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. I. Concerning his Fanciful Creation of Three General Objections; and his Propoundings in General in way of Answer, p. 19, 20.

SECT. I.

AS Mr. Whitfield found it his safest way, to s••end no lesse then eighteen ••ages, be••••des his E••istle to the Reader) upon a Subject of his own choice, before his courage would serve him to split himself u••on the Rocks, which he pretended to attempt in his valiant Title; so when he is brought to his proper Task (t••nquam Bos ad Ce••••ma) of answe••ing such Ob••ections as had been made against his Doctrines in the Divine Philanthropie defended, he is fain to shrug three times together, before he is able to fall on.

First he tells us,

It is agreeable to right reason, that God being a most free, absolute, and omnipotent Agent, he might design the creatures that were of his own making to what ends himself ple••sed, without giving account to any, &c. (p. 19. Num. 1.)

And this he calls his first Generall Answer, or thing propounded by way of An∣swer.

Secondly, But to whom, or to what, or upon what occasion, no man living can imagin, much lesse can he. Where dwells the man who ever dream't of such an Objection against the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Soveraignty of God? not in any of their houses, who ascribe thus much to the Sapreme Civil Ma∣gistrate, that he is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] unaccomptable upon earth, much more to the Omnipotent, that he is such even in Heaven. This general Objection was fram'd at Bugbruck, by that creator of Chimaera's who loves to fancy an Ene∣my, and then to fight him; when he cannot answer what is objected, he objects such things as he can answer. It is the cream of his strength, that he feels his own weaknesse, and therefore deals with a proportionable Objection. That which comes out of his Forge, he thinks is fit enough to passe between his Hammer and his Anvil. But then he ought to consider, that he should feign no more Objections than he can dissipate with his practice as well as with his Pen.

For Thirdly, If God was pleased that his Mercy should be over(a) all his works, and might do what he pleas'd, (as Mr. W. confesseth) why does he daringly exclude the greatest part of mankind from any imaginable share of that rich mercy? The least degree of Gods mercy hath some of comfort: But is it a comfort to the Reprobates, that by a peremptory Decree they are rendred incapable of Hea∣ven, and sure of Hell, without respect unto their sins, and yet inevitably sinful without repentance, that so they may not be damn'd for nothing? Why then do men, who are as wormes, advance themselves against God, denying his(b) 1. Eternity. 2. Immutability, 3. Omnipotency, 4. Simplici∣ty, and all his other perfections, because he was pleased to decree the end of his rational creatures, in an eternal con∣sideration of the respective means? If God determin'd from eternity that Cain and Judas should be(c) cast out of his presence, in regard of their Murder and Impenitence, (and no otherwise) what is that to Mr. Whitfield?(d) Why dost thou strive against him, for he doth not give account of his matters? as Elihu pleaded for God in another case.

The(a) Lord hath made all things for himself, them that are good, for the day of good things, them that are (a) wic∣ked, for the day of evil; yea in an eternal foreknowledge and consideration of their wickedness. If God was pleas'd to give his Son to be a ransom for all the World (upon their several performances of no impossible conditions) why should a Calvinist be offended, that all others are savable as well as he, whose bodies are(b) formed of as good a clay, and whose(c) souls can pretend to as high a pitch of extraction? why should the(d) Creatures eye be evil, because his God is exceeding good, and it seems much more, than Envy and Avarice can well endure? Let Mr. Wh. therefore cease from contriving Objections a∣gainst himself; or if his Invention must needs be busie, let him conjure up no more than he is able to exorcize; nor(e) pull disgraces upon his Doctrine, with the work of his hands. But withall let him be told, that as God was not bound to give account of his wayes to any creature, (and as little to those of the Kirk, as to those of the Synagogue,) so when it pleased him (of his mercy and free love to Mankind) to reveal as much of them, as lies open to our eyes in his written Word, who dares call him to account for giving account of his Dispensations? if God is pleased in some Cases (and that as an instance of his freedom) to become(f) accountable to his creatures, and to become like(f) one of us (sin alone being excepted) he is not to give an account to any.

Fourthly, What is added by Mr. W.

That God might appoint his creatures to such ends as should make most for his glory, is very true, and very impertiment, and very much to the downfal of his Poetical Reprobation.

For to de∣cree men to punishment without respect unto their sins, makes not so much for Gods glory, as to decree them to punishment in consideration of their sins: Unless Mr. Wh. is of opinion, that 'tis a more glorious thing to torment a creature as a creature, then to punish a sinner as being sin∣ful; of that eternal Decrees are not every way answered by their Temporal executions. God created Mankind as he

was mighty, but decreed to reprobate and elect as he was in••••nitely just. For Reprobation in all senses (nega∣tive, or positive) imports a very sore punishment, as every punishment imports a sin, for which the punishment is in∣flicted. That is most for Gods glory, which is most for his justice and Mercy too: but to decree a man's misery, for the meer shewing of a Soveraignty over the work of his hands, (and therefore to decree it without respect unto sin) hath nothing in it of Justice, much lesse of Mercy; and so is incompetible to ••im, who could not chuse but be al∣wayes (from all eternity) at once a Just and a Merci∣ful Soveraign: it being destructive of his glory (and by consequence of his Being) that any one of his Attributes should (for an Article of time) exclude the other. From whence it followes that Mr. Wh. hath confuted all his own Doctrine in less than two lines. Nor can he be other∣wise disintangled from his own dear(a) Lime-twiggs, un∣less he can prove that Gods dishonour doth make most for his glory: or unlesse he will adde to his other miseries, that to be sinful by a Decree, or to be punished without sin (which by the way is a contradiction) tends nothing at all to Gods dishonour. But for such things as these Ishall rec∣kon with him hereafter: I hasten now to his Second General.

Sect. 2.

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

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

and p. 19. bear witness Reader, 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 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† 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, 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 Gods works, and that he† 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.

3. 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 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 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.

4. 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 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, 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 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† works of the Devil, and of his genuine Children, vvho are resolved to do their 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) Truth, therefore lyes are none of his: and so Piscator vvas out. The Lord is(b) holy in all his works, Adultery and Murder are therefore none of Gods vvorks: Zuinglius therefore vvas deceived by his Do∣ctrine of Decrees, and Mr. W. by Zuinglius. The Lord shall(c) rejoyce in his works, but hath(d) no pleasure in wick∣edness: therefore Martin Borrhaus spake very madly, when he dared to say that 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 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 the thigh to rot and the belly to swell, then for a man but to mean (or say in his† heart) that adultery and murder are the works of God. And therefore timely let me advise him to use the waters of separation, that the uncleanness of such Doctrines may not be on him.

5. 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 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 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† 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 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† 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.

6. It may from hence be collected, what is meant by Mr. W. when he immediately addeth, [that God worketh most holily in those very Actions wherein man works unrigh∣teously, p. 19.] Even the same with† Zuinglius (abetted also by 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 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 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 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;

7. How else can it be said when Josephs brethren sold him into Egypt out of envy, that God sent a man before? &c. And when David numbred the people, it is said not onely that Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked 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 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 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 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† efficiency in sin, and worketh in the worst actions as a natural cause, and 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,

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† 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 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. [ 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;† 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.

Sect. 3.

Mr. Whitfield saith, [

that the summe of what Mr. P. or any of his Predecessors in this controversie about Gods absolute Decree hath objected against it, is included in that which the Apostle objects against himself, speaking of his subject, Rom. 9.14. Is God unjust? and, who hath resisted his will? which he answers with an Absit, & quis tu es? — And if we should give no other answer but this, it might suffice, p. 20.]

What will not some be bold to say, rather then want wherewith to gain-say? First he forgeth a certain Tale, and gives it the Name of a Third general Answer. If he had called it a Whirligig, his impropriety had been lesse; for the Question there is the contrary to what it is here. There it was of God free mercy, which well might be without mans merit: Here it is of his wrath, which cannot be without our demerit. No lesse are the wandrings of Mr. W. But Secondly, Where was he told, that this is the summe of whatsoever hath been objected against his mythical Decree? He nei∣ther names his Author, nor gives his Reason, nay speaks precisely against his knowledge, and crudely dictates (stilo satis praetoriano) This is the summe. I answer with more Truth, but much lesse Majesty, that this indeed is the summe of all their subter-fuges and salvo's, Quis tu es? Who art thou, O man, who objectest against God, that he hath not an efficiency and hand in sin? This was the very last plank which Mr. Hobbs was fain to betake himself unto, when he found himself ship-wreckt by the most learned Bishop Bramhall, in his book of Liberty and Neces∣sity, p. 20. The shift is common to the Libertines and Ranters, with Mr. Hobbs, and Mr. W. and Mr. B. &c. This is the ablest of their Answers, when nothing else will do the work, to say that God would have it so because he would, and however contrary to his word, yet 'tis a part of his secret will, (revealed onely to that Tribe) at which the rest of mankind must content themselves vvith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and must hold themselves confuted vvith the [Quis

tu es] of the Presbyterians. Thirdly, It is his other abso∣lute leasure, to say that Saint Paul did speak of this sub∣ject, Rom. 9.14. It is enough to say No, and that 'tis senseless to imagin it. But I vvill tell him farther, that Saint Paul is there disputing against the male-contented Jewes, vvho vvere very much offended that the Gentiles should be received, and the Jews rejected (the greatest part of them) vvho hither∣to vvere vvell knovvn to be Gods peculiar and chosen people. This (saith Melanchthon) vvas the occasion of that vvhich follovves. And Hemmingius thus, That S. Paul intented nothing else (v. 10, 11.) but to teach that Grace vvas universal, and ex∣tended also to the Gentiles: This vvas contrary to the Doctrine vvhich vvas then espoused by the Jewes, as novv it is by the Consistorians. Were this a place and a time to argue from the genuine and demonstrable sense of that Chapter (vvhich of it self vvould make a Volume) there could nothing prove more destructive to Mr. W's Doctrines, then that one Chapter; and that not onely according to S. Paul's sense, but even according to the senselesness vvhich the unlearned and the unstable are vvont to wrest from that Scripture. Fourth∣ly, The Quis tu es may fit my mouth a great deal better then Mr. W's. If God vvas pleased to punish none in his eternal Decree vvithout respect unto their sins, and to† give himself a ransom for all mankind, Quis tu es, Who art thou O man that repliest against God? shall the thing for∣med say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Why was I not decreed and necessitated to bliss from all e∣ternity? why have I not grace irresistible? why shouldst thou leave it in my povver to be unhappy? vvhy should any kind of wickednesse be able to put me into a state of damnation? or vvhy should all men be capable of e∣scaping Hell, as vvell as I and my party? vvhat have

moral honest men to do vvith heaven? vvhy vvere they not rejected before they were? The Puritanical Jewes vvere apt to mutter to this effect, but let not Christians be so irrational. This vvere ansvver sufficient to all the ill∣natur'd murmurings of carnal men. But for the good of the vulgar (for some of vvhom Mr. Wh. may be too hard) I vvill apply my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the particular dangers novv spread before them.

Sect. 4.

Mr. VV. saith truly, [

that the first and prin∣ci••al objection against the Doctrine of absolute De∣crees, is, that it makes God to be the Author of sin, p. 20.]

But doth he say hovv vve prove it? No, he durst not do that; Hovv then should he have ansvver'd? He therefore proves it his own way, taking on him the per∣son of T. P. or the like; but does not so much as pretend to have read the objection vvhich he proposeth to be an∣svvered. And to one who speaks lesse then nothing it is not fit to speak much, although it is hard to abstain from speaking. The last part of his objection is somevvhat honestly fram'd, [if God decrees the Being of sin, then he is the Author of it] Let us observe hovv he ansvvers it, for in that vve shall shortly find a very great jest.

First he saith vvhat vvas never denied I think by any, that God doth permit sin, and hath decreed to permit it. But then he addes (vvhat is most false, unlesse it be carefully explain'd) [The Scripture is plain, that God decrees those actions, which when men do, they do very sinfully, (p. 20.)] 1. He here addes to the vvord of God: there's no such Scripture. 2. He slides from vvhat he said of God de∣creeing to permit, and (vvithout any transition, or pretense for the change,) pronounceth quite another thing, that God decrees the sinful actions, or sins themselves; for that these are synonymous I shevved before. But let his own words shame him y these degrees. Davids lying vvith Bathshebah vvas an Action, vvhich vvhen he did, he did very sinfully. Such Actions so done Mr. W. saith that God decrees. The Action specified vvas Adultery, and that vvas sin: and so according to M. W. God decreed that sin,

that Adultery, that actual lying vvith another mans wife, that action vvhich, vvhen David did, he did sinfully. The instance vvhich he gives Act. 2.23. & ch. 4.27, 28. is cross to his purpose; for tvvas in a foresight and consideration that Christ vvould be crucified by the Jevves, if not vio∣lently hindred, upon vvhich God determin'd he vvould not hinder, and so (by a consequence unavoidable) that the thing should be done by his permission. And there∣fore the first Text Act. 2.23. affords an excellent exposi∣tion to the second, Act. 4.27, 28. for 'tis said there expresly, he vvas delivered by the Counsel and foreknowledge of God. The vvord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to determine doth no vvay exclude, but suppose 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to foreknow. And this vvas the ansvver of Justin Martyr to Tryphon, as I have elsevvhere noted, and spoke so much by vvay of ansvver to this very objection of Mr. W. that I must send him thither for a fuller account, though vvhat I have novv said is somevvhat more then I ovv'd him. [See Sinner Impl. part 2. ch. 2. p. 258. to p. 264.] And because the vvords of that Father vvere not there given at large, I have here thought fit to set them dovvn in the Margine. I am very vvell plea∣sed, that the same is objected against my Doctrine, vvhich vvas objected by vvicked Tryphon against that lear∣ned Apostolical and holy Father. What is added by Mr. W. of God permitting sin to be, is onely for me, and against himself, unlesse he vvill declare that he is just as I am, and fairly publish his Retractations.

2. But vvher's his Ansvver to this Objection, [That if God decrees the Being of sin, then he is the Author of it?] Novv comes the jest. His Ansvver to it is fully and vvholly thus:

8

But though God hath decreed that sin shall be, and therefore hath decreed to permit it, without☜ which it could not be, yet it doth not follow that he is the Author of it.

Doth he mean by Gods decreeing that sin shall be, that he decreed it absolutely, and antecedently to his prescience that it would be, if the sinners will were not hindered be some violent means? or that he decreed not to hinder it upon his eternal foreknowledge that the sinner would determine his will to sin, if not miraculously impeded? Which soever he shall say, it will be equally pleasant (and he must say one, for there is not a third.) If the former, he makes God to be the first and principal cause of every sin, but denyes the sequel of his being the Author: which is as if he should say, Paul was a rational creature, but it doth not follow he was a man. Sophroniscus did beget Socrates, but yet was not his Father. The Jewish high Priests were the first and principal contrivers and procurers of the murdering of Christ (to which Judas and the Romans were instrumen∣tal) but it doth not follow they were the Authors of that murder. Thus Mr. W. with the same breath, denyes what he affirms, whilest he affirms it, if he owns the former meaning of his words. And if the later, he yields the whole cause, by overthrowing the foundation of all his Doctrines; which is the placing Gods Decree before his Knowledge, his preordination before his prescience; which although the most against Reason and Philosophy of any thing that can be nam'd, hath been swallowed by the Calvinists from Mr. Calvin's own mouth. Thus it fares with Mr. W. if he means either of those two senses. If he can think upon a Third, I will speak to it when he shall name it. But be his sense what it can be, it was faulteringly done, to baulk the words in the Objection, and to substitute others in the Answer; and unskilfully resolv'd, to obtrude a bare De∣nial, without pretending a dram of Reason to give it at least a little weight: nay, he hath not so much as an evasion to supply the room of an Answer; never an Orthodox put-off. The total of his answer (to bate the other flawes in it) is

the syllable [No. It doth not follow, For it doth not.]

3. And because he mingles the word [permit] in this and many other places, as a necessary Emollient to asswage the hardness of his sayings, the Reader must once more be put in mind what is meant by [permission] in the writings of this and such like Authors. Their common accom••t of their meaning is by the word efficacious: and if we ask how far forth Gods permission of sin is efficacious, Doctor Twisse is Prolocutor, and tells the sense of the Party. Gods De∣cree (saith he) is no less efficacious in the permission of evil, ☞ then in the production of good. But in the production of good, they all affirm with one mouth that Gods Decree is abso∣lute, irrespective, and irresistible; nor is it less (saith that Doctor) in the permission of sin. That Mr. W. thinks the Doctor Orthodox, his Book forbids us to disbelieve; for he saith that God hath a hand in sin, and a hand in the ef∣fecting of it, (p. 26.) that he hath some efficiency in it, (p. 24.) that he acteth or worketh in sin (not as a moral Agent by disswading from it, but) as a natural cause pro∣moting the Being and Act of sin, (p. 25.) that Gods per∣mission of sin is accompanied with Action and Operation, (p. 21.) and all this in the ugly sense, as I shall shew more and more in the following Sections. And therefore his using the word permission doth but aggravate his guilt, un∣till he shall declare, that he takes it in a passive and nega∣tive sense, so as to signifie the suffering, and not hindering of sin. But then he must adde a Recantation of those un∣sober expressions, with which the word Permission is incon∣sistent. For suppose a man shall command or excite his Son to steal a Horse, and that so effectually, that the Horse is stolen by that Son upon his Fathers excitation; can the Father be thought to speak truth or sense, if he shall plead that he did onely permit his Son to steal by an efficacious permission, which could not be resisted because of its effi∣cacy and force? Or will it avail him to plead not guilty, by saying he had but a hand in that stealth, or an efficiency in it, or that he onely commanded and stirred up his Son to that vile Action, but was not the Author of that sin which

cleaved to the Action, nor was it he, but his son who stole the Horse? Reader, this is the Case, but represented in fairer colours then Mr. W's Doctrine doth deserve. For he and his Teachers have said of God, that he decreeth, willeth, commandeth, determineth, seduceth, exciteth, stir∣reth up, impelleth, tempteth, effecteth, and maketh men to sin, and that not onely as a moral cause (as some) but as a natural cause also (as others) as the Author of sin (say some) to sin quatenus sin (say others.) All which, and much more, I have formerly shewed in three distinct Tracts, to which I must ever refer the Reader, though I am ever adding to my Supellex. And let this serve for their Emollient, made up of contrary ingredients (as Emplastra and Cataplasmes may sometimes be) for the discussing the peccant Humour (at least for the concealing the ugly face of the Disease.) The first Ingredient is Active, and they allay it with a Passive, which is the second. The first they think hath too much of Positive in its Nature, and so they qualifie it with that which hath somewhat of Negation in it. They adde permission to efficacious, to save their credit; and efficacious to permission, for the salving of their cause. Their Dictio∣naries can tell them (and they who never read Tully, may easily look into Nizolius) that permitto and sino are words of one signification. Sino signifies to suffer, or per∣mit; Permitto signifies to permit or suffer. Judge how sore that part of their Doctrine is, to which an efficacious permission (that is an active sufferance, or an operative not-hindering) hath been onely applyed by way of Poultice. But some Patients are so unhappy, that either they tear off the Poultice from the Oedematous Tumour, or else they adde to the composition as much as robs it of its anodynous and healing virtue. This will appear in the next Objection which Mr. W. hath raised against himself, as fittest (he thought) to fall before him.

Sect. 5.

Object. [But if he hath willed and decreed it, his

Decree is an energetical, and operative Decree, therefore

he hath some hand in working and effecting of it, as Cal∣vin, Piscator, and others teach, who are for the absolute Decree. Negari non potest illum aliquo modo procura∣re negotium, cujus consilio & decreto negotium geri∣tur, saith Piscator: and if his Decree be operative, so as he hath any hand at all in the working of it, then he must needs be the Author of it. p. 21.]

Bear witness, Reader, that this is also an Objection of his own making up against his own Doctrine; which no doubt but he did with as much tenderness as he could, in special regard unto the weak∣ness both of the Answerer and the cause. Yet even thus it is such, as we shall find by and by he is not able to elude. But first observe his acknowledgement, that Calvin and Piscator, and the rest of his way, do in good earnest main∣tain the ugly premisses in the Objection, viz. that God hath willed and decreed sin, and hath some hand in working and effecting of it; & negari non potest, it cannot be deny∣ed (saith Piscator) but that God procures the business, and that it is transacted by his Counsel and Decree. These things, I say, he doth not offer to deny in any part of his Answer, but doth his utmost to make all good (as shall immediatly be seen;) he onely denyes (and 'tis a naked denyal without the least reason) that they do hence infer God to be the Author of sin. Mark well his Answer, or rather his shifting himself of it in lieu of an Answer.

Answ. For Answer of this, two things are to be clea∣red. 1. That Gods permission is not such a bare permis∣sion as is without all action and operation. 2. That though his permission is accompanied with some kind of operation, yet he is no Author of sin. p. 21.]

This is an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an atchievement never to be forgotten. For in the Objection, there was not a syllable of Gods Permission, which yet in his Answer is All in All. The Objection was of Gods willing, decreeing, working, effecting, procuring sin, and the like. The Answer standeth in the clearing of Gods permission, and shewing it is not unac ompanied. Here then I must ask him (as before I did) doth he mean that Gods permission is efficacious, and ac∣companied

companied with those things which are ingredients in the Objection, viz. decreeing sin by an operative energetical Decree, willing and working, procuring and effecting it, (which is all the language of his Predecessors?) or doth he not mean any such things? If the first, I take hold of his confession, and will demonstrate that he doth worse then if he meerly call'd God the Author of sin. If the second, he doth not answer, but sneak from giving any answer. He layes down a Cushion, and sits beside it. And if when one thing is objected, he shall answer to quite another, he is no sitter for a Disputant then a man that's deaf, who if he is askt what's a clock? will answer, a Windmill, or a Pump. But let him be granted to have a pertinent meaning (how∣ever his words are nothing lesse) yet the state of his affairs will be but so much the worse: For by that he discovers, how many dismal mysteries are closely couched in the word Permission; enough to shew the great usefulness of what I spake on that subject a few minutes since. Now then let us observe how he clears his two things, which he calls in his margin by the name of two Arguments.

3. [

That Gods permission of sin is accompanied with some kind of operation, appears, because when he permits sin he doth volens permittere, he doth willingly permit it: then there is some act of his will about it. p. 21.]

Mark his notable passage à genere ad genus. The per∣mission he speaks of, is in relation to sin; but the will of God he here speaks of, is in relation to the permission. Did he take permission to be a sin, or not? If he did, he chargeth God with that sin, which (were it such) would denomi∣nate him a sinner. And this would be blasphemy in its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. For the avoiding of which, if he shall say he did not, then he must say he is a shifter, not a Disputant or Re∣spondent in any sense; for the thing he is to clear (and 'tis a task he imposed upon himselfe, without being bid,) is Gods permission of SIN attended with operation (not his permission of his PERMISSION, which is perfect non∣sense, and yet implyed by Mr. W. unless he professeth to be impertinent) which in stead of clearing, he gives the slip,

by saying that God doth willingly permit it. Where the willingness relates to the permission of sin, (which permission is no sin) not at all unto the sin which is permitted. Which if he did not discern, O the depth of his Apprehension! if he did, and yet pass'd it, O the depth of his Dissimulation! whether he did, or did not, he hath done a strange thing; for thus he argues, [God doth willingly permit sin, there∣fore there is some act of his will about it.] About what, good Sir, is the Act of Gods will? about the permission spoken of, which is Gods? or about the sin permitted, which sin is the Devils and his Instruments? The first is as impertinent, as the second is blasphemous. And though 'tis plain that Mr. W. doth mean the second, yet he offends against Logick, as much as against Theology: for thus he argues; God doth will to permit sin, which to do is no sin; therefore he willeth sin, which cannot be divided or distinguished from sin: which is to say in effect, Gods will is conversant about what is good (such is permission) therefore it is conversant about what is evil (such is sin per∣mitted.) Because he doth not will sin (but onely to suffer or to permit it, or not to hinder the sinners will) therefore he doth will it. One part of a contradiction is his proof of the other. But though he miscarries (to a prodigy) in his way of probation, yet he discovers his affection to his o∣pinion, that God doth velle peccatum, immediately will sin, and that with a perfect will, as he goes on p. 22.

4. Thus then he advanceth (if that can be in a Circle wherein he onely runs round.) He cites a passage out of Austin, in which he confesseth that that Father doth grant but this, [that God hath some kind of will in the per∣mission of sin, p. 22.] So grants Arminius, and Pelagius, and all mankind. But what then (Mr. W?) A will in the permission is not a will in sin; for Gods permission is of a contrary nature. If Austin had said, that God hath a will in the effecting of sin (which is contrary to his holy wil) he had then said something to bear you out, or rather he had fallen

into the same ditch with you. But Austin doth not, nay durst not say, that sin (permitted) is according to Gods will; for he saith that sin is† against his will; and that at the ve∣ry same time, when he saith he hath a will in the PER∣MISSION of sin. Now be it remembred by the Reader, that Mr. W. doth mean an efficacious permission when he speaks of Gods permitting sin. And how much he meanes by efficacious, I lately shewed. Together with that, com∣pare his process.

5.

If any kind of will, this must needs be a perfect will; for no imperfect will agrees to God, who is perfe∣ction it self: and how can he be said to will any thing with∣out any Act of his will? p. 22.]

Now the Doctrine comes more into the light. Gods efficacious permissive will (as Mr. Barlee and others are wont to word it) is the same to sin, as to sinlessness, saith Mr. Whitfield: for more then perfect it cannot be when objected upon the best things; nor is it less then perfect (saith Mr. W.) when objected upon the worst: (for from Gods will to permit sin, he ar∣gues Gods willing sin.) Which reasoning of his is so ex∣cellently absurd, that it demonstrates the contrary to what he seeks to prove by it. For because nothing in God is im∣perfect, and whatsoever he willeth he willeth in perfection, therefore he willeth not sin at all; it being of his perfection, that he cannot will sin; and the greatest imperfection in the worst of all Creatures, that they are able to will sin with a perfect willingness. And what a Divine must he be, who shall say the same of God, which is the very worst thing that can be said of the Devil, that he willeth sin with a perfect will? If to evade this whirlpoole, Mr. W. shall say, he meant the permission onely, nor the sin permitted, then 'tis the least of his misfortunes, that he hath onely made Answers to the Man in the Moon, and then he will be splitted on the less dangerous Rock. But to make good his meaning, he must abjure his whole Book: for to say that Gods decree is energetical onely (not permissive) and to say that he de∣creeth the being of sin (which is his and his Teachers Do∣ctrine) is in consistent with meer permission; which is not an

exertion, but a suspension of the will, from interposing any Impediment which might forcibly hinder the Creatures choice. Nay one thing I must adde for the vindication of Gods holiness, & for the instruction of Mr. W.(whose meer want of instruction I have the charity to hope is his greatest stumbling-block) That though God doth not hinder a man from sinning by any such physical impediment, whereby the man is rendered not able to sin wilfully, yet even then he doth hinder by such moral impediments, whereby the man is rendered able not to sin wilfully.

Now let us see how he clears the second thing he pro∣posed in stead of Answer to the Objection. [Scripture-Expressions

do constantly hold forth Gods manner of wor∣king in sin, by way of action. It doth not say, God suffered Joseph's Brethren to sell him into Egypt, but that God sent him, Gen. 45.8. It doth not say, God suffered Pha∣raoh to harden his own heart, but that God hardened it, Exod. 9.12, &c. p. 22.

] Here he tells us that the Scrip∣tures hold forth, what before (p. 19.) and after (p. 23.) he professeth to be ineffable and incomprehensible, viz. the man∣ner of Gods working in sin. This is his first degree of mi∣sery. Again, he takes those Texts meerly according to the Letter, which Mr. Barlee himselfe confesseth to be figura∣tively spoken, giving this reason for it, [

that God ac∣cording to the Letter of many of those Texts, seems to be made a moral cause of sin as sin.

] So that now Mr. W. hath plaid such a prank, as his own fellow-laborer must needs con∣demn in him. This is his second. Again he saith, that this is constantly held forth in Scripture by way of action, Constant∣ly, good Sir? how can that be? Did not God tell Israel, that because he had purged them, and they were not purged, they should not be purged from their filthiness any more? that is to say, he would leave them to themselves, he would permit or suffer them to be filthy, he would not cleanse them against their wills? Which one Text is sufficient to have taught Mr. W. the true importance of all those at which he stumbles. And from thence it is evident what is meant by the School-men, when they say that God punisheth sin with sin:

which must thus be negatively expounded by Gods forsa∣king such sinners, withdrawing his grace so long resisted and abus'd, not clensing them any more from their beloved fil∣thiness. Let M. W. answer to this Question; Doth the Scri∣pture express or hold forth the real command of the holy Ghost, in using that imperative, Let him that will be filthy, be filthy still? Or was our Saviour accessary to the Jewish mur∣der, in saying,† destroy this temple, meaning the Temple of his body? To have commanded it in the sense (as he did in the letter) had been a kind of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, laying hands upon himself; yet the Jewes (like Mr. W.) were so intent upon the letter, that they took an occasion from those words to bear false witnesse against our Saviour. [We heard him say, I will destroy this Temple made with hands, &c. Mar. 14.58.] But enough of Mr. W's degrees of misery in his position, come we now to his examples.

His first (Gen. 45.8.) is most remarkably impertinent to that for which it was produced: for in stead of saying God sold Joseph into Egypt (in which sale of Joseph his bre∣thren sinned) he confesseth that Joseph did onely say unto his brethren, that God had sent him: nay he spake it with an Antithesis to his Brethrens action, and to a contrary scope to what Mr. W. directs the words. Reader, consi∣der, and stand amazed at his matchlesse inconsideratenesse in this particular. Josephs speech runs thus, [God hath sent me before you, to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance: so now, it was not you that sent me hither, but God, and he hath made me a Father to Pharaoh, and Lord of all his house, &c. v. 7, 8] He speaks of nothing but the good which God had done for him, upon occasion of that evil which they that sold him had done against him. Yet this is urged by Mr. W. for Gods Activity and work in sin.

His second Instance is not quite so ridiculous. [Exod. 9.12.] but tis ridiculous enough. For though God is said to harden Pharaohs heart by doing somewhat, yet was it not by working in sin, but by removing punishments, and all other means of his recovery, which had so long been afforded

him, and all in vain. It was said before, Pharaohs heart was hardned, Ex. 7.22. which implies the permission, not efficiency of God. Nay farther it was said, That Pharaoh hardened his own heart, Ex. 8.15. Again after that, it was said that Pharaoh sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants, Ex. 9.34. (whom God is said to have endured with much long-sufferance, Rom. 9.22.) as 'twere on purpose to deliver us from the very possibility of erring grossely, when we afterwards reade, God hardened his heart. And how did God do it? sure not as Pharaoh, nor as Satan, by any activity or efficiency of obduration, (for Satan hardned Pharaohs heart, as well as Pharaoh himself) but by a to∣tal and final withdrawing of his Grace, leaving him in a state of irremediable wickednesse, by such a kind of dereli∣ction by which the damned are left in Hell. Nay even this very dereliction and leaving Pharaoh to himself, (the cer∣tain consequence of which was his final obduration) was awarded to him as a punishment for his having hardened his heart so often, when God by his Messengers and their Mi∣racles had often called him to repentance. Compare Gods words to Israel, Ps. 95.8.

His third Instance is taken from Josh. 11.20. but more irrationally then the former. For it is said there expressely, the Canaanites hardened their hearts; which because they could not have done if God had not suffered them, it is therefore said it was of the Lord: for had he given them a cogent and irresistible Grace, or destroyed their human nature, their hardening their heart could not have been. And for God not to hinder, or not to soften their hearts, which the Text saith expressely they had hardened against Israel, was no more then to permit what they committed by their option; and this for ends of his providence, that his people Israel might destroy those wicked Canaanites for their sins, the measure whereof they had filled up. But besides it must be noted (to shew the impertinence was the greater)

that for the Canaanites thus to harden their hearts against Israel, that is, to oppose and resist them coming to take away their land, could not be censured as a sin in them, unlesse they had a revelation that God had given their land to his People Israel; which as it appears not in Story (for ought I can learn) so if it doth, then Gods revealing it to them was far from having any hand in the hardening of their hearts: all he did was not softning what he found obdurate; and not to soften, is not to have any hand; the negative to that which is affirmed by Mr. Whitfield.

His fourth Instance is taken from 2 Sam. 12.12. in which he seems to be unhappier then in all the rest which went before: for observe how he applies it. [

It is not said, God suffered Absalom to defile his Fathers Concubines, but he tells David, what thou hast done secret, I will do in the sight of this sun, p. 22.

] Now if it is literally meant (as Mr. W. contends) that God did do the same in publick which David had done in private, the blasphemy is such as cannot modestly be named: for what was that which David did in secret, but his adultery with Bathshe∣bah? And can it be possibly imagined, that God could do the same thing openly? yet so run the words, [what thou hast done I will do.] vvhich undeniably proves, that the vvords are spoken by an Hebraism (vvhich M. W. very shortly vvill be found in the Act of denying) and are per∣missive onely in sense, though active in sound. For God could not do actively in the sight of the Sun, vvhat David had done in secret. (That is such a grosse and impious thought as some Heathens conceived of their carnal Jupi∣ter.) And if Mr. W. had but read unto the end of the Sto∣ry (vvhich vvas at the most but the completion of Gods Prophesie) 2 Sam. 16.22. He vvould there have found, that it vvas Absalom vvho did vvhat Mr. W. applies to God. A Tent was spread upon the top of the house, and Absalom went in unto his Fathers Concubines in the sight of all Israel. This (Reader) is the sin, vvhich Mr. W. urgeth as an instance, [vvherein the manner of Gods work∣ing is held forth to us by way of action, p. 22.] But not to

speak more of the impiety, behold the unskilfulnesse of the Respondent. I will do this thing (saith God to David v. 12.) And what was this thing? It is expressed (v. 11.) I will raise up evil against thee, that is, the evil of punish∣ment. I will take thy wives and give them, that is, permit Absalom to enjoy them. There was not the least need of any more from God, because Absalom of himself was rea∣dy enough to do it, his own flesh was sufficient to draw him on. And besides his own flesh, he had Ahithophel at his ear to set him forward (ch. 16. v. 21.) nay both he and Ahithophel had the Devil at their elbows to urge and tempt them.† Was not all this enough to bring the wickednesse to passe, but God himself must be affirmed to have a hand in it, an efficiency in it, to work, to act, to operate in it, and that as a natural (which is a necessitating) cause? yet by all these expressions Mr. Wh. doth teach us his thoughts of God. I commend one thing to his consideration. It is acknowledged by him, and by all his party, that if God withhold or withdraw his Grace from any one of his crea∣tures indued with reason, the creature is prone of him∣self to do abundantly evil. Let them content themselves with that then, and go no farther, untill they can imagine some reason why.

His fifth Instance is taken from Gods being said by David to have bid Shimei curse David, 2 Sam. 16.10, 11. of which I have spoken twice already in print, and both times largely. First, to Mr. B. in my Defence of the Divine Philan. ch. 4. §. 35. p. 47, 48, 49. And afterwards afresh to Dr. Reynolds in my Defence of the Divine purity, ch. 7. §. 8. p. 71, 72. To those two places I referr Mr. W. and to that which I shall say ch. 2. Sect. 1. Answ. 5. that I may not do like him, in printing the same book under two Titles, and letting it pass for two books, when 'tis indeed but one repeated.

So his sixth, seventh, and eighth Instances, from 1 King. 22.22. & Job 1. & Isa. 63.13. are answered out of the Answers which I have given to the five instances now im∣mediately preceding, as also out of my Answers to D. Reyn.

chap. 7. Sect. 8. particularly pag. 69, 70.

His ninth Instance may be referred to the foresaid pla∣ces, and so indeed may the rest: but because in the ninth, at least a blind man may stumble, I will therefore add, That Gods turning the hearts of the Aegyptians to hate his people (Psal. 105.25.) was his doing that which provoked them to jealousie and fear: that was first, and from that they naturally turn'd to hatred. But what was that which God did, which did provoke them to that jealousie, fear, and hatred? even what was very good (v. 24.) for he in∣creased his people exceedingly, and made them stronger then their enemies. He blessed and multiplied his people Israel, for which the envious Aegyptians did fear, and hate, and conspire against them, Exod. 1.9, 10.

His tenth Instance from (Ezek. 14.9.) doth ruine the drift for which he brings it: for as he who loves, teaches, reades, or hears, (in the literal sense without a figure) must needs be a lover, teacher, reader or hearer; so he who doth deceive without a figure, must without a figure be a deceiver. But because it is blasphemy to say, that God is really a deceiver, it must needs be figuratively spoken, and understood by the Hebraism so often mentioned by the most learned and unquestionable Writers, when it is said in that Text [I the Lord have deceived him:] what will be thought of Mr. W. who disclaimes the Hebraism in that and in all the like cases? A word to the wise is here suffi∣cient; but let him know, that in the judgment of all the Fathers, and by the granted meaning of other Scriptures, it is apparent that the meaning must needs be one of these two. Either deceiving is nothing else but Gods permitting the false Prophet, for his wickedness, to be deceived by the De∣ceiver, that is, the Devil; or delivering him up to his own corrupt heart, which is willing of it self to be deceived, and accordingly it followes in the very next words, [I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him.] Or else that of Grotius may fitly take place. It should be rendred (saith he) not, I have deceived, but, I will deceive him, (viz.) by giving him such an end as he expects not.

His eleventh Instance Rom. 1.26. is of the same impor∣tance with the former Instances above. By giving up is meant forsaking, no longer calling them from vile affe∣ctions. See The Sinner impleaded part 1. ch. 1. p. 9. where Austins Exposition in the Margin is the same with mine.

His twelfth Instance from Rom. 11.8, 9. doth onely serve him to let us know that he reads the English Trans∣lation onely, and mistakes the meaning of the Translators: for there is no such thing in S. Pauls own words as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though our English Bibles read, [he gave them eyes that they should not see.] It is in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, eyes of not seeing, or not to see, or eyes which see not. The sense is evidently this, that the major part of the people who made not use of that grace which God had offered, and resisted Christ when he was preached in their streets, did grow so obstinately blind (God withdrawing the means so long resisted, and so much abused,) as to fulfil the prediction of the Prophet Esay, ch. 29. v. 10. or at least to parallel the case of which the Prophet there speaks. And this doth farther appear from S. Pauls citation of the Psalmist v. 10. Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see: words spoken by David, not as a Curse, but a Prophesie, that the things intended for their† welfare would become their trap. Their very Table (whose proper end was to refresh and feed them) would by their wicked∣nesse be made their snare: And even the preaching of the Gospel (resisted by them) would accidentally advance their induration. If Mr. W. read the note of Beza, and also took it by the worst handle, he alone must answer for it.

His thirteenth Instance from 2 Thess. 2.10, 11. makes me think that his Concordance is his chief Commentator: for had he compared that Text with the whole Context (which your Concordance-Preachers seldom do) he had found the sense to have been this, That because they re∣ceived

not the love of the truth that they might be saved, (p. 10.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for this cause (or to punish this wickedness) God will suffer the man of sin (v. 3.) whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders (v. 9.) to come upon them with such advantages of strength and subtilty, as would gain credit vvith them, being not wonderfully restrained. God is said to send, what he (can, but) doth not hinder from being sent. We are taught to pray, Lead us not into temptation, when yet our meaning is, suffer us not to be led, or leave us not help∣less in our temptations, permit us not to be tempted above our strength, let thy Grace be sufficient for us: and thence it followes, but deliver us from evil. Thus our Saviour may be said to have sent the Devils into the herd of swine, because when they besought him, he gave way to their prayer; when they said, Suffer us to go, he answered, Go. Of which the meaning must needs be this, I suffer you to go; for he granted what they ask't, and they ask't for suf∣ferance.

His fourteenth and last Instance from Rev. 17.17. doth onely proclaim him to be unqualified for such mysterious parts of Scripture. And I am heartily glad upon this oc∣casion, that Doctor Hammonds Annotations are writ in English, that the lowest Reader may discern, how quite beside his ovvn purpose Mr. W. hath seized on that Text also, vvhich is onely a prophesie of S. John, foretelling an eminent and remarkable Act of Gods providence, in that all the nations should first confederate with the Romans, and yet aftervvards breaking off should execute vengeance upon those Romans, and that Alaricus the King of the Goths and Vandals should so suddenly retire after his conquest and captivity of Rome, as if he had purposely been sent by the special Providence of God, to destroy the Idolaters, and preserve the Christians.

Sect. 6.

From all which it is evident, that none of those active expressions alledged by Mr. W. (in his 22. page) can

be pretended to denote Gods working in sin; more then his punishing of it doth (vvhich yet is active) vvhen he casts the sinner into hell. The consequent to vvhich is the sinners continuance to all eternity in his sins. Nor doth it fol∣lovv (vvhat he saith p. 23.) that if God hath no manner of working in sin, he sits still as a spectator. For he is work∣ing in divers respects; as by the motions of his Spirit dis∣swading from sin, and also by his word, both writ and preached. Again he is working in over-ruling, ordering, and disposing sins committed to many excellent advanta∣ges, to which he is able by his wisdom to make them serve. But all this is nothing to his active working in sin, or his having a hand in it, (as Mr. W. phraseth it) but on the contrary, it shews that he hath no hand in it: for over∣ruling sins to good, suppo••eth them committed, and when it is said (as it is commonly) that God draweth good out of e∣vil, the meaning is, (not that he maketh it to be good in one respect, which is evil in another, as such men dream, but) that upon man's doing evil he takes an occasion of doing good: such was the saving of the world upon oc∣casion of that murder which▪ the wicked ones committed in killing-Christ. And as good things are made an occasion of evil, yet are not evil, (as I lately shewed) so are evil things made an occasion of good, yet are not good: which some men not descerning, are betrayed into the worst and uncleannest speeches; as, that adultery, or murder, as it is the work of God, its Author, mover, and impeller, is no sin at all, but onely as it is of man: which though the saying of Zuinglius, a great Master of those men, yet 'tis abetted and approved by Doctor Twisse in particular; and in particular by Mr. Barlee, and aequivalently by Mr. Whitfield also. If any others of their way shall re∣nounce the Doctrine, let them do it in print, and then the World will forgive them. Having shewed that God is no idle spectator, (as the brethren do both speak) because he restrains from sin, and (when he suffers it) doth over∣rule it (as hath been shewed) and doth also note it in his book (as the Prophets speak) and doth satisfie his justice in

the punishment of sin, as well as exercise his mercy in for∣giving it to the contrite and penitent sinner, and giveth the continuance of a Being unto his creature, by whose free-will the sin is made; I will adde this little, that it were much a lesser evil in Mr. W. and his partners, to say that God sitteth still as a spectator onely; then to as∣perse him with a working and activity in sin: for as to the commission of the sin it self, God is truly a meer spectator. The Sinners sole will determines it self unto the Sin.

Notes

• 1. M. W's distrust which he puts in his cause.
• 2. His studied aiming beside the mark.
• 3. Yet over∣throwes his own Rampire.
• (a)

  Ps. 145.9. Ps. 103.8. Ps 145.8. Ps. 86.15.
• (b)

  M. whitf. p. 2. l. ante-pen. penult. ult. & pag. seq.
• (c)

  Gen. 4.14, 16. Mat. 25.30. Act. 1.25.
• (d)

  Job 33.13.
• (a)

  Prov. 16.4••
• (b)

  Job 33.6.
• (c)

  Eccl. 12.7.
• (d)

  Mat. 20.15.
• (e)

  Wisd. 1.12.
• (f)

  Isa. 5.3, 4, &c. Ezek. 18.
• (f)

  Heb. 4.15. Mat. 8.17.
• 4. His second overthrow of himself, and of his absolute de∣crees.
• (a)

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• His third over∣throw of him∣self by a most crimson contra∣diction.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• †

  Rom. 2.24.
• 2. Mr. W. enters upon the worst part of Libertinism, as Mr. Calvin himself judg∣ed it. Contra Libert. c. 3.
• Zuingl. in Serm. de Prov. c. 5 & 6.
• †

  Beza advers. Castell. Aphor. 1. & 6. See The Divine Purity desend∣ed. p. 21. 30.
• 3. His now con∣tradiction, a∣bout the man∣ner of Gods working.
• Negari non potest, illum aliquo modo procurare ne∣gotium, cujus consilio & de∣creto genoti∣um geritur. Piscat. ad Am. Collat. Vorst. sect. 17.
• Deus agit in peccato, non tanquam causa moralis, sed tanquam causa natura∣lis.
• 4. His down∣right Liberti∣nism.
• 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.
• A Dilemma as a touch-stone to try his mea∣ning.
• Rom. 2.24.
• †

  1 Joh. 3.8.
• Job. 8.41, 44.
• (a)

  Psal. 33.4.
• Piscat. loco paulo superi∣us citato.
• (b)

  Psal. 145.17.
• Zuing. loc. jam citat.
• (c)

  Psal. 104.31.
• (d)

  Psal. 5.4.
• Borrhaus in Exod. cap. 4. p. 448.
• See the place cited Correct Copy, p. 10.
• Num. 5.21.
• †

  Psal. 14.1.
• Num. 19.13.
• 5. The Determina∣tion of mans will to wicked actions is not Gods work.
• 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.
• See The Di∣vine Purity de∣fended. ch. 8. sect. 2. p. 80, 81, 82. & sect. 5. p. 86, 87.
• †

  Mat. 5.28.
• Note this distinction which Mr. Barlee makes ch. 3. p. 55.
• †

  Levi••. 24.15.
• 6. His meaning ferreted out of his words.
• †

  See Correct Copy, p. 10.
• Twiss. Vind. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. p. 36, 37.
• Note that in his Epistle to the Reader he argues the later from the former with a [must.]
• Twiss. Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1 p. 142, 143, &c.
• Note that there is no such thing as pecceit•• in any Profane, or Sa∣cred Writer.
• 7. His abuse of Scripture to serve his turn.
• In the Divine purity defended, ch. 7. Sect. 6. p. 63, 64, 65.
• Activum pro Passivo, ut saepè, inquit Grotius in locum.
• So he pro∣fesseth in his Epistle to the Reader, p. 2, & 3.
• †

  P. 24.
• P. 19.
• 25. He speaks worse of God then can be tru∣ly said of Sa∣tan.
• P. 24. lin. 3, 4.
• †

  P. 20. lin. 1. Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 100.
• August. En∣chir. c. 98.
• Mr. B's Ne∣ces. vin. ch. 3. p. 12.
• †

  ad utrumque ejusdem gene∣ris excitatio & concursus. Idabid.
• Mr. W's third General An∣swer a m••er Majestick mistake.
• Non fuit levis offensio, quòd tam pauci Judaei credierunt.— Nomen populi Dei objiciebatur Apostolo.— Haec est (meo judicio) occasio harum disputa∣tionum. Melanchth. in Praef. ad cap 9. ad Rom.
• Non aliud vult Paulus, Rom. 9.••0, 11. quàm docere, Gratiam universalem esse; contra Judaeos, qui culpâ suâ exciderunt Grat••â, &c. H••mming. Praef. in Exposit. Epist. ad R••m. See Doctor Ham. Annot. upon that Chapter.
• 2 Pet. 3.16.
• †

  Tit. 2.14.
• He descends from Generals to Particulars, and begins with the charge of ma∣king God the Author of sin.
• I. He begins with a Tergiversati∣on, and imposi∣tion on the Scripture.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Just. Mart. contra Tryph. p. 370. porrò illam objectionem, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ita solvit Justinus.
• 2. His memorable answer to his own objection.
• 8

  Pag. 21.
• His meaning caught in a Dilemma.
• Ideo prae∣sciverit quia sic ordinavit. Calv. Inst. l. 3. c. 23. sect. 7. fol. 325. See Div. Pur. c. 7. p. 74.
• 3. His soul use of the word per∣mission. Of which see Div. Philan. Def. ch. 3. p. 129, 130, to p. 139. & ch. 4. p. 53, 54.
• The odious impropriety re∣presented in o∣ther less odious colours.
• Note that those Authors are defended by Mr. W. and Mr. B. as well as imitated and followed.
• Note that to permit is not the En∣glish of permit∣to; any more then to occide is the English of occido. But permit is pure∣ly Latine, made use of in English; as occide is Latine, not made use of in English. And as to occide is in English to kill; so to permit is in English to suffer.
• 1. Mr. W. moulds, a new objection against himself, wherein he grants what his Doctrine is charged with.
• 2. His Answer consists in shif∣ting the duty of a Respon∣dent, and spea∣king quite ano∣ther thing.
• 3. His first part of his escape, clea∣ring his first thing with a very great blot.
• 4. His abuse of St. Austin.
• Deus per∣mittit aut vo∣lens, aut no∣lens & invi∣••••s; non certè invitus, quia id esset cum Tristitiâ, & potentiâ se majorem haberet: Si volens permittit, est genus quoddam voluntatis. Enchir. aed Laur. p. 100.
• †

  Fit contra voluntatem. Id. Ibid.
• 5. His arguing that God doth will sin per∣fectly, because be perfectly wills the per∣mission of it.
• 6. He strives to prove Gods Activity in the production of sin from Gods own word.
• Neces. Vind. ch. 3. p. 55.
• Ezek. 24.13.
• Rev. 22.11.
• †

  Joh. 2.19. which com∣pare with Mar. 14.58.
• 1. From the sell∣ing of Joseph.
• See the Di∣vine Purity Def. c. 7. p. 63, 64, 65.
• 2. From Pharaohs obduration.
• Indurabo cor Pharaonis, id est, sinam in∣durari, non fle∣ctam genui∣nam impii cor∣dis duriciem, Melan. in Praef. ad Comment. in c. 9. ad Rom.
• 3. From the Ca∣naanites hard∣ning.
• Indurare quem si libe∣ret, emollire potuistes, est non emol∣lire— & paulò supe∣tiùs, roli it Deus in perdi∣tis salvificam vim explic••re. Dallaeus Apol. part. 2. p. 117. In eundem sensum Au∣gustin. in Epist. 105. ad Sirtum. Idque fatente Calvino Instil. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 3. sol. 95.
• 4. From Absa∣lom's defiling his Fathers Concubines.
• Jam. 1.14.
• †

  Frustra fit per plures quod fieri po∣test per pau∣ciores.
• 5. From Shimei's cursing David.
• 6, 7, 8. From three Texts already answered in equivalence.
• 9. From the Aegy∣ptians hatred of Israel.
• Oderint quem metu∣unt.
• 10. From God's being said to deceive the Prophet.
• 11. From giving up to vile af∣fections.
• Tradere in desideria si∣gnificat deser∣tionem. Malanchth. in cap. 9. ad Rom. pag. 132, 133.
• 12. From giving eyes not to see.
• Psal. 69.23.
• †

  Vers. 22.
• Ibid.
• Non accidit haec induratio, nisi interveni∣ente Dei De∣creto. Beza in Rom. 11.8.
• 13. From sending delusion.
• Mark the Chasm or El∣lipsis which must of neces∣sity be thus filled up [Which truth was offer'd to the end that they might be saved.]
• 14. From the Na∣tions making league with the Romans.
• How Mr. W. most ground∣lesly inferreth God to fit still, p. 23. and to be an idle Beholder, p. 26.
• See more of this subject Sect. 17, 18, 19.