a most necessary truth to say that God is the Author or cause of sin I have more abundantly made apparent in Three distinct Tracts viz. Correct Copy p. 9 10 50. especially Div. Philanthropy defended ch 3. sect 34. p. 132. c. to p. 139. sect 35. p. 141. and again Div. Purity def ch 4. sect 3. p. 19 20. And I shall do it yet more effectually in the second and third Chapters of this following Work in particular ch 3. sect 13. 27. And therefore Thirdly That they would not so frequently and affectionately contend for that very Doctrine which sometimes though very rarely they confesse to be false blasphemous but that they find it must follow from their espoused Principles of God's Decrees so as they see they must relinquish either both or neither I have abundantly evinced in the Div. Pur. def ch 4. sect 7. p. 33 c. to p. 39. especially from the citations out of Doctor Twisse Du Moulin Remigius and the other friends of Gotteschalc Bishop Cuthert Tunstal and above all out of Prosper whom they many times dream to have been their Patron and therefore cannot gainsay him without Discomfort And again I shall evince it in several parts of the following work and in particular ch 3. sect 8. 10. Besides that the thing is so conspicuous of it self that I may venture to make the Adversary the sole Iudge of the Businesse For Nothing but their Principles of Gods Decrees can lead them to blasphemies of such a nature Sect. 8. I demand of any man living what should move such learned men as Huldericus Zuinglius Doctor Twisse Piscator Zanchy Triglandius Beza Calvin Martyr Borrhaus and many others to teach posterity in their printed works That God doth make men transgressors For the several pages of their works see the Div. Philan. def ch 3. sect 34. especially the Div. Purity def ch 4. sect 3. p. 19 20. sect 6. p. 31 32. and is the Author of adultery and that murder is the work of God and that sinners do sin by the force of Gods will that God predestines men to sin and to sin quatenus sin that he is the Author of evil not onely of punishment but of sin too that he is the cause not onely of humane actions but of the very defects and privations that he effecteth sins that he exciteth and tempteth and * All the excuse Mr. B. makes for the saying that God doth compel men to sin is that they use it but seldom See what shall be said ch 3. sect 27. num 5. compelleth men to sin and a world the like stuff I say what moved them to print such loathsom Doctrines Was it that they esteemed them as flowers of Rhetorick or witty sentences or pretty conceits or well-sounding periods or soul-saving preachments or Hosanna's to the most High This cannot be no not so much as to be imagined What invited Mr. Hobbs to say That Mr. Hobbs of Liberty and Necessiâ—y p. 23 24. sin may be necessarily caused in man by God's ordering all the world that God doth will it and necessitate it and * Id. in Animadvers p. 11. 107. 106. cause men to erre and is the principal Agent in the causing of all actions which he who saith doth also say that he findes no difference betwixt the action and the sin of that action from which great truth he should have inferred that God cannot be the cause of sinful actions not that he is the cause of sins What made the * p. 36 37 Comforter of believers to say that God is the Author of sinfulnesse it self and hath more hand in mens sinfulness then they themselves Were these Writers afraid lest men should think too reverently of God too hardly of the Devil and too profanely of themselves or were they moved with an itch to revive the Doctrine of Carneades and to make men believe that sin is nothing but a name invented by Ecclesiasticks and that the thing call'd sin is just as good as the thing call'd virtue as being equally the work of God 't is very hard to think this Or if this was one of their reasons yet it was not certainly the first But I have yet a harder Question What should move Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barlee in the very books which they have printed on purpose to vindicate their Doctrine from all the horrible absurdities wherewith they stood charged and wherein they knew it concerned them to speak as warily as they were able as knowing that they were liable to be publickly called to an account what I say should move them at such a time and in such a manner to affirm that God * For Mr. W's several pages where these things are taught see the first and second chapters of the following work especially the second and in that for instance Sect. 14. doth will and work sin that he hath an efficiency in sin that in all the wickedness in the world God hath a hand a working hand yea the chief hand that sin doth make for Gods glory and that it hath a respect of good and that God hath a hand in effecting it yea that God doth act in it as a natural cause that God decreed the sin of Adam and so ordered the whole business that he should certainly fall that it was necessary the first man should sin that the Gospel doth stirr up evil affections in the hearts of wicked men and hardens mens hearts and God intends it should do so and sends it for this very purpose that of sinful actions God is the Author and proper Cause yea that he doth both will and work in the Sin of the Act because not onely the action simply consider'd but the very Pravity and Deformity of it makes way for Gods glory What moved Mr. Barlee to adde his suffrage to Mr. Whitfield and to say in plain terms That * For Mr. B's several pages where these things are taught see the third whole chapter of the following work and the Index of the Divine Philanthropy Def. which will direct to the rest God is the Soveraign Author of the material part of sin which is the doing or leaving undone not onely a natural but moral act such as David's lying with Bathshebah or Cain's killing Abel as Doctor Twisse himself interprets the material part of sin nay farther that God is the cause of the very Obliquity of the Act of Sin that God exciteth men to the act of adultery that he stirreth them up to unjust acts as a man puts spurrs to a dull Jade that he tempts men to sin and a world the like blasphemies Nay what made him and Mr. Hick to tell the World †See what shall be said ch 3. Sect. 18. that if sin is a positive Entity either God is the Creator of sin or else sin it self is God Did this prodigious pair of Writers think that these were quaint Apophthegms which
to the subversion not of the Christian Religion onely but even of that ingenuity and civil nature which hath hitherto prevailed amongst Turks and Infidels The making of God to be an Author and Cause of sin Voetius confesseth to be * Voetius in Method Resp. Calum p. 1136. absurd and sottish and implying a contradiction horrid blasphemous scandalous against all Theologie and the consent of Christendom against the light of nature and the dictates of reason If Voetius say thus much more may I. Again to say that God hath imposed a necessity of sinning upon his creatures is concluded by †Hist Gottesch c. 11. p. 173. R g. 5. Remigius to be a charging God foolishly as the Author of sin which Doctor Whitaker affirmes to be a very * Dr. Whitaker contra Dâ—raeum l. 8. sect 1. p. 524. great blasphemy Nay whether it is not the greatest to be imagined let the Reader conjecture by that which followes 1. The greatest blasphemy is that which ascribes to God as the Principal Cause and Contriver the very worst of the worst that can be possibly imagined 2. That is the worst of the worst which is the very worst thing in the Devil himself 3. The Devil hath nothing worse in him then a necessity of sinning or an impossibility to abstain from sin 4. Therefore to say that God Almighty did eternally cause or contrive decree or praedestin a necessity of sinning in a great part of the Angels and in the greatest part of mankind is the greatest blasphemy to be imagined That this is frequently to be met with in a great variety of Writers the intelligent Reader needs not be told And such a variety he will meet with in the following Treatise For though that rigid Ternary of Presbyterians Mr. W. Mr. B. and Mr. H. may seem to be the chief in my consideration yet my Reader will much misunderstand me if he thinks that Writers of their Pitch could have drawn so many sheets from me upon the sole account of their own atchievements Had I spent so great a share of my precious time upon but two or three Aggressors of no greater fame and consideration I had done much more then I could have answered if not to my conscience yet at least to my discretion Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barlee in their several songs to the same Tune which they both intitle their vindications were of themselves sufficient to be the principal occasions of this my enterprise but the impulsive causes were much more worthy For I look upon these two as on a couple of Chymists whose very Quintessence and Elixir of strength and subtilty I clearly discover to have been fetched from the publick Elaboratories of the greatest Artists both of the upper and lower way and in a more especial manner of Mr. Calvin and Doctor Twisse whose good Latine they have turned into no good English and what for many years together they had been gathering they have at once produced in the great and in the profuseness of their humour have shed it abroad amongst the people It hath been therefore my chiefest aim to enfeeble those Armories and Magazins from whence these Combatants have borrowed their choicest weapons whether engaged in their offensive or defensive quarrells I have allowed Mr. W. the first and chief place in my consideration I mean in respect of Mr. B. and Mr. H. first because he is a person of the greatest gravity and the †So saith Mr. B. in his Neces V.n.c. â— p. 32. l penult grayest haire and one who was versed in these Controversies as Mr. Barlee saith often * Introduct p. 3 ch 3. p. 18. before I was born or brought forth into the lâ—ght before I had a head or an eye one who subscribed the 39. Articles * Ibid. p. 40. before there was any such thing in the world as Mr. T. P. Lastly †ch 2. p. 34. Old enough and wise enough to be my father When I observed Mr. B. upbraiding to me my want of years †Ibid. p. 49. more then any other thing not one y in these pages which I have cited but in many more which I conceal calling me one while a * c. 2. p. 41. Demure Junior and another while a †c. 2. p. 53. Juvenal Divine sometimes objecting his * Ch. 2. p. 27. own antiquity and Mr. W's extremely often as if he thought that old age were the strongest * The weakness of it is visible in the Sâ—nner Impleaded p. 300 301. argument in the world against what ever had been alledged by one who followed them into the world at some years distance I comforted my self with the remembrance that I did not chuse my nativity nor was I the Lord of my own Horoscope and in regard I was as old as I was able to be by any means it would no be reckoned as my fault that I could not plead my longevity for the advantaging of my cause It a â—pears by the words of * 1 Tim. 4.12 S. Paul to Timothy that a Priest is too apt to be despised for his youth And to remove that stumbling-block out of the old man's way he shall know that our Lord and Saviour did not quite attain to my years in his Peregrination upon the earth S. John and S. Timothy were both but young men when yet the first was an Apostle and the second a Bishop If Argumentation and Orthodoxy were to be reckoned by a man's age I am sure the old Serpent would go beyond them And though I my self am far from it yet the truth which I assert hath Age enough to become an Argument * Quod primum verum est Tertul. So that from this day forwards I hope the difference of years betwixt my adversaries and me which they have hitherto more insisted on in all theâ—r publick and private chat then upon any one thing which they have conceived to be of use shall be no longer an ingredient in our dispute yet this is one reason why * Job 32.4 6.7 Mr. W. comes first into my consideration Another reason is because he publickly made me a second challenge from the Presse when I had in modesty and in mercy refused his first as having been backward and unwilling to expose his age to inconvenience for which reason also I have been sparing to Mr. Cawdrey notwithstanding his publick and grand abuses but finding he thought himself unanswerable in that he saw he was not answerâ—d I straight concluded it a charity to undeceive him A third reasonâ—s because he professeth in his Preface to his first book which he hath boldly repeated in his second that he * Ext. of Div. Prov. is Praef. p. goes hâ—ghâ—r then other Divines of his party in making God have an active hand in the actions of sinful men How much higher then the most the Reader shortly will see and wonder Adde to this my having heard that
Sect. 19. Mr. B's first chip hewen out of Mr. H's block He foists into the Creed the word Real and makes it supply the place of good Provides a Creed for the Libertines viz. that God is the maker of all sins if sins are things real and things not real implies a contradiction The different methods of our reasonings and what comes of it They ascribe the filthiest of positive Entities unto God Aâ—c convinced by the Assemblies confession of Faith Are farther uncovered by being supposed to be catechized Sect. 20. His second chip of the same block Inconsistency with himself and making all sinful actions to be wrought by God His unsuccesful Relyance on the Jesuits Sect. 21. His third chip more pitiful then the former Sect. 22. His fourth chip the most lamentable of all His arguing concludes him Pelagian or Libertine He is impertinent on purpose to make God the Author of sin Sect. 23. By his fifth chip he denies Gods Praescience of all wickedness unless he also praedetermined it Sect. 24. His impositions upon the Scripture The Schoolmen Austâ—n His new degree of Arminianism Sect. 25. Mr. Hick's Heathenish expression of sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 26. Of Calvins Doctrine that God commands yea compels the Devil and all that are wicked to Conceive execure their evil dving Sect. 27. Mr. B's affected Tergiversation in his chiefest concernments Of Zuinglius his Doctrine that God is in plain terms the Author of sin How Mr. B. holds the same even in that which he confesseth to be the proper notion of the word Author He accuseth Calvin in excusing him for saying that God doth will sin And Piscator as well as Calvin for saying that God doth thrust men into wickedness He confesseth his Masters do some times teach a coaction from God to sin He forgeth new Texts upon the Scripture Sect. 28. He turns his back to the prime charge and tacitly yields the whole cause Sect. 29. Of Adams inclination to sin before he sinned The birth and growth of the very first sin with the very wide difference betwixt the inclinations of the sensitive appetite and the will Sect. 30. The whole importance of the word Author How the Adversaries say worse then if they had only said verbatim God is the Author of sin Mr. Rollâ—cks strange Salvo Chap. IV. Sect. 1. OF the signal fallacy swallowed first by Dr. Twisse then by his followers Mr W's essay to cover it The Fallacy shewed in its deformity The first cause of the whole mistake about the order of intentions and execution That cause removed and the fallacy left naked Mr. W's indirect course to excuse Dr. Twisse in contradiction to him Dr. Twisse his error of Coâ—rdination in things subordinate Sect. 2. Mr. W's forgery of objections in other mens names Sect. 3. Mr. W's second part displayed and Universal Redemption vindicated as to the true intent and extent of Christs death from the feeble utmost of his attempts in a subdivision of eight Paragraphs Sect. 4. How the Presbyterians do nourish Socinianism in contracting Christs death and perverting Scripture Daille Camero Amâ—rald why they forsook their party abridging the benefit of Christs death Received rules for the interpreting of words and ending controversies The extream absurdity of dutiful misbelief exploded hy the Lord Primate Mr. W's reproch cast upon Christendom and the Gospel of Christ Europe Asia Africa and America inferred by Mr. W. to be the least part of the world Sect. 5. Universal Redemption proved from 2 Cor. 5.14 by S. Austin and Prosper to the stopping of Mr. W's and Mr. B's mouths Sect. 6. The conclusion giving reasons why no more time is to be lost in this employment AN INTRODUCTION To the three first Chapters Concerning the impious and unexcusable because blasphemous and unavoidable both Contradictions and other Absurdities which issue out from the Denial of Gods eternal respective or conditional Decrees SECT 1. The neerest way to end a controversie is to strike altogether at the root of error When once an Error is grown fruitful and hath run it self out into several Branches it is commonly found by sad experience to grow the thicker for being lopp't There is not an Error in all Theologie which doth seem to have taken so deep a Root or to have spread so sturdy Branches or to have born so lewd a fruit as that many-headed Error whose extirpation out of the Church ought so much the rather to be desir'd because it hath shed such a fatal and deadly influence upon a multitude of Professors who have lately sate under its shade Of those that have exercised themselves in so good a work I may call it my Lot and my Necessity to have been one of the meanest Faithfulness and Affection have been my chiefest qualifications and I esteem it a priviledge as well as duty to have done God service in any measure But in every good Labourer there is a skill and prudence as well as industry and faithfulnesse to be required It is not enough to be doing and working in a meer opposition to sloth and idlenesse but by contrivance and forecast to do a great deal of work in a little time Sect. 2. I am not quite so sensible of that unquestionable Aphorism set down by Solomon * Eccles 12.12 much study is a wearinesse to the flesh as of the words going before it in making many books there is no end This I knew a long time since but it is now that I consider it and lay it seriously to heart And therefore now I determine to make an end of the Task imposed on me not contenting my self with a bare Resistance but proceeding to a Dispatch of that Hydra-like Error of which I spake I will no longer amuse my self with striking off now and then a Head which besides that they are many are very apt to be succeeded by many others growing up out of the very same Trunk but rather compendiously endeavour to strike the Monster into the heart which besides that it is but one is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first part that lives and the last that dies in every creature Sect. 3. The grand Error about God's Decrees and its numerous off-spring is rooted in the mistake of two things The false conceit of God's prescience and predetermination makes up the error of irrespective and unconditional Decrees I do not say of the most natural but of the most voluntary actions and effects neither reward nor punishment nor sin it self being excepted This I take to be the heart imparting life and activity to every member and limb of that body of error whose most affectionate friends and abettors have conspired to find me my late imployment With this grand error all the rest which grow from it must live and die In this Mr. Whitfield hath put his chief trust Upon this he hath been poreing as his admirers have â—oasted these thirty years In his Apologie for â—his he hath
Gods glory or that God may get himself glory by it and be apt to plead upon his committing of adultery or incest that he did not do it as 't was forbidden by the word which is * This is the Doctrine of Dr. Twisse others particularly owned by Mr. W. p. 47. improperly called the will of God say they but as God did secretly will it as it made for Gods glory or to the end that God might get himself some glory by it He did it not out of lust or as a sin but to procreate a Saint and increase the number of the godly and withal to glorifie that discriminating mercy which could not be exercised in the pardoning of such sins if they were not committed by them in whom they are capable of being pardoned that is to say by the Elect. I put this Case to fright men out of those premisses from which if God restrain them not they have been known by experience to draw such horrible conclusions And had I not been able to give examples I should not have thought this method needful Mr. W. tells us plain enough both p. 26. and here too that so far as sin makes for Gods glory God may both **** Note that all are his own expressions â— 26 28. which must be compared to which purpose look on what I hâ—ve said sect 14. of this Chapter will and * work it and have a hand in 〈◊〉 effecting or * working of it And though sin be in it self evil yet it may have some respect of * good As for that which he calls a true Rule and what he hath out of Austin against himself I will not exagitate his unhappinesse therein as I must also forbear to do it in many other particulars meerly for fear I should be endless Sect. 20. Mr. W. proceeds to a sixth Argument wherby he proves his great willingness to prove that God hath efficiency and hand in sin Mr. W's dangerous mis-apprehension of that figurative Sentence That God doth punish sin with sia but more then his willingness to prove it he proveth not For his Argument is but this That God punisheth one sin with another and punishment is more then a bare permission It were ridiculous to say that a Judge onely permitteth a malefactor to be arraigned condemned and executed p. 28. lin ult p. 29. lin 1 2 3 4. First it is not any where said in Scripture that God doth punish one sin with another but 't is a sentence of the Schoolmen as commonly known to be catachrestical as any beggar knowes his own dish and hath neither truth nor sense in it unless it be figuratively meant For God punisheth the sinner and not the sin Nor doth he imprint sin on him as the Lictor doth stripes but withdraws his grace and leaves the sinner to himself whereupon he sinneth without restraint But I have spoken of this in * See the Sinner Impleaded c. 1. p. 9. another place where I have also recorded S. Austins suffrage for the truth 2. His making God the proper cause of the greatest sins 2. But Mr. W. hath so prodigiously misunderstood that sentence or else so guiltily dissembled his understanding as to express Gods punishing of sin with sin by the positive actions of a Judge in his arraigning condemning and execution of malefactors which is to make God the Author and proper cause of the greatest sins in the world such as are the later sins which are called the punishments of the former It being frequently the Doctrine of Mr. W. that of all positive actions God is the Author and †Ext. of Gods Prov. c. 4. p. 11. proper cause But Idolatries and Adulteries Blasphemies and Murders and the sins not to be named Rom. 1.26 are positive actions and punishments in the Schoolmens sense and so according to Mr. W. God is blasphemously inferred to be their Author and proper cause 3. Which he also extends to the very sin of the act 3. Now we see what moved him to say in print That God must * Ibid. p. 12. Iin. 1 2. needs some way both will and work in the sin of the Act. Mark well good Reader He doth not say as at other times the act of sin or the sinful act but the sin of the act meaning the pravity and deformity and obliquity it self as he explains himself in the next two lines wherein he saith that God gets glory to himself by that very pravity and deformity 4. He treads a step beyond Calvins worst 4. Mr. W. in this doth tread a step beyond Calvin not onely †Calv. Instit l. 1. c. 18. sect 1. fol. 68. followes him through thick and thin For though Mr. Calvin speaks broadly that the wicked man whilest he acteth is * Id. ib. sect 2. fol. 69. Apparet cer â destinatione Dei fuisse impulsos Fateor quidem interpositâ Satanae operâ saepe Deum agere in Reprebis sed ut e jus impulsu Satan ipse suas partes agat unde hoc nisi quod à Deo manat efficacia erroris ut mendacium credant c. Ibid. Summa haec sit quum Dei voluntas dicitur rerum omnium esse cause ut non tantùm vim suam exerat in electis sed etiam reprobos in obsequium cogat Ibid. Et jam satis apertè ostendi Deum vocari eorum omnium Authorem quae isti censores volunt otioso tantum ejus permissu contingere Id. ib. sect 3. p. 7. acted by God and that the Assyrians were thrust on to rob and plunder by the sure destination of God and that God doth act in the reprobates by the interposition of Satan's help that Satan by God's impulse may act his own part also and that the efficacy of error proceeds from God and that when he casts men into filthy desires he is the chief Author of his just vengeance that is of sin in Mr. W's sense and Satan onely the Minister and that the will of God is the cause of all things and that his providence doth not onely exert its force in the elect who are ruled by his holy Spirit but doth also compell the reprobates to be obsequious and that God is called the Author of all those things which the censorious will have to happen by his idle permission onely though these are frightful expressions and applied in such a manner as not to be capable of excuse yet Mr. VV. as I shewed hath stept beyond him 5. The †Veteres religiosiù interdum simplicem veritatis confessionem in hac parte reformidant Ne Augustinus quidem illâ superstâ—tione interdum solutus est quemadmodum ubi dicit indurationem excaecationem non ad operationem Dei sed ad praescientiam spectare Calv. Inst l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 3. fol. 95. Ancient Fathers were afraid to ascribe that to God's working which they saw could onely be the object of his praescience and his permission
of it as the sinner himself and as much as Satan who tempts him to sin and in some respects much more then both VVhich before I come to demonstrate I will name the Cause of this Disease which being premised must needs be followed by its effects 3. The original cause of the disease 3. The Cause of it is this That they believe Gods praescience or fore-knowledge of all things and events to be neither praevious to nor simultaneous with but directly after his praedetermination of them Mr. Calvin expressed it thus * See the Divine purity defended ch 7. sect 8. p. 74. that God did therefore fore-know all things because he fore-ordained all things of which I have spoken on another occasion And now Mr. Barlee expresseth it thus Gods praescience of a thing future must needs praesuppose a praedestination or a praedetermination of it 4. The Patient proved extrembly sick of the disease by his own acknowledgment of the cause Look sorward on the tenth Section of this Chapter 4. That Mr. B. is sick of the disease I mentioned I now prove out of his words which declare the Cause to be reigning in him And to make the shorter work of it I shall proceed to conviction by this Dilemma Doth he believe Gods praescience of sin or not If he doth not then all his own party will send him packing to the Anticyrae every mouth will be opened full wide against him he will not therefore dare to say No to my Dilemma And if he saith Yes his calamity will be greater for adhering to his Maxime he must confess his Doctrine to be this That God did praedetermine sin antecedently to his praescience or fore-knowledge of sin To make it plain by Syllogism 1. He who holds that Gods praescience of what is future must needs p esuppose his praedetermination of it holds that the praedetermination praecedes the praescience 2. But Mr. B. doth declaredly hold the former 3. Therefore he also doth hold the later This being made thus evident to the most ignorant of his Favourers and undeniable to the most obstinate I will now go on to prove my Necessary Assertion That Mr. B. is sick of the most loathsome and the most dangerous Disease of making God to be the Author and Cause of sin 5. Four short arguments to confirm it left for every Reader to enlarge upon in his thoughts 1. If God foresaw nothing but as being first fore-appointed or predetermined by himself then he foresaw not any mans determination of his will to sin until himself had predetermined that mans determination of his will to sin Now if the Devil is the cause of another mans sinning by meerly inclining his will to sin and if the sinner himself is another cause of his sin by meerly determining his will to sin though not as sin but under the notion and appearance at least of good how can God be thought less if from all Eternity before the Man or the Devil had any existence he had predetermined doth the temptation of the one which is the sin of the Devil and the sin of the other who yields himself captive to that temptation yea the determination of both their wills to both their sins Yet thus he did saith Mr. B. at least in signo rationis before he could be able to foresee the one or the other 2. If he who shall command or advise a man to do a thing which he knows to be forbidden and so a sin cannot possibly be conceived to be less then a concause and coadjutor what then must he be concluded who doth absolutely and irresistibly predetermine and tye up the will to sin 3. God in his Law doth forbid the whole moral act to wit Adultery or Murder and the liberty of the Agent to commit it Thou shalt not do this or that he doth not onely forbid the obliquity of the Act abstracted from the Act as the repugnance of killing an innocent with the Law which saith Thou shalt not kill abstracted from killing for this last is impossible to be so much as conceived much less to be ex parte rei and implies a gross contradiction God forbids us to blaspheme he doth not forbid us to blaspheme amiss implying it possible to blaspheme aright So that if he predetermines the will of man or man as a voluntary Agent to the positive Act of blaspheming he predetermines to that which he forbids that is to sin And if the union of the pravity with the Act doth move God to forbid that the Act it self be freely done how can he then predetermine that it shall be done freely or admitting that he can who is then the Author of sin It is hard to say whether the impossibility on one hand or the absurdity on the other is more observable in the Case Impossibilium nulla est obligatio 4. If God is not by his predetermination of sin the Author of sin who is then the Author of it Man cannot be for in that case he cannot sin For can he possibly hinder the for bidden Act from having a pravity or filth on supposition that it be free and known to be forbidden Or can he so order the matter that there shall not be an Entity of the Act a wilfulness of the Agent nor a testimony of conscience against the thing done No this is impossible the predetermination being supposed or else it is a being too strong for God which is blasphemous as well as impossible How then can God be conceived to exact any thing of his Creature who doth the thing that is forbid being predetermined to the Act which is forbidden and to every circumstance of the Act What is said of man may be repeated of the Devil and if neither of them can be the Author of sin according to Mr. B's Maximes the Reader knowes what to think of Him and Them Sect. 9. To remove the cause of this Noysom and Inveterate Disease and to keep it from being Desperate 1. The easie and infallible means of cure to all who are not resolved to contine sick at least from being Epidemical I must clear the point of Gods Praescience to my less instructed and common Readers such as Mr. W. and Mr. B. appear to be And because they are reckoned as chief men of their party there must needs be great numbers who partake with them in their greatest wants First they seem not to consider that Praescience is nothing else but the Latine word for foreknowledge or else not to know what knowledge naturally importeth and so discern not precisely wherein Gods Knowledge doth differ from his Decree How else could they imagin with * Mr. W. discovers his opinion that whatever God foreknowes must necessarily come to pass and so all sins as well as whatever he decrees doth the like Mr. W. that Gods foreknowledge doth necessitate as well as his decree or how could they dream with Mr. B. that Gods foreknowledge
is consisting and from whence alone sins Denomination ought to be taken p. 55. This is his wary way of speaking and this he tells us is his Belief 1. That God is the cause of sin both of that which he calls the material * p. 11. part of sin or the positive act of that which he calls the formal * Ibid. part of sin or the obliquity of the act God saith Mr. B. is the cause of both parts and so of the whole sin of which they both are components But 2. he tells us that God is not the natural cause of both but the accidental cause of the one and the natural cause of the other A fair confession of his Faith For Cain's killing Abel and David's lying with Bathshebah were positive acts and each of them saith Doctor Twisse materiale peccati so that of them Mr. B. believeth God to be the natural cause And supposing it possible to separate their obliquities he believeth God to be the cause of them also For although he calls it accidental he cannot mean that it is none for then he would have said that God is no cause at all of the obliquity of the act whereas he now saith the contrary that God is a cause of the obliquity because an accidental cause nor will the known * Pōsito uno Conjugatorum ponitur alterum Et si Conjugatorum unum uniconveniat alterum etiam conveniet alterit Rule of Conjugates allow him any the least evasion The Question is not what kind of cause of the obliquity they affirm God to be natural or moral per se or per accidens but whether or no he is a cause And to this Mr. B. makes answer in the affirmative Nor can he be imagined to argue thus God is not a natural but an accidental cause therefore no cause at all For that were to argue that a thing is not because it is and that a proposition is false because it is true We may argue by such Logick that Mr. B. is not a man because he is not a patient but an angry man And to deny that God is the Author of that obliquity of which he affirms him to be the cause is the same thing as to say he is indeed the Author of the obliquity but the Author of the obliquity he is not for whatsoever is the cause of any thing in any kind of causality is so far forth the Author of it as it is the cause according to the use of the word Author in all Classick Writers as I shall shew in due time How Mr. B. makes God the natural cause of sin it self And if that which he calls the Act of sin as the act of cursing or hating God of David's lying with Bathshebah and the like is nothing else but the sin it self in its whole essence as indeed it is and I have demonstrated before then his beliefe must needs be this that God is the natural cause of sin which is worse then to believe him the moral cause onely by how much it is worse to necessitate any man to wickedness then onely to tempt and perswade him to it He who necessitates being the sole cause of it and he who perswades the concause onely I will say no more here because I have enlarged so much * Look back on ch 2. sect 5. already on an occasion offered by Mr. W. I will onely adde a word to Mr. B's citation in his Margin If he is to be judged a moral cause of any sin who moves any one to it by help or counsel favour or perswasion as †Dominicus à Soto doth truely speak * In moralibus prorsus est judicaturque causa qui lege ope consilio favore vel persuasu movet quempiam sive ad bonum sive ad malum Domin à Soto de Nat. Gra. l. 1. c. 12. how falsly soever in some other things then God is also accused of being the moral cause of sin by Mr. B. and his party who have publickly taught that God doth tempt men to sin and so far favour the regenerate in the very worst sins they can commit as that they cannot fall totally much less finally from grace I have shewed the former in the third Section of this Chapter and the later long ago in the Div. Purity defended ch 14. sect 2. p. 128 129 c. Sect. 15. Mr. B's most signal and most desperate attempt from p. 111. to p. 121 Now I proceed to that part of Mr. B. which will save me the labour of saying more and make him wish ere it be long that he had said nothing at all but that he had rather been born dumb For 't is that wherein he engageth not his own credit onely if he can possibly imagine that he hath any yet left him but the credit of his friends too amongst whom Mr. Hick of Mag. Coll. is branded by him for a chief Nor onely so but he engageth very deeply his soul and conscience which ought I am sure to be dearest to him Now that himself and his Abettors may not fail of comprehending the breadth and depth of the Calamity into which he hath ingulphed and plunged himself and to the end that he may find it much the most for his Interest to make a publick Recantation and to act * 2 Cor. 7.11 revenge upon himself I will as briefly as I am able premise the state of the affair betwixt him and me that so the life of his unhappiness may at last appear in the greater lustre 2. The state of the case from its Original 2. I had proved in my †Ch. 3. p. 110. to p. 116. Defence of the Divine Philanthropie that the sinner is the efficient cause of sin in confutation of Mr. B. who denied that sin had any efficient cause at all but onely forsooth a deficient cause I say I had proved the efficient of sin by a great number of Arguments whereof each was so cogent that neither Mr. B. nor M. W. nor Mr. Hick had the courage to venture on a solution I do heartily wish that my Reader will here peruse those seven pages in my D. Philan. Defended from p. 110. to p. 116. where he will find my Thesis proved by so many convincing Demonstrations as have not left the Adversary the least colour for a Reply And because some Readers may not have that Book in their possession whilest others are unwilling to neglect the work they are upon I will here recapitulate but very briefly what there is proved in ample manner 3. Proof◠that sin hath an efficient cause 3. 1. If man is the cause of sin and not efficient he is the material formal or final cause if the Deficient is none of these as none will say it is it is no cause at all If sin hath no cause it hath no real being much less can it be the cause of punishment and so God is
inferred to punish men without cause 2. Where there is no efficient there is no effect that is there is nothing and so according to Mr. B. men are either not damned or damned for nothing 3. If the sinner is but deficient as to the being of sin he is less the cause of it then God is inferred to be by them who say that Gods will of sin is efficacious and irresistible as that which predetermines decrees and necessitates sin and efficacious ab efficiendo is prevalent forcible c. 4. Mr. B. confesseth in a sober fit that the sinning creature is the * Corrept p. 79. efficient cause of sin although he saith in a fit of passion that sin hath †Ib d. p. 55. no efficient cause 5. He often mentions the * Ibid. p. 79. Being of sin as when he saith that God * p. 178. ordained it Whereby he infers it to be effected and so to have an efficient 6. If he saith as at other times he doth that sin consists wholly in a deficiency he infers what is worse that no creature can effect sin nor by consequence commit it 7. Whilest he affirms Gods absolute ordination of sin in one breath and that sin hath onely a deficient cause in another breath he chargeth on God all the causality of sin of which he allowes it to be capable 8. As when he breaths hot he saith that God ordained and determined sin so when he breaths cold he saith that God can ordain nothing but good which is to infer that sin is good And to what is good he allows an efficient cause 9. If sins of omission as not praying and not giving almes c. had but a deficient cause yet sins of commission as cursing and sacrilege c. have a cause efficient with a witness 10. Admitting that sin were a privative Entity it would not follow that it hath not any efficient cause For he who deprives a man of life or sight is the efficient cause of death or blindness And darkness the privative of light was one of the works of Gods Creation Gen. 1.4 5. of all which he was the efficient cause 11. What is privative in one respect may be positive in another as our sicknesses and sins do daily teach us Murder is not onely privative of vertue but also constitutive of vice and must have something in it of positive to make it differ in specie from all other sins and in degree from all other murders Of some we say they are not good whilest others are not onely positively but superlatively evil 12. Every privation presupposeth an habit to which it stands in opposition but a man may be covetous who never was liberal 13. An Agent morally deficient in the performance of a Duty doth effect that evil action which is so morally deficient For 1. The Adulterer is the efficient of his filthy Act which is his sin 2. The Devil is the Father of lyes and a Father is an efficient 3. A man through grace is the efficient cause of a good Action And Mr. B. is worse then a Pelagian if he will say that man is more efficient of good then of evil 14. Mr. B. * Corrpt 111. confesseth in a lucid interval that there may be something positive in a privation 15. Punishment is a positive Entity and owned to have an efficient cause But Mr. B. saith often that sin is a punishment 16. Whilest he denies his making God the Author of sin because sin forsooth hath no efficient he unavoidably infers 1. Either that God is not the Author of death or 2. that he is the Author of sin if of death or 3. of both or 4. of neither 17. If when they say that God is the cause of sin they do not infer he is the Author because the cause is but deficient they plead no more for God then for the Devil for if nothing is an Author which is not efficient and if sin hath no efficient then neither Men nor Devils can be the Authors of sin 4. In stead of answering these things 4. Mr. B's impertinencies and railings in lieu of Answers do stricke obliquely at S. James Mr. B. talks thus p. 111. sect 3. First that my opinion of sins having a positive Entity and an efficient cause is a dreadful opinion Secondly that there is no question between us about any thing else which if true then my evincing this concludes the Controversie between us Thirdly that he trembles more at the thought of commiting sin then many of my party if not my self at the open acting of it Fourthly that Gods judicial hand appears against me Fifthly that my conclusion out of S. James ch 1. v. 15. is 1000. times more for Gods being the Author of sin then the words of his party which I have cited Sixthly that Gods just hand is upon me Seventhly Quem perdere vult Deus hunc dementat p. 112. These are his general Answers thrust up together into one Paragraâ—h Before I come to his particular Answers which are infinitely worse I will intreat my Reader to comâ—are my seventeen particulars with Mr. B's seven and with what I shall now say from the express words of S. James who saith that * Jam. 1.15 lust having conceived bringeth forth sin The conception of lust is before expressed by a mans being drawn away and enticed by his lust v. 14. The Spirit solicitâ— the Will on one side lust on the other If lust prevailes and carries away the wills consent then lust conceives or which is all one in effect the Will is †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 drawn away and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceived or overreached by Lust not onely invited but insnared and wrought upon by the invitation so as to give up its consent Lust by this doth conceive and then bringeth forth sin as the Parent the Child VVhat is sin therefore but the production of the will consenting to Lust or drawn away by it The production I mean of the evil will which by thus consenting becomes evil Now this being the upshot of what I mean by the efficient cause and positive entity of sin against whom hath Mr. B. spent the expressions of his Pet against we onely who spake from S. James or against S. James also from whom I spake * Note how the bitterest of his censures do hit himself and his party Nay hath he not spent them upon himself who hath confessed even in Print the very same things which here he railes at He hath openly affirmed both that the sinning Creature is the efficient cause of his sin Corrept p. 79. and that there ☞ may be something of positive in a privation Ibid. p. 111. Nay are not all his railings against all his own party who say that God doth †Look back on ch 2. p. 90. efficere peccata and not onely will but ** M.W's. own words p. 26. of which I
the guardian of a child under age sometimes him who doth abet or assert or uphold another in any action sometimes he that shews the way is said to be the Author of it sometimes he who appointeth or decreeth any thing is called the Author of the thing decreed 2. How the enemies of truth say what is worse then that God is verbatim the Author of sin 2. Now from hence it is apparent how many wayes Mr. B. and his Praedecessors have not onely made God the Author of sin but something worse too Had they onely said in plain terms as I have shewed they have God is the Author of sin they might have sought for some excuse or mitigation of the crime from the softest importance of the word Author They might have said they meant no more then that God doth perswade or tempt men to sin as Mr. B's word was But notwithstanding even that had been sufficiently blasphemous Mr. B. †His confession is to be seen from his p. 133. to his p. 136. confesseth as I have * Look back on Sect. 27. num 5. shewed that they assirm God's impelling and forcing men to sin his making men sin by coaction which Prosper professeth to be * Prosper ad object Vincen. 11. p. 341 342. worse then can be truly spoken of the Devil himself Now though he who compells a man to sin is properly called the Author of it yet because the word Author hath other softer significations this must needs be much worse then onely to say he is the Author 3. Mr. Rolloc's strange Salvo 3. Nay in not many lines p. 128. before Mr. B. is so unhappy as to put me on this task be cites a passage from Mr. Rolloc thus excusing and mollifying that Parties Doctrine †Non est Decretum malitiae quà malitia est sed quà bonitatis rationem habet R. Rolloc in Rom. 8.29 God 's decree of sinfulness in the abstract is not of sinfulness as such but as it hath the nature of goodness in it His word is malitia as the abstract of malum and himself explains it by Anomia in the two lines going before To shew how Mr. W. and Mr. B. have stretched the blasphemy to its extremity by teaching that God doth work sin as well as will it and hath a hand in effecting of it that he makes it necessary * Dr. Twisse affirmeth that Gods Incitation and Excitation to the act of sin doth not onely influere in ipsum actum Creaturae but also in ipsam voluntatem c. Vin. Gra. l. 2. par 1. c. 12. sect 2. p. 142. excites men to it is the maker of all reall things without exception and the cause of the obliquity it self in abstracto I say to shew this afresh on this occasion were actum agere to make a needlesse repetition of what hath been the subject of many Sections CHAP. IV. A notorious fallacy of Doctor Twisse and his Followers with severall failings discovered in Mr. VVh Sect. 1. Of the signall Fallacy swallowed first by D. Twisse then by his Followers MY chief enterprise being performed in so large a manner and the whole Tree of Error pluck't up by the root it may seem a superfluity to spend more time upon little twiggs whose whole subsistence is from the root and must therefore perish together with it Yet because Doctor Twisse is a leading man and hath built the highest Castle on the most Airy Foundation of any artificer in the kind and because Mr. W. was not contented that the Doctors unhappinesse should go alone but was desirous to joyn his own too I will regard him so much as to take him in 1. Dr. Twisse his important fallacy which runs through his book I had shewed the sad fallacy which Dr. Twisse had put upon himself and his followers through his misusage or mistake of that Logick Maxime What is first intended is last executed For either not understanding or wilfully dissembling his understanding I cannot say which though I am sure of one of the two what is the scope of that Maxime and within what limits its truth is bound he most unreasonably concluded that because punishment is executed after sin therefore sin was intended after God decreed punishment The cause of his fallacy I shall shew anon and how inconsistent he is with Mr. W. or with himself I shewed that if the Maxime had universal truth in it a thousand such absurdities as this would follow that if I first intend to take ship at Dover and afterwards intend to sail into France I must according to that Maxime as 't is mistaken by Doctor Twisse first sail into France and after that take ship at Dover 2. Mr. W's essay to cover the fallacy in his p. 17 18. 2. To slubber over the businesse Mr. Wh. thus talks to admiration Is not the journey into France the first thing here intended and in order to that to take ship at Dover Reader observe to what a prodigie some men are able to tread awry I had plainly put my case thus that my first intention is for Dover not resolving yet to what Countrey I will sail much lesse to what Port and my second intention for France particularly for Callis in answer to which Mr. W. asks Is not France first intended and Dover next and what is this but to say that my first intention is my last and my second is my first If he shall say that France is the first thing intended by him and Dover the second he will confesse the absurdity with which I charge him for I had spoken of my intentions in putting the case at that time not at all of any man 's else much lesse of Mr. W's a year or two after the time that my case was put 3. The Fallacy shewed in its deformity 3. That he may plead no more for Doctor Twisse his mishaps nor escape a right apprehension of his own miscarriage and that the party may yield their Palladium lost I will illustrate the Case with the greatest perspicuity I can imagin Suppose a man here in England taking his life to be in danger intends to go out of the Kingdom he cares not whither for preservation from present peril the first thing that he intends is to take ship at Dover then it being free to him to go whither he will as to Flanders or Holland or any place else he at last decrees to go to France this then is last in his intention and must therefore by the Doctrine of Dr. T. be the first in execution then which there is nothing more impossible and so nothing more absurd Again a man intends to build a house not to let it out to others but to dwell in it himself and after that intends to make it sumptuous in doing that he turns Bankruâ—t and therefore determines to let it out this is the last in execution the sumptuous furnishing of it
they were loth should die with them or was it their purpose to strengthen the hands of evil-doers and to tickle the ears of our English Libertines who weare the new name of Ranters or was their project the same with that of Mr. Hobbs or did they mean by these things to administer comfort to believers whether Fiduciaries or Solifidians were they fearful that Satan should be slandered as the very first Fountain and source of sin or that sinners should think too meanly of their sins as if they had not a brave extraction or are they inwardly haters of that very party which they are outwardly of and have they taken this course to make them hateful to all besides or do they really believe that these are the profitable and pithy truths in which the Godly of the land ought to be throughly grounded or are these the instances of their care and circumspection in such a defence of their Doctrines as might not give any distaste to pious minds or do they think that these speeches concerning God are the most supple and the most popular that their Principles will bear and so exhibited as Abstersions and Vindications of their Divinity or do they count it a fine thing to contradict themselves solemnly and in Print by saying that God is This and That and then by saying they never say it O me propè lassum juvate posteri If none of these were their inducements as my charity forbids me to think they were what other account can be rendred even by such as would plead in favour of them but that they teach such things through the necessity of their affaires they are so naturally flowing from their conceit of God's praescience and of his praedetermination before his praescience of all events without exception and so of his absolute Decrees of reward and * Note that absolute Reprobation must needs be confessed to be a very sore punishment in whatsoever sense they please to take it punishment without the consideration of their being in Christ by Faith or out of Christ by infidelity of their abiding in Christ by perseverance or out of Christ by impenitence unto the end That whil'st they hold these Premisses they cannot possibly escape the black and terrible conclusion so lately mentioned They must either part with their first Principles or else they find by many experiments that the ugly inferences will follow do what they can to the contrary Having swallowed it for a Maxime that God's praescience of all things doth presuppose his praedetermination as Mr. B. tells us and that he foreknew nothing but because he first had decreed it as Mr. Calvin they find it necessary to infer that God absolutely decreed and praedetermined all the wickedness in the World Thus their Principles rather then they or they by serving their Principles have brought those monsters into the light And if they sincerely do hate the sequels they must bid farewel to the antecedent For when it is affirm'd that two and two make five it must be inferr'd that five and but four four being the product of two and two which Downright Maccovius was so sensible of who was as learned and as Zealous as any one of that Party that he honestly confessed in the Synod at Dort that if they did not maintain God's willing of sin and his ordaining men to sin as sin they must come over to the Remonstrants How the violent streams of blasphemy may be quickly dried up in their several channels Sect. 9. Now that all those black and noisom streams may no longer gush out of their pens I find the most effectual and speedy course will be to damm up the Fountain or Headspring of the effluxions This is done on set purpose in the eighth and ninth Sections of the third Chapter of this Book And there my Reader is to begin if he will take my counsel because he will there be entertained not with the nature onely and cause and malignity of the disease but if I am not much mistaken with the proper method and means of cure too For thus I reckon within my self if God's foreknowledge of all events and so by consequence of all the wickednesses in the world be proved not to praesuppose his praedetermination of them then it is proved in the same instant that he did not absolutely decree the being of sin but on the contrary that he conditionally decreed the permission of its being which he foresaw would have a being by the sinner's determination of his own will to it if he did not forcibly hinder the sinner's Free-will which he eternally decreed he would not do And in this is wrapp't up another proof as undeniable to wit that all God's Decrees are not absolute or irrespective or unconditional as my adversaries presume to limit the power of the Almighty but some of his deceees namely those which respect the acts of voluntary agents with the rewards or punishments which do ensue must needs be respective and conditional that is secundùm praescientiam according to his foreknowledge and eternal consideration For whatsoever is found to be in time either the cause of man's punishment or the condition required to his reward that did God from eternity both foreknow and fore-consider and according to that eternal foreknowledge and consideration of the temporal cause of the one or condition requisite to the other he did eternally decree both to punish and to reward Mr. W's whole Fabrick pluckt up by the foundation Sect. 10. Whether Mr. Whitfield did understand this or not or whether he found it so clear a thing as not to be able to make a shew of any colourable resistance but by dissembling his understanding and putting all his confidence in his affectation of a mistake let his dearest friends judge by that which followes For he layes the foundation of all his structure in these most signal and extraordinary lines Arguments against Conditional Decrees By Conditional Decrees we understand such as wherein the condition doth not onely go before the execution Mr. W's explication of what he understands by conditionall Decrees or effecting of the things decreed but before the Decree it self before the eternal act of God's will and that purpose within himself whereby he hath determined that such or such things shall be p. 2. lin 21 22 c. His provision for a flight from hâ—s whole undertaking Num. 1. Observe Good Reader how sublimely his building is design'd to rise by him whose very basis is purposely laid within the clouds He professeth to frame Arguments against conditional Decrees not as I understand them or any man living of my way but as He and his Peers are Poetically pleas'd to understand them And what is this but to make provision that all his book may be no better then a vain-glorious Tergiversation boasting his strength in running away from the general Title of his book bravely threatning to dispute yet poorly declining the thing in
was next before that building before that will it now follow as Dr. T. his Logick would have it that he lets it out before he furnisheth it and that he does furnish it before he builds it Once more A man determines to take a servant after he hath taken him he findes him a knave and so resolves to put him away must he therefore put him away before he takes him because his intention to take him was before his intention to put him away yet such is the arguing of Doctor Twisse who * Si peccati permissio prius intenderetur quà m damnatio sequeretur in executione ut damnatio priùs sieret quà m peccati permisso Twiss in Praesat ad Vin. Gr. p. 3. saith that if God did decree to permit sin before he decreed to damn men for sin it would follow they must be damned before they can so much as be permitted to sin 4. Tâ—e first cause of the whole mistake 4. As the cause of this Error was his taking that Maxime by the left handle Quod primum in intentione est ultimum in executione so the cause of that also was his over-hasty imagination that * Neque enim ullus intentionis ordo est nisi ratione mediorum Finis Id. ibid. there is no order of intention unless in respect of the end and the means which he dictates tanquam ex Tripode as an unquestionable truth though there is nothing more visibly and even palpably false For there being many means to one end to wit God's glory one of these means may be subordinate to another and so in mente Dei before the other God did not decree to create man to the end that he should sin nor did he decree that man should sin to the end he might be damned but he decreed to create man and to permit him to sin and to damn him for sinning to the end his glory might be advanced And this is Neque enim damnotio potest esse finis à Deo intentus quandoquidem Dâ—us facâ—â— omnia propter se Necesse est ergo ut gloria Dei ejusque patefactio sit finis actionum Divinarum Idem ibid. acknowledged by the Doctor even in that very page 5. That first cause removed and the fallacy lesâ— naked 5. To remove the Origin of the whole evil I shall not need to say more then this God foreseeing that man would voluntarily sin if he were not forcibly hindered and decreeing not to use any forcible hinderance which would not suit with the nature of a free and voluntary Agent he also saw that Adam would make a wrong choice and thereby fall from his state of Innocence This state of Adam is to be looked on as a Disease which stands in need of a Soveraign Remedy The death of Christ is that Remedy which God decreed And it cannot be imagined that the Remedy should be first in intention before the Disease was foreseen or the very permission of it decreed though still the Remedy is to be last in execution as it was also in the intention Therefore the Axiom must be so limited as to be onely appliable to those things whereof the later is the absolute end and the former decreed as a means to attain it by But thus it is not in mente Dei for the permission of sin is not designed by God as a means of bringing in any former decree of giving Christ but as that which is suitable to Adam's nature created with a free elective faculty commonly known by the name of Will Now God foreseeing that man will do what will be permitted to be done doth also foresee an opportunity of magnifying his mercy in giving Christ and accordingly decrees to give him And that before Adam falls though not before he decrees to permit his fall and actually foresees that fall of Adam From whence 't is clear that * Quod primum in intentione est ultimum in executione that Maxime is very absurdly applyed unto the business of Gods decrees as by numberless instances might be evinced For what man will say that the Creation of the world which was the first thing in execution was therefore the last in Gods intention It was certainly praecedaneous in mente Dei to the fall of Adam For how could Adam be considered as an actual sinner without being considered as something capable of sin Indeed Mr. Perkins was so unhappy as to teach it for Divinity †Etiam ipso Decreto creandi prius esse judicavi decretum praedestinandi tum ad salutem tum ad damnationem Id. Ib. p. 2. col 1. That Gods decree of damning was before his decree of creating man And Doctor Twisse * Ibid. confesseth that he was once of that mind But Arminius clearly confuted Perkins and Doctor Twisse doth seem to confess as much calling Perkins his opinion * Ibid. rigidiorem sententiam Let it now be remembred that there is a priority of order amongst those things whereof neither can be said to be the end of the other and the original cause of the errour is quite removed 6. Mr. W's indirect course to excuse Doctor Twisse in contradiction to him 6. But Mr. W. alledgeth that Doctor Twisse understands the old maxime de finibus ultimis non intermediis p. 18. If he did not look into the Doctors words why would he speak thus without any knowledge of the Fact And if he did why would he speak against his knowledge The Doctor applyes the maxime only to sin and damnation and things on this side damnation but not to any thing beyond it And that damnation is not finis ultimus the Doctor stifly maintains in the place before cited If Mr. W. thinkâ— it is he contradicts the Doctor whilest he asserts him It is agreed on all sides that the Glory of God is finis ultimus to which the damnation of the impenitent is but a means And therefore Mr. W. might have omitted his ill language which there he gives me unless he had found some colour for it If he did not fear his undertaking why did he not cite the page or chapter where I had spoken of the subject that I and others might easily have found it out I leave his best friends to judge of such dealings 7. Doctor Twisse his error of co-ordination c. 7. But Doctor Twisse saith farther that the decrees of permitting sin and of giving Christ are co-ordinate Ibid. p. 3. In saying that he did well to oppose Mr. Perkins although not well to miss the truth It doth not follow that they are not subordinate because not so as Mr. Perkins feigned them they are one after another in order of nature though not of time as the Disease is before the Cure as well in nature as time and though both are means to Gods glory yet still the Remedy must suppose the Disease and one is naturally conceivable before the other And so for the
punishment of sin which is another means of Gods glory it praesupposeth sin by such a necessity of illation that God cannot be imagined to decree a mans punishment without regard to some offence which the nature of punishment doth imply which being the main thing that I objected to Mr. B. speaking of * See D. Phil. ch 1. p. 5 6. Post-destination to which he durst not reâ—â—ly nor Mr. W. in his behalf I leave with the rest of this Section as a full Rejoynder to what he hath in his running Titles concerning Post-destination or Negative Reprobation since the body of his Book is filled with Tergiversations Sect. 2. There being nothing now left of any moment in Mr. W. Mr. M's forgery of objections in other mens names I will discover his other failings in the fewest words that I am able In his p. 43. he makes a syllogisme after an ugly manner in the third figure and tells his Reader it is mine nay he pretends to cite it from Philan. c. 4. p. 5. and calls it pitiful Sophistry yet his own heart and the world shall be my witnesses that there is no such thing in any part of any book which I have published much less there where he pretends it All my redress of such wrongs is to protest against them and to require reparations from the person offending and to direct my Readers to Philanth c. 4. p. 5. where they will see what it was which made the enemy to sly into such lewd dealings for his defence He and Mr. B. must either prove that Reprobation is no punishment or else confess their cause is ruined Sect. 3. In Mr. W's second part which is all against conditional and universal Redemption p. 53. Mr. W. of Christs death p. 53. I observe these things with a running eye 1. He denies that Christ died for all mankind Not onely in contradiction to Scripture and the Church of England but to Bishop * Sent. Daven p. 10 11. Davenant in particular and even to Dr. Twifs as Mr. Baxter shewes in his Praef. to his Disp p. 11 13 14. Next he saith that there is no conditional Election of all Who saith there is any election of all an election of persevering believers is not of all 3. Election and Redemption are not commensurate as he affirms Redemption is not the fruit of Election witness the poverty of his proofs p. 54. His first is nothing to Redemption no nor the second But on the contrary Electing in Christ praesupposeth Redemption in Gods eternal foresight and our being considered as believers in Christ No nor the third for Redemption according to rich grace Eph. 1.7 is not of a few to the more it is extended the richer ' t is His fourth from Joh. 3.16 is yet more grosly against himself God so loved the world as to give his Son for the world not the smallest part of it Had that been the meaning Saint John had said God so hated the world that he denyed his Son to the far greater part of it that not believing in him they might perish c. Mr. W's proofs p. 55. from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so are most ridiculous of all for so is expressive of the degree of the love not exclusive of it or of any man from it but inclusive of all c. It seems the Presbyterian love must be inclosed or good for nothing whereas sincere love the more extensive it is it is ever the greater not the more restrained What would he think if one should say he is so loving a Neighbour that he hardly loves one in twenty a man so kind that he hates more then he loves Redeeming love tends to eternal life even to them that never come thither and this is sure the greatest love as being extended also to enemies whereas the other is onely to supposed friends But indeed betwixt infinites there is no comparison The comparison made Joh. 15.13 is of finite mens loves and yet even there the greatest is that of laying down a life Does Mr. W. think there are two greatest 2. His Answers to that Objection p. 55. The world is here the object of this love therefore it cannot be meant of an electing love are strangely gross For 1 special love with him is nothing else but electing love nor is there need in that notion to say that all are the objects of it It is but his begging of the Question to confound Electing with Redeeming love Gods hating Esau is comparatively meant and is but loving him less then his brother Jacob in which sense we are obliged to * Luk. 14.26 hate our Parents our Wives and Children Even †Luth. in Gen. 33. Luther and * Mollerus in Mal. cap. 1. Mollerus did not doubt of Esau's et eternal bliss Nor durst Oecolampadius to account him a Reprobate because he knew those words Rom. 9. were onely spoken by a †Oecolam Edit Crisp 1158. Gen. figure 2. He confessed the world doth either signifie in Scripture the whole universe of men or the greatest part which is the worst p. 55 56. and this most usually he grants But he ask why may it not also signifie the fewest and the best too as if he knew not the Rule Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori He saith a heap that hath more chaff then wheat in it is usually called a heap of wheat p. 56. By deceitful Jobbers no doubt it may be who cheat the Buyer But would Mr. W. buy his Corn so or think the man honest who should so sell a bag of Corrans where 29. parts of 30. are very trash Joh. 6.33 there is bread spoken of giving life to the world that is to say to all that eat it And Rom. 11.15 the world is all except the Jewes therefore by far the greater part Then 2 Cor. 5.19 Reconciling the world is meant of the whole world but conditionally The other Texts 2 Pet. 2.5 1 Joh. 5.19 which speak of the world and the whole world are clearly meant of the greatest part not of the least So all flesh Joel 2.28 is meant of all Nations all the earth as well the Gentiles as the Jewes Mundus Redemptionis in Austin is not mundus simply but restrained to those that are finally saved which is not the notion of Redemption of which we are speaking from Joh. 3.16 where God so loved the world without restraint that quicunque vellet credere whosoever would believe might have life everlasting 3. His Answer to that Objection p. 56. The world is distributed into believers and unbelievers c. is very woful For 1. Is not the word Believing a restraint of the World If so then there are some who are not believing and then there is a distribution which Mr. W. denies 2. If those who are uncalled our Saviour calls by the name of the world then the world signifies not onely the Elect for Mr. W. cannot say