to Intitle Comfort for Believers in their Sins and Suffrings for fear Believers should be afflicted with the sinfulness of their sins which God himself is the Author of and more the Author in his opinion than they can be Yet his Book with this Doctrine was even printed by Authority cum Privilegio when Presbyterianism was up with the License and approbation of old Mr. Downham who was impowred to such things by the-world-knows-whom It was the Doctrine of Mr. Knox the great Introducer of Presbyterianism in Scotland That the wicked are not onely left by Gods suffring but compelled to sin by his power p. 317. And again he saith we do not onely behold and know God to be the Principal cause of all things but also the Author appointing all things p. 22. It is also taught in another Treatise at first written in French but after published in English That by vertue of Gods will all things were made yea even those things which are evil and execrable p. 15. Another takes upon him to prove That all evil springeth out of God's Ordinance And his Book is Intitled Against a Privy Papist as 't were on purpose to betray the Protestant Name into Disgrace But now at last Mr. Hickman outgoes them All if they all are but capable to be outgon For the most execrable and hainous of all the sins to be imagin'd is the Divel 's hating Almighty God Which though Mr. Hickman doth confess to be the worst of all actions and again essentially and intrinsecally evil p. 94. lin 2. evil ex genere obâ—ecto ibid. lin 9. and such as no kind of Circumstance can ever make lawful ib. lin 17. yet he grosly calls it The work of God as all other positive things are p. 96. lin 8. wilt thou know good Reader what may lead him to such a Blasphemy Thou must know his principle is this Verbatim It belongs to the universality of the FIRST CAUSE to PRODUCE not onely EVERY REAL BEING but also the positive MODIFICATIONS of Beings 95. l. ult p. 96. lin 1. And this he gives for the very Reason why The Action of hating God spoken of just now is the work of God Now that this is a Principle or a Doctrine whose every consequence is a crime I cannot better convince the Calvinists than by the confession of Mr. Calvin For when the very same Doctrine which I suspect to have been brew'd by the Carpocratians was freshly broached by the Libertines breaking in with Presbytery to help disgrace our Reformation just as the Gnosticks to the discredit of Christianity it self Master Calvin called it An Execrable Blasphemy not onely once but again and again too And what was that which he declaimed so much against in that stile was it that God was said plainly to be the Author of sin no such matter It was onely for saying it in aequivalence It was for saying another thing from whence God might be inferred to be the Author of sin It was onely for saying God worketh all things This was called by Mr. Calvin An Execrable Blasphemy And his Reason for it is very observable For saith he from this Article God worketh all things Three things do follow extremely frightfull First that there will not be any Difference between God and the Divel Next thâ—t God must deny himself Thirdly that God must be transmuted into the Divel A greater Authority than Calvins no man living can produce against his followers of the Presbytery some few Episcopal Anti-remonstrants being unjustly called Calvinists there being a wide gulf fixt between them and Calvin And I have cited him so exactly as few or no Writers are wont to do that if an enemie will not believe me he may consult Mr. Calvin with expedition and make his own eyes bear witness for me Next considering with my self how that a lesser Blasphemy than This is called Railing against the Lord 2. Chron. 32.17 and that a Doctrine less divelish is broadly said by the Apostle to be the doctrine of Divels 1 Tim. 4 1â— That it is God blessed for ever against whom the children of transgression do open a wide mouth and draw out the Tongue Isa. 57.4 the tongue which reacheth unto the heavens Psalm 73.9 and whose talking is against the most high v. 8. That our common enemies of Rome do object these things to the Reformation as if forsooth they were our Protestant and common sins Nay that the Lutherans themselves will rather return unto the Papists from whom they rationally parted than live in communion with the Calvinians for this one Reason becausâ— the Calvinians seem to worship another God to wit a God who is the Author and cause of sin I say considering all this both with the causes and the effâ—cts I confess my heart waxt hot within me and though for a Time I kept silence yea even from good words yet as the Psalmist goes on it was pain and grief to me I often call'd to mind that pertinent saying of Saint Peter 1 Epist. c. 4. v. 14. and then concluded within my self If God on their part is evil spoken of 't is the fitter that on ours he should be glorified If all his works are commanded to speak well of him in all placâ—s of his Dominion Psal. 103.22 I could not have answer'd it to my self should I still have been guilty of keeping silence much less to Him could I have had what to say under whom I am entrusted and that with souls Since he describes a good Shepherd by his readiness to lay down his life for the sheep I durst not be such a Lasche and unfaithful servant as not to offer up my oyle or shed a little of my Ink where I should think my dearest blood were too cheap a sacrifice Finding therefore that Doctrine which is so execrable and hainous as hath been shew'd suck'd in greedily by the Ranters in these our dayes breaking in upon the Church which is Gods Inclosure as well as Spouse even at that very gap which some had purposely made to cast out Bishops and obedience and whatsoever was Christian besides the name I also considered who they were who took upon them the Tapsters office and drawing out the very dreggs of this deadly wine boldly gave it instead of drink to the giddy people Mr. Hickman seemed to be the boldest and the busiest officer of them all and the more popular he was thought I thought him the fitter to be encounter'd For if his Favourers come to think That God is the cause and the producer of every reall being not excepting the cursing or hating God They have nothing to defend them from being Libertines Or if they come to be persuaded that sin hath no reall being but is a non-entity that is a nothing they must needs be Carneadists for ought I am able to apprehend And when they perfectly are either to wit Carneadists or Libertines I know not what can secure them
for all action and a positive entity for a privation unless he purposely writes against his own enterprize in calling a proud desire a sin but onely pluck him by the ear as Cynthius did Tityrus and admonish him for the future not to act the ultracrepidâ—st by taking upon him to be a Scholar and a School-Divine when he was mimically ordained to be no more then a Lay-preacher Could any man but Mr. Hickman have intitled his Book against a truthâ— which he was forced to acknowledge whilest he meant to deny and disown it onely 3. He doth not onely acknowledge that the act or habit of any sin hath a positive being but further adds beyond all example That the privation it self is an evil Quality p. 56. even that privation which is called by some the formall part of sin and is said by himself to denominate the act or the habit evil Nor will a quasi superadded serve to do him a good turn For let him call it an action or any thing else to which an Epithet may be added he will still imply it to have a positive being And whilst he saith an evil quality he implyes the privation which he so calleth to be a concrete Not remembring his famous saying that he cannot so much as conceive of siâ— unless as perfectly an abstract p. 54. and that sin is synonymous with sinfulness it self p. 53. Again he seems here to speak of an external denomination as if he were not aware of what he was afterwards to say concerning the action of hating God That it is intrinsecally and essentially evil not meerly through the want of some Circumstance p. 94. Again he saith 4. That in hating God the terminating of that act to that object is the sinfulness of the action p. 95. Now we know it is an action for the will to determine or fix an act upon an object and so according to Mr. Hickman sinfulness it self hath a positive being even whilest he saith it is but privative 5. He goes but one line farther when he saith in plainest terms that moral goodness and evil are rather modi entium than entia p. 95. whereby he yields me as much advantage as I can wish to my whole cause For when sin or moral evil is allow'd as much entity as moral goodness and moral goodness as little entity as sin It must either be his Tenet that sin hath also a positive being or that goodness hath none at all If the first he at once betray 's his whole cause and withall makes God to be the Author of sin for he saith He is the Author of all positive beings if the second he must needs deny God to be the author of goodness or lose the benefit of the shift by which he would seem not to make him the Author of sin 6. Again If the evil works themselves be positive which he confesseth p. 96. there needs no more to be added by him For that there is also some privation none is concerned to deny whilst what is positive in sin is so fully yielded 7. He grants as much as a man can wish p. 102. viz. That man is the efficient cause of the evil of the Action And the youngsters Argument against it holds as much against good as evil actions See his Confession p. 103. 8. That the deficient cause is reducible to the efficient the cause of the action per se of the vitiosity per concomitantiam he confesseth p. 103. 9. Farther yet he confesseth that sin in Scripture doth not signifie abstractly but that it signifies our faculties which do lust against the working of the spirit p. 100. much less will he deny the very lusting it self to be a sin which is as positive as the faculties to which the lusting is ascribed Nay 10. he confesseth that a sin is an action if he is not unpardonably impertinent p. 102. for an account of which see forward chap. 8. § 24. CHAP. IV. § 1. BUt Mr. H. being convicted of what himself doth acknowledge the greatest Blasphemy to wit of making God to be the Author of sin by bluntly affirming he is the Author of whatsoever is found to have a positive being by name of that very action of hating God p. 95.96 hope 's to lessen the odium which cannot but lye on so foul a Doctrine by putting his Trust in the common shift I mean by making such a distinction betwixt the Act and the obliquity as to entitle God unto the first and the sinner only unto the second That action of David his lying with Vriah's wife which in Scripture is called Adultery He saith is positive and from God and therefore one of Gods Creatures And thus he saith over and over p. 79.82.95.96 But the pravity or obliquity which he call's the evil quality that doth denominâ—te the Action he is content to fasten upon MAN TOO ibid. Now it remaines that I endeavour to make him ashamed of so lewd a Refuge as doth but serve to incourage by giving shelter and protection not at all to extenuate his great Impiety § 2. For first to condemn him out of his mouth he speakes a while after without the Vizor of this Distinction whilest he saith it doth belong to the universaliâ—y of the first Cause to PRODUCE not onely EVERY REAL BEING but also the real positive MODIFICATIONS OF BEINGS p. 95. Now that the very repugnance of the Act to the obâ—ect hath at least a Reall if not a positive Being Mr. Hickman doth many times acknowledge as when he ranks it with Moral Goodness in affirming both to be Modos entium p. 95. That profound Divine and subtil Disputant Dr. Field allows nothing to be in the sin of hating God but what is positive The very Deformity that is found in it is precisely saith he a positive Repugnance to the Law of God And his reasons for it are such as Mr. Hickmans Teachers are puzled at But letting that passe Mr. Hick is convicted of the crime alleaged in the Indictment if the Repugnance hath nothing more then a reall Being nor dares he say it hath no being at all for that were to cast the whole Adultery upon God by affirming Him to be the producer of all that is positive or Reall in it they are every one Mr Hickmans words and to acquit the Adulterer from having any share in it whereby he also doth infer him to be but Titularly such § 3. But secondly let us suppose the man had never charged God in so gross a manner as to intitle him to the production of all things Reall Yet his shift will not save him from being found to make God the Author of sin For when he saith that Action of hating God is from God he means it is from him as the mediate or the immediate cause If as the mediate so as to move the second cause to be immediatly the cause of such an action it follows then that the 2. Cause
consider's as to its Genus which he saith is Action It s genus remâ—tum is actio hominis It s immediate genus is actio vitiosa privativa Mark good Reader he doth not say 't is a mere privation but a privative action Positive in one respect as 't is an action though privative in another as destroying the Agent from whence it is Take that excellent Logician in his own expressions of himself Vidimus nomen Genus secundo loco considerandum est quod vel remotum actio hominis Propinquum actio hominis vitiosa proximum Actio vitiosa destrâ—ens ipsum agens seu privativa upon this I lay the greater weight because the judgement and approbation of another great Methodist and Logician even KECKERMAN of Dantzick adds credit to that of this wise Silesian 5. A late professor of Philosophy in the University of Leyden and a great Aristotelian saith that evil includes ens and adds a reall relation to it after the manner that Good doth And this he affirmeth of every evil Malum ergo omne simili modo quo bonum includit Ens Enti addit Relationem realem quâ quod malum dicitur ita se habet ad aliud ut illi inconveniens atque adversum sit To which he adds that those relations are contrary and have contrary affections from whence it follow 's as he goes on that good and evil are opposed rather contrariè than privativè and that according to their proper forms too Convenientia inconvenientia being no less contrary than equality and inequality His reason is because a thing is not said to be evil to any one for being only not convenient but in as much as it is adverse or affirmatè inconveniens p. 123. To the objection which he foresees he answers thus This is the nature of immediate contrariety that one extream is inferred from the negation of the other And he means by Inconvenient whatsoever is positively adverse to that which is convenient licet inconveniens adversum sit positivè quicquid non est conveniens c. All which doth strengthen my Reply to Master BARLOW'S Answer to Aquinas for which look back on chap. 3. § 13. He concludes with a caterum actiones sunt malae per se Habitus quatenus ex hujusmodi actionibus orti sunt quae rationem culpae habent p. 126. If BETVLEIVS had not been of the same opinion he would not have used that proposition wherein sin is praedicated of that which will be granted by all to be a positive entity Racha fratri imprecari peccatum est Betuleius in Lactant. l. 6. c. 16. 6. I forgot till just now to note the Doctrine of Mr. CALVIN who saith that sin original doth bring forth in us those works of the flesh Gal 5.19 which he also cals sins though positive entities Nay he saith our whole natuâ—e is quoddam peccati semen that sin hath a force and an operation that the whole man of himself is nothing else but concupiscence 7. It is observ'd by ALSTED that as the Hebrews call original Jezer hara plasma malum so peccare to sin doth signifie nothing but an action not omission or absence or meer privation And as Cicero define's it by leaping over the hedge which the law doth set us so accordingly by Iunius it is derived from * pecucare because a sinner like a stray sheep doth leap over mounds And Bellarmine saith that evil surpasseth good in this respect that it aboundeth more in expressions for to signifie an Action we have peccatum crimen delictum scelus facinus flagitium culpa erratum And after all we have vitium which peculiarly signifies an habit whereas to signifie an action or an habit of vertue we onely use the word vertue 8. CHEMNITIVS speaking of the sin against the holy Ghost reckons up six Ingredients in it whereof the most if not all have a positive being And GERHARD does the like by the sin of Peter who abjur'd his Saviour no less by his works then by his words adding perjury to cursing and both to lying Whence he notes the fruitfullness of sin for which 't is called the Divels net Prov. 5.22 If I shall now add GROTIUS who is instar multorum although but one no knowing Reader will look for more He in setting forth the verity of Christian Religion to all the nations of the world which have a praejudice to the Gospel takes special care to let them know that when God is said to be the universal cause or the cause of all things it is onely meant of those things that are good or of all those things which are indued with a subsistence and are commonly known by the name of substance which substances are the causes of certain accidents such as are actions And therefore God is thus freed from being the originall cause of sin So that t is clearly his opinion that sins of commission at least are Accidents even because they are actions which will be granted by all to have a positive being § 9. And this doth prompt me to shew the way of reconciling the words unto the meaning and of proving undeniably what must be the true meaning of certain Writers whom some men's prejudices and praepossessions have unhappily tempted them to mistake 1. When they say that all entities are good they onely speak of all those which are the works of Gods creation or unavoidably produced by natural Agents so as the origin of their being is duly imputable unto God which all our voluntary actions cannot possibly be For 2. When it is said in the common Axiom That the cause of the cause is the cause of the â—ffect it is meant of causes which are physically and essentially subordinate as saith the Learned BISHOP OF DERRY in his Reply to Mr. Hobbs It is meant of such effects as do follow their cause by an antecedent necessitation But the case is quite otherwise when the effects do not follow by a necessity of nature but by the intervention of humane liberty for which I have the suffrage of Dr. Stearn Again 3. it is meant of such effects as proceed from such second causes as transgress not the order they ought to have upon the first and for this I have Aquinas 1.2 q. 79. art 3. When God is said to work all things Eph. 1.11 it is meant in the same restrained sense in which it is said by S. Iames that every good and perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights Iam. 1.17 Implying the contrary to be from below as coming up from the Father of Lyes And therefore 4. When it is said That God is the Maker of all things visible and invisible in the Nicene Creed it is explained in the COLLECT for Evening Service O God from whom all holy desires all good counsels and all just works do proceed c. It is not
way of contempt as some have taken it then he must know that Dr. Richardson was one of the Divinity Professors in Cambridge a very eminent Anti-Calvinist and commonly called by those men the â—at Arminian For he lay very heavy on all such men as Calvinized in Disputation Dr. Sibbs in particular was so baffled by him that he thereupon preached on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Clergy 2. So far was Dr. Overal from being coldly or but a little what Mr. H. calls Arminian that it is hard to name any more averse to the Calvinists in point of Doctrine as well as Discipline For not to speak of his Exposition of the Genuine minde of the Church of England in the 5. Controverted points which is as crosse to the Calvinists as can be wisht his large Epistle to Hugo Grotius doth so inveigh against the Tenent of unconditionate Decrees as well of saving as damning men that he reckons it one of those opinions which is by no means to be endured in the Church of God as not consisting with the Goodnesse and love of God to mankinde with the nature of man and with the nature of humane Actions with the revealed word of God both in the law and in the Gospel in a word t is an opinion as the Dr. goes on which doth not onely lead men to carnal security and despaire and carries along with it many other the like absurdities But it affixeth or forceth on God himself either counterfeiting and lying or malice and iniquity or crâ—elty and injustice such an Anti-Calvinian was the most learned Dr. Overal with whom our late Primate of Armagh did most happily profess his full concurrence § 39. But I am challenged to name any one Doctor of the chaire who was placed in Oxford and not a Calvinist ibid. And I am ready to name one who was instar omnium equal to all that went before if not superiour in all respects even the eminently moderate and most learned Dr. Sanderson who though he was not before the time of the late Arch-Bishop yet he is more to be considered then all that were because for many years together he had ever acquiesced in the sublapsarian way and yet upon great and mature deliberation having all his 5. schemes in his eyes at once and comparing them duely with one another He soon discerned a Necessity of quitting the sublapsarian way in which till then he did acquiesce as well as the supralapsarian which he could never fancy so that the whole of Mr. Calvin as a sub and supralapsarian for he is both by fits as Dr. Sanderson observes and Dr. Twisse confesseth was rejected by him when he was ripest and most impartial which though I knew a good while since by a letter received from himself that I might not doubt of my intelligence yet had I not spoken of it here how much soever for the honour and interest of my cause had not his change been made publick by his consent § 40. He saith As many as trod the Arminian path were wont to be suppressed and censured so soon as they began to discover themselves p. 21. First if this were true it were a very impertinent and pitiful way of arguing For we know there was a time when the Eastern Churches were overspread with the prosperous heresie of the Arrians as the Western were in great measure with that other Heresie of the Donatists whilest the Orthodox were suppressed by those and these And what objection can it be to the Spouse of Christ or her children that in adherence to his Gospel they have borne his Cross too But 2. It is false which he so confidently affirmeth and that without exception too For did not Mr. Harsenet Discover himself at Pauls Crosse as may appeare by his Printed Sermon after which he was preferred from one Dignity to another first to the Mastership of Pembrook-Hall and after that to the Arch-Bishoprick of York Let Mr. H. reflect upon what I told him § 36. and retract the rashnesse of his expression Sect. 41 Of Mr. Barret and Mr. Simpson I shall the rather speak in particular because Dr. Heylin does refer them to his General Answer p 175. And 1. I observe in Mr. Hickman that he does not name Mr. Barrets Doctrines for which the censure was passed on him perhaps he was ashamed to name them For if they were such as Mr. Simpsons that the commission of a great sin doth extinguish Grace for a time T is plain the Censurers themselves were much more worthy of publick Censure For when our Article saith expressly that the childe of God may fall away by what sin may he fall if not by a great one But of this I have spoken in My whole third Chapter to Mr. Baxter And then for what he spake of Rom. 7. It must be meant in all reason of committing great sins too in consent with that which he spake before and so they came not home to the businesse who understood it onely of a regenerate man according to St. Austin in his Retractations For there that Father is of opinion that St. Paul in that Chap. did not speak of great sins but onely sins of infirmity which that it really was an error and a gross error too and what betraied that Father to it Mr. Hickman may see though he look no further then Dr. Hammonds Review of his Annotations especially p. 131. compared with p. 127. where he saith what doth carry sufficient evidence of its truth in the fore-head of it that this indeed is all the difference to be assigned betwixt a regenerate and an unregenerate man that in the one the Spirit in the other the Flesh is victorious that is the will of the one is led by the spirit and the will of the other by carnal Dictates Sect. 42. Now concerning the Recantation supposed to be made by Mr. Barret besides what is said by Dr. Heylin to shew its improbability and the Letter by him produced to Dr. Goad I have another letter of Barrets copied out from his own hand and directed to Mr. Chatterton the Master at that time of Emanuel College wherein he saith expressly that he would not perform the Retractation required of him And he gives such reasons as are too long to be here inserted which I therefore deferr till some other season when I may fitly publish that with some other things not hitherto extant I have also been inform'd of some ejected Masters of Colleges that having diligently sought they could not find any such thing So that for ought I yet see that Recantation is but a Fable Nor can I wonder at such inventions of a Puritan faction when I consider their Forgeries concerning Hampton-â—ourt Conference 'till Doctor Barlow had put them to shame and silence § 43. To his following Impertinencies I shall speak very briâ—fly because they are extremely such p. 23. c. 1. As Bishop Montague's Adversaries did
the love of God and his glory I shall be willingly bound up from ever speaking or writing or injoying any place in the Church of God if my Superiours can but imagine how that maytend to the publick good rather than lay the least Block in the way of unity which now is attempting a return to such a Babel as ours hath been But besides my contention will be believed to have been such as mine Adversary in time will applaud me for when he shall find my Rudest twitches were but to snatch him from a Praecipice As soon as Mr. Hickman shall be convinced that though for a sinner to hate God and to murder men are as positive entities as any actions to be imagin'd yet they cannot but be reckon'd among the worst sorts of sins and therefore cannot without impiety be said to be any of God's creatures or God himself which yet Mr. Hickman hath often taught I say as soon as he shall discern not onely how dangerous and sinfull but how irrational and sensless his errour is he will as heartily thank me even for this very Book as I would thank that man who should pluck a thorn out of my eye Besides that my aime in what I have written hath been the same with that of the most moderate Doctor Sanderson For to express it in his words I have not written against the moderate but onely the Rigid-Scotized-thorow-paced Presbyterians Of them Mr. Hickman can be but one And even with him I am as ready to be upon just as good Termes as with my neighbour Mr. Barlee I long have been Let him onely forbeare to wound me in the Apple of my eye nay in the tenderest part of my very soul by dishonouring God and his Anointed long before whose restauration which is but hoped whilst â— am writing I had sent my Vindication of his Supremacy to the Press and which had certainly been as publick as now it is though the Republicans had prosper'd in their Cariere Let him I say but do that and my work is done If I shall ever again appear in the behalf of any one of the five controverted points it will be likelyest to be in Latine as being the Scholars Mother-tongue and onely in order to reconcilement Now that the God of peace and unity will make us at unity and peace within our selves enlightning our heads with that knowledge which is the mother of humility and inflaming our hearts with that zeal which is according to such a knowledge and thereby making up our breaches as well of judgement as of charity or at least of charity if not of judgement that we may all be held together by the bond of unity in the truth shall be as heartily the endeavour as it is the frequent and fervent prayer of Your meanest Brother and Servant in our Lord and Master Iesus Christ. THOMAS PIERCE Brington May 2. 1660. A PARAENETICAL PREFACE Shewing the purpose of the Author with the Necessity of the Work Representing its usefulness in all Times but more especially in these with some Praeparatory Advertisements making the whole the more manageable to the less Intelligent of the people Christian Reader IF thou shalt ask in curiosity why I happen to come so late to this Discharge of my Engagement to which I stood by my Promise so long obliged Know that my several Praeengagements with severall Books of Mr. Baxter together with several interventions both of sickness and journies and other Impediments unavoidable do conspire to give thee the Reason of it For these did keep me from the thought of what I have brought to a conclusion till somewhat after the beginning of this last Winter Besides that at the end of my Autocatacrisis which I conceive more useful then all my Controversies besides and upon which I bestowed the greatest labour that it might put a full end to the whole Dispute I made a promise to my Readers of what I had purpos'd within my self that if I return'd to any Dispute in any kind whatsoever as it would fall out Cross to my Inclinations so I resolved to do it onely at times of Leisure That whilst my howers could be spent in my chief employment I might not lose too many of them in my least necessary Defences For though I remember I am a Shepherd and bound as well to defend as to feed the Sheep yet it cannot but be to me an unpleasant Game to tyre my self in the hunting of Wolves and Foxes But after the Reason of my lateness I am to render another Reason why I betook my self at last to the present service I saw the flock was indanger'd by several Vermin and partly driven out of the Fold too Nay the great Master-shepherd was himself assaulted by their Inventions by whom he was slanderously reported to be the principal cause of their going astray Some I found teaching and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in broadest Terms That God is the Author of Injustice the Author of Adultery the Author of the evil of sin not onely the Author of the sinfull work it self but of the evil intention too In a word The Author of all thâ—se things which we affirm to come to pass by his mere permission and not at all by his appointment Others I caught in the Act of teaching That God doth incite or stirr men up to wicked actions that He seduceth commandeth doth make obdurate draws sends in deceipts and effects those things which are grievous sins Of which I now give an Instance from Peter Martyr in my Margin because he was the most famous and learned Calvinist of Florence In so much that Doctor Whitaker did most ingenuously confess when he answer'd Campian that if Calvin or Peter Martyr or any other of that Party affirms God to be the Author and cause of sin they are all of them guilâ—y of the most horrid Blasphemy and wickedness And yet when the Florentine I spake of had put the Question in the page preceeding his above cited words An Deus causa sit peccati whether God be the cause of sin he presently call'd it Quaestionem non dissimulandam and professedly held it in the affirmative A third sort I found there were who taught That God is the Author not of those actions alone in and with which Sin is but of the very pravity Ataxie Anomie Irregularitie and sinfulness it self which is in them yea that God hath more hand in mens sinfulness then they themselves These were publickly and in Print the very words of Master Archâ—r a Presbyterian Minister of London in Lombard street who went over into Holland with Thomas Goodwin Oliver Cromwel's Ghostly Father and the present usurper of the Presidentship in Magdalen Colledge by which Goodwin he was commended for as pretious a man as this earth bears any In Holland he was Pastor of the Church of Arnheim as we are told by Mr. Edwards his loving Friend too His book he was pleased
from turning Atheists It was observed by Peucerus in his Epistle before his Chronicon that there are three sins especially which have a tendency to the changing of States and Empires 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Impiety Injustice unbridled Lust. The Church is ruin'd by the first the secular policy by the second and private families by the third Each of these must needs reign when thought to have nothing of Reality or if it hath to be God's own offspring The late Cromwellians and the Phanaticks were clearly transported by the latter For having called their strength the Law of Iustice they constantly ascribed to God's decree and appointment and All working providence whatsoever vile practice they found they were able to bring about Their Dâ—clarations and Petitions their Remonstrances and news Books their Congratulations and Addresses both to the old and young Tyrant did ever run in Mr. Hickman's and Hobbs his strain Regicide and Sacrilege and all manner of Vsurpations being not onely Real but positive entities were still ascribed to the working and will of Goâ— But Mr. Hickman's true opinion must not be judged of by his wordâ— unless his opinion like his words doth often varie and shift it self to the two extream parts of his contradictions Whether 't is really his opinion that that is no sin which is intrinsecally evil because he saith it is good and the work of good or else that that is a sin which is God's own work because he saith it is an action and hath a positive being whâ—ther 't is really his opinion That for Ammon to ravish his sister Tamar could not possibly be a sin because an action or that a hatred of God himself cannot possibly be a sin because a Quality we can but guess by his plainest words though the Searcher of hearts doth know his meaning For one while he seeks to perswade his Readers that sin is nothing but a privation And he doth it by producing such figurative expressions from certain Authors as by which it is said that sin is nothing As 't were on purpose to let us know what he means by a privation Another while he saith that all things positive are good and from God and yet that the action of hating God is intrinâ—ecally evil which notwithstanding he confesseth to be a positive thing Another while he saith That the first sin of the Angels was a proud desire to be equal with God Where sin is praedicated in recto of proud desire which proud desire he will not deny to be a Quality and so to have both a Real and a positive Being And yet another while he saith That whatsoever hath a real he doth not say onely a positive being God himself doth produce as the first cause of it So that one of these two must needs be really his opinion but which of the two I leave him to say either that sin is Gods work and that God produced in the Angels their proud desire Or else that sin hath no real being but that conscience and sin are Ecclesiasticall words By the first he is a Libertine by the second a Carneadist And whether he who is either will not laugh at the Psalmist in his heart at least or in his sleeve for believing such a thing as a Reward for the Righteous I shall leave it to be judged by the considering Reader What should move him to assert the most contradictory things as that sin is something and nothing an action and no action Not a quality yet a quality That the hating of God is a sin and no sin That God is the cause and the Creator yet not the Author of every act And yet the Author of every act which is but positive or real I am not able to imagine unless he writes as he is moved by the present necessity of his affairs or is carried away with the Iesuits Doctrine of probability concerning which I shall speak in my consideration of Mr. Baxter Now to fit the plainest Reader for the perusal of my Book and to make the positivity of the very worst sins become visible to the blind very easie to the unlearned and to the obstinate undeniable I will supply him in Antecessum with severall Hints and Memâ—nto's of several forms and ways of arguing upon which he may enlarge as occasion serves I. It is the property of Qualities Quarto modo and so of nothing but qualities to denominate their subjects either like or unlike And so those sins must needs be qualities which will be granted to give such a denomination II. The positive belief in sensu composito that there is no God must needs be granted even by all to be a positive entity or being But 't is so wholly a sin as that 't is nothing but a sin to have a positive belief that there is no God Therefore that which is so a sin as to be nothing but a sin must needs be granted even by all to be a positive entity or being III. Sin properly so called is a transgression of the Lâ—w. And so is the act of the hating of God which yet is granted to have a positive being IV. A simple conversion is to be made betwixt sin and any action against a negative precept for every such action must be a sin and every such sin must be an action V. If something positive may be a sin then may a sin be something positive but something positive may be a sin witness envy pride lust malice VI. To hate God is an Action and therefore poâ—sitively something But 't is a sin to hate God Ergo. VII God forbid's in the Decalogue those positive acts coveting stealing bearing false witness and those are sins which God forbids in the Decalogue therefore those positive acts are sins VIII In this true proposition It is a sin to hate God sin is predicated directly of a positive action therefore that action is a species of sin IX There is a numerical identity or sameness betwixt a demonstrative and a determinate Individual as betwixt this man and Mr. Hickman when pointed out with a finger Such an Identity there is betwixt this sin and the Divels hating of God when 't is the thing so pointed out X. That very phrase an act of sin implyeth sin to be a compound which hath an act as well as an obliquiâ—y So that if sin is sinfulness which is the pleasure of Mr. Hickman then sinfulness is a compound and hath an act XI The very word peccare to sin imports an action so does malefacere to do wickedly as much as benefacere to do well And therefore this is the stile of the holy Scriptures They that have done evil shal have a resurrection to damnation and God will render to every man according to his Deeds Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil XII 'T is false in
himself as shall be shew'd his making a distinction without a difference As betwixt the act of hating God which is granted to be the sin and the sin of that act which is granted to be that very act of hating God For to hate God is 1 a sin 2 a whole sin and 3 nothing but a sin to which three clauses I challenge M. Hickman to make some Answer That if he thinks there is something in hating God which is not sin but very good as being one of God's Creatures which he sufficiently intimates by distinguishing the sin of the act from the sinful act as if the very act of hating God were not a sin the world may know him to be a Libertine without the protection of his disguise Had he forâ—seen that challenge to which I call'd for his Answer in my Letter to Doctor Heylin pag. 266. I had not met with an occasion for this last Section § 13. But because he seems in this place to use the word sin for sinfulness I will first intreat him to remember how sin is taken in holy Scripture by D. Twisse by M. Whitf by M. Barlee and by himself as I have shewd in this chapter § 1.6.7 Next I will help him to understand what is the sinfulness of sin and wherein it lyes It is granted I think by all that sin is that whole or complexum which doth consist of two parts material and formal so as neither part singly can either be or be conceived to be a sin And it is granted I think by all that the materiall Part of sin is positive it being an action or quality and when a quality an act or habit as hath been shew'd The onely privative Part of sin mark the emphasis which lyes on Part is the defection from the Rule which yet is founded in a positive act of which the other is onely a superadded relation unavoidably resulting by the positive acts application to the Rule Thus I think we are to speak if we may rightfully distinguish the two parts of sin which D. Field will not allow nor indeed is it possible so to distinguish the one from the other as to intitle God to the one without the other and that I suppose is the Doctors meaning But now for the abstract of this concretum it is that which resulteth from both united For after the manner that inequality doth arise from the Relation of a Bicubitum to a cubit so the sinfulness of a sin to wit of the action of hating God or of Cain's killing Abel doth arise by resultance from these two things God 's forbidding it to be done and its being done when thus forbidden so then The positive action of hating God as the materiall part which carries with it a defection from the rule of God's Law as the formal part is that complexum or whole sin which I have proved and shall prove to have a positive being The meer defection from the rule or repugnance to it without the action of hating God is not the sin but the formal part onely The meer action of hating God without its defection from the rule which for once I will suppose docendi gratiâ would not be the very sin but the material part onely But the sin as I said is both united viz. The action of hating God in a repugnance to or defection from the rule of God's law whereas the sinfulness of this sin that is the abstract of this concrete is not both parts united for then it would be concrete and so Identical with sin but that which resulteth from both united As the humanity is not the man made up of a body and a rational soul any more then the man is either of the two without the other but that which onely resulteth from both united whereas the man is both united § 14. But now for a while let us admit that the Question were of moral evil as such It would then be comprehensive of all moral evil For à quaâ—enus ad omne valet consequentia by his own confession p. 85. what then mean's he by a privation when he saith that sin or moral evil as such is a privation unless he means a meer privation and nothing else he speaks not against the posiâ—ivity of sin which even they who do assert do also hold there is a want of such a rectitude as is due but they say there is something besides that want As in walking to kill a neighbour there is something positive besides the want of a good end to which the walking should be directed And if any thing could be due to the hating of God to make it good as nothing can be there would be an action besides the want of that due as M. Hickman confesseth p 94. Nay in saying that that action is essentially evil ibid. he confesseth the very action to be the sin And taking sin in the right sense for complexum quid as he confesseth p. 95. we may allow him his own way of stating the Question to his undoing § 15. Again he is ruin'd by his preservative as may appear by this Dilemma Does he think that privation is a thing real or onely nominal something or nothing If nothing then for M. Hickman to filtâ—h and plunder is but a sin and therefore nothing in his opinion and so is a Carneadist If something then he thinks it Gods Creature or not his creature If his creature then he thinks that God is the Authour of sin and so he must think that sin is good or not good if he thinks it to be good he will scruple to commit it If not good he thinks that God can create what is peculiar to the Devil as Master Calvin inferreth against the Libertines If he thinks it not Gods Creature though something real then he must eate up his former saying viz. That it belongs to the universality of the first cause to produce every Real Being pag. 95. § 16. I shall conclude this Chapter with the Concession of Bonaventure that the sin of Concupiscence imports two things to wit an appetite and an excesse of that appetite In which excesse he confesseth there seemes to be a Position though he endeavours by a simile which doe's not run upon all its feet to make it seem a privation rather Which however it may infer yet it cannot wholy be without implying a contradiction And if either of the two is something positive the act of the appetite it self or the excesse in the act sure that which consisteth of both together I mean concupiscence cannot be lesse then either of them CHAP. III. § 1. HAving hitherto cleared and in the doing of that accidentally proved the thing in question I might immediately proceed to shew the littleness of the Tricks in which our Gamster is wont to deal but that I think it incumbent on me to effect that first which is most material and of which most Readers
granteth the very thing which it pretendeth to deny and which alone was the thing that D. Field contended for to wit that no Rectitude can be due to the hatred of God which is no longer the hatred of God than the hatred is limited to such an object to wit God So what is urged by D. Field is exactly yielded by M. Barlow and I appeal unto himself whether it is not as I have said For the Doctors words are what Rectitude is due to the specifical act of hating God now it cannot be the specifical act of hating God unless the act be limited to that very object and when it is 't is fully granted that nothing of Rectitude or goodness is due unto it Secondly I reply That when he saith the hatred of God being taken by it self may be good he flatly contradicteth what he had said a little before to wit that the hatred of God remaining it cannot be possibly made good by any circumstance whatsoever And the subject of the Dispute being the hatred of God it must needs remain till it is taken away And being taken away there is nothing of it to be disputed no kind of thing either good or evil Thirdly It is an uncouth sentence to say no worse which affirms any goodness in hating God let the hating God be taken in what sense it can be For 't is acknowledged by all to be Intrinsecally evil evil ex genere objecto so as nothing to be imagin'd can make it otherwise then evil And to say that that can be good in any notion which is confessedly good in none is to add impiety to contradiction For the hatred of nothing excepting sin can be morally good And therefore to say that the hating God in any sense can be good is to imply that the hating God is in some kind of sense the hating of sin Fourthly It is far from good sense to say the hatred of God being taken by it self that I would gladly think it an errour of the Press if I did not find it so often used However I am confident his meaning was That Hatred being taken by it self without relation to God may be good For the hatred of God cannot possibly be taken by it self so as hatred may stand without relating to the object to which 't is joyn'd for then the hatred of God were not the hatred of God which would be an express contradiction And his meaning being granted to be so different from his words as hatred taken without God for its object must needs be from the expression of hating God I then profess it to be true but not at all to the purpose For t is affirmed by D. Field that no rectitude can be due to the hatred of God not that it cannot be due to hatred eithâ—r considered in it self or in relation to any object which is not God Fifthly The simile taken from walking of it self and walking to kill or commit adultery is very halting in two respects For 1. walking by it self hath no proportion with the hatred of God whatever it might have had with hatred by it self The hatred of God being rather represented by walking to kill or commit adultery 2. The Doctor spake of such acts as are evil ex genere objectâ— so as nothing of circumstance can make them good and are denominated evil by active denomination from which walking of it self is as wide as Heaven from North to South And thus I have vindicated the Doctor for the love of the Cause which he asserteth not from the learned M. Barlow who now is Provost of Queens in Oxford and I am confident doth condemn the aberrations of his youth but rather from M. Barlow who was but newly Master of Arts and Iunior even to M. Hickman who yet hath nothing any otherwise to be vouchsafed a Confutation than as he hath thought it worth stealing out of so young a mans Essayes as M. Barlow was when he was Metaphysick Reader from whom as I dissent without the least diminution of solid Friendship so I have not exprest it without his leave § 5. To the Argument urged by GVLIELMVS DE RVBIONE which was the same in effect with Doctor Fields M. Barlow thus answers p. 73. That the hatred of God is onely evill through the defect of a due object for that haâ—red would be good were it terminated on sin But I reply to this Answer That the hatred of God being an act determin'd upon an object can have no other object then what it hath for if it be the hatred of any thing else then is it no longer the hatred of God much less can it be terminated on the hatred of sin the hating God rather implying the love of sin if by the hatred of God he means nothing but hatred in which case the word â—od must be blotted out then t is quite beside the purpose as hath been shewd for t is not hatred per se much less hatred of sin which was said to be so evil that no circumstance advenient can make it good but rather the contrary the hatred of sin is so good as that it cannot be made evil And therefore the hatred of God being the term in the Argument proposed should also have been the term in the Answer pretended Whereas it is added to his answer that the hatred of God is not taken aggregately or by way of connotation when t is said it may be good by the position of the due circumstance p. 73. I also add to my reply that though hatred can per se yet hatred of God cannot be possibly so considered for it implies a contradiction Hatred there being the Act and God the object and both together the Aggregate which whilst it is it cannot be but what it is If by hatred of God he means hatred of nothing or of sin then he must say what he means and not the contrary to what he means which when he shall say t will prove to be nothing to the purpose § 6. That which follows in M. Barlow's Answer is so fully expressed by M. Hickman that I will set down his words and then discover the infirmity of them The hating of God is complexum quid and must not be spoken as of one The vital action of hatred is a thing positive but the undue referring or terminating of that act to such an object which is altogether lovely that 's the sinfulness of the action and not positive but privative p. 95. In evil works there are two things considerable the works themselves and their pravity The works themselves we doubt not are positive and from God as all other positive things but their pravityes add no new entities to them c. To shew the Ayles of this Answer I will proceed by these degrees First it labours with the Fallacy à benè conjunctis ad malè divisa for the sin of hating God doth so
c. But let us hear Dr. Iackson also § 9. The Hypothesis for whose clearer Discussion these last Theses have been praemised is this Whether it being once granted or supposed that the Almighty Creator was the cause either of our mother Eves desire or of her actual eating of the forbidden fruit or of her delivery of it to her husband or of his taking and eating it though unawares the same Almighty God must not upon like necessity be acknowledged to be the Author of all the obliquiâ—ies which did accompany the positive acts or did necessarily result from them This is a case or Species Facti which we cannot determine by the Rule of Faith It must be tryed by the undoubted Rules of Logick or better Arts. These be the onely perspective Glasses which can help the eye of Reason to discover the truth or necessity of the consequence to wit whether the Almighty Creator being granted to be the cause of our mother Eves first longing after the forbidden Fruit were not the cause or Author of her sin Now unto any Rational man that can use the help of the forementioned Rules of Art which serve as prospective Glasses unto the eye of Reason that usual Distinction between the Cause or Author of the Act and the Cause or Author of the Obliquity which necessarily ensues upon the Act will appear at the first sight to be False or Frivolous yea to imply a manifest contradiction For Obliquity or whatsoever other Relation can have no cause at all besides that which is the Cause of the Habit of the Act or Quality whence it necessarily results And in particular that conformity or similitude which the first man did bear to his Almighty Creator did necessarily result from his substance or manhood as it was the work of God undefaced Nor can we search after any other true Cause of the First mans conformity to God or his integrity besides him who was the cause of his manhood or of his existence with such qualifications as by his creation he was endowed with In like manner whosoever was the cause whether of his coveting or eating of the Tree in the middle of the Garden was the true cause of that obliquity or crooked deviation from Gods Law or of that deformity or dissimilitude unto God himself which did necessarily result from the forbidden Act or Desire It was impossible there should be one Cause of the Act and another Cause of the Obliquity or Deformity whether unto Gods Laws or unto God himself For no Relation or Entity merely relative such are obliquitie and deformity can have any other Cause beside that which is the cause of the Fundamentum or Foundation whence they immediately result It remains then that we acknowledge the old Serpent to have been the first Author and Man whom God created male and female to have been the true positive Cause of that obliquity or deformity which did result by inevitable Nâ—câ—ssity from the forbidden Act or desire which could have no Necessary cause at all and more to this purpose p. 3013. c. § 10. Diotallevius doth also prove that they who make God the Author of the positive act of hatiâ—g God do make him the Author of the obliquity Because saith he God himself cannot effect what doth imply a contradiction that the moral obliquity of an Act which is intrinsecally evil and freely exerted by the creature shall not follow or rather attend the positive entity of the act which is such as hath been said and so exerted For it implies a contradiction that an act intrinsecally evil to wit the act hating God should be freely exerted and yet not evil or that it should not have a moral pravity conjoyned with it 2. They who hold all positive entities to be effected by God himself must needs believe him to be the cause as much of the worst as of the best actions in the world both because hating is as positive when it is fixed upon God as it can possibly be when it is fixed upon the Divel And because an obliquity is as vnavoidable to the one as rectitâ—de or conformity can be possibly to the other 3. If an immediate working of the formal obliquity be required to make an Author of anothers sin then neither Man nor Divel in perswading another to do wickedly can possibly be the Author of it because they are not any otherwise the causes of the obliquity then by tempting to that act to which the obliquity is annexed And for the very same reason no creature could be the cause of any such sin within himself because he doth not produce the moral obliquity of the act but by producing the act to which the obliquity is annext 4. When we do absolutely and simply inquire after the cause of another mans sin we do not inquire after the cause which immediately reacheth to the obliquity of the act but after the inducing or moving cause by which he is led to such a voluntary act whose object is repugnant to the rule of Reason That is the method of Aquinas De malo quaest 3. art 1. 3. 1.2 q. 75. per totam from whence it follows that if God doth induce us efficaciously to an aversion from himself and so to a hatred of his Divinity it is every whit as true that he is the Author of our sin as that he induceth us efficaciously to that aversion and hatred which is intrinsecally evil And therefore Mr. Hickman must recant the first or contentedly smart for the Impiety of the second § 11. Doctor STEARN is very severe and upon very just ground to the use that is made of the same Distinction For he doth not content himself to say that to be the cause of the action from which the obliquity cannot be separate is to be the very cause of the obliquity it self because the obliquity is annexed to the entity of the Action and thâ—t in a manner unavoidable Nor doth he onely add this That man himself is no otherwise the author of his sin then as he is author of that action to which the obliquity is annexed But he saith yet farther That if God well-knowing the absolute inseparability of the obliquity from the action doth wâ—llingly produce that very action he is so far from being free from the obliquity of the action that he is môre guilty of it then the man himself in whom that action is â—o produced as who does seldome or never think of the obliquity annext quam Deus nunquam non cognoscit animadvertit Nay he chargeth the Adversaries with a higher blasphemy then that even with making God more guilty then the divel which how they can answer let them consider whom it concern's I shall onely for the present subjoyn his words Immo Daemones hominem ad peccandum tentantes minori jure Authores peccati sunt censendi quam Causa Libera Actionis illam producens non tantùm sciens malitiam esse
illi annexam Nam Daemones non producunt Actiones quibus malitia est annexa sed tantum solicitant c. multo itaque magis Malitiae reus est qui sciens volens non tentat aut solicitat sed actionem reipsa producit cujus malitia ut ab ea prorsus inseparabilis ipsi quà m clarissimè patet What kind of Adversaries they are whom the Doctor thus handles and how much Mr. Hickman becomes concern'd he gives us to know by his two instances in Twisse and Zuinglius § 12. A whole Colledge of Remonstrants men of renown for their piety and learning too thought fit to shame the common subterfuge by these two wayes of Argumentation 1. Whensoever a superiour and omnipotent cause doth so move and determine the inferiour and impotent that it being so moved cannot choose but sin Then must the guilt of that sin be wholly transferred on the superiour and omnipotent cause But according to those men who affirm the positive acts of all the very worst sins to be the creatures and works of God the inferiour cause is so moved by the omnipotent and superiour as that it cannot choose but sin Therefore according to those men the sin is wholly to be transferred on the superiour cause 2. When two causes do concurr to one action to wit the action of hating God whereof the one act 's freely and the other of necessity then must the cause which acts freely sustain the whole fault of its coming to pass But according to the men aforesaid God acts freely in the producing of such an action which M. Hickman reckons amongst Gods creatures and the inferiour cause of necessity Therefore according to those men God sustains the whole fault of its coming to passe And we know in the whole fault is included the obliquity as well as the act § 13. The Apologist for Tilenus doth make this Answer to the distinction 1. That man doth seldom or never entertain sin or consent to it with a designe to oppose himself to the divine Law but to enjoy his Pâ—easure and satisfie his appetites 2. He supposeth that a man should consent to sin with such a set purpose to oppose Gods Law And then infers that according to Mr. H.'s Doctrine that consent and that purpose being positive entities and acts of the soul are from God and of his production from whence it followes either that man doth not sin when he commits such an act or that the fault is imputable to God who is called by Mr. Hickman the first cause of that Act. I wonder when Mr. H. will give that Author a Reply § 14. But after all and above all I commend to consideration the words of the Reverend Dr. HAMMOND who having shewed how those Doctrines which are commonly called Calvinistical are so noxious to the practice and lives of men as to be able to evacuate all the force of the Fundamentals of Christianity those I mean by him forementioned And coming to speak of the Distinction betwixt the act and the obliquity which the Assertors of those Doctrins have commonly used as an Artifice for the avoiding of those consequences by which their Doctrines are rendred odious at last proceeds to make it appear That this is no way applicable to the freeing of God from being the Author of that sin of which he is said by those men to predetermine the act For 1. Though a free power of acting good or evil be perfectly distinct and separable from doing evil and therefore God that is the Author of one cannot thence be inferred to be the author of the other yet the act of sin is not separable from the obliquity of that act the act of blasphemy from the obliquity or irregularity of blasphemie the least evil thought or word against an infinite good God being as crooked as the rule is straight and consequently he that predetermines the act must needs predetermine the obliquity Nay 2. if there were any advantage to be made of this distinction in this matter it would more truely be affirmed on the contrary side that God is the author of the obliquity and man of the act for God that gives the rule in transgressing of which all obliquity consists doth contribute a great deal though not to the production of that Act which is freely committed against that rule yet to the denominating it oblique for if there were no Law there would be no obliquity God that gives the law that a Jew shall be circumcised thereby constitutes uncircumcision an obliquity which had he not given that law had never been such But for the act as that differs from the powers on one side and the obliquity on the other it is evident that the man is the cause of that To conclude this Chapter It is a thing so undeniable that the Author of the act of hating God must needs be the Author of the obliquity that as the men of the Church of England affirm man to be the Author and the sole author of both and God of neither so the rigid Presbyterians as well as Papists affirm God to be the Author not onely of the act but of the obliquity of the Act. Witness Mr. Archer so much commended by Thomas Godwin in his Comfort for believers p. 36.37 Mr. Whitfield also and Mr. Hobbs Occham in sent 3. q. 12 cited by Dr Field p. 128. and Mr. Hickman in effect when he saith that God is the Cause of all Beings p. 78. and p. 95. and Pet. Mart. in 1 Sam. c. 2. CHAP. V. § 1. THE positive entity of sin is so clear from Scripture and from the writings of all the Fathers both Greek and Latine that as Mr. Hickman hath not attempted to give us Scripture for his opinion so the FATHERS are very few whose very figurative speeches do look that way And their meaning is so conspicuous by what the same Fathers say before and after that if he drank out of the Foâ—ntaines as I see he hath done out of several Cisterns I admire the greatness of his delusion His performance being no better then mine or any mans would be who should prove that an Idol hath not a positive being although the work of mens hands and made of Massy Gold or silver because it is said by the Apostle an Idol is nothing in the world Or that the Planters of Christianity had not onely no positive but not so much as a Real Being because it is said by the same Apostle that God hath chosen the things that are not to bring to naught things that are Yet this ad hominem is a strong way of arguing very much stronger then Mr. Hickmans by how much that of the Scripture is the greatest Authority in the world Now though it is said by the Holy Ghost that Circumcision is nothing that the foreskin is nothing that wicked men are of nothing that every man is but vanity yea and
set thus as Mr. Hickman and the Libertines it seems would have it O God from whom are all desires holy and unholy or from whom are all counsels good and evil or from whom are all works just and unjust I say Mr. Hickman would have it thus because he saith the very work of hating God is from God pag. 95 96. nay he saith that every positive entity is either God or from God p. 75. and from him as his Creature p. 79. Nay that every reall Being is produced by the first cause that is by God p. 95. Now it is granted by all the world That all thoughts words and actions all desires counsels and works have either a positive or a reall and indeed a positive being Which being is not diminished by any addition of good or evil For to hate God is as reall and as positive a thing as to hate the Divel 5. When it is said of God that he can do every thing Iob. 42.2 and that to him all things are possible Mat. 19.26 it must needs be meant with a Restriction of all things that are good because there are Texts which say the contrary to wit that he cannot do every thing as that he cannot deny himself 2 Tim. 2.13 and that all things are not possible to him as that it is impossible for God to lye Tit. 1.2 In a word It is no truer that God can do all things meaning things that are good then that he can do nothing which argues uncleanness or imperfection I may say to Mr. Hickman as the antient Fathers were wont to do unto the Hereticks Austin to Faustus and Origen to Celsus and Isidore to the Sceptick God can do all things that is all things that become him yet cannot do any thing that is evil because he cannot not be God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Or as the Reverend Bishop Bramhall to Mr. Hobs p. 93. God is said to harden the heart not causally but occasionally that is by Gods doing good the sinner takes an occasion of doing evil And as this is a good consequence such a thing is from God therefore it is righteous so this consequence is as good such a thing is unrighteous therefore it cannot proceed from God We must not therefore thus argue A Lye is no reall thing because it is Impossible for God to cause it but rather thus because it is impossible for God to cause it therefore all things reall are not from God And therefore 6. When it is said of sin that it is nothing or not in being that it hath no essence or is not amongst the things that are as Dionysius the Areopagite and others speak me thinks the very extremity of the literal falshood should have convinced Mr. Hickman that they are figurative expressions And no more to the support of his sinking cause then it would be to that Atheist's who should dispute against the veriâ—y because against the wisdome and power of God by citing the words of our Apostle The foolishness of God is wiser then men and the weakness of God is stronger then men 1 Corinth 1.25 how many blasphemies might be broached from the many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or seeming contradictions of holy Scripture if by rational distinctions we might not be suffeâ—'d to reconcile them As it is said by Saint Paul that the invisible things of God are clearly seen and being so are very visible and as it is said by the Comedian hoc aliquid Nihil est so I may say with great reason hoc nihil est Aliquid This nothingness of sin is something positive And I will prove that Mr. H. himself is nothing at least as well as he prove's that sin is nihil positivum nothing positive For M. Hickman is a man who thinks himself something And St. Paul hath said it If a man think himself something when he is nothing he deceiveth himself Gal. 6.3 Mr. Hickman cannot be ignorant that generation and corruption are two species of motion whereof the first is defined to be motus à Non esse ad esse the second to be motus ab esse ad Non esse But would he not be thought a prodigious Disputant who should write a Book of ten sheets to prove that Generation is a creation out of nothing and so that the Generant is a God or that to dye is to be annihilated and so that there is not a Resurrection Yet those two definitions will bear him out to M. Hickman however ridiculous he would be to all men else But as the meaning is that corruptio est motus ab esse tali ad non esse Tale so something positive simpliciter may be said to be nothing secundum Quid. And in this very sense those words are spoken by the Psalmist Mine age is nothing in respect of thee Psal. 39.5 But to make it yet more apparent 7. By whom can the writings of the FATHERS be better explained then by themselves If then the very same Father who saith at one time that sin is nothing doth also say at another that Sin is no other thing then a contempt of God an example of which is in my Margin 't is plain that the former proposition must be explained by the latter the like example I shewd out of Scripture and out of the writings of ATHANASIUS in the first and third Secâ—ion of this present Chapter and the like may be shew'd of all the rest by the severall citations of the third and fourth Sections So what is said by AQUINAS and his Followers amongst the SCHOOLMEN must of necessity be explained by such conspicuous assertions as these that follow omne quod fit habet Causam sed peccatum fit est enim dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem Dei Dicendum quod peccatum est Actus quidam inordinatus ex parte actus potest habere per se causam Peccatum non solum significat ipsam privationem Boni quae est Inordinatio sed significat actum sub tali privatione c. nihil habet rationem mali antequam applicetur ad Actum Ipse voluntatis actus praemissis suppositis jam est quoddâ—m peccatum Peâ—catum consistit principaliter in actu voluntatis Peccatum nominat ens actionem cum quodam defectu Thus frequently and plainly doth Aquinas assert the positive eâ—tity of sin and therefore by this we must explain him and reconcile him unto himself whensoever he seem's to say the contrary or at least accuse him of contradictions So he saith of original sin that it is not a meer privation but a corrupt Habit comparing it to a bodily disease which hath something positive as well as privative 8. It must be carefully observed in ANTIENT WRITERS that because an accident cannot exist without the subject of Inhaesion which is substantia and because substantia is ens per se subsistens they do often
is a high self-determining principle the great spring of our actions of Iudgement pag. 152. But Mr. B. as many others is produced by me in no fâ—â— place I not observing any order either of dignity or of time but giving to every one a place as he meets my memory or my eye The words of GROTIUS deserve great heed whilst he saith that the liberty of a man's will is not vitious but able by its own force to produce a thing that is vitious that is an action meaning that a vitious action as the action of hating God is meerly from the sinner man or Divel and not without impiety to be ascribed unto God either as a mediate or immediate cause And though I cited some part of his words before yet not to fail of his intenâ— I shall intreat my Reader to weigh the whole Neque ab eo quod diximus dimovere nos debet quod mala multa evenire cernimus quorum videtur origo Deo adscribi non posse ut qui perfectissimè sicut ante dictum est bonus sit Nam cum diximus Deum omnium esse Causam addidimus eorum quae verè subsistunt Nihil enim prohibet quominus ipsa quae subsistunt deinde causae sint Accidentium quorundam quales sunt actiones Deus hominem mentes sublimiores homine creavit cum agendi libertate quae agendi libertas vitiosa non est sed potest suâ vialiquid vitiosum producere Et hujus quidem generis malis quae moraliter mala dicuntur omnino Deum adscribere auctorem nefas est p. 27 28. LYCERUS vindicating God from the very same calumnie with which Mr. Hickman hath not feared to â—sperse him saith that the Divel did peccâ—re ex semetipso according to our Saviour Ioh. 8.44 that he alone is pater fons malorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first inventor of evil things to which he accommodates that of Austin Quomodo Deus pater genuit filium veritatem sic Diabolus lapsus genuit quasi filium mendacium God is said to be omnipotent not because he can do all things saith LOMBARD out of Augustin but because he can do whatsoever he will who cannot will to do any thing but what is good But there are some things saith he which God cannot do to wit those things wich are unjust sunt alia quaedam quae Deus nullatenus facere potest ut pâ—ccata p. 247. Non potest Deus facere injusta p. 248. These following Doctrines quod voluntas hominis ex necessitate vult eligit quod liberum Arbitrium est potentia passiva quod necessitate movetur ab Appetibili item quod dignitas esset in causis superioribus posse facere peccata Item quod alâ—quis faciat aliquid omnino ut Deus vult ipsum facere voluâ—tate Beneplaciti quod talis peccet c. were condemned with an Anathema by the Bp. of Paris and all the Professors of Divinity in that university A. D. 1270. 1341. together with the Blasphemies of Ioannes de Mercurio of the Cistercian order that God is in some sort the cause of the sinful act And that whatever is caused by the will of the Creature is so caused by vertue of the first cause And that God is the cause of every mode of the act and of every Circumstance that is produced All which are the Blasphemies asserted as Necessary truths by Mr. Hickman accordingly do call for a condemnation Bp. BRAMHALL shewes it to be his judgement whilst he censures Mr. Hobbs for saying that God wills and effects by the second causes all their actions good and bad and saith it implyes a contradiction that God should willingly do what he professeth he doth suffer Act. 13.18 Act. 14.16 Then he thus states the matter God causeth all good permitteth all evil disposeth all things both good and evil The general power to act is from God in him we live move and have our being this is Good But the specification and Determination of this general power to the doing of any evil is from our selves and proceeds from the free will of man it is a good consequence This thing is unrighteous therefore it cannot proceed from God Thus Aquinas and others are also expounded by Diotallevius not to mean that God is any cause of the evil act but that he doth not withdraw his necessary support from the will which abuseth its liberty in determining it self to the evil act and so that God is only the condition without which we cannot do evil not the cause by which we do it And so saith Aquinas Licet Deus sit universale principium omnis intentionis motus humani quod tamen determinetur voluntas humana ad malum consilium hoc non esse à Deo sed ab ipsâ again he saith non à motione divinâ sed à dispâ—sitione humanae voluntatis oriri ut malae potius actionâ—s quà m boâ—ae sequantur He also cites for his opinion what I have cast into the Margin and of which the result is this Dâ—termiâ—ationâ—m ad producâ—ndam huâ—â—s actus enâ—itatem esse à voluntate humanâ non autem à Deo Deum ita nolle antecedenâ—er ut haec entitas sit ut eam eâ—iam esse patiatur suum concursum non subtrahendo si conditio id exigat ex Creaturae libertate opposita p. 92.93.94 mark how it is expressed by Dr. GO AD. God made Adam able to be willing to sin but he made him not to will sin that he chose death it was by the strength of his will given him by God but God did not binde him to chose death for that were a contradiction a necessitated choice if the Nature of a voluntary Agent be well observed this point will be most evident And now the judicious Dr. Hammond will be the fittest to shut up all He that first gives the Law and then preâ—etermines the Act of transgressing the disobedience the doing contrary to that law that first forbids eating of the tree of knowledge and then predetermines Adams will to choose and eat what was forbidden is by his decree guilty of the Commission of the act and by his Law the cause of its being an obliquity And indeed if the obliquity which renders the act a sinfull act be it self any thing it must necessarily follow that either God doth not predetermine all things or that he predetermines the obliquity and Regularity bearing the same pâ—oportion of Relation to any act of Duty as obliquity doth to sin it cannot be imagined that the Author of the sinful Act should not be the Author of the obliquity as well as the Author of the pious Act is by the disputers acknowledged to be the Author of the regularity of it To conclude this Chapter in the words of Dr Reynolds Let not any man resolve sins into any other original then his
own Lusts. CHA P. VI. § 1. HAving bestowed so much paper on what is thought of most moment I shall need spend but little in the dispatching of those flyes to which Mr. H. gives the name of Arguments Artificial p. 69. The first he confesseth was Mr. Barlees If sin as sin be a positive entity then it is a thing in it self good For t was added by Mr. B. but now substracted by Mr. H. every positive thing is good Sect. 2. To this I answered many things of which Mr. H. replyeth onely to a few As 1. That if sin is a thing positive he seeks to prove by this Argument that sin is good 2. That I had proved sin a thing positive in my two last sections which continuing firm and not disproved evinceth the force of his Argument to serve for nothing but only to prove that sin is good 3. That a thing which is privative in one respect is also positive in another As that which is privative of life and sight must needs be positive of Death and blindnesse 4. That Mr. B. himself did grant as much in confessing the efficient cause of sin and saying there may be somthing of positive in a privation 5. That in saying sin is privative he confesseth it is not a meer privation because a privation is but the abstract of privative and what is most positive in one case may be privative in another 6. That sin is not conceivable unlesse as a concrete which hath something positive as well as privative there being no kinde of difference betwixt Davids lying with Bathshebah and hiâ— Adultery with Bâ—thshebah at the time of her being Vriahs wife 7. That bonum Metaphysicum hath quite another signification then bonum morale to which alone we oppose sin or malum morale 8. That a Libertine a Ranter or a Carneadist will be glad to introduce an opinion that sin is good by calling it bonum Metâ—physicum and confounding that with bonum morale 9. That the subject of Metaphysicks is ens quatenus ens reale illud not omnimodo positivum quatenus positivum and so in one sensâ— it comprehendeth Res aliquid 10. That bonum metaphysicum doth not signifie good in English as Canis astronomicus doth not signifie a dog in our english streets and apprehensions 11. That Dr. Twisse was betrayed into one of his worst errourâ— that it is better to be tortured to all eternity then not to have a real being by not considering this very thing 12. That a lye is verum as much as sin is bonum Metaphysicum because it hath a positive being which proved the Argument to be impertinent at the best § 3. Now Reader observe what an incomparable confuter I have to deal with There are but four things of twelve on which his courage would serve him to try his teeth which finding also to be too hard he does as lepidly nibble at them as the tame creature did at the Thistles which made Philemon so full of laughter For to the first he thus replyes The designe of the argument is to fright Mr. P. out of his sad opinion concerning the positivity of sin by bringing him to the grand Absurdity of saying sinne is good p. 70. But I rejoyn 1. That my answer was designed to fright Mr. Hick from his opinion concerning Gods being the Author of all things positive nay of all things real too neither Blasphemy nor Buggery nor hating God being excepted by bringing him to the grand Absurdities of saying God is the Author of the greatest wickednesse in the world and withal of saying the greatest wickednesse is good 2. He cannot bring me to saying that sin is good but onely he can say he designed to bring me which shews the folly of his designe too For. 3. as I said that Bonum amongst the Heathen Metaphysicians did not signify good in our English acception of the word any more then malum which is latine for an apple can signifie evil in a Translation though malum is latine for evil too so I shall make it undeniable by appealing even to them who are partial to him whether we can properly say in English That it is good to hate God or good for Mr. Hickman to lie with a beast because they are actions which have positive entities and therefore are Bona Metaphysica in Mr. Hickmans Dialect Nay in very broad English Mr. H. will tell us that they are Good and from God if he dares say twice what he hath said too often by saying once to wit in his pages 95 96 4. I told him Aristotlâ—'s phrase of every entity being good should rather have been rejected as unsound and unsafe and so returned to that Heathen from whence it came then have been used by a Christian to prove it good to hate God And accordingly Dr. Stearn doth somewhere deny that metaphysical Axiom to be of universal truth for when it was urged that the Act of hating God must be good because ens bonum convertuntur he called it the begging of the question as well he might 5. Mr. H. saith theMaxime is ens bonum convertuntur not quatenus positivum and so ascribes an equal goodnesse to the formal obliquity which is ens as to the Act it self to which the obliquity it annexed 6. T were easy to prove to Mr. H. that the greatest Lye is as true as the truth it self because it is Aristotle's Maxime and as generally received as that he urged ens and verum convertuntur 7. I had told him whilest it was time that if by good he means bonum morale as to be pertinent he must he must also prove parricide incest witchcraft or Rebellion a thing neither better nor worse then witchcraft either meer privations of being or moral good things For according to his dreaming they must be nothing or 2. no sins or 3. moral vertues or 4. sins and moral vertues too § 4. He replyes to the third by a full Concession p. 70.71 But conceiving it a disgrace to stick at nothing he wholy passeth by my answer and onely quarrells my Illustration which yet in one sense he doth approve too That sense was mine and as pertinent it was as whatsoever similitude he hath stoln from Mr. Morice what I said of darknesse he confesseth to be a truth and with a But it is very vulgar p. 71. As if the Sun were the worse for being an every day spectacle He thought his axiom the better for being vulgar and gave it this commendation that it is commonly received p. 70. when he impertinently saith that darkness cannot be felt p. 72. he should have excepted the Aegyptian and that of his own apprehension which is now so palpable to every Reader 2. I gave an instance in the transgression of the Law which I said was sin and yet a thing positive as well as privative to wit privative of virtue and positive of vice To this Mr.
that sin is nothing which is but non-ens in English why not figuratively spoken when they say that sin is a privation especially when there are testimonies out of the very same Writers not onely for the reality but positivity also of sin 2. The little Greek he produceth hath so very many faults in so very few lines not observed in his Errata that I conceive he did he knew not what with an implicit Faith in the skill of others from whom he borrow'd at second hand which I believe so much the rather because I find his own Authorities do overthrow the very errour for which he bâ—ings them Witness the words of Aâ—hanasius which prove that sin hath no substance in opposition to those Greeks who contended that sin had a subsistence of it self whereas to the having a positivity there is nothing more required then that it be some kind of Accident Witness also those other words affirming no evil thing positive or privative to proceed from God who being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gives occasion to the expression of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which evil things may be called as not derived from him who is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So when it is said by St. Austin ex uno Deo esse omnia quae sunt he explains his meaning to be of all good things and of none besides because he presently adds tamen non esse peccatorum auctorem Deum And if when Austin doth elsewhere say Peccatum nihil est he means according to the letter that sin is nothing in very deed first 't is a gross contradiction to what he saith in other places and secondly 't is the worst of his many Errours 3. The meaning of Aquinas I have elsewhere shewed And yet if I say with Dr. Iackson that Aquinas and his followers have sometimâ—s spoken uâ—excusably concerning God I shall but speak to the dishonour of Popish Writers by whom the rigid Presbyterians have been unhappily corrupted in these affairs Lastly whereas he saith that heaâ—hâ—n Philosophers did see this giving an instance in Salustius and no one else a man that shall affirm the eternity of the world may urge Aristotle for it and say the Heathens themselves discernd this truth Thus I say a man may argue who can find in his heart to argue no better then Mr. Hickman But be it that a heathen is of the Presbyterian judgement the Christian Fathers and Schoolmen are still of mine unless when they speak in such a manner against me as to speak as much against themselves too § 11. His second Reason is because he knows no other way of defining what ens primum is but this that it is such a Being which is not from any other being and which is the cause of all the Beings that are p. 78. First I observe from these words that the Libertine advanceth more and more to a clear discovery of it self For if he thinks that any sin as hating cursing blaspheming God hath any being in the world he professeth to believe that God himself is the cause of it And the cause is the Author of any being And so he is caught in the act of that very crime which himself had confessed to be the worst of all blasphemies and which is the Quintessence of all blasphemy saith Theophilus Churchman which is thought to signifie three men of which number Master Hickman himself is one in the rationall conjectures of all I meet with If he thinks that sin hath no being and by consequence that it is nothing then his words are most impertinent and prove him besides a meer Carneadist Secondly In saying God is the cause of all beings meerly because he is the first he seems to think there is but one way of priority whereas a Freshman in Logick could have told him there are five Is it not enough that God is the first of all Beings and was from eternity without beginning whereas all things else began to be and so was before the being of sin and of all things else in four respects but he must also be before it as the â—ause of its being Thirdly It may suffice to the defining of ens primum to say it is that which alone did neveâ— begin to be or that than which there is nihil prius and which praecedeth all others as much as eternity praecedeth time Or if the word cause must needs be added let it be said he is the cause of all good things that have a being whether naturally and necessarily or voluntarily acting But not the cause of those acts or actions which cannot but argue in the causer either wickedness and guilt or imperfection § 12. His third Reason in effect is but the same with the second as the second is the same with what he call'd his second Argument p. 77. And so I referr it for its answer both to the Section before going and to what I have said in my whole fifth Chapter especially to § 5 anâ— 6. Onely I add my observation that whilst God is by him affirmed to be the fountain of all essences p 79. who yet ascribeth one essence unto sin whilst he saith the action of hating God is essentially evil p. 94. he affirms God to be the fountain of all the sins in the world and that not only of the act but of the very essence of sin it self And because he seems to stumble most at the common axiom in Philosophy which is found urged by Mr. Barlow severall times upon one account to wit that the cause of the cause is the cause of the effect I will first send him back to what I have said in Answer to it chap. 5. § 5. num 2. Next I will set him down at large Aquinas his Answer unto the same effectus causae secundae procedens ab eâ secundum quod subditur causae primae reducitur etiam in causam primam Sed si procedat à causâ media secundum quod exit ordinem causae primae non reducitur in causam primam Sicut si minister faciat aliquid contra mandatum Domini hoc non reducitur in dominum sicut in causam Et similiter peccatum quod liberum arbitrium committit contra praeceptum Dei non reducitur in Deum sicut in causam § 12. His fourth pretended reason is most ridiculously pretended He believes no medium because forsooth Mr. P. hath not been able to find any for whereas I told him the works of the Divel are a medium he saith I could not sure but think he would distinguish in blasphemy lying c betwixt the vital act and its deficiency c. p. 79. The folly of this being discovered throughout my whole fourth chapter and in the beginning of this sixth and I may say throughout my fifth too but most expresly in my third chapter § 6. which is too long to be here repeated I shall onely
opinion he having taught expressly that all things positive are either from God or God himself Nay he plainly enough affirmes the habit of drunkenness as he professeth not to doubt the positivity of the habit And he does both within the compasse of 7. or 8. lines But he denyes that this habit is a fit instance of habitus in post praedicamentis yet that is a Quality and so is this as I will make him to confesse by putting the case in another colour for he confesseth it is an action for the Devil to hate God And that an action implyes a quality he will be hiâ—s'd by the youngsters if he denies this being one of the 4. things which are required to every action And as the habit of hateing God is as much a sin as the habit of drunkenness can be so it serves as fâ—â—ly to evince the thing that I am proving If he means vice by vitiosâ—â—y as sin by sinfulnesse p. 53. then he doubts whether that is positive which he saith he doubts not to be an habit and being an habit he as little doubts of its positivity If he means that vitiosity is the abstract of vice he contradicts what he had said p. 53 unlesse he thinks he may distinguish betwixt the vice and the sin of Drunkennesse If he makes a separation of the habit of drunkennesse which he will have to be from God as being positively something from the obliquity of the habit which he expresseth by vitiosity then he incurs the several dangers which my whole second Chapter doth warn him of So great and many are the distresses into which this Medler betrayes himself § 19. I had said in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 163. 1. There must be something positive to make a man positively foul 2. Which foulness suffers a privation when the man is cleansed of his filth The truth of the first Mr. H. confesseth in words at length p. 93. and the truth of the second he doth not question for he doth not speak a word to it What then doth he do for an answer to me Why it goes for an answer to call me Rector and for a jest to adde Ridiculous The text which I cited from Rev. 22.11 let him that will be filthy be filthy still he found misprinted Rom. 22.11 on which he fastens as an occasion to shew his deep knowledge that there are not so many Chapters in that Epistle Nor did the Printers Apprentice suppose there were He saith I did not offer at any other proof when yet he knows I also added the words of God to the people Israel I have purged thee and thou wast not purged therefore shalt thou not be purged from thy filthinesse any more p. 262. from whence I made this observation that as the filth of sin is many times so ingrained that after Gods own cleansings the habitual sinner remaines unclean so the filâ—h which is positive is mans own Creature whereas the cleansing which is privative is Gods own work To this Mr. H. doth not answer one syllable but falls to his old trade of begging what he was sure to be denyed the thing in Question And yet he is somewhat more bashful then at his ordinary times Only saying what may be said not what he dares affirme for truth we may make the spiritual filth to consist in the want of that Nitor Gratiae which either was or should be in the soul. p. 93. But 1. he contradicts what he had said a little before unless he will deny that they are positively foul who are not purged though God doth purge them because they are grown so inveterately and habitually foul that as soon may the Ethiope change his skin or the Leopard his spots as they do good who are accustomed to do evil 2. He makes God if not the onely yet by far the chiefest cause of the greatest filthiness to be named in men or divels whilst he makes it to consist in a meer want of grace which 't is impossible for us to want but as God doth withhold or withdraw it from us 3. He makes not any the least difference betwixt not-blessing which is one kind of filthiness and cursing God which is another betwixt Ammon's not loving and his ravishing and his hating his sister Tamar 4. To hate God is an Action by his acknowledgement which however it be attended with yet it is also somewhat more then a want of Grace which although there are men who do wholly want yet the Divels are more filthy in whom the hatred of God is more habitual And even of those very men in whom is wanting a Nitor gratiae their filthiness is the greatest who draw iniquity with cords and sin as with a cartrope 5. Whilst he speaks of a want of Grace which either was or should have been in the soul he implicitly makes God the sole delinquent in the latter part of his disjunctive as if he thought there were a case wherein God did not doe what he should have done unless there can be grace and not of God But 6. It is not so much the want or absence as the resisting of grace when it is present by which the filthiness of a sinner becomes exceedingly more filthy The Iews were filthier then the Ninevites not because they more wanted but more abused the grace of God because they sinned against greater light and against more means of grace to abstain from sinning The unprofitable servant was to be cast into outer darkness not for having no talent but for wrapping it in a napkin All which M. H. is now to take into consideration § 20. To what I argued from actual sins such as lying blaspheming and positive believing there is no God c. he returns just nothing besides his back Hostibus hic tergo non forti pectore notus And yet as if he were proud of such an unmanlike tergiversation he steals a passage from M. Morice that he may glory in his shame with the better Grace And though he had found me often urging that divelish sin of hating God yet he talks of supposing my Iâ—stance to be made in the very worst and most intrinsecally evil of all actions even that of hating God p. 93. hoping his Readers would believe he had given my Argument some advantage But how many Blasphemies contradictions and other absurdities of remarque this piteous creâ—ture hath committed in what he saith of this subject I have sufficiently discovered in my printed letter to Dr. Heylin p. 265 266. to p. 271. To which I have added diverse things in severall parts of my present enterprise which as I must not repeat without a reason to excuse me for so unnecessary a labour so it is every whit as needless as it is easie to add more I have enough in his concession that to hate God is an action and such an action as is essentially and intrinsecally evil evil ex genere
whereby he owns Mr. Calvin in the worst of those things I cited from him and gives me reason to believe that he never read the Bookes of Grotius but takes up his anger upon trust as he hath done the materials which fill his volume § 67. He next resolves to spend some pages in another way of Impertinence and Tergiversation It seemes not caring what course he takes whereby to patch up a little volumn and yet to stave off his Readers from what he took upon him to prove to wit that sin hath no positive being His little project is briefly this first to say how much he hath read in Dr. Taylor and Dr. Hammond and secondly to adde upon that occasion so dexterous he is at the contriving of a transition that if Presbytery be a crime he must needs say he hath learnt it from Episcopal men p. 23. c. will you know his Reasons The first is this The Primate and Dr. Holland were of opinion that a Presbyter and a Bp. differ in degree only not in order But neither doth he attempt a proof that this could make him a Presbyterian Or that the Primate and the Dr. did ever think any such thing much less that they said it either in earnest or in â—est I am sure the L. Primate thought our Presbyters unexcusable for taking upon them the Bishops office to ordain But he had mercy for the French Protestants because he thought it necesâ—ity not choice which kept them from Episcopal order see the Letter of Peter du Moulin the son sent to a Scotchman of the Covenant who proves his Father to be clearly for the order of Bishops Chamier affirmes them to be of right elected Princes Their Church would have Bps. but are not suffâ—red The second reason is that Bp. Andrews ordained a Scotchman Bishop never made Priest but by Presbyters which he would not have done had ordination by Presbyters been unto him a Nullity p. 23.24 But 1. he brings not any proof that there was ever any such fact 2. From Fact to Right no good Argument can be drawn 3. Bp. Andrewâ— might be ignorant that the Scotchman had received any such mock-Ordination 4. Or he might think the man had invincible Necessity to help excuse him which yet I take to be most improbable much lesse that he could fancy the common Rule had place here Quod fieri non debet factum valet And therefore 5 my chiefest answer to it is this that the story proves nothing supposing truth to have been in it but what is against Mr. Hickmans interest for it only proves that such a man who had been sinfully dub'd into a Titular Priesthâ—od and was therefore no real Priest in the opinion of Bp. Andrews might yet per saltum be made a Bishop Because in his being made a Bp. he is ipso facto made a Priest And so t is granted as well of Timothy and Titus and the rest in their time that they were consecrated Bishops without the receiving of previous orders Others having first been Dâ—aconâ— were immediately assumed into the order of Bishops So Linus who was St. Pauls Deacon as Anacletus and Clemens who were St Peters succeeded both those Apostles in the Bishoprick of Rome Having thus satisfied Mr. H as to the case of his Scotchâ—an ordained per saltum by Bp. Andrews I shall tell him that there are Diverse who having been dub'd by Presbyterians for without an abusive way of speaking they durst not say they had been ordained were so sensible of the crimes of Schisme and sacrilege in the thing that they made their Recantations to several Bishops within my knowledge and solemnly renounced such Ordinations and after that have been ordained by the Bishops themselves I am unwilling to name the men that I may not occasion their persecution But Bishop Morton is out of their Reach and so I am free to make it known what he hath done in this kinde The reader may judge by this Tast whether Episcopal men could ever teach Mr. H. his Presbyterianisme 68. He produceth a passage from one of the first Printed Sermons of the learned and Reverend Dr. SANDERSON concerning Gods concurrence with subordinate Agents p. 29. which he hoped some shallow Readers would think conducing to his end of making the people to believe that God himself is the Cause of the wickedest actions in the world because the wickedest actions have not onely a reall but a positive being But besides that that passage of Gods concurrence to the sustentation of the Creature is nothing at all in it self to Mr. Hickmans purpose I have the leave and consent of that most learned and pious person to communicate as much of his Letters to me on this occasion as I conceive may tend to his vindication and with all to the advantage of peace and truth Doctor Sanderson's Letters c. 1. As to the passage in the fifth Sermon ad Populum p. 278 9. the Doctor saith That as he did as well at the time when that Sermon was preached as at all other times before and since utterly detest so the thing principally intended and purposely insisted upon in that whole passage was to root out of mens minds the seeds of that horrid Blasphemous opinion that God was the Author or efficient cause of sin 2. He saith That the occasion which led him to that discourse being the handling of that 1 Tim. iv 4. Every Creature of God is good the Iâ—ference thence was naturall and obvious That therefore whatsoever was evil couâ—d be no creature of God was none of his making nor could he in any tolerable sense be said to be the Author or cause thereof 3. He saith That if in the Explication or prosecution of that Inference he should perhaps have let fall some such improper incommodious or ambiguous phrase or expression as a caviller might wrest to a worse construction then was meant a thing not alwayes to be avoyded in popular discourses especially where the matter treaâ—ed of is of greaâ— nicety or of a mixt consideration between Metaphysical and Moral it had yet been the part of an ingenuous Reader to have made the main scope of the discourse the measure whereby to interpret such phrases and expressions rather then by a malign interpretation to extract such a sence out of the words as it is certain the Author unless he would contradict himself could not mean 4. He saith That upon as district a review of every period and clause in that whole passage as seemed requisite for his concernment in the present debate he hath not observed any phrase or expression which is not consonant to his main scope therein or whereof Master Hickman without injury and violence to his true meaning could serve himself in any of those three points wherein as far as he can judge having never seen Mr. Hickmans Book he conceiveth the difference betwixt Master Pierce and his adversaries to lye viz. 1. Gods
back on ch 3. Sect. 28. p. 52 53 54. The Synagogue of the Libertines a Acts. 6.9 b Acts 7 54. c Verse 57. d Verse 58. Fitly applyed to Mr. Baxter e See the New Discoverer Discoverd Ch. 3. Sect. 1. p. 61 62 63 64. where Mr. Baxters words and pages are set at large His railing on K James and Bp. Bancroft f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is derived frâ—m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And is used by Atheneus lib. 18. for an Incendiary a Boute-few a setter of things into combustion New Discov Discov ch 5. p. 98 99. Ibid. from p. 1â—3 â—â— p. 117. On Bp Andrews and Dr. Sandeâ—son for their Iustice to the Puritans See that Preface of Dr. Sanderson Sect. 17 aâ—d 18. i See the Reverend Dr. Hammond his pacifick Discourse c. p. 8. l. ult k Cavendum ne cum Purâ—tanis â—uibusdam Deum faciamus Autorem peccaâ—i vid. episâ— Ded. Dan. Tilen pref Notis suâ—s in Canon Synod Dordr l See the last page of the most learned Dr. Sandersons most incomparable preface m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Herodot in Thalia c 78. p. 194. His Confession of his own wickednesse again confessed by himsâ—lf â—hough but in pâ—rt His prodigious falsifying of Common Prayers a Postscrip at the end of his True Catholick p 315. b Iude 13. His denial of that Confession which hâ— confessed a litâ—le before His perjury and Rebellion proved out of his own words See his holy Commâ—nwealâ—â— Prâ—f p â— Ibid. p. 10. Ibid. p. 9. â—nd 10. His playing at fast and loose with his Integrity His timâ— seâ—ving and fawring upon his Soveraign Richard a Five Dispuâ— of Church Gov. and worship Epist. Dedic per totam b Maâ—k how this suits with the Assemblies Confess of faith that all things whatsoever are ordained by God c Compare this with his Confession that was no Parliament which yet had a better pretencâ— then Richard Hiâ— rejoycing in our late miseries c. d Key for Câ—tholickâ— Epist. De. per totam e Note the Presbyterian agreement with the Pope in excommunicating Kings K. Charlâ—s might be faught against but Mr. Richard must not f Note his chaâ—ging upon God all the Villanies of the times His Flattering mentions of old Oliver as tenâ—erly carefull of Christs câ—uâ—e g Dedâ—c epist. or pref before his Holy Commonvvealth p. 6 h ibid. i ibid. p. 8. k ib. p. 25. l ib p. 484. m ibid. n bid o Epist. Ded. before his Key for Cath p. 8. p ibid. b. 17. His bâ—ing Accessary to the most parrâ—cidial act the murdeâ— of Gods Aâ—ointed q See the preface to the Essaâ— for the good Olâ— Cause r 1 Tim. 5.22 Reâ—el 18.4 The sâ—ven wayes of partaking in other mens sins Such were Mr. Baxters Priâ—â—es Oliver and Râ—chard Hâ—s being an incendiary in the Wâ—rr and incouâ—aging many thousands â—â— rebell proved out of his confessions t Though here he confâ—sseth he was a Cokblower and incouraged thousands to Rebell yet he daâ—es not â—epent p. 486. u Mark the tendernesse of his Conscien e first he sought against his King then considered if lawfully x Note that by one of the 3. estates he must mean the King or the Bishops His Denying the supremacy of the King which yâ—t he allovved the tvvo Cromwells vvâ—â—reby he is proved by his Confession to be a Râ—bell x Note that by one of the 3. estates he must mean the King or the Bishops y Pref. p. 23. His being a Traytor to the Houses which he had set above the King by setting Richard above them wâ—en they disowned him And for owning Cromwells Iuâ—to for a full and free parliment * Note his ungodly Resolution to take that for granted which was visibly false viz. that the King would have ruin'd the Representatives of the Nation and its whole security Holy Com. wealth page 480. section 19. He is evinced out of his mouth to have been perjur'd over and over His charge against the Lords and Commons and his setting aside the King more then the houses ever did His most Notable contradiction about the Houses ruling without the King His new Miscarriage against Grotius and the Episcopal Divines He is proved to be a Jesuite by as good Logick as he useth * See my Appendix to New Disc. Disc. sect 5. p. 170. to 174. The Jesuites Doctrine of Probability chez les provinciales p. 73 74. Popery common to Thom. Goodwin with some noted Presbyterians * See his Antapologia p. 29. * See Dr. Roger Drakes letter to M. Love p. 7. Mr. Baxter's Puritanism as well in life as Doctrine His additional Falshood The originall of Puritanism among Professors of Christianity * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Iren. advers Haer. l. 1. c. 9. p. 72. * Homer· Il. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenaeus ubi supra †See the pages exactly cited with the wordâ— in my new Dis. Disc. c. 3. sect 1. p. 61 62 63. c. * See his Confession in his Holy Common wealâ—h pag. 490 lin 9 10. †He hath promis'd neve to gainsay it on the hypothesis spoken of Our English Puritanes caracterized by Salmasius one of the learnedest of the Beyond-sea Protestants * Defens Reg. c. 10. †How neerly this toucheth Mr. Baxter see the whole third Chapter of my New Disc. Disc. Mr. Baxter declared by God's Anointed to be a factious and schismatical person * Quaere whether M. Baxter was not the Kings subject as much as â—romwell's * Quaere whether the King and his learned Iudges with him did not know his Right as well as Mr. Baxter His double injury to Master Dance * Quaere whether the King and his learned Iudges with him did not know his Right as well as Mr. Baxter His double injury to Master Dance Homer Odyf. 17. His unparallel'd bitterness against Episcopacy and our Church seven wayes rebuked * He means â—y that word the constant sons of the Church of England * Key for Catholicks page 416. †☞ Note that in the 42 of Edw. 3. the first chapter doth enact that if any staâ—ute be made to the contrary it shall be holden for null And see Iudge Ienk. p. 62. * Consult Biblioâ—heca Regia for it sect 3. p. 328. †See his Majesties Concessions at the â—sle of Wight ib. p. â—57 * See Doctor Gauden's Hiera Dacrua c. â—1 p. 334. Hom. Odyss 17. The Conclusion * Eccles. 8.11 * Ad quartum actum ultra in hoe Dramate desultando fâ—igultientes Presbyteriani spectati sunt Quinam alii merito Râ—gis Occiâ—i crimine notari magis debuere quà m qui viam ad eum occidendum munierunt Illi sunt qui nefariam illam securim cervicibus ejus inflixerunt non alii Salmas Defens Reg. c. 10. †Praevidit eas quas nunc Britania sentit Calamitates inde orituras Gâ—ot vot pro pace p. 49. * 2 Thes. 3.14