Autokatakrisis, or, Self-condemnation,: exemplified in Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Barlee, and Mr. Hickman. With occasional reflexions on Mr Calvin, Mr Beza, Mr Zuinglius, Mr Piscator, Mr Rivet, and Mr Rollock: but more especially on Doctor Twisse, and Master Hobbs; against whom, God's purity and his præscience ... with the sincere intention and the general extent of the death of Christ, are finally cleared and made good; and the adversaries absurdities ... are proved against them undeniably, out of their own hand-writings. With an additional advertisement of Mr Baxter's late book entituled The Groatian religion discovered, &c. By Thomas Pierce rector of Brington in Northampon-shire.

CHAP. IV. A notorious fallacy of Doctor Twisse and his Followers; with seve∣rall failings discovered in Mr. VVh. (Book 4)

Sect. 1.

* 1.1 MY chief enterprise being performed in so large a manner, and the whole Tree of Error pluck't up by the root, it may seem a superfluity to spend more time upon little twiggs, whose whole subsistence is from the root, and must therefore perish together with it. Yet be∣cause Doctor Twisse is a leading man, and hath built the highest Castle, on the most Airy Foundation, of any arti∣ficer in the kind; and because Mr. W. was not contented, that the Doctors unhappinesse should go alone, but was desirous to joyn his own too; I will regard him so much as to take him in.

* 1.2 I had shewed the sad fallacy which Dr. Twisse had put upon himself and his followers, through his misusage or mistake of that Logick Maxime, [What is first intend∣ed is last executed.] For either not understanding, or wil∣fully dissembling his understanding (I cannot say which, though I am sure of one of the two) what is the scope of that Maxime, and within what limits its truth is bound; he most unreasonably concluded, that because punishment is executed after sin, therefore sin was intended after God decreed punishment. The cause of his fallacy

I shall shew anon, and how inconsistent he is with Mr.W. or with himself. I shewed that if the Maxime had uni∣versal truth in it, a thousand such absurdities as this would follow; that if I first intend to take ship at Do∣ver, and afterwards intend to sail into France, I must (according to that Maxime, as 'tis mistaken by Doctor Twisse) first sail into France, and after that take ship at Dover.

* 1.32. To slubber over the businesse, Mr.Wh. thus talks to admiration; [Is not the journey into France the first thing here intended, and in order to that to take ship at Dover?] Reader, observe to what a prodigie some men are able to tread awry. I had plainly put my case thus, that my first intention is for Dover (not resolving yet to what Countrey I will sail, much lesse to what Port,) and my second inten∣tion for France, particularly for Callis; in answer to which Mr. W. asks, Is not France first intended, and Dover next? and what is this but to say, that my first intention is my last, and my second is my first? If he shall say, that France is the first thing intended by him, and Dover the second, he will confesse the absurdity with which I charge him: for I had spoken of my intentions, in putting the case at that time; not at all of any man's else, much lesse of Mr. W's, a year or two after the time that my case was put.

* 1.43. That he may plead no more for Doctor Twisse his mishaps, nor escape a right apprehension of his own miscarriage, (and that the party may yield their Palla∣dium lost) I will illustrate the Case with the greatest per∣spicuity I can imagin. Suppose a man here in England taking his life to be in danger, intends to go out of the Kingdom, he cares not whither, for preservation from pre∣sent peril: the first thing that he intends, is to take ship at Dover; then it being free to him to go whither he will, as to Flanders, or Holland, or any place else, he at last decrees to go to France: this then is last in his intention, and must therefore (by the Doctrine of Dr. T.) be the first in execution; then which there is nothing more im∣possible,

and so nothing more absurd. Again, a man intends to build a house, not to let it out to others, but to dwell in it himself, and after that intends to make it sum∣ptuous; in doing that he turns Bankru••t, and therefore determines to let it out: this is the last in execution, the sumptuous furnishing of it was next before that, build∣ing before that; will it now follow (as Dr. T. his Lo∣gick would have it) that he lets it out before he fur∣nisheth it? and that he does furnish it before he builds it? Once more, A man determines to take a servant; after he hath taken him, he findes him a knave, and so resolves to put him away: must he therefore put him a∣way before he takes him, because his intention to take him was before his intention to put him away? yet such is the arguing of Doctor Twisse, who* 1.5 saith, that if God did decree to permit sin, before he decreed to damn men for sin, it would follow they must be damned, be∣fore they can so much as be permitted to sin.

* 1.64. As the cause of this Error was his taking that Maxime by the left handle, Quod primum in intentione, est ultimum in executione; so the cause of that also was his over-hasty imagination, that* 1.7 there is no order of in∣tention, unless in respect of the end and the means; which he dictates tanquam ex Tripode, as an unquestionable truth, though there is nothing more visibly and even pal∣pably false. For there being many means to one end, (to wit God's glory) one of these means may be subordinate to another, and so, in mente Dei, before the other. God did not decree to create man to the end that he should sin; nor did he decree that man should sin, to the end he might be damned: but he decreed to create man, and to permit him to sin, and to damn him for sinning, to the end his glory might be advanced. And this is* 1.8 acknow∣ledged by the Doctor even in that very page.

* 1.95. To remove the Origin of the whole evil, I shall not need to say more then this: God foreseeing that man would voluntarily sin if he were not forcibly hindered, and decreeing not to use any forcible hinderance (which would not suit with the nature of a free and voluntary Agent) he also saw that Adam would make a wrong choice, and there∣by fall from his state of Innocence. This state of Adam is to be looked on as a Disease, which stands in need of a Soveraign Remedy. The death of Christ is that Remedy which God decreed. And it cannot be imagined, that the Remedy should be first in intention, before the Dis∣ease was foreseen, or the very permission of it decreed; though still the Remedy is to be last in execution, as it was also in the intention. Therefore the Axiom must be so li∣mited, as to be onely appliable to those things, whereof the later is the absolute end, and the former decreed as a means to attain it by. But thus it is not in mente Dei; for the permission of sin is not designed by God as a means of bringing in any former decree of giving Christ; but as that which is suitable to Adam's nature, created with a free elective faculty, commonly known by the name of Will. Now God foreseeing that man will do what will be permitted to be done, doth also foresee an opportunity of magnifying his mercy in giving Christ, and according∣ly decrees to give him. And that before Adam falls, though not before he decrees to permit his fall, and actually fore∣sees that fall of Adam. From whence 'tis clear, that* 1.10 that Maxime is very absurdly applyed unto the busi∣ness of Gods decrees; as by numberless instances might be evinced. For what man will say, that the Creation of the world, which was the first thing in execution, was therefore the last in Gods intention? It was certainly prae∣cedaneous, in mente Dei, to the fall of Adam. For how could Adam be considered as an actual sinner, without being considered as something capable of sin? Indeed Mr. Perkins was so unhappy as to teach it for Divinity,† 1.11 That Gods decree of damning was before his decree of creating man. And Doctor Twisse* 1.12 confesseth that he was once of

that mind. But Arminius clearly confuted Perkins; and Doctor Twisse doth seem to confess as much, calling Per∣kins his opinion* 1.13 rigidiorem sententiam. Let it now be remembred, that there is a priority of order amongst those things whereof neither can be said to be the end of the other, and the original cause of the errour is quite removed.

* 1.146. But Mr. W. alledgeth, that Doctor Twisse under∣stands the old maxime de finibus ultimis, non interme∣diis, p. 18.] If he did not look into the Doctors words, why would he speak thus without any knowledge of the Fact? And if he did, why would he speak against his knowledge? The Doctor applyes the maxime only to sin and damnation, and things on this side damnation, but not to any thing beyond it. And that damnation is not finis ultimus, the Doctor stifly maintains in the place before cited. If Mr. W. think•• it is, he contradicts the Doctor, whilest he as∣serts him. It is agreed on all sides, that the Glory of God is finis ultimus, to which the damnation of the impenitent is but a means. And therefore Mr. W. might have omit∣ted his ill language which there he gives me, unless he had found some colour for it. If he did not fear his under∣taking, why did he not cite the page or chapter, where I had spoken of the subject, that I and others might easily have found it out? I leave his best friends to judge of such dealings.

* 1.157. But Doctor Twisse saith farther, that the decrees of permitting sin, and of giving Christ, are co-ordinate, Ibid. p. 3.] In saying that, he did well to oppose Mr. Per∣kins, although not well to miss the truth: It doth not fol∣low that they are not subordinate, because not so as Mr. Perkins feigned them: they are one after another in or∣der of nature (though not of time) as the Disease is be∣fore the Cure, as well in nature as time; and though both are means to Gods glory, yet still the Remedy must suppose the Disease, and one is naturally conceivable be∣fore the other. And so for the punishment of sin, which is another means of Gods glory, it praesupposeth sin by such

a necessity of illation, that God cannot be imagined to decree a mans punishment, without regard to some offence, which the nature of punishment doth imply: which being the main thing that I objected to Mr. B. (speaking of* 1.16 Post-destination) to which he durst not re••••ly, nor Mr. W. in his behalf, I leave with the rest of this Section, as a full Rejoynder to what he hath in his running Titles, concerning Post-destination, or Negative Reprobation, since the body of his Book is filled with Tergiversati∣ons.

Sect. 2.

There being nothing now left of any moment in Mr. W.* 1.17 I will discover his other failings in the fewest words that I am able. In his p. 43. he makes a syllogisme after an ugly manner in the third figure, and tells his Reader it is mine, nay he pretends to cite it from Philan. c. 4. p. 5. and calls it pitiful Sophistry: yet his own heart and the world shall be my witnesses, that there is no such thing in any part of any book which I have published; much less there where he pretends it. All my redress of such wrongs, is to protest against them, and to require reparations from the person offending, and to direct my Readers to Philanth. c. 4. p. 5. where they will see what it was which made the enemy to sly into such lewd dea∣lings for his defence. He and Mr. B. must either prove that Reprobation is no punishment, or else confess their cause is ruined.

Sect. 3.

In Mr. W's. second part, which is all against conditional and universal Redemption, p. 53.* 1.18 I observe these things with a running eye. 1. He denies that Christ died for all mankind. Not onely in contradiction to Scri∣pture, and the Church of England, but to Bishop* 1.19 Da∣venant in particular, and even to Dr. Twifs, as Mr. Baxter shewes in his Praef. to his Disp. p. 11, 13, 14. Next, he saith, that there is no conditional Election of all. Who saith there is any election of all? an election of persevering be∣lievers is not of all. 3. Election and Redemption are not

commensurate, as he affirms. Redemption is not the fruit of Election, witness the poverty of his proofs, p. 54. His first is nothing to Redemption, no nor the second. But on the contrary, Electing in Christ praesupposeth Re∣demption, in Gods eternal foresight, and our being con∣sidered as believers in Christ. No nor the third, for Re∣demption according to rich grace, (Eph. 1.7.) is not of a few; to the more it is extended, the richer 'tis. His fourth from Joh. 3.16. is yet more grosly against himself. God so loved the world, as to give his Son for the world, not the smallest part of it. Had that been the meaning, Saint John had said, God so hated the world, that he denyed his Son to the far greater part of it, that not believing in him they might perish, &c. Mr. W's. proofs p. 55. from the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so] are most ridiculous of all; for so is expres∣sive of the degree of the love, not exclusive of it, or of any man from it, but inclusive of all, &c. It seems the Pres∣byterian love must be inclosed, or good for nothing; whereas sincere love, the more extensive it is, it is ever the greater, not the more restrained. What would he think if one should say, he is so loving a Neighbour, that he hardly loves one in twenty? a man so kind, that he hates more then he loves? Redeeming love tends to eter∣nal life, even to them that never come thither: and this is sure the greatest love, as being extended also to enemies, whereas the other is onely to supposed friends. But in∣deed betwixt infinites there is no comparison. The compa∣rison made Joh. 15.13. is of finite mens loves; and yet even there the greatest is that of laying down a life. Does Mr. W. think there are two greatest?

2. His Answers to that Objection, p. 55. [The world is here the object of this love, therefore it cannot be meant of an electing love] are strangely gross. For (1) special love, with him, is nothing else but electing love: nor is there need in that notion, to say that all are the objects of it. It is but his begging of the Question, to confound Electing with Redeeming love. Gods hating Esau is com∣paratively meant, and is but loving him less then his bro∣ther

Jacob: in which sense we are obliged to* 1.20 hate our Parents, our Wives and Children. Even† 1.21 Luther and* 1.22 Mollerus did not doubt of Esau's et eternal bliss. Nor durst Oecolampadius to account him a Reprobate, because he knew those words (Rom. 9.) were onely spoken by a† 1.23 fi∣gure. 2. He confessed the world doth either signifie in Scripture the whole universe of men, or the greatest part, which is the worst, (p. 55, 56.) and this most usually he grants. But he ask, why may it not also signifie the few∣est and the best too? as if he knew not the Rule, Analo∣gum per se positum stat pro famosiori. He saith a heap that hath more chaff then wheat in it, is usually called a heap of wheat, (p. 56.) By deceitful Jobbers no doubt it may be, who cheat the Buyer. But would Mr. W. buy his Corn so? or think the man honest who should so sell a bag of Corrans, where 29. parts of 30. are very trash? Joh. 6.33. there is bread spoken of, giving life to the world, that is to say, to all that eat it. And Rom. 11.15. the world is all except the Jewes, therefore by far the grea∣ter part. Then 2 Cor. 5.19. Reconciling the world, is meant of the whole world, but conditionally. The other Texts 2 Pet. 2.5. & 1 Joh. 5.19. which speak of the world, and the whole world, are clearly meant of the grea∣test part, not of the least. So all flesh, Joel 2.28. is meant of all Nations, all the earth, as well the Gentiles as the Jewes. Mundus Redemptionis, in Austin, is not mundus simply, but restrained to those that are finally sa∣ved; which is not the notion of Redemption of which we are speaking from Joh. 3.16. where God so loved the world (without restraint) that [quicunque vellet credere] whoso∣ever would believe, might have life everlasting.

3. His Answer to that Objection, p. 56. [The world is distributed into believers and unbelievers, &c.] is very woful. For 1. Is not the word Believing a restraint of the World? If so, then there are some who are not belie∣ving, and then there is a distribution: which Mr. W. de∣nies. 2. If those who are uncalled, our Saviour calls by the name of the world, then the world signifies not onely the

Elect: for Mr. W. cannot say that all the uncalled are the Elect.

4. What he calls his second Argument, p. 57. is gratis dictum, he crudely affirming, without the least proof, that Christ died for none but whom he approved. Point-blank against Scripture, 2 Pet. 2.1. where Christ is said to have bought them that deny him, and broach damnable heresies, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. Did he approve of such men? or did he not dye for them whom he bought? Alas Mr. W!

5. His third Argument, p. 57. is thus easily retorted; That if it is as he would have it, Christ died for many who were already in Heaven. And his Answer to the Objection, p. 58. is somewhat worse: For as he holds that they in Hell were decreed absolutely to be damned; so he holds that they in Heaven were as absolutely decreed to be saved. In both he is but a beggar of the thing in question: for I affirm those decrees not to be absolute, but respective.

6. As for his* 1.24 fourth (p. 58) I deny the sequel; but he takes leave to prove his Antecedent onely, which no man denies. In his Answer to the Objection, p. 59. he misunderstands the word Condition; which is not resisting, but using and improving Gods gifts and graces: and so God will give them the grace of faith, if they will humbly beg, or thankfully receive it. None can come except the Father draws; but when he draws, all may that will. And though no condition is required to Gods first grace, (p. 60.) yet the receiving of that is required to his giving of more.

7. His fifth Argument, (p. 60, 61.) if granted, proves my conclusion, that Christ died not onely sufficiently, but intentionally for all; for that he died for all, the Scripture saith. But (2.) Christ hath not actually taken away im∣penit••••cy by his death, any farther then by purchasing suf∣ficient grace to repent. 'Tis true, the blood of Jesus clean∣seth us from all sin, 1 John 1.7. but how? actually? or onely meritoriously? not so, but thus,* 1.25 saith the late

great Primate. He hath redeemed us from iniquity, Tit. 2.14. but by giving us grace to forsake iniquity. (Let Mr. W. mark that.) He saves his people from their sins, (Mat. 1.) but we must be his then by our faithfulness to him, as well as faith, before he will save us from the punishment which our sins will otherwise entail upon us. He hath so far delivered us, (Luke 1.74.) as to give us grace or power whereby to serve him. And though 'tis the pro••erty of the flesh to resist the spirit (as Mr. W. saith truly, p. 61.) yet 'tis the work of Christs spirit to mortifie the flesh: which when we have done, even to that very Spirit we im••ute our conquest. Whereas he saith, to the great reproch of his Doctrine,* 1.26 [That Christ cannot be said seriously to desire the salvation of those, from whom he will not remove those things which he knows will hinder their salvation, p. 61.] I answer, that he could not seriously desire it, if he did not give them sufficient means: but this ☜ lights heavily upon them who deny such a sufficiency to the most of mankind, and so infer Gods offers to be serious onely to a few. I alwayes teach, that Christ is wanting to none in what is requisite to their safety, if they are not wanting to themselves. But though his desire is serious, it is not passionate, or unreasonable, so as to save men by force, either against, or without their wills. He doth not violently remove whatsoever hinders them from salvation by any acts of meer power, but deals with men as free A∣gents, who could not otherwise be fit for reward or pu∣nishment. He takes away the heart of stone where it is really taken away, and none but he can do that work: but he does it not irresistibly, and therefore in many the stone remains not taken away, where yet he mercifully at∣tempts it by such kind of means, as are wise and congruous, and in themselves sufficient; onely the wilfulness of men doth keep them from being effectual also.

8. His sixth Argument from Tit. 2.14. (in his p. 62.) deserves not any Indignation, but very much Pity. For those Believers whom Christ receiveth, he doth purge and purifie with* 1.27 more grace. That all are not purged, is

their† 1.28 own fault onely. Christ satisfied for all upon the Cross, but did not actually save them; as his Grace of Armagh doth often say. Application is not a necessary effect of Redemption; and that Mr. W. may also learn from the same* 1.29 writing of the said Primate. Christ doth not leave it unto man onely to make the Application, yet gives him grace whereby to make it. And for what is said p. 63. from 1 Joh. 2.1, 2. I answer thus, There is a two∣fold Advocation or Intercession of Christ, one on the Cross, and one in Heaven. Again, one for sinners, that they may repent; another for penitents, that they may finally perse∣vere. He had this prayer for his Crucifiers, Father, for∣give them. But another for his Disciples; Father, keep those whom thou hast given me, (Joh. 17.11.) That kind of pray∣er was was not for the world, but for those who came in from among the worldlings, (Joh. 17.9.) That former prayer was for Rebels who stood out; this later for obedient and loyal Subjects, who were already in his possession.

9. His seventh Argument (p. 63.) from that promise of God, The seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head, (Gen. 3.) is a very strong Argument of the Disputers weakness; and serves for nothing in the world, but to proclaim the grosness of his mistake. For the seed of the woman is Jesus Christ, the object of true belief; not true believers. So that all falls at once, which he hath built on this bottom. Yet I will note one rarity for being a rarity indeed. ☞ Mr. W. saith that the Serpent doth not proper∣ly exercise his enmity against all men, but against the Elect onely, (p. 63.) And what moves him to say it, but his be∣ing resolv'd to conclude this from it, Ergo, Christ died not for all, but onely for the Elect? But stay, good Sir, is not Satan their enemy, whom he tempts to sin, and possesseth, and makes to cut themselves with stones? or doth he not exercise his enmity against them whom he betrayes to the paines of Hell? Besides, hath he a knowledge of the Elect (before the last audit) or hath he not? If he hath, from whence? or why will he tempt them at all, when he knows 'tis lost labour? If he hath not a knowledge of them, how

can he single them out from all the Reprobates, to practice his enmity upon them?

10. His eighth Argument, (p. 64, 65.) is the worst of all, as well as the last, it being nothing but a presump∣tion, that all the infants of the Heathen are unavoidably damned. Yet ask him what he thinks of himself and his party (who are exceedingly more sinful then Heathen In∣fants) he will tell you they are Elect, and must be saved as unavoidably. Mr. B. is on this pin too, from his p. 144. to p. 147. But having cut them out work in* 1.30 other places, I onely pity them in this, beseeching God to endue them with grace and reason. I will but briefly forewarn others against the presumption of passing judgement upon other mens souls, and rudely pressing into Gods secrets. God acquaints us indeed with his manner of proceeding in cer∣tain cases, as with those to whom his word is preached; but of his dealing with others we are not qualified to judg, un less as far as we are led by general rules out of Scripture. As for example, [

He hath no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the chil∣dren of men. He is a God ready to pardon, swift to shew mercy, and slow to wrath. His mercy is over all his works. His Commandments are not grievous. The soul that sin∣neth it shall dye. The son shall not dye for the iniquity of the Parents. God requireth according to what men have, not according to what they have not.]

He condemns not any man for not seeing, to whom he never gave eyes, or who never had light whereby to see. He condems not the deaf, for not hearing the Gospel; nor the tender Infant, for not comprehending it, whilest it is near. And how he will be pleased to deal with others, who are under the same Impossibility for want of preaching, he hath no other∣wise told us then by parity of reason, that many are saved by Christs name, who never heard it; and by his merits, who never heard of them. I say not these things, as if the interest of my cause were concerned in it; I am sure it is not: For if all the Heathen are damned for their unbelief, then am I still in the right; it is not because Christ is not

offered, but because they will not accept. And if they that are redeemed, are so conditionally, then what can hinder us from believing (especially since God hath so often said it) that the Heathens also were redeemed, as well as Chri∣stians? And may it for ever be kept in mind (for many great and weighty reasons) that 'tis not knowledge, but practice, to which the promises are made.

Sect. 4.

* 1.31 Mr. W. spends his remaining papes in a preten∣ded Answer to Objections, in two of which I am con∣cerned. The first (beginning p. 71.) I have already shewed to be destructive to what he had positively delivered, p. 19. Or if his p. 19. is owned by him, it is just as destructive to his p. 71, 72. & so I refer him to what I have said, c. 1. sect. 2. p. 4, & 5. But because Mr. B. on the same* 1.32 subject doth also speak the same sense, (if it is sense to say, that all and every man doth signifie very few in respect of all, and that the whole world notes the lesser part onely,) I will adde a few things, to deliver them both at once from the present thraldom they are in.

* 1.331. If the world, and the whole world, shall be permitted to signifie the little flock onely, and not the Universe of men, a way is opened to the Socinians, to persist in their course of robbing the Church of those Texts which we al∣ledge for the proof of Christs Divinity. One of the clea∣rest Texts we have is Joh. 1.10. The world was made by him: Here by the world, say the* 1.34 Socinians, is not meant this Fabrick of Heaven and Earth, not yet the Universe of men throughout the world, but the state of Bliss in the life to come, which the Man Christ Jesus hath purchased for us. And they have more to say for it, then the Pres∣byterians for their Whimsey, because the Apostle doth call that future state, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the world to come, Heb. 2.5. but he never useth the word World to signifie onely the Elect. Nay, as the Learned Daille doth acknowledge, (who is farre from being an Arminian) whensoever the VVorld in Holy Writ doth not signifie Mankind, it clearly signifies the greater

and† 1.35 worser part. Nay Mr. Daille* 1.36 gives this for the first and chief reason why Camero and Amyrald, and o∣ther eminent Protestants, did depart from their brethren the Calvinists in this particular, and chose rather to sub∣mit to the plain Tenor of the Scripture as it was ever un∣derstood by the Primitive Church. Besides, he gives notice to Spanhemius,* 1.37, that if we suffer our own selves to understand the world of the Elect onely, (a trick never heard of, saith Daille, from any Writer in the World, whe∣ther Jew or Gentile) we shall encourage the bold and licentious people to make God's word a Nose of Wax, and forge up on it what sense they please.

* 1.382. Mr. W. doth confesse p. 72. and Mr. B. p. 84, 85.

1. That we must not recede from the literal sense of Scri∣pture when it will agree with other Scriptures. And 2. That Scripture-Phrases must be interpreted according to the nature of the matter expressed by them.

] The former of these two I shewed* 1.39 so plainly, that neither of these brethren have offered any thing against it; and so they confesse, in equivalence, that in the literal sense of those expressions [all, every, the whole, &c.] the Texts I cited are to be taken. Then for the later, it is evident that the matter of Christ's procuring a salvability for all without exception, is of a† 1.40 favourable nature, both in respect of God and Man. Whereas the matter of God's leaving the far greatest part of mankind under a desperate impossibility of being saved, is of an* 1.41 odious nature in all respects. Now we have general† 1.42 Rules for the inter∣preting of any matters in dispute, by reason of any ambi∣guity which may be pretended to lie in words; and such

unquestionable Rules, as the law of all Nations (of what Religion whatsoever) is wont to go by in all Debates, that so Controversies and Jarres may not certainly be end∣less; which yet they certainly will be, if there are not some standing Rules, by which the words of all compacts are to be measured and made certain, as to their sense and signification. Such Rules are these in the Civil law, (which is founded upon the Law of Nature.)

• 1. In things not odious, words are to be taken according to the whole propriety of popular use,* 1.43 so as the Masculine may include the Foeminine, and the Indefinite the Univer∣sal.
• 2. In matters more favourable, words are to be ta∣ken in the most lax and wide signification that they will bear.* 1.44
• 3. In things of an odious nature, a figurative sense must be admitted,* 1.45 to avoid rigor or absurdity. And a greater restriction is to be used then for the rigid propriety of the wo••d.

Hence it is that as when God is said in Scripture to harden the heart, to pollute his Temple, to profane his San∣ctuary, and the like, I say 'tis figuratively spoken, and must be onely understood by the common Hebraism; so when Christ is said to be the Saviour of the world, the Pro∣pitiation for the sins of the whole world, the Saviour of all men, and to have tasted death for every man, and the like, I say 'tis meant in the propriety of those universals; and if [whole] in one Text had not been added to [the world] as we know it is 1 Joh. 2.2. yet that Indefinite [the world] must have included the universal: my reasons of both are taken à diversâ ratione materiae odiosae, & favorabilis. But now my Adversaries (on the contrary) do take the words in their propriety where the matter is odious; and they contend for a Synechdoche (such as never was heard

of before the broaching of their Heresie) where the matter is the most favourable to be imagined: unlesse they think it no odious thing for God to be concluded the Au∣thor of sin; and a thing very odious for the mercy of God to be over all his works, and for other men to be saveable as well as themselves.

* 1.463. Mr. B. confesseth (p. 87.) that in the general pro∣posal of the Gospel to every creature Mar. 16.15. there cannot possibly lurk any mental reservation, or insincerity.] And that an untruth is to be believed by the commandment of him who is the God of truth, the Lord Primate calls the* 1.47 extreme absurdity into which the Arminians did drive the Calvinists. Nor did he doubt but Mr. Culver∣wel was driven to the extremity on the right hand, by the† 1.48 absurdities which he discerned in this extremity on the left. For (saith the Primate) what would not a man flye unto rather then yield that Christ died in no wayes for the Reprobates, and that

none but the Elect had any kind of title to him,* 1.49 and yet many thousand Reprobates should be bound in conscience to believe that he died for them, and tied to accept him for their Redeemer and Saviour, yea, and should be condemned to everlast∣ing torments for want of such a faith, (if we may call that Faith which is not grounded on the word of Truth) whereby they should have believed that, which in it self was most untrue, and laid hold of that in which they had no kind of interest?

* 1.50 Yet Mr. W. saith plainly that all men are not commanded to believe, but onely the least part of the world, p. 75. thereby inferring, 1. That the greatest part of the World do not sin in not believing, as being not commanded to it; 2. That none of that greatest part are damned for not believing; 3. Or if they are, they are damned for not doing that, which not to do is no sin; 4. Or that they actually do sin without offending against Praecept; 5. And so, by a consequence unavoi∣dable, that S. John hath falsely defined sin to be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the transgression of the law. He farther saith,* 1.51 that

the Gospel is onely preached to the least part of the world, ibid. as if he knew nothing either of Church-History, or Cosmography; nor did believe any truth to be in the Prophe∣sies of the Old Testament, or in the oeconomy of the New. It seems the 1. Protestants, and 2. Papists, and 3. Greeks, and 4. Muscovites, 5. the Asiaticks under the Patriarch of Jerusalem, 6. the Melchites under that of Antioch, 7. the Armenians under 100. Bishops, 8. the Jacobites (who are mingled with the Mahumetans through a great part of Asia under their Patriarch at Caramite) 9. the Christians under the Patriarch of Mozul about Assyria, Mesopotamia, Parthia, and Media, (accounted more then all the Papists) 10. the Georgians in Iberia, 11. the Circassians, 12. the Mengrellians, 13. the Christians of all Natolia under the Patriarch of Constantinople, 14. those in the Kingdomes of Cazan and Astracan under the Patriarch of Mosco, 15. the Maronites, 16. the Indians of S. Thome, 17. those under the Pa∣triarch of Alexandria, whose jurisdiction hath reached from the Gaditan streights to the River Nile, 18. The Abassin Christians in Aethiopia under their Abunna, 19. those in Congo and Angola, 20. besides all the A∣mericans through New Spain, Castella nova, Peru, and Brasile, 21. besides all the English, Dutch, and French Plantations in Mexicana, and the Islands on either side, (that is to say in fewer words) Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, do passe with Mr. W. for the least part of the World. It were easie to teach this bold affirmer (were there time, or necessity for such a work) how much the greatest part of the world was preached to by the A∣postles, and Deacons, and other Disciples of Christ, both in the first and succeeding ages of the Church. I have heard of one who thought the Sun never shined out of Spain and Italy. And now I meet with his peer, who thinks the Sunshine of the Gospel doth reach no further then his stunted knowledge of what is done under the Sun. But grant him his dictate, he is still undone in his doctrine: for the Gospel is preached here in England and France, as

well to the Reprobates as the Elect; which Reprobates are in duty to believe a lie, or else they are not commanded to believe, and so shall never be punished for want of faith, or shall be punished for that which cannot possibly be a sin. One or more of these things must be admitted by Mr. W. if Christ died onely for the elect, as he positively affirms. Now considering the Tenent of that Tribe, that the Papists are Reprobates, and the Episcopal Pro∣testants a kind of Papists (Cassandrian Papists their word is) and Independents of all sorts as bad as either, it may well become a Quaere, whether it is not his opinion, that Christ died onely for Presbyterians, and that none besides are sincerely commanded to believe. But I am not at lei••ure to sift him so, as well I might.

Sect. 5.

* 1.52 The last thing I am concerned to consider in Mr. W. and Mr. B. is their nibling at that Rock of demon∣stration, which I opposed against their error, in my Notes first p. 19. and next more largely in my Defence of God's Philanthropy, c. 4. p. 28, 29, 30. I mean that Rock of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5.14. making it good against all opposers, that as sure as all were dead in sin, so sure it is that Christ died for all. This is nibled at tenderly by Mr. W. p. 77. and yet more tenderly by Mr. B. p. 93. by both so ten∣derly, as if they discerned it to be a Rock, as firm and hard as the Marpesian, and were fearful to venture their teeth upon it; especially the man with the noysom teeth, as knowing that such would break the soonest. To make short work, I allow Mr. B. his Tergiversation, and am content to be tried by the best Interpreters,* 1.53 (as he pre∣tends to be desirous, p. 92.) even by those whom he and Mr. W. shall grant to be the best Interpreters, as to this particular, to wit, S. Austin and Prosper. 1. S. Austin

argues from that Text in the very same manner that I did, [viz. That Christ died for all without exception, because all without exception were dead in sin] no lesse then six di∣stinct times. Once, lib. 20. de Civ. Dei cap. 6. init. Tom. 5. p. 1340. again, lib. 6. contra Julian. cap. 4. Tom. 7. p. 432. and again, ibid. c. p. 434. and again, ibid. c. 5.9. p. 436. once more, ibid. c. 17. p. 442. col. 2. And in another book a∣gainst Julian, although imperfect, l. 1. c. 62. Tom. 7. p. 24. and yet again, lib. de Corrept. & Gratiâ, cap. 16. Tom. 7. p. 541. And to this is consonant what he taught in his Retractations, c. 3. lib. 1. Judaeos & Gentiles, Christi con∣temptores, vocatos fuisse eâ vocatione quâ vocati sunt qui noluerunt venire ad Nuptias. And again in his very Re∣tractations, Verum est omnino omnes hoc posse si velint, lib. 1. cap. 9. And to the same purpose in his Confessions there is a notable passage, lib. 8. c. 5. Tom. 1.

2. Prosper also doth prove that Christ died for all that were dead in sin,* 1.54 and so for every son of Adam, unless there is any one of the number free from all sin; for Christ (saith he) died not for such: but he proves there cannot be any such, and therefore none for whom Christ died not; and his chiefest proof is from 2 Cor. 5.14. which he expounds exactly, as I have done from the beginning; and he in∣deed was the first in whom I met with it, at least three years before I saw it in S. Austin.

3. To save me the labour of saying more, Mr. B. hath dropped a confession, which he saith is the confession of all my adversaries, That an offer of Christ is made to all unto whom the Gospel is, and by commission ought to be, preached, p. 87. he also confesseth that the offer is sincerely made, ibid. This I lay hold on, though he saith the contrary shortly after, viz. That God in the means of Grace, doth not so much as make an offer of salvation to all, p. 90. A∣gain, though he saith at one fit, that there was in Christs death a sufficiency for all, even of a* 1.55 thousand worlds, if

there were so many, p. 91. yet at another fit he tells us, that God had not an intention to save all, p. 90. and yet in a third fit, he saith, the proposal of the Gospel to every crea∣ture is without reservation or insincerity, p. 87. and further yet, that it is pessible, by vertue of Christs merits, for all men to be saved, p. 87. and how so? he saith very truly, in case of true faith and repentance: there he is also for conditional redemption to all the world, as exactly as I am. As for his flat contradictions to the Lord Primate, with whom he professed to concur, and many other misfortunes upon this subject, I refer him to all his concernments in The Self-Revenger exemplified.

Sect. 6.

* 1.56 I now conclude with some reasons, why I lose no more time in exposing these Authors to more pity, and their Doctrines to more contempt. 1. I am told by men of knowledge, that their books are already become waste pa∣per, bought by a few onely of the many, and read con∣tentedly by none at all. 2. I am importuned by divers not to consider them over-much, who have not a dange∣rous plausibility amongst the vulgar, but to reserve my spare houres for the most popular man of that party, who (as I am credibly informed) is doing his utmost to find me work. 3. They have adventured to nibble, (and but to nibble) at so few things in my Answer, that they do ta∣citely grant the greatest part to have left no colour for a Reply. 4. A great part of their performances are visi∣ble shifts, rather then serious oppositions; even mean tran∣sitions à genere ad genus, easie sneakings ab Hypothesi ad Thesin, at every pinch Ignorationes Elenchi, purposed sittings beside the Cushion, and many times betwixt two stools too, gratis dicta are their very least frailties, as studied forgeries are the greatest; and I confess it is painful, to spend much time (with Domitian) in killing Flies. 5. When they are brought to such straits, that they find not a cre∣vice or a key-hole whereat to attempt a creeping out, they yield themselves up, and all for which they have conten∣ded, without so much as making any terms of mercy. As

for example,* 1.57 Mr. B. professeth

He doth readily yield, that God did not absolutely decree the Reprobation posi∣tive of any creature, but upon praescience and supposition of wilful rebellion and impenitence, p. 70, 71.

nay he professeth this to be the Doctrine of all Orthodox Wri∣ters, ancient and modern, p. 70. And why should He be much talked with, who confesseth all in one breath, which he denieth in another? See the Div. Philanth. ch. 4. p. 4. especially p. 5. yet no sooner gets he loose, but he denies the very thing which the necessity of his affairs had made him confess, and pleads (for want of a better excuse) Lap∣sus linguae non est error mentis, p. 77. what cares he how he miscarries, who can so easily make amends? 6. When this evader is so stomachful that he will not yield, and yet so despairing of success that he will not resist a cogent Argument, he makes no scruple to profess a Tergiversa∣tion. As for example, when I had pressed him with a* 1.58 Dilemma of huge importance, even evincing out of his mouth, that his Distinction of Positive and Negative Reprobation was but a shift, he contents himself with this return, [Mr. Barlee needs not answer that Dilemma, p. 81.] And so when he knowes not what to say to the convincing points of my reasonings about the general extent and sin∣cere intent of Christ's death, he gives me the slip in these words, [

It would be superfluous labour to spend more time and paper in giving more particular answers to his luxu∣riant discourses, p. 93.

] 7. Mr. W. and he and Mr. Hobbs are so frequently condemned out of their own mouths, that they would need no Confuters besides themselves, if all their Readers were but attentive. To give a few instan∣ces of many, Mr. W. saith p. 29. God is not the Author of evil, because not causa per se, but per accidens. Yet in his extent of Div. Prov. p. 40. he saith that causa per accidens never works till causa per se sets it on work.] Now because it is not man who sets God on work, it is plainly his meaning, that God is causa per se of sin, and sets man on work who is causa per accidens; which others call a deficient cause. Again, he confesseth in his last Work,

p. 25. that if it is impossible to separate the sin from the action, then he who is the Author of the one, is also of the o∣ther. Yet he also confesseth p. 37. that the modi rerum are not really distinguished from the things themselves, but so neerly conjoined as they cannot be separated. Nor can any reason be rendred why Doctor Twisse should say,* 1.59 that Fornication denoteth sin even secundùm materiale, except this one, that the sin is inseparable from the Act. In like manner Mr. Hobbs, though he saith in* 1.60 one place, that sins are actions, and in† 1.61 another place, that God is the cause of all actions, and in a* 1.62 third place, that he is a prin∣cipal Agent in the causing of all actions, yet he† 1.63 denies him to be the Author of the actions which he causeth. And his reason for it is more prodigious then all the rest; for God (saith he) cannot be said to be the Author of sin, because he doth but necessitate it, not command or warrant it, p. 105, 106. yet even this last he contradicts too, by saying that* 1.64 power irresistible doth justifie all actions. Now that which necessitates is power irresistible, and that which justifies doth warrant, and he saith that that which war∣rants is the Author of sin. (Qu. p. 106.) and that sin must needs derive a necessity from God (p. 105.) and the great∣est men of his Principle do say that God commands men to sin, which he confesseth is to call him the Author of sin. (p. 106.) Nay he* 1.65 elsewhere professeth, that a man must not SAY, God hath caused him to erre, and it is through the Lord that he fell away, but he may THINK so very well. And wo had been to Ecclesiasticus, had he denied it. Nor is there any thing more common with these men, then to say that sin is necessary as decreed by God, although con∣tingent as freely willed by man. Now necessary being that, which cannot chuse but be, and contingent that, which either may or may not be; what is this but to say, it is necessary as decreed, but not necessary as not decreed? It cannot but be, and yet it might possibly not have been: it is contingent, and not contingent: which is as if they should say, we cannot de∣ny our Adversaries Premisses, and therefore we must hold the one part of the contradiction; but we will not

quit our own conclusion, and therefore we must hold the other part of the contradiction. Thus by their own way of arguing, they are men, and they are not: they are men, as being indued with Reason; and they are not, as being in∣dued with none. Sure that sort of men is no longer to be disputed with, who have drank so deeply, and digested, and reduced also to practice, the* 1.66 Jesuites doctrine of Pro∣bability. 8. Last of all, for Mr. B. who hath spent so many whole sheets in calling me Papist, Arminian, Socinian, Massilian, Pelagian, and what else he listed, though I could make it undeniable, (even to him, and his Conger∣rones,) that he hath spoken of each, as if he knew nothing of any one, and could prove him irresistibly (by an Argu∣ment ad hominem) to be a Hobbist, a Mahumetan, and of every other Sect of men, with whom he partakes in any kind; yet I shall imitate S. Austin, and take a shorter course with him: When that Father was accused by Se∣cundinus for a Manichee, he purged himself in this man∣ner; Secundinus saith I am a Manichee, and I say I am not. Let the Reader judge, which of us is herein to be believed. My case is the same, and I will take the same course. Mr. Barlee saith I am a Papist, Pelagian, Soci∣nian, Sorcerer, &c. But I say No to all his sayings: I leave it now to the Reader, to believe whom he pleaseth, Mr. Barlee, or Mr. Pierce.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Of the signall Fallacy swal∣lowed first by D. Twisse, then by his Followers.
• * 1.2

  1. Dr. Twisse his important fal∣lacy which runs through his book.
• * 1.3

  2. Mr. W's essay to cover the fal∣lacy in his p. 17, & 18.
• * 1.4

  3. The Fallacy shewed in its deformity.
• * 1.5

  Si peccati permissio prius intenderetur quàm damna∣tio, sequeretur in executione ut damnatio priùs sieret quàm peccati permisso. Twiss. in Praesat. ad Vin. Gr. p. 3.
• * 1.6

  4. T••e first cause of the whole mistake.
• * 1.7

  Neque enim ullus intentio∣nis ordo est, nisi ratione mediorum & Finis. Id. ibid.
• * 1.8

  Neque enim damnotio po∣test esse finis à Deo intentus, quandoqui∣dem D••us fa∣c•••• omnia propter se. Necesse est ergo ut gloria Dei ejusque patefactio sit finis actionum Divinarum. Idem ibid.
• * 1.9

  5. That first cause removed, and the fallacy les•• naked.
• * 1.10

  Quod pri∣mum in inten∣tione, est ulti∣mum in exe∣cutione.
• † 1.11

  Etiam ipso Decreto crean∣di prius esse ju∣dicavi decre∣tum praedesti∣nandi tum ad salutem tum ad damnatio∣nem. Id. Ib. p. 2. col. 1.
• * 1.12

  Ibid.
• * 1.13

  Ibid.
• * 1.14

  6. Mr. W's indi∣rect course to excuse Doctor Twisse in con∣tradiction to him.
• * 1.15

  7. Doctor Twisse his error of co∣ordination, &c.
• * 1.16

  See D. Phil. ch 1. p. 5, 6.
• * 1.17

  Mr. M's. forgery of objections in other mens names.
• * 1.18

  Mr. W. of Christs death, p. 53.
• * 1.19

  Sent. Daven. p. 10, 11.
• * 1.20

  Luk. 14.26.
• † 1.21

  Luth. in Gen. 33.
• * 1.22

  Mollerus in Mal. cap. 1.
• † 1.23

  Oecolam. Edit. Crisp. 1158. Gen.
• * 1.24

  His Argu∣ment is this, If Christ died to purchase Faith, and all oth••r things needful, &c. then he did not die to pur∣chase salvatton upon condition of believing, &c.
• * 1.25

  Locis in••rà citandis. Num. 8.
• * 1.26

  A confession to be recorded, as dropping from the p••n of the guilty party.
• * 1.27

  Jam. 4.6.
• † 1.28

  Ezek. 24.13. See the Pri∣mates judgment of Christs death, p. 6. & 21.
• * 1.29

  Id. ibid. 22, & 16, & 38.
• * 1.30

  See Div. Philanth. ch. 4. p. 25, 26. The self-Re∣venger, ch. 1. p. 22, &c. and p. 32, 33.
• * 1.31

  How they strengthen So∣cinianism, who contract the be∣nefit of Christs death.
• * 1.32

  ch. 3. p 84, 85, 86.
• * 1.33

  1. Socinians and Presbyterians compared.
• * 1.34

  Volkel. lib. 5. cap. 10. p. 446.
• † 1.35

  Non solet Scriptura mun∣di nomen in figurato sensu absolutè posi∣tum in bo∣nam, sed in de∣teriorem par∣tem usurpare. Dallaeus in A∣pol. pro Duab. syn. part. 1. p. 16.
• * 1.36

  Id. ib. p. 17.
• * 1.37

  Aperitur au∣dacibus inge∣niis licentia quoslibet sensus divinis verbis affingendi, quae omnia pro libitu in∣vertent, & ad peregrinas significationes detorquebunt, si nobis hoc ipsi permiserimus, ut mundi nomen simpliciter positum pro solis electis sumamus, sensu, ut quivis videt, planè allegorico, & apud hominum, sive Judaeorum, sive Gentilium, Scriptores nove atque inaudito. Id. ib. p. 16.
• * 1.38

  2. Received Rules for the inter∣preting of words, and en∣ding controver∣sies.
• * 1.39

  See D. Phil. ch. 4. sect. 26. p. 31.
• † 1.40

  See the Sinner Impl. part. 2. c. 2. p. 272. to p. 279.
• * 1.41

  See the Sinner Impl. part 2. c. 2. p. 280. to p. 284
• † 1.42

  1. In non odi∣osis, sumenda verba secundum totam proprietatem usus popularis, &c. 2. In favorabilioribus, ver∣ba laxiùs sumenda. 3. In odiosis, sermo figuratus admittitur, quo onus vitatur, &c. Grot. de Jure Belli & Pacis, l. 1. cap. 16.
• * 1.43

  The first Rule.
• * 1.44

  The second Rule.
• * 1.45

  The third Rule.
• * 1.46

  3. The extreme ab∣surdity of duti∣ful misbelief.
• * 1.47

  The Primates Judgment of the true intent and extent of Christs death, p. 24, 25.
• † 1.48

  Ib. p. 25.
• * 1.49

  p. 26. p. 27.
• * 1.50

  Mr. W's Te∣net, that only the least part of the world ought to believe the Gospel.
• * 1.51

  His reproch cast upon all Christendom & the Gospel of Christ. See Prosper de vocatione Gen∣tium l. 2. c. 1, & 2, & 16. &c proving that God did never leave himself without a wit∣ness in any part of the world. Compare Act. 14.17. Psal. 76. & Psal. 118. Isa. 60.
• * 1.52

  Universal Re∣demption pro∣ved from 2 Cor. 5.14. by Saint Austin and Prosper.
• * 1.53

  1. Omnes ita∣que mortui sunt in pecca∣tis, nemine prorsus exce∣pto; five in originalibus, sive etiam voluntate additis, vel ignorando, vel sciendo, nec faciendo quod justum est; & pro omnibus mortuis vivus mortuus est unus, i.e. nullū habens omnino peccatum. Ex hoc probavit omnes mortuos esse, quia pro omnibus mortuus est unus.— In illo uno (sc. Adamo) mortui sunt omnes, ut moreretur a∣lius unus pro omnibus. Et rursus— A morte justissimae damnationis per unum mediatorem liberatur Genus Humanum.— Unus pro omnibus mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt. Conclusio haec Apostoli invicta est; ac per hoc, quia & parvulis mortuus est, profecto etiam parvuli mortui sunt, &c.
• * 1.54

  2. Nulla ra∣tiò dubitandi est, Christum pro impiis mortuum, à quorum nume∣ro si quis liber inventus est, non est pro omnibus mor∣tuus Christus. Sed prorsus pro omnibus est Christus mortuus, &c Prosper de voc. Gen. l. 2. c. 16. p. 144, 145.
• * 1.55

  Note, that he had railed at me in his first book, for saying this ve∣ry thing; and after blotted out his railing, in the North-hampton Copies of that Print, as resolving to assert, in his second book, what he condemned in his first.
• * 1.56

  The Conclusion.
• * 1.57

  Certissimum est nobis, De∣crevisse, ut non nisi nolentes atque impii perderentur, Twiss. Vin. Gr. l. 1. p. 100.
• * 1.58

  See the Div. Phi. ch. 3. p. 65.
• * 1.59

  Mr. Hobbs his prodigious self-contradictions.
• * 1.60

  Of Lib. and Necess. p. 23.
• † 1.61

  Quaest. Num? 12. p. 105.
• * 1.62

  Ibid. p. 107.
• † 1.63

  Ibid. p. 105, 106.
• * 1.64

  Of Lib. and Necess. p. 22.
• * 1.65

  Q. p. 11. l. 7, 8, 9, 10. from the bottom▪
• * 1.66

  Quamcun∣que duarum viarum primò diversarum homines inic∣rint, recta tendunt ad superos. Esco∣bar. Theol. Mo∣ral. Tom. 1. in prael. cap. 3. See the Myste∣rie of Jesui∣tisme, Letter 5. p. 59, 60. and Additionals second Edit. p. 70, &c. p. 90, &c.