Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	good_a	sin_n	transgression_n	4,384	5	10.5404	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54842	An impartial inquiry into the nature of sin in which are evidently proved its positive entity or being, the true original of its existence, the essentiall parts of its composition by reason, by authority divine, humane, antient, modern, Romane, Reformed, by the adversaries confessions and contradictions, by the judgement of experience and common sense partly extorted by Mr. Hickman's challenge, partly by the influence which his errour hath had on the lives of many, (especially on the practice of our last and worst times,) but chiefly intended as an amulet to prevent the like mischiefs to come : to which is added An appendix in vindication of Doctor Hammond, with the concurrence of Doctor Sanderson, Oxford visitors impleaded, the supreme authority asserted : together with diverse other subjects, whose heads are gathered in the contents : after all A postscript concerning some dealings of Mr. Baxter / by Thomas Pierce ...	Pierce, Thomas, 1622-1691.	1660 (1660)	Wing P2184; ESTC R80	247,562	303

of the Gospel being positive is very good and from God which yet he must or he must sing his Recantation In a word It can no more be proved that sin is a privation and nothing else from the saying of St. Iohn that sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Transgression of the Law 1 Iohn 3.4 then that Christ himself is not positive from the tropical saying of St. Paul that Christ was made sin 2. Cor. 5.21 or that darknesse is as positive as iron because the Angels were delivered to chaines of darknesse 2 Pet. 2.4 And whether it is not indeed a sin without any such figure or catachrestical way of speaking to ravish Virgins and lye with beasts to hate God and to love the Devil which are confessedly as positive as any actions that can be named I appeal to the usage of the word Sin in the common experience of all mankind § 16. His last argument as he calls it is very rare Original sin is not positive ergo sin as sin is not positive p. 8● First for the manifold Absurdities as well as guilt into which he falls by his reduplication sin as sin I briefly refer to every part of my second chapter especially § 8 9 10 11 12 c. Next for what he saith of Original sin I refer to all I have produced from the Antient Fathers and learned modern Divines who held it to be a posi●ive quality in the third and fourth Sections of the fifth Chapter of this Book and also in the 3. Ch § 23. But thirdly as I never yet said so neither a● I concerned to say that all sins are positive It is enough that some are and those the worst to be imagined Nay Mr. H must be concluded a strange kinde of Blasphemer in saying all things positive are either Gods Creatures or God himself although there were but one sin that had a positive being such as was the Angels pride and the Divels hatred of God Almighty or the lusts of the Devil Joh. 8.44 Yet now to speak more of Original sin as that doth signifie the proneness of the will to evil after the image of Adams will from after the time of his Depravation it must needs be also positive to wit a conversion to the creature And why might not Adam acquire by his sin the image of Satan unto himself and offspring too as well as sin-away the Image of God But this is not that upon which I am obliged to lay a stresse Nor shall this be the subject of new disputes whether a man doth beget a man as much as a Horse begets a Horse It may be argued for ever on either side but I believe with greatest force for that part of the question to which St. Austin was most inclined and all that is said by Mr. H. doth but help to disprove Original sin for which Pelagians and Socinians may chance to thank him I know St. Paul held that the whole of man doth consist of three things Body Soul and Spirit concerning which Dr. Hammond hath a most profitable Discourse with a Reference to which I will shut up this Section see his Annotation upon 1 Thess. 5.23 § 17. Having seen his Reasons let us see what he saith to some few of mine or rather how guiltily he sneaks from the whole duty of a respondent p. 90. For though he knew what I had said to wit that Sins in Scripture are called works works of Darknesse works of the flesh works of mens hands and works of the Devil as it were on purpose to shew that they are positive things yet he passeth by that as if the word works had been of no consideration and onely nibbles at my saying That that was positive that Christ came to destroy concealing also from his Reader what I had cited from St. Iohn of Christs being manifested in the flesh that he might destroy the works of the Devil 1 Iohn 3.8 nor taking notice of what I said about vacuum vacui implying locatum as the privation of a privation implyeth position by all confessions I shewed it implyes a contradiction to say an habit is a privation because it is called by a Catachresis the privation of a privation when after a losse it is recovered from hence I argued that if the works of the Devil which are also called the Lusts of the Devil Joh. 8.44 had been meere privations the destruction of them could have been none But Mr. H's very weaknesse doth serve him here instead of strength for not considering that Death is said to be capable of destruction 1 Cor. 15.16 by the same catachrestical way of speaking whereby it is said in other places to have a body and a sting and so I might prove it at least to him to have a positive entity he urgeth his ignorance for a proof that of a meer privation there may be properly a privation How much better might I prove that death it self hath a positivity from Rev. 21.8 where to be burning in a lake of fire and Brimstone is expressed by the name of the second death But the work of the Devil is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly so called and therefore positive The words of St. Iohn are even litterally true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joh. 3.4 and lusts are qualities Iohn 8.44 § 18. To the Argument which I urged from sins habitual or habits of sin such as Drunkennesse in a man who is seldom sober it seemes he knew so exactly that no good answer was to be given as to resolve to supply it with meer scurrility and impertinence p. 91. He is fain to say that I intended a Sori●es or rather seemed to intend it that he might seem to have something at which to nibble But no such thing as a Sorites was any more in my thoughts then in my mention And therefore this is so vile a practice as may be used by any Atheist who hath a minde to calumn●ate any passage of any writer It i an easy thing to say that such an Author makes a face as if he intended this or that which we have reason to believe he could not possibly intend But what saith the Rhapsodist to my Argument that vices are habits as well as vertues and therefore positive Qualities as well as Vertues He doth not deny that some sorts of vices indeed are Habits for he cannot think that an act of Drunkenn●ss is a vice and that an habit of Drunkennenss is none at all nor can he think it impossible to be habitu●lly drunk and that an habit is a thing positive he is so far from denying that he affirmes it he pr●fesseth not to doubt of it p 92. so that now there is no question whether Drunkennesse when an habit is positive or not But whether or no it is a sin or whether it is not from God in Mr. Hickman's judgement one of the two we are assured by hims●lf is his

the sin of sin or the sinfulness of sinfulness supposing both to be synonymous and sin so perfectly an abstract as hath been said Nay without any regard to his blessed self when he saith that sin doth not siginfie abstractly p. 100. § 3. But though sin is an Abstract in respect of the sinner viz. Abstractum physicum yet in respect of sinfulness which is abstractum metaphysicum all will confess it to be a concrete M. H. alone being excepted in his intemperate Fits who yet in Times of sobriety will confess what I would have him and such I proved it to be by proving an Identity betwixt the sin and the sinfull Act. For the transgression of the Law is confessedly an Act and sin by definition is the Transgression of the Law Nor will the Adversary deny that the Act of sinning is a sinfull Act. For being a Transgression it must needs be an Act and being such an act it must needs be sinfull The act of consenting to a Temptation which is sin in its bir●h is punctum indivisibile and hath not any Dimensions to make it capable of a Division and so it must needs be the sin of consenting to the Temptation as well as it is the sinfull act § 4. Farther yet when in pursuit of the Controversie it lay upon me to shew how the determination of a mans will to the forbidden object was equally a sin and a positive being and what an Impiety it would be to intitle God to so foul a thing I made a challenge to M. Hickman as well as others to give an instance in some particular how the act and the obliqui●y might so be severed or distinguish'd as he might say which is Go●'s part and which is Satan's When a man doth curse God Lev. 24.15 which is the Act of that sin and which is the sin that is not the Act or which is the obliquity of the act o that sin M. Hickman did not attempt an Answer and sure I am he was not able For 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 1. if onely an Act where then is the obliquity 2. if onely an obliquity of an Act where is the Act for all the whole sin is the cursing of God neither more nor less 3. if both together and separably let him make that seperation 4. if both are inseparably together he must confess that sin hath a positive being and that himself hath made God to be the Author of sin § 5. In a word I made appear what I meant by the word sin by the instances which I brought whereby to prove it the same with the sinfull act There being no difference no not so much as in imagination between David's lying with Bathsheba and his Adultery or between his Adultery and his sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 82. His lying with Bathsheba was his action which action was his sin p. 84. And again I discern no difference between the same evil action and it self as between Davids lying with Bathsheba and his Adultery ibid. Nor indeed was it possible that I should have spoken any otherwise when the Thing spoken of was not half of sin but the whole not the formal part as they phrase it but the very complexum as M. H. himself calls it p. 95. For actual sin of commission cannot otherwise be sin than as it is an act of sinning nor an act of sinning any otherwise then as it is a sinfull Act. § 6. That this was meant in our Dispute I have largely proved And that we ought to mean this I prove by the judgement of D. Twisse who saith that Fornication denoteth sin not onely according to its Formality as it is sin but also according to its materiality as it is an Act. His words in Latin are justly these Fornicatio notat peccatum non tantùm secundum Formale ejus quà peccatum est sed secundum materiale ejus quà actus est Now because M. Hickman doth boast so much of D. Twisse as one whom none durst undertake in the Arminian Controversies p. 106. I will farther insist upon his Authoritie whereby to prove the true Importance and together with that the positive entity of sin which that Doctor doth assert by unavoidable Implication whilst he saith that All sin being definitely considered and according to its certain species doth include two things the natural act and the turpitude of the Act or its repugnance with the Law of God He gives his instance in the sin of theft which he affirms to signifie as well the A●t of taking away what is anothers as the deformity of the Act in as much as God hath said th●u shalt not steal The like instances he gives in the sins of Murther and Adultery which as it slatly contradicts what is said by M. Hick of sins being a meer abstract and the same with sinfulness pag. 53 54. so it proves ●e whole sin to have a positive entity by ascribing no less to a part of sin It being impossible for a part to have more of entity then the whole And if M. Hickman shall dare to say that a Repugnance to the Law may be theft without stealing or that stealing may be the sin of theft without a repugnance to the law so as one part of sin may be concluded to be a sin I forbear to say what will follow that he may not accuse me of bitter Language § 7. Noe 't is so absolutely imp●ssible as implying a contradiction that a man shou●d be guilty of a Repugnance to any Law without the doing of that thing which the law forbids And by consequence so impossible that that alone should be the sin which is affirmed by D. Twisse to be but the formal part of it That as M. Whitfield and M. Barlee do acknowledge a materiall and ●orm●ll part making up one and the same sin so M. Hickman doth say as much when the necessity of his affairs compels him to it p. 94 95. how contradictory soever to what he had said a little before p. 53 54. when brought to a distress of another Nature And accordingly in his Title-page he held us in hand that he would prove there cannot be any positivity of sin not of the formall part of sin Again at the end of his long Preface when he pretends at least to come to the Thing in Question he sets down his Thesis in these express words ☞ That sin hath not a Positive Being pag. 1. No mention hitherto of any reduplication sin as sin or sin abstractly considered from act or habit And indeed he knew it to be impossible to consider the sin of hateing God abstractly from the act or habit since the Act of hateing God is the sin as well as the Act and the habituall hatred of God is as well the sin as

wayes then one § 9. Whereas it is said p. 67. that if the man that hates God whilest yet in 's wits shall continue to hate him being mad the act remaines but not the obliquity because the act to be sinful must be rational and free I deny that any man can hate God or love him without the use of reason but I further return six things 1. That for a man to hate God is the greatest madness in the world 2. That if he is not so altered but that he continues to hate God he is not altered so far but that he continues to be a sinner in hating God 3. Whilst he continues to be a man he continues to have freedom and rationality enough to sin by 4. This Argument would prove if it had real force in it that not only all infants but some adult● are in a state of Impeccability 5. It would follow from hence that the goodness of a vertuous act doth not consist in the substance of it because it would then become impossible that the substance of the act should continue without the goodness Whereas it is said in this Evasion that the Act of hating God may remain in substance without the presence of its obliquity But 6. to answer yet more expresly to his reason taken from Rational and free I say the sinfulness of the act is one thing and the sinfulness of the agent is quite another The obliquity alone or the sole contrariety of the act to the Law in conjunction with the act from which it cannot be disjoyned is enough to constitute the sinfulness of the act But the Liberty of will and use of Reason are required onely to the sinfulness of the agent Which yet again is no otherwise then in respect unto God imputing or punishing according to the Equity or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the second Covenant For though otherwise considered without the Equity of the Gospel sins of ignorance are sins and Original sin which is born with us is our sin still § 10. And whereas it is added a little after that if with the very same act wherewith he now doth hate God a man should afterwards hate sin the same act for substan●e would be morally good p. 67 I reply that this supposeth an impossibility and confutes it self with the contradiction which it implyes To hate God one day and to hate sin the next are so far from being the same act numerically that Dr. Field doth rightly make them to be specifically distinct And the supposing them to be One was to me at first such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that I admired how Mr. Barlow could so impose upon him-self untill I duely considered his want of years when he engaged himself for so great an Error § 11. The two arguments which follow to prove that sin hath a real being whereof the one is urged by FERRARIENSIS the other by GREGORIE ARIMINENSIS I forbear to prosecute as I might because they do not prove the positive but onely the real being of sin which Mr. Hickman grants though t is denyed by M. Barlow p. 69. or rather it was denyed by him when he was newly Master of Arts. For that he should still be so much mistaken is more then can enter into my thoughts And therefore unless he shall friendly invite me to it I will not meddle with the Infirmities of the two next pages But onely observe how the belief that sin hath no positive is apt to pass into a Belief that it hath not so much as a Real being And indeed by the same figure that sin is called a meer privation it is also called a meere nothing The reason of which I shall shew anon § 12. ANd so I pass to a fourth Reason why the sin of hating God hath a positive being Because this sin is intrinsecally evil as Mr. B. objects against himself out of IOANNES de RADA and therefore not onely evil through some privation because saith he it is impossible that any privation should be intrinsecal to a positive act And Gulielmus de Rubione doth press it thus A positive act which is so evil that no kind of circumstance can make it not evil is not evil for any defect or privation but pre●isely for the substance of the act p. 71. To the Argument of RADA Mr. Barlow thus answers That such an act is called intrinsecally evil not because its obliquity is of its nature and essence but because by the law of nature it is evil of it self without the addition of a positive Law or because it is evil ex genere objecto and not onely for the want of some circumstance p. 73. But I reply 1. It implyes a contradiction to affirm its being intrinsecally evil and at once to deny it essentially evil for ratio formalis and ratio intrinseca are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Philosophers and M. Hickman hath dropped a good Confession that the action of hating God is essentially evil p. 94. 2. That it is evil of it self antecedently to any positive Law evil ex genere objecto is a concession whereby to prove it essentially evil 3. No part of this answer pretends to prove that it is not indeed intrinsecally evil but onely quarrell 's about the reason why the act is so called 4. It doth not speak to the chief thing of all that no privation can be intrinsecall to a positive act and so it seemeth by silence to give consent § 13 MOral evil is proved to be a positive thing because vice is set against vertue by an opposition of contrariety as Aristotle saith L. Cat. c. 10. § 1. for each term of such opposites must needs be positive because they are both predicamental species which things are so true that they are granted by M. Barlow p. 80. who therefore endeavours to elude the Argument by saying the same thing which I have often replyed unto to wit that in respect of their m●terial signification virtue and vice are opposita contrariè but not in respect of their formal signification To which I reply first as before that this is the old fallacie à rectè conjunctis ad malè divisa and so a flat transition à thesi ad hypothesin And if it be put into Syllogism there will be found to be unavoidably an Ignoratio Elenchi The Question being of sin or vice in sens●s composito and the Answer onely considering it in sens●s diviso Secondly Vice cannot be vice nor be imagined so to be without its material as well as formal significatum for without the act of hating God the sin or vice of hating God which is the act cannot be so much as supposed to be much less to be repugnant to any law wherein its formality is said to consist for that would imply a contradiction And thus the Answer or rather evasion doth so far forsake as indeed to nul the thing in Question Thirdly

supposing the vice to be taken from the Act or habit of hating or hatred by its having sin for its object it must be granted to be a virtue and therefore not opposed to virtue by any kind of opposition which M. B. observes to be replyed by Ferrariensis To which although it is rejoyned by the same Ferrariensis yet the rejoynder is nothing else but a gross return to the old fallacie just now discovered in the Answer and so is equally refelled by every part of my Reply By the way I note one good confession and from the words of Aquinas that vice as well as virtue may be taken for a concrete whereas M. Hickman was fain to say that sin or vice is so perfectly an abstract that he cannot conceive it to be sin unless he conceive it as an Abstract and that he is to seek what vox abstracta is if sin be not such p. 54. It may very well be that he is to seek for he elsewhere confesseth that sin is complexum quid And if he thinks that abstractum doth signifie complexum he is a small Latinist indeed if he doth not he is a self-contradictor § 14. A Sin of commission is proved to have a positive being because it necessarily requireth some positive act whereby to become a perfect sin of commission which as it is granted by M. Barlow so it seemeth to be also confirmed by him p. 84. where he approveth that of Suarez Metaph. tom 1. disp 11. Malum simpliciter est illud quod est in se malum hoc est caret aliquo bono sibi ipsi debito ad modum perfectionis propriè quale est omne peccatum praesertim commissionis For if every sin of commissi on is not simply evil only but wholly too as that must needs be which doth carere omni bono sibi debito and though I deny the supposition that any good thing can be due to sin then the positive act without which it cannot be must needs be morally and simply evil It being the Sin of commission which is spoken of in both places not any action or quality which is no sin at all so as the ordinary shift of flying from the Act of hating God which is the sin of commission and so the subject of the Discourse to the act of hating without relation to any object which is no sin at all or with relation onely to sin which makes it a high moral good is foreseen and prevented by what I now say What is said by M. Barlow of the threefold difference be●wixt a sin of omission and commission p. 86. concerneth nothing that I know excepting those words which he frames to himself in his objection p. 82. In hoc SOLVM distinguitur peccatum omissionis commissionis quia omissio dicit nudam carentiam actus at commissio necessario requirit actum The word solùm is very strange And if he found it in GULIELMUS DE RUBIONE as it is more then I know so I am not concerned to make inquiry It is sufficient for me that my Argument being unanswer'd needs not the help of a Reply I hasten therefore to another way of eviction § 15. THat is properly a sin which is forbidden by the Law But the positive act of Adultery theft or hating God is forbidden by the Law And therefore the Act so forbidden is very properly a sin we commonly say it is a sin to do this or that as to hate God and to love the world because God hath forbid us to do the one and the other To this it is answered by Mr. Barlow who not producing any Author for the objection and putting in the word Formaliter p. 82. may seem to have adapted the Argument for an Answer That the Act precisely taken is not forbidden as a positive Act as in Murder meerly to kill is not forbidden quoad esse physicum for then it should not be lawfull to kill a malefactor who is justly condemned to be put to death but as it recedeth from the Rule of right reason and is subjected to the privation of that rectitude which is due pag. 86. But I reply 1. That this is the old fallacie so often mentioned for an act without reference to a negative precept of the law is not an act which is forbidd●n nor pretended by any to be a sin much less of comm ssion which alone was the act spoken of in the Argument and so instead of an answer we have onely an escape from the thing in Question 2. It is affirmed by Aquinas 1.2 q. 71. Art 6. and q. 72. art 6. That Austin put two things in the definition of sin to wit a material and formal part that is a positive act and its repugnance to the Law witness his citation p. 85. And what is this but to say that sin is totum essentiale which it cannot be without one of its two essentials so that the Answer doth offend against the Answerer himself by considering the one without relation to the other notwithstanding his Acquiescence in St. Austin's Definition 3. The Answer doth not deny that the positive act is forbidden and so a sin but onely speaks of that thing in respect of which it is forbidden And to this it may easily be replyed that as an act is not morally evil without relation to the Law which doth forbid it so an act hath nothing of moral goodness without Relation to the law which doth command it or to the Councel which doth commend it And again as no act can be a sin without repugnance to the Rule of right Reason so can there be no such repugnance without an act 4. It is not all killing but killing properly called Murder which is forbidden by the Law which commands the killing of the Murderer and thereby makes it an act of Iustice. And therefore that should have been the instance for all such killing is forbidden by the Law and such alone doth belong to the adaequate subject of our Discourse 5. To hate God is a sin and a positive act to which it hath be●n proved that no kinde of rectitude can be due And it had naturally been evil though it had never been forbidden which yet it could not but have been because the not forbidding of it had been repugnant to Gods nature For though the act of hating God could not be from Eternity yet this proposition is aeternae veritatis and might truly have been spoken from all eternity that it is evil to hate God Therefore this and the like acts were forbidden by the Law even because they were evil and are not onely evil by being forbidden by the Law which yet those men do presuppose who will have every thing good that hath a positive being and nothing simply evil but an abstracted repugnance unto the Law not considering the difference betwixt the breach of a positive and moral Law betwixt a Iews hating God and

that I should make it my first endeavour to comfute their doctrine of Reprobation § 22. What he saith next of Bp. Montagues visitation p 3. and of his Majesties Declaration which was not intended as a two edged sword p. 4. is many wayes to my Advantage For 1. the end of that Bishops inquiry in his Episcopal visitation was to silence the Doctrine of irrespective Decrees And the same was the end of my Next that ought to have been the end both of the one and the other because Mr Hickman doth now confesse that even that was the end of the Kings Majesti●s Declaration to which we thought it our Duty to yield Obedience 3. The two edged sword is strangely joyned by Mr. Hickman with a charitable designe to settle peace or stop mouthes 4. Whilest he saith it was designed to stop the mouthes of the Orthodox he means by Orthodox those men who taught as since the Assembly men have done that all things are ordained by God and so the murdering of the innocent as well as the punishing of the guilty And why forsooth were they Orthodox but because Authority had designed to stop their mouthes How much rather may Independents bestow on themselves the name of Orthodox whose mouths were designed to be stopt by the Presbyterians 5. The very truth of it is this That Declaration was intended to stop Discourses on eitherside any farther then our Church had given a Rule whereby to teach both in her Catechisme Liturgie Homilies and Articles whose contrariety indeed to the way of Calvin had very good reason to put a muzz●l upon his follow●rs mouths whensoever they were opened to Gods dishonour And this I am able to make apparent by an eminent Person now living from whom I had the following story that when a Preacher came to Court and had put in his Text to the Clerk of the closet then Bp. of Hereford why will ye dye O house of Israel One of the Chaplaines now a Bishop was sent to give him a timely warning not to have any thing in his Sermon against the Kings Declaration And he undertaking that he had not was permitted to preach before his Majesty § 23. What he saith of the Lord Falkland his speech in Parliament speaking in favour of his party in one respect but quite against them in another p. 5. hath no other force in it then that he either thought what he spake and so that he had not yet seen his errour or that at least by his displeasure to some of the Bishops then in power he was induced to declaim in General Termes without the addition of any proof or of any thing else to supply its room And so I could tell of another Lord who would have proved I cannot say but perswaded onely that the Oath in the Canon against Popery and innovations of which Presbyterianism was not the least was someway against the King's Supremacy But wise men knew what these things meant as well as what the words signifie And let it be noted by Mr. H. that the Doctrine which he opposeth was then confessed by the Lord Falkland in the very same speech not to be contrary to Law and had nothing but custom to plead against it Not proving whether the Custom were good or evil And of what importance it is in RELIGION to draw an Argument onely from Custome let it be sadly weighed by Them who do at any time presse for a Reformation Down goes Presbyterie if yet I may imply it was ever up as farre as the speech of that Lord hath any force or strength in it § 24. But now that the Reader may be informed of the disinteressed Iudgement which that most learned and noble Lord professed to have of those points I will lead him to his Reply to the Romanists Answer in vindication of what he had written against the pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome My Lord in his pages 108 109. speaking of the great controversy betwixt the Dominicans and the Iesuites which was debated and heard before Pope Clement and of the many dayes spent in examining what St. Austin thought his Lordship adds these words concerning Austin and his Ancestors And for Austin He thought so variously concerning it that he scarce knew himself which whereas all the Antients that I could ever meet with as his Lordship goes on were with the Iesuits with an unanimous consent Whatever that Lord might think or say in any other time or place here he shews us his most avowed and I have reason to believe his ripest judgement § 25. Now comes the practice of an arrant Bigot in Presbyterianisme who saith that If whilst I have b●en throwing stones that is writing controversie my children have wanted their bread or have been fain to take it divided to them by a more unskilfull ha●d th●n mine own Then have I put something upon my Doomesday Book which he wishes I may have Time to take off by Repentance p. 5 and 6. Here he intimates to his Reader with a barbarous If a thing as false as it is malicious And I wi●l punish him onely by saying what is a great and known truth That I have been as constant a we●kly Preacher and sometimes more then w●ekly too since I writ what I have publisht and all the time that I was writing as any Presbyterian within my knowledge and more then some whom I could name When indeed I have been vehemently sick for it is not all sickness that hath excus'd me my flock hath been fed by some other shepherd When I have sometimes been Absent I have seldome preached the less for that but somtimes the more and somewhere alwayes where need hath been If to avoid shifting tu●ns with neighbour-Minist●rs the cheap and lazie trick of the Presbyterians I have been at the charge to maintain a Br●ther for my Assistance that whether sick or absent I may not be wanting to my Flock what hurt have I done to such covetous worldlings as rather then be at that cost for their peoples good will make a scandalous shift and put their money into their Pockets I think 't were happy we had a Law whereby to compell them to use Assistants who spread out half their matter thinly and call it a Sermon in the morning the other half being reserv'd to be spread as thinly and so to be called a second Sermon after noon So mine Host in Livie brancht out his Porket that his Gu●sts might not grumble for want of a second and third course And children are pleas'd with a couple of sixpences when they will not be content with a single shilling Alas the difference is as great I mean in one and the same man betwixt Sermon and Sermon as betwixt Gold in the ingot and in the leaf Nothing is commoner with Preachers then to thrust up m●ny Sermons into one or to beat out one into many And whereas it is hinted by Mr. Hickman that I have fed

sincere Religion of the Church is continued and established by the King And do recognize as we are bound by the law of God and man the Realm of England and the Imperiall Crown thereof doth belong to him by inherent birthright and lawfull and undoubted succession and submit our selves and our posterities for ever untill the last drop of bloud be spent to his rule and beseech the King to accept the same as the first fruits of our Loyalty and Faith to his Majesty and his posterity for ever and for that this Act is not compleat nor perfect without his Majesties assent the same is humbly desired This proves saith Judge Ienkins 1. That the Houses are not above the King 2. That Kings have not their titles to the Crown by the two Houses but 3. by inherent birth-right and 4. That there can be no Statute without his express assent and so 5. It destroyes the Chimaera of the Kings virtuall being in the Houses 18. The Kings Proclamations heretofore to severall purposes were of no less force then Acts of Parliament And the ground of it was that the supremitie of the Regal power is given by God And however that Act was indeed repealed by the meek concession of King Edward the sixth yet the Reason of the Repeal is recorded to have been this A willingness in the King to gratifie his people up●n trust that they would not abuse the same but rather be encouraged with more faithfulness and diligence to serve his Highness So when Charles the First passed a Bill for the continuance of the long Parliament indefinitely it was upon their promise that the gracious favour of his Majesty expressed in that Bill should not encourage them to do any thing which otherwise had not been sit to be done And so good is the Rule in the Civil Law Cessante causa cessat Lex That the Lords and Commons even of that very Parliament did d●clare it to hold good in Acts of Parliament 19. When 't was declared by all the Iudges and Sergeants of Law that it cannot be said the King doth wrong it was by a Periphrasis A Declaration of his Sup●emacy For the meaning of it must be say the greatest Lawyers That what the King doth in point of Jurisdiction he doth by his Iudges who are sworn to deal legally between the King and his people So as the Judges may be questioned for violation of Law but the King is unaccountable and on his person or power no Reflection is to be made § 78. Thus I have given such an account of the proper subject of Supremacy as my Notes of Observation suggest unto me at this time I gather'd my Notes more especially for my private use and information that I might know what Party I ought to own in these times of Triall and Temptation partly out of the Papers which passed betwixt the King and both Houses of Parliament partly from the writings of Mr. Prin Mr. Diggs Iudge Ienkins and Dr. Langbane partly out of the Book of Statutes though I have not time to consult them much Many more Arguments I could urge out of the works of Iudge Ienkins but that I find them too many to be transcribed in this Appendix and withall I consider that book is cheap and little and I hope easily to be had which makes me choose to referr my Readers to his whole Lex Terrae from page 8. to page 63. I have been so convinced by all put together which hath been said as I cannot but conclude with the most Learned and moderate Doctor Sanderson That at least amongst us here in England there can be nothing more certain or conspicuous unless we will not use our eyes but rather choose to be blind at noon by stoutly winking against the Sun then that the power of these Three Kingdoms doth onely belong to his Serene and Supreme Royall Majesty This is said by that great and judicious Casuist in his stating the obligation and efficient cause of humane Lawes After which if Mr. Hickman shall yet contend that the Oxford Visitors were commissioned by the Supreme Authority of the Nation though by the two Houses onely not onely without but against the pleasure of the King I will onely referr him to certain Notes on the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance in a late-Printed Book which is thus ●ntitled The Resurrection of Loyalty and Obedience out of the Grave of Rebellion § 80. But I printed saith Mr. Hickman as if I had right to two Fellowships and asks how else he is but one of my receivers p 46. To which I answer 1. That for any thing I know Mr. Hickman succeeded him that succeeded me And my words of him were these that for ought I know he may be in possession of mine own fellowship c. Or 2. If he did not succeed my successor but that his Robbery is immediate not once removed I will give him an Answer to chew upon out of the Digests When a number of men do jo●● their strength to steal a piece of Timber or any thing else which is anothers which none of them singly could have carried away Vlpian saith that each of them severally as well as all of them joyntly is lyable to an action for the double value of the thing And so when the right of a Society is invaded by a Society which was our case in Magd. Colledge when almost all were at once bereaved by men of violence all may require their right of all and every man from every man For every man by partnership is an Accessary to all that have done the wrong as well as principall in part and indefinitely and so responsible to all who receive the wrong or do require a reparation I could prove to Mr. Hickman that he is guilty of the Visitor's sin by accepting the spoils of their injustice But I am ready to pardon though not to dissemble my being injur'd § 81. I had but said by such a figure as is allowable in Scripture It seems the Visitors made him one of my Receivers and Vsu-fructuaries when taking my words by the wrong handle he pretends that His is the usus-fructus p. 46. But 1. he knows I there added That my legitimate Successor they could not make him which is a proof that what I spake was of what they did not ought to do And a Facto ad Ius no good Argument is to be drawn The Visitors made him my Receiver as they made their strength the law of justice Or as Lambert made Cromwell the Kings Receiver 'T is easie for one man to be m●de an other man's Receiver and yet by a Proverb to be as bad as the thief that made him The sons of violence and rapine made one another what they pleased as opportunity and power was in their hands So it was said by Doctor Heylin that Mr. Hickman had made a Book But he presently added As

openly in the Court well Iesuites and Priests they say you are none but you are their Brethren pag. 52. Loves Trial. Nor do I really think that Mr. Baxter is a Iesuite though I have proved him to be such according to the Logick in which he deals I also proved he was an * Heathen by an Argument ad hominem beyond exception of which 't is well he is so cunning as not to make the least mention § 21. He concludes his postscript as I shall mine with the odious part of the puritanism of his Life of which he saith he hears little from me but his own confessions and his possessing a sequestration for he was loath to call it another mans Living concerning which he answe●s nothing not any one word to all my Chapter but onely saith he might answer if the love of Mr. Dance restrained him not p. 329 In which parcell of Expressions there are observable particulars to which I shall return these following things 1. Though I insisted pretty largely on many points of his practical Puritanism as all will say who will but read my New Discoverer Discover'd and therefore this is one of his many falsehoods yet now I hope in this Postscript he will find a supply of my former mercifull defect at which he must not be angry because he hath made it thus needfull for me 2. The first and worst Puritanes at least in Christendome were the Followers of Marcus that monstrous Heretick And Mr. Baxter as neer as any hath written after that Copy Those Antient Haereticks made Accompt they were so pure and perfect and under such an Incapacity to fall from Grace and Gods favour that they might live in any course of the greatest sin without the least fear because without the least danger of being damn'd For by the Benefit of Redemption they had a priviledge of Impunity for all their sins which was not indulged to other Mortals And in the midst of all their villanies they were protected with such an Helmet as they had read of in Homers Iliads And by that as by a ●kreen they were made invisible to the Iudge Now whether Mr. Baxter does hope to hide himself from God as Pallas in Homer from the discovery of Mars or as Gyges went invisible by the priviledge of his Ring or is carried away by the vehement strength of his opinion That being once godly he must be alwayes unavoidably and though God cannot but see yet can he not punish his impieties with pains eternal whether he sticks to his famous Doctrine That a man must be a greater sinner then David was in his Murder and Adultery Peter in his perjury and denyal of Christ Lot in his Drunkenness and Incest and Solomon in his Idolatry before he can be said to be notoriously ungodly sure I am I have evinced he is as scandalous in his life as in his Doctrine Because I have proved the Kings Supremacie and that in respect of the two Houses even of that very Parliament under which Mr Bax●er doth seek for shelter And having proved him to have been a perfidious Rebell Reader 't is his own expression by having proved the very thing upon which he confesseth he must be such and gives the world leave to say He is worse then a Murderer an Adulterer a Drunkard and the like still I speak his own words I think I need not add more concerning his Puritanism of Life Before I leave this sub●ect which yet I will never leave finally whil●t Mr Baxter shall be so dareing as to continue a publick Advocate for the worst of Hypocrites whose Rebellions Murders Schism Sacrilege have evinced them to be such by many an ocular demonstration I will add the character which Salmasius hath given of our Puritanes who yet was a friend and Patron to them untill he was converted by seeing their usage of the King Belli isti sane Puritani sub Regno Elizabethae prodire è Tenebris ORCI Ecclesiam inde turbare primùm coeperunt persuadent sibi se posse cujuslibet sceleris es●e Affines tamen sanctitatem in medio sceleris Actu retinere In English thus Those goodly Puritanes did first come forth from the dark pit of Hell under the Reign of Queen Elizabeth And thence began to disturb the Church They persuade themselves that being once sanctified they may ingage in any villany and yet in the very act retain their sanctity 3. It were Puritanism enough if he had onely invaded his Neighbours goods and Intitled God's service to his Impiety If he shall say he is established by any Ordinance of the two Houses which without the King cannot possibly be a legal and Rightfull Parliament I shall first referr him for satisfaction to my whole Chapter upon the subject against which he hath not off●rd one word of Answer Next I shall tell him that the two Houses were bound to keep Magna Charta and not to break it And so they were told by his Sacred Majesty in his Printed Proclamation against the opp●ession of the Clergy by the Insurrection of Factious and Schismaticall persons into their cures c. wherein he said 1. That by the great Charter of England no Ecclesiastical Possession may be sequestred but by the Ordinary 2. That what ever was pretended men of learning and piety were dispossessed for their Loyalty 3. That he straitly charged and commanded all his subjects as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal not to presume to intermeddle in that affair notwithstanding any sequestration or pretended orders or ordinances or other command whatsoever of one or both Houses of Parliament 4. That if any should presume to transgress this command he did hereby declare them to infringe the good old Law of the Land and to assist a Rebellion against himself Let Mr. Baxter mark that and read the whole Proclamation to be seen in Bibliotheca Regia § 3. p. 324. 4. By saying he could say I know-not-what-of Master Dance if love did not restrain him he does maliciously imply that Mr. Dance is as scandalous as himself or at least somewhat near it Whether a drunkard or a swearer he leaves the Reader to suspect There is no worse slandering an Innocent man than by such a Paralypsis as here is used Was it not enough for Mr. Baxter to seize on his neighbours goods but he must slur his good name too 'T was ill done of Antinous to eat Vlysses his meat and to beat him too into the bargain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Mr. Baxter ought to chew upon Vlysses his Answer thereupon and if he can digest it 't will do him good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 22. I should here have concluded with Mr. Baxter but that in casting back my eye upon his p. 299. I find him railing at others somewhat more then at my self He saith