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.

* 1.1Sect. 2.

His second Propounding (as he words it) in way of General Answer to no-body-knowes-what (nor doth he venture to tell us what) General Objection, doth very happily run thus;

That which the Scripture plainly, clearly, and positively asserteth that God doth, we ought not to deny that he doth it, though we cannot discern the manner how he doth it:

and p. 19. bear witness Reader, a∣gainst anon; for when he comes to those Scriptures, which do plainly, cleerly, and positively assert, that Christ hath died for all men, and tasted death for every man, and is the pro••itiation for the sins of the whole world, and the like, then the Case is alter'd with him; and in a flat op∣position to what he here tells us,

It is (saith he) a very weak way of arguing, to argue from the signification of words; especially such words as have various significations;

as all men, every man, the world, the whole world, and the rest, which are oft-times used, not to signifie every particu∣lar man and woman, but a part of them onely, (p. 71, 72.)

Well fare the Disputant indeed, vvho vvill never lay down the Cudgels, so long as he is able to break his ovvn shins with them; let his cause be never so bad, he vvill not fall from his principles, so long as self-contradiction can hold him up: rather then others of his kind shall be as saveable as He, the whole world must signifie the smallest part of it; and we must not argue from the signification of words, we are not bound to adhere unto the letter, (p. 72.) So abomina∣ble and impious is Universal Redemption, that it cannot stand with Gods wisedome (saith Mr. Whitfield) not be con∣sistent with other Scriptures, nor can it agree with the Ana∣logy of Faith, (p. 73.) Any vvay of exposition must be in∣vented and embraced, rather then Christ must be admitted to have died for mankind. But here on the contrary side, vvhen Mr. W. desires to prove, that God hath a hand in all sin, an efficiency in sin, that sin is Gods work, and that God is actively the cause of sin, (and more such stuff, as shall be shevved and cited in its proper place) this is such comfort∣able Doctrine to a man of his life and conversation, that all Texts of Scripture must be taken according to the Letter, vvhose outside and Letter doth sound this vvay: any thing must be svvallovved against the Analogy of Faith, and a∣gainst the plain tenour of all other Scriptures, rather then God must be exempted from the causality of sin. Mr. W. then must needs argue from the signification of words, vvhich to do in other cases he calls a very great weakness, (p. 71.) This is the man of mettle, vvho cannot possibly be conque∣red, he is under the protection of so much frailty: or grant him conquered, he must not possibly be caught; for if he cannot out at the door, he vvill escape at the window. Yet I vvill follovv him so far, as to lay some hold on him; and vvill not vvillingly let him go, until he shall promise a Recantation. For if in any one case, it may be pertinent in this to use the * 1.2 Greek proverb, That for a wicked man to prosper in making God the fountain and source of wicked∣ness,

vvill be apt to turn to Gods discredit. The name of God will be† 1.3 blasphemed among the Gentiles, if such Theo∣logy as this shall pass abroad among••t Christians vvithout control. Observe hovv he goes on, p. 19.

2.

It rather becomes us humbly to acknowledge our Ig∣norance 0688 0136 V 2 in the manner of Gods working,* 1.4 then to deny any of his works, then to deny that he worketh all things, &c. —then to deny that he worketh most determinately, cer∣tainly, and infallibly, in the various and mutable motions of mans will.

And to shew his meaning to be no better then that of Beza, Piscator, and the rest of his Tea∣chers, viz. that sinful works are some of* 1.5 Gods works, and that he† 1.6 worketh all things, whether good or evil, with∣out any the least exception, and that God doth determine the will of man to the most sinful Act which he commit∣teth, he addes many things to make it evident that this indeed is the scope at which he here drives. For he tells us a little after, that when God is said in Scripture to har∣den mens hearts, to send them strong delusions, to bid Shi∣mei curse David, to bid the evil spirit go and deceive Ahab, to turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people, to have given up the Gentiles to vile lusts, to put into the hearts of the ten Kings to give their power unto the beast, and the like, (p. 22.) we must not expound such Texts by the com∣mon Hebraism, but take them as literally as we do those other wherein God is said to make the earth, to form the light, to create man, and the like, (p. 23.) He also saith that Gods permission of sin is not without action and operation, (p. 21.) that he must needs have some efficiency in it, (p. 24.) that he doth both will and work it, (p. 26.) that he hath a hand in effecting of it, (p. ••6.) And gaping so wide as he does, (nay wider then all this, as shall be shewed in due time,) how can we fail to know his meaning by his gaping? Let us then contemplate the large Dimensions of his swal∣low, that at last we may demand what it is will stick with him.

* 1.73. First, an huge Contradiction goes down very glibly; for as soon as his ignorance is acknowledged as to the manner

of Gods working, (p. 19.) he describes the manner of it, and sets it down as dogmatically, as if he had been an eye∣witness, and of counsel to that secret and hidden will of God, which the men of his way are wont to oppose to his revealed one. He saith consentingly out of* 1.8 Piscator, (but blusht to put it into English) that God doth procure the business of sin] by whose counsel and decree the business is managed or carried on, (p. 21.) my more distinctly as to the manner, in another shred of Latine, which he calls a true Rule, but puts it not into English. The true English of it is this, That* 1.9 God doth act in sin, not as a moral, but as a natural cause, (p. 25.) that is to say, He doth not so act as to perswade onely (which yet is bad enough of it self, and the worst that the Devil can arrive unto) but in such a natural way, as to necessitate the sinner; (which is infinite∣ly worse then to perswade him.) Nor will it advantage him to say, that God decreeth, and procureth, and is the natural cause of the positive act of every sin, but the accidental cause onely of the sin it self, (as He and Mr. Barlee shall be shewed to say in plain terms.) For Davids lying with Bathsheba was the positive act of Adultery, and sin it selfe, (but Davids lying without Bathsheba was no sin at all, either in whole or in part) which if Mr. Wh. cannot deny, as I am sure he cannot, (and do challenge him to do if he thinks he may, or dares to do it) then must be confess it to be his Doctrine, that God was the natural cause of Davids lying with Bathsheba, and that that positive act of Adultery was Gods work, and his Creature; because of positive acts (he saith) that God is the proper efficient cause, (p. 24.) This lies on him unavoidably, unless he can separate the positive act of Davids lying with Bathsheba, from Davids sin of Adultery, which was his lying with Bathsheba, and no∣thing else: which I shall shew he cannot do (if so gross a visible needs shewing) when I discover how Mr. Hicks be∣trayed Mr. Barlee into a Blas•• hemy (no less then sins being God, if a pos••tive act) and hovv Mr. B. vvas even vvith him, by sending his Treachery to the Press. So much for Mr. W's. nevv self-contradiction.

* 1.104. Next Mr. W. must be observed to speak the language of the Libertines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to a syllable, as I lately inti∣mated, but novv shall openly express. Saint Paul having said, God worketh all things, (Eph. 1.10.) meaning all the Graces of the Holy Ghost, of vvhich alone he there speaks (as Calvin himself confesseth,) the Libertines concluded (as * 1.11 Beza did, and as Mr. W. novv doth) that all their sins vvere Gods works. For that vvas their rule, vvhich is novv Mr. Whitfields,

that what the Scripture both plainly and positively asserteth that God doth, we ought not to deny that he doth it, (p. 19.) not admitting any Hebraisms, or other figures of speech, or restrictions and limitations of universal terms, but taking all by the Letter to serve their turn, as Mr. Wh. doth to serve his, (p. 23.)

Hence are those ordinary Do∣ctrines amongst the men of that batch:

1. That adultery or murder is the work of God the Author. 2. That God may seem to be the cause, not of humane acti∣ons only, but of the very defects and pri∣vations which cleave unto them. 3. That God effects those things which are sins. 4. That God procures adultery, cursings, lyings, &c. 5. That all wicked men do all that they do by the force of Gods will. 6. That God efficaciously acteth or effecteth, and by his efficacity performeth all things with∣out any the least exception.

From vvhich very saying, be∣ing pronounced by the Libertines, Mr. Calvin discovers tvvo horrible, but unavoidable sequels. 1. That there is not any difference betwixt God and the Devil. 2. That God, by this Doctrine, is transmuted into the Devil. Calv. ad e••s. Libert. cap. 13. & 14.) Novv vvhen the Calvinists and the Libertines do teach the very same thing, vvhy shall not I hate it in the Calvinists, as Calvin hated it in the Liber∣tines?

nay, vvhy not more? since a Blasphemy is the worse (not one vvhit the better) for proceeding out of a learned and a leading mans mouth.

—Tanto conspectius in se Crimen habet, quanto melior qui peccat habetur.

Nor doth it move me that some Calvinists vvill take it ill at my hands (vvhilest others not rigid vvill take it vvell) for no doubt but the Libertines took it as ill of Mr. Calvin. The Treasure that I covet is not their Favour, but their Amendment. Let this precede, and that vvill follovv un∣avoidably. I therefore ask Mr. Whitfield,* 1.12 Is his mean∣ing the same vvith Beza's and Peter Martyr's, and the rest in my margin, vvhen he saith, we must not deny that God worketh all things, or is is not? If he say, Yes, he is a Li∣bertine, and Mr. Calvin shall be my witness; and then let him renounce the Christian name and Religion, that the* 1.13 Name of Christ be not blasphemed among the Gentiles. For we who are Christians do assert, that God worketh not all things without exception, good or bad, but all things only which are good, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all things vvhich become him. All the rest are the† 1.14 works of the Devil, and of his genuine Children, vvho are resolved to do their* 1.15 Fathers works. This vvas Christs Doctrine, this vvas Saint Johns, and Saint John (believe me) vvas a Christian. All Gods works are done in(a) 1.16 Truth, therefore lyes are none of his: and so* 1.17 Piscator vvas out. The Lord is(b) 1.18 holy in all his works, Adultery and Murder are therefore none of Gods vvorks:* 1.19 Zuinglius therefore vvas deceived by his Do∣ctrine of Decrees, and Mr. W. by Zuinglius. The Lord shall(c) 1.20 rejoyce in his works, but hath(d) 1.21 no pleasure in wick∣edness: therefore Martin Borrhaus spake very madly, when he dared to say that* 1.22 sins do please God; and Mr. Wh. more madly, when he saith that God doth will sin with a perfect will. p. 22. We see what must follow if Mr. W. shall answer, yes, to my Dilemma. But if his answer shall be, No, then he must burn his own Books, and all those Books from whence he made up his Cento, and publickly subscribe to

the truth of mine. If he shall say his meaning is (p. 22.) that Gods will, of which he speaks, is onely objected on the wise permission or patient suffering of all sins, and not upon the sins themselves, why then did he entitle his book against me, and not against Mr. Barlee, or against his un∣converted self? He and I will shake hands, if he will say he meant thus, and not as Doctor Twisse, who* 1.23 saith, that the will of God doth pass, not onely into the permission of the sin, but into the sin it self which is permitted. Utrum horum mavelit, accipiat: Let him now take his choice, and spea∣king distinctly to my Dilemma, let the world know what he is for, without any Tricks or Tergiversations. But I will tell him for his security, that he were better be try∣ed by the waters of jealousie, if his meaning shal be found in the former part of the Dilemma; by how much a lesser e∣vil it is, for* 1.24 the thigh to rot and the belly to swell, then for a man but to mean (or say in his† 1.25 heart) that adultery and murder are the works of God. And therefore timely let me advise him to use the* 1.26 waters of separation, that the uncleanness of such Doctrines may not be on him.

* 1.275. In the next place let us consider what he means by those words,

God worketh most determinately, certainly, and infallibly in the various and mutable motions of mans will.

I do but passingly take notice of his unscholar-like use of the word Infallible, as if he knew not its meaning, or did not consider its Derivation (the fault is too small to be observed in a Writer of his bredth and thickness) I will rather try him by another Dilemma. Doth he mean that God doth so work on the wills of men, as to determin them of necessity to all their objects and actions, both good and evil? or doth he not mean this, but rather grant that mans will doth determine it self? If the later, all is well; he hath no more to do next, but to abandon his* 1.28 party, and burn his books: whereas if the former is his meaning, (as hitherto it hath been) I know not what to do for him, to lighten the weight of his calamities, which will press him down deeply, do what I can: For first he implyes a con∣tradiction, as I demonstrated to a person of greater worth.

And therefore here I repeat it not, but refer him to the* 1.29 place where he cannot fail of it. Next it inferreth un∣avoidably, that God is the natural cause of all the wicked∣ness in the world. For example, suppose a wicked man hath conceived Adultery in his mind, or committed it in his Heart (as our† 1.30 Saviour speaks.) If God did predetermin that wicked man to that physical Act of Concupiscence, and the will of that man to a consent, as well as the appetite to a complacency, he was not onely the cause, but the sole cause of the Adultery. Nay farther yet, if the inward in∣tention of the end is the determination of the will to the first act of sin (as the subtilest of them do say,) and if that In∣ten••ion, or whatever else is the Determination of the will, and the Determination it self, is a positive act (which none can deny,) and if God is the Creator or Maker, or proper cause, of whatsoever thing is positive (as these precious ones do affirm;) He is not onely concluded the sole cause of the Adultry in his Creature, [Verum etiam id ipsum quod dicere nolo] but also that which is worse, and ineffably blas∣phemous. And here I ask Mr. Wh. was that adulterous thought or intention so determined to its object, in that re∣spect evil, or was it not? If in that respect evil, he accuseth God; if not evil in that respect, he acquitteth the wicked man; and unavoidably inferreth, that there was never any Adulterer, Murderer, or the like, but was carried to the doing of all his wickedness with a good intention, a good desire, a very good determination of his will. And reason good too; For the Determination of mans will (they say) is Gods work, or Gods share in the procurement and ac∣complishment of sins. And Gods part in the business they say is good. But then they leave man no share at all in his impieties: if they do, let them name it, which they never yet did. Indeed they talk in the general, [that God is the* 1.31 natural cause of the meer Act of sin, and a meer Acciden∣tal Cause of the obliquity of the act of sin.] But bid them in∣stance in some particular, then they see that they are blind, and quickly speak themselves speechless. VVhen a man hates God, or† 1.32 curseth God, or any otherwise blasphemes

against him, let Mr. Wh. or Mr. B. or Mr. Hick. be asked, which is the act of that sin? and which is the obliquity of the act of that sin? you shall have them as mute as three dead Fishes. If the cursing of God is a whole sin, it is an act of sin, or an obliquity of an Act, or both together, and that either separably or inseparably: If onely an act, where is the obliquity? if onely an obliquity of an act, where is the act it self? (for all the whole sin is the cursing of God, nor more, nor less) if both together, and separably, let them make that separation in words, or dumb signs, that we may hear, and conceive it. But if both are inseparably together, let them confess the thousand blasphemies, and the six hundred contradictions, which have and may be detected in all their Doctrines and Distinctions; and after confes∣sion, let them amend too; I ask no more.

* 1.336. It may from hence be collected, what is meant by Mr. W. when he immediately addeth, [that God worketh most holily in those very Actions wherein man works unrigh∣teously, p. 19.] Even the same with† 1.34 Zuinglius (abetted also by* 1.35 Dr. Twisse) that the very same sin, viz. Adultery or Murder, as it is the work of God the Author, Mover, and Impeller, it is not a crime, but as it is of man, it is a great one; which is onely to say, that sin is Gods work, but God is no sinner. He is the Author of sin in others, but sins not himself. He co-operates with the sinner to the effecting of his sin, but being God he is not guilty. That this must be the meaning of Mr. W. I can demonstrate by many Ar∣guments. 1. By his denying Scientia media (though I am not sure he understands it) and holding with Mr. Calvin, that God foresaw nothing, but because he fore-ordained it. 2. By his* 1.36 concession, that there is the same reason of the fore sight of sin and the Decree of Reprobation, with the foresight of Faith, and the Decree of Election. But 'tis the Doctrine of him, and all his party, that Faith is the proper effect of Election, and not foreseen untill decreed. Ʋpon the very same ground (to use his own words in my violen∣tum) he doth and must hold, that God did not foresee sin, until he had decreed it too. Nor will it lessen the absurdi∣ty,

to say that God decreed to permit sin onely, unlesse by permission he means a sufferance, or a wise not hindering: if so, he is right, but then he must burn Doctor Twisse his books, and retract his own: it being their constant do∣ctrine, That God's permission of sin is efficacious. Nay

no* 1.37 lesse efficacious is God's decree in the permission of evil, than in the production of good: so very sore are their very salvo's.

Thirdly, His meaning may be evinced, (as by all other passages of his book, which I have, and shall cite, so) by comparing his present words with the nature of sin it self, which is found to consist in such an indivisible point, that to say, God works in it, is to say as much as that he works it. As for example, To hate God is a sin, or a sinful action (two expressions for one thing). The very sinful∣ness of the sin doth intirely consist in the hating of God; not in God without hating, (for he is purity it self) not in hating without God as the object of it (for hatred in it self is a thing indifferent, and as apt to be good as evil, and e∣ven communicable to God, who hateth sin with a perfect hatred) but in the union and application of that act to that object. As the nature of man consists not in a body one••y, nor onely in a soul, but in the union of the one with the o∣ther; so that the sinfulness of that sin of hating God, is nothing else but the union of that act with that object. And that is punctum indivisibile: for sin it self is a Physical ab∣stract at the* 1.38 grossest, of which sinfulness at least is an ab∣stract Metaphysical; which admitting not any Composition, cannot farther be abstracted so much as in imagination. How then can God work in the hating of God, and that no lesse than as a natural cause, (for so he doth, saith Mr. W. p. 25.) without being the cause of the sin it self, when in the hating of God there is nothing but sin? Here I exact of Mr. W. to tell the World what he means, or to satisfie for his words, of which he dares not tell the meaning. But again 4. He gives us notice of his true meaning (if not of the meaning which he will own) by three Texts of Scripture, which he applies to the purpose of which I spake: for thus run his words;

* 1.397. How else can it be said when Josephs brethren sold him into Egypt out of envy, that God sent a man before? &c. And when David numbred the people, it is said not onely that Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked Da∣vid to number the people, 1 Chron. 21.1. but that the Lord moved David against them, in that he said, go number Israel, 2 Sam. 24.1.

By these he seeks to make it cre∣dible, that God doth work in the wickedst actions as a na∣tural cause, although these Texts do prove the contrary. To the first and most impertinent of the two allegations, I have f••oken so* 1.40 largely to Doctor Reynolds, that Mr. W. must fetch his answer thence. To the second, consisting of two contradictory Texts (as to the letter) I make an ease return, by shewing the literal inconsistence of the one with the other, unlesse the first may be allowed to ex∣plain the second. For when the very same thing is said to be done by God, and by Satan, either one of the two must needs be figuratively spoken, or else there will be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] irreconcileables in Scripture, not onely [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the bare appearances of Discord: else farewel to Torniellus, and all other Writers in that kind, who recon∣cile the Scriptures which seem to differ and contradict. First I take it for granted, that the word of God is not chargeable with any self-contradictions; That the very same action cannot at once be good and evil, Divine and Devilish; That God and Satan cannot do the same works. From whence it followeth of necessity, that when God is said to* 1.41 move David to number the people (2 Sam. 24.1.) the meaning must be, He * permitted Satan to move David. For so the Scripture explains it self afterwards (1 Chron. 21.1.) by saying that Satan provoked David to that deed. Another example will make it plainer. It is said of the Devil (the God of this world) that he hath blinded the mindes of unbelievers, lest the light of the Gospel should shine unto them (2 Cor. 4.4.) Again it is said of our God who cannot endure the least sin, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardned their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, &c. (Joh. 12.40.) where because the two senses of

those two Texts cannot possibly be the same, the former must needs be active, and the later onely permissive. It is to be seriously considered, whether any such men can be fit for the Ministry, to be intrusted with the Key of Know∣ledge, to be Stewards of the Mysteries of the living God, who are not able to distinguish betwixt those Scriptures which differ most; but help the people to confound the works of God, and of the Devil. I confesse my indig∣nation is very great at this instant, whil'st I observe M. W. (in a book* 1.42 intended for the unlearned) to present the let∣ter of such Texts without the least explication, nay oppo∣site Texts without the least offer of reconcilement, nay teaching that God hath an† 1.43 efficiency in sin, and* 1.44 worketh in the worst actions as a natural cause, and* 1.45 determines the wills of men to every event; whereas the Devil himself cannot contribute so much to sin, by the utmost force of his Temptations: He can but perswade, and incline, as a mo∣ral agent, which cannot necessitate to wickednesse, as the natural doth. And if his parishioners, or others as void of learning, shall ask him the manner of God's working and efficiency in sin (that they may know how it differs from the Devils manner of working in the very same sin, and from the manner of working in which the sinner him∣self worketh) behold his answer is onely this, [

It be∣seems us humbly to acknowledge our ignorance in appre∣hending the manner of his working (p. 19.) and again, we be not able to apprehend his secret and wonderful man∣ner of working in evil actions, p. 23. lin. ult.

] How then, Good Sir, saith the amazed Catechumenist? what shall we do in this Case, when our light is darkness? where shall we seek knowledge, when our Priests lips cannot pre∣serve it? Mr. W's answer is at hand,

* 1.46 Though he doth it miro & ineffabili modo, as Austin speaks, yet we are not to deny the doing of it.

But first the people are abus'd with Austins name, who never said any such thing; His† 1.47 words are quite contrary: id non fit, that is not done beside the will of God, which is done against it. Mark Reader, He doth not say, what God doth, but what is done against Gods will

by Gods permission, which is not beside his will to permit it. Next suppose Austin had said any such thing, had not that been one of his many Errors? But thirdly, 'Tis well Mr. W. will yield any authority to Austins Enchiridion, which is perfectly* 1.48 destructive to Mr. W's Doctrine. Well, Mr. W. declares his ignorance to the unlearned Quaerist, touching the manner of God's working and efficiency in sin, as a natural cause (which being precisely his own expres∣sions, do put us in mind of his contradiction, whilst he confidently defines in some places, what he professeth not to know in others, as being wonderful and ineffable.) Make but room for Mr. Barlee, and he will help his Fellow-labourer to make it out with a wet finger. [* 1.49 He that cannot or

will not tell how God may be said to excite men to the Act of Adultery, which to the Adulterer so excited is sin, ☞though not to God, neither will he tell how God without sin doth stir up men to the act of lying with their lawful Wives;† 1.50 for the excitation and concurrence to both is of the same kind.

] Observe the growth of this Student since his Cor∣rep. Correction. He there expressed his Divinity of God stirring up men to sin, by his putting spurs to a dull Jade. Now he tells us [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] in downright terms, that God hath the same concurrence to the most unlawful, and the most lawful actions. S. Paul no sooner said, Marriage is honourable, but immediately added, and the bed undefiled, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, immaculate, pure, and spot∣lesse: but Adultery is Rebellion against the Monarch of all the world. And yet he stirs up the wicked to the unclean Act of Rebellion against Himself by the same incitation (saith Mr. B.) whereby he excites his loyallest subject to the most blamelesse thing that can be named; not onely not forbidden, but commanded by God for propagation; where∣as Adultery is an Act which God forbids by his law, and from which he restraines by his Grace, disswades by his Spi∣rit, and which his children cannot commit, but by resisting his Grace, and by grieving his holy Spirit, by whom alone we are sealed unto the day of Redemption. But M. B. may say, that I now torment him before his time. I

therefore return to his majorite, whose third general An∣swer doth now ensue.

Notes

• * 1.1

  His third over∣throw of him∣self by a most crimson contra∣diction.
• * 1.2

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

  Rom. 2.24.
• * 1.4

  2. Mr. W. enters upon the worst part of Libertinism, as Mr. Calvin himself judg∣ed it. Contra Libert. c. 3.
• * 1.5

  Zuingl. in Serm. de Prov. c. 5 & 6.
• † 1.6

  Beza advers. Castell. Aphor. 1. & 6. See The Divine Purity desend∣ed. p. 21. 30.
• * 1.7

  3. His now con∣tradiction, a∣bout the man∣ner of Gods working.
• * 1.8

  Negari non potest, illum aliquo modo procurare ne∣gotium, cujus consilio & de∣creto genoti∣um geritur. Piscat. ad Am. Collat. Vorst. sect. 17.
• * 1.9

  Deus agit in peccato, non tanquam causa moralis, sed tanquam causa natura∣lis.
• * 1.10

  4. His down∣right Liberti∣nism.
• * 1.11

  Efficit omnia, id est, omnia sine exception••. Beza in locum.

  • 1. Facinus, puta Adulterium aut homicidium, est Dei Auto. is, Mo∣toris. Impulsoris opus. Zuing. de Prov. c. 6.
  • 2. Deus videri potest causa, non modò humanarum actionum, ve∣rùm etiam D••fectuum atque Priva∣tionum quae ipsis inhaerent. Pet. Mart. in 1 Sam. c. 2.
  • 3. Deus efficit ea quae peccata sunt. Sturm. de Praedest. Thes. 16.
  • 4. Idem facit Deus, scilicet, pro∣curat adulterium, maledicta, men∣dacia. Piscat. resp. ad Apolog. Birtii, p. 143.
  • 5. Omnes peccatores & flagitiosi, vi voluntatis Dei faciunt quicquid faciunt. Id. Resp. ad Tauffr. p. 65.
  • 6. Deus efficaciter agit seu efficit, & suâ efficacitate perag••t omnia, sine ullâ prorsus quantulâcun∣que exceptione. Beza contra castel. Aphorism. 1, 6, 7.
• * 1.12

  A Dilemma as a touch-stone to try his mea∣ning.
• * 1.13

  Rom. 2.24.
• † 1.14

  1 Joh. 3.8.
• * 1.15

  Job. 8.41, 44.
• (a) 1.16

  Psal. 33.4.
• * 1.17

  Piscat. loco paulo superi∣us citato.
• (b) 1.18

  Psal. 145.17.
• * 1.19

  Zuing. loc. jam citat.
• (c) 1.20

  Psal. 104.31.
• (d) 1.21

  Psal. 5.4.
• * 1.22

  Borrhaus in Exod. cap. 4. p. 448.
• * 1.23

  See the place cited Correct Copy, p. 10.
• * 1.24

  Num. 5.21.
• † 1.25

  Psal. 14.1.
• * 1.26

  Num. 19.13.
• * 1.27

  5. The Determina∣tion of mans will to wicked actions is not Gods work.
• * 1.28

  Especially Mr. Barlee, and his brother Hickman, who say, that what∣soever positive thing is not from God is God. c. 3. p. 112. The apex of Blas∣phemy, as shall be shewed hereafter.
• * 1.29

  See The Di∣vine Purity de∣fended. ch. 8. sect. 2. p. 80, 81, 82. & sect. 5. p. 86, 87.
• † 1.30

  Mat. 5.28.
• * 1.31

  Note this distinction which Mr. Barlee makes ch. 3. p. 55.
• † 1.32

  Levi••. 24.15.
• * 1.33

  6. His meaning ferreted out of his words.
• † 1.34

  See Correct Copy, p. 10.
• * 1.35

  Twiss. Vind. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. p. 36, 37.
• * 1.36

  Note that in his Epistle to the Reader he argues the later from the former with a [must.]
• * 1.37

  Twiss. Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1 p. 142, 143, &c.
• * 1.38

  Note that there is no such thing as pecceit•• in any Profane, or Sa∣cred Writer.
• * 1.39

  7. His abuse of Scripture to serve his turn.
• * 1.40

  In the Divine purity defended, ch. 7. Sect. 6. p. 63, 64, 65.
• * 1.41

  Activum pro Passivo, ut saepè, inquit Grotius in locum.
• * 1.42

  So he pro∣fesseth in his Epistle to the Reader, p. 2, & 3.
• † 1.43

  P. 24.
• * 1.44

  P. 19.
• * 1.45

  25. He speaks worse of God then can be tru∣ly said of Sa∣tan.
• * 1.46

  P. 24. lin. 3, 4.
• † 1.47

  P. 20. lin. 1. Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 100.
• * 1.48

  August. En∣chir. c. 98.
• * 1.49

  Mr. B's Ne∣ces. vin. ch. 3. p. 12.
• † 1.50

  ad utrumque ejusdem gene∣ris excitatio & concursus. Idabid.