Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	call_v	king_n	name_n	2,838	5	4.9619	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54842	An impartial inquiry into the nature of sin in which are evidently proved its positive entity or being, the true original of its existence, the essentiall parts of its composition by reason, by authority divine, humane, antient, modern, Romane, Reformed, by the adversaries confessions and contradictions, by the judgement of experience and common sense partly extorted by Mr. Hickman's challenge, partly by the influence which his errour hath had on the lives of many, (especially on the practice of our last and worst times,) but chiefly intended as an amulet to prevent the like mischiefs to come : to which is added An appendix in vindication of Doctor Hammond, with the concurrence of Doctor Sanderson, Oxford visitors impleaded, the supreme authority asserted : together with diverse other subjects, whose heads are gathered in the contents : after all A postscript concerning some dealings of Mr. Baxter / by Thomas Pierce ...	Pierce, Thomas, 1622-1691.	1660 (1660)	Wing P2184; ESTC R80	247,562	303

indeed object against him his Dissent from the Doctrine of the Church of England so to their shame if they had any he freed himself from that charge Master P●m's Report to the House of Commons is no proof at all that he was censur'd by the Parliament And the Order of that House in the behalf of the Articles was not hurtfull to him who oppos'd them not but understood them better and declar'd as much for them as the Commoners could doe § 44. To Mr. Hickmans rare Question p. 28. How comes it to pass that those who now follow Arminius did heretofore follow Mr. Calvin I thank him for the occasion to make this Answer That the older men gr●w they grow the wiser and more impartial To what end do men study both men and books but to discover the mistakes of their giddy youth Is it not fit that the aged Bishop of Winchester should understand things better then young Mr. Andrews But he was a Bishop and one who lived at such a Time when it was safe to leave Calvin as King Iames his Great Master had also done And therefore to satisfie Mr. Hickman Let the Question be put of Dr. Sanderson whose change of judgement was never publish'd untill the last and worst times whilst yet the Followers of Calvin had power to persecute their opponents why did he follow the way of Calvin in point of Doctrine I mean his sublapsarian way before he considered and compar'd it with other wayes and at last forsook it after such consideration The very Question suggests the Answer which in all reason is to be made And may suffice for a general answer to the farr greatest part of Mr. Hickman's long Preface Observe Good Reader the most Ingenuous Confession of that so eminently learned and holy man Giving himself to the study of practicall Divinity he saith he took up most other things upon trust And this he did so much the rather because Calvin at that time was not so wholesomely suspected as blessed be God he since hath been But to express it in the words of the Judicious Doctor Sanderson The honour of Calvin's name gave Reputation to his very errours And if so great a Scholar as he did take up opinions upon trust and was carried down the stream of the common errours his weaker brethren could not choose but be swept away with so strong a Torrent § 45. But they were farr from being such whose Questions in the Act Mr. Hickman reciteth from Mr. Prin as he hath done the greatest part of his tedious Preface For Doctor Iackson might well acknowledge all lost in Adam when he supposed a Recovery of all in Christ. And here it is observable that Mr. Hickman hath not stoln fairly For Mr. Prin expressed very honestly what his jugling Transcriber thought it his Interest to conceal It was the very first of the Doctors three Questions An Peccatum originale contineat in se aliquid positivi And this was held in the affirmative The other Act-questions were Doctor Frewin's the now-Right Honourable and Right Reverend Father in God the Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield whom I am never able to name without a preface of honour and veneration Who if he did once Calvinizare as Bishop Andrews and King Iames before the times of their conversion let it suffice that his latter judgement is much preferrable to his former It is no more to the disparagement of Doctor Goad and Master Hales and Daniel ●ilenus the Synodist at Dort and Doctor Potter and Doctor Godwin and Melanchthon himself and the late Primate that as soon as they saw they forsook their errours then it could be to Saint Paul that though as long as in comparison he was a child he spake as a child understood as a child and thought as a child yet when he grew to a perfect man he put away childish things And hence Mr. Hickman may take the reason why I parted with those opinions I first embraced which now he reproacheth me withall p. 29. though more to my honour then he imagin'd But he must know that by the first of the three last Questions An praedestinatio ad salutem sit propter praevisam fidem he seems to be ignorant of the difference betwixt the foresight of Faith and Faith foreseen as betwixt ex and propter a condition and a cause secundum praescientiam Fidei propter fidem praescitam And so he is like the vain Ianglers of whom Saint Paul speaks to Timothy that they desired to be Teachers understanding neither what they said nor whereof they affirmed § 46. Of Lambeth Articles that they were caused to be suppress'd by Queen Elizabeth See Doctor Heylin his Examen Historicum p. 164. That King Iames before he dyed was an Anti-Calvinist appears by the Conference at Hampton Court and by his great approbation of all that was preached by Bishop Andrews which was as opposite to Calvin as light to darkness and by his high esteem of B●shop OVERALL who was wont to call the Calvinists The Zenonian Sect and by his singular favour to Bishop Montague whom he imployed in composing his Apparatus and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and whose Appeal he adorned with his Royal Patronage and Protection which yet he could not have done if he had not been that which they call Arminian That Bishop Montague was incouraged by the special Direction of King IAMES to Dedicate that Book to his Royal self is most apparent to every man who wil● but read his own words in his Dedication If any Reader can yet be ignorant of King Iames his deliverance from that captivity into which he had been l●dd by his first and worst Teachers let him peruse that Epistle with which the learned Tilenus Senior did dedicate his Book to that learned King even his Book of Animadversions upon the Synod of Dorts Canon There the Reader will be inform'd how Tilenus his Paraenesis had pleas'd that King who gave a proof of his special liking by his speciall command to have it Printed How a little after that the King invited him by a Letter to come over into England and here to try the effects of his Royall Favour How his Majestie took care that care might be taken by other men Not to blaspheme with the Puritanes in making God the Author of sin How he assented to Tilenus whilst he inveighed against the Error of irrespective decrees especially that of Reprobation A more impious errour then which he said a Synod of Divels was not able to invent Thence he styled it the Horrendum illud Calvini decretum and professed to see nothing throughout the whole Calvinian Scheme which did not either flow out of Zeno's porch or from the Tables of the Destinies or from the stinking Mephitis of the Manichees By all which it is apparent that Mr. Hickman is unexcusable as far as his 38. page where he grows less guilty

sweated to prove them Atheists And Mr. Hickman is such a gentle inoffensive Creature that though he calls them the ugly brats of the wildest sectaries which G. C. hath midwiv'd into the world p. 14. he hath injur'd no man provoked no man He professeth in the same breath He utters not the words of passion but sobriety p. 14. And thus the tame Creature hath meekly proved That All his sins are positive entities what ever he saith of other mens For sobriety is a vertue whose positive entity he allows And notwithstanding the sad character which is fixt upon railing in holy Writ Mr Hickman tells us 't is his sobriety whereby his Readers are left to guesse what scurrility he had used in a fit of passion whose very words of sobriety are so outragious As for his virulence towards my self I pass it over for this reason That he may know my severity is but the executing of Iustice not for his bitterness to me but to God himself whom he hath charged as the cause of all the villanies in the world which do fall under the Genus of Quality or Action Whereas the worst he hath said of me is even infinitely better And though I must paradigmatize him for his blaspheming the God of heaven yet I must do it so clearly in that behalf as not to return him railing for railing Sect. 64. From his volley of bitter words discharg'd at once against me he proceeds to calumniate Mr. BARLOW the Reverend Provost of Queens Colledge p. 16. whom he forgeth at least to have used this Argument If sin hath a positive or reall being and is not caused by God it is God himself that is to say If sin is not nothing it must be God or Gods creature But when and where did Mr. Barlow thus argue not in private betwixt him and Mr. Hickman for I was told by Mr. Barlow what makes me know it to be impossible Not publickly and in print For I cannot find it in his exercita●ions It is therefore a very enormous thing to steal abundance from Mr. Barlow without the citing of any page where the matters really are to be found And yet to cite him thus by Name for that which never fell from him by word or writing Hence the Reader may judge of this mans Religion His commendation of Mr. Barlow i● such it can be whilst he bestows it I very readily grant him to my advantage For Mr. Barlow hath a better opinion of me then I have of my self And I can yield him a greater deference then he can think is due to him Nor will he assert his own Judgement without a submission to other men's Doctor IACKSON and Doctor FIELD to name no more who are more his Seniors then he is mine Sure I am that my Lea●ned Friend can never be pleased with a Commendation which is ush●●'d into the world with so foul a calumny § 65. And as little can Doctor REYNOLDS take any pleasure in the mockery which Master Hickman doth mix with his vindication I did but make it a Question whether he were not in judgement an Episcopal Divine how much soever accounted a Presbyterian the reason of which Question I shall alledge in due time and yet I am said by Master Hickman to have branded Doctor Reynolds with the suspicion of being an Hypocrite and that he could not be in earnest of that Party whom he hath owned in praying in preaching in covenanting p. 17 18. to which I answer by these degrees 1. In all my writings there are not found any such words Had there been Mr. Hickman would not have feared a citation 2. Time was when Doctor REYNOLDS did own the King and the Bishops both in his Praying and Preaching too as may appear by two of his printed sermons for obedience and conformity to those that were Rulers at that time both Ecclesiastical and Civil So that in judgement he is now what he was twenty years ago unless he hath turned with the times and with those that turn'd them But of this he is accused by Mr. Hickman who makes him one of the Covenanters whether truly or falsly I cannot tell If truly he disgraceth that learned man If falsly he wrongs and defiles himself 'T were very strange that Doctor Reynolds who had taken the oathes of allege●nce and supremacy subscribed the thirty nine Articles sworn obedience unto his Ordinary lived conformably in the Church and preached for it from Press and Pulpit should swear to extirpate those very things which he had sworn to assert It is much more likely that Mr. Hickman ow'd him a spight and could not hold from giving it vent though he had nothing to excuse him for such Impertinence He might have written against the positivity of six without reviling Dr. Reynolds as a person that had sworn so lewd a Covenant A thing the less credible because he hath declared to diverse Friends whom I can name if need require That the order of Bishops in his judgement was of D●vine Institution And if the Question shall yet be asked I dare adventure a Discretion he will readily say yes But Mr. Hickman it seems is careless whom he calumniates in his passion And therefore Doctor Reynolds may the more easily forgive him § 66. To his blind and bitter zeal against the Licencing of a Book which is Intitl'd An Historical Narration c. p. 18.19 I am able to return him this gentle Remedy The Learned and Reverend Doctor Martin did avow and justifie in the House of Lords his licensing that worthy and useful Book And Master Maynard much urging that 't was Arminian on which he insisted before the Lords The Doctor told them he thought it strange that That shoul● be call'd an Arminian Book wherein there was not one person either named or concern'd who had not been dead before Arminius was alive Whereupon his Accuser was as much disappointed as Mr. Hickman must needs be when he reads the storie of that affair But his self-contradiction is most prodigious Because in one and the same page and at few lines distance he saith the book was unlicensed which yet he confesseth to have been licensed by Mr. Martin Bp. Lauds Chaplain And what credit can be due to his following proof●ess affirmations who calls learned Champneys by the name of Cerberus Or what shall we think of his tongue and conscience who calls Tilenus an Aethiopian a scribler impudent and a poor fellow p. 21. If he treats his superiours and betters thus I wonder how his equalls can endure to come within his Breath yet in the very next page he commends himself for Candor and moderation and his cordial affections to Episcopal Divines for never vilifying the parts and paynes of any Pr●latist because such And then to shew us his skill in books he saith he had rather be the Author of Calvins one book of insti●utions then of all that ever were made by Grotius p. 23.

Idolatry or Perjury or the denying of Christ himself that can make him otherwise then a sanctified and Godly man Now Mr. Baxter it seems resolving not to Answer my Book and yet not able to let it alone hath rather chosen once or twice to gnash upon me with his teeth and to shew he was cut unto the heart and to fling some stones Railing and Calumny at my Head than to be thought by his Disciples to have offended or so little stomachful as to Repent § 3. For first in his Pamphlet of Self-denyal a Pamphlet properly so called he saith a Rogers a Stubb a Pierce not for any other end that I am able to conceive then to give himself Ease by a little vent To express a sharp Writer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by a Rogers a Stubb a Pierce can amount to no more then the bare shewing of his Teeth when besides his own Lip there is nothing Bitten From this he could not abstein in his very Dedicatory Epistle p. 11. Nor waded he farther into his Praeface then p. 17. when another sharp pang did thus inspire him If Fits-Simon and other Iesuites and Bp. Bancroft and Dr. Peter Heylin Mr. Thomas Pierce and other such among us are to be believed what an abominable odious sort of people are they the Puritans and especially the Presbyterians who are the greatest part of them intolerable hypocritical bloody men Now to what purpose was all this not so much against Me whom he ranked with Bishop Bancroft as against that excellent Archbishop whom he ranked with the Iesuites but to discover to all the world whereabouts his shooe wring'd him Archbishop Bancroft was a most wise and a most pious Metropolitan whose learned Books have been rayld at but never answered Certainly He and Dr. Heylin are as eminent for the Truth of their several Narratives as any humane Historians that ever writ I have vindicated the Former beyond the power of a Baxter to contradict me The Later hath vindicated Himself in his Certamen Epistolare by which Mr. Baxter was too much baffled to think of making a Reply Fitz-Simons was a Iesuite with whom Mr. Baxter doth too much cotton Nor doth he answer one word to my Allegations Concerning the Puritans I spent a whole Chapter not a Line of which hath ever been answered by Mr. Baxter wherein I shewed they were as Odious to King Iames and Bp. Andrews Dr. Sanderson and the like as to Arch-Bp. Bancroft or Mr. Pierce And whatsoever he saith of Me for speaking severely of the Puritans doth plainly reflect upon the King and upon all the greatest Persons both for piety and learning Archbishops and Bishops and Reverend Iudges of the Land whose pungent Characters of the Puritans I fairly cited § 4. But suppose Bp. Bancroft and Dr. Heylin and Mr. Pierce are three Iesuites or as little deserving to be believed yet Dr. Sanderson is confessed by Mr. Baxter himself to be both a Moderate and learned Protestant And He hath so preached against the Puritans as well from the Presse as from the Pulpit that I cannot think of any person unlesse King Iames or Bp. Andrews who hath branded that Faction with deeper marks Not only in his Preface to the Second Edition of his Sermons where he placeth us in the middle betwixt the two extremes Papists and Puritans and shew's how the Puritans have extremely promoted the Popish Interests nay how Libertinism it self had overspread the whole Face of the Land by the means of Fiery Turbulent Presbyterians But in the latest of all his writings set out indeed by Dr. Hammond yet with his own speciall likeing and Approbation He sharply speaks of some books against the Liturgy and Ceremonies by giving them the Name of Puritanical Pamphlets with a juster Epithete than which he could not easily stigmatize them And the most Learned King Iames in his Meditations on the Lords Prayer doth piously give a special caveat that we do not make God the Author of sin as certain Puritans are wont to do Of this his Majesty was minded by that Acute and Learned Frenchman Daniel Tilenus in his excellent Epistle to that wise King after their happy valediction to the Calvinian Doctrines Those I hope were no Jesuites Fellows and may deserve to be Believed if they affirmed of the Puritans which Mr. Baxter happily confesseth to have been mostly Presbyterians that they were Hypocritical and Bloody men Only here Mr. Baxter must be taught to distinguish of Presbyterians For with them that are Moderate I have ever had communion and very affectionate commerce as many of them can witness for me But I am ready to consent to what I find said by Dr. Sanderson Such is the Obstinacy and Madness of the Rigid Scotized through-paced Presbyterians that it is vain to think of doing any good upon them by Arguments till it shall please God to make them of more humble and Teachable Spirits These are pungent but very True yea very Necessary expressions They could not else have proceeded from that Exemplary Divine whom hardly any hath ever excelled if we behold him in his latest and ●ipest years for Piety Meekness and Moderation Had Baxter railed at Me alone for my impartiality to the Puritans I might have passed it over in peace and silence But since t is apparent he wreaks his malice upon the Reverend Dr. Sanderson and the Right Reverend Bp. Andrews and all the other great persons whose words I used striking really at Them although through Me as Darius in Horodotus was bid to run at Patizitham through Gobrias sides I could not in Conscience let him escape without some usefull Animadversions § 5. He adds in the Margin of the same page That I had answered his Expectation and from his own Confession not knowing him my self had drawn his picture that he is proud lazy false an Hypocrite unjust c. But why for this am I called Bolsec in the words nex● after since I was only his Echo and did but resound his own Confessions Not his Auricular confessions for he had made none to me but his Confessions even in print and in words at length Mr. Owen had framed a charge against him that he was proud selfish and Hypocritical Mr. Baxter sub dio in open Court pleaded Guilty to the inditement It was not certainly my Fault that I cited his Pages as well as Words that all his favourers might find I had neverwrong'd him Nor could I possibly know him better then by an abundance of his Own both words and works Of which how faithfull an accompt I have given the Reader I leave to be judged of by them who will compare my citations as well as read them Never should I have taxt him either with pride selfishness and Hypocrisie but when he had owned all three I had nothing to do to contradict him I could never have thought him lazy whom I found a Polypragmatick nor

to Intitle Comfort for Believers in their Sins and Suffrings for fear Believers should be afflicted with the sinfulness of their sins which God himself is the Author of and more the Author in his opinion than they can be Yet his Book with this Doctrine was even printed by Authority cum Privilegio when Presbyterianism was up with the License and approbation of old Mr. Downham who was impowred to such things by the-world-knows-whom It was the Doctrine of Mr. Knox the great Introducer of Presbyterianism in Scotland That the wicked are not onely left by Gods suffring but compelled to sin by his power p. 317. And again he saith we do not onely behold and know God to be the Principal cause of all things but also the Author appointing all things p. 22. It is also taught in another Treatise at first written in French but after published in English That by vertue of Gods will all things were made yea even those things which are evil and execrable p. 15. Another takes upon him to prove That all evil springeth out of God's Ordinance And his Book is Intitled Against a Privy Papist as 't were on purpose to betray the Protestant Name into Disgrace But now at last Mr. Hickman outgoes them All if they all are but capable to be outgon For the most execrable and hainous of all the sins to be imagin'd is the Divel 's hating Almighty God Which though Mr. Hickman doth confess to be the worst of all actions and again essentially and intrinsecally evil p. 94. lin 2. evil ex genere ob●ecto ibid. lin 9. and such as no kind of Circumstance can ever make lawful ib. lin 17. yet he grosly calls it The work of God as all other positive things are p. 96. lin 8. wilt thou know good Reader what may lead him to such a Blasphemy Thou must know his principle is this Verbatim It belongs to the universality of the FIRST CAUSE to PRODUCE not onely EVERY REAL BEING but also the positive MODIFICATIONS of Beings 95. l. ult p. 96. lin 1. And this he gives for the very Reason why The Action of hating God spoken of just now is the work of God Now that this is a Principle or a Doctrine whose every consequence is a crime I cannot better convince the Calvinists than by the confession of Mr. Calvin For when the very same Doctrine which I suspect to have been brew'd by the Carpocratians was freshly broached by the Libertines breaking in with Presbytery to help disgrace our Reformation just as the Gnosticks to the discredit of Christianity it self Master Calvin called it An Execrable Blasphemy not onely once but again and again too And what was that which he declaimed so much against in that stile was it that God was said plainly to be the Author of sin no such matter It was onely for saying it in aequivalence It was for saying another thing from whence God might be inferred to be the Author of sin It was onely for saying God worketh all things This was called by Mr. Calvin An Execrable Blasphemy And his Reason for it is very observable For saith he from this Article God worketh all things Three things do follow extremely frightfull First that there will not be any Difference between God and the Divel Next th●t God must deny himself Thirdly that God must be transmuted into the Divel A greater Authority than Calvins no man living can produce against his followers of the Presbytery some few Episcopal Anti-remonstrants being unjustly called Calvinists there being a wide gulf fixt between them and Calvin And I have cited him so exactly as few or no Writers are wont to do that if an enemie will not believe me he may consult Mr. Calvin with expedition and make his own eyes bear witness for me Next considering with my self how that a lesser Blasphemy than This is called Railing against the Lord 2. Chron. 32.17 and that a Doctrine less divelish is broadly said by the Apostle to be the doctrine of Divels 1 Tim. 4 1● That it is God blessed for ever against whom the children of transgression do open a wide mouth and draw out the Tongue Isa. 57.4 the tongue which reacheth unto the heavens Psalm 73.9 and whose talking is against the most high v. 8. That our common enemies of Rome do object these things to the Reformation as if forsooth they were our Protestant and common sins Nay that the Lutherans themselves will rather return unto the Papists from whom they rationally parted than live in communion with the Calvinians for this one Reason becaus● the Calvinians seem to worship another God to wit a God who is the Author and cause of sin I say considering all this both with the causes and the eff●cts I confess my heart waxt hot within me and though for a Time I kept silence yea even from good words yet as the Psalmist goes on it was pain and grief to me I often call'd to mind that pertinent saying of Saint Peter 1 Epist. c. 4. v. 14. and then concluded within my self If God on their part is evil spoken of 't is the fitter that on ours he should be glorified If all his works are commanded to speak well of him in all plac●s of his Dominion Psal. 103.22 I could not have answer'd it to my self should I still have been guilty of keeping silence much less to Him could I have had what to say under whom I am entrusted and that with souls Since he describes a good Shepherd by his readiness to lay down his life for the sheep I durst not be such a Lasche and unfaithful servant as not to offer up my oyle or shed a little of my Ink where I should think my dearest blood were too cheap a sacrifice Finding therefore that Doctrine which is so execrable and hainous as hath been shew'd suck'd in greedily by the Ranters in these our dayes breaking in upon the Church which is Gods Inclosure as well as Spouse even at that very gap which some had purposely made to cast out Bishops and obedience and whatsoever was Christian besides the name I also considered who they were who took upon them the Tapsters office and drawing out the very dreggs of this deadly wine boldly gave it instead of drink to the giddy people Mr. Hickman seemed to be the boldest and the busiest officer of them all and the more popular he was thought I thought him the fitter to be encounter'd For if his Favourers come to think That God is the cause and the producer of every reall being not excepting the cursing or hating God They have nothing to defend them from being Libertines Or if they come to be persuaded that sin hath no reall being but is a non-entity that is a nothing they must needs be Carneadists for ought I am able to apprehend And when they perfectly are either to wit Carneadists or Libertines I know not what can secure them

from turning Atheists It was observed by Peucerus in his Epistle before his Chronicon that there are three sins especially which have a tendency to the changing of States and Empires 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Impiety Injustice unbridled Lust. The Church is ruin'd by the first the secular policy by the second and private families by the third Each of these must needs reign when thought to have nothing of Reality or if it hath to be God's own offspring The late Cromwellians and the Phanaticks were clearly transported by the latter For having called their strength the Law of Iustice they constantly ascribed to God's decree and appointment and All working providence whatsoever vile practice they found they were able to bring about Their D●clarations and Petitions their Remonstrances and news Books their Congratulations and Addresses both to the old and young Tyrant did ever run in Mr. Hickman's and Hobbs his strain Regicide and Sacrilege and all manner of Vsurpations being not onely Real but positive entities were still ascribed to the working and will of Go● But Mr. Hickman's true opinion must not be judged of by his word● unless his opinion like his words doth often varie and shift it self to the two extream parts of his contradictions Whether 't is really his opinion that that is no sin which is intrinsecally evil because he saith it is good and the work of good or else that that is a sin which is God's own work because he saith it is an action and hath a positive being wh●ther 't is really his opinion That for Ammon to ravish his sister Tamar could not possibly be a sin because an action or that a hatred of God himself cannot possibly be a sin because a Quality we can but guess by his plainest words though the Searcher of hearts doth know his meaning For one while he seeks to perswade his Readers that sin is nothing but a privation And he doth it by producing such figurative expressions from certain Authors as by which it is said that sin is nothing As 't were on purpose to let us know what he means by a privation Another while he saith that all things positive are good and from God and yet that the action of hating God is intrin●ecally evil which notwithstanding he confesseth to be a positive thing Another while he saith That the first sin of the Angels was a proud desire to be equal with God Where sin is praedicated in recto of proud desire which proud desire he will not deny to be a Quality and so to have both a Real and a positive Being And yet another while he saith That whatsoever hath a real he doth not say onely a positive being God himself doth produce as the first cause of it So that one of these two must needs be really his opinion but which of the two I leave him to say either that sin is Gods work and that God produced in the Angels their proud desire Or else that sin hath no real being but that conscience and sin are Ecclesiasticall words By the first he is a Libertine by the second a Carneadist And whether he who is either will not laugh at the Psalmist in his heart at least or in his sleeve for believing such a thing as a Reward for the Righteous I shall leave it to be judged by the considering Reader What should move him to assert the most contradictory things as that sin is something and nothing an action and no action Not a quality yet a quality That the hating of God is a sin and no sin That God is the cause and the Creator yet not the Author of every act And yet the Author of every act which is but positive or real I am not able to imagine unless he writes as he is moved by the present necessity of his affairs or is carried away with the Iesuits Doctrine of probability concerning which I shall speak in my consideration of Mr. Baxter Now to fit the plainest Reader for the perusal of my Book and to make the positivity of the very worst sins become visible to the blind very easie to the unlearned and to the obstinate undeniable I will supply him in Antecessum with severall Hints and Mem●nto's of several forms and ways of arguing upon which he may enlarge as occasion serves I. It is the property of Qualities Quarto modo and so of nothing but qualities to denominate their subjects either like or unlike And so those sins must needs be qualities which will be granted to give such a denomination II. The positive belief in sensu composito that there is no God must needs be granted even by all to be a positive entity or being But 't is so wholly a sin as that 't is nothing but a sin to have a positive belief that there is no God Therefore that which is so a sin as to be nothing but a sin must needs be granted even by all to be a positive entity or being III. Sin properly so called is a transgression of the L●w. And so is the act of the hating of God which yet is granted to have a positive being IV. A simple conversion is to be made betwixt sin and any action against a negative precept for every such action must be a sin and every such sin must be an action V. If something positive may be a sin then may a sin be something positive but something positive may be a sin witness envy pride lust malice VI. To hate God is an Action and therefore po●sitively something But 't is a sin to hate God Ergo. VII God forbid's in the Decalogue those positive acts coveting stealing bearing false witness and those are sins which God forbids in the Decalogue therefore those positive acts are sins VIII In this true proposition It is a sin to hate God sin is predicated directly of a positive action therefore that action is a species of sin IX There is a numerical identity or sameness betwixt a demonstrative and a determinate Individual as betwixt this man and Mr. Hickman when pointed out with a finger Such an Identity there is betwixt this sin and the Divels hating of God when 't is the thing so pointed out X. That very phrase an act of sin implyeth sin to be a compound which hath an act as well as an obliqui●y So that if sin is sinfulness which is the pleasure of Mr. Hickman then sinfulness is a compound and hath an act XI The very word peccare to sin imports an action so does malefacere to do wickedly as much as benefacere to do well And therefore this is the stile of the holy Scriptures They that have done evil shal have a resurrection to damnation and God will render to every man according to his Deeds Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil XII 'T is false in

the confession of the Adve●sary that what is privative of one thing is also positive of another 5. From the necessity of its being complexum quid confessed also by M. Hickman 6. From the meaning of Bonum Metaphysicum as comprehending res aliquid and as signifying no more then ens in ordine ad appelitum whereas it is onely the moral good which is oppos'd to the thing in Question 7. From the positive entity of a Lye which is therefore verum as much as bonum Metaphysicum and yet hath no more of reall goodness then of reall truth in it 8. From the positive being of Satans pride and of Petronius his Inventions together with those of the Presbyterians 9. From the difference or distinction betwixt a negative and positive Atheism 10. From sins being divided into actuall and habi●uall 11. From the positive filthiness of flesh and spirit of which a man is deprived when God by his grace is plea'sd to cleanse him 12. From the Importance of the word privative which may be predicated of sinners as well as of sins 13. To harden our own hearts to consent unto Temptations and to destroy our selves by such consent are granted by all to be positive things 14. Sin is spoken of as such throughout the Scriptures 15. It is confessed by M. Hickman and by the men of his way that sin is a compound which doth consist of a materiall and formall part whereof the one being granted to be a posi●ive entity both together cannot be less 16. Betwixt the act of ha●ing God and the sin of hating God which is the act of ha●ing God there cannot he the least difference because itself cannot be different from itself for that would imply the very gross●st of Contradictions ☜ But the A●t of hating God is confessed by Master Hickman to be a positive entity And so he yields the whole Cause in spight of all his endeavours to make resistance § 8. But yet he endeavours a Resistance as far as a Ti●le-page can doe it which doth not really belong to any book in all the world much ●ess to tha● which he unhappily call'd his For it p●etends a Iustification of the Fa●hers and Schoolmen from their being self cond●mned for denying the positivity of sin And yet it p●etends to be an Answer to so much of my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as doth relate to the fo●esaid opinion H●re are ●everall things which prove him willfull in his Impostures For well he knew I had not written against the Fathers or Schoolmen much less against them as self-cond●mned much less yet for denying the positivity of sin I writ indeed against Himself and M. Hobbs but they a●e hardly so much as sons much less Fathers of the Church And though I writ against others also yet neither of th●m was a Schoolman much less a Father I writ against them as self-condem●ed because I proved out of their writings that they asserted the very Doctrines which thems●lves had confessed to be blasph●mou● So that unless our Iustificator is thicker of sense and understanding then all men else which his perusall of M. Mo●●ice forbids his Readers b●lieve his prevaric●●ions must ne●ds be wilfull § 9. After the promises of his portal I find his building is nothing else but a very long Ent y and three Back-doors As if the former were intended ●or the Am●sing of his Readers whilst the latter might serve for his own escape His Entry hath such an unseemly length that little less than a whole hour will serve hi● Readers to Travel through And if their patience will but serve them as far as the End of so long a passage in hope at last to meet with something whereby to disprove the positivity of sin they will be able to find nothing besides the mentioned Back doors at which the F●●●h●r e●capes from the Thing in Question As if he were co●scious to himself of having rashly undertaken to prove a dangerous falshood to wit that sin hath no positive being he spends almost his whole book upon a mul●itude of subjects b sides the purpose rather hudling up a Volume from whatsoever he thought pretty and durst purloin from some English Authors then taking the ●ou●age to treat of that to which his Ti●le-page confesseth he stands obliged Observe good Reader the strangest Answerer of Books that in all thy life thou hast read or heard of § 10. His Volume consists of 175. pages 65. of these are spent in an Epistle and Preface to all that follows wherein there is not one syllable so much as offering to disprove the positivity of sin Then there begins a fresh reckoning up of pages And though he takes upon him again as in his Title-page he had done to prove that sin hath not a positive Being yet he immediately flies out for 48. pages together talking of Bishops and Presbyteries and other subjects of Evasion I will not say in a phrenetick but in a very idle manner before his misgiving heart serves him to make a shew of some proof of the Thing in Question And thus he hath made an easie shift to fill up two parts of three of his Tedious Rhapsodie with more then an hundred such fragments and ends of stuff as serve to prove nothing at all besides his fearfulness to discourse of the matter in hand and his gift of impertinence above the rest of mankind and also the lightness of his fingers to supply the heaviness of his invention For after 113 pages 65 being of that which he calls his Preface and 48 of that which he calls his Book I find him using these words Having removed the Rubbish we may now come at the Question Yet goes he not many steps farther in a pretended preparation to his design when straight he digresseth to curse M. Barlee to talk of the Calvinists and Arminians by the old assistance of M. Prin and to speak for Puritans by such an admirable Impertinence that he is fain at last to use these words The Reader will pardon me who can scarce pardon my self for this excursion yet no sooner doth he confess then he commits the same trespass even by making a new excursion to my dispute with Doctor Reynolds to a Fable of Aesop and to a gross falsification of the Learned and Reverend D. Hammond which in due time and place I shall demonstrate to be such in a high Degree At last indeed he speaks something les● impertinent then before although impertinent also as shall be shewed Insomuch as his Readers may well admire how he could venture to call his Book by so extravagant a Title as did least of all relate to the subject matter of his Discourse unless he thought that his Readers would look no farther § 11. But having shew'd his long Entry I conceive it high time that I discover his Back-doors at which he maketh his foul escapes from the principall Duties Incumbent on him First when it

lyes upon him to answer to my 17 Arguments of which he confesseth he took some notice p. 100. He talks a little to three of them for I cannot say truly he answers one and having hastily done that he escapes me thus As to the rest of his Arguments which were no fewer then 14. they are partly such as I have met with before and partly such as others upon whose expressions they are grounded are more concerned in than my self p. 105. This I call a Back door at which he makes an escape which I say is foul because he had boasted in his Title-page his having Answered so much as doth relate to the opinion of sin's positive entity And yet he sneaks from those Arguments by which that opinion was clearly proved alledging no reasons for it but what are pretended by every sneaker He thought it a shame for him to say I have not any thing like an answer to the 14. Arguments remaining And therefore worded the matter thus they are partly such as before I met with and they concern not me so much as others § 12. Next when it lyes upon him to answer the 16 Arguments besides of which I lately made mention § 7. he does not so much as make a shew of giving answer to more than seven of which anon I shall take due notice but sneaks without leave from the other Nine insomuch that his Readers might have believed there were no more then those seven if they had not now met with my Information This was therefore an evasion without a Postern § 13. But how doe's he justifie the Schoolmen of which his Title-page made a boast truly much after the rate of his other dealings For he passeth them all by with the common shift of a Paralipsis I might strengthen my opinion from the Schoolmen p. 59. without producing the words of so much as one And is not this a Back-door at which to make a most shamefull and foul escape There is not a Boy in the Grammar-school but may dispute at this rate without the looking into such Authors as M. Morice and M. Prinn from whom I thought Master Hickman had learnt more wit than to compile a whole Book in Tergiversation to his Title And yet the foulest of his dealings is that which follows in my account For § 14. When at last he undertakes to handle the Question under debate after his having been impertinent throughout one hundred and thirteen pages he affirms the Question to be this Whether moral evil as such be a privation p. 48. Then saith he we understand by the particle as sin considered abstractly from that either act habit or faculty in which it is and to which it gives denomination pag. 49. This is the widest Back-door of all at which he studiously shifts from the thing in Question in which because he makes use of as gross a falshood as can be nam'd I am sorry I cannot be less severe than to prove him a deliberate and willful sinner Had there been any such Question in all my Book to the least part of which he at least pretended to give an Answer he would gladly have cited my words and pages And so his fault had been sufficient if he had onely not known that I had said any such Thing But since I can prove that he knew the contrary his crime is infinitely greater and can argue no less than a seared conscience Here then it is that I must shew in mine own Defence how much he hath written against his own light and how much against his own Interest as having put it in my power by an argument ad hominem to prove M. Hickman an arrant brute Beast rather a Hors● or a Mule then either a Man or a Woman which I shall prove so convincingly meerly by using his own Logick as he shall not be able to deny it without renouncing his whole cause Again he hath written against his Interest as having granted implicitly what he explicitly denyeth and implicitly denying what he had several times granted in plainest Terms to wit that the Question to be discussed is Whether the thing which is called sin hath a positive Being or no positive Being Not how or by what means or in respect of what it hath such a Being Not reduplicativè whether The sin of hating God quatenus a sin hath a positive Being or whether quatenus an action for to hate God is confessed to be at once a sin and an action too But whether the sin of hating God which is an action as well as a sin hath a positive being yea or no. To demonstrate that this is the Thing in Question and ever was from the beginning of all our Difference And then to demonstrate the sad estate which M. Hickman hath put himself into by his Reduplication his foysting in the word as against all dictates of sense and reason and the whole procedure of our Debate will so open his Eye● as to stop his mouth too And therefore this shall be the Theme o● a second Chapter CHAP. II. § 1. I Made it appear from the beginning of my Discourse on this subject that though according to the propriety of Logick speech a sin and a sinful act do sound as the Abstract and the Concrete yet so far do they differ from other Conjugates as to admit of diffe●ent Predications For though we cannot say a whited wall is whiteness or that whiteness is a whited wall yet we may say very truly that a sinful Act may be a sin and a sin m●y be a sinful act For Cains killing Abel was a sinfull act and therefore a sin because a murder Whether we say it is a sin or a sinfull act to hate God it matters not amongst men and all will say it comes to one in the account of God as well as in the stile of his holy Pen-men with whom there is nothing more common then for si●full Acts to be called sins Hence I affirmed that sin it self is a Concrete in respect of sinfulness which is its Abstra●t Of which opinion was D. Reynolds when he intitled one of his Books The sinfulness of Sin And he had great reason for it when he had found S. Paul speaking of sins being made exceeding sinful § 2. But M. Hick seeing clearly that if any sin were granted to b● a concrete and the same with the sinfull act it must be also granted to have a positive Entity or being and prove him guilty of that Blasphemy That it must needs be Gods creature or God himself was so scared out of his wits or at least out of his Conscience as to say that sinfulness is synonymous with sin and that sin is so perfectly an Abstract that if he conceive not of it as an Abstract he cannot co●ceive of it as sin p. 53 54. without regard to S. Paul Rom. 7.13 and then much less to D. Reynolds whom he inferreth to have written touching

good and evil should be so inseparably together For what he saith of a good and an evil God is as true of a good and an evil act and in a sense as cogent as that he speaks in for it implyes a contradiction that one and the same should be a good and an evil act too to wit that the a●t of hating God should be no less a good A●t as being from God then it is an evil one as having an obliquity which is from m●n I say such a m●x●ure of good and evil in one and the same numerical act must needs be absolutely impossible and con●radictory 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And is not that an unchristian Fabrick which hath no better a Buttress whereon to lean But I must hasten to other Fathers before and after Athanasius DIONYSIUS the AREOPAGITE how much soever he lived before the great Ath●n●sius I thought the fitter in this place to follow after the more conducible I thought it for the finding out his right meaning of which at first I began to doubt because I found him so much mistaken by so learned a person as Mr. BARLOW to whom Mr. Hickman is beholding pag. 56. It s true he useth such expressions as I lately shew'd and explained in A●hanasius and Master Barlow saith in what pages though Mr. Hickman doth not But he useth the very same of God himself in some places whom yet I hope Mr. Hickman will not thence conclude a meer privation or a Non-entity God saith Dionysius is deprived of essence Nay He is neither a substance nor a spirit nor any thing of the things that are or exist shall an Atheist now say that Dionysius was of his mind and urge the letter of these words to bear him out No Mr. Hickman will tell him the words are spoken in a sublime and figurative way and must be explained by the context to yield the Authors true meaning The very same shall I say in the other case That when the Father saith of sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must be so understood as Aquinas understood Austin denying the act of sin to be anything opposing that act being an accident to res simpliciter which is substantia And accordingly Corderius does render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by substantia not by essentia much less by entitas What gave occasion to Dionysius to speak of evil in that stile holy Maximus tells us in his Scholion upon the place For Dionysius having said that that which is not doth desire that which is good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and again a few leaves before that there is a will in that which is not Maximus tells us that the words being spoken against the Manichaeans he must largely explicate what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and why the thing that is evil is called that which is not of which as I have spoken in the praecedent paragraph so I shall speak once for all in the 5. § of this Chapter Number 9. But if the Question is to be carried by words and phrases even so the very truth will be found to rest on my side For the Antien●s saith holy Maximus did express the same thing by the word matter and extreme turpitude which is expressed also by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that which is not and thence forwards when he speaks of things that are not meaning evils he explains himself presently by things material In a word Dionysius does give the reason why that which is evil is said not to be even because it is more remote from God then that which is not in being For that I conceive must be the sense of the Greek what ever was thought by the Translator who seems not to hit the Fathers meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which how many several wayes it makes against Mr. Hickman the indifferent Reader is left to judge So clear to me is the meaning of that figurative Writer that he saith of the sinner not onely of the sin that he is not in being so far forth as he is a sinner and desires nothing that is Had Mr. Hickman prepar'd himself for the Reading of the book if at least he ever read so much as a page or line of it by reading the general observations prefixed to it by Corderius in particular that of his making God to be the position and privation of all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think he could not have swallow'd so great an errour That something is positive as well as privative in sin Dion●sius or whoever is the Author of that book which is thought unduly to wear his name hath sufficiently inferr'd by his answer given to this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which he answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 580. and again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 584. But I have dwelt so long upon these two Fathers that I must study to be brief in those that follow and that by satisfying my self with one or two instances out of each The force of which I shall not shew as I have hitherto done but modestly leave to my Readers judgment I shall onely propose to consideration whether those qualities or actions are not worthily called sins of which the word sin is wont to be praedicated in recto And whether that which is granted to be a true proposition by all the world can possibly lose of its Truth by the attempts of so gross a Fallacie as à dicto simplicitèr ad Dictum secundum Quid. CLEMENS ALEX. strom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 edit Commel pag. 219. edit Paris p. 511. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here to sin is by such an action to pollute the Title of man and is said to be placed or to consist in the action or operation not substance or essence and this is the ground why it is not the work of God So afterwards sin not brought to repentance is defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 5. p. 281. And though elsewhere he calls sin a variation from right reason yet there is added a positive entity of each 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I am ready to break my promise almost as soon as I have made it CYRILLVS HIEROS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 edit morell p. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIERONYM in Malach. c. 3. p. 284. A. Nequaquam levia putemus esse peccata perjurium calumniari viduam opprimere alienigenam quae male sicio veneficiis adulterio comparantur BASIL in Hex Homil. 2. p. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHRYSOST in 1. ep ad Cor. c. 6. Hom. 16. p. 167. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ATHENAGORAS in Legat. pro Christianis p. 35. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ANSELMVS super 2. ad Hebr. Peccatum est vel facere vetita vel non facere jussa IUSTIN MART. Q. Resp. ad Orth. p. 419. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉