but Annihilation, if it were free to God, is a Positive Act, then God by omnipotent action and influx could produce Nothing, which is absurd.

But what They Object is not the case:

1.  That we vainly and absurdly thus posit a new action of God in Preservation, to which no proper and positive effect is able to be assigned.

Response:  α.  We necessarily acknowledge a positive Influx in Preservation, because the Creature, successively enduring, at one and the same time is not able to receive and possess all the duration of its existence; but it continually requires a new influx for that.

β.  But this Positive Action also has a positive and altogether real effect, namely, the continued Existence, or permanence in existence, of all Creatures; which without this continued influx would have relapsed into its former nothingness, from which that emerged by Creation.

2.  Each and every thing abides in its own state, until it is driven thence by something stronger:  and so each thing of its own accord is able easily to retain that which it was once given by Creation, if only that which was previously given is not removed.

Response:  α.  What is said concerning the easy perseverance of Creatures in their own state without a Positive Influx of the Preserving God is false, from what has just been observed concerning the successive mode of the existence of Creatures, which then receive the continuation of their Existence also from successive Influx.  Since, if the Creature of itself were also sufficient for itself to continue, until a corrupting cause arrives from some other source; the Creature would now obtain the perfection of the Creator, inasmuch as it continues to exist independently of another.

β.  But that law of Nature, as they call it, concerning each and every thing abiding in its own state, until it is driven thence by something stronger, to which they appeal:  that, I say, considers things, not relatively to God, but in relation to each other, and the ordinary Influx of God is always presupposed in this assertion concerning physical things.

3.  Taurellus in VOGELSANG,[8] Exercitationibus theologicis XX, § 7, objects, that the praise of a Perfect Creation is taken from God, if Creatures need Him as Preserver:  for thus He is imagined to be like an unskilled architect, who built a ruinous house, which has to be upheld continually by props.  And so, the more perfect the Creatures God produced, the less they need His upholding.

Response:  α.  This is a comparison of dissimilar things, seeing that there is no thing that depends upon a human craftsman in the way that each and every Creature is joined to God by the tie of dependence.

β.  The perfection of Creation consists in the exact conformity of created things to the exemplar fixed in the divine mind; to which independence in subsistence is not at all able to be referred, seeing that this is able to be reconciled with neither the nature of God nor that of Creatures.  Contrariwise,

γ.  The more Creatures depend upon God in absolutely all things, the more they make for the illustration of the glory of the divine Independence:  neither is there any reason, why the operation of the Sun should be said to be all the more perfect, if, after it had illuminated the world with its rays, the light should be preserved in the world without the help of the Sun; than now, when it proceeds to supply light to the world by its continuous influx throughout the day.

It is objected, 4.  by Limborch, in Theologia Christiana, book II, chapter XXV, § 10, that thus Preservation is confounded with Creation.

I Respond:  Not at all, since things by Creation have their Essence and Existence; but by Preservation, their continued Existence and stable possession of their Essence.

It is objected, 5.  by Limborch, in the same place, that it is not able to be comprehended, how things, as we daily see, gradually decline toward destruction, if God continuously creates them.

Response:  α.  It was already observed above, that God does not moment-by-moment reproduce the Creature by a new Creation, because it does not perish over and over again:  but that by Preservation He is the cause of existence continued to it, and preserves it from destruction.

β.   God most freely sustains whatever Creatures, and, as He fixed by His Decree the terminus of the waxing of each, so also of the waning.

γ.  In Preservation God is to be regarded both as a faithful Creator, and as a just Judge, who wills the Creature to be subject to vanity and corruption because of sin.[9]

[1] Note the prefix con- (together) on the Latin term, conservation.

[2] Job 6:9:  “Even that it would please God to destroy me (‎וִֽידַכְּאֵ֑נִי, to crush me); that he would let loose his hand, and cut me off!”

[3] Nehemiah 9:6:  “Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest (‎מְחַיֶּה) them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.”  חָיָה, to live, in the Piel conjugation can signify to preserve alive, or to vivify.

[4] יָשַׁע in the Hiphil conjugation signifies to deliver or save.

[5] Pelagius (c. 354-c. 420/440) was an opponent of Augustine; he denied Augustine’s doctrine of total depravity and the freeness and sovereignty of God’s grace.

[6] Nicolaus Taurellus (1547-1606) was a German Lutheran physician and philosopher.

[7] Philip van Limborch (1633-1712) was a Dutch Remonstrant pastor and theologian, and Professor of Theology at Amsterdam (1667-1712).

[8] Reinerus Vogelsang (1610-1679) was a Reformed divine, and Professor of Theology at Deventer (1676-1679).

[9] See Romans 8:20.