recovery The true state of Sin specified as it differs from either part of Sin and from Sinfulness it self Mr. Hick gets nothing though we should grant him his Reduplication but rather looseth all he gapes at Nay proves himself a Carneadist or Libertine That Sin is positive and concrete may be concluded from Bonaventure CHAP. III. MR. Hick's chief strength from Mr. Barlow's youngest writings Why first encountred An accompt of Dr. Fields Reasons for the positive Entity of sin The first Reason the second Reason The first Reason was never answer'd The second answer'd by Mr. Barlow in his younger years The Answer shew'd to be invalid in 5 Respects 1. by its granting what it pretendeth to deny 2. by implying a contradiction 3. by being offensive to pious mindes 4. by offending against the Rules of sense 5. by the twofold unfitness of the Simile alledg'd Gulielmus de Rubione vindicated by way of Reply to Mr. Barlows Answer Mr. H's answer proved vitious in 3 respects 1. by such a gross Fallacy as by which he is proved no man but either a beast or somewhat worse 2. by such a shifting from the Question as proves him convinced of maintaining a gross error 3. by Blasphemy expressed and Contradiction implyed A third Reason taken from H. Grotius amounting to the same with Iacobus Almain Mr. Barlows Answer proved faulty in 7 respects The words of Capreolus make for me Mr. Barlows plea out of Hurtadus proved faulty in 6 Respects The Act of Hating God now and of sin hereafter unduly taken to be the same Act. A Denyal of Positivity betrayes its Owners to deny a Reality in Sin A fourth Reason out of Ioannes de Rada Mr. Barlows answer proved invalid in 4 Respects A 5 Reason out of Aquinas A Reply to the Answer of Mr. Barlow proving it faulty in 3 Respects Mr. Hick contradicted by his Masters and himself too A sixt Reason is taken out of Franciscus de Mayron and divers others Not answer'd by Mr. Barlow A Seventh Reason alledged by several Authors partly cited by Dr. Field Mr. Barlows answer proved faulty in 5 Respects An eighth Reason gathered out of Fran. Diotallevius confirmed by a ninth Argument leading the Adversary Mr. Hick to the most horrid Absurdities to be imagined A tenth Argument or Reason out of Cardinal Cajetan A 11th Argument collected from Episcopius A 12th and 13th Argument urged by Dr. Stern in his Animi Medela A 14 Argument out of D.R. Baron his Metaph. The arguments backt by the Authority of the most discerning by the explicit and implicit Confâ—ssions of the Adversaries By ten several Confessions of Mr. Hick himself CHAP. IV. MR. Hicks Distinction of the positive Act of Hating God and its obliquity frees him not from making God the Author of sin Proved first out of his mouth Secondly by Reason Thirdly by Authority in conjunction with Reason CHAP. V. THe Positive Entity of Sin made undeniable from Scripture God is the fittest to be Judge of what is properly called Sin Confirmed by the Concurrence of Antient Fathers The confession of Vossius for the greatest part of them Apollinarius by name and the greatest part of the Orientals as Ierome witnesseth Augustin held the propagation of the soul and Original sin to be a positive Quality The several wayes of reconciling such Writers unto themselves who plainly holding the positivity of sin do sometimes seem to speak against it An Accident opposed to Res simpliciter The Manichaean Haeresie occasioned some figurative expressions Substantia expressed by Natura Aliquid and Res. Substance called hoc aliquid by all the Followers of Aristotle All the Fathers grant sin to be an Act and the work of our Will How unhappily some men confuâ—e the Manichees How the Sinner is able to give the whole being unto his sin How they that deny it must submit to the Manichees or worse The Concurrence of the Learned both Antient and Modern for the Affirmative That the sinful Agent is the sole Cause of the sinful Act. The power to Act is from God but the vitious Action is not Melancthon's distinction of the first Cause susteining but not assisting the second in evill Actions CHAP. VI AN Accompt of those things which Mr. Hick calls his Artificial Arguments Of twelve things answered but 4 replyed to A Rejoynder to the First to the Second to the Third to the Fourth His second Argument Artificial How largely answered His remarkable Tergiversation without the shadow of a Reply His offers of Reason Why all things positive are from God or God himself and primarily none from Men or Devils The Infirmities of the First Of the Second by which he is proved out of his mouth to be the worst of Blasphemers Of the Third wherein he makes God the Fountain of the Essence of sin Of the Fourth wherein he ascribeth unto God what God ascribeth unto the Devil His third Argument Artificial The positive Importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not considered by Mr. Barlow The like Importance of Peccatum proved by Reason and Experience His Fourth and last Argument A short accompt of those Shifts which pretend to be Answers to some few Arguments Of Sins being called the works of the Devil His Concessions and Contradictions about the Habit of Drunkenâ—sse His Concessions and Contradictions about the positive filth of Sin His Concession and Tergiversation concerning Blasphemy and Atheisme c. His Remarkable Forgery of an Argument in his Adversaries name His stupendious Impertinence and supposal of Grace in Hell or Some privation besides All. Of Sins working Concupiscence Mr. Hicks Answer absurd in 8 Respects Of the efficient Cause of Sin Mr Hicks Conviction and Confession in despite of his whole Enterprise Of Sins being Nothing if no Effect Mr. H's vain attempt to prove Knavery to be Nothing The Cause of punishment Mr. H's Denyal of any positive Damnation unlesse he thinks it no punishment to be Damn'd The Contents of the APPENDIX Touching his Epistle Dedicatory MR Hickman his Flattery and Condemnation of himself His Willfull falsehood His Self contradiction and Confession of having written against his Conscience Dr. Hammond vindicated from Mr. H. His several falsifications His confounding the things which he once distinguisht The sad Effects of the Calvinian Schism Mr. H's sawciness and irreverence to Dr. Hammond added to all his willfull Forgeries His scurrilous usage of Dr. Taylor and its occasion Originall sin The dissatisfaction of Episcopal Divines Dr. Taylors error on the right hand extreamly better then the heresie of Presbyterians on the left Mr. H's preferring Calvin to the 4. Evangelists The way to stop a Papists mouth Mr. H's sense of his Scurrility with his desire never to mend His new sense of his Carnality And malignity to the Episcopal Government Touching his Book-like Preface to the Reader THe first Page of his Preface proves all that follows to be but the fruites of his Revenge His frivolous exception to Heathen Learning The Heathenish nature of his
is a high self-determining principle the great spring of our actions of Iudgement pag. 152. But Mr. B. as many others is produced by me in no fâ—â— place I not observing any order either of dignity or of time but giving to every one a place as he meets my memory or my eye The words of GROTIUS deserve great heed whilst he saith that the liberty of a man's will is not vitious but able by its own force to produce a thing that is vitious that is an action meaning that a vitious action as the action of hating God is meerly from the sinner man or Divel and not without impiety to be ascribed unto God either as a mediate or immediate cause And though I cited some part of his words before yet not to fail of his intenâ— I shall intreat my Reader to weigh the whole Neque ab eo quod diximus dimovere nos debet quod mala multa evenire cernimus quorum videtur origo Deo adscribi non posse ut qui perfectissimè sicut ante dictum est bonus sit Nam cum diximus Deum omnium esse Causam addidimus eorum quae verè subsistunt Nihil enim prohibet quominus ipsa quae subsistunt deinde causae sint Accidentium quorundam quales sunt actiones Deus hominem mentes sublimiores homine creavit cum agendi libertate quae agendi libertas vitiosa non est sed potest suâ vialiquid vitiosum producere Et hujus quidem generis malis quae moraliter mala dicuntur omnino Deum adscribere auctorem nefas est p. 27 28. LYCERUS vindicating God from the very same calumnie with which Mr. Hickman hath not feared to â—sperse him saith that the Divel did peccâ—re ex semetipso according to our Saviour Ioh. 8.44 that he alone is pater fons malorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first inventor of evil things to which he accommodates that of Austin Quomodo Deus pater genuit filium veritatem sic Diabolus lapsus genuit quasi filium mendacium God is said to be omnipotent not because he can do all things saith LOMBARD out of Augustin but because he can do whatsoever he will who cannot will to do any thing but what is good But there are some things saith he which God cannot do to wit those things wich are unjust sunt alia quaedam quae Deus nullatenus facere potest ut pâ—ccata p. 247. Non potest Deus facere injusta p. 248. These following Doctrines quod voluntas hominis ex necessitate vult eligit quod liberum Arbitrium est potentia passiva quod necessitate movetur ab Appetibili item quod dignitas esset in causis superioribus posse facere peccata Item quod alâ—quis faciat aliquid omnino ut Deus vult ipsum facere voluâ—tate Beneplaciti quod talis peccet c. were condemned with an Anathema by the Bp. of Paris and all the Professors of Divinity in that university A. D. 1270. 1341. together with the Blasphemies of Ioannes de Mercurio of the Cistercian order that God is in some sort the cause of the sinful act And that whatever is caused by the will of the Creature is so caused by vertue of the first cause And that God is the cause of every mode of the act and of every Circumstance that is produced All which are the Blasphemies asserted as Necessary truths by Mr. Hickman accordingly do call for a condemnation Bp. BRAMHALL shewes it to be his judgement whilst he censures Mr. Hobbs for saying that God wills and effects by the second causes all their actions good and bad and saith it implyes a contradiction that God should willingly do what he professeth he doth suffer Act. 13.18 Act. 14.16 Then he thus states the matter God causeth all good permitteth all evil disposeth all things both good and evil The general power to act is from God in him we live move and have our being this is Good But the specification and Determination of this general power to the doing of any evil is from our selves and proceeds from the free will of man it is a good consequence This thing is unrighteous therefore it cannot proceed from God Thus Aquinas and others are also expounded by Diotallevius not to mean that God is any cause of the evil act but that he doth not withdraw his necessary support from the will which abuseth its liberty in determining it self to the evil act and so that God is only the condition without which we cannot do evil not the cause by which we do it And so saith Aquinas Licet Deus sit universale principium omnis intentionis motus humani quod tamen determinetur voluntas humana ad malum consilium hoc non esse à Deo sed ab ipsâ again he saith non à motione divinâ sed à dispâ—sitione humanae voluntatis oriri ut malae potius actionâ—s quà m boâ—ae sequantur He also cites for his opinion what I have cast into the Margin and of which the result is this Dâ—termiâ—ationâ—m ad producâ—ndam huâ—â—s actus enâ—itatem esse à voluntate humanâ non autem à Deo Deum ita nolle antecedenâ—er ut haec entitas sit ut eam eâ—iam esse patiatur suum concursum non subtrahendo si conditio id exigat ex Creaturae libertate opposita p. 92.93.94 mark how it is expressed by Dr. GO AD. God made Adam able to be willing to sin but he made him not to will sin that he chose death it was by the strength of his will given him by God but God did not binde him to chose death for that were a contradiction a necessitated choice if the Nature of a voluntary Agent be well observed this point will be most evident And now the judicious Dr. Hammond will be the fittest to shut up all He that first gives the Law and then preâ—etermines the Act of transgressing the disobedience the doing contrary to that law that first forbids eating of the tree of knowledge and then predetermines Adams will to choose and eat what was forbidden is by his decree guilty of the Commission of the act and by his Law the cause of its being an obliquity And indeed if the obliquity which renders the act a sinfull act be it self any thing it must necessarily follow that either God doth not predetermine all things or that he predetermines the obliquity and Regularity bearing the same pâ—oportion of Relation to any act of Duty as obliquity doth to sin it cannot be imagined that the Author of the sinful Act should not be the Author of the obliquity as well as the Author of the pious Act is by the disputers acknowledged to be the Author of the regularity of it To conclude this Chapter in the words of Dr Reynolds Let not any man resolve sins into any other original then his
Bellarminus apud Alsted ubi supra CHEMNITIVS in Harm Evang. c. 59. p. 792. Gerhard in Har. Ev. p. 70. GROTIVS de Ver. Chr. Relig edit Lugd. 1633 p. 27 28 * Nihil enim prohibet quo minus ipsa quae subfistunt deinde causae sint accidentium quales sunt actiones This is the judgement also of Prosper and Austin lib. sent ex August pag. 444. The severall wayes of RECONCILEING such Writers unto themselves who plainly holding the positivity of sin do sometimes seem to speak against it Bish. BRAM HAL'S Reply mihi p. 105. Anim. Medel p. 270. In what sense God is said to be Almighty see LOMBARD l. 1. dist 42. F G. See correct copy p. 22 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Areop Peccatum est nihil Aug. de lib. Arb. l. 1. Rom. 1.20 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Being nothing he deceiveth himself Gal. 6.3 * Peccatum nihil est inquit Bernard in annum B. Mar. Sâ—rm 1. p. 123. †Quid est omne peccatum nisi Dei conâ—emptus quo ejuâ— praecepta conâ—emnimus 〈◊〉 l. de mo 〈◊〉 viv Sir 37. p. 1281 a AQVIN in 1.2 quâ—st 75. art 1. b ibid. c ibid. ad 1. d ibid. ad 3. e ib. art 2. f ib. ad 2. * Sicut aegriâ—udo corporalis ali quid habet positivum Ita etiam peccatum originale non est privatio pura sed est quidam corruptus Habiâ—us Idem 1.2 q. 82. arâ— 1. ad 1â— * Sicut aegriâ—udo corporalis ali quid habet positivum Ita etiam peccatum originale non est privatio pura sed est quidam corruptus Habiâ—us Idem 1.2 q. 82. 〈◊〉 1. ad 1â— An accident oppos'd to Res simpliciter Seâ— Prosper's sent ex Aug p. 444. * Augustin de persect Justitiae non longè à pri lib. in resp Ratiocin 4. to 7. †AVGVST nominat ibi Rem id quod est Res simpliciter sc. substantiam sic enim actus peccati non est Res. AQV in 1.2 q. 79. Art 2. ad 1. GREG. NYSS Hom. 5. in Ecclesiasten p. 417. opposeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that is explained by substanâ—ia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The MANICHAEAN heresie occasioned some figurative expressions * TERTVL advers Mar. l. 1. c. 1. 23. 26. HIERON in Nâ—hum c. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 EPIPHANIUS l. 2 tom 2. Haerâ—s 45. seu 55. pag. 619. B. D. Ex omnibus Physicoâ—um sive Metaphysicorum terminls obseuris nulli explicatu digniores quà m 〈◊〉 duo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meric Casaub. de verb. usu p. 134. Manichaus having expressed Substantia by Natura Aliquid Res. * VASQUEZ Disp. 95. c. xi As Aristotle himself by Hoc aliquid Whom the Antients followed in their expressions Not including Accidents in the word nature But granting â—in to be an act and the work of our will An example taken out of S. AUSTIN Why ens many times is used onely for substantia How unhappily some men confute the MAâ—NICHEES How the sinner is able to give the whole being unto his sin * Ecclus. 15.14 * Eccles. 7.29 How they that deny it must submit to the MANICHEES or worse The concurrence of the Learned both ANTIENT and MODERN for the Affiâ—mative That the sinfull Agent is the sole cause of the sinfull Act. DIONYS AREOP de Coelest Hieraâ— c. 1. p. 1.2 * De Div. Nom c. 4. sect 18. p. 570. cum quâ confer p. 571. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 574. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. pag. 577 pag. 578. ib. p. 7. * Neque ullam ejâ—s substantiam esse Petrus Nannius interpretatur p. 8. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Deuâ— non est causa ejus quod homo sit deterior Idem apud Aqu. 1.2 q. 79. Art 3. Idem in lib. de ingratis p. 573. ib. p. 169. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 219. ib. p. 34. Idem l. 2. tom 1. Haer. 64. p. 587. * Mala voluntas Peccatum dicitur metonymicè seâ— Lombard l. 4 dist 50. A. The power to act is from God but the vitious action is not p. 302. ib. p. 49 ib. p. 50. ib. p. 53. ib. p. 55 56. MELANCHTHONS Distinction of the first cause sustaining but not assisting the second in evil actions ** Vitium originis est ipsarum partium hominis inquinatio confusio ib. p. 49. accedunt motus qui sunt res positivâ— etsi sunt motus errantes quaedam ordinis Confusio c. p. 50. ** Vitium originis est ipsarum partium hominis inquinatio confusio ib. p. 49. accedunt motus qui sunt res positivâ— etsi sunt motus errantes quaedam ordinis Confusio c. p. 50. †53. He also saith in collat Wormat. Peccatum vel est defectus vel inclinatio vel actio pugnans cum lege Dei Defens sent Rem circa 1. de praed art p. 250. M. BAXTER of Iudgement p. 151 152. GROT de ver Chr. Rel. p. 27 28. POLYCAR LYCERVS in Harm Evang c. 103. p. 1460. PET. LOMBARDVS l. 1. dist 42. p. 248 D. E. F. Omnipotens est â—oâ— quod possit omnia facere sed qâ—ia potest efficere quicquid vult c. vide August Encâ—iâ— cap. 96. in fine tom 3. v. Arâ—ic condem excomm à Stephanâ— Paris Episâ— per Magistros Parisienses ad calcem Lomb. p. 953 967 969. ibid. p. 971. col 1 2. †p. 79 95.96 c. Bp. BRAMHAL in a reply to T. H. Animadv p. 94.95 id ib. p. 97. ib. p. 101. Diotallevius in Opusc. Theol p. 103. p. 2. q. 80 〈◊〉 1. ad 3. * Greg in 2. d. 34. 37. q. 1 art 3. ad 8. 12. Câ—preol ib. q. 1. art 3. Scotus in 2. d 37. q. 2 Suarez in opusc l 2. de concursu Del ad actus malos c. 3. * Greg in 2. d. 34. 37. q. 1 art 3. ad 8. 12. Câ—preol ib. q. 1. art 3. Scotus in 2. d 37. q. 2 Suarez in opusc l 2. de concursu Del ad actus malos c. 3. Dr. GO AD at the end of his Dispt Ms. Dr. HAMMOND of Fundamentals ch 16. p. 183 184. * Dr. ED. REYNOLDS of the sinfulnesse of sin p. 212. in 4to An account of those things which Mr. H. calls his Artificiall Arguments ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ch 3. p. 10. â—o p. 153. Of 12. things answered buâ— 4. replyed to A rejoyndeâ— to the first †See his pag 95 lin ult ☞ To the 2â— To the 3 d. To the 4 th His second Argument artificial * See the place cited in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 3. p. 154. examin'd till as far as P 1â—6 How largely answered His remarkable Tergiversation without the shadow of a reply His offers of Reason why all things positive are
the love of God and his glory I shall be willingly bound up from ever speaking or writing or injoying any place in the Church of God if my Superiours can but imagine how that maytend to the publick good rather than lay the least Block in the way of unity which now is attempting a return to such a Babel as ours hath been But besides my contention will be believed to have been such as mine Adversary in time will applaud me for when he shall find my Rudest twitches were but to snatch him from a Praecipice As soon as Mr. Hickman shall be convinced that though for a sinner to hate God and to murder men are as positive entities as any actions to be imagin'd yet they cannot but be reckon'd among the worst sorts of sins and therefore cannot without impiety be said to be any of God's creatures or God himself which yet Mr. Hickman hath often taught I say as soon as he shall discern not onely how dangerous and sinfull but how irrational and sensless his errour is he will as heartily thank me even for this very Book as I would thank that man who should pluck a thorn out of my eye Besides that my aime in what I have written hath been the same with that of the most moderate Doctor Sanderson For to express it in his words I have not written against the moderate but onely the Rigid-Scotized-thorow-paced Presbyterians Of them Mr. Hickman can be but one And even with him I am as ready to be upon just as good Termes as with my neighbour Mr. Barlee I long have been Let him onely forbeare to wound me in the Apple of my eye nay in the tenderest part of my very soul by dishonouring God and his Anointed long before whose restauration which is but hoped whilst â— am writing I had sent my Vindication of his Supremacy to the Press and which had certainly been as publick as now it is though the Republicans had prosper'd in their Cariere Let him I say but do that and my work is done If I shall ever again appear in the behalf of any one of the five controverted points it will be likelyest to be in Latine as being the Scholars Mother-tongue and onely in order to reconcilement Now that the God of peace and unity will make us at unity and peace within our selves enlightning our heads with that knowledge which is the mother of humility and inflaming our hearts with that zeal which is according to such a knowledge and thereby making up our breaches as well of judgement as of charity or at least of charity if not of judgement that we may all be held together by the bond of unity in the truth shall be as heartily the endeavour as it is the frequent and fervent prayer of Your meanest Brother and Servant in our Lord and Master Iesus Christ. THOMAS PIERCE Brington May 2. 1660. A PARAENETICAL PREFACE Shewing the purpose of the Author with the Necessity of the Work Representing its usefulness in all Times but more especially in these with some Praeparatory Advertisements making the whole the more manageable to the less Intelligent of the people Christian Reader IF thou shalt ask in curiosity why I happen to come so late to this Discharge of my Engagement to which I stood by my Promise so long obliged Know that my several Praeengagements with severall Books of Mr. Baxter together with several interventions both of sickness and journies and other Impediments unavoidable do conspire to give thee the Reason of it For these did keep me from the thought of what I have brought to a conclusion till somewhat after the beginning of this last Winter Besides that at the end of my Autocatacrisis which I conceive more useful then all my Controversies besides and upon which I bestowed the greatest labour that it might put a full end to the whole Dispute I made a promise to my Readers of what I had purpos'd within my self that if I return'd to any Dispute in any kind whatsoever as it would fall out Cross to my Inclinations so I resolved to do it onely at times of Leisure That whilst my howers could be spent in my chief employment I might not lose too many of them in my least necessary Defences For though I remember I am a Shepherd and bound as well to defend as to feed the Sheep yet it cannot but be to me an unpleasant Game to tyre my self in the hunting of Wolves and Foxes But after the Reason of my lateness I am to render another Reason why I betook my self at last to the present service I saw the flock was indanger'd by several Vermin and partly driven out of the Fold too Nay the great Master-shepherd was himself assaulted by their Inventions by whom he was slanderously reported to be the principal cause of their going astray Some I found teaching and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in broadest Terms That God is the Author of Injustice the Author of Adultery the Author of the evil of sin not onely the Author of the sinfull work it self but of the evil intention too In a word The Author of all thâ—se things which we affirm to come to pass by his mere permission and not at all by his appointment Others I caught in the Act of teaching That God doth incite or stirr men up to wicked actions that He seduceth commandeth doth make obdurate draws sends in deceipts and effects those things which are grievous sins Of which I now give an Instance from Peter Martyr in my Margin because he was the most famous and learned Calvinist of Florence In so much that Doctor Whitaker did most ingenuously confess when he answer'd Campian that if Calvin or Peter Martyr or any other of that Party affirms God to be the Author and cause of sin they are all of them guilâ—y of the most horrid Blasphemy and wickedness And yet when the Florentine I spake of had put the Question in the page preceeding his above cited words An Deus causa sit peccati whether God be the cause of sin he presently call'd it Quaestionem non dissimulandam and professedly held it in the affirmative A third sort I found there were who taught That God is the Author not of those actions alone in and with which Sin is but of the very pravity Ataxie Anomie Irregularitie and sinfulness it self which is in them yea that God hath more hand in mens sinfulness then they themselves These were publickly and in Print the very words of Master Archâ—r a Presbyterian Minister of London in Lombard street who went over into Holland with Thomas Goodwin Oliver Cromwel's Ghostly Father and the present usurper of the Presidentship in Magdalen Colledge by which Goodwin he was commended for as pretious a man as this earth bears any In Holland he was Pastor of the Church of Arnheim as we are told by Mr. Edwards his loving Friend too His book he was pleased
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 obâ—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 thâ—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 1â— 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 becausâ— 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 effâ—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 placâ—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
extremity and nonsense in the worst degree because it implyes a contradiction to say the sin is the mere repugnance of the act to the law without the act which is repugnant Or that the sin of hating God is a deflection from the Precept without that hating which is the sin XIII 'T is so far from being false to call it a sin to blaspheme which is a positive entity that it is blasphemy to deny it This is a proof from plain experience XIV A part of nothing can be the thing of which it is but a part for then the part would be the whole which does imply a contradiction And so the formal part of sin cannot possibly be the sin but the sin must include the material also This doth prompt me Gentle Reader to prepare thee also for those evasions with which the Adversaries of Truth will pretend to answer what thou shalt urge 1. If therefore when thou provest a sin is positive they shall onely answer concerning sin quatenus sin Remember to tell them of their Fallacie à Thesi ad Hypothesin or à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid 2. If again when thou sayst some sins are actions such as those which God forbids us to put in being they shall answer that sins of omission are not put them in mind of that other fallacie A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter 3. If when thou arguest by an Induction of such particulars as in the Instance of hating God they shall answer that hating is not evil in it self and good as fasten'd upon sin Tell them straight of their Fallacies A rectè conjunctis ad malè divisa and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Argument is of hating as having God for its object And so to answer of hating without an object is an Intolerable impeâ—tinence dividing the Act from the Object which were onely considered in conjunction much more is it impertinent to talk of hating as 't is objected upon sin for that iâ— a traâ—sition à genere ad genus God is not sin nor is it a sin to hate sin but the sin of hating God is that to which they must speak in a compound sense Hold them punctually to this and they are undone 4 If they take upon them to prove acting the part of the opponent that the formal part of sin is a mere privation therefore the sin is a mere privation tell them first of their fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Antecedent might be true and yet the sequel extremely false Tell them next there is a Fallacie of Ignoratio Elenchì For the question is of sin not of a portion or part of sin They are past all Remedy who when the Question is whether it râ—ines do onely answer that the staff does not stand in the corner Tell them over and above that the formal part of some sins as of the Divels hating God is a positive Repugnance to the Law of God and so again there is the Fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barely to say and not to prove the universality of the thing can amount to no more then onely the begging of the question Mr. Hickman must confess he is the worst of Blasphemers if there is but one sin that is a positive entity because he saith that All such must be either God's creatures or God himself This also prompts me to reflect upon the Mischievous effects of his sad Dilemma For if God is said to be the cause of that positive entity or action Adam's eating forbidden fruit And the cause of that Law Thou shalt not eat it he is said to be the Author or cause of that sin which was his very eating forbidden fruit I have therefore taken the greater pains in my following Treatise both in vindicating God from being the Author of such effects and in charging them wholly upon the Free-will of man shewing how the sinful agent is alone the cause of the sinful act to the end I might convince and convert my Adversary even in spight of his own perversness and disabuse his followers or abeâ—tors notwithstanding their partiality and praepossession That when they exert any such reall and positive actions as the hating of God the ravishing of virgins the killing of Kings the committing of sacriledge the coveting and seizing their neighbour's goods they may be forced to declare with Coppinger and Hacket in the Star-Chamber the works are evil and from themselves unless they will take in the Divel too not good and from God as Mr. Hickman no less irrationally than blasphemously saith That there are haters of God who is Love it self God hath told us by Moses and by Saint Paul And according to the importance of the original word they are hated by God who are haters of him How we ought to be affected towards them that hate God the Psalmist tells us by his example Do not I hate them O Lord that hate thee yea I hate them with a perfect hatred Who they are that hate God by way of eminence our Learned Doctor Stearn hath taken the Liberty to say I shall content my self at present to shew the place in my Margin and to observe Mr. Hickman is therein intimately concern'd I do not hate Mr. Hickman but do love him so well as to wish him better Yet of the Doctrine which he delivers and pleadeth for with so much vehemence That every positive thing is good and either God or his creature I have industriously discovered my perfect hatred For the Hellish murder of Gods Anointed of ever Blessed and glorious Memory was as positive a something as any action to be produced And all the plea of those Deicides who sought to justifie the Fact was the use they made of this Fatal Doctrine They ever imputed unto God irresistibly willing or unconditionally decreeing and effectually over-acting his peoples spirits whatsoever unclean thing they were suffer'd in What was really but the patience they call'd the pleasure of the Almighty His passive permission they stil'd appointment What he had every where forbidden they gave him out to have predetermin'd What was a sin not to be expiated They calld an expiatory sacrifice They gave out God to be the Author of all that he sufferd them to commit the favourable approver of whatsoever he condemned them to prosper in In a word they told the people that God was delighted in those impieties which with much long suffering he but endur'd And then I think I was excusable for being impatient of such a Doctrine as to the Ruin of three Kingdomes I saw reduced into practice for diverse years How impartial I have been in the maintaining of the Truth I shall evince in the following papers by my Reply to Mr. BARLOW the Reverend Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxford my very learned and loving Friend To certain Reasonings of his in his second Metaphysical
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 Horsâ— 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 Eyeâ— as to stop his mouth too And therefore this shall be the Theme oâ— 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 diffeâ—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 mâ—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 siâ—full Acts to be called sins Hence I affirmed that sin it self is a Concrete in respect of sinfulness which is its Abstraâ—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 bâ— 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 coâ—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
do stand in the greatest expectation to wit the proving by such convincing and cogent Arguments that sin which is properly so called hath a positive Being as to put a conclusion to the whole Controversy and that by enabling the weakest Reader to stop the mouth of the strongest that shall oppose him And because I cannot but have observed what hath also been observed by many others that whatsoever is thought strong in Mr. H.'s Rhapsody by such as are partial to his Adventure he hath taken after his manner that is dishonestly without the citing his Author so much as once to whom he was beholding extreamly often from an Exercitation de naturâ mali which had been pen'd and printed more then 20. years agoe by my very good Friend Mr. THOMAS BARLOW who I conceive at that time could be but n wly Master of Arts though now the learned and Reverend Provost of Queens College I shall begin with that instance of which â— verily believed I had been the first urger ' â—â—ll since I found it in Dr. Field and in other writers of great Repute whom I have now consulted on this occaâ—â—on I mâ—an that which is drawn from the Sin of hating God and by consequence from all other sins of commission whereof this one is the fittest Instance to which Mr. Hickman pretends an answer though without the will and consent yet by the assistance of Mr. BARLOW The insufficiency of the Answer I intend to shew by my Reply Which being done I shall submit it to the consideration of Mr. Barlow That if he approves of my Reply he may may make me glad with the knowledge of it and that if he doth not he may shew me the reason of his dislike I suppose his judgement may now be altered from what it was in his younger years If not I shall desire to discuss the matter rather with Him who is able to tye me the hardest knoâ—s and to shew me my Error in case I erre then to contend with â—uch a Trifler as Mr. Hickman appears to be who is fitter to betray then maintain his Cause § 2. That the sin of hating God is nothing more then a sin and that it hath a posâ—â—ive being I have so often proved mine own way in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besides what I have done in my Letter to Dr. Heylin and in the sections of the foregoing Chapter that I suppose it high time to shew how others have proved it as well as I. Both that the greatness of their Authority may help prevail with some men to accept of reason and that I may take an opportunity to speak mine own sense in their Vindication I will the rather begin with Dr. Field because He if any other saith Mr. BARLOW himself who doth oppose him was a learned Writer of our own Church which he hath studiously defended against the Papisâ—s First t is his peremptory assertion That the sin of Commission which is the doing of that the creature is bound not to do is merely positive HIs first Reason for it is this As the affirmative part of Gods Law is broken by the not putting that in being which it requireth so the negative is violated prâ—cisely by putting that in being which it would not have to be Again he saith a little after That sin of commission is an evil act and that there are some evil Acts which are not evil ex fine Circumstantiis but ex genere objecto which are therefore denominated evill not by passive denomination as if they wanted some Circumstances that should make them good but by active denomination because no Circumstances can make them good and because by way of contrariety they deprive the sinner of that orderly disposition that should be found in him and some other of that good which pertaineth to him As it appeareth in the acts of injustice spoiling men of that which is their own which Mr. Hickman cannot endure to hear of and iâ— the acts of blasphemy against God or the hate of God in which the sinner as much as in him lieth by attributing to God what is contrary to his Nature or denying that which agreeth unto the same maketh him not to be that which he is and hating him wisheth he were not and endeavoureth to hinder what he would have done NOw saith the Doctor a little after That that sin of Commission which is an evil ex genere objecto is not denominated evil passively from the want of rectitude due unto it it is evident in that no rectitude is due to such an Act. For what rectitude is due to the specifical Act of hating God or what rectitude is it capable of This he urgeth against Those who affirm the act it self in the hating God to be very good and the deformity of the Act to be onely evil which deformity they fancie to be the want of a rectitude which was due to that act not at all considering that there cannot be possibly any such thing as a right hating of God or a rectified injustice these things implying a contradiction in adjecto Yet such absurdities they will swallow rather then confess what yet they find saith D. Field that some sins are positive Acts. pag. 119. Nay the Doctor advanceth farther and certainly farther then he needed if not farther then he ought I am sure much farther then I have done That in the siâ— of commission specifically considered there is nothing but meerly positive and the deformity that is found in it is precisely a positive Repugnance to the Law of God which he doth not say upon his own account onely but farther backeth it with the Authority and concurrent Judgements of many eminent Schoolmen and great Divines many more then M. Hickman so much as attempted to produce whose names and words shall be seen anon § 3. To the first Reason of the two which the most learned D. Field as the learned M. Barlow does once more call him p. 74. was pleas'd to give for his asserting the positive entity of sin M. Barlow doth not make any answer nor doth he take the least notice that there was any such thing though as it is his first reason so I conceive to be his best too which I shall probably shew when occasion serves especially if I chance to be put in mind To the second Reason his answer is That no rectitude is due to the hatred of God in as much as it is limited to such an object to wit God But as he saith a little before to which he here referrs his Reader The hatred of God being taken by it self may be good and so by consequence the being of the act shall not be evil per se. Iust as walking is good of it self though walking to kill or commit adultery cannot be made good by any Circumstance § 4. To this Answer I reply in the behalf of D. Field first That it
act although a Non-entity is morally good Again the Schoolmen do hold a twofold punishment the one of sense the other of loss whereof the latter is the wages of an aversion from God as is also the former of a conversion to the Creature so that if sin were nothing but mere privation the poena sensus would be inflicted without all justice under the notion of Revenge for a conversion to the creature § 21. AGain it may be thus argued and out of BARONIVS his Metaphysica Generalis That which hath not a positive entity cannot be the cause of any thing But sin many wayes is the cause of something For 1. it is the cause of punishment and 2 one sin is the cause of another A vitious act is the cause of a vitious habit A vitious habit is the cause of vitious actions And a natural propension to evil which Baronius calls original sin is said by him to be the cause of all the vitious actions oâ— our will T is true he answers this argument but his answer may be refuted by my Replyes to Mr. Barlow and by what Baronius grants of which anon as the Reader will finde if he makes a triall § 22. Now besides these Arguments thus largely urged and that from many more Authors then Mr. Hickman hath named for his opinion I shall exhibit a larger Catalogue but with a lesser expense of time and paper of such eminently learned and knowing men as have justified my judgement with the authority of their own and of whom unawares I have undertaken a justification I will begin with those Writers with the concurrence of whose opinions Dr. Field thought fit to credit his § 23. ALVAREZ saith the sin of commission is a Breach of a negative Law which is not broken but by a positive Act. Aquinas also saith that though in a sin of omission there is nothing but a privation yet in the sin of commission there is some positive thing Nay he saith more plainly what Dr. Field doth not observe that the ratio formalis of sin is two fold whereof the one is according to the intention of the sinner And that it consisteth essentially in the Act of the free-will He also infers it to be an accident whilst he saith that every sin is in the will as in its subject And very often that in every sin there are two things whereof the one is a quality or action and so the whole sin must have a positive being Farther yet it is consequent to the opinion of Cajetan saith Gregory de Valentiâ that sin formally as sin is a positive thing which he expresly also affirmeth in primam 2 dae q. 71. art 6. Some hold saith Cumel that the formal nature of sin consisteth in some positive thing to wit in the manner of working freely with a positive repugnance to the rule of Reason and the law of God Ockam saith further that the very deformity in an act of Commission is nothing else but the act it self viz. actus elicitus against the Divine Law And these are cited by Dr. Field l. 3. c. 23. p. 120. § 24. To these I add many more which partly were not and partly could not have been observed by Dr. Field LESSIVS saith that an evil act is in somâ— sort evil even according to its Physical Entity Nay upon this passage of C. VORSTIVS Omne ens quà ens bonum est Piscator himself hath this note and it is a note of exception At vitiosa illa qualitas in nobis unde oriuntur actuâ—lia peccata bona non est The learned Professor of Divinity in Academiâ Tubingensi affirmes Original sin to be an accident as the opposite member to substantia and calls it the accident of a substance and compares it to the image of God in man which he also saith was not a substance but an Accident And that will be yielded to have a positive being especially if he means as Piscator did that that accident is a Quality Another learned Professor in Academiâ Oxoniensi by saying Concupiscence is a sin inferreth that sin to be a positive entity which concupiscence will be granted by all to be And if it is with consent it is an actual sin if without consent it is an inbred Rebellion of the flesh against the law of God He also takes it to be an accident by ascribing to it subjectum quo subjectum quod because by entring at the flesh it did infect the spirit Dr. GOAD who was sent to the Synod at DORT whilest he was speaking in that Tract which some do call his Retractation against an ordinary Calvinian distinction which he conceived to make God the Author of sin expressly used these words Might I here without waâ—dring discourse the nature of sin I could prove sin it self to be an action and confute this groundless distinction that way The tract is a Manuscript but divers have Copyes as well as I. And sure the world must enjoy it if not by other men's care at least by mine That Great Divine Dr. IACKSON who was withall a great Philosopher and inferiour to none for skill in Metaphysicks doth not content himself to say of original sin that it is not a mere privation but also defineth it to be a positive Renitency of the flesh or corrupt nature of man against the spiritual law of God especially against the negative Precepts c. And as he highly commends Illyricus for an extraordinary writer so he vindicates his notion by explaining his true sense of Original sin which if the Dr. took by the right handle Mr. Barlow took it by the wrong in the latter part of his 2. excercitation It was the businesse of Illyricus saith Dr. IACKSON to banish all such nominal or grammatical definitions as have been mentioned out of the Precincts of Theology and to put in continual caveats against the Admission of abstracts or mere relations into the definition of Original sin or of that unrighteousness which is inherent in the man unregenerate The Judicious Doctor doth also tell us and who could tell better then he that St. Austine Aquinas and Melanchthon do say in effect as much as Illyricus if their meanings were rightly weighed and apprehended by their Followers Nay Calvin and Martyr and many other good writers consort so well with Illyricus in their definitions of sin in the unregenerate that they must all be either acquitted or condemned together Illyricus himself explains his meaning by producing the definitions of Original sin not onely given by Calvin and Martyr but explained by themselves into Illyricus his sense In so much that Dr. Iackson ranking Calvin and Martyr with Illyricus doth affirm them to make original sin to be the whole nature of man and all his faculties so far forth as they are corrupted Yet still their meaning was no more
for all action and a positive entity for a privation unless he purposely writes against his own enterprize in calling a proud desire a sin but onely pluck him by the ear as Cynthius did Tityrus and admonish him for the future not to act the ultracrepidâ—st by taking upon him to be a Scholar and a School-Divine when he was mimically ordained to be no more then a Lay-preacher Could any man but Mr. Hickman have intitled his Book against a truthâ— which he was forced to acknowledge whilest he meant to deny and disown it onely 3. He doth not onely acknowledge that the act or habit of any sin hath a positive being but further adds beyond all example That the privation it self is an evil Quality p. 56. even that privation which is called by some the formall part of sin and is said by himself to denominate the act or the habit evil Nor will a quasi superadded serve to do him a good turn For let him call it an action or any thing else to which an Epithet may be added he will still imply it to have a positive being And whilst he saith an evil quality he implyes the privation which he so calleth to be a concrete Not remembring his famous saying that he cannot so much as conceive of siâ— unless as perfectly an abstract p. 54. and that sin is synonymous with sinfulness it self p. 53. Again he seems here to speak of an external denomination as if he were not aware of what he was afterwards to say concerning the action of hating God That it is intrinsecally and essentially evil not meerly through the want of some Circumstance p. 94. Again he saith 4. That in hating God the terminating of that act to that object is the sinfulness of the action p. 95. Now we know it is an action for the will to determine or fix an act upon an object and so according to Mr. Hickman sinfulness it self hath a positive being even whilest he saith it is but privative 5. He goes but one line farther when he saith in plainest terms that moral goodness and evil are rather modi entium than entia p. 95. whereby he yields me as much advantage as I can wish to my whole cause For when sin or moral evil is allow'd as much entity as moral goodness and moral goodness as little entity as sin It must either be his Tenet that sin hath also a positive being or that goodness hath none at all If the first he at once betray 's his whole cause and withall makes God to be the Author of sin for he saith He is the Author of all positive beings if the second he must needs deny God to be the author of goodness or lose the benefit of the shift by which he would seem not to make him the Author of sin 6. Again If the evil works themselves be positive which he confesseth p. 96. there needs no more to be added by him For that there is also some privation none is concerned to deny whilst what is positive in sin is so fully yielded 7. He grants as much as a man can wish p. 102. viz. That man is the efficient cause of the evil of the Action And the youngsters Argument against it holds as much against good as evil actions See his Confession p. 103. 8. That the deficient cause is reducible to the efficient the cause of the action per se of the vitiosity per concomitantiam he confesseth p. 103. 9. Farther yet he confesseth that sin in Scripture doth not signifie abstractly but that it signifies our faculties which do lust against the working of the spirit p. 100. much less will he deny the very lusting it self to be a sin which is as positive as the faculties to which the lusting is ascribed Nay 10. he confesseth that a sin is an action if he is not unpardonably impertinent p. 102. for an account of which see forward chap. 8. § 24. CHAP. IV. § 1. BUt Mr. H. being convicted of what himself doth acknowledge the greatest Blasphemy to wit of making God to be the Author of sin by bluntly affirming he is the Author of whatsoever is found to have a positive being by name of that very action of hating God p. 95.96 hope 's to lessen the odium which cannot but lye on so foul a Doctrine by putting his Trust in the common shift I mean by making such a distinction betwixt the Act and the obliquity as to entitle God unto the first and the sinner only unto the second That action of David his lying with Vriah's wife which in Scripture is called Adultery He saith is positive and from God and therefore one of Gods Creatures And thus he saith over and over p. 79.82.95.96 But the pravity or obliquity which he call's the evil quality that doth denominâ—te the Action he is content to fasten upon MAN TOO ibid. Now it remaines that I endeavour to make him ashamed of so lewd a Refuge as doth but serve to incourage by giving shelter and protection not at all to extenuate his great Impiety § 2. For first to condemn him out of his mouth he speakes a while after without the Vizor of this Distinction whilest he saith it doth belong to the universaliâ—y of the first Cause to PRODUCE not onely EVERY REAL BEING but also the real positive MODIFICATIONS OF BEINGS p. 95. Now that the very repugnance of the Act to the obâ—ect hath at least a Reall if not a positive Being Mr. Hickman doth many times acknowledge as when he ranks it with Moral Goodness in affirming both to be Modos entium p. 95. That profound Divine and subtil Disputant Dr. Field allows nothing to be in the sin of hating God but what is positive The very Deformity that is found in it is precisely saith he a positive Repugnance to the Law of God And his reasons for it are such as Mr. Hickmans Teachers are puzled at But letting that passe Mr. Hick is convicted of the crime alleaged in the Indictment if the Repugnance hath nothing more then a reall Being nor dares he say it hath no being at all for that were to cast the whole Adultery upon God by affirming Him to be the producer of all that is positive or Reall in it they are every one Mr Hickmans words and to acquit the Adulterer from having any share in it whereby he also doth infer him to be but Titularly such § 3. But secondly let us suppose the man had never charged God in so gross a manner as to intitle him to the production of all things Reall Yet his shift will not save him from being found to make God the Author of sin For when he saith that Action of hating God is from God he means it is from him as the mediate or the immediate cause If as the mediate so as to move the second cause to be immediatly the cause of such an action it follows then that the 2. Cause
being subordinate and determined by the first to that Numerical and particular Action which hath its specification from the influx of God either the action of hating God cannot possibly be a sin or not imputed as a sin to the second Cause thus acted by the first as hath been said But whatsoever it is must rest upon God as its Cause and Author If Mr Hick for an escape from this impiety shall rather say it is from God as the Immediate Cause his case will then be so much worse as it is worse by some odds to make God a sinner then only the cause of his Creatures sin Now besides that God is said to make the action which he forbids and at the Instant that he forbids it we know the obliquity to the action is so inseparably annexed that the Author of the One must needs be the Author of the other the inseparability is granted by Baronius § 5. p. 50.52 and not denied I think by any But I am truely so much in pain whilst Mr. Hick makes it my duty to expose him thus to publick view that I will onely refer him to the several parts of my ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the applying of this to his Distinction and choose to shew him the Danger of it out of other mens writings partly that Reason may not be slighted for want of Authority to commend it and partly to shew him I am no sharper then the necessity of the Case doth make it needful Because no sharper then other men who yet are famous for moderation I will begin with Dr. Field and the great Divines by him alledged and then proceeding to Dr. Goad one of the Synodists at Dort to Dr. Iackson and Diotallevius and other valuable Writers I will conclude with Dr. Hammond whom nothing but love to the truth of God and perfect zeal to his Honour could make to utter the least word that looks like sharpness to a Dissenter § 4. This distinction saith Dr. Field will not clear the doubt they move touching Gods efficiency and working in the sinful Actions of men Whensoever saith Durand two thins are inseparably joyned together whosoever knowing them both and that they are so inseparably joyned together chooseth the one chooseth the other also Because though haply he would not choose it absolutely as being evil and by the way no sinner doth so choose sin yet in as much as it is joyned to that which he doth will neither can be separated from it it is of necessity that he must will both The case appeareth in those actions which are voluntary and mixt As when a man casteth into the Sea those rich commodities to save his life which he would not do but in such a case Hence it followeth that the act of hating God and sinful deformity being so inseparably joyned together that the one cannot be divided from the other for a man cannot hate God but he must sinne damnably if God doth will the one he doth will the other also § 5. This of Durand is confirmed by Suarez who saith He shall never satisfie any man that doubteth how God may be cleared from being author of sin if he have an efficiency in the sinful actions of men that shall answer that all thâ—t is said touching Gods efficiency and concurrence is true in respect of the evil motions of mens wills materially considered and not formally in that they are evil and sinful For the one of these is consequent upon the other For a free and Deliberate act of a created will about such an act and such circumstances cannot be produced but it must have deformity annexed to it § 6. There are some operations or Actions saith Cumel that are intrinsecally evil so that in them we cannot separate that which is material from that which is formal as it appeareth in the hate of God and in this act ☞ when a man shall say and Resolve I will do evil so that it implyes a contradiction that God should effectually work our will to bring forth such actions in respect of that which is material in them and not in respect of that which is formal § 7. And this seemeth yet more impossible saith Dr. Field if we admit their opinion who think that the formal nature and being of the Sin of commission consisteth in some thing that is positive and in the manner of working freely so as to repugne to the rule of Reason and Lâ—w of God so that it is clear in the judgement of those great Divines that if God hath a true reall efficiency in respect of the substance of these sinful actions he must in a sort produce the deformity or that which is formal in them And again the Dr. saith If God doth determine the will of man to work repugnantly to the Law he must needs move and determine it to sin seeing to sin is nothing else but to repugne unto the Law p. 125. § 8. It s a hard case saith Dr. GOAD when they have but one frivolous distinction to keep God from Sinning And then he confutes the evasion thus That which is a principall â—â—use of any action is a cause of those concomitants which accompany that action necessarily This Rule is most certainly true Therefore if God by his Decrees do force us to do those actions which cannot be done without sin God himself I am afraid to rehearse it must needs be guilty of sin He gives an Instance in Adam's eating the forbidden fruit And I will gratifie my Reader with a Transcript of it because the Doctors Disputatioâ— is not commonly to be had If God decreed that Adam should unavoidably eat the forbidden fruit seeing the eating of that fruit which he had forbidden must needs be with a grâ—ss obliquity I do not see saith the Doctor how this Distinction will justifie God For Adam sinned because he ate that fruit that was forbidden But they say God decreed that he should eat that fruit which was forbidden necessarily unavoidably The Conclusion is too blasphemous to be so often repeated The Reader may see as the Dr. goes on by which t is plain he intended his Disputation for the Press how wel that common distinction holds water Yea if this nicety were sound man himself might prove that he committed no murder although he stabbed the dead party into the heart For at his arraignment he might tell the Judge that he did indeed thrust a dagger into his heart but it was not that which took away his life but the extinction of his natural heat and vital spirits Who seeth not the wilde phrenzie of him that should make this Apologie yet this is all our Adversaries say for God They say his Decree was the cause that Adam took the forbidden fruit and put it into his mouth and eat that which he had commanded he should not eat yet they say he was not the cause of the transgression of the Commandment
c. But let us hear Dr. Iackson also § 9. The Hypothesis for whose clearer Discussion these last Theses have been praemised is this Whether it being once granted or supposed that the Almighty Creator was the cause either of our mother Eves desire or of her actual eating of the forbidden fruit or of her delivery of it to her husband or of his taking and eating it though unawares the same Almighty God must not upon like necessity be acknowledged to be the Author of all the obliquiâ—ies which did accompany the positive acts or did necessarily result from them This is a case or Species Facti which we cannot determine by the Rule of Faith It must be tryed by the undoubted Rules of Logick or better Arts. These be the onely perspective Glasses which can help the eye of Reason to discover the truth or necessity of the consequence to wit whether the Almighty Creator being granted to be the cause of our mother Eves first longing after the forbidden Fruit were not the cause or Author of her sin Now unto any Rational man that can use the help of the forementioned Rules of Art which serve as prospective Glasses unto the eye of Reason that usual Distinction between the Cause or Author of the Act and the Cause or Author of the Obliquity which necessarily ensues upon the Act will appear at the first sight to be False or Frivolous yea to imply a manifest contradiction For Obliquity or whatsoever other Relation can have no cause at all besides that which is the Cause of the Habit of the Act or Quality whence it necessarily results And in particular that conformity or similitude which the first man did bear to his Almighty Creator did necessarily result from his substance or manhood as it was the work of God undefaced Nor can we search after any other true Cause of the First mans conformity to God or his integrity besides him who was the cause of his manhood or of his existence with such qualifications as by his creation he was endowed with In like manner whosoever was the cause whether of his coveting or eating of the Tree in the middle of the Garden was the true cause of that obliquity or crooked deviation from Gods Law or of that deformity or dissimilitude unto God himself which did necessarily result from the forbidden Act or Desire It was impossible there should be one Cause of the Act and another Cause of the Obliquity or Deformity whether unto Gods Laws or unto God himself For no Relation or Entity merely relative such are obliquitie and deformity can have any other Cause beside that which is the cause of the Fundamentum or Foundation whence they immediately result It remains then that we acknowledge the old Serpent to have been the first Author and Man whom God created male and female to have been the true positive Cause of that obliquity or deformity which did result by inevitable Nâ—câ—ssity from the forbidden Act or desire which could have no Necessary cause at all and more to this purpose p. 3013. c. § 10. Diotallevius doth also prove that they who make God the Author of the positive act of hatiâ—g God do make him the Author of the obliquity Because saith he God himself cannot effect what doth imply a contradiction that the moral obliquity of an Act which is intrinsecally evil and freely exerted by the creature shall not follow or rather attend the positive entity of the act which is such as hath been said and so exerted For it implies a contradiction that an act intrinsecally evil to wit the act hating God should be freely exerted and yet not evil or that it should not have a moral pravity conjoyned with it 2. They who hold all positive entities to be effected by God himself must needs believe him to be the cause as much of the worst as of the best actions in the world both because hating is as positive when it is fixed upon God as it can possibly be when it is fixed upon the Divel And because an obliquity is as vnavoidable to the one as rectitâ—de or conformity can be possibly to the other 3. If an immediate working of the formal obliquity be required to make an Author of anothers sin then neither Man nor Divel in perswading another to do wickedly can possibly be the Author of it because they are not any otherwise the causes of the obliquity then by tempting to that act to which the obliquity is annexed And for the very same reason no creature could be the cause of any such sin within himself because he doth not produce the moral obliquity of the act but by producing the act to which the obliquity is annext 4. When we do absolutely and simply inquire after the cause of another mans sin we do not inquire after the cause which immediately reacheth to the obliquity of the act but after the inducing or moving cause by which he is led to such a voluntary act whose object is repugnant to the rule of Reason That is the method of Aquinas De malo quaest 3. art 1. 3. 1.2 q. 75. per totam from whence it follows that if God doth induce us efficaciously to an aversion from himself and so to a hatred of his Divinity it is every whit as true that he is the Author of our sin as that he induceth us efficaciously to that aversion and hatred which is intrinsecally evil And therefore Mr. Hickman must recant the first or contentedly smart for the Impiety of the second § 11. Doctor STEARN is very severe and upon very just ground to the use that is made of the same Distinction For he doth not content himself to say that to be the cause of the action from which the obliquity cannot be separate is to be the very cause of the obliquity it self because the obliquity is annexed to the entity of the Action and thâ—t in a manner unavoidable Nor doth he onely add this That man himself is no otherwise the author of his sin then as he is author of that action to which the obliquity is annexed But he saith yet farther That if God well-knowing the absolute inseparability of the obliquity from the action doth wâ—llingly produce that very action he is so far from being free from the obliquity of the action that he is môre guilty of it then the man himself in whom that action is â—o produced as who does seldome or never think of the obliquity annext quam Deus nunquam non cognoscit animadvertit Nay he chargeth the Adversaries with a higher blasphemy then that even with making God more guilty then the divel which how they can answer let them consider whom it concern's I shall onely for the present subjoyn his words Immo Daemones hominem ad peccandum tentantes minori jure Authores peccati sunt censendi quam Causa Libera Actionis illam producens non tantùm sciens malitiam esse
illi annexam Nam Daemones non producunt Actiones quibus malitia est annexa sed tantum solicitant c. multo itaque magis Malitiae reus est qui sciens volens non tentat aut solicitat sed actionem reipsa producit cujus malitia ut ab ea prorsus inseparabilis ipsi quà m clarissimè patet What kind of Adversaries they are whom the Doctor thus handles and how much Mr. Hickman becomes concern'd he gives us to know by his two instances in Twisse and Zuinglius § 12. A whole Colledge of Remonstrants men of renown for their piety and learning too thought fit to shame the common subterfuge by these two wayes of Argumentation 1. Whensoever a superiour and omnipotent cause doth so move and determine the inferiour and impotent that it being so moved cannot choose but sin Then must the guilt of that sin be wholly transferred on the superiour and omnipotent cause But according to those men who affirm the positive acts of all the very worst sins to be the creatures and works of God the inferiour cause is so moved by the omnipotent and superiour as that it cannot choose but sin Therefore according to those men the sin is wholly to be transferred on the superiour cause 2. When two causes do concurr to one action to wit the action of hating God whereof the one act 's freely and the other of necessity then must the cause which acts freely sustain the whole fault of its coming to pass But according to the men aforesaid God acts freely in the producing of such an action which M. Hickman reckons amongst Gods creatures and the inferiour cause of necessity Therefore according to those men God sustains the whole fault of its coming to passe And we know in the whole fault is included the obliquity as well as the act § 13. The Apologist for Tilenus doth make this Answer to the distinction 1. That man doth seldom or never entertain sin or consent to it with a designe to oppose himself to the divine Law but to enjoy his Pâ—easure and satisfie his appetites 2. He supposeth that a man should consent to sin with such a set purpose to oppose Gods Law And then infers that according to Mr. H.'s Doctrine that consent and that purpose being positive entities and acts of the soul are from God and of his production from whence it followes either that man doth not sin when he commits such an act or that the fault is imputable to God who is called by Mr. Hickman the first cause of that Act. I wonder when Mr. H. will give that Author a Reply § 14. But after all and above all I commend to consideration the words of the Reverend Dr. HAMMOND who having shewed how those Doctrines which are commonly called Calvinistical are so noxious to the practice and lives of men as to be able to evacuate all the force of the Fundamentals of Christianity those I mean by him forementioned And coming to speak of the Distinction betwixt the act and the obliquity which the Assertors of those Doctrins have commonly used as an Artifice for the avoiding of those consequences by which their Doctrines are rendred odious at last proceeds to make it appear That this is no way applicable to the freeing of God from being the Author of that sin of which he is said by those men to predetermine the act For 1. Though a free power of acting good or evil be perfectly distinct and separable from doing evil and therefore God that is the Author of one cannot thence be inferred to be the author of the other yet the act of sin is not separable from the obliquity of that act the act of blasphemy from the obliquity or irregularity of blasphemie the least evil thought or word against an infinite good God being as crooked as the rule is straight and consequently he that predetermines the act must needs predetermine the obliquity Nay 2. if there were any advantage to be made of this distinction in this matter it would more truely be affirmed on the contrary side that God is the author of the obliquity and man of the act for God that gives the rule in transgressing of which all obliquity consists doth contribute a great deal though not to the production of that Act which is freely committed against that rule yet to the denominating it oblique for if there were no Law there would be no obliquity God that gives the law that a Jew shall be circumcised thereby constitutes uncircumcision an obliquity which had he not given that law had never been such But for the act as that differs from the powers on one side and the obliquity on the other it is evident that the man is the cause of that To conclude this Chapter It is a thing so undeniable that the Author of the act of hating God must needs be the Author of the obliquity that as the men of the Church of England affirm man to be the Author and the sole author of both and God of neither so the rigid Presbyterians as well as Papists affirm God to be the Author not onely of the act but of the obliquity of the Act. Witness Mr. Archer so much commended by Thomas Godwin in his Comfort for believers p. 36.37 Mr. Whitfield also and Mr. Hobbs Occham in sent 3. q. 12 cited by Dr Field p. 128. and Mr. Hickman in effect when he saith that God is the Cause of all Beings p. 78. and p. 95. and Pet. Mart. in 1 Sam. c. 2. CHAP. V. § 1. THE positive entity of sin is so clear from Scripture and from the writings of all the Fathers both Greek and Latine that as Mr. Hickman hath not attempted to give us Scripture for his opinion so the FATHERS are very few whose very figurative speeches do look that way And their meaning is so conspicuous by what the same Fathers say before and after that if he drank out of the Foâ—ntaines as I see he hath done out of several Cisterns I admire the greatness of his delusion His performance being no better then mine or any mans would be who should prove that an Idol hath not a positive being although the work of mens hands and made of Massy Gold or silver because it is said by the Apostle an Idol is nothing in the world Or that the Planters of Christianity had not onely no positive but not so much as a Real Being because it is said by the same Apostle that God hath chosen the things that are not to bring to naught things that are Yet this ad hominem is a strong way of arguing very much stronger then Mr. Hickmans by how much that of the Scripture is the greatest Authority in the world Now though it is said by the Holy Ghost that Circumcision is nothing that the foreskin is nothing that wicked men are of nothing that every man is but vanity yea and
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sanct. THEOPHILVS ad Autolychum lib. 3. p. 125. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TERTULLIAN de Poenit. p. 375. Porrò peccatum nisi MALVM FACTVM dici non meretur Nec quisquam benefaciendo delinquit Cùm Deum grande quid Boni constet esse utique Bono nisi Malum non displiceret quòd inter CONTRARIA sibi nulla Amicitia est MACARIVS in Hom. 15. p. 100. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having spoken before of Adam's disobedience Hom. 24. p. 137. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 38. p. 204. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And long before Hom. 3. p. 15. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 LACTANTIVS in Instit. l. 2. c. 7. p. 102. Dupliciratione peccatur ab insipientibus primum quod Dei opera Deo praeferunt deinde quod elementorum ipsorum figuras humana specie comprehensas colunt Haec facere peccatum est Nesciunt quantum sit nefas adorare aliud praeter Deum Si libido appetit thorum alienum licet sit mediocris vitium tamen maximum est Cupiditas inter vitia numeratur si haec quae terrena sunt concupiscat c. Recens natos oblidere maxima Impietas exponere necare duplex scelus See much more l. 5. c. 9. p. 299. especially c. 20. p. 319. So whilst the Blasphemy of Marcus the Magician and his Followers or their positive speaking against the honour of Gods essence is called an Impiety by IRENAEVS and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above all Impiety he unavoidably imply's the positive being of Impiety which I hope M. Hickman will not affirm to be good or say impiety is one thing and sin another AMBROS de Cain Abel lib. 2. cap. 9. fol. 260. Quanto gravius pecâ—ato ipso ad Deum referre Quod fâ—ceris There the positive fact is said to be a sin though the ascribing it to God which is done by Mr. Hickman is said to be worse then the sin it self that is to say â— greater sin CYPRIAN de Eleemosynâ 1. Serm. p. 179. Coarctati eramus c. nisi iterum pietaâ— Divina subveniens viam quandam tuendae salutis aperuisset ut Sordes postmodum quascunque contrahimus Eleemosynis abluamus compare this with Daniel 4.27 Quia voluntas non erat in culpâ providit Deus generali Damnationi remedium suae sententiam Justitiae temperavit haereditarium ONVS à sobole removens misericorditer ablutione unctione medicinali corruptionis primitivae Fermentum expurgans ORIGEN ad Ioan. 2. in Cat. pat Gr. p. 77. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 AUGUSTINVS Confess c. 11. Talis motus nimirum voluntatis Delictum atque peccatum est Metus ille Aversionis quod fatemur esse peccatum vide quò pertineat c. SALVIAN l. 4. p. 128. Furtum in omni quidem est homine malum Facinus sed damnabilius ab que dubio si Senator furatur aliquando Cunctis Fornicatio interdicitur sed Gravius multò est si de Clero aliquis quà m si de populo fornicetur Ita nos qui Christiani Catholici esse dicimur si simile aliquid Barbarorum Impuritatibus facimus Gravius erramus Atrocius enim sub sancti nominis professione peccamus quanto minori peccato illi per Daemonia pejerant quà m nos per Christum Quanto minoris Res Criminis est Jovis nomen quà m Christi c. The force of this last testimony may be learnt by Mr. H. from Dr. Field It must not be said that God is the original cause that man hath any such action of will as is evil ex objecto for if he should Originally and out of himself will any such act he must be the author of sin seeing such an aâ—t is intrinsecally evil so that it cannot be separated from deformity p. 125 126. after this let Salvian speak Nil ad Deum pertinens Leve ducendum est quia etiam quod videtur exiguum esse Culpa Grande hoc faciebat Divinitatis Inâ—uria EPIPHANIVS adv Haer. l. 1. Tom. 3. p. 265. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 More instances may be seen p. 281.548 549. And to sin is expressed at every turn by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All importing the positivity of sin BERNARDUS de modo bene vivend Serm 37 p. 1281. Superbia est Râ—â—ix omnium malorum Superbia Cupiditas in tantum est unum malum ut nec superbia sine cupiditaâ—e nec cupiditas sine superbiâ esse possit Quid est omne peccatum nisi Dei Contemptus quo ejus praecepta contemnimus Luxuria flagitium est Avaritia spiritualis nequitiâ— unde illud vitium corporis istud Animae viz. quia nullum est peccatum quod ita inquinet corpus sicut Luxuria similiter super omne peccatum avaritia inquinat Animam unde Idolorum servitus dicitur Nor do I see how those Fathers who say that an habit of sin is gotten by the custom of such acts as are avoidable of themselves can be imaginable not to hold the positivity of sin or to hold that such acts can be impuâ—able to God which they affirm the Creature might have avoided Evitabilium Actuum consuetudine censent generari in homine habitum vitiosum so Ger. VOSSIVS in Hist. Pelag p. 215. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he calls Idolatry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 38. p. 620. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Initium omnis peccati superbia non solùm peccatum est ipsa sed nullum peccatum fieri potuit potest aut poterit fine ipsâ siquidem nihil aliud omne peccatum nisi Dei contemptus est quo ejus praecepta calcantur which compare with Ecclus. 10.13 FULGENTIUS ad Monim l. 1. p. 275. so also p. 302 Si initium peccati requiritur nihil aliud nisi superbia invenitur quae tùm initium sumpsit cum Angelus adversus Deum elatus per concupiscentiam quae est radix omnium malorum volens usurpare c. mala opera hoc est Peccata praescisse tantum non etiam praedestinasse quia ibi non opus Dei esse dicitur sed judicium Ideo in peccato opus Dei non est sine operante Deo malus operatur LOMBARDUS l. 2. d. 2. Dist. 40. c. Opera ipsa peccata sunt ut furta stupra Blasphemiae sunt nonnulli actus qui peccata sunt mala per se quaerimus quis Actus peccatum sit dignosces quis Actus sit Peccatum In lieu of producing more Antiquity in words at length which would increase my Readers trouble I shall insert the
consider's as to its Genus which he saith is Action It s genus remâ—tum is actio hominis It s immediate genus is actio vitiosa privativa Mark good Reader he doth not say 't is a mere privation but a privative action Positive in one respect as 't is an action though privative in another as destroying the Agent from whence it is Take that excellent Logician in his own expressions of himself Vidimus nomen Genus secundo loco considerandum est quod vel remotum actio hominis Propinquum actio hominis vitiosa proximum Actio vitiosa destrâ—ens ipsum agens seu privativa upon this I lay the greater weight because the judgement and approbation of another great Methodist and Logician even KECKERMAN of Dantzick adds credit to that of this wise Silesian 5. A late professor of Philosophy in the University of Leyden and a great Aristotelian saith that evil includes ens and adds a reall relation to it after the manner that Good doth And this he affirmeth of every evil Malum ergo omne simili modo quo bonum includit Ens Enti addit Relationem realem quâ quod malum dicitur ita se habet ad aliud ut illi inconveniens atque adversum sit To which he adds that those relations are contrary and have contrary affections from whence it follow 's as he goes on that good and evil are opposed rather contrariè than privativè and that according to their proper forms too Convenientia inconvenientia being no less contrary than equality and inequality His reason is because a thing is not said to be evil to any one for being only not convenient but in as much as it is adverse or affirmatè inconveniens p. 123. To the objection which he foresees he answers thus This is the nature of immediate contrariety that one extream is inferred from the negation of the other And he means by Inconvenient whatsoever is positively adverse to that which is convenient licet inconveniens adversum sit positivè quicquid non est conveniens c. All which doth strengthen my Reply to Master BARLOW'S Answer to Aquinas for which look back on chap. 3. § 13. He concludes with a caterum actiones sunt malae per se Habitus quatenus ex hujusmodi actionibus orti sunt quae rationem culpae habent p. 126. If BETVLEIVS had not been of the same opinion he would not have used that proposition wherein sin is praedicated of that which will be granted by all to be a positive entity Racha fratri imprecari peccatum est Betuleius in Lactant. l. 6. c. 16. 6. I forgot till just now to note the Doctrine of Mr. CALVIN who saith that sin original doth bring forth in us those works of the flesh Gal 5.19 which he also cals sins though positive entities Nay he saith our whole natuâ—e is quoddam peccati semen that sin hath a force and an operation that the whole man of himself is nothing else but concupiscence 7. It is observ'd by ALSTED that as the Hebrews call original Jezer hara plasma malum so peccare to sin doth signifie nothing but an action not omission or absence or meer privation And as Cicero define's it by leaping over the hedge which the law doth set us so accordingly by Iunius it is derived from * pecucare because a sinner like a stray sheep doth leap over mounds And Bellarmine saith that evil surpasseth good in this respect that it aboundeth more in expressions for to signifie an Action we have peccatum crimen delictum scelus facinus flagitium culpa erratum And after all we have vitium which peculiarly signifies an habit whereas to signifie an action or an habit of vertue we onely use the word vertue 8. CHEMNITIVS speaking of the sin against the holy Ghost reckons up six Ingredients in it whereof the most if not all have a positive being And GERHARD does the like by the sin of Peter who abjur'd his Saviour no less by his works then by his words adding perjury to cursing and both to lying Whence he notes the fruitfullness of sin for which 't is called the Divels net Prov. 5.22 If I shall now add GROTIUS who is instar multorum although but one no knowing Reader will look for more He in setting forth the verity of Christian Religion to all the nations of the world which have a praejudice to the Gospel takes special care to let them know that when God is said to be the universal cause or the cause of all things it is onely meant of those things that are good or of all those things which are indued with a subsistence and are commonly known by the name of substance which substances are the causes of certain accidents such as are actions And therefore God is thus freed from being the originall cause of sin So that t is clearly his opinion that sins of commission at least are Accidents even because they are actions which will be granted by all to have a positive being § 9. And this doth prompt me to shew the way of reconciling the words unto the meaning and of proving undeniably what must be the true meaning of certain Writers whom some men's prejudices and praepossessions have unhappily tempted them to mistake 1. When they say that all entities are good they onely speak of all those which are the works of Gods creation or unavoidably produced by natural Agents so as the origin of their being is duly imputable unto God which all our voluntary actions cannot possibly be For 2. When it is said in the common Axiom That the cause of the cause is the cause of the â—ffect it is meant of causes which are physically and essentially subordinate as saith the Learned BISHOP OF DERRY in his Reply to Mr. Hobbs It is meant of such effects as do follow their cause by an antecedent necessitation But the case is quite otherwise when the effects do not follow by a necessity of nature but by the intervention of humane liberty for which I have the suffrage of Dr. Stearn Again 3. it is meant of such effects as proceed from such second causes as transgress not the order they ought to have upon the first and for this I have Aquinas 1.2 q. 79. art 3. When God is said to work all things Eph. 1.11 it is meant in the same restrained sense in which it is said by S. Iames that every good and perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights Iam. 1.17 Implying the contrary to be from below as coming up from the Father of Lyes And therefore 4. When it is said That God is the Maker of all things visible and invisible in the Nicene Creed it is explained in the COLLECT for Evening Service O God from whom all holy desires all good counsels and all just works do proceed c. It is not
set thus as Mr. Hickman and the Libertines it seems would have it O God from whom are all desires holy and unholy or from whom are all counsels good and evil or from whom are all works just and unjust I say Mr. Hickman would have it thus because he saith the very work of hating God is from God pag. 95 96. nay he saith that every positive entity is either God or from God p. 75. and from him as his Creature p. 79. Nay that every reall Being is produced by the first cause that is by God p. 95. Now it is granted by all the world That all thoughts words and actions all desires counsels and works have either a positive or a reall and indeed a positive being Which being is not diminished by any addition of good or evil For to hate God is as reall and as positive a thing as to hate the Divel 5. When it is said of God that he can do every thing Iob. 42.2 and that to him all things are possible Mat. 19.26 it must needs be meant with a Restriction of all things that are good because there are Texts which say the contrary to wit that he cannot do every thing as that he cannot deny himself 2 Tim. 2.13 and that all things are not possible to him as that it is impossible for God to lye Tit. 1.2 In a word It is no truer that God can do all things meaning things that are good then that he can do nothing which argues uncleanness or imperfection I may say to Mr. Hickman as the antient Fathers were wont to do unto the Hereticks Austin to Faustus and Origen to Celsus and Isidore to the Sceptick God can do all things that is all things that become him yet cannot do any thing that is evil because he cannot not be God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or as the Reverend Bishop Bramhall to Mr. Hobs p. 93. God is said to harden the heart not causally but occasionally that is by Gods doing good the sinner takes an occasion of doing evil And as this is a good consequence such a thing is from God therefore it is righteous so this consequence is as good such a thing is unrighteous therefore it cannot proceed from God We must not therefore thus argue A Lye is no reall thing because it is Impossible for God to cause it but rather thus because it is impossible for God to cause it therefore all things reall are not from God And therefore 6. When it is said of sin that it is nothing or not in being that it hath no essence or is not amongst the things that are as Dionysius the Areopagite and others speak me thinks the very extremity of the literal falshood should have convinced Mr. Hickman that they are figurative expressions And no more to the support of his sinking cause then it would be to that Atheist's who should dispute against the veriâ—y because against the wisdome and power of God by citing the words of our Apostle The foolishness of God is wiser then men and the weakness of God is stronger then men 1 Corinth 1.25 how many blasphemies might be broached from the many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seeming contradictions of holy Scripture if by rational distinctions we might not be suffeâ—'d to reconcile them As it is said by Saint Paul that the invisible things of God are clearly seen and being so are very visible and as it is said by the Comedian hoc aliquid Nihil est so I may say with great reason hoc nihil est Aliquid This nothingness of sin is something positive And I will prove that Mr. H. himself is nothing at least as well as he prove's that sin is nihil positivum nothing positive For M. Hickman is a man who thinks himself something And St. Paul hath said it If a man think himself something when he is nothing he deceiveth himself Gal. 6.3 Mr. Hickman cannot be ignorant that generation and corruption are two species of motion whereof the first is defined to be motus à Non esse ad esse the second to be motus ab esse ad Non esse But would he not be thought a prodigious Disputant who should write a Book of ten sheets to prove that Generation is a creation out of nothing and so that the Generant is a God or that to dye is to be annihilated and so that there is not a Resurrection Yet those two definitions will bear him out to M. Hickman however ridiculous he would be to all men else But as the meaning is that corruptio est motus ab esse tali ad non esse Tale so something positive simpliciter may be said to be nothing secundum Quid. And in this very sense those words are spoken by the Psalmist Mine age is nothing in respect of thee Psal. 39.5 But to make it yet more apparent 7. By whom can the writings of the FATHERS be better explained then by themselves If then the very same Father who saith at one time that sin is nothing doth also say at another that Sin is no other thing then a contempt of God an example of which is in my Margin 't is plain that the former proposition must be explained by the latter the like example I shewd out of Scripture and out of the writings of ATHANASIUS in the first and third Secâ—ion of this present Chapter and the like may be shew'd of all the rest by the severall citations of the third and fourth Sections So what is said by AQUINAS and his Followers amongst the SCHOOLMEN must of necessity be explained by such conspicuous assertions as these that follow omne quod fit habet Causam sed peccatum fit est enim dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem Dei Dicendum quod peccatum est Actus quidam inordinatus ex parte actus potest habere per se causam Peccatum non solum significat ipsam privationem Boni quae est Inordinatio sed significat actum sub tali privatione c. nihil habet rationem mali antequam applicetur ad Actum Ipse voluntatis actus praemissis suppositis jam est quoddâ—m peccatum Peâ—catum consistit principaliter in actu voluntatis Peccatum nominat ens actionem cum quodam defectu Thus frequently and plainly doth Aquinas assert the positive eâ—tity of sin and therefore by this we must explain him and reconcile him unto himself whensoever he seem's to say the contrary or at least accuse him of contradictions So he saith of original sin that it is not a meer privation but a corrupt Habit comparing it to a bodily disease which hath something positive as well as privative 8. It must be carefully observed in ANTIENT WRITERS that because an accident cannot exist without the subject of Inhaesion which is substantia and because substantia is ens per se subsistens they do often
that sin is nothing which is but non-ens in English why not figuratively spoken when they say that sin is a privation especially when there are testimonies out of the very same Writers not onely for the reality but positivity also of sin 2. The little Greek he produceth hath so very many faults in so very few lines not observed in his Errata that I conceive he did he knew not what with an implicit Faith in the skill of others from whom he borrow'd at second hand which I believe so much the rather because I find his own Authorities do overthrow the very errour for which he bâ—ings them Witness the words of Aâ—hanasius which prove that sin hath no substance in opposition to those Greeks who contended that sin had a subsistence of it self whereas to the having a positivity there is nothing more required then that it be some kind of Accident Witness also those other words affirming no evil thing positive or privative to proceed from God who being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gives occasion to the expression of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which evil things may be called as not derived from him who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So when it is said by St. Austin ex uno Deo esse omnia quae sunt he explains his meaning to be of all good things and of none besides because he presently adds tamen non esse peccatorum auctorem Deum And if when Austin doth elsewhere say Peccatum nihil est he means according to the letter that sin is nothing in very deed first 't is a gross contradiction to what he saith in other places and secondly 't is the worst of his many Errours 3. The meaning of Aquinas I have elsewhere shewed And yet if I say with Dr. Iackson that Aquinas and his followers have sometimâ—s spoken uâ—excusably concerning God I shall but speak to the dishonour of Popish Writers by whom the rigid Presbyterians have been unhappily corrupted in these affairs Lastly whereas he saith that heaâ—hâ—n Philosophers did see this giving an instance in Salustius and no one else a man that shall affirm the eternity of the world may urge Aristotle for it and say the Heathens themselves discernd this truth Thus I say a man may argue who can find in his heart to argue no better then Mr. Hickman But be it that a heathen is of the Presbyterian judgement the Christian Fathers and Schoolmen are still of mine unless when they speak in such a manner against me as to speak as much against themselves too § 11. His second Reason is because he knows no other way of defining what ens primum is but this that it is such a Being which is not from any other being and which is the cause of all the Beings that are p. 78. First I observe from these words that the Libertine advanceth more and more to a clear discovery of it self For if he thinks that any sin as hating cursing blaspheming God hath any being in the world he professeth to believe that God himself is the cause of it And the cause is the Author of any being And so he is caught in the act of that very crime which himself had confessed to be the worst of all blasphemies and which is the Quintessence of all blasphemy saith Theophilus Churchman which is thought to signifie three men of which number Master Hickman himself is one in the rationall conjectures of all I meet with If he thinks that sin hath no being and by consequence that it is nothing then his words are most impertinent and prove him besides a meer Carneadist Secondly In saying God is the cause of all beings meerly because he is the first he seems to think there is but one way of priority whereas a Freshman in Logick could have told him there are five Is it not enough that God is the first of all Beings and was from eternity without beginning whereas all things else began to be and so was before the being of sin and of all things else in four respects but he must also be before it as the â—ause of its being Thirdly It may suffice to the defining of ens primum to say it is that which alone did neveâ— begin to be or that than which there is nihil prius and which praecedeth all others as much as eternity praecedeth time Or if the word cause must needs be added let it be said he is the cause of all good things that have a being whether naturally and necessarily or voluntarily acting But not the cause of those acts or actions which cannot but argue in the causer either wickedness and guilt or imperfection § 12. His third Reason in effect is but the same with the second as the second is the same with what he call'd his second Argument p. 77. And so I referr it for its answer both to the Section before going and to what I have said in my whole fifth Chapter especially to § 5 anâ— 6. Onely I add my observation that whilst God is by him affirmed to be the fountain of all essences p 79. who yet ascribeth one essence unto sin whilst he saith the action of hating God is essentially evil p. 94. he affirms God to be the fountain of all the sins in the world and that not only of the act but of the very essence of sin it self And because he seems to stumble most at the common axiom in Philosophy which is found urged by Mr. Barlow severall times upon one account to wit that the cause of the cause is the cause of the effect I will first send him back to what I have said in Answer to it chap. 5. § 5. num 2. Next I will set him down at large Aquinas his Answer unto the same effectus causae secundae procedens ab eâ secundum quod subditur causae primae reducitur etiam in causam primam Sed si procedat à causâ media secundum quod exit ordinem causae primae non reducitur in causam primam Sicut si minister faciat aliquid contra mandatum Domini hoc non reducitur in dominum sicut in causam Et similiter peccatum quod liberum arbitrium committit contra praeceptum Dei non reducitur in Deum sicut in causam § 12. His fourth pretended reason is most ridiculously pretended He believes no medium because forsooth Mr. P. hath not been able to find any for whereas I told him the works of the Divel are a medium he saith I could not sure but think he would distinguish in blasphemy lying c betwixt the vital act and its deficiency c. p. 79. The folly of this being discovered throughout my whole fourth chapter and in the beginning of this sixth and I may say throughout my fifth too but most expresly in my third chapter § 6. which is too long to be here repeated I shall onely
unlesse he thinks our very nature may be said to be sinfulnesse it self or that our nature and our faculties are meer privations which yet he cannot say soberly because he absolutely denyes that sin doth signifie abstractly 4. Dr Hammond who knew best the true importance of the Text thought fit to paraphrase it to us by customary sins not by nature and faculties as Mr. Hickman 5. By this he justifies Dr. Iackson and Flaccius Illyricus whom before at adventure he did so liberally condemn 6. In saying that the faculties by reason of privations do lâ—st against the working of the spirit ibid he implyes that lusting to be a sin without a figure and yet implyes it as much to be something positive 7. If he quarrels with me and others for expressing the hatred of God by sin which is positive but not good how hath he railed in effect at the blessed Apostle for expressing that by sin which he confesseth to be good as well as positive and therefore good because positive 8. Let sin be taken for nature and its faculties as he desires yet concupiscence is not which sin is said to bring forth And that concupiscence as it is positive so our selfe-contradictor will hardly deny it to be a sin Sect. 24. To prove the efficient cause of sin I argued thus in the first place If man is the cause of sin and not efficient he is the material formal or final cause if the deficient is none of these as none will say it is it is no cause at all If sin hath no cause it hath no real being much lesse can it be the cause of punishment and so God is inferred to punish men without cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 145. Now comes the Answer of Mr. H. as much for my interest as I could wish Rather then we will seem to be too much frighted we will say that man is the material or subjective cause of the Action such a material or subjective cause as evil can have p. 102. To which I reply 1. That Mr H. did either intend to speak to the purpose or else for fear of that he speaks industriously beside it if the first he fully grants that sin is an action and so a positive being if the second he is convinced of sinning against his own Light and effectually confesseth he cannot answer when the Question is of the cause of sin why does he answer touching the cause of the Action if he does not believe it to be a sin and if he believes it to be a sin why undertook he in his Titlepage to prove that sin is a mere privation Here I leave him to be hist by the Colledge-boyes for having written as if he had written on purpose to make himself the object of scorn and laughter Nor is it fit it should go better with such as write against God as the cause of all sins because of all actions acts and habits 2. That here by action he means sin one would believe by what he saith in his second clause as an explication of his first cause of the Action such a material cause as evil can have if he means it can have none why did he yield a material causâ— if he means it can have any mâ—terial cause ex quâ or in quâ then he confesseth it hath a cause which is not meerly deficient if ex quâ it is a concrete if in quâ an accident if either positive It hath besides materiam circa quam and so a threefold subject constituens recipiens occupans subjectum As for his confession which next ensues of the efficient cause of sin which must needs be meant by the evil of the action and how again he falls into the youngsters hands I have long since shew'd Chap. 3. Sect. 28. num 7. so ill he prospers with stollen goods out of Robert Baronius which he would certainly have cited Baronius for had he so well understood it as I hope he now doth For how he builds up my cause upon the Ruins of his own by what he saith of the first sin a proud desire to be equal with God p. 103. I have largely shewed ch 3. Sect. 28. Num. 1. 25. To my 2. Argument that where there is no efficient there is no effect that is there is nothing and so according to mine Antagonist men are either not damned or damned for nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 145. He is so far from the courage to frame an answer that he dares not be so honest as to repeat my words fairly but tells his Readers of my inference without a syllable of of my premâ—ses from whence my inference was drawn for fear his Readers should discern how conscious he is of his disability and how resolutely bent on Tergiversation which he had nothing to keep from being seen but an easie boast so that still I am to ask 1. How that is an effect which hath no efficient and 2. How that can be something which is effected by nothing and 3. How nothing can be the cause of a mans damnation To these 3. things he should have answered had he been able but nemo tenetur ad impossibile and so he thinks he hath a priviledge to be impertinent what is meant by nihil applyed to sin in one case and to substance it self in another I have abundantly inform'd him throughout my fifth Chapter especially § 1.3 and § 5. num 6. c. But since he shews himself a seâ—ker he shall not fail to find my meaning My meaning is that p. 104. God will punish impenitent sinners with damnation both for not having in their faculties Habits and Actions what should be in them And also for having that which should not be in them He will not therefore damn infants for their meerly not-having original righteousness in the root for he accepteth according to what a man hath not according to what he hath not but he will damn those adulti who work unrighteousness and continue such working unto the end To this I add 2. things 1. That no willfull sinner who is liable to wrath can so omit that which is good as not to commit that which is evil 2. That God will punish such sinners not onely for having something in their actions and habits which they should not have but for having such habits and for exerting such actions or for putting those things in being which God would not have and forbidâ— to be 3. There is a positive abnegation of God Tit. 1.16 and so Mr. Hickman doth deny him So did they also who forsook God and followed Baalim 1 King 18.18 And therefore that passage which Mr. Hickman took from Dr. Robert Baron without so much as saying by your leave Sir as an Anonymous writer is known to say cannot stand him in any stead For a man cannot not pay the money which he owe's without detaining or keeping back the money which he should pay And however
c. Athanasius's testimonie p. 76. l. 4. à fin c. See in p. 55. l. 9. c. Greg. Arimin a noble Schoolman p. 85. l. 10. c. compare p. 58. l. 5. à fin c. with Gregor Arimin nobilior Scholasticus p. 19. 124. p. 53. l. ult p. 30. l. 14 c. Mr. Hickman Rob. Baronius in Metaphysica Generali How many men have been imprisoned for not paying summs of money which they did owe p. 104. l. 19. c. Apud homines debitor incarceratur ob non solutam summam pecuniae quod negativum quid est §. 5. p. 54. l. 5. c. Suppose the first sin of Angels to have been a proud desire to be equal unto God the cause of this proud desire was the wil of the Angel But it was of the vitiosity of the Action onely the cause per accidens per concomitantiam Nor doth the vitiosity of the effect allways suppose a vitiosity in the cause though it always presuppose an imperfection in the cause And where the cause it self is vitious its vitiosity is not the cause of the vitiosity of the effect for vitiosity of it self neither can effect nor be effected but the vitious cause taking together the being and the supervenient privation is the cause of the vitious effect taking it in like manner for the being and the superadded privation p. 103. l. 9. to l. 20. Supponamus primum malum culpae in Angelis fuisse vitiosam volitionem aequalitatis cum Deo causa efficiens hujus vitiosae volitioniâ— fuit ipsa voluntas Angelica Verùm per accidens per concomitantiam quandam producta est ea vitiositas vitiositatem effectâ— non semper praesupponere vitiositatem in causa p. 59. l. 4. c. Non ergò volumus vitiositatem causae per se efficere vitiositatem effecti quia vitiositas causae per se nihil operari potest vitiositas verò effecti per se produci non Potest sed tantum asserimus Causam vitiosam prout includit ens privationem enti superadditam producere effectum vitiosum sumendo similiter nomen effectûs vitiosi prout includit ens aliquod privationem enti superadditam p. 61. l. 12. c. Had Mr Hickman been Heire apparent to Dr. BARON and Mr. BARLOW as sure I am he is to neiâ—her he should have waited for the Decease as well of the second as of the first For how liberally soever a man intends towards his childe he seldom puts off his shooes till he goes to bed Nor will any but such Vermin as are Followers of a Camp not at all to fight but to prey and plunder strip a man of his cloathes before the breath is out of his body Dr. ROBERT BARON indeed is dead and knows not what is done to him But I hope Mr. BARLOW is both alive and live-like and so t is too soon for Mr. Hickman to take his goods into possession If Mr. Hickman shall deny what is become so proverbial for Notoreity and excuse himself by an older proverb that many times good wits do Iump which being true when Mr. H. doth knock his head against a post can have no truth here even for that very Reason A man may fitly say to him as I have heard Sr. Thomas More once said to Gallus in a Tetrastick Although what Gallus had done in verse as Mr. H. hath done in prose was many centuries of years before Sr. Thomas was yet in being Vatibus idem animusque vere spiritus idem Qui fuit Antiquis est modo Galle tibi Carmina namque eadem versusque frequenter eosdem Quos fecere illi Tu quoque Galle facis Now because that great and good man was no Philosopher of the Heathens Mr. Hickman will not be angry at it if I try to put his good Latine into almost as good English Thou Gallus hast the same both spirit and minde With them that writ in time of yore For when thou writest Verses oft I find Thou writ'st the same they writ before § 20. Whereas Mr· Hickman adds further p. 2. that I abused Mr. Barlee with Drollerie as hansome as ever dropped from the pen of of Ben Iohnson in his polemicals I thank him as much as if I did but I do not accept of his Commendation of which how ambitious Himself hath been we see by other mens Drollery to which he hath put his own name Vindicative Iustice is such a necessary Vertue as without which it is impossible for humane society to subsist Which if Mr. Hickman will needs call Drollery I must needs assure him he shews his ignorance of the word My doing of justice on some offenders in vindication of God and Man I own as a Duty incumbent on me And in particular this last which I have done upon this Compiler I take to be such as could not safely have been omitted For Diagoras turned Atheist upon his seeing a Plagiarie escape unpunisht § 21. He saith he reckons me unfortunate in choosing the tremendous mystery of reprobation for my first publick essay p. 2. Not that he thinks me to be unfortunate indeed but because his fingers itchâ— to be stealing a passage from Mr. Hales on 2 Pet. 3.16 concerning Eccius his saying that he chose to speak of Reprobation as an Idoneous subject in quo juveniles aestus exerceret which Mr. H. knew not how to introduce with any fitnesse unlesse he might say I was unfortunate in making choise of that subject But was not the Refuting of irrespective reprobation and of the horrible Blasphemies deduced from it by its Assertors a subject fit for my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or first endeâ—vours when if that Tenet is once swallowed down all further study is rendered uselesse that I may not say pernicious too And when no more then common Reason improved a little by Philosophy is required to refute it upon the principles supposed And when in the principles I speak of all who have read our Church Catechisme are very sufficiently instructed Whether so or not so let it be judged by them who have read me at least as they were running and not by him who will not read me As Mr. H. professeth he neither hath nor will p 3. though he professeth the contrary in other places For which and other Contradictions I leave him wholly to their lash who bid him go forth and be a Preacher though not a Priest especially for his saying I was unfortunate in any thing because by using that word he hints the falshood of his own and his Brethrens Doctrine That whatsoever comes to passe was fore-determined by an absolute unconditional decree importing the Necessity of all events Which doctrine must needs be false if I was unfortunate in my choise and as false if I was fortunate But if he will have the Doctrine true then it was clearly the will of God even according to his own and his Brethrens Doctrine
though guilty still § 47. That some of our Divines did change their judgement notwithstanding their employment at the Synod of Dort will not I think be denyed by any who hath not the forehead of a Hickman For Mr. HALES his conversion is known to most as Tilenus his to all and Dr. GOAD'S to very many That Bp. DAVENANT was at last for Vniversal Redemption I have long since proved and more then once what hath been said by Bp. Hall against the tenent of absolute or irrespective reprobation I have elsewhere at large informed my Readers That Dr. WARD and Bp. DAVENANT were of opinion that all Infants by Baptisme are freed from the guilt of Original sin and in a state of Salvation implying some to fall totally and finally too because there are some who die Impenitents being men notwithstanding being Infants they were Baptized Mr Gataker hath assured us by divulging of their Epistles If I would passe over to France I could tell him of Famous Moulin who had an interest in the Synod although not there and yet was exactly an Arminian as to the point of Reprobation and accused as such by Dr Twisse so was Camero Amyrald Testard and Dâ—ille as well accused by Spanhemius as by other followers of Calvin for passing over to the Arminians in the point of General Redemption but to speak of such as these is to pay Mr. H. in more then full measure § 48. To Mr. H.'s two Questions proposed in one breath what thinks Mr. P. of the Vniversity of Oxon did not she know the Opinions of the Church of England p. 46. I briefly answer First that whilest she had the privilege of injoying a Real Vniversity which she injoyed until the year 1648. I think as well of the Vniversity as when she burnt the Book and condemned the Doctrine of the great Calvinist Paraeus who sowed those Presbyterian seeds of the late prosperous Rebellion of which such fellows as our Compiler enjoy the harvest To the 2. I answer by way of Interrogation Did not the Church of England so much as know her own minde when she commanded Erasmus his learned Paraphrase to be had in such honour throughout the Nation as to any Piece of Calvin was never given how came the prayers of Erasmus to have a place in our publick Liturgy from King Henry the 8. dayes unto these our own if all our Church was fermented with Calvins Leven The Vniversity of Oxford knew well her Doctrins especially then when she was most of all knowing which was in the time of the late Arch-Bishop in the vilifying of whom Mr Hickman hath shamed his own dear Faction For whilst he calls him an evil instrument p. 48. he makes himself an example of Puritanical Petulancy and passion whereby the men of his Faction will grow more vile And whilest he saith they were never well till they had spewed out his Grace as an evil instrument ibid. he implyes his Faction was deadly Drunk so indeed were the Jews when they were sick of Christ and thought they could not recover till they had spewed him out of the earth But as Titus Vespasian came about 40. years after and cured those Jews of all Diseases so if our Pharisees will be patient but half that time they may perhaps meet with that thâ—t will stop their spewing § 49 Now I come to the objection which Mr. H. confesseth doth lye against him the Church of England is for Vniversal Redemption The Calvinists that are Anti-Arminian are against it p. 48 49. To which he answers two wayes First by a confession that King Iames gave it in charge to the Divines sent to Dort Not to deny that Christ died for all and that this was affirmed by Bp. Vshâ—r for so he calls the late Primate who also said That he gave in his own judgement to Dr. Davenant for universal Redemption and accordingly it was one of Bp. Davenants conclusions that the death or Passion of Christ as the Vniversal cause of mans salvation doth so far appease and reconcile God the Father to Mankinde by the very fact of his Oblation that he is truely now said to be ready to receive every man into Favour as soon as he will believe in Christ notwithstanding the aforesaid death of Christ restoreth no man no man at least who is come to ripenesse into a state of actual favour Reconciliation or salvation untill he actually believes No man saith the Bishop no not any of the elect before he is qualified by faith meaning that faith which worketh by love an Universal obedience to the commandments of Christ. But by the offering of himself upon the Crosse the Bp. saith that he made God appeased and reconciled observe the word not onely to the Elect but indefinitely to all Man-kinde and that as an Vniversal cause not onely of salvability but saith the Bp. of salvation Arminius never said more no nor ever so much for ought I am able to remember Nor was ever so much said by the Church of England as that Christ reconciled his Father to Man-kinde ipso facto by the oblation of himself ut Vniversalis causa Salutis Humanae as the Vniversal cause of mankind's salvation but I suppose by Salvation he only meant Salvability or no more by cause then meritorious And then indeed he doth no more then Arminianize with the Church of England as Mr. Hickman is wont to phrase it It being the Doctrine of our Church that Christ by his own oblation of himself once offered made a full perfect and sufficient sacrifice oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world And again more fully that the offering of Christ once made is that perfect râ—demption propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world both Original and Actual So exactly opposite to the Calvinists is the Church of England in her belief This doth prompt me to tell the Reader if he knows it not or hath forgot it that at a conference held about the Books of Bp. Montague One of the Lords made it his motion that the Doctrine of the Dort Synod as to the points we speak of might be received into the Articles of the Church of England But this was opposed by Bp. White and even for this very reason because our Church in her publick Catechisme doth teach her children to believe what is denyed by the Synod of Dort Christ died for us and for all mankinde Why Bp. Chappel before Bp. did refuse an excellent place in Ireland because he would not subscribe to Dam man alluding merrily to Damman who had the office of Scribe in the Synod of Dort And how at last he became one of the Bishops of that Church by the advantage of that Canon procured by the power of Archbishop Land in Intuition of Bishop Chappel That a man was qualified for preferment in the Church of Ireland without subscribing the Irish if he would but
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 exercitaâ—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 iâ— 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 Leaâ—ned Friend can never be pleased with a Commendation which is ushâ—â—'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 allegeâ—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 Dâ—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 shoulâ— 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 proofâ—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 Prâ—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 instiâ—utions then of all that ever were made by Grotius p. 23.
whereby he owns Mr. Calvin in the worst of those things I cited from him and gives me reason to believe that he never read the Bookes of Grotius but takes up his anger upon trust as he hath done the materials which fill his volume § 67. He next resolves to spend some pages in another way of Impertinence and Tergiversation It seemes not caring what course he takes whereby to patch up a little volumn and yet to stave off his Readers from what he took upon him to prove to wit that sin hath no positive being His little project is briefly this first to say how much he hath read in Dr. Taylor and Dr. Hammond and secondly to adde upon that occasion so dexterous he is at the contriving of a transition that if Presbytery be a crime he must needs say he hath learnt it from Episcopal men p. 23. c. will you know his Reasons The first is this The Primate and Dr. Holland were of opinion that a Presbyter and a Bp. differ in degree only not in order But neither doth he attempt a proof that this could make him a Presbyterian Or that the Primate and the Dr. did ever think any such thing much less that they said it either in earnest or in â—est I am sure the L. Primate thought our Presbyters unexcusable for taking upon them the Bishops office to ordain But he had mercy for the French Protestants because he thought it necesâ—ity not choice which kept them from Episcopal order see the Letter of Peter du Moulin the son sent to a Scotchman of the Covenant who proves his Father to be clearly for the order of Bishops Chamier affirmes them to be of right elected Princes Their Church would have Bps. but are not suffâ—red The second reason is that Bp. Andrews ordained a Scotchman Bishop never made Priest but by Presbyters which he would not have done had ordination by Presbyters been unto him a Nullity p. 23.24 But 1. he brings not any proof that there was ever any such fact 2. From Fact to Right no good Argument can be drawn 3. Bp. Andrewâ— might be ignorant that the Scotchman had received any such mock-Ordination 4. Or he might think the man had invincible Necessity to help excuse him which yet I take to be most improbable much lesse that he could fancy the common Rule had place here Quod fieri non debet factum valet And therefore 5 my chiefest answer to it is this that the story proves nothing supposing truth to have been in it but what is against Mr. Hickmans interest for it only proves that such a man who had been sinfully dub'd into a Titular Priesthâ—od and was therefore no real Priest in the opinion of Bp. Andrews might yet per saltum be made a Bishop Because in his being made a Bp. he is ipso facto made a Priest And so t is granted as well of Timothy and Titus and the rest in their time that they were consecrated Bishops without the receiving of previous orders Others having first been Dâ—aconâ— were immediately assumed into the order of Bishops So Linus who was St. Pauls Deacon as Anacletus and Clemens who were St Peters succeeded both those Apostles in the Bishoprick of Rome Having thus satisfied Mr. H as to the case of his Scotchâ—an ordained per saltum by Bp. Andrews I shall tell him that there are Diverse who having been dub'd by Presbyterians for without an abusive way of speaking they durst not say they had been ordained were so sensible of the crimes of Schisme and sacrilege in the thing that they made their Recantations to several Bishops within my knowledge and solemnly renounced such Ordinations and after that have been ordained by the Bishops themselves I am unwilling to name the men that I may not occasion their persecution But Bishop Morton is out of their Reach and so I am free to make it known what he hath done in this kinde The reader may judge by this Tast whether Episcopal men could ever teach Mr. H. his Presbyterianisme 68. He produceth a passage from one of the first Printed Sermons of the learned and Reverend Dr. SANDERSON concerning Gods concurrence with subordinate Agents p. 29. which he hoped some shallow Readers would think conducing to his end of making the people to believe that God himself is the Cause of the wickedest actions in the world because the wickedest actions have not onely a reall but a positive being But besides that that passage of Gods concurrence to the sustentation of the Creature is nothing at all in it self to Mr. Hickmans purpose I have the leave and consent of that most learned and pious person to communicate as much of his Letters to me on this occasion as I conceive may tend to his vindication and with all to the advantage of peace and truth Doctor Sanderson's Letters c. 1. As to the passage in the fifth Sermon ad Populum p. 278 9. the Doctor saith That as he did as well at the time when that Sermon was preached as at all other times before and since utterly detest so the thing principally intended and purposely insisted upon in that whole passage was to root out of mens minds the seeds of that horrid Blasphemous opinion that God was the Author or efficient cause of sin 2. He saith That the occasion which led him to that discourse being the handling of that 1 Tim. iv 4. Every Creature of God is good the Iâ—ference thence was naturall and obvious That therefore whatsoever was evil couâ—d be no creature of God was none of his making nor could he in any tolerable sense be said to be the Author or cause thereof 3. He saith That if in the Explication or prosecution of that Inference he should perhaps have let fall some such improper incommodious or ambiguous phrase or expression as a caviller might wrest to a worse construction then was meant a thing not alwayes to be avoyded in popular discourses especially where the matter treaâ—ed of is of greaâ— nicety or of a mixt consideration between Metaphysical and Moral it had yet been the part of an ingenuous Reader to have made the main scope of the discourse the measure whereby to interpret such phrases and expressions rather then by a malign interpretation to extract such a sence out of the words as it is certain the Author unless he would contradict himself could not mean 4. He saith That upon as district a review of every period and clause in that whole passage as seemed requisite for his concernment in the present debate he hath not observed any phrase or expression which is not consonant to his main scope therein or whereof Master Hickman without injury and violence to his true meaning could serve himself in any of those three points wherein as far as he can judge having never seen Mr. Hickmans Book he conceiveth the difference betwixt Master Pierce and his adversaries to lye viz. 1. Gods
predetermining of mens wills and actions 2. The positive entity of sin 3. Gods concurrence to the sinfull actions of men 5. For the first of which the Doctor saith That he is so farr from believing that God predetermineth the will to evil actions that he dares not without farther assurance then he can yet find warranty for affirm positively that God at all physically determineth any mans will either to good or evill It being hard to his seeming to suppose such a determination without destroying the nature and liberty of the will Nor doth he find himself obliged to say or believe That God hath predetermined or eternally decreed all actions events and things if any more be understood thereby then this viz. That God ab aeterno knowing all both future and possible things hath eternally decreed to permit the creature to act that is not to with-hold from it the concurrence of that his power without which it could not act in such sort as that the event which he foresaw future should certainly come to pass and the event foreseen as possible but not future should certainly not come to pass 6. For the second the positive entity of sin although taking a reall entity as opposite to meer nothing even sins of omission also may be said to have a real entity as all privations and other Entia rationis have yet the chief contest being about sins of commission as appeareth both by the distinction so frequently used in this controversie between the act and the obliquity and by the particular instances the hating of God the murthering of an innocent the ravishing of a woman c. the sins of omission set a side as less pertinent to the present debate he saith he wondreth with what pretence or by what subtility of distinction any man that acknowledgeth a sin of commission so to consist of an act as the materiall part and the obliquity of the said Act as the formall part that if either of both be wanting it cannot be a sin for without supposal of an act there can be no obliquity and an act without obliquity is no sin and acknowledgeth withall the one part viz. the materiall to be a positive entity can deny the totum compositum to be a positive entity It seemeth to be all one as if a man should deny Socrates consisting of a body and a soul to be ens quantum because his soul his formal part is not ens quantum For no more can the accession of the obliquity to the presupposed Act whereunto it adhereth make that act cease to be a positive entity then the infusion of the soul into a body that hath dimensions can make that body cease to be a quantitaâ—ive entity The Doctor acknowledgeth that in a sinfull action the act may be Metaphysically abstracted abstractione praecisionis and per primam operationem intellectus from the obliquity that is to say it may be considered precisely as it is a motion of the creature or an exercise of that naturall power wherewith God hath endued the creature without considering at the same time the object about which it is conversant the end whereunto it is directed or the circumstances appending And that the Act so abstractedly considered hath a distinct essence of its own whereby it essentially differeth from them otherwise the act and the object should be the same thing But yet for as much as no such act can de facto in regard of actual existence extra intellectum be really abstracted from those things without which though extrinsecal to its essence it cannot exist and by the occasion whereof it first becometh morally good or evil for no act is morally evil in its own abstracted essence nor otherwise a sin then as is vitiated by the co-existence of some undue object end or circumstance it must necessarily follow that the totum compositum the vitiated act and that is the sin act and obliquity joyntly together is a positive real â—ntity and morally evil A positive reall entity from the existence of the act and morally evil from the co-existence of those aforesaid vitiating relations which are accidentall to the act as to the essence of it but by adhering to it make it formally a sin 7. For the third point Gods concurrence to a sinful action the Doctor thinketh that what he hath now last said will sufficiently clear from misconstruction not onely that phrase of actuating the power p. 279. if Mr. Hickman have hoped for any advantage to his cause therefrom but that other short passage also pag. 29. wherein is acknowledged the effectual concurrence of Gods will and power with subordinate agents in every and therefore even in sinfull actions also Especially if the two Texts of Scripture quoted in the margin viz. Act. xvii 28 and Esa. x. 12 be withall taken into consideration For it is manifest that by the concurrence signally grounded upon those two Texts there cannot rationally be understood any other concurrence then such as is according to the importance of those texts which from Act. 17. is briefly this As whilest we have any being we have it by vertue of that his concurrence which if he should withdraw or withhold from us we should cease to be so long as we live we live by vertue of that his concurrence which if he should withdraw or withhold from us we could not live so as oft as we act and move a hand or a foot or a thought we act and move by vertue of that his concurrrence which if he should withdraw or with-hold from us we could not act or move hand fooâ— or thought That is to say we cannot actually exercise any of those natural powers God hath endowed us withal without that generalis concursus causae universalis as the Schoolmen call it which hath such an influence upon all the motions of inferiour subordinate agents and second causes that if God be pleased at any time to with-hold from them that concurrence although the natural power remain the same it was still yet can they not exsert or actually exercise that power to the producing of any effect As when God with-held from the fire Dan. iii. his concurrence it could not put forth that natural power it had of burning so as to have any operation upon the bodies of the 3. young men that were cast thereinto If an ungratious son should be so wickedly disposed as to cut his own fathers throate he could not take the knife into his hand nor move his arme to do that foule deed if God should withhold his concurrence thereunto and not suffer him to exercise his natural power of reaching out his arme to cut In which horrible and sinful act all the concurrence imputable to God at the most is but the affording that is to say the not with-holding of that his general influx into the loco-motive faculty of his creature without which he could not exercise that faculty so far as
Res habet potentiam ullam volendi aut faciendi nisi illo Dante AVREOLVS in 2. D. 37. Neque ego video quod dicunt omnis actus est à Deo dato quod sit positivus nisi fortè conservando potentiam quae elicit naturam actus elicitivam ALEXANDER ALENSIS part 2. q. 100. Adjuvat ipsum ad actionem in quâ est malum quia dat Potentiae sive Libero Arbitrio quòd possit operari RICHARD ARMACHANVS l. 17. Quaest. Armen c. 3. Nec Deus attingit hoc modo actiones immediatè ad actum seu effectum productum sed ad agens immediatum ipsius effectus puta intellectum aut voluntatem Si quis poterit ex sacris Scripturis probare hanc cooperationem divinam cum omni agente creato erit mihi mirandus libenter probationem illam acciperem quoniam hoc facere me nescire fateor LESSIVS de Perf. Div. l. 11. c. 3. Hac ratione Creaturae possunt dici instrumenta respectu Dei Deus omnia per illas operari omnia inquam bona non mala quae Deus non intendit neque ex perfectione virtutis à Dâ—o insertae sed ex defectu Creaturae sequuntur DVRANDVS 2. D. 37. Actionâ—s non procedunt à Deo nisi secundùm indifferentiam ad bonum malum Deus enim non est causa actionum liberi arbitrâ—i nisi quia liberum arbitrium ab ipso est conservatur sed liberum arbitrium in esse consâ—rvatum adhuc est indifferens ad eligendum Actum bonum v l malum nec determinatio ejus ad malum est à Deo Actus enim malus naturam bonam sed imperfectè bonam cujus Author Deus est non necessariò sed liberè sequitur Naturae itaque imperfecte bonae non Deâ— qui Deus est non volens iniquitatem imputandus est vide Anim. Med. l. 2. p. 270. FVLGENTIVS de Praedest ad mon. l. 1. p. 251. Sicut ergo peccatum in eo non est ita peccatum ex eo non est Quod autem ex eo non est opus ejus utique non est Quod autem nunquam est in opere ejus nunquam fuit in Praedestinatione ejus Peccatum homo non ex praedestinatione Divina sed ex voluntate sua malè concupiscendo coepit malè operando perfecit But I return fâ—om this Antient to other Writers more modern MELANCHTHON de cau pec p. 48. Diabolus pater id est primus fons causa mendacii Discernit autem Christus mendacium à substantia quasi dicat substantiam quidem habet Diabolus aliunde acceptam Habet autem proprium quiddam Diabolus non à Deo acceptum videlicet mendacium id est peccatum quod libera voluntas Diaboli peperit Neque haec inter se pugnant substantiam à Deo conditam esse sustentati tamen voluntatem Diaboli voluntatem hominis causas esse peccati Quia voluntas abuti libertate sua potuit seque à Deo avertere Primus Author peccati est Diabolus Haec mala non sunt res conditae à Deo sed horribilis destructio humanae naturae Voluntas libera Evae propriè verè erat causa suae actionis ac sponte se avertit à Deo Quia peccatum ortum est à voluntate Diaboli hominis nec factum est Deo volente sic erant conditae voluntates ut possent non peccare Est autem causa contingentiae nostrarum actionum Libertas voluntatis p. 51. Imò Ecclesia Dei cum sciat Deum verè seriò horribiliter odisse libidines Neronis nequaquam dicet eas aut necessariò accidisse aut volente Deo accidisse Deus est essentia volens justa casta non volens pugnantia cum suâ mente injustam crudelitatem incestas libidines c. Deus adest Creaturis non ut Stoicus Deus alligatus causis secundis ut moveat simpliciter sicut movent secundae sed ut agens liberrimum sustenâ—ans naturam suo consilio aliter agens in aliis Sic agit Deus cum voluntate sustentans juvans ordine agentem Sed non juvans ruentem contra ordinem etsi eam sustentat Sic enim condidit voluntatem Evae ut esset liberum agens quod posset tueri ordinem aut deficere Sit igitur haec crassa solutio secunda causa non agit sine prima scilicet sustentante Hoc universaliter verum est sed non semper adjuvante Non enim adjuvat prima effectum quem non vult Est igitur voluntas Evae immediata causa sui actus cum avertit se à Deo And again Sed Christianis necesse est discernere bona mala Secunda non agit sine prima scilicet sustentante sed multa facit prima causa praeter secundas quia est agens liberum Et secunda libera ut voluntas Evae vitiose agit sine primâ adjuvante quia talis facultas est libertas And again Adest Deus suo operi non ut Stoicus Deus sed verè ut liberum agens sustentans creaturam multa moderans This shews the meaning of MELANCHTHON when he saith in one place in compliance with the vulgar that original sin iâ— nihil privativum which according to the Rule of aequipollence in Logick must needs be tantamount to aliquid positivum And this he shews to be his meaning by saying it is that which requires a subject that it is an Inquination and confusion of the man which confusion he explains by wandring motions which he also saith are things positive And he illustrates it farther by a ship that is tossed with winde and tempest as well as destiâ—ute of sails and oars By the former confusion he means original and actual sin by the latter giving his instance in Nero's lusts which he denyeth to have been by the will of God they having been sins though positive entities By which Mr. H. may understand his misapprehensions of Melanchthon p. 68. besides his forgetfulness of the proper task he hath set himself which is not to prove that some sins are privative but that no sin is more then a meer privation The REMONSTRANTS call it a blasphemy to say that no creature can either do more good or fâ—wer evil acts then now he doth And yet that this is the sequel of Master Hickmans Doctrine the Apologist for Tilenus hath well evinced Mr. BAXTER himself it just now comes into my memory doth frequently ascribe a self-determining power to the Free will of man however Byassed by habits And though himself hath printed as blasphemously as the most in charging God with the causing of evil which two lines after he calls a truth yet he trounceth some of his brethren for holding God the determiner of the will in every sin as the first efficient immediate physicall cause And also saith of Freewill that 't