of sin So far was Carpocrates from such a boldnesse that being not able to discern how the will of men and Angels was able to choose the things forbidden and to refuse the things commanded aâ—d thereby to be the cause of sin he rather chose to say that there is no sin at all that good and evil are only words and only differ in the fancies and opinions of men than to say that one God is the cause of both For if all things are done by Gods will and decree they must all be good because he will'd and decreed them But Carpocrates thought then what our Adversaries say now that all things are done without exception by Gods will and decree upon which he conluded â—that all things are good without exception and that sin as well as conscience is nothing else but a political or Ecclesiastical word So that his foul Heresie of making no sin at all in comparison of the other which feigneth God to be its Author may also seem a pretender to some Degree of Reformation From both these cases it doth appear that the very worst of the worst opinions must be that which makes God to be the Author of sin and when men are frighted by such a Fiend to fly for sanctuary to any thing that lyeth next let every rational man judge how smooth a passage lay open for such as Carpocrates and Marcion to enter and lye down and nuzzle themselves in an opinion that there is no God at all and that Atheisme it self is a comparative Reformation that is a flying out of the greatest into somewhat a lesser evil All which mischiefs would be avoided if men were so humble as to acknowledge that they themselves are the Authors of sin and misery 2 That their Wills are free and not necessitated to sin 3 That being free they can choose either to shun or to embrace it 4 That God's witholding of grace is no mans guilt but mans abusing of grace which God afforded 5 That God expecteth to receive after the measure that he hath given 6 That no man living can be condemned for never having had a Talent but for having been an ill seruant in wilfully squandring it away or in the wilful neglect of its Improvement And now I hope it is evident from all that hath hitherto been spoken that there was reason and modesty in all I said concerning modest and immodest Blasphemers who say directly or indirectly That God is the Author and cause of sin And therefore § 9. Ninthly My Reverend Assailant is least of all to be excused for that which he adds in the last part of this Paragraph viz. that their Lord and Brethren before them have met with the same measure Mar. 2. 7. Mat. 26. 65. Act. 6. 13. But here I ask him and let him answer if he is able and if he is not let him confesse his error Did Christ ever let fall such expressions as those which I have proved to be blasphemous Did our Lord and Master ever say that men do break God's Law by God's own Impulse or Compulsion or by his precept and command That God can will that man shall not fall by his revealed will and in the mean while ordain by his seâ—ret will that the same man shall infallibly and efficaciously fall Did our Saviour ever say so much as in appearance That God doth make men Transgressors That Adultery is the work of him the Author mover and Impeller That God's Decree is no less efficacious in the permission of evil than in the production of good That God doth not only prostitute men to sins and administer the occasions of sinning but doth also so move and urge them that they may smite the sinners minde and really affect his imagination Was He called Blasphemer for such things as these and were not These the very things upon which in My Notes I laid my charge Things confessed to be Blasphemie by the very Authors and Patrons of them when in their sober fits or lucid Intervals they look upon them as spoken by other men See the matchless absurdity of the comparison by consulting those Texts to which my Adversary refers us Iesus said to the sick of the palsie Son thy sins be forgiven thee upon which said the Scribes within their hearts why doth this man thus speak blasphemies Mark 2. 7. Iesus toâ—ilate â—ilate that he was the Christ the son of God whereupon the High Priest rent his cloaths saying He hath spoken blasphemie what farther need have we of witnesses Behold now ye have heard his Blasphemy Mat. 26. 65. St. Stephen did miracles among the people and disputed against the Iews and therefore they suborned men to say that they heard him speak blasphemous words Acts 6. 11 13. Let these sayings of Christ and of St. Stephen be well compared with the sayings of Mr. Calvin and his Disciples and we shall find the difference to be as great as betwixt Christ and Calvin betwixt the followers of Christ and the followers of Calvin betwixt St. Stephen and Dr. Twisse or betwixt me and those Iews in our several Churches And here I challenge his answer to this Dilemma Did our Lord and St. Stephen meet with the very same measure from the Iews which the men whom I cited received from me or did they not If he shall answer that they did then must he prove that the sayings of those men whom I cited were as far from blasphemy as the saying of Christ and St. Stephen or that the sayings of Christ and St. Stephen had as much of blasphemie in them as those which I cited for making God to be the Author of sin But if he shall answer that they did not he must not only eat his words in a Corner but make publick satisfaction not only to me but to every one of those Authors whom I have quoted in this chapter speaking much more sharply than I have done He alone is to be blamed that this Dilemma doth fall so very heavily upon him It was no fault of mine that he would needs utter that which reflecteth upon him with so much sharpnesse but on the contrary I wish aâ—d I wish it heartily that he had either brought me an harder argument or at least that he had given me a softer word CHAP. V. E. R. There have been men of great Learning and not wholly devoted to the Iudgment of Calvin who have taught even Dissenters thus to say of him Calvino illustri viro nec unquam sine summi honoris praefatione nominando non assentior T. P. § 1. BEhold the utmost that I can gather from this third way of arguing Men of great learning have spoken honourably of Calvin therefore I have done ill to call that blasphemie whereby God is concluded to be the Author of sin It might suffice me to say that I deny his Sequel but I have something to say besides for first there is not a Page in all my Notes
do not come or if they come they do not stay with him they wilfully reject the counsel of God against themselves And so have received the grace of God in vain § 3. The Fourth proposition in this Section being wholly the same with the seventh and eighth of the former Section may be sent thither for its Answer as having there sufficiently been spoken to yet here my Assailant is to be thank't for saying so plainly and expresly That men do fall into Damnation as they themselves know by their own wills and whereof themselves are the alone Causes and Authors For if this is heartily acknowledged as here it is very plainly Then 1. Farewell to Austin's rigid sentence pronounced upon un baptized Infants for the Infants fall not by their own wills or against the light of their understandings they having no use of either faculty 2. Farewell all consideration of Adams sin in the Damnation of any Creature for they that are damned saith my Assailant are the alone Causes and Authors of their Damnation and if so then was Adam no part of the Cause or Author If I had said thus much how many times had I been called a Semipelagian and of what Correptory Correction had I been thought worthy But now 3. Farewell to all that is said by Mr. Barlee against the second Chapter of my Notes For I had said only that man is the sole efficient Cause and explain'd my self sufficiently by saying that Satan and the Protoplast were Promoters of my Guilt p. 6. But my Assailant saith farther that mans own will is the alone Cause aud the alone Author of his Sin and Damnation Which gives me occasion to admire how M. Barlee could read this passage in his worthiest Friend and raile so vehemently against it as to say it fights against God against Scripture against all Authority antient and later Again I admire how D. Reynolds could read all that bitterness of his Friend against this part of his own Epistle and yet retain this proposition which is there so rai'ld at yea and how he could commend his Reviler's work for an Elaborate and learned Thing Nor is the wonder lessened in that the ill language of all those pages is directed to me by name and not to D. Reynolds since the Doctrine against which the ill language is levell'd is delivered by D. Reynolds as well as by me nay by D. Reynolds after me nay by D. Reynolds in defense of me even in that Epistle which was intended against me in partiality to Mr. Barlee nay by D. Reynolds more obnoxiously and more unwarily then by me nay more like Massilian and Pelagian by D. Reynolds then by me Let both our words be considered and I do seriously believe that he himself will say as much § 4. What is added in the position concerning God's Permission and gubernation c. is gratis dictum as to me and cannot with any the least colour be fitly aimed against my words who said as much in my Notes § 12. But only against his and my Correptory Corrector who besides permission and Gubernation disposing and ordering is for Determination and stirring up as a Man puts spurs to a Dull Iade it is his own simile So that if my Rd. Assailant doth here mean no more then he speaks not conceiving that God's will of permitting sin is efficacious nor that he doth impel men to any thing that is unlawful nor that he did Decree Adam to contract a vitiosity by his Fall as Dr. Twisse speaks then the things which I accused as blasphemous may still be blasphemous by his free leave and I shall once more thank him for having thus joyned with me against the Correptory Corrector And since he professeth to be sorry for having been led so far in another mans proper work I will have so fair an opinion of him as to believe that from this time forward he will express his sorrow by his Amendment CHAP. XII E. R. I was glad to see two orthodox and sound Axioms stand before the book of your Author as the Basis of his Superstructure Two men of quite different judgments in these very Arguments I find to have done so before The one Cassianus the Collator of whom Prosper hath these words Catholicarum tibi aurium judicia conciliare voluisti quibus de praemissae Professionis fronte securis facile sequentia irreperent si prima placuissent Which words of his bring into my mind a saying of the Historian Fraus fidem in parvis sibi praestruit ut cùm operae pretium sit cum magnâ mercede fallat and the censure of Austin upon Pelagius Gratiae vocabulo frangit Invidiam offensionem declinat The other the famous Arch-Bishop Bradwardine whom learned and good men will honour notwithstanding the hard censure passed by Hugo Grotius upon him who premiseth two Hypotheses as the ground of that profound work of his De Causâ Dei I will have so fair and just an opinion of your Author as to believe that he did this in Candor and Integrity following therein rather the learned example of Bradwardin then if Prosper's Censure may be taken the Artifice and cunning of Cassianus yet because this is a course which may by the Credit of true Principles draw the less cautelous and circumspect Readers to consent to deductions not naturally consequent upon them it is requisite as for writers as Pliny adviseth Saepius respicere Titulum so for Readers to follow the Apostles Counsel to prove all things and hold fast that which is good T. P. § 1. THis is somewhat a strange Paragraph in several respects For first 't is apparently unkinde because although he professeth that I had two great patterns for what I did whereof one was most excellent in his own opinion nay though he professeth to have so just an opinion of me as to believe I followed Bradwardin rather then Cassianus and that I did what I did in Candor and integrity he did yet make choise to begin his Descants upon the other not insisting on the good meaâ—ing of Arch-Bishop Bradwardin but on the fraud cunning of the Presbyter Cassianus Yet secondly he makes me some part of requital by confessing my two principles to be a couple of orthodox and sound Axioms and that they were the Basis of my superstructure Now he cannot but confess that where the deductions are duly made nothing but truth can be inferred from truth such good Trees as two orthodox and sound Axioms cannot bring forth such corrupt fruit as my Notes were accused of by the Correptorie Corrector Had not my Deductions been naturally consequent upon my grounds as here it is hinted and meerly hinted but no where held forth that I can find no doubt but some of the grieved party would have endeavoured at least to find it out And had they found any such thing no doubt but I should have heard on 't with both my
this Preface would seek to justifie such horrid Things What pretense of Reason he had for so doing Besides his partiality and concernmen for one of the chiefest of his Party we shall see hereafter in his Reply § 5. Fifthly whilst he blameth me for giving the Title of modest or immodest Blasphemy to such as make God to be the Author of Sin sometimes in those very words sometimes in such as are equivalent and sometimes worse he quite forgetteth how great a Contumely he hath heaped upon them who have spoken more broadly than I have done though not with a purer or more disinteressed zeal to the honour of his Attributes for whom I pleaded May he be pleased to consider these following Instances 1. When Florinus did but seem to make God the effecter or Cause of Sin although he said it only by Consequence and not in plain or downright terms yet Irenaeus an Apostolical Father thought it fit to confute him and chide him too And intituled his Epistle which he wrote to Florinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concerning God's not being the cause of Sin It may satisfie some Readers to be told a few of the Fathers own words These Opinions O Florinus are not of wholesome Doctrine they are disagreeable to the Church they carry them that believe them into the greatest Impiety These opinions the very Hereticks without the Church were never so daring as to affirm the Elders before us who conversed with the Apostles delivered no such things unto us To which he adds I am able to testifie before God that if Polycarp had heard any such things he would have stopped his Ears and have cryed out as he was wont O good God unto what times hath thou reserved me that I should indure such things He would have fled from the place wherein he sat or stood when he had heard such expressions And this might be manifested saith Iranaeus out of Polycarp's Epistles which were written to Neighbour-Churches or to some of the Brethren the words follow thus as a new Testimony 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. When St. Augustin was accused by some of his Correptory Correctors of having Denyed universal Redemption and other things of that nature which all my Adversaries do hold and teach he was so angry and so impatient of such slanderous Imputations that he could not with-hold his pen from sharper language than I have used though more provoked than he could be He did not only say that those ungodly and profane opinions had not the very least footstep in his Heart nor did he content himself to call them Blasphemies but prodigious lyes of most foolish Blasphemies and no less than Diabolical 4. When the same Austin was accused by some Pelagians of making God an Accepter of Persons by asserting irrespective and unconditional degrees of Reprobation and Election he did not give them the lye only but told them besides they were bewitched by the Devil to its invention what then are They who either directly or indirectly do make God himself to be the Author of sin 5. When the French Massilians objected it as the opinion of St. Austin that God denieth perseverance to some of his Sons who are regenerate in Christ because they were not elected out of the Masse of perdition Prosper makes answer in these expressions That of those that are regenerate in Jesus Christ some forsaking their Faith and pious maners do apostatize and fall from God and end their wicked life in that aversion is proved too plainly by many examples But to ascribe their fall to God is an immoderate wickednesse as if God were the Impulsor aud Author of their ruine because he foresaw that they would wilfully fall away and for that very reason did not sever them from the sons of perdition and therefore men ought not to calumniate God How many wayes this makes for me and my cause againg my revereud Assailant let who will judge 6. The second Arausi can Councel which was held in the time of Leo the first against the Semiplegians let that be marked as it hath much for my cause who have been publickly calumniated for more than Semipelagianism so it hath this sharp passage against the very Man that hath opposed me This we believe according to the Catholick Faith that all who are baptized and have by Baptism received grace are both able and bound in duty by Christ his help and cooperation to fulfil those things which do belong unto Salvation if they will faithfully labour in order to it But that any were Predestinated to Evil by the divine power we do not only not believe but withal if there are any who will believe so great an evil we do with all detestation pronounce an Anathema against them If the indifferent Reader will compare this definition of that Councel with either my greater or lesser Catalogue of those horrible doctrines which I condemned and for the condemning of which I have been publickly condemned by that reverend Person with whom I now deal he will not fail to think it much more than strange For as all the great and holy Men of that so venerable a Councel who were deeply acquainted with the mind of God in his word have detested those Doctrines as well as I so that unseasonable reproof to say no worse which was given to me by my Antagonist doth reach as far as those Fathers of which that Councel was composed 7. In Nicetas his Saracenica there is this solemn form of renouncing Mahomed and his Religion I do Anathematize the Blasphemy of Mahomed saying that God deceiveth whom he will and whom he will he leadeth to what is good for if God would Men would not war one with another but he doth what he will and is himself the cause of all good and of all evil all things are governed by Fate and Destiny which infers a necessity of all events If the Authors whom I cited both in my greater and lesser Catalogue have said the very same things with the Idolaters of Mahomed and every whit as much worse as worse may be and whether they have not so done I appeal to all who shall compare them it will not be much for my Adversaries credit that the loss of my thanks should be the best reward of my Devotion 8. Melancthon saith that no Stoical opinions are to be brought into the Church for how can he call upon God who holds that all thengs do come to pass of necessity Plato though a Heathen doth speak more honourably of God and would have every one banished from the Society of men who should say in a Poem or any other narration that God is the cause of any Mans evil In the opinion of Melancthon they make a Stoical God who feign him giving a necessity to all events And is not that to blaspheme him without saying in terminas he is the Author of Sin Whilst
wipe off the stains which his unwary Admirers are wont to fasten upon his Name whil'st instead of contending that he was sorry for his failings and intended to publish his Recantation they indeavour to justifie what he condemn'd and so the Calvinists in effect do write the most against Calvin So vast a difference there is betwixt them that are but the Followers of that Learned man and us who are his real Friends Who do not follow him where he erred through thick and thin but just as far as he follow'd Truth and as far as we hope he did intend his Retractations § 6. Whereas my Assailant is pleas'd to add that they intended no more than by multitudes of places of Scripture they were led unto referring by figures to many Texts but in words at length not naming One I have several things in answer to him First who told him that they intended no more or that places of Scripture did lead them to the speaking of what they speak 2. What Errors or Heresies have there been within Christendome which have not pretended the very same thing that multitudes of Scripture did lead them to their assertions 3. Why did he not compare one of the frightfullest speeches which I accused with any one Text of Scripture by him producible 4. Let him name for the future one place of Scripture whereby Zuinglius was led to say That God makes a man Transgressor that Adultery or Murder is the work of God the Author Mover and Impeller what places of Scripture led Smoutius Vermilius Beza Triglondius Musculus Sturmius Piscator Borrhaeus not to mention the Doctrines of Mr. Calvin Dr. Twisse Mr. Hobs and a multitude the like to say that God is the Author of evil whether of punishment or of sin that wicked men sin by the force of Gods will that God effecteth those things that are sins that his Reprobation is the cause of incurable despair that both the Elect and the Reprobates were ordained to sin Quatenns Sin that he is the cause not only of the actions but of the very defects and privations that is of the obliquities irregularities and sinfulnesses themselves Thus we see who they are whose Doctrines of irrespective and unconditional Reprobation not places of Scripture have led them to charge God with sinfull actions sins sinfulnesse metaphysically abstracted beyond which no language no tongue can speak above which no fancy no wit can reach 5. Though the wonder already is very great yet will it still be much greater if we compare one of the Texts by which they are said to be led to their Intentions of speaking thus The first Text he refers to is Gen. 45. 5 6 7 8. from which place it is evident that God is affirmed by Ioseph to be the Author of much good which his guilty Brethren never thought of but not at all of the evil which they thought against him And it will seem to me somewhat more than strange if Dr. Reynolds cannot distinguish betwixt God's permitting or suffering evil to fall out by the wills of wicked men which are free to evil and by which they are said not to be unavoidably fatally or necessarily wicked but to be voluntarily and wilfully wicked I say it is somewhat more than strange if he cannot distinguish betwixt Gods permitting that evil that he might draw good out of it and his being the Author or Cause of that Evill upon occasion of which the good is wrought Before he had resolved to give an instance from that Text he should have compared it with what went before chap. 37. where because Iacob loved Ioseph more than all his Brethren v. 4. and therefore made him a finer Coat v. 3. they hated Ioseph and could not speak peaceably unto him v. 4. but they did not hate him by the Impulse of God as Mr. Calvin at first spake nor did God urge them or smite their mindes as Dr. Twisse For the Devil and their own Flesh one or both did intice and tempt though they could not force them to hate their Brother Well Joseph dreamed a Dream which was also a Prophecy that his Brethrens sheaves should make obeisance to his v. 6 7. which dream was from God and accordingly both good and true But his brethren hated him the mor◠v. 8. which greater hatred was from the Flesh and the Devil Joseph kind to his brethren as well as obedient to his Father went to seek out his brethren from the vale of Hebron to Sichem and thence to Dothan v. 14 17. This was from God But before he came to them they conspired against him to slay him v. 18. This from the flesh and the Devil Reuben said let us not kill him shed no bloud and would fain have rid him out of their hands to deliver him again unto his Father v. 21 22. This was from God the wise and holy disposer of all that happens to his Glory But they plunder'd Ioseph of his Coat and sold his Body to the Ishmalites for 20. pieces of silver v. 23 28. This was meerly from the flesh and the Devil being not hindered but permitted by the long-suffering God to execute their wills against his own And this he suffered the rather that he might order and dispose their wicked Fact of cruelty to their innocent Brother which was also their Rebellion against the commandement and will of their patient God to many great aud good ends which never could enter into their thoughts For by the wise and holy providence of God whose excellency it is to draw good out of evil not evil out of Good Joseph was sold by the Midianites into Egypt v. 36. and aduanced in Potiphar's House c. 39. 5. and by his Interpreting of Dreams which was a gift from God and not from Satan he was so advanced from one degree to another that he was made a Father to King Pharaoh Lord of his House aud Ruler over his land ch 45. 8. This was Gods doing but no sin sure for injured Ioseph to be advanced There was a Famine in all lands over the face of the Earth ch 41. 54 56. But that was no sin Iosephs brethren went up to Egypt for a supply c. 42. 43. still no sin Joseph supplyeth them c. 45. which was charitably done and so without sin What said Ioseph of Gods oeconomy to comfort his brethren when they wept aloud and were troubled at his presence v. 2 3. He said no worse things of God than that he sent him before to preserve life aud that I hope is no sin to preserve his brethren a posterity in the Earth and to save their lives by a great deliverance who had delivered him up to be destroyed with vassalage Nor was it his si◠to requite them with so much love for their hatred with so much good for their Evil. Ioseph goes on it was not you that sent me hither but God For they sent him no whither but sold him to
bound himself to this constant method or indeed that he ever useth it at all Whereas I have shewed on the other side both that the other method is possible and farther that God is pleas'd to use it and hath chosen to make it a principal part of the message for which his Son was sent unto the world even to publish that method that men might know it comply with it depend apon it and not deceive and destroy themselves by giddily fancying any other And for this I have produced a very evident passage of Scripture and shall produce many more as occasion serves I will not run out into greater length by insisting on his acknowledgment of a natural indifferency in the will of man for which I had Correptory Correption though I never spake of it Nor will I prosecute his use of the word Invincible by asking whether he means irresistible or not of which Paraeus did seem to be ashamed in those papers which he sent unto the Synod at Dort when he was threescore and ten years old I will only leave one thing to my opponents consideration to be compared by him with the present manner of his reasoning God may give us the ability to fast without eating as many dayes and nights as Moses or Elias He may also if he is pleased make our victuals to encrease in the very eating by such a power as he shew'd in the Widow 's Cruse 1 King 17. 14 16. He may feed us and cloath us like the Birds and the Lillies by the same omnipotency by which he said Let there be light and there was light He may convert us as he did Paul with equal power and expedition or as the Thief upon the Cross when we have only time left to cry peccavi to think a good thought and to make a short Ejaculation though that either of these two was irresistibly converted we have no reason to imagine For God to do those greater things doth not imply a contradiction and therefore he may do them by that omnipotency which could give the Creature a Being out of Nothing but what of this We cannot prove from hence that these are the Courses which God doth ordinarily use or that he useth them once in a thousand yeares and if we should thus argue we should but teach men to tempt their Maker and to ruine themselves by their Security It will be much more profitable to admonish the Reader in this place I speak of the unlearned and unconsidering Reader of the several wayes of Gods working with his several Creatures in proportion to the Natures which he hath given them He worketh one way with Natural Agents as we proverbially call the irrational Creatures but with voluntary Agents he useth another way of working We have an example of the former in that necessitating Omnipotence whereby he sayd unto the Sun stand still in Gibeon we have examples of the later in those compassionate wishings revealed to us in his word O that there were such an heart in them that they would fear me and keep all my Commandements alwaies that it might be well with them and with their Children for ever O that they were wise that they understood this that they would consider their latter end These and all other wayes whereby God works upon the wills of Men are such as are congruous and agreeable to the nature of a will or rational Appetite as by enlightning the Understanding and by perswading the will and by inclining the affections by strengthening the hopes and the fears of the voluntary Agent by the proposing of promises and denouncing of Threats by Exhortations and Dehortations and all other such means as are congruous to the nature of rational Creatures and for that very reason they cannot be irresistible like those other operations whereby God doth necessitate his natural Agents The whole may easily be discerned by all that shall read and consider Ier. 5. 22. 23. Where God complains of his Israel for not fearing Him and for not trembling at his presence who had placed the sand for the Bound of the Sea by a perpetual decree that it cannot pass it To which absolute will of the Omnipotent the Sea is obedient of necessity but his People sayd God hath a revolting and a rebellious heart they are revolted and gone Which passage of Scripture doth plainly teach us that the consideration of that power which God had shewed in his ruling the Sea was sufficient to move his People Israel to fear and tremble at his presence but it teacheth us also as plainly that it is not the same way of working by which he ruleth the Sea and by which he ruleth the wills of Men. He ruleth the Sea as the Sea but Men as Men and the wills of Men as the wills of Men. It was therefore a stronge Adventure in my Reverend Assailant to infer and argue from Gods Omnipotency that he doth those things which are incongruous both to the Nature of his Creature and to the rules of his working which it pleased his Wisdom to set himself And having said thus much by way of admonition to the more unskilful unwary Reader I now proceed from the fourth Question of my Assailant which consisting fallaciously of three hath occasioned this length unto the fifth general Question by him proposed CHAP. IX E. R. Whether the Lord hath not been pleased so to reveal in the Scripture the doctrine of his Decrees touching his purpose of glorifying himself in a way of mercy and justice as that there shall be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Creature to stop at and to adore that he will not have his councels fathomable by the shallow line of humane reason but when he doth with his Creature as the Potter with his Clay of the same common and equal Lump choose one part unto honour and leave another unto dishonour his purpose be not that we should acknowledge and adore his Soveraignty and lay our hands on our mouth as amazed at the unsearchablenes of his Iudgements now certainly in all this there is no blasphemy God doth permit sin and what ever he doth he doth by the councel of his own will therefore he did ab aeterno decree to permit it For otherwise he could by cōfirming grace have hindred and prevented the committing of it as well in all Angels as in some as well in Adam as in Angels and that without any violence offered to their nature at all Gen. 20. 5. Gen. 31. 7. 1 Cor. 10. 13. Neither can there be given any Cause out of God himself and the Councel of his own will leading and inducing him rather to permit then hinder it He did decree to permit it in order to his own Glory which is the supreme end and therefore by him absolutely willed because the being thereof by his unsearchable wisedom and power was ordainable thereunto He may out of that common equal Mass wherein he did
I am extreamly addicted to the Mâ—sse of Ceremonies with how profound an Incongruity English Scholars may now judge 11. The most learned Bishop Mountague with whom for knowledge of Antiquity perhaps there have not been many who will compare hath left these words upon Record in his very Appeal to King Iames whom my Assailant hath quoted as an utter Enemy to Arminius unlesse from damned Hereticks or stoical Philosophers I never yet read in Antiquity of any prime previous determining Decree by which men were irrespectively denyed grace excluded from Glory or enforced to Salvation Should I set down the censures of as many writers as I am able wherewith my Adversaries Doctrins have been condemned I should hardly make an end before the Greek Calends I hope that these are sufficient to convince my Reverend Antagonist that I was not the first much less the only Person who hath spoken severely of those opinions in opposition to which my Notes were written and that few have ever spoken of them with greater Patience and moderation then I there did and that He by consequence hath misplaced his reprehensions and under pretense of beating me hath struck at those Authors whose words I have alleaged in this long Section and whether purposely or through Incogitancy I cannot tell he hath scourged them all upon my Back Not only Grotius and such as hee but Irenaeus nay Polycarp St. Austin and Prosper nay the Arausican Councel Bishop Abbot and Bishop Hall nay Remigius himself and the whole Church of Lyons Peter Moulin and Melancthon nay Doctor Whitaker himself His own Brethren of the upper and lower way nay Doctor Twisse and Mr. Calvin have not escaped him These are not all whom I have cited in vindication of my severity against those Doctrines which are severe against God Amongst them all there is not a Bellarmine or a Bolsec though in such a point as this is they are as fit to be heard as any others because the points debated are neither Protestant nor Popish or if they are either they are both And when the queâ—tion is whether black or white is the lighter Colour or least fit for mourning I suppose a Papists Iudgment upon that matter may be allow'd They having sense and reason and erudition as well as we Besides The Papists do cast no more upon Protestants than upon those other Papists who jump with the Calvinists in these opinions Nor do the Protestants cast more upon the Papists than upon those other Protestants who jump with the Papists in these opinions Nor do the Papists say worse of the Protestants than some Protestants do of Papists And if my Assailant knew this before I told him I wish he had considered as well as known it But not to speak of their suffrages if those unquestionable Authors whom I have cited have only beaten the precious spices as so many Confectioners merely to draw out the fragrant sent I do not envie their being beaten but am very well content that they smel as sweetly as they are able § 8. Eighthly Now I have shewed what it was upon which I fastned the charge of Blasphemy and that I could not in charity or in conscience have spoken less than I did I cannot but mark in the next place the tranâ—cendent partiality of Dâ— Reynolds who having timely perused the whole Correptory Correption before it was sent unto the Presse whilest yet it was capable of some Amendment was yet so far from blotting out those vast excesses of Rayling which his eyes beheld in every page against my person and my opinion and against every great Author who seemed to stand in his way that he rather endevour'd to prove it lawful nor only lawfull but even necessary in writings of this nature they are his own words He farther prompted him to a Text to comfort him up in his commissions And so the Correptory Corrector being an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Favourite or white Boy may be allowed to frame a charge of Atheism both Major and Minor against all that agree not to God necessitating of sin His Book may be commended as an elaborate and learned piece for calling slanderous Dragon and nooneday Devil Satanical Blasphemer an exceeder of the Devil himself in Blasphemy worse than Diabolical and a maker of God to be worse than the Devil Whereas when I did but distinguish of modest Blasphemers and such as were for Ligonem Ligonem without the naming of any person that is of such as speak God to be the Author of sin in those very broad and down-right Terms and of such as say the same thing in terms lesse Blunt I was surprised from the Presse with a chiding Preface and modestly accused of immodesty and implicitly affirmed to be of Bolsec's complexion and all this by a Person professing Friendship and Civility But now I hope he will confess that I had great and weighty Reasons to say that the Maâ—ichees and Marcioâ—ites were not so bad in their Assertions as they who teach with contention that God is the Author or cause of sin and for this I have the judgement of Irenaeus who saith that the Hereticks never durst to entertain such an opinion as should but seem to make God the Author of sin He speaks of Hereticks in general of all that were without the Church and no doubt but Carpocrates as well as Marcion was in his memory and his mind because he hath written concerning the Heresies of both Was it not better or lesse ill to make two principles coeternal the one distinctly of good the other distinctly of evil than to ascribe all evil to the God of all goodnesse ' Bate but the word Coeternal and we shall find it good Doctrine that of good and evil there are two distinct principles God of the first and Lucifer of the second Now those Hereticks not believing the liberty of the will and thereupon not understanding that without the liberty of the will of the Creature no imaginable wickedness could ever have come into the world they concluded that God must be its Author But then again considering that the very same fountain cannot yield both killing and healing water and that the best as well as worst fruit doth never grow from one Tree and that uncleannesse as well as purity could not possibly issue from the very same God they found it safer to conclude that there were two distinct Gods to be the contrary principles of good and evil than that the very same God should be the Fountain and source of both so that the Heresie of Marcion may seem to be in this respect a degree of Reformation for though he ran into a mischief extremly great yet it was with an intent to escape a greater And if it were not so as I have said why was it said by Irenaeus that the Hereticks themselves had never the boldnesse to affirm that the God of holinesse and purity was the original Fountain or Cause