of the wisest Agent even God himself that he cannot tell what he will do untill he actually doth it God worketh alwayes from eternity hitherto 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even till now * Joh. 5.17 saith our Saviour and what he now worketh he knew he would work from all eternity even whilest he determined that he would work it He did not first determine and then know but determined according to his knowledge Thus far indeed the men of that way may safely speak that Gods Decree of Creation was before his knowledge of a world actually created for before a thing can be known as actually done as the actual creation of the world or the world created God must needs have decreed that he would do it But withall let them consider that we are speaking of Gods knowledge of what is future not yet in act and therefore call it his foreknowledge which contemplates what will be in the presence only of its Idea And his Decree of Creation could not possibly be before that Idea of a world to be created Man in some things hath a similitude with his maker And as a man cannot decree to make a Watch or any other piece of work before the image of that Watch is in his mind so God himself could not decree to create a world before he knew it in its exemplar and conceived how it should be and that for the reason before specified because he could not decree vagum quid indefinitum he knew not what 13. The Application to the present case and away opened to reconcilement 13. I will apply my discourse to the case in hand God must needs have decreed that he would permit sin before he could know or consider it as actually permitted But 't is one thing to know it in Ideâ or in exemplari as a thing which may be if God will and so may not be if he will not and quite another thing to behold it as actually being for this is after his decreeing that it shall be if it be such on which his decree can pass as the creating of a world and the permitting of sin but upon sinning it self the decree of God could never pass and therefore for that I must resume what I lately said that God eternally foreknew what he did not decree the being of as well as all which he did decree As he knew he would create one world so he knew he would not create a hundred As he knew he would suffer or permit us to sin so he knew he would not tempt not incite us not necessitate us to sin As he knew whilest he decreed that he would give us free-wills so he knew whilest he decreed that he would not take that freedom from them and he knew what he did not yea what he could not decree our many impious abuses which we voluntarily make of this our freedom Now let my Adversaries recount as well how far I go their way as where I leave them and for what Reasons 1. Let them consider that I say as well as themselves that in order of nature though not of time God did first decree to make or do things before he knew them as actually made or done 2. Let them consider that I leave them by adding this that God decreed nothing future before he foreknew it in Idea and foreknew but decreed not the Acts of sin such as Adultery Murder Blasphemy and the like 3. Let them consider my Reasons to name no more are these two first it is impiously irrational to make God to have decreed he knew not what and next it is worse to make him the Author or Cause of Sin Let them admit of so much as may consist with the wisedom and goodness of God And for any thing else I will not strive with them But till that shall be done I must proceed to discover their grievous failings Sect. 10. I can pass no further then the two and twentieth page of Mr. B. without observing him teaching Mr. B's unavoidable consequential blasphemy that God determined all wickedness before he could foreknow it That the things which God foreknows will have a certain futurition he foreknows them all by vertue of his own will and counsel whereby from all eternity he determines their futurition and without which he could not know that they should certainly be p. 22. First he speaks of Futurition 1. His ignorant use of the word Futurition as if he thought it signified Existence for he talks of Gods knowing what will be future whereas that which will be is future now whilest yet it is not but hereafter it will be present Had he said waterish water he had committed a less absurdity 2. Of the word Will. 2. He talks of Gods knowing by vertue of his Will as if he knew not the difference betwixt the Understanding whose proper object is truth or falshood and the Will whose proper object is good or evil good onely of Gods will and evil also of ours He might as well have said that God did will by vertue of his knowledge and indeed much better because 't is natural for the Will to follow the judgement of the Intellect The sight of the object is before the pursuit or else the pursuit is in the dark If Mr. B. had said that he sees by vertue of his hands or feet he had been less to be blamed because he had but made himself a Monster and with himself he may be bold but not with God 3. Of the word Certain 3. He talks of Certain as if he thought it had been all one with Necessary or if he knew what he spake as probably he did he hath blasphemed unexcusably For God foreknew that all the wickedness in the world would very certainly be it had not else been foreknowledge but false conjecture if what he seemed to foreknow had been uncertain and so 't is the Doctrine of Mr. B. That God could not foreknow all the wickedness in the world unless by his will he had first determined its futurition 4. Of the word Counsel 4. He talks of Gods Counsel as if he knew nothing of the word For he saith that God foreknew by vertue of his Counsel as well as Will whereas Counsel cannot be Counsel but by vertue of Knowledge In the absence of Knowledge there must be Error and Unadvisedness but consultation or Counsel there cannot be Thus his Doctrine of Decrees hath made plain English a stranger to him 5. His threefold Blasphemy besides his self-contradiction 5. But the most notorious thing in his present speech is his making God to will sin and his not allowing that God could otherwise foresee it then by decreeing its coming to pass Which first is blasphemously contradicting to the word of God who saith he wills not the wickedness of a sinner Psal 5.4 Next Look back on the eighth and ninth sect of this Chapter 't is blasphemously
positive That God did never concur to any the best action that ever the holiest Saint did act p. 113. As wild a saying as this is his reason for it is little less it being no other then this That sinful infirmity doth cleave to their holiest performances Ibid. 1. Mr. B's arguing concludes him either Pelagian or Libertine 1. If this were reduced into a Syllogisme it would overthrow his whole Fabrick and that two wayes for either it would argue him a Pelagian in denying that our best actions are from the grace of God or else a flat Libertine in affirming our evil and good actions to proceed from God in equal manner The summe of his arguing is this That if sin is not from God the holiest action of man is not from God But first he must be minded of his least unhappiness which is his great impertinence for this is not the thing which here it lay upon him to prove That sin is from God but that it is not a thing positive whereas by striving to prove it is from God he proves it also a thing positive against himself and his friend Mr. H. Hick For in that they both say whatsoever positive thing is not from God is God they unavoidably imply that whatsoever is from God is a positive thing 2. His great impertinence is to no end but to make God the Author of sin 2. From hence it is evident and undeniable that though Mr. B. in some places doth deny his derivation of sin from God yet his heart is so full so brim-ful of it that here he goes out of his way to shed some of it upon his paper or if unknowingly it falls from him it is still a sign he overflowes If he thinks that the best actions of the holiest men are the very sins of infirmity which he saith doe cleave to them he knowes his dangers above recited and many more I need not name but * Isa 5.20 wo to him that calleth good evil and evil good If he means that the sin is a distinct thing from it why could he not distinguish betwixt the Sun and a Coal-pit betwixt the pious action which is from God and the sin annexed which is from man Gods concurrence is an equivocal word and must be carefully distinguished If it relates onely to good God concurs to the very act if to evil God concurs not any otherwise then by continuing to us the liberty power to act with which he indued us as we are men But to abuse that liberty and to reduce that power into any forbidden or evil act is the unhappy and sole priviledge of the depraved Creature Sect. 23. Mr. B. saith farther that if sin is something positive Mr. B's fifth chip denies Gods praescience of all wickedness unless he also praedetermined it and none of Gods Creatures It will overturn all Divine praescience of sins and how can that be foreknown by God which is in no sense praedetermined by him in which he hath at all no hand p. 113. This is the same sad beggery of the thing in Question without the least offer of proof which his cogent necessities have so often squeezed from him and which I have * See the eighth ninth tenth Sections of this third chapter spoken to so largely in divers Sections Though he hath several times confessed that Deity it self is overturned if praescience yet here he professedly overturns Gods praescience of any thing in the world but what he first doth praedetermine and hath a hand in If God did not praedetermine nor had any hand at all in all the villanies in the world which none can imagine but Mr. B. and his party then he could not foreknow them saith the unclean Dictator And so he casts himself into his wonted streight of aspersing Gods holiness on the one hand and his praescience on the other To what he asks and asks onely I will fully but briefly answer that God can foresee what we will do as well as what he will do himself He may determine to give us power and foresee how we will use it He gives us a power to act freely and to determine our own wills which would not be wills much less our own wills if determined by any thing except our selves So much am I for Gods praescience that I extend it to all things without exceâ—tion as well to the evil which he did not praedetermine as to the good which he did But 't is a great derogation to Gods infinite knowledge to say it reacheth no farther then to his own decrees and executions The very thing which the Socinians do so improve as to deny Gods praescience of future contingencies And whether Mr. B. with his party are not Socinians in this point according to that method which they do constantly use in judging others let them be their own Judges in cooler blood If they deny it 't is at their peril it being much a lesser error to think that God foresaw no wickedness then that he foreordained any Sect. 24. Mr. B. concludes with an affirmation 1. Mr. B's Impositions upon the Scripture which he hopes may pass with the easie multitude for a kind of sixth Argument that my opinion is contrary 1. to Scripture which speaks of sin as of a privative when it speaks most properly 2. to Austin who pleads that sin hath no cause efficient but onely deficient 3. to Schoolmen of all sides and parties 4. to his honoured and beloved Father Arminius p. 114. The first is contrary to truth in the very judgment of common sense as I have largely made appear and partly out of his own mouth in the 15 16 17 and 18. Sections of this Chapter But yet I will ask him this little thing Doth the Scripture speak properly when it saith that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh and doth it not speak properly when it saith that sin is a work of the Devil that the Devil is the Father of it that Lust conceiveth and bringeth forth sin True indeed it is called Vanity but so is * Psal 39 11. Man too who yet I hope is a positive entity neverthelesse Nay Man at his †Vers 5. best estate is altogether vanity nay altogether * Psal 62.9 lighter then vanity it self Sin indeed is called darknesse but by a figure and so are †Eph. 5.8 men too A man is no where called emptinesse no more is sin But sin hath negative attributes as every thing in the world hath in respect of its having no moral goodnesse How many things are there which God himself in Scripture is affirm'd not to be yet Mr. B. will not deny him to be a positive entity 2. The Schoolmer 2. As for the Schoolmen if either they talk erroneously as Mr. B. will confesse they often do or are mistaken by Mr. Barlee who is as good at that faculty as any man of his paste or were never read
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.
of the word conditional as I have largely shew'd How irresitible is the truth of conditional Decrees which the Adversaries themselves cannot tell how to gainsay untill they have created themselves a subject and called it ours How deplorable are the endeavours of such opponents whose chiefest refuge and strength is to mistake the very ground on which the Defendant is known to stand Upon fairer terms then such as these I will at any time undertake to make it appear to Mr. W. that two and two amount to ten or that five and five put together do make but four I am secure of the successe whensoever it shall please him to shew his strength because I find the task is easier to prove that two and two are ten then to prove that God's Decrees are all irrespective or unconditional which though the chiefest of that Party have asserted as well as they have been able yet have they done it in such a manner as if they were afraid to have it believed And this I hasten to make apparent in the following Chapters CHAP. I. Concerning his Fanciful Creation of Three General Objections and his Propoundings in General in way of Answer p. 19 20. SECT I. AS Mr. Whitfield found it his safest way to sâ—end no lesse then eighteen â—ages 1. M. W 's distrust which he puts in his cause beâ—â—des his Eâ—istle to the Reader upon a Subject of his own choice before his courage would serve him to split himself uâ—on the Rocks which he pretended to attempt in his valiant Title so when he is brought to his proper Task tâ—nquam Bos ad Ceâ—â—ma of answeâ—ing such Obâ—ections as had been made against his Doctrines in the Divine Philanthropie defended he is fain to shrug three times together before he is able to fall on First he tells us It is agreeable to right reason that God being a most free absolute and omnipotent Agent he might design the creatures that were of his own making to what ends himself pleâ—sed without giving account to any c. p. 19. Num. 1. And this he calls his first Generall Answer or thing propounded by way of Answer 2. His studied aiming beside the mark Secondly But to whom or to what or upon what occasion no man living can imagin much lesse can he Where dwells the man who ever dream't of such an Objection against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Soveraignty of God not in any of their houses who ascribe thus much to the Sapreme Civil Magistrate that he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unaccomptable upon earth much more to the Omnipotent that he is such even in Heaven This general Objection was fram'd at Bugbruck by that creator of Chimaera's who loves to fancy an Enemy and then to fight him when he cannot answer what is objected he objects such things as he can answer It is the cream of his strength that he feels his own weaknesse and therefore deals with a proportionable Objection That which comes out of his Forge he thinks is fit enough to passe between his Hammer and his Anvil But then he ought to consider that he should feign no more Objections than he can dissipate with his practice as well as with his Pen. 3. Yet overthrowes his own Rampire For Thirdly If God was pleased that his Mercy should be over (a) Ps 145.9 Ps 103.8 Ps 145.8 Ps 86.15 all his works and might do what he pleas'd as Mr. W. confesseth why does he daringly exclude the greatest part of mankind from any imaginable share of that rich mercy The least degree of Gods mercy hath some of comfort But is it a comfort to the Reprobates that by a peremptory Decree they are rendred incapable of Heaven and sure of Hell without respect unto their sins and yet inevitably sinful without repentance that so they may not be damn'd for nothing Why then do men who are as wormes advance themselves against God denying his (b) M. whitf p. 2. l. ante-pen penult ult pag. seq 1. Eternity 2. Immutability 3. Omnipotency 4. Simplicity and all his other perfections because he was pleased to decree the end of his rational creatures in an eternal consideration of the respective means If God determin'd from eternity that Cain and Judas should be (c) Gen. 4.14 16. Mat. 25.30 Act. 1.25 cast out of his presence in regard of their Murder and Impenitence and no otherwise what is that to Mr. Whitfield (d) Job 33.13 Why dost thou strive against him for he doth not give account of his matters as Elihu pleaded for God in another case The (a) Prov. 16 4â— Lord hath made all things for himself them that are good for the day of good things them that are a wicked for the day of evil yea in an eternal foreknowledge and consideration of their wickedness If God was pleas'd to give his Son to be a ransom for all the World upon their several performances of no impossible conditions why should a Calvinist be offended that all others are savable as well as he whose bodies are (b) Job 33.6 formed of as good a clay and whose (c) Eccl. 12.7 souls can pretend to as high a pitch of extraction why should the (d) Mat. 20.15 Creatures eye be evil because his God is exceeding good and it seems much more than Envy and Avarice can well endure Let Mr. Wh. therefore cease from contriving Objections against himself or if his Invention must needs be busie let him conjure up no more than he is able to exorcize nor (e) Wisd 1.12 pull disgraces upon his Doctrine with the work of his hands But withall let him be told that as God was not bound to give account of his wayes to any creature and as little to those of the Kirk as to those of the Synagogue so when it pleased him of his mercy and free love to Mankind to reveal as much of them as lies open to our eyes in his written Word who dares call him to account for giving account of his Dispensations if God is pleased in some Cases and that as an instance of his freedom to become (f) Isa 5.3 4 c. Ezek. 18. accountable to his creatures and to become like (f) Heb. 4.15 Mat. 8.17 one of us sin alone being excepted he is not to give an account to any 4. His second overthrow of himself and of his absolute decrees Fourthly What is added by Mr. W. That God might appoint his creatures to such ends as should make most for his glory is very true and very impertiment and very much to the downfal of his Poetical Reprobation For to decree men to punishment without respect unto their sins makes not so much for Gods glory as to decree them to punishment in consideration of their sins Unless Mr. Wh. is of opinion that 't is a more glorious thing to torment a creature as a creature then to punish a sinner as being sinful of
that eternal Decrees are not every way answered by their Temporal executions God created Mankind as he was mighty but decreed to reprobate and elect as he was inâ—â—nitely just For Reprobation in all senses negative or positive imports a very sore punishment as every punishment imports a sin for which the punishment is inflicted That is most for Gods glory which is most for his justice and Mercy too but to decree a man's misery for the meer shewing of a Soveraignty over the work of his hands and therefore to decree it without respect unto sin hath nothing in it of Justice much lesse of Mercy and so is incompetible to â—im who could not chuse but be alwayes from all eternity at once a Just and a Merciful Soveraign it being destructive of his glory and by consequence of his Being that any one of his Attributes should for an Article of time exclude the other From whence it followes that Mr. Wh. hath confuted all his own Doctrine in less than two lines Nor can he be otherwise disintangled from his own dear (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lime-twiggs unless he can prove that Gods dishonour doth make most for his glory or unlesse he will adde to his other miseries that to be sinful by a Decree or to be punished without sin which by the way is a contradiction tends nothing at all to Gods dishonour But for such things as these Ishall reckon with him hereafter I hasten now to his Second General His third overthrow of himself by a most crimson contradiction Sect. 2. His second Propounding as he words it in way of General Answer to no-body-knowes-what nor doth he venture to tell us what General Objection doth very happily run thus That which the Scripture plainly clearly and positively asserteth that God doth we ought not to deny that he doth it though we cannot discern the manner how he doth it and p. 19. bear witness Reader against anon for when he comes to those Scriptures which do plainly cleerly and positively assert that Christ hath died for all men and tasted death for every man and is the proâ—itiation for the sins of the whole world and the like then the Case is alter'd with him and in a flat opposition to what he here tells us It is saith he a very weak way of arguing to argue from the signification of words especially such words as have various significations as all men every man the world the whole world and the rest which are oft-times used not to signifie every particular man and woman but a part of them onely p. 71 72. Well fare the Disputant indeed vvho vvill never lay down the Cudgels so long as he is able to break his ovvn shins with them let his cause be never so bad he vvill not fall from his principles so long as self-contradiction can hold him up rather then others of his kind shall be as saveable as He the whole world must signifie the smallest part of it and we must not argue from the signification of words we are not bound to adhere unto the letter p. 72. So abominable and impious is Universal Redemption that it cannot stand with Gods wisedome saith Mr. Whitfield not be consistent with other Scriptures nor can it agree with the Analogy of Faith p. 73. Any vvay of exposition must be invented and embraced rather then Christ must be admitted to have died for mankind But here on the contrary side vvhen Mr. W. desires to prove that God hath a hand in all sin an efficiency in sin that sin is Gods work and that God is actively the cause of sin and more such stuff as shall be shevved and cited in its proper place this is such comfortable Doctrine to a man of his life and conversation that all Texts of Scripture must be taken according to the Letter vvhose outside and Letter doth sound this vvay any thing must be svvallovved against the Analogy of Faith and against the plain tenour of all other Scriptures rather then God must be exempted from the causality of sin Mr. W. then must needs argue from the signification of words vvhich to do in other cases he calls a very great weakness p. 71. This is the man of mettle vvho cannot possibly be conquered he is under the protection of so much frailty or grant him conquered he must not possibly be caught for if he cannot out at the door he vvill escape at the window Yet I vvill follovv him so far as to lay some hold on him and vvill not vvillingly let him go until he shall promise a Recantation For if in any one case it may be pertinent in this to use the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek proverb That for a wicked man to prosper in making God the fountain and source of wickedness vvill be apt to turn to Gods discredit The name of God will be †Rom. 2.24 blasphemed among the Gentiles if such Theology as this shall pass abroad amongâ—t Christians vvithout control Observe hovv he goes on p. 19. 2. It rather becomes us humbly to acknowledge our Ignorance 0688 0136 V 2 in the manner of Gods working 2. Mr. W. enters upon the worst part of Libertinism as Mr. Calvin himself judged it Contra Libert c. 3. then to deny any of his works then to deny that he worketh all things c. then to deny that he worketh most determinately certainly and infallibly in the various and mutable motions of mans will And to shew his meaning to be no better then that of Beza Piscator and the rest of his Teachers viz. that sinful works are some of * Zuingl in Serm. de Prov. c. 5 6. Gods works and that he †Beza advers Castell Aphor. 1. 6. See The Divine Purity desended p. 21. 30. worketh all things whether good or evil without any the least exception and that God doth determine the will of man to the most sinful Act which he committeth he addes many things to make it evident that this indeed is the scope at which he here drives For he tells us a little after that when God is said in Scripture to harden mens hearts to send them strong delusions to bid Shimei curse David to bid the evil spirit go and deceive Ahab to turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people to have given up the Gentiles to vile lusts to put into the hearts of the ten Kings to give their power unto the beast and the like p. 22. we must not expound such Texts by the common Hebraism but take them as literally as we do those other wherein God is said to make the earth to form the light to create man and the like p. 23. He also saith that Gods permission of sin is not without action and operation p. 21. that he must needs have some efficiency in it p. 24. that he doth both will and work it p. 26. that he hath a hand in effecting of
either separably or inseparably If onely an act where is the obliquity if onely an obliquity of an act where is the act it self for all the whole sin is the cursing of God nor more nor less if both together and separably let them make that separation in words or dumb signs that we may hear and conceive it But if both are inseparably together let them confess the thousand blasphemies and the six hundred contradictions which have and may be detected in all their Doctrines and Distinctions and after confession let them amend too I ask no more 6. His meaning ferreted out of his words 6. It may from hence be collected what is meant by Mr. W. when he immediately addeth that God worketh most holily in those very Actions wherein man works unrighteously p. 19. Even the same with †See Correct Copy p. 10. Zuinglius abetted also by * Twiss Vind. Gra. l. 2. part 1. p. 36 37. Dr. Twisse that the very same sin viz. Adultery or Murder as it is the work of God the Author Mover and Impeller it is not a crime but as it is of man it is a great one which is onely to say that sin is Gods work but God is no sinner He is the Author of sin in others but sins not himself He co-operates with the sinner to the effecting of his sin but being God he is not guilty That this must be the meaning of Mr. W. I can demonstrate by many Arguments 1. By his denying Scientia media though I am not sure he understands it and holding with Mr. Calvin that God foresaw nothing but because he fore-ordained it 2. By his * Note that in his Epistle to the Reader he argues the later from the former with a must concession that there is the same reason of the fore sight of sin and the Decree of Reprobation with the foresight of Faith and the Decree of Election But 't is the Doctrine of him and all his party that Faith is the proper effect of Election and not foreseen untill decreed Vpon the very same ground to use his own words in my violentum he doth and must hold that God did not foresee sin until he had decreed it too Nor will it lessen the absurdity to say that God decreed to permit sin onely unlesse by permission he means a sufferance or a wise not hindering if so he is right but then he must burn Doctor Twisse his books and retract his own it being their constant doctrine That God's permission of sin is efficacious Nay no * Twiss Vin. Gra. l. 2. part 1 p. 142 143 c. lesse efficacious is God's decree in the permission of evil than in the production of good so very sore are their very salvo's Thirdly His meaning may be evinced as by all other passages of his book which I have and shall cite so by comparing his present words with the nature of sin it self which is found to consist in such an indivisible point that to say God works in it is to say as much as that he works it As for example To hate God is a sin or a sinful action two expressions for one thing The very sinfulness of the sin doth intirely consist in the hating of God not in God without hating for he is purity it self not in hating without God as the object of it for hatred in it self is a thing indifferent and as apt to be good as evil and even communicable to God who hateth sin with a perfect hatred but in the union and application of that act to that object As the nature of man consists not in a body oneâ—y nor onely in a soul but in the union of the one with the other so that the sinfulness of that sin of hating God is nothing else but the union of that act with that object And that is punctum indivisibile for sin it self is a Physical abstract at the * Note that there is no such thing as pecceitâ— in any Profane or Sacred Writer grossest of which sinfulness at least is an abstract Metaphysical which admitting not any Composition cannot farther be abstracted so much as in imagination How then can God work in the hating of God and that no lesse than as a natural cause for so he doth saith Mr. W. p. 25. without being the cause of the sin it self when in the hating of God there is nothing but sin Here I exact of Mr. W. to tell the World what he means or to satisfie for his words of which he dares not tell the meaning But again 4. He gives us notice of his true meaning if not of the meaning which he will own by three Texts of Scripture which he applies to the purpose of which I spake for thus run his words 7. His abuse of Scripture to serve his turn 7. How else can it be said when Josephs brethren sold him into Egypt out of envy that God sent a man before c. And when David numbred the people it is said not onely that Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number the people 1 Chron. 21.1 but that the Lord moved David against them in that he said go number Israel 2 Sam. 24.1 By these he seeks to make it credible that God doth work in the wickedst actions as a natural cause although these Texts do prove the contrary To the first and most impertinent of the two allegations I have fâ—oken so * In the Divine purity defended ch 7. Sect. 6. p. 63 64 65. largely to Doctor Reynolds that Mr. W. must fetch his answer thence To the second consisting of two contradictory Texts as to the letter I make an ease return by shewing the literal inconsistence of the one with the other unlesse the first may be allowed to explain the second For when the very same thing is said to be done by God and by Satan either one of the two must needs be figuratively spoken or else there will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 irreconcileables in Scripture not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bare appearances of Discord else farewel to Torniellus and all other Writers in that kind who reconcile the Scriptures which seem to differ and contradict First I take it for granted that the word of God is not chargeable with any self-contradictions That the very same action cannot at once be good and evil Divine and Devilish That God and Satan cannot do the same works From whence it followeth of necessity that when God is said to * Activum pro Passivo ut saepè inquit Grotius in locum move David to number the people 2 Sam. 24.1 the meaning must be He * permitted Satan to move David For so the Scripture explains it self afterwards 1 Chron. 21.1 by saying that Satan provoked David to that deed Another example will make it plainer It is said of the Devil the God of this world that he hath blinded the mindes of
took an occasion from those words to bear false witnesse against our Saviour We heard him say I will destroy this Temple made with hands c. Mar. 14.58 But enough of Mr. W 's degrees of misery in his position come we now to his examples 1. From the selling of Joseph His first Gen. 45.8 is most remarkably impertinent to that for which it was produced for in stead of saying God sold Joseph into Egypt in which sale of Joseph his brethren sinned he confesseth that Joseph did onely say unto his brethren that God had sent him nay he spake it with an Antithesis to his Brethrens action and to a contrary scope to what Mr. W. directs the words Reader consider and stand amazed at his matchlesse inconsideratenesse in this particular Josephs speech runs thus * See the Divine Purity Def. c. 7. p. 63 64 65. God hath sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance so now it was not you that sent me hither but God and he hath made me a Father to Pharaoh and Lord of all his house c. v. 7 8 He speaks of nothing but the good which God had done for him upon occasion of that evil which they that sold him had done against him Yet this is urged by Mr. W. for Gods Activity and work in sin 2. From Pharaohs obduration His second Instance is not quite so ridiculous Exod. 9.12 but t is ridiculous enough For though God is said to harden Pharaohs heart by doing somewhat yet was it not by working in sin but by removing punishments and all other means of his recovery which had so long been afforded him and all in vain It was said before Pharaohs heart was hardned Ex. 7.22 which implies the permission not efficiency of God Nay farther it was said That Pharaoh hardened his own heart Ex. 8.15 Again after that it was said that Pharaoh sinned yet more and hardened his heart he and his servants Ex. 9.34 whom God is said to have endured with much long-sufferance Rom. 9.22 as 't were on purpose to deliver us from the very possibility of erring grossely when we afterwards reade God hardened his heart And how did God do it sure not as Pharaoh nor as Satan by any activity or efficiency of obduration for Satan hardned Pharaohs heart as well as Pharaoh himself but by a total and final withdrawing of his Grace * Indurabo cor Pharaonis id est sinam indurari non flectam genuinam impii cordis duriciem Melan. in Praef. ad Comment in c. 9. ad Rom. leaving him in a state of irremediable wickednesse by such a kind of dereliction by which the damned are left in Hell Nay even this very dereliction and leaving Pharaoh to himself the certain consequence of which was his final obduration was awarded to him as a punishment for his having hardened his heart so often when God by his Messengers and their Miracles had often called him to repentance Compare Gods words to Israel Ps 95.8 3. From the Canaanites hardning His third Instance is taken from Josh 11.20 but more irrationally then the former For it is said there expressely the Canaanites hardened their hearts which because they could not have done if God had not suffered them it is therefore said it was of the Lord for had he given them a cogent and irresistible Grace or destroyed their human nature their hardening their heart could not have been And for God * Indurare quem si liberet emollire potuistes est non emollire paulò supetiùs roli it Deus in perditis salvificam vim explicâ—re Dallaeus Apol. part 2. p. 117. In eundem sensum Augustin in Epist 105. ad Sirtum Idque fatente Calvino Instil l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 3. sol 95. not to hinder or not to soften their hearts which the Text saith expressely they had hardened against Israel was no more then to permit what they committed by their option and this for ends of his providence that his people Israel might destroy those wicked Canaanites for their sins the measure whereof they had filled up But besides it must be noted to shew the impertinence was the greater that for the Canaanites thus to harden their hearts against Israel that is to oppose and resist them coming to take away their land could not be censured as a sin in them unlesse they had a revelation that God had given their land to his People Israel which as it appears not in Story for ought I can learn so if it doth then Gods revealing it to them was far from having any hand in the hardening of their hearts all he did was not softning what he found obdurate and not to soften is not to have any hand the negative to that which is affirmed by Mr. Whitfield 4. From Absalom's defiling his Fathers Concubines His fourth Instance is taken from 2 Sam. 12.12 in which he seems to be unhappier then in all the rest which went before for observe how he applies it It is not said God suffered Absalom to defile his Fathers Concubines but he tells David what thou hast done secret I will do in the sight of this sun p. 22. Now if it is literally meant as Mr. W. contends that God did do the same in publick which David had done in private the blasphemy is such as cannot modestly be named for what was that which David did in secret but his adultery with Bathshebah And can it be possibly imagined that God could do the same thing openly yet so run the words what thou hast done I will do vvhich undeniably proves that the vvords are spoken by an Hebraism vvhich M. W. very shortly vvill be found in the Act of denying and are permissive onely in sense though active in sound For God could not do actively in the sight of the Sun vvhat David had done in secret That is such a grosse and impious thought as some Heathens conceived of their carnal Jupiter And if Mr. W. had but read unto the end of the Story vvhich vvas at the most but the completion of Gods Prophesie 2 Sam. 16.22 He vvould there have found that it vvas Absalom vvho did vvhat Mr. W. applies to God A Tent was spread upon the top of the house and Absalom went in unto his Fathers Concubines in the sight of all Israel This Reader is the sin vvhich Mr. W. urgeth as an instance vvherein the manner of Gods working is held forth to us by way of action p. 22. But not to speak more of the impiety behold the unskilfulnesse of the Respondent I will do this thing saith God to David v. 12. And what was this thing It is expressed v. 11. I will raise up evil against thee that is the evil of punishment I will take thy wives and give them that is permit Absalom to enjoy them There was not the least need of any more
end that they might be saved that they might be saved p. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause or to punish this wickedness God will suffer the man of sin v. 3. whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders v. 9. to come upon them with such advantages of strength and subtilty as would gain credit vvith them being not wonderfully restrained God is said to send what he can but doth not hinder from being sent We are taught to pray Lead us not into temptation when yet our meaning is suffer us not to be led or leave us not helpless in our temptations permit us not to be tempted above our strength let thy Grace be sufficient for us and thence it followes but deliver us from evil Thus our Saviour may be said to have sent the Devils into the herd of swine because when they besought him he gave way to their prayer when they said Suffer us to go he answered Go. Of which the meaning must needs be this I suffer you to go for he granted what they ask't and they ask't for sufferance 14. From the Nations making league with the Romans His fourteenth and last Instance from Rev. 17.17 doth onely proclaim him to be unqualified for such mysterious parts of Scripture And I am heartily glad upon this occasion that Doctor Hammonds Annotations are writ in English that the lowest Reader may discern how quite beside his ovvn purpose Mr. W. hath seized on that Text also vvhich is onely a prophesie of S. John foretelling an eminent and remarkable Act of Gods providence in that all the nations should first confederate with the Romans and yet aftervvards breaking off should execute vengeance upon those Romans and that Alaricus the King of the Goths and Vandals should so suddenly retire after his conquest and captivity of Rome as if he had purposely been sent by the special Providence of God to destroy the Idolaters and preserve the Christians Sect. 6. From all which it is evident How Mr. W. most groundlesly inferreth God to fit still p. 23. and to be an idle Beholder p. 26. that none of those active expressions alledged by Mr. W. in his 22. page can be pretended to denote Gods working in sin more then his punishing of it doth vvhich yet is active vvhen he casts the sinner into hell The consequent to vvhich is the sinners continuance to all eternity in his sins Nor doth it follovv vvhat he saith p. 23. that if God hath no manner of working in sin See more of this subject Sect. 17 18 19. he sits still as a spectator For he is working in divers respects as by the motions of his Spirit disswading from sin and also by his word both writ and preached Again he is working in over-ruling ordering and disposing sins committed to many excellent advantages to which he is able by his wisdom to make them serve But all this is nothing to his active working in sin or his having a hand in it as Mr. W. phraseth it but on the contrary it shews that he hath no hand in it for over-ruling sins to good suppoâ—eth them committed and when it is said as it is commonly that God draweth good out of evil the meaning is not that he maketh it to be good in one respect which is evil in another as such men dream but that upon man's doing evil he takes an occasion of doing good such was the saving of the world upon occasion of that murder which the wicked ones committed in killing-Christ And as good things are made an occasion of evil yet are not evil as I lately shewed so are evil things made an occasion of good yet are not good which some men not descerning are betrayed into the worst and uncleannest speeches as that adultery or murder as it is the work of God its Author mover and impeller is no sin at all but onely as it is of man which though the saying of Zuinglius a great Master of those men yet 't is abetted and approved by Doctor Twisse in particular and in particular by Mr. Barlee and aequivalently by Mr. Whitfield also If any others of their way shall renounce the Doctrine let them do it in print and then the World will forgive them Having shewed that God is no idle spectator as the brethren do both speak because he restrains from sin and when he suffers it doth over-rule it as hath been shewed and doth also note it in his book as the Prophets speak and doth satisfie his justice in the punishment of sin as well as exercise his mercy in forgiving it to the contrite and penitent sinner and giveth the continuance of a Being unto his creature by whose free-will the sin is made I will adde this little that it were much a lesser evil in Mr. W. and his partners to say that God sitteth still as a spectator onely then to asperse him with a working and activity in sin for as to the commission of the sin it self God is truly a meer spectator The Sinners sole will determines it self unto the Sin CHAP. II. Of Mr. W's Attempts to help Mr. B. by replying a few things to the Divine Philanthropie defended which now at last he doth particularly consider and not till now Sect. 1. TO such Texts of Scripture as are literally taken by that sort of men Mr. W. begins with the end of that book to which his Title-page pretended a Reply who do not onely take the boldness to bear false witness against God by charging his Majesty with having a high hand in sin but most lewdly also do indeavour to make him bear false witness against himself I did amongst many other things which Mr. Whitfield studiously omitteth that he may speak to that onely which he thinks is least above his strength afford my Correptory Corrector this short note of Instruction (a) Divine Philanth defended c. 4. p. 48. That by a common Hebraism such verbs as are active in sound are onely permissive in signification by the admission of which Rule those horrible absurdities would be avoided and Scripture expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To which part of my Answer M. W 's wonderful reply in behalf of M. B. Mr. Wh. adventures this sad Reply This he dictates but doth not demonstrate nor bring the least patch of an Argument to prove it neither will all his skill in the Hebrew enable him to do it And may he not by this shift evade the cleerest and strongest Scriptures that are brought against him by telling us that they signifie quite another thing then the nature of the words doth import if we will believe him 2. Why may he not then interpret other Scriptures in the like manner where the like expressions are used as when the Lord saith I form the light and create darkness I make peace and create evil Isa 45.7 I have made the earth and created man upon it my hands
will onely observe how needful 't is for a Divine to lay his foundations of knowledge in humane learning or at least to preach onely by way of exhortation to depart from evil and to do the thing that is good but not to meddle in matters beyond their ken The sad effects of such meddling I have shew'd already and am now to shew further in the ensuing Paragraph For what I spake as a Physician to shew Mr. B. the immediate cause of his disease Mr. W. either could not or would not comprehend and doth his utmost to nourish the peccant Humours Mark him well as he goes on Sect. 6. Mr. W's rare essayes to separate the wickednesse from the Act of the wicked Act. Object Against this Mr. P. objects that it is as impossible to separate the wickedness of the Act from the Act which is wicked as to separate roundness from the globe and to separate sinfulness from the sin as from the sinful act p. 24. 1. This is now the second morsel of my Philanthropy which he hath ventured to fasten his Teeth upon that the Reader may see how much oftner I have occasion to confute Mr. W's inventions then to defend mine own Doctrine delivered in that Book which his boasting Title-page pretends to combat 2. He had not â—he courage to cite my words right or to acknowledge in the Errata that his citation was wrong For 1. he cites them all from ch 4. p. 48. where I had said nothing like it nor hath it cost me a little trouble to find the pages of my book where such words are to be found which truly is matter of just complaint and now at last I have found them in two distinct pages at great distance whereas he hath cited them as from the same and as spoken in the same period p. 48. but the former part is p. 42. and the later p. 43. and each in the midst of the several pages 2. He hath left out the word wicked which he found in my sentence before the first mention of the word Act which is the lesse excusable because he cites so few things from me 3. He takes not any notice of what Lurg'd for the proof of those few words but barely sets down the words themselves which being a great Tergiversation in a pretender to confute me deserves no other reply then to be sent for satisfaction to my three whole * See the Div. Philan. defended ch 4. p. 42 43 44. pages upon that subject Yet that he may not be able to say I slight him I will shew him his unhappinesse in every part of his Answer though not so much of his unhappinesse as I could easily discover if I would lose so much time Sect. 7. His first essay is a bare dictate including a manifold absurdity no less then 8. His 1. Answer is this God is little beholding to him for so denying him to be the Author of the evil that cleaves to the actions of nature as withal to deny him to be the Author of nature for maintaining his purity by denying his omnipotency p. 24 25. First 'T is an ugly expression to say that God is little beholding to me for any thing as if for something he might be possibly beholding when I have done my best for the honour of God I have done but my duty which being my duty but in part and infinitely far from what I ow him I must say when all is done I am an * Luk. 17.10 unprofitable servant 2. But yielding Mr. W. his naughty terms how much lesse can it be said that God is beholding to Mr. W. who would so maintain him to be the Author of nature as to make him also the Author of things against Nature How much rather is Satan beholding to him for so asserting Gods omnipotence as to asperse his purity and so by consequence to plead for Satan 3. It goes ill enough with Mr. W. that what he saith he saith only without an offer of any proof to which it were sufficient to say the contrary with the same confidence and to charge or challenge him to provide his proof against hereafter yet even thus he is worsted by the meer opposition of dictate to dictate because 't is less wicked to ascribe some work of God unto the Devil then to ascribe the proper work of the Devil unto God * Of actions natural and unnatural Nature corrupted and uncorrupted 4. But I will more then dictate though he doth not for I will mind him that the word Nature which of it self is good when God is called the God of Nature is often set in opposition to Grace and is us'd to signifie the corruption of Nature at least by way of connotation which Mr. W. not considering as something or other is still the cause of aberrations from the truth confounds the Actions of Nature with unnatural actions To speak indeed is the work of Nature but sure it is not a sin to speak To pray sincerely is the work of Grace and sure it is not a sin to pray sincerely But to blaspheme against God is neither a work or an action of Grace or Nature yet is it a work or action as really as the former that is a work of the Devil ungracious and unnatural against the God of Grace and Nature Now the difference is wide betwixt speaking in general and speaking in particular to the glory of God and particular speaking against Gods glory For the last of these I demand of Mr. W. is that action of blaspheming or speaking against God an action of Nature or is it not If he saith Yes he doth bewray it to be his doctrine that God is the Author of blaspheming against God which blasâ—heming as 't is an action so 't is a sin too If he saith No then he confesseth there are actions which are not of Nature unlesse he will say that to blaspheme is no action if the former he pulls down with both hands what he erected onely with one if the later then according to his reasoning either to speak is not an action or to blaspheme is not to speak and so the farther he proceeds the woâ—se it fares with him 4. Where now was the ground of Mr. W's saying that I deny Gods omnipotence Even my dutiful denial that God is the Author of such actions as blaspheming cursing fighting against God David 's lying with Bathshebah Cain 's killing Abel and the like He may by the same Logick accuse the Apostle of denying God's omnipotence and that in contradiction to the word of God for our Saviour saith with God nothing shall be impossible Luke 1.37 but the Apostle saith It is impossible for God to lie Heb. 6.18 The reconcilement stands in this that our Saviour spake of good things onely for of evils it is true that 't is impossible for God to be either Principal or accessory Now because I maintain that God cannot will or work sin
needs have granted and therefore gives no reason or colour for it Observe the manner of his speech he saith not passively sin is made an occasion upon which God is glorified but actively sin doth make for the glory of God Nor doth he say that sin makes for it per accidens from whence he could not infer God wills and works it but by making this inference he implies that sin doth make per se for God's glory Is not he likely to infer strange things whose very Principle implies a contradiction To sin is to rebel against the Maker of that Law of which it is a transgression to rebel against him is to dishonour him there is nothing but sin by which the God of all glory can be dishonoured And to say that God's dishonour does make for his glory is the same as to say that that is for his glory which is against it Thus the Ranters and Libertines are taught to plead for their sins that they do not commit them as God thereby is dishonoured but in the contrary notion as they make for God's glory they rebel not against him but take up armes or if it must be called a rebellion yet they rebel against him in his defence onely to the end they may make him a glorious God they fight against him in loyalty that his pardoning mercy may shine forth in its highest lustre They in the times of the Apostles who did evil that good might come of it and sinned the more that grace might abound were led to sin by their opinion that sin did make for Gods glory The Carpocratians thought it their duty as well as incerest to fill up the measure of their sins by which God was to be glorified And many have attempted to pull the * Thou shalt not revile the Gods nor curse the Ruler of thy people Exod. 22.28 Gods out of their Thrones that is the Rulers of the people professing to do it for their good and for the glory of God Almighty 2. He concludes sin to be good or God's willing and working it as evil See what I shall say Sect. 19. of this Chapter 2. When Mr. W. saith that sin doth make for Gods glory he doth certainly mean that sin is good at least so far as it makes for Gods glory because he presently addes that God so far may will and work it Which if he shall venture to deny he will then bewray it to be his doctrine that God may will and work sin as sin and that sin as sin doth make for Gods glory For whatever is the object of Gods will or the effect of his working or hath a tendency to his glory must needs be taken in one notion of the two as good or as evil If as good then Mr. B. and Mr. Hick are quite undone by Mr. W. who will either have God the Author of it or else will conclude its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And again Mr. W. is undone by himself because he would separate the sin from the sinful act for this very reason that the act onely is good but not the sin If he shall say by way of refuge that God doth will sin as evil not as good how then doth he will it as it makes for his glory unless Mr. W. will say that it makes for his glory as it is evil and if this last then sin as evil must needs be good because as such it does that in respect of which saith Mr. W. God wills and works it And if God doth will my work sin as it is evil then it is not onely good as w ll as evil whilest it is evil but good eatenus so far forth as it is evil good because evil that is good and not good nay it therefore is good because it is not Into such kinds of mischief hath Mr. W. ingulft himself 3. He feigns God to work evil to a good end 3. Upon this foundation that sin makes for God's glory observe how he raiseth his superstructure He saith that God may both will and work sin not one but both not will or work but will and work it Here behold a barefac't speaker The Sinner and his Satan can have no more said of them God and they are said to differ in their aimes not at all in their actions All do will and work sin but God doth both saith Mr. W. as it makes for his glory the Sinner and Satan do both but not for Gods glory Let Satan pass but how few sinners are there who will and work sin to the end that God may be dishonoured I believe and hope there are no such sinners Nay how many sinners have sworn with hands lifted up to the most High God that they have will'd and workt those very things which they have afterwards confessed to have been damnable sins without respect unto self and meerly as making for the glory of God we have our Saviours words for it and Paul's example Our Lord foretold his own Disciples that * Joh. 16.2 whosoever should kill them would think they did God service And 't was in †Philip. 3.6 zeal to religion that Paul persecuted the Church before his conversion of name and temper He was cruel as he was godly a rigid * Vers 5. Pharisee and in his way †Vers 6. blameless Of these it will not be denied then that they did will and work sin not as sin but as it made for God's glory as they conceived The sad consequences and uses which some have made of this Doctrine I have shewed partly * See the Div. Philanth Def. ch 4. p. 42. elsewhere and so forbear 4. Q. Whether he inferrs not God to be a◠sinner 4. He doth not onely make sin to be the object of Gods will which is desperately bad but the effect of his working which sounds much worse To work sin doth define and denominate a sinner witness the words of our Saviour to the condemned Reprobates Depart from me ye that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 7.23 work sin or Transgression The Devils chief sinning is his making others to become sinners and thence he hath purchased the name of Satan and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Tempter Nor doth it excuse Mr. W. to have said that God doth work sia as it makes for his glory For besides the absurdities which I shewed in that shift he must remember that the end is but one circumstance of many which are all required to make a good action * Bonum est ex causâ integrâ malum ex quolibet defectu the least defect is enough to deprave an action and the greatest perfection is but enough to make it every way blameless Besides the end is extrinsecal to the essence of an action in respect of the matter and the form which make it up And if it is impossible for a good man to work sin to a good end interim ut sit bonus
Learned who have commented upon Scripture that Gods great efficacy in working is expressed by Finger his greater efficacy by Hand his greatest by Arm. When Moses turned the dust of Egypt into Lice by the power of God shewing it self in his weakness the Magicians told Pharaoh It was the * Exod. 8.19 which compare with Luk. 11.20 finger of God When Job spake of Gods power by which he created the world and by which he doth sustain it he said †Job 12.9 which compare with Act. 11.21 The hand of the Lord had wrought it And when the Mother of our Lord would express the very greatest that is the most to be admired of all Gods works his own conception and Incarnation in the Body of Mary she said that God had shewed strength with his * Luk. 1.51 Arm. And so without more ado I leave my Reader to judge both of the phrase and meaning of Mr. W. when he saith that God hath a hand in sin which because I denied and disproved also Mr. W. tells me again what he told me twice before that God is inferred to be a meer Spectator Observe his words Sect. 17. 1. Mr. W's gross error in the notion of Gods permission But then still it followes that he stands as a meer spectator in regard of the greatest part of actions that are done in the world But how can this stand with the All-wise and All-working providence of God without which a sparrow falls not to the ground that he should stand looking on c. and determine nor do any thing while they be done and past onely afterwards imploy his wisdom in ordering of them p. 26 27. Though 't were sufficient to refer him to what I have said of Gods permission in divers Tracts already publisht which if he hath read he is utterly inexcusable for what he here so crudely and yet so frequently venteth yet I will tell him once more what I told him so lately Chap. 1. Sect. 6. but onely now I will do it in plainer terms that I may leave him no pretence of misapprehending or overseeing my meaning in it I do not mean that God permits sin with such a neglectfulness and unconcernedness as the Epicureans are wont to dream of who feign a God sitting with his back towards the world but I mean a most useful and a most wise Permission becoming the wisdom as well as goodness of that onely wise God who will not hinder what he sees and hateth perfectly while he sees it because it is better that he should bring that good out of evil which he can and doth then that he should not suffer any evil to be done I never speak of a bare permission as that excludes every thing else but onely as it excludes Gods working or decreeing or willing sin God doth not onely permit but punish evil and dispose of it to good as the murdering of Christ to the salvation of the world yet God had no more a hand in that de villish murder non impediendo efficaciter then I have a hand in the falling down of any house which I do not underprop 2. His tremendous notion of all-working providence 2. Mr. W. opposeth to a meer looking on the all-working Providence of God which is the language of the Libertines without any distinction of good or evil and shews us what he means by Gods having a hand in all the wickedness of the world The instance he gives of a sparrow falling to the ground is most impertinent to the subject of his ciscourse unlesse he can prove it to be a sin for a sparrow so to fall which if he could do he wâ—uld also prove that God doth neither will nor work it His following words are most insipid because he knowes 't is granted that God did foresee sin before it was and sustains the Being of his creature whilest 't is committing and being committed overruleth it also to some advantage But what is this to his * This hath been spoken of ch 1. sect 2. determining the will of the sinner to the sin which is the boldly-irreligious Tenet of which its Patrons cannot give us any excusable accompt Sect. 18. 1. M. W. newly puts himself into his old streights betwixt gross Blasphemies and extraordinary Impereinence Mr. W. professeth to give instances in some of his former examples and so with a bare repetition fils up the page 27. and part of p. 28. That I may not repeat as he hath done I send back my Reader to the fifth Section of my first Chapter Onely here I observe he saith that God had the chief hand in Josephs being sent into Egypt If he means his brethrens sin in selling Joseph to strangers not knowing or caring to what place they would carry him then the blasphemy is apparent if he means not that but another thing Gods doing good unto Joseph in his affliction then the impertinence is as signal As if when the question is whether the Physician hath any hand in the Patients Disease the Respondent should say Yes he hath the chief hand because he is not onely a spectator or looker on but administers such things as cure his malady and perhaps restores him to better health then before he fell sick I have reason to be as weary of disputing with such Respondents as any workman could be at the Tower of Babel where when he call'd for stone he was supplied with morter and when for morter they brought him stone 2. Affirms God to have a hand in oppression 2. Mr. W. goes on to Pharaohs oppression of the Israelites which he affirmeth God to have had a * Note that in his Preface to his Extent of Gods Providence he professeth to understand it of Gods active hand hand in because he had determin'd it and foretold it many years before What it doth he mean that God determin'd If Pharaohs will to his oppression behold the blasphemy if the permission of the oppression mark well the impertinence To foretel is far from having a hand in the event The Physician foretells when his Patient shall have a paroxysme in a Chronical disease even whilest he is prescribing the usual means of prevention Mr. W. must study the difference betwixt the end of an intention the event of a Prophecy and the effect of a cause and not imagine that Isaiah had any hand in the birth of Cyrus because he foretold it an hundred years before Cyrus was born 3. And in rebellion 3. Mr. W. saith that God had a hand in that which is call'd rebellion 1 Kings 12.19 And to say that he saith this is a word enough for the wise Again that God hand a hand in the destruction of Samaria Is 10.3 But what then was it a sin for God to destroy such sinners who were the people of his wrath because hypocritical v. 6 And might he not do it by what instrument he pleased by giving a right
as he did to Israel over the Canaanites or by permitting the violence as he did to Assyria over Israel But what hath Mr. VV. got by this was Assyria the happier for being the Rod of Gods anger v. 5 No the Rod when it is used is commonly cast into the Fire and to be burnt is worse then to be beaten 4. In murders treacheries violence and wrong 4. Mr. W. saith farther p. 28. That when dominion hath been devolved from one hand to another it hath seldom been done without much violence and wrong yea without murders treacheries and blood-shed To which he presently addes that God had a hand in such things If he means in those unjust things he speaks according to his Principles as well as Mr. Hobbs if otherwise he is but impertinent I wish that that were the worst But because it is said that God doth give Kingdomes to whom he will Dan. 4.14 he must be brought to a remembrance that God is sometimes said to give Kingdomes in the Letter as when he gave Israel the land of Canaan but sometimes onely by an Hebraism as when he permitted the Assyrians to hold his people in captivity for seventy years though I do not remember that God was ever said in Scripture to have given the Kingdom of Israel unto Assyria Besides God giveth riches to whom he will yet gives it not literally to them that steal to them that seize on their neighbours goods by fraud or violence For then whosoever hath the strongest arm and hath added to that the longest sword might live amongâ—â— his neighbours like a great Pike in a Pond and say he doth but take what God hath given him The King of Spain and the Great Turk would probably love to hear such Preachers as would thus promote the universality of their Empire And the later proceeds upon the very same Maxime with Mr. W. 5. He justifies all our English Ranters by ascribing all our changes to the hand of God 5. Whâ—t is added touching the changes which have happened here at home I need not speak unto at all It being cleâ—r already that as all actions are wicked which are against the will of God revealed to us in his commandments affirmative and negative so God abhorrs all such and is so far from having a hand in them that he will certainly lift up his hand against them if not remarkably in this world yet infallibly in the next for the longer he is in lifting up his hand he lifts it up so much the higher and by so much more heavily he lets it fall How quickly do mens opinions run out of their heads into their hearts and thence into their hands too I mean their actions I am persuaded that Mr. W. had hardly taken a sequestration if he had not believed that God had had a hand in it 6. God cleared from carelesness or weakness 6. But mark how he goes on To deny that God hath a hand in the proper subject of our debate were saith he to make God a very weak and impotent or a very remiss and careless Governour of the world c. p. 28. Bona verba quaeso Ne saevi magne Sacerdos Must it be weakness in God not to have a hand in wickedness No 't is an argument of his power as well as purity See the prodigious groundlesness of speaking thus concerning God exhibited at large in the sixth Section of my first Chapter and in the seventeenth of this God indeed gives man his power to will and to do but man being left in manu consilii sui in the hand of his own counsel doth determine his will to such and such actions as God forbids rather then to such as God commands to wit Adulteries Murders Extortions and the like As God forbids these actions which are sins so he gives Grace to abstain from the doing of them and all things else except an irresistible impeding of us He farther disposeth and ordereth the things done to good and that in many respects as I have * See the Sinner impleaded part 2. ch 2. p. 262. elsewhere shewed This in all but more in some of whom we have Pharaoh for an example whom he did not onely withdraw his Grace from but condemned also to live when he might have sent him as quick into hell as he did Corah and his company being delivered up finally unto an utter obduration I will shut up this Paragraph with that of Moses to Israel * Deut. 9.4 Speak not thou in thine heart For my righteousness the Lord hath brought me in to possess this land †Vers 5. Not for thy righteousness or for the uprightness of thine heart dost thou possesse it but for the wickedness of these Nations the Lord doth drive them out from before thee * Ves 6. Not for thy righteousâ—ess for thou art a stiff-necked people Sect. 19. God hath no hand in w lling or effecting what he hates M. W. now proceeds to undertake a new Objection which he doth not cite from any part of my writings or any mans else but it seems it is such as he thought he could answer and 't is briefly this God hates all sin and therefore can have no hand at all either in willing or effecting of iâ— for no man will have any hand in doing what he hates p. 28. First I observe he doth not deny what is objected in so much as he owns it to be his Doctrine that God hath a hand in willing and effecting what he hates Secondly I observe that he doth not answer the Objection but onely puts Answ before his words which are partly an Evasion or Tergiversation and partly a Grant of the thing objected The Evasion is thus Though he hates it yet he permits it And why is he said to permit sin which he hates rather then to permit righteousness which he loves but because he hath not any hand in the former as he hath in the later And what an Argumentator must he be thought who goes to prove that God doth will and work sâ—n by saying he permits it that is in effect because he neither wills nor works it His reason is worse which is taken from Gods getting glory by sin ibid. for God gets nothing by any mans righteousness if we speak exactly much less by his sins Or if we may say by a Figure that God gets glory by our thanksgivings yet sure by our blasphemies he gets nothing but dishonour Because God takes occasion of doing good upon our doing evil which good conduceth to his glory it seems Mr. W. is of opinion that God gets glory by the evil then which I cannot imagine a more intolerable mistake * A case put to shew the danger of Mr. W's Doctrine He who concludes he is a vessel of absolute election and that he cannot fall totally or finally from Grace may corrupt himself strangely by such a maxime as that sin makes for
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
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
then have been used by a Priest to prove the goodness of sin For the Libertines and Ranters who are as little versed in Metaphysicks and in Aristotle's meanings as Mr. B. or Mr. Hick or Mr. Hobbs are not onely very ignorant of the * Bonitas moralis naturalis transcendentalis passim leguntur apud id genus Scriptores difference betwixt good and good but they cannot easily be taught it And a Carneadist will be glad to introduce an opinion that sin is good by calling it Bonum Metaphysicum or Transcendentale Mr. B. must now be taught that he may not debauch his Disciples that the adaequate subject of Metaphysical Science is ens quatenus ens reale illud not omnimodo positivum quatenus positivum And so in one sense it comprehendeth * Vide Scot. Quodl 3. Art 1 Res and †Vide Monlorium de Univers cap. 7. Aliquid And Mr. B's very obliquity he knows is really some thing but then again he must be taught that Bonum in Metaphysicks which is converted with Ens doth not signifie Good in English any more then Canis the Star doth signifie the Dog which walks about with four feet in our English streets and apprehensions though that in Latine is Canis too The difference is not the less betwixt malum an Apple and malum an Evil and * In accusativo malum an mast because they are expressed in the very same letters Bonum in English doth signifie good as oppos'd to evil But in Metaphysicks no more then ens in ordine ad appetitum And that sin is such Mr. B. knows by sad and minutely experience and so before he is aware he hath proved the thing which he indeavoured to disprove by his very indeavours to disprove it viz. that sin is a positive thing 4. Dr. Twisse his Foundation a thin Sophisme 4. Upon this lamentable Sophism as lame and as naked as it appears Dr. Twisse hath founded his Doctrine of irrespective Reprobation Because forsooth there is aliqua bonitas nimirum entis in damnato but none in annihilato therefore God saith the Doctor who may annihilate for nothing may damn his Creatures also for nothing this being saith he the lesser evil Chuse now good Reader whether thy Saviour or Doctor Twisse doth best deserve to be believed Doctor Twisse tells us that it is better to be tormented in Hell for ever then to be turned again to nothing Our Saviour tells us the contrary Mat. 18.6 Mat. 26.24 Mar. 14.21 where he saith in effect that it is better to be annihilated then to be damned By the Logick of that Doctor it should be better also to do wickedly then not to do any thing at all and sin would be good by being something 5. How a lye is verum as much as sin bonum 5. If non-sense is to be spoken in the style of Metaphysicks as misunderstood by a Hobbist or a Presbyterian then indeed we must say that sin is bonum metaphysicum and that a lye by consequence is metaphysicum verum Then which if Mr. B. doth mean no more the Reader sees what he hath gained But if by Good he means bonum morale let him prove that Parricide Incest Witchcraft or Blasphemy must either be naked privations or moral good things for according to his dreamings they must either be nothing or no sins or moral vertues or sins and moral vertues too And so the Devil who is not a bare privation must be with Mr. B. a moral good 6. Now I must shew him the sense of his Latine Citations in the Margin 1. Albertus Magnus his speech hath thus far truth in it 6. Albertus Magnus his words explained Perfectius est agere quà m esse Id quod non est à se nec potest à se manere in esse multò minus potest agere à seipso Et cùm actus malus secundum conversionem ad materiam sit simpliciter actus egrediens à potentiâ activâ perfectâ secundum naturam ideo non egreditur ab eo nisi secundum quod movetur à causâ primâ alioqui sequeretur duo principia esse Alb. Mag. in Pet. Lomb. Senten 2. Disp 37. that actus malus is not so from the man as if he could simply agere à seipso if God did not give him the power of being and acting as a very free Agent But this being supposed it is meetly the work of mans own will which God hath left thus free that is determinable by it self to determine his Will to this or that which is evil So again it is true quod non egreditur abeo nisi secundum quod movetur à causâ primâ if he means by movetur his having the power of being and acting as a man both given and continued by God unto him which is abundantly sufficient to avoid the duo principia if he means coaeterna otherwise 't is certain that God is the principle of good onely and Lucifer onely of evil Thus the Citation makes not for Mr. B. but in two respects it makes against him for actus malus is actus and egredient from that power which is enabled to act as that is more perfect then barely to be and so as to need a dependence from the first cause which must infer the Agent to be more then deficient for to a meer deficiency there needed not his moveri à causâ primâ 2. Mr. B. doth here assert that man had his power to sin from God Mr. B. taught by Mr. Rivet doth most avowedly make God the Author of sin nor will he deny that that power hath a positive entity but he had argued before c. 2. p. 54. That if the power to sin was from God God must unavoidably be the Author of sin which besides the great impiety bewrayes a sottishness in the blasphemer for the power to sin being in order of time as well as of nature before the being of sin it followes that such a power is not onely no sin but 't is impossible that it should be else Adam must have been sinful whilest he was innocent and sinned before he sinned because he had the power to sin before it was possible for him to sin or for that power to be reduced into act Mark now the arguing of Mr. B. from his * See the Div. Philan. ch 4. sect 24. p. 24. friend Mr. Rivet If that power or capability which neither was nor could be sin was from God then God was unavoidably the Author of sâ—n that is he was because he was not it was necessary because impossible This 't is to be a rigid Consistorian He and Rivet must either say Look forward on sect 29. that Adam actually sinned before he had the power to sin or that it is part of their belief that God is unavoidably the Author of sinne 7. S. Austins words most impertinently cited 7. Saint Austin's speech of Natura vitiosa in
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