in his creatures Mr. W. proclaims that I deny Gods omnipotence And this is just the very calumny of Atheistical * Orig. contra Cels l. 4. Celsus against Origen But I have †See Correct Copy p. 22 23. elsewhere shewed that if God were able to be the Author of such actions he were able not to be God which were onely a power of being impotent There are many things of which the Scripture saith God cannot do them As he cannot deny himself 2 Tim. 2.13 He cannot lie Tit. 1.2 What God hath promised absolutely he cannot but perform Heb. 6.18 Ge. 18. â—5 Gen. 19.22 Heb. 6.10 And therefore I am the asserter of Gods omnipotence because of his purity and Mr. W. is the man who disputes against both 6. He again is the man that denies Gods omnipotence who denies him to be able to decree the end in consideration of the means or to make a rational creature with such a liberty of will as to be able to determine his will ad hoc to this or that forbidden object without an efficiency from his creator 7. What kind of Theist may he be thought who doth not think that the creating and governing of a world and the being the Author of all good things are proofs enough of an omnipotence unlesse the filthiest actions to be imagined may be admitted for Jewels in that rich Diadem Sect. 8. 1. His second essay is an impertinence beyond Example His second Answer runs thus Doth not the Scripture tell us expresly that in him we live move and have our being Act. 17.25 As he is the Author of our being so also of those Natural motions that arise from our being p. 25. Thus the same Fallacy continues his error which made him erre And here I might repeat my former Section if that were as seemly as otherwise fit but referring my Reader thither I here will adde 1. My amazement at the impertinence for I had said It is impossible to separate the wickedness of the wicked act to wit of Blasphemy Adultery or the like from the act which is wicked And Mr. W. instead of instancing in any one wicked act and shewing how the wickedness may be separated from the act of wickedness or which is all one the wicked act doth onely tell us of things which are no wicked acts viz. our living moving and being in God c. 2. Or what is so much worse as that it ought not to be nam'd 2. If he pretends that he is not impertinent he is infinitely worse as the shallowest Reader can infer for if the Apostle there spake of wicked acts which to think is most unpardonable let him perform his enterprise by shewing which is the wickedness and which the act and by shewing the separation which he denies to be impossible 3. He is enforced to be pertinent and his Answer challenged 3. But let us inforce him to be pertinent and challenge his Answer to this Question Doth the Scripture any where say explicitely or implicitely that in God we blaspheme and murder and commit adultery such as these are confessedly the wicked acts to which I alluded in my objection Again I ask Mr. W. Can the wickedness of an actual blaspheming be possibly separated from the act of blaspheming Can the wickedness of Davids congress with Bathshebah be possibly separated from the act of his congress with Bathshebah Since his Answer of necessity must be Yes or No I am bound in duty both to God and my neighbours to exact thus much of Mr. W. That he will either shew how this may be done or confess in print that he hath undertaken impossibilities and that his first absurdity being swallowed this is one of the thousand which follow after Had he been able to shew it or had he but thought he had been able he would sure have tried and offer'd at it at least he would have taken some one wicked act for his instance displaid his tooles and begun his dissection and made us perceive this separability if not the separateness it self at least with the eyes of our Metaphysical understandings But because he hath meerly propos'd an objection and forsaken it speaking as far from his Theme as he could devise I must needs believe he understood his own weakness and felt the strength of the objection yet I am checkt in my belief by finding his answers grow worse and worse as I think will appear by what now follows Sect. 9. His third Essay is a continuance of his Tergiversation and inferreth God the efficient of sin His third Answer is this Was not Natures work the same in Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit as when he did his necessary food and in David when he lay with Bathshebah as when he lay with his lawful wife It is a true Rule Deus agit in peccato non tanquam causa moralis sed tanquam causa naturalis p. 25 Now he makes us a discovery of his mind 1. He had said a little before Answ 1. that God is the Author of the actions of nature look forward on Sect. 12 13. and a little before that that of natural motions and actions to which sin cleaves God is the efficient and proper cause p. 24. now he addes that natures work is the same in the most unlawful and lawful actions and exemplifies his meaning not onely after but before the Fall also From whence his Tenent must be concluded unavoidably this That God was the efficient and proper cause of Adam's eating the forbidden fruit as well as of his eating his necessary food and as much the efficient and proper cause of David's lying with Bathshebah as of his lying with lawful wife He shall be greater then great Apollo if he can shew the least flaw in this deduction Now to separate the act of Adam's eating forbidden fruit from the wickedness of the act which consisted in eating forbidden fruit Mr. W. doth not so much as trie And if he cannot do it hereafter neither as I am sure he cannot because it cannot be done then it is cleerly his opinion at least his Doctrine that God is the efficient and proper cause of all sin 2. Nature depraved and undepraved are opposite things 2. It was the work of undepraved nature for Adam to eat his necessary food before he eat the unnecessary forbidden food But to eat the forbidden was the ruine of nature and not the work I mean that nature wherewith God made him not simply a man but an innocent man And by Adam's eating that prohibitum Mr. W. must not think to say he meant the motion of Adam's jawes onely without his consent to the temptation or his determination of his will to a forbidden object for the eating the forbidden fruit was plainly the predicate in Mr. W's proposition as Adam was the subject of it not eating without forbidden fruit nor eating fruit without forbidden And if twenty words are in the
predicate as possibly they may they all can make but one term and are equally coupled to the subject by a never-failing verb substantive either expressed or implied 3. Adam sion'd before he eat in the determination of his will to eat 3. Besides Adam sinned before he eat in the determination of his will to eat and if that was also the work of Nature as well as his volition to eat of any lawful fruit as Mr. W. must say or eat up what he hath said then according to Mr. W. God was the efficient and proper cause of that sin also which lies in puncto indivisibili perhaps more intelligibly then others may 4. Mr. W. vindicated from his abuses put upon himself 4. Because Mr. W. hath been abused by himself in the misapprehension of his own Rule I think it my duty to disabuse him And I shall do it by saying no more then this 1. That as God doth give and continue the being of his creature with the natural endowments of such a being such as Life Loco-motive Reason and Will in his creature called Man he doth not work as a moral but as a natural cause 2. But as he moves his creature by his grace to chuse a right use of all his Faculties in applying his actions to their proper objects he onely works as a moral cause 3. And as he suffers or permits his creature to determine his will to forbidden objects and in pursuance of that choice to apply his faculties to execute what the will hath decreed be it to kill to blaspheme to hate God or the like in this third case he neither worketh as a natural or moral cause but suffers his creature to pervert and abuse his Faculties of Nature into a contrary thing to that which God made them As for example Adam's Faculty to will was the work of God and under God of Nature a very excellent and noble Faculty But Adam's applying that faculty to the forbidden fruit which was his choice or act of willing that numerical thing was neither the work of God nor of Nature Gods handmaid but the work of Adam against God and against that Nature which God had given him and which Adam with Satans help did deprave or pervert into another thing Yet am I willing that Mr. W. should say that there was in it the work of Nature if he will say that he means that work of that Nature which could not be possibly the work of God but of Adam onely in one respect and of the Devil in another 5. Five expedients proposed to undeceive M. W. by pointing at the causes of his mistakes 5. The not distinguishing rightly betwixt Nature and Nature Gods Handmaid and his Rebel Nature created by the good will of God and Nature corrupted by the wicked will of the creature doth seem to me a prime cause of Mr. W's errors in this affair Another cause doth seem to be his want of a steady consideration that Adam's sin did begin in the first aversion of his will which was his rational appetite from God and his Precept unto the creature which was forbidden His determining of his will per actum imperatum to the forbidden object was the same sin in its growth His actual eating in obedience to that Empire of his will was the same sin in its perfection In each of which three acts God had no hand at all which because Mr. W. did not discern the third cause of his errors doth seem to be his not continuing to meditate or to remember that the Being of sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the habitude and * This confessed by Dr. Twisse himself in Vin. Gra. l. 2. par 2. Crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 155. Col. 2. relation and indissoluble connexion of a voluntary act to a forbidden object after a fancied separation of which two we cannot so much as fancy the sin to be For consider Adam's eating as unapplied to forbidden fruit and so it cannot be conceived to be a sin any more then the eating of a natural Agent it being as natural to eat as to grow by eating Which makes me guesse a fourth cause of Mr. W's error to be this that either he did not exactly know or not incessantly bear in mind that the same man as to several actions is both a natural and a voluntary agent We eat and drink as we are animals but we fast and pray and do our duties or eat and drink against Precept as we are men the former as we are spiritual and the later as carnal men But Mr. W. in his instances of Adam and David did confound the brutish with the rational property of the men The fifth cause of his miscarriage doth seem to be his not animadverting that sin is a concrete in respect of sinfulness and notes the same thing in one word which sinful act doth note in two which I will make him apprehend do what he can to the contrary beside not reading what I am writing by shewing that a sin and a sinful * Note that what is said of a sinfull Act is as true if applyed to action or motion which are also Mr. W's Termes act have the same enunciation in all propositions to be imagined Ex Gr. It is as true a praedication and in sense the same to say that David's lying with Bathshebah was his sin as to say it was his sinful act Again as true a praedication and in sense the same to say it was his adultery as to say his adultery was his sin Mr. VV. shall find upon every turn of the tongue that these terms are convertible and that in Recto and finding that he will confess that either he must separate the same thing from it self or acknowledge his making God to be efficient of sin Thus far am I brought beyond what I was bound to or at first intended by the meer strength of my desire to convert my Aggressor whil'st I confute him And having done thus I shall onely put him in mind of his concurrence with Mr. B. as well as of his discord with Doctor Twisse 1. He concurres with that of Mr. B. That Gods concurrence and excitation to the Act of adultery and to the husbands lying with his lawful wife is the same ch 3. p. 12. 2. He is at discord with Doctor Twisse who saith that * See Correct◠Copy p. 10. God doth so administer the occasions of sin and doth so urge them that they smite the sinners mind c. which is to act in sin as a moral cause whereas Mr. W. affirms his acting to be as a natural cause only I will not exagitate the noysome instance by which he clears his meaning to us nor will I shew how he hath gratified his carnal Readers I rather hasten to his ensuing words Sect. 10. His fourth essay infers the wickedest Actions to be good and from God His fourth Answer is That every new action and motion
to the subversion not of the Christian Religion onely but even of that ingenuity and civil nature which hath hitherto prevailed amongst Turks and Infidels The making of God to be an Author and Cause of sin Voetius confesseth to be * Voetius in Method Resp. Calum p. 1136. absurd and sottish and implying a contradiction horrid blasphemous scandalous against all Theologie and the consent of Christendom against the light of nature and the dictates of reason If Voetius say thus much more may I. Again to say that God hath imposed a necessity of sinning upon his creatures is concluded by †Hist Gottesch c. 11. p. 173. R g. 5. Remigius to be a charging God foolishly as the Author of sin which Doctor Whitaker affirmes to be a very * Dr. Whitaker contra Dâ—raeum l. 8. sect 1. p. 524. great blasphemy Nay whether it is not the greatest to be imagined let the Reader conjecture by that which followes 1. The greatest blasphemy is that which ascribes to God as the Principal Cause and Contriver the very worst of the worst that can be possibly imagined 2. That is the worst of the worst which is the very worst thing in the Devil himself 3. The Devil hath nothing worse in him then a necessity of sinning or an impossibility to abstain from sin 4. Therefore to say that God Almighty did eternally cause or contrive decree or praedestin a necessity of sinning in a great part of the Angels and in the greatest part of mankind is the greatest blasphemy to be imagined That this is frequently to be met with in a great variety of Writers the intelligent Reader needs not be told And such a variety he will meet with in the following Treatise For though that rigid Ternary of Presbyterians Mr. W. Mr. B. and Mr. H. may seem to be the chief in my consideration yet my Reader will much misunderstand me if he thinks that Writers of their Pitch could have drawn so many sheets from me upon the sole account of their own atchievements Had I spent so great a share of my precious time upon but two or three Aggressors of no greater fame and consideration I had done much more then I could have answered if not to my conscience yet at least to my discretion Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barlee in their several songs to the same Tune which they both intitle their vindications were of themselves sufficient to be the principal occasions of this my enterprise but the impulsive causes were much more worthy For I look upon these two as on a couple of Chymists whose very Quintessence and Elixir of strength and subtilty I clearly discover to have been fetched from the publick Elaboratories of the greatest Artists both of the upper and lower way and in a more especial manner of Mr. Calvin and Doctor Twisse whose good Latine they have turned into no good English and what for many years together they had been gathering they have at once produced in the great and in the profuseness of their humour have shed it abroad amongst the people It hath been therefore my chiefest aim to enfeeble those Armories and Magazins from whence these Combatants have borrowed their choicest weapons whether engaged in their offensive or defensive quarrells I have allowed Mr. W. the first and chief place in my consideration I mean in respect of Mr. B. and Mr. H. first because he is a person of the greatest gravity and the †So saith Mr. B. in his Neces V.n.c. â— p. 32. l penult grayest haire and one who was versed in these Controversies as Mr. Barlee saith often * Introduct p. 3 ch 3. p. 18. before I was born or brought forth into the lâ—ght before I had a head or an eye one who subscribed the 39. Articles * Ibid. p. 40. before there was any such thing in the world as Mr. T. P. Lastly †ch 2. p. 34. Old enough and wise enough to be my father When I observed Mr. B. upbraiding to me my want of years †Ibid. p. 49. more then any other thing not one y in these pages which I have cited but in many more which I conceal calling me one while a * c. 2. p. 41. Demure Junior and another while a †c. 2. p. 53. Juvenal Divine sometimes objecting his * Ch. 2. p. 27. own antiquity and Mr. W's extremely often as if he thought that old age were the strongest * The weakness of it is visible in the Sâ—nner Impleaded p. 300 301. argument in the world against what ever had been alledged by one who followed them into the world at some years distance I comforted my self with the remembrance that I did not chuse my nativity nor was I the Lord of my own Horoscope and in regard I was as old as I was able to be by any means it would no be reckoned as my fault that I could not plead my longevity for the advantaging of my cause It a â—pears by the words of * 1 Tim. 4.12 S. Paul to Timothy that a Priest is too apt to be despised for his youth And to remove that stumbling-block out of the old man's way he shall know that our Lord and Saviour did not quite attain to my years in his Peregrination upon the earth S. John and S. Timothy were both but young men when yet the first was an Apostle and the second a Bishop If Argumentation and Orthodoxy were to be reckoned by a man's age I am sure the old Serpent would go beyond them And though I my self am far from it yet the truth which I assert hath Age enough to become an Argument * Quod primum verum est Tertul. So that from this day forwards I hope the difference of years betwixt my adversaries and me which they have hitherto more insisted on in all theâ—r publick and private chat then upon any one thing which they have conceived to be of use shall be no longer an ingredient in our dispute yet this is one reason why * Job 32.4 6.7 Mr. W. comes first into my consideration Another reason is because he publickly made me a second challenge from the Presse when I had in modesty and in mercy refused his first as having been backward and unwilling to expose his age to inconvenience for which reason also I have been sparing to Mr. Cawdrey notwithstanding his publick and grand abuses but finding he thought himself unanswerable in that he saw he was not answerâ—d I straight concluded it a charity to undeceive him A third reasonâ—s because he professeth in his Preface to his first book which he hath boldly repeated in his second that he * Ext. of Div. Prov. is Praef. p. goes hâ—ghâ—r then other Divines of his party in making God have an active hand in the actions of sinful men How much higher then the most the Reader shortly will see and wonder Adde to this my having heard that
upon some weak Readers his book hath made some strong impressions So that men of no skill who are of narrow capacity and very slow of apprehension are not long to be trusted with that temptation Again I find that Mr. B. doth rely on Mr. W. as upon one of his * Corr. Corr. Ep. Ded. p. 8. Majorites to whose Protection and Patronage he chose to dedicate his former Book to wit his first-born the excellency of his strength and whose gracious †Ibid. assistance he then implored Mr. W. answers to the call ownes himself for a Majorite comes in to the rescue of Mr. B. as Milo ran to set his shoulders as an equal prop to the falling house which crushed him into Quiddini for his presumption and 't is but fit he should first be heeded whom common Fame hath set uppermost in the thoughts of men Next I proceed to Mr. B. his second part as he calls it because I was bound to it by promise which I was loath not to perform Then I antidote Mr. Hickman because he invenomed Mr. Barlee and intermeddled in his affaires to such a desperate degree that if he preacheth as he hath printed his Disciples of all others have the greatest need of a preservative I have often to do with Dr. Twisse because they often translate his words and once most solemnly they bring him to me with a defiance Not to mention all particulars with whom I have to do as occasion serves I have many reflexions on Mr. Hobbs because he jumps so often with my Assailants as if he had borrowed from their writings or they from his What I have more to premise I will dispatch in few words If I seem too much inlarged in explaining some things It is partly because I have to deal with such disputants as cannot be confuted but by being first taught and partly because it often happens that their Master's confutatian doth stand in theirs I do many times refer to what I have published already as well to avoid prolixity and vain repetitions as to exempt my Reader from paying often for the very same matter in several volumes I have reckoned with my Aggressers both separately and jointly My two first Chapters and Introduction are chiefly addressed to Mr. W. My third to Mr. B. and Mr. H. My fourth to Dr. Twisse Mr. W. and Mr. B. I have so disposed of the whole as that all their concernments may be seen distinctly and apart But yet so many were my occasions to shew their differences and agreements and their mutual collisions more especially the running of their heads against each other to the great indangering of their brains which I verily believe will hardly ever leave akeing untill they accept my way of cure ch 3. sect 9. that Mr. B. is eminently concerned in all I say to Mr. W. and Mr. W. equally concerned in all I say to Mr. B. and Mr. Hickman commonly concerned in what I say to both the former and their greatest Masters are concerned in what I say to all three If I seem to have been pungent in laying open some sorer parts I desire my Reader to look well upon the Case to consider the duty of a Chirurgion and then to imagine if he is able how such Phagedaenous and eating sores can be taken away without being touched and that with either the Launce or Caustick When an inveterate Ulcer hath been long skin'd over there is no way to cure it without searching it to the bottom which though painful to the Patient yet being in order to his ease and which is more his safety too he ought to be thankful to that diligent and impartial hand which for some short time doth seem to hurt him The ratio curandi cannot alwayes be such as I can alwayes desire and wâ—sh it might be It must be such as the malady requires and calls for But when my present Methods shall be found to have taken a good effect so as the obstinate Tumour shall relent and suppurate and finally cast forth its Core together with the dreggs of the peccant huâ—â—or I shall gladly prepare another kind of composition whose every line shall be a lentive May the persons the most concerned consider well what is said in the following sheets and The Lord give them understanding in all things 2 Tim. 2.7 The general Contents of the Introduction shewing the manifold Absurdities and Contradictions which issue out from the Denial of Gods eternall respective or conditional Decrees Sect. 1 2. THe nearest way to end a Controversie is to strike altogether at the Root of error Sect. 3. The grand error touching Gods Decrees and its numerous off-spring is rooted in the mistake of two things The false conceits of Praescience and Praedetermination Sect. 4 5. The speedy way to Conviction made plain and open by a manifestation of three things Sect. 6. The three things undertaken solemnly to be proved Sect. 7. The same men affirm it to be both blasphemy and truth to say that God is the Author or Cause of sin that he wills and works sin c. Sect. 8. Nothing but their Principles of Gods Decrees can lead them to blasphemies of such a Nature Instances briefly set down from Calvin Zuinglius Zanchy Piscator P. Martyr Beza Borrhaus Triglandius Dr. Twisse Mr. Hobbs Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barlee and Mr. Hick Sect. 9. How the violent streams of blasphemy may be quickly dried up in their several channels Sect. 10. Mr. Whitfields whole Fabrick plucked up by the Foundation His explication of what he means by conditional Decrees His provision for a Flight from his whole undertaking He is equally unfortunate whether he intended sense or non-sense He is equally unhappy whatever he means by the word Condition Sect. 11. His first Argument compared with his Exposition of Conditional Decrees as he professeth to understand them He is as unhappy in his best as in his worst meaning His way of arguing in his best sense against Conditional Decrees is as much against the Trinity of persons in the Godhead He argues against his own Masters and Brethren Beza Wollebius Dr. Reynolds Directly against Saint Paul and against the Eternity of Gods foreknowledge And in a flat contradiction to himself also against Dr. Twisse and even against the Tenet for which he argues He is fain to make Gods decrees to be Actus Dâ—i ad iutra against his own party who teach them to be ad extra He makes Gods Actions to be God himself and so infers many Gods even against his own Masters Gomarus and Wollebius Five blasphemous Absurdities which that absurdity doth infer He makes God himself to be Reprobation it self Sect. 12. An easie way to Mr. W's Reformation concisely opened and pointed at To his pretended Arguments against Conditional Decrees are confronted two Arguments for conditional Decrees The first is grounded on the Confession of all the contrary party and according to the tenour of the seventeenth Article
17. His gross error in the notion of Gods permission His tremendous notion of Alworking providence without exception of wickedness Sect. 18. He puts himself afresh into his old streights betwixt gross blasphemy and extraordinary impertinence He affirms that God hath an active hand in the sins of Oppression Rebellion Murders Trechery Violence and VVrong How the Great Turk proceeds on those maximes He justifies the Ranters by ascribing all our English changes to the hand of God God is cleared from carelesness or weakness with which he is charged by Mr. VV. Sect. 19. God is cleared from willing and effecting what he hateth A case put to shew the danger of Mr. VV's Doctrine in order to practice Sect. 20. Mr. VV's dangerous misapprehension of that figurative sentence that God doth punish sin with sin His making God the proper cause of the greatest sins which he also extends to the very sin of the act the pravity it self He treads a step beyond Calvin worst Sect. 21. The desperate nature of Mr. VV's Salvo's And the hardness of his Emollients His open profession that Gods secret will is quite contrary to his revealed will in respect of the very same objects Chap. III. Sect. 1. MAster B's Confession of the Fact of which he pleads not guilty His making God the Author of sin and worse then so in his endeavours to speak as warily as his principles will suffer him Sect. 2. He contradicts his own and his Readers eyes without the possibility of gaining by it His inconsistency with himself with Mr. VV. and Mr. Hick He betrayes himself many wayes in his provision for an escape making God verbatim the soveraign Author of sins both of omission and commission Grants the whole charge or understands not a moral act His mixture of blasphemies with contradictions on the right and left hand Sect. 3. He is ashamed to cite his own words truly Proves himself conscious to himself of being left without excuse in charging God with being a Tempter unto sin Pretends a want of leisure to excuse or extenuate his blasphemy yet baulks it at his greatest leisure He accuseth God of that which is the worst quality of Satan Flatly contradicts the Scripture Commits the worst of contradictions as well as blasphemies Sect. 4. He is enraged that his meaning should be measured by his words Slanders ancient and modern both Papists and Protestants Saint Austin in particular And implies it a sin for corn to grow Sect. 5. His uncharitable reflexion on his own Dr. Twisse The Doctors words cited Sect. 6. Mr. B's severity to himself proving his falshoods by self-contradictions He unavoidably chargeth God with sin in himself irrefragably proved from Heb. 6.18 He implies his blasphemies common to him with his party He is convicted by Dr. Twisse of making God the Author of sin Sect. 7. He makes no difference betwixt the act of Adultery and Marriage but equally makes God the Author of both worse then the Encratitae Sect. 8. The undeniable blasphemies which ensue upon the Doctrine of unconditional Praedestination The great Disease of making God the Author of sin The original Cause of the Disease The Patient proved extremely sick of the Disease by his own acknowledgement of the Cause Four short Arguments to confirm it Sect. 9. The easie and infallible means of cure to all that are not resolved to continue sick The nature of Knowledge opened and distinguished from Decree Gods absolute Decree doth cause a necessity of event but his foreknowledge doth not nor possibly can it The Absurdities which would follow if it were so An Argument taken from the knowledge of what is past The wide difference shewed between a necessity of consequence and a necessity of the consequent 'T is vain for the Adversaries to quit the first error unless they quit the second also D. Reynolds his concurrence with T. P. in this point Gods praescience doth not praesuppose a praedetermination But rather praedetermination doth connotate praescience if not praesuppose it The cause of the error shewed and removed The Application to the present case and a way opened to reconcilement Sect. 10. Mr. B's unavoidable consequential blasphemies that God determined all wickedness before be could foreknow it His ignorant use of the words Futurition Will certain Counsel A threefold blasphemy besides a self-contradiction Sect. 11. His positive Doctrine of Gods ordaining sin both original and actual Non-sense added to Blasphemy Sect. 12. His self-contradiction in denying and also affirming that he maketh God the Author of sin He is convicted by his own words and the Assemblies and Mr. W's and Dr. Twisse and Mr. Hobbs which last is justified by Mr. W. Sect. 13. Mr. B's 10000. curses upon himself and his Masters with his confession of the blasphemy of which he was accused The like confession of his owned Masters together with their Commissions of the crime confessed Sect. 14. His confession of faith touching Gods commerce with sin He professeth openly to believe that God is the cause of sinfulness it self Sect. 15. Concerning the efficient cause of sin The state of the case from the beginning Sin proved to have a true efficient cause and by Mr. B's confession who also denies it How his railings in lieu of answers do strike at S. James but hit himself and his party of Jam. 1.15 Sect. 16. Of the positive entity of sin clearly proved Sect. 17. Mr. B's first Argument to prove the goodn'ss of sin in which Mr. Hick is equally concerned The noysomness of the Disease The purging out of the peccant humour Of metaphysical and moral bonity The dangerous effects in Mr. B. and Mr. Hick of being but Smatterers in Metaphysicks Dr. Twisse his foundation of irrespective decrees a thin Sophisme How a lye is verum as much as siâ— bonum Albertus Magnus his words explained and Austin's vindicated from the impertinence of the Citation Sect. 18. The most remarkable impiety of one Mr. Hick and Mr. B. called by the name of a second Argument Inferring the Godhead of sin on one hand or its being Gods creature on the other Mr. H. miserably tost by the two horns of his own Dilemma A way opened to his rescue from his ineffable dangers He is shewed a medium betwixt God and Gods Creatures where he could see none How Mr. H. and Mr. B. do infer Atheism it selfe to be the Creature of God or God himself Sins positive things because inward habits Man the Author of some positive things and God of some privatives Mr. H. confounds Negative and privative as well as privative and privation To harden our own hearts and consent unto temptations are positive things Our destruction from our selves a positive thing Sin spoken of in Scripture as a positive thing Mr. Hick convinced by his own party He will confess he hath blasphemed in case that sin is something positive which is further proved many wayes The sad effects of forging God to be the maker of all things real without exception
Tremendous mistakes of the Texts above mentioned Rom. 1.24 26. 2 Thes 2.11 and of the greatest part of the ninth Chapter to the Romans to name no more may serve for a warning to the ignorant and seduced people of the Nation not to presume on such places without an Interpreter at their Elbow I mean a qualified authentick uncontroulable Interpreter and such as may easily be had and be as easily used by English Readers that is in a word Doctor Hammond's Annotations upon the whole New Testament Sect. 5. 1. Mr. W. either means that God hath a hand in evil because in the contrary Mr. W. incurs another danger which he also calls an other Argument Some will laugh I am sure but others I hope will rather weep at it His words are these That God hath some hand in the Acts of sinful men appears because the substratum or subject of sin namely the natural motion or action whereunto the sin cleaveth is that whereof he is the proper cause and efficient therefore he must needs have some efficiency in it p. 24. If by the Substratum he means the man who is the subject of sin Look forward on c. 3. sect 14. God indeed is the cause of man but man is not a motion much less a sin If by Motion Act and Action he means that which is natural as the act of walking eating digesting speaking thinking and the like God again is the cause of these but not of any thing that is sinful it being no more sinful to walk eat speak or think then to be as God made us not onely moveables but men So that if Mr. W. doth mean no more he speaks not a syllable to the purpose but plainly deserts his undertaking And to prove that God hath a hand in evil because he hath a hand in that which is good is to say a thing is because it is not or that it is thus because it is quite otherwise By such Logick as this he may say that the Devil hath a hand and efficiency in good giving this for his reason because he is the efficient and proper cause of evill And indeed it is much less impious to ascribe something of Nature to that perverter of nature then the least perversion of nature to the God of all grace 2. Or that the Act of sin is not the sin But 2. It appears by the scope and tenour of his Book that when he saith God hath a hand in the Acts of sinful men he certainly means the sinful Acts which sinful Acts are the Acts of sin or to speak it in other words the sins themselves for that these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three expressions of the same thing will be made undeniable by this example The act of sinful David was the Act of lying with Bathshebah The Act of lying with Bathshebah was the sinful Act to wit the Act of Adultery and so the sin For whether we say that his lying with Bathshebah was his Adultery or his Act of Adultery we say the same thing and we find them promiscuous in all men discourses of the thing Now that his Adultery or his Act of lying with Bathshebah was the sin it self which he committed not the Substratum or Subject of his sin distinguishable from it tanquam accidens à subjecto aut res à re I am confident Mr. W. will not dare to deny It being granted by men of all sides that to pollute another mans Wife is Adultery it self and that Adultery is the sin it self which is called by that name and by that distinguished from other sins 3. Or that God is the proper cause and efficient of sin and this proved by a Dilemma 3. From whence it followes unavoidably that Mr. W. affirms God to be the proper cause and efficient of sin it self Nor can he escape it let him go which way he will to the negative or the affirmative of what I said just now For let him answer to my Dilemma Was David's lying with Bathshebah by which she was impregned the meer substratum or subject of his sin of adultery or the very sin of adultery it self If Mr. W. shall say the first then it is cleerly his Doctrine that God was the proper cause and efficient of David's lying with Bathshebah for 't is his positive assertion that of the motion or action to which the sin cleaves God is the proper cause or efficient And if Mr. W. shall say the second then he must run into the very same mischief or yield me up the whole cause and bid particular defiance to Mr. Barlee and Mr. Hick which will soon appear by this other Dilemma Was Davids lying with Bathshebah which is granted to be the very sin of Adultery in the second member of the first Dilemma an Act or an Action or a Motion or a positive thing or was it none of these four If he shall say it was an act an action or a motion then again he calls God the proper cause or efficient of the sin it self Davids lying with Bathshebah for if the Reader will look back he shall find all three in the subject of this Section and withal it implies a grosse contradiction to say that that is the sin it self which was said before to be the subject onely of sin to which the sin cleaves If he shall say that Davids lying with Bathshebah was a positive thing which he cannot but say if he shall say it is the other three then either he must acknowledge that Mr. Barlee and Mr. Hick are blasphemers in grain for having said expresly that * Mr. Hick's words in a letter to Mr. B. printed by Mr. B. ch 3. p. 112. whatever positive thing is not from God is God or else he must say it was the creature of God or else he must say it was God himself For so it follows in the two brethren †Ibid Look forward on ch 3. Sect. 18. there is no medium betwixt Deus Creatura making no distinction betwixt Gods creatures and the Devils but concluding that Davids lying with Bathshebah if a positive entity was as much Gods creature as David himself was But if to avoid these rocks Mr. W. shall throw himself on the later horn of the Dilemma and say that Davids lying with Bathshebah was no act action motion or positive thing that will tosse him out of all reason not onely set him at enmity with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common maximes of all mankind and even the judgment of common sense but also infer that sin is nothing and so that sinners are either not damned at all or damned for nothing or damned for something besides their sins 4. Humane learning a good foundation for a Divine 4. I will not here exagitate his wants of knowledge in Physiologie which would administer occasion of much discourse because his errors in Divinity are too apt of themselves to make me tedious I
will onely observe how needful 't is for a Divine to lay his foundations of knowledge in humane learning or at least to preach onely by way of exhortation to depart from evil and to do the thing that is good but not to meddle in matters beyond their ken The sad effects of such meddling I have shew'd already and am now to shew further in the ensuing Paragraph For what I spake as a Physician to shew Mr. B. the immediate cause of his disease Mr. W. either could not or would not comprehend and doth his utmost to nourish the peccant Humours Mark him well as he goes on Sect. 6. Mr. W's rare essayes to separate the wickednesse from the Act of the wicked Act. Object Against this Mr. P. objects that it is as impossible to separate the wickedness of the Act from the Act which is wicked as to separate roundness from the globe and to separate sinfulness from the sin as from the sinful act p. 24. 1. This is now the second morsel of my Philanthropy which he hath ventured to fasten his Teeth upon that the Reader may see how much oftner I have occasion to confute Mr. W's inventions then to defend mine own Doctrine delivered in that Book which his boasting Title-page pretends to combat 2. He had not â—he courage to cite my words right or to acknowledge in the Errata that his citation was wrong For 1. he cites them all from ch 4. p. 48. where I had said nothing like it nor hath it cost me a little trouble to find the pages of my book where such words are to be found which truly is matter of just complaint and now at last I have found them in two distinct pages at great distance whereas he hath cited them as from the same and as spoken in the same period p. 48. but the former part is p. 42. and the later p. 43. and each in the midst of the several pages 2. He hath left out the word wicked which he found in my sentence before the first mention of the word Act which is the lesse excusable because he cites so few things from me 3. He takes not any notice of what Lurg'd for the proof of those few words but barely sets down the words themselves which being a great Tergiversation in a pretender to confute me deserves no other reply then to be sent for satisfaction to my three whole * See the Div. Philan. defended ch 4. p. 42 43 44. pages upon that subject Yet that he may not be able to say I slight him I will shew him his unhappinesse in every part of his Answer though not so much of his unhappinesse as I could easily discover if I would lose so much time Sect. 7. His first essay is a bare dictate including a manifold absurdity no less then 8. His 1. Answer is this God is little beholding to him for so denying him to be the Author of the evil that cleaves to the actions of nature as withal to deny him to be the Author of nature for maintaining his purity by denying his omnipotency p. 24 25. First 'T is an ugly expression to say that God is little beholding to me for any thing as if for something he might be possibly beholding when I have done my best for the honour of God I have done but my duty which being my duty but in part and infinitely far from what I ow him I must say when all is done I am an * Luk. 17.10 unprofitable servant 2. But yielding Mr. W. his naughty terms how much lesse can it be said that God is beholding to Mr. W. who would so maintain him to be the Author of nature as to make him also the Author of things against Nature How much rather is Satan beholding to him for so asserting Gods omnipotence as to asperse his purity and so by consequence to plead for Satan 3. It goes ill enough with Mr. W. that what he saith he saith only without an offer of any proof to which it were sufficient to say the contrary with the same confidence and to charge or challenge him to provide his proof against hereafter yet even thus he is worsted by the meer opposition of dictate to dictate because 't is less wicked to ascribe some work of God unto the Devil then to ascribe the proper work of the Devil unto God * Of actions natural and unnatural Nature corrupted and uncorrupted 4. But I will more then dictate though he doth not for I will mind him that the word Nature which of it self is good when God is called the God of Nature is often set in opposition to Grace and is us'd to signifie the corruption of Nature at least by way of connotation which Mr. W. not considering as something or other is still the cause of aberrations from the truth confounds the Actions of Nature with unnatural actions To speak indeed is the work of Nature but sure it is not a sin to speak To pray sincerely is the work of Grace and sure it is not a sin to pray sincerely But to blaspheme against God is neither a work or an action of Grace or Nature yet is it a work or action as really as the former that is a work of the Devil ungracious and unnatural against the God of Grace and Nature Now the difference is wide betwixt speaking in general and speaking in particular to the glory of God and particular speaking against Gods glory For the last of these I demand of Mr. W. is that action of blaspheming or speaking against God an action of Nature or is it not If he saith Yes he doth bewray it to be his doctrine that God is the Author of blaspheming against God which blasâ—heming as 't is an action so 't is a sin too If he saith No then he confesseth there are actions which are not of Nature unlesse he will say that to blaspheme is no action if the former he pulls down with both hands what he erected onely with one if the later then according to his reasoning either to speak is not an action or to blaspheme is not to speak and so the farther he proceeds the woâ—se it fares with him 4. Where now was the ground of Mr. W's saying that I deny Gods omnipotence Even my dutiful denial that God is the Author of such actions as blaspheming cursing fighting against God David 's lying with Bathshebah Cain 's killing Abel and the like He may by the same Logick accuse the Apostle of denying God's omnipotence and that in contradiction to the word of God for our Saviour saith with God nothing shall be impossible Luke 1.37 but the Apostle saith It is impossible for God to lie Heb. 6.18 The reconcilement stands in this that our Saviour spake of good things onely for of evils it is true that 't is impossible for God to be either Principal or accessory Now because I maintain that God cannot will or work sin
have spoken ch 2. sect 14. and also sect 20 21. work sin and that he hath a hand in * effecting sin Sure these are very frequently the expressions of his Masters as well as Brethren and therefore judge good Reader whether S. James and Mr. P. or Mr. B. and his party are the pertinent objects of Mr. B's Invectives especially his last expressed in * Quem perdere vult Deus hunc dementat Of the positive Entity of sin Latine 1. Dementation sent from God and 2. as a token of Reprobation Sect. 16. To the Preface which he makes to his more particular Discussion wherein he onely takes occasion to call it a horrible opinion that sin as sin in respect of its obliquity hath a positive entity and efficient cause p. 112. lin 9 10. I have but three things to say 1. That if it were so indeed he would be utterly unexcusable for having embraced that opinion in that part of his Prints so lately cited or for railing at an opinion which himself confessed to be true or if he hath since seen his error why was not his second volume a Recantation of his first And what will he do to Mr. W. for saying that God had a hand in effecting sin whereby he inferred that sin had an effective or efficient cause 2. He cannot say he speaks of the formal part of sin as sin and not of the whole sin because he speaks of sin in respect of its obliquity which he is wont to call the formal part of sin And 't is non-sense to say that sin as sin in respect of its sin or that obliquity as obliquity in respect of its obliquity hath not a positive entity or efficient cause So as he dares not deny but that sin doth signifie the integrum peccati or whole filthy act such as Cains killing Abel or David's lying with Bathshebah whose repugnance with Gods Law is called obliquity And because that sin is an oblique or crooked or irregular action Mr. B. concludes it no positive Entity 3. But to rest on him to sobriety and common sense I shall need only to ask him whether Rectitude is not a positive Entity If he saith yes as I am sure he needs must what shew of reason can he pretend why obliquity is not as much so as Rectitude how much more that whole sin of which obliquity is accounted the formal part Is not a Circle quà talis as positively a figure or a round figure as a right line is a right line Is not crookedness or gibbosity in any mans shape as positively such as streightness or clean making When a crooked parent begets a child which is also as crooked is he less a positive and efficient cause then if he and his child were both well shaped When Adam begat Cain in a state of sin with Satans image in stead of Gods as some of the Fathers have expressed it was not the cause and the effect too as truely positive as if they both had been sinless An action flowing from an Agent hath as positive an Entity as the Agent himself from whom it flowes The sin of Murder is an Action as Cain's killing Abel So is the sin of Adultery as David's lying with Bathshebah Nor any whit the less such in respect of their being irregular actions any more then a wicked man is the less a man for being wicked David's lying with Bathshebah before she was his wife was as positive an Entity and had a cause as efficient as David's lying with Bathshebah after she was his wife which alone is sufficient to fill Mr. B. and Mr. Hick with confusion of Face and to compel them to Recantations unless they will shelter themselves under Rantism and Libertinism by saying that David's lying with Bathshebah was no adultery or such an adultery as was no sin or that it was a very good sin because a positive Entity and that which had an efficient cause For Mr. B's first Argument doth follow thus Sect. 17. If sin as sin be a positive Entity 1. Mr. B's first Argument to prove the goodness of sin in which Mr. Hick is equally concerned then it is a thing in it self good For every positive thing is good It is to all Scholars well known that unum verum bonum convertuntur p. 112. First he cannot but confess that if sin is a thing positive he seeks to prove by this Argument that sin is good But that it is a thing positive I have abundantly proved in my two last Sections and himself hath confessed in his Correptory * p. 79. p. 111. both before cited and compared with one another Correction therefore he cannot but confess that all the force of this Argument is onely to prove that sin is good 2. A thing that is privative in one respect is also positive in another 2. The noysomeness of the Disease as every Sciolist knows and Mr. B. hath virtually confessed Every Sciolist can tell that the corruption of one thing is the generation of another that what is privative of life or sight must needs be positive of death or blindness The Darkness which God created was not more privative of the Day then it was positive of the Night Nay doth not Mr. B. confess as much for in saying that the sinner is the * Correp p. 79. efficient cause of his sin he doth grant it to be a thing And in saying there may be something of * Ib. p. 111. positive in a privation he doth more then grant it to be a positive thing I therefore say more because a privation is but the abstract of privative And the Transgression of the Law which is sin is not a meer privation of vertue but a positive thing which is privative of vertue positive of vice Sin is so perfectly a concrete that unless it is a concrete it cannot be conceived to be a sin No no more then a concrete can be conceived to be a concrete when it ceaseth to be a concrete The most Poetical brain cannot fansie the least â—â—â—ial difference betwixt David's lying with Bathshebah and his adultery with Bathshebah at the time of her being Uriah's wife So that now Mr. B. must confess that the least part of his blasphemy is no less then this that sin is good as it is positive of evil although it is evil as it is privative of good This being the Printed Article of his unchristian Creed THAT EVERY POSITIVE THING IS GOOD 3. The purging out of the peccant Humour 3. Having shewed him the noysomness of his Disease I will now remove the peccant Humour by which it appears to have been fed to wit his Ignorance or Inadvercency that bonum metaphysicum which is converted with ens hath quite another signification then bonum morale And being Aristotles phrase who was neither a Prophet of the old Testament nor an Evangelist of the new should rather have been rejected as unsound and unsafe
Look forwards on the 27. sect num 4. of this ch which accompanies the action of which God is the Author and so distinguishable from it and that God doth but make the lame horse go which was lame before he made him go and so is the cause of his going but not of his lamenesse that will be found to be a Reed which will run into the elbow of such as shall dare to lean upon it for when Adam was yet innocent he was not as a lame horse and yet he ceased to be innocent or if you please he grew lame by eating that which was forbidden So that if God was the cause of his eating that forbidden fruit he was also the cause of the sin which was nothing else but his eating the fruit forbidden if he made him eat he made him lame Besides if a horse which goes not and hath onely an aptitude to go lamely will of necessity go lamely if he be made to go at all he who shall cause that horse to go will also cause him to go lamely so will God be concluded the cause of sin if having first given us the power to act against his law he shall also reduce that power into that act so as that positive act shall be his creature yet so it must be saith Mr. Hick if a positive act And Doctor Twisse doth say as bluntly * Damus Deum esse causam uniuscujusque actûs Vin. Gr. l. 2. par 1. p. 40. we grant that God is the particular cause of every act Wherein this differs from that of the Libertines let him tell us who can 5. God hath forbidden in his law the positive acts of Stealing Adultery Murder and the like for which positive acts he will also cast into Hell It will be ill pleading for Cain that God alone was the Author of the positive act of his stabbing Abel and of the law which forbad it from which two the obliquity was an unavoidable resultance And if the sin of blasphemy is distinguishable from the act of speaking against God then did God forbid something besides the sin which implies a horrible contradiction and there may be a good act of speaking against God as well as an evil one which again implies another contradiction 6. When Mr. Hick.'s Masters are wont to say that God praedestin'd men to sin as the means of damnation they do and must mean to sin as sin because sin is no otherwise the means of damnation and divers of them do use that very reduplication Now because they teach also that God decreed the means as well as the end they infer sin as sin to be a positive act and therefore not distinguishable from it I have now done with Mr. Hick as to this particular which Mr. B. calls his second Argument uâ—on which I have the more enlarged because I perceive it to be the great block at which those men are wont to stumble and at which the Libertines have fallen down headlong Again I find it to be the block out of which Mr. B. hath hewed so many chipps and little splinters which having flown into his eyes have made him rageful as well as blind This will very much appear by the following Sections which for that very reason shall be so much the shorter Sect. 19. Mr. B's first chip hewn out of Mr. Hick.'s Block Mr. B. thus debauched by his leading friend as hath been shewed sticks not to say in plain termes He must either maintain God to be the Author of sin or else he must speedily renounce the very first Article of his Christian Creed and say that God did not make heaven and earth and all real things visible and invisible therein That in him we do not live move and have our being Act. 17.28 That every good and perfect gift in its kind is not from God Jam. 1.17 p. 113. Though this is a chip of the old block and might be sent for its reception to the former Section yet in order to his cure I will make him feel his infirmity 1. He foists the word real into the Creed and makes it to stand in the place of good and infers God the maker of all sins 1. The word reall is in neither Creed but foisted in by M. B. and if he intends it as exegetical of all things visible and invisible in the Nicaene Creed he makes a Creed for the Ranters who finding by experience that blasphemies and adulteries are real things and having been taught by whom think you to believe that God is the maker of all things real without exception conclude those things to be very good Such domestick Libertines must be taught that when God is said to be the maker of all things it is onely meant of all things that are good which alone are possible to be made by God not of all things that are real whereof many are evil and onely made by Men and Devils 2. The different methods of our reasonings and what comes of it 2. Mark Good Reader before thou goest any farther the different methods of our reasoning and the different effects I lay it down as my Principle that God is not the maker of sin therefore not of David's adultery therefore not of that action called his lying with Bathshebah therefore not of every positive and real thing But Mr. Hick and Mr. B. and the Libertines do build backwards thus They lay it down as their Principle That God is the maker of all things that are real without exception therefore of David's lying with Bathshebah acknowledged by all to be a real and positive thing therefore of his Adultery unless his Adultery can be differenced from his lying with Bathshebah therefore of his sin unless his sin can be differenced from his Adultery Again the Libertines argue thus God doth decree sin therefore it is good But I argue thus Sin cannot be good therefore God cannot decree it Of so great concernment it is that they be beaten out of their methods and wayes of reasoning and taught to begin at the right end 3. They ascribe all positive entities however filthy unto God 3. I who prove sin to be a positive entity do also prove it to be the work of men and Devils onely whereas 't is he and Mr. Hick who do impute it unto God on supposition of its positive entity What he saith from Act. 17.28 is wholly impertinent unless he thinks it to be a sin to live and to move and to have a being For that innocent liberty and power which we have from God we alone do determine to the doing of evil Much less pertinent is that from S. James c. 1. v. 17. unless he thinks that sin can be a good and a perfect gift or that every positive entity is such 4. They are convinced by the Assemblies confession of faith ch 9. Artic. 1. 4. It is part of the Assemblies confession of faith God hath endued the will of man
being desirous to shew his good will to Mr. Rivet whom I had proved to be guilty of making God the Author of sin by saying the very inclination which Adam had to sin before he sinned could not chuse but be vitious and yet of God's making is fain to commit a world of faults for the making a salve to that one sore from p. 139. to p. 144. The chief ingredients in his salve are those that follow 1. Rivet was a strong Disputant before Mr. T.P. was brought forth into the world the same which he had pleaded for Mr. W. as if the oldest men must needs be-most orthodox and of quicker sight then their juniors 2. Other eminent men have used that argument as well as he as if to erre in company were either to be orthodox or very neer it 3. He speaks of concupiscence and lust which are a couple of sins whereas the question is onely of Adam's inclination before his very first sin 4. He speaks of lust after the fall Rom. 7.7 and which was in the will too whereas the subject of the dispute was before the fall nor in the will but in the appetite And so he either understands not or wilfully flies from the thing in question 5. He calls an inclination to sin a weighty plummet inclining at once an abstract and concrete in one and the same respect 6. He saith that Adam even before the fall had the Devils image upon him as well as God's if his inclination to sin was before his first sin as if he thought that potentia could not be before actus 7. He confounds temptation to sin with sin 8. He asks why I should be shie of granting that Christ had any inclination to sin which why should he ask if he did not think that impious thing which he imputes to Castellio without the least citation from him 9. He confesseth he cannot tell how to salve those absurdities which I had shewed his opinion must needs betray him into as progressus in infinitum and prius primo 10. He saith out of * Nulla peccati Adami in Adamo reddi eausa potest quae non sit ipsa peccatum Camero contra Epist viri docti p. 163. Camero that there could be no cause of Adam 's sin which was not also it self a sin And so his party by consequence must needs be charged by him and Camero with the crime of making God to be sin it self as often as they call him the cause of sin 2. Concerning the birth growth of the very first sin with the very wide difference betwixt the inclinations of the sensitive appetite and the will 2. Though I need not say more then what remains unassaulted in my Defence of the Divine Philanthropy ch 4. p. 23 24 25. or more then what I have added in the eighteenth Section of this Chapter Num. 6. yet because his understanding may be as dark in this Point as his will crooked I will endeavour to afford him sufficient light The inclination of the will to evil differs much from that of the sensitive appetite to which the Apple even in Paradise was very grateful The will we know is the middle faculty betwixt the sensitive appetite on one side and the reasoning faculty on the other The propension of the will to the sensitive appetite 's proposal of what forbidden was the very beginning of Adam's sin it having been his first degree of aversion from God unto the creature thus it was in Eve also before it was in Adam and was a sin in her will some insensible time before her eating but her fulness of consent and actual eating and giving her husband to eat also were all additions to that first sin which I call the first for this reason because nothing of sin can be so much as imagined before the propending of the will to the forbidden object and because it was in the will before it could be in the hand or mouth The very next degree of sin to the propending of the will was Delectation next Morosa Cogitatio next a plenitude of Consent next the actual eating what was forbidden But now the gratefulness of the sweet to one sense and of fair to another is less then the least of those degrees and the inclination of the sensitive appetite could be no sin at all remaining onely in the sense and winning nothing from the will which continued as yet in its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But when the will of Eve was debauched by her appetite into an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a bending of her will the wrong way so as her mind did hang or hanker after the apple that was clearly the beginning of her transgression Sect. 30. The importance of the word Author To conclude the whole Chapter and so to quit the whole subject I must satisfie a complaint which Mr. B. hath made c. 3. p. 129. That I charged him and his Masters with the crime of having said a great deal worse and in much worse terms then that God is verbatim the Author of sin Now that he may not complain afresh of his having complained to no purpose and to the end he may beware of rash complainings for the future I will prove my charge in such a manner as not to leave his very abettors the possibility to dissent The most succinct way to do it will be to lay down the whole importance of the aequivocal word Author and then to compare it with those expressions which are confessed by Mr. B. to have been used by his Masters as well as Brethren 1. Author quando que 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat quandoque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Priscian lib. 5. Idem valet quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coel. Sec. Cur. Author est ut sic dicam Factor Laur. Val. l. 4. Hortator Author Cic. in partit Orat. 52. Consiliario Authore aliquid inire legitur apud Cic. ad Alt. l. 14.305.4 Suasor Author deditionis Cic. 3. Offic. p. 147. Author est in quo est vis potestas dignitas Liv. l. 1. ab urbe cond 72. Impero Authorque sumut me cuivis castrandum loces Plaut Aul. 7.73 suspende vinci verbera Author sum sino Idem Poenal 3.17 Authorâ—est à quo quis jus comparavit Cic. 7. Verr. Authores pupillorum vocantur in quorum administratione infirma aetas resque eorum sunt Paulus Juriscon Authores sunt qui Authoritatem suam decretum interponunt Liv. l. 1. ab urb cond Viae Author qui viam monstrat aut qui ire jubet Ovid. 3. Metam Etiam Duces militum Authores vocabantur Valla. l. 4. 1. Author sometimes doth signifie the first beginner of a work sometimes him who doth help advance it sometimes a factor sometimes onely a perswader sometimes a sole cause sometimes a concause sometimes a person of power and dignity by whose advice or command a thing is done sometimes him who confers a right sometimes
of the Church of England exhibited to us in the last clause of the Article The second is grounded on another Confession of the contrary party in their definition of Gods Decrees Sect. 13. Mr. W's mistake of the thing in question represented in clearer and fairer colours The general Contents of the several Chapters Chap. I. Sect. 1. MAster W's fanciful Creation of three general Objections The distrust he puts in his cause His studied aiming beside the mark He overthrows his own rampire His second overthrow of himself and of his Absolute Decrees Sect. 2. His third overthrow of himself by a most crimson contradiction He enters on that which Mr. Calvin judged the worst part of Libertinism His new contradiction about the manner of Gods working His down right Libertinisme Libertines no Christians A Dilemma as a touch stone to try his meaning The determination of mans will to wicked actions is not Gods work He inferreth God to be worse then the Author of sin His meaning ferreted out of his words His abuse of Scripture to serve his turn He speaks worse of God then can be truely said of Satan His ugly Doctrine of God spoken out by Mr. Barlee Sect. 3. His third general Answer a meer majestick mistake Sect. 4. He descends from Generals to Particulars beginning with the charge of making God the Author of sin and with a Tergiversation and Imposition on the Scripture He asperseth God with the decreeing of sin in the first attempt of his excuse His memorable Answer to his own Objection His meaning caught in a Dilemma His foul use of the word Permission and its odious impropriety represented in other colours The common Poultice for a sore Doctrine Sect. 5. He moulds a new Objection against himself and grants what his Doctrine is charged with His Answer consists in shifting the duty of a Respondent and speaking quite another thing He confounds the Permission of sin with sin and tries to blot his Doctrine fair His abuse of Saint Austin He argues that God doth will sin perfectly because he wills the permission of it And fain would have Scripture to speak against God by speaking his activity in the production of sin 1. From the selling of Joseph 2. Pharaoh's obduration 3. The Candanites hardening 4. Absaloms defiling his Fathers Concubines 5. Shimei's cursing David 6 7 8. Three other Texts 9. The Egyptians hatred of Israel 10. Gods being said to deceive the Prophet 11. Giving up to vile affections 12. Giving eyes not to see 13. Sending delusion 14. The Nations making league with the Romans All which Scriptures are explained and vindicated from the frightful misapprehensions of this Mistaker Sect. 6. Mr. W. most groundlesly infers God to sit still and to be an idle Beholder if he is not busie in the efficiency of sin Chap. II. Sect. 1. OF the common Hebraisme by which such verbs are active in sound are onely permissive in signification by the admission of which Rule the foul Absurdities aforesaid would be avoided and Scripture expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. W's manifold unhappiness in rejecting that Rule He makes contradictions in Scripture and overthrows his own interest in other cases He is convinced by that which he cannot but confess His woful shifts in expounding Scripture and the mischiefs ensuing on it His Masters contradict themselves by not observing the Hebraisme Mr. W. makes light to be a sin and incest to be no sin by making a parity of Gods working in either case He is beaten with his own weapons by any Atheist Dialogue-wise condemned out of his own mouth Scripture interprets Scripture against Mr. VV. Sect. 2. His return to his first method of forging Objections to himself He is at odds with Doctor Twisse To make men sin is a a sin of the worst size yet ascribed unto God by that sort of men Sect. 3. The ease and ordinary perversion of the Scriptures Mr. W. mistakes the errors for the persons of some Protestants and confounds them with the Papists His party clamour against themselves and affront God with an Epitrope Mr. W's clamours against Protestant Divines He jumps in so doing with the Jesuited Papists Sect. 4. His foulest imputation cast upon the Scriptures Saint Peters caveat touching Pauls Epistles The literal plalnness of some Scriptures doth make them difficult to some A short direction to the means of remedy or prevention removing a stumbling-block out of the peoples way Sect. 5. Mr. W. either means that God hath a hand in evil because in good or that the act of sin is not the sin or that God is the proper cause and efficient of sin and that he means the last is proved by a Dilemma Humane learning a good foundation for a Divine Sect. 6. Mr. W's rare essayes to separate the wickedness from the act of the wicked act Sect. 7. His first essay is a bare Dictate including eight gross absurdities Of actions Natural and Unnatural Of nature Corrupted and Uncorrupted Mr. VV. denies Gods Omnipotence and makes him the proper cause of sin Sect. 8. His second essay is an Impertinence beyond example or what is so much worse as that it ought not to be named He is forced to be pertinent and his answer challenged Sect. 9. His third essay is a continuance of his Tergiversation and inferreth God the efficient of sin Mr. VV. vindicated from his abuses put upon himself The probable causes of his chiefest aberrations Five Expedients proposed to undeceive him Sect. 10. His fourth essay makes the wickedest actions to be good and from God Sect. 11. His fifth essay doth betray him to a confession that he maketh God the Author of sin He mistakes a moral for a natural action and is hampered in some Dilemma's The method by which he is led into all his blasphemies Sect. 12. Sin is inseparable from the sinful action which Mr. VV. seems to see by his Tergiversation He makes an Accident the subject of Inhesion to an Accident Confounds the act of differing with the passive power of being parted Makes Davids lying with Bathshebah no sin And the sin of Adultery separable from it self Sect. 13. He sheweth his cause is desperate by speaking purposely beside the purpose He attempts the washing of wet from water roundness from a Globe Sect. 14. Mr. VV. affirms that God doth will and work sin and hath a hand in effecting it and that sin makes for Gods glory Concludes sin to be good or Gods working it as evil Feigns God to work evil to a good end Q. Whether he infers not God to be a sinner His inconsistence with Mr. Hick and Mr. B. and with himself He frames not his propositions to the nature of God but the nature of God to his propositions Sect. 15 16. Mr. W's great forgery in that little which he cites His foul sense of Gods determination that sin shall be done His impious expression or Gods having a hand in sin and the Importance of that phrase Sect.
Sect. 19. Mr. B's first chip hewen out of Mr. H's block He foists into the Creed the word Real and makes it supply the place of good Provides a Creed for the Libertines viz. that God is the maker of all sins if sins are things real and things not real implies a contradiction The different methods of our reasonings and what comes of it They ascribe the filthiest of positive Entities unto God Aâ—c convinced by the Assemblies confession of Faith Are farther uncovered by being supposed to be catechized Sect. 20. His second chip of the same block Inconsistency with himself and making all sinful actions to be wrought by God His unsuccesful Relyance on the Jesuits Sect. 21. His third chip more pitiful then the former Sect. 22. His fourth chip the most lamentable of all His arguing concludes him Pelagian or Libertine He is impertinent on purpose to make God the Author of sin Sect. 23. By his fifth chip he denies Gods Praescience of all wickedness unless he also praedetermined it Sect. 24. His impositions upon the Scripture The Schoolmen Austâ—n His new degree of Arminianism Sect. 25. Mr. Hick's Heathenish expression of sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 26. Of Calvins Doctrine that God commands yea compels the Devil and all that are wicked to Conceive execure their evil dving Sect. 27. Mr. B's affected Tergiversation in his chiefest concernments Of Zuinglius his Doctrine that God is in plain terms the Author of sin How Mr. B. holds the same even in that which he confesseth to be the proper notion of the word Author He accuseth Calvin in excusing him for saying that God doth will sin And Piscator as well as Calvin for saying that God doth thrust men into wickedness He confesseth his Masters do some times teach a coaction from God to sin He forgeth new Texts upon the Scripture Sect. 28. He turns his back to the prime charge and tacitly yields the whole cause Sect. 29. Of Adams inclination to sin before he sinned The birth and growth of the very first sin with the very wide difference betwixt the inclinations of the sensitive appetite and the will Sect. 30. The whole importance of the word Author How the Adversaries say worse then if they had only said verbatim God is the Author of sin Mr. Rollâ—cks strange Salvo Chap. IV. Sect. 1. OF the signal fallacy swallowed first by Dr. Twisse then by his followers Mr W's essay to cover it The Fallacy shewed in its deformity The first cause of the whole mistake about the order of intentions and execution That cause removed and the fallacy left naked Mr. W's indirect course to excuse Dr. Twisse in contradiction to him Dr. Twisse his error of Coâ—rdination in things subordinate Sect. 2. Mr. W's forgery of objections in other mens names Sect. 3. Mr. W's second part displayed and Universal Redemption vindicated as to the true intent and extent of Christs death from the feeble utmost of his attempts in a subdivision of eight Paragraphs Sect. 4. How the Presbyterians do nourish Socinianism in contracting Christs death and perverting Scripture Daille Camero Amâ—rald why they forsook their party abridging the benefit of Christs death Received rules for the interpreting of words and ending controversies The extream absurdity of dutiful misbelief exploded hy the Lord Primate Mr. W's reproch cast upon Christendom and the Gospel of Christ Europe Asia Africa and America inferred by Mr. W. to be the least part of the world Sect. 5. Universal Redemption proved from 2 Cor. 5.14 by S. Austin and Prosper to the stopping of Mr. W's and Mr. B's mouths Sect. 6. The conclusion giving reasons why no more time is to be lost in this employment AN INTRODUCTION To the three first Chapters Concerning the impious and unexcusable because blasphemous and unavoidable both Contradictions and other Absurdities which issue out from the Denial of Gods eternal respective or conditional Decrees SECT 1. The neerest way to end a controversie is to strike altogether at the root of error When once an Error is grown fruitful and hath run it self out into several Branches it is commonly found by sad experience to grow the thicker for being lopp't There is not an Error in all Theologie which doth seem to have taken so deep a Root or to have spread so sturdy Branches or to have born so lewd a fruit as that many-headed Error whose extirpation out of the Church ought so much the rather to be desir'd because it hath shed such a fatal and deadly influence upon a multitude of Professors who have lately sate under its shade Of those that have exercised themselves in so good a work I may call it my Lot and my Necessity to have been one of the meanest Faithfulness and Affection have been my chiefest qualifications and I esteem it a priviledge as well as duty to have done God service in any measure But in every good Labourer there is a skill and prudence as well as industry and faithfulnesse to be required It is not enough to be doing and working in a meer opposition to sloth and idlenesse but by contrivance and forecast to do a great deal of work in a little time Sect. 2. I am not quite so sensible of that unquestionable Aphorism set down by Solomon * Eccles 12.12 much study is a wearinesse to the flesh as of the words going before it in making many books there is no end This I knew a long time since but it is now that I consider it and lay it seriously to heart And therefore now I determine to make an end of the Task imposed on me not contenting my self with a bare Resistance but proceeding to a Dispatch of that Hydra-like Error of which I spake I will no longer amuse my self with striking off now and then a Head which besides that they are many are very apt to be succeeded by many others growing up out of the very same Trunk but rather compendiously endeavour to strike the Monster into the heart which besides that it is but one is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first part that lives and the last that dies in every creature Sect. 3. The grand Error about God's Decrees and its numerous off-spring is rooted in the mistake of two things The false conceit of God's prescience and predetermination makes up the error of irrespective and unconditional Decrees I do not say of the most natural but of the most voluntary actions and effects neither reward nor punishment nor sin it self being excepted This I take to be the heart imparting life and activity to every member and limb of that body of error whose most affectionate friends and abettors have conspired to find me my late imployment With this grand error all the rest which grow from it must live and die In this Mr. Whitfield hath put his chief trust Upon this he hath been poreing as his admirers have â—oasted these thirty years In his Apologie for â—his he hath
publickly chosen to display his whole strength as if by this he were desirous that eveâ—y part of the controversie should be decided I â—ccept his challenge and heartily thank him for the â—ontrivance He having given me an occasion of taking much a neerer way to my journeys end then I first intended Sect. 4. The speedy way to conviction For if I prove out of his mouth and out of the mouths of his predecessors that what they publickly acknowledge to be blasphemously false doth unavoidably follow from their espoused notion of God's Decrees then can he not chuse but acknowledge that such a notion of God's Decrees must needs be dangerously false He must confess that his book is an insufferable Libel against his Maker and such as against which he must publickly enter his protestation Now that it is false and blasphemous to say that God is the Author or cause of sin both in those very terms and in others as bad and in many others much worse is ever acknowledged by themselves in some parts of their Writings wherein forgetful of their Doctrines they consider nothing but duty who yet in other parts of their own writings wherein forgetful of duty they reason onely from their Doctrines do most dogmatically deliver it for very great truth Sect. 5. Made plain and open by a manifestation of three things In great affection to the most vulgar and less intelligent Readers whose deliverance and liberty from the worst kind of thraldom I do especially aim at in what I publish I will use the greatest plainness and perspicuity of speech which by study and meditation I am able to contrive Our whole Dispute will be concluded by a most cogent demonstration of these three things First that it is granted by the Adversaries themselves to be both false and blasphemous to say that God is the Author or Cause of Sin Secondly 't is affirmed by the very same Party to be neither false nor blasphemous but a most necessary truth to say that God is the Author or Cause of Sin Thirdly it cannot be denied by the aforesaid Party that what they sometimes confess to be both false and blasphemous they would not at other times affirm to be neither false nor blasphemous but that they find it to be the natural and unavoidable issue flowing out from their Principles of Gods Decrees Sect. 6. The three things I do solemnly take upon me after mature deliberation undertaken solemnly to be proved and in a full comprehension of the several evidences and proofs to make a cogent demonstration of those three things A demonstration so cogent that the most stomachful adversaries shall not be able to gainsay it unless they will say that they never say what they say and that they have not printed what they have printed or that the world lieth in darkness so as we cannot read either their Latine or their English but onely dream that we read what indeed we do not Either they will or they will not proceed to those later degrees of madness If they will they will prove the liberty of their wills to speak against their own light and against their own speakings and against their testimonies of conscience and against the witness of other mens eyes as well as of their own and what is this but to sin as with a Cart-rope to turn Grace backward to bid righteousnesse stand afar off and to say we will be stubborn in spight of evidence and conviction Thus it is if they will proceed to the degrees of madnesse above specified And if they will not as sure they will not then in spight of themselves and their own perversnesse they must fly by way of Refuge to these following confessions First That they have published self-contradictions beyond compare affirming what they deny and denying what they affirm calling that by the name of blasphemy which they professe to think Orthodox and asserting that for true Divinity with one stroke of their pen which with another dash of the same pen they call the Doctrine of Devils Their Second Confession must be this that being proved to have printed such contradictions in several parts of their Writings as their occasions did require or their necessities enforce them they are obliged indispensably to declare their last thoughts and to name that part of their contradiction to which they will finally adhere and in adherence to which they will quit the contrary from this day forward whether the affirmative or the negative part of the contradiction whether that which is for God or that which is against him If the later they are declaredly Libertines and Ranters and I shall wish for nothing more then the publick'st trial in the World to prove them such there being nothing now wanting but a sufficient publication and notification of the thing to effect its solemn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or total Banishment out of the World Thus it is if they adhere to the later part of their contradiction And if they adhere unto the former which God of his mercy and by his grace may be pleased to work in them both to will and to do I know not how they can escape an entire conversion unto the truth or how obstinacy it self can slip its neck out of the collar which the Soveraignty of Light hath sitted for it and in a willing submission unto which the ghostly freedom of the obstinate doth chiefly stand The same men affiâ—m it to be both blasphemy and truth to say that God is the Author or cause of sin Sect. 7. To prove the three things of which I spake in my last Paragraph but one and to prove them so largely as I desire is not the businesse of this place but of my following Chapters of the second and third more especially to which I now am but writing my Introduction I will therefore say no more here then what may serve to stay the appetite of any possible impatient and longing Reader First That the Adversaries do grant it to be both false and blasphemous to say that God is the Author or cause of sin Note the double concession of Mr. B. First that his Masters do call it an excerable blasphemy p. 129 c. and yet they teach in other places 1. That God is the Author of sin 2. Wills Sin 3. Impells to it 4. Forceth men to it p. 132 133. where he labours to make it good I have abundantly proved in my Defence of God's purity chap. 4. Sect. 6. p. 30 31. and shall farther do it in this following work in particular chap. 3. sect 13. 27. Nor can they possibly eat their words but at the peril of renouncing the whole stream of Church-Writers both ancient and modern of whom I have given a large specimen in my Divine Purity Def. ch 4. sect 5. p. 22 c. to p. 29. And yet Secondly That the same party do affirm it to be neither false nor blasphemous but
a most necessary truth to say that God is the Author or cause of sin I have more abundantly made apparent in Three distinct Tracts viz. Correct Copy p. 9 10 50. especially Div. Philanthropy defended ch 3. sect 34. p. 132. c. to p. 139. sect 35. p. 141. and again Div. Purity def ch 4. sect 3. p. 19 20. And I shall do it yet more effectually in the second and third Chapters of this following Work in particular ch 3. sect 13. 27. And therefore Thirdly That they would not so frequently and affectionately contend for that very Doctrine which sometimes though very rarely they confesse to be false blasphemous but that they find it must follow from their espoused Principles of God's Decrees so as they see they must relinquish either both or neither I have abundantly evinced in the Div. Pur. def ch 4. sect 7. p. 33 c. to p. 39. especially from the citations out of Doctor Twisse Du Moulin Remigius and the other friends of Gotteschalc Bishop Cuthert Tunstal and above all out of Prosper whom they many times dream to have been their Patron and therefore cannot gainsay him without Discomfort And again I shall evince it in several parts of the following work and in particular ch 3. sect 8. 10. Besides that the thing is so conspicuous of it self that I may venture to make the Adversary the sole Iudge of the Businesse For Nothing but their Principles of Gods Decrees can lead them to blasphemies of such a nature Sect. 8. I demand of any man living what should move such learned men as Huldericus Zuinglius Doctor Twisse Piscator Zanchy Triglandius Beza Calvin Martyr Borrhaus and many others to teach posterity in their printed works That God doth make men transgressors For the several pages of their works see the Div. Philan. def ch 3. sect 34. especially the Div. Purity def ch 4. sect 3. p. 19 20. sect 6. p. 31 32. and is the Author of adultery and that murder is the work of God and that sinners do sin by the force of Gods will that God predestines men to sin and to sin quatenus sin that he is the Author of evil not onely of punishment but of sin too that he is the cause not onely of humane actions but of the very defects and privations that he effecteth sins that he exciteth and tempteth and * All the excuse Mr. B. makes for the saying that God doth compel men to sin is that they use it but seldom See what shall be said ch 3. sect 27. num 5. compelleth men to sin and a world the like stuff I say what moved them to print such loathsom Doctrines Was it that they esteemed them as flowers of Rhetorick or witty sentences or pretty conceits or well-sounding periods or soul-saving preachments or Hosanna's to the most High This cannot be no not so much as to be imagined What invited Mr. Hobbs to say That Mr. Hobbs of Liberty and Necessiâ—y p. 23 24. sin may be necessarily caused in man by God's ordering all the world that God doth will it and necessitate it and * Id. in Animadvers p. 11. 107. 106. cause men to erre and is the principal Agent in the causing of all actions which he who saith doth also say that he findes no difference betwixt the action and the sin of that action from which great truth he should have inferred that God cannot be the cause of sinful actions not that he is the cause of sins What made the * p. 36 37 Comforter of believers to say that God is the Author of sinfulnesse it self and hath more hand in mens sinfulness then they themselves Were these Writers afraid lest men should think too reverently of God too hardly of the Devil and too profanely of themselves or were they moved with an itch to revive the Doctrine of Carneades and to make men believe that sin is nothing but a name invented by Ecclesiasticks and that the thing call'd sin is just as good as the thing call'd virtue as being equally the work of God 't is very hard to think this Or if this was one of their reasons yet it was not certainly the first But I have yet a harder Question What should move Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barlee in the very books which they have printed on purpose to vindicate their Doctrine from all the horrible absurdities wherewith they stood charged and wherein they knew it concerned them to speak as warily as they were able as knowing that they were liable to be publickly called to an account what I say should move them at such a time and in such a manner to affirm that God * For Mr. W's several pages where these things are taught see the first and second chapters of the following work especially the second and in that for instance Sect. 14. doth will and work sin that he hath an efficiency in sin that in all the wickedness in the world God hath a hand a working hand yea the chief hand that sin doth make for Gods glory and that it hath a respect of good and that God hath a hand in effecting it yea that God doth act in it as a natural cause that God decreed the sin of Adam and so ordered the whole business that he should certainly fall that it was necessary the first man should sin that the Gospel doth stirr up evil affections in the hearts of wicked men and hardens mens hearts and God intends it should do so and sends it for this very purpose that of sinful actions God is the Author and proper Cause yea that he doth both will and work in the Sin of the Act because not onely the action simply consider'd but the very Pravity and Deformity of it makes way for Gods glory What moved Mr. Barlee to adde his suffrage to Mr. Whitfield and to say in plain terms That * For Mr. B's several pages where these things are taught see the third whole chapter of the following work and the Index of the Divine Philanthropy Def. which will direct to the rest God is the Soveraign Author of the material part of sin which is the doing or leaving undone not onely a natural but moral act such as David's lying with Bathshebah or Cain's killing Abel as Doctor Twisse himself interprets the material part of sin nay farther that God is the cause of the very Obliquity of the Act of Sin that God exciteth men to the act of adultery that he stirreth them up to unjust acts as a man puts spurrs to a dull Jade that he tempts men to sin and a world the like blasphemies Nay what made him and Mr. Hick to tell the World †See what shall be said ch 3. Sect. 18. that if sin is a positive Entity either God is the Creator of sin or else sin it self is God Did this prodigious pair of Writers think that these were quaint Apophthegms which
that eternal Decrees are not every way answered by their Temporal executions God created Mankind as he was mighty but decreed to reprobate and elect as he was inâ—â—nitely just For Reprobation in all senses negative or positive imports a very sore punishment as every punishment imports a sin for which the punishment is inflicted That is most for Gods glory which is most for his justice and Mercy too but to decree a man's misery for the meer shewing of a Soveraignty over the work of his hands and therefore to decree it without respect unto sin hath nothing in it of Justice much lesse of Mercy and so is incompetible to â—im who could not chuse but be alwayes from all eternity at once a Just and a Merciful Soveraign it being destructive of his glory and by consequence of his Being that any one of his Attributes should for an Article of time exclude the other From whence it followes that Mr. Wh. hath confuted all his own Doctrine in less than two lines Nor can he be otherwise disintangled from his own dear (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lime-twiggs unless he can prove that Gods dishonour doth make most for his glory or unlesse he will adde to his other miseries that to be sinful by a Decree or to be punished without sin which by the way is a contradiction tends nothing at all to Gods dishonour But for such things as these Ishall reckon with him hereafter I hasten now to his Second General His third overthrow of himself by a most crimson contradiction Sect. 2. His second Propounding as he words it in way of General Answer to no-body-knowes-what nor doth he venture to tell us what General Objection doth very happily run thus That which the Scripture plainly clearly and positively asserteth that God doth we ought not to deny that he doth it though we cannot discern the manner how he doth it and p. 19. bear witness Reader against anon for when he comes to those Scriptures which do plainly cleerly and positively assert that Christ hath died for all men and tasted death for every man and is the proâ—itiation for the sins of the whole world and the like then the Case is alter'd with him and in a flat opposition to what he here tells us It is saith he a very weak way of arguing to argue from the signification of words especially such words as have various significations as all men every man the world the whole world and the rest which are oft-times used not to signifie every particular man and woman but a part of them onely p. 71 72. Well fare the Disputant indeed vvho vvill never lay down the Cudgels so long as he is able to break his ovvn shins with them let his cause be never so bad he vvill not fall from his principles so long as self-contradiction can hold him up rather then others of his kind shall be as saveable as He the whole world must signifie the smallest part of it and we must not argue from the signification of words we are not bound to adhere unto the letter p. 72. So abominable and impious is Universal Redemption that it cannot stand with Gods wisedome saith Mr. Whitfield not be consistent with other Scriptures nor can it agree with the Analogy of Faith p. 73. Any vvay of exposition must be invented and embraced rather then Christ must be admitted to have died for mankind But here on the contrary side vvhen Mr. W. desires to prove that God hath a hand in all sin an efficiency in sin that sin is Gods work and that God is actively the cause of sin and more such stuff as shall be shevved and cited in its proper place this is such comfortable Doctrine to a man of his life and conversation that all Texts of Scripture must be taken according to the Letter vvhose outside and Letter doth sound this vvay any thing must be svvallovved against the Analogy of Faith and against the plain tenour of all other Scriptures rather then God must be exempted from the causality of sin Mr. W. then must needs argue from the signification of words vvhich to do in other cases he calls a very great weakness p. 71. This is the man of mettle vvho cannot possibly be conquered he is under the protection of so much frailty or grant him conquered he must not possibly be caught for if he cannot out at the door he vvill escape at the window Yet I vvill follovv him so far as to lay some hold on him and vvill not vvillingly let him go until he shall promise a Recantation For if in any one case it may be pertinent in this to use the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek proverb That for a wicked man to prosper in making God the fountain and source of wickedness vvill be apt to turn to Gods discredit The name of God will be †Rom. 2.24 blasphemed among the Gentiles if such Theology as this shall pass abroad amongâ—t Christians vvithout control Observe hovv he goes on p. 19. 2. It rather becomes us humbly to acknowledge our Ignorance 0688 0136 V 2 in the manner of Gods working 2. Mr. W. enters upon the worst part of Libertinism as Mr. Calvin himself judged it Contra Libert c. 3. then to deny any of his works then to deny that he worketh all things c. then to deny that he worketh most determinately certainly and infallibly in the various and mutable motions of mans will And to shew his meaning to be no better then that of Beza Piscator and the rest of his Teachers viz. that sinful works are some of * Zuingl in Serm. de Prov. c. 5 6. Gods works and that he †Beza advers Castell Aphor. 1. 6. See The Divine Purity desended p. 21. 30. worketh all things whether good or evil without any the least exception and that God doth determine the will of man to the most sinful Act which he committeth he addes many things to make it evident that this indeed is the scope at which he here drives For he tells us a little after that when God is said in Scripture to harden mens hearts to send them strong delusions to bid Shimei curse David to bid the evil spirit go and deceive Ahab to turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people to have given up the Gentiles to vile lusts to put into the hearts of the ten Kings to give their power unto the beast and the like p. 22. we must not expound such Texts by the common Hebraism but take them as literally as we do those other wherein God is said to make the earth to form the light to create man and the like p. 23. He also saith that Gods permission of sin is not without action and operation p. 21. that he must needs have some efficiency in it p. 24. that he doth both will and work it p. 26. that he hath a hand in effecting of
it p. â—6 And gaping so wide as he does nay wider then all this as shall be shewed in due time how can we fail to know his meaning by his gaping Let us then contemplate the large Dimensions of his swallow that at last we may demand what it is will stick with him 3. His now contradiction about the manner of Gods working 3. First an huge Contradiction goes down very glibly for as soon as his ignorance is acknowledged as to the manner of Gods working p. 19. he describes the manner of it and sets it down as dogmatically as if he had been an eye-witness and of counsel to that secret and hidden will of God which the men of his way are wont to oppose to his revealed one He saith consentingly out of * Negari non potest illum aliquo modo procurare negotium cujus consilio decreto genotium geritur Piscat ad Am. Collat. Vorst sect 17. Piscator but blusht to put it into English that God doth procure the business of sin by whose counsel and decree the business is managed or carried on p. 21. my more distinctly as to the manner in another shred of Latine which he calls a true Rule but puts it not into English The true English of it is this That * Deus agit in peccato non tanquam causa moralis sed tanquam causa naturalis God doth act in sin not as a moral but as a natural cause p. 25. that is to say He doth not so act as to perswade onely which yet is bad enough of it self and the worst that the Devil can arrive unto but in such a natural way as to necessitate the sinner which is infinitely worse then to perswade him Nor will it advantage him to say that God decreeth and procureth and is the natural cause of the positive act of every sin but the accidental cause onely of the sin it self as He and Mr. Barlee shall be shewed to say in plain terms For Davids lying with Bathsheba was the positive act of Adultery and sin it selfe but Davids lying without Bathsheba was no sin at all either in whole or in part which if Mr. Wh. cannot deny as I am sure he cannot and do challenge him to do if he thinks he may or dares to do it then must be confess it to be his Doctrine that God was the natural cause of Davids lying with Bathsheba and that that positive act of Adultery was Gods work and his Creature because of positive acts he saith that God is the proper efficient cause p. 24. This lies on him unavoidably unless he can separate the positive act of Davids lying with Bathsheba from Davids sin of Adultery which was his lying with Bathsheba and nothing else which I shall shew he cannot do if so gross a visible needs shewing when I discover how Mr. Hicks betrayed Mr. Barlee into a Blasâ— hemy no less then sins being God if a posâ—tive act and hovv Mr. B. vvas even vvith him by sending his Treachery to the Press So much for Mr. W's nevv self-contradiction 4. His downright Libertinism 4. Next Mr. W. must be observed to speak the language of the Libertines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a syllable as I lately intimated but novv shall openly express Saint Paul having said God worketh all things Eph. 1.10 meaning all the Graces of the Holy Ghost of vvhich alone he there speaks as Calvin himself confesseth the Libertines concluded as * Efficit omnia id est omnia sine exceptionâ— Beza in locum 1. Facinus puta Adulterium aut homicidium est Dei Auto. is Motoris Impulsoris opus Zuing. de Prov. c. 6. 2. Deus videri potest causa non modò humanarum actionum verùm etiam Dâ—fectuum atque Privationum quae ipsis inhaerent Pet. Mart. in 1 Sam. c. 2. 3. Deus efficit ea quae peccata sunt Sturm de Praedest Thes 16. 4. Idem facit Deus scilicet procurat adulterium maledicta mendacia Piscat resp ad Apolog. Birtii p. 143. 5. Omnes peccatores flagitiosi vi voluntatis Dei faciunt quicquid faciunt Id. Resp ad Tauffr p. 65. 6. Deus efficaciter agit seu efficit suâ efficacitate peragâ—t omnia sine ullâ prorsus quantulâcunque exceptione Beza contra castel Aphorism 1 6 7. Beza did and as Mr. W. novv doth that all their sins vvere Gods works For that vvas their rule vvhich is novv Mr. Whitfields that what the Scripture both plainly and positively asserteth that God doth we ought not to deny that he doth it p. 19. not admitting any Hebraisms or other figures of speech or restrictions and limitations of universal terms but taking all by the Letter to serve their turn as Mr. Wh. doth to serve his p. 23. Hence are those ordinary Doctrines amongst the men of that batch 1. That adultery or murder is the work of God the Author 2. That God may seem to be the cause not of humane actions only but of the very defects and privations which cleave unto them 3. That God effects those things which are sins 4. That God procures adultery cursings lyings c. 5. That all wicked men do all that they do by the force of Gods will 6. That God efficaciously acteth or effecteth and by his efficacity performeth all things without any the least exception From vvhich very saying being pronounced by the Libertines Mr. Calvin discovers tvvo horrible but unavoidable sequels 1. That there is not any difference betwixt God and the Devil 2. That God by this Doctrine is transmuted into the Devil Calv. ad eâ—s Libert cap. 13. 14. Novv vvhen the Calvinists and the Libertines do teach the very same thing vvhy shall not I hate it in the Calvinists as Calvin hated it in the Libertines nay vvhy not more since a Blasphemy is the worse not one vvhit the better for proceeding out of a learned and a leading mans mouth Tanto conspectius in se Crimen habet quanto melior qui peccat habetur Nor doth it move me that some Calvinists vvill take it ill at my hands vvhilest others not rigid vvill take it vvell for no doubt but the Libertines took it as ill of Mr. Calvin The Treasure that I covet is not their Favour but their Amendment Let this precede and that vvill follovv unavoidably I therefore ask Mr. Whitfield * A Dilemma as a touch-stone to try his meaning Is his meaning the same vvith Beza's and Peter Martyr's and the rest in my margin vvhen he saith we must not deny that God worketh all things or is is not If he say Yes he is a Libertine and Mr. Calvin shall be my witness and then let him renounce the Christian name and Religion that the * Rom. 2.24 Name of Christ be not blasphemed among the Gentiles For we who are Christians do assert that God worketh not all things without exception good or bad but all things only which
are good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things vvhich become him All the rest are the †1 Joh. 3.8 works of the Devil and of his genuine Children vvho are resolved to do their * Job 8.41 44. Fathers works This vvas Christs Doctrine this vvas Saint Johns and Saint John believe me vvas a Christian All Gods works are done in (a) Psal 33.4 Truth therefore lyes are none of his and so * Piscat loco paulo superius citato Piscator vvas out The Lord is (b) Psal 145.17 holy in all his works Adultery and Murder are therefore none of Gods vvorks * Zuing. loc jam citat Zuinglius therefore vvas deceived by his Doctrine of Decrees and Mr. W. by Zuinglius The Lord shall (c) Psal 104.31 rejoyce in his works but hath (d) Psal 5.4 no pleasure in wickedness therefore Martin Borrhaus spake very madly when he dared to say that * Borrhaus in Exod. cap. 4. p. 448. sins do please God and Mr. Wh. more madly when he saith that God doth will sin with a perfect will p. 22. We see what must follow if Mr. W. shall answer yes to my Dilemma But if his answer shall be No then he must burn his own Books and all those Books from whence he made up his Cento and publickly subscribe to the truth of mine If he shall say his meaning is p. 22. that Gods will of which he speaks is onely objected on the wise permission or patient suffering of all sins and not upon the sins themselves why then did he entitle his book against me and not against Mr. Barlee or against his unconverted self He and I will shake hands if he will say he meant thus and not as Doctor Twisse who * See the place cited Correct Copy p. 10. saith that the will of God doth pass not onely into the permission of the sin but into the sin it self which is permitted Utrum horum mavelit accipiat Let him now take his choice and speaking distinctly to my Dilemma let the world know what he is for without any Tricks or Tergiversations But I will tell him for his security that he were better be tryed by the waters of jealousie if his meaning shal be found in the former part of the Dilemma by how much a lesser evil it is for * Num. 5.21 the thigh to rot and the belly to swell then for a man but to mean or say in his †Psal 14.1 heart that adultery and murder are the works of God And therefore timely let me advise him to use the * Num. 19.13 waters of separation that the uncleanness of such Doctrines may not be on him 5. The Determination of mans will to wicked actions is not Gods work 5. In the next place let us consider what he means by those words God worketh most determinately certainly and infallibly in the various and mutable motions of mans will I do but passingly take notice of his unscholar-like use of the word Infallible as if he knew not its meaning or did not consider its Derivation the fault is too small to be observed in a Writer of his bredth and thickness I will rather try him by another Dilemma Doth he mean that God doth so work on the wills of men as to determin them of necessity to all their objects and actions both good and evil or doth he not mean this but rather grant that mans will doth determine it self If the later all is well he hath no more to do next but to abandon his * Especially Mr. Barlee and his brother Hickman who say that whatsoever positive thing is not from God is God c. 3. p. 112. The apex of Blasphemy as shall be shewed hereafter party and burn his books whereas if the former is his meaning as hitherto it hath been I know not what to do for him to lighten the weight of his calamities which will press him down deeply do what I can For first he implyes a contradiction as I demonstrated to a person of greater worth And therefore here I repeat it not but refer him to the * See The Divine Purity defended ch 8. sect 2. p. 80 81 82. sect 5. p. 86 87. place where he cannot fail of it Next it inferreth unavoidably that God is the natural cause of all the wickedness in the world For example suppose a wicked man hath conceived Adultery in his mind or committed it in his Heart as our †Mat. 5.28 Saviour speaks If God did predetermin that wicked man to that physical Act of Concupiscence and the will of that man to a consent as well as the appetite to a complacency he was not onely the cause but the sole cause of the Adultery Nay farther yet if the inward intention of the end is the determination of the will to the first act of sin as the subtilest of them do say and if that Intenâ—ion or whatever else is the Determination of the will and the Determination it self is a positive act which none can deny and if God is the Creator or Maker or proper cause of whatsoever thing is positive as these precious ones do affirm He is not onely concluded the sole cause of the Adultry in his Creature Verum etiam id ipsum quod dicere nolo but also that which is worse and ineffably blasphemous And here I ask Mr. Wh. was that adulterous thought or intention so determined to its object in that respect evil or was it not If in that respect evil he accuseth God if not evil in that respect he acquitteth the wicked man and unavoidably inferreth that there was never any Adulterer Murderer or the like but was carried to the doing of all his wickedness with a good intention a good desire a very good determination of his will And reason good too For the Determination of mans will they say is Gods work or Gods share in the procurement and accomplishment of sins And Gods part in the business they say is good But then they leave man no share at all in his impieties if they do let them name it which they never yet did Indeed they talk in the general that God is the * Note this distinction which Mr. Barlee makes ch 3. p. 55. natural cause of the meer Act of sin and a meer Accidental Cause of the obliquity of the act of sin But bid them instance in some particular then they see that they are blind and quickly speak themselves speechless VVhen a man hates God or †Leviâ— 24.15 curseth God or any otherwise blasphemes against him let Mr. Wh. or Mr. B. or Mr. Hick be asked which is the act of that sin and which is the obliquity of the act of that sin you shall have them as mute as three dead Fishes If the cursing of God is a whole sin it is an act of sin or an obliquity of an Act or both together and that
either separably or inseparably If onely an act where is the obliquity if onely an obliquity of an act where is the act it self for all the whole sin is the cursing of God nor more nor less if both together and separably let them make that separation in words or dumb signs that we may hear and conceive it But if both are inseparably together let them confess the thousand blasphemies and the six hundred contradictions which have and may be detected in all their Doctrines and Distinctions and after confession let them amend too I ask no more 6. His meaning ferreted out of his words 6. It may from hence be collected what is meant by Mr. W. when he immediately addeth that God worketh most holily in those very Actions wherein man works unrighteously p. 19. Even the same with †See Correct Copy p. 10. Zuinglius abetted also by * Twiss Vind. Gra. l. 2. part 1. p. 36 37. Dr. Twisse that the very same sin viz. Adultery or Murder as it is the work of God the Author Mover and Impeller it is not a crime but as it is of man it is a great one which is onely to say that sin is Gods work but God is no sinner He is the Author of sin in others but sins not himself He co-operates with the sinner to the effecting of his sin but being God he is not guilty That this must be the meaning of Mr. W. I can demonstrate by many Arguments 1. By his denying Scientia media though I am not sure he understands it and holding with Mr. Calvin that God foresaw nothing but because he fore-ordained it 2. By his * Note that in his Epistle to the Reader he argues the later from the former with a must concession that there is the same reason of the fore sight of sin and the Decree of Reprobation with the foresight of Faith and the Decree of Election But 't is the Doctrine of him and all his party that Faith is the proper effect of Election and not foreseen untill decreed Vpon the very same ground to use his own words in my violentum he doth and must hold that God did not foresee sin until he had decreed it too Nor will it lessen the absurdity to say that God decreed to permit sin onely unlesse by permission he means a sufferance or a wise not hindering if so he is right but then he must burn Doctor Twisse his books and retract his own it being their constant doctrine That God's permission of sin is efficacious Nay no * Twiss Vin. Gra. l. 2. part 1 p. 142 143 c. lesse efficacious is God's decree in the permission of evil than in the production of good so very sore are their very salvo's Thirdly His meaning may be evinced as by all other passages of his book which I have and shall cite so by comparing his present words with the nature of sin it self which is found to consist in such an indivisible point that to say God works in it is to say as much as that he works it As for example To hate God is a sin or a sinful action two expressions for one thing The very sinfulness of the sin doth intirely consist in the hating of God not in God without hating for he is purity it self not in hating without God as the object of it for hatred in it self is a thing indifferent and as apt to be good as evil and even communicable to God who hateth sin with a perfect hatred but in the union and application of that act to that object As the nature of man consists not in a body oneâ—y nor onely in a soul but in the union of the one with the other so that the sinfulness of that sin of hating God is nothing else but the union of that act with that object And that is punctum indivisibile for sin it self is a Physical abstract at the * Note that there is no such thing as pecceitâ— in any Profane or Sacred Writer grossest of which sinfulness at least is an abstract Metaphysical which admitting not any Composition cannot farther be abstracted so much as in imagination How then can God work in the hating of God and that no lesse than as a natural cause for so he doth saith Mr. W. p. 25. without being the cause of the sin it self when in the hating of God there is nothing but sin Here I exact of Mr. W. to tell the World what he means or to satisfie for his words of which he dares not tell the meaning But again 4. He gives us notice of his true meaning if not of the meaning which he will own by three Texts of Scripture which he applies to the purpose of which I spake for thus run his words 7. His abuse of Scripture to serve his turn 7. How else can it be said when Josephs brethren sold him into Egypt out of envy that God sent a man before c. And when David numbred the people it is said not onely that Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number the people 1 Chron. 21.1 but that the Lord moved David against them in that he said go number Israel 2 Sam. 24.1 By these he seeks to make it credible that God doth work in the wickedst actions as a natural cause although these Texts do prove the contrary To the first and most impertinent of the two allegations I have fâ—oken so * In the Divine purity defended ch 7. Sect. 6. p. 63 64 65. largely to Doctor Reynolds that Mr. W. must fetch his answer thence To the second consisting of two contradictory Texts as to the letter I make an ease return by shewing the literal inconsistence of the one with the other unlesse the first may be allowed to explain the second For when the very same thing is said to be done by God and by Satan either one of the two must needs be figuratively spoken or else there will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 irreconcileables in Scripture not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bare appearances of Discord else farewel to Torniellus and all other Writers in that kind who reconcile the Scriptures which seem to differ and contradict First I take it for granted that the word of God is not chargeable with any self-contradictions That the very same action cannot at once be good and evil Divine and Devilish That God and Satan cannot do the same works From whence it followeth of necessity that when God is said to * Activum pro Passivo ut saepè inquit Grotius in locum move David to number the people 2 Sam. 24.1 the meaning must be He * permitted Satan to move David For so the Scripture explains it self afterwards 1 Chron. 21.1 by saying that Satan provoked David to that deed Another example will make it plainer It is said of the Devil the God of this world that he hath blinded the mindes of
unbelievers lest the light of the Gospel should shine unto them 2 Cor. 4.4 Again it is said of our God who cannot endure the least sin He hath blinded their eyes and hardned their hearts that they should not see with their eyes c. Joh. 12.40 where because the two senses of those two Texts cannot possibly be the same the former must needs be active and the later onely permissive It is to be seriously considered whether any such men can be fit for the Ministry to be intrusted with the Key of Knowledge to be Stewards of the Mysteries of the living God who are not able to distinguish betwixt those Scriptures which differ most but help the people to confound the works of God and of the Devil I confesse my indignation is very great at this instant whil'st I observe M. W. in a book * So he professeth in his Epistle to the Reader p. 2 3. intended for the unlearned to present the letter of such Texts without the least explication nay opposite Texts without the least offer of reconcilement nay teaching that God hath an †P. 24. efficiency in sin and * P. 19. worketh in the worst actions as a natural cause and * 25. He speaks worse of God then can be truly said of Satan determines the wills of men to every event whereas the Devil himself cannot contribute so much to sin by the utmost force of his Temptations He can but perswade and incline as a moral agent which cannot necessitate to wickednesse as the natural doth And if his parishioners or others as void of learning shall ask him the manner of God's working and efficiency in sin that they may know how it differs from the Devils manner of working in the very same sin and from the manner of working in which the sinner himself worketh behold his answer is onely this It beseems us humbly to acknowledge our ignorance in apprehending the manner of his working p. 19. and again we be not able to apprehend his secret and wonderful manner of working in evil actions p. 23. lin ult How then Good Sir saith the amazed Catechumenist what shall we do in this Case when our light is darkness where shall we seek knowledge when our Priests lips cannot preserve it Mr. W's answer is at hand * P. 24. lin 3 4. Though he doth it miro ineffabili modo as Austin speaks yet we are not to deny the doing of it But first the people are abus'd with Austins name who never said any such thing His †P. 20. lin 1. Enchirid. ad Laurent c. 100. words are quite contrary id non fit that is not done beside the will of God which is done against it Mark Reader He doth not say what God doth but what is done against Gods will by Gods permission which is not beside his will to permit it Next suppose Austin had said any such thing had not that been one of his many Errors But thirdly 'T is well Mr. W. will yield any authority to Austins Enchiridion which is perfectly * August Enchir c. 98. destructive to Mr. W's Doctrine Well Mr. W. declares his ignorance to the unlearned Quaerist touching the manner of God's working and efficiency in sin as a natural cause which being precisely his own expressions do put us in mind of his contradiction whilst he confidently defines in some places what he professeth not to know in others as being wonderful and ineffable Make but room for Mr. Barlee and he will help his Fellow-labourer to make it out with a wet finger * Mr. B's Neces vin ch 3. p. 12. He that cannot or will not tell how God may be said to excite men to the Act of Adultery which to the Adulterer so excited is sin ☞ though not to God neither will he tell how God without sin doth stir up men to the act of lying with their lawful Wives †ad utrumque ejusdem generis excitatio concursus Idabid for the excitation and concurrence to both is of the same kind Observe the growth of this Student since his Correp Correction He there expressed his Divinity of God stirring up men to sin by his putting spurs to a dull Jade Now he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in downright terms that God hath the same concurrence to the most unlawful and the most lawful actions S. Paul no sooner said Marriage is honourable but immediately added and the bed undefiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immaculate pure and spotlesse but Adultery is Rebellion against the Monarch of all the world And yet he stirs up the wicked to the unclean Act of Rebellion against Himself by the same incitation saith Mr. B. whereby he excites his loyallest subject to the most blamelesse thing that can be named not onely not forbidden but commanded by God for propagation whereas Adultery is an Act which God forbids by his law and from which he restraines by his Grace disswades by his Spirit and which his children cannot commit but by resisting his Grace and by grieving his holy Spirit by whom alone we are sealed unto the day of Redemption But M. B. may say that I now torment him before his time I therefore return to his majorite whose third general Answer doth now ensue Sect. 3. Mr. Whitfield saith Mr. W's third General Answer a mâ—er Majestick mistake that the summe of what Mr. P. or any of his Predecessors in this controversie about Gods absolute Decree hath objected against it is included in that which the Apostle objects against himself speaking of his subject Rom. 9.14 Is God unjust and who hath resisted his will which he answers with an Absit quis tu es And if we should give no other answer but this it might suffice p. 20. What will not some be bold to say rather then want wherewith to gain-say First he forgeth a certain Tale and gives it the Name of a Third general Answer If he had called it a Whirligig his impropriety had been lesse for the Question there is the contrary to what it is here There it was of God free mercy which well might be without mans merit Here it is of his wrath which cannot be without our demerit No lesse are the wandrings of Mr. W. But Secondly Where was he told that this is the summe of whatsoever hath been objected against his mythical Decree He neither names his Author nor gives his Reason nay speaks precisely against his knowledge and crudely dictates stilo satis praetoriano This is the summe I answer with more Truth but much lesse Majesty that this indeed is the summe of all their subter-fuges and salvo's Quis tu es Who art thou O man who objectest against God that he hath not an efficiency and hand in sin This was the very last plank which Mr. Hobbs was fain to betake himself unto when he found himself ship-wreckt by the most learned Bishop Bramhall in his book of
me and against himself unlesse he vvill declare that he is just as I am and fairly publish his Retractations 2. His memorable answer to his own objection 2. But vvher 's his Ansvver to this Objection That if God decrees the Being of sin then he is the Author of it Novv comes the jest His Ansvver to it is fully and vvholly thus 8 Pag. 21. But though God hath decreed that sin shall be and therefore hath decreed to permit it without ☜ which it could not be yet it doth not follow that he is the Author of it Doth he mean by Gods decreeing that sin shall be His meaning caught in a Dilemma that he decreed it absolutely and antecedently to his prescience that it would be if the sinners will were not hindered be some violent means or that he decreed not to hinder it upon his eternal foreknowledge that the sinner would determine his will to sin if not miraculously impeded Which soever he shall say it will be equally pleasant and he must say one for there is not a third If the former he makes God to be the first and principal cause of every sin but denyes the sequel of his being the Author which is as if he should say Paul was a rational creature but it doth not follow he was a man Sophroniscus did beget Socrates but yet was not his Father The Jewish high Priests were the first and principal contrivers and procurers of the murdering of Christ to which Judas and the Romans were instrumental but it doth not follow they were the Authors of that murder Thus Mr. W. with the same breath denyes what he affirms whilest he affirms it if he owns the former meaning of his words And if the later he yields the whole cause by overthrowing the foundation of all his Doctrines which is the placing Gods Decree before his Knowledge his preordination before his prescience which although the most against Reason and Philosophy of any thing that can be nam'd hath been swallowed by the Calvinists from Mr. Calvin's own * Ideo praesciverit quia sic ordinavit Calv. Inst l. 3. c. 23. sect 7. fol. 325. See Div. Pur. c. 7. p. 74. mouth Thus it fares with Mr. W. if he means either of those two senses If he can think upon a Third I will speak to it when he shall name it But be his sense what it can be it was faulteringly done to baulk the words in the Objection and to substitute others in the Answer and unskilfully resolv'd to obtrude a bare Denial without pretending a dram of Reason to give it at least a little weight nay he hath not so much as an evasion to supply the room of an Answer never an Orthodox put-off The total of his answer to bate the other flawes in it is the syllable No. It doth not follow For it doth not 3. And because he mingles the word permit in this and many other places 3. His soul use of the word permission Of which see Div. Philan. Def. ch 3. p. 129 130 to p. 139. ch 4. p. 53 54. as a necessary Emollient to asswage the hardness of his sayings the Reader must once more be put in mind what is meant by permission in the writings of this and such like Authors Their common accomâ—t of their meaning is by the word efficacious and if we ask how far forth Gods permission of sin is efficacious Doctor Twisse is Prolocutor and tells the sense of the Party Gods Decree saith he is no less efficacious in the permission of evil ☞ then in the production of good But in the production of good they all affirm with one mouth that Gods Decree is absolute irrespective and irresistible nor is it less saith that Doctor in the permission of sin That Mr. W. thinks the Doctor Orthodox his Book forbids us to disbelieve for he saith that God hath a hand in sin and a hand in the effecting of it p. 26. that he hath some efficiency in it p. 24. that he acteth or worketh in sin not as a moral Agent by disswading from it but as a natural cause promoting the Being and Act of sin p. 25. that Gods permission of sin is accompanied with Action and Operation p. 21. and all this in the ugly sense as I shall shew more and more in the following Sections And therefore his using the word permission doth but aggravate his guilt untill he shall declare that he takes it in a passive and negative sense so as to signifie the suffering and not hindering of sin But then he must adde a Recantation of those unsober expressions with which the word Permission is inconsistent * The odious impropriety represented in other less odious colours For suppose a man shall command or excite his Son to steal a Horse and that so effectually that the Horse is stolen by that Son upon his Fathers excitation can the Father be thought to speak truth or sense if he shall plead that he did onely permit his Son to steal by an efficacious permission which could not be resisted because of its efficacy and force Or will it avail him to plead not guilty by saying he had but a hand in that stealth or an efficiency in it or that he onely commanded and stirred up his Son to that vile Action but was not the Author of that sin which cleaved to the Action nor was it he but his son who stole the Horse Reader this is the Case but represented in fairer colours then Mr. W's Doctrine doth deserve For he and his * Note that those Authors are defended by Mr. W. and Mr. B. as well as imitated and followed Teachers have said of God that he decreeth willeth commandeth determineth seduceth exciteth stirreth up impelleth tempteth effecteth and maketh men to sin and that not onely as a moral cause as some but as a natural cause also as others as the Author of sin say some to sin quatenus sin say others All which and much more I have formerly shewed in three distinct Tracts to which I must ever refer the Reader though I am ever adding to my Supellex And let this serve for their Emollient made up of contrary ingredients as Emplastra and Cataplasmes may sometimes be for the discussing the peccant Humour at least for the concealing the ugly face of the Disease The first Ingredient is Active and they allay it with a Passive which is the second The first they think hath too much of Positive in its Nature and so they qualifie it with that which hath somewhat of Negation in it They adde permission to efficacious to save their credit and efficacious to permission for the salving of their cause Their Dictionaries can tell them and they who never read Tully may easily look into Nizolius that * Note that to permit is not the English of permitto any more then to occide is the English of occido But permit is purely Latine made use
is sin permitted Because he doth not will sin but onely to suffer or to permit it or not to hinder the sinners will therefore he doth will it One part of a contradiction is his proof of the other But though he miscarries to a prodigy in his way of probation yet he discovers his affection to his opinion that God doth velle peccatum immediately will sin and that with a perfect will as he goes on p. 22. 4. His abuse of St. Austin 4. Thus then he advanceth if that can be in a Circle wherein he onely runs round He * Deus permittit aut volens aut nolens inviâ—â—s non certè invitus quia id esset cum Tristitiâ potentiâ se majorem haberet Si volens permittit est genus quoddam voluntatis Enchir. aed Laur. p. 100. cites a passage out of Austin in which he confesseth that that Father doth grant but this that God hath some kind of will in the permission of sin p. 22. So grants Arminius and Pelagius and all mankind But what then Mr. W A will in the permission is not a will in sin for Gods permission is of a contrary nature If Austin had said that God hath a will in the effecting of sin which is contrary to his holy wil he had then said something to bear you out or rather he had fallen into the same ditch with you But Austin doth not nay durst not say that sin permitted is according to Gods will for he saith that sin is †Fit contra voluntatem Id. Ibid. against his will and that at the very same time when he saith he hath a will in the PERMISSION of sin Now be it remembred by the Reader that Mr. W. doth mean an efficacious permission when he speaks of Gods permitting sin And how much he meanes by efficacious I lately shewed Together with that compare his process 5. His arguing that God doth will sin perfectly because be perfectly wills the permission of it 5. If any kind of will this must needs be a perfect will for no imperfect will agrees to God who is perfection it self and how can he be said to will any thing without any Act of his will p. 22. Now the Doctrine comes more into the light Gods efficacious permissive will as Mr. Barlee and others are wont to word it is the same to sin as to sinlessness saith Mr. Whitfield for more then perfect it cannot be when objected upon the best things nor is it less then perfect saith Mr. W. when objected upon the worst for from Gods will to permit sin he argues Gods willing sin Which reasoning of his is so excellently absurd that it demonstrates the contrary to what he seeks to prove by it For because nothing in God is imperfect and whatsoever he willeth he willeth in perfection therefore he willeth not sin at all it being of his perfection that he cannot will sin and the greatest imperfection in the worst of all Creatures that they are able to will sin with a perfect willingness And what a Divine must he be who shall say the same of God which is the very worst thing that can be said of the Devil that he willeth sin with a perfect will If to evade this whirlpoole Mr. W. shall say he meant the permission onely nor the sin permitted then 't is the least of his misfortunes that he hath onely made Answers to the Man in the Moon and then he will be splitted on the less dangerous Rock But to make good his meaning he must abjure his whole Book for to say that Gods decree is energetical onely not permissive and to say that he decreeth the being of sin which is his and his Teachers Doctrine is in consistent with meer permission which is not an exertion but a suspension of the will from interposing any Impediment which might forcibly hinder the Creatures choice Nay one thing I must adde for the vindication of Gods holiness for the instruction of Mr. W. whose meer want of instruction I have the charity to hope is his greatest stumbling-block That though God doth not hinder a man from sinning by any such physical impediment whereby the man is rendered not able to sin wilfully yet even then he doth hinder by such moral impediments whereby the man is rendered able not to sin wilfully 6. He strives to prove Gods Activity in the production of sin from Gods own word Now let us see how he clears the second thing he proposed in stead of Answer to the Objection Scripture-Expressions do constantly hold forth Gods manner of working in sin by way of action It doth not say God suffered Joseph's Brethren to sell him into Egypt but that God sent him Gen. 45.8 It doth not say God suffered Pharaoh to harden his own heart but that God hardened it Exod. 9.12 c. p. 22. Here he tells us that the Scriptures hold forth what before p. 19. and after p. 23. he professeth to be ineffable and incomprehensible viz. the manner of Gods working in sin This is his first degree of misery Again he takes those Texts meerly according to the Letter which Mr. Barlee himselfe confesseth to be figuratively spoken giving * Neces Vind. ch 3. p. 55. this reason for it that God according to the Letter of many of those Texts seems to be made a moral cause of sin as sin So that now Mr. W. hath plaid such a prank as his own fellow-laborer must needs condemn in him This is his second Again he saith that this is constantly held forth in Scripture by way of action Constantly good Sir how can that be Did not God tell Israel that because he had purged them and they were not purged they should * Ezek. 24.13 not be purged from their filthiness any more that is to say he would leave them to themselves he would permit or suffer them to be filthy he would not cleanse them against their wills Which one Text is sufficient to have taught Mr. W. the true importance of all those at which he stumbles And from thence it is evident what is meant by the School-men when they say that God punisheth sin with sin which must thus be negatively expounded by Gods forsaking such sinners withdrawing his grace so long resisted and abus'd not clensing them any more from their beloved filthiness Let M. W. answer to this Question Doth the Scripture express or hold forth the real command of the holy Ghost in using that imperative * Rev. 22.11 Let him that will be filthy be filthy still Or was our Saviour accessary to the Jewish murder in saying †Joh. 2.19 which compare with Mar. 14.58 destroy this temple meaning the Temple of his body To have commanded it in the sense as he did in the letter had been a kind of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laying hands upon himself yet the Jewes like Mr. W. were so intent upon the letter that they
end that they might be saved that they might be saved p. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause or to punish this wickedness God will suffer the man of sin v. 3. whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders v. 9. to come upon them with such advantages of strength and subtilty as would gain credit vvith them being not wonderfully restrained God is said to send what he can but doth not hinder from being sent We are taught to pray Lead us not into temptation when yet our meaning is suffer us not to be led or leave us not helpless in our temptations permit us not to be tempted above our strength let thy Grace be sufficient for us and thence it followes but deliver us from evil Thus our Saviour may be said to have sent the Devils into the herd of swine because when they besought him he gave way to their prayer when they said Suffer us to go he answered Go. Of which the meaning must needs be this I suffer you to go for he granted what they ask't and they ask't for sufferance 14. From the Nations making league with the Romans His fourteenth and last Instance from Rev. 17.17 doth onely proclaim him to be unqualified for such mysterious parts of Scripture And I am heartily glad upon this occasion that Doctor Hammonds Annotations are writ in English that the lowest Reader may discern how quite beside his ovvn purpose Mr. W. hath seized on that Text also vvhich is onely a prophesie of S. John foretelling an eminent and remarkable Act of Gods providence in that all the nations should first confederate with the Romans and yet aftervvards breaking off should execute vengeance upon those Romans and that Alaricus the King of the Goths and Vandals should so suddenly retire after his conquest and captivity of Rome as if he had purposely been sent by the special Providence of God to destroy the Idolaters and preserve the Christians Sect. 6. From all which it is evident How Mr. W. most groundlesly inferreth God to fit still p. 23. and to be an idle Beholder p. 26. that none of those active expressions alledged by Mr. W. in his 22. page can be pretended to denote Gods working in sin more then his punishing of it doth vvhich yet is active vvhen he casts the sinner into hell The consequent to vvhich is the sinners continuance to all eternity in his sins Nor doth it follovv vvhat he saith p. 23. that if God hath no manner of working in sin See more of this subject Sect. 17 18 19. he sits still as a spectator For he is working in divers respects as by the motions of his Spirit disswading from sin and also by his word both writ and preached Again he is working in over-ruling ordering and disposing sins committed to many excellent advantages to which he is able by his wisdom to make them serve But all this is nothing to his active working in sin or his having a hand in it as Mr. W. phraseth it but on the contrary it shews that he hath no hand in it for over-ruling sins to good suppoâ—eth them committed and when it is said as it is commonly that God draweth good out of evil the meaning is not that he maketh it to be good in one respect which is evil in another as such men dream but that upon man's doing evil he takes an occasion of doing good such was the saving of the world upon occasion of that murder which the wicked ones committed in killing-Christ And as good things are made an occasion of evil yet are not evil as I lately shewed so are evil things made an occasion of good yet are not good which some men not descerning are betrayed into the worst and uncleannest speeches as that adultery or murder as it is the work of God its Author mover and impeller is no sin at all but onely as it is of man which though the saying of Zuinglius a great Master of those men yet 't is abetted and approved by Doctor Twisse in particular and in particular by Mr. Barlee and aequivalently by Mr. Whitfield also If any others of their way shall renounce the Doctrine let them do it in print and then the World will forgive them Having shewed that God is no idle spectator as the brethren do both speak because he restrains from sin and when he suffers it doth over-rule it as hath been shewed and doth also note it in his book as the Prophets speak and doth satisfie his justice in the punishment of sin as well as exercise his mercy in forgiving it to the contrite and penitent sinner and giveth the continuance of a Being unto his creature by whose free-will the sin is made I will adde this little that it were much a lesser evil in Mr. W. and his partners to say that God sitteth still as a spectator onely then to asperse him with a working and activity in sin for as to the commission of the sin it self God is truly a meer spectator The Sinners sole will determines it self unto the Sin CHAP. II. Of Mr. W's Attempts to help Mr. B. by replying a few things to the Divine Philanthropie defended which now at last he doth particularly consider and not till now Sect. 1. TO such Texts of Scripture as are literally taken by that sort of men Mr. W. begins with the end of that book to which his Title-page pretended a Reply who do not onely take the boldness to bear false witness against God by charging his Majesty with having a high hand in sin but most lewdly also do indeavour to make him bear false witness against himself I did amongst many other things which Mr. Whitfield studiously omitteth that he may speak to that onely which he thinks is least above his strength afford my Correptory Corrector this short note of Instruction (a) Divine Philanth defended c. 4. p. 48. That by a common Hebraism such verbs as are active in sound are onely permissive in signification by the admission of which Rule those horrible absurdities would be avoided and Scripture expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which part of my Answer M. W 's wonderful reply in behalf of M. B. Mr. Wh. adventures this sad Reply This he dictates but doth not demonstrate nor bring the least patch of an Argument to prove it neither will all his skill in the Hebrew enable him to do it And may he not by this shift evade the cleerest and strongest Scriptures that are brought against him by telling us that they signifie quite another thing then the nature of the words doth import if we will believe him 2. Why may he not then interpret other Scriptures in the like manner where the like expressions are used as when the Lord saith I form the light and create darkness I make peace and create evil Isa 45.7 I have made the earth and created man upon it my hands
me and Mr. Whitfield Nay Mr. Barlee himself although he sometimes judgeth on Mr. W's side as in his * See Divine Philanthr ch 1. p. 24 25. Correptory Correction p. 69. yet at last he is forced to judge against it for he saith in plain terms as I lately observed in this his last print that God according to the letter of many Texts seems to be made a moral cause of sin as sin ch 3. p. 55. so that Mr. W. and Mr. B. are as much at odds in their very conspiracy and conjunction against a third person as Mr. B. is at odds with his dearest self His overthrowing his own interest in other cases Thirdly If M. W. admits of Hebraisms in any parts of Scripture much more must he do it in those we now speak of where if they are not admitted the inconvenience will be greater then any where else But no doubt in some parts he will not dare not to admit them for fear of being censured a direct enemy to Christ and to take part with the Socinians nay which is worse with such as Julian and the profane Helvidius For how many prophesies of Christ are read by us in the Preterperfect Tense the Hebrew Idiotism being retained in the English by our Translators Isa 9.6 there are two Hebraisms at once which no creature can deny who doth acknowledge that Text to have a prospect upon Christ unto us a child is born for unto us a child shall be born And when the Jewes object as they do often that Christs name was Jesus not wonderful counsellor the mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of peace which yet according to the letter is affirm'd to be the name by which he should be called who is there spoken of Isa 9.6 what can Mr. W. alledge for himself unlesse he mind them of the most vulgar Hebraism by which the Name is put to signifie the Being A man is said by the Hebrews to be called thus and thus to whom such titles and epithets do well agree So * Cited from Isa 7.14 Mat. 1.23 They shall call his name Emmanuel would be literally truer of the * Isa 8.3 compared with vers 8. child of the Prophetess given to Ahaz for a sign then of Jesus Christ the son of Mary which yet according to the Hebraism is truer of Christ then of that child Again if our Greek copies of S. Mark did read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 3.29 as well they may because the ancieâ—t Manuscripâ—s were found to do so and out of them the vulgar Latine what other reason could be rendred for our translating the words thus in danger of eternal damnation rather then in danger of eternal sin but that sin by an Hebraism is set to signifie the punishment of sin Nay it is much more probable in the judgment of Grotius that S. Mark himself writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of sin and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of judgment or condemnation was nothing else but Interpretamentum Hebraismi the Exposition of that Hebraism which was used by S. Mark who is known by all to have been an Hellenistick Writer I say by all excepting such as Mr. W. who complains of hard words in a most plain English Writer Again if Helvidius his three objections from Mat. 1. vers 18. vers 25. against the Virgin Maries being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers are wont to call her a perpetual Virgin should be urged by some Helvidian againâ—t Mr. W. he would be thankful to that man who should help him to answer unto the third that there were three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Hebrews the Principality the Priesthood and the right of Inheritance which were all the privileges of the first-born and in respect of which our blessed Saviour was so called How much gladder should he be to understand such Texts by the common Hebraism whose literal acception is of so dangerous importance as hath been shewed if he did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 live in vassalage to an opinion which cannot otherwise be defended then by making God to have a hand in sin He is convinâ—ed by that which he cannot but confess Fourthly M. W. cannot but confesse that the verb sino is an active that is to say of the active voice and yet its signification is onely passive for it onely signifies to suffer And when the Devils besought our Saviour * Mat. 8.31 suffer us to enter they did not command him but begg'd his leave although they spake in the Imperative or commanding mood Our Saviour said to the Haemorrhois Mat. 9.22 Thy faith hath made thee whole which was not literally but figuratively true S. Peters words to Aeneas were not figuratively but literally true * Act. 9.34 Jesus Christ maketh thee whole and if Christ healed the later much more evidently the former Thus when we are said to be justified by †Gal. 3.24 Faith in S. Pauls phrase and by * Jam. 21. 24. works in S. James neither is literally true without the help of a distinction or explication for in exact propriety of speech we are justified by †Rom. 8.33 God and by God alone And Mr. W. might have known that there is nothing more common in the opening of Texts then to distinguish the literall from the rational importance The mischiefes which ensue upon his way of exposition Fifthly Whereas Mr. W. alledgeth that the câ—earest Scriptures may be evaded by this shift c. I will shew him by some instances what kind of mischiefs have ensued by his way of apprehending those Texts of Scripture whose Hebraism he slanders with the name of shift One of his own examples is p. 22. David's saying of wicked Shimei that the Lord had * 2 Sam. 16.10 11. bid him to curse his Soveraign quite contrary to that which the Lord had commanded †Exod. 22.28 compared with Jer. 19.5 Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people nay Shimei being penitent * 2 Sam. 19.20 Quomodo dixit Dominus Semei maledicere David non jubendo c. Austin degra lib. arbit c â—0 confessed his sin a little after In this case say I either David was mistaken as well he might be who could commit such scarlet sins and thought that Shimei might really be sent by God in that message as Nathan before ch 12. to pronounce that curse which David confessedly had deserved and in particular cases it is manifest that God can dispense with his precepts to the sons of men who yet must never pretend to any such dispensation unlesse they can prove it to us by miracles and shew that the counter-precept was revealed to them from Heaven which till then must be concluded to have been sent up from Hell else any man may say that God hath commanded him to kill as well as to curse the Rule of his people or whatever else
on me then by venting himself against the Scripture wherein he conjectured very truly if he took that course to make me smart because there is nothing so grievous to me as to find a professor of Christianity to turn Gods word against the holiness of his will But whilest I pray for his amendment I will necessitate his confession or confusion of Face and that by this following violentum by which in the person of a Jew or rather of an Atheist I will turn his weapon upon himself Secondly therefore let us imagine that Mr. Whitfield is to defend the two Natures of Christ Divine and Humane against the personated Atheist who shall thus object against them both Ath. That which is really a Tree cannot be really a Man Mr. W. beaten with his own weapons by any Atheist who shall oppose him much less really a God But Christ is really a Tree And thus I prove it That which is a true Vine not a fictitious one is very really a Tree But the Scripture saith plainly that Christ is a Vine Joh. 5.5 nay a True Vine v. 1. Therefore Christ is really a Tree Mr. VVh Those words of Scripture are onely spoken by a figure and parabolically which amongst the Hebrews was an usual way of expression Christ did onely represent his relation to his members by that which is seen betwixt the Vine and its Branches Ath. This indeed you dictate The Atheist replyes in Mr. W's own words p. 23. but not demonstrate nor do you bring the least patch of an Argument to prove it And may you not by this shift evade the clearest and strongest Scriptures when brought against you by telling us they signifie quite another thing then the nature of the words do import if we will believe you Mr. W. I tell you Christ was a Jew amongst whom it was common to deliver themselves in Parables as you may see throughout the Old Testament as well as New And indeed all Nations have used Apologues and Tropes not onely to signifie but to imprint their mindes upon the hearers Ath. VVhy may we not then interpret other Scriptures in the like manner The Athest replies in Mr. W's own words p. 23. where the like expressions are used as when the Lord saith I and my Father are one Joh. 10.30 Or when the Scripture saith that Christ said I am the true Vine why may we not say that the Scripture speaketh by a Parable and brings in Christ speaking by a Prosopopoeia as divers Authors of Mythology do make Dialogues and Discourses betwixt Trees and Rivers For how can a True Vine speak indeed and say I am a True Vine Mr. W. But 't is granted by all story as well secular as sacred and by men of all Religions as well false as true that Christ did truly speak and teach in the Synagogues of the Jewes and in many other both publick and private places Ath. That doth onely infer that Christ was a speaking and didactical Tree not that he was not a Tree at all for if he really spake this was one of his real speeches That he said he was a True Vine Had he said onely a Vine you might have said he onely meant he was a Figurative Vine But to anticipate that evasion he said I am the True Vine And as when it is said God hardened Pharaohs heart The Atheist replies in Mr. W's own words p. 22. deceived the false Prophet and the like the Scripture doth hold forth the manner of Gods working in sin by way of Action so when it is said that Christ said I am the true Vine the Scripture doth hold it forth by a verb substantive which denoteth existence and not Phraseology As * Again Mr. W's own words p. 22. it is not said God suffered Pharaoh to harden his own heart but that God hardened it Exod. 9.12 so it is not said I am a metaphorical Vine or I am called or accounted or compared to a Vine but I am the true Vine Joh. 15.1 Mr. VVh But how can those words be literally meant which infer such an absurd and unintelligible thing as that a Tree should be rational and yet a Tree still This implyes a contradiction for Christ to go about doing good by preaching healing and exemplary life and yet to be a True Vine in the literal notion of the word Ath. But that which the Scripture plainly clearly The Atheist replies in Mr. W's own words p. 19. and positively asserteth you ought not to deny though you cannot discern the manner how it can be It rather beseems you humbly to acknowledg your ignorance in apprehending the manner then to deny the thing Let the Reader now judge whether the Atheist in this Dialogue hath not replyed to Mr. W. as much like a Disputant as Mr. W. hath done to me Nay whether there is not this difference betwixt the two cases that it is much a lesser evil to say that Christ is a Vine without a Figure then to say that God without a Figure did harden Pharaoh's heart and will that Absalom should do filthily against his Father and * Maledicere Davidi actus est malus à pietate charitate adeoque à Dei voluntate alienus Dallaeus Apol. part 2. p. 103. bid Shimei curse David and deceive the Prophet and the like Again it was said by our Saviour I am the true Vine but it was never said in Scripture that God was a true hardener of Pharaoh's heart or that he did truly deceive the Prophet Eighthly Since Mr. W. asks 8. Mr. W. condemn'd out of his own mouth why may we not interpret â—ther Scriptures in the like manner c. to which I have given at least a satisfactory Answer and shewed him the wofulness of his Question by an Argument ad hominem and since he jeers me with my Hebraisms which yet are his Masters as well as mine I will now proceed to justifie my self and to condemn him out of his mouth For when he comes to deny Universal Redemption and to resist the Scriptures which are point-blank against him he is then so gracious as to use these words Scripture must be interpreâ—ed by Scripture and though we are not to recede from the literal sense when it will agree with other Scriptures and with the Analogy of Faith yet when it is defective both these wayes we are not bound to adhere to the Letter p. 72. Very good I thank Mr. W. for this justice in the dispensing of which he doth not spare his own selfe For if the words of Saint * He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours onely but also for the sins of the whole world 1 Joh. 2.2 John were two wayes defective as to the Letter as neither agreeable with other Scriptures nor with the Analogy of Faith as Mr. W. liberally dictates how can all those Texts whose Letter seems to make God the cause of sin as sin saith
Mr. Barlee be either agreeable to other Texts or to the Analogy of Faith Are any Scriptures inconsistent with the words of Saint John in the Letter not one in any appearance but all on the contrary do sound the same way Or with what Analogy of Faith are Saint Johns words unagreeable even the Faith of Mr. W. and them of his Creed But I have * See the second thing replied in this Section proved by examples that the Letter of those Scriptures which are cited by Mr. W. to prove that God hath a hand in sin are inconsistent with those others by which God is affirmed to have no hand in sin nor can it agree with the Analogy of any Faith but Mr. Whitfields If the Letter of the Scripture may be two ways defective as Mr. W. tells us it may where is it likely so to be if not in the places of which we speak since nothing is dearer to God Almighty then the inviolable honour of his Purity and his Truth And if we are not bound alwayes to adhere unto the Letter as Mr. W. also granteth to serve his ends why doth he hold himself to it where it is most to be forsaken because 't is more for his turn that God should be operative and active in all the wickednesse in the world then that Christ should die for all mankind If that is not his reason let him tell me what is And if that is his reason we know the length of his foot Judge good Reader of this mans Doctrines 9. Again 9. How Scripture interprets Scripture against Mr. W. if Scripture must interpret Scripture as Mr. W. also doth acknowledge I desire no more to prove my Hebraism For all those Scriptures of Gods hardning Pharaoh bidding Shimei curse David delivering up to vile affections sending delusion and the like receive the same interpretation which I have given from the words of S. Paul which are also Scripture who told the People of Lycaonia that God in times past * Act. 14.16 which compare with Act. 17.30 Rom. 2.4 1 Cor. 10.13 1 Pet. 3.22 Exod. 34.6 Act. 13.18 suffered all Nations to walk in their own wayes Their wicked wayes were wholly their own and they alone did walk in them without Gods help he gave them their being life and motion which were very good things but he had not the least hand in the determination of their wills to wickedness or their consenting to their temptations he onely suffered them with patience to walk in the wayes which they had †Isa 66.3 chosen to wit their own wayes which were called their own because they chose them And here 't is fit that I meet again with Mr. W. For as he said p. 22. that it was not said God suffered Pharaoh to harden his own heart but that God hardened it so here I say on the other side it was not said by S. Paul God excited or commanded or decreed all nations to walk in their own wayes but that he suffer'd them to do it Come we then to a tryal of Scripture by Scripture which to do for the benefit of common people whom I am sure in my writings I most consider I wil compare 2. Scriptures by placing one on the right hand another on the left that men may see so much the better which of the two must be the Rule by which the other is to be guided which the Touchstone by which the other is to be tried which the Standard with which the other is to comply Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleannesse through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonour their own bodies between themselves Rom. 1.24 For this cause God gave them up to vile affections v. 26. God in times past suffered all Nations to walk in their own wayes Act. 14.16 He endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction Rom. 9.2 that is fitted by themselves by those their sins which God endur'd or suffer'd They are both the sayings of S. Paul as well the Active on the left hand as the Passive on the right By which of the two which of the two must be expounded when God is said to have given up to uncleanness is it not onely meant that he sufferd them to be unclean or when he is said to have suffer'd them to walk in their own wayes is it also meant that he had a * Note that p. 26. Mr. W. saith of sin that God doth both will and work it and hath a hand in effecting it hand and efficiency to use the phrases of Mr. W. in such their doings Res ipsa loquitur The Case it self speaks it self For first the uncleanness and vile affections were the uncleannest and vilest that can be thought on and how could God have a * working or * active hand in such villanies more vile then which the Devil himself cannot invent Secondly They were before habituated in the practice of their uncleanness and that is rendred for the reason why God gave them up ** These are also M. W's expressions as appears by the wherefore v. 24. and for this cause v. 26. But what sense is it to say that God did actively and operatively give them up to filthy habits to which they had given up themselves too long before or admit they had not yet what madnesse is it to say that because their tempter and their own hearts had made them admirably wicked God should therefore be active to make them worse Thirdly There is * Note I mean the conf ssion of M. W's Teachers who know any thing of those matters not of himself who hath printed either his ignorance that there is any such thing or at least the dissimulation of his knowledge confessedly an Hebraism by which actives in sound are permissives in signification but no such Hebraism or other figure by which passives in sound are actives in sense Fourthly For God to suffer or indure the sins of men is exactly agreeable to the Analogy of Faith but to will and work sin or to have an hand in the effecting of it as M. W's words are is according to the Analogy of what is worse then infidelity From all which it is apparent that the Scripture in the left Column must be interpreted by that in the right And now I will add some more Examples 1. If the Prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing I the Lord have * That is I have permitted him to be deceived or as Grotius I will deceive him by giving him such an end as he expects not deceived that Prophet Ezek. 14.9 1. Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbour and love no false oath for all these are things that I hate saith the Lord Zech. 8.16 17. 2. Behold I will * That is I will expose it to the lusts of the Gentiles and not restrain them from profaning it profane my Sanctuary Ezek. 24.21 2. He shall not
speaking to his Chimaera's throughout my first Chapter and will now be shorter to make amends 1. He is at odds with D. Twisse First I observe 't is his opinion that though God worketh not in the same manner in evil actions as he doth in good or as evil men themselves do yet me must not deny that he hath any work at all in evil actions since himself doth so often and so expresly affirm it p. 23 24. Dr. Twisse and Mr. W. are at odds for the Doctor * See Correct Copy p. 10. saith undauntedly that Gods decree is no less efficacious in the permission of evil then in the production of good 2. To make men sin is a sin of the worst size 2. To say that God doth not work in sin as sinful men themselves do is no more then to say that God doth nor sin or is not a sinner but onely makes men sinners as * See Correct Copy p. 10. Zuinglius expresly speaks whom Mr. W. defendeth p. 24. but to say that God did decree sin and praedestine men to sin and work sin in men as a physical cause and compel men to sin so as they cannot but commit it is worse then truly can be said of any sinner neither Man nor Devil can compel any one to sin Tarquin could ravish Lucretia but could not compel her to be lascivious The Devil could torment and plunder Job but not compel him to be impatient Now that those men do teach that men are compelled by God to sin besides my †Div. Philanth ch 3. Sect. 34. p. 132 c. Catalogue of examples I can prove by the * Quoties quenquam impelli à Deo aut cogi dicunt rhetoricè potiùs loquuntur c. Twisse Vin. Gra. l. 2. part 1. sect 1. Crim. 3. c. 1. p. 29. confession of Doctor Twisse who doth acknowledge and excuse that very expression in his own party Besides Jeroboam did not work in Israels sins in the same manner that they did because he was not them but 't was the worst part of his Character that he made Israel to sin 2 King 15.18 24 28. yet he neither did nor could compel them It was the worst part of the unbelieving Jews that they stirred up the Gentiles and made their mindes evil affected against the brethren Act. 14.2 yet they proceeded not to compulsion Nay it was reckoned by Nathan as the worst thing in David that by the sins he had committed he had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme 2 Sam. 12.14 which was far from coaction or compulsion the very terms applied by those men to God And therefore Deodate himself though the chief Minister of Geneva denies that God is so much as the * Deodat in Prov. 16.4 occasion of sin much lesse could he judge him to be the cause or the coactor 3. Yet ascribed unto God by that sort of men 3. Though it is said by M. W. that the manner of Gods working in sin is secret not to be apprehended p. 23. yet he and his predecessors have described the manner of it in the most plentiful manner that any description can be made in They say he tempts and prostitutes and acts and operates and works and wills and seduceth draws and commands and compells and moves and drives and stirrs up to sin as a natural cause say some as a moral cause sayothers as an efficient cause of the sinful act as an accidental cause of the obliquity of the act as a man puts spurrs to a dull Jade and as a man is excited to enjoy his own wife c. All these expressions I have met with in Mr. W. partly and partly in Mr. B. yet these are far from being All they are but All which I can remember in the present haste that I am in But whosoever shall examine my several Catalogues in other books and compare them with what they find in this which now I am upon will say that all this is truth yet not the whole truth Sect. 3. 1. The easie and ordinary perversion of the Scriptures But Mr. W. proceedeth thus But all those Scriptures mentioned it may appear what little reason Mr. P. had to make such a clamour against those our Protestant Divines as if they made God to be the Author of sin when he knows that they positively professed and some of them strongly proved the contrary p. 24. So he saith and saith onely But 1. I have proved in my Sect. 1. of this Chapter that the abuse of those Scriptures is a great portion of the impiety Suppose that some Lucian should make a Cento out of the letter of the Scriptures as Ausonius did out of Virgil would the impiety of the thing be any whit the more excusable because he could shew that his expressions were all from Scripture or would it not rather be so much the worse 'T is known that Proba Falconia composed a history of the Life of Christ and a good part also of the Pentateuch of Moses from out of the works of Virgil a Heathen Poet. And out of the very same Virgil however so chast in his expressions that he hath won the Title of the Parthenian Poet Ausonius very wittily but yet most * Ingeniosum sed adeo foedum ut neque Scriptore nec Auditore dignum sir Scaliger l. 6. p. 825 detestably made up the filthiest Fescennine that hath been read Again the Empress Eudoxia writ the life of our Saviour in the words of Homer a blinder Heathen then Virgil was And were it not every whit as possible to patch up the life of Achilles in a Rhapsodie collected from the holy Pen-men of our Gospel If Mr. Wh. will know what may be done in this kind let him consult the Capilupi both Laelius and Julius set out by Henry Meibomius and Otho Gryphius of Ratisbon or Lilius Greg. Gyraldus or whom else he pleaseth Let me mind him also of this that all the Heresies in Christendom have suck't out a nourishment to themselves from the sincere milk of the word although immediately flowing from the breast of truth So great a difference is to be found amongst the several digestions of the very same meat 2 Mr. W. mistakes the Errors for the Persons of some Protestants and confounds them with the Papists 2. I did not clamour against Protestant Divines but against the heathenish asseverations which had been published in the writings of Presbyterians and Papists not only Dominicans but Jesuits also for which I * Sâ—e Div. Philâ—n ch 1. sect 5. p. 27 28. produced the confessions of Doctor Twisse and Mr. Barlee But being a Protestant my self I had by so much the greater reason to declare against the blasphemies of any Protestant Divines that I might not be accessary so much as by my silence and that some Papists might cease to say what they commonly have done that those horrible
is a new Entity now all entities and beings are from the first Being and so far forth they are good p. 25. Apply his generals to particulars and he is ever undone The first Rebellion against God that ever was was a new action or motion and so a new entity and therefore saith Mr. W. was from the first Being and so far forth was good Thus every new filthiness or elaborate sensuality which Petronius invented for Tiberius hath Mr. W's commendation for the goodness of its being and the Divinity of its extraction It was descended saith Mr. W. from the first Being which is God 2. His sentence out of * Ipsum quantulumcunque esse bonum est quia summum esse est summum bonum De verâ Relig. c. 4. Austin is either quite beside the purpose He speaking onely of Gods Creatures and not of Satans or taken on purpose by the left handle that Austin as well as Scripture may be pretended as a Factioner against Himself For the sin against the Holy Ghost is a Being as being really something because the cause of damnation without hope of reprieve But Saint Austin could not argue the least goodness in that sin from the greatest goodness of that God against whom it is committed 3. But it is added by Mr. W. That if any natural act quà actus proceedeth not from the God of Nature there must be a Creature without a Creator Ibid. But 1. Blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost is not a natural act but an act contra-natural and yet it is a real act 2. When God is called the God of Nature it is to be meant of good Nature 3. Blasphemy is an act of malicious Nature against the Nature of God and against the God of good Nature but blasphemy as blasphemy or that act as that act proceedeth not from God and yet it is not a Creature without a Creator for men and Devils are the Creators of all sorts of blasphemy which Mr. W. and the * Mr. Hickm and Mr. B. spoken of before hereafter c. 3 sect 18. two brethren will have to be created by God himself or to be an Independent Creature This is therefore a sixth cause of his and their aberrations that they do not distinguish with the Scriptures betwixt the †Joh. 3.8 works of the Devil and the * Psal 103.22 works of God Sect. 11. His fifth Answer is the most to his disadvantage unless the confession of his guilt may lead the way to his repentance 1. His fifth essay doth insnare him with an implicit confession that he maketh God the Author of sin for believe me Reader though to believe it is very difficult these words which follow are all his own Doth not Mr. P. by this Doctrine make God the Author of sin for if God be the Author of all natural Actions as hath been proved and it be impossible as he teacheth to separate the sin from the action then he that is the Author of the Action must needs be the Author of the sin also which is unseparable from it p. 25. Thus he thinks he hath laid a Net for Mr. P. whilest Himself is caught in it Look forwards on ch 3. sect 12. Num. 4. sect 18. and cannot possibly get out For 1. He confesseth most explicitly though not in any humble Form that if it is proved to be impossible to separate the sin from the sinful action which I have often proved to be impossible he cannot chuse but take God to be the Author of sin Here then again he must be summoned to shew us how David's sin to wit his Adultery can be separated from his sinful action to wit his lying with Bathshebah which until he shall perform I must declare him out of his Book which is as much as from his own mouth to be an Assertor of that Blasphemy which yet he doth many times disown though not so often as he owns it 2. He is fain to miscal things to countenance his mistakes or else he knows not a moral action 2. To make a shew of having insnared me he is fain to call those things by the name of natural actions which he knew at that instant I have ever call'd sins or sinful actions or acts of sin unnatural actions or acts against nature But what he could not discern in the sins or sinful actions of Adam and David I will compel him to see clearly by these following Queries to which I shall earnestly expect his Answer * Mr. W. hampered in sâ—me Dilâ—mm's Is a mans lying with a beast a sin or not If not a sin how then was it * Exod. 22.19 forbidden upon pain of death If a sin is it an Action or not an Action If not an action what is an action and how defined But if it is an action is it a natural action or an action unnatural and against Nature If a natural action why saith Mr. W. that God is the efficient and proper cause and now the Author of all natural actions and so by consequence of a mans lying with a beast If to avoid that blasphemy he saith it is not a natural but an unnatural action why then did he say Ans 3. that Natures work was the same as well in wicked as lawful actions If he flies from that too now he is scared with the danger then let him say he is converted and abjure his own Book and joyn with me against Mr. Hick and Mr. B. who say that sin is God if a positive thing To make sure work I will appeal to Saint Paul whether it hath not of old been found very possible to * Rom. 1.26 change the natural use into that which is against Nature yet that change includes Action but contra-natural So again to worship †Jer. 2.27 stones and to serve the * Rom. 1.25 Creature more then the Creator Witchcraft and Incest are all against Nature But some of the Gentiles did by * Rom. 2.14 Nature the things contained in the Law whilest other mens actions were unnatural because as †2 Pet. 2.12 natural brute Beasts and not as men they spake evil of things they understood not 3. The method by which he is led into all his blasphemies 3. It is most apparent at every turn that the main thing to be discussed is whether the sin can be sequestred from the sinful Action If it can I must acknowledge my error and make amends if I am able But if it cannot then Mr. W. and his party must do the like My Method is first to lay it as my Principle That God cannot be possibly the Author of sin and thence to infer that he cannot be the Author of a mans lying with a Beast which is a real act and yet a sin and my reason is because I cannot conceive much less describe how that sin called Bestiality which consisteth in lying with a Beast can be
among whom * Libert Necess p. 23. where note that Mr. Hobbs seems to have borrowed his Argument which proves his own doctrine blasphemous from Doctor Jackson l. 10. c. 6. fol. 3013. Mr. W. specks purposely beside the purpose by which he tacitely confesseth his cause is desperate Mr. Hobs hath no low place have not onely professed that they cannot discern any difference betwixt the sin and the sinful action but they have clearly discerned there can be none Nay Mr. VV. doth here demonstrate that he cannot discern the least difference whilest he tells me that if I please I can discern it For mark how strangely he speaks to my similitude Sect. 13. The roundness may be separaâ—ed from the Globe and yet the matter of it remain still when it is put into another Form p. 25 26. Hence he discovers that he knew his cause desperate and did wilfully mistake his proper Task because he saw it impossible to be performed For first he leaves out the later end of my sentence by which the sense is to be governed and the scope of it to be taken which had he not wilfully omitted he could not certainly have said what here he saith My words were far from being thus A Globe may be destroyed and so its roundness be taken away or the roundness may be separated from the Globe by the Globes ceasing to be a Globe and its matter cast into some other form but on the contrary thus * See the Div. Philanth def ch 4. p. 42. The roundness cannot be seâ—arated from the Globe which is round Which last words I did adde on purpose to note the continuance of the subject of the roundness spoken of and to preserve my simplest Reader from the very possibility of that mistake which Mr. W. out of subtilty hath here most resolutely committed Having mentioned a Globe I needed not have added round had it not been for such Readers as do not know or conâ—ider that nothing not round can be a Globe Nor did I imagine that Mr. W. could have been of their number who not considering a Globe is round or else not a Globe which is a loathsom contradiction can dream that roundness may be separated from the Globe because the Globe with the roundness may be separated from the matter in which it was to wit the brass or the wood which may be cast or shap't into several figures To separate roundness from the Globe is neither more nor less impossible then to separate roundness from roundness which is so much more then to square the Circle that many have ventured upon the one as well as M. Hobbs whereas none but M. Whitfield hath ever thought of doing the other And yet his way of attempting it is at least as admirable as his attempt For instead of proving against my words that the roundness may be separated from the Globe which is round so as it still may remain a Globe he saith the Globe may be cast as to the matter of it into another form and what is this but to say the Globe is not immutable but may cease to be a Globe by being turned into a conical or a cubical Figure But Mr. W. knew that this was contrary to the subject of which I spake and inconsistent with the case of which we are speaking for it is not our Question whether a sinner can be converted and become a Saint or whether his sin can be done away and destroyed and his actions which were wont to be very evil be very much altered unto the better But whether the sin can be separated from the sinful action so as the action shall remain when the sin is gone from it As whether Davidâ—s sin can be parted from his adultery or his adultery from his lying with Bathshebah it being supposed and granted that he is lying with Bathshebah and that the doing so is adultery and that adultery is a sin This being the Case and Mr. VV. speaking not of it but of quite another thing I therefore condemn him out of his own mouth for having spoken against a truth even whilest he saw it was unresistible For he who sits beside the Cushion no less the twenty yards wide even after he took it into his hands as if he meant to sit on it cannot be thought to sit beside it because it is not conspicuous but because it is conspicuously so full of prickles or any otherwise so frightful as that he dares not adventure on it 2. His wonderful attempt to wash wet from water 2. To shew Mr. W. both his danger and his dishonour in such his dealings let him name any one thing in any part of his doctrines wherein he will affirm an inseparability and I will presently enforce him to confute himself out of himself I will prove by an argument ad hominem which he at least will not resist that Mr. W. may be separated from Mr. W. nay I will prove with more colour that the difference is wide betwixt twenty and twice ten because that is but one number but this is two I will prove the separability of his proper passion from his formal reason and again of his formal reason from that essential whole to which it gives its specification I will prove that a disease however incurable may be cur'd because it is possible to kill the Patient There is nothing so impossible but may be proved to Mr. W. to be the contrary if he will but take his own coin for current which here he puts off to others without a blush If his marvellous error hath been through ignorance or inadvertency which yet I cannot conceive he shall do well to study the nature of conjugates and denominatives of adjuncts and subjects of common and proper accidents and if he will trie but to put his present sense into a Syllogisme he shall find four terms in the Premisses or Ignoratio Elenchi in the conclusion he shall not escape one of the two let him go which way he will 3. The three lines of his present Section which shut it up p. 26. are cabbage not onely twice but twenty times boyl'd and from the first to the last is gratis dictum Sect. 14. Mr. W. affirms God to will and work sin and to have a hand in effecting of it upon his supposal that sin makes for Gods glory Mr. W's five Essayes instead of Answers to my Objection being now at an end he proceeds to a fourth Argument as he calls it in the Margin whereby to prove his beloved Doctrine of God's efficiency in sin And thus it runs So far as sin makes for the glory of God so far he may both will and work it for if he neither intends it nor hath any hand at all in effecting it how shall it make for his glory p. 26. First he layes for his foundation a most palpable falshood That sin doth make for God's glory This is his postulatum he will
secundum quod vult much less can God work it in order to his glory Further yet it must be noted that as some things are evil because forbidden by God so others have been forbidden by him because they were in their nature antecedently evil And how can God work sins which are so naturally such as the blaspheming cursing and hating of God himself that the purity of his being is an eternal Law unto himself against such working Let Mr. W. make reflexion upon his words 5. He is inconsistent with M. H. and Mr. B. 5. If God doth work sin in as much as it makes for his glory then sin is his work in the same respect in which he works it And if so it is a positive thing which Mr. H. and Mr. B. will by no means indure for then say they it must be God unless it be granted to be his Creature Thus the Brethren betray each other and each himself both into most frightful and inextricable streights 6. Inconsistent with them and with himself too 6. That we may not be able to wrong the meaning of Mr. VV. he gives his reason for his blasphemy For if he neither intends it nor hath any hand at all in effecting it how shall it make for his glory p. 26. Elsewhere he saith God hath an efficiency in sin and a hand in sin but now he tells us in plainer terms God hath a hand in effecting sin Then sin it seems is the effect of which God is the efficient and yet at other times they tell us that sin hath no efficient but onely a deficient cause So irreconcilable they are with one another and with themselves As the wicked men effect sin Mr. VV. grants it dishonours God And therefore to the end that it may make for his glory M. VV. tell us he himself must have a hand in effecting of it for so he expostulates if he doth not do so how shall it make for his glory A well-taught child would answer thus If sin cannot make for Gods glory unless God hath a hand in effecting it then the first cannot be because the second is impossible So common it is for those men to begin their reasonings at the wrong end witness this last violentum 7. He frames not his Propositions to the nature of God but the nature of God to his Propositions 7. What at first he saith God may do he now inferreth that he must do And what is that but to will and work sin and to have a hand in effecting it how else saith he shall it make for his glory that is how else shall Mr. VV's principle be true Mr. VV's maximes must be true though God must be blasphemed to help make them out The original of his error I shewed long since in his not apprehending what is meant by Gods taking occasion to glorifie himself partly by punishing partly by pardoning partly by ordering the sins of men In all which cases it is not sin but Gods justice in punishing his mercy in pardoning and his wisdom in ordering which do make for his glory Sect. 15. Mr. VV's next thing which I know not what to call but is called by him a fifth Argument in his margin is the same which was spoken by Mr. B. to whom I gave †See the Div. Philanth ch 3. p. 129. to p. 140. a large Answer and the same which was spoken by the Superintendent Mr. Hobbs in his egregious * Num. 12. p. 107. lin 1. Animadversions or rather Tergiversations on the learned Bishops Reply nay the same which was spoken by Mr. VV. himself no longer ago then p. 23. to which I gave a whole Section in the close of my first Chapter And it amounts to no more then an expression of his fear that God will be found an Idle Spectator and an Idle Beholder they are his own words unless hebe granted to will and work sin Against which he proceeds to frame and answer an Objection which that he may answer the less unhappily he fashions it to himself in these following words Sect. 16. 1. His great forgery in that little which he cites Sect. 16. Mr. P. thinks to shift himself from this argument by telling us That God doth wisely order and dispose of sin after the committing of it but doth not determin that it shall be done or hath any hand in the doing p. 26. 1. These words he cites from my Div. Philan. Def. c. 3. p. 129. where I cannot find them nor in any other page of any thing which I have written So that here I must demand more reparations for more injury My words were these That God besides his permitting of our sins doth dispose and order them to the best Advantage VVhat Mr. VV. hath foisted in and how he hath forged the whole period I need not say the Reader sees it 2. His foul sense of Gods determining that sin shall be done 2. God according to his praescience that sin would be voluntarily done if not miraculously hindered did determin not to hinder so consequentially or conditionally that sin should be done by his permission that is God determined to permit it to be done Where permission not sin is the object of Gods determination But Mr. B's Doctrine was and Mr. VV's is that God did absolutely and antecedently determin its being done and determin the wills of men to do it and that he could not foresee it but because he decreed it and that his will of evil was as efficacious as his will of good In a word that he doth so determine its being done as to have an efficiency and a hand in the doing of it Nay in plain terms that he doth work it And working we know is acting doing causing at least designing or contriving sin 3. His impious expression of Gods having a hand in sin and the importance of that phrase 3. VVhat he means by Gods determining sin he explains in the next words by his having a hand in it which is a most formidable expression and never enough to be detested For he who only permits sin cannot be said to have an hand in it Nor 2. he who suffers another to tempt for the exercise of the constancy or patience of a Job or a Joseph Nor 3. he who withdraws grace for sin committed to punish former despights which had been done to grace given Nor 4. he who delivers up to Satan by way of Discipline to bring unto Repentance the Presumptuous or the Secure But to have a hand in sin is to be a partner in it or an Accessory whether by commanding or counselling or contriving or countenancing or carrying on the business by secret impulâ—â—ons and excitations all which are but a few of our Adversaries phrases And because Mr. W. is a frequent user of this expression I will once for all desire my Reader to note the horrible importance of it It is the observation of the most
Gods glory or that God may get himself glory by it and be apt to plead upon his committing of adultery or incest that he did not do it as 't was forbidden by the word which is * This is the Doctrine of Dr. Twisse others particularly owned by Mr. W. p. 47. improperly called the will of God say they but as God did secretly will it as it made for Gods glory or to the end that God might get himself some glory by it He did it not out of lust or as a sin but to procreate a Saint and increase the number of the godly and withal to glorifie that discriminating mercy which could not be exercised in the pardoning of such sins if they were not committed by them in whom they are capable of being pardoned that is to say by the Elect. I put this Case to fright men out of those premisses from which if God restrain them not they have been known by experience to draw such horrible conclusions And had I not been able to give examples I should not have thought this method needful Mr. W. tells us plain enough both p. 26. and here too that so far as sin makes for Gods glory God may both **** Note that all are his own expressions â— 26 28. which must be compared to which purpose look on what I hâ—ve said sect 14. of this Chapter will and * work it and have a hand in 〈◊〉 effecting or * working of it And though sin be in it self evil yet it may have some respect of * good As for that which he calls a true Rule and what he hath out of Austin against himself I will not exagitate his unhappinesse therein as I must also forbear to do it in many other particulars meerly for fear I should be endless Sect. 20. Mr. W. proceeds to a sixth Argument wherby he proves his great willingness to prove that God hath efficiency and hand in sin Mr. W's dangerous mis-apprehension of that figurative Sentence That God doth punish sin with sia but more then his willingness to prove it he proveth not For his Argument is but this That God punisheth one sin with another and punishment is more then a bare permission It were ridiculous to say that a Judge onely permitteth a malefactor to be arraigned condemned and executed p. 28. lin ult p. 29. lin 1 2 3 4. First it is not any where said in Scripture that God doth punish one sin with another but 't is a sentence of the Schoolmen as commonly known to be catachrestical as any beggar knowes his own dish and hath neither truth nor sense in it unless it be figuratively meant For God punisheth the sinner and not the sin Nor doth he imprint sin on him as the Lictor doth stripes but withdraws his grace and leaves the sinner to himself whereupon he sinneth without restraint But I have spoken of this in * See the Sinner Impleaded c. 1. p. 9. another place where I have also recorded S. Austins suffrage for the truth 2. His making God the proper cause of the greatest sins 2. But Mr. W. hath so prodigiously misunderstood that sentence or else so guiltily dissembled his understanding as to express Gods punishing of sin with sin by the positive actions of a Judge in his arraigning condemning and execution of malefactors which is to make God the Author and proper cause of the greatest sins in the world such as are the later sins which are called the punishments of the former It being frequently the Doctrine of Mr. W. that of all positive actions God is the Author and †Ext. of Gods Prov. c. 4. p. 11. proper cause But Idolatries and Adulteries Blasphemies and Murders and the sins not to be named Rom. 1.26 are positive actions and punishments in the Schoolmens sense and so according to Mr. W. God is blasphemously inferred to be their Author and proper cause 3. Which he also extends to the very sin of the act 3. Now we see what moved him to say in print That God must * Ibid. p. 12. Iin. 1 2. needs some way both will and work in the sin of the Act. Mark well good Reader He doth not say as at other times the act of sin or the sinful act but the sin of the act meaning the pravity and deformity and obliquity it self as he explains himself in the next two lines wherein he saith that God gets glory to himself by that very pravity and deformity 4. He treads a step beyond Calvins worst 4. Mr. W. in this doth tread a step beyond Calvin not onely †Calv. Instit l. 1. c. 18. sect 1. fol. 68. followes him through thick and thin For though Mr. Calvin speaks broadly that the wicked man whilest he acteth is * Id. ib. sect 2. fol. 69. Apparet cer â destinatione Dei fuisse impulsos Fateor quidem interpositâ Satanae operâ saepe Deum agere in Reprebis sed ut e jus impulsu Satan ipse suas partes agat unde hoc nisi quod à Deo manat efficacia erroris ut mendacium credant c. Ibid. Summa haec sit quum Dei voluntas dicitur rerum omnium esse cause ut non tantùm vim suam exerat in electis sed etiam reprobos in obsequium cogat Ibid. Et jam satis apertè ostendi Deum vocari eorum omnium Authorem quae isti censores volunt otioso tantum ejus permissu contingere Id. ib. sect 3. p. 7. acted by God and that the Assyrians were thrust on to rob and plunder by the sure destination of God and that God doth act in the reprobates by the interposition of Satan's help that Satan by God's impulse may act his own part also and that the efficacy of error proceeds from God and that when he casts men into filthy desires he is the chief Author of his just vengeance that is of sin in Mr. W's sense and Satan onely the Minister and that the will of God is the cause of all things and that his providence doth not onely exert its force in the elect who are ruled by his holy Spirit but doth also compell the reprobates to be obsequious and that God is called the Author of all those things which the censorious will have to happen by his idle permission onely though these are frightful expressions and applied in such a manner as not to be capable of excuse yet Mr. VV. as I shewed hath stept beyond him 5. The †Veteres religiosiù interdum simplicem veritatis confessionem in hac parte reformidant Ne Augustinus quidem illâ superstâ—tione interdum solutus est quemadmodum ubi dicit indurationem excaecationem non ad operationem Dei sed ad praescientiam spectare Calv. Inst l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 3. fol. 95. Ancient Fathers were afraid to ascribe that to God's working which they saw could onely be the object of his praescience and his permission
that ever pretended to stir up laughter I will immediately address my self to the uncovering of his Doctrines and of those in the first place which have most endear'd him to Mr. Whitfield by forging God to have a hand in all the wickedness in the World without exception and not onely to be the Author but which is much more frightful the Necessitator of sin His first Abstersion in this kind for so he was resolved to word it His acknowledgment of the crime for which be Apologizeth and the Printer it seems did let him have his own will is a plain acknowledgment of the Crime with which he stands charged For of Div. Philan. c. 3. from p. 1â—3 to p. 139. all those Authors and Assertions which I objected to Mr. B. as to a Follower and a Disciple he professeth to disown no more then two His words are these I will onely except against monstrous Leviathan Hobbs and the Book which he calls Comfort for Believers These I disown from ever having been my Masters c. 3. p. 7. Away with these two then they are excepted against But for Zanchie Borrhaus Piscator Beza Zuinglius and Martyr and all the other ingredients in that long Catalogue Mr. B. avows them to be his Masters Ingenuum est agnoscere per quos profeceris But it is taught by those Authors in the very †Ibid. pages by him cited That both the Reprobates and the Elect were preordained to sin as sin That God is the Author of sin in general of Murder and Adultery in particular That he is the cause of sin and in particular the cause of Incredulity That God doth thrust men on unto wickedness and the like Therefore these and the rest from p. 133. to p. 139. are avowedly the Doctrines of Mr. Barlee And why Mr. Hobbs is out of favour who hath not spoken so noisomly as these have done for ought I have hitherto observed I cannot guess at the reason unless he hath offended by his comparative reservedness Sect. 2. 1. He contradicts his own and his Readers eyes without the least possibility of gaining by it His next Abstersion c. 3. p. 11. hath the unhappiness to begin with a very bold falshood in contradiction to his ovvn and his Readers eyes For he professeth every where in his Correp Correction to have carefully distinguished these three things least possibility of gaining by it 1. The material part of sin 2. The formal part of sin 3. The ruling and over-ruling the sin and sinner This he professeth to have done in all the places which I directed unto and fears not to say that his heedful Readers may easily see it Either he is confident of no such Readers or else he hath a worse confidence to affirm point-blank he cares not what For when he spake of Gods tempting men to sin p. 79. he said he was not at leisure to tell in what sense nay he did peremptorily pronounce that God doth not onely determine all things and actions without exception but their several modalities too and that of all such modalities God is the supreme cause p. 86 87. So that according to Mr. B. God was not onely the Determiner and soveraign Cause of David's lying with Bathshebah which was a Thing or Action but of every Circumstance or Modality and so of the sinfulness it self the application of David's will to the forbidden object and of every point of Aggravation with which the Adultery was loaded Now though the broad-est-mouth'd Libertine must study hard to speak worse yet this was one of Mr. B's most careful speeches 2. He professeth his care for the clearing of God from having any efficiency in sin 2. His inconsistency with himself with Mr. W. and Mr. Hick as such p. 11. yet it was flatly his language as well as Mr. VV's p. 24. that God must needs have some efficiency in sin And his Masters say in sin as sin as hath been shewed If by the word as such he means another modality then he either contradicts what was so lately cited from him or else it is his Divinity that God is the cause of sin as such But this again is a contradiction to his clearing God from it If he means as Mr. VV. that God doth will and work sin not as it is sin but as it makes for Gods glory then he is liable to all those miseries into which Mr. VV. hath plunged himself and condemns himself out of his own mouth as well as out of Mr. VV's and Mr. Hick out of both In a word he is ruined seven several wayes for an Acquaintance with which I send him back to my second Chapter Sect. 14. But. 3. Let us come to the utmost of his Acumen and his Care He saith that the material part of sin 3. He betrayes himself many ways in his very provision for an escape Look forward on Sect. 7. and 12. of this Chapter is the doing or leaving undone some positive natural or moral act and of that he calls God the soveraign Author p. 11. So that if Davids Adultery or lying with Bathshebah was a positive act either natural or moral which he cannot deny he is declaredly of opinion that God was the soveraign Author of it Again he calls it a part of sin whilest he calls it the material part of sin and addes that God is the Author of it but every part of the whole must needs participate the nature of the whole especially in Accidents and even so he makes God to be the Author of sin not only in equivalence but even in those very terms Nor will it help him to say materiale substratum for by that he must mean either the substance or the action either David himself or his lying with Bathshebah If the former he is undone for 't is to say that a substance is a part of an accident and that David himself was a part of his Adultery If he flies unto the later he is worse undone then in the former for 't is to say that the Action which is confessedly positive is a part of that which according to him and Mr. Hick is meerly privative and that Davids lying with Bathshebah was but part of his Adultery or at least that his Adultery was but part of his sin If to avoid these Absurdities he shall say the very truth that the Action it self to wit Davids lying with Bathshebah was indeed his whole Adultery and so his whole sin then his miseries are as pressing as when he spake the greatest falshood unless he cry peccavi and yield the whole cause For either he must deny that Davids lying with Bathshebah was a positive thing or say that God was the Author of it as here he doth or else he must say that Sin is God which is his own Inference c. 3. p. 112. or he must spit in the face of his pious friend Mr. Hick who betrayed him to that senseless blasphemous Inference Now let
mind by this simile even as a man puts spurs to a dull Jade And though he confesseth that the expressions of Mr. Calvin Zuinglius and Dr. Twisse may be possibly too high p. 8. nay that they spake with some * Corrept Corr. p. 56. fearfulness of what they spake nay though the Fathers of the Church were religiously afraid to speak the like by the confession of Mr. †Calv. Instit l. 2. c. 4. sect 3. sol 95. Calvin and though Mr. B. doth approve yea defend their expressions as well as adde to their number as black as any yet now he boasts that they were wary enough and he hath nothing happy Creature for which to crave mercy 5. He is convicted by Dr. Twisse of making God the Author of sin 5. What he presently addes of his words and meaning at other times when he denies that God is the Author of sin doth but adde to his impiety a self-contradiction My proof of which shall be taken partly from himself and partly from Dr. Twisse It is said expresly by himself p. 11. That God is the soveraign Author of the material part of sin * Fornicatio notat peccatum non tantùm secundum formale ejus quà peccatum est sed secundum materiale ejus quà actus est Twiss Vin. Gr. l. 2. par 1. Digr 2. c. 14. p. 155. and as expresly by Doctor Twisse that Fornication denoteth sin not onely according to its formal part but also according to its material part Or if he had not said it as he hath in those very words yet he approved of those words in Borrhaus and Zuinglius and said it often himself in words equivalent yea divers times in very much worse which however I have already made plain enough yet in the Tract of my account I shall make it much plainer Sect. 7. He makes no difference bâ—twixt the act of adultery and of marriage but equally makes God the Author of both Look forward on c. 3. sect 12. Now Reader observe how our intimate acquaintance begins to unbosome himself to us His words and syllables are these He that cannot or will not tell how God may be said to excite men to the act of adultery which to the adulterer so excited is sin though not to God neither will he tell how God without sin doth stir up men to the act of lying with their lawful wives for it is ad utrumque but ejusdem generis excitatio concursus unless he makes himself guilty of something of sinful concupiscence which alwayes more or less since the fall cleaves to the act p. 12. Here is matter for a whole Volume if I could think it fit to give the reins to my pen upon such a large subject but many things do admonish me to study brevity and dispatch I will therefore first send back my Reader to what I * Look back to ch 1. sect 2. num 7. ch 2. sect 9. spake upon occasion offered to me by Mr. W. to these very words Next I will set down the Branches of Mr. B's Doctrine herein contâ—ined As 1. That God may be said to excite that is in English to stir up men to the act of adultery 2. That that to which the adulterer is so excited is a sin 3. That by a consequence immediate and unavoidable God may be said to excite or stir up men to sin 4. That Gods concurrence and excitation is of the very same kind both to the lawful and unlawful act to the matrimonial which he commanded and to the adulterous which he forbad Now that he who exciteth any agent to any act is properly said to be the Author of that to which he exciteth is evident to as many as understand the word Author and the uses of it in Claâ—sick Writers of which that none may be ignorant I do intend very shortly to make provision And having said but thus much I shall onely ask of Mr. B. what sinful concupiscence is that he speaks of as unavoidable and inseparable in a mans lying with his wife according to Gods most holy and moâ—t wise Institution for the procreation of children that he may train them to the service and glory of God Is it lawful commanded pronounced honourable in Scripture and undefiled and after all this is it sinful too This was the horrible doctrine of the Encratitae from whom the Fathers were wont to vindicate the Catholick Doctrine of Original sin But Mr. B. is worse then the Encratitae because he holds this Doctrine and is yet the husband of two wives He may perhaps have spoken truth in the noisome instance of his own secrets which yet I wonder he would thus publickly reveal but from his particular experience of himself he was most shamefully advis'd to draw a gneral conclusion Sect. 8. He treads not many steps farther 1. The undeniable blasphemies which ensue upon Mr. B's doctrine of praedestination but he stumbles and falls down and bruiseth himself in a most deplorable and piteous manner And I desire to make it the more illustrious that Lookers on may take warning by his mishap yea that himself if it is possible may no longer be able to endure his Doctrines The Case stands thus I had said in my * Correct Cop. p. 49. Notes God foresees I will write not of necessity but choice so that his foresight doth not make an absolute and peremptory necessity but inferrs a necessity on supposition Mr. Barlee saith that this is sensless and as if he thought that necessity had been the English of Praedestination he changeth my words in this manner It is senseless to say that Praescience doth infer a Praedestination p. 13. In opposition to which he sets down this as a maxime That * Note that he affirmeth in It's p. 61. that the will in respect of Gods decree is necessarily determâ—ned to will Praescience of a thing future must needs praesuppose a Praedestination or a Praedetermination of it pag. 13. lin 26. Here it is that I desire the seduced Reader will give attention This is one of the first stones at which the men of that way are wont to stumble if this is happily removed both they that are staggering will stand upright and they that are down if they are not stomachful and childish will surely rise Since Mr. B. hath been my Patient I have often told him what he ayles but he thought that the malady was somewhat too loathsome to be acknowledged I will therefore now perform two things First I will manifest his disease together with the great cause and then I will plainly demonstrate the means of cure 2. The great discease of making God the Author of sin 2. The Disease as I have frequently observed is this That he and his Masters do most openly clearly and unexcusably make God to be the Fountain Author or Cause of sin of all sin of every sin without exception as much the Author
of it as the sinner himself and as much as Satan who tempts him to sin and in some respects much more then both VVhich before I come to demonstrate I will name the Cause of this Disease which being premised must needs be followed by its effects 3. The original cause of the disease 3. The Cause of it is this That they believe Gods praescience or fore-knowledge of all things and events to be neither praevious to nor simultaneous with but directly after his praedetermination of them Mr. Calvin expressed it thus * See the Divine purity defended ch 7. sect 8. p. 74. that God did therefore fore-know all things because he fore-ordained all things of which I have spoken on another occasion And now Mr. Barlee expresseth it thus Gods praescience of a thing future must needs praesuppose a praedestination or a praedetermination of it 4. The Patient proved extrembly sick of the disease by his own acknowledgment of the cause Look sorward on the tenth Section of this Chapter 4. That Mr. B. is sick of the disease I mentioned I now prove out of his words which declare the Cause to be reigning in him And to make the shorter work of it I shall proceed to conviction by this Dilemma Doth he believe Gods praescience of sin or not If he doth not then all his own party will send him packing to the Anticyrae every mouth will be opened full wide against him he will not therefore dare to say No to my Dilemma And if he saith Yes his calamity will be greater for adhering to his Maxime he must confess his Doctrine to be this That God did praedetermine sin antecedently to his praescience or fore-knowledge of sin To make it plain by Syllogism 1. He who holds that Gods praescience of what is future must needs p esuppose his praedetermination of it holds that the praedetermination praecedes the praescience 2. But Mr. B. doth declaredly hold the former 3. Therefore he also doth hold the later This being made thus evident to the most ignorant of his Favourers and undeniable to the most obstinate I will now go on to prove my Necessary Assertion That Mr. B. is sick of the most loathsome and the most dangerous Disease of making God to be the Author and Cause of sin 5. Four short arguments to confirm it left for every Reader to enlarge upon in his thoughts 1. If God foresaw nothing but as being first fore-appointed or predetermined by himself then he foresaw not any mans determination of his will to sin until himself had predetermined that mans determination of his will to sin Now if the Devil is the cause of another mans sinning by meerly inclining his will to sin and if the sinner himself is another cause of his sin by meerly determining his will to sin though not as sin but under the notion and appearance at least of good how can God be thought less if from all Eternity before the Man or the Devil had any existence he had predetermined doth the temptation of the one which is the sin of the Devil and the sin of the other who yields himself captive to that temptation yea the determination of both their wills to both their sins Yet thus he did saith Mr. B. at least in signo rationis before he could be able to foresee the one or the other 2. If he who shall command or advise a man to do a thing which he knows to be forbidden and so a sin cannot possibly be conceived to be less then a concause and coadjutor what then must he be concluded who doth absolutely and irresistibly predetermine and tye up the will to sin 3. God in his Law doth forbid the whole moral act to wit Adultery or Murder and the liberty of the Agent to commit it Thou shalt not do this or that he doth not onely forbid the obliquity of the Act abstracted from the Act as the repugnance of killing an innocent with the Law which saith Thou shalt not kill abstracted from killing for this last is impossible to be so much as conceived much less to be ex parte rei and implies a gross contradiction God forbids us to blaspheme he doth not forbid us to blaspheme amiss implying it possible to blaspheme aright So that if he predetermines the will of man or man as a voluntary Agent to the positive Act of blaspheming he predetermines to that which he forbids that is to sin And if the union of the pravity with the Act doth move God to forbid that the Act it self be freely done how can he then predetermine that it shall be done freely or admitting that he can who is then the Author of sin It is hard to say whether the impossibility on one hand or the absurdity on the other is more observable in the Case Impossibilium nulla est obligatio 4. If God is not by his predetermination of sin the Author of sin who is then the Author of it Man cannot be for in that case he cannot sin For can he possibly hinder the for bidden Act from having a pravity or filth on supposition that it be free and known to be forbidden Or can he so order the matter that there shall not be an Entity of the Act a wilfulness of the Agent nor a testimony of conscience against the thing done No this is impossible the predetermination being supposed or else it is a being too strong for God which is blasphemous as well as impossible How then can God be conceived to exact any thing of his Creature who doth the thing that is forbid being predetermined to the Act which is forbidden and to every circumstance of the Act What is said of man may be repeated of the Devil and if neither of them can be the Author of sin according to Mr. B's Maximes the Reader knowes what to think of Him and Them Sect. 9. To remove the cause of this Noysom and Inveterate Disease and to keep it from being Desperate 1. The easie and infallible means of cure to all who are not resolved to contine sick at least from being Epidemical I must clear the point of Gods Praescience to my less instructed and common Readers such as Mr. W. and Mr. B. appear to be And because they are reckoned as chief men of their party there must needs be great numbers who partake with them in their greatest wants First they seem not to consider that Praescience is nothing else but the Latine word for foreknowledge or else not to know what knowledge naturally importeth and so discern not precisely wherein Gods Knowledge doth differ from his Decree How else could they imagin with * Mr. W. discovers his opinion that whatever God foreknowes must necessarily come to pass and so all sins as well as whatever he decrees doth the like Mr. W. that Gods foreknowledge doth necessitate as well as his decree or how could they dream with Mr. B. that Gods foreknowledge
of what is future and so of all sins is after his praedetermination two gross absurdities not repugnant onely to reason and common sense but inconsistent with one another yet both affirm'd by the same sort of men By Mr. Hobbs amongst others in his Animadversions on Bishop Bramhal In his Answ to an Object p. 40. of his Extent of Div. Prov. Mr. B. c. 3. p. 26. and Mr. Hobbs p. 108. 2. They will soon quit the first if they have but the patience to conside◠2. The nature of knowledge opened and distinguished from decree that scientia est habitus conclusionis as simplex intelligentia is principiorum VVhen the mind is in possession of any conclusion immediately flowing from the premisses and united to them by an essential tye then the rational Agent is said properly to know Scire est per causam scire To know is not to make either the cause or the effect but to find out the effect by the cause as in Demonstration à priori or to track the cause by the footsteps of the effect as in Demonstration à posteriori This is great plainness to such as know but a little Latine but I labour for them who understand none at all to them I speak thus To know is properly an Act of the Intellect but to decree or determine is an Act of the Will The Act of knowing presupposeth the object which needs must be knowable by a priority of nature before it is possible to be actually known There may be scibile or a thing knowable where there is * Note that scibile and scientia are only Kelata secundum à ci and are not capable of being both ways converted per conversionem simplicem in respect of us who are not omniscient In which respect only this thing is spoken not yet scientia or an actual knowledge of it such as a very great part of the habitable world until Christopher Columbus and Americus Vespusius had begun their Discoveries But an actual knowledge cannot possibly be imagined before an object knowable nay must imply its being actually known And though the object is future as in all foreknowledge yet even then it must be actual in its Idea and made present unto the mind by its intelligible species In which respect it was rightly affirmed by the †Plotin Enn. 5. l. 9. c. 13. Enn. 6. l. 3. c. 1. Platonicks that before the Creation of this visible world there was in Gods mind a World Intelligible that is an Exemplary Cause an idea or Platform according to which the world was made But now to Decree is another thing as being an act of the will and being supposed to be absolute is for that very reason effective also For though Gods Decree alone abstractively considered will not cause a necessity yet his decreeing to do being alwayes followed with his doing what he decreeeth must needs in sensu isto composito necessitate the object which is decreed 3. Gods foreknowledge doth not make things simply to be and therefore makes them not to be of necessity 3. Though Gods absolute decree of doing any thing doth cause a necessity of the event yet his foreknowledge doth not nor possibly can it But his Decree I speak of must needs do both This may be illustrated by a Physicians foreknowledge of alteration in the Patient upon a critical day which yet hath nothing of efficiency in its coming to pass But if the Physician doth decree to work a change in the Patient by such or such means as he resolves on he is then the Author of such a change and if it be with a purpose to dispatch the Patient it is not his prophecy but his murder 4. If Gods foreknowledge did imprint a real necessity on the things foreknown 4. The absurdity which would follow if it were so this portentous absurdity would unavoidably follow that he must act in nothing freely but in every thing as a necessitated and limited Agent A blasphemy not to be escaped but by the denial of his omniscience from all Eternity which is every whit as great a blasphemy And to the same inconvenience the irrespective predestination must needs be subject 5. If Gods foreknowledge did necessitate the things foreknown it was either simply as foreknowledge 5. Other absurdities which would follow or as Gods foreknowledge in particular Not as the first because then the foreknowledge of every man that can prophesie would be the cause of things future which he foretells Cyrus then had been beholding to the Prophet Isaiah for his birth because the Prophet foreknew it a hundred years beforehand Not as the first therefore nor yet as the * Note that God foreknew what himself would chuse to do yet did not necessitate himself He eternally foreknew that he would in time let Adam fall and not onely let him but help him to rise unto repentance yet who dares say he was necessitated to either second because the act is not the cause of the object but by a priority of order as I shewed before the object of knowledge is before the act how long soever it may be after by a posteriority of Time It must first have been true that there should be such a man as Cyrus or else it had not been possible for the holy Prophet to have foreknown it God foreknew all things that are good as being certain that he would do them and he also foreknew all things that are evil as being certain that wicked Agents would freely do them if they were not hindered and as certain that he would not hinder but permit or suffer them to be done Both were present to his omniscience from all eternity 6. There is no quicker way to make this point most plain and easie 6. An Argument taken from the knowledge of what is past then by bidding the obstinate to consider that knowledge is as properly of things past as future But it implies a contradiction for a present act of knowledge to necessitate or cause a thing quite past The Almighty knows at this instant that Adam fell as well as he knew from eternity that Adam would fall Now all acts of true knowledge must needs imply infallibility else it cannot be perfect knowledge but some other thing as confidence belief opinion suspicion or shrewd conjecture From whence it follows that all acts of true knowledge do infer a necessity although they cannot make any to wit a necessity of consequence arising from the truth of a proposition But such a necessity is inferred from every true knowledge of what is past as well as from a foreknowledge of what is coming which my hasty Adversaries having not hitherto considered they have incessantly confounded it with the antecedent and absolute necessity of the consequent even such as is conferred by every cause on its effect And therefore next I must enforce them do what they can to the contrary to discern a palpable difference
betwixt these two and to discern it so clearly as not to be able to dissent however able to conceal it by a dissimulation 7. Before I shew the Case in God I will provide some light for the weaker-eyed Reader to see it by 7. A manifestation of the wide difference between a necessity of consequence from the antecedent to the sequel and a necessity of the consequent imposed by the cause upon the effect This is conspicuous to All that if I hear a man blaspheme against his Maker it doth necessarily follow that he blasphemeth for if he doth not I do not hear him it being impossible to hear what is not to be heard but this being granted that I do really hear the man blaspheme his blasphemy is inferred by a most necessary sequel Yet this is onely a Necessity of Consequence arising from the Truth of a Proposition wherein the reality of my hearing his blasphemy being supposed the reality of the blasphemy doth unavoidably follow But my hearing him blaspheme doth not necessitate his blaspheming for it would be what it is if I did not hear it And though I hear him blaspheming whilest he blasphemes yet in order of nature his blaspheming hath the priority for he must be to be heard before I can hear him From whence it is manifest that here is not any absolute or antecedent necessity or a necessity of the thing as of the consequent or effect But his blasphemy is a voluntary and contingent Action Now by this it will be easie for the thickest capacity to discern that if God foreknew from eternity this blasphemy of the man then by a necessary consequence the man doth really blaspheme For if he doth not God could not possibly foreknow he doth But this is only a necessity arising from the truth of that Proposition That God's foreknowledge is infallible or not capable of erring and that what he foreknows is very really foreknown It is not a necessity of the existence of the thing imprinted in the blasphemer by Gods foreknowledge but still the blasphemy is a voluntary and contingent action which it could not be if the man did commit it by an antecedent Necessitation And if he did such antecedent Necessitation must have flown from God's Omnipotence and not at all from his foreknowledge It being the nature of knowledge not to produce its object but to suppose it God doth contemplate by his knowledge what he effecteth by his power But it is not in his power to be effective of sin much less in his foreknowledge to be necessitative of blasphemy which whosoever shall affirm will be a very unskilful and dull blasphemer For 8. As Gods Decree is Actio ad extra so is his foreknowledge also 8. Foreknowledge therefore doth not necessitate yet by the * Mr. Wh. p. 37. Where note that M. W. doth call Gods decree Actus Dei ad Intra which in another man had been a strange mistake Note also that Gods knowledge of himselfe is actio ad intra though his foreknowledge of us is actio ad extra confession of the Adversary it doth not ponere quicquam in obâ—ecto being an action within himself saith Mr. W. it works not any thing upon the Creature and therefore doth not necessitate for whosoever necessitates does make necessary not infer it onely He makes a necessity in the thing which he necessitates not onely infers it in a proposition which another makes of things contingent If the Adversaries expound the word Necessitative not by effective but illative then first they speak non-sense before they expound it and after the Exposition they give up their Cause First they speak non-sense in saying that Gods foreknowledge doth antecedently necessitate the being of sin when it infers onely that it will be and next they give up their Cause in confessing that there is not an antecedent necessity of all events but a suppositive necessity of some or a necessity of consequence arising onely from the truth of a proposition whose Antecedent doth of necessity infer the Sequel 9. Having snewed the difference betwixt an absolute causal and a conditional consequential Necessity and freed the praescience of God from the vulgar and senseless imputation 9. It is vain for the Adversaries to quit the first error unless they quit the second also how will the men of that way be ever able to free themselves For admit they quit the first great error of making Gods praescience to necessitate sin yet still they live in the misery of the second which is their absolute decree and praedetermination of all events For this can never be freed from laying absolute necessity having that influence on the effect which praescience cannot be thought to have As if I decree that my servant shall rob my Neighbour I do contribute more towards it then if I onely foresee that he will voluntarily do it and supposing my decree to be irresistible as 't is supposed to be in God it must produce a Causal Necessity The common * Note here that Mr. W. holding the doctrine of Free-will which he try's to reconcile with his absolute decree of all things was betrayed poor man into this sad speech God having decreed the Fall of Adam it was necessary that this should come to passe but it was also necessary that it should come to passe freely Ext. of Div. Prov. c. 9. p. 42. and again he saith It was necessary that the first man should sin upon supposition of Gods Decree and that he should sin freely Ibid. p. 40. See the Divine Purity Defended c. 8. p. 80 81 82. shift is too shameful to serve in stead of an excuse For if God did absolutely decree that man should voluntarily sin which they are often * Treatise of the Passions c. ch 42. p. 544 545. fain to say though it implies a Contradiction then he might possibly have forborne the commission of it because he did voluntarily commit it which yet was absolutely impossible if God had absolutely decreed it I think it fit in this place to insert a passage of Doctor Reynolds Dr. Reyn. his concurrence with T. P. in this point both because he doth condemn and severely censure the very same error which I at this instant do write against and also because he is a person whom Mr. W. and Mr. B. conclude to be of their party * Note that he means an Hypothetical Necessity or of the consequence as appears by his last words His words are these Others there have been yet more impious which seek to fasten all the corruptions of their wills on something above the Heavens even the eternal foreknowledge and the providence of God As if my foreknowledge that on the morrow the Sun will rise or that such men as these shall one day be brought to a most severe doom were the cause working a necessity of the next day or the last Judgement It is true indeed Gods praescience
of the wisest Agent even God himself that he cannot tell what he will do untill he actually doth it God worketh alwayes from eternity hitherto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even till now * Joh. 5.17 saith our Saviour and what he now worketh he knew he would work from all eternity even whilest he determined that he would work it He did not first determine and then know but determined according to his knowledge Thus far indeed the men of that way may safely speak that Gods Decree of Creation was before his knowledge of a world actually created for before a thing can be known as actually done as the actual creation of the world or the world created God must needs have decreed that he would do it But withall let them consider that we are speaking of Gods knowledge of what is future not yet in act and therefore call it his foreknowledge which contemplates what will be in the presence only of its Idea And his Decree of Creation could not possibly be before that Idea of a world to be created Man in some things hath a similitude with his maker And as a man cannot decree to make a Watch or any other piece of work before the image of that Watch is in his mind so God himself could not decree to create a world before he knew it in its exemplar and conceived how it should be and that for the reason before specified because he could not decree vagum quid indefinitum he knew not what 13. The Application to the present case and away opened to reconcilement 13. I will apply my discourse to the case in hand God must needs have decreed that he would permit sin before he could know or consider it as actually permitted But 't is one thing to know it in Ideâ or in exemplari as a thing which may be if God will and so may not be if he will not and quite another thing to behold it as actually being for this is after his decreeing that it shall be if it be such on which his decree can pass as the creating of a world and the permitting of sin but upon sinning it self the decree of God could never pass and therefore for that I must resume what I lately said that God eternally foreknew what he did not decree the being of as well as all which he did decree As he knew he would create one world so he knew he would not create a hundred As he knew he would suffer or permit us to sin so he knew he would not tempt not incite us not necessitate us to sin As he knew whilest he decreed that he would give us free-wills so he knew whilest he decreed that he would not take that freedom from them and he knew what he did not yea what he could not decree our many impious abuses which we voluntarily make of this our freedom Now let my Adversaries recount as well how far I go their way as where I leave them and for what Reasons 1. Let them consider that I say as well as themselves that in order of nature though not of time God did first decree to make or do things before he knew them as actually made or done 2. Let them consider that I leave them by adding this that God decreed nothing future before he foreknew it in Idea and foreknew but decreed not the Acts of sin such as Adultery Murder Blasphemy and the like 3. Let them consider my Reasons to name no more are these two first it is impiously irrational to make God to have decreed he knew not what and next it is worse to make him the Author or Cause of Sin Let them admit of so much as may consist with the wisedom and goodness of God And for any thing else I will not strive with them But till that shall be done I must proceed to discover their grievous failings Sect. 10. I can pass no further then the two and twentieth page of Mr. B. without observing him teaching Mr. B's unavoidable consequential blasphemy that God determined all wickedness before he could foreknow it That the things which God foreknows will have a certain futurition he foreknows them all by vertue of his own will and counsel whereby from all eternity he determines their futurition and without which he could not know that they should certainly be p. 22. First he speaks of Futurition 1. His ignorant use of the word Futurition as if he thought it signified Existence for he talks of Gods knowing what will be future whereas that which will be is future now whilest yet it is not but hereafter it will be present Had he said waterish water he had committed a less absurdity 2. Of the word Will. 2. He talks of Gods knowing by vertue of his Will as if he knew not the difference betwixt the Understanding whose proper object is truth or falshood and the Will whose proper object is good or evil good onely of Gods will and evil also of ours He might as well have said that God did will by vertue of his knowledge and indeed much better because 't is natural for the Will to follow the judgement of the Intellect The sight of the object is before the pursuit or else the pursuit is in the dark If Mr. B. had said that he sees by vertue of his hands or feet he had been less to be blamed because he had but made himself a Monster and with himself he may be bold but not with God 3. Of the word Certain 3. He talks of Certain as if he thought it had been all one with Necessary or if he knew what he spake as probably he did he hath blasphemed unexcusably For God foreknew that all the wickedness in the world would very certainly be it had not else been foreknowledge but false conjecture if what he seemed to foreknow had been uncertain and so 't is the Doctrine of Mr. B. That God could not foreknow all the wickedness in the world unless by his will he had first determined its futurition 4. Of the word Counsel 4. He talks of Gods Counsel as if he knew nothing of the word For he saith that God foreknew by vertue of his Counsel as well as Will whereas Counsel cannot be Counsel but by vertue of Knowledge In the absence of Knowledge there must be Error and Unadvisedness but consultation or Counsel there cannot be Thus his Doctrine of Decrees hath made plain English a stranger to him 5. His threefold Blasphemy besides his self-contradiction 5. But the most notorious thing in his present speech is his making God to will sin and his not allowing that God could otherwise foresee it then by decreeing its coming to pass Which first is blasphemously contradicting to the word of God who saith he wills not the wickedness of a sinner Psal 5.4 Next Look back on the eighth and ninth sect of this Chapter 't is blasphemously
contradicting to the Oath of God who swears he wills not the death of a sinner Ezek. 33.11 Thirdly 't is no less then blasphemously to infer that the narrow knowledge of man is more extensive then the knowledge of God For man doth know many things which he doth not will or determine whereas God saith Mr. B. with his Condisciples and Predecessors never knew any thing in the world but what he willed and determined nay which is yet a greater madness that he never knew or could know any thing but because he willed and determined its future being Fourthly 't is repugnant to the common Rule by which his own dear party are wont to be guided at other times to wit that the Will doth necessarily follow not go before the practical Judgement of the Intellect or Understanding Sect. 11. Not many lines farther 1. Mr. B's positive Doctrine of Gods ordaining all sins both original and actual he forgets himself thus As for future moral evil things whether original or actual sins God foreknew them all in the same moment of Eternity because even then he did by his permissive and ordinative will determine that they should fall out p. 22. Here let him distinguish that his just meaning may appear Does he mean Gods ordering onely of all sins or his ordaining them also If so then it is blasphemy if not so it is contrary to the Assemblies Catechism and Confession of Faith too and as contrary to himself For it is said by that Assembly that God by the counsel of his own Will did freely and unchangeably * Assem Confes of Faith c. 3. Artic. 1. ordain whatsoever comes to pass And again say they He hath †Assem short Catech. p. 158. Edit Lond. 1656. fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass Thus the Assembly of Divines And Mr. B. himself affirms Gods Praescience to be subordinate to his Decree both in the moments of Time and Nature p. 23. l. 5. Agreeable to which is the Pulpit-Doctrine of Mr. Case This is the ₠M. Case his Sermon Intituled The vanity of glorying in the flesh p. 58. plot of Divine Providence which he hath been * contriving from the dayes of Eternity the miscarriage of the first Covenant was not of improvidence but of * ordination But Doctor Twisse and Mr. Whitfield will have it thus †Non tantùm voluiss◠Deum ab aeterno dicimus sed conformiter ita operatum esse in tempore totum negotium ita administrasse ut revērâ peccaret Adamus Vin. l. 2. p. 27. cited by Mr. W. in Ext. of D. Prov. p. 10. God did not onely will the sin of Adam from Eternity but conformably to it did so work in time and so administer the whole business as that Adam might or should really or effectually sin Mr. W. approves of this extremely and translates it so as to leave out the word whole which is in the Latine of great Importance and renders reverâ by certainly by which he meant unavoidably if he meant at that as at other times Thus we see 't is the Doctrine of Mr. B. his Brethren and his Masters also that God ordained all sins both original and actual and that he foreknew them because he foreordained them 2. By this the Reader may judge 2. Mr. B's Nonsense added to Blasphemy what sense he puts on the word Permissive when he adds Ordinative to it for explication If the man should have said that the world was created by Gods permissive and ordinative will he had onely spoke non-sense and had but moved his Readers laughter Whereas in saying that original and actual sins were determined to fall out by Gods permissive and ordinative will he adds blasphemy to non-sense and cannot but stir up his Readers wrath Sect. 12. In his c. 3. p. 55. he hath done a stranger thing then when he denied his own hand 1. Mr. B's self-contradiction in denying and yet affirming that he maketh God to be the Author of sin because he denies what he hath printed to wit that he pleaded for a literal sense of those Texts of which he now at last saith That God according to the letter of many of those Texts seems to be made a moral cause of sin as sin p. 55. Yet in his Corrept Corr. p. 69 70. he did heartily plead against me for my charging those men with too literal Expositions of such Texts that the sense of Scripture was but one Look back on Sect. 7. of this Chap. and on Sect. 2. Num. 3. and that the Grammatical and withal jeered me for teaching him to recede from the words and to approch nearer unto the genuine sense ending his jeer too with credat Judaens apella non ego all which he now denies to my great amazement 'T is true indeed he added these words Where the Letter is not plainly metaphorical typical or contrary to some other plain places and the clear Analogy of Faith all which condemns him so much the more because he said this of other Scriptures like Mr. W. which say that Christ did taste death for every man and the like but not of those Texts whose Grammatical sense he there defended For he referred to the Texts reckoned up by himself p. 103. and what should they be but Mat. 20.28 26.28 Heb. 9.28 Rom. 5.18 concerning Gods mercy and love to mankind not those whose naked Letter doth seem to such as he is to make God the Author or Cause of sin So that now more then ever I admire his Conscience which would suffer him to speak so very plainly against his knowledge 2. He is convict-by his own words by the Assemblies and by Mr. W's 2. I will convince him out of his mouth for when he mentioned the Analogy of Faith did he not mean that Faith which is owned by him and his party And is it not one of the Articles of their publick Confession of Faith which I lately cited sect 11. That God did foreord in whatsoever comes to pass Doth not Mr. W. his Majorite contend most stifly for a literal sense of those Texts which he would have to make God to will and work sin p. 19. 20. and doth not that Majorite * Mr. W's Ext. of D. Prov. p. 12. elsewhere teach the people in Print that God must needs some way both will and work in the * Ibid. sin of the Act because not onely the action it self but the very pravity and deformity of it makes way for Gods glory †Ibid. p. 11. That as sin makes for his glory he hath a hand in effecting it and that * Ib. p. 44. sin by accident makes much for his glory That God did †Ib. p. 40 42. decree the sin of Adam and that his sin was therefore necessary * That God intends his Gospel should harden mens hearts and close their eyes and shut their ears and that he sends it for this very purpose Lastly doth he
not say †Ib. 45. that in all the sins which are committed by men God hath a secret working hand and in this his last Book he chief hand too p. 27. Thus I convince him out of his own mouth and Mr. W's 3. He is convicted out of his own and Dr. Twiffe his words also 3. I will next convince him out of his own and Dr. Twisse his mouth also First for his own part he professeth that he maketh God the soveraign Author of the material part of sin p. 11. Now because from Dr. Twisse he learn'd his distinction betwixt the material and formal part of sin and because I well remember what the Doctor saith of it let us next consider that Doctors words * Futtum omne duo netat viz. actum contrectâ—ndi sive surripiendi â—es alienas actus hujus deformitatem quatenus sc lege divinâ nobis interdiâ—itur rebuâ— alienis sur ipiendis Sic Homicidium duo consignificaâ— actum interficiendi hominem illicitam ejus conditionem sive cum lege Dei repugnantiam Similiter Adulterium duo connotat nimirum actum c ncumbendi cum alienâ atque hujus actus turpitudinem Twiss Vin. Gra. l. 2. par 1. Dâ—gr 2. cap. 14. p. 155. Theft doth note two things the act of snatching away another mans goods the material part of the sin and the deformity of this act in as much as we are forbid by the law of God to snatch away another mans goods the formal part of the sin So also Murder doth signifie two things at once the act of killing a man and the illegal condition of that act which is its repugnance with the law of God Likewise also Adultery doth connotate two things to wit the act of lying with another mans wife and the flagitious turpitude of this act These three are the examples which the Doctor gives us of his distinction betwixt the material and formal part of sin Compare these words with Mr. B's above cited and with the Doctors in divers places of his Books and Mr. B. must confess his printed Profession to be this That God is the soveraign Author of any mans robbing his Neighbours goods of any mans destroying his Neighbours person and of any mans lying with his Neighbours wife Or to instance in particulars it is the publick profession of Mr. B's Faith a special Article of his novel Creed That God was the soveraign Author of Achan's stealing the golden wedge of David's lying with Bathshebah and of Cain's killing Abel Now since 't is granted by all the world that the first was Theft the second Adultery the third Murder God is affirmed by Mr. B. to be the soveraign Author of Theft of Adultery and of Murder And because 't is also granted by men of all sides That Theft is a sin Adultery a sin and Murder a sin God is affirmed by Mr. B. to be the soveraign Author of the first sin of the second sin of the third sin and so by a parity of reason of all the sins in the world 4. He is convicted out of his own and Mr. Hobbs his mouth Mr. Hobbs his words being justified by Mr. W. 4. In the last place I will condemn him not onely out of his own mouth but out of Mr. Hobbs his also First Mr. B. as I shewed before doth make his Confession of Faith in the first person singular and speaks dogmatically thus I make God and what is it that he makes him he tells us in the next words I make God to be the soveraign Author But of what doth he make him the soveraign Author He tells us that in these words of the material part of sin And what doth he mean by the material part of sin he tells us distinctly in the same breath either the doing or the leaving undone some positive Natural or MORAL Act p. 11. What moral Act for example he tells p. 12. the Act of Adultery And how makes he God the Author of that Act he tells us in the same breath by exciting men to it What kind of excitation or stirring up doth he mean he told us that in his first appearance upon the stage even as a man puâ—s spurs to a dull Jade Correp Corr. p. 61. Now let us compare Mr. Hobbs his words who is as able a Calvinist as to these points as their party hath lately had He after all his meditation * Mr. Hobbs of Liberty and Necessity p. 23 24. cannot find any difference between an Action and the sin of that Action as for example between the killing of Uriah and the sin of David in killing Uriah nor when one is the cause both of the Action and of the Law how another can be the cause of the disagreement between them no more then how one man making a longer and a shorter garment another can make the inequality that is between them Whether Mr. Hobbs doth argue thus from his heart as being really seduced by Mr. Barlee's principles which he defends or doth onely talk it from his Teeth outward as playing the Drole with Religion upon the grounds which are given him by rigid Presbyterians I leave each Reader to pass his own judgement But sure his deduction is duly made from the error of absolute praedestination of praedetermination antecedent to praescience and so the necessitation of all events And I wonder if any of that patry who have granted and given him his premisses will adventure publickly to deny his conclusion Well we have the Confession of Mr. Hobbs what that Doctrine doth unavoidably infer which is common to him with Mr. W. and Mr. B. But because Mr. B. hath given him an Epithet and a Praenomen and expressed his detestation by calling him * c. 3. p. 7. Monstrous Leviathan Hobbs I will adde to his the like confession of Mr. W. That if 't is impossible to separate the sin from the action Look back onth 2. sect 10. then he that is the Author of the Action must needs be the Author of the sin also which is inseparable from it p. 25. Sect. 13. Notwithstanding all which hath been proved 1. Mr. B's 10000 curses upon himself and his masters And his implicit confession that that is blasphemy which I have called by that name Look forwards on Sect. 27. Num. 2 3 4 5. of this Chap. where Mr. B. confesseth tryes to justifie what here he poureth his curses on and will be proved yet farther from the printed words of Mr. B. that God is made by him to be the Fountain and Cause of sin yet like a desperate Malefactor he falls a cursing in these words I wish miriads of Anathematismes to light upon him who holds it be he who he will be if he repent not the sooner p. 54 55. One Miriad had been enough if he who writ Myriad and did not mend it in the Errata understood what it meant it being no less then 10000. yet more
then so many curses the man who said he never cursed doth pour at once upon himself and upon the chief men of his way on supposition that they still do what I have proved them to have done If their opinion is contrary to their words which is the onely excuse he can pretend to it doth but aggravate their guilt and speak them wilful He who shall deny his having aspersed his neighbour with the ignominie of Theft because he did but charge him with having invaded another mans goods will onely make himself capable of so much a greater condemnation I am sorry that Mr. B. hath put himself under a curse but am heartily glad he dares not own what he hath written because I hope he will find it needful to hate those principles which led him to write such Poenitenda 2. The like confession of his owned Masters together with their Commissions of the crime confessed 2. The like Confession hath been made by Mr. Calvin and Dr. Whitaker and many more whose words do rise up in judgement against themselves and their party as they do justifie my charge in the severest part of it throughout my Books which that the stomachfullest Adversary may not be able to deny I will confront their own words to their own words and to the words of their friends in two parallel Columns setting down on the left hand the Adversaries Confession that it is indeed a horrid Blasphemy to say that God is the Author or Cause or Necessitator of sin and linking with it on the right hand the Adversaries Commission of the very same crime confessed by them Mr. Calvin's Confession De maleficiis Deo Authore perpetratis locutus Certe inquit ut quidvis contra tam prodigiosam Blasphemiam dicatur libenter patiar modò ne immerito immisceatur nomen meum Calv. de occult Dei Providentiâ p. 736. Idem Calvinus in Libertinos cap. 13. ait ex hoc Articulo Deum scilicet omnia operari Tria admodum horrenda consequi quorum primum hoc est Nullum inter Deum Diabolum discrimen fore Et porrò cap. 14. in eosdem Ipsum à se abnegari oportet in Diabolum transmut ari Et cap. 4. Execrabilis Blasphemia dicitur Remigius although a Patron of Gotteschalc's Cause concludes against the whole party in these following words Nulli necessitatem imposuerit ut malus esset Hoc enim si fecisset ipse utique esset Auctor malorum c. Hist Gottesch cap. 11. p. 173. Mr. Calvin's Commission of the Crime confessed Et jam satis apertè ostendi Deum vocari eorum OMNIUM AUTHOREM quae isti Censores volunt otioso tantùm ejus Permissu contingere Calv. Inst l. 1. c. 18. sect 3. p. 70. De Assyriis praedatoribus iniquissimis locutus apparet inquit certâ destinatione Dei fuisse impulsos fateor Satanae operâ interpositâ saepe Deum agere in reprobis sed ut ejus IMPULSU Satan suas partes agat A Deo ipso manat efficacia erroris ut mendaciis credant c. Vindictae suae projectionis scilicet in foedas cupiditates praecipuus est AUTHOR Satan tantùm minister voluntas Dei rerum omnium causa Reprobos in obsequium cogit Id. ib. sect 2. fol. 69. Idem facinus Deo Satanae homini assignari absurdum non est Ibid. l. 2. c. 4. sect 2. p. 95. Obstinatio cordis Divina fuit ad ruinam praeparatio Ib. sect 3. p. 96. Frustra de praescientiâ lis movetur ubi constat ordinatione potius nutu omnia evenire Ib. l. 3. c. 23. sect 6. fol. 324. Hic scilicet peccator justo illius scilicet Dei IMPULSU agit quod sibi non licet Id. l. 1. c. 18. sect 4. fol. 71. Idem consulatur contra Pighium de aeter Dei Praedest p. 118. ubi Deum peccati Authorem facit Doctor Whitaker 's confession in reference to the whole party without exception Si Calvinus aut Martyr aut Quisquam nostrûm affirmet Deum esse Authorem causam peccati non repugno quin simus OMNES HORRENDAE BLASPHEMIAE scelerisque Rei Whitak l. 8. contra Duraeum sect 1. p. 524. Doctor Fulk confesseth the same in his Defence of the English Translation p. 500. Mr. Whitfield himself doth now confess it to be a Crime and a great Crime to make God the Author of sin p. 2. l. 2. And Mr. Barlee multiplies his Curses on all that do it as hath been shewed and calls it a sottish unholy opinion c. 3. p. 132. although they both are deeply guilty not onely by approving it and defending it in others but by doing it also themselves in the most open expressions in which an Author of sin can be described The Parties Commismission of the Crime confessed Unum atque idem facinus puta Adulterium aut Homicidium Dei AUTHORIS motoris Impulsoris opus est Zuâ—ng in Serm. de Prov. c. 6. Deus Angelum vel Hominem Transgressorem facit Id. ib. cap. 5. Dictis hisce Zuinglianis D. Twissus patrocinium suum commodat Vin. Gr. l. 2. par 2. p. 37. Aliter Satan malorum quà m Deus five de malo quod in culpâ sive de eo quod in poena cernitur loquamur AUTHOR judicatur esse Borrhaus ad Isa cap. 28. Fatemur Deum non modo ipsius operis peccaminosi sed intentionis malae AUTHOREM esse c. D. Twiss Vin. Gr. l. 2. par 1. p. 36. Deus homines ad suas pravas actiones incitat seducit jubet indurat trahit deceptiones immittit quae peccata gravia sunt efficit Martyr in Jud. 3. vers 9. p. 45. Ad peccatum quà peccatum praeordinati sunt tam electi quà m reprobi Trigland Defens fol. 87. Mr. W. and Mr. B. have equall'd all the rest if not out-done them as my Reader hath partly seen and will see yet farther in the several Sections of my second and third Chapters where I have faithfully exhibited and shall exhibit their words and pages It were a task too easie to write a just volume in confronting the Confessions to the Commissions of that party But of things so nauseous I think it enough to let every Passenger have a taste And I am call'd away by Mr. Barlee's next words affirming God to be the cause of the very obliquity of the act of sin in his very attempt of an Abstersion That I may not possibly do him wrong I will transcribe his own words and make them the top of another Section Sect. 14. His confession of Faith touching Gods commerce with sin His Apology for himself and for his Creed is verbatim thus I do every where make it evident that I do onely believe God to be a Natural Cause of the meer Act of sin without which it is impossible that any sin can be committed but that he is onely a meer accidental â—ause of the obliquity of the act of sin wherein alone the formality of sin
is consisting and from whence alone sins Denomination ought to be taken p. 55. This is his wary way of speaking and this he tells us is his Belief 1. That God is the cause of sin both of that which he calls the material * p. 11. part of sin or the positive act of that which he calls the formal * Ibid. part of sin or the obliquity of the act God saith Mr. B. is the cause of both parts and so of the whole sin of which they both are components But 2. he tells us that God is not the natural cause of both but the accidental cause of the one and the natural cause of the other A fair confession of his Faith For Cain's killing Abel and David's lying with Bathshebah were positive acts and each of them saith Doctor Twisse materiale peccati so that of them Mr. B. believeth God to be the natural cause And supposing it possible to separate their obliquities he believeth God to be the cause of them also For although he calls it accidental he cannot mean that it is none for then he would have said that God is no cause at all of the obliquity of the act whereas he now saith the contrary that God is a cause of the obliquity because an accidental cause nor will the known * Pōsito uno Conjugatorum ponitur alterum Et si Conjugatorum unum uniconveniat alterum etiam conveniet alterit Rule of Conjugates allow him any the least evasion The Question is not what kind of cause of the obliquity they affirm God to be natural or moral per se or per accidens but whether or no he is a cause And to this Mr. B. makes answer in the affirmative Nor can he be imagined to argue thus God is not a natural but an accidental cause therefore no cause at all For that were to argue that a thing is not because it is and that a proposition is false because it is true We may argue by such Logick that Mr. B. is not a man because he is not a patient but an angry man And to deny that God is the Author of that obliquity of which he affirms him to be the cause is the same thing as to say he is indeed the Author of the obliquity but the Author of the obliquity he is not for whatsoever is the cause of any thing in any kind of causality is so far forth the Author of it as it is the cause according to the use of the word Author in all Classick Writers as I shall shew in due time How Mr. B. makes God the natural cause of sin it self And if that which he calls the Act of sin as the act of cursing or hating God of David's lying with Bathshebah and the like is nothing else but the sin it self in its whole essence as indeed it is and I have demonstrated before then his beliefe must needs be this that God is the natural cause of sin which is worse then to believe him the moral cause onely by how much it is worse to necessitate any man to wickedness then onely to tempt and perswade him to it He who necessitates being the sole cause of it and he who perswades the concause onely I will say no more here because I have enlarged so much * Look back on ch 2. sect 5. already on an occasion offered by Mr. W. I will onely adde a word to Mr. B's citation in his Margin If he is to be judged a moral cause of any sin who moves any one to it by help or counsel favour or perswasion as †Dominicus à Soto doth truely speak * In moralibus prorsus est judicaturque causa qui lege ope consilio favore vel persuasu movet quempiam sive ad bonum sive ad malum Domin à Soto de Nat. Gra. l. 1. c. 12. how falsly soever in some other things then God is also accused of being the moral cause of sin by Mr. B. and his party who have publickly taught that God doth tempt men to sin and so far favour the regenerate in the very worst sins they can commit as that they cannot fall totally much less finally from grace I have shewed the former in the third Section of this Chapter and the later long ago in the Div. Purity defended ch 14. sect 2. p. 128 129 c. Sect. 15. Mr. B's most signal and most desperate attempt from p. 111. to p. 121 Now I proceed to that part of Mr. B. which will save me the labour of saying more and make him wish ere it be long that he had said nothing at all but that he had rather been born dumb For 't is that wherein he engageth not his own credit onely if he can possibly imagine that he hath any yet left him but the credit of his friends too amongst whom Mr. Hick of Mag. Coll. is branded by him for a chief Nor onely so but he engageth very deeply his soul and conscience which ought I am sure to be dearest to him Now that himself and his Abettors may not fail of comprehending the breadth and depth of the Calamity into which he hath ingulphed and plunged himself and to the end that he may find it much the most for his Interest to make a publick Recantation and to act * 2 Cor. 7.11 revenge upon himself I will as briefly as I am able premise the state of the affair betwixt him and me that so the life of his unhappiness may at last appear in the greater lustre 2. The state of the case from its Original 2. I had proved in my †Ch. 3. p. 110. to p. 116. Defence of the Divine Philanthropie that the sinner is the efficient cause of sin in confutation of Mr. B. who denied that sin had any efficient cause at all but onely forsooth a deficient cause I say I had proved the efficient of sin by a great number of Arguments whereof each was so cogent that neither Mr. B. nor M. W. nor Mr. Hick had the courage to venture on a solution I do heartily wish that my Reader will here peruse those seven pages in my D. Philan. Defended from p. 110. to p. 116. where he will find my Thesis proved by so many convincing Demonstrations as have not left the Adversary the least colour for a Reply And because some Readers may not have that Book in their possession whilest others are unwilling to neglect the work they are upon I will here recapitulate but very briefly what there is proved in ample manner 3. Proof◠that sin hath an efficient cause 3. 1. 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 less can it be the cause of punishment and so God is
inferred to punish men without cause 2. Where there is no efficient there is no effect that is there is nothing and so according to Mr. B. men are either not damned or damned for nothing 3. If the sinner is but deficient as to the being of sin he is less the cause of it then God is inferred to be by them who say that Gods will of sin is efficacious and irresistible as that which predetermines decrees and necessitates sin and efficacious ab efficiendo is prevalent forcible c. 4. Mr. B. confesseth in a sober fit that the sinning creature is the * Corrept p. 79. efficient cause of sin although he saith in a fit of passion that sin hath †Ib d. p. 55. no efficient cause 5. He often mentions the * Ibid. p. 79. Being of sin as when he saith that God * p. 178. ordained it Whereby he infers it to be effected and so to have an efficient 6. If he saith as at other times he doth that sin consists wholly in a deficiency he infers what is worse that no creature can effect sin nor by consequence commit it 7. Whilest he affirms Gods absolute ordination of sin in one breath and that sin hath onely a deficient cause in another breath he chargeth on God all the causality of sin of which he allowes it to be capable 8. As when he breaths hot he saith that God ordained and determined sin so when he breaths cold he saith that God can ordain nothing but good which is to infer that sin is good And to what is good he allows an efficient cause 9. If sins of omission as not praying and not giving almes c. had but a deficient cause yet sins of commission as cursing and sacrilege c. have a cause efficient with a witness 10. Admitting that sin were a privative Entity it would not follow that it hath not any efficient cause For he who deprives a man of life or sight is the efficient cause of death or blindness And darkness the privative of light was one of the works of Gods Creation Gen. 1.4 5. of all which he was the efficient cause 11. What is privative in one respect may be positive in another as our sicknesses and sins do daily teach us Murder is not onely privative of vertue but also constitutive of vice and must have something in it of positive to make it differ in specie from all other sins and in degree from all other murders Of some we say they are not good whilest others are not onely positively but superlatively evil 12. Every privation presupposeth an habit to which it stands in opposition but a man may be covetous who never was liberal 13. An Agent morally deficient in the performance of a Duty doth effect that evil action which is so morally deficient For 1. The Adulterer is the efficient of his filthy Act which is his sin 2. The Devil is the Father of lyes and a Father is an efficient 3. A man through grace is the efficient cause of a good Action And Mr. B. is worse then a Pelagian if he will say that man is more efficient of good then of evil 14. Mr. B. * Corrpt 111. confesseth in a lucid interval that there may be something positive in a privation 15. Punishment is a positive Entity and owned to have an efficient cause But Mr. B. saith often that sin is a punishment 16. Whilest he denies his making God the Author of sin because sin forsooth hath no efficient he unavoidably infers 1. Either that God is not the Author of death or 2. that he is the Author of sin if of death or 3. of both or 4. of neither 17. If when they say that God is the cause of sin they do not infer he is the Author because the cause is but deficient they plead no more for God then for the Devil for if nothing is an Author which is not efficient and if sin hath no efficient then neither Men nor Devils can be the Authors of sin 4. In stead of answering these things 4. Mr. B's impertinencies and railings in lieu of Answers do stricke obliquely at S. James Mr. B. talks thus p. 111. sect 3. First that my opinion of sins having a positive Entity and an efficient cause is a dreadful opinion Secondly that there is no question between us about any thing else which if true then my evincing this concludes the Controversie between us Thirdly that he trembles more at the thought of commiting sin then many of my party if not my self at the open acting of it Fourthly that Gods judicial hand appears against me Fifthly that my conclusion out of S. James ch 1. v. 15. is 1000. times more for Gods being the Author of sin then the words of his party which I have cited Sixthly that Gods just hand is upon me Seventhly Quem perdere vult Deus hunc dementat p. 112. These are his general Answers thrust up together into one Paragraâ—h Before I come to his particular Answers which are infinitely worse I will intreat my Reader to comâ—are my seventeen particulars with Mr. B's seven and with what I shall now say from the express words of S. James who saith that * Jam. 1.15 lust having conceived bringeth forth sin The conception of lust is before expressed by a mans being drawn away and enticed by his lust v. 14. The Spirit solicitâ— the Will on one side lust on the other If lust prevailes and carries away the wills consent then lust conceives or which is all one in effect the Will is †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawn away and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceived or overreached by Lust not onely invited but insnared and wrought upon by the invitation so as to give up its consent Lust by this doth conceive and then bringeth forth sin as the Parent the Child VVhat is sin therefore but the production of the will consenting to Lust or drawn away by it The production I mean of the evil will which by thus consenting becomes evil Now this being the upshot of what I mean by the efficient cause and positive entity of sin against whom hath Mr. B. spent the expressions of his Pet against we onely who spake from S. James or against S. James also from whom I spake * Note how the bitterest of his censures do hit himself and his party Nay hath he not spent them upon himself who hath confessed even in Print the very same things which here he railes at He hath openly affirmed both that the sinning Creature is the efficient cause of his sin Corrept p. 79. and that there ☞ may be something of positive in a privation Ibid. p. 111. Nay are not all his railings against all his own party who say that God doth †Look back on ch 2. p. 90. efficere peccata and not onely will but ** M.W's. own words p. 26. of which I
then have been used by a Priest to prove the goodness of sin For the Libertines and Ranters who are as little versed in Metaphysicks and in Aristotle's meanings as Mr. B. or Mr. Hick or Mr. Hobbs are not onely very ignorant of the * Bonitas moralis naturalis transcendentalis passim leguntur apud id genus Scriptores difference betwixt good and good but they cannot easily be taught it And a Carneadist will be glad to introduce an opinion that sin is good by calling it Bonum Metaphysicum or Transcendentale Mr. B. must now be taught that he may not debauch his Disciples that the adaequate subject of Metaphysical Science is ens quatenus ens reale illud not omnimodo positivum quatenus positivum And so in one sense it comprehendeth * Vide Scot. Quodl 3. Art 1 Res and †Vide Monlorium de Univers cap. 7. Aliquid And Mr. B's very obliquity he knows is really some thing but then again he must be taught that Bonum in Metaphysicks which is converted with Ens doth not signifie Good in English any more then Canis the Star doth signifie the Dog which walks about with four feet in our English streets and apprehensions though that in Latine is Canis too The difference is not the less betwixt malum an Apple and malum an Evil and * In accusativo malum an mast because they are expressed in the very same letters Bonum in English doth signifie good as oppos'd to evil But in Metaphysicks no more then ens in ordine ad appetitum And that sin is such Mr. B. knows by sad and minutely experience and so before he is aware he hath proved the thing which he indeavoured to disprove by his very indeavours to disprove it viz. that sin is a positive thing 4. Dr. Twisse his Foundation a thin Sophisme 4. Upon this lamentable Sophism as lame and as naked as it appears Dr. Twisse hath founded his Doctrine of irrespective Reprobation Because forsooth there is aliqua bonitas nimirum entis in damnato but none in annihilato therefore God saith the Doctor who may annihilate for nothing may damn his Creatures also for nothing this being saith he the lesser evil Chuse now good Reader whether thy Saviour or Doctor Twisse doth best deserve to be believed Doctor Twisse tells us that it is better to be tormented in Hell for ever then to be turned again to nothing Our Saviour tells us the contrary Mat. 18.6 Mat. 26.24 Mar. 14.21 where he saith in effect that it is better to be annihilated then to be damned By the Logick of that Doctor it should be better also to do wickedly then not to do any thing at all and sin would be good by being something 5. How a lye is verum as much as sin bonum 5. If non-sense is to be spoken in the style of Metaphysicks as misunderstood by a Hobbist or a Presbyterian then indeed we must say that sin is bonum metaphysicum and that a lye by consequence is metaphysicum verum Then which if Mr. B. doth mean no more the Reader sees what he hath gained But if by Good he means bonum morale let him prove that Parricide Incest Witchcraft or Blasphemy must either be naked privations or moral good things for according to his dreamings they must either be nothing or no sins or moral vertues or sins and moral vertues too And so the Devil who is not a bare privation must be with Mr. B. a moral good 6. Now I must shew him the sense of his Latine Citations in the Margin 1. Albertus Magnus his speech hath thus far truth in it 6. Albertus Magnus his words explained Perfectius est agere quà m esse Id quod non est à se nec potest à se manere in esse multò minus potest agere à seipso Et cùm actus malus secundum conversionem ad materiam sit simpliciter actus egrediens à potentiâ activâ perfectâ secundum naturam ideo non egreditur ab eo nisi secundum quod movetur à causâ primâ alioqui sequeretur duo principia esse Alb. Mag. in Pet. Lomb. Senten 2. Disp 37. that actus malus is not so from the man as if he could simply agere à seipso if God did not give him the power of being and acting as a very free Agent But this being supposed it is meetly the work of mans own will which God hath left thus free that is determinable by it self to determine his Will to this or that which is evil So again it is true quod non egreditur abeo nisi secundum quod movetur à causâ primâ if he means by movetur his having the power of being and acting as a man both given and continued by God unto him which is abundantly sufficient to avoid the duo principia if he means coaeterna otherwise 't is certain that God is the principle of good onely and Lucifer onely of evil Thus the Citation makes not for Mr. B. but in two respects it makes against him for actus malus is actus and egredient from that power which is enabled to act as that is more perfect then barely to be and so as to need a dependence from the first cause which must infer the Agent to be more then deficient for to a meer deficiency there needed not his moveri à causâ primâ 2. Mr. B. doth here assert that man had his power to sin from God Mr. B. taught by Mr. Rivet doth most avowedly make God the Author of sin nor will he deny that that power hath a positive entity but he had argued before c. 2. p. 54. That if the power to sin was from God God must unavoidably be the Author of sin which besides the great impiety bewrayes a sottishness in the blasphemer for the power to sin being in order of time as well as of nature before the being of sin it followes that such a power is not onely no sin but 't is impossible that it should be else Adam must have been sinful whilest he was innocent and sinned before he sinned because he had the power to sin before it was possible for him to sin or for that power to be reduced into act Mark now the arguing of Mr. B. from his * See the Div. Philan. ch 4. sect 24. p. 24. friend Mr. Rivet If that power or capability which neither was nor could be sin was from God then God was unavoidably the Author of sâ—n that is he was because he was not it was necessary because impossible This 't is to be a rigid Consistorian He and Rivet must either say Look forward on sect 29. that Adam actually sinned before he had the power to sin or that it is part of their belief that God is unavoidably the Author of sinne 7. S. Austins words most impertinently cited 7. Saint Austin's speech of Natura vitiosa in
mans own work but his Creators who then is made by Mr. Hick to be the Author of such impieties 8. Sin is so spoken of in Scripture as to be every where concluded a very positive thing 8. Sin spoken of Scripture as a positive thing There are that sin as with a (a) Is 5.18 Cart-rope and (b) Is 30.1 adde sin unto sin Christ (c) Is 53.10 12 bare our sins and made his soul an offering for them All sin shall be forgiven (d) Mat. 12.31 except that against the Holy Ghost We read of (e) Gen. 20.9 Joh. 15.22 19.11 1 Joh. 5.16.17 great and little sins in comparison We also read in proportion of (f) Mat. 23.14 Luk. 12.48 greater and lesser damnation Sin is the (g) 1 Cor. 15.56 sting of Death and death the (h) Rom. 6.23 wages of sin And the cause cannot have a lesser Being then the effect Sin (k) Rom. 7.8 wrought in me saith the Apostle all maner of concupiscence And perfectius est agere quâm esse saith Albertus Magnus Sin hath its (l) Rom. 7.8 9. life and death and resurrection There is a (m) Heb. 3.13 deceitfulness of sin And sin is said to have its (n) Heb. 11.25 pleasures Sin is a thing to be (o) Heb. 12.1 laid aside either totally or for a time There are that are (p) Rom. 7.14 sold under sin and are servants to it and cannot (q) 2 Pet. 2.14 cease from it Insomuch that sin doth rule and (r) Rom. 5.21 6.12 reign over them In a word it is evident from the Scriptures that from the time in which sin did make its (Å¿) Rom. 5.12 entrance into the world it was able to change the course of Nature And could a simple privation which is but the absence of an Entity supposed to have been present have been the cause of all this 9. Mr. Hick convinced by his own party 9. Mr. Hick's own party acknowledge sin to be a compound made up of a material and formal part The material part of it Mr. W. calls a natural act p. 25. Mr. B. both a natural and moral act p. 11. Doctor Twisse gives his instance in the act of lying with another mans wife All positive things Nay the formal part of sin is a positive Entity as themselves have defined it it being the result of two positive things to wit the repugnance of any Action with the Law of God Nay Mr. W. saith broadly that God must needs both will and work in the sin of the act the very pravity it self p. 12. implying it to have an efficient cause 10. He argues with the Libertines 10. Mr. Hick argues like the Libertines and as it were out of their mouths whilest he contends that all things positive are either Gods Creatures or God himself And so he comes to be concerned in what I said to Mr. W. ch 1. sect 2. p. 8 9 c. I leave the Reader to collect how Mr. Hick would frame his Answers to any man that should Catechise him in the very first Article of the Nicene Creed he having discovered to all the world in what a latitude he understands it 11. Mr. Hick will confess he hath blasphemed in case that sin is something positive which is many wayes proved 11. This Mr. Hick will unavoidably confess that if 't is impossible to separate the sinful act from the sin as David's lying with Bathshebah from his sin of Adultery nay that we cannot imagine or conceive how they can possibly be distinguished then sin must needs be something positive and so is inferred by him to be either Gods Creature or God himself But that there is not the least difference betwixt the sinful act and the sin as betwixt the act of hating God and the sin of hating God which is that act of hating God I have manifested * Look back on ch 2. sect 12 13. and also on sect 9 11. of the same ch 2. before to Mr. W. In all which Mr. Hick comes to be equally concerned and I refer him to four Sections pointed out in the * margin To all which I adde these following proofs 1. Sin being complexum quid in the acknowledgement of all cannot admit of an abstraction and yet remain the complexum which it was before abstracted God can separate the soul of man from the body but not the man from the man who is the upshot of their union This would imply a contradiction as that the parts are united when they are separated or not united To make it plain and naked for the thickest heads I shall use this example David's sin of Adultery was not possible to be meerly his repugnance with the Law abstracted from his lying with Uriah's wife nor meerly his lying with Uriah's wife abstracted from its repugnance with the Law of God But 't was the product or result of both united As a man is not his body onely without his soul nor onely his soul without his body but a compound consisting of soule and body 2. The sinful act being a Relative whose very being as such is in relation to the law which it transgresseth it is as impossible to separaâ—e the one from the other as to separate a Father from his very relation unto a Son 3. Mr. Hobbs hath * Liberty and Necess p. 23. confessed what his brethren of the Kirk will never be able to claw off either by owning or disowning that if God is the Author of the action which is a breach of the law as well as of the law of which it is a breach he must be the Author of the breach that is the sin and of the very repugnance betwixt the law and the action by which it is broken which shews the inseparability of which I speak And because the Author of all things requisite to the being of any thing must needs be the Author of the being therefore say I God is so far from being that 't is impossible he should be the Author of any one action which is a transgression of the law that is a sin but onely the Author of the man's free-will and of his power to use his freedom which power is innocent as hath been * Sâ—ct 18. Num. 7. shewed The sin begins not but with the abuse of that power in the determining of the will to the forbidden and wrong object which wrong determining of the will is the sinners own action and his alone since he did freely chuse it whilest yet the contrary was in his power to chuse The power to act being before the act is therefore separable from it though the act being done against the law is not separable from the obliquity which is its being done against the law 4. If it is said that man hath a pravity in his nature Who they are who make God the Author as well of original as actual sin
by him who doth not cite so much as one in this place who can help it 3. S. Austin might erre as well in this as in many other things wherein Mr. B. will say he erred 3. S. Austin August lib. 12. De Civit. Dei cap. 7. ubi de causâ malae voluntatis agit conferatâ—r um ejusdem lib. 21. de Civitate Dei cap. 24. ubi paâ—um inquit veraciter dicitur quod dicitur Mat. 12.32 nisi essent quibus etsi non in isto tamen remâ—tteretur in futuro saeculo His new degree of Arminianism and in the very same book which here he cites I say he might not that he does For Mr. B. understood not his own citation which being seemingly for him doth make against him in reality For Austin's speech belongs onely to the cause of the evil will not of every evil act of which the will is the cause Again it onely belongs to the causes that are without the man and this is that which I would have that God is far from being the efficient cause of an evil will he is not so much as the deficient because he is not wanting in those things that are necessary to make an evil will good so far is Austin from pleading that sin hath no efficient cause Notwithstanding all that he hath spoken the impious man 's own will is the efficient cause of his impiety 4. Whereas he saith that my opinion is most contrary to Arminius he contradicts a good part of both his books wherein he saith that my opinions are †c. 3. p. 25. all derived from Arminius I had formerly proved by many * Div Phi. def c. 1. p. 12 13 c. instances how far himself was an Arminian and how impossible it was that I should be so Now he lends me another instance wherein Himself and Mr. Hick are at agreement with Arminius and I am contrary to all three But I am of opinion he wrongs Arminius and makes him more Presbyterian then indeed he was had he read any such thing he would in all probability have set down the â—lace His case is sad whether he pretends to Truth or Falshood If to the first he hurts himself and Mr. Hick If to the second he slanders Arminius and stabbs himself Sect. 25. Having made this way for his own unhappinesse Mr. Hick's heathenish expression of sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commended by Mr. B. for 1. learned 2. witty and 3. well written by that variety of attempts to which Mr. Hick it seems betray'd him he acts the well-natur'd man and even blesseth the Author of his unhappinesse He declares that Mr. Hick is his cordial friend who wrote well to him told him learnedly and wittily that Mr. T. P. is the first who gave sin this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an extraordinary invention p. 114. Here is his tragical Exit for many reasons 1. Mr. Hick.'s saying that my invention is extraordinary is no proof that Arminius doth say the contrary or that Mr. Hick did write well or that his saying was both learned and witty Each of these I deny and have sufficiently disproved in my eighteenth Section 2. He knowes that I had never mentioned any such Heathenish expression as sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor was it ever to be found in any Author but Mr. Hick And he knowes that it was clearly his own invention either arising from his opinion that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pono and signified the posicive entity of sin which though a sad miscarriage of the Scholar is yet the very best that his friends can make of it or from his sadder apprehension that sin must needs have a Godhead if it is none of God's creatures and yet a positive thing To believe the former were a huge act of charity but there is no place for it with Mr. Hick who hath forced me to the severity of believing the later 3. All Mr. Hick hath displayed is his being overflown with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which could its banks have contained it would not thus have gushed over on no occasion when 't is plain that the effect could be nothing else but to drown his credit with a yellow as well as his cause with a blacker Jaundise But evenit malo male and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Erynnis as they say still pâ—oves a virgin for poor Perillus is the first who is likely to be tortured with his invention and believe me the brazen Bull was a lesser miserie then to be found in the imâ—iety of making the foulest actions to be the Rivulets issuing out by a necessity from God the Source What Spirit but an unclean one can be the cause of uacleannesse that is of sin Who are they whom I have proved to have printed in plain terms that God is the cause of that uncleannesse When the Pharisees heretofore who were the Jewish Puritans or Preciâ—ans and recâ—oned themselves the godly party of the land had slandered our Saviour with having an unclean Spirit who although he was God did appear to them as he was man too our Saviour told them on that occaâ—â—on the danger of blaspheming against the holy Ghost Let them who love the Lord Jesus in sâ—ncerity and tender the safety of their own as well as of other mens soules not onely read but consider and then apply what is spoken Mar. 3.28 29 30. I now dismisse the signal Paragraph which Mr. Hick suggested to Mr. Barlee and Mr. Barlee hath vented to all the People which yet I should not have dismissed so soon but that my Reader may be referred to several Sections for an enlargement as ch 1. sect 2. from p. 7. to p. 13. ch 2. sect 5. p. 69 70. sect 10. p. 79 80 81. sect 14. p. 88 90. All which being considered Mr. B. doth fitly dislike the stile of Unfortunate Writer for if it ever belonged to any it doth to him and Mr. Hick Sect. 26. Mr. B. having thus far miscarried by the help of Mr. Hick proceeds to plead for himself A short speciâ—â—â— of M. B's remâ—â—nt of Abst rsions in ord r to the Readers and Pâ—inrs â—ase and his guilty Mâ—sters in such a treacherous manner both to them and himself that to give my Readers an account of such numerous failings were to draw out the man's unhappinesse to an intolerable length And because a Pigmy as well as Hercules may be judged of by a foot I will leave the Reader by that which followes to guesse at the body of his abstersions 1. What I had cited out of Calvin's Institutions he affirmed to have been fetched from Calvin's Book De Providentiâ and said I did as good as name it I * Div. Philaâ— def ch 3. p. 127 c. shew'd him the grosseness of his mistake and prov'd the wilfulness of it which raised the error into a sin Now by way of abstersion he confesseth the fact p.
and good an Apostle should do so wickedly Or that Pelagius was no Heretick nor writ against by Austin because Austin commended him so very much which 't was not likely he would have done if he had thought him a Heretick 10. Ibid. He saith his Masters are not like to need an Apology like that of the Poet Lasciva est nostra pagina vita proba est 11. He granteth that his Masters have taught in Print 1. * p. 132 133. ☞ That God is the Author of sin 2. God wills sin 3. He impells to it 4. He forceth men to it These things Mr. B. takes upon him to excuse and the manner of it is wonderful 2. To the first of the four he answers thus 1 * p. 133. Of Zuinglius his Doctrine that God is the Author of sin That he doth at no hand like it that God should be the Author of any culpable evil Reader observe his partiality and self-contradiction When the Libertines pronounce the words then he calls it with Mr. Calvin an execrable blasphemy p. 129. and curses them that are so blasphemous 54 55. but now he finds the same blasphemy in his own Masters writings the case is alter'd and the worst he saith is He doth not like it for his own part Like indulgent old Eli reproving his Sons for their sacriledge and rapine Nay my Sons it is no good report which I hear why do ye such things 1 Sam. 2.23 24. There 's his partiality And here he professeth to dislike what he frequently approves as hath been shewed commending the Authors for very Classical and owning them for his Masters There 's his self-contradiction But now he hath said he likes not the blasphemy for his own part that 's the word he shews us how vehemently he likes it for those other mens parts who are his Classical Authors First for * Ibid. Note that of all who call God the Author of sin he names onely Zuinglius omitting Borrhaus who calls him the Author of the evil of sin as well as of punishment Zuinglius he alledgeth that a little Candor would interpret him to have meant that God is the Author of the evil of punishment rather then of sin But Zuinglius his word is peccatum which signifies sin onely And he doth instance in the sins called Adultery and Murder naming them Gods works and calling God their Author See Corr. Copy p. 10. Philan. c. 4. p. 59 60. So that the best of Mr. B's excuse is this that though Zuinglius calls God the Author of sin not speaking a word of punishment in the place which I cited and so must be confessed to have meant the evil of sin yet charity should interpret that he meant the evil of punishment also and rather that then the other Or 2. if Zuinglius did mean as he spake he did not mean that God was a moral Author of sin Ibid. How Mr. B. makes God the Author of sin in that which he confesseth to be the proper notion of the word Author Look back on sect 3 4. of this Chap. so as the Devil is by way of perswasion but it seems then a natural Author of sin which is infinitely worse as acting by way of necessitation But when Mr. B. said that God doth tempt men to sin he spake of a perswasion and now he saith that to perswade unto sin doth infer the proper Author of it So he is judged and condemned out of his own mouth again to have properly made God the Author of sin 3. He saith †Ibid. it is not credible that Zuinglius should mean any other Author or Cause of sin then non removens prohibens or causa per accidens But 1. I cited his words and not his meanings either beside or against his words 2. His words will not signifie such a meaning as this Else when the world is called Gods work Mr. B. may say God was but causa per accidens and that the world was not properly his work 4. Causa per accidens if causa is extreamly bad and God is in no sense the cause of sin 5. Removens prohibens he understands not if I may guess by the Use he makes of it For Zuinglius saith that God doth make men Transgressors as well as that sin is the work of God Last of all he produceth some Popish Writers Ibid. who write as grosly as Zuinglius the Presbyterian And who did ever doubt of it Sure none that knows their consanguinity Ocham and Gabriel do affirm Ocham Gabriel affirmant quod Deus in rigore proprietate Sermonis est causa peccati Medin in 1.2 q. 79. a. that God in a rigour and propriety of speech is the cause of sin What then Therefore the rigider sort of Papists are like the rigider sort of Presbyterians 3. To the second thing which he confesseth as his Masters Doctrine 3. Mr. B. accuseth Calvin in excusing him for saying God doth will sin viz. that God doth will sin he saith these things p. 134.1 That the meaning of the Orthodox hath been often explained 2. That Calvin explains himselfe And how should that be but that though God doth will sin yet he wills it not as sin The horrid nature of which shift I have * Look back on ch 2. sect 19. And see Div. Philanth c. 4. p. 42. elsewhere displai'd This is the fountain of those unclean sayings That Adultery is good in as much as it is the work of God the Author And that all sins are good in as much as they make for Gods glory That is from Zuinglius and this from Mr. W. 3. He tells us that Mr. Calvins meaning is no worse then the Schoolmens naming a Papist in the margin Look back on ch 2. sect 3. p. 61. according to his wont To shew a very great affinity betwixt the worst sort of Papists and Presbyterians doth universally pass with Mr. B. for an Abstersion Yet this is the man who rayles so frequently at others for having any good thing common to them with the Papists 4. To the third thing granted to be the Doctrine of his Masters 4. Mr. B. accuseth Piscator and Calvin in his way of excusing them for saying that God doth thrust men into wickedness viz. That God doth drive or thrust men on into wickedness and that men do sin by Gods impulse he hath returned four things p. 134 135.1 That neither Calvin nor Piscator do understand it in a flagitious or unconscionable manner And may it not be pleaded as well for the Pharisees that although indeed they said of Christ He hath an unclean spirit Mark 3.30 yet they did not understand it in a flagitious sense 2. That when himself had affirmed Gods stirring up the wicked to their wicked deeds as a man puts spurres to a dull Jade he brought the Simile to shew that the man is the Author of the going of the horse but not
of the halting The sad estate of which shift I shewed very * Look back on sect 18. num 11. of this Chap. lately and therefore I forbear to repeat it here 3. That whatever Calvin and Piscator do say in some places yet they say the contrary in other places This doth justifie what I said in my †Look back on Introduct sect 4 5 6 7. Introduction and the Logick here used is just the same as if the Barbarians of Melita should plead for themselves that though they call'd S. Paul a Murderer in one place yet they did not wrong him because in another place they call'd him a God Act. 28.4 6. And so though Judas at one time betrayed his Master yet he did not mean it in a flagitious sense because at another time he did not betray him yea and kissed him too when he did betray him If Mr. B. speaks Treason such Abstersions as these will not avail him 4. That whatever they say they understand no more then Arminius What is this but to acknowledge that as Arminius was a Presbyterian so the Presbyterians are for Arminius wheresoever Arminius doth chance to erre or speak unhappily 5. To the fourth thing granted to be the Doctrine of his Masters viz. That men do sin by Gods coaction 5. Mr. B. grants that his Masters do sometimes teach a coaction from God to sin Look back on ch 2. sect 2. p. 59 60. sect 3. p. 62. which by the way he doth distinguish from forcing and thrusting into sin he would seem to give a salvo by floundring again in this following manner p. 135 136. First he saith That Orthodox Writers do use it very seldom Hold good Reader and bear me witness that the man pleads guilty to the very worst part of the Indictment He confesseth that they do use to blaspheme in this manner by saying that God doth compel men to sin but onely alledgeth that they use it not often And though I can prove they use it often yet I am willing to pass it by if they will but recant and promise never to do the like The Question was not whether a few times or many times they vent this blasphemy but whether or no they do it not sometimes Mr. B. saith Yes sometimes but seldom not often though now and then Judas did not often betray his Master but it was too much that he did it once By such a soft phrase he slandered the Scriptures in his former Volume ☜ He forgeth new things upon the Scripture The Scriptures say not much or often that God doth pradestine men to sin Corrept Corr. p. 72. at the bottom which is a desperate forgery imposed on the word of God for the Scriptures say not any such thing no not once no not any thing like it no nor the Fathers of the Church who are slandered together with the Scriptures ibid. 'T was but a bold invention to lessen the odium which lay upon his Divinity Next he tells us that whensoever Orthodox Wriers douse the word Coaction in saying that God doth compel men to sin they mostly at the same time acknowledge they speak improperly p. 135. Which by the way is very false and if it were true 't were too too bad as I have * See Div. Philan. ch 1. p. 26. Look back also on ch 2. of this book elsewhere shewed But what impropriety is that he speaks of even such as implies a contradiction and a condemnation of his own Party for his words are these and he takes them out of Paraeus They understand it not of a coaction which destroyes the will of man but of such an one which proceeds from the fierce impetus and inclination of the sinners will p. 136. l. 1 2. Here he miscarries several wayes at once for first he fights with Doctor Twisse and Doctor Reynolds and with all the rest of his Party and with all mankind except Paraeus who confers it incompetent to the will to suffer any coaction 2. If they meant by coaction the sinners own inclination and impeâ—us of will they must have said that the sinner compells himself which had been much better nonsense then to have said as they are wont that God compells him to sin To say the will doth suffer coaction by its own inclination is innocent non-sense in comparison but to say that God compells men to sin is a horrid blasphemy Besides 3. He again confesseth the whole fact by saying whensoever they use to do so as before he said they use it seldom 4. He confesseth they do not alwayes acknowledge any impropriety because he saith they do it mostly so that in some of his Masters and in some places of their works he doth acknowledge as much guilt as I have ever cha ged their Doctrines with 5. He doth not rightly translate Paraeus nay he is not so much as consistent with him for * Qui cogit invitos is est causa pâ—ccati Qui verò cogit volentes is perse causa est boni c. Paraeus in Câ—stig ad lib Bâ—ll de Amâ—ss Grat. stat peccati Note thâ—t Dâ—â— Twiss doth consess it to be their custom to say that men are compelled by God to sin Vin. Gra. l. 2. p. 1. c. 1. p. 29. Paraeus talks non-sense in this following sort He who compells men against their consents is the cause of sin but not he who compells men with their consents To exagitate this as it deserves would require a whole Volume 6. As sad as these salvoes appear to be they are the best that he could borrow from the ablest Abstersors who went before him And he concludes with this excuse that Bellarmine the Jesuite and other Papists are neer of kin in this case to the Presbyterians As for the bold and groundless forgery concerning Bellarmine and my self I pass it by as being personal of which I am sure there is enough in the Self-Revenger Sect. 28. Mr. B. turns his back to the chief part of the charge and tacitly yields the whole cause I now expected with great longing what he would say to my fourth Chapter of the Divine Philanthropy defended where he and his Masters are most concerned even from p. 36. to p. 65. But in stead of speaking one syllable to those twenty nine whole pages he onely tells us he needs not do it sect 3. p. 137. and pretends to render some reasons why As 1. for fear of needlesse repetitions and 2. no body needs be solicitous what becomes of Doctor Twisse or Mr. B' s particular expressions 3. And this task hath been performed by other men against his own knowledge as his partiallest friends will confesse 4. And what is omitted by himself he hopes before long will be done by another p. 138. And thus he thinks he hath done like a brave Abstersor in refusing to plead to the indictment Sect. 29. 1. Of Adam's inclination to sin before he sinned Mr. B.
time in exposing these Authors to more pity and their Doctrines to more contempt 1. I am told by men of knowledge that their books are already become waste paper bought by a few onely of the many and read contentedly by none at all 2. I am importuned by divers not to consider them over-much who have not a dangerous plausibility amongst the vulgar but to reserve my spare houres for the most popular man of that party who as I am credibly informed is doing his utmost to find me work 3. They have adventured to nibble and but to nibble at so few things in my Answer that they do tacitely grant the greatest part to have left no colour for a Reply 4. A great part of their performances are visible shifts rather then serious oppositions even mean transitions à genere ad genus easie sneakings ab Hypothesi ad Thesin at every pinch Ignorationes Elenchi purposed sittings beside the Cushion and many times betwixt two stools too gratis dicta are their very least frailties as studied forgeries are the greatest and I confess it is painful to spend much time with Domitian in killing Flies 5. When they are brought to such straits that they find not a crevice or a key-hole whereat to attempt a creeping out they yield themselves up and all for which they have contended without so much as making any terms of mercy As for example Certissimum est nobis Decrevisse ut non nisi nolentes atque impii perderentur Twiss Vin. Gr. l. 1. p. 100. Mr. B. professeth He doth readily yield that God did not absolutely decree the Reprobation positive of any creature but upon praescience and supposition of wilful rebellion and impenitence p. 70 71. nay he professeth this to be the Doctrine of all Orthodox Writers ancient and modern p. 70. And why should He be much talked with who confesseth all in one breath which he denieth in another See the Div. Philanth ch 4. p. 4. especially p. 5. yet no sooner gets he loose but he denies the very thing which the necessity of his affairs had made him confess and pleads for want of a better excuse Lapsus linguae non est error mentis p. 77. what cares he how he miscarries who can so easily make amends 6. When this evader is so stomachful that he will not yield and yet so despairing of success that he will not resist a cogent Argument he makes no scruple to profess a Tergiversation As for example when I had pressed him with a * See the Div. Phi. ch 3. p. 65. Dilemma of huge importance even evincing out of his mouth that his Distinction of Positive and Negative Reprobation was but a shift he contents himself with this return Mr. Barlee needs not answer that Dilemma p. 81. And so when he knowes not what to say to the convincing points of my reasonings about the general extent and sincere intent of Christ's death he gives me the slip in these words It would be superfluous labour to spend more time and paper in giving more particular answers to his luxuriant discourses p. 93. 7. Mr. W. and he and Mr. Hobbs are so frequently condemned out of their own mouths that they would need no Confuters besides themselves if all their Readers were but attentive To give a few instances of many Mr. W. saith p. 29. God is not the Author of evil because not causa per se but per accidens Yet in his extent of Div. Prov. p. 40. he saith that causa per accidens never works till causa per se sets it on work Now because it is not man who sets God on work it is plainly his meaning that God is causa per se of sin and sets man on work who is causa per accidens which others call a deficient cause Again he confesseth in his last Work p. 25. that if it is impossible to separate the sin from the action then he who is the Author of the one is also of the other Yet he also confesseth p. 37. that the modi rerum are not really distinguished from the things themselves but so neerly conjoined as they cannot be separated Nor can any reason be rendred why Doctor Twisse should say Mr. Hobbs his prodigious self-contradictions that Fornication denoteth sin even secundùm materiale except this one that the sin is inseparable from the Act. In like manner Mr. Hobbs though he saith in * Of Lib. and Necess p. 23. one place that sins are actions and in †Quaest Num 12. p. 105. another place that God is the cause of all actions and in a * Ibid. p. 107. third place that he is a principal Agent in the causing of all actions yet he †Ibid. p. 105 106. denies him to be the Author of the actions which he causeth And his reason for it is more prodigious then all the rest for God saith he cannot be said to be the Author of sin because he doth but necessitate it not command or warrant it p. 105 106. yet even this last he contradicts too by saying that * Of Lib. and Necess p. 22. power irresistible doth justifie all actions Now that which necessitates is power irresistible and that which justifies doth warrant and he saith that that which warrants is the Author of sin Qu. p. 106. and that sin must needs derive a necessity from God p. 105. and the greatest men of his Principle do say that God commands men to sin which he confesseth is to call him the Author of sin p. 106. Nay he * Q. p. 11. l. 7 8 9 10. from the bottom elsewhere professeth that a man must not SAY God hath caused him to erre and it is through the Lord that he fell away but he may THINK so very well And wo had been to Ecclesiasticus had he denied it Nor is there any thing more common with these men then to say that sin is necessary as decreed by God although contingent as freely willed by man Now necessary being that which cannot chuse but be and contingent that which either may or may not be what is this but to say it is necessary as decreed but not necessary as not decreed It cannot but be and yet it might possibly not have been it is contingent and not contingent which is as if they should say we cannot deny our Adversaries Premisses and therefore we must hold the one part of the contradiction but we will not quit our own conclusion and therefore we must hold the other part of the contradiction Thus by their own way of arguing they are men and they are not they are men as being indued with Reason and they are not as being indued with none Sure that sort of men is no longer to be disputed with who have drank so deeply and digested and reduced also to practice the * Quamcunque duarum viarum primò diversarum homines inicrint recta tendunt ad superos
' ΑΥΤΟΚΑΤΑΚΡΙΣΙΣ OR Self-Condemnation EXEMPLIFIED In Mr. Whitfield Mr. Barlee and Mr. Hickman WITH OCCASIONAL REFLEXIONS On Mr Calvin Mr Beza Mr Zuinglius Mr Piscator Mr Rivet and Mr Rollock BUT MORE ESPECIALLY On DOCTOR Twisse and MASTER Hobbs AGAINST WHOM God's Purity and his Praescience and his Eternal Decrees according to Praescience commonly called Respective or Conditional Decrees with the sincere intention and the general extent of the Death of Christ are finally cleared and made good And the Adversaries Absurdities confessed by themselves to be unexcusable are proved against them undeniably out of their own hand-writings WITH An ADDITIONAL ADVERTISEMENT Of Mr Baxter's late Book Entituled The Grotian Religion discovered c. By THOMAS PIERCE Rector of Brington in Northampton-shire London Printed by J.G. for R. Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane 1658. TO THE READER Christian Reader THAT I presume to entertain thee with this Additional Importunity in vindication of those things so largely insisted upon already in several Tracts to wit the Truth and Goodness of God's Decrees and the things that are consequent thereunto there is this amongst other reasons to be alledged for an excuse that 't is intended to be the last Or if I live to grow worthier of bringing my thoughts into the light as it is not likely to be in haste so I hope it will be in some other kind I wish that some had remembred whilest they were men of ripe years what we all have been taught in our several childhoods that there are four sorts of things which should not be drawn into dispute but either be granted or rejected as soon as named And I had once a very pleasing but it seems a vain hope that it could never become a Question * See the right Reverend Bishop Bramhal his catching of the Leviathan particularly from p. 467. to p. 473. Whether or no there is a God or Whether God is a Spirit or Whether the holy Spirit of God can be the soveraign Author of all uncleanness To be barely sceptical in such things as these is sure a crime of greater moment then to be cherished with impunity or to be suffered to pass abroad without being put unto a stand But it seems we are fallen into that Age of the World wherein the worst of Questions have not onely been rudely started but blasphemously stated in the very worst sense too The most unwholsom Doctrines that can be named have not onely been brewed in the private phantasies and brains of unlearned men but have publickly been broached by men of parts and running out at their Pens have been given for Drink to the giddy People Reader thou wilt find in the ensuing Treatise strange contradictions of divers men both against the Scriptures and themselves too Thou wilt find them saying that sins are the works of God that God is pleased with them that God doth will them with a perfect willingness and that they make for God's glory All directly against themselves who having said such things in many places of their works have also said sometimes they never said them And all directly against the Scriptures which say that sins are the works of the Devil that they are grievous to God Almighty that he wills them not but abhorres them and that he is extremely dishonoured by them Thou shalt find it acknowledged and avowed to have been publickly taught by famous men whom thou wilt find to be justified in their very worst sayings and not onely so but even owned for orthodox and classical Authors I say by such men as these thou shalt find it confessed to have been taught If in a multitude of examples the Reader desires to be directed to one or two he may satisfie himself ch 3. sect 13 sect 27. n. 2 3 4 5. that God in plain terms is the Author of sin that he not onely wills it but impells men to it and makes them sin by coaction And yet with a turn of the tongue thou wilt find a bold Artist trying to lick them all clean For though such things saith †Look forward on c. 3. sect 27. he have fallen from the pens of the Orthodox yet they have not understood them in any flagitious or unconscionable sense nor have they used to do it often and the Jesuites have done it as well as they and they have said the contrary at other times and so without any more ado salvares est saltat senex Thou wilt find men obtruding new Creeds upon the Church One inserting this Article that God is no Spirit Another this that God is the maker of all things real and so by a consequence unavoidable of all the wickedness in the world In a word thou wilt find that we * Isa 6.5 dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips who †Ezek. 22.26 put no difference between the holy and profane It is impossible saith * Job 14.4 Job to bring a clean thing out of an unclean much more impossible say I to bring any thing unclean from the Spirit of purity It is a lesser wickednesse of the two to ascribe unto the Devil some good works of God then to charge God foolishly with the evil works of the Devil It is a very great sin for men to bear false witnesse against their neighbours 't is yet a greater to be false witnesses * 1 Cor. 15.15 for God It is a greater sin yet to be false witnesses against him but sure 't is the greatest sin of all by †2 Pet. 3.16 wresting and corrupting his sacred word to make him bear false witness against himself Had such impieties as these been onely practised in private corners as the Feasts of Bacchus heretofore I had contented my self to have mourned over them in secret like one of the * Lam. 2.10 Elders of the daughters of Zion I had sate upon the ground and kept silence having the words of the Prophet Amos as it were sounding in mine ears The †Amos 5.13 prudent shall keep silence in that time for it is an evil time I should then have reasoned within my self ** Mat. 7.6 that no man living can be obliged to cast what is holy unto * Doggs or to give the * Pearl of reproof to Swine if yet my charity could have suffered me to think mine Adversaries such For why should I draw upon my self the implacable hatred of evil doers in case I had reason to expect a very great prejudice to my self without any the least hope of being profitable to others But when I saw such things proclaimed in Gath and as it were written with a Sun-beam in the streets of Askelon when I found it taught by * Damus Deum esse causam particularem uniuscu jusque actus Vin. Gr. l. 2. p. 40. col 2. Doctor Twisse and his followers Mr. W. and Mr. B. that God is the cause in particular of every act nay the natural Cause and
the †Mr. B. c. 3. p. 11. soveraign Author of the act of sin nay that he wills and works not in the act of sin onely but in the * Mr. W. Ext. of D. Prov. p. 12. sin of the Act too whose very pravity and deformity doth make way for God's glory and when I found it acknowledged by Doctor Twisse †Ex quibus quà m facile quaeâ—o fuit viris istis indoctis quales erant Libertini colligere Dâ—um Aucrorem faisse omnium scelerum quae ab hominibus perpetrantur Vin. Gr. l. 2. sect 1. p. 52. that such illiterate men as the Libertines then were and as the Ranters now are might very easily collect even from this one Doctrine The Act of sin is from God that God himself is the Author of all the wickednesse in the World when I found it granted by * Of lib. and Nec p. 26. Q. p. 11. Mr. Hobbs himself that evil use may be made of such bold assertions and that though he thought them to be true and so to be inwardly believed yet he thought them too dangerous to be spoken aloud much lesse fit to be preached and printed too forgetting that himself had even preached them in print and that in the very same books wherein he confesseth the danger of them when I considered how great an odium had been derived from these doctrines upon the Protestant name through the dexterities of the Jesuites and other Emissaries of Rome who have charged the whole body of the Reformed Church with the particular misbehaviours of some very unsound and unruly members when I considered that those Doctrines had stopt the way to reconcilement betwixt the Lutheran Churches and those that follow the way of Calvin they †See Doctor Jacksons Exact Collect. l. 10 sect 6. p. 3188. not agreeing say the Lutherans in the worship of one God because the God of the Lutherans is onely the Author of what is good whereas the God of the Calvinists is owned by them to be the Author of what is morally evil last of all when I considered the tremendous dignity of my calling which is not onely to be a shepherd and a * Watchman in Israel ** Ezek. 33.7 8. ch 34. v. 2 10. and as such to be accountable as well for †Ibid. other mens lapses as for mine own but also a * 1 Cor. 4.1 steward of the mysteries of the living God however unworthy and †2 Cor. 2.16 insufficient for so insuperable a work I say when I seriously considered these several things and compared them all with one another I had not the courage to be afraid of my fellow-creatures the fear of whom did seem to me to be a desperate boldness for what greater boldnesse can there be then to stand in so great a fear of them who can at the * Mat. 10.28 most but destroy the body as not to stand in fear of him who can cast both body and soul into Hell It is not a true love of God which is not able to †Joh. 4.18 cast out the fear of men I know what * Ecclus. 2.12 13. wo is to them who have fearful hearts and faint hands and what will be said at the judgment-seat unto the sinner that goeth two wayes I know the †Rev. 21.8 fearful and unbelieving shall have their portion in the lake of fire and brimstone I know it was one of those sins which the Prophet did not think he could sufficiently bewail unlesse his * Jer. 9.1 head were all water and his eyes a fountain of tears that he might weep day and night †Vers 3. Isa 58.1 NOT TO BE VALIANT for the TRUTH Isaiah was bid to cry aloud without sparing and to lift up his voice like a Trumpet in shewing the people their transgressions Should I presume to be afraid of the wrath of men and in an aw of their persons forbear to tell them of their sins for some mens Doctrines become their sins if 't is a sin to blnspheme and dishonour God I might well cry out as the same Prophet did * Isa 6.5 Vae mihi quia lacui id est quia peccata non liberè reprehendi Grot. in locum WO IS ME FOR Iâ—AM UNDON And that for the very sâ—â—e reason which the Prophet gives of his outcry in the following words because I am a man of unclean lipps That is as the learnedst Annotators have explained the place I have been guiltily afraid to tell the great ones of their iniquities Many are tickled with an opinion of their Policy and Prudence when 't is but cowardize and coldnesse in the cause of God Wo be to such for they are undon But neither indeed can I pretend to have been valiant in my encounters whom even mine Adversaries themselves have made unable to be afraid For I have spoken no harder things of what I have found in their writings then their Masters have spoken of the same when they have found them in the writings or mouths of others And this I doubt not but they will grant me that Henbane is not the wholsomer for being found to grow in a specious Garden no more then a Tulâ—p is the uglier for having grown out of a Dunghil Nor is Elâ—sphemy the better for being found in he Works of a Christian Writer any more then Pontius Pilate for hav ng been mentioned in the Creed When I find men * Jam. 2.7 blâ—spheming that worthy name which I hope shall ever be dearer to me then my life and when I find them †Psal 73.8 corrupting others as the Psalmist speaks even by * vers 9. stretching forth their mouth unto the hâ—avens and that their †vers 8. talking is against the most Hâ—gh and when many of the * vers 10. people do fall unto them whereout thâ—y suck no small advantage I cannot but be offenâ—ed at what is spoken without partiality to them that speak Whether I find it in the Jesuites as sometimes I do or in the rigid Preâ—byterians as I have many times don or in the d wnright Libertines as who does not I desire to give it its proper name When Mr. Calvin writ against Quintin and Pocquet and other persons of quality who were domestick servants to the Queen of Navar See Calvins Epist 62. compared with what follows he made no scruple to call them Libeâ—tines †Qui â—gnorabâ—nt quid sibi velâ—et Lib rtâ—norum nomen id Quintini nomiâ—e cognâ—turi sunt Expâ—dit Beâ—luas tam pâ—â—niciosas no â aliq â â—nsigniâ—i Blashâ— m â—s x craâ—ilâ—s sâ—aâ—gunt Non solùm Châ—â—s t nam Relig onem s d eâ—â—am omnem humanâ—tatâ—m quae hactenus inter Tuâ—cas c Calv. adversus Libers c. 4. and what is more pernicious bâ—asts charged them with exâ—crable blasphemy then which no villany was greater no poyson worse as tending saith the