omnia quaerendum puto inquâ—t quid sit peccatum substantia aliqua an omnino substantia carens nomen quo non res non existentia non corpus aliquod sed perperam facti actus exprimitur Et adjungit credo ita est si ita est quomodo potuit humanam debilitare vel mutare naturam quod substantia caret finely agreed Pelagius questions if sin be not a substance how it can defile the soul and Mr. T. P. asks how it can damn the soul and that here-hence Austin concludes Cap. 21. Ibid. that the very name of Jesus is extinguished ut omnino frustra putetur Vocabis nomen ejus Jesum Quomodo enim Salvum faciet ubi nulla est agritudo peccata quippe substantiae non sunt secundum istum vitiare non possunt His Theological Consolator Boethius who hartned him so much in his Apostatizing from Calvinisme (b) Correct Copy p. 48 49 c. Sinner Impleaded Boethius de Consolat Philosoph Lib. 4. Quidquid à bono deficit esse desistit quò fit ut mali desinant esse quod fuerant Sed fuisse homines adhuc ipsa humani corporis species ostentat quare versi in malitiam humanam quoque amisere naturam c. though he did only afford them Philosophical Consolation when this Boethius as T. P. also somewhere maintains at large that bad and vitious men are not so much as men doth he mean that they be pure nothings Hob-goblings Chimaeraes men in the Moon or in some new Atlantis or Utopia 3. He hath had time and wit enough to have learned that though sin be nothing positive yet it is something privative and is sounded alwayes in that which is really something as in a subject act c. Malum habitat in alâ—eno fundo (c) Augustin in Enchirid. Cap. 14. Si bonum non esset in quo malum esset prorsus nec malum esse potuisset quia non modo ubi consisteret sed unde oriretur corruptio non haberet nisi esset quod corrumperetur It is therefore horrid for him to subjoyn that according to us men are eternally punished for just nothing in the World when as he knowes that we all say that men are punished for just nothing that is good naturally or morally but for that which morally is stark-staring naught viz. for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Transgression of Gods Law Object 2. p. 110. If wicked man is no more then the deficient cause of sin he is not so much the cause of it as God himself in their account who say He absolutely wills that sin should fall out Corrept Correct p. 78 79 73. 196. 54. Answ 1. God neither is nor possible can be the deficient cause of sin because it is absolutely impossible that he should in agendo deficere be deficient in his actions (d) J. mer. P. lect de Eccles p. 80. Si quid fit boni Deo efficiente id fit nempe author omnis boni est effecitque in suis velle perficere Si quid mali fit non fit deficiente sed non faciente Deo Nam de ficere certè vel culpam vel imperfectionem causae denotat quorum neutrum in Deum cadere potest whereas man is both the efficient Cause though not the supreme of the act of sin and he is the sole deficient and in that respect the sole cause of what is properly sinful 2. As for the Argument he brings from Gods absolute willing that sin shall fall out id est the event of sin for that I do only understand in the expressions which he mentions I had need to meet with Readers of extreme false memories and of most disingenuous hearts as not willing to turn to the very places which he objects if I should suspect them to stand in need of more than hath been said in my Corrept and in this defence of it The sum of all which amounts but to that Dilemma which for my Adversaries use I have set down out of Austin in the Margin (d) August Enchirid. ad Laurent Cap. 100. Deus permittit ait ille peccatum volens aut invitus non certè invitus quia id esset cum tristitia sic majorem haberet si volens permittet permâ—ssio est genus quoddam voluntatis Contra Jul. Pelag. Lib. 5. Nos certè si cos in quos nobis potestas est ante oculos nostros perpetrare scelera permittamus rei cum ipsis erimus Quam vero innâ—merabilia ille permittit fieri ante oculos suos qua utique si noluisset nulla ratione permitteret and unto which I am confident no living man shall ever meet with any solid answer from its greatest Anti-Augustinian opposers 3. Man in all his actings is and ought to be under some known revealed Law Deut. 29. 29. God is tied to no such Lawes whose holy will is the only Law of his proceedings 4. If God should have no agency in and about the acts of sin we were to discharge him of all Soveraign power and gubernation of all things He were wholly to cease from all action about the most of actions which are committed in the World 5. Man in sinning useth not to seperate the act from the sinfulness adhering to it nor is it his place to bring light out of darkness to sin that good may come thereof as it is proper to God efficaciously to permit sins yet without sin for glorious ends Gen. 50. 20. Isa 10. 5 6 c. Object 3. p. 112. If this point be so abstruse that Mr. B. doth not understand it Why doth he talk that into the universe of Readers which is arrant Gibbrish to himself but if it is not so abstruse who doth he talk of and on affirming and denying the very same thing Ex. gr in his p. 79. he saith the sinning Creature is the sole efficient cause of his sin yet in his p. 55. he said that sin hath no efficient cause Again p. 79. he saith that sin 's very being is consisting in deficiency Answ 1. The abstruse point of Divine permission of sin need not to be arrant Gibbrish to Mr. B. and yet for the profundity of it may be but a little understood by him But if Mr. T. P. Jâ—b 4. 12. do so perfectly understand it as to find no abstruseness in it he understands Horresco referens more than Christ considered as mere man upon Earth did Matth. 11. 26. more than his holy deep Apostle St. Paul Rom. 11. 33. more then the Psalmist 77. 19. more then the deepest Doctors that ever had the handling of it Which of them with Austin saith not Lib. 5. advers Julian Pelagian Quis non ista Judicia contremiscat quibus agit Deus in cordibus etiam malorum hominum quicquid vult reddens tamen eis secundum merita ipsorum Idem tractatu in Johannem Non ergo fratres ad hanc penetrandam altudinem ad
as having heard it too from his own mouth that he called a Waggish Lad of about four years old an Innocent free from sin who yet I trow hath by this time committed some kind of Actuall sins Thirdly If his Publick and Domestick Confessions of which he speakes do all sound a contradiction to or a Cordiall Retractation of what he formerly said to my Reverend Brother I am heartily glad of it for the good of his Soul and long I wish he may with St. John (a) 1 John 1. 8. 9. continue in that sound and humble acknowledgment of his sinnes but I fear me he may quickly revert to his former presumptuous sayings if he embrace too fast the Tenents of his new friend S. Castalio (b) Philanthrop Chap. 3. p. 148. 149. who hath written a whole Book about the Perfection of Christians and their immunity from sin here upon the face of the Earth (c) S. Castal de obedientiâ deo praestanda p. 295. edâ—t in 12. Ares dorsii 1578. Totus orbis exercet histrioniam Thirdly As to the second about the 600 Copies mentioned Chap. 3. p. 54. Answ First Either my memory is intolerable false to me or so many were the Number of Copies with W. C. told me of Secondly If since fear of frowns or hopes of favour make him deny his words I cannot help it Thirdly As yet he acknowledgeth that within the time mentioned by me Correct Copy p. 1. about 200. were divended too many in all reason for the use of a private friend Fourthly p. 55. he doth so hugge himself with the conceipt of the quick spreading of his Books as that he apprehends not that I had done him any great wrong but honoured him rather by publishing that saying of W. C. Thirdly As for that of the Ladies Dialogue mentioned Chap. 4. p. 150. 151. Answ First A most Conscionable able divine who I think makes as much Conscience of not telling or believing lyes as any man in England had by three Arguments which he produced almost brought me into a belief of the truth of what I say about it Corrept Correct p. 155. and therefore I did set it as a Memorandum down not in the Text but in the Margin of my Book from whence I cannot tell why the Printers took it in to the Text. Secondly Before I did send my Copy to the Presse suspecting the passage somewhat too leight I did draw a deleatur over it but it seemes not so full an one but that the Printers did Read somewhat of that which was in the Margin and put it into the Text with an expression viz. that of mentioned before by which unto all Intelligent Readers they have made it evident seeing no such thing is any where else directly or indirectly in Text or Margin mentioned in my Book that what they expressed there should have been suppressed Thirdly If my papers sent up to the Stationer about the ERRATA were over-viewed I little doubt but that it will be found that I gave expresse order to blot out that passage which yet they did not as they did not divers others for fear of multiplfying the Catalogue of Errors which I am very certain I ordered the rectification of 4. So soon as any Copies came printed to my hands I did every where Correct that Passage as may be seen in most Copies sold in this Country Thirdly If I were too blame to believe any of these Bare hearesayes against him I wonder how he will any way excuse himself for Crediting and Publishing many Threes of Palpable untruths against me for some of which I fear me he hath scarce so much as hearesayes to bear him out in them I le onely briefly touch upon some few of them as they suddenly come to my Pen out of his Book without so much as mentioning a world more of such Light and Frivolious Stuffe not fit to be graced with any serious Answers First he averrs with confidence First (a) Philantth p. 46. and more largely to the same purpose Chap. 3. p. 122. 123. That in my first Letter it appears that this viz. of his Cheif Parishioners being of his Congregation was the Ground of all his Correptory Correction Answ First Yet elsewhere speaking of this (b) â— he professeth only to guesse that this was the only ground of his Correptory Correction from me Secondly It is notoriously false that this was the only ground or in my thoughts any Ground at all of my first writing against his private papers which were scattered up and down the Country and confuted by me long before the Parishoners he speakes of had any being in this place Thirdly Yet suppose that his filching of my Parishoners from me had been one of the Chief Grounds of my writing against him what fault had there been in this for me to be jealous over them with a Godly jealousy that by him they might not be leavened with Arminianism Socinianism Pontificianism in part I hope in Gods good time they may have Grace to forgive me this wrong Secondly He enlargeth himself (c) Correptory Correction p. 56. 57. 72. in the justifying of his Schismaticall practices against my Parish where he first tells the world that I frighted my chiefest Auditors out of my fold who thereupon came to his by way of Refuge I preached them out of their patience I wearied them with my railing they come to him no lesse p. 72. then two Miles Summer and Winter Secondly He be like as knowing them better than ever I did highly commends their Qualities and Conversations as being of a most imitable p. 57. converse fearing God and hating Covetousnesse c. Answ First Though in all this which for the Carrying on his vile designes he cannot but know how much advantage he giveth me by way of Retaliation to do him a mischief if at least he believe a word which I think he doth not of what elsewhere he writes (d) Philanthrop chap. 1. p. 3. that it is in my power to do him many a shrewd turn Secondly And though every body would have reason to believe that it were as proper for me to vindicate my proceedings among my Parishioners as for him to traduce them at his pleaâ—ure who is Pastor of another Parish A great Prelate of this Land thought he spake reason when upon an occasion he asked What hath Patriarch Sibbs to do in my diocesse Yet Thirdly that it may appear that I am in Perfect Charity with my deluded and abused Neighbours and because I love not to rubb up all old sores in a place where the first originall of our differences are very well known I will onely crave leave in my own defence with truth and modesty yet with some kind of Pleasantnesse to say First That before they came to place there were there people of as great Quality and to speak within Compasse of as good Judgment and understanding imitable converse fearing God and hating
of it but as Antecedent Causes and procurers of that Decree 3ly If sin original or actual foreseen be the cause of the decree of Reprobation for the only question is about the Aeternall immanent act of God Reprobating then because God could not but from all Aeternity foresee that if the elect did but live to yeares they would be guilty of Originall and actual sin and Ergo according to him all men should have been Reprobated for there is not a man that lâ—ves and sins not 1 King 8. 46. Out of an unclean who can give that which is cleane Iob. 14. 4. 4ly Without any the least reason assigned for it God Reprobares Angels one way and men another way for there is nothing so plain as that the foresight of the Angels Originall or actuall sins did not praecede their Reprobation But the Scripture speaks alike of both Jude 4 6. 5ly It is a doctrine Loathsome to the wiser and best sort of Divines in the very Church of Rome as Mr. Perkins hath proved at large out of many School Doctors (d) Citante D. Twisse Lib. 2. p. 18. 19. in quarto Greg. Armini Petrus de Alliaco Marsilius Franciscus Major Bannes Ferrarensis And instead of all take this argument unto which more might be added (e) Out of Bonaventure in parteprima distinct 41. quastione 1. Omne meritum antecedit illud cujus est meritum sed Praedestinatio Repâ—obatio praecedunt nostrum esse Ergo non cadunt sub nostâ—o merito Item omne meritum aliquomodo est causa ejus quod meretur sed prâ—destinatio Reprobatio sunt aeterna merita vero sunt temporalia Ergo temporale est causa Deâ—reti quod est imposâ—ibile and observeable it is that even of late Iunsenius hath wrote no lesse then two whole books against it (f) viz. Lib. 9. 10. Tom. 3. And hath the Church of England for such a doctrine as this is a wider swallow then that of the Chuch of Rome 1. And let this serve for Answer to what he saith about the Church of England 2. As for the next thing which he hath about Mr. Moulin of France first he might have rested satisfied with what I told him about this Corrept correct p. 129. 130. 3ly I much wonder at it how so great a Presbyterian and Anti-Arminian as for the main Mr. P. Moulin was known to be should be so high in Mr. T. P's favour I perceive when it may serve his turne a man of the consistory shall be looked upon as a good Church-man with him 3ly If he be so much taken with Mr. Moulin his discourses about Reprobation why is he not as much taken with his Anti-Arminian discourses in the point of Election Loves he rather to patronize Reprobate then Elect persons 4ly Why doth not he or his party answer Dr. Twisse his answer to Mr. Moulins arguments about Reprobation before he commend his performances so high 5ly Out of the mouth of a Clown he studies to pose me with a very long-tailed question which takes up the better part of two pages p. 5. 6. and yet he is upon it again p. 66. taken from Gods Eternal omniscience praescience oâ—â—n potence c unto which becausâ— I have already shewed that the Question lies not upon me to answer let him content himself with this brief resolution Answ 1. He showes himself to be guilty of a fowle Antiscriptural (a) Rom. 5. 12. and Pelagian (b) Valensis part a. q. 105. memb 1. p. 296. secundum Augustinum concedimus quod non punitur parvulus pro culpa patris sed pro culpa sua propriè loquendo Non enim dicit Apostolus quod solum Adam peccavit sed dicit quod omnes peccaverunt in Adam Erat enim in Adamo non solum voluntas unius singularis personae sed voluntas universalis naturae Adamo cadente ò justitia oâ—iginali â—â—â—idit etiam quaelibet voluntas posterorum Ca et enim voluntas cujuslibet illa recti tudine quam habuissâ—t si Adam stetisset Vide in eandem sententiam ipsum Maldâ—rum in gra 2. qu. 8â— art 1. pag. 260. error when he saith That mans original sin was actually committed by none but Adam and Eve before Reprobates were born which if so I think he cannot tell that original sin should be at all our own if in no sense it have been committed by any other persons then Adam and Eve The ground of his error is because all along he takes original sin to be nothing else but the Imputation of Adams first transgression and never considers it either as our act in Adams loines so as Levi is said to pay Tithes in Abrahams Loins Heb. 7. 9. or as it is a propagation of personal filth from thence cleaving to our natures Job 14. 4. Psal 51. 5. Heb. 2. But as for the thing it self wherein he would charge us with the denying Gods omniscience and praevision for a while at least let him know first that neither Supra lapsarians nor Sublapsarians as he calls them do question but that God did from all eternity know and fore-know and that unico intuitu by one individual act all his own works and all mens works too Act. 15. 18. without all moments and if I may so say jumps of succession from one to another from the first to the second c. 2ly But as for us poor crazie mortals if we have no mind to continue in puris tenebris ignorantiae to be wholly left in the Clowds of darkness we for the helping of our Childish Intellects must needs distinguish of all things so known by God and we must needs think of some order amongst that infinite number of things which all are at once the objects of Gods Omniscience and Praescience 3ly The best distinction which we can possibly light upon is whereby we distinguish all things eternally fore-known either as merely possible to be or as such things as shall have an actual being or futurition and then next whereby we distinguish moral good things from moral bad and evill things 4. We say in Congruity hereunto that all things merely possible to be are foreknown by the Lords Omniscience of his own Omn potence if he would be pleased to set it on work and Scientia simplicis Intelligentia thus the Lord knows thousands of things more then ever shall have any actuall being which he knows can have no being beyond a mere possible one unless he determine them to be But as for the things which the Lord knowes and foreknows will have a certain futurition he foreknows them all by vertue of his own will and Counsel whereby from all eternity he Scientia visionis determines their futurition and without which he could not know that they should certainly be unless we should be so frantick and so wicked as to maintain that Creatures from all eternity before their being were foreseen to determine both what their beings would
praevisâ and that for the support of it he maintains Correct Copy p. 69. that God executes his Decrees in the same way that he decreed them and therefore as faith and perseverance were the conditions of Election which yet is the Fountain of all grace before all time then certainly vocation and faith and other graces cannot be given without some Conditions in time and what can they be but for some good works of ours And doth he not boldly enough express in very many places of his Sinner impleaded especially where he saith p. Without our willingness to be drawn all Gods drawing will do no good 7. Heathen Philosophers and their performances were highly magnified by them (l) See about this Jansenii Lib. Quart Tom Secundi per totum Of these Pelagius used to say that Solis Libertatis ingenitae virtutibus misericordes crebrò suobâ—ii inveniuntur licet à fide alieni abundant virtutibus Aug. Lib. 4. adver S. Julian even as they are by Mr. T. P. who books down Socrates for a substantial Christian Sinner impleaded p. 12. who tells us how admirable his Arrian and others as if they had been imitators of St. Paul write about the Conflict betwixt the flesh and the Spirit Ibid. p. 38. These things considered a mere stranger to him would wonder he should dare to write it over the second time after some just Correptory Correction given him for it Corrept Correct p. 39. that he never had any temptation to Pelagianism of which he hath a great deal the more for the good conceit which he hath of his natural Antipathy against Pelagian sin which of any other in the World is most suitable to corrupt and proud nature But no man in his right wits will wonder first either that Chap. 1. p. 9. Phil. he should tell us that Pelagius was Orthodox for the main he meanes for the Articles of the Apostles Creed though by a very just consequence somewhere Austin proves it against him that he denies the very first Article of a Christians Creed whereby he believes God to be the Maker of Heaven and Earth and therein to do whatsoever is pleasing to him And secondly as I have shewed elsewhere as little will he wonder that seeing as yet Mr. T. P. lives among Christians as well as his Dogmatical Grandsires the Pelagians did that with them and with as much heat and vehemency as they he do now and thâ—n give some such excellent words to grace (m) Besides what I have already set down Corrept Correct p. It is most observable what Austin hath de grat Contr. Pelag. Caelest cap. 7. multiformem ineffabilem gratiae illuminationem agnoscit cap. 2. admodum speciosè pronunciat Anathema qui sentit vel docet gratiam Deo qua Christus venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere non esse necessariam qui hanc conantur auferre poenas sortiuntur aeternas which would be sufficient to end the Controversie if their mouthes and their hearts would but keep pace together And thus to his grosse and downright Pelagianism Now as to his finer-spun Semipelagianism or § 2. Massilianism I write it again and I will bide by what I said that to any intelligent Reader it is as plain that he is guilty of it as that his nose is in his face And I shall prove him deeply drenched with it 1. By the Identity of his and their chief opinions about the matters controverted 2. By the Identity of both their Objections against the Orthodox 3. By the ridiculous shifts which he useth for the clearing of himself from Pelagianism Massilianism or Arminianism § 1. For the first First the Massilians did believe Predestination or Election to be founded on foreseen Faith and Works (a) Pelag. in c. 9. ad Roman Quos praevidiâ— conformes futuros in vita voluit ut conformes fierent in Gloria Et apud Aug. dilucidis verbis asserunt Pelagiani Lib. de praedestinat Sanctor c. 18. praesciebat ergo Deus qui futuri essent Sancti ideò eos ante mundi constitutionem in sua praescientia elegit c. and this is an Article of Mr. T. P's Creed Phil. 7. They be both agreed in that which is the Foundation-stone of all Pelagianisme (b) Pelag. in c. 9. ad Roman Quos praevidiâ— conformes futuros in vita voluit ut conformes fierent in Gloria Et apud Aug. dilucidis verbis asserunt Pelagiani Lib. de praedestinat Sanctor c. 18. praesciebat ergo Deus qui futuri essent Sancti ideò eos ante mundi constitutionem in sua praescientia elegit c. and the very Trojan-Horse from whence all their other mischievous opinions do sally out 2. They both believe there must be something in the parties Elected to difference them from parties not Elected (c) The very error which Austin was in before he retracted it Lib. 1. Retract in c. 23. and which Mr. T. P. espouseth after Retractation Correct Copy p. 70. 71. 3. Both parties in the matter of Predestination are only for Conditional Decrees against all absolute 4. They be both for a general and an universal desire and will in God to save all men quantum â—n se So the Massilians (d) Prosper in Epist ad Augustin Quantum ad Dâ—um pertinet omnious esse paratam viâ—am aeternam so Mr. T. P. Correct Copy p. 20. Philanthr Chap. 1. p. 21. 5. They plead both strenuously for Universal Redemption (e) They maintained that it followed out of Austins principles Oâ—ject 9. Gallorum prima Vincentiana Quod Dominus Noster Jesus Christus non pro omnium hominum salute Redemptione sit passus that a man may well wonder what was become of our Authours wits memory or Conscience when he is not ashamed to tell the Christian World Phil. Chap. p. 9. that it was a part of Pelagius his Heresie to deny universal Redemption and for this he quotes Aug. Epist. 106. whereas yet there is nothing so plain as that 1. the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians or Massilians did most peremptorily maintain Universal Redemption in the full latitude of it 2. They did most stifly reject Austins Interpretations of 1 Tim. 2. 4. other places which they did use to produce for Vniversal Redemption (f) Hilar. ad Augustin â—ndâ— est quod illius sententiae expositionem non eam quae à â—e est dâ—prompta suscipiant â—d est ut non omnes homines salvos fieri velit non eos tantum qui ad Sanctorum numerum pertinchunt sed omnes omnino ut nullus habeatur exceptus ut ait Prosper Carmin de ingratis 3. I dare be bold to say that in all the Epistle 106. of Austin there is nothing which looks this way but that rather Pelagâ—us in the Council of Palestine was forced to renounce something that is quite contrary to Vniversal Redemption as viz. first that Adams sin did not hurt him
Fathers for their being no members of the Church of England and that because forsooth they have turned from the Rituals of our Mother Church and that just at such a time when as by men of renown when a storm was up they were justly thrown over-board as Commodities which ever since the Reformation were by some of her severer Sons (b) Travers Cart wright Brightman Parker Ames c. yea Fathers too (c) Bishop Elmar Bishop Cowper Arch-Bâ—shop Grindal Dr. Humphrey c. as I could show if need were accounted proprio nomine noxiae and by most of her wise and mildest ones were at best but reputed to be tolerabiles ineptias (d) All the men of Mr. Sprints Cassandrian way See his English Cassander Dr. Burges his Plea for Ceremonies c. tolerable fopperies to use Calvin's (e) Epistold quadam ad Ducem Sommer set Protect Regis Edvardi 6. f phrase about them Thirdly He huddles up a Company of Authorities p. 19. taken from the Catechism publick Liturgy and several Articles among the 39. Articles of the Church c. but he showeth not how they make for him but leaves it only for every man to collect it as he can and this he doth only upon the credit of one and but one Dr. Overall who before in the chief point upon which all turns hath been proved to make against him and of one Mr. Playfer his Analysis of the seventeenth Article and of an odd kind of writing which Chap. 3. 96 97. he calls an Hist. Narration of the judgment of the most learned and godly English Bishops holy Martyrs and others Unto all which it may serve turn in short to say first that the 4. Articles the 2d 7th 15th and 31. which he produceth for Universal Redemption speak nothing at all for it in the sense wherein he maintains it The phrase of Christs dying for all the sins of the whole world which is dropped once and but once Artic. 31. will never evince this as hath been shewed already f and shall be shewed more hereafter 2. The 10th Article which he quotes for the Liberty of the wills Co-operation with Grace he understanding it as we have heard out of him as he doth of the wills Co-operation with Grace before the Grace of Regeneration received it makes as much for him as that which is directly against him The Article saith We have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God without the Grace of God preventing us that we may have a good will and working with us when N. 6. not before we have this good will The 16th Article being as it is plain made against the old Novatians or Catharists and the then Anabaptists who revived their errors which was that a Child of God after Grace received could not fall into any enormous sin it makes nothing at all for that final and totall Apostacy of Saints which he maintains (g) Phil. Chap. 4. p. 13. for the Article as it is for the falls of Saints so it pleads too in the next words for their rising again by the Grace of God we may rise again and amend our lives 2. If he would have a more elaborate and particular Answer to these trifling Objections he may do well to fetch it from Reverend Dr. Twisse in his Confutation of Dr. Jacksons vanities who there doth it profoundly and soundly as well as very merrily and facetiously (h) Discovery of Dr. Jacksons Vanities p. 507. per totum ferme Cap. 15. Horat. Omne pulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci. 3. If Mr. Playfer by his accuraâ—e Analysis should attempt out of the 17th Article to extract Mr. T. Ps. conditional Election founded on praescience of faith and perseverance which by that Article are plain enough made gracious consequents and fruits of Election and not antecedent conditions to it I should dare and so will many more with me to call that his Analysis not an accurate Analysis or Resolution of the 17th Article but rather a professed Dialysis or dissolution and dissipation of that Article 4. As for the Historical Narration which he talks of 1. If my memory fail not many years agoe I remember to have read an Arminian piece under that Title But 2. By what Mr. T. P. relates out of him p. 97. about Pelagius his Opinion it seems to have been drawn up by some sorry Goose-quâ—l who was altogether a stranger to Pelagius his opinions which in the point of Vniversal Redemption was just the same with his own and of that of Mr. T. P's as hath already been proved in this Book and else-where (i) Corrept Correct p. 131. in margin ex Fausto Rhegin Lib. 1. de grat Lib. arbitrio 4. But once at last to put it past all doubt that he belongs to any Church rather then to the Church of England I shall once for all leave it to the free debates and Resolutions of all true hearted Protestants whether Fathers or Sons in the Church of England or of any other true Reformed Protestant Catholique in all Christendom in the â—ear of God to determine to what Church he belongs who first professeth to dislike the Doctrines of Martin Luther Zuinglius p. 19. p. 13. John Calvin c. when as no sort of Protestants oppose them all three and when as it is well known they were all three with great applause magnified by all the Arch Bishops which ever our English Church had (k) Vide Cranmeri Epistolas ad Calvin Edmundi Grindalliad Bezam Jac. Lectii dedicat operum Dist Sadeclis Archiepisc Whitegifto c. unless it were by the very last of all nay when for the very Doctrines which T. P. opposeth they gained a great Testimony from those without I mean from the better sort of the Church of Rome in the very Councel of Trent though these Doctrines of theirs were much opposed by the sordid flattering Claw backs of the Court of Rome (l) Histor Concil Trident. Lat. Edit Francofurt Anno 1621. agens de praedestinatione absolutâ ex sententia Zuinglianorum Prior certè sententia viz. in Praedestinatione Reprobatione nullas esse partes hominis sed solius divinae voluntatis magnum complexa Mysterium arcanum mentem hominis humiliabat atque hinc deformitatem peccati illinc gratiae Divinae excellentiam intuentem abjectâ protinus sui fiduciâ in Deò planè defigebat Altera vero magis plausibilis popularis speciosa augendo mentis humanae fastui accommodatior hocipso gratior erat fratribus artem potiuâ— praedicandi quam accuratam Theologiae professionem semper professis Aulicis N. 6. probabilior videbatur quippe consentanea rationibus politiciâ— habuit quoque Episcopos Bitoâ—â—inensem Salpensem satis acres propugnatores Ac profectò qui eam pâ—opugnabant quod rationibus merè humanis niterentur alià s plus poterant ubi vero ad Scripturae Testimonia ventum causâ facile cadebant
c. And accordingly Tilenus himself when he was on our side took exception against Arminius his stating the Decree of Predestination and Reprobation according to our Opinion to proceed citra omnem considerationem resipiscentiae sidei in illis an t impentitentiae infidelitatis in hisce i. e. without all consideration of Repentance and Faith in those or of impenitence and infidelity in these And this that Rev. Dr. further proves p. 11. out of Piscator and out of the Contra-Remonstrants in the Conference at the Hague c. So opposing his Adversary p. 38. and 39. he had these words Secondly He aggravates it by the circumstance of the least consideration of sin which we are said to deny to have place in Reprobation whereas Divine consideration hath no degrees at all whereby it may be capable of greater or lesse a fair answer to what Mr. T. P. hath p. 6. Sin hath degrees in man but Divine consideration hath no degrees at all To come nearer to the point to discover their jugling in stating our Tenet most calumniously Consider I pray do any of our Divines maintain that God did ordain to dimn any man but for sin and by positive Reprobation in my p. 121. I meant nothing or could mean nothing but damnation It is apparent they do not all acknowledging that like as God doth damn no man but for sin so doth he ordain to damn no man but for sin And a little after to add one thing more not for their sin which they sinnedin Adam only but for those very actual sins and transgressions which they are guilty of And if any thing can be spoken yet more plainly in the same Book p. 40 41. having spoken of Election he speaks thus about the decree of Reprobation The like distinction is considerable on the part of Reprobation which also is the will of God in a certain kind I say we must distinguish in this Decree the act of Gods decreeing and the things decreed by him And these things are of a different nature and so different that look what alone is the cause of the act that alone is the cause of one thing decreed by it but not so of the other As for example the things denyed by Reprobation are 1. The denyal of Grace 2. The denyal of glory together with the inflicting of damnation As touching the first of these look what is the cause of Reprobation as touching the act of God reprobating that and that alone is the cause of the denyal of Grace viz. that of Faith and Repentance to wit the mere pleasure of God But as touching the denyal of glory and inflicting of damnation God doth not proceed according to the mere pleasure of his will but according to a Law which is this whosoever believeth not shall be damned And albeit God made that Law according to the mere pleasure of his will yet no wise man will say that God denies glory and inflicteth damnation on men according to the mere pleasure of his will the case being clear that God denies the one and inflicts the other merely for their sins who are thus dealt withall Thus far that great Arminian Maule Dr. Twisse unto all which as a signal conclusion let that noted place be added Vind c. Lib. 2. p. 75. Nunquam mihi contigit incidere in quempiam è nostris asserentem impios Creatos esse ad gloriam Divinae Justitiae in eorum suppliciis demonstrandam ob dcretum Dei sed signanter hoc fieri passim profitentur ob peccata ipsorum impiorum non quod peccata impiorum dicant esse causam creationis sed quod peccata hominum tam in executione quà m in intentione Dei constituant causam damnationis ipsorum c. § 4. As for what he subjoynes next p. 65. against the distinction betwixt Reprobation Positive and Negative there is no real difference betwixt not choosing and refusing or betwixt not saving and damning in Gods Decree c. Answ 1. I trust Mr. T. P. notwithstanding all the many Proselytes which he glories his Correct Copy to have gained him (a) Phil. Chap. 3. p. 55. is not become so absolute a Dictator in the Church as to be able by some few scrats of his pen to overthrow a distinction so solemnly and so long received as I could show if need were at large this to have bin by Austin by multitudes of Schoolmen one of which is not afraid to question any mans prudence who shall deny so plain a thing (b) Pennot Lib. 7. §. 10. Quis tam imprudens qui dicat voluntatem excludendi efficaciter aliquem à fine voluntatem permittendi illum pro sua libertate deficere à fine non esse voluntates distinctas by his beloved Arminius himself or by all sorts of Neotericks Secondly Though in Gods decrees who is purus putus actus there be no multiplicity of acts one succeeding the other as in men yet ex parte rei and to us poor mortalls there must needs as to the matter be conceived as great a distinction betwixt these two as there would be betwixt an Earthly Judges leaving a Prisoner in Goal or not preferring of him at Court and his adjudging of him to the Gallowes for his fellonie § 5. As for the tedious Dilemma with which in the same page 65. he would fain gravel me upon occasion of what I had wrote p. 197. in defence of Calvin A. 1. Any wise body will easily perceive that none but a very absurd man would have put it seeing in that place I have no occasion at all nor do not make any the least use of the distinction betwixt Reprobation positive and Reprobation negative only I have occasion to distinguish Gods eternal Reprobation from the first Adams and the Angels temporal Apostacy And of the first I say with Calvin that Gods secret will was the sole cause but of the latter that Adam and the Angels sinful wilâ—s were the cause See Calvin de praedest p. 711. 2. Any body if he will but turn to what I wrote Corrept Correct p. 195 196. in defence of Calvin will easily discover Mr. T. P's unreasonable thriftiness in sparing to give any Answer to no lesse then four of my Replies against what he had said against Calvin and in nibling only a little at the fifth by the intrusion of a most unseasonable Dilemma for the making whereof here there was no other occasion given him then what he was pleased to take from his own working wormish fancy 3. Seeing Mr. Calvin whensoever he hath occasion to speak of Gods Decree of leaving Angels or the first Adam to themselves so as not to have decreed them that efficacious Grace by which they would certainly have preserved themselves from falling and did only afford them that sufficient Grace by which they might have stood if they had so willed the Lord gave them only posse stare vel non peccare si vellent
in that which he calls an equitable sense Against which his sense after the representation of some of his wonted Arts I had given him in variety of Arguments Corrept Correct p. 84 85. unto all which he doth wisely and like a good Husband very frugally answer nothing only in this his Philanthrop Chap. 3. p. 127. least he should be thought to be for a mere notional and speculative permission of sin he gravely tells us that God besides his permitting of our sins doth dispose and order them to the best advantage which shews that he is not for such an idle permission as I forge but for a permission designed for wise and just ends Answ But in the mean while he takes no notice First Of what I said against this his seemingly fair concession Corrept Correct p. 85. that herein he allowes God only an after-game when cursed men have played out their play to make the best of a bad bargam for that disposal of sin followes after the Commission of it Secondly He never thinks how frequently tanquam anus ad Armillam as an old Wife to her Crutch he reverts to his more Theorick permâ—ssion First When he saith Phil. Chap. 1. p. 26. that we are not compelled which thus far we all grant but only permitted by God to sin which we all deny really as to the only which here he inserts and which himself doth verbally deny in the fore-quoted p. 127. Secondly When speaking of Gods punishing sin which sin the highest point of Gods Agency about sin with we maintain he shrinks all this Chap. 4. 61. into Gods sufferance and permission by not hindring from sinning by leaving men to their wilful selves See this Pelagian sense fully confuted by August Lib 5. Contra Julian Pelag. per totum caput Quintum especially in these words Quid est autem quod dâ—cis cum desideriis suis traditi dicuntur relicti per divinam patientiam intelligendi sunt non per potentiam in peccata compulsi quasi non simul posuerit haec duo idem Apostolus patientiam potentiam ubi ait sicut autem volens Deus ostendere iram demonstrare potentiam suam pertulit in multa patientia vasa irae quae perfecta sunt in perditionem Rom. 9. c. Thirdly Whilest he minds us often for fear we should forget it that permission although active in sound is passive in signification Chap. 4. p. 33. Answ First This possibly may hold for the most part as to humane permission but never will as to Divine To men permitting sin it is enough when they have done their best to reclaim men from it to leave them to themselves but not so as to God who can if he list and when he list reclaim them from sin who upholds them whilest they do sin who concurres with them in the materiale substractum of their sins who confines and sets boundaries to their sins and doth many things more I shall have occasion to speak more in the progress and yet all this without any the least guilt of sin Secondly He had need to be a stronger Orator then he is before he shall ever be able to perswade any Divine or but sober Christian that most of those places quoted by Reverend Doctor Reynolds Epist p. 5. or by my self Corrept Correct p. 56. unto which many more might be added if they should not prove enough will be put off by such sorry glosses of Gods only permitting of them and ordering of all to his best advantage Glosses rightly Pelagian (a) August Lib. 5. Contra Jul. Pelag c. 3. propter hoc tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominae Andes propter hoc quaeris inaniter quomodo intelligendus sit tradere Deus multum laborans ut ostendas eum tradere deserendo Curavit Apostolus dicere quanta poena sit à Deo tradi passionibus ignominiae sive deserendo sive alio quocunque vel explicabili vel inexplicabili modo quo facit haec summe bonus ineffabiliter Justus Et tum fusè probat Deum obdurare non solum per patientiam uti voluit A. Pelagianus sed etiam per potentiam quod probat Augustinus but extremely unchristian Yet if by what he saith of Gods permitting of sin and ordering of all to his best advantage he would but understand it as it is plain he will not p. 11. of such a willing permissive design of God as cannot shall not be frustrated this grant of his would very much serve to determine this whole Controversie If God design it then sure he wills it he determines not indeed sins effection by himself but its permission to be acted by others § 2. The Judgement of Reformed Churches and eminent Doctors therein As to the second the Judgement of the best Reformed Churches and some chief Doctors therein I need to say but two things First That all the Reformed Churches who in the Harmony of their Confessions upon the Article of Providence make it their business to say any thing to these matters they both grant more then comes within the verge of Mr. T. P. his permission of sin and yet withall strenuously deny God to be the Authour of sin Let the studious Reader be intreated to peruse Artic. 8. Confession Gallic in Harmon Confes p. 101. Artic. 13. Confes Belgic p. 168 169. Palat. Confes Ibid. p. 200. Belgic Contra Remonst Secundó edita Latinè Lugduni Batavor 1617. Catholicus consensus patrum Harmoniae Confessionum subjunctus Artic. 3. à p. 80. ad 90. The sum and sense of all which the late Reverend piously learned Assembly at Westminster hath for the behoof of the English Reader set down thus Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 5. Artic. 4. Of Providence THe Almighty power unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness of God so far mâ—nifest themselves in his Providence that it extendeth it self even to the first Fall and all other sins of Angels and men and that not by a bare permission but such as hath joyned with it a most wise and powerful bounding and otherwise ordering and governing of them in a manifold dispensation to his own holy ends yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the Creature and not from God who being most holy and righteous neither is nor can be the Authour or approver of sin Secondly I shall need only to instance in three most eminent Doctors in the Reformed Church who fully concur with their Mother the Protestant Church and yet are mostly quarrelled against by Mr. T. P. and his Associates and these three shall be Calvin Beza and Dr. Twisse First Mr. Calvin doth most copiously set down his Judgement in this matter Lib. 1. Institut Cap. 16 17 18. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. and in his Writings against the Libertines against Pighius and others all which larger Diâ—courses of his often by many carped at but yet by none solidly confuted are well Epitomized by divers which I have met with let the
learned Reader see Calvin's Epitomist John Piscat Aphoris Doctr. Christian. Loc. 6. Thes 3 4. L. Trelcat Institut Scholast Lib. 1. p. 50. Non infundendo malitiam sed subtrahendo gratiam Aug. ad Sixtum Epist 105. but especially by Dr. Sutton in his Lectures on Rom. 11. put forth London 1632. from p. 153. c. under these heads First Of Gods withdrawing of his Divine help not by infusing of malice but by withdrawing grace Secondly By delivering of man into the power of Satan 1 King 22 22. Thirdly Of Divine permission when God suffers Sathan and wicked men to run into sin but without his furtherance as Psal 81. 12. Act. 14. 16. Fourthly The determination of sin when God will not suffer the wicked to go on in sin so far as they desire Fifthly A reducing of the ends to the Rule of Justice The bringing of some good out of evil As also by the late Judicious Bishop of Salisbury Doctor Davenant in his Animadversions p. 162 163. unto six heads unto which he subjoynes these memorable words All these may in a good sense be called operative Decrees or volitions of God and not barely permissive in all these which are conversant about the sins of men there is a positive will of God which doth not only permit men to work their sinful actions but above and in those sinful actions hath his own good and holy work And this is that Energetical will which Calvin and Beza attribute unto God in mens sinful actions which their very Adversaries are forced to acknowledge and for this he quotes on the place Ruiz de Scientia Dei p. 219. Penottus Lib. 8. c. 22. § 2. Idem Lib. 5. c. 9. p. 255. upon all which he concludes learnedly thus So that the Question is not whether God have only a permissive Decree about sinful actions for most grant he hath also an operative Decree but all the difficulty is in what manner and measure and by what meanes this Decree hath its work upon the will Calvin and Beza then might well tax all who grant only a permissive Decree concerning the events of sin and deny an operative and truly avouch that many places in Scripture cannot be understood of a bare permission but of necessity they import some kind of effectual operation 2. In like sort Theod. Beza in his Refutation of Calumnies against his Doctrine vented by one of Mr. T. P' s. Saint-like Martyrs (b) Philanth c. 3. p. 148 149. who was expelled Geneva for his wanton abusing of the most eminent Reformed Divines for his denying the Canticle to be any part of Gods word for other as heynous crimes reckoned up by my once most Learned Schoolmaster (c) Math. Sladus contra Vorstium Disceptat parte altera p. 17. 11. as that first he was a great Admirer of Servetus his Writings and of those of Barnard Ochin two much admired by Vorstius that great blasphemer p. 4. 19. Octavo A notorâ—ous Pelagian p. 92. vide Castalion plura apud Theod. Bezam in vita Calvini apud Melchâ—or Adam It 's easie herehence to guess what Saints Mr. T. P. doth worship hath these words in the refutation of the second Calumny God saith he aims at one thing viz. in the permission of sin at his own glory for which he doth also make the wicked as Solomon saith but the perverse will of Sathan and wicked men propose another end Thus it comes to passe that in one work God is just but Sathan and wicked men are unjust And this he doth illustrate by the fall of Adam and then he goes on The Original of Vice is to be sought in the Spontaneous motion of Instruments But you will say they could not resist the will of God that is his Decree I confess it but as they could not so neither would they But they could not otherwâ—se will I confess it as to the event and Energy yet the will of Adam was not forced yea he did assent unto sin not only by a Spontaneous but by a free motion when as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faculty or power was not yet mancipated unto the servitude of sin But you will say these things do not yet satisfie me I confess that also but who art thou who wilt acknowledge no Justice or Wisdom in God but for which thou art able to perceive a reason 3. In like sort Dr. Twâ—sse in all his Writings almost every where much to the same purpose I will quote but some few passages out of his stupendiously learned Vindiciae Grat. and out of that which I use to call the Epiâ—ome of all his works his Answer to the Synod of Dort and Arles reduced to practise By which every one will easily be able to perceive how childishly and yet most maliciously that learned and now blessed Doctor is abused by Mr. T. P. as p. 111. of the Section we are upon So I cannot tell in how many parts of this his Phâ—lanthropy besides He hath notwithstanding the redundancies of his superlative wit a special delight in repetitions when he thinks he hath gotten any thing by the end which he hopes will make the Doctor odious Vindic. Grat. Lib. 1. Sect. 12. p. 140. The very passage shamefully wrested by Mr. T. P. p. 111. The whoâ—e passage Englished is thus (a) Doctor Twisse Lib. 1. Vindic. Edit in quarto p. 140 Col. 2. We confess God to will that sin should exist by that will which useth to be called voluntas bene placiti the will of his good pleasure opposite to the voluntas Signi the will of the signe we also confess that Will to be efficacious but the last consequence if by an efficacious will therefore by an efficient we do utterly deny as inconsequent for Gods will is no lesse efficacious that sin should be wrought by permission than that good should be done by effecting of it In both the will of God is efficacious but in the one it is only permissive but in the other effective Even according to Arminius it is true (b) Contra Perkins Crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 162 that God would have Achab to fill up the measure of his sins Not by the sign of his will or by his approbation for he did not command him to fulfil it or when he had fulfilled it did he approve it therefore by his will of good pleasure (b) See this volunt as beneplaciti expounded by acute Dr. Ames Medul Lib. 1. Cap. 7. Thes 33. Beneplâ—citum in Scripturis quidem usitatissimè designat benevolentiam Dei qua bonum Salutare suâ—s vult ac decernit quia tamen omne consilium bene Deo placet idcirco rectè adhibetur à Theologis adâ—mne consilium explicandum etiam secundum Scripturam Matth. 11. 26. therefore by his efficacious what then doth it therefore follow that God did make him to sin Arminius likewise knowes that from Divine permission sin doth follow infallibly from whence it is
that by permission alone the will of God is no lesse efficacious than by a positive effection Here now its plain that the efficacity Dr. Twisse speaks of contrary to what Mr. T. P. p. 111. and elsewhere often would have us believe relates to the evil event falling out but not to Gods will to effect it or to the manner of his willing of it It is therefore most ridiculous that Mr. T. P. should require that such a great School-mans Termes as Dr. Twisse was known to be should be interpreted by School-boyes Dictionaries Phil. p. 112. It is true that Dr. Twisse doth often allow of that saying of the deepest of the Schoolmen our Thomas Bradwardin (c) Doctor Twisse Lib. 2. vindic p. 67. Circa quodcunque est Dei permissio Circa idem est volitio actualis About whatsoever permission is conversant about that there is an actual volition which he doth very justly in the way wherein he explains himself as he doth Lib. 2. p. 70. and I dare be bold to say in above 100. places more and yet he assignes many differences betwixt Gods working of good permitting evil as when he saith A good wil is from God as it is a will as it is good As a will by way of a general influence of providence as good by the influx of special grace But an ill will is only from God as a will but by no means as it is evil Nor is God to be said to work sin though he doth the act of sin which now a dayes no learned Pontifician of any account will deny Anon after And truly we confess with Calvin that God wills sins to be or to fall out the Lord permitting of it for nothing falls out but what the Omnipotent wills to fall out according to Austin either he doing of it or permitting of it to be done by others but as yet Bellarmâ—ne against him the Doctor is disputing hath not shewed where Calvin saith it that evills or sins fall out by Gods decree which yet if he had been found to say he is not to be thought otherwise to have willed the understanding of it then that evils are done God in time according to his eternal Decree permitting of them We say not that sins are to be attributed to God But that the acts of sin are to be attributed to God Aquinas doth dispute nor do Pontificians now adayes gain-say But let the Doctor speak his own English in the brief summary of all his works in his Considerations upon Tilenus reducing the Synod of Dort and Arles to practise p. 72 73. Of wickedness we say with Austin that none can be the Authour of it by way of an effâ—cient cause the cause thereof being only a deficient cause Now man may thus be the Authour of it to wit either in doing what he ought not to do or leaving undone what he ought to do but this cannot possibly be incident unto God namely that he should either do what he ought not to do or leave undone what he ought to do and if to determine that the crucifying of the Son of God be to be the Authour of the wickedness committed in the crucifying of the Son of God the Scripture in testifying this makes God the Authour of wickedness by the learning of this Divine That the act which is sinful and the sinfulness thereof are to be distinguished and that God is the cause of the one and only the permitter of the other is not our Doctrine only but of Arminius also A while after The sinful act is the cause of damnation as wrought freely by men and though the sinfulness be only from man yet the act is not but as well from God as from man as all sides now adayes confess even Arminius himself but this Authour so carrieth himself just as Mr. T. P. doth though not so plainly as he as if he would deny the act it self to be from God not by any strength of Argument but meerly by a loose Discourse and I have a long time looked that they should come to this but withall I look they should bring reason with them and not in a base manner this Authour-like to beg the Question And this may serve to the second thing proposed I proceed to the third viz. § 3. To give in some Reasons against Mr. T. P's most dreadful opinion about sin's quâ such having a positive Entity and a true proper Efficient Cause for about nothing else is there any question And here I profess in the first place I cannot but adore and tremble at the consideration of the dreadful judicial hand of God highly up against this Authour that whilest he is making of it his business by slanderous malicious frantick Inconsequences to make those to maintain God to be the Authour of sin who abhorr the very thoughts of falling into such an error and who by Gods grace tremble more at the thoughts of committing sin then many of his party if not himself at the open acting thereof that for the avoiding of what he will needs fancy contrary to the Rules of all Christianity and humanity his adversaries opinion to be in despite of all their open professions to the contrary I say that he should just in the very act of doing this say a thousand times more for Gods being the Authour of sin by true and just consequences (a) Sceleratum est in verbis alicujus velle haeresim quaerere cum nôris sensum illius esse Sanum Hieronym than ever by all his wicked Arts and flaunting Rhetorick to boor he will ever be able to prove his Adversaries to have said towards it This sure is a just hand of God upon him would to God he would lay it to heart lest that be verified on him that Quem perdere vult Deus hunc dementat Secondly and more particularly the horrible nature of this Opinion that sin as sin in respect of its obliquity hath a positive Entity c. will appear by these following Arguments First If sin as sin be a Positive Entity then it is a thing in it self good for every Positive thing is good (b) We have had it before out of Austins Enchirid Omnis natura etiamsi vitiosa est in quantum natura est bona est in quantum vitiosa est mala est It is to all Scholars well known that unum verum bonum convertuntur Secondly Nay which is a thousand times worse it is God for as a very learned pious friend of mine wrote to me not long since (c) Mr. H. Hick of his own Colledge very well whatever positive thing is not from God is God there being no medium betwixt Deus Creatura In truth every positive thing must be Creator or Creature And who now is the Manichee maintaining an Independent evil principle (d) Albertus magnus in Petrum Lombard Sentent 2. Disp 37. Moderni viderunt quod perfectius est agere quam esse
viderunt quod id quod non est à se nec potest à se manere in esse multo minus potest agere à seipso cum actus malus secundum conversionem ad materiam sit simpliciter actus egrediens à potentia activa perfecta secundum naturam ideo concluserunt quod non egreditur ab eo nisi secundum quod movetur à causa prima alioqui sequeretur duo principia esse Thirdly If Mr. T. P. like not of this latter then he must inevitably maintain if he will but stick to his Thesis First That God is the Authour 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 Act. 17. 28. we do not live move and have our being that every good and perfect gift is in its kind is not from God Iames 1. 17. 2. He must hold that there be thousands and millions yea thousands of thousands myriades of myriades of actions in the World which are not wrought by God are independent from him and stand not at all in neâ—d of his Concurse A Tenent which the boldest Jesuite in the World would tremble to admit into his Creed (e) Suarez De Concursu motione Auxiliis Dei. Lib. 2. Pro prio reali influxu concurret Deus ad actus Liberi arbitri ut reales actus sunt etiam si saepissimè intrinsece mali sint nam cum hi actus sint verè res effectus reales necesse est ut saltem illam dependentiam à Deo habeant quae omnibus causarum secundarum effectibus Generalis omnino necessaria est Thirdly It will follow that the more sinful acts any commits the more he is a Creator a kind of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a God of himself Fourthly Do he what he can to the contrary in spite of him it will follow that God since the fall never did or doth concur with any the best action that ever the holiest Saint being a meer man did act for unto the best of their holiest performances as they come from them something of sinful infirmity doth ever cleave Their very Righteousnesses in some respect are as filthy rags Fifthly It will overturn all Divine Praescience of sins and as I once told him in my Corrept Correct p. 142. Qui tollit praescientiam tollit Deum Deity it self is overturned if praescience And how can that be foreknown by God which is in no sense praedetermined by him in which he hath at all no hand and yet it is Ens positivum Sixthly and lastly It is an Opinion first most contrary to holy Scripture which when it speaks most properly of sin it speaks of it as of a Privative not as of a Positive thing under the notions of vanity emptiness darkness Anomy no Profit no good no knowledge c. 2. To Austin who most strenuously pleads that sin hath no cause Efficient but only Deficient (f) August Lib. 12. De Civitat Dei Cap. 7. The Discourse is most remarkable and answers to many of Mr. T. P's objections Nemo quaerat efficientem causam malae voluntatis Non enim est efficiens sed deficiens quia nec illa effectio est sed defectio deficere namque ab eo quod summe est ad id quod minus est hoc est incipere habere voluntatem malam Causas porrò defectionum istarum cum efficientes non sint ut dixi sed deficientes velle invenire tale est ac si quisquam velit videre tenebras vel aut audire silentium quod tamen utrumque nobis notum est neque illud nisi per oculos neque hoc nisi per aures non sane in specie sed in speciei privatione Nemo ergo ex me scire quaerat quod me nescire scio nisi forte ut nescire discat quod scire non posse sciendum est 3. As were easie to be proved To School-men of all sides and parties 4. To his honoured beloved Father Jac. Arminius himself so that as my forementioned cordial friend whom I mentioned but a while agoe wrote well to me when he told me both learnedly wittily that Mr. T. P. is the first who gave sin this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. T. P's Invention is extraordinary I think I may therefore now well conclude this third thing in the words which our Authour useth against me only professing a dislike to the word unfortunate (g) Te facimus fortuna Deam coeloque locamus c. is fitter for an Ovid then for a Christian Austin disputes notably against it in his books de Civit. Dei Lib. 4. c. 18. Lib. 5. Cap. 1. c. Austin puts himself to a pennance for having named it Retractat Lib. 1. Cap. 1. Poenitet me nominâsse fortunam cum vide am homines habere in pessima consuetudine ut ubi dici debuit Hoc Deus voluit dicere Hoc voluit fortuna Sic Cap. 2. Lib. 1. Retract Not only Charity but good Nature forbids the farther prosecution of so unfortunate a Writer whose great store of unskilfulness may to help excuse him § 4. As for the fourth thing proposed the Solution of Objections produced in defence of his own Opinion and in opposition to ours spits and dashes of Answers will serve against them the strength and force of them being already broken by what hath been thus far said Object 1. p. 110. Where there is no efficient there is no effect that is to say There is nothing Answ 1. In this and in all the rest of his Objectâ—ons doth he not clearly contradict himself (a) Sinner Impleaded p. 178. when of sin he saith elsewhere that it was no part of Gods Creation which is most true but how then comes sin to have a Positive Entity Is not every Positive Entity a Creature he goes on We find it not among the works of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set down or comprized in the first Chapter of Genesis He indeed made the Heaven and the Earth but it was Wisdom Chap. 1. 14. to that end that they might have their being Ergo then God gave being to every positive being or thing but he gave no being to sin Ergo sin as such hath no positive being as here he pleads 2. It 's pittiful when a man shall so flurt and flounce against his Neighbour for want of Logick and Metaphysicks and yet have so little of either as not to be able to distinguish betwixt a negative non ens or nullity and betwixt a privative in subjecto Capabili as betwixt a blind man and no man a poor man and no body And in this to â—o he is but too like Pelagius who concluded because sin was no substance Ergo it could not corrupt the soul Pelag. apud Aug. Lib. de nat grat c. 19. Ante
inobediens in illo adversus se movere sentiebant 5. If inclination unto sin be no sin in its own nature then it cannot become so by yielding unto it No man sins by yielding unto a good or to an indifferent suggestion If it be not fowl before I touch my touch cannot make it so unless my hands be so If the Tree be not naught the fruit cannot be so 6. What sense can there be in it to imagine Inclinations unto sin to have been in the first Adam before his Fall more then there was in the Angels before they left their first station Jude v. 6. or will he and his party in the pure nature of Angels as at first created by God maintain Inclinations unto sin what would this be to use his own Phrase Correct Copy p. but to maintain that men and Angels too were betrayed by the guide of their youth 7. If inclination unto sin before actual sin were no sin what need he be shy of granting it to Christ when he saith p. 24. that the Devil tempted our Saviour but could not possibly prevail because he had not inclination to any the least evil Sin only excepted was not Christ in all things like unto us Heb. 4. 15. I may suppose by that time he hath studied his S. Castalia his applauded Martyr more (c) Phil. Chap. 3. p. 148 149. he will with him maintain that even Christ had inclinations to sin or else for that is the goodly Argument Castalio brings for it he could not have been virtâ—ous (d) Seb. Castal Dialog If Christ saith he were necessarily good he was not good at all Necessity excludes all choyce 8. To maintain inclinations to sin to be no sin is as pure a Pelagian (e) Which he learned from Pelagius who maintained it to have been in Christ and in the very bodies of glorious Saints after the Resurrection vide C. Jansen Tom. 1. Lib. 3. Cap. 7. p. 142 143. and upon the very same grounds e Aug. Lib. 4. Cont. Julian c. 2. Itane babere tecum Libido amicitiam meretur Bellum ut abs te expugnetur in te defendatur adversum me bellum vestrum latet am citia patet Ex hoc quod patet suspectum facis esse quod latet c. quomodo vis ut arbitremur adversus aculeum te dimicare Libidinis cum libros impleas laude Libidinis Popish (f) Canon Concil Trident. Sess quinta Hanc concupiscentiam quum aliquando Apostolus peccatum appellat sancta synodus declarat Ecclesiam Catholicam nunquam intellexisse peccatum appellari quod vere proprié in renatis peccatum sit sed quia ex peccato est ad peccatum inclinat Arminian and Socinian a tenent (g) Armin Artic. perpend paragraph p. 18. Inclinationem ad peccandum in homine ante lapsum fuisse licet non it a vehementem inordinatam Sic Corvinus citante D. Walaeo contra Corvinum p. 254. 282. alibi edit in quarto as ever â—ell from the pens of any of those parties And for all this goodly Divinity I suppose my Neighbour is beholding to his great friend Dr. Taylor who taught it him in his Chapter of Original sin § 2. I but against all this he objects 1. p. 24. l. 4 5 6. Had not Eve an inclination to the forbidden fruit before she eat it was it not fair to look on and did not this incline her eye c Answ 1. She had an inclination before she did actually eat it but not before the seduction of her understanding and the corrupting of her will had wrought in her that inclination Austin was wont to say that as to the very first sin of all voluntas trahebat concupiscentiam non concupiscentia voluntatem The corrupt will was a Shooing-horn to concupiscence not concupiscence to the will Austin advers Julian Pelag. opere posthumo Cap. 68. Object 2. Ibid. L. 30. 31 c. Whence was the sin if there was no inclination Not from Eve her self who if she had no inclination had no temptation from within not from the Devil whose temptations have no force if contrary to all our Inclinations Answ 1. What if we should say that we cannot tell how to answer these Questions certain we are that sin is come into the World and that Rom. 5. 12. by one man instigated to it by the Devils temptations but not at all by God (a) Eccles 7. 29. August ad Artic 13. falsô sibi impositum Si ab justitia pietate quis deficit suo in praeceps fertur arbitrio sua concupiscentia traâ—itur Nihil ibi Pater nihil Filius Spiritus sanctus c. But further the Scripture being silent we cannot at all tell Non sunt neganda aperta quia non tenentur operta seu occulta plain things are not to be denied because secret things cannot be known We need not to seek after crevices and wickets when the door is open And this answer either satisfied his Learned Professor J. Arminius himself or then when he was about it he durst give in no other but withdrew his hand (b) Armin. contra Perkins p. 98. Ingredimur hic Perkinse Doctissime tractatum difficilimum vix explâ—cabilem mihi saltem Tyroni adhuc et in istis apicibus Theologiae sacrae non satis exercitato Audebimus tamen aliquid but when now he should perform his promise he slings up his pen and makes a halt as may be seen on the place It will become all Christian Dâ—vines well to be more studious how to get sin out of the World then over tediously to dispute how it came in at first 2. Whom this Answer contents not as a very Learned Divine hath very well observed (c) J. Camer Defens contra Epist cujusdam viri docti p. 163. Aiâ— nullam posse dari causam primi pâ—ccati primi hominis praeter Diaboli instinctum cum esset is ita à Deo creatus ut mutabilis esset quî miremur si impulsu Satanae dejectus fuit de gradu statu quid enim aliud dici possit An hoc factum ideo quia cessit loco quia se non prâ—buit cautum consideratum At haec ipsa negligentia peccatum fuit c. Nulla peccati Adami in Adamo reddi causa potest quâ— non sit ipsa peccatum quaeque ipsa non aperiat fenestram novae subinde quaestioni atque ita in infinitum they must fall upon the absurdity of a Progressus in infinitum or of something primo prius before the first the very things so irrationally objected here p. 24. against the Orthodox 3. Adam and Eve at first might have no inclination to sin at all yet by God according to what the condition of every Creature at first did require being made not in an immutable but mutable condition he was not naturally inclinable to fall yet lyable to it if he would so do As
hee 'l needs call it from Christianity as indeed it is unto Arminâ—anisme (a) CoRRect Copy p. 48. and ever since as it appeares by his publick writings it is humane and moral Philosophy whiâ—h he feeds upon and is nourished with (b) See the first and chiefest part of his sinner Impleaded 2. humbâ—e and mortified Christians use to have many sad and mournfull discourses with their like about the unrulinesse of their wills their Impotency yea Impossibility to governe those unruly things at all without the speciall powerfull operation of Christs grace Ioh. 15. 5. but proud spirited people use to boast of their powers to govern their wills as Austin of old obâ—erved Dicere solet humana superbia (c) Dicere solet humana Superbia si scissem fecissem ideo non seci quia nescivi de grat arbitr c. 2. c My good friend was resolved not to heed what Lecture I had formerly read him out of Austin (d) CoRRept CoRRect p. 35. 36. in Marg. 3ly Athough I will not deny but that much good use may be made of humane Philosophy as to the snibbing for a while ratâ—er then the mortifying of some boysterous passions yet in their next Philosophicall Dialogue I would fain have them to determine first whether any Christianity properly so called can be learned from those who had none at all of it as the Stoicks had never a deale of it 2ly Whether those without some limitation can so much as be called vertuous who could only be so as to the dull matter of virtues but knew nothing of any right principles of virtues of any right ends of any right manner of performing of them when as yet Austin according to Scripture hath long since well determined that non officiis sed finibus sunt metiendae virtutes Virtues must be described by their ends not by their Offices 3ly whether that the more Heathens Philosophers did place their happinesse in moral vertues they were not the more proud and the further off from Christ and the nearer to the deifying of themselves to whom they did use to ascribe their own virtues propter unicam ambitionem caeteras omnes colebant virtutes * Omne etenim probitatis opus nisi semine vitae Exoritur fidei peccatum est inque erratum Vertitur et Sterilis cumulat sibi gloria poenam Ambition and selfe-admiration made them to follow all other virtues (e) Prosper Carmen de ingratis Cicero was used to boast that he did thank God for his riches and honours but not for his virtues Senec. Ep. â—7 Bonam menâ—em stultum est optare cum possis à â—e impeâ—rare Austin Lib. 5. de Civ dei c. 20. Eorum virtus si tamen ulla est alio modo quodam humanae subditur laudi neque enim qui sibi placet homo nonest c idem in Psal 121. ut non superbiat in virtutibus proficiendo quid debet facere levet oculos suos ad illum qui habitat in coelo non se attendat sed qui sibi placei stulto homini placet quia ipse stultus est qui sibi placet solus securus placet qui Deo placet Had these things in their conferences been throughly scanned possibly the first thing in this book to have been recommended unto us would not have been Stoical Philosophy and else-where we should not have been told that these Stoicks aemulated St. Paul in his writings about the combate betwixt the Flesh and the Spirit with which never mere Heathen or mere naturall man was ever in Pauls sense acquainted (f) Sinner impleaded p. 38. Aâ—iâ—n writes as if be had transcribed out of the seaventh Chapter to the Romans Austin contra Lib. 1. Retract Cap. 23. ex opere posthumo Lib. 1. contra Julian Quis non videat Judaei Apostolum induxisse personam nondum sub Christi gratia instituti dicentis Miser ego homo c Itane vero Judaeus est nondumque Christianus est qui dicit Dei gratia me liberavit per Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum Et pauâ—o post Postremò cor delectatur lege Dei secundum interiorem hominem c et tu contra clarissimam veritatem oculos claudis gemitumque ejus exponis non ut omnibus patet sed ut tibi placet c. 2ly He saith ibid p. 5. lin 2 3 4 5 6 and in Margin that he is no more a Herotick for being said by Mr. Barlee to lay snares for the worthy Gentlemen of the Country whereby to bring them into boggs and precipices than God himselfe is a seducer for being said by Mr. Barlee to tempt men unto sin p. 79. he saith he is not at leasure fully to open in what sense c. He saith that God doth stirr up wicked men to acts as acts which to the actors are and will be unjust As if God could stirr up David to pollute Bathsheba without stirring him up to his adultery or else that Adultery becomes no sin Answ 1. As to what may seeme weighty and material in this objection enough by Gods blessing is like to be spoken to it when I shall come professedly to speak about Gods efficacâ—ous permission of sin In the interim it will suffice to observe first that to my best remembrance I never called him Heretick if he have a mind to call himselfe so I will not gainsay it for indeed I think him guilty of much hereticall pravity 2ly I could never so-fashion think the Almighty to draw men into the Snares of sin as I believe Mr. T. P. doth he doth it by his perswasive Oratory by his guilded fine poysoned Letters and Papers by his mis-representing of their Orthodox guides but the holy one of Israel perswades not to sin yea by his Lawes Promises Threats judgments disswades from it non infundit malitiam sed non impertit gratiam Rom. 9. 10. He gives grace to whom the will and hardens whom he pleaseth by denying them grace and giving them up to their own hearts lusts Rom. 1. 20. 3ly Any one who reads me and heeds me in any of the places which he directs them unto in the Text or Margin of my Correptory will easily see how for the clearing of God from have any efficiency in sin as such I do every where carefully distinguish these three things 1. The materiale substratum peccati the material part of sinne as I may so say which is either the doing or the leaving undone some positive natural or Moral act 2ly The formal part of sinne which gives it its being such as it hath and that is it which the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ier. 3. 4. 3ly The Governing Ruling and overruling the sinne and the sinner the first and the last I make God to be the Soveraigne Author of in whom we live move and having our being Act. 17. and who bringeth light out of darknesse good out of evill (aa) Apolog. Lib 1.
c. 25. Dr. Morton Episcop Dunelmens fusé à pag. 90. ad 97 edit London in 8. But as for the second which alone is properly sinne I every where deny God to have any other hand in it then that of a voluntary unconstrained permâ—ssion which so long as the world stands can never in the Lord be proved to be sinfull †Hugo de S. Vic. Lib. 1. de Sacrament cap. 12. part 4. Deus cum faciâ— bonum permittit malum apparet voluntas ejus quoniam esse vult quod facit quod permittit est dei voluntas operatio ejus permissio ejus 4ly If as I say Corrept p. 79. that I was not at leasure in reference to Iames 1. 13. 14. fully to open in what sense God may some way seem I speak Cautelously and yet not be the Author of sinne c he should not have been so uncharitable or so irrational as to insinuate as here he doth that I would have done it in a way which would have aspersed the Almighty with mans sin that might be done as some of the ancient and moderne (aa) Enchi-rid ad Laur. cap. 13. 14. Omnis natura etiamsi vitiosa est in quantum natura est bona est in quantum vitiosa est mala est rursum ma la omnino sine bonis nisi in bonis esse non possunt qu imvis bona sine ma lis esse possint Valentianus ini Aquin q 9. 19. p. 43. Eâ—titatem pravae actionis omnes fatemur cadere in voluntatem divinam cum fit esse à Deo tanquam à causa universali concurrente cum voluntate humana interpreters both Pont fician and Protestant have done and yet neither the text be really contradicted nor God be made a Seducer 2ly He should not have been so superstitious as to have overlooked that which p. 79. upon this occasion I directed him unto out of Dr. Twisse 3ly He should not have such an overweening conceipt of himselfe and of his Authority in the Church as to have thought that his bare Repetition of severall sayings of mine without any the least show of confutation when as yet they be wary enough and commonly enough received would be a sufficient demonstration that they prove me to maintaine God to be a seducer or the Author of sin contrary to my expresse words and meaning as the Lord knows and will judge who is the Judge of all and the searcher of all mens hearts and trier of all mens reines 5ly He that cannot or will not tell how God may be said to excite men to the Act of Adultery which to the Adulterer so excited is sin though not to God neither will he tell how God without sin doth stirr up men to the Act of lying with their lawfull Wives for it is adutrumque but ejusdem generis excitatio concursus unlesse he makes himselfe guilty of something of sinfull concupiscence which alwaies more or lesse since the Fall cleaves to the Act. Would he peruse Austin his writings de nuptiis concupiscentia they would informe him better (f) Austin divers times instanceth in Gods making stolen Corn to grow § 1. 2ly To what he hath in the book it selfe in any material Section of his and here first to the charge of Post-destination chap. 1. § 2. from p. 4. to 7th he hopes to acquit himselfe of this by saying first that it is another cast of my invention And yet Answer 1 I beleive I am not the first by a hundred who in opposition to Pelagian and Arminian Spirits have used this expression (a) Instead of a great many mâ— who might easily be produced see Bâ—shop Davenant Animadvers p. Ames Antisynd p. 25. in Coronide Artic p. 4. Edit Londinens p. 4. Rivet disp 4. Thes 6. 2. Yea seeing by what he pleads for in these pages it is evident that God concluded upon nothing concerning mans Aeternall condition before he did at least in signorationis foresee all that man would do or leave undone from his first to his last breath I might with a venerable Author (b) Dr. Ames Autisynod p. 25. with much more reason have styled him a submortuarian and because he allowes of finall falling away from gâ—ace in some elected to it have called him an Apostatarian for that according to him the object of Election may be an Apostate †Phil. Chap. 4. p. 18. than he with any colour by way of distinction from their brethren have termed others Sublapsarians 2ly He saith that a decree before the Creation of the World is as muâ—h and as purely a Praedestination although conditional as his absolute decree can be supposed to be and that the word praescience doth sufficiently inforce Answ 1. The impossibility of this I have already largely proved in my corrept Correct (c) CORREPT Correct from p. 139. to 143. c. unto which he makes not any the least shadow of a reply 2ly It is against all common sense to averre that that is as purely a praedestination which putteth praedestination into the power of the praedestinated as that which puts it only in the power of the praedestinating The former as is evident is his Heterodoxal opinion the latter is only ours 3ly It is as senselesse to say that praescience especially as he discourseth of it in his Boethian discourse Correct Copy p. 48. 49. doth inferr a praedestination when as praescience of a thing future must needs praesuppose a praedestination or a praedetermination of it 3ly He saith that my terme of Post-destination will fall foul upon all my venerable Masters of the Sublapsarian wayes which doth inferr a decree not altogether irrespective c Answ 1. The transferring of a Crime to others is no ablation of it from himselfe 2ly There is nothing so manifest but that in this business there is a wide difference even a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immane quantum betwixt those whom he termes Sublapsarians and himselfe First I know none of them all who stand much upon these Termes of sub Supra or Con when they come to speak about the ordering of Gods decrees (a) Dav. Animadversions p. 24 17. 58. 27. c passim A. Rivet disp 3. Thes 12. Ames Antisynod cap. 1. p. 5. Dr. Twisse in omnibus Scriptis saepe nay they professe them to be of no great moment yea to be but mere Logicall or Metaphysicall speculations They hold with Tho. of Aquin that as in reference to the dealbation it is not a material businesse whether that which is whitened were before black pale or red so as to the reason of praedestinatâ—on they think not material whether a man be predestinated to life eternal from a state of misery or no (b) Part 1. qu. 23. Art 1. Motus non accipit speciem à termino à quo sed à termino ad quem nihil enim refert quantum ad rationem dealbationis utrum