and good an Apostle should do so wickedly Or that Pelagius was no Heretick nor writ against by Austin because Austin commended him so very much which 't was not likely he would have done if he had thought him a Heretick 10. Ibid. He saith his Masters are not like to need an Apology like that of the Poet Lasciva est nostra pagina vita proba est 11. He granteth that his Masters have taught in Print 1. * p. 132 133. ☞ That God is the Author of sin 2. God wills sin 3. He impells to it 4. He forceth men to it These things Mr. B. takes upon him to excuse and the manner of it is wonderful 2. To the first of the four he answers thus 1 * p. 133. Of Zuinglius his Doctrine that God is the Author of sin That he doth at no hand like it that God should be the Author of any culpable evil Reader observe his partiality and self-contradiction When the Libertines pronounce the words then he calls it with Mr. Calvin an execrable blasphemy p. 129. and curses them that are so blasphemous 54 55. but now he finds the same blasphemy in his own Masters writings the case is alter'd and the worst he saith is He doth not like it for his own part Like indulgent old Eli reproving his Sons for their sacriledge and rapine Nay my Sons it is no good report which I hear why do ye such things 1 Sam. 2.23 24. There 's his partiality And here he professeth to dislike what he frequently approves as hath been shewed commending the Authors for very Classical and owning them for his Masters There 's his self-contradiction But now he hath said he likes not the blasphemy for his own part that 's the word he shews us how vehemently he likes it for those other mens parts who are his Classical Authors First for * Ibid. Note that of all who call God the Author of sin he names onely Zuinglius omitting Borrhaus who calls him the Author of the evil of sin as well as of punishment Zuinglius he alledgeth that a little Candor would interpret him to have meant that God is the Author of the evil of punishment rather then of sin But Zuinglius his word is peccatum which signifies sin onely And he doth instance in the sins called Adultery and Murder naming them Gods works and calling God their Author See Corr. Copy p. 10. Philan. c. 4. p. 59 60. So that the best of Mr. B's excuse is this that though Zuinglius calls God the Author of sin not speaking a word of punishment in the place which I cited and so must be confessed to have meant the evil of sin yet charity should interpret that he meant the evil of punishment also and rather that then the other Or 2. if Zuinglius did mean as he spake he did not mean that God was a moral Author of sin Ibid. How Mr. B. makes God the Author of sin in that which he confesseth to be the proper notion of the word Author Look back on sect 3 4. of this Chap. so as the Devil is by way of perswasion but it seems then a natural Author of sin which is infinitely worse as acting by way of necessitation But when Mr. B. said that God doth tempt men to sin he spake of a perswasion and now he saith that to perswade unto sin doth infer the proper Author of it So he is judged and condemned out of his own mouth again to have properly made God the Author of sin 3. He saith †Ibid. it is not credible that Zuinglius should mean any other Author or Cause of sin then non removens prohibens or causa per accidens But 1. I cited his words and not his meanings either beside or against his words 2. His words will not signifie such a meaning as this Else when the world is called Gods work Mr. B. may say God was but causa per accidens and that the world was not properly his work 4. Causa per accidens if causa is extreamly bad and God is in no sense the cause of sin 5. Removens prohibens he understands not if I may guess by the Use he makes of it For Zuinglius saith that God doth make men Transgressors as well as that sin is the work of God Last of all he produceth some Popish Writers Ibid. who write as grosly as Zuinglius the Presbyterian And who did ever doubt of it Sure none that knows their consanguinity Ocham and Gabriel do affirm Ocham Gabriel affirmant quod Deus in rigore proprietate Sermonis est causa peccati Medin in 1.2 q. 79. a. that God in a rigour and propriety of speech is the cause of sin What then Therefore the rigider sort of Papists are like the rigider sort of Presbyterians 3. To the second thing which he confesseth as his Masters Doctrine 3. Mr. B. accuseth Calvin in excusing him for saying God doth will sin viz. that God doth will sin he saith these things p. 134.1 That the meaning of the Orthodox hath been often explained 2. That Calvin explains himselfe And how should that be but that though God doth will sin yet he wills it not as sin The horrid nature of which shift I have * Look back on ch 2. sect 19. And see Div. Philanth c. 4. p. 42. elsewhere displai'd This is the fountain of those unclean sayings That Adultery is good in as much as it is the work of God the Author And that all sins are good in as much as they make for Gods glory That is from Zuinglius and this from Mr. W. 3. He tells us that Mr. Calvins meaning is no worse then the Schoolmens naming a Papist in the margin Look back on ch 2. sect 3. p. 61. according to his wont To shew a very great affinity betwixt the worst sort of Papists and Presbyterians doth universally pass with Mr. B. for an Abstersion Yet this is the man who rayles so frequently at others for having any good thing common to them with the Papists 4. To the third thing granted to be the Doctrine of his Masters 4. Mr. B. accuseth Piscator and Calvin in his way of excusing them for saying that God doth thrust men into wickedness viz. That God doth drive or thrust men on into wickedness and that men do sin by Gods impulse he hath returned four things p. 134 135.1 That neither Calvin nor Piscator do understand it in a flagitious or unconscionable manner And may it not be pleaded as well for the Pharisees that although indeed they said of Christ He hath an unclean spirit Mark 3.30 yet they did not understand it in a flagitious sense 2. That when himself had affirmed Gods stirring up the wicked to their wicked deeds as a man puts spurres to a dull Jade he brought the Simile to shew that the man is the Author of the going of the horse but not
a most necessary truth to say that God is the Author or cause of sin I have more abundantly made apparent in Three distinct Tracts viz. Correct Copy p. 9 10 50. especially Div. Philanthropy defended ch 3. sect 34. p. 132. c. to p. 139. sect 35. p. 141. and again Div. Purity def ch 4. sect 3. p. 19 20. And I shall do it yet more effectually in the second and third Chapters of this following Work in particular ch 3. sect 13. 27. And therefore Thirdly That they would not so frequently and affectionately contend for that very Doctrine which sometimes though very rarely they confesse to be false blasphemous but that they find it must follow from their espoused Principles of God's Decrees so as they see they must relinquish either both or neither I have abundantly evinced in the Div. Pur. def ch 4. sect 7. p. 33 c. to p. 39. especially from the citations out of Doctor Twisse Du Moulin Remigius and the other friends of Gotteschalc Bishop Cuthert Tunstal and above all out of Prosper whom they many times dream to have been their Patron and therefore cannot gainsay him without Discomfort And again I shall evince it in several parts of the following work and in particular ch 3. sect 8. 10. Besides that the thing is so conspicuous of it self that I may venture to make the Adversary the sole Iudge of the Businesse For Nothing but their Principles of Gods Decrees can lead them to blasphemies of such a nature Sect. 8. I demand of any man living what should move such learned men as Huldericus Zuinglius Doctor Twisse Piscator Zanchy Triglandius Beza Calvin Martyr Borrhaus and many others to teach posterity in their printed works That God doth make men transgressors For the several pages of their works see the Div. Philan. def ch 3. sect 34. especially the Div. Purity def ch 4. sect 3. p. 19 20. sect 6. p. 31 32. and is the Author of adultery and that murder is the work of God and that sinners do sin by the force of Gods will that God predestines men to sin and to sin quatenus sin that he is the Author of evil not onely of punishment but of sin too that he is the cause not onely of humane actions but of the very defects and privations that he effecteth sins that he exciteth and tempteth and * All the excuse Mr. B. makes for the saying that God doth compel men to sin is that they use it but seldom See what shall be said ch 3. sect 27. num 5. compelleth men to sin and a world the like stuff I say what moved them to print such loathsom Doctrines Was it that they esteemed them as flowers of Rhetorick or witty sentences or pretty conceits or well-sounding periods or soul-saving preachments or Hosanna's to the most High This cannot be no not so much as to be imagined What invited Mr. Hobbs to say That Mr. Hobbs of Liberty and Necessiâ—y p. 23 24. sin may be necessarily caused in man by God's ordering all the world that God doth will it and necessitate it and * Id. in Animadvers p. 11. 107. 106. cause men to erre and is the principal Agent in the causing of all actions which he who saith doth also say that he findes no difference betwixt the action and the sin of that action from which great truth he should have inferred that God cannot be the cause of sinful actions not that he is the cause of sins What made the * p. 36 37 Comforter of believers to say that God is the Author of sinfulnesse it self and hath more hand in mens sinfulness then they themselves Were these Writers afraid lest men should think too reverently of God too hardly of the Devil and too profanely of themselves or were they moved with an itch to revive the Doctrine of Carneades and to make men believe that sin is nothing but a name invented by Ecclesiasticks and that the thing call'd sin is just as good as the thing call'd virtue as being equally the work of God 't is very hard to think this Or if this was one of their reasons yet it was not certainly the first But I have yet a harder Question What should move Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barlee in the very books which they have printed on purpose to vindicate their Doctrine from all the horrible absurdities wherewith they stood charged and wherein they knew it concerned them to speak as warily as they were able as knowing that they were liable to be publickly called to an account what I say should move them at such a time and in such a manner to affirm that God * For Mr. W's several pages where these things are taught see the first and second chapters of the following work especially the second and in that for instance Sect. 14. doth will and work sin that he hath an efficiency in sin that in all the wickedness in the world God hath a hand a working hand yea the chief hand that sin doth make for Gods glory and that it hath a respect of good and that God hath a hand in effecting it yea that God doth act in it as a natural cause that God decreed the sin of Adam and so ordered the whole business that he should certainly fall that it was necessary the first man should sin that the Gospel doth stirr up evil affections in the hearts of wicked men and hardens mens hearts and God intends it should do so and sends it for this very purpose that of sinful actions God is the Author and proper Cause yea that he doth both will and work in the Sin of the Act because not onely the action simply consider'd but the very Pravity and Deformity of it makes way for Gods glory What moved Mr. Barlee to adde his suffrage to Mr. Whitfield and to say in plain terms That * For Mr. B's several pages where these things are taught see the third whole chapter of the following work and the Index of the Divine Philanthropy Def. which will direct to the rest God is the Soveraign Author of the material part of sin which is the doing or leaving undone not onely a natural but moral act such as David's lying with Bathshebah or Cain's killing Abel as Doctor Twisse himself interprets the material part of sin nay farther that God is the cause of the very Obliquity of the Act of Sin that God exciteth men to the act of adultery that he stirreth them up to unjust acts as a man puts spurrs to a dull Jade that he tempts men to sin and a world the like blasphemies Nay what made him and Mr. Hick to tell the World †See what shall be said ch 3. Sect. 18. that if sin is a positive Entity either God is the Creator of sin or else sin it self is God Did this prodigious pair of Writers think that these were quaint Apophthegms which
that eternal Decrees are not every way answered by their Temporal executions God created Mankind as he was mighty but decreed to reprobate and elect as he was inâ—â—nitely just For Reprobation in all senses negative or positive imports a very sore punishment as every punishment imports a sin for which the punishment is inflicted That is most for Gods glory which is most for his justice and Mercy too but to decree a man's misery for the meer shewing of a Soveraignty over the work of his hands and therefore to decree it without respect unto sin hath nothing in it of Justice much lesse of Mercy and so is incompetible to â—im who could not chuse but be alwayes from all eternity at once a Just and a Merciful Soveraign it being destructive of his glory and by consequence of his Being that any one of his Attributes should for an Article of time exclude the other From whence it followes that Mr. Wh. hath confuted all his own Doctrine in less than two lines Nor can he be otherwise disintangled from his own dear (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lime-twiggs unless he can prove that Gods dishonour doth make most for his glory or unlesse he will adde to his other miseries that to be sinful by a Decree or to be punished without sin which by the way is a contradiction tends nothing at all to Gods dishonour But for such things as these Ishall reckon with him hereafter I hasten now to his Second General His third overthrow of himself by a most crimson contradiction Sect. 2. His second Propounding as he words it in way of General Answer to no-body-knowes-what nor doth he venture to tell us what General Objection doth very happily run thus That which the Scripture plainly clearly and positively asserteth that God doth we ought not to deny that he doth it though we cannot discern the manner how he doth it and p. 19. bear witness Reader against anon for when he comes to those Scriptures which do plainly cleerly and positively assert that Christ hath died for all men and tasted death for every man and is the proâ—itiation for the sins of the whole world and the like then the Case is alter'd with him and in a flat opposition to what he here tells us It is saith he a very weak way of arguing to argue from the signification of words especially such words as have various significations as all men every man the world the whole world and the rest which are oft-times used not to signifie every particular man and woman but a part of them onely p. 71 72. Well fare the Disputant indeed vvho vvill never lay down the Cudgels so long as he is able to break his ovvn shins with them let his cause be never so bad he vvill not fall from his principles so long as self-contradiction can hold him up rather then others of his kind shall be as saveable as He the whole world must signifie the smallest part of it and we must not argue from the signification of words we are not bound to adhere unto the letter p. 72. So abominable and impious is Universal Redemption that it cannot stand with Gods wisedome saith Mr. Whitfield not be consistent with other Scriptures nor can it agree with the Analogy of Faith p. 73. Any vvay of exposition must be invented and embraced rather then Christ must be admitted to have died for mankind But here on the contrary side vvhen Mr. W. desires to prove that God hath a hand in all sin an efficiency in sin that sin is Gods work and that God is actively the cause of sin and more such stuff as shall be shevved and cited in its proper place this is such comfortable Doctrine to a man of his life and conversation that all Texts of Scripture must be taken according to the Letter vvhose outside and Letter doth sound this vvay any thing must be svvallovved against the Analogy of Faith and against the plain tenour of all other Scriptures rather then God must be exempted from the causality of sin Mr. W. then must needs argue from the signification of words vvhich to do in other cases he calls a very great weakness p. 71. This is the man of mettle vvho cannot possibly be conquered he is under the protection of so much frailty or grant him conquered he must not possibly be caught for if he cannot out at the door he vvill escape at the window Yet I vvill follovv him so far as to lay some hold on him and vvill not vvillingly let him go until he shall promise a Recantation For if in any one case it may be pertinent in this to use the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek proverb That for a wicked man to prosper in making God the fountain and source of wickedness vvill be apt to turn to Gods discredit The name of God will be †Rom. 2.24 blasphemed among the Gentiles if such Theology as this shall pass abroad amongâ—t Christians vvithout control Observe hovv he goes on p. 19. 2. It rather becomes us humbly to acknowledge our Ignorance 0688 0136 V 2 in the manner of Gods working 2. Mr. W. enters upon the worst part of Libertinism as Mr. Calvin himself judged it Contra Libert c. 3. then to deny any of his works then to deny that he worketh all things c. then to deny that he worketh most determinately certainly and infallibly in the various and mutable motions of mans will And to shew his meaning to be no better then that of Beza Piscator and the rest of his Teachers viz. that sinful works are some of * Zuingl in Serm. de Prov. c. 5 6. Gods works and that he †Beza advers Castell Aphor. 1. 6. See The Divine Purity desended p. 21. 30. worketh all things whether good or evil without any the least exception and that God doth determine the will of man to the most sinful Act which he committeth he addes many things to make it evident that this indeed is the scope at which he here drives For he tells us a little after that when God is said in Scripture to harden mens hearts to send them strong delusions to bid Shimei curse David to bid the evil spirit go and deceive Ahab to turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people to have given up the Gentiles to vile lusts to put into the hearts of the ten Kings to give their power unto the beast and the like p. 22. we must not expound such Texts by the common Hebraism but take them as literally as we do those other wherein God is said to make the earth to form the light to create man and the like p. 23. He also saith that Gods permission of sin is not without action and operation p. 21. that he must needs have some efficiency in it p. 24. that he doth both will and work it p. 26. that he hath a hand in effecting of
Escobar Theol. Moral Tom. 1. in prael cap. 3. See the Mysterie of Jesuitisme Letter 5. p. 59 60. and Additionals second Edit p. 70 c. p. 90 c. Jesuites doctrine of Probability 8. Last of all for Mr. B. who hath spent so many whole sheets in calling me Papist Arminian Socinian Massilian Pelagian and what else he listed though I could make it undeniable even to him and his Congerrones that he hath spoken of each as if he knew nothing of any one and could prove him irresistibly by an Argument ad hominem to be a Hobbist a Mahumetan and of every other Sect of men with whom he partakes in any kind yet I shall imitate S. Austin and take a shorter course with him When that Father was accused by Secundinus for a Manichee he purged himself in this manner Secundinus saith I am a Manichee and I say I am not Let the Reader judge which of us is herein to be believed My case is the same and I will take the same course Mr. Barlee saith I am a Papist Pelagian Socinian Sorcerer c. But I say No to all his sayings I leave it now to the Reader to believe whom he pleaseth Mr. Barlee or Mr. Pierce Extende manum tange c. Job 1.11 Id est permitte ut extendam manum tangam cuncta quae possidet ut saepius in sacris Scripturis tribuuntur Deo Actiones cù solùm eas fieri permiserit August ad Simplician l. 2. q. 2. Either make the Tree good and his Fruit good or else make the Tree corrupt and his Fruit corrupt Matt. 12.33 For the Tree is known by his Fruit. Ibid. An Additional Advertisement To the Reader July 26.1658 MY present Tract being finished and wrought off at the Presse the Stationer sends me at this instant a little book of Mr. Baxter's which addresseth it self in the Title-page to no more then three men to wit Grotius the new Tilenus and Mr. Pierce but in several passages of the thing his objections reach to many more though having onely run it over with a transient eye I can remember no more particulars then Bishop Bramhall Doctor Sanderson Doctor Heylin and Doctor Taylor Had it not come a little too late and were it not more in my humour then it seems to be in Mr. Baxter's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prefer a good speed before a great deal of haste an hour or two had sufficed to have made a Winding-sheet for himself at least as suitable as that which he made for Popery But as it is I must declare to all those persons concerned in it with my self and to Tilenus the second more especially whom after all my inquiries I have not the happinesse to know in the least degree that till the end of this Summer I shall not bestow the least though upon any part of Mr. Baxter and that for these ensuing reasons First because I am praeengaged in divers matters of greater moment which will take me up wholly the next three moneths And if I return to any Dispute in any kind whatsoever as it will fall out cross to my inclinations so I resolve to do it onely at times of leisure and diversion For whilest my time may be spent in some good imployment why should I lose it in my least necessary Defences Next I desire to understand what entertainment the thing will find with considering Readers for if it seems to others what it doth to me it will tend to nothing but the disparagement of its Author Nor need I vindicate Mr. Baxter from his severities done unto himself Besides that I resolve never to controvert a subject untill the most sober unbyass't persons shall think it publickly useful as well as I. Thirdly I think it will be best to expect the final resolutions of the other persons concerned especially of the excellent Tilenus junior whom Mr. Baxter hath blurr'd with his blackest ink and if he possibly is alive to undertake his own cause the world will find 't will be but impar◠congressus Again I am told that Doctor Reynolds is at last resolved to find me work and in case it proves true I shall remember the speech of the King of Syria at Ramoth-Gilead Fight ye not with small or great save onely with the King of Israel 2 Chron. 18.30 He is so worthily reputed the Coryphaeus of that party if yet he is not too worthy to be in earnest one of them that Mr. Baxter will follow him very contentedly at a very great and humble distance Fifthly I ought to think twice before I meddle with Mr. Baxter because I find him so very liable I had almost said in every line for as much as I can judge by my short and cursory perusal of him And where advantages are too many some consideration is to be had how much of all that abundance is to be taken and left for t is a thanklesse office to acquaint a man with his unhappinesse and in the doing of that I would not willingly be endless Sixthly I am to meditate in what manner of terms I ought to deal with Mr. Baxter The desires of my soul are to use him gently but considering his guilt I know not whether my indulgence may not be hurtful to his admirers who may be apt to think well of his greatest crimes if they find me like Eli to his sons too milde a Censor Nor am I sure that my softness will not be mischievous to himself who may mistake my longanimity for carnal fear and so by sinning yet more may make a worse thing happen unto him I say not this without ground because I find him abusing my former lenity as if he imagin'd his being terrible had made me courteous Christian Reader observe my reason He doth now acknowledge to all the world and withal professeth he Praef. sect 4. p. 3. must acknowledge both my gentleness and charity and brotherly moderation in dealing with him But as if gentleness and charity and brotherly moderation were onely fit for a moral man and were the glittering sins of an Episcopal Divine he behaves himself so unexpectedly in divers passages of his Book as if he durst not imitate the best things in me and in the point of charity had thought it his duty to come behind I had done no worse then the clearing of God from those slanders which the tongue of the wicked had raised against him and the freeing my self from those other slanders which were raised against me for clearing God things confessed to be matchless and groundless slanders by the dearest friends of Mr. Barlee now at last not denied by himself when yet Mr. Baxter thinks fit to say in the depth of his passion and partiality Mr. Baxter in his Praef. addressed to Mr. T.P. Sect. 20. towards the end of it That he had rather die in the state of David before Nathan spake to him or of Peter after he had denied his Lord that is in
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
it p. â—6 And gaping so wide as he does nay wider then all this as shall be shewed in due time how can we fail to know his meaning by his gaping Let us then contemplate the large Dimensions of his swallow that at last we may demand what it is will stick with him 3. His now contradiction about the manner of Gods working 3. First an huge Contradiction goes down very glibly for as soon as his ignorance is acknowledged as to the manner of Gods working p. 19. he describes the manner of it and sets it down as dogmatically as if he had been an eye-witness and of counsel to that secret and hidden will of God which the men of his way are wont to oppose to his revealed one He saith consentingly out of * Negari non potest illum aliquo modo procurare negotium cujus consilio decreto genotium geritur Piscat ad Am. Collat. Vorst sect 17. Piscator but blusht to put it into English that God doth procure the business of sin by whose counsel and decree the business is managed or carried on p. 21. my more distinctly as to the manner in another shred of Latine which he calls a true Rule but puts it not into English The true English of it is this That * Deus agit in peccato non tanquam causa moralis sed tanquam causa naturalis God doth act in sin not as a moral but as a natural cause p. 25. that is to say He doth not so act as to perswade onely which yet is bad enough of it self and the worst that the Devil can arrive unto but in such a natural way as to necessitate the sinner which is infinitely worse then to perswade him Nor will it advantage him to say that God decreeth and procureth and is the natural cause of the positive act of every sin but the accidental cause onely of the sin it self as He and Mr. Barlee shall be shewed to say in plain terms For Davids lying with Bathsheba was the positive act of Adultery and sin it selfe but Davids lying without Bathsheba was no sin at all either in whole or in part which if Mr. Wh. cannot deny as I am sure he cannot and do challenge him to do if he thinks he may or dares to do it then must be confess it to be his Doctrine that God was the natural cause of Davids lying with Bathsheba and that that positive act of Adultery was Gods work and his Creature because of positive acts he saith that God is the proper efficient cause p. 24. This lies on him unavoidably unless he can separate the positive act of Davids lying with Bathsheba from Davids sin of Adultery which was his lying with Bathsheba and nothing else which I shall shew he cannot do if so gross a visible needs shewing when I discover how Mr. Hicks betrayed Mr. Barlee into a Blasâ— hemy no less then sins being God if a posâ—tive act and hovv Mr. B. vvas even vvith him by sending his Treachery to the Press So much for Mr. W's nevv self-contradiction 4. His downright Libertinism 4. Next Mr. W. must be observed to speak the language of the Libertines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a syllable as I lately intimated but novv shall openly express Saint Paul having said God worketh all things Eph. 1.10 meaning all the Graces of the Holy Ghost of vvhich alone he there speaks as Calvin himself confesseth the Libertines concluded as * Efficit omnia id est omnia sine exceptionâ— Beza in locum 1. Facinus puta Adulterium aut homicidium est Dei Auto. is Motoris Impulsoris opus Zuing. de Prov. c. 6. 2. Deus videri potest causa non modò humanarum actionum verùm etiam Dâ—fectuum atque Privationum quae ipsis inhaerent Pet. Mart. in 1 Sam. c. 2. 3. Deus efficit ea quae peccata sunt Sturm de Praedest Thes 16. 4. Idem facit Deus scilicet procurat adulterium maledicta mendacia Piscat resp ad Apolog. Birtii p. 143. 5. Omnes peccatores flagitiosi vi voluntatis Dei faciunt quicquid faciunt Id. Resp ad Tauffr p. 65. 6. Deus efficaciter agit seu efficit suâ efficacitate peragâ—t omnia sine ullâ prorsus quantulâcunque exceptione Beza contra castel Aphorism 1 6 7. Beza did and as Mr. W. novv doth that all their sins vvere Gods works For that vvas their rule vvhich is novv Mr. Whitfields that what the Scripture both plainly and positively asserteth that God doth we ought not to deny that he doth it p. 19. not admitting any Hebraisms or other figures of speech or restrictions and limitations of universal terms but taking all by the Letter to serve their turn as Mr. Wh. doth to serve his p. 23. Hence are those ordinary Doctrines amongst the men of that batch 1. That adultery or murder is the work of God the Author 2. That God may seem to be the cause not of humane actions only but of the very defects and privations which cleave unto them 3. That God effects those things which are sins 4. That God procures adultery cursings lyings c. 5. That all wicked men do all that they do by the force of Gods will 6. That God efficaciously acteth or effecteth and by his efficacity performeth all things without any the least exception From vvhich very saying being pronounced by the Libertines Mr. Calvin discovers tvvo horrible but unavoidable sequels 1. That there is not any difference betwixt God and the Devil 2. That God by this Doctrine is transmuted into the Devil Calv. ad eâ—s Libert cap. 13. 14. Novv vvhen the Calvinists and the Libertines do teach the very same thing vvhy shall not I hate it in the Calvinists as Calvin hated it in the Libertines nay vvhy not more since a Blasphemy is the worse not one vvhit the better for proceeding out of a learned and a leading mans mouth Tanto conspectius in se Crimen habet quanto melior qui peccat habetur Nor doth it move me that some Calvinists vvill take it ill at my hands vvhilest others not rigid vvill take it vvell for no doubt but the Libertines took it as ill of Mr. Calvin The Treasure that I covet is not their Favour but their Amendment Let this precede and that vvill follovv unavoidably I therefore ask Mr. Whitfield * A Dilemma as a touch-stone to try his meaning Is his meaning the same vvith Beza's and Peter Martyr's and the rest in my margin vvhen he saith we must not deny that God worketh all things or is is not If he say Yes he is a Libertine and Mr. Calvin shall be my witness and then let him renounce the Christian name and Religion that the * Rom. 2.24 Name of Christ be not blasphemed among the Gentiles For we who are Christians do assert that God worketh not all things without exception good or bad but all things only which
are good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all things vvhich become him All the rest are the †1 Joh. 3.8 works of the Devil and of his genuine Children vvho are resolved to do their * Job 8.41 44. Fathers works This vvas Christs Doctrine this vvas Saint Johns and Saint John believe me vvas a Christian All Gods works are done in (a) Psal 33.4 Truth therefore lyes are none of his and so * Piscat loco paulo superius citato Piscator vvas out The Lord is (b) Psal 145.17 holy in all his works Adultery and Murder are therefore none of Gods vvorks * Zuing. loc jam citat Zuinglius therefore vvas deceived by his Doctrine of Decrees and Mr. W. by Zuinglius The Lord shall (c) Psal 104.31 rejoyce in his works but hath (d) Psal 5.4 no pleasure in wickedness therefore Martin Borrhaus spake very madly when he dared to say that * Borrhaus in Exod. cap. 4. p. 448. sins do please God and Mr. Wh. more madly when he saith that God doth will sin with a perfect will p. 22. We see what must follow if Mr. W. shall answer yes to my Dilemma But if his answer shall be No then he must burn his own Books and all those Books from whence he made up his Cento and publickly subscribe to the truth of mine If he shall say his meaning is p. 22. that Gods will of which he speaks is onely objected on the wise permission or patient suffering of all sins and not upon the sins themselves why then did he entitle his book against me and not against Mr. Barlee or against his unconverted self He and I will shake hands if he will say he meant thus and not as Doctor Twisse who * See the place cited Correct Copy p. 10. saith that the will of God doth pass not onely into the permission of the sin but into the sin it self which is permitted Utrum horum mavelit accipiat Let him now take his choice and speaking distinctly to my Dilemma let the world know what he is for without any Tricks or Tergiversations But I will tell him for his security that he were better be tryed by the waters of jealousie if his meaning shal be found in the former part of the Dilemma by how much a lesser evil it is for * Num. 5.21 the thigh to rot and the belly to swell then for a man but to mean or say in his †Psal 14.1 heart that adultery and murder are the works of God And therefore timely let me advise him to use the * Num. 19.13 waters of separation that the uncleanness of such Doctrines may not be on him 5. The Determination of mans will to wicked actions is not Gods work 5. In the next place let us consider what he means by those words God worketh most determinately certainly and infallibly in the various and mutable motions of mans will I do but passingly take notice of his unscholar-like use of the word Infallible as if he knew not its meaning or did not consider its Derivation the fault is too small to be observed in a Writer of his bredth and thickness I will rather try him by another Dilemma Doth he mean that God doth so work on the wills of men as to determin them of necessity to all their objects and actions both good and evil or doth he not mean this but rather grant that mans will doth determine it self If the later all is well he hath no more to do next but to abandon his * Especially Mr. Barlee and his brother Hickman who say that whatsoever positive thing is not from God is God c. 3. p. 112. The apex of Blasphemy as shall be shewed hereafter party and burn his books whereas if the former is his meaning as hitherto it hath been I know not what to do for him to lighten the weight of his calamities which will press him down deeply do what I can For first he implyes a contradiction as I demonstrated to a person of greater worth And therefore here I repeat it not but refer him to the * See The Divine Purity defended ch 8. sect 2. p. 80 81 82. sect 5. p. 86 87. place where he cannot fail of it Next it inferreth unavoidably that God is the natural cause of all the wickedness in the world For example suppose a wicked man hath conceived Adultery in his mind or committed it in his Heart as our †Mat. 5.28 Saviour speaks If God did predetermin that wicked man to that physical Act of Concupiscence and the will of that man to a consent as well as the appetite to a complacency he was not onely the cause but the sole cause of the Adultery Nay farther yet if the inward intention of the end is the determination of the will to the first act of sin as the subtilest of them do say and if that Intenâ—ion or whatever else is the Determination of the will and the Determination it self is a positive act which none can deny and if God is the Creator or Maker or proper cause of whatsoever thing is positive as these precious ones do affirm He is not onely concluded the sole cause of the Adultry in his Creature Verum etiam id ipsum quod dicere nolo but also that which is worse and ineffably blasphemous And here I ask Mr. Wh. was that adulterous thought or intention so determined to its object in that respect evil or was it not If in that respect evil he accuseth God if not evil in that respect he acquitteth the wicked man and unavoidably inferreth that there was never any Adulterer Murderer or the like but was carried to the doing of all his wickedness with a good intention a good desire a very good determination of his will And reason good too For the Determination of mans will they say is Gods work or Gods share in the procurement and accomplishment of sins And Gods part in the business they say is good But then they leave man no share at all in his impieties if they do let them name it which they never yet did Indeed they talk in the general that God is the * Note this distinction which Mr. Barlee makes ch 3. p. 55. natural cause of the meer Act of sin and a meer Accidental Cause of the obliquity of the act of sin But bid them instance in some particular then they see that they are blind and quickly speak themselves speechless VVhen a man hates God or †Leviâ— 24.15 curseth God or any otherwise blasphemes against him let Mr. Wh. or Mr. B. or Mr. Hick be asked which is the act of that sin and which is the obliquity of the act of that sin you shall have them as mute as three dead Fishes If the cursing of God is a whole sin it is an act of sin or an obliquity of an Act or both together and that
either separably or inseparably If onely an act where is the obliquity if onely an obliquity of an act where is the act it self for all the whole sin is the cursing of God nor more nor less if both together and separably let them make that separation in words or dumb signs that we may hear and conceive it But if both are inseparably together let them confess the thousand blasphemies and the six hundred contradictions which have and may be detected in all their Doctrines and Distinctions and after confession let them amend too I ask no more 6. His meaning ferreted out of his words 6. It may from hence be collected what is meant by Mr. W. when he immediately addeth that God worketh most holily in those very Actions wherein man works unrighteously p. 19. Even the same with †See Correct Copy p. 10. Zuinglius abetted also by * Twiss Vind. Gra. l. 2. part 1. p. 36 37. Dr. Twisse that the very same sin viz. Adultery or Murder as it is the work of God the Author Mover and Impeller it is not a crime but as it is of man it is a great one which is onely to say that sin is Gods work but God is no sinner He is the Author of sin in others but sins not himself He co-operates with the sinner to the effecting of his sin but being God he is not guilty That this must be the meaning of Mr. W. I can demonstrate by many Arguments 1. By his denying Scientia media though I am not sure he understands it and holding with Mr. Calvin that God foresaw nothing but because he fore-ordained it 2. By his * Note that in his Epistle to the Reader he argues the later from the former with a must concession that there is the same reason of the fore sight of sin and the Decree of Reprobation with the foresight of Faith and the Decree of Election But 't is the Doctrine of him and all his party that Faith is the proper effect of Election and not foreseen untill decreed Vpon the very same ground to use his own words in my violentum he doth and must hold that God did not foresee sin until he had decreed it too Nor will it lessen the absurdity to say that God decreed to permit sin onely unlesse by permission he means a sufferance or a wise not hindering if so he is right but then he must burn Doctor Twisse his books and retract his own it being their constant doctrine That God's permission of sin is efficacious Nay no * Twiss Vin. Gra. l. 2. part 1 p. 142 143 c. lesse efficacious is God's decree in the permission of evil than in the production of good so very sore are their very salvo's Thirdly His meaning may be evinced as by all other passages of his book which I have and shall cite so by comparing his present words with the nature of sin it self which is found to consist in such an indivisible point that to say God works in it is to say as much as that he works it As for example To hate God is a sin or a sinful action two expressions for one thing The very sinfulness of the sin doth intirely consist in the hating of God not in God without hating for he is purity it self not in hating without God as the object of it for hatred in it self is a thing indifferent and as apt to be good as evil and even communicable to God who hateth sin with a perfect hatred but in the union and application of that act to that object As the nature of man consists not in a body oneâ—y nor onely in a soul but in the union of the one with the other so that the sinfulness of that sin of hating God is nothing else but the union of that act with that object And that is punctum indivisibile for sin it self is a Physical abstract at the * Note that there is no such thing as pecceitâ— in any Profane or Sacred Writer grossest of which sinfulness at least is an abstract Metaphysical which admitting not any Composition cannot farther be abstracted so much as in imagination How then can God work in the hating of God and that no lesse than as a natural cause for so he doth saith Mr. W. p. 25. without being the cause of the sin it self when in the hating of God there is nothing but sin Here I exact of Mr. W. to tell the World what he means or to satisfie for his words of which he dares not tell the meaning But again 4. He gives us notice of his true meaning if not of the meaning which he will own by three Texts of Scripture which he applies to the purpose of which I spake for thus run his words 7. His abuse of Scripture to serve his turn 7. How else can it be said when Josephs brethren sold him into Egypt out of envy that God sent a man before c. And when David numbred the people it is said not onely that Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number the people 1 Chron. 21.1 but that the Lord moved David against them in that he said go number Israel 2 Sam. 24.1 By these he seeks to make it credible that God doth work in the wickedst actions as a natural cause although these Texts do prove the contrary To the first and most impertinent of the two allegations I have fâ—oken so * In the Divine purity defended ch 7. Sect. 6. p. 63 64 65. largely to Doctor Reynolds that Mr. W. must fetch his answer thence To the second consisting of two contradictory Texts as to the letter I make an ease return by shewing the literal inconsistence of the one with the other unlesse the first may be allowed to explain the second For when the very same thing is said to be done by God and by Satan either one of the two must needs be figuratively spoken or else there will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 irreconcileables in Scripture not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bare appearances of Discord else farewel to Torniellus and all other Writers in that kind who reconcile the Scriptures which seem to differ and contradict First I take it for granted that the word of God is not chargeable with any self-contradictions That the very same action cannot at once be good and evil Divine and Devilish That God and Satan cannot do the same works From whence it followeth of necessity that when God is said to * Activum pro Passivo ut saepè inquit Grotius in locum move David to number the people 2 Sam. 24.1 the meaning must be He * permitted Satan to move David For so the Scripture explains it self afterwards 1 Chron. 21.1 by saying that Satan provoked David to that deed Another example will make it plainer It is said of the Devil the God of this world that he hath blinded the mindes of
speaking to his Chimaera's throughout my first Chapter and will now be shorter to make amends 1. He is at odds with D. Twisse First I observe 't is his opinion that though God worketh not in the same manner in evil actions as he doth in good or as evil men themselves do yet me must not deny that he hath any work at all in evil actions since himself doth so often and so expresly affirm it p. 23 24. Dr. Twisse and Mr. W. are at odds for the Doctor * See Correct Copy p. 10. saith undauntedly that Gods decree is no less efficacious in the permission of evil then in the production of good 2. To make men sin is a sin of the worst size 2. To say that God doth not work in sin as sinful men themselves do is no more then to say that God doth nor sin or is not a sinner but onely makes men sinners as * See Correct Copy p. 10. Zuinglius expresly speaks whom Mr. W. defendeth p. 24. but to say that God did decree sin and praedestine men to sin and work sin in men as a physical cause and compel men to sin so as they cannot but commit it is worse then truly can be said of any sinner neither Man nor Devil can compel any one to sin Tarquin could ravish Lucretia but could not compel her to be lascivious The Devil could torment and plunder Job but not compel him to be impatient Now that those men do teach that men are compelled by God to sin besides my †Div. Philanth ch 3. Sect. 34. p. 132 c. Catalogue of examples I can prove by the * Quoties quenquam impelli à Deo aut cogi dicunt rhetoricè potiùs loquuntur c. Twisse Vin. Gra. l. 2. part 1. sect 1. Crim. 3. c. 1. p. 29. confession of Doctor Twisse who doth acknowledge and excuse that very expression in his own party Besides Jeroboam did not work in Israels sins in the same manner that they did because he was not them but 't was the worst part of his Character that he made Israel to sin 2 King 15.18 24 28. yet he neither did nor could compel them It was the worst part of the unbelieving Jews that they stirred up the Gentiles and made their mindes evil affected against the brethren Act. 14.2 yet they proceeded not to compulsion Nay it was reckoned by Nathan as the worst thing in David that by the sins he had committed he had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme 2 Sam. 12.14 which was far from coaction or compulsion the very terms applied by those men to God And therefore Deodate himself though the chief Minister of Geneva denies that God is so much as the * Deodat in Prov. 16.4 occasion of sin much lesse could he judge him to be the cause or the coactor 3. Yet ascribed unto God by that sort of men 3. Though it is said by M. W. that the manner of Gods working in sin is secret not to be apprehended p. 23. yet he and his predecessors have described the manner of it in the most plentiful manner that any description can be made in They say he tempts and prostitutes and acts and operates and works and wills and seduceth draws and commands and compells and moves and drives and stirrs up to sin as a natural cause say some as a moral cause sayothers as an efficient cause of the sinful act as an accidental cause of the obliquity of the act as a man puts spurrs to a dull Jade and as a man is excited to enjoy his own wife c. All these expressions I have met with in Mr. W. partly and partly in Mr. B. yet these are far from being All they are but All which I can remember in the present haste that I am in But whosoever shall examine my several Catalogues in other books and compare them with what they find in this which now I am upon will say that all this is truth yet not the whole truth Sect. 3. 1. The easie and ordinary perversion of the Scriptures But Mr. W. proceedeth thus But all those Scriptures mentioned it may appear what little reason Mr. P. had to make such a clamour against those our Protestant Divines as if they made God to be the Author of sin when he knows that they positively professed and some of them strongly proved the contrary p. 24. So he saith and saith onely But 1. I have proved in my Sect. 1. of this Chapter that the abuse of those Scriptures is a great portion of the impiety Suppose that some Lucian should make a Cento out of the letter of the Scriptures as Ausonius did out of Virgil would the impiety of the thing be any whit the more excusable because he could shew that his expressions were all from Scripture or would it not rather be so much the worse 'T is known that Proba Falconia composed a history of the Life of Christ and a good part also of the Pentateuch of Moses from out of the works of Virgil a Heathen Poet. And out of the very same Virgil however so chast in his expressions that he hath won the Title of the Parthenian Poet Ausonius very wittily but yet most * Ingeniosum sed adeo foedum ut neque Scriptore nec Auditore dignum sir Scaliger l. 6. p. 825 detestably made up the filthiest Fescennine that hath been read Again the Empress Eudoxia writ the life of our Saviour in the words of Homer a blinder Heathen then Virgil was And were it not every whit as possible to patch up the life of Achilles in a Rhapsodie collected from the holy Pen-men of our Gospel If Mr. Wh. will know what may be done in this kind let him consult the Capilupi both Laelius and Julius set out by Henry Meibomius and Otho Gryphius of Ratisbon or Lilius Greg. Gyraldus or whom else he pleaseth Let me mind him also of this that all the Heresies in Christendom have suck't out a nourishment to themselves from the sincere milk of the word although immediately flowing from the breast of truth So great a difference is to be found amongst the several digestions of the very same meat 2 Mr. W. mistakes the Errors for the Persons of some Protestants and confounds them with the Papists 2. I did not clamour against Protestant Divines but against the heathenish asseverations which had been published in the writings of Presbyterians and Papists not only Dominicans but Jesuits also for which I * Sâ—e Div. Philâ—n ch 1. sect 5. p. 27 28. produced the confessions of Doctor Twisse and Mr. Barlee But being a Protestant my self I had by so much the greater reason to declare against the blasphemies of any Protestant Divines that I might not be accessary so much as by my silence and that some Papists might cease to say what they commonly have done that those horrible
in his creatures Mr. W. proclaims that I deny Gods omnipotence And this is just the very calumny of Atheistical * Orig. contra Cels l. 4. Celsus against Origen But I have †See Correct Copy p. 22 23. elsewhere shewed that if God were able to be the Author of such actions he were able not to be God which were onely a power of being impotent There are many things of which the Scripture saith God cannot do them As he cannot deny himself 2 Tim. 2.13 He cannot lie Tit. 1.2 What God hath promised absolutely he cannot but perform Heb. 6.18 Ge. 18. â—5 Gen. 19.22 Heb. 6.10 And therefore I am the asserter of Gods omnipotence because of his purity and Mr. W. is the man who disputes against both 6. He again is the man that denies Gods omnipotence who denies him to be able to decree the end in consideration of the means or to make a rational creature with such a liberty of will as to be able to determine his will ad hoc to this or that forbidden object without an efficiency from his creator 7. What kind of Theist may he be thought who doth not think that the creating and governing of a world and the being the Author of all good things are proofs enough of an omnipotence unlesse the filthiest actions to be imagined may be admitted for Jewels in that rich Diadem Sect. 8. 1. His second essay is an impertinence beyond Example His second Answer runs thus Doth not the Scripture tell us expresly that in him we live move and have our being Act. 17.25 As he is the Author of our being so also of those Natural motions that arise from our being p. 25. Thus the same Fallacy continues his error which made him erre And here I might repeat my former Section if that were as seemly as otherwise fit but referring my Reader thither I here will adde 1. My amazement at the impertinence for I had said It is impossible to separate the wickedness of the wicked act to wit of Blasphemy Adultery or the like from the act which is wicked And Mr. W. instead of instancing in any one wicked act and shewing how the wickedness may be separated from the act of wickedness or which is all one the wicked act doth onely tell us of things which are no wicked acts viz. our living moving and being in God c. 2. Or what is so much worse as that it ought not to be nam'd 2. If he pretends that he is not impertinent he is infinitely worse as the shallowest Reader can infer for if the Apostle there spake of wicked acts which to think is most unpardonable let him perform his enterprise by shewing which is the wickedness and which the act and by shewing the separation which he denies to be impossible 3. He is enforced to be pertinent and his Answer challenged 3. But let us inforce him to be pertinent and challenge his Answer to this Question Doth the Scripture any where say explicitely or implicitely that in God we blaspheme and murder and commit adultery such as these are confessedly the wicked acts to which I alluded in my objection Again I ask Mr. W. Can the wickedness of an actual blaspheming be possibly separated from the act of blaspheming Can the wickedness of Davids congress with Bathshebah be possibly separated from the act of his congress with Bathshebah Since his Answer of necessity must be Yes or No I am bound in duty both to God and my neighbours to exact thus much of Mr. W. That he will either shew how this may be done or confess in print that he hath undertaken impossibilities and that his first absurdity being swallowed this is one of the thousand which follow after Had he been able to shew it or had he but thought he had been able he would sure have tried and offer'd at it at least he would have taken some one wicked act for his instance displaid his tooles and begun his dissection and made us perceive this separability if not the separateness it self at least with the eyes of our Metaphysical understandings But because he hath meerly propos'd an objection and forsaken it speaking as far from his Theme as he could devise I must needs believe he understood his own weakness and felt the strength of the objection yet I am checkt in my belief by finding his answers grow worse and worse as I think will appear by what now follows Sect. 9. His third Essay is a continuance of his Tergiversation and inferreth God the efficient of sin His third Answer is this Was not Natures work the same in Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit as when he did his necessary food and in David when he lay with Bathshebah as when he lay with his lawful wife It is a true Rule Deus agit in peccato non tanquam causa moralis sed tanquam causa naturalis p. 25 Now he makes us a discovery of his mind 1. He had said a little before Answ 1. that God is the Author of the actions of nature look forward on Sect. 12 13. and a little before that that of natural motions and actions to which sin cleaves God is the efficient and proper cause p. 24. now he addes that natures work is the same in the most unlawful and lawful actions and exemplifies his meaning not onely after but before the Fall also From whence his Tenent must be concluded unavoidably this That God was the efficient and proper cause of Adam's eating the forbidden fruit as well as of his eating his necessary food and as much the efficient and proper cause of David's lying with Bathshebah as of his lying with lawful wife He shall be greater then great Apollo if he can shew the least flaw in this deduction Now to separate the act of Adam's eating forbidden fruit from the wickedness of the act which consisted in eating forbidden fruit Mr. W. doth not so much as trie And if he cannot do it hereafter neither as I am sure he cannot because it cannot be done then it is cleerly his opinion at least his Doctrine that God is the efficient and proper cause of all sin 2. Nature depraved and undepraved are opposite things 2. It was the work of undepraved nature for Adam to eat his necessary food before he eat the unnecessary forbidden food But to eat the forbidden was the ruine of nature and not the work I mean that nature wherewith God made him not simply a man but an innocent man And by Adam's eating that prohibitum Mr. W. must not think to say he meant the motion of Adam's jawes onely without his consent to the temptation or his determination of his will to a forbidden object for the eating the forbidden fruit was plainly the predicate in Mr. W's proposition as Adam was the subject of it not eating without forbidden fruit nor eating fruit without forbidden And if twenty words are in the
predicate as possibly they may they all can make but one term and are equally coupled to the subject by a never-failing verb substantive either expressed or implied 3. Adam sion'd before he eat in the determination of his will to eat 3. Besides Adam sinned before he eat in the determination of his will to eat and if that was also the work of Nature as well as his volition to eat of any lawful fruit as Mr. W. must say or eat up what he hath said then according to Mr. W. God was the efficient and proper cause of that sin also which lies in puncto indivisibili perhaps more intelligibly then others may 4. Mr. W. vindicated from his abuses put upon himself 4. Because Mr. W. hath been abused by himself in the misapprehension of his own Rule I think it my duty to disabuse him And I shall do it by saying no more then this 1. That as God doth give and continue the being of his creature with the natural endowments of such a being such as Life Loco-motive Reason and Will in his creature called Man he doth not work as a moral but as a natural cause 2. But as he moves his creature by his grace to chuse a right use of all his Faculties in applying his actions to their proper objects he onely works as a moral cause 3. And as he suffers or permits his creature to determine his will to forbidden objects and in pursuance of that choice to apply his faculties to execute what the will hath decreed be it to kill to blaspheme to hate God or the like in this third case he neither worketh as a natural or moral cause but suffers his creature to pervert and abuse his Faculties of Nature into a contrary thing to that which God made them As for example Adam's Faculty to will was the work of God and under God of Nature a very excellent and noble Faculty But Adam's applying that faculty to the forbidden fruit which was his choice or act of willing that numerical thing was neither the work of God nor of Nature Gods handmaid but the work of Adam against God and against that Nature which God had given him and which Adam with Satans help did deprave or pervert into another thing Yet am I willing that Mr. W. should say that there was in it the work of Nature if he will say that he means that work of that Nature which could not be possibly the work of God but of Adam onely in one respect and of the Devil in another 5. Five expedients proposed to undeceive M. W. by pointing at the causes of his mistakes 5. The not distinguishing rightly betwixt Nature and Nature Gods Handmaid and his Rebel Nature created by the good will of God and Nature corrupted by the wicked will of the creature doth seem to me a prime cause of Mr. W's errors in this affair Another cause doth seem to be his want of a steady consideration that Adam's sin did begin in the first aversion of his will which was his rational appetite from God and his Precept unto the creature which was forbidden His determining of his will per actum imperatum to the forbidden object was the same sin in its growth His actual eating in obedience to that Empire of his will was the same sin in its perfection In each of which three acts God had no hand at all which because Mr. W. did not discern the third cause of his errors doth seem to be his not continuing to meditate or to remember that the Being of sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the habitude and * This confessed by Dr. Twisse himself in Vin. Gra. l. 2. par 2. Crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 155. Col. 2. relation and indissoluble connexion of a voluntary act to a forbidden object after a fancied separation of which two we cannot so much as fancy the sin to be For consider Adam's eating as unapplied to forbidden fruit and so it cannot be conceived to be a sin any more then the eating of a natural Agent it being as natural to eat as to grow by eating Which makes me guesse a fourth cause of Mr. W's error to be this that either he did not exactly know or not incessantly bear in mind that the same man as to several actions is both a natural and a voluntary agent We eat and drink as we are animals but we fast and pray and do our duties or eat and drink against Precept as we are men the former as we are spiritual and the later as carnal men But Mr. W. in his instances of Adam and David did confound the brutish with the rational property of the men The fifth cause of his miscarriage doth seem to be his not animadverting that sin is a concrete in respect of sinfulness and notes the same thing in one word which sinful act doth note in two which I will make him apprehend do what he can to the contrary beside not reading what I am writing by shewing that a sin and a sinful * Note that what is said of a sinfull Act is as true if applyed to action or motion which are also Mr. W's Termes act have the same enunciation in all propositions to be imagined Ex Gr. It is as true a praedication and in sense the same to say that David's lying with Bathshebah was his sin as to say it was his sinful act Again as true a praedication and in sense the same to say it was his adultery as to say his adultery was his sin Mr. VV. shall find upon every turn of the tongue that these terms are convertible and that in Recto and finding that he will confess that either he must separate the same thing from it self or acknowledge his making God to be efficient of sin Thus far am I brought beyond what I was bound to or at first intended by the meer strength of my desire to convert my Aggressor whil'st I confute him And having done thus I shall onely put him in mind of his concurrence with Mr. B. as well as of his discord with Doctor Twisse 1. He concurres with that of Mr. B. That Gods concurrence and excitation to the Act of adultery and to the husbands lying with his lawful wife is the same ch 3. p. 12. 2. He is at discord with Doctor Twisse who saith that * See Correct◠Copy p. 10. God doth so administer the occasions of sin and doth so urge them that they smite the sinners mind c. which is to act in sin as a moral cause whereas Mr. W. affirms his acting to be as a natural cause only I will not exagitate the noysome instance by which he clears his meaning to us nor will I shew how he hath gratified his carnal Readers I rather hasten to his ensuing words Sect. 10. His fourth essay infers the wickedest Actions to be good and from God His fourth Answer is That every new action and motion
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 what is future and so of all sins is after his praedetermination two gross absurdities not repugnant onely to reason and common sense but inconsistent with one another yet both affirm'd by the same sort of men By Mr. Hobbs amongst others in his Animadversions on Bishop Bramhal In his Answ to an Object p. 40. of his Extent of Div. Prov. Mr. B. c. 3. p. 26. and Mr. Hobbs p. 108. 2. They will soon quit the first if they have but the patience to conside◠2. The nature of knowledge opened and distinguished from decree that scientia est habitus conclusionis as simplex intelligentia is principiorum VVhen the mind is in possession of any conclusion immediately flowing from the premisses and united to them by an essential tye then the rational Agent is said properly to know Scire est per causam scire To know is not to make either the cause or the effect but to find out the effect by the cause as in Demonstration à priori or to track the cause by the footsteps of the effect as in Demonstration à posteriori This is great plainness to such as know but a little Latine but I labour for them who understand none at all to them I speak thus To know is properly an Act of the Intellect but to decree or determine is an Act of the Will The Act of knowing presupposeth the object which needs must be knowable by a priority of nature before it is possible to be actually known There may be scibile or a thing knowable where there is * Note that scibile and scientia are only Kelata secundum à ci and are not capable of being both ways converted per conversionem simplicem in respect of us who are not omniscient In which respect only this thing is spoken not yet scientia or an actual knowledge of it such as a very great part of the habitable world until Christopher Columbus and Americus Vespusius had begun their Discoveries But an actual knowledge cannot possibly be imagined before an object knowable nay must imply its being actually known And though the object is future as in all foreknowledge yet even then it must be actual in its Idea and made present unto the mind by its intelligible species In which respect it was rightly affirmed by the †Plotin Enn. 5. l. 9. c. 13. Enn. 6. l. 3. c. 1. Platonicks that before the Creation of this visible world there was in Gods mind a World Intelligible that is an Exemplary Cause an idea or Platform according to which the world was made But now to Decree is another thing as being an act of the will and being supposed to be absolute is for that very reason effective also For though Gods Decree alone abstractively considered will not cause a necessity yet his decreeing to do being alwayes followed with his doing what he decreeeth must needs in sensu isto composito necessitate the object which is decreed 3. Gods foreknowledge doth not make things simply to be and therefore makes them not to be of necessity 3. Though Gods absolute decree of doing any thing doth cause a necessity of the event yet his foreknowledge doth not nor possibly can it But his Decree I speak of must needs do both This may be illustrated by a Physicians foreknowledge of alteration in the Patient upon a critical day which yet hath nothing of efficiency in its coming to pass But if the Physician doth decree to work a change in the Patient by such or such means as he resolves on he is then the Author of such a change and if it be with a purpose to dispatch the Patient it is not his prophecy but his murder 4. If Gods foreknowledge did imprint a real necessity on the things foreknown 4. The absurdity which would follow if it were so this portentous absurdity would unavoidably follow that he must act in nothing freely but in every thing as a necessitated and limited Agent A blasphemy not to be escaped but by the denial of his omniscience from all Eternity which is every whit as great a blasphemy And to the same inconvenience the irrespective predestination must needs be subject 5. If Gods foreknowledge did necessitate the things foreknown it was either simply as foreknowledge 5. Other absurdities which would follow or as Gods foreknowledge in particular Not as the first because then the foreknowledge of every man that can prophesie would be the cause of things future which he foretells Cyrus then had been beholding to the Prophet Isaiah for his birth because the Prophet foreknew it a hundred years beforehand Not as the first therefore nor yet as the * Note that God foreknew what himself would chuse to do yet did not necessitate himself He eternally foreknew that he would in time let Adam fall and not onely let him but help him to rise unto repentance yet who dares say he was necessitated to either second because the act is not the cause of the object but by a priority of order as I shewed before the object of knowledge is before the act how long soever it may be after by a posteriority of Time It must first have been true that there should be such a man as Cyrus or else it had not been possible for the holy Prophet to have foreknown it God foreknew all things that are good as being certain that he would do them and he also foreknew all things that are evil as being certain that wicked Agents would freely do them if they were not hindered and as certain that he would not hinder but permit or suffer them to be done Both were present to his omniscience from all eternity 6. There is no quicker way to make this point most plain and easie 6. An Argument taken from the knowledge of what is past then by bidding the obstinate to consider that knowledge is as properly of things past as future But it implies a contradiction for a present act of knowledge to necessitate or cause a thing quite past The Almighty knows at this instant that Adam fell as well as he knew from eternity that Adam would fall Now all acts of true knowledge must needs imply infallibility else it cannot be perfect knowledge but some other thing as confidence belief opinion suspicion or shrewd conjecture From whence it follows that all acts of true knowledge do infer a necessity although they cannot make any to wit a necessity of consequence arising from the truth of a proposition But such a necessity is inferred from every true knowledge of what is past as well as from a foreknowledge of what is coming which my hasty Adversaries having not hitherto considered they have incessantly confounded it with the antecedent and absolute necessity of the consequent even such as is conferred by every cause on its effect And therefore next I must enforce them do what they can to the contrary to discern a palpable difference
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
being desirous to shew his good will to Mr. Rivet whom I had proved to be guilty of making God the Author of sin by saying the very inclination which Adam had to sin before he sinned could not chuse but be vitious and yet of God's making is fain to commit a world of faults for the making a salve to that one sore from p. 139. to p. 144. The chief ingredients in his salve are those that follow 1. Rivet was a strong Disputant before Mr. T.P. was brought forth into the world the same which he had pleaded for Mr. W. as if the oldest men must needs be-most orthodox and of quicker sight then their juniors 2. Other eminent men have used that argument as well as he as if to erre in company were either to be orthodox or very neer it 3. He speaks of concupiscence and lust which are a couple of sins whereas the question is onely of Adam's inclination before his very first sin 4. He speaks of lust after the fall Rom. 7.7 and which was in the will too whereas the subject of the dispute was before the fall nor in the will but in the appetite And so he either understands not or wilfully flies from the thing in question 5. He calls an inclination to sin a weighty plummet inclining at once an abstract and concrete in one and the same respect 6. He saith that Adam even before the fall had the Devils image upon him as well as God's if his inclination to sin was before his first sin as if he thought that potentia could not be before actus 7. He confounds temptation to sin with sin 8. He asks why I should be shie of granting that Christ had any inclination to sin which why should he ask if he did not think that impious thing which he imputes to Castellio without the least citation from him 9. He confesseth he cannot tell how to salve those absurdities which I had shewed his opinion must needs betray him into as progressus in infinitum and prius primo 10. He saith out of * Nulla peccati Adami in Adamo reddi eausa potest quae non sit ipsa peccatum Camero contra Epist viri docti p. 163. Camero that there could be no cause of Adam 's sin which was not also it self a sin And so his party by consequence must needs be charged by him and Camero with the crime of making God to be sin it self as often as they call him the cause of sin 2. Concerning the birth growth of the very first sin with the very wide difference betwixt the inclinations of the sensitive appetite and the will 2. Though I need not say more then what remains unassaulted in my Defence of the Divine Philanthropy ch 4. p. 23 24 25. or more then what I have added in the eighteenth Section of this Chapter Num. 6. yet because his understanding may be as dark in this Point as his will crooked I will endeavour to afford him sufficient light The inclination of the will to evil differs much from that of the sensitive appetite to which the Apple even in Paradise was very grateful The will we know is the middle faculty betwixt the sensitive appetite on one side and the reasoning faculty on the other The propension of the will to the sensitive appetite 's proposal of what forbidden was the very beginning of Adam's sin it having been his first degree of aversion from God unto the creature thus it was in Eve also before it was in Adam and was a sin in her will some insensible time before her eating but her fulness of consent and actual eating and giving her husband to eat also were all additions to that first sin which I call the first for this reason because nothing of sin can be so much as imagined before the propending of the will to the forbidden object and because it was in the will before it could be in the hand or mouth The very next degree of sin to the propending of the will was Delectation next Morosa Cogitatio next a plenitude of Consent next the actual eating what was forbidden But now the gratefulness of the sweet to one sense and of fair to another is less then the least of those degrees and the inclination of the sensitive appetite could be no sin at all remaining onely in the sense and winning nothing from the will which continued as yet in its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But when the will of Eve was debauched by her appetite into an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a bending of her will the wrong way so as her mind did hang or hanker after the apple that was clearly the beginning of her transgression Sect. 30. The importance of the word Author To conclude the whole Chapter and so to quit the whole subject I must satisfie a complaint which Mr. B. hath made c. 3. p. 129. That I charged him and his Masters with the crime of having said a great deal worse and in much worse terms then that God is verbatim the Author of sin Now that he may not complain afresh of his having complained to no purpose and to the end he may beware of rash complainings for the future I will prove my charge in such a manner as not to leave his very abettors the possibility to dissent The most succinct way to do it will be to lay down the whole importance of the aequivocal word Author and then to compare it with those expressions which are confessed by Mr. B. to have been used by his Masters as well as Brethren 1. Author quando que 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat quandoque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Priscian lib. 5. Idem valet quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Coel. Sec. Cur. Author est ut sic dicam Factor Laur. Val. l. 4. Hortator Author Cic. in partit Orat. 52. Consiliario Authore aliquid inire legitur apud Cic. ad Alt. l. 14.305.4 Suasor Author deditionis Cic. 3. Offic. p. 147. Author est in quo est vis potestas dignitas Liv. l. 1. ab urbe cond 72. Impero Authorque sumut me cuivis castrandum loces Plaut Aul. 7.73 suspende vinci verbera Author sum sino Idem Poenal 3.17 Authorâ—est à quo quis jus comparavit Cic. 7. Verr. Authores pupillorum vocantur in quorum administratione infirma aetas resque eorum sunt Paulus Juriscon Authores sunt qui Authoritatem suam decretum interponunt Liv. l. 1. ab urb cond Viae Author qui viam monstrat aut qui ire jubet Ovid. 3. Metam Etiam Duces militum Authores vocabantur Valla. l. 4. 1. Author sometimes doth signifie the first beginner of a work sometimes him who doth help advance it sometimes a factor sometimes onely a perswader sometimes a sole cause sometimes a concause sometimes a person of power and dignity by whose advice or command a thing is done sometimes him who confers a right sometimes
time in exposing these Authors to more pity and their Doctrines to more contempt 1. I am told by men of knowledge that their books are already become waste paper bought by a few onely of the many and read contentedly by none at all 2. I am importuned by divers not to consider them over-much who have not a dangerous plausibility amongst the vulgar but to reserve my spare houres for the most popular man of that party who as I am credibly informed is doing his utmost to find me work 3. They have adventured to nibble and but to nibble at so few things in my Answer that they do tacitely grant the greatest part to have left no colour for a Reply 4. A great part of their performances are visible shifts rather then serious oppositions even mean transitions à genere ad genus easie sneakings ab Hypothesi ad Thesin at every pinch Ignorationes Elenchi purposed sittings beside the Cushion and many times betwixt two stools too gratis dicta are their very least frailties as studied forgeries are the greatest and I confess it is painful to spend much time with Domitian in killing Flies 5. When they are brought to such straits that they find not a crevice or a key-hole whereat to attempt a creeping out they yield themselves up and all for which they have contended without so much as making any terms of mercy As for example Certissimum est nobis Decrevisse ut non nisi nolentes atque impii perderentur Twiss Vin. Gr. l. 1. p. 100. Mr. B. professeth He doth readily yield that God did not absolutely decree the Reprobation positive of any creature but upon praescience and supposition of wilful rebellion and impenitence p. 70 71. nay he professeth this to be the Doctrine of all Orthodox Writers ancient and modern p. 70. And why should He be much talked with who confesseth all in one breath which he denieth in another See the Div. Philanth ch 4. p. 4. especially p. 5. yet no sooner gets he loose but he denies the very thing which the necessity of his affairs had made him confess and pleads for want of a better excuse Lapsus linguae non est error mentis p. 77. what cares he how he miscarries who can so easily make amends 6. When this evader is so stomachful that he will not yield and yet so despairing of success that he will not resist a cogent Argument he makes no scruple to profess a Tergiversation As for example when I had pressed him with a * See the Div. Phi. ch 3. p. 65. Dilemma of huge importance even evincing out of his mouth that his Distinction of Positive and Negative Reprobation was but a shift he contents himself with this return Mr. Barlee needs not answer that Dilemma p. 81. And so when he knowes not what to say to the convincing points of my reasonings about the general extent and sincere intent of Christ's death he gives me the slip in these words It would be superfluous labour to spend more time and paper in giving more particular answers to his luxuriant discourses p. 93. 7. Mr. W. and he and Mr. Hobbs are so frequently condemned out of their own mouths that they would need no Confuters besides themselves if all their Readers were but attentive To give a few instances of many Mr. W. saith p. 29. God is not the Author of evil because not causa per se but per accidens Yet in his extent of Div. Prov. p. 40. he saith that causa per accidens never works till causa per se sets it on work Now because it is not man who sets God on work it is plainly his meaning that God is causa per se of sin and sets man on work who is causa per accidens which others call a deficient cause Again he confesseth in his last Work p. 25. that if it is impossible to separate the sin from the action then he who is the Author of the one is also of the other Yet he also confesseth p. 37. that the modi rerum are not really distinguished from the things themselves but so neerly conjoined as they cannot be separated Nor can any reason be rendred why Doctor Twisse should say Mr. Hobbs his prodigious self-contradictions that Fornication denoteth sin even secundùm materiale except this one that the sin is inseparable from the Act. In like manner Mr. Hobbs though he saith in * Of Lib. and Necess p. 23. one place that sins are actions and in †Quaest Num 12. p. 105. another place that God is the cause of all actions and in a * Ibid. p. 107. third place that he is a principal Agent in the causing of all actions yet he †Ibid. p. 105 106. denies him to be the Author of the actions which he causeth And his reason for it is more prodigious then all the rest for God saith he cannot be said to be the Author of sin because he doth but necessitate it not command or warrant it p. 105 106. yet even this last he contradicts too by saying that * Of Lib. and Necess p. 22. power irresistible doth justifie all actions Now that which necessitates is power irresistible and that which justifies doth warrant and he saith that that which warrants is the Author of sin Qu. p. 106. and that sin must needs derive a necessity from God p. 105. and the greatest men of his Principle do say that God commands men to sin which he confesseth is to call him the Author of sin p. 106. Nay he * Q. p. 11. l. 7 8 9 10. from the bottom elsewhere professeth that a man must not SAY God hath caused him to erre and it is through the Lord that he fell away but he may THINK so very well And wo had been to Ecclesiasticus had he denied it Nor is there any thing more common with these men then to say that sin is necessary as decreed by God although contingent as freely willed by man Now necessary being that which cannot chuse but be and contingent that which either may or may not be what is this but to say it is necessary as decreed but not necessary as not decreed It cannot but be and yet it might possibly not have been it is contingent and not contingent which is as if they should say we cannot deny our Adversaries Premisses and therefore we must hold the one part of the contradiction but we will not quit our own conclusion and therefore we must hold the other part of the contradiction Thus by their own way of arguing they are men and they are not they are men as being indued with Reason and they are not as being indued with none Sure that sort of men is no longer to be disputed with who have drank so deeply and digested and reduced also to practice the * Quamcunque duarum viarum primò diversarum homines inicrint recta tendunt ad superos