The divine purity defended, or, A vindication of some notes concerning God's decrees, especially of reprobation, from the censure of D. Reynolds in his epistolary praeface to Mr. Barlee's correptory correction by Thomas Pierce ...

The Divine purity Defended.

CHAP. I.

E. R.

For his Reverend and worthy Friend, M^r. WILLIAM BARLEE, Minister of the word at Brock∣hole in Northamptonshire.

Sir,

I Return you many thanks for communicating unto me, your Elaborate and learned Answer to an Anonymous Book lately published concerning God's Decrees, reported to be written by one, whom, for his polite parts of wit and learning, I have and do respect;* 1.1 but have been long since taught a very good Rule by Aristotle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

T. P.

§. 1. IF the Correptory Correptor is one of his Reverend and worthy Friends, it is for my Honour and advantage, not to be of their Number. And if the Correptory Correction (with such sad Greek, such ruful Latin, such Incongruities even of English, such virulence & inventions as have been publickly discover'd) did pass with the Author of this Epistle for no less than an Ela∣borate

and learned Answer, It is matter to me of admiration, whether he read what he commended before he commended it, or only spake at a venture, but read it not. For if he read it in good earnest (as he professeth afterwards to have done) I admire his Patience very much, but very much more his Partiality; in that he could see, (or oversee) so many fruits of the flesh, and so much filthinesse of the Spirit, so many weaknesses of Reasoning, with such profound wants of Logick, and then be thankeful for the perusal of (what he calleth) an Elaborate and learned Piece. But if he did not read what he commended, my admiration doth still increase; for he should neither have told us that he did, nor have commended what he did not. And therefore

§. 2. Secondly, As it affords me matter of wonder, so doth it also of Humiliation, to find my self thus commended for I know not what Polite parts of wit and learning, both in the very page, and by the very same Pen, by which the Correptory Correptor is so much prais'd. Wit and Learning are two things, of which I find I have lesse than a very ordi∣nary proportion. The comfort is, I find a full supply in my Cause for the utmost Defects which I have discerned in my self. The very Nakednesse of the Truth is that alone which enables me to make it good. Wit and Learning are noxious weeds, till they are seasoned by Grace, and (by the sancti∣fying influence of That) attended with singlenesse and in∣tegrity. The highest glory and commendation (as I conceive) is to worship the God of Heaven in the sincerity of obedi∣ence; to be a man without guil; not to act, or design, or so much as imagin or wish mischief to any Enemy, much less to undermine or invade a Neighbour, by secret fraud, or open violence; but rather to suffer the greatest injury, than to offer the very least. A Heathen may be learned, an A∣theist witty, and a Devil may be both in great Abundance. Mr. Barlee told me, more than once, that I had over∣gallant parts, by the same Token that he told me, I was not a little proud of them. He (I say) would needs commend me for Wit and Larning, even in that very Pasquil, wherein

he call'd me Dragon, and my innocent Book a Noon-day-Devil. So that my Reverend Aggressor, had he been pleas'd, might with my free leave, have professed his De∣spising or Accusing of me, if he found nothing better to respect me for, than what he calls my Wit and Learning. When Apelles of Macedon cōmended Taurion to the King, or rather* 1.2 traduced him with commendati∣ons (as the Historian words it) and that to no other purpose than to destroy him the more securely, by turning him out of his imployment, Polybius tells us that he invented a* 1.3 new way of callumniating; which was not by speaking ill, b••t by ma∣lignantly commending whom he design'd to hurt. Be it so, that Apelles was the Inven∣ter of this Knack, and that Polybius did think it New; yet since the death of Apel∣les, it is (I suppose) two thousand years. And therefore now I may say, it is a very old, and an easie art, by commending him a little, whom we do afterwards intend to revile a great deal, to gain some credit to our Revilings. How Polybius hath censur'd such commendations, I have only related in my Margin, and not transmitted to the knowledge of English Readers, because his censure is so Severe. For no provocation shall ever tempt me to say the most that I am able against an Enemy. I wish it were a thing possible to defend my Self, and the Truth, without reflecting upon them, who have set themselves against Both. I am every where willing to put the fairest construction upon the words of my Assailant, and not the worst that they can bear. But what he meant by his Oyl and Balsom in the be∣ginning of his attempt, he hath enforced me to feel by his After-Blowes. To make profession of respect (not for Ho∣nesty, or Truth, or Ingenuity of dealing) for profane polite parts of wit and learning, and presently after to accuse me of injuriously fixing the Name of Blasphemy upon the Doctrines of some men, whom he espouseth for their Opinions, when (as himself will confess upon his serious perusal of my

fourth chapter) I only called that Blasphemy which hath been ever so called, and is acknowledged to be Blasphemy by the ablest men of that party from whose publick writings it hath been ci••ed, This I cannot but pronounce to be a very corroding and wounding Balsam. I would not for all the world be so unhappily polished with witt and learning, as my Glycupcirous Assailant would make the world beleeve I am. It is so far from being grateful, or pleasant to me, to have my head thus broken with Commendations. But yet I will possesse my soul in patience, I will* 1.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nay farther yet, I will endeavour to take some * 1.5 pleasure in such afflictions, which I suffer for being sensible of dishonours done unto my God. When meer mortal men are pleaded for against me, in revenge of my having pleaded for God himself against men; when I am sullied as a Bolsec, (who is presumed to be of a foul complexion) meerly for proving that God isa 1.6 Pure, and that heb 1.7 cannot indure to behold Iniquity, that he cannotc 1.8 away with it, that his soul dothd 1.9 hate it, that 'tis ae 1.10 trouble unto him, that he isf 1.11 weary to bear it, that he will rather haveg 1.12 us dye, or be temporally undone, than commit it in the least measure when we are able to avoid it through him thath 1.13 streng∣thens us, that he will punish it withk 1.14 infinite and endlesse pains, (so far is he from decreeing, that men shall inevitably commit it, and suffer for it unavoidably through the necessi∣tation of such Decree;) when I am defamed, by no unplau∣sible man, as very scandalously erroneous, meerly for saying in effect, what St. Paul said before me,l 1.15 Let God be true, and every man a liar, and every man a Blasphemous liar, who shall say (in contradiction to the true word of God) that God is the* 1.16 Willer, Ordainer, Predestiner, Decreer, Necessitator, Author, and Cause of Sin; When I say, I am a sufferer, for not enduring or suffering such things as these to seduce the People without controul, by making them Libertines, and Atheists, at least in practice, if not in judgement, and (as far as they have power, or opportunity) subverters of Government, and razers out of the distinction 'twixt Right and Wrong, which is the Foundation and the Cement of all

Civil society, I will endeavour tom 1.17 rejoyce in such my sufferings. And sure in this present case of my being thus assaulted by Dr. Reynolds, I need not take any thought as to my personal concernment. For

§. 3. Thirdly, He hath used me no otherwise than he hath used the very Truth, which he commends and persecutes in the very same breath. I say he commends her in that Rule of Aristotle, Thatn 1.18 truth is preferrable to all other Friends. But then he persecutes her too, by giving thanks and com∣mendations even to that very Lictor, who gave to truth, ra∣ther than me, such store of Correptory Correption; And by styling that signal volume no less than an Elaborate and learned Answer, which was so full of the most groundlesse and the most palpableo 1.19 Inventions. It is not my Accusa∣tion, but the observation of the people, That Mr. Barlee's papers are gone abroad with the concurrence and approbation of Dr. Reynolds. And this partaking with the Erroneous must pass for friendship to the Truth, because a Text out of Aristotle is misapplyed to make it good. The youngest birds peradventure may be caught with such chaff, till they are warned to cōsider, That never any man yet hath so con∣tended for an error, as not at least to pretend a friendly prae∣ference of the Truth. Truth hath many great flatterers; but few true friends. To give her very good words, is cheap, and easie But whether it is truth, or specious error, which my Reverend Adversary doth here prefer, our Impartiall Rea∣der will best discover by the following parts of his Epistle.

CHAP. II.

E. R.

I was sorry to see this controversie revived amongst which caused antiently so much Trouble to the Church of God,* 1.20 & in our memory so much Danger & Distemper to the Belgick Nation: whereof King James was so sensible, that in a letter to the States he calleth Arminius an Enemy of God, & chargeth Bertius with grosly living against the Church of England, in avowing that the Here∣sies contained in his blasphemous Book of the Apostacy of the Saints (they are the Kings own words.) were agreeable, with the Religion and profession of this Church, and he did solemnly desire the Embassadours of that state to forwarn them from him to beware of the Disciples of Arminius, of whom though himself lately dead, he had left too many behind him.

T. P.

§. 1. IT seems the Authority of King Iames is of great weight with him; And (since it hath made it his own choise to imbue his Reader in the first place with the judgements and censures of that wise King) I am heartily glad to find it is so. For although that King in his younger years had imbibed and suckt in, even before he was aware, that Presbyterian opinion of the genevizing Scotish Kirk (which no man living will think strange who knows the place of his Birth, and his Education,) yet in his

riper and wiser years he found so great reason to retract and abjure his former error, that he readily accepted of Bishop Mountagues appeal, and commanded it to be printed, and to be dedicated also to his royal self, when even this was the Doctrine appealed for. [That the children of God may fall away, according to the Tenor of our sixteenth Article,] which saith, that [After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace given and fall into sin, and by the Grace of God we may rise again, and amend our lives.] Which the King perceiving to be the words and mind of the* 1.21 Church of England, and that Bertius had discerned it a great deal sooner than himself, he did not think it below him to grow in Knowledge and Wisdom, as well as years. To forsake an error, & repent, is an ingenuous and valiant, as well as pious, nay farther, a glorious and Princely thing. Therefore Me∣lancthon was not ashamed to write against that opinion which he had formerly been of. And my contemptible self, till I was Master of Arts of half a years standing, was as fully, if not as fiercely, of Dr. Reynolds his opinion in these Controversies, as Mr. Barlee himself appears to be. But when by reading better Books than I had formerly done, and by conversing with better company, and by not-resisting the Grace of God, I look't through the fallacies wherewith I had been blinded, and observed the uglinesse of their looks whilst now I beheld them without their Visard, I was gladder to be recovered from those diseases of my Soul, than from the painfullest maladies which have ever happened to my body. And if my Reverend Antagonist is not affraid of a recovery, as that which implyes him to have been sick, He may change his judgement, as I have done, though not be∣cause I have done it. At least King Iames, and Bishop An∣drews, and good Melancthon, and the late Primate of Ar∣magh,* 1.22 and learned Dr. Potter, are sure most worthy his imitation. And therefore

§. 2. In the second place, I offer him this short Dilem∣ma. Is a mans later opinion to be preferred before his for∣mer, or is it not? If he say, Yes, His own example of King

Iames doth fly back into his Face. But if he say, No, His only Father S. Austin must be neglectfully cast behind his Back. And by necessary consequence, his worthy Friend Mr. Bar∣lee (in the plausiblest part of all his Plea) must be contempti∣bly trampled beneath his Feet. Let him escape which way he pleaseth; there is a Praecipice before him, and behind him there is a Wolf. But yet the greatest of his Dangers is still to come. For

§. 3. In the third place I offer him another Dilemma with sharper Horns; (since Logicians will needs callit Argumen∣tum Cornutum.) Is K. Iames his judgement of any Authority, or is it not? If he saith, it is not, why is it urged so largely against Arminius, and Bertius, and their followers, in the very Front of his Epistle, which is intended for a strengthen∣ing to Mr. Barlees Book? And if he saith Yes, (as of ne∣cessity he must) his inconvenience is worse than if he sayd, No, for then farewell to the Presbytery, both Head and Tail, (it is the King's own* 1.23 word) which was never so much hated by any one of the Hierarchy, as by the Ortho∣dox King Iames (the very Epithet that is given him by the very Correptory Correptor.)a 1.24 Witnesse his Excellent Basilicon Doron, and his remarkable Predictions what the world was to look for from the Presbyterian sect, of which he gave so many black and dismal characters; witness all his resentments of their incōparable behaviours in the sixth and seventh Books of the History of Scotland, most impartially composed by Arch-Bishop Spotswood, with so much Wisdom, Temper, and Moderation, as may well commend it to all mens Readings; witnesse his Answer to Dr. Reynolds at Hampton-Court, where that Doctor had seemed to plead for something like a Presbytery. [

A Scottish* 1.25 Presbytery, said the King, as well agreeth with Monarchy, as God and the Devill. Then Iack, and Tom, and Will, and Dick, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me, and my Coun∣cel, and all my proceedings, Then Will shall stand up and say, it must be thus; then Dick shall reply, and say, nay marry, but we will have it thus. And therefore here I must once

reiterate my former speeches, Le Roy s'avisera: stay I pray, you for one seven years before you demand that of me, and if you then find me pursey and fat, and my windpipes stuffed I will perhaps hearken to you: for let thae government be once up, I am sure I shall be kept in breath, then shall we all of us have work enough, both our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow lazie, let that alone.]

And this puts me in mind of a remarkable passage in his

Basilicon Doron, where speaking of the* 1.26 fiery spirited men in the mi∣nistery of the Kirk,

who getting a guiding of the people at the time of confusion, and finding the gust of Govern∣ment sweet, began to fancy to themselves a Democratick form

and having (by the iniquity of the time) being over well baited upon the wrack, fi••st of his Grandmother, and then of his own Mother, and after usurping the liberty of the time in his long minority setled themselves so fast upon that ima∣gined Democraty, as they fed themselves with the hope to be∣come Tribuni Plebis, and so in a popular Government by lead∣ing the people by the nose,

to bear the sway of all the Rule; speaking I say of these Men, whom he calleth (a little after) the* 1.27 unruly spirits among the ministery, he adviseth his son to take* 1.28 heed of such, concluding in these words,—I pro∣test

before the great God (and since I am here as upon my Testament, it is no place for me to lye in,) that ye shall never find with any Highland or border Thieves, greater ingrati∣tude, and more lies and vile perjuries, than with these phana∣tick spirits▪* 1.29 And suffer not the principles of them to brooke your land, if ye like to sit at rest: except ye would keep them for trying your patience, as Socrates did an evil Wife.]

The Reader cannot but observe that these expressions are very sharp, and I hope he cannot but consider that they were spoken by King Iames, and were publickly legible from the Press before they came to my knowledge, and that I have quoted them no otherwise than in my Necessary Defense. My Reverend Aggressor hath drawn me to it by his Assault, and by the quality of his weapon hath forc'd me to use this very Helmet. I am no Bertian, or Arminian, yet he pro∣claimed me to be such (if he will own having been pertinent

in the second Paragraph of his Epistle) by urging King Iames his sharpnesse against those Persons, on that occasion. And if it was charitable or pertinent to set upon me in such a manner, and in the beginning of such a Book, with King Iames his declaration against Vorstius, Arminius, Bertius, and their Followers (including me to be one) how much more hath it been both, to defend my self, as I have done, by the same Kings writings? From all which together,

§. 4. It cannot but follow in the fourth place, That if King Iames his judgement and authority is of any weight or moment against Arminius and Bertius (whom yet I am not concern'd to plead for any farther than my Assaylant hath made me mistaken for an Arminian) it is of much more weight against the Sect of Presbyterians, of which Arminius himself was One. The Danger and Distemper which this controversie caused to the Belgick Nation, (if it must be said to have risen from the controversie in hand) arose from that very Party, and from those very Doctrines which I oppose; as I could easily Remonstrate, were this a place for so much Length; and which I shall do, if need require. And there∣fore I seriously advise my Reverend Adversary, that in his next undertaking against me, and my writings, he will be pleas'd to think twice, before he utters his Conceptions; that he will look round about him, and grasp the whole matter of which he treats; that he will not give me so many Ad∣vantages, as to occasion my being tedious. For that oppo∣nent doth please me most, in whom I find least matter of Confutation.

CHAP. III.

E. R.

When you first acquainted me with your purpose to answer that Tract, (which was before I had seen it, it being then manuscript, and had only heard from you the Drift of it;) you well remember what my Iudgement was, That in Polemical wri∣tings, it was the best to forbear the persons of men, and to hold close to the Argument. I learn∣ed it of Tertullian, a grave Writer, Viderit persona,* 1.30 cum doctrina mihi quaestio est. And it was the speech of an aged holy Divine of this Country, now with God, that in Disputes, Soft words and hard Arguments were best. Yet I deny not but the Case may be so, that in writings of this Nature, there may be a Necessity as well of sharp Rebukes, as of strong refutations, Tit. 1. 13.

T. P.

§. 1. THE first thing to be noted in this his third Pa∣ragraph, is, that in writings of this Nature, that is, of one Inferiour Presbyter against a∣nother (who may be allow'd to be his Equal) in the debate of this Question, whet••er God's decrees are any of them conditionate or no, he allows a Necessity of sharp Rebukes; and (which is more to be admir'd) he pretends a reason for it from Tit. 1. 13. A passage written by St. Paul, first to Titus a Bishop at least, and by this Commission super∣indow'd

by the Divine Authority of that Apostle, and so not pertinent to an Inferior Presbyter whose small Diocesse of Brockhole makes him yet lesse fit to be my Diocesan. Se∣condly; To Titus, presiding over those under his charge at Creet, who were in Subordination, and not Coordinate, as here we are, and therefore here is no ground for an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thirdly, That commission given to Titus was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not only precise, durè & sine amba∣gibus, (as* 1.31 Beza speaks) but by way of Excision, or Excom∣munication, (as better* 1.32 Interpreters explain it) and so not pertinent to that strange rayling and calumniating, calling Pelagian, Socinian, Heretick, Devil, Dragon, and a world of such stuff which in the Correptory Correptor is here com∣mended, at least excused. Fourthly, The Persons thus to be used by the Discipline of Titus were those insufferable Hereticks, the Iewish Gnosticks, who abused the Grace of God by Wantonnesse, denying Christ to be come in the Flesh, * 1.33 subverting the Truth, that is to say, the whole Gospel, * 1.34 defiled and unbeleeving,* 1.35 denying God in their works, be∣ing abominable, and disobdient, and unto every good work reprobate. Upon which I ask, Did this writer consider the rational scope and importance of that Text which he cited, or did he not? If he did not, what commendati∣on can be pretended to, for having so hastily taken so sharp a sword into his hands without considering how to use it, and for the want of which consideration, he hath now re∣ceived from it so great a Wound? But if he did consider it, and compare it with the Context (as I have just now done,) how much less is he commendable for having knowingly and wilfully so misapplyed it? and how strange a specimen hath he given his Reader of all his future undertakings, when he holds forth Scripture to such an Author as Mr. Barlee, whereby to justifie his Rayling, and to make him beleeve that there is a necessity of his so doing? Nor is it ordinary Rayling which is thus pleaded for, but so extraordinary in all kinds, that Mr. Barlee himself in his first Dedicatory Epistle, doth offer even in Print to undergo aa 1.36 publick Penance, thereby confessing it a hainous Sin. He cryes

Peccavi, and tob 1.37 peccavi, addsc 1.38 Fateor, (here is an open confession, and in a white sheet, tantamount to the stool of Repentance,) after this hed 1.39 asks Forgivenesse, and pro∣miseth e 1.40 hereafter to mend his manners. Yet immediately he makes another Dedicatary Epistle, and that on purpose to break his promise; on purpose to call me Dragon, & Noon-day-Devil; nay, Daemon meridianum, is such a Devil, as till that time was never heard of, both Masculine and Neuter, yet neither He, nor She. And if my offspring is such a mon∣struous Devil, what doth he make me to be, who avow my self the Father of those very harmlesse and well-meant Pa∣pers, whose whole business it is to clear the God of all Purity from having any thing to do with the stool of wickednesse? Now upon vvhose Incitation and Authority I vvas so vehe∣mently railed at for my perfect zeal to God's honour and the greatest interest of Souls, let Enemies and Friends and Strangers judge. For

§. 2. Secondly, In the twelfth pa. of Mr. Barlee's Declara∣tion, he pleads a necessity of not being Toothlesse at his Tongues end, and that it vvas vvithin his Commission to be cutting, and he fetcheth his Commission from Tit. 1. 13. Which hovv perfectly agreable vvith the present passage un∣der debate, I need not shevv in many Words. They both pretend to a necessity, and both from Tit. 1▪ 13. And if vve compare the Necessity pretended, vvith their knovvn opiniō of God's Decrees, vve may guess the meaning to be plainly this, That he vvho rayles against his Neighbour hath a ne∣cessity of rayling, he being limitted and determined from all Eternity to every action of his life by a decree antecedent. to the foreknowledge of his Will. And therefore Mr. Barlee doth say in plainf 1.41 terms, [That God will have it at this time to be so,] for vvhich he cites that of the Heathen Poet, [Deus, Deus nob is haec otia fecit.] Such principles, and such practice have already frighted not a few, vvho are nog 1.42 Beg∣gars or mean Disciples (as Mr. B. hath confessed in the close of his Dedicatory Postscript) from ever being of his religion. This is the thing, for which he ought to be deeply* 1.43 humbled,

and to bewail (as he words••i••) in tears of blood, that after such crying sins, as railing, and forging, and bearing false witness against an inoffensive and patient Neighbour, he should pretend to a Commission from such a* 1.44 Text. Dr. Rey∣nolds is far enough from being another Paul, and Mr. Barlee much farther from being another Titus, (notwithstanding hish 1.45 Proclamation that he was beloved of Dr. Twisse, as another Timothy,) and I am yet much farther from being one of those Gnosticks, concerning whom that Text is spo∣ken. But this is not all. For

§. 3. Thirdly, The Reverend Author of this Preface doth contradict the Former with the Latter part of this Pa∣ragraph. He doth acknowledge, that in disputes, soft words and hard Arguments are best; for which, besides his own judgement, he cites Tertullian. (A Father as contrary to his opinions, as he is worthy to be cited where he condemns them.)

And yet he denyes not but that the case may be so, that in writings of this nature there may be a necessity, &c.

But let him now speak out, was the case so here, or was it not? If this was the Case, and this a Writing of such a Na∣ture, then what truth can there be in his own, and Tertul∣lian's, and the aged holy Divines judgement? And if this was not the Case, we have here an Advocate of Contradicti∣on, as well as of unconditional Decrees, who pleadeth the ne∣cessity of that thing which he confesseth to be an evill. Whereby he patronizeth Mr. Barlees sin, and helps to make himk 1.46 sorry for his Repentance.

§. 4. Fourthly, He professeth that his judgement is for soft words, and hard Arguments; for omitting the Person, and keeping close to the Purpose. Very good. How Mr. B. hath practis'd, I have largely shewed from the Press. His calling me Atheist, Dragon, Devil, and the like, was neither hard Argument, nor soft word. And though when he said that

I aml 1.47 furnished with the Greatest Advantage of Wit,

Art, Oratory and Applause, he gave me indeed a soft word, yet it was no hard Argument whereby to prove me am 1.48 Satani∣cal

Blasphemer, nor was it spoken in favour to me.

§. 5. I am next to discover (my irreverend Adversary be∣ing dispatch'd) how my Reverend Antagonist hath observed his own Rule. I acknowledge he hath given me some very soft words by professing to respect me for Polite parts of Wit and Learning (for which I will labour to requite him by very heartily acknowledging his Learning, and Gravity, his happiness of Fancy, and Elocution, his very civil Disposition, and comparative moderation,) But of the hardnesse of his Ar∣guments I shall hasten to make an easie Trial.

CHAP. IIII.

E. R.

Truly it was matter of much trouble to me, to find in that Treatise a distinction of modest Blas∣phemers, and other who are for Ligonem, Ligo∣nem: and to find so eminent Servants of Christ, as Calvin, Dr. Twisse and others to be ranged under one of those members, as men that tell the world (though such words are no where found in thm, but the quite contrary) that the evil of sin in man pro∣ceedeth from God only as the Author, and from man only as the Instrumēt; yea, to be worse than the Ma∣nichees & Marcionites of old, as to this particular Blasphemy. For though the names of the Authors are not, as is said, in civility cited, yet the Referen∣ces in the margin of the book (which surely were not set there to bear no signification) make me think of Tacitus his observation,* 1.49 touching the effigies of Brutus and Cassius in the funeral of Junia, Prae∣fulgebant Brutus & Cassius eo ipso quòd ef∣figies eorum non visebantur. It had been much to be wished that imputations of such a strain had been left by men professing Modesty and Ingenuity, unto Bolsec and others of his complexion. But by whomsoever used they are but as the Confectioners beating of his spices, which doth not at all hinder, but strengthen the fragrancy of them▪ I do not jura∣re in verba either of Calvin or any other man. But

I cannot but with grief be sensible of so high a charge as Blasphemy, to be laid upon persons so deep∣ly acquainted with the mind of God in his word, as they were. The vindicating of them I leave to you, and shall only say, that their Lord and their Brethren before them have met with the same measure, Mar. 2. 7. Mat. 26. 65. Acts 6. 13.

T. P.

§. 1. HIS first hard Argument from King Iames his bit∣terness against Arminius, I have already mollified and soften'd in my second Chapter. This is his second hard Argument, the many soft parts of which I shall discover and demonstrate by these degrees. First, That Distinction which I made was in my p. 23. where I did not instance or exemplifie in any man whatsoever, much less in Calvin and Dr. Twisse, (as every Reader may see and witnesse;) but to render me unacceptable to every lover of those two, he is fain to leap as far back as to my p. 9. & 10. where yet I did not name them neither; but only set down their own words, amounting in brief to this effect

[That all things (and by consequence all sins) do happen not only by God's prescience, but by his positive decree. That men do sin by God's impulse; and execute as well as contrive all mischief, not by God's permission only, but by his Command too. That God makes Angels and Men Transgressors. That Adultery or Mur∣der is the work of God; that God is its Author, (and which is worse a Compeller. That besides God's Administring ☞ the occasions of sinning, and his Pr••stitutions to sin, he doth so move and urge them, that they smite the sinners mind, and really affect his Imagination, &c. and (what I had almost forgot to say) that God's Decree is no lesse efficatious in the permision of evil, than in the production of good. And that God's Will doth passe, not onely into the permission of the sin, but into the sin it self which is permitted.]

These were

the horrible affirmations, which I there inserted as a specimen of what is taught by some Men, both to Forewarn my Rea∣ders of all such noxious and killing Weeds, in what ground soe∣ver they found them growing, and to manifest a Duty incum∣bent on me, to vindicate God from those Aspersions. The Author's Names I very obligingly concealed, that no ordinary Reader might know who they were; but yet I quoted their works where they were legible and in print, that extraordina∣ry Readers might find me Faithful in my Quotations, and that an Enemy might not say, that I had only obtruded mine own Inventions. But so far were my References from being like to the effigies of Cassius and Brutus, that Mr. Barlee him∣self knew not what I meant by them; no, nor the Author of this Epistle, when he perused that Declamation. For if he had, he would not have suffered such an* 1.50 enormity to have passed the Presse without controul.

§. 2. Secondly, when I said that some were for Ligonem, Ligonem, (but did not name any Creature) I meant such bold and barefac'd Sinners, wh have spoken even in print the very worst Blasphemies of God Almighty, that the malicious Wit of Hell hath ever been able to invent.

As for Example, That God made Man on purpose that he might Sin, and that he might have something to damn him for justly. That the necessity of Sinning is cast upon Men by Gods own ordination That God is the Author of all evil, as well of Sin as of Punishment; not only of those Actions in and with which Sin is, but of the very Pravity, Ataxy, A∣nomy, Irrigularity, and sinfulnesse it self which is in them; yea, that God hath more hand in Mens Silfulnesse than they themselves. That God doth Necessitate Men to Sin, Incite, Seduce, Impel, Compel, Pull, and Draw, and Command Men to Sin, injects Deceptions, and Tempts Men unto Sin. With a numberlesse company of like Expressions,

a * 1.51 small Catalogue of which I have collected in no more than 8. or 9. pages in my Accompt of the Correptory Correcti∣on: If such of these are no Blasphemies, then am not I to be excused for having avowed them to be such. But if they

are Blaspemies in grain, and published to the world by the Authors of them, and if the Authors of these Blasphemies are led into them by those opinions which my Reverend Adver∣sary asserteth, and I resist, how will he make me a reparation for having publickly done me so great a wrong, as to blame me for my distinction? How can he answer to all good Men, to the Church of God, and to God himself, that it was

matter of trouble to him that I should make a distinction of modest Blasphemers, and others who for Ligionem, Ligo∣nem?

Is it not a Blasphemy to speak against God? Is it not the very blackest and most insufferable-Blasphemy to speak against the very purity and holinesse of God? Is not his Pu∣rity himself? and therefore it is not worse to asperse his puri∣ty, than to deny his being? And have not those Men, whom Dr. Reynolds pleads for, aspersed the purity of God with all the Fowlest Affirmations that can be thought on? Let him, or any Man living, sit down, and study, with what variety of words and phrases, it is possible to express the Author of sin, and I will publickly demonstrate that all that variety of words and phrases hath been used even in print (by the Men of that way which he asserteth, and I resist,) in direct Affirmations of God himself. I am sufficiently prepared to shew a very large Catalogue, besides the several Catalogues already shewn. And though I was so courteous as not to name them at the first, yet I had reason to say, that there were some in the world for Ligonem, Ligonem. And

§. 3. Thirdly, when I said that some were modest Blasphe∣mers, that is, bashful and shamefac'd, but did not name any Creature) I meant. Such Writers, as have only made God to be the Author of sin, by way of necessary consequence, and unavoidably deduction; but have not said witha 1.52 Bor∣rhaeus, that God is the Author of evil, whether of punishment or of sin; nor withb 1.53 Zuinglius, That Adultery or Murder is the work of God; nor withc 1.54 Piscator, That whatsoever sinners and flagitious men do, they do it by the sorce of God's own will; nor withd 1.55 Sturmius, That God effecteth those things which are sins; nor withe 1.56 Musculus, that Gods Reprobation is

the cause of the incurable Despair; nor withf 1.57 Triglandi∣us, That both the Elect and Reprobates were preordained to sin quatenus sin; nor withg 1.58 Beza, That God predestin'd whom he pleased, not only to damnation, but to the causes of damnation; nor yet with Peter,h 1.59 Vermilius, That God seemeth to be the cause, not only of humane actions, but of their very defects and privations; nor yet withk 1.60 Smouti∣us, that Man ought to have sinned, and to have fallen from grace, that God might have matter whereon to manifest his Iustice. Now if I was so civil, as not to name either the mo∣dest, or the immodest Blasphemers, I should rather have been thank'd by their Disciples and Followers, than have been reviled for my civility. But

§. 4. Fourthly, Let us descend in particular to those Things and Persons, of which my Reverend Antagonist hath undertaken a defense, I mean the Citations in my Notes p. 9. and 10. I will begin with that of Zuinglius, because neither Mr. B. nor his Friends have yet discovered it to be his, at least they have not owned it under its Authors own Name. [

Whenl 1.61 God makes an Angel or a Man a Transgressor, he himself doth not transgresse, because he doth not break a Law. The very same sin, viz. Adultery, or Mur∣der,

in as much as it is the work of God, the Author, Mo∣ver, and Compellor, it is* 1.62 not a Crime; but in as much

as it is of Man, it is a wickednesse.]

Is not the scope of those words undeniably this, That although God is not a sinner, yet he maketh both Angels and Men to be so? That Adultery or Murder is the work of God, although it is not evil in as much as it is his? that God is the Author of sin, viz. Adultery or Murder, though sin is not sin in as much as He is the Author of it? nay, that God is a Compeller of Men to sin, though it is only sin as Men commit it, and not as God compels them to it? If this cannot be denied, why then said the Prefacer, that such words are no where to be found in them, but rather the contrary? That they are there to be found is apparent to all eyes which shall ex∣amine the place by my quotation, and is abundantly

m 1.63 confessed by Dr. Twisse. Whom I observe inm 1.64 that place, not only approving, but commending Zuinglius for those expressions, which being every whit as bad as if he had spoken the words himself, is all that here needeth to be said of him: besides that the sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth instance in my Notes, may here be noted to have been his. My first Citation from Mr. Calvin, [That all things happen by God's Decree, &c.] Without any the least exception of all ungodly and sinful things, nay, purposely inclu∣ding as well the evil as the good, (as I shall prove by and by) will soon appear to be a Blasphemy, to wit, a constituting God the Author of sin, by the publick confession of Mr. Cal∣vin himself. For in a fit of Anger against the Libertines, and in other fit of Forgetfulness (which Anger easily produ∣ceth) what himself had said at other times, he chanced to let fall these expressions,] Whilst then 1.65 drunken Libertines

do jabber that all things are made [or done] by God, they con∣stitnte him the Author of Sin. Yeto 1.66 Beza saith plainly, more plainly than the Libertines,) That God efficaciously acteth or effecteth all things without any the least exception whatsoever.

And that Calvin means the same thing, when he saith [that all things happen by God's Decree,] is not only very evident by his agreement with Beza in these affairs, but by his own positions in other parts of his works: as when he saith, for example [that God didp 1.67 therefore Foresee things,p 1.68 because he decreed them,] and again, [that no otherq 1.69 cause can be rendred for theq 1.70 defection of Angels, then that God didq 1.71 reject them.] Which is to say in effect, That God, by his rejection or reprobation, was the only cause of the first and greatest sin that ever was, to wit, the defection or rebellion, or Apostacy of Angels; and again he saith, [that Man doth sin or do that which is not lawful for him to do (which we know is all one) impulsu Dei by God's im∣pulse, or compulsion, or inforcement (let him translate im∣pulsus, which way he pleaseth.) And this last as well as the first being one of my instances p. 9. I admire the Author of this Preface would seek to justifie such horrid Things. What pretense of Reason he had for so doing, (Besides his partiality

and concernmen for one of the chiefest of his Party) we shall see hereafter in his Reply.

§. 5. Fifthly,* 1.72 whilst he blameth me for giving the Title of modest or immodest Blasphemy to such as make God to be the Author of Sin, sometimes in those very words, sometimes in such as are equivalent, and sometimes worse, he quite forget∣teth how great a Contumely he hath heaped upon them, who have spoken more broadly than I have done, though not with a purer or more disinteressed zeal to the honour of his At∣tributes for whom I pleaded. May he be pleased to consider these following Instances.

1. When Florinus did but seem to make God the effecter or Cause of Sin,* 1.73 although he said it only by Consequence, and not in plain or downright terms, yet Irenaeus (an Aposto∣lical Father) thought it fit to confute him and chide him too. And intituled his Epistle which he wrote to Florinus, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, concerning God's not being the cause of Sin.] It may satisfie some Readers to be told a few of the Fathers own words. [These Opinions, O Florinus, are not of wholesome Doctrine, they are disagreeable to the Church, they carry them that believe them into the grea∣test Impiety. These opinions the very Hereticks without the Church were never so daring as to affirm; the Elders before us, who conversed with the Apostles delivered no such things unto us.* 1.74 [To which he adds,] I am able to testifie before God, that if Polycarp had heard any such things, he would have stopped his Ears, and have cryed out as he was wont, O good God, unto what times hath thou reserved me, that I should indure such things! He would have fled from the place where∣in he sat or stood, when he had heard such expressions. And this might be manifested (saith Iranaeus) out of Polycarp's Epistles which were written to Neighbour-Churches, or to some of the Brethren; the words follow thus, as a new Testimony;

2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.75

3. When St. Augustin was accused, by some of his Cor∣reptory Correctors,* 1.76 of having Denyed universal Redemption, and other things of that nature, which all my Adversaries do hold and teach, he was so angry and so impatient of such slanderous Imputations, that he could not with-hold his pen from sharper language than I have used, though more pro∣voked than he could be. He did not only say, that [those ungodly and profane opinions had not the very least footstep in his Heart,] nor did he content himself to call them [Blas∣phemies] but [prodigious lyes of most foolish Blasphemies,] and no less than Diabolical.

4. When the same Austin was accused by some Pelagians of making God an Accepter of Persons by asserting irrespe∣ctive and unconditional degrees of Reprobation and Election; he did not give them the lye only, but told them besides, [they werer 1.77 bewitched by the Devil to its invention,] what then are They who either directly or indirectly do make God him∣self to be the Author of sin?

5. When the French Massilians objected it as the opini∣on of St. Austin, that God denieth perseverance to some of his Sons who are regenerate in Christ, because they were not elected

out of the Masse of perdition:* 1.78 Prosper makes answer in these expressions. [

That of those that are regenerate in Jesus Christ, some forsaking their Faith and pious maners do apostatize, and fall from God, and end their wicked life in that aversion, is proved too plainly by many exam∣ples. But to ascribe their fall to God is an immoderate wicked∣nesse, as if God were the Impulsor aud Author of their ru∣ine, because he foresaw that they would wilfully fall away, and for that very reason did not sever them from the sons of perdition;

and therefore men ought not to calumniate God.] How many wayes this makes for me and my cause a∣gaing my revereud Assailant, let who will judge.

6. The second Arausi can Councel which was held in the time of Leo the first against the Semiplegians (let that be marked) as it hath much for my cause (who have been pub∣lickly calumniated for more than Semipelagianism) so it hath this sharp passage against the very Man that hath opposed me.* 1.79 [

This we believe according to the Catholick Faith, that all who are baptized, and have by Baptism received grace, are both able, and bound in duty, (by Christ his help and cooperation) to fulfil those things which do be∣long unto Salvation, if they will faithfully labour in order to it. But that any were Predestinated to Evil by the di∣vine power we do not only not believe, but withal, if there are any who will believe so great an evil, we do with all detestation pronounce an Anathema against them.

] If the indifferent Reader will compare this definition of that Coun∣cel

with either mya 1.80 greater orb 1.81 lesser Catalogue of those horrible doctrines which I condemned, and for the condem∣ning of which I have been publickly condemned by that re∣verend Person with whom I now deal, he will not fail to think it much more than strange. For as all the great and holy Men of that so venerable a Councel, who were deeply ac∣quainted with the mind of God in his word, have detested those Doctrines as well as I,* 1.82 so that unseasonable reproof (to say no worse) which was given to me by my Antagonist, doth reach as far as those Fathers of which that Councel was com∣posed.

7. In Nicetas his Saracenica there is this solemn form of renouncing Mahomed and his Religion.* 1.83

[I do Anathematize the Blasphemy of Mahomed, saying, that God deceiveth whom he will, and whom he will he leadeth to what is good; for if God would, Men would not war one with another, but he doth what he will, and is himself the cause of all good and of all evil;

all things are governed by Fate and Destiny; which infers a necessity of all events.] If the Authors whom I cited both in my greater and lesser Catalogue have said the very same things with the Idolaters of Mahomed, and every whit as much worse as worse may be, (and whether they have not so done, I appeal to all who shall compare them) it will not be much for my Adversaries credit, that the loss of my thanks should be the best reward of my De∣votion.

8. Melancthon saith,* 1.84 [that no Stoical opinions are to be

brought into the Church; for how can he call upon God, who holds that all thengs do come to pass of necessity? Plato [though a Heathen] doth speak more honourably of God, and would have every one banished from the Soci∣ety of men who should say in a Poem or any other narrati∣on, that God is the cause of any Mans evil. In the opinion of Melancthon, they make a Stoical God, who feign him giving a necessity to all events.

] And is not that to blaspheme him, without saying in terminas, he is the Author of Sin? Whilst Melancthon sayth plainly, that the Devill is the Author of Sin, what doth he make them to be who say the same of God Almighty? Whether they do so or not, I a∣gain refer it to be judged by what I have shewed in my greater and lesser Catalogue, as well as by what I shall shew anon.

9. Bishop Cutbert Tunstal of Durham,* 1.85 who lived in the dayes of King Henry the eighth, and was one of those chief Men who did cast the Papacy out of this Kingdom, (no Bolsoc therefore) a very moderate Writer, a great oppo∣ser of Pelagianism, and very inclinable to the way of Saint Austin, (as it doth appear by his discourse from p. 35. to p. 40. &c.) this learned Writer is very severe against the Men of his time,

who did blaspheme the Majesty of the Lord by imputing the lust of their Petulance to their Creator, laying their sins to his charge, and alleging this for their Apolo∣gy, that they were predestin'd to be wicked by him that made them. These he calls* 1.86 monsters far worse than the Devils, because the Devils do not dare to blaspheme God in

this manner.

And thereupon concludes with a Prayer to Christ

thae he would* 1.87 purge his Church from these Blas∣phemies by sealing up the lips of such as vent them. Every* 1.88 wicked one (saith the Bishop in his following pages) doth not fear to affirm, that God himself is the Author of his sins, (and thus blasphemeth within himself) I••was created by God, to what end God knows. If he predestin'd me to De∣struction, by an immutable Decree, why do I kick against the prick, and defraud my self of my voluptuousnesse? But if I was predestin'd to life Eternal, how much soever I sin, I shall be saved in the conclusion, for his Fore-knowledge con∣cerning me cannot be frustrated or deceived.

10. That worthy Disciple of Melancthon,* 1.89 Nicolaus Hemmingius, (whom for his Learning, Piety, and Mode∣ration, perhaps I may call Melancthon Iunior,) doth sel∣dom or never make mention of snch as propagate the Do∣ctrine of unconditional Decrees, and the absolute necessity of all events, without a token of his adhorrence and Indigna∣tion. He calls them stoicala 1.90 imaginations, to which he

opposeth the Word of God; again, the stoicalb 1.91 opinion of predestination, whereby the glory of God is injur'd, evil maners confirmed, and Epicurism introduced. It Feigns an Inequality and partiality in God; and makes Men careless to lay hold on that Grace which is offered unto all?c 1.92 Again, This perverse opinion is not only blasphemous against God, but also seduceth many Men either into despair of forgive∣nesse, or into carnal security. Again,d 1.93 by stoical Dreams, and fatal Books, and the Tables of the Destinies, which they imagin and fancy to themselves, they do misera∣bly intangle themselves,

and pernitiously pervert others. Again a little after, he obliquely compares them to the

e 1.94 Family of Zeno, and concludes with an Exhortation, not to

value or esteem thosef 1.95 stoical Decrees, though some great Men do patronize them.

These are the expressions of that Grave writer, who was publick professor of Divinity to the King of Denmark; and isg 1.96 acknowledged by a Dissenter to have spoken of Dissenters, as became a Servant of Iesus Christ.

11. The Ingenuous Author of the preface before Castellio (as Mr. B. himself did very happily call him) affirms [the necessity of all things future to be an opinion invented by the

Devil for the destruction of Christian people,* 1.97 and to be left wholly to the Mahumetans and men desperately wicked, as being the Fountain of most enormities in Christendom,

] which I observe the rather because our Correptorie Correptor gave him in the Epithete of Ingenuous, and because he speaks more sharply than I did, although his motive is not so great; for the Men whom I accused had said much worse, and in words more silthy, than that there is a necessity of all things Future.

12. Immortal Grotius in his Investigatiō of Antichrist doth devoutly breath forth into this expostulation.* 1.98

[To whom can the Name of Antichrist, or him that opposeth himself against God, be more agreeable, than to them who make the good God to be the Auctor and Fautor of all Impieties?

Thereupon he reckons up some of their prodigious speeches who are wont to hide themselves with their pretended enmity to Arminius, of which I intend to give accompt in my following Section. I will only here observe, that he alludes to those very Men who were a part of my Catalogue; and

shewes how contrary they are to the Protestant Confession at Augusta, (and therein to Melancthon) which teacheth Free-will in the Orthodox Notion (Art 18.) and that the will of the wicked is the cause of their wickednesse, (Art. 19.) and that they who are not righteous who commit mortal sins, be∣cause God requires that we resist our vile affections. (Art. 20.) and which condemns them that say, That men being once justified can never lose the Holy Ghost. Ib. editionis Gro∣tianae 34.

13. It is no less than Ranck Blasphemy to make God the

Author of sin.* 1.99 Psal. 5. 4. Our sin is our own, and the wages of sin is Death. He that doth the work earns the wages; so then, the righteous God is cleared both of the sin, and our death, only his Iustice payes what we will needs deserve, we ought to give the Divel his due, it is possible for us to wrong that Malignant Spirit, in casting upon him those e∣vils which are not properly His. There are carnal Temp∣tations that are raised out of our own corrupt Nnture, which needs not Satans immediate hand; being once depraved we can act evil of our selves, and if Sathan be the Father of sin our will is the Mother, and sin is the cursed Issue of both— The Divel could not take, unless we gave; our will berayes us to his Tyranny, (and before p. 102.) how unjustly hath the presumption of Blasphemous Cavillers been wont to cast the envy of their Condemnation meerly upon the absolute will of an unrespective power, as if the Damnation of the Creature were only a supreme will, not of a just merit, &c.

How very heavily this falls, in several respects, upon all my Accusers, any Reader who is awake cannot chuse but see without a Candle or a Comment.

These few examples (few I mean in comparison of what I am able to produce) are enough to make it appear, hovv very mildly I spake in the Correct Copy of my Notes, and through how great an in advertency I have been bla∣med. I hope he vvill not now say, that Imputations of such a strain as are found in the vvritings of antient Fathers, and Councels, and modern Divines of the Protestant Church, might have been left by Men professing Modesty, unto Bolsec

and others of their complexiou. But what will he say, if I said no more against the Teachers of such Doctrine, than them∣selves, by sits, have many times said against themselves? I will shew in one paragraph the great severity of their Censures, and in another I will manifest how very patly those Censures do hit themselves.

§. 6. Sixthly therefore,* 1.100 Is it not so that Mr. Calvin disputing against the Libertines is fain to say in plain terms,

[thata 1.101 from this one Article God worketh all things, three things do follow extremely frightful; of which the first is,

that there will be no difference between God and the Devil? &c. nay further, (in theb 1.102 next Chapter) that

God must be renouuced by himself, and be transmuted into theb 1.103 Devil?] And doth not Beza himself incur that censure, whilst he so interprets that Text [God worketh all things, Ep. 1. 11.] As to say to that that unversal particle [all] could not bec 1.104 restrained by any the least exception, & thatc 1.105 sins themselves cannot be excepted?

And doth not Calvin say again the direct contrary to Beza, that S. Paul there speaks only of the graces of the Holy Ghost? and yet doth not Beza cite Calvins own judgement for his exposi∣tion which is so contrary to Calvins? as when he saith, that

in the judgement of Calvin, those things which are wickedly done by Men are the righteouse 1.106 works of God?

And again, doth not Calvin incur his own censure by what he saith in my greater and lesser* 1.107 Catalogue? (and in many other places, which I can name if challenged to it?) or if he had not thus spoken against himself, yet is it sufficient for my plea against my Assailant, that he hath spoken such bitter things as have lighted so heavily upon his own Party. He saith ex∣presly elsewhere, that it is a monstrousf 1.108 prodigious Blasphemy to say that God is the Author of Sin, and con∣sents thatf 1.109 any thing be said against it. Now it having been evidenced (as it shall be also farther) that the chief

men of his Party have affirmed that horrible proposition, both in equivalent, and down-right Terms, and in Terms of a more fulsom and blacker strain, (it being worse to com∣pel men to sin, than to be simpliciter an Author of it,) I was permitted by hisg 1.110 leave to have spoken as sharply as any Bolsec of those expressions which I mentioned, and I had thanks due to me for having been no sharper.

2. Doctor Whitaker himself hath these words following.

[If Calvin, or Martyr, or any of our Men affirm God to be the Author and cause of sin, I do not deny our being guilty, all of us, of detestable Blasphemy and wickednesse.]

Here the Reader may observe a very remarkable Concession in 3. respects: First if any of their Party shall so affirm, not only Calvin and Martyr. Secondly, if any shall so affirm, they are all of them guilty without exception; of which the reason must needs be this, because they do all without ex∣ception hold the very same principles of irrespective Decrees of Reprobation, &c. and the absolute necessity of all events, from whence any of them do draw such detestable conclusi∣ons. Thirdly, that they are all of them guilty of horrible blasphemy and wickednes, if there is any Truth in that suppo∣sition. From which three things I do in charity conclude, that if Doctor Whitaker had observed such affirmations of his party, as have been observed by* 1.111 Melancthon, learned Moulin, my insignificant self, and many others without number, he would have been frighted out of their Tenents of unconditional reprobation, as Melancthon and Moulin are known to have been. Forh 1.112 Zuinglius,k 1.113 Martin Borrhaeus, and others, have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in plain Terms, that God is the Author of the evil of sin, and that sin is the work of God, and particulariz'd in Adultery, and Murther. Zanchy hath said that Men were prae-ordain∣ed by God tol 1.114 sin as sin. Piscator hath assirmed, that Reprobates are predestin'd to the verym 1.115 Causes of Dam∣nation; that is, to sins; and thatn 1.116 Incredulity (by name)

doth depend upon God's Predestination, as the Cause upon the effect, Triglandius saith, God willeth ando 1.117 effectheth that ungodly Men do live in their concupiscences. Musculus avoweth, that God's Reprobation is the hiddenp 1.118 Cause of final despair, (no peccadillo.) These are some of that party, and of the chief. Come now to those Men which he parti∣cularly nameth, viz. Calvin and Martyr, Calvin saith, That there is no otherq 1.119 cause of the Angels Defection (which was the first and greatest sin that ever was) but God's rejection or Reprobation. Nay farther, that Men do sin by God'sr 1.120 Impulse. And Peter Martyr speaks as broadly as ever Man did; which though I haves 1.121 publickly shewed already: yet because he is the Man whom Doctor Whitaker thought fit to Name, I shall set down a passage which I have since observed in reading his Comment upon the Book of Samuel.

[Thet 1.122 vulgar sort (saith he) are of opinion, that when God is said to blind, to harden, to deliver up, to send delusions, and to deceive, nothing else is signified, but that he permitteth that those things be done. And to that same purpose very many of the Fathers (he should have said all) do interpret those expressions. And doubt∣less they were induced so to do, because they thought it impious and blasphemous that God should be accounted the Author of sin; and because they were unwilling, that Men should lay the causes of their sins upon God himself.

(But he would have them all to know, that) God doth not only

permit, but also Will Sin.]

Here we have a Taste of this valiant Florentine, who contemns the cowardize of the vulgar (such as Melancthon and Hemmingius) and the squeamishnesse of the Primitive Fathers, because they were startled at such Buggs, as God's being the Author or cause of sin. So again in his Comment upon the Epistle to the

u 1.123 Romans, he confesseth that all the Fathers (at least

almost all) do teach, that to deliver up to sin doth signify no more, than to suffer, or permit, or forsake, because they have an abhorence to the saying that God is the cause of sin.

But he rejects their opinion, and pretends to refel it by striving to dissipate their Reasons, (p. 79 80.) and so he finally concludes against them, and to confirm what he hath done (without the least fear of the Fathers Scar-Crowes) he makes Austin to be for him, whom he confesseth to be against him; and whose words against him he first of all citeth, before those others which he will have to make for him. From all which it followes, that I had the fa∣vourable allowance of Mr. Calvin and Dr. Whitaker, to ac∣cuse those writers of horrid Blasphemy and wickedness, who are commended by my Adversary for their deep acquain∣tance with the mind of God. But I have not yet shewed him the last degree of his misfortune in that Assault which he made upon my Cause and Reputation. For

§. 7. Seventhly,* 1.124 I have the suffrage and Vote almost of all, (and of such, whom I am sure he will not dare to contradict,) that the men of that party which he defendeth, are guilty (of all, and) of more, than I have laid to their charge.

1. His own beloved Dr. Twisse whom he so vehemently commendeth,* 1.125 is more wayes his Enemy than he is aware, for first he avoweth, that from the sayings of Aquinas and of

the Iesuits [That the act of sin is from God] the unlearned Libertines might very easily collect, that God was the Author of all the Lewdnesses which are committed by wicked men.

And yet I think that no man is so ridiculous as to say, that

Aquinas and the Iesuits have spoken so broadly, as the fol∣lowers of Mr. Perkins and Mr. Calvin; and though the Doctor saith of the Dominicans, that they have expressed

their opinion more distinctly than the Calvinists, by saying that God doth determin the will of the Creature to every one of their acts,

the act of sin not excepted, yet we know by sad experience, that the Doctor either was deceived, or had an Intention to deceive; besides, that himselfw 1.126 else∣where hath blamed the Dominicans for mincing the matter, and not speaking out so distinctly as he would have had them. He also palpably implyeth, that the Calvinists opi∣nion is just the same with the Dominicans, though he suppo∣seth the Dominicans to have made it out in plainer terms. Se∣condly, Dr. Twisse accuseth thex 1.127 Sublapsarians, (and our Reverend Epistoler is one of them) of having fallen upon the Rock which they hoped to have escaped by their escape of the Supralapsarian way, viz. their making God to be the Au∣thor of sin. And I accused none of them of any more, than they all accuse one another, and this shall be seen in an other example.

2. Gomarus,* 1.128 and Festus, and other Supralapsarians, do very bitterly contend against Acronius and Donte∣lock and other Sublapsarians,

[That nothing more foolish or more sottish can be fictitiously fastned upon God, than that he should have created Man without having consti∣tuted his end either of salvation or damnation, or the making of his wrath and his Power known in the perdition of the Reprobates.]

Acronius on the contrary, and the rest of his way, exclaim as much against the Supralapsarians

[That no greater injustice can be imagined, than that Man should be reprobated or created to destruction, without the least intuition of his being polluted with any sin.]

And whilest the Learnedy 1.129 Grevinchovius finds them playing

thus at Tennis, bandying Blasphemy as a Ball towards the faces of one another, and with such back-Blowes as alwaies Hit, he is so equal to both sides, as to clear them both from the guilt of Calumny. For whilst they charge each other with fearful Blasphemy, they both speak Truth, because they both are in an Error. They are the Conquerors and Captives of one another; and both sides must acknowledge, that if there is Blasphemy but on one side, there must be Hellish contumely on the other. Now with which of these should I have sided to have freed my self from Correptory Correption? Not with the Sublapsarians; for the Sub∣lapsarians would have told me that I had fallen into the Frying pan; nor with the Supralapsarians neither; for the Supralapsarians would have told me that I had leap'd into the Fire.

3. Doctor Abbot Bishop of Sarum,* 1.130 whom my Adversa∣ries are so forward to alleage in their behalf, is one of those Reeds on which the harder they lean, the farther he runs through their Elbow. For he calls their opinion of the

Absolute Decree of Reprobation a very sowre opinion, and as much as may be to be abhorred, an upstart opinion, and before those times never heard of in the Church, an opinion which he had sometimes indeed endeavoured to excuse, but never embraced it as his own; and had found it by experi∣ence to be very dangerous, and pernicious, and far ramote from salutary Doctrine.]

If he abhored that doctrine for it self, how much more must he have hated its sad effects? if he was ever heartily of that opinion which he calleth per∣nicious, it was but natural, that being a convert, he should detest it so much the more.

4. In the judgment of Du Moulin,* 1.131 (one of the learn∣edst Protestants the French Church hath enjoyed)

[they are not Lovers of Gods glory, nor make any scruple to dis∣quiet

Consciences, who say that God doth destroy or repro∣bate his Creatures, meerly because it is his pleasure, and not because they do deserve it.]

yet we knowz 1.132 who they are, though 'tis not easie to know their number, who say

that men are reprobated, not for their sins, but meerly be∣cause God will have it so.

And how angry Dr. Twisse was with learned Moulin, whom he called Arminian, not∣withstanding his Book against Arminius, and what other hard words he was pleased to fling at him, as well as against his other Brethren, I have* 1.133 already observed in my accompt of Mr. B.

5. Moulin also shewes the odiousness of an antecedent irre∣spective Decree of Reprobation,* 1.134 by the similitude of a King, who secretly intending to hang a subject, should contrive to make him a Malefactor, that he might justly send him to the Gallowes, that he might have something to hang him for. But who (saith Moulin) would not abominate such a King? and yeta 1.135 Piscator saith plainly, that God [did therefore predestine men to sin, that he might justly punish them.] And thence perhaps Mr. B. calls him the Honest Piscator.

6. It will be yet of greater moment to ascend a little higher,* 1.136 and consider the testimony of Prosper, who thinks it so great an Injury to God Almighty, to say that sins are

committed because God predestin'd that they should be com∣mitted, that he believes those words had been injuriously spoken, had they been spoken of the Devil, because the Devil himself can but sollicit, and not compel us to do wickedly. And therefore God (saith he) did not predestin

that any of those things should be done.—He was not ig∣norant that such a wicked soul would be, and for saw that he would judge it for such commissions. Nor can any thing more be referred to Gods Predestination, than that he doth render Iustice where it is due, and bestow mercy where it is not.]

This is the Sum of that famous Chapter. Which is as contrary to the Doctrine of Mr. B. and his Masters, as any thing can be invented. The chief thing observable I take to be this, that, though there was nothing in the

objection, but that, when Servants kill their Masters, or Parents vitiate their Daughters, it is therefore done, because God Predestin'd that it should be done;

yet Prosper takes it for granted in the very beginning of his answer, That God is inferred, by those words in the objection, to be the Author and Incentor of such abominations. Of which if the Devil were accused, he might in part clear himself, because he enforceth no man to sin, but only helps and assists him in it. Observe now the contrariety betwixt Prosper and those men whom I oppose.

Prosper saith [It is a madness to refer that to Gods Counsel or Purpose which cannot wholly be ascribed to the Devil himself.]

yet (saith Piscator) God made men [hocb 1.137 consilio] with this counsel, or to this purpose, that they really might sin.] Again Prosper saith, that no∣thing of those affairs was predestin'd by God that it should be done.

Yet (saith Mr. Barlee) God wills that sin should fall out, p. 78. He is an absolute determiner in a soveraign way of the several acts of obedience, and Disobedience in relation to Them, p. 88.

He did voluntarily decree that sin shall fall out, p. 73. (nor can Mr. B. mean a conditional, but an absolute Decree, witness his principles, & what he saith, p. 88.)

He doth determine that sin shall be done, p. 79. and may be said to tempt men unto-sin,

ibid. and many the like, but also may much worse as hath been shewed.

7. The late Primate of Armagh hath from the very Pa∣trons of that Cause which I oppose,* 1.138 put this confession upon Record,

[That he doth evidently and horribly blaspheme

gainst God, who saith that he imposeth any necessity of sinning upon his Creatures, because he thereby makes him to be the Author of sin, by compelling men thereunto,]

yet these men say, that Godc 1.139 necessitates sin; that it cannot possibly but come to pass, and that he secretly thrusts men on to those sins which he forbid's, and when Mr. Barlee justifies the like ex∣pression in Mr. Calvin, he adds his own wit to it, and illu∣strates God's stirring up of sinners by a mans setting of Spurs to a Dull Iade, p. 61. and whilst he saith that God is not bla∣mable in so doing, he skips from the Question, which is not [whether God doth sin,] but [whether he willeth the sins of his Creatures, and impels them to wicked acts,] so that he saith in effect the same with Piscator, who endeavours to blaspheme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to be civilly injurious against his maker, by saying, [that God doth* 1.140 holily thrust men on unto wickedness, that he may punish sins with sins.] And this perhaps may be the reason, why Mr. B. will not hear of any fall from Grace either final, or Total, and why he is sod 1.141 indulgent to Davids Adultery and Murder, (how much soever aggravated by many foul and black circum∣stances) as to say, they did not place him in a state of dam∣nation, but only robb'd him of the joy of it; of which what reason can be rendred except this one, that David was a better Adulterer, and committed a wilfull premeditated murder more holily and unblameably than other men? as if his sins were the lesse damning by being committed against a clearer light, and against greater obligations, and against more means of Grace, than what is afforded to the Reprobates. But farther,

8. The famous Archbishop of Lions,* 1.142 who is reckoned by them a Patron too, will be as much in their disfavour as I have been whilst they shall reflect upon what he saith on the same occasion, viz.

That if God had brought upon any man a necessity of doing wickedly, he had been then the Au∣thor of sins.]

how much for my opinion, and against them whom I oppose, my opponents themselves may now Con∣jecture.

9. Bishop.* 1.143 Cutbert Tunstal, having pronounced it to be more than a hellish Blasphemy, to say that God is the Author of sin, (as appears by the place already cited) proceeds to discover the very Grounds of so great Impiety, and those

he judgeth to be Three; viz. the Doctrines or Tenents, 1. That every will of God is a Decree, and unreversible. 2. That Predestination is instead of Fate. 3. That the fore∣knowledge of God doth imprint a necessity on what is future.

Which he therefore thinks needfull to be confuted as the original of the evil, and accordingly sets about it in three distinct Chapters.

These things being spoken of our Adversaries Doctrins, even by them who are wont to be reckoned upon as Pa∣trons, they may receive their confirmation from other Pro∣testant writers. But I will first mention one who is too old to be a Protestant, although an Orthodox member of the very same Church.

10. The Anonymous Author of the book intitled [Prae∣destinatorum Haeresiis] one of St. Austin's Contemporaries set out by learned Sirmondus,* 1.144 doth reckon the opinion of unconditional Degrees to be none of the least of all those He∣resies of which his Book is composed, and accordingly give's it this solemn Title.

The ninetieth Heresy, which asserteth, that sins are com∣mitted by the Predestination of God.

11. Certainly Grotius (if ever any man did) understood the Importance of words and phrases;* 1.145 he knew when an In∣ference was right or wrong; and out of what things, what

things do follow. But he affirmeth [that those men do make God to be the Author of all the Villanies in the world, who say that men are predestinated to sin as sin; that Reprobates are predestin'd to this condition, that they are constrained with a necessity of sinning, and that without repentance; that God doth act the wicked to sin, that he may punish him justly; that men were made to this purpose, that they might fall; that God doth justly when he necessitates men to sin, because he hath the power to govern as he will; that God worketh all things in all, yea even in the wicked; that it is God who seduceth, draweth, commandeth, hardeneth, inciteth to wicked actions; and that they also are called outwardly to Salvation, upon whom God purposed not to bestow it by an immutable Decree.] This is that that makes God to be the Author of sin in the unparalleled judgement of that Great man, and although he doth not name the Authors of those several expressions, yet the Authors of them are so obvious, that I am very well able to name the Books and pages where they are written, and shall do it as readily as any Adversary will have me.

12. He adds another sort of the same mens Aphorismes,* 1.146 whereby they speak God to be the cherisher of sins; as when they teach, [that the faithful can fall into Adulteries, Mur∣ders, Treasons, but yet they can never fall from Grace, but do still remain men after Gods own heart; nor are their sins any hinderance or disadvantage to them, because all their sins are remitted both past and future. That the faithfull cannot fall from the Grace of God by any grievous sins, no not so much as for a time, and that the contrary opinion savours of hel∣lish Incredulity, and proceedeth from the Devil, and many more maxims of this kind may be collected (saith Groti∣us) from this kind of men. And because the Augustan confession which is unpassionately, purely, and discreetly pro∣testant, doth condemn those Doctrins which are taught by those men, who call themselves Protestants as well as we,

and Reformers (forsooth) of our very Reformation; I did therefore in my Notes prefer the Augustan confession to any other of the Protestants except our own: and thence Mr. B. was so unhappy as to tell the world, that out of pure love to the Augustan confession I am extreamly addicted to the M••sse of Ceremonies, with how profound an Incongruity, English Scholars may now judge.

11. The most learned Bishop Mountague,* 1.147 with whom, for knowledge of Antiquity perhaps there have not been many who will compare, hath left these words upon Re∣cord in his very Appeal to King Iames, (whom my Assai∣lant hath quoted as an utter Enemy to Arminius)

un∣lesse from damned Hereticks, or stoical Philosophers, I ne∣ver yet read in Antiquity, of any prime, previous determi∣ning Decree, by which men were irrespectively denyed grace, excluded from Glory, or enforced to Salvation.

Should I set down the censures of as many writers as I am able, wherewith my Adversaries Doctrins have been condemned, I should hardly make an end before the Greek Calends. I hope that these are sufficient to convince my Reve∣rend Antagonist, that I was not the first, much less the only Person, who hath spoken severely of those opinions, in opposition to which my Notes were written; and that few have ever spoken of them with greater Patience and mo∣deration then I there did; and that He by consequence hath misplaced his reprehensions; and under pretense of beating me, hath struck at those Authors whose words I have al∣leaged in this long Section, and (whether purposely, or through Incogitancy, I cannot tell) he hath scourged them all upon my Back. Not only Grotius and such as hee, but Irenaeus, nay Polycarp, St. Austin and Prosper, nay, the Arausican Councel, Bishop Abbot, and Bishop Hall, nay Remigius himself, and the whole Church of Lyons, Peter Moulin, and Melancthon, nay Doctor Whitaker himself, His own Brethren of the upper, and lower way, nay Doctor * 1.148 Twisse and Mr. Calvin have not escaped him. These are not all whom I have cited in vindication of my severity against those Doctrines which are severe against God.

Amongst them all, there is not a Bellarmine, or a Bolsec, though in such a point as this is, they are as fit to be heard as any others, because the points debated are neither Pro∣testant, nor Popish; or if they are either, they are both. And when the que••tion is, whether black or white is the lighter Colour, or least fit for mourning, I suppose a Papists Iudgment upon that matter may be allow'd; They having sense, and reason, and erudition, as well as we. Besides, The Papists do cast no more upon Protestants, than upon those other Papists, who jump with the Calvinists in these opi∣nions. Nor do the Protestants cast more upon the Papists, than upon those other Protestants, who jump with the Pa∣pists in these opinions. Nor do the Papists say worse of the Protestants, than some Protestants do of Papists. And if my Assailant knew this before I told him, I wish he had considered as well as known it. But (not to speak of their suffrages) if those unquestionable Authors, whom I have cited, have only beaten the precious spices as so many Con∣fectioners, merely to draw out the fragrant sent, I do not envie their being beaten, but am very well content that they smel as sweetly as they are able.

§. 8. Eighthly, Now I have shewed what it was upon which I fastned the charge of Blasphemy, and that I could not in charity or in conscience, have spoken less than I did; I cannot but mark in the next place the tran••cendent parti∣ality of D••. Reynolds, who having timely perused the whole Correptory Correption, before it was sent unto the Presse, whilest yet it was capable of some Amendment, was yet so far from blotting out those vast excesses of Rayling which his eyes beheld in every page, (against my person, and my opi∣nion, and against every great Author who seemed to stand in his way,) that he rather endevour'd to prove it lawful; nor only lawfull, but even necessary in writings of this nature, (they are his own words.) He farther prompted him to a Text to comfort him up in his commissions. And so the Correptory Corrector being [an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,] a Favourite, or white Boy, may be allowed to frame a charge of Atheism both [Major

and Minor] against all that agree not to [God necessitating of sin;] His Book may be commended as an elaborate and

learned piece, for calling slanderous Dragon, and nooneday Devil, Satanical Blasphemer, an exceeder of the Devil him∣self in Blasphemy, worse than Diabolical, and a maker of God to be worse than the Devil.

Whereas when I did but distinguish of modest Blasphemers, and such as were for Li∣gonem, Ligonem, (without the naming of any person,) that is, of such as speak God to be the Author of sin in those very broad and down-right Terms, and of such as say the same thing in terms lesse Blunt, I was surprised from the Presse with a chiding Preface, and modestly accused of immo∣desty, and implicitly affirmed to be of Bolsec's complexi∣on, and all this by a Person professing Friendship and Ci∣vility.

But now I hope he will confess, that I had great and weighty Reasons, to say that the Ma••ichees and Marcio∣••ites were not so bad in their Assertions;) as they who teach, with contention, that God is the Author or cause of sin: and for this I have the judgement ofe 1.149 Irenaeus, who saith, that the Hereticks never durst to entertain such an opinion, as should but seem to make God the Author of sin. He speaks of Hereticks in general, of all that were without the Church; and no doubt butf 1.150 Carpocrates as well as g 1.151 Marcion, was in his memory and his mind, because he hath written concerning the Heresies of both. Was it not bet∣ter, or lesse ill, to make two principles coeternal, the one distinctly of good, the other distinctly of evil, than to as∣cribe all evil to the God of all goodnesse? 'Bate but the word Coeternal, and we shall find it good Doctrine, that of good and evil there are two distinct principles; God of the first, and Lucifer of the second. Now those Hereticks not belie∣ving the liberty of the will, and thereupon not understan∣ding, that without the liberty of the will of the Creature, no imaginable wickedness could ever have come into the world, they concluded that God must be its Author. But then a∣gain considering, that the very same fountain cannot yield both killing and healing water, and that the best as well as

worst fruit doth never grow from one Tree, and that un∣cleannesse as well as purity could not possibly issue from the very same God, they found it safer to conclude, that there were two distinct Gods to be the contrary principles of good and evil, than that the very same God should be the Fountain and source of both; so that the Heresie of Marcion may seem to be in this respect a degree of Reformation: for though he ran into a mischief extremly great, yet it was with an intent to escape a greater. And if it were not so as I have said, why was it said by Irenaeus, that the Hereticks themselves had never the boldnesse to affirm, that the God of holinesse and purity was the original Fountain or Cause of sin?

So far was Carpocrates from such a boldnesse, that being not able to discern, how the will of men and Angels was able to choose the things forbidden and to refuse the things commanded, a••d thereby to be the cause of sin; he rather chose to say, that there is no sin at all, that good and evil are only words and only differ in the fancies and opinions of men, than to say that one God is the cause of both. For if all things are done by Gods will and decree, they must all be good, be∣cause he will'd and decreed them. But Carpocrates thought then (what our Adversaries say now) that all things are done, without exception, by Gods will and decree; upon which he conluded ••that all things are good without excep∣tion; and that sin, as well as conscience, is nothing else but a political or Ecclesiastical word. So that his foul Heresie of making no sin at all, in comparison of the other which feign∣eth God to be its Author, may also seem a pretender to some Degree of Reformation.

From both these cases it doth appear, that the very worst of the worst opinions, must be that which makes God to be the Author of sin, and when men are frighted by such a Fiend to fly for sanctuary to any thing that lyeth next, let every rational man judge how smooth a passage lay open for such as Carpocrates and Marcion, to enter, and lye down, and nuzzle themselves in an opinion that there is no God at all; and that Atheisme it self is a comparative Reformation; (that is) a flying out of the greatest into somewhat a lesser

evil. All which mischiefs would be avoided, if men were so humble as to acknowledge, that they themselves are the Authors of sin and misery. 2 That their Wills are* 1.152 free, and not necessitated to sin. 3 That being free, they can† 1.153 choose either to shun, or to embrace it. 4 That God's witholding of grace is no mans guilt, but mans abusing of grace which God afforded. 5 That God expecteth to receive after the mea¦sure that he hath given 6 That no man living can be con∣demned for never having had a Talent, but for having been an ill seruant in wilfully squandring it away, or in the wilful neglect of its Improvement. And now I hope it is evident from all that hath hitherto been spoken, that there was reason and modesty in all I said concerning modest and im∣modest Blasphemers, who say directly, or indirectly, That God is the Author and cause of sin. And therefore

§ 9. Ninthly, My Reverend Assailant is least of all to be excused, for that which he adds in the last part of this Para∣graph.

viz. [that their Lord and Brethren before them have met with the same measure. Mar. 2. 7. Mat. 26. 65. Act. 6. 13.]

But here I ask him, and let him answer if he is able, (and if he is not, let him confesse his error) Did Christ ever let fall such expressions as those, which I have proved to be blasphemous? Did our Lord and Master ever

say, that men do break God's Law by God's own Impulse or Compulsion, or by his precept and command? That God can will that man shall not fall by his revealed will, and in the mean while ordain by his se••ret will, that the same man shall infallibly and efficaciously fall? Did our Saviour ever say so much as in appearance, That God doth make men Trans∣gressors, That Adultery is the work of him the Author, mo∣ver, and Impeller? That God's Decree is no less efficacious in the permission of evil, than in the production of good? That God doth not only prostitute men to sins and administer the oc∣casions of sinning, but doth also so move and urge them, that they may smite the sinners minde, and really affect his imagi∣nation?]

Was He called Blasphemer for such things as these? and were not These the very things, upon which in

My Notes I laid my charge? Things confessed to be Blasphe∣mie by the very Authors and Patrons of them, when in their sober fits or lucid Intervals, they look upon them as spoken by other men? See the matchless absurdity of the compa∣rison, by consulting those Texts to which my Adversary refers us. [Iesus said to the sick of the palsie, Son, thy sins be

forgiven thee; upon which said the Scribes within their hearts, why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Mark 2. 7.] Iesus professed to ••ilate, that he was the Christ the son of God, whereupon the High Priest rent his cloaths, saying, He hath spoken blasphemie, what farther need have we of witnesses? Behold now ye have heard his Blasphemy. Mat. 26. 65.] St. Stephen did miracles among the people, and disputed against the Iews; and therefore they suborned men to say,

that they heard him speak blasphemous words. Acts 6. 11, 13.] Let these sayings of Christ and of St. Ste∣phen be well compared with the sayings of Mr. Calvin and his Disciples, and we shall find the difference to be as great, as betwixt Christ and Calvin, betwixt the followers of Christ, and the followers of Calvin, betwixt St. Stephen, and Dr. Twisse, or betwixt me, and those Iews in our se∣veral Churches. And here I challenge his answer to this Di∣lemma, Did our Lord and St. Stephen meet with the very same measure from the Iews, which the men whom I cited received from me, or did they not? If he shall answer that they did, then must he prove that the sayings of those men whom I cited were as far from blasphemy as the saying of Christ and St. Stephen; or that the sayings of Christ and St. Stephen had as much of blasphemie in them, as those which I cited for making God to be the Author of sin. But if he shall answer that they did not, he must not only eat his words in a Corner▪ but make publick satisfaction; not on∣ly to me, but to every one of those Authors whom I have quoted in this chapter▪ speaking much more sharply, than I have done. He alone is to be blamed, that this Dilemma doth fall so very heavily upon him. It was no fault of mine, that he would needs utter that, which reflecteth upon him with so much sharpnesse, but on the contrary I wish, a••d I

wish it heartily, that he had either brought me an harder ar∣gument, or at least that he had given me a softer word.

CHAP. V.

E. R.

There have been men of great Learning, and not wholly devoted to the Iudgment of Calvin, who have taught even Dissenters thus to say of him,* 1.154 Calvino, illustri viro, nec unquam sine summi honoris praefatione nominando, non assentior.

T. P.

§ 1. BEhold the utmost that I can gather from this third way of arguing. Men of great learning have spoken honourably of Calvin, therefore I have done ill to call that blasphemie whereby God is concluded to be the Au∣thor of sin. It might suffice me to say, that I deny his Se∣quel, but I have something to say besides; for first there is not a Page in all my Notes, wherein I give Mr. Calvin the least dishonourable Term. I fairly name him and cite his words, and consider the matter of which he speaks, and shew the reason of my dislike, and so I am sure did Bishop Andrews; and therefore this paragraph is nothing at all to the purpose, unless it would intimate to the Reader that I had said of Mr. Calvin, what its Author knows I never did, if I have forgot, and he remembers, let him do me the justice to name the time, or the place.

§ 2. He confesseth that Bishop Andrews had his dislikes to Calvin, and that himself doth not jurare in verba, either of Calvin, or any other, amongst whom Dr. Twisse must needs be one, and why might not I dissent from either? And offer my arguments or reasons against their Doctrine, whilst (he knows) I meddl'd with nothing else? I spake indeed of Blasphemers without applying the word to any person in particular; yet I meant it of all in general, who have any way affirmed God to be the Author of sin. But my Adver∣sary applyed it to Mr. Calvin and Dr. Twisse, which why should he have done, unless he thought he had reason for it, by verily believing that they were guilty? Yet he com∣pares me to the Iews imputing Blasphemy to Christ. How much better had he applyed it unto the Correptory Correptor who suborn'd false witnesse (a Rev••rend Minister he call'd him, but no man living can tell where he dwells) to make me a Ranter, and a what-not? Fictions, as remote from all probability, as well as truth, as the wit of Calumny could have removed them, whereas I spake not a word of Mr. Cal∣vin or Dr. Twisse, which was so much as uncivil, much less untrue. I had no such word, as Calvino-Turcismus; nor did I call him an Enemy to the three persons in the Trinity for calling themh 1.155 Tres proprietates; nor did I call him an e∣nemy to the Nicene Creed, for not approving of Christs beingh 1.156 God of God; nor did I say (with Hunnius,) Calvinus Iudaizans; or that the fault ofk 1.157 Impertinence and falshood was laid by Calvin to the charge of three Evan∣gelists, St. Matthew, Mark, and Iohn; nor did I call Mr. Calvin, as Mr. Calvin called others, viz. Serpent, Pest, Fool, Hangman, Knave, Devil, Impudent Impostor, and filthy Dog.] These and others without number, are Mr. Cal∣vins own Terms, which he frequently heapeth upon great and good Men; yet every Reader is my witness, that I did not fasten on Mr. Calvin any one uncomely or unfriendly E∣pithete, though Bucer himself had called him Fratricide: so I can say of Dr. Twisse, that I did not call him Antino∣mian, as he is said to have been called in the Assembly of Divines but whether truely or falsely, I cannot tell. I can

name a worthy person who professeth to have read it in Mr. Baxter. Nor did I use him as others use me; nor as he him∣self was wont to use others. I had to do with his Doctrine but not with his person.

§ 3. To conclude. If my Assailant is so zealous of other Mens good Names, as to complain of me in publick for meer∣ly seeming to be injurious, In how tragical a manner must he needs protest against that great number of Ministers (all, I think, of his party) who have reckon'd the Reverend Do∣ctor Hammond, (a person never to be mention'd without a preface of Honour and Veneration) amongst thel 1.158 Cursed Blasphemers, them 1.159 abominable erroneous, and then 1.160 Dam∣nable Hereticks of the Times, alleaging no better reason than this which follows, That in his practical Catechism he had used these words [o 1.161 Christ was given to undergo a shameful Death, voluntarily upon the Crosse, to satisfie for the sin of Adam, and for all the sins of Mankind.] Whoso∣ever shall compare these few plain words both with the p 1.162 Articles of the Church of England, and with the whole Tenor of theq 1.163 Scriptures, he will think it somewhat more than wonderful, that Men should be so unlucky in their De∣vices, as to rank the greatest Maxime of Christian Religi∣on amongst the greatest Abominations that they were able to describe. Aud which if it had been a Blasphemy, they themselves had been guilty of the thing which they condem∣ned, by having said it in effect in the very same Book. p. 32. line 14, 15, 16, 17. Or if he will not be severely sensible of this irreverence to Dr. H. yet what damnatory sentence will he pronounce on Mr. Baxter, who hath laid to the charge of Mr. Pemble aud Dr. Twisse,r 1.164 That their own

mistake of Iustification's being an immanent Act of God did lead them to that error and Pillar of Antinomianism, viz. Iustification from Eternity? adding further in the same Book]s 1.165 That they sought against Iesuits and Armini∣ans with the Antimonian Weapons, and so they ran into the far worse Extreme; and immediately after undertakes to demonstrate, that [The Doctrine of Christ's immediate

actual Delivering us from guilt, wrath, and condemnation, is the very Pillar and Foundation of the whole Frame and Fa∣brick of Antinomianism.]

And what his Thoughts are of the Antinomian Faith, he hath expressedt 1.166 elsewhere by [A believing the Devil the Father of Lyes, and not God, yea

against God; A resting on the deceivng Promise of the Devil for justification; (and are not such like to be well justified by their Accuser?)

nay, it is a making the Devil their God, &c.] Not many Pages before this, He had laid it to the charge of the same Dr. Twisse, that [u 1.167 The physical active Determina∣tion

of Mans Will to sin, or the act which is sinful, by Gods effectual Influx,

is asserted by him.] professing also just be∣fore, that

[He detested their Doctrine and way of preaching, who teach Men to lay the chief cause of their sin and Dam∣nation from themselves on God, and would have wicked men believe that none but the Elect do sin against the Price that was paid for them, and so would quiet their Consciences in Hell, as if they were not guilty of any such sin.] Now if Dr. Twisse was so eminent a servant of Christ and so deeply ac∣quainted with the mind of God,

as my Assailant is pleas'd to dictate, his next Assault (I suppose) ought to be made on Mr. Baxter. of whom it hath also been elsewhere shewed, that he hath spoken not a little to the Discredit of * 1.168 Mr. Calvin.

CHAP. VI.

E. R.

But it is no new thing to draw invidious consequences from such opinions as we have a mind to render odious unto the world. A Fate which hath ever fol∣lowed these controversies from the beginning of them▪ Nine or ten Pelagian Calumnies, Austin, that

renowned Champion of Grace,* 1.169 is put to remove in his second and third Books, contra duas Episto las Pelagianorum. In the Epistles of Prosper and Hilary unto him, we find many heavy consequents charged by the Massilians, upon his Doctrine, de vocatione secundum propositū & de Praede∣stinatione, that it giveth occasion of sinning, makes men careless of standing, careless after lapses of ri∣sing again, taketh away all industry and regard of virtue, induceth a Fatal Necessity, weakneth vigour of preaching, is contrary to the edification of hear∣ers, rendreth fruitless all Christian Correption, and driveth men into Despair.* 1.170 Yea that holy man, or Prosper his Follower (for the work goes under both Names (was fain to conflict with these very objecti∣ons of Gods making men to destroy them, and of his being the Author of sin. And after that, the same ob∣jections were made against the same Doctrine of Austin under the odious name of Haeresis Praede∣stinatiana, as the renowned Bishop Usher, & lear∣ned Camero have observed. And the same we find revived in handling the same Controversies in our days, rendring those opinions odious which please us not, as sore Impediments unto true Piety, by the Au∣thor of the Book, called God's love to Mankind, and others. From which charge they have been suffi∣ciently vindicated,* 1.171 as of old by Prosper, Aquita∣nicus, Remigius, Lugdunensis, and others, so of late by those learned men, who have answered the forenamed Book. But this being a taking Medium, I find also used by the Socinians. Jonas Schlitin∣gius hath written a disputation against Meisner a Lutheran Divine, in defense of Socinus to this very effect.

T. P.

§ 1. It is impossible to conceive wherein the hardnesse of this fourth argument doth lie. Here are many premisses to one purpose very plainly expressed, from which the conclu∣sion is very bashfully implied Observe Reader how it stands. Austin was put to remove 9. or 10. Pelagian Calumnies, the Massilians charged many heavy consequents on his Doctrin, his Doctrin was objected against under the name of Haeresis Praedestinatiana, &c. Ergo, what? The Conclusion (if a∣ny) must needs be this, that Mr. T. P. hath done like the Pelagians & Massilians, (& like the Socinians against Meis∣ner) in setting down the express words of some modern Wri∣ters whom he did not name neither. And so here is the Falla∣cy of Ignoratio Elenchi, which the unconsidering Reader may chance to swallow, if the palate of his judgement is so thickly paved, as not to feel it or taste it in gliding down. But every Reader who is awake will find a strange Incongruity betwixt the Premises and the C••nclusion; for first, those in the pre∣mises did name St. Austin. Secondly, they did not set down his own very words. Thi••••ly, they drew s••••h consequents from Austins words, which were disavo••••d by him and Prosper but never justified by either of the•• whereas my case (which must be hi•• conclusion, if he own any pertinence of all here spoken) doth differ from that [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as much as may be: for first, Iw 1.172 named not the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whom I accused. Secondly, I set down their very 〈…〉〈…〉. Thirdly, The Correptory Correptor was so far from disavowing those frightful speeches, that hex 1.173 ••ndeavoured to justif••••, and make them good. And as my irreveren••, so also my Reverend Adversary doth not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to cloak them with pretensions even of Scripture. 〈…〉〈…〉 Correptory Correptor was not satisfied with that he said, that the expressions of holy Scrip∣ture do go* 1.174 beyon•• the very highest of either moderate or bold Blasphemers, (though some of them affirmed God to be the

Author of Adultery, and not onely the Author but the Im∣peller too,) accusing all Men ofy 1.175 Atheism who will not give him their suffrage.

§ 2. 'Tis true that Austin and Prosper did vindicate them∣selves from the Pelagian Calumnies, as I have vindicated my self from the more groundless Calumnies of the worse ex∣tream; and 'tis a most pleasing observation, that they did so vindicate themselves, as to declare their Detestation of all those Doctrins which I condemned, and their express Ap∣probation of those very Doctrins which I asserted. He that shall read St. Austins answers ad Articulos sibi falso impositos, Prospers answers ad Capitula objectionum Gallorum, and his other answers to the objections of Vincentius, will say, that my Reverend Assailant could not possibly have done me a greater favour, than to produce those things to my preju∣dice (as he thought it) which I have oftenz 1.176 urged to my advantage.

§. 3. His mention of the Book called Gods love to Man∣kind, hath proved also a favour to me. For having sent for that Book on this occasion, I find the Author of it a Convert from the Sect which he there opposeth. He profes∣seth in the entrance to give the reasons, by which he was moved toa 1.177 change his opinion in some controversies debated between the Remonstrants and their opposites. And (not to speak of his other reasons) the second reason of his change he b 1.178 professeth to be this, that the opinion which he forsook (to wit, the opinion of the Calvinists which I have also for∣saken upon the very same grounds) chargeth God with Mens sins ••n Earth,

and makes him the Author, not of the first sin only that entred by Adam into the World, but of all other sins that have been, are, or shall be committed to the Worlds end, no Murthers, Robberies, Rapes, Adulteries, Insurre∣ctions, Treasons, Blasphemies, Heresies, Persecutions, or any other Abominations whatsoever fall out at any time, or in a∣ny place, but they are the necessary productions of Gods Al∣mighty Decree.

Behold the liberal and ingenuous Confession

of that Conscientious and learned Calvinist. First I say Con∣scientious, because he was not ashamed to retract his errors, nor to publish his Retractation; nor did he fear what might follow, by his contracting the displeasures of a revengeful party; next I say learned, because he Confuteth his former judgement in an unanswerable manner; which is the likelier to be so, because an answer hath been attempted by the learnedst Men of that party, who could arrive no higher than to attempt it,) neither of them avowing the very same Doctrins which he opposed (and betray a dissatisfaction in each others performances, why else was it attempted by more than one? Last of all I say Calvinist, as presupposed in his Conversion. He could not first cease to be a Calvinist, and then discover the reasons why, the motives to his Repentance must needs precede his change of life. He disliked that Sect, before he left it, however his leaving of it might tread upon the heels of his dislike.

§. 4. Prosper, Aquitanicus, Remigius, L••gdunensis, are thus distinguished vvith Comma's in that Edition of his E∣pistle unto the Correptory Correptor. As if four of the An∣tients had been instanced in, vvhereas Prosper of Aquitanea vvas but one Man, and Remigius of Lyons was bnt another, nor he a very old one neither. But I suppose those Comma's the error only of the Printhouse; all that I charge on my Assailant is his unreasonable mention of those two Men, ve∣ry much to his prejudice, but not to his purpose in any kind, they having not vindicated the speeches of Mr. Calvin, Zuin∣glius, and Dr. Twisse, (they vvere neither so young, nor yet so giddy) but vindicated themselves from being thought to be Patrons of those opinions, vvhich by the three Men mentioned were since espoused, and (as I have partly already shewed, Chap. 4. §. 6, 7.) they did vindicate themselves, as well from those foul Doctrins which I discover and oppose, as from those very calumnies then framed against them.

CHAP. VII.

E. R.

But how ill it beseemeth Sons of the Reformed Church of England, to take up that charge, which Bolsec, Bellarmine, Becanus, Kellison, Fit••∣simon, Stapleton, Fevardentius, and others of that party, have unjustly cast upon the worthy In∣struments of God in the Reformation of the Church, and which have been so expresly disavowed, and so fully wiped off by a whole cloud of learned writers, (some* 1.179 few of whom I have è meâ tenui supel∣lectile in the Margin pointed unto,) I leave unto you to shew.

Sure we are, that upon a Candid examination, it will appear, that in this Argument, Protestant Di∣vines have intended no more than Austin before them did say, whom none will by name accuse, for making God the Author of sin, though some, as Ba∣ronius observeth, dum in Novatores (so he cal∣leth our Divines) insurgunt, à sancti Augustini sententia de praedestinatione recedunt. Nor h••ve they intended any more than by multitudes of places ofa 1.180 Scripture they were led unto, which places as we read with Adoration and trembling, at the unsearchable judgements of God, so we cannot but with all submission acknowledge the holiness and Authority of them.

T. P.

§. 1. ALL these Propositions thus put together do look as if they would be glad to have the force of a fifth argument, and though they have not the luck they have the willingness to infer, that I have done very ill in setting down thatc 1.181 Catalogue of Dr. Twisse his expression••, and two besides, Calvin and Zuinglius. But here he miscarries in as many respects as it was possible. For first, I did civilly conceal their names. Secondly, I cited their naked words, and therefore could not charge them falsely; if the words did blush to be seen in English, the fault was theirs who first divulged them in Latin. Thirdly, they were not all Instruments in the Re∣formation of the Church; for Dr. Twisse and Mr. Calvin, were far from being Contemporaries, and (as to the matters in debate) as far from being of one opinion; and that wherein Dr. Twisse had his part, and presided, was far from being a Reformation. Fourthly, they never expresly disavowed what I transcribed out of their works; or if they had done it, their crimes had been but so much the greater; nor am I to be Blamed, if other Men will say foul things in print, and then disavow the having said them. Fifthly, Doctor Twisse his speeches made up half my Catalogue; and so far have they been from being fully wiped off by a whole Cloud of learned Writers, that of the 31. Writers whom my Reverend Assailant is pleased to name for that purpose, there is not one that hath attempted to do him that Favour, much less▪ they who were dead before he came into the world. Sixthly, so far is Dr. Twisse from excusing the Sublapsarians, that he accuseth them rather, like some Bolsec or Bellarmine, as I would here shew, if I had not done it enoughd 1.182 already. Seventhly, another whom he names is Bishop Abbot, who yet is as bitter an enemy to the absolute decree of Reprobation, as either Bellarmine or Bolsec. He calls it [ae 1.183 cruel opini∣on,

contrary to Scripture, and to the Fathers of the Church, a wicked opinion, af 1.184 Rock of mischief to be avoided] he speaks most severely of all the Supralapsarians, of Mr. g 1.185 Perkins by Name, and by inevitableg 1.186 Consequence of Dr. Twisse, he holds them as bad as the Pelagians; and professeth that their Doctrins do make men fly unto Armi∣nianisme by way of Refuge: of whom I add no more, be∣cause I speak of him above, (viz. chap. 4. § 7.) Whosoe∣ver shall compare the places cited in Bishop Abbot, with Mr. Perkins and Dr. Twisse, will say that my Assailant should have thought a second time, before he put them in∣to his Catalogue. Eighthly, nor was he less unfortunate in his pitching upon Maccovius, who in the Synod at Dort did very publickly contend, [Thath 1.187 God doth will sins, or∣dain men to sin, as sin, aud wills not by any means that all men should be saved, (as directly contrary to the Apostle as he could possibly have spoken) and as if this were not e∣nough, he farther declared in the Synod, [that except these things were held and maintained by them, they must come o∣ver to the Remonstrants.] The Reader may now judge what is meant by my Assailant when he saith, that the charge which is brought against his party, is so fully wiped off by blunt Maccovius, aad such as He. But what was done to Maccovius for those expressions? He was pronounced in the Synod to be pure and Orthodox, and only admonished as a Brother, to take heed hereafter of such words, as might give offence to tender Ears, and could not well down with those, who are yet uncapable of such Mysteries.

§ 2. By these three or four men, it will be easie to judge of all the rest in his Inventory, to whom notwithstanding I should have spoken in particular, if He had ventured to set down any one of their words: and had he seen any thing in them to his Advantage, I make no doubt but I should soon have heard of it, at least the Correptory Correptor would have found it out, whom it concern'd so nearly, and for whose assistance this Catalogue was so professedly inten∣ded. But I have made it appear, that he hath wiped them

fouler (if fouler may be) than they seemed to be before he wip'd them, (as I have seen some Houses, which however unclean in other respects, yet the uncleanest thing of all hath been the Beesome.) So that the utmost which I learn from the long Catalogue of writers, is this; that my Reve∣rend Antagonist is the possessor of many Books, whose Au∣thors being of his party do write in favour of his opinions, that is, of their own; and being naturally willing to be well enough thought on, they have done their brotherly-endea∣vours to make the best of a bad matter, that the Enormities of the party may be abhorred so much the less. It is one thing to excuse, or alleviate a Fact, but quite another to plead its Innocence. Bishop Abbot did his endeavour to excuse the Doctrine of Mr. Perkins, although he call'd it thek 1.188 semi∣narie of dire contention, which like some Trojan Horse was brought within the walls of Faith; and alsol 1.189 blamed those men (of whom Dr. Twisse must be the chief) who under∣took the defence of so great an Error, as that which was not only troublesome, but dangerous and scandalous to the Church of God. In like manner Dr. Twisse doth sometimes labour to excuse the Synod at Dort, although he labours to confute it with all his might; and again doth bitterly inveigh against learned Moulin for his opinion of Reprobation, for which the Synod at Dort thought fit tom 1.190 thank him. I say they thank'd him for all his Letter without exception of any period, although they could not but know, that he was per∣fectly n 1.191 Arminian in what he said of Reprobation. It seems Du-Moulin was a Favourite, and (for his other opinions sake) to be commended even for that, for which a Remon∣strant had had their Correptory Correption.

§ 3. How inexcusable the Doctrins of many Calvinists have been, and how little to be owned by the more ingenu∣ous of their own party, the Reader may easily pass a judge∣ment by these following observations: First the Remon∣strants

wereo 1.192 submonished by the Presi∣dent of the Synod (who must be remem∣bred to be Bogerman) not to exagitate the p••int of Reprobation, but rather to insist on the pleasant Doctrin of election; thereby discovering, where his shooes did most pinch him. Secondly, the Remonstrants repeating that submonition, affirm it to have been, that they should ra∣ther meddle with Election, than with the p 1.193 odious matter of Reprobation. And had they added the word odious, or put it i•• stead of odiosè, they had been certainly reprehended by them that had them in sub∣jection. Thirdly, from the beginning to the ending of that affair, the Synod would not indure toq 1.194 hear what the Remonstrants could object against the Calvinists Do∣ctrins of Reprobation, but commanded them to answer to all such Questions, as Mr. Bogerman should please to ask them. Fourthly, there werer 1.195 some in the Synod of more moderate dispositions, and fearing God, who did plead for a Rejection of such expressions, as appeared to make God the Author of sin; which is a Token of their dislike, although they could not prevail against the Number of their Opponents; nor indeed is it a wonder, when such men ass 1.196 Triglan∣dius must have the composing of their Canons. Fifthly, when they find such expressions in thet 1.197 Dominicans wri∣tings, or thet 1.198 Iesuits, they are forward enough to fling a stone at them, although they cannot look inward, and see themselves; sure he that spies a Mote in his Adversaries Eye, commends not the Beam that is in his own. If Ocham and Gabriel are confessed by Medina to have said that God is the Cause of sin, and that in the rigour, or propriety of speecht 1.199 Mr. B. will tell us, that we shall not find that expression in any Calvinist of Note; as if the men in my lar∣ger Catalogue had been obscure, if it is added by the Domi∣nicans, that God determins the will of the Creature to e∣very act of sin it self,* 1.200 Dr. Twisse will say that the Calvi∣nists have not discovered their judgement in terms so plain,

as if peccatum qua peccatum, and adultery in particular, had been concealments of their opinion. Sixthly, Let them say what it is to be the Author of sin, and how many wayes an Agent is said to be an Author, and by how many expressions it may be spoken, or made out, and I will parallel it all from some or other of their writers.

§ 4. If there were any possibility of excusing the words and expressions of my Assailant's Party, why should he make it his last refuge to judge of their words by their Inten∣tions, when all that are Mortals have thought it fitter, to judge of mens Intentions by the signification of their words? God alone, (we all grant) is the searcher of the heart and the infallible discerner of mens Intentions. Yet as my Correptory Correptor did make it his ordinary practice; to confute my heart, and report my thoughts, and quarrel with my Inten∣tions, when he found my words were true, and candid, and so cross to his ends, as not to be liable in the least to his ex∣ceptions; so here my Reverend Antagonist on the contrary extreme (which is indeed much the better) will needs be sure that his Brethren intended no more than Austin before them did say. And again, that they intended no more than by mul∣titudes of places of Scripture they were led unto. Suppose it were possible, that he being but a man should know their Intentions however different from their words, yet he cannot but remember, that I accused their words, not their Inten∣tions. And I judged of their words by what they signifyed, not by what they did conceale. If we may judge of their Intentions by such Interpreters as Maccovius, Piscator, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and the like, and if such men may be allowed to judge of intentions by words, (such as I have mentioned Chap. 4. § 6. & 7.) then I have made it appear, that I have hit their intentions too.

§ 5. But let us look a little more neerly into his words

[sure we are,—that protestant Divines have intended no more than Austin before them did say,

&c.) 1. Protestant Divines is very equiuocally spoken. For those that are of

the Remonstrant's opinions are known to be Protestants as well as others, of whom notwithstanding he will not aver, that they intend no more than Austin said. 2. The Papists, (as he confesseth of Baronius, and must confess of many more) dislike receding from S. Austin, as much as any of their kinsmen, the Prebyterians; which proves the not∣receding from Austin to be not the least character of a Protestant Divine. 3. Hath Austin any where said what I cited out of those men? If my Opponent will produce either the same expressions or others equal to them, then will He (not I) be the accuser of S. Austin. But as he hath not done it, so I have reasons to believe he is not able. 4. Sup∣pose there had been such profanenesse in any part of Austins writings, this would only have inferred he was not then Saint Austin. Nor would falshood have been the better for having proceeded out of his mouth. He that shall say the child is damn'd that is not baptized before he dyes, or that hath not received the other Sacrament of Eucharist, may say he means no more than Austin said, but yet he must be taught to mend his meaning and his words too. The truth 'ont is, Austin was not only a Learned, but a well-natur'd man; and desired nothing more, than that he might not be followed in any one of his Infirmities. [For neither ought I to deny (they areu 1.201 Austins own words) that there are ma∣ny things, as in my very manners, so in my works also, which may not only without rashnesse, but very justly and judiciously be blamed.] Thus we see that Father had more humility than his Admirers, and took a care not to be able to autho∣rize their Errors. Nor will I here conceal the publick con∣fession ofw 1.202 Mr. Calvin, because confession is one step to Repentance, and to be thought to have repented is the great∣est Honour in the world. His confession was this, [That of at any time his works should be reprinted. he would moderate &

mitigate those things, wherein he feared the danger of scandal, or offense.] Indeed these words do help to wipe off the stains, which his unwary Admirers are wont to fasten upon his Name; whil'st instead of contending that he was sorry for his failings, and intended to publish his Recantation, they indeavour to justifie what he condemn'd; and so the Calvi∣nists in effect do write the most against Calvin. So vast a difference there is, betwixt them that are but the Followers of that Learned man, and us who are his real Friends. Who do not follow him where he erred, through thick and thin, but just as far as he follow'd Truth, and as far as, we hope, he did intend his Retractations.

§ 6. Whereas my Assailant is pleas'd to add, that they intended no more than by multitudes of places of Scripture they were led unto, (referring by figures to many Texts, but in words at length not naming One,) I have several things in answer to him. First who told him, that they intended no more? or that places of Scripture did lead them to the speaking of what they speak? 2. What Errors or Heresies have there been within Christendome, which have not pre∣tended the very same thing, that multitudes of Scripture did lead them to their assertions? 3. Why did he not compare one of the frightfullest speeches which I accused with any one Text of Scripture by him producible? 4. Let him name for the future one place of Scripture, whereby Zuin∣glius was led to say, [That God makes a man Transgressor, that Adultery or Murder is the work of God the Author, Mover, and Impeller.] what places of Scripture led Smou∣tius, Vermilius, Beza, Triglondius, Musculus, Sturmius Piscator, Borrhaeus (not to mention the Doctrines of Mr. Calvin, Dr. Twisse, Mr. Hobs, and a multitude the

like,) to say that* 1.203 God is the Author of evil, whether of punishment or of sin? that wicked men sin by the force of Gods will? that God effecteth those things that are sins? that his Reprobation is the cause of incurable despair? that both the Elect and the Reprobates were ordained to sin Quatenns Sin: that he is the cause, not only of the actions

but of the very defects and privations? that is, of the ob∣liquities,

irregularities, and sinfulnesses themselves? Thus we see who they are whose Doctrines of irrespective and unconditional Reprobation (not places of Scripture) have led them to charge God with sinfull actions, sins, sinfulnesse, metaphysically abstracted, beyond which no language, no tongue can speak; above which no fancy, no wit can reach 5. Though the wonder already is very great, yet will it still be much greater, if we compare one of the Texts by which they are said to be led to their Intentions of speaking thus. The first Text he refers to is, Gen. 45. 5, 6, 7, 8. from which place it is evident, that God is affirmed by Ioseph to be the Author of much good, which his guilty Brethren ne∣ver thought of, but not at all of the evil which they thought against him. And it will seem to me somewhat more than strange, if Dr. Reynolds cannot distinguish betwixt God's * 1.204 permitting or suffering evil to fall out by the wills of wicked men, which are free to evil, and by which they are said (not to be unavoidably, fatally, or necessarily wicked, but) to be voluntarily, and wilfully wicked, I say it is somewhat more than strange, if he cannot distinguish betwixt Gods permitting that evil, that he might draw good out of it, and his being the Author or Cause of that Evill▪ upon oc∣casion of which the good is wrought. Before he had resol∣ved to give an instance from that Text, he should have com∣pared it with what went before chap. 37. where because Iacob loved Ioseph more than all his Brethren, (v. 4.) and therefore made him a finer Coat (v. 3. they hated Ioseph, and could not speak peaceably unto him (v. 4.) but they did not hate him by the Impulse of God (as Mr. Calvin) at first spake) nor did God urge them or smite their mindes (as Dr. Twisse.) For the Devil, and their own Flesh, (one or both) did intice, and tempt, though they could not force them to hate their Brother. Well, Joseph dreamed a Dream, which was also a Prophecy, that his Brethrens sheaves should make obeisance to his: (v. 6, 7.) which dream was from God, and according∣ly both good, and true. But his brethren hated him the mor•• (v. 8.) which greater hatred was from the Flesh, and the

Devil. Joseph, kind to his brethren, as well as obedient to his Father, went to seek out his brethren from the vale of Hebron to Sichem, and thence to Dothan (v. 14, 17.) This was from God. But before he came to them, they conspired against him to slay him (v. 18.) This from the flesh, and the Devil. Reuben said, let us not kill him, shed no bloud, and would fain have rid him out of their hands to deliver him a∣gain unto his Father (v. 21, 22.) This was from God, the wise and holy disposer, of all that happens, to his Glory. But they plunder'd Ioseph of his Coat, and sold his Body to the Ishma∣lites, for 20. pieces of silver (v. 23, 28.) This was meerly from the flesh and the Devil, being not hindered, but permitted by the long-suffering God to execute their wills against his own. And this he suffered the rather, that he might order and di∣spose their wicked Fact of cruelty to their innocent Brother (which was also their Rebellion against the commandement and will of their patient God) to many great aud good ends, which never could enter into their thoughts. For by the wise, and holy providence of God, (whose excellency it is to draw good out of evil, not evil out of Good) Joseph was sold by the Midianites into Egypt (v. 36.) and aduanced in Potiphar's House. (c. 39. 5.) and by his Interpreting of Dreams (which was a gift from God and not from Satan) he was so advanced from one degree to another, that he was made a Father to King Pharaoh, Lord of his House, aud Ruler over his land (ch. 45. 8.) This was Gods doing, but no sin sure for injured Ioseph to be advanced. There was a Fa∣mine in all lands, over the face of the Earth, (ch. 41. 54, 56.) But that was no sin, Iosephs brethren went up to Egypt for a supply (c. 42. & 43.) still no sin. Joseph supplyeth them (c. 45.) which was charitably done, and so without sin. What said Ioseph of Gods oeconomy, to comfort his brethren when they wept aloud, and were troubled at his presence? (v. 2, 3.) He said no worse things of God, than that he sent him before to preservea 1.205 life, (aud that I hope is no sin) tob 1.206 preserve his brethren a posterity in the Earth, and to save their lives by a great deliverance, who had delivered him up to be destroy∣ed with vassalage. Nor was it his si•• to requite them, with

so much love, for their hatred, with so much good, for their Evil. Ioseph goes on, [itc 1.207 was not you that sent me hi∣ther, but God.] For they sent him no whither, but sold him to arrant strangers for nothing but money, and sweet Revenge; neither knowing, nor caring, nor at all conside∣ring, what the Buyers would do with him; nay, they had killed him outright, but that Iudah put them in mind, there wasd 1.208 no profit in his blood, but the sole pleasure of Revenge; whereas if they sold him, there was revenge, and profit too, and so 'tis plain, they did not send him into Egypt. But God did work such a kindness within the hearts of them that bought him, as brought Ioseph into Egypt; I mean not only that place, but pitch of Dignity: so that what God did, was transcendently good; good and wise to admiration, tending to his Glory, and all mens good; to good temporal, and spiri∣tual; to all of that age, and all of this; more particularly to the good of Ioseph, and his Brethren; crowning the for∣mer with successes in exchange for his afflictions, as well as leading the latter to a sight and sense of their sins.

§ 7. I have already said more than was due, or needfull, by way of vindication of that passage of Scripture from be∣ing apt to lead any into such horrible affirmations, as it was brought to authorize by my Assailant. But I have done it the rather, that the common Reader, by this one, may part∣ly judge of all the rest, which he will find to be Instances of sinful men, whom God by his wise and righteous judgment delivered up to the wickednesse of their own Inventions; that is, he did not restrain them having refused and resisted the sufficient workings of his grace, but left them gracelesse to themselves as desperate patients, because they hade 1.209 hated, and despised the means of health and Reformation. To this, and that which I have spoken in myf 1.210 Accompt of Mr. Barlee, and to that which I shall speak in my following Section, I refer my Assailant for an answer to those Texts, to which he doth nakedly refer the Reader, withal I add this promise, that if he will descend to every Text in parti∣cular, setting down the words, (and not the figures only,

which not one Reader of Ten thousand will take the pains to examine) and arguing from the rational Importance of them, as much to his advantage as he is able, I will return him a full, and (God giving health) a speedy accompt of his Indeavours.

§ 8. In the mean time it is observable, how very willing and careful my Rd. Adversary was, to decline the Question which was in hand, and to lead the thoughts of his Readers to another thing. Else why should he alleage so many Texts of Scripture (not in words, but in figures) which were so wholly impertinent to the subject matter of my charge? I had charged some men (whose words I produced without their names) as guilty of charging God with all the sins of the Reprobates, for the effecting of his Decree of irrespective Re∣probation. Wherein were comprehended (and by those Au∣thors expressed) not only subsequent sins, to which the wicked are given up by God's Desertion, and are* 1.211 called the punishments of other antecedent provoking sins, but also the very first sins, which were committed by Adam even in Paradise, and by Lucifer even in Heaven. Now the Texts which are referred to by my Assailant, in excuse of those Blasphemies which I accused, do only shew the pu∣nishment of sin with sin, they being spoken of such sinners, and of such subsequent sins, as those sinners were permitted to fail into, by the just judgment of God upon them, whom they had provoked to forsake them, and leave them to them∣selves, in revenge of their having forsaken him first, and re∣belled against him by their former wickedness. So that as his first Text was no less than against his purpose, the rest which follow are quite besides it. And that no poor soul may be betrayed, by the false application of all those Scri∣ptures, to think reverently of his sins, and irreverently of his God, I will denudate the falsness of it by these following steps.

First, when God is said to harden mens hearts, to deliver them up to a reprobate mind, to send them strong Delusions that they shall believe a lye, and the like, it is infinitely* 1.212 far

from being meant of an efficacious Impulse in God Almighty. God never hardens any mans heart, as the Sun hardens clay by shining on it, but as the Sun hardens wax by not shining on it; by not softning it any longer, and so leaving it to harden it self. And that all those verbs, [to harden, to blind, to deliver up, to send delusions, to deceive, and the like,] are by an ordinary Hebraism only permissive in signi∣fication, though active in sound, is placed without all con∣troversie. First, by the verdict of all the a 1.213 Fathers both of the Eastern and We∣stern Church. Secondly, by thea 1.214 con∣fession of the chief Calvinists themselves, that is the judgement of the Fathers. Thirdly, byb 1.215 Austins judgment in par∣ticuler, whom our Adversaries prefer be∣fore all the rest. Fourthly, by the Ad∣versaries c 1.216 confession, that that is Austins own way of Interpreting such Texts. Fifthly, by the peremptorie assertion of Melancthon,d 1.217 from whom my Adver∣saries cannot comfortably recede. Sixthly, by the grant ofe 1.218 Du-Plessis, that in the usual stile of the Scripture,

he who doth not restrain when he can, is said to give up; he who doth not take away when he can, is said to give; and He who doth not give, is said in that case to take away. God is said to raise out of the Grave, when he only hinders from going thither; and to lead a man thither, when he only suffers him to fall, or does not hinder him from falling.

The same Seigneur du Plessis doth farther exemplifie his Doctrin, not only by that petition,

lead us not into temptation, of which the mean∣ing he saith is this, Do not suffer us to be vanquished by the Temptations of the World and of the Divel;

but by that common Idiotisme of the French tongue, which is as com∣mon also in the English. Vous me donnerezla vie, c'està dire, vous ne la m'osterez point; you shall give me my life, that

is to say, you shall not take it from me. So whenf 1.219 Ra∣hab did capitulate with the Spies of Iericho, that when they took the City, they should save her life, or permit her to live, the French Translation doth read, vous me vivifierez, ye shall make me to live. Now if this figure of speech is admit∣ted to be a figure, where if it were not admitted, it would not be of much moment, how dares any man exclude it from those passages of Scripture, where to exclude it, is to blas∣pheme? And if the learned Du Plessis doth acknowledge that figure, who is of irrefragable Authority with many Followers of Mr. Calvin, why should any man deny it, at the hazard of making God to be the Author of sin? But se∣venthly, this matter is farther evident, and that by the prea∣chings of Bishop Andrews, from vvhom his Adversaries in this case, vvill hardly publickly dissent; because they are loth to have it visible to common Readers, that he he vvas frighted out of Calvinism (vvhich first bespake him) by the horrible Conclusions to vvhich it led, upon those vvords of our Saviour in the Imperative mood, Destroy this Temple, mean∣ing the Temple of his Body, that Holy man hath these vvords.

* 1.220 That it should enter into any mans heart, to think, that Christ vvould open his mouth to command or to coun∣sel his own making away, (that is, the committing the most horrible foul murder that ever vvas) God forbid, give me any Religion rather than that, that draweth God, into the Society of sin; makes him, and makes Christ, either Author, or Adviser, Commander, or Counsellor, of ought that is Evil. Any (I say) rather than that. First, hovv then? if no command, vvhat is it? all that can be made of it (say the antient Fathers) is, but either a prediction (in the stile of the Prophets) come down Babel,* 1.221 that is, Babel shall be brought down; so solvite, ye shall destroy; to vvarn them, vvhat he savv they vvere novv casting about, and vvhither their malice vvould carry them in the end. even to be the Destroyers aud Murderers of the son of God.* 1.222 Secondly, either this; or (at most) but a Permission, vvhich in all Tongues is ever made in this mood (in the Imperative,) so vve use to say, go to, do and ye will; or

do what ye will with my body, when we mean but suf∣ferance, and no command at all. This solvite was to them, as Fac citò to Iudas after; Quod facis, that which thou art resolved to do, and hast taken earnest upon it,* 1.223 fac, do it; fac citò do it out of the way; which yet (it is well known) was nothing but a permission, and not a jot more. 3. But should so foul an evil, as that, be permitted though? No, nor that neither, simply; it is not a bare permission, but one qualified; and that with two limitations, will ye mark them? For first, he would not suffer any evil at all, (least of all that) but that out of the evil he was able (able and willing both) to draw a far greater good. Greater for good (I say) than, that was, for evil. And that was solutionem peccati ex solutione Templi. ••2. But neither was this enough yet: Neither would he for all this, have at any hand let it go down, but that with all he meant to have it up again presently.—The world with us, hath seen a solvite, without any Excitabo, Down with this, but nothing raised in the stead. But this is none of His. Solvite, without excitabo, is none of Christs.—With these two limitations, under these two conditions; one of a greater good by it; the other, of another as good or better, in lieu of it; may solvite be said permissive: and otherwise not, by any warrant from Christ, or from his Example.

8. This figurative use of the Imperative mood, which is also fitly called the permissive mood, may be de∣monstrated by such Scriptures, as cannot be otherwise un∣derstood, though not one of those Authors by me alleaged had declared their judgments on this occasion. God said unto Satan concerning thatg 1.224 perfect and upright man, h 1.225 All that he hath is in thy power, andk 1.226 behold he is in thine hand. Our blessed Saviour said unto the Devils, l 1.227 Goe, but he commanded them not to go away into the herd of swine, only gave them permission, for which they m 1.228 petition'd, and yet he said [goe] in the Imperative mood. But the Devils also petition'd him in the Imperative mood, when they said,n 1.229 suffer us to go, who yet cannot

be thought to have commanded him whom they petition'd, and whom theyo 1.230 acknowledg'd the Son of God, who had an ability to Torment them. And the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the con∣cession must bear proportion to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Pe∣tition. For Petitioners they were in that they* 1.231 besought him however they besought him in the Imperative mood. In the Case of Iob, Satan intreated God in the Imperative mood, p 1.232 Put forth thy hand, and Touch all that he hath. Who yet cannot be thought to have commanded his Master, because his Master cannot be thought to have obey'd him. For when God said, behold, he is in thine hand, he clearly spake of a permission: where by the vvay it is observable, (and may it be usefully observed by them, vvho take a de∣light to doe mischief, and seek to justifie their Cruelties by God's permitting them to do vvhat they desire, and possi∣bly pray that they may do it) that vvhen vve beg of God, (as Satan did) that vve may prosper in doing wickedly to any man in the vvorld, as Satan to Iob) and vvhen God shall grant our petition (as he did Satans) by permitting us to do, or not-hindring us from doing all the evill vvhich vve desire, vve must conclude that God's grant of such petitions is only an Argument of his wrath, (as it vvas to Satan, Job 1. 11, 12. Mat. 8. 31, 32.) and not at all of his kindness, or approba∣tion. Israelsq 1.233 wickedness was great in asking a King (as Samuel told them,) yet God gave them their own asking, and God himselfr 1.234 tells us, that He gave in his anger the thing they ask'd. Having a King, they vvould have none, and God took him away; but the same Text tells us that he did it in hisr 1.235 wrath. 'Tvvas ill to live with a King, in one Case; but 'tvvas worse in an other, to live without him. Novv from these 8 things vvhich I have spoken, and especi∣ally from the last, it doth appear to all vvithout Dispute, That vvhen God said to the lying spirit, Go, and prevail, 1 King. 22. 22, 23. (vvhich is one of the chief instances al∣leaged by my Assailant) he said no more than our Saviour said to the Devils Matth. 8. 32. vvhich amounted to no more than a permitting them to do, vvhat they would choose to do, if they vvere not hindred. God said go, that is, he

gave him leave or sufferance, which he expressed in the Im∣perative mood, in which mood also petitions may be expressed, (as hath been shewed) which are as opposite to commands as we can wish them.

But to this my Assailant may object his other chief In∣stance 2 Sam. 16. 10, 11. where David saith of cursing Shimei, Let him alone, for the Lord hath bidden him, which though urged by Mr. Barlee, and sufficiently answered by mes 1.236 already, yet I will add in this place, to what I said in that other; For we who are fishers of men, must strive to catch them to the Truth, by several Baits. Thus then I reason within my self; (1) What God doth command us we ought to do, and not to do it, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or breach of Law. Thence it was not the mercy, but sin of Saul, to save the life of wicked Agag. Whom if he had killed, it had not been murder, but obedience. Nor had it been parricide, but sacrifice, if Abraham had slain Isaac with his hand, as he had done already in the obedient purpose of his Heart; which that Friend of God purposed, not by Cruelty, but Faith. Heb 11. 7. Hereupon it followes (2) that if God had bid∣den Shimei to curse David in that literal sense wherein we commonly use the word, Shimei (like Nathan 2 Sam. 12. 7, 8. &c.) had done his Duty. Nay, he had been a Rebel against God, if he had not done like a Rebel against David. He had cursed his Soveraign, as Balaam's Asse reproved his Rider, and had been every whit as innocent, if God had literally bid him, it being as great a Truth in Ecclesiasticus, as if it had been in Ecclesiastes,* 1.237 that God hath commanded no man to do wickedly. Here then I ask, did Shimei sin, or did he not; If he did sin, God did not literally command him, but permit him only. If he did not sin, nothing is gotten by my Assailant, in case he had been commanded. But grant∣ing Shimei to have sinned, (as indeed he did) and by con∣sequence to have acted, not according to Gods command, but point-blank against it, (for every sin quà tale, is the transgression of some precept, 1 Joh. 3. 4.) one of these two things must inevitably follow; either that David was in an Error, when he hastily said, [The Lord hath bidden him,]

and was betrayed into that error by making reflection upo•• his sins, especially his being a man of blood (as Shimei called him very truly, verse 7, and 8:) or else, that David meant no more, than that God permitted him: if the first is grant∣ed, then the error of Davids judgment (which was very fallible) doth put an end to the objection; if the second is granted, (but not the first,) than God was only signified, not to hinder, but to permit that sin of cursing, and so it ceaseth to have the force of an objection; nor is it any the least excuse, much less yet a justification, of those horrible things which I accused in my* 1.238 Notes; for there it is said by those Writers, whom my Reverend Assailant doth do his ut∣most to excuse, that God doth (not only permit, but also) command, yea compel. His bare permission of sin is called a fiction, and against it, is set up his will, and Decree, and that Decree is called efficacious, & that will, transient into the sinfull act; nor only his transient will, and efficacious decree, but his Impulse also, and that in particular to Adultery and Murder, of which God is also there said to be the Au∣thor. And to vindicate the purity of the Almighty from such aspersions, which are perversely laid upon him by the literal exposition of some Texts which are figuratively ex∣pressed by the sacred Penmen. I have, and shall eternally, put the people in minde, to understand such Scriptures ac∣cording to the figure, which they find to be contrary to the plainest Tenor of other Scriptures, and as contrary to the nature of a good and holy God, so far forth as they are taken according to the letter. For as vvhen St. Paul saith, the weakness of God, 1 Cor. 1. 18. Yea, and the foolishness of God, 1 Cor. 1. 25. He doth and must mean according to the figure, because the literal meaning is both false and Blas∣phemous; so vvhen God ist 1.239 said to have deceived the people or the like, it is and must be meant according to the figure, that he hath suffered, or permitted, or left them to them∣selves, and to their temptations to be deceived. And as it is a less sin, to say that Saint Paul vvas a weak and a foolish speaker, then that God is capable either of weakness or foo∣lishness; so is it also a lesser sin, to say, that Ieremiah vvas a

deceitful prophet, than that God is a Deceiver. which as it prompts me to conjecture what kind of principles they are, by which so many are made Atheists, and Scoffers at the Scriptures, so it puts me in minde of what was said by King Iames atu 1.240 Falkland, [that taking all things to the strait Tenor of the written letter, is the matter of jar betwixt Puri∣tans, and us.] To do it in many other cases, (as in that alleaged out of St.w 1.241 Paul) is unpardonable sottishness, but to take such places according to the letter, which are literal∣ly opposite to the purity of God, I want a word whereby to ex∣press how ill it is, for I must ever say with the Stupendous Bishop Andrews,

x 1.242 Give me any Religion, (any Exposi∣tor, any Exposition,) rather than that, that draweth Ged into the Society of sin; making him either the Author, or Adviser, Commander, or Counsellor of ought that is evil, I say any, rather than That.

I have said much more, than I intended, to shew the ill use that hath been made of that congeries of Scriptures, referred to by my Assailant in his defence of his party, and having been thus long in my first general step, I will truly indeavour to be the shorter in my second.

Secondly, though all should be granted which my Assai∣lant can desire, touching the Texts by him alleaged, (which God forbid I should grant) yet they would not be able to come home to the purpose, (as I said before) be∣cause Pharoah, and the rest who are said to be hardened by God, Elies sons, they who did not like to retain God in their hearts, they who regarded not the love of the truth that they might be saved, Absolon, Iudas, & the like, are no where said in the Scripture to have been predestined to those sins which were antecedent to their being hardened; their not hearing the voice of the Father, their being given up to a reprobate minde, and to strong delusions, and to all those sins which they were permitted to commit by the just judgement of God for their former wickedness, wheren he is not, he cannot, he must not be said to have any efficiency, or Approbation. But the writers, whose writings vvere accused by me of Blasphemy, do teach, that God did fore ordain, and fore-deter∣min,

all the sins in the World, all things, and events, without exception; and that he did not fore-see them any otherwise, than because before ordained them. Mr. Calvin is less un∣wary than others are, and yet the same Mr. Calvin who saith inx 1.243 one place, that all things happen by Gods ordination, will and Decree, and not only by his foresight; also saith in any 1.244 another, that God did therefore foresee them, because by his Decree he had so ordained them; nay, he saith in the same place where he said the former, (and that with commendations bestowed on Valla, for having said it as well as he,) that Godz 1.245 foreseeth things future by no other means, or reason, or way, than because he decreed that they should be so done. And to assure us that he placeth the De∣cree of God before the fore-sight, he puts the fore-sight in the a 1.246 Present tense with the Decree in the Preterperfect; and again the fore-sight in theb 1.247 Preterperfect tense with the Decree in the Preterpluperfect. As if he thought that Gods Decree were before his prescience or fore-sight even in order of time, and that the portions of that Creature could have place in Eternity: if he did not think so, he might have sa∣tisfied himself with a [non aliâ ratione, quam] and not have added an [ideo, quia, therefore, because] in the very next Section. But let his ablest Followers construe his words, how they will, or can, they must grant his Doctrin to be this,* 1.248 That whatsoever comes to pass which God fore∣saw from all Eternity, he did also decree from all Eter∣nity; But it was also his Doctrin, that God foresaw from Eternity all the sins in the world without excepti∣on; therefore it was his Doctrin, that God did also de∣cree all the sins in the world withot Exception. Nor can they possibly pretend, that all sins are the punishments of former sins, because then they would incur one of these ab∣surdities either that no sins are the first, or that there are sins before the first, and so that the first are the second, and the antecedent the consequent, which would imply an unex∣cusable contradiction. They are avowedly of this judgement that there is a necessity of all events, and that God doth ne∣cessitate the very first obliquity of his creatures, and for that

very first doth also damn them, as appears by what they say of the Damnation of Infants, which though sufficient of it self, to shew the false application of the 38. Texts; yet is it not all I am to say of my Assailant's misfortune in that At∣tempt. For,

Thirdly, If those places by him alleaged were not figu∣patively spoken, (that is) according to the Hebraisme al∣ready mentioned, but did intentionally import Gods efficien∣cy of sin in any kind or any thing else which imports him to will it only, then would they be so contradictory to all the other places of Scripture wherein no figure can be pretended that we should find it impossible to reconcile them. For when God in* 1.249 Scripture expresseth his hatred of sin in the highest terms of Detestation, and forbids it by a Law, and provides against it by Threats, as well as by many other means, and clears himself from all aspersions which Carnal Fancies have imagin'd to his dishonour; his words are so plain, and their literal importance is so rational, that every man as he is man, doth as naturally believe it, as he naturally believes there is a God. And such as have learn'd to disbe∣lieve it, have not learn'd that lesson, as they are men, but they have learn'd it so far only as they have learn'd to be inhuman. And I appeal to all the world, whether, when two places of Scripture do seem to clash, and contradict, we are not obliged to interpret the hard, by the easie, the euivo∣cal by the nnivocal; the harsh, by the agreeable; and that which according to the letter hath materiam odiosam, by that, which according to the letter hath materiam favo∣rabilem.

It follows from all which I have said, that those 38. Texts are nothing at all to the purpose, for which they were alleaged by my Assailant, for they amount at the most to no more than this, that God doth* 1.250 punish mens sins by not restraining them from sinning farther; which is expressed in Scripture by giving up, or hardning, or some other word, which (according to the Hebraism so often men∣tioned) is active only in sound, but permissive in signification. For when God is said to punish sin with sin, it is meant nega∣tive.

As for example,* 1.251 because God had purged Israel, and Israel was not purged, therefore he would not purge them from their filthiness any more; that is, he would permit them to be filthy still; he would not cleanse them against their wills; and so we see it is explained by God himself, what is meant by his punishing of sin with sin. He that* 1.252 will be filthy, and is resolved on'c, and rejects the means of his pu∣rification, is left by God or given* 1.253 up, or given* 1.254 over to be filthy still; so that the writers whom I charged with ma∣king God the Author or cause of sin, were not led into those mischiefs by multitudes of Texts of holy Scripture, (as my Assailant hath very dogmatically, but very groundlesly pre∣tended, (but rather they led those Texts of Scripture which way they pleased to serve their Turns. The word of God hath been ever used as a Lesbian Rule, by all sorts of Here∣ticks, who have been first preengaged [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] to be humble servants to their opinion. And when the Scrip∣ture is led by them (or rather dragg'd and tortur'd) to the maintaining of those Errors which they espouse, they pretend to say no more than what they are led unto by Scripture. And some of the people are so shallow, so credulous, so unexercised in reasonings or so unwilling to take the pains to consider, and examin what they are taught, as to swallow so dangerous and so thick a Fallacy. But so far is the Scripture from lead∣ing any, to say, that God is the Author or Cause of sin, (as some,) much less the Necessitator, and Compellor to it, (as others,) that it even compels us (if we are sober) to say the contrary. There are indeed some* 1.255 figurative expressions which carnal men have profanely* 1.256 used; but the figure in those expressions is so visible a figure, that they who cannot indure to see it are fain to wink very hard. There being no∣thing in Scripture so plain as this, that as the* 1.257 womans faith is said to have made her whole, not because it did heal her but because without it she had not been healed; so God is said to have done many things, not because he did, or could do them, but because without him they had not been done, fo•• nothing can be, or be done, with his* 1.258 sufferance.

CHAP. VIII.

E. R.

For my part I thus J••dge, That if men would candidly carry this Controversie to its Native and proper Issue, it would amount to this. 1. Whether the Graces of Faith, Perseverance, and the glory following, be not God's own? 2 Whether being so, he may not do what he will with his own? 3. If so, whether he might not, ab aeterno, absolutely purpose in himself, on whom to bestow them, from whom to withold them, without any Injury unto any?

T. P.

§ 1. NOW Reader observe, how he displayes his strength. He consideringly begins to handle the matter of main Debate. Some weighty thing may here be look't for from one whose Parts and Abilities are so acknowledgedly great. He now undertakes to state the Question and that by amassing to∣gether some Propositions, which are not at all to the Que∣stion in hand, and which being granted will not do him the least good office; for it would never be thence conclusible, that I have erred in any one period, or that the Correptory Correptor hath justly charged any the least error on me. He doth but grant what I would have him, That Faith as well as Perseverance are God's own free Graces, not imputable to us before he gives them, (and when he hath so given them he calls them ours.) He is farther of my Iudgment,

that God might purpose ab aeterno without Injury to any, on whom to bestow, and from whom to withold them. But here it is to be observed, that his two or three Proposi∣tions (for we may call them either) which he premiseth as the ground of his state, do clearly belong to nothing else but to the giving or withholding of Grace and Glory, not at all to the Decreeing eternal Torments without the consi∣deration of their Transgressions on whom those Torments are presupposed to be decree'd. And this he knows was the Question he should have stated, as that to which my Notes did more especially belong, and which alone had been per∣tinent to his Paragraph going before. But let us see how he proceeds.

E. R.

4. Whether it imply a Contradiction, for God by his power so to determine the will of the Creature, hîc & nunc ad unum, as that it shall retain its own Nature, and yet shall not de facto, fully and victoriously resist Divine Grace, but shall* 1.259 invin∣cibly and most certainly, as to God's* 1.260 Determina∣tion, and yet most sweetly and willingly, as to its own manner of working, make choice of that Good, in the choice whereof, it is demonstratively convin∣ced, that its felicity doth stand?

T. P.

§ 2. FIRST it is not our Question, what may be with∣out a Contradiction, butwhat is. Many milli∣ons of things may be, which are not; and particularly in this very case, many things I might do, and yet retain my own Nature, which yet I do not. And if I, much more may

God. But what Logick is it to argue, à potentiâ ad Actum? or what would be thought of that Disputant, who should prove that God doth commonly make New Suns, and ma∣ny times create new worlds, because it implies not a contra∣diction for God to do it? This is a visible unhappiness, that from the ability to do, unto the Act of doing, should be the utmost force of this Argument. But 2. Here is the Fallacy called ••plurium Interrogationum, for one Question is, whe∣ther it imply a contradiction for God by his* 1.261 power to determin•• the will of the Creature hic & nunc ad unum, and yet it still retain its own Nature? A Second is, whether it imply a contradiction, for God so to determine it ad unum, as that it shall not de facto fully and victoriously resist Divine Grace? A Third is, whether it imply a contradiction, for God so to de∣termine, as that it shall invincibly and most certainly, as to Gods determination, make choice of that Good, in the choise of which it is demonstratively convinced that its felicity doth consist. These are three distinct Questions not to be stated the same way. And if any, yet at least the two last are not the Questions that are controverted betwixt me, and my Adversary, in case my Adversary is Christian, and if he is not a Christian, let him but say the word, and I will dispute with him upon it. But having severed his 3 Questions which he fallaciously conjoyned, (as if they were all three equal in respect of what he demanded) I shall speak to each of them, how lit∣tle soever I am concern'd. And since his fashion is to ask, I will prepare for my Answer to his first Question, by a••king him also this other Question; whither Liberty of will be of the Nature of the Creature, that is▪ of man here in via▪ If it be said that it is not, I oppose two things; first man's state before the Fall, of whom it is acknowledg'd by my Adversaries themselves▪ that He then had a Liberty to stand or fall. But fall he did, who had [à posse non peccare]

sufficient Grace to have* 1.262 not falne. And of him in his Innocence I demand, as of a Creature; Could God by his povver deter∣mine him hîc & nunc ad unum, and yet he retain his ovvn Nature, and Liberty? could God absolutely decree his eating the fruit that vvas forbidden, and yet he retain his Liberty not to eat? what would this be, but to determine, and not determine? and what are they, but the two parts of a Contradiction? But here I suppose my As∣sailant will say, that he is least of all concerned to differ from me, because he is not a Supralapsarian. And there∣fore in the second place I oppose Man after his Fall; of whom whatever is apprehended of his Liberty to Good, 'tis uni∣versally granted that he hath free-will to evil, unless when God doth determin him to the contrary. But (excepting that one Case) He hath a free-will to evil, even then when God gives him to will and to do, and when by Christ he doth free him from the slavery of sin. For my Assailant will not say, that man is so much advanced upon this Earth a∣bove the first state of Adam, as to have arrived to [a non posse peccare] an Impeccability, or inability of sinning. Up∣on which it follows, that the posse peccare, or ability to sin, is of the Nature of Man as Man. And therefore, for God by his power to determine him hîc & nunc ad Hoc, scilicet ad non peccandum, what is it but contradictory (in that very particular of his being so determin'd) to the retaining of his Nature? for when he is determined hîc & nunc, to a not ssnning, then hîc & n••nc, he cannot sin; because if he can, he is not determin'd, else where vvere the difference betvvixt being determin'd and undetermin'd? but if he can∣not sin, so far, as he is determin'd by God not to sin; and if by Nature he can sin, (vvhich is as undeniable) then to be determin'd by God's power, and yet to retain his humane Nature (as to the liberty of his will) must needs imply a contradiction. Novv that the most unlearned Reader may not fail to comprehend, hovv the project of my Assailant is plucked up by the Root by vvhat I have spoken unto his

first Question, I will desire him to consider, before I go any farther, That I have not disparaged, but vindicated and cleared the Almightiness of God, from an implicit Ca∣lumny which must of necessity be cast upon him, when his Almightiness ••s extended to the doing of those Things which do imply a Contradiction. The Infinity of his power is seen and celebrated in this, that he can do all things which are not evil, or unworthy, or unbeseeming his Godhead. He who out of Nothing created All, can again (if he please) turn all to Nothing. But he cannot so make things out of no∣thing, as that they shall be nothing still. Nor can he so turn his Creatures into nothing, as that they shall retain their own Nature of Creatures. He cannot so deprive his Creatures of any thing, that they as shall keep and retain the things of which they are deprived; it being impossible, (as implying a Contradiction) to have what we have not, even whilst we have it not. It was of the Nature of that Fire in Nebuchadnezzars Furnace, to scorch and burn, and God by his omnipotence did determine that Fire [illic & tunc ad hoc unum] not to burn the three Children. But will Doctor Reynolds say, that the Fire at that instant and in that Case, did retain its own Nature? and that it had the power to burn them, even whilst it had not the power to burn them? these are the opposite parts of a Contradiction, which God cannot verifie, because he is of necessity what he is, true, and Almighty; which he could not be, if he could verifie Contradictions. But the most immediate Reason, doth seem to be this, why God cannot verifie Contradictions; even because they have not a passive power of being verified. For the affirming of the one is the denial of the other. And they cannot be both true, because they should not be contra∣dictions, if the truth of the one did not make the other false. But this is a thing, which all the world, I suppose, doth unanimously grant. So that as often as we say, God can∣not do that which doth imply a Contradiction, we do say in effect, He cannot cease to be God; He cannot do evil; He cannot do that, which is therefore impossible, because un∣worthy for him to do. He can draw good out of evil by dispe∣sing

of evill to good ends, but he cannot so make evil good as that the evil shall still retain its own Nature. He can destroy his Creature either in part, or in the whole, much more can he alter or change his Creature, but not so as that it shall remain unaltered under that alteration. God can determine the will of man hic & nunc ad unum, and so de∣prive the will of that part of its Nature, but not so as that the will shall continue undeprived, or retain its Nature, of which it is deprived, even whilst it is deprived of it. When God determines a Man to one thing, 'tis certain he cannot do another, for if he can, he can resist, not Gods will only, but his Power. And then to say he retains that very part of his corrrupt Nature, his being able to sin, whilst he is determin'd by God's power to a disability of sin∣ning, what doth it but imply a contradiction? I could be heartily sorry to find my Opponent in this method, of raising and supporting the whole Fabrick of his Errors, upon that which is not only the greatest Falshood, but the greatest Impossibility in all the world, but that by giving me op∣portunity (as well as provocation) to treat with him here∣upon, and to shew him the Fallacy or Quick-sand on which he builds, I make no doubt but he hath opened a speedy way to his being undeceived; And that he will resolve, upon a review of his first Question, That when God gives suffi∣cient, yea and effectual Grace, both to will and to do any thing that is good, he doth not alwayes by his power (which is not resistible) determine his Creature ad hoc unum, but permits him to retain so much of his own Nature, as the liberty of sinning, of resisting, or of grieving his Spirit comes to, (which Scripture, and Reason, and daily experience doth make apparent.) And that when he doth otherwise, either in some one act here in viâ, or else in all acts in statu comprehensorum, by confining and determining the will ad hoc unum, he takes away that Liberty or power to sin, which was Natural to the Will before its said determi∣nation.

§. 3. This being said thus largely in Answer to his first Question, doth put his second out of all possible dispute. For it being once supposed and taken for granted by the Ad∣versary, that God by his power doth determin the will ad hoc; the Creature shall not have the least liberty to resist, be∣cause the Creature is not stronger than God. But withal it is as certain, that though God doth only efficaciously move the will by his Grace, (without interposing his irresistable power, by which he determins the will ad hoc,) yet there are some who, de facto, do not victeriously resist; and therefore grace irresistable, where ••fficacious and congruous will serve the turn, is not only a groundlesse, but a needless Inventi∣on. And if he useth the word [victoriously] as if he thought it a disparagement for the Grace of God to be so resisted, St. Paul will tell him of a quenching, as well as a grieving, and resisting the Spirit of God.g 1.263 Mr. Baxter also will tell him (whom he will own as a Brother) that the Reprobates in Hell had the means of escaping their going thither.

And that they had not been there, but that they forsook God, and took pains to be damned, resisted Grace, * conquered the Spi∣rit, did * overcome the * Power of Mercies, Iudgement, the Word it self, did silence Consci••nce, seek diligently for their own Perdition, and would not suffer themselves to be saved. He farther adds, that even they who are in Hell had Heaven purchased for them, but they rather made choice to buy the Flames of Hell so dearly, then to have Heaven on free cost.

Thus we see, there are some Presbyterians, who are sufficient∣ly convinced of such opinions and Doctrins, which by other Presbyterians are called Arminian.

§. 4. His third Question, like his second, is without all Question, and that which no Man can be concerned in, for it being supposed (as by him it is) that the will of the Crea∣ture is determin'd hic & nunc ad unum; it will presently fol∣low that it is not undetermined; which is the upshot of my Assailants in••erence. And it is as certain, as well as more to the purpose, and better sense, that God is able by his

grace, without interposing his determining power, to work in the Creature a will to good [faciendo ex nole nte volentem] and when the Creature is confirmedly willing, he will then most certainly, in respect of that change which is now wrought in him, and yet most willingly, as to its own manner of working, make choise of that good, &c. So that no kind of strength is in this part of his process, what was before matter of Question, remains so still, viz. whither in every Mans conversion God doth determin his will ad hoc, so as the Man shall not possibly be able to resist it, and what never was questioned, being granted, is the refuting of a Chimera, or the industrious doing of nothing. But what means the addition of these words to the former. [In the choise whereof, it is demonstratively convinced, that its feli∣city doth stand?] First, we know it is an assent of Faith, and not of knowledge, that our felicity doth stand in the choise of good; and Demonstration is scientifical, produceth know∣ledge, and assurance; but absolute knowledge and assurance are those perfections of the Saints, by which their Faith and their Hope are doneh 1.264 away. Scientia & Fides non possunt esse de eodem secundum idem. That of which the Saints in Heaven are much too perfect to have a Faith, is that of which the Saints on Earth are too imperfect to have a know∣ledge. Secondly, False Felicities many times are so far pre∣ferred before the true, that he who is strongly perswaded, and believes without doubting, that eternal felicity doth ••••nsist in due obedience to the Law of Christ, as directly lead∣ing to the joys of Heaven, doth yet frequently pursue his false Felioities on earth, and* 1.265 Medea-like, doth follow the things which he disalloweth. How else comes it to pass, that Men will preach against stealing, whilst they themselves com∣mit Sacriledge? or commend the suffering and receiving of wrong,k 1.266 whilst theyl 1.267 do wrong and defraud, and that their Brethren? Now upon all this it follows, that nothing is gotten by my Assailant towards his proof of the Certainty and Invincibleness of making that choice, from the Mans being convinced that his felicity consisteth in it. I might here examine, what he means by the word [Invincibly] and exa∣gitate

his use of the word [choise] whilst he is speaking of a will which he supposeth to be determin'd hi•• & nunc ad u∣num. But I will not insist upon each Infirmity which I espy. It is enough that I observe them, and can then speak of them at large, when he shall attempt me by his Reply. Ha∣ving observed the laying of his Grounds, I will now consider what he is pleased to lay on them.

E. R.

If this imply not a contradiction, (as I believe it will be difficult for him to prove, who shall undertake it, for why may not God determine the will, as easily as the will can determine it self?) then sure I am, that that* 1.268 Omnipotency which could say, let there be light, and there was light, can say, let there be a will unto conversion, and there shall be such a will; That Omni∣potency w••h could give a Creature a Being out of no∣thing, can by an Invincible perswasiō or traction (the radical indifferency of the will remaining still the same) suspend the actual praevalent reluctancy therof, & work it determinately unto such an action, as is ra∣tionally most convenient & 'behoofeful for a rational Appetite, as the will is, viz. to choose its own Blessed∣ness: for that is it which every Convert in his effe∣ctual vocation, by the power of Grace really doth.

T. P.

§. 5. IN this short passage there are two of his strong Ar∣guments. One in the Parenthesis, and another out of it, I will hasten to try the force of both. First he saith in the Parenthesis, that 'twill be difficult to prove that that im∣Plyes

a contradiction which was the subject of his first Que∣stion. To which I answer three things. 1. That which is but difficult may yet be done; and therefore it doth not advan∣tage, but rather prejudice his Cause, for seeming difficult to him, unless he could have made it seem more then difficult to me also. I fear not that which my Assailants call dif∣ficult, so long as I am not to encounter with Impossibilities. For if they are difficult indeed, it is but studying the harder to overcome them, and if they be but called Difficult, (as certainly this is) they are then too weak for any elaborate Resistance. But 2. What is difficult to one Man, is many times easie to another, and though I am but am 1.269 Novitius in these controversies, (as old Mr. Whitfield did very va∣liantly call me▪ when he gave an example to Mr. Barlee in what kind of Logick he was to deal) yet I have proved that to be easie, which is here believed to be difficult. For thirdly, I have shewed, (and I hope with perspicuity,) that to be determined by Gods power ad bonum hoc, doth imply and infer a disability to sin, in respect of this good to which the will is determined; and this doth grosly contra∣dict the wills retaining [in hoc] that liberity of Nature, which doth confessedly consist in its ability to sin; and cannot pos∣sibly be denyed in this state of Imperfection, unless it be by the Ranters, who corrupt themselves with the opinion that there is equal Necessity of all Events, as equally issuing from Gods absolute Decree. My Assailant speaks of Gods Omnipotency, which could and did say, let there be light, &c. to shew what he means by Gods power determining the will, which is in effect by making it no will, and then to call it a will is a contradiction. But for this I refer to what I have spoken so much at large in my second Section of this Chapter. I proceed to the reason which he alledgeth [why may not God determin the will, as well as the will determin it self?] to which I answer that he may when he pleaseth; but what of that? Doth it follow that he doth, because he can? God may, if he will, create more worlds; and I will ask my Assailant [why may he not?] But I will not argue from thence, that he therefore doth, because he may; yet let it be granted that

he doth too (as well in earth sometimes, as in Heaven al∣wayes,) that will be found to be gratis dictum, and will not bring the least advantage unto my Adversaries pretensions. For the Question is not, whether or no he may, or doth, but whether when he doth determine the will hîc & nunc; to this one good, he doth leave it in that act unto the liberty of its own Nature, that is, hic & nunc free to evill. This (I call him to witnesse) is the very Question to be resumed, if he desires not to pass over ab Hypothesi ad Thesin, and of this he speaks not a word. But this is the point to which our Attentions are to be held, whilst I give his Question in the Parenthesis (or his second Argument proposed by way of Question) a full and satisfactory Answer. For first it is evi∣dent, that mans determining his own will is very reconcilable with the retaining of its Nature; for 'tis an act of his liberty to choose the object of his option, and by actually choosing to determine his will, which as soon as he hath chosen, then as to that which he hath chosen he is not free; for freedom sup∣poseth him yet to choose; and when he hath determined his will ad hoc, he cannot in sensu composito, not have deter∣mined it, although in sensu diviso he could have not done it, before 'twas done. Thus we see in reason how Man may do it, and in every-dayes experience we find how he doth. But (secondly) when God determins him by his power, irresisti∣bly ad hoc, that is no more reconcilable with the leaving of him free or undetermined, then the Mans having actually de∣termined himself is reconcilable with the leaving himself free. He can no more do otherwise when Gods power hath deter∣mined him, then he can have chosen otherwise when he hath actually determined his will ad hoc. Behold this, Reader, in one example, or Illu••tration. A weak Man by his choise may move himself from one place to another; and a stronger Man than he is, may by his power do the same. He that moveth himself by choise doth not impeach his own liberty, because he choos••th to do it freely. But if the other Man move him by his greater strength and power to do it, he is so far forth the strong Mans Prisoner, and so receiveth some impeachment to his liberty, though he may possibly be

pleased with his confinement, as being tyed up in Golden bands. This I say not to argue, but to illustrate my former meaning, that the slowest Reader may apprehend it with greater ease, and expedition. Again, A Man determining himself to any one of two competitors, is thereby cleared to be free to choose the one, and refuse the other; and till he hath chosen one, doth not determin that freedom, which by actual choosing (we know) he doth. But when God by his power doth determin the will of Man to this or that very object, there is no resisting that power, and so no freedom to the Contrary. So far is the will from retaining any imaginable indifferency, as to that very Case of which we speak, though my Assailant is so* 1.270 for∣getful as to drop such words.

§. 6. Having shewed thus far, that this implies a contra∣diction, which he saith doth not, and withall uncovered his reason why, it is not needful to examine what he is pleased to conclude, upon his Hopes that it implies not a contra∣diction. I may well be allowed not to value the conclusion, when I have so largely disprov'd the premises. And yet, to shew what the Importance of a strong argument is, he concludes no more from what▪ I have disproved, than that when all comes to all he is fain to subscribe to my Opinion; viz. [That God may by the power of his Grace, suspend the actual praevalent reluctancy of the will, and work it determi∣nately to such an action, as is rationally most behoofeful for the will.] This is the opinion of all the world who do believe there is a God, and that he is Almighty, and may do what he will. This was my affirmation in my return to the third of his plures Interrogationes. Nor was it ever a Question betwixt any two Men, much less vvas it ours [whither God may by his power do what he pleaseth?] So that here is plain∣ly Ignoratio Ele••chi once more committed. I say therefore again, That God may by his power (if he please) deter∣mine

any mans Will unto Conversion, so as ••e••sl all not only infallibly▪ but also of necessity and irres••stibly be converted But the Question is, whether what he can do he alwayes doth, whensoever he gives suff••cient grace; and whether multitudes of men do not res••st that Grace, which was on God's part sufficiently and sincerely by him intended for their convers••on. Here I professedly maintain that man hath a power to resist that Grace, which was sufficient in it self, and designed by God to work upon him for conversion. But in this •• desire that none will purposely mistake me; for in saying what I have said, I do not either explicitely or im∣plici••ely deny, that God may (if he will) interpose his power, & actually and infallibly, & irresistibly convert him. Yet I find no Ground or Cause of thinking, that God ever did, or ever will thus convert any one single Person; and therefore I must not only think it, but proclaim it most unsafe and most unchristian to teach men to depend upon this work of his absolute power, and thereupon let slip those blessed and gra∣cious opportunities which by the grace of God may be em∣braced and made use of, and may c••st us dear, if they are not. ••or as God may do what he will with his own, and therefore give, when he will, irresistible Grace, or Grace (not irresistibly but yet) infallibly converting, and when∣soever he doth so, no man hath reason to complain of his superlative mercy; so it must also be granted by my Assai∣lant, that God may also, if he will, proceed no farther with his Creature, then to give them sufficient Grace, to every man a Talent to negotiate with, and to him more Ta∣lents who useth that Talent as he ought, and from him who useth it not, or costs it away, or refuseth to receive it, or most unprofitably layes it up in a Napkin, God may justly take away his Talent of Grace which he hath given, or withhold what he had offer'd and was refused; my very Adversaries must grant, that thus God may most justly do, & not interpose his irresistible power to determin the will of man, to make use of his Grace, or to convert him infallibly without those steps. So that if matters in dispute were to be carried by several May-Bees, I have gained what is sufficient by my opponents endeavours to make me loose.

§ 7. But I have very much more then a naked May-Be in the behalf of my Cause, although my Assailant hath no more for his, (nor doth so much as pretend to any more then a may be.) And He himself in time will clearly see it, if he will duly consider the famous* 1.271 Parable of the Talents wherein this matter is clearly handled, as well as the Ninth to the Romans, where it is not clear, and where the context doth manifest, that the Apostle there speaks of another thing. n 1.272 Talents are there given to every man according to his se∣veral Ability (Mat. 25. 15. some improved their Talents, (v. 16, 17.) But an idle servant hid his Talent in the Earth, (v. 18.) They were all called to a reckoning (v. 19.) And the conclusion is express, that unto every one that hath, (that is, maketh use of the Talent of Grace, which was freely gi∣ven him to trade withall, which cannot belong unto the acts of Gods power determining the will hic & nunc ad unum) to him more shall be given, and He shall have abundance: but from him who doth not thus husband his Talent, shall be taken away even that which he hath. He shall no longer have what he abuseth (v. 29.) From which way of dispensa∣tion, we learn what is, not only may be, nay what cer∣tainly must be when God hath absolutely decreed that so it shall be; not only what might be (abstracted from God's De∣cree of the contrary) without implying a contradiction. There are several Courses and oeconomies which to God are all possible; but here our Saviour doth teach us, which of all those courses God is pleased to choose in his proceedings and dealings with us. All that my Adversary alledgeth amounts only to this, that it is barely possible, or that it implyes not a contradiction, for God's power to interpose in the conver∣sion of a sinner (meaning his absolutes determining, irresisti∣ble power,) but hitherto he pretends not that thus it is, that God hath bound himself to this constant method, or indeed that he ever useth it at all. Whereas I have shewed on the other side, both that the other method is possible. and, far∣ther, that God is pleas'd to use it; and hath chosen to make it a principal part of the message, for which his Son was sent

unto the world, even to publish that method, that men might know it, comply with it, depend apon it, and not deceive and destroy themselves by giddily fancying any other. And for this I have produced a very evident passage of Scripture, and shall produce many more as occasion serves. I will not run out into greater length by insisting on his acknowledg∣ment of a natural indifferency in the will of man (for which I had Correptory Correption though I never spake of it.) Nor will I prosecute his use of the word Invincible, by asking whether he means irresistible, or not, of whicho 1.273 Paraeus did seem to be ashamed, in those papers which he sent unto the Synod at Dort, when he was threescore and ten years old. I will only leave one thing to my opponents consideration, to be compared by him with the present manner of his reaso∣ning. God may give us the ability to fast, without eating, as many dayes and nights, as Moses, or Elias. He may also, if he is pleased, make our victuals to encrease in the very eating, by such a power as he shew'd in the Widow's Cruse (1 King. 17. 14, 16.) He may feed us and cloath us, like the Birds and the Lillies, by the same omnipotency by which he said, Let there be light and there was light. He may convert us, as he did Paul, with equal power and ex∣pedition; or as the Thief upon the Cross when we have only time left to cry peccavi, to think a good thought, and to make a short Ejaculation, (though that either of these two was irresistibly converted, we have no reason to imagine) For God to do those greater things doth not imply a contradicti∣on, and therefore he may do them by that omnipotency, which could give the Creature a Being out of Nothing. but what of this? We cannot prove from hence, that these are the Courses which God doth ordinarily use, or that he useth them once in a thousand yeares; and if we should thus argue, we should but teach men to tempt their Maker, and to ruine themselves by their Security. It will be much more profitable to admonish the Reader in this place (I speak of the unlearned and unconsidering Rea∣der) of the several wayes of Gods working with his several Creatures in proportion to the Natures which he hath given

them. He worketh one way with Natural Agents, (as we proverbially call the irrational Creatures) but with vo∣luntary Agents he useth another way of working. We have an example of the former in that necessitating Omnipotence, whereby he sayd unto the Sun, stand still in Gibeon; we have examples of the later, in those compassionate wishings revealed to us in his word,q 1.274 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me and keep all my Com∣mandements alwaies, that it might be well with them, and with their Children for ever!r 1.275 O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end! These, and all other wayes, whereby God works upon the wills of Men, are such as are congruous and agreeable to the nature of a will, or rational Appetite; as by enlightning the Understanding, and by perswading the will, and by incli∣ning the affections, by strengthening the hopes, and the fears of the voluntary Agent, by the proposing of promi∣ses, and denouncing of Threats, by Exhortations, and De∣hortations, and all other such means as are congruous to the nature of rational Creatures; and for that very reason they cannot be irresistible, like those other operations whereby God doth necessitate his natural Agents. The whole may easily be discerned by all that shall read and consider, Ier. 5. 22. 23. Where Gods 1.276 complains of his Israel for not fearing Him; and for not trembling at his presence, who had placed the sand for the Bound of the Sea by a perpetual decree that it cannot pass it. To which absolute will of the Omni∣potent, the Sea is obedient of necessity; but his People (sayd God) hath at 1.277 revolting and a rebellious heart, they are re∣volted and gone. Which passage of Scripture doth plainly teach us, that the consideration of that power which God had shewed in his ruling the Sea, was sufficient to move his People Israel to fear and tremble at his presence; but it teach∣eth us also as plainly, that it is not the same way of work∣ing by which he ruleth the Sea, and by which he ruleth the wills of Men. He ruleth the Sea as the Sea, but Men as Men, and the wills of Men as the wills of Men. It was therefore a stronge Adventure in my Reverend Assailant, to infer and

argue from Gods Omnipotency, that he doth those things which are incongruous both to the Nature of his Creature, and to the rules of his working, which it pleased his Wisdom to set himself. And having said thus much by way of admo∣nition to the more unskilful, unwary Reader: I now pro∣ceed from the fourth Question of my Assailant (which con∣sisting fallaciously of three, hath occasioned this length,) unto the fifth general Question by him proposed.

CHAP. IX.

E. R.

Whether the Lord hath not been pleased so to reveal in the Scripture the doctrine of his Decrees touching his purpose, of glorifying himself in a way of mercy and justice, as that there shall be an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the Creature to stop at and to adore, that he will not have his councels fathomable by the shallow line of humane reason, but when he doth with his Creature as the Potter with his Clay, of the same common and equal Lump, choose one part unto honour, and leave another unto dishonour, his purpose be not, that we should acknowledge and adore his Soveraignty, and lay our hands on our mouth, as amazed at the un∣searchablenes of his Iudgements? now certainly in all this there is no blasphemy. God doth permit sin, and what ever he doth, he doth by the councel of his own will, therefore he did ab aeterno decree to permit it. For otherwise he could by cōfirming grace have hindred and prevented the committing of it, as well in all Angels, as in some; as well in Adam,

as in Angels, and that without any violence offered to their nature at all. Gen. 20. 5. Gen. 31. 7. 1 Cor. 10. 13. Neither can there be given any Cause out of God himself, and the Councel of his own will, leading and inducing him rather to per∣mit then hinder it. He did decree to permit it in order to his own Glory, which is the supreme end, and therefore by him absolutely willed, because the being thereof by his unsearchable wisedom and power was ordainable thereunto, He may out of that common & equal Mass, wherein he did decree to permit it, decree in some in whom he did per∣mit it, to pardon it, and on them to shew free mer∣cy, in others to punish it, and in them to shew due and deserved justice; the one having nothing to boast of, because the Grace which saves them, was God's, the other nothing to complain of, because the sin which ruines them is their own. He may by his huge discrimination of persons, who were in their lump and mass equal, and in themselves in∣discriminated, shew the absolute soveraignty which he hath over them, as the Potter over his clay. He may by his most sweet, and yet most powerful effi∣cacy, work the graces of faith, repentance, new obedience and persevera••ce in the wills and hearts of those, on whom he will shew mercy, giving them efficaciously both to will and to do of his own good pleasure, and leave others to their own Pride, and stubbornness, his Grace being his own to do what he will withall. And I say once again, in all this there is neither modest nor immodest blasphemy.

T. P.

§ 1. TO what he saith in the beginning of this long Question concrning God's Councels being secret and unfathomable, I have these thi••gs to return him. First, That the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is once mention'd Rom. 11. 33. doth not belong to this matter of election of persons absolute, or conditional; but to the depth of God's goodnesse, in pati∣ently bearing the contumacy, both of the Gentiles, and of the Iewes; to the depth of his wisedom, in making the desertion of the Iewes a means of calling in the Gentiles; to the depth of his knowledge, which found a way to work upon the obsti∣nate Iews, by those Jews very Envy and Emulation towards the Gentiles, &c. He would have found that these things had been alluded to in the Text, had he compared it with the Context, or consulted the Paraphrase of the most Reve∣rend Doctor Hammond; whose Volume of Annotations if he doth not admire and profit by, it is only because he doth not read them. Besides, it is to be wondred, how he could be so unmindful of the words immediately going be∣fore, [God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all, v. 32.] and In consideration of that rich mercy, the Apostle cryes out [O the Depth, &c. v. 33.] So that the purpose is very different for which the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used by S. Paul, and Dr. Reynolds. S. Paul alledging, that God may have mercy upon all, and D. Reynolds the contrary, that God may not have mercy upon upon all. But 2. If the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Apostle did belong to that business for which he brings it, why doth he himself search into those very myste∣ries, which he confesseth to be insearchable? God's secret purpo∣ses were not secret, much less insearchable; if a Mortal (such as my Assailant) could finde it out•• If I may not affirm

that Gods decrees are conditional, and respective of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be∣ing either in Christ by Faith, or out of Christ by infidelity; then my Assailant may not affirm that Gods Decrees are un∣conditional, and without respect of mens being, or not being in Christ. For if insearchable to me, it is insearchable to him, and if revealed in the Scriptures, it is not revealed to him alone. Nay, thirdly, rather less, then more, to the men of his* 1.278 party, who deny the Scriptures to be the revealed will of God, and say it is but called the will of God, and that improperly too, wherby they virtually confess, 〈…〉〈…〉 nothing of the will of God; but only what men* 1.279 ought or ought not to do, which they so distinguish from the signifi∣cation of Gods will, as to say, that what men ought to do is often contrary to the will of God; and what they ought not to do is many times according to Gods own will. This is such strange dogmatizng, that the Reader will be in danger to think I charge them falsely, if I do not carefully refer him to what Ip 1.280 have cited and proved against the Correptory Correptor. If my Reverend Assailant will endeavour to dis∣claim or disprove what I have urged, I am able, and ready, to make good my Accusation; but I have really a better opi∣nion of him, then to believe he will vindicate those ugly Doctrines. Fourthly, what ever is secret in the point of Election, wherein God may do what he will with his own, yet he hath clearly revealed himself in his word, as to the point of Reprobation or damnatiō or preterition (as they call it.) As for Reprobation or damnation, he hath sufficiently revealed, that he will never deal with man by rules of meer soveraignty, but of righteousness and Iustice; such as man himself is permitted to judge of, and is* 1.281 appealed to by God, whether or no it is not thus Then for the later, viz. Preterition, God hath revealed himself as plainly, that the Son shallq 1.282 not die for the iniquity of the Father; and that with the pretious blood of Christ, he hathr 1.283 bought every one who was lost in Adam. And not to insist in this place on the universality of Christs death with his sincere In∣tentions of extending the benefit of it to all who were inclu∣ded in Adams Loyn••, which doth utterly overthrow the

dream of absolute preterition, I refer to what I have spoken in 〈◊〉〈◊〉(f) defence of Gods Philanthropie. Chap. 1. § 2. p. 4, ••, 6 besides the other places pointed out in thes 1.284 Mar∣gin. That which is added by my Assailant concerning the Potter and his clay, doth prove nothing in the world, but that he misunderstands the ninth Chapter to the Romans; for the better interpreting of which I refer him to Castel lio and to Grotius, and more especially to Dr. Hammond his Annotati••ns. Or if either of those three takes him not off from the ordinary Presbyterian mistake, I shall be ready to deal with him when he shall think that fit to be the Apple of Contention.

§ 2. What he saith of Gods permitting sin, and his de∣creeing to permit it is only siding with my Doctrine, and saying the same which I saidt 1.285 before him; and so against me, neither strong nor weak•• argument can be deducible from thence; but against himself and his party in two respects for first his party are wont to say, that God doth tempt men unto sin (as Mr. Barlee) that he makes men Transgressors, (as Zuinglius that men do sin by Gods Impulse (as Mr. Calvin) that the will of God doth pass into the sin which is permitted as Dr. Twisse,) that God ordains men to sin quatenus sin (as Maccovius and Smoutius;) that he is the Cause of sin (as Piscator) the Author of sin (as Borrhaeus,) and six hundred things of this kinde which I will not weary my Reader with. All which though my Assailant hath done his endeavour to excuse in the former part of his Pre∣face, yet here he tacitly condemns them all, and very ortho∣doxly casts Anchor at Gods permission. Secondly, whilst he proves that God decreed ab aeterno to permit it, from his actu∣al permitting it in time, he justifies me, and condemns the Correptory Correptor as well as Mr. Whitfield, in as high a manner as can be wish't; for when I argued in my Notes from the executions of Gods decrees, as from the very best Topick whereby to demonstrate à posteriori the nature of the Decrees. of which they were the executions, the Vetulus Novitius in these controversies (to use his own words) being

not able to distinguish betwixt my Topick, and my Argu∣ment, supposed that I had not distinguished betwixt Gods Decree, and the execution of it, and thence complained from the Press, that I had jumbled these both together; and there∣upon Mr. B. gave me his Correptorie Correption; as if I were to be punished for their defects of Apprehension. But my Rd. Antagonist, who is exceedingly above those two Adventurers, doth here well argue from the execution to the decree, Thus, [God doth permit sin, and what ever he doth, he doth by the Councel of his own will, therefore he did ab aeter∣no decree to permit it.] Now if this way of arguing is sound and rational, (as certainly it is, and may be demonstrated to be) then my Reverend Antagonist must cease to be my Antagonist, from this time forwards, upon his own ground. And this I hope to evince by the following chain of proposi∣tions, whereof the one will be firmly link't within the other.

• 1 What God hath willed shall come to pass, shall come to pass as he hath will'd it, and no otherwise than as he he hath will'd it, (for his will of the circumstance is as truly His, as his will of the substance
  • from whence it follow's, That
• 2. What doth come to pass absolutely (as the Creation of the world, the mutability of man, the tending of heavy bodies downwards, and the like) he did eternally will should come to pass absolutely, and what doth come to pass conditionally he did eternally will should conditi∣onally come to pass. But all men confess and God's word tells us that
• 3. Man's eternal Reward or punishment doth come to pass upon condition of his obedience, or by reason of his Re∣bellion.
  • Therefore
• 4. Man's eternal reward or punishment were eternally wil∣led or decreed to come to pass in the very same manner in which they do come to pass, to wit, on condition or in respect of his obedience, or Rebellion.

If he will now assent to these propositions, we shall for e∣ver shake hands; but if he thinks there is a fallacy or falshood in them, I am desirous to know wherein: nay, I do hum∣bly exact it as a deed of charity, that he will communicate his discoveries, and s••ew where my Fallacies (if I have a∣ny) do lie concealed. I thus explain my propositions, Go'ds decrees are adequate to their events, and the effects of his decrees are exactly answerable to his decrees (as Face answers Face when a man looketh into a glass.) For whatsoever and howsoever he decreed to do before time, that thing and in that manner he doth in time. Again,a 1.286 whatsoever and how∣soever he doth in time, that thing and in that manner he decreed to do before time;b 1.287 but God in time doth cast men into Hell in regard of all their sins as well actuall as o∣riginal. c 1.288 Therefore he did decree, before time, to cast men into Hell in regard of all their sins as well actual as original These three last propositions are a plain and perfect Catego∣rical Syllogism. To which I hope I shall receive either a ge∣nerous Concession, or a perspicuous answer. And to pre∣ven all cavils which may arise from the distinction of Re∣probation positive, and negative, or Preterition and Damna∣tion, I think it fit to give notice, that in stead of [cast into Hell] I might have said as well, and as truly, and as con∣vincingly to my purpose, [reject, or reprobate, or forsake,] for none will deny, that God doth reject, and leave men, and cast them off, for their personal Infidelities, Apostacies, Rebellions, Murders, or whatever abominations they do actually commit without repentance and change of life; and what he doth do in time, he decreed that he would do from all Eternity, which is just as much, as I desire to have gran∣ted.

§ 3. Should I now give strength to my Assailant's main Argument to which himself hath given None, by supposing or granting, that God might justly have reprobated his Creatures meerly as lying in Massâ, or Adams Loyns, by not affording them an interest in the Death of Christ, with∣out any respect to actual sins, yet this would do him no

more service then if it were not granted him at all. Be∣cause when Christ is given for all that Masse, (as hath been proved in the first Section of this Chapter,) It is impos∣sible that God should frustrate and null the end of Christ's deaths by punishing any man eternally, under this second covenant of grace, meerly for the sin of Adam, without incurring that punishment by his rejection of Christ, or by actually sinning some other way. I have the charity to hope, that my Assailant retains not that unreasonable opi∣nion of God's casting into Hell those new born babes; whose souls he will acknowledge to be much whiter than his own. And yet his opinion of preterition, as an Act of meer sove∣raignty; and a respecting of persons, (which God* 1.289 dis∣claims) doth naturally lead to the opinion of the Damnati∣on of Infants; so as I wonder how any man can detest the one, and at the very same Instant embrace the other. Now though God doth disclaim that wicked proverb, of the chil∣drens teeth being set on edge,d 1.290 upon the Fathers eating sour Grapes, though God dothe 1.291 swear that he wills not the death of a sinner, (much less of the babe which never actual∣ly sinned) though he declares himself to have af 1.292 willing∣ness that all men should be saved, (who are as willing as he is & do not stand in their own light,) though there is no ground in Scripture for such an absolute preterition for which my ad∣versary alleageth his three remarkable Maybees, yet I never did say that there is Blasphemy in them. The propositions which I charged with so much guilt, were of a blacker com∣plexion. Here then the Reader may observe, a very strange Tergiversation in my Assailant; who wilfully lies under the blemish of Ignoratio Elenchi, rather then he will manage his undertaking. He undertook to prove it to be no blas∣phemy,

to say that men do sin by the Impulse of God,* 1.293 that God doth make men Transgressors, and that Adultery is the work of God the Author, mover and Impeller,

and the like: in stead of which he here saith, that God doth permit sin, and may do what he will with his own gifts, and is insearchable in his Councels, and the like: and when to these things he hath added three may be's, he

concludes that in all this, there is no blasphemy. So that here his Fancy is his opponent, and he only fighteth, as one thatg 1.294 beateth the Air. Yet there is one period in this paragraph, wherein if his meaning is, as his words do seem to import, I am unwilling to say how ill it is. His words are these [

He did decree to permit* 1.295 it in order to his own glory, which is the supreme end, and therefore by him abso∣lutely willed, because the being Thereof by his unsear∣chable wisdom and power was ordainable thereunto.]

if these words are sense, and proper English, without a parenthesis, or an hyperbaton, then the word [Thereof] must needs re∣late to Sin, which was said truly to be permitted, and not to Gods glory; because 'tis nonsense to say, That the Being of his glory is ordainable to his glory. Again [thereof] re∣lates to [absolute willed] as [because] to [Therefore.] And if so, then [absolutely willed] relates to Sin. And if that is his meaning, that when God decrees to permit sin, sin is absolutely willed by God, because in order to his glory (as God forbid it should be his meaning) then I say it is a Bla∣sphemy against the nature and word of God. For he is [Deus non volens Iniquitatem] a God that willeth not Ini∣quity Psal. 5. 4. And when he decrees to permit sin, it is only ex hypothesi and in foresight that men will voluntarily commit sin if they be not hindred by main force, or if the liberty of their wills to sin be not taken away, by their be∣ing determin'd, and confin'd▪ and necessitated to good. But because God decreed that man should be a free Agent, and therein differ, from a Beast, and that he should not be de∣termined to good alone, in his state of mutability. and there∣in differ from those in heaven who are in a state of confirma∣tion, he did therein decree not to hinder men from sinning by uncreating their natures; and not to hinder sin, is to permit or suffer it. I hope my Adversaries meaning is better then his expression of it, for it cannot be ordainable to God's gl••ry absolutely to will the being of sin, although it may be ordain∣able to his glory to permit or suffer the being of sin. But I hope he intended that the two middle clauses of this period should only stand as a parenthesis, which is the only way

of reconcilement that I am able to imagine. Yet from hence there ariseth a great Advantage to the Truth, however the Author of that period shall explain his meaning. For if he avow's it as his opinion, that sin is absolutely willed by God Almighty; He shall be forced to confess, that he himself makes God to be the Author of sin; and if he disavowes it, he must forsake his present judgment concerning absolute De∣crees, as I and others have done before him.

CHAP. X.

E. R.

1. Gods glory is dearer to him than all the things in the world besides are, or can be. 2. Every Attri∣bute of God is infinitely and absolutely glorious, and the glory of every one of them, infinitely deare unto him. 3. Whatever is infinitely and absolute∣ly glorious in God, he may by an absolute will and purpose decree to show forth the glory there∣of in his works, without fetching an Antecedent reason ab extra, from without himself, leading and inducing him to make such a Decree. 4. The subject on which God is absolutely pleased to manifest the glory of his mercy and justice as to mankind, is Massa perdita. 5. Out of this Masse of lost or lapsed mankind, he hath ex mero beneplacito, chosen some unto Glory and salvation, for the mani∣festation of his free and undeserved mercy, and passed by others, leaving them under deserved wrath for the manifestation of his justice, 6. That such and such particular persons out of the same equally

corrupted masse are chosen, and others are rejected, belongeth unto the deep and hidden counsel of God, whose judgments are unsearchable, and his wayes past finding out, to whose soveraignty it appertain∣eth to form out of the same Lump, one vessel unto Honour, and another unto dishonour, to shew mer∣cy on whom he will shew mercy, and to pass by whom he will pass by. 7. God doth so absolutely will and decree ab aeterno, the manifestation of the glory of his Attributes, in his works, as that withal he purposeth that the temporary execution of those eter∣nal and absolute Decrees shall finally be in mate∣riâ aptâ & dispositâ for such a manifestation. 8. All those intermediate dispositions between the decree and the execution thereof, whereby the sub∣ject is fitted for such manifestation of God's glory, if they be gracious, they are by God's eternal will, decreed to be wrought, and accordingly are in time effectually wrought by himself, and his grace, in and with the will of the Creature. If they be evil and sinfull, they are in his eternal purpose per∣mitted to be wrought, and are in time actually wrought by the deficient and corrupt will of the Creature, and being so wrought, are powerfully orde∣red by the wise and holy will of the Creator to his Glory.

T. P.

§ 1. STILL I finde it is worse and worse with him. For having got nothing at all by his chain of Que∣stions, he now tries what he can get by 8 propositions, which are in effect the same stuff, but dressed up in another fashion of Apparrel, to see if the Reader will like it better in this Garbe, His three first propositions may very easily be granted by all the world, but yet his Cause never the luck yer. The third and highest of the three being again but a May-be, how can it do him any pleasure; whilst the contrary may-be, as well as That? Himself will grant, that God may decree to fetch a reason [ab extra] from with∣out him, viz. from mens actual provocations, the sins most freely committed by them, in the punishment of which he may glorifie his justice, as well as by passing them by in the Loins of Adam. I demand of him and all his party. Is it not at least as just a thing, to decree the misery of the farr greatest part of mankinde for those personal Impieties which they do wilfully commit, as for the m••er sin of Adam, which was committed by Adam before his posterity had a Being, much less a Will, and a Personality? Here then are at least two equal Maybe's and I do him a favour, in supposing, my May-be no more then equal. But when we say what may be, we do not prove what is. That can only be defined by the revealed will of God, which tells us that Christ is the propitiation, not for our sins only (who hope we are of the Elect) but for the sins of the* 1.296 whole world, and so unavoidably for the whole massa corrupta, for all that were lapsed or lost in Adam. So as no man can be damned for Adam's sin only, without his own, but for adding his own to Adam's sin whereby he forfeiteth his Interest in Christ. But my Assailants unhappiness in his third Question is not yet at an end. For granting him his D••ctrine of Man in Massâ being the object of God's Decree

without any regard to his actual sins, we shall find him disputing against Himself. For doth not he by that do∣ctrine, suppose God to fetch a Reason of his Decrees ab extra, from without himself, whereby to glorifie his justice in the punishing of man? I say, was not Adam's sin, and the corrupted masse in his Loynes, every whit as extrin∣secal to the Essence of God, as the actual corruptions of Cain or Iudas? how then doth he dash one part of his arguings against another? If my Assailant is willing that God's De∣crees of Predestination should have no motive from without himself, he must destroy his fourth Thesis, and all that lean's on it; and in Reverence to his Third (if he desires to have it any more then a may be) he must presently set up for a Supralapsarian, and send a farewell to the Synod of Dort.

§. 2. His fourth position doth declare, that he is for the Sublapsarian way, notwithstanding what he had said but 2 lines going before. And here he shew's his Inconsistence with the greatest Pillars of his own Party, in his stating the object of Predestination, and affirming it to be Massa Perdi∣ta. For first, herein he sets himself against Beza, and all his followers, who are for Massa nondum condita. Next he disobligeth Franciscus Iunius, as able a Card as most are in the Pack, who is for Massa condita nec dum cor∣rupta, Thirdly, He is at variance with honest Piscator (as Mr. B. calls him) who is for no less then a Threefold Masse, 1 nondum condita, 2 condita duntaxat, 3 condita & corrupta. Fourthly, he affronteth his own Dr. Twisse, whom he com∣mended for his Acquaintance with the mind of God, and who although he prefers Piscators opinion before the rest, yet he condemns Piscators too; and sets up, in the room, who-can-tell-what? Fifthly, He opposeth the famous Mou∣lin of Sedan, who slits the Truth in the midst, and (as to this particular) hath one foot in the Consistorie, but ano∣ther in the Church. Touching the object of Election, hee holds indeed with the Calvinists; but touching the object of Reprobation, he runs full speed with the R••monstrants.

Sixthly, He differs from Mr. Calvin, as Mr. Calvin differs from himself, who although in the general for Massa Cor∣rupta, yet he is sometimes also for nondum condita. Se∣venthly, he despiseth his Reverend Friend Mr. Barlee, who professeth to be a good friend to both the upper and lower way, though Dr. Twisse hathh 1.297 discovered a very great Gulf fixt betwixt the one, and the other; and saith that they of the lower way, whilst they try to escape the darts of their Ene∣mies, are compell'd to fight under their Banner. Well there∣fore said Mr. Barlee, that he is for both, that is, for neither, because indeed he is for nothing unless for Correptory Cor∣rection. To satisfie my Reader for my being thus long, I ought to be a little longer, that I may tell him the pretty Iest of Dr. Twisse his arguing, against all his Friends and Admirers without exception; and though he builds upon a Fallacy, yet his Friends are so far from having seen where it lyes, that they have swallowed it down as a postulatum; and because they use it as a medium against the doctrine of the Remonstrants,* 1.298 Doctor Twisse hath ruin'd their Cause for ever.

If Reprobation presupposeth a Masse Corrupted, it must needs presuppose mankind created. But if the Creation was sooner in God's intention then Dam∣nation, then Damnation shall be sooner in Execution, then Creation. In the same manner; If God did sooner intend to permit Original sin then to damn, it would follow that man should be damn'd before Ori∣ginal sin is permitted to enter into the world (for what is first in Intention must be last in execution) all which things are so foolish,* 1.299 as not to enter into a man who is in his witts.

Here we see it is evident, that Dr. Twisse doth heap the greatest disgraces upon the Calvinistical opinion in the Sy∣nod at Dort, that can be possibly imagined. For he affirmeth it to infer the grossest absurdities in the world, as that men are damn'd in Hell before the world is created, and actually punished for sin before the entrance of sin into the world; things implying contradictions, and such as none but mad men can entertain, saith Dr. Twisse. Yet old Mr. Whitfield is so thankful, for having his Doctrine and his Person so im∣plicitly reproached by Dr. Twisse, that he swallowes his axiom as a wholsome Bit, and upon the strength of its nourish∣ment, he fights (in his first animadversion) against the man in the Moon.

§. 3. In the fifth position of my Rd. Assailant, I am glad to find him saying what God hath done ex mero beneplacito, no longer now what he may only. Only I wish he had gi∣ven some shew of reason and offered at least at some kind of proof, that I might have had an opportunity to answer. But since he hath crudely affirmed, what he supposeth to be true, I will patiently expect, untill his leisure will permit him to prove 3. things. 1. That God hath absolutely (not now that he may, but that he hath) without any fore-sight or consi∣deration how his talents will be used, chosen some to glory, & left the rest to inherit a Lake of Fire, which is unquenchable. 2. That his undeserved and free mercy cannot as well be ma∣nifested another way, to wit, in giving his free grace, and re∣warding with infinite unproportionable Ioyes; very weak and imperfect, very light & short obedience. 3ly, and especially, that he hath passed by others, and left them under deserved wrath, meerly considered in that state which the First man brought upon them, (when yet on the contrary Christ was given a propitiation for that whole Masse, as the Scripture very ex∣presly, and very frequently affirmeth.) And 'till these three things are proved, his sixth proposition will weigh as lightly as his fifth. Because it matters not to inquire, to what purposes and counsels the electing or rejecting men in Massâ doth belong, untill it is proved that there is any

such thing, as that in Massâ they are elected or rejected. Nor is the Question of his soveraignty, what he may, but of his decree, what he will; and what is revealed in his word con∣cerning what he will do, which, if it is not there revealed, we cannot know. Just as little material are his seventh and eighth propositions, which do wholly stand and subsist upon the Credit of the fifth; nor must the fifth be granted untill it is proved. Yet if care must be taken in the seventh, that this matter spoken of be finally apt and disposed for the mani∣festation of Gods Glory, and if 'tis confessed in the eighth, that this is actually wrought by the corrupt will of the Crea∣ture, then it seems the Creature as it lies in Massâ, without any acts of its own corrupt will, is not fit to be punished, or to manifest Gods Glory in being punished; and if so, then how could that be the subject (in the fourth proposition) on which God is absolutely pleased to manifest the glory of his Iustice? In plainer words, If untill the Creature hath actu∣ally sinned, it is not [materia apta & disposita] matter fitly disposed for the eternal vengeance of the Almighty, or for the manifesting his Glory in their eternal punishment, then e∣ven my Adversary must acknowledge (upon his own grounds) that there cannot in massâ be any absolute Preter∣ition. Thus his seventh proposition is the destruction of his fifth, and brings him over to my opinion, by irresistible consequence, even before he is aware; for he confesseth that the matter of Reprobation must be fitly disposed, and that it must be by the corrupt will of the Creature, but he knows that the Reprobates had no such thing as a will when they were in massâ, some thousands of years before they were born; and therefore they must be born, and have wills of their own, before their wills can be corrupted, or make them matter adapted for condemnation, and as they are in time, just so they were considered from all Eternity. But to conclude this Chapter. If all were granted which is desired in these eight propositions, yet would it not come home to Mr. Barlee's pretensions,k 1.300 who saith that God is not

a meer legislator of conditional Decrees, Laws, and Statutes, but An absolute Determiner in a soveraign way of the se∣veral

acts of Disobedience in relation to them; & though he saith also,

that God himself is without sin, and determins the several acts of obedience also, yet that doth not lessen, but rather aggravate his Blasphemy; because he makes no difference betwixt Gods determining the Acts of obedience and Disobedience, whilst he saith he is an Absolute [unconditio∣nal Determiner, of both the one, and the other. Whither Iames Nayler hath said any thing like it, I have not hi∣therto been inform'd; but They who adored him as a Christ did give the Magistrate this reason,l 1.301 That they were for∣ced thereunto by the power of the Lord; andm 1.302 commanded so of the Lord; and thereunton 1.303 moved of the Lord; and o 1.304 directed by the spirit of the Lord. And when the Presby∣terian Ministers of the Kirk of Scotland sent a Letter to the Lord Hamilton inviting Him to head their Forces (which without the least pretense of Authority of Parliament, the Preachers and They only had made to rise,) they told his Lordship in their Letter,p 1.305 that the people were animated by the word and motion of Gods Spirit to take up Arms; that is, to Rebel. Now by what principles and opinions they were betray'd to these things, I leave it to be Iudged by o∣ther men. It is in perfect hatred to blasphemous speeches a∣gainst God, but not for want of perfect charity to any mans person in the world, that I am forced to name the Authors of such Impiety, which if I should not do, I might be susp∣cted by a few to have born falsewitness. For the peace, and safety, of Church, and State, as well as for the Interest, and good of Souls, I amq 1.306 obliged and concerned to deliver mine own soul by giving fairq 1.307 warnings to other mens. And may it for ever be remembred by such as are of a party, which they are kinde to, and extreamly willing to excuse, That he whor 1.308 justifieth the wicked is an Abomination to the Lord, as well as He who condemneth the just. To shew my s 1.309 Innocence from so great a Transgression as the latter, I have not whisperd my Accusations in a Corner, but spoken them out unto the world; nor have I urged them from gid∣dy Rumors and Reports, (as one sort of men are wont to

do) but from the published writings which I accuse; as may be seen in the Catalogues which I have heretofore made.

CHAP. XI.

E. R.

So then, 1. God did, ab aeterno, most absolutely will and decree his own Glory, as the supream end of all▪ consulting therein the counsel of his own will, and not the wills of any of his Creatures. 2. In or∣der unto that supream end, he did freely elect some Angels, and some lapsed men unto blessedness; for he might do with his own gifts what he would him∣self. 3. In order to the same supream end, he did leave some Angels, and some lapsed men to them∣selves, to their own mutability and corruption, not being a debtor unto any of them. 4. But he did not ordain any Creature to absolute Damnation, but to damnation for sin, into which they fall (as they themselves know) by their own wills, and whereof they are themselves the alone Causes and Authors. Gods work about sin being only a wil∣ling permission, and a wise, powerful, and holy Gubernation, but no actual efficiency unto the formal being and obliquity thereof. I am sorry I am led on by mine own thoughts thus far into your proper work. But here I stop.

T. P.

§. 1. ONce more he begins with four Positions, trying whether this course will be more prosperous then the former. Sot 1.310 Dalilah cast about which way to binde Sampson, that his strength might depart from him. So when u 1.311 Balak was succesless upon the high places of Baal, he brought Balaam (to do his work) into the field of Zophim on the top of Pisgah;* 1.312 and when that also was in vain, He would trie another mountain, and therefore brought him to the Top of Peor; for peradventure (said he) it will please God that thou may'st curse me them from thence. But 'twas strange that Balak should imagin any vertue in the meer change of places, when the Cause of his war was still the same. And I cannot but wonder, that my Assailant should attaque me by several sets of Questions and Propositions, when he knows the matter is still the same. Mine Host in Livie did not amiss when he made such variety of unexpected Dishes, all of one and the same Porket, in entertainment of the Embassadors who came from Rome. But in the ma∣nagement of a controversie it cannot be so graceful, to say the same thing often in several shapes; yet as a token of my respect, I will proceed to say something to this last Qua∣ternio of Propositions.

§. 2. The first is granted by all the world, for no man li∣ving can be so mad, as to say, or think, that God consul∣ted the will of the Creature in decreeing his own Glory. The second is back't with a shew of Reason; and it runs in this Form, [He did, for he might;] but à potentiâ ad Actum non valet argumentum. God might have made us all, as he did Adam, out of the Earth, without the methods of generation, and Birth, but hence it follows not that he did. Nor was there need of any proof, (much less of that which was worse then none) for the confirming of an asser∣tion.

which Nothing in Christendome ever denyed, for all unanimously agree, that God did freely elect some Angels, and some men. If any quarrel with him for his first positi∣on, they must be a Sect of his own party (which I shewed be∣fore to be multisariously subdivided) to wit the supralapsa∣rians, who perhaps will require him to blot out the word Lapsed, although they need not to be so nice. For that the men who are elected, as sons of Adam, are lapsed too, Dr. Twisse himself could not deny. And the Remonstrants do all allow, that actual sins suppose a Lapse. Only my As∣sailant must here be minded, that by the word [freely] he must not mean [necessarily or unconditionally;] for if he does, there is not a Dictionary in the world will bear him out. Our Faith and Obedience do merit nothing, nor indeed are they ours but by God's free gift, nor do they bear any pro∣portion with an eternal weight of Bliss and Glory; so that the mercy of God is free though it exacts somewhat of us to make us capable of it. Which he that ventures to deny, must either deny that God exacts any Duties from his Elect, or that the Graces of God are free. If the former, he opens a Dore unto the Libertines; and if the latter, he ruins the Cause which he asserteth. He needed not here have mentioned Angels; as not belonging to the matter of which he treats (for they were never in Adams Loyns) And of them he must be told, (since he hath put them into his The∣sis) that God eternally foresaw that some of them would persevere, and not follow Lucifer in his voluntary de∣fection, and that for their voluntary Obedience he would reward them with Confirmation. (So we know he doth men, when he takes them up into their Mastersw 1.313 Ioy.) which if my Assailant will deny, I know not what should scare him from Embracing the way of the Supralapsarians. But come we from Angels to men, of whom in relation to this matter, the plain truth is briefly this. God was in Christx 1.314 reconciling the world unto himself, who from all eternity elected, in Christ, those that he saw would perse∣vere in the Faith of Christ (which Faith is not salvisick, unless ity 1.315 worketh by Love, all manner of duty which

God requires, in whomsoever he doth require it.) And all this he did freely, and justly might do; yet he did it not therefore, because he might, but because he chose it as most for his Glory to be done. And we know he did so, (not be∣cause we know he might, but) because he hath been pleased to assure us of it in his word.

§. 2. His third position, or proposition, he could not but know, would be denied, and yet his offer of proof is very feeble. He know's it is denied that God did leave some lapsed men to unavoidable Damnation, meerly as lying in Adams Loyns; which he cannot possibly be thought to have done, if he gave his own Son to be a Ransome and Sacrifice for Adam's sin, and a propitiation for all that were in his Loyns. Which this Reverend Author doth not once offer to deny throughout his whole Preface. And for his proof of the supposed Preterition, if it is any at all, it is but this, That God was not a debtor to any of them, who were thus left to Damnation in Adams Loins. Which at its utmost Improve∣ment hath but the force of another may-be. And is this a strong Argument [God did leave some lapsed men in massâ, because he might, without doing them any wrong?] How much more rationally may it be argued even the same irrational way (I mean by a may-be, à potentiâ ad actum,) God did not leave any by an absolute preterition in massâ, because he might give Christ for all that Masse, and might shew mercy to all then lying in Adams Loins, without doing wrong to any vessel of Election, whose Eye, ought not to be† 1.316 evil because God is good? Besides, it is a cold commendation of any tolerable Christian, to say he doth no wrong, and that the rule of his Actions is meer legality. God forbid that we should do whatsoever is barely and merely lawful, (for many things that are lawful, are not * 1.317 expedient) or content our selves with doing no more. A good man is desirous, not only to do no wrong to his Neighbour, but all the good that he is able. From whence we may argue â fortiori, That he who is kinde to the z 1.318 unthankful and to thez 1.319 evil, and commandeth us to be merciful asa 1.320 He is merciful, by lovingz 1.321 our Enemies,

as he did his, was more likely to shew mercy upon all that were in massâ, because he is kinde to his Creatures, and delighteth to forgive, and in the midst ofb 1.322 judgement re∣membreth mercy, then to leave them in Adams loyns under a desperate impossibility of being saved, or of having any In∣terest in the Saviour of thec 1.323 world, and all because he is no mans Debtor. The Psalmid saith plainly, That the* 1.324 mercy of God is over* 1.325 all his works. He saith not Iustice, but Mercy, which importeth much more then the doing no wrong. Nor doth He say that God's Mercy is over some of his works, but over all without exception. Which how could David affirm with Truth, if the far greatest part of mankinde, (the very noblest of all his works under the Ca∣nopy of Heaven) had been decreed to infinite and endless Torments, without the least respect or consideration, of any one the least sin committed actually by any one of them? Suppose it were Iustice to damn an Infant of a day old to all eternity meerly as descending from him, who descended from him, who descended from him, who (after a succession of num∣berless Generations) descended from him, who desceuded from Adam, yet where were the Mercy to that poor Infant? My Assailant in this place must either contradict David, by de∣nying that Gods Mercy is over all his works, or say with Dr. Twisse, that it is better to be miserable for ever, than not to be; and so a comparative Mercy to that Infant, not to annihilate him, but to allow him the Dignity of a Creature, and an Immortality in Hell, where is weeping, and wailing, and guashing of Teeth, where the worm dieth not, and where the fire is not quenched. But I will summ up my An∣sweh to his third position, in these few words. That God is merciful aboved 1.326 all that wee can to ask or think, and may give, as well as not give, what he owes us not. Other∣wise I am sure it could not be free grace. And that he real∣ly doth, what he thus may, He tells us as often as he saith, that he giveth Christ to dye for all; in giving whom, he givethe 1.327 all things, which are sufficient, and necessary to mans salvation. And though of the all that are called and cal∣led seriously) butf 1.328 few are chosen, yet it is not for want of a

serious call on God's part, but because all that are called do notg 1.329 answer; or if they answer, they do noth 1.330 come; or if they come, they do notk 1.331 stay with him; they wilfully l 1.332 reject the counsel of God against themselves. And so have received the grace of God* 1.333 in vain.

§. 3. The Fourth proposition in this Section being wholly the same with the seventh and eighth of the former Section may be sent thither for its Answer, as having there suffici∣ently been spoken to, yet here my Assailant is to be thank't for saying so plainly, and expresly, [That men do fall into Damnation, as they themselves know, by their own wills, and whereof themselves are the alone Causes and Authors] For if this is heartily acknowledged (as here it is very plainly) Then 1. Farewell to Austin's rigid sentence pronounced upon un∣baptized Infants; for the Infants fall not by their own wills, or against the light of their understandings, they having no use of either faculty. 2. Farewell all consideration of Adams: sin in the Damnation of any Creature; for they that are dam∣ned (saith my Assailant) are the alone Causes and Authors of their Damnation; and if so, then was Adam no part of the Cause or Author. If I had said thus much, how many times had I been called a Semipelagian? and of what Correptory Correction had I been thought worthy? But now 3. Fare∣well to all that is said by Mr. Barlee against the second Chap∣ter of my Notes. For I had said only that man is the sole efficient Cause, and explain'd my self sufficiently by saying that Satan and the Protoplast were Promoters of my Guilt (p. 6.) But my Assailant saith farther, that mans own will is the alone Cause, aud the alone Author of his Sin and Dam∣nation. Which gives me occasion to admire, how M. Barlee could read this passage in his worthiest Friend, and raile so vehemently against it, as to say itm 1.334 fights against God, against Scripture, against all Authority, antient, and later?] Again I admire, how D. Reynolds could read all that bit∣terness of his Friend against this part of his own Epistle, and yet retain this proposition which is there so rai'ld at; yea and how he could commend his Reviler's work for an Elaborate

and learned Thing. Nor is the wonder lessened, in that the ill language of all those pages is directed to me by name, and not to D. Reynolds, since the Doctrine against which the ill language is levell'd, is delivered by D. Reynolds, as well as by me, nay, by D. Reynolds after me, nay, by D. Reynolds in defense of me even in that Epistle▪ which was intended against me in partiality to Mr. Barlee, nay, by D. Reynolds more obnoxiously and more unwarily then by me, nay, more like Massilian and Pelagian by D. Reynolds then by me. Let both our words be considered, and I do seriously believe, that he himself will say as much.

§. 4. What is added in the position concerning God's Permission and gubernation &c. is gratis dictum, as to me, and cannot with any the least colour be fitly aimed against my words, who said as much in my Notes (§. 12.) But only against his and my Correptory Corrector, who besides per∣mission and Gubernation, disposing, and ordering, is for De∣termination, and stirring up, as a Man puts spurs to a Dull Iade, (it is his own simile.) So that if my Rd. Assailant doth here mean no more then he speaks, not conceiving that God's will of permitting sin is efficacious, nor that he doth impel men to any thing that is unlawful, nor that he did Decree Adam to contract an 1.335 vitiosity by his Fall, (as Dr. Twisse speaks.) then the things which I accused as blas∣phemous may still be blasphemous by his free leave; and I shall once more thank him for having thus joyned with me against the Correptory Corrector. And since he professeth to be sorry for having been led so far in another mans proper work, I will have so fair an opinion of him as to believe, that from this time forward, he will express his sorrow by his Amendment.

CHAP. XII.

E. R.

I was glad to see two orthodox and sound Axi∣oms, stand before the book of your Author as the Basis of his Superstructure. Two men of quite different judgments in these very Arguments I find to have done so before. The one Cassianus the Col∣lator,* 1.336 of whom Prosper hath these words, Catholi∣carum tibi aurium judicia conciliare voluisti, quibus de praemissae Professionis fronte securis, facile sequentia irreperent, si prima placuissent. Which words of his bring into my mind a saying of the Historian,* 1.337 Fraus fidem in parvis sibi prae∣struit, ut cùm operae pretium sit, cum magnâ mercede fallat; and the censure of Austin upon Pelagius, Gratiae vocabulo frangit Invidiam, & offensionem declinat.* 1.338 The other the famous Arch-Bishop Bradwardine (whom learned and good men will honour, notwithstanding the hard cen∣sure passed by Hugo Grotius upon him) who pre∣miseth two Hypotheses as the ground of that pro∣found work of his, De Causâ Dei. I will have so fair and just an opinion of your Author, as to believe that he did this in Candor and Integrity, follow∣ing therein rather the learned example of Bradwar∣din, then (if Prosper's Censure may be taken) the Artifice and cunning of Cassianus; yet because this is a course, which may by the Credit of true

Principles, draw the less cautelous and circumspect Readers, to consent to deductions not naturally consequent upon them; it is requisite, as for wri∣ters, as Pliny adviseth, Saepius respicere Titu∣lum, so for Readers to follow the Apostles Counsel, to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.

T. P.

§. 1. THis is somewhat a strange Paragraph in several respects. For first 'tis apparently unkinde, be∣cause although he professeth that I had two great patterns for what I did, whereof one was most excellent in his own opinion; nay, though he professeth to have so just an opinion of me, as to believe I followed Bradwardin rather then Cassianus, and that I did what I did in Candor and integrity, he did yet make choise to begin his Descants upon the other; not insisting on the good mea••ing of Arch-Bishop Bradwar∣din, but on the fraud & cunning of the Presbyter Cassianus. Yet secondly, he makes me some part of requital by confes∣sing my two principles to be a couple of orthodox and sound Axioms, and that they were the Basis of my superstru∣cture. Now he cannot but confess, that where the deducti∣ons are duly made, nothing but truth can be inferred from truth: such goodo 1.339 Trees, as two orthodox and sound Axi∣oms, cannot bring forth such corrupt fruit, as my Notes were accused of by the Correptorie Corrector. Had not my De∣ductions been naturally consequent upon my grounds, (as here it is hinted, and meerly hinted, but no where held forth, that I can find,) no doubt but some of the grieved party would have endeavoured at least to find it out. And had they found any such thing, no doubt but I should have heard on't with both my Ears. They cannot say that they were not at leisure; for the ilness of a deduction might have been shewed in few lines, and they had leisure in abundance

to amuse the Reader with other things, which (in their own confession) must needs have been wholly impertinent, if my deductions were legal from such unquestionable grounds. And they tacitly confess that my Deductions were legal, by not attempting to shew me their illegality.

§. 2. My Reverend Assailant thinks I followed the ex∣ample of learned Bradwardin, in my choice of those grounds: but Mr. B. is peremptory, that Dr. Iackson was my Example. Why could they not have thought, that the Reverend Bishop Davenant might be the man, who hath the* 1.340 substance of my two grounds in his Epistle to Du∣raeus? Why not St. Iames? Chap. 1. 13, 14, 15, 17. Ra∣ther why not every man, or no man at all? For is there any thing more obvious in the very writings of the Heathen, or in the Hearts and Mouths of all who are not quite inhu∣mane, then that all our good things are from the Fountain of goodness, that is, from God, and all our evils from their Fountain too, that is, our own corrupt wills consenting to the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the Devil? These are such known and vulgar Truths, that they might have been expected from any A. B. C. darian, who is but a little catechized in the Elements of Religion, without re∣course to a Bradwardin, and then perhaps much less to a Dr. Iackson. That Cassianus did use that Method, as well as Bradwardin, is as much to Bradwardin's prejudice, as it can be to mine; although it ought not to be to either. For Cassianus was a learned and pious man; and so commended even by Prosper who writ against him, and who calls him somewhere Virum divinum; though I can now as little finde out the place where, as I can finde out that speech in his 14th. Chapter, to which by the Margin of my Assailant I am directed. The worst that can be said of Cassianus, is, that being a Semipelagian he erred on the right hand; which however to be misliked, is yet exceedingly preferrable to Semimanicheisme, which will easily be proved to be an Er∣ror on the left. Prosperp 1.341 confesseth of the Semipelagians, that they were eminent, and godly, and learned men, and

such with whom he was not able to compare, either for strength of Argument, or unblamableness of life. He far∣ther q 1.342 confessed to the same Austin, to whom he confes∣sed all the rest, that their Reasonings were such, as he was not able to answer, upon which he desired that Fathers help. r 1.343 St. Hilarie also told Austin, that the Massilians in France did hold no more concerning grace, then they quo∣ted Him for, as well as other Catholick Fathers; and Him they quoted for what he had written in his dispute against Porphyrie; wherein he spake as if he had spoken out of the Semipelagian's mouth, when indeed the Semipelagians did speak expresly out of his. And because my Reverend Assailant hath noted Austins censure upon Pelagius, I will also note how much Pelagius was reverenced by the very same Austin at other times; not because I am concerned in the credit of Pelagius or Cassianus, any more then any man who loves to give his very enemies their due, but be∣cause I would shew how little of argument there is in the censures of Prosper and of Austin, produced here by my Assailant in this part of his Epistle. First, fors 1.344 Pelagius himself, we have Austin speaking so highly of him, that he professeth not to believe, that so excellent a christian as Pela∣gius should assent to those Errors of which he was reported to have been guilty. And then for the Sect of thet 1.345 Pelagi∣ans in general, St. Austin hath liberally declared, that though they disputed against that which he asserted, yet he could not but acknowledge that they were men of good life, and laudable for their manners, and such as did not scruple to obey the very strictest of Christs commands, even by selling all they had and giving it to the poor; such were the Pelagians, and such was Pelagius, if we believe that Austin who was the greatest Enemy to him, and Them, and sure an Enemie's

commendation is not likely to be untrue. If the greatest ha∣ters of the Pelagians Doctrins had not been the greatest Ha∣ters of their example, [selling all, and giving to the poor,] it had been better then now it is, with the men who are at Enmi••y with each extream.

CHAP. XIII.

E. R.

I observe in your Author, much credit given to a Paper published under the name of Bishop An∣drews: If Controversies were to borrow their cre∣dit from the Names of men, you could easily oppose the great Bishop of Hippo, and a cloud of many o∣ther learned men, unto that great Name. But I know not whether the Ipse dixit of an Anonymous publisher, be attestation enough to prove the Au∣thenticalness of that Paper. Dr. Sanderson, a learned writer, who once drew the diverse opinions touching these controversies into Tables, speaketh of Dr. Overal's judgement, but maketh no mention of this. And the two Prelates, unto whom the pub∣lication of his Opuscula, was by special order refer∣red, do not give any account of this paper to the world, but (that which seems to induce the contra∣ry) they diligently satisfie the Reader, Cur haec & non alia (speaking of the things by them published) sibi ad scribendum delegerit. Therefore it is probable, that either they owned not this as his, or willingly suppressed it; for something they did sup∣press, as they intimate in these words, illud qui∣dem

nobis curae huit, ne quicquam prodiret, cujus occasione sancti manes queri jure pos∣sent famae suae apud Posteros male consul∣tum à nobis esse. Therefore till I come to have a better assurance of it, then the Testimony of the two letters, F. G. and the company of Fur prae∣destinatus. I shall take the liberty of an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 this particular.

T. P.

§. 1. I Do willingly profess to be a great Admirer of Bi∣shop Andrews, not only as Master of 15. Langua∣ges, an irresistible Disputant against our Churches Ene∣mies of each extream, a most unimitable Preacher, a Bar to sacriledge and schisme, a very* 1.346 Pelagian in point of charity, (though not of Doctrine) a Conservator of Disci∣pline, a Patron to publick peace, (and a good friend to Gro∣tius,) but as a vindicator of God's Essence, and Attributes, from all that tendeth to his dishonour. And were there no one man, besides the renowned Bishop Andrews, to be al∣leaged against the fancy of irrespective decrees, and the other fictions which issue thence, he would exceedingly outweigh whatsoever stands in the contrary scale. To whom it was not fairly done to oppose the Bishop of Hippo, because the Bishop of Hippo doth speak as much for the Doctrines of Bishop An∣drews as he can be pretended to speak against them. And if he is found to speak both, that is, For and against, it is his ownt 1.347 desire that he may not be heeded: for having found by sad experience that he was subject to great mistakes, he desired the Readers of his works to use their liberty of

rejecting what they should finde to be amiss, and also pro∣fessed not to take it as any dishonour or disrespect to either his quality, or his learning; of which as I have given suffici∣ent proofs in other places, so now in my margin, I adde another. I have two Reasons to alledge why the judge∣ment of Bishop Andrews, the great Bishop of Winchester, is (in this particular at least which lies before us, not only as much, but perhaps) much more to be esteemed, then the judgement of Austin the great Bishop of Hippo. 1. Au∣stin was actually betrayed into greater Errors, then can be pretended to the prejudice of the other. For not to speak of his praying to Saints, and his praying for the dead, of which he is accused by Mr. Rivet, the Presbyterian, not only as of an Error, but as of a very great crime; nor to speak of his many Massilian Doctrines which St. Hilarie himself alleag∣ed to him very frankly out of several of his writings; what u 1.348 grosser mistake could there be, then even that which he discovered in his Dispute against the Pelagians, when it most concerned him to have been wary? I mean his Error of be∣lief, that no Infant could be saved without the receiving of the Communion, as well as the Sacrament of Baptisme, and his wresting of that Text Iohn 6. 53. to authorize so great an Error, and (which is most to be admired) his great w 1.349 Triumphs thereupon, as if his argument from thence were not possibly to be answered. 2. Where Austin diffe∣red from Bishop Andrews touching the points now contro∣verted (if yet he must be said sometimes to differ) he also differed from all his own Teachers, the Fathers of the Church who went before him, for four Centuries after Christ; who did unanimously hold, that the Decree of Election (much more of Reprobation) is respective and conditional, and that not only of Faith, but of perseverance unto the end too; which is confessedx 1.350 by Prosper, and byy 1.351 Austin himself ap∣proved of.

§. 2. To the Arguments which he useth against the An∣thenticalness of that Piece which I delighted to make use of in my Notes on God's Decrees, I have several things to re∣turn him by way of Answer. 1. Dr. Sandersons making no mention of it is but a negative Argument, and therefore signifies very little to an intelligent Reader. 2. Nor can he possibly be ignorant, that Dr. Sanderson's Tables were quite finished before this piece of B. Andrews was sent forth into the light. But how can any man expect, that he should mention a writing, which he had not then the opportunity of seeing? Or if he had, could he be thought to mention All he ever saw? He had reason to mention the famous Opinion of Bp. Overal, because it had something peculiar which made it famous; and if he thought he had not the same reasons to mention that of Bp. Andrews, how can He or I help it? 3. There was something else which the two Prelates did very willingly suppress, as his pattern of Cate∣chistical Doctrine, which yet my Rd. Assailant will not de∣ny to have been his, because it was not publisht by special order. But 4. There was some reason for the suppression of this, as well as that. Not because this was the issue of his Youth, as well as that, (for this he did in his riper years) but because they published his Opuscula much about that Time, when the publick Discussion of these Points were in∣terdicted by special order, and because this Piece was not so polished by its Author, as the other things in that Volume, which they committed to the Press. 5. Nor ought it more to be censured for being found in the Company of Fur Praedesti∣natus, then Fur Predestinatus ought to be censur'd for being the Title of a Book, or for being found in the company of the Articuli Lambethani. They say that Fur Praedestinatus is an ingenious Dialogue, which hath nothing of ill in it, except the Doctrines of those Men who help't the Thief to presumpti∣on, in lieu of Faith. And those are there mention'd for righteous ends; viz. by way of prevention to one sort of Readers, and by way of Remedy to another: that some may be afraid of entertaining such Doctrines, and that others

may be ashamed of having taught them. 6. As it hath hitherto appeared, that there is not any force in any one of those reasons, which would not have men believe that that small piece is Bp. Andrews's, so there are reasons for the contrary of force sufficient. For 1. The language and the frame, and the inward spirit of the thing, do partly tell us that it is His, who may be guest at by his finger, as well as Hercules by his Foot. 2. Part of it is discernable even in some of those Sermons, whose publication was referred to the Bishops of London, and of Ely, except that the one hath it in Latin, as the other in English. 3. The Publisher of it, F. G. (if I rightly guess at him) is both a learned and pi∣ous man, whose Integrity would not suffer him to put a deceipt upon the Reader, especially in a matter where there could not accrue to him the least advantage or convenience. For 7. That that inestimable Bp. was, (in his most ma∣ture and ripest years) very severe to those Doctrines which are commonly called Calvinistical, is a thing so known, that I cannot think it will be denied. Nulli nota magis domus est sua.—His solemn Sermons at the Court do often declare him to be that, which the Ignorant and the Passio∣nate will call Arminian Of which I do not torment my Reader with Examples, because I imagin, there cannot be the least need. But if my Rd. Assailant will have me, I will do it as soon as I know his Pleasure. At present I ha∣sten to his Conclusion.

CHAP. XIIII.

E. R.

I now conclude with answering your desire, which was, that upon reading your Book, I would give you my opinion of it. I have read it so well as

I could, a Copie not in all places alike plainly tran∣scribed. And truly, so far as my weakness is able to judge, for the Theological and Argumentative parts of it, it is so solid and substantial, as that I as∣sure my self, it will be very acceptable to many learned men, and very useful to the Church of God. You have therein given a good account to the world, that you did converse with that second Brad∣wardine, D. Twisse unto very good purpose. I heartily wish, that there may be no further reciprocation of the Law of contention be∣tween you, but that Truth may so prevail, as that you may become both one, both in opinion and Af∣fection. It will be a happy time with the Church of God, when swords shall be beaten into Plowshares, & spears into pruning hooks, when the earth shall be so filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as that all polemical writing shall be out of Date; when the Lord shall be one, and his name one, and we shall all serve him with one shoulder: Vnto this let all our writings tend, for this let all our pray∣ers contend. I commend your person & labours unto God's Blessing, and remain,

Your most loving Friend and Fellow-Labourer, ED: REYNOLDS.

T. P.

§. 1. HERE is a palpable confession, that the onely thing which was desired, is the last and least thing by him perform'd. Mr. Barlee courted his opinion concerning his Correptory Correction, and in the room of that, he hath told him his opinion of other things. I did never desire him to give me his opinion upon the reading of my Notes, nor did I expect that he should read them, much less did I desire him to declare his opinion to all the world, much less to declare it as much as might be to my discredit, much less to the discredit of Bp. Andrews, and the Doctrines by Him espoused; yet he hath turned over his Books, and made a muster of Citations, and spent almost his whole Pre∣face in that which did not belong unto him, nor was at all desired of him, either by me, or my angry Neighbour. Which why should he do, if he had not a willingnefs to own his Cause, to gratifie his Party, to abett his Fellow Labourer, to shew his strength, and to challenge me to an Encounter? I have answered his Challenge so much the rather, because I think him one of the ablest of those that erre on that side, and in the conversion or confutation of whom, the greatest good is to be done to them that read us; I had also more respect for a person of his Fame, then to affront him with a contemptuous silence; and a greater care of his Ortho∣doxie, ••••en to suffer him to live in such a dangerous mistake, as to believe his Epistle unanswerable in case it were unan∣swered. For as soon as he had wished, and wished heartily, that there might be no further reciprocation of the law of con∣tention, he immediately added, [but that truth might so pre∣vail &c.] Upon which I considered within my self, that if I had not made him some return to his Assault, he might have imagin'd, that Truth had been on his side, and have ascribed both the patience, and the modesty of my silence, un∣to the prevalence of that which he is pleased to call Truth.

Let this suffice for his confessed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

§. 2. Secondly, He next goes on to encourage his Fellow-Labourer with some applause and commendation, which his Fellow-Labourer had earned of him by quoting a passage of his Sermon preached before the Lord Maior,* 1.352 taking that occasion to call him the Eminent and sweet Dr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. First, he commends the Theological and argumenta∣tive parts of his Book, (which he did well to distinguish from the scurrilous and Invective,) as very acceptable to ma∣ny learned men, and very useful to the Church of God. How directly contrary this is to the real merit of the thing, I have partly shewed already, and can do in greater abun∣dance when my Rd. Assailant shall call me to it. If to teach a wicked world, that God doth tempt men unto sin, that he praedestins, and stirrs them up to that which is unlawful, that his will and Decree of mens sins is efficacious and absolute, if not a few, but a multitude of such like Doctrines, (which have made so many Ranters and Libertines in Christendom, to the great scandal of the heathen and the dishonour of Chri∣stianity) is acceptable to the learned, or useful to the Church, then the Correptory Corrector hath highly deserved his com∣mendations. And let that suffice for a specimen of his Theological performances, which if I listed to pursue in all the particulars that I have noted, they would make a new Volume with too much ease. Of his argumentative faculty (which is the second thing commended) I will also give no more then one or two Tasts. It being a part of his The∣ologie, that though a Saint may be guilty both of ••urder and Adultery, with a complication of other sins, and conti∣nue in them for some time without repentance, yet that Saint cannot be possibly (no, not at that very time) in a state of Damnation, he seeks an argument to prove it from the Case of* 1.353 David, who thoughb 1.354 deliberately guilty of A∣dultery, and with the wife of Vriah. one of the loyallest of all his subjects, and addedc 1.355 drunkenness to thirst, and though when that would not take, he endeavoured to conceal it byd 1.356 wilful murder, and by the murder of

most excellent Vriah, to whom he was very much obliged, and whom he had wronged too much already, though he continued in these sins without remorse, adding a deep e 1.357 Dissimulation and Hypocrisie, and instead of repenting, took possessionf 1.358 of Bathshebah, (as Ahab did of Naboths Vineyard,) never crying peccavi tillg 1.359 after the message of Nathan, yet he was not all this while in a state of Damnati∣on, saith* 1.360 Mr. Barlee; who farther tells us, that David was not faln from the state of salvation, but from the joy of it; and that he had not, even then, lost the holy Spirit of God. But because all this is but the beg∣ging of his Question, he endeavours to prove it by several Arguments; first from the suffrage of Bertius, that very same Ber∣tius whom he calls Apostate, and who was called a Blasphemer by learned King Iames (as my Assailant saith.) And though he doth noth 1.361 name the place where Ber∣tius is of his judgment in this particular, yet that is his first proof, the Concession of Bertius. Secondly, he adds his misapprehension and strange abuse of that Text of Scripture Psal. 51. 11, which, every childe knows, was penn'd by Da∣vid after the time of his Repentance. Thirdly, he adds, that if this had not been true (which was said by him and Bertius) David after his fall must have been circumcised a∣gain, and (to give the Anabaptists as much advantage as he is able) he adds to that also, that all Christians at any time falling into enormous sins, must be baptized again. Fourthly, he argues, that† 1.362 Drunken Dick Tompson did also maintain a falling damnably from Grace, meaning a Total, though not a final Fall, whereas he and his party do not believe either of them; but only they say (putting it off with that Trick) that whensoever any man falls into any sin, he falls damnably, that is, so as to deserve Damnation, which is the same that

he saith of all the whole Masse in Adam's Loynes. Now from the Doctrine of Mr. B. thus argued, they that are so shallow may make a very sad use. For having first swallow∣ed it down, as an unquestionable thing, that they are vessels of a most absolute unconditional Election, and that they can∣not fall totally, much less finally from Grace, in so much that although they commit Adultery or Murder, or what∣soever sins besides, and live indulgently in them for no small time, as David did, without Repentance, yet they have not † 1.363 lost the Holy Ghost, nor can be possibly in a state of Damnation, they will imme∣diately conclude, that all the sins they can commit are not able to do them any considerable discourtesie; they may make them the sadder, but not the worse; some∣what lesse cheerful, but not lesse safe; they can fall no otherwise then David did, that is (saith their Teacher Mr. Barlee) k 1.364 not from the state of salvation, but only from the joy of it, and therefore they need not bek 1.365 rebaptized. And if they can but sin merrily, as not discerning the guilt, or not fearing the danger, they shall not fall so much as from the Ioy of their salvation, Now, Reader, judge by this Taste, of this writers Theological, argumentative parts, and how† 1.366 useful they are to the Church of God. I will give another Taste of him whilest it is now under my eye. Because I said in my Notes, that none were Elected unto Blisse under any other notion then that of being foreseen from all eternity to be found to be in Christ, and persevering in Christ unto the end, Mr. Barlee affirmeth me to have said, That no man is elected* 1.367 until he hath persevered in faith and repentance, which cannot be till he is dead. As if when I spake of God's Decree, which I there proved to be respective, and expresly distin∣guish't it from its execution, I could have placed the Decree after the time of its execution. But He having had so little Grace as to invent such a Calumny, had withall so little wit as to cite my 69 page, as the place where he pretends that I

had spoken those words; that so every Reader who will but consult the place cited, might stand amazed at the strangenesse of that invention. Nor can he and Mr. Whit∣field pretend to an Ignorance in their excuse, unless by con∣fessing that they could not apprehend, how God should eternally foresee as well the meanes, as the end; as well the Sin, as the Damnation; as well the Faith and Perseverance, as the life after death. And this may suffice for a second Taste of Mr. B's Argumentations, and of their usefulness to the Church of God.

§ 3. He is next commended by his Encomiast, for having conversed with Dr. Twisse, that second Bradwardine, unto very good purpose. Which is as much as to say, that he hath shewed himself able to write and read. For all the use he hath made of Dr. Twisse, is to transcribe a great deal of him, sometimes nothing to his purpose, sometimes against it. Indeed Dr. Twisse was as great an enemy to their way, and difputed against it as earnestly, as either of them can dispute against me. And the more they commend him as a second Bradwardine, an eminent servant of Christ, and the like, the more they do implicitly condemn them∣selves. Mr. B. hath done him the dishonour to speak well of him, to talk much of his Friendship, and to pretend that he loved him as another Timothy. No doubt he may have seen the Doctors face, which he describes to have been stern, p. 64.) but sure I am, he knowes but little of his meaning, more then what I have shew'd him, upon occasion of his mistakes.

My Reverend Adversary concludes with a hearty wish, that contention may cease, and Polemical writings be out of Date, that the Lord may be one and his name one (as the Scotsmen concluded the second Article of the Covenant.) But how heartily he wish'd it, and how much he hath contribu∣ted to the accomplishment of his wish, the Reader may easily passe a judgment, 1. by his medling in this matter of his own accord, confessedly beyond what was desired by Mr. Bar∣lee;

2. by his assaulting of me who never gave him the least degree of provocation; 3. by telling a Correptory Corrector (who needed a bridle and not a spur) that though soft words and hard Arguments are best, yet in writings of this Nature there may be a necessity of sharp Rebukes; 4. by for∣cing a Text of Scripture (qua si obtorto collo) to help to ex∣cuse the sharpness of a book, of which the common voice is, that it is perfectly unexcusable.

§ 4. I will also conclude with a hearty wish, (and which I verily believe is sincerely such) That we who are diverse at present, may after some short time be One in Iudgment; Or if our Heads cannot be brought to an agreement, yet at least that God's Grace may be so prevalent in our Hearts, that whilst we are diverse in Iudgment, we may be One in Love. That all the Hottest of our Contentions may be in order to conviction; and to the conviction of the Gainsay∣er, not by the ruine of his Person, but of his Argument and his Cause. Yet because there is an usual and easie pas∣sage, from breach of judgement, to breach of Charity, And because Agreement in Error is the sinew of Faction, but not of Peace; it concern's us to pray that we may en∣deavour, and to endeavour sincerely whilst we pray, That Truth as well as Vnity, and Vnity in the Truth, may be the only scope first, and then the only conclusion of our Debates. Were this obtained in Disputations, we should not finally change weapons, and passe à calamo ad gladium. We should persecute the Syllogisme, but not the Man; destroy his Error, but not his Family, or his Fortune. In the mean time it were well, if we would not think it a noble Constancy to persevere in that Opini∣on which first be speak's us, nor blush at the Glory of con∣fessing our former Errors, as soon as we see, and dislike them for having hurt us. For (to use the words of Mr.* 1.368 Calvin concerning himself, and his publick works,

which he professed an Intention to have reformed)

wherein lye's the benefit of growing older and older, if Age, and experience, and assiduous Exercising our selves added to Reading, and Meditation, did not conferr something on us,

whereby to set us above the pitch of our yonger selves? I am resolved, for my part, not to be longer of an Opinion, then I am able to see good reason for it. And do so desire to try all things, as to hold fast nothing but what is* 1.369 good.

The End.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Arist: Eth. l. 1: c. 4.
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Polyb. l. 4. p. 348. A B.
• * 1.4

  Pythag. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.5

  2 Cor. 1••. 9, 10. Rom. 5. 3. Heb. 11. 25, 26
• a 1.6

  Psal. 145. 17.
• b 1.7

  Hab. 1. 13.
• c 1.8

  Isa. 1. 13.
• d 1.9

  Verse 14.
• e 1.10

  Verse 14.
• f 1.11

  ibid. & Mal. 2. 17. Isa. 7. 13.
• g 1.12

  Mat: 10. 28. Romans 3. 8.
• h 1.13

  Philip. 4. 13.
• k 1.14

  Mark 9. 44.
• l 1.15

  Romans 3. 4.
• * 1.16

  Who they are that say thus, and more than thus, hath been sufficient∣ly shewed, and farther shall be as occasion serves. See Correct Copy p. 9. 10. And Divine Phi∣lanth. Defend. l. 3. Sect. 34. p. 132. to p. 141.
• m 1.17

  Mat. 5. 12. Coloss. 1. 24. 2 Cor. 11. 30. Hab. 10. 34.
• n 1.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• o 1.19

  See Divine Philanth. de∣fended cap. 3 &c.
• * 1.20

  King Iames his Declarati∣on against Vor∣stius in his works in Eng∣lish. p. 350. & 355.
• * 1.21

  Compare the 16. Article of our Church with the first part of the Homily touch∣in Falling a∣way from God. p. 54. & 57. with the Form of Baptism, with the Cate∣chism, and all with the Con∣ference at Hampton Court p. 29. 30, 31.
• * 1.22

  Of his change I have witness beyond exception.
• * 1.23

  Spotsw. Hist. Scot. l. 7.
• a 1.24

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. l. 2 p. 38. & seq. to p. 44.
• * 1.25

  Conference at Hampton Court, p. 81. Edit. 1638.
• * 1.26

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ l. 2. p. 39.
• * 1.27

  Ibid. p. 40:
• * 1.28

  p. 41.
• * 1.29

  p. 42.
• * 1.30

  Tertul. adver∣sus Hermog. cap. 1.
• * 1.31

  Beza in locum.
• * 1.32

  See Dr. Ham. Annota. upon 2 Cor. 13. ch. and in his Tract concern∣ing the power of the Keyes.
• * 1.33

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Verse 14:
• * 1.34

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ver. 15.
• * 1.35

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vers. 16.
• a 1.36

  Correp. Cor. Epist. Ded. p. 9.
• b 1.37

  Ibid.
• c 1.38

  Ibid.
• d 1.39

  Peto ve∣niam, si ••••quam post hac. Id. ibid
• e 1.40

  Peto ve∣niam, si ••••quam post hac. Id. ibid
• f 1.41

  Correp. Cor. p. 22.
• g 1.42

  Epist. Ded. p. 16, 17.
• * 1.43

  Id. ib▪ p. 16.
• * 1.44

  Tit. 1. 13.
• h 1.45

  Correp. Cor. p. 64.
• k 1.46

  Correp. Cor. Epist. Ded. p. 14.
• l 1.47

  Correp. Cor. Ep••st. Ded. p. 16, 17.
• m 1.48

  Id. p. 102.
• * 1.49

  Tacit. Anal. l 3. verb. ult.
• * 1.50

  See Div. Philanthrop. Defended ch. 2. Sect. 32. p. 127, &c. And ch. 4. Sect. 32. p. 36, 37.
• * 1.51

  See Div. Philan. defend. ch. 3. Sect: 34. p. 132. to p. 141.
• a 1.52

  Borrh. Posit. 1. Impr. A. D. 1551.
• b 1.53

  Zuing. de Pron. l. 6. a∣betted 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Twisse Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1 p. 36.
• c 1.54

  Piscat. in Resp. ad Tauff. p. 65.
• d 1.55

  Sturmius de Praedest. Thes. 16.
• e 1.56

  Musculus l. c. de desperati∣one.
• f 1.57

  Trigland. Defens. fol. 180.
• g 1.58

  Beza Cont. Castel. p. 417.
• h 1.59

  Peter Mart. Verm. Flor. in 1 Sam. 2.
• k 1.60

  Adrian. Smout. in Heautontim. et in Concordiae sua, p. 107.
• l 1.61

  Huldericus Zuing. in Ser. de Prov. c. 5. & 6.
• * 1.62

  Note, that when sin is said to be good as being the work of God, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself confesseth it is the excuse of the Liber∣tines, and un∣excusable. Calv. Instruc. adversus Li∣bertim. The Scope of that Blasphemy
• m 1.63

  Dr. Twisse Vind. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. Digres. 2. c. i. Crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 37.
• m 1.64

  Dr. Twisse Vind. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. Digres. 2. c. i. Crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 37.
• n 1.65

  Calvin In∣struct. adversus Libertinos.
• o 1.66

  Beza contra Castel. Aphor. 1. 6, 7.
• p 1.67

  Calvin Instit. l. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 7. p. 325.
• p 1.68

  Calvin Instit. l. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 7. p. 325.
• q 1.69

  Idem ibid. Sect. 4.
• q 1.70

  Idem ibid. Sect. 4.
• q 1.71

  Idem ibid. Sect. 4.
• * 1.72

  That that is Blasphemy to which I gave that Name is more than proved by that which followes,
• * 1.73

  Irenaeus told Florinus for meerly seem∣ing to make God the Author of sin, (that is, for saying things which did but sound that way,) that it was worse than the Here∣ticks durst e∣ver speak.
• * 1.74

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. Irenaeus Edit. Colon. 1625. p. 510. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 19.
• * 1.75

  St. Polycare, that blessed & Apostolical Martyr, if he had heard any expression which only seemed to have a Tendency to the making God the Author of sin, he would have started out of the place, and stopp'd his Ears, and Cryed out, O my God, &c. Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 20. Iren. loco Citat••.
• * 1.76

  Saint Austin reekon'd the Denial of uni∣versal Redemp∣tion for one of the foolishest Blasphemies, & one of the un∣godly profane o∣pinions, though not so foolish or so ungodly, as to impute unto God any Causalty of sin. His words are, Ineptissimarum Blasphemiarum prodigiosa mendacia. Impi∣arum profanarum{que} opinionum nullum cordibus nostris vestigium inhaesisse agnoscant, & Blas∣phemias, quas perspex: rint nostrâ professione damnari, in earundem repertoribus censeant debere puniri. Augustin. in Praesat. ad Artieulos quosdam sibi impositos, p. 855, 856. Sed in operibus Prosp. p. 934, 935.
• r 1.77

  Cùm videa∣mus, vos sic d' Diabolo esse fascinatos. August. l 6. Hypognostic. in praefat. p. 879, 880.
• * 1.78

  Prosper calls it an immoderate wickednesse, and a calum∣niating of God, to impute a∣ny Mans Ru∣ine to God's not electing him to the fi∣nal means of Salvation, though no∣thing neer such a wicked∣nesse or such a ••alumniating of God, as the many black speeches which I have cited and condemned.—Sed horum Lapsum Deo ascribere, immdodicae Pravitatis est, quasi ideo Ruinae ipsorum Impulsor atque Author sit, quia illos ruituros propriâ ipsorum voluntate praescivit, & ob hoc, à filiis Perditionis nullâ praedestinatione discrevit. Prosp. Aquit. ad ob. Gall. capit. 7. p. 320, 321.
• * 1.79

  The Arausican Councel pro∣nounced a Curse and that with all Dete∣station upon such as should believe: that God did prae∣destine any Man to evil. Secundum fi∣dem Catholi∣cam credimus, quod acceptâ per baptismum gratiâ omnes baptizati, Christo auxili∣ante & cooperante, quae ad salutem pertinent, possint & deteant, si fideliter laborare vsluerint, adimplere. Aliquòs vero ad malum divinâ potestate praedestinatos esse, non solùm non credimus, sed & seqq.
• a 1.80

  The Divine Philam. Defen. ch. 3. Sect. 34. p. 132, &c.
• b 1.81

  Correct Copy. &c. p. 9, 10.
• * 1.82

  Sed etiam. si qui sunt qui tantum malum credere velint, cum omni dete∣statione illis Anathema dicimus. Concil. 2. Arausic. Cap. 1. 25. mihi p. 902▪
• * 1.83

  Nicetas shews it a Blasphemy to be anathema∣tiz'd as the very worst thing in the wicked Religi∣on of the Turks, to say in equivalence and effect (though not in those very terms) that God is the Author of Sin: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vide B. B. Patr. Grac. Vol. 2. p. 286.
• * 1.84

  Melancthon calls it a stoical opinion, & such as supposeth a stoical God; pernicious to practice; and such as was abhorred by Heathen Plato; to aver a neces∣sity of all e∣vents. Nequa∣quam stoicae o∣piniones in Ec∣clesiam inve∣hendae: quomodo enim invocabit Deum is qui omnia neces∣sariò evenire statuit? deinde moribus perniciosum est, &c. Plato honestiùs loquitur, cùm, &c. adest Deus Creaturis, non ut stoicus Deus, &c. Melancthon in loc. com. de Causa pec. p. 54, 55. Apparuit Filius Dei, ut victima fieret pro peccato, & ostenderet, Diabolum esse Au∣thorem Peccati. Id. ibid. p. 48.
• * 1.85

  Bp. Tunstal saith they are more blasphe∣mous than the Devils, who say that God doth predestin men to sin. Domini nostri majestatem blasphemant, creatori suo petulantiae suae ••asciviam im∣putare non for∣midant, nihil verecundantes in Deum opificem sua scelera retorquere, quia ab illo se praedestinatos ut sint flagitiosi, pro Apologiâ respondent. Lib. contra Blasph. praedest. Dei in praes. p. 3.
• * 1.86

  Monstra hominum longè pejora Daemoniis quae Deum blaspemarc non audent, ibidem p. 4.
• * 1.87

  Vt ab his blasphemiis suam Ecclesiam purgans, muta reddat hujusmo di labia dolosa. sub finem.
• * 1.88

  Sceleratus quisque ipsum Deum scelerum suorū authorem esse impie blas∣phemare non formidat: ego à Deo creatus sum, in quem finem ipse opifex novit. Si ad interitum me praedestinavit, cùm certa sit ejus sen∣tentia, & quae ille futura decrevit mutari nequeunt, cur ego in vanum contra slimulum calci∣trem, & me defraudem Genio? Si autem praedestinatus sum ab eo ad vitam aeternam, quan∣tumcunqae hîc deliquero,—in fine tandem salvus ero; neque enim ejus de me praesci∣encia falli quovis modo potest. Id. ib. cap. 1. p. 5, & 6.
• * 1.89

  Hemmingius his marks of Detestation of the absolute way, which he could hardly think of with∣out a holy kind of Impa∣tience.
• a 1.90

  De pastore. pag. 150.
• b 1.91

  De praedest: cap. 1. class. 3. pag. 408, 409, 410.
• c 1.92

  De viâ vitae. cap. 5. Benes. 2. pag. 550.
• d 1.93

  In Syntag. Institur. Christ. loeo 28. de Praedest. p. 770 771.
• e 1.94

  Id. Ibid. p. 771. Theo∣rem. 10.
• f 1.95

  Id. Ibid. p. 776. Theor. 52.
• g 1.96

  Cum Theolo∣gis qui aliter sentiunt, agit D. Hemmingius ut modestum & pium Christi Servum de••et. S. G. S. in observat Hemming. praefixit.
• * 1.97

  Felix Turpio his sharp cen∣sure of such as hold a necessity of all events. Mahumetanis ac planè perdi∣tis hominibus reliquenda est ea, quam Dia∣belus ad Chri∣stiani populi perniciem in∣duxit, futura∣rum rerum Necessitas, ex cujus opinione, quin maxima pars scelerum, quae in Ecclesis Christo initiatis regnare corni∣mus, tanquam ex perenni quodam sonte deriventur, non dubito. Fel. Turp. in Praes. ad Ca∣stel▪ p. 10.
• * 1.98

  Grotius, the Great, calls them the Ene∣mies of God, who make God the Author and cherisher of sin. though not in those very words, yet in such as are e∣qual to them. Cui magis competit nomen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [Deo adve••santis] quam iis qui summè bonum faciunt omnium Scelerum Auctorem & Fautorem? &c. Grot. in Appendice de Antichri∣sto. p. 64, 65. vide etiam p. 85.
• * 1.99

  Bishop Hall, that pious and learned Pre∣late, and who was one of the Synod of Dort. calleth even them blasphe∣mous Cavillers, who cast their condemnation (which is not sin, but its ef∣fect only) upon the absolute will of an unre∣spective power. Select Thoughts, Medit. 34. &c 35. from p. 102. to p. 107.
• * 1.100

  Mr: Calvin's own censure exceedeth mine, if not that of Bellar∣mine and Bol∣sec too.
• a 1.101

  Notandum ex hoc Alticulo, tria admodum qorrenda conse∣qui, 1. nullum inter Deum & Diabolum dis∣crimen fore, &c. Calvin contra libert. c. 23.
• b 1.102

  Ipsum •• se negari opertet, & in Diabolum transmutari. Id. ib. c. 14.
• b 1.103

  Ipsum •• se negari opertet, & in Diabolum transmutari. Id. ib. c. 14.
• c 1.104

  Ac ne peccata quidem excipi possunt. Beza advers. Castel. Aphor. 1. & 6.
• c 1.105

  Ac ne peccata quidem excipi possunt. Beza advers. Castel. Aphor. 1. & 6.
• e 1.106

  Ejusdem Cal∣vini judicio, quae perperam & in∣justè ab h••mi∣nibus fiunt, ea∣dem justa & recta sunt Dei opera. Id. ib.
• * 1.107

  To which add Instit. l. 3. c. 23 Sect. 6, 7, 8. & Sect. 4.
• f 1.108

  Cer∣tè ut quidvis contra tam prodigiosam Blasphemiam dicatur, libenter patiar. Calvin de occult. Dei Prov. p. 736.
• f 1.109

  Cer∣tè ut quidvis contra tam prodigiosam Blasphemiam dicatur, libenter patiar. Calvin de occult. Dei Prov. p. 736.
• g 1.110

  This Mr. B. confesseth, Correp••. Corr▪ page 64. Dr. Whitaker's severe Censure of his own party upon supposition that they say what I have proved, and shall prove they have said with a wit∣ness. Si Calvi∣nus aut Martyr aut quisquam nostrum affir∣met, Deum esse autorem & Causam pecca∣ti, non repugno, quin simus om∣nes horrendae blasphemiae sceleris{que} rei. Whitaker. lib. 8. contra Du∣raeum. Sect. 1:
• * 1.111

  Note, that Dr. Whitaker in the place cited, seemeth not to have heard, at that time of Melan∣cthon's change.
• h 1.112

  Huld. Zuing. Serm. de Pro. c. 5. & 6.
• k 1.113

  Mart. Borth. in Isa. 28
• l 1.114

  Ad peccatum quà peccatum. Zanch. de Nat. Dei l. 5. Thes 4. de Repr. p. 555.
• m 1.115

  Piscator contra Tauf. p. 47.
• n 1.116

  Idem in Resp. ad Dupl. Vorst. part 1. p. 10, 11.
• o 1.117

  Trigland Apolog. p. 172.
• p 1.118

  Musculus l. c. de Despe∣ratione.
• q 1.119

  Calvin. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 4.
• r 1.120

  lllius impul∣su agit quod si∣bi non licer. Id, Ib. l. 1. c. 18. Section 4.
• s 1.121

  The Div. Philan. c. 3. Sect. 34. p 139.
• t 1.122

  Vulgus exi∣stimat, cùm Deus excaecare, indurare, trade∣re, immittere, decipere disci∣tur, nihil aliud significari, quàm ipsum permit∣tere ut ista fi∣ant; in quam sententiam per∣multi ex Patri∣bus eas locutio∣nes interpre∣tantur, eâ procul dubio ratione adducti, quòd impium & bla∣sphemum judi∣carent, si Deus Auctor Pecca∣ti haberetur: nolentes, homines peccatorum suorum Causas in Deum ipsum rejicere—Deus non tantum permittit, sed & vult peccatum, Pet. Mart. Vermil. in 1 Sam. chap. 2. p. 21.
• u 1.123

  Omnes serè Patres docent, Tradere per∣inde esse, ac si diceretur, si∣nere, permit∣tere, aut dese∣rere; abhor∣rere videntur ut dicant, De∣um esse Cau∣sam peccati.—Sed non videtur pro∣pter istas ratio∣nes Idonea per∣suasio adduci, ut interprete∣mur haec verba Tradere, ob∣durare, ex∣caecare, per∣sinere, per∣mittere, desere. Idem in Rom: 1. Edit. Basil. A. D. 1570. pag. 78, 79, 80
• * 1.124

  That they are guilty of the Blasphemy who were by me accused, is more than proved by that which follows.
• * 1.125

  Doctor Twisse his Censure and Confession. Negari non po∣test, Aquina∣tem jam olim docuisse ipsum actum Peccati, esse à Deo: idem docent ho••ie Jesuitae, ex quibus quàm facilè quaeso fuit viris istis indoctis, quales erant Libertini, colligere, Deum auctorem ••uisse omnium Scelerum, quae ab ho∣minibus perpetrantur? Addunt Dominicani, Deum determinare voluntatem Creaturae ad om∣nem actum suum, etiam ad actum peccati, nunquam tam diserté sententiam suam expressisse hactenus reperti sunt Calviniani. Twiss. Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 52.
• w 1.126

  See Cor∣rect Copie. p. 10.
• x 1.127

  Vin. Gra. l. 1. par. 1. Sect. 4. c. 4. Dig. 4. p. 88.
• * 1.128

  The Divided Members of that party who call them∣selves Antipe∣lagians and the Enemies of Ar∣minius, are ir∣reconcilable E∣nemies to each other, and may be called Anti-autians, or An∣ti-Allelians. Deo nihil insi∣pientiùs nec stultiùs affingi potest. &c. Nihil injustius excogitari potest, &c.
• y 1.129

  Si utrique parti adversariis blasphemias atroces objicienti credam, utramque Blasphe∣miae reamteneo; si neutricredam, neutram absolvere possum à Calumniâ; neque enim in∣nocentes esse possunt, qui aliis tam calumniosè blasphemias impingunt. N. Grev. contra Smoulium p. 52. see Act. Syn. Dord. sess. 107. p. 272.
• * 1.130

  Bishop Ab∣bot's censure of the absolute Decree. Tristis illa, & omni modo ab∣horrenda, nu∣per certè na∣ta, sententia de Absoluto Decreto Re∣probationis, quae ante ista tempora, opi∣nor, nunquam in Ecclesia au∣dita est, quam nos quidem ali∣quando excu∣sate tentavimus, nunquam amplexi sumus, usu autem ipso didicimus, quám perniciosa, quàm periculosa, quàm à salutari doctrina aliena sit. Rob. Sarisbur. de Gra. & persev. Sanct. in praef. ad Lect. p. 11.
• * 1.131

  Du Moulin's censure of the same. Quicunque Gloriae divinae amantes sunt, & conscientias turbare metuunt, &c. in Epist. 1. Junii edita Hagae. 1617.
• z 1.132

  Gesselius in speciminis c. 13. p. 52.
• * 1.133

  The Div. Phil. Def. c. 3. Sect. 31. p. 124, 1 25.
• * 1.134

  Quis non regem abominetur sic loquentem? E∣go hunc homi∣nem addico suf∣pendio; sed ut justè suspende∣atur, volo pae∣tret homicidi∣um vel Pecu∣latum. Mou∣lin in Anat. Arm. c. 12. p. 73.
• a 1.135

  Piscator in Resp. ad Dupl. Vorst. part. 1. p. 210.
• * 1.136

  Prosper, obji∣cienti, quando servi Domi∣nos occidunt, ideo fieri, qui∣•• ità Deus Praedestinavit ut fieret,] re∣spondet, si Di∣abolo objicere∣tur, quod tali∣um facinorum ipse Autor, ipse esset Incentor, puto quod aliquâ ratione exonerare se hac posset Invidiâ, & talium scelerum patratorem de ipsorum voluntate convinceret,—probaret se non intulisse vim criminum. Quâ ergo dementia definitur ad Dei referen∣dum esse consilium, quod nec Diabolo in totum ascribi potest, qui in peccantium flagitiis illecebrarum Adjutor, non voluntatum credendus est esse Generator? Nihil ergo ta∣lium negotiorum Deus predestinavit ut fieret nec illam animam nequiter turpiterque victuram, ad hoc ut taliter viveret, praeparavit; sed talem futuram non ignoravit, & de ta∣li juste se judicaturum esse praescivit, atque ità ad praedestinationem ejus nihil allud referri potest, nisi quod aut ad de bitam justitiae retributionem, aut ad indebitam pertinet gratiae lusgitatem. Prosp. ad Objec. Vincent. 11. p. 341, 342.
• b 1.137

  Johan. Pis∣cator. Thes. 27. & 33.
• * 1.138

  Gotteschalk's Patronizers as severe as can be wished. Qui uecessitatem peccandi Deum intulisse hominivel inferre dicit, horribiliter in Deum Blas∣phemat, quem Autorem peccatiesse confirmat. Hist. Gottes. Cap. 10. p. 138.
• c 1.139

  See the Ca∣talogue of Blasph. in the Divine Philan. Def: c. 3. p. 132. & seq.
• * 1.140

  Piscator in Praefat. Disp. de praedest. p. 8:
• d 1.141

  Correp. Cor. p. 221, 222.
• * 1.142

  Remigius Lug∣dunensis ac∣compts it all one to necessi∣tate sin, and to be the Author of it. Hist. Got∣teschal. c. 11. p. 173. Reg. 5:
• * 1.143

  Bp. Cutbert of Durheme doth shew the rise of that Blas∣phemy in his book intitled [Against the impious Blas∣phemers of God's Prede∣stination] viz. 1. omnem Dei voluntatem esse decretum, & irrefragabilem. 2. Praedestinationem Fati vicem habere. 3. praescienti•••• Dei necessitatem rei eventurae inferr. cap. 1. p. 6. & seq.
• * 1.144

  Arnobius Iu∣nior, or Hygi∣nus, or who∣soever were the Author of [Praedestina∣torum Haeresis] Nonagesima Haeresis; quae asserit, Dei prae∣destinatione Pecca••a committi. l. 2. p. 69. l. 3 p. 71.
• * 1.145

  Grotius his•• Cento of Blas∣phemies, which he judgeth to be such, as affirming God to be the Author of sin. Omnium Scelerum Auctorem faciunt, cùm docent, ad peccatum quà peccatum praeordinatos esse, &c. Reprobos ver•• praedestinatos esse ad hanc conditionem, ut non queant non varia scelera admittere, eós{que} Necessitate peccati con∣stringi, & quidem sine resipiscentiâ. Deum operari Impium ••d peccatum, ne poen••m ei justè in ••••igere non possit Hoc consilio conditos homines, ut laberentur. Deum cum hominem ad Neces∣sitatem Pecc••ti necessitat, justè agere, qui•• potentiam habet gubernandi, ut vult. Deum operari omni•• etiam in Impiis. Deum esse, qui ad prav••s actiones incitet, seducat, trahat, jubeat, indu∣ret, deceptiones immitt••t à Deo externè ad salutem vocari, quibus immutab•••• decreto statuit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non conferre, Grot. de Antichristo p. 64, 65.
• * 1.146

  Grotius his Judgment of those do∣ctrines, which make God an Abettor and Incourager of sin. Omnium scelerum Fau∣torem faciunt, cùm doceant, Fideles in A∣dulteria, homi∣cidium, Prodi∣tiones prolabi posse, non ta∣men unquam è gratia excide∣re; manere enim semper viros secund•••• Cor Dei; neque peccata illii ob••utura; quia peccata praeterita & futura 〈◊〉〈◊〉 remissa esse. Fideles per peccata ulla etiam gravia, non posse à Dei Grati•• ad tempus exci∣dere; opinionem verò contrariam esse ••••ygiae Credulitatis, atqu•• à Diabolo profectam, Id. ib.
• * 1.147

  Bp. Mounta∣gues censure of irrespective Decrees with∣out relation to those worst effects of the Error of which I spake. Appel. Caesar. c. 7. p. 68, 69.
• * 1.148

  See also Mr. Baxters speeches of Dr. Twisse which shall be recited ch. 5. Sect. 3.
• e 1.149

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iren. in Epist. ad Flo. p. 510: Edit Colon.
• f 1.150

  Idem, l. 1. c. 24.
• g 1.151

  Idem l. 1. c. 29.
• * 1.152

  Christ him∣self hath made them free (Gal. 5. 1.) and so not left them under any necessity to sin & perish.
• † 1.153

  Through Christ who strengthens them, as well by the preven∣tions, as the further Assi∣stances of his grace, they can choose to avoid▪ sin whilst yet they are able to embrace it also (Phil. 4. 13.
• * 1.154

  B. Andrews, opusc. p. 115.
• h 1.155

  Grot. iu Voto pro Pa∣ce p. 15.
• h 1.156

  Grot. iu Voto pro Pa∣ce p. 15.
• k 1.157

  Hunnius apud Grot: Discuss. Rive••. Apol. p. 115, 186.
• l 1.158

  A Testimony to the Truth of l. C. in Praes. p. 2.
• m 1.159

  Ibid. p 4.
• n 1.160

  Ibid. p 4.
• o 1.161

  Ibid. p. 9.
• p 1.162

  Art. Eccl. Angl. 2. 7, 15. 31.
• q 1.163

  1 John 2. 2. Heb. 2. 9. John 4. 42. 1 Tim. 4. 10. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Act. 17. 30.
• r 1.164

  Aphorisms of Iustif. Thes. 36. p. 173.
• s 1.165

  Id ib. Append. p. 163, 164.
• t 1.166

  Saints ever∣last. Rest. part. 3. c. 3. sect. 2. in marg. p. 40, 41.
• u 1.167

  Id ib. part. 3. c. 2. sect. 15. p. 38. in ma••g.
• * 1.168

  Saints ever∣last. Rest. part. 1. c. 8. sect. 2. p. 154.
• * 1.169

  Vide etiam con∣tra Julian. l. 2. c. 1. & l. 3. c. 24. & l. 4. c. 3.
• * 1.170

  In resp. ad Ar∣tic. falsò sibi impositos in E∣dit. Bas. Prosper ad Capit. object. Vincent. Histor. Gotsch. c. 2, 3. Amica Collatio p. 294.
• * 1.171

  Prosp. ad Cap. Gal. Hist. Go••∣teschalc. c. 5.
• w 1.172

  Correct. Co∣py of Notes. p. 9. & 10.
• x 1.173

  See the 10. last sections of the Divine Phi∣lan. defended.
• * 1.174

  Corrept. Cor. p. 56.
• y 1.175

  Id. ib. p. 143. 118 56. & 68.
• z 1.176

  See The Div. Philanth. ch. 1. sect. 5. p. 29.
• a 1.177

  p. 1.
• b 1.178

  p. 24. to p. 37.
• * 1.179

  31. Are na∣med in his Margin, and being there but named, this Margin is not concerned in them, because not a syllable is produced of words, or matte••
• a 1.180

  38. Texts are referred to in the Margin, but the words not mentioned, much less ex∣plained, or ap∣plyed to any one sentence which they are pretended to excuse.
• c 1.181

  Correct. Co∣py of Notes. p. 9, & 10.
• d 1.182

  The Div. Philan. Defen. ch. 3. sect. 31. p. 123, 124. & seq.
• e 1.183

  Robert Sa∣risb. de Gratiâ & Perser. sanct. in Prae∣••at. ad lector. p: 13.
• f 1.184

  p. 12.
• g 1.185

  Idem in Thomsoni Di∣atribam. cap. 1. p. 83, 84.
• g 1.186

  Idem in Thomsoni Di∣atribam. cap. 1. p. 83, 84.
• h 1.187

  This the Reverent As∣sailant might have found in the Book by him mentio∣ned called God's love to mankind. p. 3. And he alone is to be thanked for this Citation.
• k 1.188

  Non satis▪ consuluit nomi∣ni suo, qui tan∣quam equum quendam Tro∣janum Conten∣tionis tam dirae seminarium in∣tra Fidei Mu∣ros invexit. Robert: S••∣risb. in Praes. ad. lect. de Persev. Sanct. p. 11.
• l 1.189

  Perkinsius—erravit errorem non le∣••em, cujus •• doctis quibus∣dam vir is ini∣ta jamdudum, & suscepta. defensio turbas Ecclesiis non necessarias dedit, quas etiamnum non sine Scandalo & periculo haerere videmus, dum, & Idem in Toms. Diatr. p. 1, 2. mihi 83, 84.
• m 1.190

  Act. Synod. Dord. part 1. p. 348. Sess. 144.
• n 1.191

  Act. Syn. Dord. part 1. Sess. 143. p. 339, 340.
• o 1.192

  Submonuit Praeses, ut poti••s quoe∣stionibus illis inhaererent, quae circ•• suavem de electione doctrinam versa∣rentur, quàm ut odiosè doctrinam de Reprobatione exagitarent. Act. Sy∣nod. Dord. part. 1. Sess. 32. p. 12••.
• p 1.193

  A. R. D. Praeside moniti sumus, ut à negativis abstineremus, & de Electione potiùs, quàm odiosâ Re∣probationis materiâ ageremus. Ib. Sess. 34. p. 133.
• q 1.194

  Ibid. a Sess. 32. usque ad Sess. 65.
• r 1.195

  Ibid. Sess. 132. pa. 1. p. 277.
• s 1.196

  Ibid. Sess. 128. p. 276.
• t 1.197

  Correp. Corr. p. 57. Twis. vin. Gra. l. ••. p. 1 crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 52.
• t 1.198

  Correp. Corr. p. 57. Twis. vin. Gra. l. ••. p. 1. crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 52.
• t 1.199

  Correp. Corr. p. 57. Twis. vin. Gra. l. 2. p. 1 crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 52.
• * 1.200

  loco jam ci∣tat••.
• u 1.201

  Ne{que} ••nim negare deb••o sicut in ipsis moribus, it•• multa csse in tam multis opusculis meis, quae possint justo judicio. & nullâ teme∣ritate culpa∣ri. Aug. l. 4. de Animâ & ejus origine, ad Vincent. Vict.
• w 1.202

  Haec quoque non gravatim agnosco, si quando iterum recudantur nostra opera,—in quibus ••ffensionis periculum veremur, moderari etiam & mitiga••e, &c. Calvin de lib. arb. con••ra Pighium.
• * 1.203

  Note that the several Quotations of these are al∣ready premi∣sed ch. 4. Sect. 3.
• * 1.204

  Note here the Confession of Peter Ver∣milius himself, that almost all the Fathers, and particu∣larly Austin (which is more than al∣most all) do interpret Tra∣dere ad pec∣candum by sine∣re, permitte∣re deserere. Pet. Merl. in Rom. 1. p. 78, 79, 80.
• a 1.205

  Gen. 45. 5
• b 1.206

  Vers. 7.
• c 1.207

  verse 8.
• d 1.208

  ch. 37. 26:
• e 1.209

  Prov. 1. 29, 32.
• f 1.210

  The divine Philan. ch. 1. Sect. 5. p. 23. 24, 25. & ch. 4. from p. 37. to the end.
• * 1.211

  Peccata sub∣sequentia sunt praecedentium Poenoe. Lomb.
• * 1.212

  Augustin. ad Simpl. l. 5 c. 2.
• a 1.213

  Pet. Mart. Virmil. Florent. in Epist. ad Rom. 1. edit. Basil. 1570.
• a 1.214

  Pet. Mart. Virmil. Florent. in Epist. ad Rom. 1. edit. Basil. 1570.
• b 1.215

  Indurare nihil aliud est quàm nolle emollire; excaecare, non illuminare; repellere, non voca∣re. August. in lib. de praedest. & Gra. cap. 4.
• c 1.216

  Pet Mart loco praedicto. Habet (inquit) hanc interpretationem sinendi, & permittendi, Augusti∣nus:
• d 1.217

  Melancthon in loc. com. de Causa pecc. p. 49.
• e 1.218

  Dieu est dit ramener du Sepul∣chre, quand il impesched'y descen∣dre; y mener, quand il y laisse tom∣ber, facon de parler commune a•• Psalmiste, & aux Prophetes, &c. Philippes de Mornay Seig du Plessis Marli. en medit. sur le ver. 4. du ch. 16. des Proverbes.
• f 1.219

  Jos. 2. 13.
• * 1.220

  Bp. Andrews. Sermon 10. of the Resur. up∣on Joh. 2. 19. p. 486, 487.
• * 1.221

  Isa. 47. 1.
• * 1.222

  Act. 7. 52.
• * 1.223

  John 13. 17.
• g 1.224

  Job. 1. 1. 8.
• h 1.225

  vers. 12.
• k 1.226

  ch. 2 ver. 6.
• l 1.227

  Mat. 8. 32.
• m 1.228

  verse 31.
• n 1.229

  verse 31.
• o 1.230

  vers. 29.
• * 1.231

  vers. 31.
• p 1.232

  Job 1. 11. & ch. 2. v. 5.
• q 1.233

  1 Sa. 12. 17.
• r 1.234

  Hos. 13. 11.
• r 1.235

  Ibid.
• s 1.236

  The Divine Philan Defen. ch. 4. Sect. 35. p. 47, 48, 49.
• * 1.237

  Eccl. 15. 12.
• * 1.238

  p. 9. & 10.
• t 1.239

  Jer. 4. 10.
• u 1.240

  A. D. 16. 18.
• w 1.241

  •• Cor. 1: 18, 25.
• x 1.242

  Bishop An∣drews in the place before cited.
• x 1.243

  Calvin. In∣stit. l. 3. c. 23. Sect: 6. p. 324. sub fi∣nem.
• y 1.244

  Idem ib. Sect. 7. p. 325.
• z 1.245

  id ib. Sect. 6. p. 324.
• a 1.246

  Non aliâ ra∣tione quae fu∣tura sunt prae∣videat, nisi quia ita ut fie∣rent decrevit
• b 1.247

  Ideo praesci∣verit, quia de∣creto suo sic or∣dinârat.
• * 1.248

  ☞
• * 1.249

  Habak: 1. 13. Psal. 5. 4 & 81, 13. Psal. 45. 7. Iam. 1. 13, 14 Eccles. 7: 29. Dan▪ 9. 7. Eccles. 15. 12, 13. Iob 34. 13. Ezek. 18. 29. Isa. 5. 3, 4. Acts 17. 30. 2 Pet. 3. 9. Heb. 7. 26.
• * 1.250

  Fatente D. D Hen. Al∣tingio, in Sy∣nod. Dord. sess 69. p. 237.
• * 1.251

  Ezek. 24. 13.
• * 1.252

  Rev. 22. 11.
• * 1.253

  Rom. 1. 26. 28,
• * 1.254

  Rom. 1. 26. 28,
• * 1.255

  Isa. 63. 17: Ezek. 20. 25, 26. Ezek. 24. 21. Iob 2. 3. 2 Sam 12. 11.
• * 1.256

  ler. 7. 9,. 10. Et ejusdem fa∣rinae alii, atque alii.
• * 1.257

  Mat. 2. 22. which com∣pare with Acts 9. 34. & that again with Acts 14. 9.
• * 1.258

  Acts 14. 16.
• * 1.259

  Let the Reader com∣pare this with his following Section, which shall be the Theam of my fifth Section of this 8th. chap. for there he speaks of Gods omnipo∣tency in deter¦mining the will, and from thence we m••st fetch his true meaning in this place.
• * 1.260

  Let the Reader com∣pare this with his following Section, which shall be the Theam of my fifth Section of this 8th. chap. for there he speaks of Gods omnipo∣tency in deter¦mining the will, and from thence we m••st fetch his true meaning in this place.
• * 1.261

  Note Reader, that by Power, in this place, he means omnipotent, controuling, necessitating power, as he explains himself in his next Section; where he ranks and Il∣lustrates God's working man's will to conversion, with his saying in the creation, omnipotently, Let there be light, and there was light. Where∣as had he spoken of such a power as depriveth the will of its Servitude, without depriving it of its Liberty, and by consequence of its Nature, we had been then at agreement. But as it is, I am forced to shew his Failing.
• * 1.262

  Natura, cùm potestatem habue•• it non delinquendi sponte deliquit; & deceptori suo propria volu••tate se subdidit. Augustin. ad Artic. falsò sibi Impos. 5. p. 864. He doth not say, that men by nature but that nature had a power of ab∣staining from sin, which had I said, as Austin did, I had been called a Pelagian.
• g 1.263

  Saints Ever••-Rest. part 3. Sect. 15. c. 2. p. 36, 37.
• h 1.264

  1 Cor. 13. 8. 9, 10, 12. •• Cor. 3. 18.
• * 1.265

  Video melio∣ra proboque. Deteri••ra se∣q••or.—
• k 1.266

  Rom. 2. 21, 22.
• l 1.267

  1 Cor. 6. 8.
• * 1.268

  Compare these words of Dr. Reynolds with what he said in his Se∣ction going be∣fore, which was the Theam of my second Section of this Chapter▪
• m 1.269

  Mr. Whit∣fields observa∣tion before the Correp. Corre∣ction.
• * 1.270

  Note, That Dr. Reyn. doth acknowledge the radical in∣differency of the will, its being a rational appetite; and its making choice of Good. And all his party do grant free-will. Yet in his printed Sermon on Psalm 122••6, 7, 8, 9 p. 31. He saith, that those Doctrines which affirm free will have a secret aspect and Tendency to Rome.
• * 1.271

  Matth. 25.
• n 1.272

  Vers. 15. 16, 17. 18. 19. 29.
• o 1.273

  Act. Synod. Dord. part▪ 1. Sess. 98. p. 236. & Sess. 99. p. 256.
• q 1.274

  Deut. 5. 29.
• r 1.275

  Deut. 32. 39.
• s 1.276

  Jer. 5. 22.
• t 1.277

  Verse 23.
• * 1.278

  Dr. Twisse Vind. Grae. l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 10. c. 1. Sect. 12 p. 140.
• * 1.279

  Dr. Twisse Vind. Grae. l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 10. c. 1. Sect. 12 p. 140.
• p 1.280

  The Divine Phil. Defend. ch. 4. p. 57, 58. 59. compared with the Cor∣rect Copy of Notes p. 10.
• * 1.281

  Isa. 5 3, 4. Jer. 2. 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, &c. Isa. 43. 26. Mich. 6. 1, 2, 3. Ezek. 18. 23, 29, 30. Gen. 18. 23, 25
• q 1.282

  Ezek. 18.
• r 1.283

  2 Pet. 2. 1. 2 Cor. 5. 14. 2 John 1. 2. Rom. 5. 15. to 21.
• s 1.284

  Chap. 1 Sect: 5. p. 21, 22, 23. & ch. 3: Sect. 23. p. 85. to p 97. & ch. 4. Sect. 26. p. 28, 26.
• t 1.285

  Correct Co∣pie of Notes. ch. 1. Sect. 12. p. 15, 19.
• a 1.286

  The Major is granted by n••y opponent, and confirmed from Eph. 1. 11.
• b 1.287

  The minor is granted by all sides, and is confirmed from all the Scriptures, as Rom. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
• c 1.288

  The conclu∣sion is granted in the premi∣ses.
• * 1.289

  Rom. 2. 11.
• d 1.290

  Ezek. 18. 2.
• e 1.291

  Ezek. 33. 14.
• f 1.292

  1 Tim. 2. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 9. &c.
• * 1.293

  ☜
• g 1.294

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 1 Cor 9. 26.
• * 1.295

  The par∣ticle [it] re∣lates to sin, & not possibly to any thing else.
• * 1.296

  1 John 2. 2.
• h 1.297

  Twiss. vind. Gra. l. 1. par. 1. Digr. 4. Sect. 4. c. 2. p. 84.
• * 1.298

  Dr. Twisse his argument a∣gainst my As∣sailant's Opi∣nion of Massa perdita &c. and against the Correptory▪ Correptor, his Beloved Timo∣thy.
• * 1.299

  Si Reprobatio praesupponat massam corrup∣tam, etiam ge∣nus humanum conditum prae supponat necesse est: at si creatio in Intentione divinâ prior sit quàm Damnatio, in executione prior erit Damnatio quàm Creatio. Ad eundem modum. Si prius intenderet Deus peccatum Originale permittere quàm damnare, sequeretur prius hominem oportuisse damnari, quàm peccati originalis ingressum permitti. (Nam quod in Intentione est posterius est prius in exe∣cutione.) Quae omnia tam delira sunt, ut in hominem sana sentientem cadere non possint. Vind. Grat. l. 1. par. 1. Digr. 4. c. 3. p. 87.
• k 1.300

  Correp. Cor. p. 88. lin. 8, 9, 11, 12.
• l 1.301

  The Grand Impostor. p. 25.
• m 1.302

  p. 28. & 31.
• n 1.303

  p. 30.
• o 1.304

  p. 32.
• p 1.305

  Spotswood Hist. Scot. l. 6. p. 330, 331.
• q 1.306

  Lev. 19. 17. Ezek. 33. 7. 8, 9, 10. Ezek. 34. 2, 4, 8, 10. Amos 5. 10.
• q 1.307

  Lev. 19. 17. Ezek. 33. 7. 8, 9, 10. Ezek. 34. 2, 4, 8, 10. Amos 5. 10.
• r 1.308

  Prov. 17. 15.
• s 1.309

  Psal. 19 13.
• t 1.310

  Judg. 16. 8, 12, 14.
• u 1.311

  Num. 22. 41. ch. 23. 13, 14.
• * 1.312

  Vers. 27, 28.
• w 1.313

  Mat. 25. 21.
• x 1.314

  2 Cor. 5. 19.
• y 1.315

  Gal. 5. 6.
• † 1.316

  Mat. 20. 15.
• * 1.317

  1 Cor. 6. 12. & ch. 10. 23.
• z 1.318

  Luke 6. 36.
• z 1.319

  Luke 6. 36.
• a 1.320

  Verse 37.
• z 1.321

  Luke 6. 36.
• b 1.322

  James 2. 13.
• c 1.323

  John 4. 42.
• * 1.324

  Psa. 145. 9. The Lord is good to all; & his tender mer∣cies are over all his works.
• * 1.325

  Psa. 145. 9. The Lord is good to all; & his tender mer∣cies are over all his works.
• d 1.326

  Eph. 3. 20.
• e 1.327

  Rom. 8. 32.
• f 1.328

  Mat. 20. 16.
• g 1.329

  Isa. 50. 2. & 66. 4.
• h 1.330

  Luk: 14. 20.
• k 1.331

  Mar. 10. 12.
• l 1.332

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Luke 7. 30.
• * 1.333

  2 Cor. 6. 1.
• m 1.334

  Corrept. Correct. p. 94. to 100. especially p. 96, 97.
• n 1.335

  Nam & de∣crevit Ada∣mum, ex lap∣su suo, vitiosi∣tatem natura immobilem contracturum. Twiss. Vind. Gra l. 1. par. 2. Digr. 8. Sect. 4. p. 115.
• * 1.336

  Prosper cont. Collat. c. 14.
• * 1.337

  Liv. decad. 3. l. 8.
• * 1.338

  Aug. de Grat. Christi. cap. 39.
• o 1.339

  Luke 6. 43.
• * 1.340

  Sentent. D. Davenantii. p. 20.
• p 1.341

  Prosper in Epist. ad Aug. de relig. Pe∣lag. Her. p. 884.
• q 1.342

  Illud etiam qualiter dilua∣tur, quaesumus patienter Insi∣pientiam no∣stram ferendo demonstres, &c. Id. Ibid. p. 886.
• r 1.343

  —Et hoc non solum alio∣rum Catholio∣rum Testimoni∣is, sed etiam sanctitatis tua disputatione antiquiore se probare testan∣tur, ut & illùd q••od, &c. Hi∣lar. Arcl. in Epist. ad Aug. mihi p. 1199.
• s 1.344

  Haec ego & a∣lia quae hunc sequuntur erro∣rem, credo quod vir ille tam egregie Chri∣stianus omnino non sentiet. Aug. de Pec∣cat. merit & Remiss. l. 3. c. 3. Nos non oportet adver∣tere istum•• honum & praedicandum virum. Ibid. Pelagii quaedam Scripta legi, viri, ut audio, Sancti & non parvo profectu Christiani. Ib. c. 1.
• t 1.345

  unde & isti qui contra haec disputant, cum sint castâ vitâ, moribusque laudabiles, nec dubitant facere quod illi diviti pro con∣sequendâ vitâ aeternâ consilium requirenti, cùm se respondisset jam omnia legis implevisse mandata, praecepit Dominus, si vellet esse perfectus, venderet omnia quae haberet, & daret pauperibus, thesaurumque transferret in Caelum. August. de pec. mer. & Remiss. contra Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 16.
• * 1.346

  See what Austin said of the Pelagians charity, in the place above cited.
• t 1.347

  Neque quo∣rumlibet Dis∣putationes quamvis Ca∣tholicorum & laudatorum hominum, velut Scripturas Canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat Salvâ honorificentiâ, quae illis deberur hominibus, aliquid in eorum Scriptis impro∣bare atque respuere, si fortè invenerimus, quod aliter senseri••••, quàm veritas habet, divino adjutorio, vel ab aliis intellecta, vela nobis. Talis ego sum in Scriptis aliorum, Tales volo esse Intellectores meorum. August. Epist. 3. ad Fortunat.
• u 1.348

  Si ergo tot & tanta divina testimonia con∣cinunt, nec sa∣lus nec vita aeterna sine Baptismo & corpore & sanguine Do∣mini cuiquam speranda est, frustra sine his promittitur Parvulis. Au∣gust. de Pec∣cat. Merit. & Remiss. con∣tra Pelagia∣nos. lib. 1. c. 23. p. 670.
• w 1.349

  Audiamus dominum de sacramento Sanctae mensae suae dicentem, quò nemo rite nisi baptizatus accedit, [nisi manducaveri∣tis earnem meam, & bi∣beritis sangui∣nem, non habebitis vitam aeternam,] Quid ultra quaerimus? Quid ad hoc respondere poterunt? An vero quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit, quod ad parvulos h••c sententia non pertineat possintque sine participatione Corporis hujus & sanguinis in se habere vitam? Id. ib. c. 20. p. 666.
• x 1.350

  Prosper in Epist. ad Aug. p. 886.
• y 1.351

  Aug. de bono pers. c. 19 & 20.
• * 1.352

  Correp. Cor. p. 35.
• * 1.353

  Correp. Corr. p. 221. 222.
• b 1.354

  2 Sam. 11. 2, 3, 4.
• c 1.355

  vers. 13.
• d 1.356

  vers. 15.
• e 1.357

  vers. 25.
• f 1.358

  vers. 27.
• g 1.359

  chap. 1••, 13.
• * 1.360

  Note, that Mr. Simson's Doctrin; which was in substance the same with this, was condemned as a Blasphemy by Mr. Cawdrey, and a∣bove 50 Ministers besides of the same way, in their book intitled, A Testimony to the truth of Iesus Christ. p. 16. Nor was D. Crisp's much unlike it in the same page.
• h 1.361

  He only re∣fer's to the whole book de Apostasiâ Sanctorum.
• † 1.362

  So he re∣viles that ex∣traordinary Person, (now with God, as we ought in charity not to question)? whom Bp. Abbot himself commended, if not admired, as a very great and learned man, even in that very book which he writ against him. Who if he was possibly overtaken, with Lot, and Noah, in drinking wine, yet he repented with Lot, and Noah; Nor was he ever known, in all his life, to play the Correptory Corrector.
• † 1.363

  See how this dangerous Error is detested by good Melancthon loc. Com. de bon. oper. 169. 179. 180. De discrim. pec. mort. et ven. p. 228. manifestus error, & necessario re∣prehendendus—nec confirmemus in stultis securitatem & caecitatem.—nec fingamus Deum saxeum & stoicum—st oicae illae disputationes execrada sunt, Electos semper reti∣nere spiritum sanctum. De pecc. Actualibus. p. 83, 84.
• k 1.364

  Correp. Corr. p. 221. lin. 22, 23, 24, 25.
• k 1.365

  Correp. Corr. p. 221. lin. 22, 23, 24, 25.
• † 1.366

  See how mischievous that Doctrine is in the opi∣nion of King Iames and Dr. ••••verael at the Conference at Hampton-court. p. 30, 31. espe¦cially p. 42, 43.
• * 1.367

  Correp Corr. p. 222. lin. 11, 12, 13.
• * 1.368

  Quorsum enim vivere∣mus, si nihil aetas, nihil usus, nihil assi••ua exercitatio, nihil lectio, nihil meditatio con∣ferret? Calvin. de lib. arbit. contra Pigh ium.
• * 1.369

  1 Thes. 5. 21.