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. 8â— 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 posiâ—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 aâ— 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 Soriâ—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 calumnâ—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 Drunkennâ—ss is a vice and that an habit of Drunkennenss is none at all nor can he think it impossible to be habituâ—lly drunk and that an habit is a thing positive he is so far from denying that he affirmes it he prâ—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 himsâ—lf is his
extremity and nonsense in the worst degree because it implyes a contradiction to say the sin is the mere repugnance of the act to the law without the act which is repugnant Or that the sin of hating God is a deflection from the Precept without that hating which is the sin XIII 'T is so far from being false to call it a sin to blaspheme which is a positive entity that it is blasphemy to deny it This is a proof from plain experience XIV A part of nothing can be the thing of which it is but a part for then the part would be the whole which does imply a contradiction And so the formal part of sin cannot possibly be the sin but the sin must include the material also This doth prompt me Gentle Reader to prepare thee also for those evasions with which the Adversaries of Truth will pretend to answer what thou shalt urge 1. If therefore when thou provest a sin is positive they shall onely answer concerning sin quatenus sin Remember to tell them of their Fallacie à Thesi ad Hypothesin or à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid 2. If again when thou sayst some sins are actions such as those which God forbids us to put in being they shall answer that sins of omission are not put them in mind of that other fallacie A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter 3. If when thou arguest by an Induction of such particulars as in the Instance of hating God they shall answer that hating is not evil in it self and good as fasten'd upon sin Tell them straight of their Fallacies A rectè conjunctis ad malè divisa and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Argument is of hating as having God for its object And so to answer of hating without an object is an Intolerable impeâ—tinence dividing the Act from the Object which were onely considered in conjunction much more is it impertinent to talk of hating as 't is objected upon sin for that iâ— a traâ—sition à genere ad genus God is not sin nor is it a sin to hate sin but the sin of hating God is that to which they must speak in a compound sense Hold them punctually to this and they are undone 4 If they take upon them to prove acting the part of the opponent that the formal part of sin is a mere privation therefore the sin is a mere privation tell them first of their fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For the Antecedent might be true and yet the sequel extremely false Tell them next there is a Fallacie of Ignoratio Elenchì For the question is of sin not of a portion or part of sin They are past all Remedy who when the Question is whether it râ—ines do onely answer that the staff does not stand in the corner Tell them over and above that the formal part of some sins as of the Divels hating God is a positive Repugnance to the Law of God and so again there is the Fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 barely to say and not to prove the universality of the thing can amount to no more then onely the begging of the question Mr. Hickman must confess he is the worst of Blasphemers if there is but one sin that is a positive entity because he saith that All such must be either God's creatures or God himself This also prompts me to reflect upon the Mischievous effects of his sad Dilemma For if God is said to be the cause of that positive entity or action Adam's eating forbidden fruit And the cause of that Law Thou shalt not eat it he is said to be the Author or cause of that sin which was his very eating forbidden fruit I have therefore taken the greater pains in my following Treatise both in vindicating God from being the Author of such effects and in charging them wholly upon the Free-will of man shewing how the sinful agent is alone the cause of the sinful act to the end I might convince and convert my Adversary even in spight of his own perversness and disabuse his followers or abeâ—tors notwithstanding their partiality and praepossession That when they exert any such reall and positive actions as the hating of God the ravishing of virgins the killing of Kings the committing of sacriledge the coveting and seizing their neighbour's goods they may be forced to declare with Coppinger and Hacket in the Star-Chamber the works are evil and from themselves unless they will take in the Divel too not good and from God as Mr. Hickman no less irrationally than blasphemously saith That there are haters of God who is Love it self God hath told us by Moses and by Saint Paul And according to the importance of the original word they are hated by God who are haters of him How we ought to be affected towards them that hate God the Psalmist tells us by his example Do not I hate them O Lord that hate thee yea I hate them with a perfect hatred Who they are that hate God by way of eminence our Learned Doctor Stearn hath taken the Liberty to say I shall content my self at present to shew the place in my Margin and to observe Mr. Hickman is therein intimately concern'd I do not hate Mr. Hickman but do love him so well as to wish him better Yet of the Doctrine which he delivers and pleadeth for with so much vehemence That every positive thing is good and either God or his creature I have industriously discovered my perfect hatred For the Hellish murder of Gods Anointed of ever Blessed and glorious Memory was as positive a something as any action to be produced And all the plea of those Deicides who sought to justifie the Fact was the use they made of this Fatal Doctrine They ever imputed unto God irresistibly willing or unconditionally decreeing and effectually over-acting his peoples spirits whatsoever unclean thing they were suffer'd in What was really but the patience they call'd the pleasure of the Almighty His passive permission they stil'd appointment What he had every where forbidden they gave him out to have predetermin'd What was a sin not to be expiated They calld an expiatory sacrifice They gave out God to be the Author of all that he sufferd them to commit the favourable approver of whatsoever he condemned them to prosper in In a word they told the people that God was delighted in those impieties which with much long suffering he but endur'd And then I think I was excusable for being impatient of such a Doctrine as to the Ruin of three Kingdomes I saw reduced into practice for diverse years How impartial I have been in the maintaining of the Truth I shall evince in the following papers by my Reply to Mr. BARLOW the Reverend Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxford my very learned and loving Friend To certain Reasonings of his in his second Metaphysical
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 birâ—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 obliquiâ—y might so be severed or distinguish'd as he might say which is Goâ—'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 Aâ—t of taking away what is anothers as the deformity of the Act in as much as God hath said thâ—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 â—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 impâ—ssible as implying a contradiction that a man shouâ—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 â—ormâ—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
confession of Learned VOSSIUS That the greatest part of the Amients do so speak as if they thought Original sin to be somâ—thing positive to wit either a Habit or some other Quality I call it the confession of GERARD VOSSIUS because I find it is none of his own opinions that Original sin is something positive whatever he speaks of actual sins And I think his confession to be of the greater consideration because of his being so very conversant in Antient writers and because or his abilitie to understand their true meaning and lastly of his unwillingness to understand them against himself Nay when he speaks of those Antients who were otherwise minded he takes their meaning to have been not so much that this sin was a meer defect of Original Righteousnesse as that it was rather an habitual aversion from God proceeding from the defect of Original righteousness They that held it to be a quality could not otherwise hold it in his opinion then by holding also that the soul was begotten with the body and sin begotten with the soul or that the spirit being created was at least infected by the flesh some thought that the soul was as it were kindled by the soul in generation and that the Leprosie of sin in childrens souls was by infection from the leprosy with which their parents had been infected Of which Opinion was TERTVLLIAN APOLLINARIVS and the greatest part of the Eastern Fathers Quomodo corpus ex corpore sic animam nasci ex animâ TERTVL Apoll. maxima pars Orientalium autumavit uti scribit Hieronymus ad Marcellinum Anapsychiam Epist. 45. RUFFINUS also and AUGUSTIN are cited for it But because of the latter t is said by VOSSIUS that he durst not publickly avow what was privately his opinion His words are the worthier to be observed For thus he writeth to OPTATVS se neque legendo neque orando neque ratiocinando invenire potuisse quomodo cum animarum Creatione peccatum Originis defendatur And for more to this purpose the Reader is referred to other places as Epist. 28. ad Hieronymum Lib. 10. in Genes ad lit cap 23. lib. 1 Retract c. 1. Nay even then when he is doubtful of the souls extraction whether created or begotten he still adheres to his opinion that it is infected by the flesh with some positive Quality as wine grows sowre by being put in a sowre vessel And VOSSIVS himself doth so explain him Haec enim mens est verborum Augustini profecto aut utrumque vitiatum exhomine trahitur aut alterum in altero tanquam in vase vitiato corrumpitur ubi occulta justitiâ— divinae legis includitur Quid autem horum sit verum libentius disco quà m dico ne audeam dicere quod nescio It seemes he doubted whether the soul were ex traduce or not although unlesse it were ex traduce he knew not how to defend Original sin But that he concluded it had a positive entity appears as by all that hath been spoken so by the motus bestialis bestialis Libido by which he expresseth the sin of Adam § 4. As the most of the Antients so the most eminent of the MODERNS have held the soul to be ex traduce and Original sin a positive entity two of which number are commended by learned Vossius but just now cited for men of Excellency and Renown And Vossius himself in divers places doth sufficiently assâ—rt the positivity of sin not so much when he saith of Original sin that it inclines the minde to vitious acts so that it may and is wont to be called a Habit as when he saith of its effects which arâ— Actual sins that they are grown over the soul as a spiritual Rust that carnal Concupiscence is wholy vitious as being a deflextion of the appetite from the Law of its Creation from whence ariseth a dispositâ—on and propensity to Râ—bellion that Morally vitious Acts are freely drawn out from that propensity that by the custom of such aâ—ts there is ingendered in the sinner a vitious Habit. Cùm affectus sic effraenis lascivit ut rationis imperium antevertat plurimùm adversus rationem insurgat ac nisi diligenter à ratione valletur facile aurigam rationem curru excutiat In graviori tentatione semper sit superior nisi ratio speciali juvetur Dei Judicio 2. And as they who affirme the propagation of the soul so also they who deny that God doth concur to the act of sin do eo ipso hold sin to have a positive being such as LOMBARD BONAVENTVRE ALEXANDER ALENSIS ASOTO DVRAND AVREOLVS the learned ARMACHANVS and others cited by Dr. STEARN in his Animi Medela p. 256 257. And though the Master of the sentences doth seem to some not to define which is truest the negative or the affirmative of Gâ—ds concurrence to acts of sin but leaves the Reader to judge of both tenets to Dist. 37. yet he is cited by CAMERACENSIS l. 1. q. 14. for the defence of the Negative Because according to his opinion God doth only permit those evils which are sin as saith our learned Dr. FIELD p. 128. 3. HEMMINGIVS the Scholar of Melanehthon and known to be of his minde defineth sin in general by disobedience against God and affirmes Disobedience to import four things in holy writ Defect corruption inclination and action Original sin he defines to be a propagated corruption of humane nature in which there is a material and formal part The Material saith he containeth both a defect in the intellect and a concupiscence in the heart In the fal of Adam there was a concurrence of these 8. sins 1. A doubting the truth of Gods word 2. A loss of faith or incredulity 3. Curiosity 4. Pride 5. Contempt of God 6. Apostacy 7. Ingratitude 8. A murdering of himself and his posterity And is expressed in Scripture by divers names Concupiscence Flesh the old man the Law of sin sin dwelling in us Rebellion the law of the members and sometimes sin without any epithâ—t Actuall sin he defines to be something done omitted said or thought fighting with the law of God Or as he puts it in other tearmes Actual sin is every action committed against the Law both in the Intellect and the will and in the heart and the outward members Thus that Regius Professor famous for learning and moderation 4. GREGORIE MARTIN of Silesia stating the sin of our first parents begins to expound the word Lapsus which he saith importeth a vitious act with which a man does any thing ill and is the same with peccatum Then coming to speak of the term originall sin he professeth to take the word for the positive act of eating the fruit which was forbidden And so the expression of Original sin he faith doth also include an actual From the importance of the word he comes to speak of the thing signified Which first he
from turning Atheists It was observed by Peucerus in his Epistle before his Chronicon that there are three sins especially which have a tendency to the changing of States and Empires 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Impiety Injustice unbridled Lust. The Church is ruin'd by the first the secular policy by the second and private families by the third Each of these must needs reign when thought to have nothing of Reality or if it hath to be God's own offspring The late Cromwellians and the Phanaticks were clearly transported by the latter For having called their strength the Law of Iustice they constantly ascribed to God's decree and appointment and All working providence whatsoever vile practice they found they were able to bring about Their Dâ—clarations and Petitions their Remonstrances and news Books their Congratulations and Addresses both to the old and young Tyrant did ever run in Mr. Hickman's and Hobbs his strain Regicide and Sacrilege and all manner of Vsurpations being not onely Real but positive entities were still ascribed to the working and will of Goâ— But Mr. Hickman's true opinion must not be judged of by his wordâ— unless his opinion like his words doth often varie and shift it self to the two extream parts of his contradictions Whether 't is really his opinion that that is no sin which is intrinsecally evil because he saith it is good and the work of good or else that that is a sin which is God's own work because he saith it is an action and hath a positive being whâ—ther 't is really his opinion That for Ammon to ravish his sister Tamar could not possibly be a sin because an action or that a hatred of God himself cannot possibly be a sin because a Quality we can but guess by his plainest words though the Searcher of hearts doth know his meaning For one while he seeks to perswade his Readers that sin is nothing but a privation And he doth it by producing such figurative expressions from certain Authors as by which it is said that sin is nothing As 't were on purpose to let us know what he means by a privation Another while he saith that all things positive are good and from God and yet that the action of hating God is intrinâ—ecally evil which notwithstanding he confesseth to be a positive thing Another while he saith That the first sin of the Angels was a proud desire to be equal with God Where sin is praedicated in recto of proud desire which proud desire he will not deny to be a Quality and so to have both a Real and a positive Being And yet another while he saith That whatsoever hath a real he doth not say onely a positive being God himself doth produce as the first cause of it So that one of these two must needs be really his opinion but which of the two I leave him to say either that sin is Gods work and that God produced in the Angels their proud desire Or else that sin hath no real being but that conscience and sin are Ecclesiasticall words By the first he is a Libertine by the second a Carneadist And whether he who is either will not laugh at the Psalmist in his heart at least or in his sleeve for believing such a thing as a Reward for the Righteous I shall leave it to be judged by the considering Reader What should move him to assert the most contradictory things as that sin is something and nothing an action and no action Not a quality yet a quality That the hating of God is a sin and no sin That God is the cause and the Creator yet not the Author of every act And yet the Author of every act which is but positive or real I am not able to imagine unless he writes as he is moved by the present necessity of his affairs or is carried away with the Iesuits Doctrine of probability concerning which I shall speak in my consideration of Mr. Baxter Now to fit the plainest Reader for the perusal of my Book and to make the positivity of the very worst sins become visible to the blind very easie to the unlearned and to the obstinate undeniable I will supply him in Antecessum with severall Hints and Memâ—nto's of several forms and ways of arguing upon which he may enlarge as occasion serves I. It is the property of Qualities Quarto modo and so of nothing but qualities to denominate their subjects either like or unlike And so those sins must needs be qualities which will be granted to give such a denomination II. The positive belief in sensu composito that there is no God must needs be granted even by all to be a positive entity or being But 't is so wholly a sin as that 't is nothing but a sin to have a positive belief that there is no God Therefore that which is so a sin as to be nothing but a sin must needs be granted even by all to be a positive entity or being III. Sin properly so called is a transgression of the Lâ—w. And so is the act of the hating of God which yet is granted to have a positive being IV. A simple conversion is to be made betwixt sin and any action against a negative precept for every such action must be a sin and every such sin must be an action V. If something positive may be a sin then may a sin be something positive but something positive may be a sin witness envy pride lust malice VI. To hate God is an Action and therefore poâ—sitively something But 't is a sin to hate God Ergo. VII God forbid's in the Decalogue those positive acts coveting stealing bearing false witness and those are sins which God forbids in the Decalogue therefore those positive acts are sins VIII In this true proposition It is a sin to hate God sin is predicated directly of a positive action therefore that action is a species of sin IX There is a numerical identity or sameness betwixt a demonstrative and a determinate Individual as betwixt this man and Mr. Hickman when pointed out with a finger Such an Identity there is betwixt this sin and the Divels hating of God when 't is the thing so pointed out X. That very phrase an act of sin implyeth sin to be a compound which hath an act as well as an obliquiâ—y So that if sin is sinfulness which is the pleasure of Mr. Hickman then sinfulness is a compound and hath an act XI The very word peccare to sin imports an action so does malefacere to do wickedly as much as benefacere to do well And therefore this is the stile of the holy Scriptures They that have done evil shal have a resurrection to damnation and God will render to every man according to his Deeds Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil XII 'T is false in
the negative precepts of the Almighty whereby he forbids us to give a being to this or that which he tells us he hateth the being of Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife is as much as to say thou shalt not put such a concupiscence in being And yet to covet another man's wife is as positively something as to covet his own and more positively something than not to covet another man's though that is the vice and this the virtue 13. They indeed who deny this natural freedome of the will must either yield to the Manichees or else do worse as hath been shew'd But this being granted there needs no new principle as the Manichees dreamed for the production of what is evil For he that may do good by maâ—king use of that Talent which God hath given him hath eo ipso the power to do the contrary unless he is irresistibly and unavoidably good which no man is on this side heaven Now since both the habits and acts of sin are as positive as the habits and acts of virtue and equally reducible to the species of Quality and that there needs no other power for the production of the former then what is given us whilst it is given us to be truly free agents It will be fit to make it appear that I have not onely my private but publick reason also for what I teach § 6. DIONYSIVS the AREOPAGITE who refell's the two principles in the Manichaean sense doth set them up and assert them in the sense of the Scripture Affirming God to be the principle of every thing that is good and the Divel on the contrary of every thing that is evil to wit the evil of sin which is evil properly so called He asserts the first in these wordâ— of Saint Paul Rom. 11.36 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he explains by the Restriction thought fit to be added by Saint Iames c. 1. v. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. he affirms the second in these termes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet 3. the power to sin though not the act of sin it self he rightly affirm's to be from God which power is innocent as in Adam and the Angels before their Fall who could never have sinned if before they actually sinned they had not had the power to sin But for the exertion of that power into act that being evil cannot possibly proceed from so good a fountain IGNATIVS in ep ad Magnes p. 53. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 IUSTIN MARTYR in Apolog. 1. pro Christ. p. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see him especially in Quaest. Resp. ad Orthod p. 396. 436. TERTVL contra Marcion Lib. 2. cap. 5 6. Suae po testatis invenio hominem a Deo constitutum lapsumque hominis non Deo sed Libero ejus Arbitrio deputandum ATHANASIVS de anima humana loquens in orat contra Gent. p. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And very much more to this purpose p. 9.37 de Incar verbi dei p. 57 58. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 58. AVGVSTIN Retract l. c. 9. per totum Malum non exortum nisi ex libero voluntatis Arbitrio Quid opus est queri unde iste motus existat quo voluntas avertitur ab incommutabili bono ad commutabile bonum cùm eum non nisi animi voluntarium ob hoc culpabile esse fateamur c. Quae tandem esse poterit ante voluntatem Causa voluntatis Aut igitur voluntas est prima causa peccandi aut nullum peccatum est prima Causa peccandi Non ergo est cui rectè imputetur peccatum nisi voluntati voluntas est quâ peccatur rectè vivitur NAZIANZ orat 40. p. 671. apud D. Barl. p. 52. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vide D. D. Hammondi Annot. in 1 Cor. 8.4 FVLGENTIVS apud Aqu. 1.2 q. 79. art 3. Deus non est ultor istius rei cujus est Actor PROSPER in senten ex Aug. p. 444. Iniquitas per ipsum facta non est quia Iniquitas nulla substantia â—st Mark hâ—s Reason and the two things which it implyes 1 That iniquity is an Accident and 2. Such as is not from God and therefore elsewhere he saith that the sole cause of evil deeds is the liberty of the will ad quam solam male gesta recurrunt CLEM. ALEX. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 167. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so in the place above cited § 3 he saith all substances have their production from God but not all Actions or operations unless when they are good The Original of the evil he imâ—putes to free-will And thus he disputes against them who feigned another crâ—ator even of substances beside the onely true God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CYRILLUS HIERO 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 30. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 citing that Text Eccles. 7.30 And that of the Apostle Ephes. 2.10 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And after in the same page 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a little after p. 34. speaking of the Devil and applying to him that of Ezek. 28.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he adds it was very well said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 AMBROSIVS de Cain Abel l. 2. c. 9. fol. 260. H. Qui peccatum suum ad quandam uti Gentiles asserunt Decreti aut operis sui Necessitatem referunt Divina arguere videntur quasi ipsorum vis Causa Peccati sit sed quanto gravius Peccato ipso ad Deum referre quod Feceris Reatus tui invidiam transsundere in Authorem non Criminis sed Innocentiae EPIPHANIUS l. 1. To. 3. Haeres 36. p. 266 267 268. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nothing can be without God except sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and more to this purpose p. 265.588 yet saith he God doth not hinder men from sinning by violence or force upon their wills 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 671. AUGUSTIN de civit Dei l. 5. c. 9. Malae voluntates à Deo non sunt quia contra naturam sunt quae ab illo est Sicut omnium Creaturarum Creator est ita omnium potestatum dator non voluntatum where by the will he means the action of the will § 7. That God gives onely the power to act what he forbiddeth and that no more is meant by those Fathers who say that all things in some sort do come from God still implying the act it self to be solely from the creature when it is wholly against God as the act of hating God is confess'd to be I have already made apparent by diverse instances recited And Doctor Stearn hath don it by diverse others An. med l. 2. p. 256 257. of which I shall mark but three or four ANSELMVS de concord Praed Praesc Nulla
is a high self-determining principle the great spring of our actions of Iudgement pag. 152. But Mr. B. as many others is produced by me in no fâ—â— place I not observing any order either of dignity or of time but giving to every one a place as he meets my memory or my eye The words of GROTIUS deserve great heed whilst he saith that the liberty of a man's will is not vitious but able by its own force to produce a thing that is vitious that is an action meaning that a vitious action as the action of hating God is meerly from the sinner man or Divel and not without impiety to be ascribed unto God either as a mediate or immediate cause And though I cited some part of his words before yet not to fail of his intenâ— I shall intreat my Reader to weigh the whole Neque ab eo quod diximus dimovere nos debet quod mala multa evenire cernimus quorum videtur origo Deo adscribi non posse ut qui perfectissimè sicut ante dictum est bonus sit Nam cum diximus Deum omnium esse Causam addidimus eorum quae verè subsistunt Nihil enim prohibet quominus ipsa quae subsistunt deinde causae sint Accidentium quorundam quales sunt actiones Deus hominem mentes sublimiores homine creavit cum agendi libertate quae agendi libertas vitiosa non est sed potest suâ vialiquid vitiosum producere Et hujus quidem generis malis quae moraliter mala dicuntur omnino Deum adscribere auctorem nefas est p. 27 28. LYCERUS vindicating God from the very same calumnie with which Mr. Hickman hath not feared to â—sperse him saith that the Divel did peccâ—re ex semetipso according to our Saviour Ioh. 8.44 that he alone is pater fons malorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first inventor of evil things to which he accommodates that of Austin Quomodo Deus pater genuit filium veritatem sic Diabolus lapsus genuit quasi filium mendacium God is said to be omnipotent not because he can do all things saith LOMBARD out of Augustin but because he can do whatsoever he will who cannot will to do any thing but what is good But there are some things saith he which God cannot do to wit those things wich are unjust sunt alia quaedam quae Deus nullatenus facere potest ut pâ—ccata p. 247. Non potest Deus facere injusta p. 248. These following Doctrines quod voluntas hominis ex necessitate vult eligit quod liberum Arbitrium est potentia passiva quod necessitate movetur ab Appetibili item quod dignitas esset in causis superioribus posse facere peccata Item quod alâ—quis faciat aliquid omnino ut Deus vult ipsum facere voluâ—tate Beneplaciti quod talis peccet c. were condemned with an Anathema by the Bp. of Paris and all the Professors of Divinity in that university A. D. 1270. 1341. together with the Blasphemies of Ioannes de Mercurio of the Cistercian order that God is in some sort the cause of the sinful act And that whatever is caused by the will of the Creature is so caused by vertue of the first cause And that God is the cause of every mode of the act and of every Circumstance that is produced All which are the Blasphemies asserted as Necessary truths by Mr. Hickman accordingly do call for a condemnation Bp. BRAMHALL shewes it to be his judgement whilst he censures Mr. Hobbs for saying that God wills and effects by the second causes all their actions good and bad and saith it implyes a contradiction that God should willingly do what he professeth he doth suffer Act. 13.18 Act. 14.16 Then he thus states the matter God causeth all good permitteth all evil disposeth all things both good and evil The general power to act is from God in him we live move and have our being this is Good But the specification and Determination of this general power to the doing of any evil is from our selves and proceeds from the free will of man it is a good consequence This thing is unrighteous therefore it cannot proceed from God Thus Aquinas and others are also expounded by Diotallevius not to mean that God is any cause of the evil act but that he doth not withdraw his necessary support from the will which abuseth its liberty in determining it self to the evil act and so that God is only the condition without which we cannot do evil not the cause by which we do it And so saith Aquinas Licet Deus sit universale principium omnis intentionis motus humani quod tamen determinetur voluntas humana ad malum consilium hoc non esse à Deo sed ab ipsâ again he saith non à motione divinâ sed à dispâ—sitione humanae voluntatis oriri ut malae potius actionâ—s quà m boâ—ae sequantur He also cites for his opinion what I have cast into the Margin and of which the result is this Dâ—termiâ—ationâ—m ad producâ—ndam huâ—â—s actus enâ—itatem esse à voluntate humanâ non autem à Deo Deum ita nolle antecedenâ—er ut haec entitas sit ut eam eâ—iam esse patiatur suum concursum non subtrahendo si conditio id exigat ex Creaturae libertate opposita p. 92.93.94 mark how it is expressed by Dr. GO AD. God made Adam able to be willing to sin but he made him not to will sin that he chose death it was by the strength of his will given him by God but God did not binde him to chose death for that were a contradiction a necessitated choice if the Nature of a voluntary Agent be well observed this point will be most evident And now the judicious Dr. Hammond will be the fittest to shut up all He that first gives the Law and then preâ—etermines the Act of transgressing the disobedience the doing contrary to that law that first forbids eating of the tree of knowledge and then predetermines Adams will to choose and eat what was forbidden is by his decree guilty of the Commission of the act and by his Law the cause of its being an obliquity And indeed if the obliquity which renders the act a sinfull act be it self any thing it must necessarily follow that either God doth not predetermine all things or that he predetermines the obliquity and Regularity bearing the same pâ—oportion of Relation to any act of Duty as obliquity doth to sin it cannot be imagined that the Author of the sinful Act should not be the Author of the obliquity as well as the Author of the pious Act is by the disputers acknowledged to be the Author of the regularity of it To conclude this Chapter in the words of Dr Reynolds Let not any man resolve sins into any other original then his
men by which they would hide the ill consequences of the Doctrine which they teach to wit that all manner of things were predetermined by the Almighty he mentioned this as the first That sin is but a non-entity a nothing so that all things forsooth might be eternally predetermined and yet not sin Thus they are Libertines or Carnâ—adists or both by turns do what they can so long as they adhere to the Calvinian Scheme But Mr. H. omitted what he found of most weight § 8. Whilst I am on this subject I mean the clearing of Dr. Hammond from this Falsificator I shall annex to his Epistle a parallel passage out of his Book where speaking of the positivenesse of sins of omission he saith it is so STRANGE that they also should be positive that he knows not whether ever it were asserted by any but Cerberus alias Champneys Mr. Dukes the keeper of the great Ordinary at Hell in Westminster Mr. P. and whom he would not joyn with such company the Reverend and learned Dr. Hammond p. 69. Here for brevities sake I shall but make these demands 1. With what colour of excuse this can be said of Dr. Hammond or indeed of Mr. P. who never spake of this matter by word or writing more then what hath been shewed in my former sections whereas sins of Omission have not been specified so if they had it had not followed that either I or Dr. Hammond had ascribed to such a positivity 2. Why the man should invent such ugly names as Cerberus importing the Dog of Hell and next to that the keeper of Hell to joyn with a Doctor of so much eminence in the world not more for his Learning then for the holiness of his life 3. Whether calling him the Reverend and Learned Dr. and expressing to him a seeming tendernesse is not a bitternesse oâ— Jeere and so a horrible aggravation both of the falshood and the sauciness which I have noted in my first and second Quere yet this is the meek spirited man who complaines that he is used with too much sharpness and exhorts his Brethren very demurely to let their moderation be known unto all men § 9. Having done with Dr. H. He begins afresh to ease himself on Dr Taylor Whom having taught in what manner he should have Intituled his Book Not Deus but Pelagius or Socinus justificatus p. 4 He immediately lets fly in as known a falsehood as could be spoken That the Dr. would bear us in hand he onely quarrelleth with the Presbyterian Notion of original sin whereas it is clear that Dr. Taylor in his Deus justificatus extends his Quarrel though very civilly even to those whom he owns as his Friends and Brethren sons with himself of the very same mother the Church of England Let Mr. Hickman read and hold from blushing if he is able whilst he beholds the Transition the Doctor makes in solemn manner p. 54. from his Presbyterian to his Episcopal Opponents whom he worthily calls his Dearest brethren That he denyes Original sin he very plentifully denyes and saith he cannot but confesse that to be which he feels and groans under and by which all the world is made miserable p. 12. But now suppose him a flat denyer of that Catholick Doctrine which is taught by our Church of Original sin And let us consider what it was which made him erre in this point whether it was not his contemplation of the horrible consequences and Tenents which Presbyterians are accustomed to superstruct on that Doctrine As for example that all being dead in Adam there was yet no remedy for the far greater part no not in the sufferings and satisfaction of Christ see how rightly the Doctor gathers the odious consequential Blasphemies in the former part of his enterprise as farr as p. 54. from what is taught by the Presbyterians Of he also confesseth his Brethrens Opinions to be free and such as if they were all agreed he would not move a stone to disturb p. 56. The Presbyterians therefore are to be blamed for whatsoever error he may have publisht in this particular And not at all the Church of England which by liberally allowing that Christ hath dyed even for all who were dead in Adam directs the onely both pious and unquestionable way of making good the Antient Doctrine of Original sin § 9. Had Dr. Taylor indeed affirmed what is but forged by Mr. Hick-man too unintelligent a thing to passe a judgement in such affaires that he was not opposed but by Presbyterians his own letters would have confuted him as now they do Mr. Hickman which he directed to the Right Reverend my Lord of Rochester But as it is the result is this That Doctor Taylor in one point is of a singular opinion or way of speaking in which the other sons of the Church of England do avow their sorrow and dissatisfaction who are the only men that can lay sure grounds whereon to plead with Dr. Taylor to good advantage § 10. I am one of the meanest though not I hope the least obedient of all her children And though I am well enough qualified for the clearing this learned Doctor from the calumnie and falshood of his Reviler yet am I too much a Iunior to undertake his conviction as to that which I conceive he hath said amiss But with a Praefiscinè be it spoken to so acute and eminent an Author who I conceive hath onely erred for fear of erring I think it better to insist upon the end of Christs Death then to define what would have been had he never died Concerning the wisdome of God's oeconomy in the disposal of All things I think the best way to judge is to judge as God judgeth and is revealed to have done in his written Word We are assured by revelation that Christ was given for all in Adam or for all who are born from Adam which had he not decreed to have done as he hath revealed we have no measure of judging what should have been the just consequence of Adam's sin or whether any besidâ—s Adam should have been concerned in it We cannot know God's counsels but by words or deeds revealed to us Had Christ been given but not for all in particular not for Heathen infants I think we can as little gueâ—s what should become of those Infants as what the other world had been if God in stead of This had created That By this I am willing to make it known to Mr. Hickmâ—n and his Abettors both how much I dissent from the Doctor 's errour on the right hand and how much more I joyn with him against their Heresies on the left § 11. The man of scorn goes on to teach us how unfit he is for a Divine or to be so much as a lay-Preacher were he in terrâ Corterialiâ— where no-ordaining is to be had For speaking of us and the Presbyterians in relation to our Tenâ—ts of God's Decrees he saith
for any one syllable of the whole But how they ought to have been cited if Mr. Hickman had not desired to passe for a kinde of Metaphysician let it be judged by this parallel which is as short as I can contrive it Mr. Hickman M. Barlow The privative nature of sin may be thus evicted If a thing be therefore sinfull because it wants some perfection that it ought to have and cease to be sinful when it hath all the perfection which it ought to have than is sin a privation but a thing is therefore sinful c. Ergo c. Book 2. Edit Arg. 3. p. 84. l. 16. c. Malum esse privativum rationibus evinco si res quaevis quae est mala sit ideò praecisè mala quia caret aliquo bono sibi debito ideò non sit mala quia non caret aliquo bono sibi debito tum malitia formaliter erit in carentia seu privatione boni At ideò res est mala c Et per consequens c. Ratio 2. p. 42. l. 5. à fin c. If sin as sin be a positive entity then it is a thing in it self good The consequence Ens bonum convertuntur Arg. 1. p. 70. l. 4. c. Si malitia aliqua esset ens positivum tum est bonum Ratio est quia bonitas est passio entis reciproca p. 44. l. 21. c. Ratio 5 This positive being of sin is it a finite and participate being If not c. p. 78. l. ult c. Impossibile est ut sit entitas aliqua finita creata c. Ratio 3. p. 55. l. 5. à fin c. ad 10. lineas vid. p. 54. l. 19. c. Ratio 3. p. 56. l. 23 c. If sin be a positive entity then it is either God or from God c. Arg. 2. p. 75. l. 4 c. Si ipsa malitia esset ens positivum tum vel erit c. Ratio 6. p. 45. l. 9. c. ad 16. lineas vid. p. 73. l. 2. c. If original sin be a thing positive 't is either the soul it self or some of its faculties or some accident or adjunct agreeing c. but none of all these Ergò c. Arg. 4. p. 87. l. 18. c. for 20. lines Si praeter privationem entitas aliqua esset malo originali intrinseca tum entitas illa vel erit ipsa natura vel ejus adjunctum aliquod accidentale At ex his nullum dici possit Ergò c. ita porrò ad 4. lineas Ratio 1. p. 58. l. 23. c. Vid. p. 59. l. 7. c. ad 19. lineas Vide etiam p. 90. l. 6. c. Such actions are called intrinsecally evil both because they are evil antecedently to any positive Law and because they are evil ex genere objecto and not meerly through the want of some circumstance for a Scholar to walk c. so on for 7. lines p. 94. l. 6. c. Actus illi dicuntur intrinsecè mali quod talis malitia ipsis inest ablatâ omni lege positiva non solùm sunt mali ex defectu circumstantiae alicujus sed ex genere objecto ut ambulare c. Sic deinceps ad 5. lineas Exer. Metap 2. Edit 2. p. 73. l. 12. c. Sins of omission and commission are sufficiently distinguish'd notwithstanding omission will be the transgression of an affirmative precept commission the transgression of a negative precept Secondly they differ in respect of their immediate foundation the fundamentum proximum of a sin of commission is some act or habit but these are not the fundamenta proxima of a sin of omission Answ. p. 98. l. 1 c. Differunt malum omissionis commissionis tamen 1. Quòd omissio omnis sit legis affirmativae violatio commissio praecepti negativi 2. Differunt quia malum omissionis in ipsa anima rationali c. immediatè fundatur non in actu aliquo aut habitu l. 20. Malum autem commissionis in actu aliquo aut habitu in quo tanquam fundamento proximo immediato consistit Sol. p. 83. l. 11. c. Vid. p. 64. l. 22 c. Because covetousness is a privation of liberality as it puts a man upon honest spending prodigality is a privation of liberality as it doth incline a man to avoid superfluous spending Answ. p. 99. lin 3. c. Avaritia dicit privationem liberalitatis in quantum liberalitas inclinat ad sumptus necessarios prodigalitas verò dicit privationem liberalitatis in quantum à superfluis sumptibus liberat Sol. p. 82. l. 13. c. vid. p. 81. l. 5. à fin c. That there can be no degrees in a privation is a meer mistake Among privations some are greater some less with relation to that form unto which they are opposed that may Physically be accounted the greater privation which removes more degrees of the form if we reckon morally then we may also calculate the degrees of privation c. on for 3. lines Ans. p. 99. l. 4. à fin c. Dico quòd privatio potest habere magis minùs Ratione termini privati boni sc. quod tollit Sic ut illam majorem dicimus quae majorem subjecti perfectionem tollit sic in naturalibusilla caecitas c. Et in moralibus illud vitium est majus quod bonum morale majus tollit Sol. p. 79. l. 16. c. There is a punishment of loss which scarce ever any man said was positive There is a punishment of sense and this is no other way an evil than as it doth deprive us of some perfection of which we are capable So on for five lines farther Answ. 105. l. 3. c. Hoc poena damni nullo quod sciam dissentiente est solùm privatio p. 50. l. 6. poena sensus est sâ—lùm homini malum in quantum privat hominem perfectione debita Sol. p. 47. l. 19. c. Vid. p. 50. l. 15. c. p. 78. l. 23. ad 5. lineas The hating of God is complexum quid c. on for 6 lines Ans. p. 95. l. 14 c. Vide p. 73. l. 4. à fin c. T is not a relatio rationis which is affirmed by Vasquez but against all good reasons c. Pag. 83. l. 5. à fin c. See p. 95. l. 3. à fin Quòd non sit relatio rationis quod velle videtur Vasquez in 1.2 q. 95. cap. 9. c. p. 53. l. 4. c. Dionysius Areopagita's testimony p. 56. l. 13. c. see in p. 40. l. 12 c. The testimonies of Dionys's two Greek Scholiasts Maximus Pachymera ib. l. 22. c. l. pen. c. See in pag. 40. l. 22 c. l. 29. c. Gregorie Nyssen's testimonie p. 57. l. 5. c. See in p. 41. l. 13
subscribe the English Articles is so very well known to many men that Master Hickman himself perhaps hath heard it § 50. Master Hickman's second Answer is by a proofless affirmation and even in that his heart fails him so as he clogs it with an almost a word which saves many a lye as the proverb is amongst countrey people Reader take notice that these are all his own words I am almost as confident that to grant him universal Redemption is to grant him â—ust nothing at all Thus what he forged of Dr. Heylin he fully verifies in himself if he is really the meaning of Theophilus Churchman For he is an unhappy Writer and marr's every thing he meddles with p. 1. To grant me that which was denyed by Mr. Calvin and his followers to grant me that which the Remonstrants were even persecuted for by those of Dort To grant me that for which Spanhemius accused Amyrald as an Arminian and for which the notorious Triers have deprived so many of their rights is to grant me just nothing saith our Automachus But what now will he say to save the credit of his Assembly men whom he can never reconcile to the Lord Primaâ—e or Bishop Davenant or to himself Let him read and be ashamed of the publick confâ—ssion of their faith chap. 8. Art 5. 8. especially the last Where Redemption is so far from being held to be universâ—l that 't is extended onely to them to whom it is certainly and effectually applyed and who are effectually perswaded by the Spirit of Christ to believe and obey c. Now can it be thought by Mr. Hickman that all mankind hath Christ effectually applyed as is there expressed if so he is it seems for universal salvation of which the Arminians never dream'd they were never so voâ—d of sense and reason If not so 't is evident how ill he thinks of his Assemblers and how little he can comply with their Novel Creed unless he is a kind of Gnostick and so can side with all by turns § 51. His Answer is not so ridiculous but that his reason is somwhat more Take it too in his own words For what though Christ did so farr dye for all as to procure a salvation for all upon the conditions of Faith and Repentance what 's this to the absoluteness of Goâ—'s Decrees c. pag. 49. But that the world hereby is made my witness that the man is indeed a meer Compiler and a Rhapsodist and is excessively ignorant of these affairs I would permit my inclinations to follow their bent upon this occasion Had the Reverend Dr. Reynolds said such a thing I should gladly have spent a little Volume in his Conviction But no such words could have proceeded from so intelligent an Adversary Such as he cannot but know how inconsistent this is with irrespective decrees that Christ should dye for all mankind and so as to procure their salvability or so as to make satisfaction for all the sins of all the world as well actuall as originall or so as to make God appeased and reconciled to all mankind How I say can this be which yet is granted by the Lord Primate and Bishop Davenant if God decreed from all eternity to reject or reprobate the greatest part of mankind either without respect to their very creation as Doctor Twisse or to their fall in Adam's loynes as the common Supralapsarians or to any the least of their Actuall sins as the Sublapsarians do hold and teach They that were absolutely reprobated cannot possibly be saved or have a salvability procured for them And so they imply a contradiction who holding the absolute decree of Reprobation do also hold that Christ procured a capability of salvation to all mankind But of this I have spoken to Dr. Bernard p. 159. Besides I will prove by three as great men as Mr. Hickman probably can name of the Anti-Arminians for so at least they are called by their Disciples and themselves That Mr. Hickman hath now granted what Dr. Twisse doth call the Arminian Cause For 't is confessed by Du Moulin in the letter which he sent to the Synod of Dort and by Paraeus the Professor of Theologie at Heidleburgh whose judgement was much regarded by the Synod of Dort too and by Doctor Edward Reynolds by unavoidable implication That if Christ dyed for all so farr as to procure salvation for all upon condition then God decreed he should procure it upon condition for all without which condition he did not procure it for any one Peter Moulin's words are these Non est dubium quin ob quam causam Deus damnat ob eandem damnare decreverit Damnat autem reprobos ob peccata actu commissa Luunt enim poenas in Inferno non solum peccati Originalis sed actualium omnium Unde inaequalitas poenarum Ergo Deus eos damnare decrevit ob eadem peccata Nihil enim obstat quo minus Deus considerans hominem jacentem in corruptione pravitate naturali eundem quoque consideret pollutum iis peccatis quae per istam pravitatem naturalem est commissurus And again Deum quenquam destinasse ad poenam aeternam sine confideratione Impoenitentiae aut incredulitatis nec dicimus nec sentimus Impoenitentia antecedit ordine Reprobationem Now this is downright Arminianisme saith Doctor Twisse who could better judge of Arminianism then young Bathyllus Now let Paraeus his words be weighed that we may see if he doth not also conspire professedly with the Arminians as Dr. Twisse expresly affirms of Moulin Justus Judex non aliam decernendae sententiae aliam exequendae causam habet sed unam utriusque nempe capitale slâ—gitium And again he saith Deum posse uti jure suo absoluto in Reprobis ad interitum ordinandis abstinuisse tamen And yet again Propter quod Deus in tempore aliquos reprobat à gloria propter id etiam Reprobare à Gloria olim decrevit And accordingly Doctor Reynolds thought fit to prove as well he might that God decreed from eternity to permit sin in time because in time he doth permit it And so by consequence he must grant that God decreed to reprobate in respect or intuition of actual sins because he reprobates in that respect and intuition So farewell to Master Calvin and the Synod of Dort Welcome the men that are call'd Arminians And if we allow Doctor Twisse to have known the Doctrine of Arminius Then the Synod of Dort was unawares Arminian too For they decreed to Peter Moulin the solemn thanks of the Synod for his most accurate judgement and consent in Doctrine And how the very same Doctrine which he presented to the Synod hath been affirmed by Doctor Twisse to be Iesuitical and Arminian I have largely shew'd in another Treatise Now then let Mr. Hickman himself be Judge who hath contended with his
were known to be I shall now observe in how many respects Mr. Baxter comes to be partaker of other mens sins besides the hideous and frightful nature of his Own I mean the sins of both the nominal Protectors and of that sort of men who had set them up To which end it will be usefull briefly to reckon the severall wayes whereby a man may be Accessory when another is Principal in a transgression 1. By Consent and Approbation so Saul was guilty of Stephens death Act. 8.1 So the Gnosticks were guilty of sins committed by other men because they had pleasure in those that did them Rom. 1.32 2. By Counsel and advise so Achitophel was guilty of Absolons Incest and Rebellion 2. Sam. 16.23 So also Caiphas had a hand in the blood of Christ Ioh. 11.49 3. By Appointment and Command so Pharoah and Herod are said to have slain the little children they never toucht Exod. 1. and Matth. 2. So David is said to have slain Vriah the Hittite though with the hand as well as the Sword of the Children of Ammon 2. Sam. 12.9 4. By Commâ—nding Defending or Excusing the Fact or the Malefactour Wo be to you that call evill Good that put darkness for light and bitter for sweet Esa. 5.20 Wo be to them that sowe pillows to all Armeholes and make Kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls Ezek. 13.18 5. By any kind of participation of any illgotten Goods whether gotten by Rapine or kept by fraud and unjust Title Of this saith the Psalmist when thou saw'st a Thief thou consentedst with him and hast been partaker with Adulterers Psal. 50.18 Thy s Princes are Rebellious and Companions of Thieves every one loveth gifts and followeth after Rewards Isa. 1.23 6. By too much Lenity and Connivence which harden's a sinner by Impunity And therefore Ahab was threatned for the unjust Mercy he shew'd to Benhadad with a sentence of Death without Mercy Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a Man whom I appointed to utter destruction therefore thy life shall go for his life and thy people for his people 1. Kings 20.42 This was the sin that brake Eli's Neck 1. Sam. 3.13 and 4.18 The Magistrate is made to be Gods Revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill And he ought not to bear the sword in vain Rom. 13.4 7. By unseasonable silence and Neglect of the Christian duty of reprehension For this is a sin against those precepts Levit. 19.17 Isa. 58. 1. Ezek. 3.17 and 33.7 Now by how many of these wayes Mr. Baxter hath been Accessarie to the Murder of One King and to the exclusion of another and to the debauching the peoples souls by his scandalous writings and example I leave to be pronounced by the Intelligent Readers Who that they may judge the more exactly shall do well to compare his signal Confessions above recited both with his flattering and blessing the Old and Young Cromwell And with his other Confessions which now ensue § 12. He confesseth he was moved to engage himself in the Parliament Warr Holy Common-wealth p. 456. And yet 2. That the Disorders which on both sides were unexcusable were no just cause to cast the Nation into a Warr. p. 474. Nay 3. That he would have ingaged as he did which was against his natural King and Leige Lord if he had known the Parliament he means the 2. Houses had been the beginners and in most fault p. 480. Nay 4. that the warr was not to procure a change of the constitution to take down Royalty and the house of Lords but clean contrary p. 482. why then did he fawn upon both the Cromwels 5. That all of them did rush too eagerly into the heat of Divisions and warr and none of them did so much as they should have done to prevent it And that himself in particular did speak much to blow the coals for which he saith he daily begs forgiveness of the Lord. p. 485. Nay 6. That he encouraged many thousands to engage against the Kings Army And is under a self-suspicion whether that engagement was lawfull or not yea that he will continue this self suspicion p. 486. Nay 7. he confesseth what he is by solemnly making this Declaration That if any of us can prove he was guilty of hurt to the person of the King or destruction of the Kings power or changing the Fundamental Constitution of the Common-wealth taking down the house of Lords without consent of all three States that had a part in the Sovereignty c. He will never gainsay us if we call him a most perfidious Rebell and tell him he is guilty of farr greater sin than Murder Whoredom Drunkenness or such like Or if we can solidly confute his grounds he will thank us and confess his sin to all the World p. 490. Here then I challenge him to make good his promise For I have proved him as guilty as any Rebell can be imagin'd in divers parts of this Postscript And his grounds I have confuted in my Appendix for Mr. Hickman § 78 79. If he thinks not solidly let him answer it if he is able § 13. What his chief Ground is upon which he goes whilest he speaks of the King as of a Rebell to the two Houses I easily gather from these words which I finde in his Praeface to the same book To this question did not you resist the King His answer is Verbatim thus Prove that the King was the highest power in the time of divisions and that he had power to make that war which he made and I will offer my Head to Iustice as a Rebell He here implicitely confesseth the King was once the highest power and implyes he lost it by the Divisions But that he never could loose it and that demonstrably he had it I have made it most evident in the Appendix of this book which concerns Mr. Baxter as much as Mr. Hickman at least as far as I have proved the Supremacy of the King § 78. which both the Houses of that Parliment did swear to acknowledg and to assert However if his Supremacy had been a Disputable thing yet whilst the most learned of the Land both Iudges and Divines did assert it in books which were never answered Mr. Baxter should have staid for the decision of that dispute before he resisted that power for the resisting of which for ought he knew he might be damned Rom. 13.4 Besides when he knew 't was no sin to abstain from fighting against the King and that fighting against him was a damning sin if it was any in the judgment of such persons as BP Hall BP Morton BP Davenant BP Brownrigg D. Sanderson D. Oldsworth thousands more he should have taken the safest course and rather have strained at a Gnat then have swallowed a Camel In a word That the warr was begun by the two Houses and only followed by