me and Mr. Whitfield Nay Mr. Barlee himself although he sometimes judgeth on Mr. W's side as in his * See Divine Philanthr ch 1. p. 24 25. Correptory Correction p. 69. yet at last he is forced to judge against it for he saith in plain terms as I lately observed in this his last print that God according to the letter of many Texts seems to be made a moral cause of sin as sin ch 3. p. 55. so that Mr. W. and Mr. B. are as much at odds in their very conspiracy and conjunction against a third person as Mr. B. is at odds with his dearest self His overthrowing his own interest in other cases Thirdly If M. W. admits of Hebraisms in any parts of Scripture much more must he do it in those we now speak of where if they are not admitted the inconvenience will be greater then any where else But no doubt in some parts he will not dare not to admit them for fear of being censured a direct enemy to Christ and to take part with the Socinians nay which is worse with such as Julian and the profane Helvidius For how many prophesies of Christ are read by us in the Preterperfect Tense the Hebrew Idiotism being retained in the English by our Translators Isa 9.6 there are two Hebraisms at once which no creature can deny who doth acknowledge that Text to have a prospect upon Christ unto us a child is born for unto us a child shall be born And when the Jewes object as they do often that Christs name was Jesus not wonderful counsellor the mighty God the everlasting Father the Prince of peace which yet according to the letter is affirm'd to be the name by which he should be called who is there spoken of Isa 9.6 what can Mr. W. alledge for himself unlesse he mind them of the most vulgar Hebraism by which the Name is put to signifie the Being A man is said by the Hebrews to be called thus and thus to whom such titles and epithets do well agree So * Cited from Isa 7.14 Mat. 1.23 They shall call his name Emmanuel would be literally truer of the * Isa 8.3 compared with vers 8. child of the Prophetess given to Ahaz for a sign then of Jesus Christ the son of Mary which yet according to the Hebraism is truer of Christ then of that child Again if our Greek copies of S. Mark did read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mar. 3.29 as well they may because the ancieâ—t Manuscripâ—s were found to do so and out of them the vulgar Latine what other reason could be rendred for our translating the words thus in danger of eternal damnation rather then in danger of eternal sin but that sin by an Hebraism is set to signifie the punishment of sin Nay it is much more probable in the judgment of Grotius that S. Mark himself writ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of sin and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of judgment or condemnation was nothing else but Interpretamentum Hebraismi the Exposition of that Hebraism which was used by S. Mark who is known by all to have been an Hellenistick Writer I say by all excepting such as Mr. W. who complains of hard words in a most plain English Writer Again if Helvidius his three objections from Mat. 1. vers 18. vers 25. against the Virgin Maries being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greek Fathers are wont to call her a perpetual Virgin should be urged by some Helvidian againâ—t Mr. W. he would be thankful to that man who should help him to answer unto the third that there were three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Hebrews the Principality the Priesthood and the right of Inheritance which were all the privileges of the first-born and in respect of which our blessed Saviour was so called How much gladder should he be to understand such Texts by the common Hebraism whose literal acception is of so dangerous importance as hath been shewed if he did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 live in vassalage to an opinion which cannot otherwise be defended then by making God to have a hand in sin He is convinâ—ed by that which he cannot but confess Fourthly M. W. cannot but confesse that the verb sino is an active that is to say of the active voice and yet its signification is onely passive for it onely signifies to suffer And when the Devils besought our Saviour * Mat. 8.31 suffer us to enter they did not command him but begg'd his leave although they spake in the Imperative or commanding mood Our Saviour said to the Haemorrhois Mat. 9.22 Thy faith hath made thee whole which was not literally but figuratively true S. Peters words to Aeneas were not figuratively but literally true * Act. 9.34 Jesus Christ maketh thee whole and if Christ healed the later much more evidently the former Thus when we are said to be justified by †Gal. 3.24 Faith in S. Pauls phrase and by * Jam. 21. 24. works in S. James neither is literally true without the help of a distinction or explication for in exact propriety of speech we are justified by †Rom. 8.33 God and by God alone And Mr. W. might have known that there is nothing more common in the opening of Texts then to distinguish the literall from the rational importance The mischiefes which ensue upon his way of exposition Fifthly Whereas Mr. W. alledgeth that the câ—earest Scriptures may be evaded by this shift c. I will shew him by some instances what kind of mischiefs have ensued by his way of apprehending those Texts of Scripture whose Hebraism he slanders with the name of shift One of his own examples is p. 22. David's saying of wicked Shimei that the Lord had * 2 Sam. 16.10 11. bid him to curse his Soveraign quite contrary to that which the Lord had commanded †Exod. 22.28 compared with Jer. 19.5 Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people nay Shimei being penitent * 2 Sam. 19.20 Quomodo dixit Dominus Semei maledicere David non jubendo c. Austin degra lib. arbit c â—0 confessed his sin a little after In this case say I either David was mistaken as well he might be who could commit such scarlet sins and thought that Shimei might really be sent by God in that message as Nathan before ch 12. to pronounce that curse which David confessedly had deserved and in particular cases it is manifest that God can dispense with his precepts to the sons of men who yet must never pretend to any such dispensation unlesse they can prove it to us by miracles and shew that the counter-precept was revealed to them from Heaven which till then must be concluded to have been sent up from Hell else any man may say that God hath commanded him to kill as well as to curse the Rule of his people or whatever else
is forbidden But Shimei had nothing to shew for it nay he had afterwards something to shew against it And therefore if David was not mistaken he must needs have spoken by an Hebraism it being impossible that David should be an absolute Reprobatarian and so imagine that God could bid a man sin God could have sent a curse to David for his sins by what Messenger he had pleased as well by Shimei as by Nathan but then that curse had been Gods and not his Messengers Shimei could not have sinned in the delivering of his message whilest he did as God bid him yet 't is apparent by the Text that Shimei sinned against Gods Precept Exod. 22.28 From whence it followes unvoidably that the words of David are onely permissive in signification though active in sound Nay this saith irrefragable Melanchthou is the true (*) Haec est veâ—a Grammatica interpretatio nihil habet absurdi Tradere in desideria significat desertionem Deus deserit impins sinitâ—eoâ— furere non cohibet eorum furorem Indurabo id est sinam indurari non flectam impii cordis duritiem Melanchth in cap. 9. ad Rom. sol 133. Grammaticall interpretation of such Scriptures and hath nothing in it of absurd because the most active expressions imaginable do by an ordinary figure onely signifie desertion and sufferance a not restraining of mens fury and a not turning of their hearts But alas Melanchthon was a poor shifter to Mr. Whitfield He was onely admired for his learning and holiness by the most learned and the most holy of the Christian world he was courted and consulted by no greater persons then Kings and Princes whereas Mr. W. is obliging the greatest Emperour of the East and in a zealous contention for the Mahumetan Decree confutes Melanchthon and his Hebraisme and all the Pillars of the Church both ancient and modern with the least puff of his breath By this shift the clearest Scriptures may be evaded Mr. W. and the Scotish brethren and James Naylors worshippers and Andrew Smith with Coppinger Artington and the rest are for a literal understanding of Gods bidding Shimei to curse King David God did not onely permit but was active and operative and efficacious in the villany say these Expounders nay decreed it absolutely say they from all etermity antecedently to his praescience of Shimei's will And in conformity to these dreams Coppinger said he was commanded by the Spirit of God to murder the Privy Counsellors of Queen Elizabeth a second had a call to slay the Ministers and a third who could not write or read was to be the executioner of the Lords most holy will Dang Posit l. 4. c. 10. p. 164. The same command was alledged by them who adored James Naylor and when Andrew Smith at prayer time had stabb'd the Quarter-Master Farley in Farfar Church he very seriously protested that Christ commanded him to do it Mr. Egerton was a Minister of no small note in the Presbyterie to whom when Coppinger had revealed his extraordinary call to execute vengeance upon the Magistrates Mr. Egerton would not discourage him in his intentions To use his own words * Dang Posit l. 4. ch 14. p. 174. he would not hinder the zeal of Coppinger and should be loth to quench the Spirit of God in him Again the Ministers of the Kirk when they had caused the people to take up armes against the †Exod. 22.28 Ruler of the People said they were * Spots Hist Scot. l. 2. p. 330 331. moved thereunto by the Spirit of God without the shift of an Hebraism you may be sure I know not whether Eldavid was brought up in the Doctrine of irrespective Decrees but of this I am sure that when he gave himself out to be the fore-runner of the Messias he said he did it without an Hebraism by the †See The self-Revenger Exempl ch 1. p. 3 4. commandment of God The time would faile me if I should speak of all the Impostors whom I have met with from Numa Pompilius to Mahomed and so downwards who did all pretend without an Hebraism to a secret revelation of Gods command I will conclude with one instance which in several pertinent respects will be as good as a thousand and which having touched upon elsewhere for another purpose I shall exhibit more fully and with a new application * This Story is to be had either in Knox his Hist of the Church of Scotl. p. 143 144 145 or in Bish B acrests Dang Pos l. 4. ch 15. p. 177 178. Norman Lesly who was son to the Earl of Rothsey had fallen out with the Cardinal who was withal the Archbishop of S. Andrews upon a private cause faith Buchanan between them two He together with James Melvin and Peter Carmichael zealous Reformers of Religion in the Kingdom of Scotland forcibly brake into the Castle and into the chamber of the said Cardinal where they found him sitting in his chair and crying out in these words I am a Priest ye will not slay me Lesly strook him once or twice and so did Peter But Melvin sweet man perceiving them both to be in choler and being himself in cold blood withdrew them from their temerity which he reproved in these words This work and judgment of God although it be secret ought to be done with great gravity and then presenting to the Archbishop the point of his sword he preached thus Repent thee of thy former wickedness c. * Note that the Historian is Mr. Knox who calls this Murder the work of God and writes in his margin The Godly Fact and words of James Melvin we from God are sent to revenge it for here before God I protest that neither the hatred of thy person nor love of thy riches moveth me to strike thee but onely thy being an enemy against Jesus Christ and his holy Gospel Having so preached he fell to practice first running him through several times with a Stog-sword to shew it was not any hatred of hiâ— person and then seizing on all his Goods Plate and Jewels to shew it was not any love to his Riches Let it now be but remembred how the men of Mr. Knox and Mr. Melvin's way do distinguish of Gods secret and revealed Will what they acknowledge themselves to mean by that distinction and in what manner they do apply it and how without any Hebraism they understand such Texts of which I am speaking let this I say be remembred by the considering Reader and then he hath met with the Application Sixthly 6. Mr. W's Masters commit contradictions by not observing the Hebraism For want of using the said Hebraism in giving the sense of such Texts whose letter seems to make God to be the Author of sin as Mr. Barlee saith c. 3. p. 55. it is wonderful to behold into how many absurdities and civil wars the Commanders in Chief of that party have unawares
and this by the confession of Mr. Calvin himself who as he calls it their superstition so he confesseth that S. Austin was not alwayes free from it But Mr. Calvin in despight of the Fathers piety which he brands with the Title of Superstition doth very dogmatically pronounce of those later sins of men which are called the punishments of the former that as they are punishments God is * Idem l. 1. c. 18. Sect. 2. Author praecipuus the prime or chief Author and that the Devil is onely subservient to him Satan verò tantù Minister And though he saith that the Ancients were somewhat too religious in their fear of speaking the simple truth as he calls it yet he confesseth their fear was very sober because the thing which they feared was the * Idem ib. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 3. fol. 95. opening a passage unto impiety of irreverently defaming the works of God Now what it was which misled Mr. VV. and Mr. B. from that holy fear of those Fathers to speak of God in such a fearless and frightful manner as I have partly already shewed and am partly to shew in my following Chapter I believe most Readers do judge as I do Sect. 21. 1. The desperate nature of Mr. u's Salvo's and the hardness of his very emollients Mr. W. having now done with the prime part of his enterprise wherein he hath often made God to be the Author of sin and often very much worse goes on talking to himself from p. 29. to p. 35. in an indeavoured excuse of what he hath hitherto delivered And in the very entrance on that attempt he makes himselef unexcusable by dropping out such excuses as stand in need of an excuse but cannot find one 1. Though Gods permission of sin is an operative permission saith Mr. W. yet he is not the Author of the evil permitted His reason is because what the wicked do wickedly God doth holily p. 29. Which is only to say that God is not the Author of sin in Himself not that he is not the Author of sin in others The Question is not whether God is a Transgressor but whether he makes men Transgressors as Zuinglius publickly affirmeth Not whether David's lying with Bathshebah was a good Adultery and so no sin in as much as it was the work of God and in as much as God did impel him to it as Zuinglius also speaks This is not the Question but the sordid begging of the Question and a taking that for granted which we deny and abominate with all our might as most blasphemous and irrational The Question is whether God impelled David to that Adultery or did work in the sin of that act as Mr. W. speaks which whilest I deny as a most impious and a most senseless proposition he must first of all prove and make apparent before he comes to infer upon it that the very same thing which man doth wickedly God doth holily and justly For God doth it not at all nor can he do it because he is God 2. What he saith of the Physicians occasioning the sickness yea the death of the Patient 2. by giving Physick which meets wi ha malignant Humour who yet cannot be said to be the Author of those effects p. 29 30. is as impertinent a similitude as he could easily have chosen and shews he considers not of what he speaks or understands not any thing of the word Author or seeks to amuse his illiterate Reader 3. He hopes to excuse himself by uttering these following Aphorismes 3. which pass with him for fan and soft and suppling speeches 1. God may be said to administer occasions of sinning and so to have some kind of hand in it The mollifying expressions of the harsh speaker by his word and by his works p. 30. 2. The Law hath an efficacy in stirring up sinful motions p. 30. 3. The good word of God doth accidentally stir up the corruption that is in mens wicked hearts p. 31. 4. Christs preaching and Stephens preaching had an EFFICIENCY in stirring up the wrath of their Hearers p. 31. 5. The good word of God doth stir up evil affections in the hearts of wicked men p. 31. Thus he puts upon himself that thick and palpable Fallacy non causae pro causâ Because when the word of God is preached the evil affections of the wicked are stirred up he concludes that Gods word doth stir them up As if my writing were the cause of those things which come to pass when I am writing Again he doth not distinguish betwixt the giving of occasions and taking occasions when none are given God hath spoken and done those exceeding good things from which men have snatched an occasion of evil but to administer or give occasions of doing wickedly is so ill a phrase that it is very unskilfully applyed to God to say no worse And I had hoped that these times had taught the unlearnedst to distinguish betwixt Scandalum datum acceptum Acceptum sed non datum Though David was pardoned his sin of Adultery yet because by that deed he had given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme his Infant Child did surely dye 2 Sam. 12.13 14. If Mr. W. did not consider that there is such a thing as the sin of scandal or did not know what scandal is and wherein it stands he may both know and consider it another time He who in doing what is lawful intends to make another man sin as well as he who doth it by doing what is unlawful without out intending any such thing is properly said to give occasion to scandalize to lay a snare in his Brothers way 4. His open profession that Gods secret wil is contrary to his revealed will in respect of the very same objects 4. I am urged to enlarge upon another passage in Mr. W. where he saith that the wicked in their evil actions doe that which is contrary to the revealed will of God though the same things which he wills viz. by his secret will which they know not p. 34. But I count the number of my pages and am exhorted to spend but little time against a man of no greater strength and have already acquainted him with enough of his unhappiness and whatsoever I shall omit of his other misadventures I shall abundantly meet with in my Account of Mr. Barlee and Mr. Hick whom I intend for the Subjects of the following Chapter CHAP. III. Of Mr. Barlee's forging God to be the Author of Sin and very much worse then so too in his very endeavours to speak as warily as his Principles will suffer him Sect. 1. BEing now to consider the Doctrinal part of Mr. Barlee's Book which he Intitles A Necessary Vindication or full Abstersion I must begin with his Third Chapter where omitting his Buffonery as that which serves to no end but to proclaim him to the world for the most lantentable Zanie
Escobar Theol. Moral Tom. 1. in prael cap. 3. See the Mysterie of Jesuitisme Letter 5. p. 59 60. and Additionals second Edit p. 70 c. p. 90 c. Jesuites doctrine of Probability 8. Last of all for Mr. B. who hath spent so many whole sheets in calling me Papist Arminian Socinian Massilian Pelagian and what else he listed though I could make it undeniable even to him and his Congerrones that he hath spoken of each as if he knew nothing of any one and could prove him irresistibly by an Argument ad hominem to be a Hobbist a Mahumetan and of every other Sect of men with whom he partakes in any kind yet I shall imitate S. Austin and take a shorter course with him When that Father was accused by Secundinus for a Manichee he purged himself in this manner Secundinus saith I am a Manichee and I say I am not Let the Reader judge which of us is herein to be believed My case is the same and I will take the same course Mr. Barlee saith I am a Papist Pelagian Socinian Sorcerer c. But I say No to all his sayings I leave it now to the Reader to believe whom he pleaseth Mr. Barlee or Mr. Pierce Extende manum tange c. Job 1.11 Id est permitte ut extendam manum tangam cuncta quae possidet ut saepius in sacris Scripturis tribuuntur Deo Actiones cù solùm eas fieri permiserit August ad Simplician l. 2. q. 2. Either make the Tree good and his Fruit good or else make the Tree corrupt and his Fruit corrupt Matt. 12.33 For the Tree is known by his Fruit. Ibid. An Additional Advertisement To the Reader July 26.1658 MY present Tract being finished and wrought off at the Presse the Stationer sends me at this instant a little book of Mr. Baxter's which addresseth it self in the Title-page to no more then three men to wit Grotius the new Tilenus and Mr. Pierce but in several passages of the thing his objections reach to many more though having onely run it over with a transient eye I can remember no more particulars then Bishop Bramhall Doctor Sanderson Doctor Heylin and Doctor Taylor Had it not come a little too late and were it not more in my humour then it seems to be in Mr. Baxter's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prefer a good speed before a great deal of haste an hour or two had sufficed to have made a Winding-sheet for himself at least as suitable as that which he made for Popery But as it is I must declare to all those persons concerned in it with my self and to Tilenus the second more especially whom after all my inquiries I have not the happinesse to know in the least degree that till the end of this Summer I shall not bestow the least though upon any part of Mr. Baxter and that for these ensuing reasons First because I am praeengaged in divers matters of greater moment which will take me up wholly the next three moneths And if I return to any Dispute in any kind whatsoever as it will fall out cross to my inclinations so I resolve to do it onely at times of leisure and diversion For whilest my time may be spent in some good imployment why should I lose it in my least necessary Defences Next I desire to understand what entertainment the thing will find with considering Readers for if it seems to others what it doth to me it will tend to nothing but the disparagement of its Author Nor need I vindicate Mr. Baxter from his severities done unto himself Besides that I resolve never to controvert a subject untill the most sober unbyass't persons shall think it publickly useful as well as I. Thirdly I think it will be best to expect the final resolutions of the other persons concerned especially of the excellent Tilenus junior whom Mr. Baxter hath blurr'd with his blackest ink and if he possibly is alive to undertake his own cause the world will find 't will be but impar◠congressus Again I am told that Doctor Reynolds is at last resolved to find me work and in case it proves true I shall remember the speech of the King of Syria at Ramoth-Gilead Fight ye not with small or great save onely with the King of Israel 2 Chron. 18.30 He is so worthily reputed the Coryphaeus of that party if yet he is not too worthy to be in earnest one of them that Mr. Baxter will follow him very contentedly at a very great and humble distance Fifthly I ought to think twice before I meddle with Mr. Baxter because I find him so very liable I had almost said in every line for as much as I can judge by my short and cursory perusal of him And where advantages are too many some consideration is to be had how much of all that abundance is to be taken and left for t is a thanklesse office to acquaint a man with his unhappinesse and in the doing of that I would not willingly be endless Sixthly I am to meditate in what manner of terms I ought to deal with Mr. Baxter The desires of my soul are to use him gently but considering his guilt I know not whether my indulgence may not be hurtful to his admirers who may be apt to think well of his greatest crimes if they find me like Eli to his sons too milde a Censor Nor am I sure that my softness will not be mischievous to himself who may mistake my longanimity for carnal fear and so by sinning yet more may make a worse thing happen unto him I say not this without ground because I find him abusing my former lenity as if he imagin'd his being terrible had made me courteous Christian Reader observe my reason He doth now acknowledge to all the world and withal professeth he Praef. sect 4. p. 3. must acknowledge both my gentleness and charity and brotherly moderation in dealing with him But as if gentleness and charity and brotherly moderation were onely fit for a moral man and were the glittering sins of an Episcopal Divine he behaves himself so unexpectedly in divers passages of his Book as if he durst not imitate the best things in me and in the point of charity had thought it his duty to come behind I had done no worse then the clearing of God from those slanders which the tongue of the wicked had raised against him and the freeing my self from those other slanders which were raised against me for clearing God things confessed to be matchless and groundless slanders by the dearest friends of Mr. Barlee now at last not denied by himself when yet Mr. Baxter thinks fit to say in the depth of his passion and partiality Mr. Baxter in his Praef. addressed to Mr. T.P. Sect. 20. towards the end of it That he had rather die in the state of David before Nathan spake to him or of Peter after he had denied his Lord that is in
of the Church of England exhibited to us in the last clause of the Article The second is grounded on another Confession of the contrary party in their definition of Gods Decrees Sect. 13. Mr. W's mistake of the thing in question represented in clearer and fairer colours The general Contents of the several Chapters Chap. I. Sect. 1. MAster W's fanciful Creation of three general Objections The distrust he puts in his cause His studied aiming beside the mark He overthrows his own rampire His second overthrow of himself and of his Absolute Decrees Sect. 2. His third overthrow of himself by a most crimson contradiction He enters on that which Mr. Calvin judged the worst part of Libertinism His new contradiction about the manner of Gods working His down right Libertinisme Libertines no Christians A Dilemma as a touch stone to try his meaning The determination of mans will to wicked actions is not Gods work He inferreth God to be worse then the Author of sin His meaning ferreted out of his words His abuse of Scripture to serve his turn He speaks worse of God then can be truely said of Satan His ugly Doctrine of God spoken out by Mr. Barlee Sect. 3. His third general Answer a meer majestick mistake Sect. 4. He descends from Generals to Particulars beginning with the charge of making God the Author of sin and with a Tergiversation and Imposition on the Scripture He asperseth God with the decreeing of sin in the first attempt of his excuse His memorable Answer to his own Objection His meaning caught in a Dilemma His foul use of the word Permission and its odious impropriety represented in other colours The common Poultice for a sore Doctrine Sect. 5. He moulds a new Objection against himself and grants what his Doctrine is charged with His Answer consists in shifting the duty of a Respondent and speaking quite another thing He confounds the Permission of sin with sin and tries to blot his Doctrine fair His abuse of Saint Austin He argues that God doth will sin perfectly because he wills the permission of it And fain would have Scripture to speak against God by speaking his activity in the production of sin 1. From the selling of Joseph 2. Pharaoh's obduration 3. The Candanites hardening 4. Absaloms defiling his Fathers Concubines 5. Shimei's cursing David 6 7 8. Three other Texts 9. The Egyptians hatred of Israel 10. Gods being said to deceive the Prophet 11. Giving up to vile affections 12. Giving eyes not to see 13. Sending delusion 14. The Nations making league with the Romans All which Scriptures are explained and vindicated from the frightful misapprehensions of this Mistaker Sect. 6. Mr. W. most groundlesly infers God to sit still and to be an idle Beholder if he is not busie in the efficiency of sin Chap. II. Sect. 1. OF the common Hebraisme by which such verbs are active in sound are onely permissive in signification by the admission of which Rule the foul Absurdities aforesaid would be avoided and Scripture expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. W's manifold unhappiness in rejecting that Rule He makes contradictions in Scripture and overthrows his own interest in other cases He is convinced by that which he cannot but confess His woful shifts in expounding Scripture and the mischiefs ensuing on it His Masters contradict themselves by not observing the Hebraisme Mr. W. makes light to be a sin and incest to be no sin by making a parity of Gods working in either case He is beaten with his own weapons by any Atheist Dialogue-wise condemned out of his own mouth Scripture interprets Scripture against Mr. VV. Sect. 2. His return to his first method of forging Objections to himself He is at odds with Doctor Twisse To make men sin is a a sin of the worst size yet ascribed unto God by that sort of men Sect. 3. The ease and ordinary perversion of the Scriptures Mr. W. mistakes the errors for the persons of some Protestants and confounds them with the Papists His party clamour against themselves and affront God with an Epitrope Mr. W's clamours against Protestant Divines He jumps in so doing with the Jesuited Papists Sect. 4. His foulest imputation cast upon the Scriptures Saint Peters caveat touching Pauls Epistles The literal plalnness of some Scriptures doth make them difficult to some A short direction to the means of remedy or prevention removing a stumbling-block out of the peoples way Sect. 5. Mr. W. either means that God hath a hand in evil because in good or that the act of sin is not the sin or that God is the proper cause and efficient of sin and that he means the last is proved by a Dilemma Humane learning a good foundation for a Divine Sect. 6. Mr. W's rare essayes to separate the wickedness from the act of the wicked act Sect. 7. His first essay is a bare Dictate including eight gross absurdities Of actions Natural and Unnatural Of nature Corrupted and Uncorrupted Mr. VV. denies Gods Omnipotence and makes him the proper cause of sin Sect. 8. His second essay is an Impertinence beyond example or what is so much worse as that it ought not to be named He is forced to be pertinent and his answer challenged Sect. 9. His third essay is a continuance of his Tergiversation and inferreth God the efficient of sin Mr. VV. vindicated from his abuses put upon himself The probable causes of his chiefest aberrations Five Expedients proposed to undeceive him Sect. 10. His fourth essay makes the wickedest actions to be good and from God Sect. 11. His fifth essay doth betray him to a confession that he maketh God the Author of sin He mistakes a moral for a natural action and is hampered in some Dilemma's The method by which he is led into all his blasphemies Sect. 12. Sin is inseparable from the sinful action which Mr. VV. seems to see by his Tergiversation He makes an Accident the subject of Inhesion to an Accident Confounds the act of differing with the passive power of being parted Makes Davids lying with Bathshebah no sin And the sin of Adultery separable from it self Sect. 13. He sheweth his cause is desperate by speaking purposely beside the purpose He attempts the washing of wet from water roundness from a Globe Sect. 14. Mr. VV. affirms that God doth will and work sin and hath a hand in effecting it and that sin makes for Gods glory Concludes sin to be good or Gods working it as evil Feigns God to work evil to a good end Q. Whether he infers not God to be a sinner His inconsistence with Mr. Hick and Mr. B. and with himself He frames not his propositions to the nature of God but the nature of God to his propositions Sect. 15 16. Mr. W's great forgery in that little which he cites His foul sense of Gods determination that sin shall be done His impious expression or Gods having a hand in sin and the Importance of that phrase Sect.
a most necessary truth to say that God is the Author or cause of sin I have more abundantly made apparent in Three distinct Tracts viz. Correct Copy p. 9 10 50. especially Div. Philanthropy defended ch 3. sect 34. p. 132. c. to p. 139. sect 35. p. 141. and again Div. Purity def ch 4. sect 3. p. 19 20. And I shall do it yet more effectually in the second and third Chapters of this following Work in particular ch 3. sect 13. 27. And therefore Thirdly That they would not so frequently and affectionately contend for that very Doctrine which sometimes though very rarely they confesse to be false blasphemous but that they find it must follow from their espoused Principles of God's Decrees so as they see they must relinquish either both or neither I have abundantly evinced in the Div. Pur. def ch 4. sect 7. p. 33 c. to p. 39. especially from the citations out of Doctor Twisse Du Moulin Remigius and the other friends of Gotteschalc Bishop Cuthert Tunstal and above all out of Prosper whom they many times dream to have been their Patron and therefore cannot gainsay him without Discomfort And again I shall evince it in several parts of the following work and in particular ch 3. sect 8. 10. Besides that the thing is so conspicuous of it self that I may venture to make the Adversary the sole Iudge of the Businesse For Nothing but their Principles of Gods Decrees can lead them to blasphemies of such a nature Sect. 8. I demand of any man living what should move such learned men as Huldericus Zuinglius Doctor Twisse Piscator Zanchy Triglandius Beza Calvin Martyr Borrhaus and many others to teach posterity in their printed works That God doth make men transgressors For the several pages of their works see the Div. Philan. def ch 3. sect 34. especially the Div. Purity def ch 4. sect 3. p. 19 20. sect 6. p. 31 32. and is the Author of adultery and that murder is the work of God and that sinners do sin by the force of Gods will that God predestines men to sin and to sin quatenus sin that he is the Author of evil not onely of punishment but of sin too that he is the cause not onely of humane actions but of the very defects and privations that he effecteth sins that he exciteth and tempteth and * All the excuse Mr. B. makes for the saying that God doth compel men to sin is that they use it but seldom See what shall be said ch 3. sect 27. num 5. compelleth men to sin and a world the like stuff I say what moved them to print such loathsom Doctrines Was it that they esteemed them as flowers of Rhetorick or witty sentences or pretty conceits or well-sounding periods or soul-saving preachments or Hosanna's to the most High This cannot be no not so much as to be imagined What invited Mr. Hobbs to say That Mr. Hobbs of Liberty and Necessiâ—y p. 23 24. sin may be necessarily caused in man by God's ordering all the world that God doth will it and necessitate it and * Id. in Animadvers p. 11. 107. 106. cause men to erre and is the principal Agent in the causing of all actions which he who saith doth also say that he findes no difference betwixt the action and the sin of that action from which great truth he should have inferred that God cannot be the cause of sinful actions not that he is the cause of sins What made the * p. 36 37 Comforter of believers to say that God is the Author of sinfulnesse it self and hath more hand in mens sinfulness then they themselves Were these Writers afraid lest men should think too reverently of God too hardly of the Devil and too profanely of themselves or were they moved with an itch to revive the Doctrine of Carneades and to make men believe that sin is nothing but a name invented by Ecclesiasticks and that the thing call'd sin is just as good as the thing call'd virtue as being equally the work of God 't is very hard to think this Or if this was one of their reasons yet it was not certainly the first But I have yet a harder Question What should move Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barlee in the very books which they have printed on purpose to vindicate their Doctrine from all the horrible absurdities wherewith they stood charged and wherein they knew it concerned them to speak as warily as they were able as knowing that they were liable to be publickly called to an account what I say should move them at such a time and in such a manner to affirm that God * For Mr. W's several pages where these things are taught see the first and second chapters of the following work especially the second and in that for instance Sect. 14. doth will and work sin that he hath an efficiency in sin that in all the wickedness in the world God hath a hand a working hand yea the chief hand that sin doth make for Gods glory and that it hath a respect of good and that God hath a hand in effecting it yea that God doth act in it as a natural cause that God decreed the sin of Adam and so ordered the whole business that he should certainly fall that it was necessary the first man should sin that the Gospel doth stirr up evil affections in the hearts of wicked men and hardens mens hearts and God intends it should do so and sends it for this very purpose that of sinful actions God is the Author and proper Cause yea that he doth both will and work in the Sin of the Act because not onely the action simply consider'd but the very Pravity and Deformity of it makes way for Gods glory What moved Mr. Barlee to adde his suffrage to Mr. Whitfield and to say in plain terms That * For Mr. B's several pages where these things are taught see the third whole chapter of the following work and the Index of the Divine Philanthropy Def. which will direct to the rest God is the Soveraign Author of the material part of sin which is the doing or leaving undone not onely a natural but moral act such as David's lying with Bathshebah or Cain's killing Abel as Doctor Twisse himself interprets the material part of sin nay farther that God is the cause of the very Obliquity of the Act of Sin that God exciteth men to the act of adultery that he stirreth them up to unjust acts as a man puts spurrs to a dull Jade that he tempts men to sin and a world the like blasphemies Nay what made him and Mr. Hick to tell the World †See what shall be said ch 3. Sect. 18. that if sin is a positive Entity either God is the Creator of sin or else sin it self is God Did this prodigious pair of Writers think that these were quaint Apophthegms which
it p. â—6 And gaping so wide as he does nay wider then all this as shall be shewed in due time how can we fail to know his meaning by his gaping Let us then contemplate the large Dimensions of his swallow that at last we may demand what it is will stick with him 3. His now contradiction about the manner of Gods working 3. First an huge Contradiction goes down very glibly for as soon as his ignorance is acknowledged as to the manner of Gods working p. 19. he describes the manner of it and sets it down as dogmatically as if he had been an eye-witness and of counsel to that secret and hidden will of God which the men of his way are wont to oppose to his revealed one He saith consentingly out of * Negari non potest illum aliquo modo procurare negotium cujus consilio decreto genotium geritur Piscat ad Am. Collat. Vorst sect 17. Piscator but blusht to put it into English that God doth procure the business of sin by whose counsel and decree the business is managed or carried on p. 21. my more distinctly as to the manner in another shred of Latine which he calls a true Rule but puts it not into English The true English of it is this That * Deus agit in peccato non tanquam causa moralis sed tanquam causa naturalis God doth act in sin not as a moral but as a natural cause p. 25. that is to say He doth not so act as to perswade onely which yet is bad enough of it self and the worst that the Devil can arrive unto but in such a natural way as to necessitate the sinner which is infinitely worse then to perswade him Nor will it advantage him to say that God decreeth and procureth and is the natural cause of the positive act of every sin but the accidental cause onely of the sin it self as He and Mr. Barlee shall be shewed to say in plain terms For Davids lying with Bathsheba was the positive act of Adultery and sin it selfe but Davids lying without Bathsheba was no sin at all either in whole or in part which if Mr. Wh. cannot deny as I am sure he cannot and do challenge him to do if he thinks he may or dares to do it then must be confess it to be his Doctrine that God was the natural cause of Davids lying with Bathsheba and that that positive act of Adultery was Gods work and his Creature because of positive acts he saith that God is the proper efficient cause p. 24. This lies on him unavoidably unless he can separate the positive act of Davids lying with Bathsheba from Davids sin of Adultery which was his lying with Bathsheba and nothing else which I shall shew he cannot do if so gross a visible needs shewing when I discover how Mr. Hicks betrayed Mr. Barlee into a Blasâ— hemy no less then sins being God if a posâ—tive act and hovv Mr. B. vvas even vvith him by sending his Treachery to the Press So much for Mr. W's nevv self-contradiction 4. His downright Libertinism 4. Next Mr. W. must be observed to speak the language of the Libertines 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a syllable as I lately intimated but novv shall openly express Saint Paul having said God worketh all things Eph. 1.10 meaning all the Graces of the Holy Ghost of vvhich alone he there speaks as Calvin himself confesseth the Libertines concluded as * Efficit omnia id est omnia sine exceptionâ— Beza in locum 1. Facinus puta Adulterium aut homicidium est Dei Auto. is Motoris Impulsoris opus Zuing. de Prov. c. 6. 2. Deus videri potest causa non modò humanarum actionum verùm etiam Dâ—fectuum atque Privationum quae ipsis inhaerent Pet. Mart. in 1 Sam. c. 2. 3. Deus efficit ea quae peccata sunt Sturm de Praedest Thes 16. 4. Idem facit Deus scilicet procurat adulterium maledicta mendacia Piscat resp ad Apolog. Birtii p. 143. 5. Omnes peccatores flagitiosi vi voluntatis Dei faciunt quicquid faciunt Id. Resp ad Tauffr p. 65. 6. Deus efficaciter agit seu efficit suâ efficacitate peragâ—t omnia sine ullâ prorsus quantulâcunque exceptione Beza contra castel Aphorism 1 6 7. Beza did and as Mr. W. novv doth that all their sins vvere Gods works For that vvas their rule vvhich is novv Mr. Whitfields that what the Scripture both plainly and positively asserteth that God doth we ought not to deny that he doth it p. 19. not admitting any Hebraisms or other figures of speech or restrictions and limitations of universal terms but taking all by the Letter to serve their turn as Mr. Wh. doth to serve his p. 23. Hence are those ordinary Doctrines amongst the men of that batch 1. That adultery or murder is the work of God the Author 2. That God may seem to be the cause not of humane actions only but of the very defects and privations which cleave unto them 3. That God effects those things which are sins 4. That God procures adultery cursings lyings c. 5. That all wicked men do all that they do by the force of Gods will 6. That God efficaciously acteth or effecteth and by his efficacity performeth all things without any the least exception From vvhich very saying being pronounced by the Libertines Mr. Calvin discovers tvvo horrible but unavoidable sequels 1. That there is not any difference betwixt God and the Devil 2. That God by this Doctrine is transmuted into the Devil Calv. ad eâ—s Libert cap. 13. 14. Novv vvhen the Calvinists and the Libertines do teach the very same thing vvhy shall not I hate it in the Calvinists as Calvin hated it in the Libertines nay vvhy not more since a Blasphemy is the worse not one vvhit the better for proceeding out of a learned and a leading mans mouth Tanto conspectius in se Crimen habet quanto melior qui peccat habetur Nor doth it move me that some Calvinists vvill take it ill at my hands vvhilest others not rigid vvill take it vvell for no doubt but the Libertines took it as ill of Mr. Calvin The Treasure that I covet is not their Favour but their Amendment Let this precede and that vvill follovv unavoidably I therefore ask Mr. Whitfield * A Dilemma as a touch-stone to try his meaning Is his meaning the same vvith Beza's and Peter Martyr's and the rest in my margin vvhen he saith we must not deny that God worketh all things or is is not If he say Yes he is a Libertine and Mr. Calvin shall be my witness and then let him renounce the Christian name and Religion that the * Rom. 2.24 Name of Christ be not blasphemed among the Gentiles For we who are Christians do assert that God worketh not all things without exception good or bad but all things only which
Liberty and Necessity p. 20. The shift is common to the Libertines and Ranters with Mr. Hobbs and Mr. W. and Mr. B. c. This is the ablest of their Answers when nothing else will do the work to say that God would have it so because he would and however contrary to his word yet 't is a part of his secret will revealed onely to that Tribe at which the rest of mankind must content themselves vvith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and must hold themselves confuted vvith the Quis tu es of the Presbyterians Thirdly It is his other absolute leasure to say that Saint Paul did speak of this subject Rom. 9.14 It is enough to say No and that 't is senseless to imagin it But I vvill tell him farther that * Non fuit levis offensio quòd tam pauci Judaei credierunt Nomen populi Dei objiciebatur Apostolo Haec est meo judicio occasio harum disputationum Melanchth in Praef. ad cap 9. ad Rom. Saint Paul is there disputing against the male-contented Jewes vvho vvere very much offended that the Gentiles should be received and the Jews rejected the greatest part of them vvho hitherto vvere vvell knovvn to be Gods peculiar and chosen people This saith Melanchthon vvas the occasion of that vvhich follovves And * Non aliud vult Paulus Rom. 9. â—0 11. quà m docere Gratiam universalem esse contra Judaeos qui culpâ suâ exciderunt Gratâ—â c. Hâ—mming Praef. in Exposit Epist ad Râ—m See Doctor Ham. Annot. upon that Chapter Hemmingius thus That S. Paul intented nothing else v. 10 11. but to teach that Grace vvas universal and extended also to the Gentiles This vvas contrary to the Doctrine vvhich vvas then espoused by the Jewes as novv it is by the Consistorians Were this a place and a time to argue from the genuine and demonstrable sense of that Chapter vvhich of it self vvould make a Volume there could nothing prove more destructive to Mr. W's Doctrines then that one Chapter and that not onely according to S. Paul's sense but even according to the senselesness vvhich the * 2 Pet. 3.16 unlearned and the unstable are vvont to wrest from that Scripture Fourthly The Quis tu es may fit my mouth a great deal better then Mr. W's If God vvas pleased to punish none in his eternal Decree vvithout respect unto their sins and to †Tit. 2.14 give himself a ransom for all mankind Quis tu es Who art thou O man that repliest against God shall the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made me thus Why was I not decreed and necessitated to bliss from all eternity why have I not grace irresistible why shouldst thou leave it in my povver to be unhappy vvhy should any kind of wickednesse be able to put me into a state of damnation or vvhy should all men be capable of escaping Hell as vvell as I and my party vvhat have moral honest men to do vvith heaven vvhy vvere they not rejected before they were The Puritanical Jewes vvere apt to mutter to this effect but let not Christians be so irrational This vvere ansvver sufficient to all the ill-natur'd murmurings of carnal men But for the good of the vulgar for some of vvhom Mr. Wh. may be too hard I vvill apply my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the particular dangers novv spread before them Sect. 4. Mr. VV. saith truly He descends from Generals to Particulars and begins with the charge of making God the Author of sin that the first and princiâ—al objection against the Doctrine of absolute Decrees is that it makes God to be the Author of sin p. 20. But doth he say hovv vve prove it No he durst not do that Hovv then should he have ansvver'd He therefore proves it his own way taking on him the person of T. P. or the like but does not so much as pretend to have read the objection vvhich he proposeth to be ansvvered And to one who speaks lesse then nothing it is not fit to speak much although it is hard to abstain from speaking The last part of his objection is somevvhat honestly fram'd if God decrees the Being of sin then he is the Author of it Let us observe hovv he ansvvers it for in that vve shall shortly find a very great jest First he saith vvhat vvas never denied I think by any I. He begins with a Tergiversation and imposition on the Scripture that God doth permit sin and hath decreed to permit it But then he addes vvhat is most false unlesse it be carefully explain'd The Scripture is plain that God decrees those actions which when men do they do very sinfully p. 20. 1. He here addes to the vvord of God there 's no such Scripture 2. He slides from vvhat he said of God decreeing to permit and vvithout any transition or pretense for the change pronounceth quite another thing that God decrees the sinful actions or sins themselves for that these are synonymous I shevved before But let his own words shame him y these degrees Davids lying vvith Bathshebah vvas an Action vvhich vvhen he did he did very sinfully Such Actions so done Mr. W. saith that God decrees The Action specified vvas Adultery and that vvas sin and so according to M. W. God decreed that sin that Adultery that actual lying vvith another mans wife that action vvhich vvhen David did he did sinfully The instance vvhich he gives Act. 2.23 ch 4.27 28. is cross to his purpose for t vvas in a foresight and consideration that Christ vvould be crucified by the Jevves if not violently hindred upon vvhich God determin'd he vvould not hinder and so by a consequence unavoidable that the thing should be done by his permission And therefore the first Text Act. 2.23 affords an excellent exposition to the second Act. 4.27 28. for 't is said there expresly he vvas delivered by the Counsel and foreknowledge of God The vvord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to determine doth no vvay exclude but suppose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to foreknow And this vvas the ansvver of Justin Martyr to Tryphon as I have elsevvhere noted and spoke so much by vvay of ansvver to this very objection of Mr. W. that I must send him thither for a fuller account though vvhat I have novv said is somevvhat more then I ovv'd him See Sinner Impl. part 2. ch 2. p. 258. to p. 264. And because the vvords of that Father vvere not there given at large I have here thought fit to set them dovvn in the Margine * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. contra Tryph. p. 370. porrò illam objectionem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ita solvit Justinus I am very vvell pleased that the same is objected against my Doctrine vvhich vvas objected by vvicked Tryphon against that learned Apostolical and holy Father What is added by Mr. W. of God permitting sin to be is onely for
speaking to his Chimaera's throughout my first Chapter and will now be shorter to make amends 1. He is at odds with D. Twisse First I observe 't is his opinion that though God worketh not in the same manner in evil actions as he doth in good or as evil men themselves do yet me must not deny that he hath any work at all in evil actions since himself doth so often and so expresly affirm it p. 23 24. Dr. Twisse and Mr. W. are at odds for the Doctor * See Correct Copy p. 10. saith undauntedly that Gods decree is no less efficacious in the permission of evil then in the production of good 2. To make men sin is a sin of the worst size 2. To say that God doth not work in sin as sinful men themselves do is no more then to say that God doth nor sin or is not a sinner but onely makes men sinners as * See Correct Copy p. 10. Zuinglius expresly speaks whom Mr. W. defendeth p. 24. but to say that God did decree sin and praedestine men to sin and work sin in men as a physical cause and compel men to sin so as they cannot but commit it is worse then truly can be said of any sinner neither Man nor Devil can compel any one to sin Tarquin could ravish Lucretia but could not compel her to be lascivious The Devil could torment and plunder Job but not compel him to be impatient Now that those men do teach that men are compelled by God to sin besides my †Div. Philanth ch 3. Sect. 34. p. 132 c. Catalogue of examples I can prove by the * Quoties quenquam impelli à Deo aut cogi dicunt rhetoricè potiùs loquuntur c. Twisse Vin. Gra. l. 2. part 1. sect 1. Crim. 3. c. 1. p. 29. confession of Doctor Twisse who doth acknowledge and excuse that very expression in his own party Besides Jeroboam did not work in Israels sins in the same manner that they did because he was not them but 't was the worst part of his Character that he made Israel to sin 2 King 15.18 24 28. yet he neither did nor could compel them It was the worst part of the unbelieving Jews that they stirred up the Gentiles and made their mindes evil affected against the brethren Act. 14.2 yet they proceeded not to compulsion Nay it was reckoned by Nathan as the worst thing in David that by the sins he had committed he had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme 2 Sam. 12.14 which was far from coaction or compulsion the very terms applied by those men to God And therefore Deodate himself though the chief Minister of Geneva denies that God is so much as the * Deodat in Prov. 16.4 occasion of sin much lesse could he judge him to be the cause or the coactor 3. Yet ascribed unto God by that sort of men 3. Though it is said by M. W. that the manner of Gods working in sin is secret not to be apprehended p. 23. yet he and his predecessors have described the manner of it in the most plentiful manner that any description can be made in They say he tempts and prostitutes and acts and operates and works and wills and seduceth draws and commands and compells and moves and drives and stirrs up to sin as a natural cause say some as a moral cause sayothers as an efficient cause of the sinful act as an accidental cause of the obliquity of the act as a man puts spurrs to a dull Jade and as a man is excited to enjoy his own wife c. All these expressions I have met with in Mr. W. partly and partly in Mr. B. yet these are far from being All they are but All which I can remember in the present haste that I am in But whosoever shall examine my several Catalogues in other books and compare them with what they find in this which now I am upon will say that all this is truth yet not the whole truth Sect. 3. 1. The easie and ordinary perversion of the Scriptures But Mr. W. proceedeth thus But all those Scriptures mentioned it may appear what little reason Mr. P. had to make such a clamour against those our Protestant Divines as if they made God to be the Author of sin when he knows that they positively professed and some of them strongly proved the contrary p. 24. So he saith and saith onely But 1. I have proved in my Sect. 1. of this Chapter that the abuse of those Scriptures is a great portion of the impiety Suppose that some Lucian should make a Cento out of the letter of the Scriptures as Ausonius did out of Virgil would the impiety of the thing be any whit the more excusable because he could shew that his expressions were all from Scripture or would it not rather be so much the worse 'T is known that Proba Falconia composed a history of the Life of Christ and a good part also of the Pentateuch of Moses from out of the works of Virgil a Heathen Poet. And out of the very same Virgil however so chast in his expressions that he hath won the Title of the Parthenian Poet Ausonius very wittily but yet most * Ingeniosum sed adeo foedum ut neque Scriptore nec Auditore dignum sir Scaliger l. 6. p. 825 detestably made up the filthiest Fescennine that hath been read Again the Empress Eudoxia writ the life of our Saviour in the words of Homer a blinder Heathen then Virgil was And were it not every whit as possible to patch up the life of Achilles in a Rhapsodie collected from the holy Pen-men of our Gospel If Mr. Wh. will know what may be done in this kind let him consult the Capilupi both Laelius and Julius set out by Henry Meibomius and Otho Gryphius of Ratisbon or Lilius Greg. Gyraldus or whom else he pleaseth Let me mind him also of this that all the Heresies in Christendom have suck't out a nourishment to themselves from the sincere milk of the word although immediately flowing from the breast of truth So great a difference is to be found amongst the several digestions of the very same meat 2 Mr. W. mistakes the Errors for the Persons of some Protestants and confounds them with the Papists 2. I did not clamour against Protestant Divines but against the heathenish asseverations which had been published in the writings of Presbyterians and Papists not only Dominicans but Jesuits also for which I * Sâ—e Div. Philâ—n ch 1. sect 5. p. 27 28. produced the confessions of Doctor Twisse and Mr. Barlee But being a Protestant my self I had by so much the greater reason to declare against the blasphemies of any Protestant Divines that I might not be accessary so much as by my silence and that some Papists might cease to say what they commonly have done that those horrible
Tremendous mistakes of the Texts above mentioned Rom. 1.24 26. 2 Thes 2.11 and of the greatest part of the ninth Chapter to the Romans to name no more may serve for a warning to the ignorant and seduced people of the Nation not to presume on such places without an Interpreter at their Elbow I mean a qualified authentick uncontroulable Interpreter and such as may easily be had and be as easily used by English Readers that is in a word Doctor Hammond's Annotations upon the whole New Testament Sect. 5. 1. Mr. W. either means that God hath a hand in evil because in the contrary Mr. W. incurs another danger which he also calls an other Argument Some will laugh I am sure but others I hope will rather weep at it His words are these That God hath some hand in the Acts of sinful men appears because the substratum or subject of sin namely the natural motion or action whereunto the sin cleaveth is that whereof he is the proper cause and efficient therefore he must needs have some efficiency in it p. 24. If by the Substratum he means the man who is the subject of sin Look forward on c. 3. sect 14. God indeed is the cause of man but man is not a motion much less a sin If by Motion Act and Action he means that which is natural as the act of walking eating digesting speaking thinking and the like God again is the cause of these but not of any thing that is sinful it being no more sinful to walk eat speak or think then to be as God made us not onely moveables but men So that if Mr. W. doth mean no more he speaks not a syllable to the purpose but plainly deserts his undertaking And to prove that God hath a hand in evil because he hath a hand in that which is good is to say a thing is because it is not or that it is thus because it is quite otherwise By such Logick as this he may say that the Devil hath a hand and efficiency in good giving this for his reason because he is the efficient and proper cause of evill And indeed it is much less impious to ascribe something of Nature to that perverter of nature then the least perversion of nature to the God of all grace 2. Or that the Act of sin is not the sin But 2. It appears by the scope and tenour of his Book that when he saith God hath a hand in the Acts of sinful men he certainly means the sinful Acts which sinful Acts are the Acts of sin or to speak it in other words the sins themselves for that these are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three expressions of the same thing will be made undeniable by this example The act of sinful David was the Act of lying with Bathshebah The Act of lying with Bathshebah was the sinful Act to wit the Act of Adultery and so the sin For whether we say that his lying with Bathshebah was his Adultery or his Act of Adultery we say the same thing and we find them promiscuous in all men discourses of the thing Now that his Adultery or his Act of lying with Bathshebah was the sin it self which he committed not the Substratum or Subject of his sin distinguishable from it tanquam accidens à subjecto aut res à re I am confident Mr. W. will not dare to deny It being granted by men of all sides that to pollute another mans Wife is Adultery it self and that Adultery is the sin it self which is called by that name and by that distinguished from other sins 3. Or that God is the proper cause and efficient of sin and this proved by a Dilemma 3. From whence it followes unavoidably that Mr. W. affirms God to be the proper cause and efficient of sin it self Nor can he escape it let him go which way he will to the negative or the affirmative of what I said just now For let him answer to my Dilemma Was David's lying with Bathshebah by which she was impregned the meer substratum or subject of his sin of adultery or the very sin of adultery it self If Mr. W. shall say the first then it is cleerly his Doctrine that God was the proper cause and efficient of David's lying with Bathshebah for 't is his positive assertion that of the motion or action to which the sin cleaves God is the proper cause or efficient And if Mr. W. shall say the second then he must run into the very same mischief or yield me up the whole cause and bid particular defiance to Mr. Barlee and Mr. Hick which will soon appear by this other Dilemma Was Davids lying with Bathshebah which is granted to be the very sin of Adultery in the second member of the first Dilemma an Act or an Action or a Motion or a positive thing or was it none of these four If he shall say it was an act an action or a motion then again he calls God the proper cause or efficient of the sin it self Davids lying with Bathshebah for if the Reader will look back he shall find all three in the subject of this Section and withal it implies a grosse contradiction to say that that is the sin it self which was said before to be the subject onely of sin to which the sin cleaves If he shall say that Davids lying with Bathshebah was a positive thing which he cannot but say if he shall say it is the other three then either he must acknowledge that Mr. Barlee and Mr. Hick are blasphemers in grain for having said expresly that * Mr. Hick's words in a letter to Mr. B. printed by Mr. B. ch 3. p. 112. whatever positive thing is not from God is God or else he must say it was the creature of God or else he must say it was God himself For so it follows in the two brethren †Ibid Look forward on ch 3. Sect. 18. there is no medium betwixt Deus Creatura making no distinction betwixt Gods creatures and the Devils but concluding that Davids lying with Bathshebah if a positive entity was as much Gods creature as David himself was But if to avoid these rocks Mr. W. shall throw himself on the later horn of the Dilemma and say that Davids lying with Bathshebah was no act action motion or positive thing that will tosse him out of all reason not onely set him at enmity with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common maximes of all mankind and even the judgment of common sense but also infer that sin is nothing and so that sinners are either not damned at all or damned for nothing or damned for something besides their sins 4. Humane learning a good foundation for a Divine 4. I will not here exagitate his wants of knowledge in Physiologie which would administer occasion of much discourse because his errors in Divinity are too apt of themselves to make me tedious I
predicate as possibly they may they all can make but one term and are equally coupled to the subject by a never-failing verb substantive either expressed or implied 3. Adam sion'd before he eat in the determination of his will to eat 3. Besides Adam sinned before he eat in the determination of his will to eat and if that was also the work of Nature as well as his volition to eat of any lawful fruit as Mr. W. must say or eat up what he hath said then according to Mr. W. God was the efficient and proper cause of that sin also which lies in puncto indivisibili perhaps more intelligibly then others may 4. Mr. W. vindicated from his abuses put upon himself 4. Because Mr. W. hath been abused by himself in the misapprehension of his own Rule I think it my duty to disabuse him And I shall do it by saying no more then this 1. That as God doth give and continue the being of his creature with the natural endowments of such a being such as Life Loco-motive Reason and Will in his creature called Man he doth not work as a moral but as a natural cause 2. But as he moves his creature by his grace to chuse a right use of all his Faculties in applying his actions to their proper objects he onely works as a moral cause 3. And as he suffers or permits his creature to determine his will to forbidden objects and in pursuance of that choice to apply his faculties to execute what the will hath decreed be it to kill to blaspheme to hate God or the like in this third case he neither worketh as a natural or moral cause but suffers his creature to pervert and abuse his Faculties of Nature into a contrary thing to that which God made them As for example Adam's Faculty to will was the work of God and under God of Nature a very excellent and noble Faculty But Adam's applying that faculty to the forbidden fruit which was his choice or act of willing that numerical thing was neither the work of God nor of Nature Gods handmaid but the work of Adam against God and against that Nature which God had given him and which Adam with Satans help did deprave or pervert into another thing Yet am I willing that Mr. W. should say that there was in it the work of Nature if he will say that he means that work of that Nature which could not be possibly the work of God but of Adam onely in one respect and of the Devil in another 5. Five expedients proposed to undeceive M. W. by pointing at the causes of his mistakes 5. The not distinguishing rightly betwixt Nature and Nature Gods Handmaid and his Rebel Nature created by the good will of God and Nature corrupted by the wicked will of the creature doth seem to me a prime cause of Mr. W's errors in this affair Another cause doth seem to be his want of a steady consideration that Adam's sin did begin in the first aversion of his will which was his rational appetite from God and his Precept unto the creature which was forbidden His determining of his will per actum imperatum to the forbidden object was the same sin in its growth His actual eating in obedience to that Empire of his will was the same sin in its perfection In each of which three acts God had no hand at all which because Mr. W. did not discern the third cause of his errors doth seem to be his not continuing to meditate or to remember that the Being of sin is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the habitude and * This confessed by Dr. Twisse himself in Vin. Gra. l. 2. par 2. Crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 155. Col. 2. relation and indissoluble connexion of a voluntary act to a forbidden object after a fancied separation of which two we cannot so much as fancy the sin to be For consider Adam's eating as unapplied to forbidden fruit and so it cannot be conceived to be a sin any more then the eating of a natural Agent it being as natural to eat as to grow by eating Which makes me guesse a fourth cause of Mr. W's error to be this that either he did not exactly know or not incessantly bear in mind that the same man as to several actions is both a natural and a voluntary agent We eat and drink as we are animals but we fast and pray and do our duties or eat and drink against Precept as we are men the former as we are spiritual and the later as carnal men But Mr. W. in his instances of Adam and David did confound the brutish with the rational property of the men The fifth cause of his miscarriage doth seem to be his not animadverting that sin is a concrete in respect of sinfulness and notes the same thing in one word which sinful act doth note in two which I will make him apprehend do what he can to the contrary beside not reading what I am writing by shewing that a sin and a sinful * Note that what is said of a sinfull Act is as true if applyed to action or motion which are also Mr. W's Termes act have the same enunciation in all propositions to be imagined Ex Gr. It is as true a praedication and in sense the same to say that David's lying with Bathshebah was his sin as to say it was his sinful act Again as true a praedication and in sense the same to say it was his adultery as to say his adultery was his sin Mr. VV. shall find upon every turn of the tongue that these terms are convertible and that in Recto and finding that he will confess that either he must separate the same thing from it self or acknowledge his making God to be efficient of sin Thus far am I brought beyond what I was bound to or at first intended by the meer strength of my desire to convert my Aggressor whil'st I confute him And having done thus I shall onely put him in mind of his concurrence with Mr. B. as well as of his discord with Doctor Twisse 1. He concurres with that of Mr. B. That Gods concurrence and excitation to the Act of adultery and to the husbands lying with his lawful wife is the same ch 3. p. 12. 2. He is at discord with Doctor Twisse who saith that * See Correct◠Copy p. 10. God doth so administer the occasions of sin and doth so urge them that they smite the sinners mind c. which is to act in sin as a moral cause whereas Mr. W. affirms his acting to be as a natural cause only I will not exagitate the noysome instance by which he clears his meaning to us nor will I shew how he hath gratified his carnal Readers I rather hasten to his ensuing words Sect. 10. His fourth essay infers the wickedest Actions to be good and from God His fourth Answer is That every new action and motion
is a new Entity now all entities and beings are from the first Being and so far forth they are good p. 25. Apply his generals to particulars and he is ever undone The first Rebellion against God that ever was was a new action or motion and so a new entity and therefore saith Mr. W. was from the first Being and so far forth was good Thus every new filthiness or elaborate sensuality which Petronius invented for Tiberius hath Mr. W's commendation for the goodness of its being and the Divinity of its extraction It was descended saith Mr. W. from the first Being which is God 2. His sentence out of * Ipsum quantulumcunque esse bonum est quia summum esse est summum bonum De verâ Relig. c. 4. Austin is either quite beside the purpose He speaking onely of Gods Creatures and not of Satans or taken on purpose by the left handle that Austin as well as Scripture may be pretended as a Factioner against Himself For the sin against the Holy Ghost is a Being as being really something because the cause of damnation without hope of reprieve But Saint Austin could not argue the least goodness in that sin from the greatest goodness of that God against whom it is committed 3. But it is added by Mr. W. That if any natural act quà actus proceedeth not from the God of Nature there must be a Creature without a Creator Ibid. But 1. Blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost is not a natural act but an act contra-natural and yet it is a real act 2. When God is called the God of Nature it is to be meant of good Nature 3. Blasphemy is an act of malicious Nature against the Nature of God and against the God of good Nature but blasphemy as blasphemy or that act as that act proceedeth not from God and yet it is not a Creature without a Creator for men and Devils are the Creators of all sorts of blasphemy which Mr. W. and the * Mr. Hickm and Mr. B. spoken of before hereafter c. 3 sect 18. two brethren will have to be created by God himself or to be an Independent Creature This is therefore a sixth cause of his and their aberrations that they do not distinguish with the Scriptures betwixt the †Joh. 3.8 works of the Devil and the * Psal 103.22 works of God Sect. 11. His fifth Answer is the most to his disadvantage unless the confession of his guilt may lead the way to his repentance 1. His fifth essay doth insnare him with an implicit confession that he maketh God the Author of sin for believe me Reader though to believe it is very difficult these words which follow are all his own Doth not Mr. P. by this Doctrine make God the Author of sin for if God be the Author of all natural Actions as hath been proved and it be impossible as he teacheth to separate the sin from the action then he that is the Author of the Action must needs be the Author of the sin also which is unseparable from it p. 25. Thus he thinks he hath laid a Net for Mr. P. whilest Himself is caught in it Look forwards on ch 3. sect 12. Num. 4. sect 18. and cannot possibly get out For 1. He confesseth most explicitly though not in any humble Form that if it is proved to be impossible to separate the sin from the sinful action which I have often proved to be impossible he cannot chuse but take God to be the Author of sin Here then again he must be summoned to shew us how David's sin to wit his Adultery can be separated from his sinful action to wit his lying with Bathshebah which until he shall perform I must declare him out of his Book which is as much as from his own mouth to be an Assertor of that Blasphemy which yet he doth many times disown though not so often as he owns it 2. He is fain to miscal things to countenance his mistakes or else he knows not a moral action 2. To make a shew of having insnared me he is fain to call those things by the name of natural actions which he knew at that instant I have ever call'd sins or sinful actions or acts of sin unnatural actions or acts against nature But what he could not discern in the sins or sinful actions of Adam and David I will compel him to see clearly by these following Queries to which I shall earnestly expect his Answer * Mr. W. hampered in sâ—me Dilâ—mm's Is a mans lying with a beast a sin or not If not a sin how then was it * Exod. 22.19 forbidden upon pain of death If a sin is it an Action or not an Action If not an action what is an action and how defined But if it is an action is it a natural action or an action unnatural and against Nature If a natural action why saith Mr. W. that God is the efficient and proper cause and now the Author of all natural actions and so by consequence of a mans lying with a beast If to avoid that blasphemy he saith it is not a natural but an unnatural action why then did he say Ans 3. that Natures work was the same as well in wicked as lawful actions If he flies from that too now he is scared with the danger then let him say he is converted and abjure his own Book and joyn with me against Mr. Hick and Mr. B. who say that sin is God if a positive thing To make sure work I will appeal to Saint Paul whether it hath not of old been found very possible to * Rom. 1.26 change the natural use into that which is against Nature yet that change includes Action but contra-natural So again to worship †Jer. 2.27 stones and to serve the * Rom. 1.25 Creature more then the Creator Witchcraft and Incest are all against Nature But some of the Gentiles did by * Rom. 2.14 Nature the things contained in the Law whilest other mens actions were unnatural because as †2 Pet. 2.12 natural brute Beasts and not as men they spake evil of things they understood not 3. The method by which he is led into all his blasphemies 3. It is most apparent at every turn that the main thing to be discussed is whether the sin can be sequestred from the sinful Action If it can I must acknowledge my error and make amends if I am able But if it cannot then Mr. W. and his party must do the like My Method is first to lay it as my Principle That God cannot be possibly the Author of sin and thence to infer that he cannot be the Author of a mans lying with a Beast which is a real act and yet a sin and my reason is because I cannot conceive much less describe how that sin called Bestiality which consisteth in lying with a Beast can be
separated from that in which it perfectly consisteth But Mr. W's Method is first to lay it as his Principle that God is the Author of every real act and so by consequence of a mans lying with a Beast which because he knows to be a sin of which he would not say plainly that God is the Author he is fain to infer as far as naked words come to that the sin which is the Devils part may be separated from the sinful act which act is Gods part saith Mr. W. This I say he often dictates but gives no reason nor offers to try how it can be nay clearly though implicitly doth make it appear that it cannot be whilest he pretends to shew it can be For observe hiâ—next words hold from smiling if you are able Sect. 12. 1. The sin is inseparable from the sinful action which Mr. W. seems to see by his Tergiversation Compare this with c. 3. sect 18. But I suppose he is not so dull-sighted but if he pleased he could easily discern a difference between the action and the evil quality of it p. 25. This is his new Tergiversation which is intended by its Author to do the office of a proof In stead of trying to make me see what I affirm to be invisible he contents himself to say that I can see it if I please By the same Logick I may prove that he can stand in London and hear the grass growing in this part of the Country the medium to prove it being this Sure he is not so heavy-eared but that he could hear it if he pleased To discern any * Note Reader that I use the word Difference as an act of my bounty to Mr. W. against whom it lies upon me to prove no more then that there is no separability of Davids sia called Adultery from his lying with Bathshebah which was his Action as well as Sin difference betwixt David's lying with Bathshebah and his Adultery or betwixt his Adultery and his Sin is at least as impossible as to hear the grass growing at 60 miles distance If Mr. W. can see a difference where dull-sighted mortals can see nothing but Identity he must lend them his eyes and his perspective that they may see it as well as he or supply them with Faith by which at least they may believe that he can see what they cannot Had he thought he spake rightly why did he not descend to some one pertinent Instance as that which I have given or any other It is a very ill sign when a man hides himself in †Dolus latet in generalibus generals which are known to be nothing but second notions 2. He speaks as if be thought an Accident could be the subject of Inhesion unto an Accident 2. He speaks of an action and its quality as if he considered not the predicaments they both are in and thought that action is the subject in which quality is inherent and from which it may be parted as a separable accident from a substance So that before I go further it may be needful to mind him of these four things 1. That action and quality are both accidents 2. That an Accident is not the subject of Inhesion unto an Accident 3. That some Accidents are separable from their subject of Inhesion as artificial colours upon a wall and some inseparable as Risibility in a man 4. That every Action implies a Quality according to which the Agent acts Thus Calefactio must needs imply Calor Nor is it possible to imagine the act of heating without Heat Thus Hatred is a quality and to hate God is an Action Nor is it possible to separate the hating of God which is the action from the hatred of God which is the quality without which the action can have no Being Yet betwixt these two there is a difference though no possible separation which shews the gross Fallacy Mr. W. hath put upon himself in making no difference between a Difference and a Separability Many things are inseparable from many things betwixt which notwithstanding there is a difference which I would make to appear by uncontrolable examples if I thought so meanly of Mr. W. as to think he needs them But if he will tell me his wants I promise speedily to supply them 3. He confounds the act of differing with the passive power of being parted 3. This doth lead me to complain of a great injustice in Mr. W. who doth imply me to have said what he knows I did not that I cannot discern the difference between the quality and the action whereas my words were these only and so cited by himself That 't is impossible to separate the wickedness of the wicked act from the act which is wicked As if when I say it is impossible to separate the three persons in the Trinity commonly called Individual the one from the other Mr. W. should answer I am not so dull-sighted as not to discern there is a difference between the first Person and the second the second and the third whereas 't is he is dull-sighted who discerns not the difference betwen the act of differing in Individuals and the passive power of being parted 4. He believes not or dissembles that David's action with Bathshtbah was his sin 4. But though I am bound to say no more then that the wickedness of the wicked action cannot be separated from the action which is wicked and again that the sin cannot be separated from the action which iâ— sinful as Mr. W. * p. 25. Ans 5. l. 30 31 32. saith it can yet I just now added and still adde there is no difference For Davids lying with Bathshebah was his action which action was his sin which sin was his wickedness The whole world lieth in wickedness that is in Sin To prevent a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give this notice to Mr. W. that if the word VVickedness is not always synonymous with sin yet it is so often and so I now use it 5. He makes the sin of adultery to be separable from it self 5. Because the words of Mr. W. are very homonymous and uncertain of several aspects and to be taken or mistaken as many several wayes I will tell him what I discern and where I cease to be discerning I discern a gross difference between the sin and the sinner though from some kinds of sinners some kinds of sin cannot be parted I discern another difference between the action and the quality by which the action is good or evil or indifferent neither morally good nor morally evil Again I discern a clear difference between one evil action and another as between Davids Adultery and his Murder But I discern no difference between the same evil action and it self as between Davids lying with Bathshebah and his Adultery Nor is it credible that such difference should be much less be discernable when even the acutest of Mr. W's own party
that ever pretended to stir up laughter I will immediately address my self to the uncovering of his Doctrines and of those in the first place which have most endear'd him to Mr. Whitfield by forging God to have a hand in all the wickedness in the World without exception and not onely to be the Author but which is much more frightful the Necessitator of sin His first Abstersion in this kind for so he was resolved to word it His acknowledgment of the crime for which be Apologizeth and the Printer it seems did let him have his own will is a plain acknowledgment of the Crime with which he stands charged For of Div. Philan. c. 3. from p. 1â—3 to p. 139. all those Authors and Assertions which I objected to Mr. B. as to a Follower and a Disciple he professeth to disown no more then two His words are these I will onely except against monstrous Leviathan Hobbs and the Book which he calls Comfort for Believers These I disown from ever having been my Masters c. 3. p. 7. Away with these two then they are excepted against But for Zanchie Borrhaus Piscator Beza Zuinglius and Martyr and all the other ingredients in that long Catalogue Mr. B. avows them to be his Masters Ingenuum est agnoscere per quos profeceris But it is taught by those Authors in the very †Ibid. pages by him cited That both the Reprobates and the Elect were preordained to sin as sin That God is the Author of sin in general of Murder and Adultery in particular That he is the cause of sin and in particular the cause of Incredulity That God doth thrust men on unto wickedness and the like Therefore these and the rest from p. 133. to p. 139. are avowedly the Doctrines of Mr. Barlee And why Mr. Hobbs is out of favour who hath not spoken so noisomly as these have done for ought I have hitherto observed I cannot guess at the reason unless he hath offended by his comparative reservedness Sect. 2. 1. He contradicts his own and his Readers eyes without the least possibility of gaining by it His next Abstersion c. 3. p. 11. hath the unhappiness to begin with a very bold falshood in contradiction to his ovvn and his Readers eyes For he professeth every where in his Correp Correction to have carefully distinguished these three things least possibility of gaining by it 1. The material part of sin 2. The formal part of sin 3. The ruling and over-ruling the sin and sinner This he professeth to have done in all the places which I directed unto and fears not to say that his heedful Readers may easily see it Either he is confident of no such Readers or else he hath a worse confidence to affirm point-blank he cares not what For when he spake of Gods tempting men to sin p. 79. he said he was not at leisure to tell in what sense nay he did peremptorily pronounce that God doth not onely determine all things and actions without exception but their several modalities too and that of all such modalities God is the supreme cause p. 86 87. So that according to Mr. B. God was not onely the Determiner and soveraign Cause of David's lying with Bathshebah which was a Thing or Action but of every Circumstance or Modality and so of the sinfulness it self the application of David's will to the forbidden object and of every point of Aggravation with which the Adultery was loaded Now though the broad-est-mouth'd Libertine must study hard to speak worse yet this was one of Mr. B's most careful speeches 2. He professeth his care for the clearing of God from having any efficiency in sin 2. His inconsistency with himself with Mr. W. and Mr. Hick as such p. 11. yet it was flatly his language as well as Mr. VV's p. 24. that God must needs have some efficiency in sin And his Masters say in sin as sin as hath been shewed If by the word as such he means another modality then he either contradicts what was so lately cited from him or else it is his Divinity that God is the cause of sin as such But this again is a contradiction to his clearing God from it If he means as Mr. VV. that God doth will and work sin not as it is sin but as it makes for Gods glory then he is liable to all those miseries into which Mr. VV. hath plunged himself and condemns himself out of his own mouth as well as out of Mr. VV's and Mr. Hick out of both In a word he is ruined seven several wayes for an Acquaintance with which I send him back to my second Chapter Sect. 14. But. 3. Let us come to the utmost of his Acumen and his Care He saith that the material part of sin 3. He betrayes himself many ways in his very provision for an escape Look forward on Sect. 7. and 12. of this Chapter is the doing or leaving undone some positive natural or moral act and of that he calls God the soveraign Author p. 11. So that if Davids Adultery or lying with Bathshebah was a positive act either natural or moral which he cannot deny he is declaredly of opinion that God was the soveraign Author of it Again he calls it a part of sin whilest he calls it the material part of sin and addes that God is the Author of it but every part of the whole must needs participate the nature of the whole especially in Accidents and even so he makes God to be the Author of sin not only in equivalence but even in those very terms Nor will it help him to say materiale substratum for by that he must mean either the substance or the action either David himself or his lying with Bathshebah If the former he is undone for 't is to say that a substance is a part of an accident and that David himself was a part of his Adultery If he flies unto the later he is worse undone then in the former for 't is to say that the Action which is confessedly positive is a part of that which according to him and Mr. Hick is meerly privative and that Davids lying with Bathshebah was but part of his Adultery or at least that his Adultery was but part of his sin If to avoid these Absurdities he shall say the very truth that the Action it self to wit Davids lying with Bathshebah was indeed his whole Adultery and so his whole sin then his miseries are as pressing as when he spake the greatest falshood unless he cry peccavi and yield the whole cause For either he must deny that Davids lying with Bathshebah was a positive thing or say that God was the Author of it as here he doth or else he must say that Sin is God which is his own Inference c. 3. p. 112. or he must spit in the face of his pious friend Mr. Hick who betrayed him to that senseless blasphemous Inference Now let
is consisting and from whence alone sins Denomination ought to be taken p. 55. This is his wary way of speaking and this he tells us is his Belief 1. That God is the cause of sin both of that which he calls the material * p. 11. part of sin or the positive act of that which he calls the formal * Ibid. part of sin or the obliquity of the act God saith Mr. B. is the cause of both parts and so of the whole sin of which they both are components But 2. he tells us that God is not the natural cause of both but the accidental cause of the one and the natural cause of the other A fair confession of his Faith For Cain's killing Abel and David's lying with Bathshebah were positive acts and each of them saith Doctor Twisse materiale peccati so that of them Mr. B. believeth God to be the natural cause And supposing it possible to separate their obliquities he believeth God to be the cause of them also For although he calls it accidental he cannot mean that it is none for then he would have said that God is no cause at all of the obliquity of the act whereas he now saith the contrary that God is a cause of the obliquity because an accidental cause nor will the known * Pōsito uno Conjugatorum ponitur alterum Et si Conjugatorum unum uniconveniat alterum etiam conveniet alterit Rule of Conjugates allow him any the least evasion The Question is not what kind of cause of the obliquity they affirm God to be natural or moral per se or per accidens but whether or no he is a cause And to this Mr. B. makes answer in the affirmative Nor can he be imagined to argue thus God is not a natural but an accidental cause therefore no cause at all For that were to argue that a thing is not because it is and that a proposition is false because it is true We may argue by such Logick that Mr. B. is not a man because he is not a patient but an angry man And to deny that God is the Author of that obliquity of which he affirms him to be the cause is the same thing as to say he is indeed the Author of the obliquity but the Author of the obliquity he is not for whatsoever is the cause of any thing in any kind of causality is so far forth the Author of it as it is the cause according to the use of the word Author in all Classick Writers as I shall shew in due time How Mr. B. makes God the natural cause of sin it self And if that which he calls the Act of sin as the act of cursing or hating God of David's lying with Bathshebah and the like is nothing else but the sin it self in its whole essence as indeed it is and I have demonstrated before then his beliefe must needs be this that God is the natural cause of sin which is worse then to believe him the moral cause onely by how much it is worse to necessitate any man to wickedness then onely to tempt and perswade him to it He who necessitates being the sole cause of it and he who perswades the concause onely I will say no more here because I have enlarged so much * Look back on ch 2. sect 5. already on an occasion offered by Mr. W. I will onely adde a word to Mr. B's citation in his Margin If he is to be judged a moral cause of any sin who moves any one to it by help or counsel favour or perswasion as †Dominicus à Soto doth truely speak * In moralibus prorsus est judicaturque causa qui lege ope consilio favore vel persuasu movet quempiam sive ad bonum sive ad malum Domin à Soto de Nat. Gra. l. 1. c. 12. how falsly soever in some other things then God is also accused of being the moral cause of sin by Mr. B. and his party who have publickly taught that God doth tempt men to sin and so far favour the regenerate in the very worst sins they can commit as that they cannot fall totally much less finally from grace I have shewed the former in the third Section of this Chapter and the later long ago in the Div. Purity defended ch 14. sect 2. p. 128 129 c. Sect. 15. Mr. B's most signal and most desperate attempt from p. 111. to p. 121 Now I proceed to that part of Mr. B. which will save me the labour of saying more and make him wish ere it be long that he had said nothing at all but that he had rather been born dumb For 't is that wherein he engageth not his own credit onely if he can possibly imagine that he hath any yet left him but the credit of his friends too amongst whom Mr. Hick of Mag. Coll. is branded by him for a chief Nor onely so but he engageth very deeply his soul and conscience which ought I am sure to be dearest to him Now that himself and his Abettors may not fail of comprehending the breadth and depth of the Calamity into which he hath ingulphed and plunged himself and to the end that he may find it much the most for his Interest to make a publick Recantation and to act * 2 Cor. 7.11 revenge upon himself I will as briefly as I am able premise the state of the affair betwixt him and me that so the life of his unhappiness may at last appear in the greater lustre 2. The state of the case from its Original 2. I had proved in my †Ch. 3. p. 110. to p. 116. Defence of the Divine Philanthropie that the sinner is the efficient cause of sin in confutation of Mr. B. who denied that sin had any efficient cause at all but onely forsooth a deficient cause I say I had proved the efficient of sin by a great number of Arguments whereof each was so cogent that neither Mr. B. nor M. W. nor Mr. Hick had the courage to venture on a solution I do heartily wish that my Reader will here peruse those seven pages in my D. Philan. Defended from p. 110. to p. 116. where he will find my Thesis proved by so many convincing Demonstrations as have not left the Adversary the least colour for a Reply And because some Readers may not have that Book in their possession whilest others are unwilling to neglect the work they are upon I will here recapitulate but very briefly what there is proved in ample manner 3. Proof◠that sin hath an efficient cause 3. 1. If man is the cause of sin and not efficient he is the material formal or final cause if the Deficient is none of these as none will say it is it is no cause at all If sin hath no cause it hath no real being much less can it be the cause of punishment and so God is
have spoken ch 2. sect 14. and also sect 20 21. work sin and that he hath a hand in * effecting sin Sure these are very frequently the expressions of his Masters as well as Brethren and therefore judge good Reader whether S. James and Mr. P. or Mr. B. and his party are the pertinent objects of Mr. B's Invectives especially his last expressed in * Quem perdere vult Deus hunc dementat Of the positive Entity of sin Latine 1. Dementation sent from God and 2. as a token of Reprobation Sect. 16. To the Preface which he makes to his more particular Discussion wherein he onely takes occasion to call it a horrible opinion that sin as sin in respect of its obliquity hath a positive entity and efficient cause p. 112. lin 9 10. I have but three things to say 1. That if it were so indeed he would be utterly unexcusable for having embraced that opinion in that part of his Prints so lately cited or for railing at an opinion which himself confessed to be true or if he hath since seen his error why was not his second volume a Recantation of his first And what will he do to Mr. W. for saying that God had a hand in effecting sin whereby he inferred that sin had an effective or efficient cause 2. He cannot say he speaks of the formal part of sin as sin and not of the whole sin because he speaks of sin in respect of its obliquity which he is wont to call the formal part of sin And 't is non-sense to say that sin as sin in respect of its sin or that obliquity as obliquity in respect of its obliquity hath not a positive entity or efficient cause So as he dares not deny but that sin doth signifie the integrum peccati or whole filthy act such as Cains killing Abel or David's lying with Bathshebah whose repugnance with Gods Law is called obliquity And because that sin is an oblique or crooked or irregular action Mr. B. concludes it no positive Entity 3. But to rest on him to sobriety and common sense I shall need only to ask him whether Rectitude is not a positive Entity If he saith yes as I am sure he needs must what shew of reason can he pretend why obliquity is not as much so as Rectitude how much more that whole sin of which obliquity is accounted the formal part Is not a Circle quà talis as positively a figure or a round figure as a right line is a right line Is not crookedness or gibbosity in any mans shape as positively such as streightness or clean making When a crooked parent begets a child which is also as crooked is he less a positive and efficient cause then if he and his child were both well shaped When Adam begat Cain in a state of sin with Satans image in stead of Gods as some of the Fathers have expressed it was not the cause and the effect too as truely positive as if they both had been sinless An action flowing from an Agent hath as positive an Entity as the Agent himself from whom it flowes The sin of Murder is an Action as Cain's killing Abel So is the sin of Adultery as David's lying with Bathshebah Nor any whit the less such in respect of their being irregular actions any more then a wicked man is the less a man for being wicked David's lying with Bathshebah before she was his wife was as positive an Entity and had a cause as efficient as David's lying with Bathshebah after she was his wife which alone is sufficient to fill Mr. B. and Mr. Hick with confusion of Face and to compel them to Recantations unless they will shelter themselves under Rantism and Libertinism by saying that David's lying with Bathshebah was no adultery or such an adultery as was no sin or that it was a very good sin because a positive Entity and that which had an efficient cause For Mr. B's first Argument doth follow thus Sect. 17. If sin as sin be a positive Entity 1. Mr. B's first Argument to prove the goodness of sin in which Mr. Hick is equally concerned then it is a thing in it self good For every positive thing is good It is to all Scholars well known that unum verum bonum convertuntur p. 112. First he cannot but confess that if sin is a thing positive he seeks to prove by this Argument that sin is good But that it is a thing positive I have abundantly proved in my two last Sections and himself hath confessed in his Correptory * p. 79. p. 111. both before cited and compared with one another Correction therefore he cannot but confess that all the force of this Argument is onely to prove that sin is good 2. A thing that is privative in one respect is also positive in another 2. The noysomeness of the Disease as every Sciolist knows and Mr. B. hath virtually confessed Every Sciolist can tell that the corruption of one thing is the generation of another that what is privative of life or sight must needs be positive of death or blindness The Darkness which God created was not more privative of the Day then it was positive of the Night Nay doth not Mr. B. confess as much for in saying that the sinner is the * Correp p. 79. efficient cause of his sin he doth grant it to be a thing And in saying there may be something of * Ib. p. 111. positive in a privation he doth more then grant it to be a positive thing I therefore say more because a privation is but the abstract of privative And the Transgression of the Law which is sin is not a meer privation of vertue but a positive thing which is privative of vertue positive of vice Sin is so perfectly a concrete that unless it is a concrete it cannot be conceived to be a sin No no more then a concrete can be conceived to be a concrete when it ceaseth to be a concrete The most Poetical brain cannot fansie the least â—â—â—ial difference betwixt David's lying with Bathshebah and his adultery with Bathshebah at the time of her being Uriah's wife So that now Mr. B. must confess that the least part of his blasphemy is no less then this that sin is good as it is positive of evil although it is evil as it is privative of good This being the Printed Article of his unchristian Creed THAT EVERY POSITIVE THING IS GOOD 3. The purging out of the peccant Humour 3. Having shewed him the noysomness of his Disease I will now remove the peccant Humour by which it appears to have been fed to wit his Ignorance or Inadvercency that bonum metaphysicum which is converted with ens hath quite another signification then bonum morale And being Aristotles phrase who was neither a Prophet of the old Testament nor an Evangelist of the new should rather have been rejected as unsound and unsafe
mans own work but his Creators who then is made by Mr. Hick to be the Author of such impieties 8. Sin is so spoken of in Scripture as to be every where concluded a very positive thing 8. Sin spoken of Scripture as a positive thing There are that sin as with a (a) Is 5.18 Cart-rope and (b) Is 30.1 adde sin unto sin Christ (c) Is 53.10 12 bare our sins and made his soul an offering for them All sin shall be forgiven (d) Mat. 12.31 except that against the Holy Ghost We read of (e) Gen. 20.9 Joh. 15.22 19.11 1 Joh. 5.16.17 great and little sins in comparison We also read in proportion of (f) Mat. 23.14 Luk. 12.48 greater and lesser damnation Sin is the (g) 1 Cor. 15.56 sting of Death and death the (h) Rom. 6.23 wages of sin And the cause cannot have a lesser Being then the effect Sin (k) Rom. 7.8 wrought in me saith the Apostle all maner of concupiscence And perfectius est agere quâm esse saith Albertus Magnus Sin hath its (l) Rom. 7.8 9. life and death and resurrection There is a (m) Heb. 3.13 deceitfulness of sin And sin is said to have its (n) Heb. 11.25 pleasures Sin is a thing to be (o) Heb. 12.1 laid aside either totally or for a time There are that are (p) Rom. 7.14 sold under sin and are servants to it and cannot (q) 2 Pet. 2.14 cease from it Insomuch that sin doth rule and (r) Rom. 5.21 6.12 reign over them In a word it is evident from the Scriptures that from the time in which sin did make its (Å¿) Rom. 5.12 entrance into the world it was able to change the course of Nature And could a simple privation which is but the absence of an Entity supposed to have been present have been the cause of all this 9. Mr. Hick convinced by his own party 9. Mr. Hick's own party acknowledge sin to be a compound made up of a material and formal part The material part of it Mr. W. calls a natural act p. 25. Mr. B. both a natural and moral act p. 11. Doctor Twisse gives his instance in the act of lying with another mans wife All positive things Nay the formal part of sin is a positive Entity as themselves have defined it it being the result of two positive things to wit the repugnance of any Action with the Law of God Nay Mr. W. saith broadly that God must needs both will and work in the sin of the act the very pravity it self p. 12. implying it to have an efficient cause 10. He argues with the Libertines 10. Mr. Hick argues like the Libertines and as it were out of their mouths whilest he contends that all things positive are either Gods Creatures or God himself And so he comes to be concerned in what I said to Mr. W. ch 1. sect 2. p. 8 9 c. I leave the Reader to collect how Mr. Hick would frame his Answers to any man that should Catechise him in the very first Article of the Nicene Creed he having discovered to all the world in what a latitude he understands it 11. Mr. Hick will confess he hath blasphemed in case that sin is something positive which is many wayes proved 11. This Mr. Hick will unavoidably confess that if 't is impossible to separate the sinful act from the sin as David's lying with Bathshebah from his sin of Adultery nay that we cannot imagine or conceive how they can possibly be distinguished then sin must needs be something positive and so is inferred by him to be either Gods Creature or God himself But that there is not the least difference betwixt the sinful act and the sin as betwixt the act of hating God and the sin of hating God which is that act of hating God I have manifested * Look back on ch 2. sect 12 13. and also on sect 9 11. of the same ch 2. before to Mr. W. In all which Mr. Hick comes to be equally concerned and I refer him to four Sections pointed out in the * margin To all which I adde these following proofs 1. Sin being complexum quid in the acknowledgement of all cannot admit of an abstraction and yet remain the complexum which it was before abstracted God can separate the soul of man from the body but not the man from the man who is the upshot of their union This would imply a contradiction as that the parts are united when they are separated or not united To make it plain and naked for the thickest heads I shall use this example David's sin of Adultery was not possible to be meerly his repugnance with the Law abstracted from his lying with Uriah's wife nor meerly his lying with Uriah's wife abstracted from its repugnance with the Law of God But 't was the product or result of both united As a man is not his body onely without his soul nor onely his soul without his body but a compound consisting of soule and body 2. The sinful act being a Relative whose very being as such is in relation to the law which it transgresseth it is as impossible to separaâ—e the one from the other as to separate a Father from his very relation unto a Son 3. Mr. Hobbs hath * Liberty and Necess p. 23. confessed what his brethren of the Kirk will never be able to claw off either by owning or disowning that if God is the Author of the action which is a breach of the law as well as of the law of which it is a breach he must be the Author of the breach that is the sin and of the very repugnance betwixt the law and the action by which it is broken which shews the inseparability of which I speak And because the Author of all things requisite to the being of any thing must needs be the Author of the being therefore say I God is so far from being that 't is impossible he should be the Author of any one action which is a transgression of the law that is a sin but onely the Author of the man's free-will and of his power to use his freedom which power is innocent as hath been * Sâ—ct 18. Num. 7. shewed The sin begins not but with the abuse of that power in the determining of the will to the forbidden and wrong object which wrong determining of the will is the sinners own action and his alone since he did freely chuse it whilest yet the contrary was in his power to chuse The power to act being before the act is therefore separable from it though the act being done against the law is not separable from the obliquity which is its being done against the law 4. If it is said that man hath a pravity in his nature Who they are who make God the Author as well of original as actual sin
Look forwards on the 27. sect num 4. of this ch which accompanies the action of which God is the Author and so distinguishable from it and that God doth but make the lame horse go which was lame before he made him go and so is the cause of his going but not of his lamenesse that will be found to be a Reed which will run into the elbow of such as shall dare to lean upon it for when Adam was yet innocent he was not as a lame horse and yet he ceased to be innocent or if you please he grew lame by eating that which was forbidden So that if God was the cause of his eating that forbidden fruit he was also the cause of the sin which was nothing else but his eating the fruit forbidden if he made him eat he made him lame Besides if a horse which goes not and hath onely an aptitude to go lamely will of necessity go lamely if he be made to go at all he who shall cause that horse to go will also cause him to go lamely so will God be concluded the cause of sin if having first given us the power to act against his law he shall also reduce that power into that act so as that positive act shall be his creature yet so it must be saith Mr. Hick if a positive act And Doctor Twisse doth say as bluntly * Damus Deum esse causam uniuscujusque actûs Vin. Gr. l. 2. par 1. p. 40. we grant that God is the particular cause of every act Wherein this differs from that of the Libertines let him tell us who can 5. God hath forbidden in his law the positive acts of Stealing Adultery Murder and the like for which positive acts he will also cast into Hell It will be ill pleading for Cain that God alone was the Author of the positive act of his stabbing Abel and of the law which forbad it from which two the obliquity was an unavoidable resultance And if the sin of blasphemy is distinguishable from the act of speaking against God then did God forbid something besides the sin which implies a horrible contradiction and there may be a good act of speaking against God as well as an evil one which again implies another contradiction 6. When Mr. Hick.'s Masters are wont to say that God praedestin'd men to sin as the means of damnation they do and must mean to sin as sin because sin is no otherwise the means of damnation and divers of them do use that very reduplication Now because they teach also that God decreed the means as well as the end they infer sin as sin to be a positive act and therefore not distinguishable from it I have now done with Mr. Hick as to this particular which Mr. B. calls his second Argument uâ—on which I have the more enlarged because I perceive it to be the great block at which those men are wont to stumble and at which the Libertines have fallen down headlong Again I find it to be the block out of which Mr. B. hath hewed so many chipps and little splinters which having flown into his eyes have made him rageful as well as blind This will very much appear by the following Sections which for that very reason shall be so much the shorter Sect. 19. Mr. B's first chip hewn out of Mr. Hick.'s Block Mr. B. thus debauched by his leading friend as hath been shewed sticks not to say in plain termes He must either maintain God to be the Author of sin or else he must speedily renounce the very first Article of his Christian Creed and say that God did not make heaven and earth and all real things visible and invisible therein That in him we do not live move and have our being Act. 17.28 That every good and perfect gift in its kind is not from God Jam. 1.17 p. 113. Though this is a chip of the old block and might be sent for its reception to the former Section yet in order to his cure I will make him feel his infirmity 1. He foists the word real into the Creed and makes it to stand in the place of good and infers God the maker of all sins 1. The word reall is in neither Creed but foisted in by M. B. and if he intends it as exegetical of all things visible and invisible in the Nicaene Creed he makes a Creed for the Ranters who finding by experience that blasphemies and adulteries are real things and having been taught by whom think you to believe that God is the maker of all things real without exception conclude those things to be very good Such domestick Libertines must be taught that when God is said to be the maker of all things it is onely meant of all things that are good which alone are possible to be made by God not of all things that are real whereof many are evil and onely made by Men and Devils 2. The different methods of our reasonings and what comes of it 2. Mark Good Reader before thou goest any farther the different methods of our reasoning and the different effects I lay it down as my Principle that God is not the maker of sin therefore not of David's adultery therefore not of that action called his lying with Bathshebah therefore not of every positive and real thing But Mr. Hick and Mr. B. and the Libertines do build backwards thus They lay it down as their Principle That God is the maker of all things that are real without exception therefore of David's lying with Bathshebah acknowledged by all to be a real and positive thing therefore of his Adultery unless his Adultery can be differenced from his lying with Bathshebah therefore of his sin unless his sin can be differenced from his Adultery Again the Libertines argue thus God doth decree sin therefore it is good But I argue thus Sin cannot be good therefore God cannot decree it Of so great concernment it is that they be beaten out of their methods and wayes of reasoning and taught to begin at the right end 3. They ascribe all positive entities however filthy unto God 3. I who prove sin to be a positive entity do also prove it to be the work of men and Devils onely whereas 't is he and Mr. Hick who do impute it unto God on supposition of its positive entity What he saith from Act. 17.28 is wholly impertinent unless he thinks it to be a sin to live and to move and to have a being For that innocent liberty and power which we have from God we alone do determine to the doing of evil Much less pertinent is that from S. James c. 1. v. 17. unless he thinks that sin can be a good and a perfect gift or that every positive entity is such 4. They are convinced by the Assemblies confession of faith ch 9. Artic. 1. 4. It is part of the Assemblies confession of faith God hath endued the will of man
with that natural liberty that is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to do good or evil From whence it followes that Adam's determination of his free will to the eating of forbidden fruit which was a positive entity was meerly from Adam and not from God Unlesse they will say he had a necessity supernatural though not from nature which if they say it will be at their perill Again 't is granted by all that man since the fall hath a liberty of will in things not moral and in many things which are meerly moral which inferres them to be the Authors of many positive Acts. 5. They are farther uncovered by being supposed to be catcchized 5. If Mr. B. and Mr. Hick were to be publickly Catechized and first asked who made them men 2. who made them sinners 3. who made them Priests 4. who made their Dublets either long or short-wasted 5. who is wont to wash their cloaths to cleanse their hands and their feet and to do some other much viler offices they would not say for shame that God did make or do those things which they know to be positive and real Entities but to each of those Questions they would certainly return a severe Answer Again if they are askt who made the short-wastedness of the Dublet aforesaid they will say the same Taylor who made it a short-wasted Dublet Ask them then who made the sinfulness of the sinful Action to wit Davids lying with Bathshebah they will say the same Agent who made the sinful Action that positive Entity David's lying with Bathshebah against the Law Who made that positive Entity or sinful action Even God say * Mr. W. saith that of every positive act God is the proper efficient cause p. 24. Mr. B. and Mr. H. the same and wors as hath been shewed they but say I the Adulterer against the precept and will of God and against that measure of his grace which had been sufficient to prevent it if David had not been a resolute and wilful sinner I conclude this Section with the confession of Mr. W. That he who is the Author of the Action must needs be the Author of the sin also which is unseparable from it p. 25. But both himself and Mr. Hick and Mr. B. do say that God is the Author and maker of the action as being a positive and real thing therefore according to their concessions they do all make God the Author of sin Sect. 20. Mr. B's second chip of the old block Mr. B. hews out his second chip thus He must hold that there be myriads of myriads of actions in the world which are not wrought by God c. p. 113. This second chip is wonderful if compared with the first 1. His inconsistency with himself and his inferring all sinful actions to be wrought by God for there he would have me bound up by my Thesis to maintain that God is the Author of sin though here he makes me to hold that there are 100000. of Actions not wrought by God if the first were swallowed there is no place for the second and if the second then no place for the first For if I hold as I do that there are myriads of sins or sinful actions whereof not one can by any possibility be wrought by God then by no possibility can I make God the Author of sin But now Mr. B. declares his Tenet that all the actions in the world however filthy and noysome are wrought by God I say the contrary that there is a world of wickedness which is none of Gods making but of the Devils and his party whether in Hell or in Earth 2. His unsuccesful reliance on the Jesuites 2. Whilest I deny that any sinful actions are wrought by God I do not deny that he permits them and I have often shewed how the sinner depends on God both for his power to live and move What he saith of the sesuites may well be true for they are kinsmen in these affaires The Jesuites in waggery did purposely propagate many blasphemies arising from the Tenet of unconditional Reprobation in many Protestant parts of the Christian world that by making them odious they might fright men from thence into the Church of Rome I find the observation in the Renowned and Judicious * Exact Coll. l. 10. ch 39. sect 6. p. 3189. Dr. Jackson whom Mr. B. put me upon reading by his saying that I had read him when indeed I had not And since the Jesuite Suarez is of so much Authority with his Cousin of the Kirk I will observe out of †Proprio reali influxu concurrit Deus ad actus liberi Arbitrii ut reales actus sunt etiamsi saepissimè intrinsecè mali sint nam cùm hi actus sint verè res effectus reales necesse est ut saltem illam dopendentiam à Deo habeant quae omnibus causarum secundarum effect bus generalis omnino necessaria est Suarez de concursu motione auxiliis Dei lib. 2. Suarez that the acts of Free-will are real acts though evil and the real effects of second causes which Mr. Hick and Mr. B. are both intreated to chew upon And again I will observe that Suarez gives those acts but a general dependance upon God whereas Doctor Twisse as I lately cited him makes God to be causa particularis uniuscujusque actus which is worse then the Jesuite though the Jesuites and Dominicans are too too bad in their Assertions Sect. 21. Mr. B's 3d. chip more pitiful then the former Mr. B. saith farther It will follow that the more sinful acts any commits the more he is a Creator and a kind of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a God of himselfe p. 13. Still a chip of the same block But 1. what pretence hath he for this when I have said so often that though the sinner in some sort may be called the Creator of his sins yet the evil which he doth he doth by that power and freedom of will which he had from God How then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any sense 2. To be a God of evil is a very sad priviledge And the word God is so far from signifying Him onely who is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that * Exod. 22.28 men and †1 Cor. 8.5 Idols are called Gods in Scripture and Satan himself the * 2 Cor. 4.4 God of this world And so the summe of Mr. B's acumen is but this That the more sins a man commits of the more sins he is the Author The more evil the Devil invents the works of the Devil are so much the more Very pretty Look back on Sect. 18. 19. Num. 5. Sect. 22. Mr. B's fourth chip the most lamentable of all Mr. B. begins to be more extravagant then himself not onely more then other men by arguing from the supposal of sins being a thing
the state of an Adulterer Murderer and one who projected the drunkenness of Uriah and continued thus about a year in an impenitent state then of Mr. Pierce that hath committed no such sin Nor doth he give the least reason besides my writing that Book and the rest of my failings which are known to God onely He doth not pretend to know the least sin in me excepting my publick Writings against those sins of which I knew not that he was guilty until in this his late Book he revealed it to me from the Presse And that I have failings known to God I will add to my self also is no more then he might have said even of David and Peter after the times of their repentance Yet goes he not 5. pages farther before his eruption into these strange words I Ibid. sect 24. had rather my right hand were used as Cranmers then I should have written against Puritans what you have done Yet it is known that I writ against no other Puritans then such as were defined at Hampton-Court to be Protestants frighted out of their wits Such Puritans as are known to be painted sepulchres having a form onely of godlinesse without the power of it Such as were thought by judicious Hooker to be fit inhabitants for a wilderness not for a well-ordered City Such as have ever despised dominion and spoken evil of dignities have been commonly Boutefeus and men of blood the Proverbial Autors and Fautors of Sedition and violence in Church and State If Mr. Baxter doth know enough of the ancient Gnosticks and Catharists the Pharisees of Judaea and rigid Jesuits at Rome besides what I have not now time to name he knowes the Puritans against whom I have written Lastly I find him so frequently unmasking himself to all his Readers by pretending that the difference between me and my Antagonists is meerly verbal and so acknowledging himself to be really of my opinions yet calling me as well as others by the very same names Arminian and Pelagian which with equal reason are often fastened upon himself by not a few of his own Tribe sometimes shewing himself an Advocate for the crimson sins of other men and not onely an Advocate but an Encomiast of his own concluding Grotius to be a Papist for the very same reasons for which himself if he is just must needs conclude him to be a Protestant unless he thinks as hardly of the Augustan Confession as of the Articles of the Councel of Trent mistaking at once the whole drift of Grotius his excellent Discussio Apologetici Rivetiani and parcelling his mistake into a great many Sections towards the making of a book citing Grotius his Latine and not translating it into English or translating it so lamely to say no worse as to conceal his true meaning from English Readers I say so frequently do I discern Mr. Baxters uncoverings of himself in these and many more respects that for ought I yet know these very hints which I have given for the intelligent Reader to inlarge upon unto himself may be a sufficient 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the Contagion of all his Volume My perusal of his book hath been so hasty it having been brought me by the same Carrier by whom I am hastily sending this short account unto the Presse that although I can say I have run it over yet I cannot say I have read it all And therefore my Reader will be satisfied with this one instance of my experience In his Sect. 21. p. 34 35. Grotius is brought by Mr. Baxter speaking thus in his Discussio ₠Quare nunc planè it a sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine quâ nullum sperari potest in Ecclesiâ Commune Regimen Ideo optat mark this good Reader ut ea divulsio quae evenit causae divulsionis tollantur Inter eas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canones fatente Melancthone The later part of these words which are the chief Mr. Baxter takes no notice of in the English account which he renders of them onely contents himself to say Here you see that Grotius judged that the only way for union was for all Protestants to joyn with them that adhere to the See of Rome He is deeply silent as to the causes of the breach which Grotius did wish might be taken away and which he charged the Papists with Vot pro Pace p. 7 8. I have not a minute wherein to say more then that for all his medlings and misdemeanours about my last reckoning with Mr. Barlee in my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Self-revenger exemplified I sincerely commiserate his passion I truly pardon his partiality and I heartily pray for his amendment ERRATA PAge 6. lin 9. in marg r. libert c. 13. p. 7. l. 5. from the bottom r. Mr. Hickman p. 31. l. 15. after done r. in p. 40. l. 8. in marg r. 2 Sam. 12.11 12. p. 50. l. 1. r. Joh. 15.5 p. 95. l. 3. from the bottom r. had p. 102. l. 9. r. himself p. 113. l. 8. for Mr. W. r. Mr. B. p. 114. l. 28. in marg for Mr. W. r. Mr. B. p. 149. l. 16. for rest on r. restore 163. l. 1. in marg after of r. in p. 169. l. 10. for severe r. several p. 171. l. 1. for p. 13. r. p. 113. p. 176 l. 5. r. Erinays p. 187. l. 5. after what r. was p. 197. l. 7. in marg r. in Gen. p 203. 39. in marg r. vitetur p. 208. l 13. in marg r. p. 844 845. THE END