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
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
to the subversion not of the Christian Religion onely but even of that ingenuity and civil nature which hath hitherto prevailed amongst Turks and Infidels The making of God to be an Author and Cause of sin Voetius confesseth to be * Voetius in Method Resp. Calum p. 1136. absurd and sottish and implying a contradiction horrid blasphemous scandalous against all Theologie and the consent of Christendom against the light of nature and the dictates of reason If Voetius say thus much more may I. Again to say that God hath imposed a necessity of sinning upon his creatures is concluded by †Hist Gottesch c. 11. p. 173. R g. 5. Remigius to be a charging God foolishly as the Author of sin which Doctor Whitaker affirmes to be a very * Dr. Whitaker contra Dâ—raeum l. 8. sect 1. p. 524. great blasphemy Nay whether it is not the greatest to be imagined let the Reader conjecture by that which followes 1. The greatest blasphemy is that which ascribes to God as the Principal Cause and Contriver the very worst of the worst that can be possibly imagined 2. That is the worst of the worst which is the very worst thing in the Devil himself 3. The Devil hath nothing worse in him then a necessity of sinning or an impossibility to abstain from sin 4. Therefore to say that God Almighty did eternally cause or contrive decree or praedestin a necessity of sinning in a great part of the Angels and in the greatest part of mankind is the greatest blasphemy to be imagined That this is frequently to be met with in a great variety of Writers the intelligent Reader needs not be told And such a variety he will meet with in the following Treatise For though that rigid Ternary of Presbyterians Mr. W. Mr. B. and Mr. H. may seem to be the chief in my consideration yet my Reader will much misunderstand me if he thinks that Writers of their Pitch could have drawn so many sheets from me upon the sole account of their own atchievements Had I spent so great a share of my precious time upon but two or three Aggressors of no greater fame and consideration I had done much more then I could have answered if not to my conscience yet at least to my discretion Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barlee in their several songs to the same Tune which they both intitle their vindications were of themselves sufficient to be the principal occasions of this my enterprise but the impulsive causes were much more worthy For I look upon these two as on a couple of Chymists whose very Quintessence and Elixir of strength and subtilty I clearly discover to have been fetched from the publick Elaboratories of the greatest Artists both of the upper and lower way and in a more especial manner of Mr. Calvin and Doctor Twisse whose good Latine they have turned into no good English and what for many years together they had been gathering they have at once produced in the great and in the profuseness of their humour have shed it abroad amongst the people It hath been therefore my chiefest aim to enfeeble those Armories and Magazins from whence these Combatants have borrowed their choicest weapons whether engaged in their offensive or defensive quarrells I have allowed Mr. W. the first and chief place in my consideration I mean in respect of Mr. B. and Mr. H. first because he is a person of the greatest gravity and the †So saith Mr. B. in his Neces V.n.c. â— p. 32. l penult grayest haire and one who was versed in these Controversies as Mr. Barlee saith often * Introduct p. 3 ch 3. p. 18. before I was born or brought forth into the lâ—ght before I had a head or an eye one who subscribed the 39. Articles * Ibid. p. 40. before there was any such thing in the world as Mr. T. P. Lastly †ch 2. p. 34. Old enough and wise enough to be my father When I observed Mr. B. upbraiding to me my want of years †Ibid. p. 49. more then any other thing not one y in these pages which I have cited but in many more which I conceal calling me one while a * c. 2. p. 41. Demure Junior and another while a †c. 2. p. 53. Juvenal Divine sometimes objecting his * Ch. 2. p. 27. own antiquity and Mr. W's extremely often as if he thought that old age were the strongest * The weakness of it is visible in the Sâ—nner Impleaded p. 300 301. argument in the world against what ever had been alledged by one who followed them into the world at some years distance I comforted my self with the remembrance that I did not chuse my nativity nor was I the Lord of my own Horoscope and in regard I was as old as I was able to be by any means it would no be reckoned as my fault that I could not plead my longevity for the advantaging of my cause It a â—pears by the words of * 1 Tim. 4.12 S. Paul to Timothy that a Priest is too apt to be despised for his youth And to remove that stumbling-block out of the old man's way he shall know that our Lord and Saviour did not quite attain to my years in his Peregrination upon the earth S. John and S. Timothy were both but young men when yet the first was an Apostle and the second a Bishop If Argumentation and Orthodoxy were to be reckoned by a man's age I am sure the old Serpent would go beyond them And though I my self am far from it yet the truth which I assert hath Age enough to become an Argument * Quod primum verum est Tertul. So that from this day forwards I hope the difference of years betwixt my adversaries and me which they have hitherto more insisted on in all theâ—r publick and private chat then upon any one thing which they have conceived to be of use shall be no longer an ingredient in our dispute yet this is one reason why * Job 32.4 6.7 Mr. W. comes first into my consideration Another reason is because he publickly made me a second challenge from the Presse when I had in modesty and in mercy refused his first as having been backward and unwilling to expose his age to inconvenience for which reason also I have been sparing to Mr. Cawdrey notwithstanding his publick and grand abuses but finding he thought himself unanswerable in that he saw he was not answerâ—d I straight concluded it a charity to undeceive him A third reasonâ—s because he professeth in his Preface to his first book which he hath boldly repeated in his second that he * Ext. of Div. Prov. is Praef. p. goes hâ—ghâ—r then other Divines of his party in making God have an active hand in the actions of sinful men How much higher then the most the Reader shortly will see and wonder Adde to this my having heard that
that eternal Decrees are not every way answered by their Temporal executions God created Mankind as he was mighty but decreed to reprobate and elect as he was inâ—â—nitely just For Reprobation in all senses negative or positive imports a very sore punishment as every punishment imports a sin for which the punishment is inflicted That is most for Gods glory which is most for his justice and Mercy too but to decree a man's misery for the meer shewing of a Soveraignty over the work of his hands and therefore to decree it without respect unto sin hath nothing in it of Justice much lesse of Mercy and so is incompetible to â—im who could not chuse but be alwayes from all eternity at once a Just and a Merciful Soveraign it being destructive of his glory and by consequence of his Being that any one of his Attributes should for an Article of time exclude the other From whence it followes that Mr. Wh. hath confuted all his own Doctrine in less than two lines Nor can he be otherwise disintangled from his own dear (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lime-twiggs unless he can prove that Gods dishonour doth make most for his glory or unlesse he will adde to his other miseries that to be sinful by a Decree or to be punished without sin which by the way is a contradiction tends nothing at all to Gods dishonour But for such things as these Ishall reckon with him hereafter I hasten now to his Second General His third overthrow of himself by a most crimson contradiction Sect. 2. His second Propounding as he words it in way of General Answer to no-body-knowes-what nor doth he venture to tell us what General Objection doth very happily run thus That which the Scripture plainly clearly and positively asserteth that God doth we ought not to deny that he doth it though we cannot discern the manner how he doth it and p. 19. bear witness Reader against anon for when he comes to those Scriptures which do plainly cleerly and positively assert that Christ hath died for all men and tasted death for every man and is the proâ—itiation for the sins of the whole world and the like then the Case is alter'd with him and in a flat opposition to what he here tells us It is saith he a very weak way of arguing to argue from the signification of words especially such words as have various significations as all men every man the world the whole world and the rest which are oft-times used not to signifie every particular man and woman but a part of them onely p. 71 72. Well fare the Disputant indeed vvho vvill never lay down the Cudgels so long as he is able to break his ovvn shins with them let his cause be never so bad he vvill not fall from his principles so long as self-contradiction can hold him up rather then others of his kind shall be as saveable as He the whole world must signifie the smallest part of it and we must not argue from the signification of words we are not bound to adhere unto the letter p. 72. So abominable and impious is Universal Redemption that it cannot stand with Gods wisedome saith Mr. Whitfield not be consistent with other Scriptures nor can it agree with the Analogy of Faith p. 73. Any vvay of exposition must be invented and embraced rather then Christ must be admitted to have died for mankind But here on the contrary side vvhen Mr. W. desires to prove that God hath a hand in all sin an efficiency in sin that sin is Gods work and that God is actively the cause of sin and more such stuff as shall be shevved and cited in its proper place this is such comfortable Doctrine to a man of his life and conversation that all Texts of Scripture must be taken according to the Letter vvhose outside and Letter doth sound this vvay any thing must be svvallovved against the Analogy of Faith and against the plain tenour of all other Scriptures rather then God must be exempted from the causality of sin Mr. W. then must needs argue from the signification of words vvhich to do in other cases he calls a very great weakness p. 71. This is the man of mettle vvho cannot possibly be conquered he is under the protection of so much frailty or grant him conquered he must not possibly be caught for if he cannot out at the door he vvill escape at the window Yet I vvill follovv him so far as to lay some hold on him and vvill not vvillingly let him go until he shall promise a Recantation For if in any one case it may be pertinent in this to use the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek proverb That for a wicked man to prosper in making God the fountain and source of wickedness vvill be apt to turn to Gods discredit The name of God will be †Rom. 2.24 blasphemed among the Gentiles if such Theology as this shall pass abroad amongâ—t Christians vvithout control Observe hovv he goes on p. 19. 2. It rather becomes us humbly to acknowledge our Ignorance 0688 0136 V 2 in the manner of Gods working 2. Mr. W. enters upon the worst part of Libertinism as Mr. Calvin himself judged it Contra Libert c. 3. then to deny any of his works then to deny that he worketh all things c. then to deny that he worketh most determinately certainly and infallibly in the various and mutable motions of mans will And to shew his meaning to be no better then that of Beza Piscator and the rest of his Teachers viz. that sinful works are some of * Zuingl in Serm. de Prov. c. 5 6. Gods works and that he †Beza advers Castell Aphor. 1. 6. See The Divine Purity desended p. 21. 30. worketh all things whether good or evil without any the least exception and that God doth determine the will of man to the most sinful Act which he committeth he addes many things to make it evident that this indeed is the scope at which he here drives For he tells us a little after that when God is said in Scripture to harden mens hearts to send them strong delusions to bid Shimei curse David to bid the evil spirit go and deceive Ahab to turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people to have given up the Gentiles to vile lusts to put into the hearts of the ten Kings to give their power unto the beast and the like p. 22. we must not expound such Texts by the common Hebraism but take them as literally as we do those other wherein God is said to make the earth to form the light to create man and the like p. 23. He also saith that Gods permission of sin is not without action and operation p. 21. that he must needs have some efficiency in it p. 24. that he doth both will and work it p. 26. that he hath a hand in effecting of
it p. â—6 And gaping so wide as he does nay wider then all this as shall be shewed in due time how can we fail to know his meaning by his gaping Let us then contemplate the large Dimensions of his swallow that at last we may demand what it is will stick with him 3. His now contradiction about the manner of Gods working 3. First an huge Contradiction goes down very glibly for as soon as his ignorance is acknowledged as to the manner of Gods working p. 19. he describes the manner of it and sets it down as dogmatically as if he had been an eye-witness and of counsel to that secret and hidden will of God which the men of his way are wont to oppose to his revealed one He saith consentingly out of * Negari non potest illum aliquo modo procurare negotium cujus consilio decreto genotium geritur Piscat ad Am. Collat. Vorst sect 17. Piscator but blusht to put it into English that God doth procure the business of sin by whose counsel and decree the business is managed or carried on p. 21. my more distinctly as to the manner in another shred of Latine which he calls a true Rule but puts it not into English The true English of it is this That * Deus agit in peccato non tanquam causa moralis sed tanquam causa naturalis God doth act in sin not as a moral but as a natural cause p. 25. that is to say He doth not so act as to perswade onely which yet is bad enough of it self and the worst that the Devil can arrive unto but in such a natural way as to necessitate the sinner which is infinitely worse then to perswade him Nor will it advantage him to say that God decreeth and procureth and is the natural cause of the positive act of every sin but the accidental cause onely of the sin it self as He and Mr. Barlee shall be shewed to say in plain terms For Davids lying with Bathsheba was the positive act of Adultery and sin it selfe but Davids lying without Bathsheba was no sin at all either in whole or in part which if Mr. Wh. cannot deny as I am sure he cannot and do challenge him to do if he thinks he may or dares to do it then must be confess it to be his Doctrine that God was the natural cause of Davids lying with Bathsheba and that that positive act of Adultery was Gods work and his Creature because of positive acts he saith that God is the proper efficient cause p. 24. This lies on him unavoidably unless he can separate the positive act of Davids lying with Bathsheba from Davids sin of Adultery which was his lying with Bathsheba and nothing else which I shall shew he cannot do if so gross a visible needs shewing when I discover how Mr. Hicks betrayed Mr. Barlee into a Blasâ— hemy no less then sins being God if a posâ—tive act and hovv Mr. B. vvas even vvith him by sending his Treachery to the Press So much for Mr. W's nevv self-contradiction 4. His downright Libertinism 4. Next Mr. W. must be observed to speak the language of the Libertines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a syllable as I lately intimated but novv shall openly express Saint Paul having said God worketh all things Eph. 1.10 meaning all the Graces of the Holy Ghost of vvhich alone he there speaks as Calvin himself confesseth the Libertines concluded as * Efficit omnia id est omnia sine exceptionâ— Beza in locum 1. Facinus puta Adulterium aut homicidium est Dei Auto. is Motoris Impulsoris opus Zuing. de Prov. c. 6. 2. Deus videri potest causa non modò humanarum actionum verùm etiam Dâ—fectuum atque Privationum quae ipsis inhaerent Pet. Mart. in 1 Sam. c. 2. 3. Deus efficit ea quae peccata sunt Sturm de Praedest Thes 16. 4. Idem facit Deus scilicet procurat adulterium maledicta mendacia Piscat resp ad Apolog. Birtii p. 143. 5. Omnes peccatores flagitiosi vi voluntatis Dei faciunt quicquid faciunt Id. Resp ad Tauffr p. 65. 6. Deus efficaciter agit seu efficit suâ efficacitate peragâ—t omnia sine ullâ prorsus quantulâcunque exceptione Beza contra castel Aphorism 1 6 7. Beza did and as Mr. W. novv doth that all their sins vvere Gods works For that vvas their rule vvhich is novv Mr. Whitfields that what the Scripture both plainly and positively asserteth that God doth we ought not to deny that he doth it p. 19. not admitting any Hebraisms or other figures of speech or restrictions and limitations of universal terms but taking all by the Letter to serve their turn as Mr. Wh. doth to serve his p. 23. Hence are those ordinary Doctrines amongst the men of that batch 1. That adultery or murder is the work of God the Author 2. That God may seem to be the cause not of humane actions only but of the very defects and privations which cleave unto them 3. That God effects those things which are sins 4. That God procures adultery cursings lyings c. 5. That all wicked men do all that they do by the force of Gods will 6. That God efficaciously acteth or effecteth and by his efficacity performeth all things without any the least exception From vvhich very saying being pronounced by the Libertines Mr. Calvin discovers tvvo horrible but unavoidable sequels 1. That there is not any difference betwixt God and the Devil 2. That God by this Doctrine is transmuted into the Devil Calv. ad eâ—s Libert cap. 13. 14. Novv vvhen the Calvinists and the Libertines do teach the very same thing vvhy shall not I hate it in the Calvinists as Calvin hated it in the Libertines nay vvhy not more since a Blasphemy is the worse not one vvhit the better for proceeding out of a learned and a leading mans mouth Tanto conspectius in se Crimen habet quanto melior qui peccat habetur Nor doth it move me that some Calvinists vvill take it ill at my hands vvhilest others not rigid vvill take it vvell for no doubt but the Libertines took it as ill of Mr. Calvin The Treasure that I covet is not their Favour but their Amendment Let this precede and that vvill follovv unavoidably I therefore ask Mr. Whitfield * A Dilemma as a touch-stone to try his meaning Is his meaning the same vvith Beza's and Peter Martyr's and the rest in my margin vvhen he saith we must not deny that God worketh all things or is is not If he say Yes he is a Libertine and Mr. Calvin shall be my witness and then let him renounce the Christian name and Religion that the * Rom. 2.24 Name of Christ be not blasphemed among the Gentiles For we who are Christians do assert that God worketh not all things without exception good or bad but all things only which
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
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