AN IMPARTIAL INQUIRY INTO THE Nature of Sin.

In which are evidently Proved Its POSITIVE ENTITY or BEING, The true Original of its Existence; The Essentiall Parts of its Composition,

By

  • Reason,
  • Authority,
    • Divine,
    • Humane,
      • Antient,
      • Modern,—
        • Romane.
        • Reformed.
  • The Adversaries Confessions and Contradictions;
  • The Judgement of Experience and Common sense;

Partly Extorted by Mr. Hickman's challenge, partly by the Influence which his Errour hath had on the Lives of many, (especially on the Practice of our last and worst Times,) But chiefly intended as an A­mulet to prevent the like mischiefs in time to come.

To which is added An Appendix; in vindication of Doctor HAMMOND; with the concurrencey of Doctor SANDERSON; The Oxford Visitors impleaded; The Supreme Authority asserted; together with diverse other Subjects, whose Heads are gathered in the Contents.

After all A Postscript concerning some dealings of Mr. BAXTER.

By THOMAS PIERCE Rector of Brington.

LONDON, Printed by R. N. for T. Garthwait, at the little North-door of Saint Pauls Church, 1660.

To my Reverend Friend Mr. I. B. at his lodging in Saint Paul's Church-yard.

Sir,

THe Face of Things in our British World, which the giddy Phaetons of the Times had lately confounded into a Chaos, doth not onely seem so strangely, but so mi­raculously alter'd, since the Book I now send you was first engaged in the Press; that had not the Stationer and the Printer put it wholly out of my power, (before your Letter of good news was so much as written) I had laid my Spunge upon several passages and expressions, which however they are of eternal ve­rity, were yet much fitter when they were Penn'd, than now they are come into the Light. For then I took it to be a Time, wherein 'twas proper to engage in a De­fensive war. But now I hope it is a season, wherein the Lamb shall lye down by the Wolf in peace, and the once-affrighted Kid commend the neighbourhood of the Leopard. Then I thought it was a Time,Isa, 11. [...] ▪ in which the enemies of God, and of his Anointed, (both King, and Church,) were to be conquer'd in­to obedience by dint of Argument and discourse. [Page] But now I hope the Time is coming, in which the ene­mies I speak of will face about, and turn Friends. Or if they are backward to reconcilement, and will not forgive us for having suffer'd, as fearing our Suffr­ings have been greater than they think we are able to forgive; I think our noblest way will be, to confute their fears with our moderation; and so to pull them in to us by cords of Love.

I know there are certain Ciniflones, who blow the Coals of Dissension with greatest Fierceness, when they see them most likely to be extinguish'd. They represent the suffring Party as men that breath nothing but venge­ance, and therefore not to be trusted with old Injoy­ments, but still to continue the suffring Party; And so because they have been injur'd for some years past, to be Incapable of Justice for time to come. But if there are here and there a few, who lose the benefit of their sufferings by their Impatience, as I am not able to excuse them, and think them punished with their sin; so must I hold those other men (the envious Cole-Blowers I spake of) to be more incapable of excuse, in that they charge on so many thousands the indiscre­tion perhaps of Twenty or Thirty persons, who perad­venture do onely SAY that they are some of the Kings Party. For the Rule to measure His Party by, must be the Nature of their affections; which so far as they are differing from what they are known to be in Him, so far themselves must be known to be none of His. And His are Fatherly affections, as we may judge by his choice to lose the Benefit of his Right for so long a Time, rather than force his way to it by forreigne Help.

And truly (Sir,) I can say it as a very great Truth, [Page] That as when our David w [...]s even hunted, and forc'd to fly into the 2 Sam. 15., 23, 28. Wilderness, it seem'd a kind of Dis­loyalty for us to prosper, (at least so farr, as to dwell a [...] Home,) And all our comfort was even this, that we were not guilty of being safe, (at a time when it was difficult to be safe and Innocent, both at once; so now that we hope he is returning to his Jerusalem in peace, and his people with joy to their antient Loyalty and Allegiance, I am not able even to wish, much less to use my least endeavour, that our Enemies may suff [...]r as heavy things as they Inflicted. I wish them depri­ved of nothing else, but what will kill them if they re­tain it. I wish them Health, and prosperity, and perfect Liberty of conscience, as well as of person, and of purse. But (more then these) I wish them Loyalty from this time forward; I wish them unani­mity and uniformity in Religion; I wish them the Grace of Restitution to every person whom they wron­ged; I do not wish with Saint 1 Cor. 5.5. Paul they may be de­livered up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh; but that their spirits may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. And so I hope I may boldly say, I wish them no worse than I wish my self. For I earnestly wish, and make it my prayer to God Almighty, that I never may prosper in any ill course, either by error of Judgement, or guilt of Practice. More than this (I thank God) I do not wish to my greatest ene­mies, and less I cannot wish to my dearest Friends. I wish our David may prove the Centre, for our Affe­ctions to meet and concentre in, from the most oppo­site points of the whole circumference. Whatever our Distances may have been, (and still may be as to some opinions,) I wish at last we may unite, and be [Page] one in him; And so Remember how we agree in Love and Loyalty to our Soveraign, as to forget how we differ in other things. All the Revenge that I de­sire, is that of Joseph towards his Brethren; who▪ though they had stripped him of his clothes, and cast him cruelly into the pit, and cheaply sold him to the Ishmaelites, (Gen. 37.) yet he requited them no worse then with food and raiment. Nay casting his Arms about their necks, he suffer'd his love to run out into tears and kisses. (Gen. 45.) If we look backward, I must profess, I have been many times engaged in such pen-combats as now I publish. But looking forward I suppose, that I shall run with the Foremost to Love and union.

Some may otherwise conjecture, by what is said in my Appendix, at such a Time. But 'tis for want of Con­sideration, that my whole performance was both extor­ted by the Adversary, and dispatched by my self, and also committed unto the Press, before I could hear of any Endeavours to reconcile the Pens of dissenting Bre­thren, or but to make a cessation of such like Arms. Sure I am, I am as ready as any one of my Brethren, to sacrifice any thing to Peace, excepting righteousness, and truth, the love of God, and his glory. I shall be willingly bound up from ever speaking, or writing, or injoying any place in the Church of God, (if my Superiours can but imagine how that maytend to the pub­lick good) rather than lay the least Block in the way of unity; which now is attempting a return to such a Babel as ours hath been.

But (besides) my contention will be believed to have been such, as mine Adversary in time will applaud me for, when he shall find my Rudest twitches were but to [Page] snatch him from a Praecipice. As soon as Mr. Hick­man shall be convinced, that though for a sinner to hate God, and to murder men, are as positive entities, as any actions to be imagin'd, yet they cannot but be reckon'd among the worst sorts of sins, and therefore cannot (without impiety) be said to be any of God's creatures, or God himself, (which yet Mr. Hick­man hath often taught,) I say as soon as he shall discern, not onely how dangerous and sinfull, but how irratio­nal and sensless his errour is; he will as heartily thank me even for this very Book, as I would thank that man who should pluck a thorn out of my eye. Besides that my aime in what I have written, hath been the same with that of the most moderate Doctor Sanderson; For (to express it in See his Ex. cellent long Preface be­fore the se­cond Edition of his fi [...]st Se [...]mons S. 24. his words) I have not written a­gainst the moderate, but onely the Rigid-Scotized-thorow-paced Presbyterians. Of them Mr. Hick­man can be but one. And even with him I am as rea­dy to be upon just as good Termes, as with my neighbour Mr. Barlee I long have been. Let him onely forbeare to wound me in the Apple of my eye, nay in the tenderest part of my very soul, by dishonouring God, and his Anointed, (long before whose restau­ration, (which is but hoped whilst [...] am writing,) I had sent my Vindication of his Supremacy to the Press, and which had certainly been as publick, as now it is, though the Republicans had prosper'd in their Ca­riere:) Let him, I say, but do that, and my work is done. If I shall ever again appear, in the behalf of any one of the five controverted points, it will be likelyest to be in Latine (as being the Scholars Mother-tongue) and onely in order to reconcilement.

Now that the God of peace and unity will make us at [Page] unity and peace within our selves, enlightning our heads with that knowledge which is the mother of humility, and inflaming our hearts with that zeal which is accor­ding to such a knowledge, and thereby making up our breaches as well of judgement as of charity, (or at least of charity, if not of judgement,) that we may all be held together by the bond of unity in the truth; shall be as heartily the endeavour, as it is the frequent and fervent prayer, of

Your meanest Brother and Servant in our Lord and Master Iesus Christ. THOMAS PIERCE.
Brington, May 2. 1660.

A PARAENETICAL PREFACE Shewing the purpose of the Author, with the Necessity of the Work; Represent­ing its usefulness in all Times, but more especially in these; with some Praepa­ratory Advertisements, making the whole the more manageable to the less Intelligent of the people.

Christian Reader,

IF thou shalt ask in curiosity, why I happen to come so late to this Discharge of my Engagement, (to which I stood by my Promise so long obliged;) Know that my several Praeengagements with severall Books of Mr. Baxter, together with several interventions both of sickness, and journies, and other Impediments una­voidable, do conspire to give thee the Reason of it. For these did keep me from the thought of what I have brought to a conclusion, till somewhat after the beginning of this last Winter. Besides that at the end of my Autocatacri­sis, (which I conceive more useful then all my Contro­versies besides, and upon which I bestowed the greatest labour, that it might put a full end to the whole Dispute) I made a promise to my Readers of what I had purpos'd within my self, that if I return'd to any Dispute in any kind whatsoever, as it would fall out Cross to my Inclina­tions, [Page] so I resolved to do it onely at times of Leisure. That whilst my howers could be spent in my chief employ­ment, I might not lose too many of them in my least ne­cessary Defences. For though I remember I am a Ezek. 33.7, 8. & ch. 34.3, 10▪ Shep­herd, and bound as well to defend, as to feed the Sheep; yet it cannot but be (to me) an unpleasant Game, to tyre my self in the hunting of Wolves and Foxes.

But after the Reason of my lateness, I am to render another Reason, why I betook my self at last to the pre­sent service. I saw the flock was indanger'd by several Vermin, and partly driven out of the Fold too; Nay the great Master-shepherd was himself assaulted by their In­ventions, by whom he was slanderously reported to be the principal cause of their going astray. See the pa­ges and lines cited, from Zuinglius, Cal­vin Barrhaeus, and D. Twisse, with the Edi­tions of their Books, in my first ch. of this T [...]eatise, Sect. 2. p. 3.4 Some I found teach­ing, (and that [...] in broadest Terms, That God is the Author of Injustice, the Author of Adultery, the Author of the evil of sin, not onely the Author of the sin­full work it self, but of the evil intention too; (In a word) The Author of all th [...]se things, which we affirm to come to pass by his mere permission, (and not at all by his appoint­ment.) Deus homi­nes ad suas pravas Acti­ones incitat, seducit, jubet, indurat, tra­hit, decepti­ones immit­tit, & quae peccat [...] gravia sunt efficit. Pet. Vermil. Mart. Florent. (edit▪ Tigur. 1561.) in Jud. c. 3. v. 9.10. & 11. fol. 56. pag. 1. lin. 7. &c. Others I caught in the Act of teaching, That God doth incite, or stirr men up to wicked actions, that He sedu­ceth, commandeth, doth make obdurate, draws, sends in de­ceipts, and effects those things which are grievous sins. Of which I now give an Instance from Peter Martyr in my Margin, because he was the most famous and learned Cal­vinist of Florence. In so much that Doctor Whitaker did most ingenuously confess (when he▪ answer'd Campian) that Si Calvinus aut Martyr, aut quisquam nostrûm affirmet, Deum▪ esse Authorem & Causam peccati, non repugno quin simus omnes horrendae Blasphemia scelerisque rei. Whitak. in Respons. sua ad octavam Ra­tionem Campiani, (edit. Genev. 1610.) in Tom. 1. operum suorum, pag. 33. col. lin. 34. &c. if Calvin, or Peter Martyr, or any other of that Party, affirms God to be the Author and cause of sin, they [Page] are all of them guil [...]y of the most horrid Blasphemy and wic­kedness. And yet when the Florentine I spake of had put the Question, (in the page preceeding his above cited words,) An Deus causa sit peccati? whether God be the cause of sin? he presently call'd it, Quaestionem non dis­simulandam, and professedly held it in the affirmative ▪ A third sort I found there were who taught, That Mr. Archer [...] Comfort for Believers. p. 36, 37. God is the Author not of those actions alone, in and with which Sin is, but of the very pravity, Ataxie, Anomie, Irregula­ritie, and sinfulness it self which is in them; yea that God hath more hand in mens sinfulness, then they themselves.] These were publickly and in Print, the very words of Ma­ster Arch [...]r, a Presbyterian Minister of London in Lom­bard street; who went over into Holland with Thomas Goodwin, (Oliver Cromwel's Ghostly Father, and the pre­sent usurper of the Presidentship in Magdalen Colledge,) by which Goodwin he was commended for Mr. Thom. Goodwin's A­pologetical Narration, subscribed by Phil. Nye, Will. Bridge, Jer. Burrows, & Sidrach Simpson▪ Li­censed by Charles Herle (printed by R. Dawlman. 1643.) p. 22. as pretious a man as this earth bears any. In Holland he was Pastor of the Church of Arnheim, as we are told by Mr. Mr, Ed­wards his An­tapologia (e­dit. 1646. pag. 160. Edwards, his loving Friend too. His book he was pleased to Intitle, [Comfort for Believers in their Sins and Suffrings,] for fear Believers should be afflicted with the sinfulness of their sins, which God himself is the Author of, and more the Author (in his opinion) than they can be. Yet his Book with this Doctrine was even printed by Authority, cum Privilegio, (when Presbyterianism was up) with the License and approbation of old Mr. Downham, who was im­powred to such things by the-world-knows-whom. It was the Doctrine of Mr. Knox, the great Introducer of Presbyterianism in Scotland) That the wicked are not onely left by Gods suffring, but See him ci­ted by Dr. Heylin in his Hist. Quin­quart. part. 3. ch. 16. p. 5. compelled to sin by his power. p. 317. And again he saith, we do not onely behold and know God to be the Principal cause of all things, but also the Au­thor appointing all things. p. 22. It is also taught in Mr, Ed­wards his An­tapologia (e­dit. 1646. pag. 160. an­other Treatise, (at first written in French, but after pub­lished in English) That by vertue of Gods will, all things [Page] were made, yea even those things which are A Brief De­claration of the Table of praedestinati. on. p. 15. ibid. p. 6. evil and exe­crable p. 15. Another takes upon him to Ibid. p. 6. prove, That all evil springeth out of God's Ordinance. And his Book is Inti­tled [Against a Privy Papist] as 'twere on purpose to be­tray the Protestant Name into Disgrace. But now at last Mr. Hickman outgoes them All, if they all are but capa­ble to be outgon. For the most execrable and hainous of all the sins to be imagin'd, is the Divel's hating Almigh­ty God. Which though Mr. Hickman doth confess to be the worst of all actions, See the words in his Book of the 2. Edition (which Edi­tion) I use in all I cite from this Author) p. 93. lin. pen­ult. ult. and again essentially and intrinse­cally evil, (p. 94. lin. 2.) evil ex genere & ob [...]ecto, (ibid. lin. 9.) and such as no kind of Circumstance can ever make lawful (ib. lin. 17.) yet he grosly calls it The work of God, as all other positive things are. (p. 96. lin. 8.) wilt thou know (good Reader) what may lead him to such a Blas­phemy? Thou must know his principle is this Verbatim, [It belongs to the universality of the FIRST CAUSE to PRODUCE not onely EVERY REAL BEING, but also the positive MODIFICATIONS of Beings. (95. l. ult. & p. 96. lin. 1.) And this he gives for the very Reason, why The Action of hating God (spoken of just now) is the work of God.

Now that this is a Principle (or a Doctrine) whose eve­ry consequence is a crime, I cannot better convince the Calvinists, than by the confession of Mr. Calvin. For when the very same Doctrine, which I suspect to have been brew'd by the Carpocratians, was freshly broached by the Libertines, (breaking in, with Presbytery, to help dis­grace our Reformation, just as the Gnosticks to the discredit of Christianity it self,) Master Calvin called it Joh. Calvini Tractatus Theologici &c. (edit, Ge­nev. 1612.) in Libertinos. c. 4. p. 436. col. 3 lin. 50. & ib· p. 437. col. 1. lin. 14. An Ex­ecrable Blasphemy; not onely once, but again and again too. And what was that which he declaimed so much against in that stile? was it that God was said plainly to be the Author of sin? no such matter. It was onely for saying it in aequivalence. It was for saying another thing, from whence God might be inferred to be the Author of sin. It was onely for saying, God worketh all things. [Page] This was called by Mr. Calvin, An Execrable Blasphemy. And his Reason for it is very observable. For (saith he) Ex hoc Ar­ticulo, [De­um sc. omnia operari] Tria admodum horrida con­sequi, quorum primum hoc est. nullum inter Deum et Diabolum discrimen fo­re. ib. c. 13. p. 445. col. 2. lin. 63. from this Article, [God worketh all things] Three things do follow extremely frightfull. First that there will not be any Difference between God and the Divel; Ipsum à se abnegari oportet, & in Di [...]bolum tr [...]nsmutari. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 447. col. 2. lin. 42. Next, th [...]t God must deny himself; Thirdly, that God must be transmuted into the Divel.] A greater Authority than Calvins no man living can produce against his followers of the Presby­tery (some few Episcopal Anti-remonstrants being unjustly called Calvinists, there being a wide gulf fixt between them and Calvin,) And I have cited him so exactly (as few or no Writers are wont to do) that if an enemie will not believe me, he may consult Mr. Calvin with expedition, and make his own eyes bear witness for me.

Next considering with my self, how that a lesser Blas­phemy than This, is called Railing against the Lord, (2. Chron. 32.17.) and that a Doctrine less divelish, is broad­ly said by the Apostle to be the doctrine of Divels, (1 Tim. 4▪ 1 [...]) That it is God blessed for ever, against whom the children of transgression do open a wide mouth, and draw out the Tongue, (Isa. 57.4.) the tongue which reacheth unto the heavens, (Psalm. 73.9.) and whose talking is a­gainst the most high, (v. 8.). That our common enemies of Rome do object these things to the Reformation, as if (for­sooth,) they were our Protestant and common sins; Nay that the Lutherans themselves will rather return unto the Papists from whom they rationally parted, than live in communion with the Calvinians, for this one Reason, be­caus [...] the Calvinians seem to worship another God, to wit, a God who is the Author and cause of sin; I say consider­ing all this both with the causes and the eff [...]cts, I confess my heart waxt hot within me, and though for a Time I kept silence, yea even from good words, yet (as the Psalmist goes on,) it was pain and grief to me. I often call'd to mind [Page] that pertinent saying of Saint Peter, (1 Epist. c. 4. v. 14.) and then concluded within my self, If God on their part is evil spoken of, 'tis the fitter that on ours he should be glori­fied. If all his works are commanded to speak well of him, in all plac [...]s of his Dominion, (Psal. 103.22.) I could not have answer'd it to my self, should I still have been guil­ty of keeping silence; much less to Him could I have had what to say, under whom I am entrusted, and that with souls. Since he describes a good Shepherd, by his readiness to lay down his life for the sheep, I durst not be such a Lasche, and unfaithful servant, as not to offer up my oyle, or shed a little of my Ink, where I should think my dearest blood were too cheap a sacrifice.

Finding therefore that Doctrine, which is so execrable and hainous as hath been shew'd, suck'd in greedily by the Ranters in these our dayes, breaking in upon the Church (which is Gods Inclosure as well as Spouse) even at that very gap, which some had purposely made to cast out Bishops, and obedience, and whatsoever was Christian, besides the name; I also considered who they were, who took upon them the Tapsters office; and drawing out the very dreggs of this deadly wine, boldly gave it instead of drink to the giddy people. Mr. Hickman seemed to be the boldest and the busiest officer of them all; and the more popular he was thought, I thought him the fitter to be en­counter'd. For if his Favourers come to think, That God is the cause and the producer of every reall being (not ex­cepting the cursing or hating God) They have nothing to defend them from being Libertines. Or if they come to be persuaded that sin hath no reall being (but is a non-enti­ty, that is, a nothing) they must needs be Carneadists, for ought I am able to apprehend. And when they perfectly are either, (to wit Carneadists or Libertines,) I know not what can secure them from turning Atheists. It was observed by Peucerus (in his Epistle before his Chronicon) that there are three sins especially which have a tendency to the changing of States and Empires; [...], [Page] [...]. Impiety, Injustice, unbridled Lust. The Church is ruin'd by the first, the secular policy by the second, and private families by the third. Each of these must needs reign when thought to have nothing of Reality, or (if it hath) to be God's own offspring. The late Cromwellians and the Phanaticks were clearly transported by the latter. For having Wisd. 2.11. called their strength the Law of Iustice, they constantly ascribed to God's decree, and appointment, and Reader, Compare the non-se [...]e with the impiety of the expressi­on, and mark how little they under­stand, what the word pr [...] ­vidence doth import. All working providence, whatsoever vile practice they found they were able to bring about. Their D [...]clarations and Petitions, their Remonstrances and news Books, their Congratulations and Addresses, both to the old and young Tyrant, did ever run in Mr. Hickman's and Hobbs his strain. Regicide, and Sacrilege, and all manner of Vsur­pations, (being not onely Real, but positive entities) were still ascribed to the working and will of Go [...].

But Mr. Hickman's true opinion must not be judged of by his word [...], unless his opinion (like his words) doth often varie and shift it self to the two extream parts of his con­tradictions. Whether 'tis really his opinion, that that is no sin, which is intrinsecally p. 93, & 94. evil, because he saith it is good and the p. 96. work of good; or else that that is a sin which is God's own work, because he saith it is an p 93.94. action, and hath a p. 96. positive being; wh [...]ther 'tis really his opinion, That for Ammon to ravish his sister Tamar could not pos­sibly be a sin, because an action;2 Sam. 13. or that a hatred of God himself cannot possibly be a sin, because a Quality; we can but guess by his plainest words, though the Searcher of hearts doth know his meaning. For one while he seeks to perswade his Readers, that sin is nothing, but a privation; And he doth it by producing such figurative expressions from certain Authors, as by which it is said, that sin is p. 77. no­thing. (As 'twere on purpose to let us know what he means by a privation.) Another while he saith, that p. 96. all things positive are good and from God, and yet that the p. 93, 94. a­ction of hating God is intrin [...]ecally evil, which notwith­standing he confesseth to be a p. 96. positive thing. Another [Page] while he saith, That the first p. 103. sin of the Angels was a p. 103. proud desire to be equal with God. Where sin is praedica­ted in recto of proud desire; which proud desire he will not deny to be a Quality, and so to have both a Real and a positive Being. And yet another while he saith, That what­soever hath a p. 95. real (he doth not say onely a positive) being, God himself doth p. 95. produce, as the first cause of it. So that one of these two must needs be really his opinion, (but which of the two I leave him to say) either that sin is Gods work; and that God produced in the Angels their proud desire; Or else that sin hath no real being, but that conscience and sin are Ecclesiasticall words. By the first, he is a Li­bertine, by the second, a Carneadist. And whether he who is either will not laugh at the Psalmist (in his heart at least, or in his sleeve) for believing such a thing as a Reward for the Righteous, I shall leave it to be judged by the consider­ing Reader.

What should move him to assert the most contradictory things, as that sin is something, and nothing; an action, and no action; Not a quality, yet a quality; That the hating of God is a sin, and no sin; That God is the cause, and the Cre­ator, yet not the Author of every act, And yet the Author of every act which is but positive or real; I am not able to imagine; unless he writes as he is moved by the present necessity of his affairs, or is carried away with the Iesuits Doctrine of probability, concerning which I shall speak in my consideration of Mr. Baxter.

Some praepa­rations, for the less Intel­ligent of the People.Now to fit the plainest Reader for the perusal of my Book, and to make the positivity of the very worst sins become vi­sible to the blind, very easie to the unlearned, and to the obstinate, undeniable▪ I will supply him (in Antecessum) with severall Hints and Mem [...]nto's of several forms and ways of arguing, upon which he may enlarge as occasion serves. I. It is the property of Qualities (Quarto modo, and so of nothing but qualities) to denominate their subjects either like or unlike. And so those sins must needs be quali­ties, which will be granted to give such a denomination [Page] II. The positive belief (in sensu composito) that there is no God, must needs be granted (even by all) to be a posi­tive entity or being, But 'tis so wholly a sin, as that 'tis no­thing but a sin, to have a positive belief that there is no God; Therefore that which is so a sin as to be nothing but a sin, must needs be granted (even by all) to be a po­sitive entity or being. III. Sin properly so called is a trans­gression of the L [...]w. And so is the act of the hating of God, which yet is granted to have a positive being. IV. A simple conversion is to be made betwixt sin, and any action against a negative precept; for every such action must be a sin, and every such sin must be an action. V. If something positive may be a sin, then may a sin be something positive; but something positive may be a sin, witness envy, pride, lust, malice. VI. To hate God is an Action, and therefore po [...]sitively something. But 'tis a sin to hate God. Ergo. VII. God forbid's in the Decalogue those positive acts, [coveting, stea­ling, bearing false witness;] and those are sins which God forbids in the Decalogue; therefore those positive acts are sins. VIII. In this true proposition, [It is a sin to hate God] sin is predicated directly of a positive action; there­fore that action is a species of sin. IX. There is a numerical identity or sameness betwixt a demonstrative and a deter­minate Individual; as betwixt this man, and Mr. Hickman, when pointed out with a finger. Such an Identity there is betwixt this sin, and the Divels hating of God, when 'tis the thing so pointed out. X. That very phrase, [an act of sin] implyeth sin to be a compound, which hath an act, as well as an obliqui [...]y. So that if sin is sinfulness, (which is the pleasure of Mr. Hickman,) then sinfulness is a compound, and hath an act. XI. The very word peccare, to sin, imports an action, so does malefacere, to do wickedly, as much as benefacere, to do well. And therefore this is the stile of the holy Scriptures, Ioh. 5. They that have done evil, shal have a resurrection to damnation, and Rom. 2.6. God will ren­der to every man according to his Deeds. V [...]rs. 9. Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil. XII. 'Tis [Page] false in extremity, and nonsense in the worst degree, be­cause it implyes a contradiction, to say the sin is the mere repugnance of the act to the law, without the act which is repugnant. Or that the sin of hating God is a deflection from the Precept, without that hating which is the sin. XIII. 'Tis so far from being false, to call it a sin to blas­pheme, (which is a positive entity) that it is blasphemy to deny it. This is a proof from plain experience. XIV. A part of nothing can be the thing, of which it is but a part; for then the part would be the whole; which does imply a contradiction. And so the formal part of sin cannot pos­sibly be the sin; but the sin must include the material also.

This doth prompt me (Gentle Reader) to prepare thee also for those evasions, with which the Adversaries of Truth will pretend to answer what thou shalt urge. 1. If therefore when thou provest a sin is positive, they shall onely answer concerning sin quatenus sin; Remember to tell them of their Fallacie, à Thesi ad Hypothesin, or à dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. 2. If again when thou sayst, some sins are actions, (such as those which God forbids us to put in being,) they shall answer that sins of omission are not; put them in mind of that other fallacie, A dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter. 3. If when thou arguest by an Induction of such particulars, as in the Instance of hating God, they shall answer that hating is not evil in it self; and good, as fasten'd upon sin; Tell them straight of their Fallacies, A rectè conjunctis ad ma­lè divisa, and [...]. For the Argument is of hating, as having God for its object; And so to answer of hating, without an object, is an Intolera­ble impe [...]tinence, dividing the Act from the Object, which were onely considered in conjunction; much more is it im­pertinent to talk of hating, as 'tis objected upon sin; for that i [...] a tra [...]sition à genere ad genus. God is not sin, nor is it a sin to hate sin, but the sin of hating God, is that to wch they must speak in a compound sense. Hold them punctually to this, and they are undone. 4▪ If they take upon them to prove (acting the part of the opponent) that the formal part of [Page] sin is a mere privation, therefore the sin is a mere priva­tion; tell them first of their fallacie, [...]. For the Antecedent might be true, and yet the sequel ex­tremely false. Tell them next there is a Fallacie of Igno­ratio Elenchì; For the question is of sin, not of a portion, or part of sin. They are past all Remedy, who, when the Question is, whether it r [...]ines, do onely answer that the staff does not stand in the corner. Tell them over and above, that the formal part of some sins (as of the Divels hating God) is a positive Repugnance to the Law of God; and so again there is the Fallacie [...], barely to say, and not to prove the universality of the thing, can amount to no more then onely the begging of the question, Mr. Hickman must confess he is the worst of Blasphemers, if there is but one sin that is a positive entity; because he saith that All such must be either p. 7. l. 8, 9. p. 79. lin. 5 God's crea­tures, or p. 7. l. 8, 9. p. 79. lin. 5 God himself.

This also prompts me to reflect upon the Mischievous effects of his sad Dilemma. For if God is said to be the cause of that positive entity or action [Adam's eating for­bidden fruit,] And the cause of that Law, [Thou shalt not eat it,] he is said to be the Author or cause of that sin, which was his very eating forbidden fruit. I have there­fore taken the greater pains in my following Treatise, both in Se e my whole fourth chapter, and compar [...] it with my cita­tions from D. Go [...]d, and D. Hammond. p. 103. vindicating God from being the Author of such ef­fects, and in charging them wholly upon the Free-will of man, See c. 5. p. 92. to p. 104. shewing how the sinful agent is alone the cause of the sinful act; to the end I might convince and convert my Adversary even in spight of his own perversness, and disabuse his followers or abe [...]tors notwithstanding their partiality and praepossession. That when they exert any such reall and positive actions, as the hating of God, the ravishing of virgins, the killing of Kings, the committing of sacri­ledge, the coveting and seizing their neighbour's goods, they may be forced to declare (with Coppinger and Hacket in the Star-Chamber) the works are evil, and from themselves, (unless they will take in the Divel too) not good, and from [Page] God, as Ubi supra. and also p. 82. Mr. Hickman no less irrationally, than blasphe­mously saith.

That there are Exod. 20, 5. Rom. 1.30. haters of God who is Love it self, God hath told us by Moses, and by Saint Paul. And accord­ing to the importance of the original word, they are [...]. hated by God who are haters of him. How we ought to be affected towards them that hate God, the Psalmist tells us by his example. Psal. 139 21. Do not I hate them O Lord that hate thee? yea I hate them with a perfect hatred. Who they are that hate God (by way of eminence) our Learned Do­ctor Stearn hath taken the Liberty to say. I shall content my self at present to shew the place in my Ut eorum implacabilis adversus De­um inimicitia innotescat, &c. De animi Medela. c. 17. p. 283. Margin, and to observe, Mr. Hickman is therein intimately concern'd. I do not hate Mr. Hickman, but do love him so well, as to wish him better. Yet of the Doctrine which he delivers, and pleadeth for with so much vehemence, [That every po­sitive thing is good, and either God, or his creature, I have industriously discovered my perfect hatred. For the Hel­lish murder of Gods Anointed (of ever Blessed and glo­rious Memory) was as positive a something as any action to be produced. And all the plea of those Deicides who sought to justifie the Fact, was the use they made of this Fatal Doctrine. They ever imputed unto God, (irresistibly will­ing, or unconditionally decreeing, and effectually over-acting his peoples spirits) whatsoever unclean thing they were Act. 13.18, & 14.16. suffer'd in. What was really but the patience, they call'd the pleasure of the Almighty.1 Pet. 3.20. 2 Pet. 3.9. His passive permis­sion, they stil'd See Master JENKINS his Petition to the Titular Parliament A. D. 1651▪ and compare it with the Assembly-men's Confession of Faith, ch▪ 3. Artic. 1. which saith that God did unchange­ably o d [...]in whatsoever comes to pass. From whence the Murder of the King was con­cluded Gods Ordinance by them that wrought it. And Mr. Ienkins was heard to pray at Black fryers [O Lord we know that all things come to pass by thine APPOINTMENT.] appointment. What he had every where forbidden, they gave him out to have predetermin'd. What was a sin not to be expiated, They calld an expiatory sacri­fice. They gave out God to be the Author of all that he sufferd them to commit, the favourable approver, of what­soever he Jer 5, 27. condemned them to prosper in. In a word, they told the people, that God was delighted in those impie­ties, [Page] which with much long suffering he but endur'd ▪ Rom. 9.22. And then I think I was excusable for being impatient of such a Doctrine, as (to the Ruin of three Kingdomes) I saw reduced into practice for diverse years.

How impartial I have been in the maintaining of the Truth, I shall evince in the following papers by my Reply to Mr. BARLOW, the Reverend Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxford, my very learned and loving Friend. To certain Reasonings of his in his second Metaphysical Exercitation, (which I am carefull to tell my Readers he printed twenty years ago, that by refuting those Errours which he asserted in his youth, when a stranger to me, I may not prejudice that Friendship which I desire may be preserv'd and improv'd betwixt us, nor take from the ho­nour which is due to his Riper years,) I have replyed so much the rather for these three Reasons. First because Master Hickman is very guiltily beholding to Mr. Barlow's Book, for the considerablest part of his own collection. He having stoln from that treasure whatsoever hath the Ap­pearance of strong, or handsome; (I mean as much as con­cerns the positivity of sin.) Next that the Adversaries may grant, That if their Cause hath miscarried under the management and Defence of such a Person as Master BARLOW, it sure hath wanted nothing but Truth, and not ability to support it. Last of all Mr. Barlow, (so great was his Candor, and love of Truth,) was pleased to give me his Free Assent, that I should persecute Errour where e're I found it. To differ in judgement, Incolumi licuit semper amicitiâ; and therefore he is farr from falling out with himself, (much less with me,) if he ve­ry much differs at this Time of his maturity (like Me­lanchtho [...], and Bishop Andrews, Doctor Sanderson, Master Hales, and almost All the great Scholars the world hath bred,) from what he was in his greener years.

And now (Good Reader) I am resolv'd, rather to part abruptly from thee, than to detain thee any longer [Page] with such Praeliminary Discourses. I hope it will appear by the following Catalogue of Authors, (at least by as many as will be granted to be the best) both that I am far from being singular in what I own as the greatest truth, And that in case thou hast insensibly taken up a vulgar Errour, thou needs not think it a discredit to lay it down.

A note of such as are used in the following papers, for the proving, or approving of these three things. 1. That the most and worst sins have a positive En­tity, or Being. 2. That each of these is complex­um quid, and to be taken concretivè, as consist­ing of a material and formal part. 3. That the whole of sin is the production (not of God, but) of men and Divels.

A
  • Athenagoras. A.D. 155
  • Athan [...]sius. A.D. 325
  • Apollinarius. A.D. 364
  • S. Ambrosius. A.D. 374
  • Augustinus. A.D. 914
  • Anselmus. A.D. 1082
  • Alexand. Alensis. A.D. 1240
  • Aquinas. A.D. 1270
  • Aureolus. A.D. 1303
  • Alv [...]rez A.D. 1322
  • A [...]machanus. A.D. 1378
  • Amicus.
  • Ariaga.
  • Apologist for Tilenus.
  • A Dola.
  • Alstedius.
B
  • S. Basilius. A.D. 372
  • S. Bernardus. A.D. 1112
  • Bonaventure. A.D. 1271
  • Mart. Borrhaeus. A.D. 1560
  • Xystus Betuleius. A.D. 1563
  • Beza. A.D. 1590
  • Bellarminus. A.D. 1600
  • Bp. Bramhall.
  • Dr. Rob. Baronius.
  • Burgersdicius.
  • Baxter.
C
  • Clemens Alexand. A.D. 204
  • Cyprianus A.D. 250
  • Cyrillus Hierosol. A.D. 365
  • Chrysostomus. A.D. 398
  • Calvinus. A.D. 1560
  • Cajetan. A.D. 1600
  • Cameracensis.
  • Capreolus.
  • Casaubon.
  • Chalom.
  • Confessions of Advers.
  • Bal [...]haz. Corderius.
  • Cumel.
  • Cicero.
  • Chemnitius.
D
  • Dionysius Areop. A.D. 70
  • Durandus. A.D. 1305
  • Bp. of Damascus A.D. 1611
  • Claud. Devillius. A.D. 1611
  • Diotallevius. A.D. 1611
E
  • Epiphanius. A.D. 376
  • Episcopius. A.D. 1618
F
  • Fulgentius. A.D. 500
  • Dr. Field.
G
  • Gregor. Nazianz. A.D. 364
  • Greg. Nyssen. A.D. 374
  • Greg. de Valentia. A.D. 1580
  • H. Grotius.
  • Dr. Goad.
  • Io. Gerhardus Ienensis.
H
  • Hieronymus. A.D. 375
  • Hemmingius. A.D. 1580
  • Dr. Hammond.
  • [Page]H [...]fenrefferus. A.D. 1600
I
  • Irenaeus. A.D. 180
  • Ignatius. A.D. 99
  • Iustinus Martyr. A.D. 150
  • Fl. Illyricus. A.D. 1574
  • Fr. Iunius▪ A.D. 1602
  • Dr. Iackson.
K
  • K [...]ckermannus A.D. 1604
  • Bp. of Kilmore.
L
  • Lactantius. A.D. 317
  • Lombardus. A.D. 1360
  • Lessius.
  • Bp. Lesley,
  • Cardinal de Lugo.
  • Polycarpus Lycerus.
M
  • Macarius. A.D. 330
  • S. Max. Martyr. A.D. 650
  • Melanchthon. A.D. 1540
  • Greg. Martinus. A.D. 1604
  • P [...]. Marnixius sanct. Aldegongius.
  • Medina.
  • Fran. de Mayron. A.D. 1310
N
  • Nannius.
O
  • Origen. A.D. 224
  • Ockam. A.D. 1320
  • Bp. of Osorie.
P
  • Prosper. A.D. 433
  • Parisiensis Magis. A.D. 1347
  • Petrus Vermilius Mar­tyr. A.D. 1562
  • Piscator. A.D. 1620
  • Dr. Prideaux.
  • The Protestant Divines in their dispute a­gainst the Papists of Original sin.
R
  • Ruffinus. A.D. 390
  • Ioannes de Rada.
  • Remonstrants of the low Countries.
  • Guliel. de Rubione.
  • D. Reynolds.
S
  • S. Scripture.
  • Salvian. A.D. 417
  • Stepha [...]us Episcopus Pa­risiens. D.D. A.D. 1270
  • Scotus. A.D. 1300
  • Suarez. A.D. 1613
  • Sohnius
  • A Sot [...].
  • Dr. Sanderson.
  • Dr. Stearn.
T
  • Theophilus Patriarcha. Antiochenus. A.D. 170
  • Tatianus Assyrius. A.D. 170
  • Ter [...]ullian. A.D. 203
  • Theophylact. A.D. 931
  • Timplerus.
  • Dr. Twisse.
  • Trent Council.
V
  • C. Vorstius, A.D. 1611
  • Vasquez,
  • Ger. Vossius▪
Z
  • Huld. Zuinglius. A.D. 1520

Detestanda & abominanda opinio est, quae Deum cujusquam malae v [...] ­luntatis, aut malae actionis credit Authorem. Augustin. in Resp. ad Artic. 10. falso sibi impositos▪ p. 868.

*** Quod Talis actus non solùm praecise ratione alicujus priv [...]tionis, sed etiam per se aliquo modo malus sit, est communis sententia Docto­rum. LESSIUS de perfect. Divinis. l. 13. c. 26. num, 176.

The general Contents of the several Chapters.

CHAP. I.

THe Introduction to an accompt of what hath passed from the beginning. The first occasion of the Di­spute. The removal of a most wilful and groundless slander. The continuation of the Accompt. Seventeen Arguments to prove the positive Entity of Sin. Mr. Hick's interesting himself in an other mans Province. His laying the foundation of perfect Libertinism and Rantism: Occasioning 16 other Arguments for the positive Entity of sin. His Title page impertinent to his Book. A brief and general accompt of his whole Book. A Building made up of nothing, but one long Entry, and three back Doors. Mr. Hick. turns his back upon 14. Arguments at once. Nine more at once he passeth by without Answer. His pro­mise of justifying the Schoolmen doth end in passing them over without regard. His widest back Door of all, at which he makes a most shameful and foul escape from the thing in question.

CHAP. II.

THe thing in Question from the beginning was Sin properly so called. How Mr. Hick. was frighted from it, in spite of S. Paul and Dr. Reynolds. Sin a Concrete: and so confessed by Mr. H. a little after he had deny'd it. The positive Act proved to be the sin of cursing God: Mr. H. (though challenged) not attempting to disprove it. No imaginable difference betwixt the positive Act of lying with Bathsheba, and the Adultery which was the sin; Sin con­fessed by Dr. Twisse to include a positive Act. The same is confessed by Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Barlee, and (in lucid intervals) by Mr. H. himself: who writes against his own knowledge: and as much a­gainst his own interest. 1. By the grosness of his own Falshood and Tergiversation. 2. by inferring that Vertue hath no positive Being. 3. by arming the Atheist against himself, in proving that God hath no positive Entity. 4. by putting it out of his power to deny he is a Brute, till he renounce his Transition à Thesi ad Hypothesin. The stone at which Mr. Hick. hath not stumbled only, but fallen, past all recovery. The true state of Sin (specified) as it differs from either part of Sin, and from Sinfulness it self. Mr. Hick. gets nothing though we should grant him his Reduplication, but rather looseth all he gapes at. Nay proves himself a Carneadist or Libertine. That Sin is positive and concrete may be concluded from Bonaventure.

CHAP. III.

MR. Hick's chief strength from Mr. Barlow's youngest writings. Why first encountred. An accompt of Dr. Fields Reasons for the positive Entity of sin. The first Reason: the second Reason. The first Reason was never answer'd. The second answer'd by Mr. Bar­low in his younger years. The Answer shew'd to be invalid in 5 Re­spects. 1. by its granting what it pretendeth to deny. 2. by imply­ing a contradiction. 3. by being offensive to pious mindes. 4. by of­fending against the Rules of sense. 5. by the twofold unfitness of the Simile alledg'd. Gulielmus de Rubione vindicated by way of Reply to Mr. Barlows Answer. Mr. H's answer proved vitious in 3 respects. 1. by such a gross Fallacy, as by which he is proved no man, but either a beast or somewhat worse. 2. by such a shifting from the Que­stion, as proves him convinced of maintaining a gross error. 3. by Blasphemy expressed, and Contradiction implyed. A third Reason ta­ken from H. Grotius amounting to the same with Iacobus Almain. Mr. Barlows Answer; proved faulty in 7 respects. The words of Ca­preolus make for me. Mr. Barlows plea out of Hurtadus proved faulty in 6 Respects. The Act of Hating God now, and of sin hereafter, unduly taken to be the same Act. A Denyal of Positivity betrayes its Owners to deny a Reality in Sin. A fourth Reason out of Ioan­nes de Rada. Mr. Barlows answer proved invalid in 4 Respects. A 5 Reason out of Aquinas. A Reply to the Answer of Mr. Barlow, proving it faulty in 3 Respects. Mr. Hick. contradicted by his Ma­sters and himself too. A sixt Reason is taken out of Franciscus de Mayron, and divers others. Not answer'd by Mr. Barlow. A Seventh Reason alledged by several Authors, partly cited by Dr. Field. Mr. Barlows answer proved faulty in 5 Respects. An eighth Reason gathered out of Fran. Diotallevius: confirmed by a ninth Argu­ment, leading the Adversary (Mr. Hick.) to the most horrid Ab­surdities to be imagined. A tenth Argument or Reason out of Car­dinal Cajetan. A 11th Argument collected from Episcopius. A 12th and 13th Argument urged by Dr. Stern in his Animi Medela. A 14 Argument out of D.R. Baron his Metaph. The arguments backt by the Authority of the most discerning: by the explicit and implicit Con­f [...]ssions of the Adversaries. By ten several Confessions of Mr. Hick. himself.

CHAP. IV.

MR. Hicks Distinction of the positive Act of Hating God, and its obliquity, frees him not from making God the Author of sin. Proved first out of his mouth. Secondly by Reason. Thirdly by Authority in conjunction with Reason.

CHAP. V.

THe Positive Entity of Sin made undeniable from Scripture. God is the fittest to be Judge of what is properly called Sin. Con­firmed by the Concurrence of Antient Fathers. The confession of Vossius for the greatest part of them. Apollinarius by name, and the greatest part of the Orientals, as Ierome witnesseth. Augustin held the propagation of the soul; and Original sin to be a positive Qua­lity. The several wayes of reconciling such Writers unto them­selves, who plainly holding the positivity of sin, do sometimes seem to speak against it. An Accident opposed to Res simpliciter. The Ma­nichaean Haeresie occasioned some figurative expressions. Substantia expressed by Natura, Aliquid, and Res. Substance called hoc aliquid by all the Followers of Aristotle. All the Fathers grant sin to be an Act, and the work of our Will. How unhappily some men confu [...]e the Manichees. How the Sinner is able to give the whole being un­to his sin. How they that deny it must submit to the Manichees, or worse. The Concurrence of the Learned, both Antient and Mo­dern, for the Affirmative, That the sinful Agent is the sole Cause of the sinful Act. The power to Act is from God, but the vitious Acti­on is not. Melancthon's distinction of the first Cause susteining, but not assisting the second in evill Actions.

CHAP. VI

AN Accompt of those things which Mr. Hick. calls his Artificial Arguments. Of twelve things answered, but 4 replyed to. A Rejoynder to the First: to the Second: to the Third: to the Fourth. His second Argument Artificial. How largely answered. His remarkable Tergiversation without the shadow of a Reply. His offers of Reason Why all things positive are from God, or God him­self, and primarily none from Men or Devils. The Infirmities of the First. Of the Second: by which he is proved (out of his mouth) to be the worst of Blasphemers. Of the Third, wherein he makes God the Fountain of the Essence of sin. Of the Fourth, wherein he ascribeth unto God, what God ascribeth unto the Devil. His third [Page] Argument Artificial. The positive Importance of [...], not consi­dered by Mr. Barlow. The like Importance of Peccatum, proved by Reason and Experience. His Fourth and last Argument. A short accompt of those Shifts, which pretend to be Answers to some few Arguments. Of Sins being called the works of the Devil. His Con­cessions and Contradictions about the Habit of Drunken [...]sse His Con­cessions and Contradictions about the positive filth of Sin. His Con­cession and Tergiversation concerning Blasphemy and Atheisme, &c. His Remarkable Forgery of an Argument in his Adversaries name. His stupendious Impertinence and supposal of Grace in Hell; or Some privation besides All. Of Sins working Concupiscence. Mr. Hicks Answer absurd in 8 Respects. Of the efficient Cause of Sin. Mr Hicks Conviction and Confession in despite of his whole Enterprise. Of Sins being Nothing, if no Effect. Mr. H's vain attempt to prove Knavery to be Nothing. The Cause of punishment. Mr. H's Denyal of any positive Damnation, unlesse he thinks it no punishment to be Damn'd.

The Contents of the APPENDIX.

Touching his Epistle Dedicatory.

MR. Hickman his Flattery and Condemnation of himself. His Willfull falsehood. His Self contradiction, and Con­fession of having written against his Conscience. Dr. Hammond vindicated from Mr. H. His several falsifi­cations. His confounding the things, which he once distinguisht. The sad Effects of the Calvinian Schism. Mr. H's sawciness and irreverence to Dr. Hammond, added to all his willfull Forgeries. His scurrilous usage of Dr. Taylor, and its occasion, Originall sin. The dissatisfaction of Episcopal Divines. Dr. Taylors error on the right hand, extreamly better then the heresie of Presbyterians on the left. Mr. H's preferring Calvin to the 4. Evangelists. The way to stop a Papists mouth. Mr. H's sense of his Scurrility, with his desire never to mend. His new sense of his Carnality. And malignity to the Episcopal Government.

Touching his Book-like Preface to the Reader.

THe first Page of his Preface proves all that follows to be but the fruites of his Revenge. His frivolous exception to Heathen Learning. The Heathenish nature of his own. A new Discovery of his stealths, with their aggravation. His mistake of Iustice for Drollery. The Calvinian Tenet renders all study useless. The Kings Declaration forbidding its being preached. No good Argu­ing from evill custom. The Lord Falklands judgment against Cal­vin's. Mr. H's Inhumane and slanderous Insinuation. How much worse in Himself, then in any other. Its odiousness shewn by a parallel case. His Profession of Cordial Friendship, with its ef­fect. His Sacrilegious Eulogie bestowed on them of his way. The Doctrine of the Church of England Vindicated, with BP. Laud, and BP. Mountague. Of Mr. H's Impertinence, implying Presbyte­rians to be Idolaters. The Archbishop cleared as to what he did against Sherfield. An Impartial Narrative of the case. The Doctrine of St. Iohn concerning Antichrist. Original sin assented to, as taught in the Article of our Church. Loyalty a part of our Religion. An accompt to the Reader of the Method observed in all that fol­lows. BP. Tunstall, and BP. Hooper out weigh Tyndal, &c. The 17th. Article 2 wayes for us. So the Liturgy, and Homilies, and Nowells Catechism, which Mr. H. produceth against himself. It was not the Church of England that put the Calvinists into prefer­ments. ArchbP. Bancroft an Anticalvinist. Dr. Richardson, and Dr. Overal both publick professors, and most severe to the Calvinian Doctrines. Dr. Sanderson no less, since his change of judgment. Per­secution is not a mark of error in those that suffer it. Mr. Simpson cleared from his censors, as to falling from Grace, and Rom. 7. Barrets Recanting an arrant Fable. BP. Mountagues vindication▪ Mr. H's confession. That men follow Calvin in their younger, and Arminius in their riper years. The causes of it given by D. Sanderson. Of Dr. Iacksons Act Questions, and Dr. Frewin's. Of K. Iames and BP. Mountague. K. Iames his conversion from the Calvinian errors. A change of judgment in some Divines who were sent to Dort. Mr. H's sense of the University, and his unpardonable scurrility of the late Archbishop. Vniversal Redemption, held as well by K. Iames, the late Primate of Armagh, and BP. Dav [...]nant, as by Arminius. Mr. H. grants [Page] the whole cause, but does not know it. His opposition to the Asse m­bly mens Confession of faith. Mr. H. proved to grant the whole caus [...] at which he rails, and so to be a Calvinistical-Arminian. Confirmed by Du Moulin, Paraeus, and Dr. Reynolds. Confirmed fur­ther by Dr. Twisse. And by the Synod of Dort. His scurrilous usage of Dr. Heylin shews the length of his own ears. His concluding Question childishly fallacious.

Touching the Remnant of his Book.

HIs Self condemnation, and Contradiction. The Calvinists draw their own consequences from their Tenet of Decrees. How Mr. H. is their Accuser, and how his own. How as an Hobbist, and an Ar­minian. How in striving to clear, he condemns himself; and confesseth his making God to be the Author of si [...]. His own thick darkness touch­ing the darkness in the Creation. How he makes the most real thing [...] to be entia rationis. How he obtrudes a new Article of Faith. And makes it a point of omnipotence to be able to do evill. He proves his own sins to be positive entities, by ascribing his rage to his sobriety. His slanderous charge against Mr. Tho. Barlow of Q [...]eens C. in Oxford. His foul Defamation of Dr. Reynolds. His self contradiction, and blind zeal, as to Dr. Martin. The nullity of a Priesthood sinfully given by Presbyterians. The Recantations of some who were so Or­dained. Mr. H's disappointment by Dr. Sandersons change of judg­ment. A vindication of BP. Hall, BP. Morton, BP. Brownrig from Mr. H's slanderous suggestion. The perfect Amitie, and Communion of all Episcopal Divines, for all their difference in judgment as to some controverted Doctrines.

Mr. H's confession of his Ignorance, an Incapacity to understand the points in controversie. His confessed insufficiency to maintain the chief Articles of the Creed. Yet his conceitedness of his parts is not the less. His way to make a Rope of sand whereby to pull in the Puritanes. His sinfull way of defending Robbery by adding a mani­fold aggravation. His slandero [...]s insinuation against the two houses of Parliament, to save the credit of the visitors in sinning against their own commission. His disparagement of the visitors in his e [...]deavours to assert them. The work he makes with Hypoc [...]ondriacal conceits.

Touching the supream authority of the Nation.

HE adds Rayling to his Robbery, and treasonably misplaceth the Supreme power of the Nation. The two Houses vindicated from his gross Insinuation, an d the supreme power asserted by 19. Ar­guments. and by very many more, for which the Reader is en­ [...]reated to use the works of Iudge Ienkins.

Touching the Visitors of Oxford.

HOw Mr. H. became one of my uncommissioned Receivers. In what sense he may be called my Receiver and Vsufructuary. How the Assembly-Presbyterians became Abettors of Sacriledge, and Praevaricators with the Bible. Mr H's confounding possession and right, and making no scruple of many Robberies at once. His wil­full bitternesse sadly reflecting upon the Visitors. And as much on the Lords, and Commons, worst of all upon the King; in exclud [...]ng whom he beheads the Parliament. How he and his Visitors have acted against the two Houses, and withall against the supreme power of the Nation.

Touching Mr. H's no skill in Logick.

A Transition to the discovery of his no skill in Logick. His Insul­tation added to hide or bear up his Ignorance. Concerning the subject of an Accident. Of Subjectum ultimum & ultimatum. Of an Inseparable Accident. Of the substantiall Faculties of the soul. By whom they are held to be its essence. Of his granting what he denyes, whilst he denyes it: and giving up the whole cause.

A Postscipt touching some Dealings of Mr. Baxter.

THe Synagogue of the Libertines fitly applyed to Mr. Baxter. Hi [...] Railing on K. Iames, and BP. Bancroft, on BP. Andrewes, and Dr. Sanderson, for their Iustice to the Puritans. His confession of his own wickednesse again confessed by himself; though but in part. His prodigious falsifying the Common prayer. His denyal of that confession which he confessed a little before. His Perjury and Re­bellion proved out of his own words. His playing at Fast & loose with [Page] his integrity. His Time-serving and fawning upon his Soveraign Richard. His rejoycing in our late miseries, &c. His charging upon God all the villanies of the times. His Fl [...]tte [...]ing m [...]ntions of Old Oliver, as tenderly carefull of Christs cause. His being Access [...]ry to the most Parricidial Act, the murder of G [...]ds anointed. The seven wayes of partaking in other mens sins. His being an Incendiary in the war, and Incouraging many thousand to rebell, proved out of his confessions. His denying the Supremacy of the King which yet he allowed the two Cromwells. His confession that Rebellion is worse then Murder, Adultery, Drunkenness, and the like; and that he may be called a Perfidious Rebell by his consent, if the supre­macy was in the King.

HIs denying the Supremacy of the King, which yet he allowed the two Cromwels. How he is proved by his concession to be a rebell. His being a Traytor to the two Huses which he had set up a­bove the King, by setting Richard above them, when they dis­owned him. And by owning Cromwels Iunto for a full and free Parliament. He is evinced out of his mouth to have been perjured over and over. His charge against the Lords and commons, and his setting aside the King, more then the houses ever did. His most Notable contradiction about the houses ruling without the King. His New Miscarriage against Grotius and the Episcopal Divines. He is proved to be a Jesuite by as good Logick as he useth. The Jesuites Doctrine of Probability. Popery common to Thomas Goodwin with some noted Presbyterians. Mr. Baxters Puritanism as well in Life, as Doctrin. His additional falsehood. The Originall of Puritanism a­mong prof [...]ssors of Christianity. Our English Puritans characteri­zed by Salmasius one of the learnedst of the beyound Sea Prote­stants. Mr. Baxter declared by Gods Anointed to be a factious, and schismaticall person. His double injurie to Mr. Dance. His unparal­lel'd bitterness against Episcopacy and our Church 7. wayes re­buked. The Conclusion giveth the reason of the whole proce­dure which Mr. Baxter.

CHAP. I.

§. THat the Christian Reader may discern, with his greatest ea [...]e and convenience in every kind,The Introduction [...]o an Ac­comp [...] of wh [...] hath passed from the begin­ning. how the whole Case stands betwixt my Adversary, and me; and may be thereby en­abled (without the trouble of dive [...]ting to many pages of severall Books, unless as his patience and leisure serves him,) to pas [...] an exact and a speedy Judgement, upon the match­less Adventures of this fresh Combatant; the unsuff [...]cien­cy of his Performance [...], when he pretends to Answer; and his grosse Tergiversa [...]ions, when he declines it; How commonly he aim [...]s beside the mark, and aff [...]ctedly mistakes the Thing in Question; How he is fain to tickle himself, on purpose to get into a laugh [...]er; and how constantly his laughing doth prove to be in the wrong Place; How well he justifies me, and my whole proceeding, whilst he solemn­ly contradicts and condemns himself; How he happens to glory and triumph most, when his overthrows fortune to be the greatest; How he calumni [...]tes the Fa [...]hers, in their Iustification, as some in the world have been kill'd in their own D [...]fence; How without all Cause (but what his Principles and his Displeasu [...] have shap'd out to him) his poyson'd Arrows have been sho at my s [...]lf, and o [...]hers, which yet have lighted on his own head, and on the heads of his Predecessors, whom he hath vilified in ze [...]l, and exceeding­ly disgraced in meer good will; (confessing that to be Blasphemy, which the m [...]st eminent Presby [...]erians have taught expresly, and in Print, n [...]t onely by cons [...]quence, and in priva [...]e,) I say, that the Reader may be qualified to take up all at one g [...]asp, at the least expence that is possi­ble of time or m [...]ne [...] ▪ I shall prepare him with an Account of what hath past f [...]om the beginning; and I shall do it with as much Brevity, as I shall find will consi [...]t with Tru [...]h and Clearness. Nothing shall hinder me in my [Page 2] Dispatch, but the Removal of a most Desperate and Ground­less slander, with which our Actor made his entrance into the Theatre, that it might lye as a block in his Readers way. And to preserve the most heedless from stumbling at it, I think it my duty to give them warning.

§. 2. I had indeavoured in my Notes (which I was forc'd to make Publick) to prevent the danger, The first occa­sion of the Dis­pute. by demon­strating the deadliness of certain Doctrines, which the most eminent Presbyterians had preached to us from the Press; [to wit, That All things come to pass by God's appointment and Decree. That men do sin by God's Impulse. That God commandeth to do Maleficium [...]s the word. evil, and compelleth obedience to such Commands. That he makes men Transgressors. That A­dultery or Murder is the work of God the Author, &c.] These and multitudes of the like, (which I produced ou [...] of their w [...]itings in my Chap. 3. p. 128. to pag. [...]36. Defence of the Divine Philan­thropie) were not the issu [...]s of my Invention, or onely hor­rible Consequences unduely deduced out of their Doctrines, (as M. Hickman hath dared to affirm, in despight of God, and his own conscience, and in a flat contradiction to all men's eyes,) but the words of M. Calvin, and of a man greater than he, Hulderi [...]us Zuinglius, whose example in Helvetia M. Calvin imitated in France. And how their Followers go before them, in asserting God to be the Author of all the wickedness in the wo [...]ld, as I have plentifully shew'd in my Autocatachrisis, so shall I shew in a greater measure, if M. Hickman shall adventure to make it need­full. Even the worst of those exp [...]essions are very publickly con [...]essed, by D. Twisse, and M. Barlee, (a [...]d divers o­thers of their way) to have been written by those Great ones, on whom I charg'd them. And I speak it to the praise of their ingenu [...]y; who rather chose to excuse (at least à tanto) what was so g [...]ossly derog [...]tory to the glory of God, then to deny what is [...]o visible to all mens eyes.

The Rem [...]vilt of a most willful and ground less slander.But the Rhapsodist adventur [...]s beyond all possible expe­ctation; and dares to tell us in effect, That when we reade the p [...]inted works either of Zuinglius, or Calvin, of Bor­rhaeus, [Page 3] or D. Twisse, There is not any such thing, as we clearly see lying before us; That what we reade, is not writ­ten; And that the things which I t [...]anscribed from some of the Authors whom he admires, were the Epist. Ded▪ pag. 2. meer chi­maera's of my Brain, though near an hundred years printed before I came into the world. Had I father'd mine own fan­cies upon one or more of his Predecessors, (as M. Hick­man hath had the confidence to Epist. Ded. pag. 4. tell the Lecturers of Brackly) I should not have thought my self fit to live. And by so much the more it becomes my Duty (as well as Inter [...]st) to clear the innocence of my dealing in this parti­cular, although I know not how to do it without the ruine of my Accuser in point of fame ▪ The shortest way to this end, will be by Noteing the very lines, as well as the words, and the p [...]ges, and the Editions of the Books, from whence the Reader may take a specimen, whereby to judge of the whole Heap. Zuingl▪ in Serm. de Prov. (edit. Tigur. August. 20. 1530) c. 5. fol. 364. p. 1. lin. 28 &c. Numen ipsum AVTHOR est ejus quod nobis est INIVSTIA.— Cum Deus An­gelum Transgresso [...]em facit, & hominem, Ipse tamen Trans­gressor non constituitur, ut qui contra legem non veniat. (ib. lin. 4 [...].)— Ib. cap. 6. fol. 365. p. 2. lin. 35. Quod Deus operatur per hominem, Homini vi [...]io vertitur, non etiam Deo. — Ib. lin. 40. unum at­que Idem Facinus, p [...]ta Adulterium aut Homicidium, in quantum Dei AVTHORIS, MOTORIS, ac Impulsoris OPVS est, crimen non est. — lb. fol. 366 [...] p 1. lin. 11. Doct. Twisse [...]efends the worst of this, vin. gra. l. 2. part 1. p. 37. col. 1. lin. 17.18. edit. Am­sterd. 1632. Mov [...]t Deus Latro­nem ad occidendum innoce [...]tem, etiam ac imparatum ad mortem. — [...]mpellit Deus ut occideret. (ib. l. 35.) p [...]rmitto, Latronem coactum esse ad pe [...]candum. (ib. l. 18.) Impulsore Deo trucidavit Lat [...]o. (ib. l. 21.) movet & im­pellit usque dum ille occisus est. (ib. lin. 25.)

Calvin. Inst. (edit. Genev. 1637) lib. 1. c. 18. Sect. 3. fol. 70. p. 1. l. 10.Satis apertè ostendi, Deum vocari eorum OMNIVM AVTHOREM, quae isti Censores volunt otioso tantùm ejus permissu contingere. Voluntas Dei rerum omnium Can­sa—Rep [...]obos in obsequium c [...]git. (ib. §. 2. fol. 69. p. 2. lin. 23.26.) Idem Facinus Deo, Satanae, homini assi­gna [...]i, absurdum non est. (ib. l. 2. c. 4. f [...]l. 95. p. 2. lin. 20.) — Lib. 3. ca [...]. 23. Sect. 6. fol. 324. p. 2. lin. 8, 9▪ from the bot­tom. frust [...]a de Praescientiâ lis movetur, ubi constat [Page 4] Omnia ordinatione potius & Nutu evenire. — Hic (i. e· peccator) justo Illius (i. e. Dei) impulsu agit quod sibi non licet. (l. 1. c. 18. §. 4. fol 71. p. [...]. lin. 24.)

Martin. Bor­rhaeus stuggar­dinus in P [...]oph: Esataeoracula. &c (edit Basil. 1561.) in cap. Esa. p. 259. lin. 50.Al [...]ter malorum satan, quam Deus, sive de malo quod in culpâ, sive de co quod in po [...]na cernitur, loquamur, AV [...]OR judicatu [...] esse.

D Twiss vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. p 36. col. 2. l. 15.Fatemur Deum non modo ipsius operis peccaminosi, sed & Inten [...]onis malae AV [...]HOREM esse &c.

I can and will (if r [...]qui [...]ed) produce a multitude of the like, not onely out of the same, but out of many other Writers, (as well Popish as Presbyterian) who are Ene­mies [...]o Vs of the [...]hurch of England. But this may suffice for my present pu [...]pose, and [...]or hundreds of the same strain, I r [...]ferr to my Papers already publish'd; wherein when all my ci [...]ations were to ex [...]ct, that ev [...]n an Ene [...]y accus [...]d no more than on, (of which I proved him also a false Accu­ser,) certainly nothi [...]g but M Hickman, nor M. Hic [...]man himself, without a conscience s [...]red with an hot 1 Tim. 4.2. I [...]on, could haue reported them (even in P [...]nt) as the meer chimae [...]a's of my brain. Which being considered and compared both with the candid Necess. Vin. c. 3 p. 13 [...] to p. 136 cited at large in my [...]. c. 3. p. 180. &c. Acknowledgements of M. Barlee (whom I must therefore preferr by many degrees, as well in this, as in other points,) and with what I exhibited to the eyes, of the most obstinate Antagonist who will but See self con­demnati [...]n ex­empl [...]fied▪ c. 3. pag. 140, 141, 142. &c. look, con­cludes M. Hickman the worst of sinners, if such a sinner is the worst who is the willful [...]st. 'Twas from the naughtiness of the Heart, not from the windiness of the Spleen, that so unpa [...]allel'd a Boldnes [...] must needs have risen. Had not the D [...]ctrine which I condemned been worse then those, which yet were Doctrines of 1 Tim. 4.1. Divels in the Apostle's language or had they not been written as with a Sun beam, for clearness; and for duration, as with the point of a Diamond; where­with they were registre [...] by their Authors in an Indelible Record) M. Hickman had been capable of some excuse. But to deny matters of fact after the manner that he hath done, is as if Absalom should have sworn that he never pol­luted his Fathers Concubines, after his having lain with [Page 5] them upon the top of the house, both in the sig [...]t of the Sun, 2 Sam. 16.22 which com­pare with 2 Sam. 12.11, 12. and in the sight of all Israel. It were easie to write a vo­lume (and indeed it is hard, to be so abstemious as not to write one,) in displaying the monstrous Nature of so I [...] ­comparable a Slander, as that with which M. Hickman b [...]gan his Book. Hoping to season, and to imbue his unwa­ry Readers, with such a preju [...]ice of me, and of all my wri­tings, (in the fi [...]st fou [...]e pages of his Epistle) as might make them mine enemies at all adven [...]ure. But having he [...]d up this L [...]ntern, whereby his weaker-eyed Brethr [...]n may see the dimensions of his [...]hreshold, wh [...]ch he had pur­posely erected to make them stumble into his house, I for­b [...]ar to say more, till occasion serves. And hoping he will be warned by this Discov [...]ry, to betake him [...]elf to better courses, in whatsoever he shall publish f [...]om this time for­wards, I immediately proceed to pu [...]sue the [...]enor of my Account.

§. 3. M. Barlee, not denying, The continuati­on [...]f the Ac­compt. (such indeed was his in­genuity) but excusing those Doctr [...]ns which I had censur'd▪ (such was his favour to his own party) alledged that Sin h [...]d not a po [...]tive Entity, as having no [...]fficient c [...]se;See his words and p [...]ges ci­ted Philan. c. 3. S. 28 and c. 4. S. 21. pag. Seventeen Ar­guments to prove the posi­tive Entity of sin. so that though God is affirmed to have decreed, determi [...]ed, and willed [...]în, yet he is not concluded the Author of it

§. 4 To this I returned a Con [...]utation, in my Defence of th [...] Divine Philanthro [...]ie chap. 3 §. 8 p. 110. to p 116. And again in the same Book, chap. 4 §. 21. p. 20▪ 21 The former consi [...]ting o [...] seventeen Arguments drawn out at length, I gave the Reader in Ep [...]tome, in the third chapter of my Au ocatachrisis §. 15. p 145. to 147. The latter con­sisting of 7. particula [...]s, I shall content my self, for the pres [...]nt,M Hickman's inte [...]essing himself [...]n ano­ther mans pro­vince. to ref [...]r my Reader thereunto.

§. 5. In stead of a reply, w [...]h I expected from Mr. B. I found him assisted by Mr Hickman (whom he was fitter to assist) to hurt his cause with an assertion, that eve [...]y posit [...]e thi [...]g is good. See the words and pages cited [...]. ch. 3. p. 150, 15 [...], &c. And that the [...]e is [...]ot any medium betwixt God and his creature. And (so by cons [...]qu [...]nce▪) that if sin is something po [...]itive, or a positive entity, [...] must be [...]ne of God's creatures, or God himself.

[Page 6] His laying the foundation of perfect Liber­tinism and Ran [...]ism.§ 6. Hence it was that I endeavoured to convince Mr. H [...]ckman of his impiety; to shew him the blasphemies and absurdities, in which his friend and himself were at once in­volved; and to ami [...]ote his Readers, against the venome thus laid before them. My way to do it was by evincing, that sin is positively something; (which is the English of positive entity) whereby 'tis proved that there is something, which though positive and reall, cannot be attributed to God, as the maker of it; because he cannot be possibly the maker of sin. And it was high time indeed, to make this matter apparent to him, when I had found a publick Preacher delivering this as the scope of the first Article of the Creed, That God is the M [...]k [...]r of All Things Reall, p. 113. (cited and confuted in my [...]. p. 167.) Inso­much that if sin is something Reall, it is a part of his Note M. H. ascribes eve [...]y reall Being to the first cause producing it, p. 95, 96. [...]reed, to believe that God is the Maker of it. And if it is nothing but a word, (in his opinion,) then will he say when he hath sinned, (with Solom [...]ns Prov. 30.20. Who [...]e,) That he hath done just nothing. And for nothing, it is impossible, that God should sentence his Creatures to Fire and Brim­stone.

§ 7. Now to the Arguments afo [...]esaid, which were no f [...]wer than seventeen, Occasioning 16 other Argu­ments for the positive entity of sin. See the Argu­ments at large in [...]. c. 3. p. 148. to p. 166. I also added some sixteen more, whereby to illustrate, as well as prove, [...]he positive Enti­ty of sin. As first from the words of S. Iames, L [...]st ha­ving conceived bringeth forth sin, Iam. 1.15. which h [...] ­ving explained, I thence inferr'd, That Sin is the p [...]odu­ction of mans own will, seduced by lust, and consem [...]ng to it, and rendred evil by so consenting. Second [...]y from the expressions of the eminentest Authors by him asserted, who teach that God doth effic [...]re peccata, and not onely Will, but work Sin, and that he hath a hand in effecting sin. Those very Blasphemies implying a posi [...]ive entity of sin. 3. From Cain's killing Abel, and Davids ly [...]ng with Bathshebah, which being actions, are positive en [...]ities; and yet are [...]ins too, as being a murder and an adultery. 4 From experience and the confession of the Adve [...]sary, that what [Page 7] is privative of one thing, is also positive of another. 5. From the necessity of its being complexum quid, confessed also by M. Hickman. 6. From the meaning of Bonum Me­taphysicum, as comprehending res, & aliquid; and as si­gnifying no more, then ens in ordine ad appelitum; where­as it is onely the moral good, which is oppos'd to the thing in Question. 7. From the positive entity of a Lye, which is therefore verum, as much as bonum Metaphysicum, and yet hath no more of reall goodness, then of reall truth in it. 8. From the positive being of Satans pride, and of Pe­tronius his Inventions, together with those of the Presby­terians. 9. From the difference or distinction betwixt a negative and positive Atheism. 10. From sins being divi­ded into actuall and habi [...]uall 11. From the positive fil­thiness of flesh and spirit, of which a man is deprived, when God by his grace is plea'sd to cleanse him. 12. From the Importance of the word privative, which may be pre­dicated of sinners, as well as of sins. 13. To harden our own hearts, to consent unto Temptations, and to destroy our selves by such consent, are granted by all to be positive things. 14. Sin is spoken of as such, throughout the Scri­ptures. 15. It is confessed by M. Hickman, and by the men of his way, that sin is a compound which doth consist of a materiall and formall part, whereof the one being gran­ted to be a posi [...]ive entity, both together cannot be less. 16. Betwixt the act of ha [...]ing God, and the sin of hating God, which is the act of ha [...]ing God, there cannot he the least difference, because itself cannot be different from it­self: for that would imply the very gross [...]st of Contradi­ctions.☜ But the A [...]t of hating God is confessed by Master Hickman to be a positive entity. And so he yields the whole Cause, in spight of all his endeavours to make re­sistance.

§. 8. But yet he endeavours a Resistance, as far as a Ti [...]le-page can doe it,M. Hick's Ti­tle page is im­pertinent to hi [...] Book. which doth not really belong to any book in all the world, much [...]ess to tha [...] which he unhappily call'd his. For it p [...]etends [a Iustification of the Fa [...]hers [Page 8] and Schoolmen from their being self cond [...]mned for denying the positivity of sin. And yet it p [...]etends to be an Answer to so much of my [...], as doth relate to the fo [...]esaid opinion.] H [...]re are [...]everall things, which prove him willfull in his Impostures. For well he knew, I had not written against the Fathers or Schoolmen; much less against them as self-cond [...]mned; much less yet for denying the positivity of sin. I writ indeed against Himself and M. Hobbs; but they a [...]e hardly so much as sons, much less Fathers of the Church. And though I writ against others also, yet neither of th [...]m was a Schoolman, much less a Father. I writ against them as self-condem [...]ed, be­cause I proved out of their writings that they asserted the very Doctrines, which See Intro­duct. p. 7. and compare it with c. 3. p. 140.141, 142. thems [...]lves had confessed to be blasph [...]mou [...]. So that unless our Iustificator is thicker of sense and understanding then all men else, (which his per­usall of M. Mo [...]ice forbids his Readers b [...]lieve) his pre­varic [...]ions must ne [...]ds be wilfull.

§. 9. After the promises of his portal, I find his build­ing is nothing else,A brief and general account of M. Hick­mans whole book. but a very long Ent y, and three Back-doors. As if the former were intended [...]or the Am [...]sing of his Readers, whilst the latter might serve for his own e­scape. His Entry hath such an unseemly length, that little less than a whole hour will serve hi [...] Readers to Travel through. And if their patience will but serve them, as far as the End of so long a passage, (in hope at last to meet with something whereby to disprove the positivity of sin,) they will be able to find nothing, besides the menti­oned Back doors, at which the F [...]h [...]r e [...]capes from the Thing in Question. As if he were co [...]scious to himself of having rashly undertaken to prove a dangerous falshood, (to wit) that sin hath no positive being, he spends almost his whole book upon a mul [...]itude of subjects b sides the pur­pose; rather hudling up a Volume from whatsoever he thought pretty, and durst purloin from some English Au­thors, then taking the [...]ou [...]age to treat of that, to which his Ti [...]le-page confesseth he stands obliged. Observe (good [Page 9] Reader) the strangest Answerer of Books, that in all thy life thou hast read or heard of.

§. 10. His Volume consists of 175. pages. 65. of these are spent in an Epistle, and Preface to all that follows,A Building made up of no­thing, but one long entry, and 3 Back doors. wherein there is not one syllable so much as offering to disprove the positivity of sin. Then there begins a fresh reckoning up of pages. And though he takes upon him again, (as in his Title-page he had done) to prove that sin hath not a positive Being, yet he immediately flies out (for 48. pages together) talking of Bishops and Presby­teries and other subjects of Evasion, (I will not say in a phrenetick, but in a very idle manner,) before his misgi­ving heart serves him to make a shew of some proof of the Thing in Question. And thus he hath made an easie shift to fill up two parts of three of his Tedious Rhapsodie, with more then an hundred such fragments and ends of stuff, as serve to prove nothing at all, besides his fearful­ness to discourse of the matter in hand, and his gift of impertinence above the rest of mankind, and also the lightness of his fingers to supply the heaviness of his inven­tion. For after 113 pages (65 being of that which he calls his Preface, and 48 of that which he calls his Book,) I find him using these words. [Having removed the Rubbish, we may now come at the Question.] Yet goes he not many steps farther, (in a pretended preparation to his design) when straight he digresseth to Beshrew M. Barlee. p. 60. curse M. Bar­lee, to talk of the Calvinists, and Arminians, (by the old assistance of M. Prin,) and to speak for Puritans by such an admirable Impertinence, that he is fain at last to use these words—[The Reader will pardon me (who can scarce pardon my self) for this excursion. Pag. 67.] yet no sooner doth he confess then he commits the same trespass, even by making a new excursion to my dispute with Do­ctor Reynolds, to a Fable of Aesop, and to a gross falsi­fication of the Learned and Reverend D. Hammond, (which in due time and place I shall demonstrate to be such in a high Degree.) At last indeed he speaks something, les [...] [Page 10] impertinent then before, although impertinent also, as shall be shewed. Insomuch as his Readers may well ad­mire; how he could venture to call his Book by so ex­travagant a Title, as did least of all relate to the subject matter of his Discourse, unless he thought that his Rea­ders would look no farther.

§. 11. But having shew'd his long Entry, I conceive it high time that I discover his Back-doors, M. H. turns his back upon 14 Arguments at once. at which he ma­keth his foul escapes from the principall Duties Incumbent on him. First, when it lyes upon him to answer to my 17 Arguments, (of which he confesseth he took some no­tice, p. 100.) He talks a little to three of them, (for I cannot say truly, he answers one,) and having hastily done that, he escapes me thus.—[As to the rest of his Ar­guments (which were no fewer then 14.) they are partly such as I have met with before, and partly such, as others up­on whose expressions they are grounded, are more concerned in than my self. p. 105.] This I call a Back door, at which he makes an escape which I say is foul; because he had boasted in his Title-page, his having Answered so much, as doth relate to the opinion of sin's positive entity. And yet he sneaks from those Arguments, by which that opinion was clearly proved; alledging no reasons for it, but what are pretended by every sneaker. He thought it a shame for him to say, [I have not any thing like an answer to the 14. Arguments remaining] And therefore worded the matter thus, [they are partly such as before I met with, and they concern not me so much as others.]

§. 12. Next when it lyes upon him to answer the 16 Arguments besides,Nine more at once he passeth by without an­swer. (of which I lately made mention § 7.) he does not so much as make a shew of giving answer to more than seven, (of which anon I shall take due notice,) but sneaks (without leave) from the other Nine: insomuch that his Readers might have believed there were no more then those seven, if they had not now met with my In­formation. This was therefore an evasion without a Po­stern.

[Page 11]§ 13. But how doe's he justifie the Schoolmen, His promise [...]n justifying the School men doth end in pos [...]ing them o­ver without re­gard. of which his Title-page made a boast? truly much after the rate of his other dealings. For he passeth them all by, with the common shift of a Paralipsis, [I might strengthen my opinion from the Schoolmen, p. 59.] without produ­cing the words of so much as one. And is not this a Back-door, at which to make a most shamefull and foul escape? There is not a Boy in the Grammar-school, but may dis­pute at this rate, without the looking into such Authors, as M. Morice and M. Prinn, from whom I thought Ma­ster Hickman had learnt more wit, than to compile a whole Book in Tergiversation to his Title. And yet the foulest of his dealings is that which follows in my account. For

§. 14. When at last he undertakes to handle the Que­stion under debate (after his having been impertinent throughout one hundred and thirteen pages) he affirms the Question to be this, Whether moral evil, as such, His widest Back-door of all, at which he makes a most shamefull and foul escape from the thing in Question. be a pri­vation. p. 48. Then (saith he) we understand by the particle [as] sin considered abstractly from that either act, habit, or faculty, in which it is, and to which it gives denomination. pag. 49.

This is the widest Back-door of all, at which he studi­ously shifts from the thing in Question; in which because he makes use of as gross a falshood as can be nam'd, I am sorry I cannot be less severe, than to prove him a delibe­rate and willful sinner. Had there been any such Question in all my Book, (to the least part of which he at least pre­tended to give an Answer, he would gladly have cited my words and pages. And so his fault had been sufficient, if he had onely not known that I had said any such Thing; But since I can prove that he knew the contrary, his crime is infinitely greater, and can argue no less than a seared conscience. Here then it is, that I must shew (in mine own Defence,) how much he hath written against his own light, and how much against his own Interest; as having put it in my power, (by an argument ad hominem) to prove M. Hickman an arrant brute Beast; rather a Hors [...] [Page 12] or a Mule, then either a Man or a Woman ▪ which I shall prove so convincingly meerly by using his own Logick, as he shall not be able to deny it, without renouncing his whole cause. Again he hath written against his Interest, as having granted implicitly, what he explicitly denyeth; and implicitly denying, what he had several times granted in plainest Terms: to wit, that the Question to be discus­sed, is, Whether the thing which is called sin hath a positive Being, or no positive Being. Not how, or by what means, or in respect of what, it hath such a Being. Not reduplicativè, whether The sin of hating God, quatenus a sin, hath a po­sitive Being; or whether quatenus an action; (for to hate God is confessed to be at once a sin, and an action too,) But whether the sin of hating God (which is an action as well as a sin) hath a positive being, yea, or no. To demonstrate that this is the Thing in Question, and ever was from the beginning of all our Difference, And then to demonstrate the sad estate which M. Hickman hath put himself into by his Reduplication, (his foysting in the word [as] against all dictates of sense and reason, and the whole procedure of our Debate) will so open his Eye [...], as to stop his mouth too. And therefore this shall be the Theme o [...] a second Chapter.

CHAP. II.

The thing in Question from the beginning, was sin proper­ly so called. See Div. Phil. c. 3. p. 110. &c. and c. 4. p. 42, 43.§. 1. I Made it appear from the beginning of my Discourse on this subject, that though according to the pro­priety of Logick speech, a sin and a sinful act do sound as the Abstract and the Concrete, yet so far do they differ from other Conjugates, as to admit of diffe [...]ent Predica­tions. For though we cannot say, a whited wall is white­ness, [Page 13] or that whiteness is a whited wall; yet we may say very truly, that a sinful Act may be a sin, and a sin m [...]y be a sinful act. For Cains killing Abel, was a sinfull act, and therefore a sin, because a murder. Whether we say it is a sin, or a sinfull Note that D. Field calls sin of commissi­on an evil Act, and also saith 'tis meerly po­sitive: as shall be shewed c. 3. Sect. 2. act, to hate God, it matters not a­mongst men; and all will say it comes to one, in the ac­count of God, as well as in the stile of his holy Pen-men, with whom there is nothing more common, then for si [...] ­full Acts to be called sins. Hence I affirmed that sin it self is a Concrete, in respect of sinfulness, which is its Abstra [...]t. Of which opinion was D. Reynolds, when he intitled one of his Books, The sinfulness of Sin. And he had great rea­son for it, when he had found S. Paul speaking, of Rom 7.13. sins being made exceeding sinful.

§. 2. But M. Hick. seeing clearly,How M. Hick. was fright [...]d from it, in spite of S. Paul and D. Reynolds. that if any sin were granted to b [...] a concrete, and the same with the sinfull act, it must be also granted to have a positive Entity or being, (and prove him guilty of that Blasphemy, That it must needs be Gods creature, or God himself,) was so scared out of his wits, or at least out of his Conscience, as to say that sin­fulness is synonymous with sin, and that sin is so perfectly an Abstract, that if he conceive not of it as an Abstract, he can­not co [...]ceive of it as sin. p. 53, 54. without regard to S. Paul Rom. 7.13. and then much less to D. Reynolds, whom he inferreth to have written touching the sin of sin, or the sinfulness of sinfulness, supposing both to be synonymous, and sin so perfectly an abstract, as hath been said. Nay without any regard to his blessed self, when he saith that sin doth not siginfie abstractly. p. 100.

§. 3. But though sin is an Abstract in respect of the sin­ner, Sin a concrete▪ and so confes­sed by Master Hickman a lit­tle after he had denyed it. (viz. Abstractum physicum) yet in respect of sinfulness (which is abstractum metaphysicum) all will confess it to be a concrete, (M. H. alone being excepted in his intempe­rate Fits, who yet in Times of sobriety will Note, he con­fesseth, that the hating of God is Complexum Quid. p. 95. that it hath a materiall an formall part. pag. 94. that it is an Action, ibid. confess what [Page 14] I would have him,) and such I proved it to be, by proving an Identity, betwixt the sin, and the sinfull Act. For the transgression of the Law is confessedly an Act: and sin (by definition) is the Transgression of the Law. Nor will the Adversary deny, that the Act of sinning is a sinfull Act. For being a Transgression, it must needs be an Act, and be­ing such an act, it must needs be sinfull. The act of consent­ing to a Temptation, which is sin in its bir [...]h, is punctum indivisibile, and hath not any Dimensions to make it capa­ble of a Division; and so it must needs be the sin of con­senting to the Temptation, as well as it is the sinfull act.

The positive act proved to be the sin of curs­ing God. Ma­ster Hickman (though chal­lenged) not at­tempting to dis­prove it. See [...]. chap. 1. p. 11, 12.§. 4. Farther yet, when in pursuit of the Controversie, it lay upon me to shew, how the determination of a mans will to the forbidden object, was equally a sin, and a posi­tive being; and what an Impiety it would be to intitle God to so foul a thing; I made a challenge to M. Hickman (as well as others,) to give an instance in some particular, how the act and the obliqui [...]y might so be severed or distin­guish'd, as he might say which is Go [...]'s part, and which is Satan's. When a man doth curse God, (Lev. 24.15.) which is the Act of that sin? and which is the sin, that is not the Act? or which is the obliquity of the act o that sin? M. Hickman did not attempt an Answer; and sure I am he was not able. For 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. 1. if onely an Act, where then is the obliquity? 2. if onely an obliquity of an Act, where is the Act? (for all the whole sin is the cursing of God, neither more, nor less, 3. if both together, and separably, let him make that seperation. 4. if both are inseparably together, he must con­fess, that sin hath a positive being, and that himself hath made God to be the Author of sin.

No imaginable difference be­ [...]wixt the positive act of lying with Bathsheba, and the Adultery which was the sin.§. 5. In a word, I made appear, what I meant by the [Page 15] word sin, by the instances which I brought whereby to prove it the same with the sinfull act. There being no dif­ference (no not so much as in imagination) between Da­vid's lying with Bathsheba, and his Adultery, or between his Adultery, and his sin. ( [...]. p. 82.) His lying with Bathsheba was his action, which action was his sin, (p. 84.) And again, I discern no difference between the same evil action, and it self; as between Davids lying with Bathshe­ba, and his Adultery. (ibid.) Nor indeed was it possible that I should have spoken any otherwise, when the Thing spoken of was not half of sin, but the whole; not the for­mal part, (as they phrase it) but the very complexum, as M. H. himself calls it, (p. 95.) For actual sin of commis­sion cannot otherwise be sin, than as it is an act of sinning; nor an act of sinning any otherwise, then as it is a sinfull Act.

§. 6. That this was meant in our Dispute, I have large­ly proved. And that we ought to mean this,Sin confessed by D. Twisse to include a po­sitive Act. Vind. Gr. l. 2. par. 1. [...] p. 155. I prove by the judgement of D. Twisse, who saith, that Fornication denoteth sin, not onely according to its Formality, as it is sin, but also according to its materiality, as it is an Act. His words in Latin are justly these. Fornicatio notat peccatum, non tantùm secundum Formale ejus quà peccatum est, sed & secundum materiale ejus, quà actus est. Now because M. Hickman doth boast so much of D. Twisse, as one whom none durst undertake in the Arminian Controversies (p. 106.) I will farther insist upon his Authoritie, whereby to prove the true Importance, and together with that, the positive entity of sin; which that Doctor doth assert by unavoidable Implication, whilst he saith that [Omne pecca­tum definite consideratum & secundum certam speci­em, duo Com. plectitur; Actum Naturalem,—& Actus Turpitudinem, sive cum lege Dei Repug­nantiam. E. G. Furtum Omne duo notat, viz. actum surripiendi res alienas, & actus hujus deformitatem, quatenus lege divin [...] nobis interdici [...]ur &c. Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1· p. 155. All sin, being definitely considered, and according to its certain speci­es, doth include two things, the natural act, and the turpitude of the Act, or its repugnance with the Law of God. He gives [Page 16] his instance in the sin of theft, which he affirms to signifie, as well the A [...]t of taking away what is anothers, as the deformity of the Act, in as much as God hath said, th [...]u shalt not steal. The like instances he gives in the sins of Mur­ther and Adultery; which as it slatly contradicts what is said by M. Hick. of sins being a meer abstract, and the same with sinfulness, (pag. 53, 54.) so it proves [...]e whole sin to have a positive entity, by ascribing no less to a part of sin. It being impossible for a part to have more of entity then the whole. And if M. Hickman shall dare to say, that a Repugnance to the Law may be theft, without stealing; or that stealing may be the sin of theft, without a repug­nance to the law (so as one part of sin may be concluded to be a sin,) I forbear to say what will follow, that he may not accuse me of bitter Language.

§. 7. Noe, 'tis so absolutely imp [...]ssible, (as implying a contradiction) that a man shou [...]d be guilty of a Repugnance to any Law, The same is confessed by M. Whit. and M. B. and (i [...] lu­cid Intervals) by M. Hickm. himself. without the doing of that thing which the law forbids; And by consequence so impossible, that that alone should be the sin, which is affirmed by D. Twisse to be but the formal part of it; That as M. Whitfield and M. Barlee do acknowledge a materiall, and [...]orm [...]ll part, making up one and the same sin, so M. Hickman doth say as much, when the necessity of his affairs compels him to it (p. 94, 95.) how contradictory soever to what he had said a little before (p. 53, 54.) when brought to a distress of another Nature. And accordingly in his Title­page, he held us in hand that he would prove, there can­not be any positivity of sin, (not of the formall part of sin.) Again at the end of his long Preface, when he pretends (at least) to come to the Thing in Question, he sets down his Thesis in these express words,

Who writes a­gainst his own knowledge. Look for­wards on c. 6. Sect. 14, & 15.☞ That sin hath not a Positive Being, pag. 1. No mention hitherto of any reduplication, sin as sin, or sin abstractly considered from act, or habit. And indeed he knew it to be impossible, to consider the sin of hateing God, abstractly from the act or habit, since the Act of hateing [Page 17] God, is the sin, as well as the Act; and the habituall hatred of God, is as well the sin, as the habit. He confesseth it an action to hate God, and an action so intrinsecally and essenti­ally evil, because evil antecedently to any positive Law, and evil ex genere & objecto, that no circumstance can make it lawful. p. 94. And as impossible as it is, to consider the same thing abstractly from it self, so impossible it must be, to consider the sin of hateing God, abstractly from the Act of hateing God. Thus M. Hickman hath written against his own light. But (which will grieve him most of all)

§. 8. He hath also written against his Interest. For first he confesseth (by the means of his prevarication) what he so stomachfully deny'd,And as much against his own interest. and vainly pretended to re­fute too, to wit, That sin hath a positive being. I. By the gross­ness of his fals­hood and Ter­giversation. I say he confesseth it in equivalence, and that much more to his disadvantage, then if he had said it in down-right Terms. For why should he shamefully fall away from his first En­gagement, which was to prove that sin hath no positive be­ing, (p. 1.) but that he was inwardly convinced, he had un­dertaken a thing impossible? If he did not sin for sins sake, nor think it a credit to be caught in the Act of Falshood, why should he publish so grosse a Forgery, as he knew would be detected by every Reader, who should but tho­rowly peruse either his book, or mine, but that he thought it would pain him less, to lye in the frying pan, then the Fire? If sin (in his opinion) hath no positive Being in any sense, or respect, (whether as a Quality, or as an Action, or as complexum quid, made up of a materiall and formall part,) why at last will he needs consider it, as meerly ab­stracted from Act, or habit, and not without such abstra­ction? when yet it is impossible that the hating of God should be so considered? Let him shew how that sin can be abstracted from that act which is that sin, or how it can be consider'd as so abstracted; or else let him confess, he dares not dispute of the thing in Question, unless he may consider it, as it is impossible to be consider'd; which is not to dispute of the thing in Question, but by an unman­like [Page 18] Tergiversation to acknowledge the prevalence of the Truth, at the very same time that he reviles it.

II. By inferring that vertue hath no posi­tive being.§. 9. Again he hath open'd a wide Gate to the greatest absurdities in the world, in proving that sin hath no posi­tive Being, because it hath none as abstractly considered from act, or habit. For according to this Logick, one may prove that nothing hath a positive Being. No vertue (we may be sure) as well as no vice. For (to clear it by an example) as the act or habit of hating God, hath no posi­tive being, abstracted from the act, or habit; so the act or habit of loving God, hath no posi [...]ive being, abstracted from the act, or habit. He confesseth it is an action, to hate God; and that the hatred of God is a quality, he will not deny. Nor can [...]e possibly say more for the positive being of loving God, or of the love which we have of God, which can have no being at all (neither positive nor privative) if abstracted from all either act or habit, that is, from it self.

III▪ By arming the Atheist against himself, in pro­ving that God hath no positive Entity.§. 10. If M. Hickman's method were allowable, he would strengthen the hands, as of all evil doers, so of the Atheist in particular; who may prove to M. Hick­man (though not to any man else) That God himself hath no positive entity (which is as much as to say, there is no God,) as abstractly considered from his Existence, or from all manner of substance, corporeall, and incorporeall. For the sin of hating God, without the act of hating God (which is the sin) is simply nothing in the world. And sure it cannot be a Question, whether simply-nothing hath a posi­tive being. Yet this is the best that can be made of M. Hick­man's skill in st [...]ting Questions.

IV. By putting it out of his po­wer to deny he is a Brute, till he renounce his transition [...] Thes [...] ad Hypo­ [...]hesin.§. 11. Or admit a sin can be something, abstracted from all manner of [...] or habit: yet the Question still would be, whether such sin hath a positive being, yea, or nay, in any respect whatsoever. Not whether it hath it reduplicativè, as sin; that is so wretched a Transition à Thesi ad Hypothesin, as by which I will prove that Master Hickman is a Brute. For sure the Animal M. Hickman [Page 19] cannot possibly be a man, reduplicativè, as an Animal; (for then every Animal would be a man as well as he) I say he cannot be a man, as abstractly consider'd from the principle of reason; And being not a man, but yet an Ani­mal, he must needs be a Brute, by all confessions. But M. Hickman will say, The Question is, whether he is a man, or no. Not, whether he is such, with the restrictive particle [as] joyned to Animal. And I say the very same touching the business we have in hand. The Question is, Whether sin hath a positive being (witness his own mouth, p. 1.) not with any restrictive [as] in conjunction with an ab­straction from act or habit. If M. Hickman be granted to be a man, it will be a new Question, how he comes by his manhood, whether from his material or formal part, which yet (by the way) are both essentials of his Being. And sin being granted to have a positive being, it matters not how, or Note, it cannot be here meant, whether it hath it from God or man, it being Blas­phemy to say it can be from God, which is the crime in M. H. I now oppose. from whence it hath it, whether from its material or for­mal part, (to use the words of D. Twisse) which are both essentials of its Being what it is, and no more can it exist without the one, then the other. But if the word [as] must needs be used, then sin as synonymous with sinful act, hath been ever the subject of my Discourse, as by all my In­stances and proofs may very sufficiently appear. And whether sin hath a positive being, as sin, or as an action, or as a quality, (for 'tis confessed that to hate God, is a sin, and an action, as that the hatred of God, is a sin, and a quality,) is a thing so easie to be determined, that 'tis not worthy of a Dispute. But if M. H. will needs dispute it, let him fair­ly confess, 'tis a second Question; in the doing of which, he must yield the first.

§. 12. From all this it follows,The stone at which M. H. hath not stum­bled onely, but faln, past all recovery. That when it is said by M. Hickman, (p. 49.) my not distinguishing betwixt the sinful act, and the sin of the act, is the stone at which I have all along stumbled; he does but dissemble the sense he hath of his unhappyness, and by playing the Brave, make the best of so bad a matter. For he knew very exactly, that I had proved an Identity betwixt the sin of killing [Page 20] Abel, which was the act of murder, and the act of kil­ling him, which was the sin of murder. That the act of hating God is the sin of hating him, and [...] converso. And so I must thank M. Hickman for whipping himself thus upon another mans back. For this apparently is the stone, at which he hath stumbled, and faln headlong, and bruised himself as shall be shew'd his making a distinction without a difference. As, betwixt the act of hating God, which is granted to be the sin, and the sin of that act, which is granted to be that very act of hating God. For to hate God is 1 a sin, 2 a whole sin, and 3 nothing but a sin: to which three clauses I challenge M. Hickman to make some An­swer. That, if he thinks there is something in hating God, which is not sin, but very good, as being one of God's Creatures, (which he sufficiently intimates, by distin­guishing the sin of the act, from the sinful act, as if the very act of hating God were not a sin,) the world may know him to be a Libertine, without the protection of his disguise. Had he for [...]seen that challenge, to which I call'd for his Answer, in my Letter to Doctor Heylin, (pag. 266.) I had not met with an occasion for this last Section.

§. 13. But because he seems in this place to use the word sin for sinfulness;The true state of sin (specifi­ [...]d) as it dif­fers from ei­ther part of sin, and from sin­fulness it self. I will first intreat him to remem­ber, how sin is taken in holy Scripture, by D. Twisse, by M. Whitf. by M. Barlee, and by himself, (as I have shewd in this chapter, §. 1.6.7.) Next I will help him to un­derstand, what is the sinfulness of sin, and wherein it lyes.

It is granted (I think) by See Aquinas in particular, 1.2 quaest. 75. art. 1. & art. 2. all, that sin is that whole or complexum, which doth consist of two parts, material, and formal, so as neither part singly can either be, or be conceived to be a sin. And it is granted (I think) by all, that the materiall Part of sin is positive; it being an acti­on, or quality, (and when a quality) an act, or habit, as hath been shew'd. The onely privative Part of sin (mark the emphasis which lyes on Part) is the defection from the [Page 21] Rule, which yet is founded in a positive act, of which the other is onely a superadded relation, unavoidably re­sulting by the positive acts application to the Rule. Thus I think we are to speak, if we may rightfully distinguish the two parts of sin, which D. Field will not allow, nor in­deed is it possible, so to distinguish the one from the o­ther, as to intitle God to the one without the other; and that I suppose is the Doctors meaning. But now for the abstract of this concretum, it is that which resulteth from both united ▪ For after the manner that inequality doth a­rise from the Relation of a Bicubitum to a cubit, so the sinfulness of a sin (to wit of the action of hating God, or of Cain's killing Abel,) doth arise by resultance from these two things, [God's forbidding it to be done, and its being done when thus forbidden.] so then. The positive a­ction of hating God, (as the materiall part) which carries with it a defection from the rule of God's Law, (as the formal part) is that complexum or whole sin, which I have proved and shall prove to have a positive being. The meer defection from the rule, or Note, that D. Field hath affirmed this very repug­nance to be a positive thing. l. 3 c. 23. p. 120. and hath said that sins are positive acts (p▪ 119.) not obliquities of the acts. repugnance to it, (without the action of hating God) is not the sin, but the formal part onely. The meer action of hating God (without its defe­ction from the rule, which for once I will suppose, docendi gratiâ,) would not be the very sin, but the material part onely. But the sin (as I said) is both united, viz. The a­ction of hating God in a repugnance to, or defection from the rule of God's law: whereas the sinfulness of this sin, (that is, the abstract of this concrete) is not both parts u­nited, (for then it would be concrete, and so Identical with sin) but that which resulteth from both united. As the humanity is not the man made up of a body, and a ra­tional soul, (any more then the man is either of the two ▪ without the other,) but that which onely resulteth from both united, whereas the man is both united.

§. 14. But now (for a while) let us admit, M. Hickman gets nothing though we should grant him his Reduplication, but rather looseth all he g [...]pes at. that the [Page 22] Question were of moral evil, as such. It would then be comprehensive of all moral evil. For à qua [...]enus ad omne valet consequentia, by his own confession p. 85. what then mean's he by a privation, when he saith that sin or moral evil, as such, is a privation? unless he means a meer pri­vation, and nothing else, he speaks not against the posi [...]ivity of sin; which even they who do assert, do also hold there is a want of such a rectitude as is due; but they say there is something besides that want. As in walking to kill a neighbour, there is something positive, besides the want of a good end, to which the walking should be directed. And if any thing could be due to the hating of God, to make it good, (as nothing can be) there would be an action, be­sides the want of that due, as M. Hickman confesseth p 94. Nay in saying that that action is essentially evil, (ibid.) he confesseth the very action to be the sin. And taking sin in the right sense for complexum quid, (as he confesseth (p. 95.) we may allow him his own way of stating the Questi­on to his undoing.

Nay proves himself a Car­neadist or Li­bertine.§. 15. Again he is ruin'd by his preservative, as may appear by this Dilemma. Does he think that privation is a thing real, or onely nominal? something, or nothing? If nothing, then for M. Hickman to filt [...]h and plunder, is but a sin, and therefore nothing in his opinion, and so is a Car­neadist. If something, then he thinks it Gods Creature, or not his creature. If his creature, then he thinks that God is the Authour of sin; and so he must think that sin is good, or not good; if he thinks it to be good; he will scruple to commit it. If not good, he thinks that God can create what is peculiar to the Devil, (as Master Calvin in­ferreth against the Libertines.) If he thinks it not Gods Creature, though something real, then he must eate up his former saying, viz. That it belongs to the uni­versality of the first cause, to produce every Real Being. pag. 95.

§. 16. I shall conclude this Chapter with the Conces­sion [Page 23] of Bonaventure;That sin is posi­ [...]ive and con­crete may be concluded from Bonaventure, in lib. 2. sent. dist. 32. quaest. 1. that the sin of Concupiscence imports two things, to wit an appetite, and an excesse of that appetite. In which excesse he confesseth there seemes to be a Positi­on, though he endeavours by a simile (which doe's not run upon all its feet) to make it seem a privation rather. Which however it may infer, yet it cannot wholy be, with­out implying a contradiction. And if either of the two is something positive (the act of the appetite it self, or the excesse in the act, Concupiscen­tia duo dicit (secundum id quod est) Di­cit enim ap­petitum; dicit nihilominus in actu, appetitus excessum. &c. [...]pud Voss. Pel. Hist. p. 217.) sure that which consisteth of both toge­ther, (I mean concupiscence,) cannot be lesse, then either of them.

CHAP. III.

§. 1. HAving hitherto cleared, Mr. H.'s chief strength from Mr. Barlows youngest writ­ings. Why first encountred. and (in the doing of that) accidentally proved the thing in question, I might immediately proceed to shew the littleness of the Tricks in which our Gamster is wont to deal; but that I think it incumbent on me to effect that first which is most material, and of which most Readers do stand in the greatest expectation; to wit the proving by such convincing and cogent Arguments, that sin (which is properly so called) hath a positive Being, as to put a con­clusion to the whole Controversy; and that by enabling the weakest Reader, to stop the mouth of the strongest that shall oppose him. And because I cannot but have ob­served (what hath also been observed by many others) that whatsoever is thought strong in Mr. H.'s Rhapsody (by such as are partial to his Adventure) he hath taken after his manner, (that is dishonestly, without the citing his Author so much as once, to whom he was beholding ex­treamly [Page 24] often,) from an Exercitation de naturâ mali, which had been pen'd and printed more then 20. years agoe by my very good Friend Mr. THOMAS BARLOW, who (I conceive) at that time could be but n wly Master of Arts, (though now the learned and Reverend Provost of Queens College,) I shall begin with that instance, of which [...] ve­rily believed I had been the first urger, ' [...]ll since I found it in Dr. Field, and in other writers of great Repute, whom I have now consulted on this occa [...]on. I m [...]an that, which is drawn from the Sin of hating God, (and by con­sequence from all other sins of commission, whereof this one is the fittest Instance,) to which Mr. Hickman pretends an answer (though without the will, and consent, yet) by the as­sistance of Mr. BARLOW. The insufficiency of the Answer I intend to shew by my Reply. Which being done, I shall submit it to the consideration of Mr. Barlow; That if he approves of my Reply, he may may make me glad with the knowledge of it; and that if he doth not, he may shew me the reason of his dislike. I suppose his judgement may now be altered, from what it was in his younger years. If not, I shall desire to discuss the matter rather with Him, who is able to tye me the hardest kno [...]s, and to shew me my Error in case I erre, then to contend with [...]uch a Trifler as Mr. Hickman appears to be, who is fitter to betray then maintain his Cause.

An account of Dr. Field's Reasons for the positive entity of sin. l. 3. of the Church. ch. 23. Edit. 2. p. 119.120.§. 2. That the sin of hating God is nothing more then a sin, and that it hath a pos [...]ive being, I have so often pro­ved (mine own way) in my [...] (besides what I have done in my Letter to Dr. Heylin, and in the sections of the foregoing Chapter,) that I suppose it high time, to shew how others have proved it, as well as I. Both that the greatness of their Authority may help prevail with some men to accept of reason, and that I may take an op­portunity to speak mine own sense in their Vindica­tion.

I will the rather begin with Dr. Field, because He, [Page 25] Doctu [...], si­quls alius, Ec­clesiae nostrae scriptor Ri­chardus Field Exer. 2. p. 71. Edit. 2. if any other, (saith Mr. BARLOW himself who doth op­pose him) was a learned Writer of our own Church, which he hath studiously defended against the Papis [...]s. First tis his peremptory assertion, That the sin of Commission, which is the doing of that the creature is bound not to do, is merely positive.

HIs first Reason for it is this. As the affirmative part of Gods Law is broken, The first Reason. by the not putting that in being, which it requireth, so the negative is violated pr [...] ­cisely, by putting that in being, which it would not have to be.

Again he saith a little after, That sin of commission is an evil act; and that there are some evil Acts, which are not evil ex fine & Circumstantiis, but ex genere & objecto, which are therefore denominated evill (not by Note, that he who com­mits such sins, i [...] denomina­ted evil in part by passive de­nomination, (for that he w [...]ntet [...] that orderly dispo­sition which should be in himself) though chiefly indeed by active denomi­nation &c. passive denomina­tion, as if they wanted some Circumstances, that should make them good, but) by active denomination, because no Circumstances can make them good, and because by way of contrariety they deprive the sinner of that orderly disposition, that should be found in him, and some other of that good, which pertaineth to him. As it appeareth in the acts of inju­stice spoiling men of that which is their own, (which Mr. Hickman cannot endure to hear of) and i [...] the acts of blas­phemy against God, or the hate of God, in which the sinner as much as in him lieth, by attributing to God what is con­trary to his Nature, or denying that which agreeth unto the same, maketh him not to be that which he is, and hating him wisheth he were not, and endeavoureth to hinder what he would have done.

NOw (saith the Doctor a little after) That that sin of Commission which is an evil ex genere & objecto is not denominated evil passively, The 2. Rea [...]son. from the want of rectitude due unto it, it is evident, in that no rectitude is due to such an Act. For what rectitude is due to the specifical Act of hat­ing God? or what rectitude is it capable of? This he urgeth [Page 26] against Those, who affirm the act it self, in the hating God to be very good; and the deformity of the Act to be onely evil; which deformity they fancie to be the want of a rectitude which was due to that act. not at all consider­ing, that there cannot be Notandum, S. Patres in­terdum mali­tiam peccati explicare per privationem [...]oni, non quod debeat inesse ipsi a­ctui peccati, sed quod de­beat inesse ho­mini operan­ [...]i, &c. L [...]ssius de perf. Div. l· 31. cap▪ 16. & Corder. p. 596. possibly any such thing, as a right hating of God, or a rectified injustice; these things im­plying a contradiction in adjecto. Yet such absurdities they will swallow, rather then confess, (what yet they find, saith D. Field,) that some sins are positive Acts. pag. 119. Nay the Doctor advanceth farther, and certainly farther then he needed, if not farther then he ought, (I am sure much farther then I have done) That in the si [...] of commis­sion specifically considered there is nothing but meerly posi­tive, and the deformity that is found in it is precisely a po­sitive Repugnance to the Law of God: which he doth not say upon his own account onely, but farther backeth it with the Authority, and concurrent Judgements of many eminent Schoolmen, and great Divines, (many more then M. Hickman so much as attempted to produce) whose names and words shall be seen anon.

§. 3. To the first Reason of the two, which the most learned D. Field (as the learned M. Barlow does once more call him,The first rea­son was never answered. p. 74.) was pleas'd to give for his asserting the positive entity of sin, M. Barlow doth not make any answer; nor doth he take the least notice, that there was any such thing; though as it is his first reason, so I conceive to be his best too: which I shall probably shew when occasion serves, especially if I chance to be put in mind.

To the second Reason his answer is, That no rectitude is due to the hatred of God, The second an [...]swer'd by Mr. Barlow in his younger years. in as much as it is limited to such an object, to wit God. But (as he saith a little before, to which he here referrs his Reader,) * The hatred of God being taken by it self may be good, and so by consequence the being of the act shall not be evil per se. Iust as walking [Page 27] is good of it self, though walking to kill or commit adultery cannot be made good by any Circumstance.

§. 4. To this Answer I reply in the behalf of D. Field. first,The answer shewd to be in­valid in five respects. That it granteth the very thing which it pretendeth to deny, and which alone was the thing that D. Field con­tended for, to wit, that no Rectitude can be due to the ha­tred of God, which is no longer the hatred of God, I. By its granting what it preten­deth to deny. than the hatred is limited to such an object, to wit God. So what is urged by D. Field is exactly yielded by M. Barlow, and I appeal unto himself, whether it is not as I have said. For the Doctors words are, [what Rectitude is due to the specifical act of hating God?] now it cannot be the specifical act of hating God, unless the act be limited to that very object: and when it is, 'tis fully granted, that no­thing of Rectitude or goodness is due unto it.

Secondly I reply, That when he saith,II. By implying [...] contradiction. the hatred of God being taken by it self, may be good, he flatly contradict­eth what he had said a little before, to wit, that the ha­tred of God remaining, it cannot be possibly made good by any circumstance whatsoever. And the subject of the Dis­pute being the hatred of God, it must needs remain till it is taken away; And being taken away, there is nothing of it to be disputed, no kind of thing, either good or evil.

Thirdly, It is an uncouth sentence (to say no worse) which affirms any goodness in hating God, III. By being offen [...]sive to pious minds. let the hating God be taken in what sense it can be. For 'tis acknowled­ged by all, to be Intrinsecally evil, evil ex genere & obje­cto, so as nothing to be imagin'd can make it otherwise then evil. And to say that that can be good in any notion, which is confessedly good in none, is to add impiety to con­tradiction. For the hatred of nothing, excepting sin, can be morally good. And therefore to say, that the hating God (in any sense) can be good, is to imply that the hating God is (in some kind of sense) the hating of sin.

Fourthly. It is far from good sense,IV. By offending a­gainst the rules of sense. to say the hatred of God being taken by it self, that I would gladly think it an errour of the Press, if I did not find it so often used. [Page 28] However I am confident his meaning was, That Hatred being taken by it self (without relation to God) may be good. For the hatred of God cannot possibly be taken by it self, so as hatred may stand without relating to the ob­ject to which 'tis joyn'd; for then the hatred of God, were not the hatred of God, which would be an express contra­diction. And his meaning being granted to be so different from his words, as hatred taken without God for its object, must needs be from the expression of hating God, I then profess it to be true, but not at all to the purpose. For tis affirmed by D. Field, that no rectitude can be due to the hatred of God: not that it cannot be due to hatred, eith [...]r considered in it self, or in relation to any object which is not God.

Fifthly, The simile taken from walking of it self, and walking to kill or commit adultery, V. By the twofold unfitness of the [...]mile alledged. is very halting in two respects. For 1. walking by it self hath no proportion with the hatred of God, whatever it might have had with hatred by it self. The hatred of God, being rather repre­sented, by walking to kill or commit adultery. 2. The Doctor spake of such acts, as are evil ex genere & object [...], so as nothing of circumstance can make them good; and are denominated evil by active denomination: from which wal­king of it self is as wide as Heaven from North to South.

And thus▪ I have vindicated the Doctor, for the love of the Cause which he asserteth, (not from the learned M. Barlow who now is Provost of Queens in Oxford, and I am confident doth condemn the aberrations of his youth, but rather) from M. Barlow, who was but newly Master of Arts, and Iunior even to M. Hickman, who yet hath nothing any otherwise to be vouchsafed a Confuta­tion, than as he hath thought it worth stealing out of so young a mans Essayes, as M. Barlow was when he was Metaphysick Reader: from whom, as I dissent, without the least diminution of solid Friendship, so I have not exprest it without his leave.

[Page 29]§. 5. To the Argument urged by GVLIELMVS DE RVBIONE (which was the same in effect with Do­ctor Fields,) M. Barlow thus answers,GVLIELM. de RVBIO­NE vindicated by way of reply to M. BAR­LOW'S answ. (p. 73.) That the Odium Dei est malum solum ob defectum objecti debiti, nam si terminaretur ad pec­catum, esset bonum. pag. 73. hatred of God is onely evill through the defect of a due ob­ject: for that ha [...]red would be good, were it terminated on sin.

But I reply to this Answer, That the hatred of God, be­ing an act determin'd upon an object, can have no other ob­ject then what it hath, (for if it be the hatred of any thing else, then is it no longer the hatred of God) much less can it be terminated on the hatred of sin; the hating God ra­ther implying the love of sin: if by the hatred of God he means nothing but hatred, (in which case the word [...]od must be blotted out) then tis quite beside the purpose, as hath been shewd; for tis not hatred per se, much less ha­tred of sin, which was said to be so evil that no circum­stance advenient can make it good; but rather the contrary, the hatred of sin is so good, as that it cannot be made evil. And therefore the hatred of God being the term in the Ar­gument proposed, should also have been the term in the Answer pretended.

Whereas it is added to his answer, that the hatred of God is not taken aggregately, or by way of connotation, when tis said it may be good by the position of the due circum­stance (p. 73.) I also add to my reply, that though hatred can (per se) yet hatred of God cannot be possibly so consi­dered; for it implies a contradiction. Hatred there being the Act, and God the object, and both together the Ag­gregate: which whilst it is, it cannot be but what it is. If by hatred of God, he means hatred of nothing, or of sin, then he must say what he means, and not the contrary to what he means; which when he shall say, twill prove to be nothing to the purpose.

§▪ 6. That which follows in M. Barlow's Answer, is [Page 30] so fully expressed by M. Hickman, that I will set down his words, and then discover the infirmity of them [The hating of God is complexum quid, and must not be spoken as of one: The vital action of hatred is a thing positive, but the undue referring or terminating of that act to such an ob­ject which is altogether lovely, that's the sinfulness of the a­ction, and not positive, but privative. p. 95. In evil works there are two things considerable, the works themselves, and their pravity. The works themselves (we doubt not) are positive and from God, as all other positive things; but their pravityes add no new entities to them, &c.]

To shew the Ayles of this Answer, I will proceed by these degrees.M. Hickman [...] answer proved vitio [...]s in three respects. First it labours with the Fallacy, à benè conjunctis ad malè divisa, for the sin of hating God doth so inevitably import the whole complexum, viz. that ve­ry act in conjunction with that very object, I. By such a gross Fallacy, as by which he is proved no m [...]n, but either a beast, or some­what worse. that it cannot so much as be conceived to be the sin of hating God, when the act is supposd to be divided from the object. To shew him the fruit of his Distinction, I will put the case into o­ther colours. Let him prove he is a man, by the best me­dium that he can use, and I will prove (ad hominem) he can be none; For man is complexum quid, and must not be spoken of as One: there is something in him material, and something formal. The Animal is one thing, the Anima rationalis is quite another. And M. Hickman being either without the other, may be a Brute or an Angel, but not a man. And being for certain not an Angel of light, he must (if an Angel) be one of darkness. This is every way as pertinent, and as tolerably applyed, as what is spoken by M. Hickman against the positive being of hating God. If this Coin is not currant, let him not pay it to other men. And if it is,II. By such a shifting from the Question, as proves him convinced of his maintain­ing a gross er­rour. let him accept it when it is paid.

Secondly, He so shamefully flyes from the thing in Que­stion, to that which he knew neither was, nor can be, as to discover the mean opinion which he really hath of his own Tenet, and to prove his Book written, against nothing so much as his own conscience. 1. He knew it was [Page 31] not the Question, whether hatred, without relation to God as its object, is a sin, or whether any thing, without hatred, is the sin of hating God. But he knew (by what I had said in my [...]) that the thing in Que­stion, was the hating of God in sensu composito. For I had said in the plainest terms, That to hate God is a sin, or a sinful act, (two expressions for one thing.) That the sin­fulness consisteth neither in God without hating, (for he is purity it self) nor in hating without God, (for hatred in it self is a thing indifferent, and apt to be good as well as evil, God himself hating 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 onely, nor onely in a soul, but in the union of the one with the other. (p. 13.) 2. He knew it could not be a Question, whether hatred is a sin when taken per se, without an object; or whether the pravity of hating God can be any thing at all, without the act of hating God; or whether there can be possibly any act when there is none. And yet his answer is as imperti­nent, as if one of these had been the Question.

Thirdy, In saying such works, as the hating God, By Blasphemy expressed, and contradiction implyed. are from God, which the Scripture calleth the works of the Devil, he speaketh Blasphemy. And in saying, the sin of hating God is complexum quid, which must not be considered of as One, he contradicts his other sayings, that sin and sin­fulness are the same, that is, a meer abstract, and which cannot else be considered as sin. So that here I must ask him a second time, (and challenge him to give me a Ca­tegorical Answer) can the hating of God be conceived to be a sin, or can it not? when he answers, I will reply. But for his Blasphemies, and self-contradictions, let him read my letter to Dr Heylin, p. 265. to p. 270.

§. 7. Having insisted thus largely on my Reply to those Answers, which appear to shew us the very utmost, that can be pleaded in the defence of so gross an Error; and ha­ving detected the obvious Fallacies, in which the whole force of the answers lyeth; I shall study to be the briefer [Page 32] in all that follows, without the least fear of being thought to be obscure by my plainest Reader. To Dr. Field his 2. Reasons above recited,.

A Third Reason may be added from Quaedam mala sunt eti­am citra le­gem, & posi­t [...] ac manente ejus obligati­one, procura­re ut aliquis contra L. faci­ [...]t, naturaliter malum est, &c. Grot in Luc. 22.22. HUGO GROTI­US who saith that some things are evil without the Law; A 3 REASON taken from H. GROTIVS a­mounting to the same with Iacob. Almain. and that the Law being, & continuing to oblige, it is na­turally evil to procure any man's acting against the Law, or to make a Law to the contrary, and therefore repugnant to the Nature of God. From whence there follow 2. things, (1.) that some whole acts are immutably evil, and (2.) That they cannot have any being from the Almighty. IACOBVS ALMAIN giveth an instance in the hating of God and in Adultery, and saith they could not but be for­bid.

To whom 'tis answered by Mr. Barlow, that if God did not forbid theft, it would not be a sin, and that he may dispense with his Law, as when he said to Abraham go kill thy son.

But I reply, 1. That he speaks not to the Instances brought by Iacobus Almain. It had been ill to hate God, had it been possible that God had not forbid it.Mr. Barlows Answer. p. 66. 2. Theft is not of those things which are onely evil because forbid­den, (as the eating swines flesh among the Jews) but of those other things which are on [...]ly forbidden for being e­vil. Proved faul [...]y in 7. respects. And therefore, 3. It was not possible, that God should never have forbidden all manner of injustice, of which theft is one species. 4. God did not say to Ab [...]aham, Go kill thy son, but go and offer him up; which he also did, without killing. 5. Had he done it, he had not dispensed with his Law, which onely forbiddeth such a killing, as ipso facto becomes a Murder; not such as ipso facto be­comes a sacrifice, else a thief could not be hanged for the fulfilling of one Law, without the breach or dispensation of another. The prohibition of murder comprehends not killing by commission from God, who may as lawfully take away Isaacks life by Abrahams hand, as by a Feaver. 6. If [Page 33] the act of stealing, or hating God, be affirmed to be good, and so a positive entity, abstractly considered from Gods forbidding; it must be granted to be such when it is for­bidden, I mean a positive entity, although not good, and so the Answer destroyes its end. Mr. Barlow's words are, si illud mandatum abfuisset, idem numero actus horrendum fuisset homicidium (p. 66.) Had it been murder, it had been sin, (for murder cannot but [...]e sin) and so we have his confession, that sin may be a positive act. But 7. It does imply a contradiction, to say the same numerical act can be forbidden, and not forbidden, which I therefore leave to con­sideration.

§. 8. What Mr Barlow calleth a concession in his behalf,The words o [...] Capreolus make for me▪ I call an argument against him, viz. That if God could pro­duce that act [of hating God] in respect of the substance of the Act, then it would not be evil: but (say I) that act is proved by me and others, (yea and confessed by Mr. H.) to be wholy, because intrinsecally and essentially evil, evil ex genere & objecto, and antecedently to the Law, therefore it cannot be Gods production, for all its having a positive Enti [...]y. This I retort to Mr. B. his p. 66, 67. and it pincheth Mr. H. more wayes then one.

§ 9. Whereas it is said,Mr. Barlows Plea out of Hurtadus pro­ved faulty in 6 [...]espects. Answer. (p. 67.) that if the man that hates God whilest yet in's wits, shall continue to hate him being mad, the act remaines, but not the obliquity, because the act, to be sinful, must be rational and free.

I deny that any man can hate God or love him with­out the use of reason, but I further return six things, 1. That for a man to hate God, is the greatest madness in the world 2. That if he is not so altered, but that he continues to hate God, he is not altered so far, but that he continues to be a sinner in hating God. 3. Whilst he continues to be a man, he continues to have freedom and rationality enough to sin by. 4. This Argument would prove (if it had real force in it) that not only all infants, but some adult [...] are in a state of Impeccability. 5. It would follow from hence, that the [Page 34] goodness of a vertuous act doth not consist in the substance of it, because it would then become impossible, that the substance of the act should continue without the goodness. Whereas it is said in this Evasion, that the Act of hating God may remain in substance, without the presence of its obliquity. But (6.) to answer yet more expresly to his reason taken from Rational and free; I say the sinfulness of the act is one thing, and the sinfulness of the agent is quite another. The obliquity alone, or the sole contrariety of the act to the Law (in conjunction with the act from which it cannot be disjoyned) is enough to constitute the sinfulness of the act. But the Liberty of will and use of Reason, are required onely to the sinfulness of the agent. Which yet again is no otherwise, then in respect unto God imputing or punishing, according to the Equity, [or [...]] of the second Covenant. For though otherwise considered, (with­out the Equity of the Gospel) sins of ignorance are sins, and Original sin which is born with us is our sin still.

§. 10. And whereas it is added a little after, that if with the very same act wherewith he now doth hate God, The act of hating God now, and of sin hereafter, unduly granted the same act. a man should afterwards hate sin, the same act for substan [...]e would be morally good; (p. 67,) I reply that this suppos­eth an impossibility, and confutes it self with the contradiction which it implyes. To hate God one day, and to hate sin the next, are so far from being the same act numerically that Dr. Field doth rightly make them to be specifically distinct. And the supposing them to be One was to me at first such an [...], that I admired how Mr. Barlow could so impose upon him-self, untill I duely con­sidered his want of years, when he engaged himself for so great an Error.

A denial of po­sitivity be [...]ray's its owners to deny a reality also in sin.§. 11. The two arguments which follow, to prove that sin hath a real being, whereof the one is urged by FER­RARIENSIS the other by GREGORIE ARIMINEN­SIS, I forbear to prosecute (as I might) because they do not prove the positive but onely the real being of sin; which Mr. Hickman grants, though tis denyed [Page 35] by M. Barlow, (p. 69.) or rather it was denyed by him, when he was newly Master of Arts. For that he should still be so much mistaken, is more then can enter into my thoughts. And therefore unless he shall friendly invite me to it, I will not meddle with the Infirmities of the two next pages. But onely observe how the belief, that sin hath no positive, is apt to pass into a Belief, that it hath not so much as a Real being. And indeed by the same fi­gure, that sin is called a meer privation, it is also called a meere nothing. The reason of which I shall shew anon.

§. 12. ANd so I pass to a fourth Reason, A fourth Rea­son out of IO­ANNES de RADA. why the sin of hating God hath a positive being. Because this sin is intrinsecally evil, (as Mr. B. objects against himself out of IOANNES de RADA) and therefore not onely evil through some privation, because (saith he) it is impossi­ble, that any privation should be intrinsecal to a positive act. And Gulielmus de Rubione doth press it thus. A positive act which is so evil, that no kind of circumstance can make it not evil, is not evil for any defect or privation, but pre [...]isely for the substance of the act. (p. 71.)

To the Argument of RADA. Mr. Barlow thus answers▪ That such an act is called intrinsecally evil, Mr. BAR­LOW'S An­swer. not because its obliquity is of its nature and essence, but because by the law of nature it is evil of it self, without the addition of a posi­tive Law; or because it is evil ex genere & objecto, and not onely for the want of some circumstance. p. 73.

But I reply. 1. It implyes a contradiction, Proved inva­lid in 4. re­spects. to affirm its being intrinsecally evil, and at once to deny it essentially evil: for ratio formalis, and ratio intrinseca, are [...] with Philosophers; and M. Hickman hath dropped a good Confession, that the action of hating God is essentially evil. (p. 94.) 2. That it is evil of it self, antecedently to any positive Law, evil ex genere & objecto, is a concession whereby to prove it essentially evil. 3. No part of this answer pretends to prove that it is not indeed intrinsecally evil, but onely quarrell's about the reason, why the act is so [Page 36] called 4. It doth not speak to the chief thing of all, [that no privation can be intrinsecall to a positive act] and so it seemeth by silence to give consent.

A fifth Reason out of AQVI­NAS. 1. p. q. 48▪ art. 1.§. 13 MOral evil is proved to be a positive thing, be­cause vice is set against vertue, by an opposition of contrariety, (as Aristotle saith, L. Cat. c. 10. §. 1.) for each term of such opposites must needs be positive, be­cause they are both predicamental species: which things are so true, that they are granted by M. Barlow (p. 80.) who therefore endeavours to elude the Argument, by saying the same thing, which I have often replyed unto: to wit, that in respect of their m [...]terial signification, virtue and vice are opposita contrariè, but not in respect of their for­mal signification.

To which I reply, first (as before) that this is the old fallacie à rectè conjunctis ad malè divisa, A Reply to the Answer of Mr. BARLOW, proving i [...] faul­ty in three re­spects. [...]. Dionys. Areop. de Div. No. c. 2▪ S. 2. p. 492. and so a flat transition à thesi ad hypothesin. And if it be put into Syllogism, there will be found to be unavoidably, an Ignoratio Elenchi. The Question being of sin or vice in sens [...]s composito, and the Answer onely considering it in sens [...]s diviso. Secondly, Vice cannot be vice, nor be imagined so to be, without its material, as well as formal significatum: for without the act of hating God, the sin or vice of hating God (which is the act) cannot be so much as supposed to be, much less to be repugnant to any law, wherein its formality is said to consist; for that would imply a contradiction. And thus the Answer (or rather evasion) doth so far forsake, as in­deed to nul the thing in Question. Thirdly, supposing the vice to be taken from the Act or habit, of hating or hatred, [...]. Idem ib. c. 4. S. 18. p. 572. look forwards on c. 5. S. 4▪ num. 5 (by its having sin for its object,) it must be gran­ted to be a virtue, and therefore not opposed to virtue, by any kind of opposition; which M. B. observes to be reply­ed by Ferrariensis. To which although it is rejoyned by the same Ferrariensis, yet the rejoynder is nothing else, but a gross return to the old fallacie just now discovered in the Answer, and so is equally refelled by every part of my Reply.

[Page 37]By the way I note one good confession,M. Hick. con­tradicted by his Masters▪ and himself too. Virtu [...] & vi [...]i­um si sumantur concretivè sunt con [...]ra [...]ia, & species positi­vae. Aquin. l. 3. contra Gent. [...]. 8. (and from the words of Aquinas) that vice as well as virtue may be ta­ken for a concrete; whereas M. Hickman was fain to say, that sin (or vice) is so perfectly an abstract that he cannot conceive it to be sin, unless he conceive it as an Abstract, and that he is to seek what vox abstracta is, if sin be not such. (p. 54.) It may very well be, that he is to seek: for he elsewhere confesseth, that sin is complexum quid. And if he thinks that abstractum doth signifie complexum, he is a small Latinist indeed, if he doth not, he is a self-contra­dictor.

§. 14. A Sin of commission is proved to have a posi­tive being, A sixth Reason is taken ou [...] of FRANCIS­CVS de MAY­RON an [...] di­vers others. because it necessarily requireth some positive act, whereby to become a perfect sin of com­mission, which as it is granted by M. Barlow, so it seem­eth to be also confirmed by him, p. 84. where he appro­veth that of Suarez. (Metaph. tom. 1. disp. 11.) Malum simpliciter est illud quod est in se malum; hoc est caret aliquo bono sibi ipsi debito, ad modum perfectionis propriè: quale est omne peccatum, praesertim commissionis. For if every sin of commissi on is not simply evil only, but wholly too, (as that must needs be, which doth carere omni bono sibi debi­to, and though I deny the supposition, that any good thing can be due to sin,) then the positive act (without which it cannot be) must needs be morally and simply evil; It being the Sin of commission, which is spoken of in both places; not any action or quality, which is no sin at all; so as the ordinary shift, of flying from the Act of hating God, (which is the sin of commission, and so the subject of the Discourse) to the act of hating, without relation to any object, (which is no sin at all) or with relation onely to sin, (which makes it a high moral good) is foreseen and prevented by what I now say.

What is said by M. Barlow of the threefold difference be [...]wixt a sin of omission, and commission, Not answer'd by M. Barlow. (p. 86.) concern­eth nothing that I know, excepting those words which he [Page 38] frames to himself in his objection (p. 82.) In hoc SOLVM distinguitur peccatum omissionis & commissionis, quia omissio dicit nudam carentiam actus: at commissio necessario requi­rit actum. The word solùm is very strange. And if he found it in GULIELMUS DE RUBIONE, as it is more then I know, so I am not concerned to make inquiry. It is sufficient for me, that my Argument, being unan­swer'd, needs not the help of a Reply. I hasten there­fore to another way of eviction.

§. 15. THat is properly a sin, which is forbidden by the Law. A seventh Rea­son alledged by several Au­thors, partly ci­ted by D▪ Field. But the positive act (of Adultery theft, or hating God) is forbidden by the Law. And therefore the Act so forbidden is very properly a sin; we commonly say it is a sin, to do this, or that, (as to hate God, and to love the world) because God hath forbid us to do the one, and the other.

To this it is answered by Mr. Barlow, (who not produ­cing any Author for the objection,M. B.'s An­swer. and putting in the word Formaliter, (p. 82.) may seem to have adapted the Argument for an Answer,) That the Act precisely taken is not forbidden as a positive Act, (as in Murder, meerly to kill, is not forbidden, quoad esse physicum; (for then it should not be lawfull to kill a malefactor, who is justly condemned to be put to death,) but as it recedeth from the Rule of right reason, and is subjected to the privation of that rectitude which is due. pag. 86.

But I reply, 1. That this is the old fallacie so often mentioned;Proved faulty in 5. respects. for an act without reference to a negative precept of the law, is not an act which is forbidd [...]n, nor pretended by any to be a sin, much less of comm ssion, which alone was the act spoken of in the Argument; and so instead of an answer, we have onely an escape from the thing in Question. 2. It is affirmed by Aquinas, (1.2. q. 71. Art. 6. and q. 72. art. 6. (That Austin put two things in the definition of sin, to wit, a material, and formal part; that is, a positive act, and its repugnance to the Law, wit­ness [Page 39] his citation p. 85.) And what is this but to say, that sin is totum essentiale? which it cannot be, without one of its two essentials; so that the Answer doth offend against the Answerer himself, by considering the one with­out relation to the other, notwithstanding his Acquies­cence in St. Austin's Definition. 3. The Answer doth not deny that the positive act is forbidden, and so a sin; but one­ly speaks of that thing, in respect of which it is forbidden. And to this it may easily be replyed, that as an Note, that this is spoken of such acts as are not evil antecedently to the Law. act is not morally evil, without relation to the Law which doth forbid it; so an act hath nothing of moral goodness, with­out Relation to the law which doth command it, or to the Councel which doth commend it. And again as no act can be a sin, without repugnance, to the Rule of right Reason; so can there be no such repugnance, without an act. 4. It is not all killing, but killing properly called Murder, which is forbidden by the Law, (which commands the killing of the Murderer, and thereby makes it an act of Iustice.) And therefore that should have been the instance; for all such killing is forbidden by the Law, and such alone doth belong to the adaequate subject of our Discourse. 5. To hate God is a sin, and a positive act, to which (it hath be [...]n proved that) no kinde of rectitude can be due. And it had naturally been evil, though it had never been forbidden: which yet it could not but have been, because the not forbidding of it, had been repugnant to Gods nature. For though the act of hating God could not be from Eternity, yet this proposition is aeternae veritatis, and might truly have been spoken from all eternity, that it is evil to hate God. See Dr. STEARN on this subject, in his Animi Medela, l. 2. cap. 15. p 271. ad p. 278. Therefore this and the like acts were forbidden by the Law, even because they were evil; and are not onely e­vil, by being forbidden by the Law which yet those men do presuppose who will have every thing good that hath a positive being, and nothing simply evil, but an abstracted repugnance unto the Law: not considering the difference betwixt the breach of a positive and moral Law; betwixt a Iews hating God, and his eating swines flesh. The lat­ter, [Page 40] which was evil because forbidden, was after the Law, for that very reason. But the former, which was forbidden, because twas evil, was such (in order of Nature) before the Law. The want of heed to which thing I have the rather desired to remove, (by insisting on it a second time) because I think it is the parent of many errours.

An 8. Reason gathered out of FRAN. DI­OTALLEVI­VS.§ 16 HAving thus done with my Reply to the several An­swers of M. Barlow, I now proceed to another Ar­gument, which I lately gathered out of FRANCISCUS DIOTALLEVIUS, and which is the fitter to succeed the immediate Argument going before, because it will make for its Confirmation.

Evil works (saith this Author, who for strength and ac­cuteness gives place to none) are Opera ma­la, & opera nobis à Deo vetita synony­ma sunt.— In nostrâ po­testate relin­quitur vias no­ [...]tras ex nobis malas facere quod non contingeret, si Deus non per­mitteret mo­do, sed effica­citer etiam fa­ceret ut. synonymous with works which are forbidden by God Almighty.: who hath left it in our power to make our wayes evil; which yet could not be, if he did not onely permit, but efficaciously make us to fa­ceremus quod vetet &c. Diotall. opus [...]. Theol. pag. 83, 84. do the thing that he forbiddeth. Now the thing that he forbiddeth, will be confessed not to be this, [That when we act what he forbids us, we do not suffer to come to pass, that formal obliquity annexed to all such acts, by the repu­gnance which they have to the Law forbidden them,] But the thing forbidden to us is this, [That we do not produce the positive being of that act, with which the moral obli­quity is inseparably annexed.] The former cannot be the thing; because the law being given, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, we cannot possibly hate him, without a re­pugnance unto the law, which by commanding our love, forbids our hatred. The latter therefore must be the thing, which we are forbid to put in being. And which is properly our work, though a positive entity, because it is absolutely impossible, that God who forbids us the act of hating him, should make that act, which he thus forbids the making of; or that (by acting us with his power which is irresistible) he should make us to do, what he for­bids us the doing of. But (to return to Diotallevius) when [Page 41] it is said, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, the mean­ing of it cannot be this, [Beware, that whilst thou pro [...]ucest the free act of concupiscence, the moral obliquity do not fol­low it, (for alas! it cannot but follow.) The meaning therefore must needs be this, [see that thou abstain from that free act of concupiscence, because of that obliquity which is inseparably annext. Or determine not thy will to that object, which makes the act become contrary to the rule of right Reason.] And so he concludes it to be the Judgement of the whole Quare Con­cilium vult, Deum permis­sivè solùm concurrere, ad liberam Arbi­trii creati de­terminatio­nem ad produ­cendam ipsam actus mali En­titatem. Id. ib, Council at Trent, (which in matters of this Nature must needs be of great considera­tion,) That God's concurrence is onely permissive to the free determination of the created will, in producing the ve­ry being of the evil act. And God's permission is so distin­guished (both by Aug. in En­chir. c. 96. Durand. in p. d. 46. q▪ 5. Aqu p. p. q. 19. art. ult. Greg. p. d. 46, & 47. q. 1. art. 1. Scotus in 1. d. 47. q. 1. S. Fathers and Schoolmen) from his effe­ction or operation, as to signifie no more, then the negation of an impediment or cohibition. Scotus calls it the negation of the divine positive act, which by consequence is not a posi­tive act. And it is not an action (saith Diotallevius) but the negation of an impediment, in respect of that operation, which doth depend upon our free determination. From whence it follows, that he who hates God (be he man, or divel) is the sole cause of that act, which for that reason also is wholly sin.

§. 17. THis is farther confirmed by an Argument lead­ing ad absurdum. Confirmed by a ninth Argu­ment, leading the Adversary (M Hick.) to the most horrid absurdities to be imagined. For if God does concurr to the positive act of hating God, not onely permissively, by not hindering it, but physically too, by praedetermining the will of the Sinner to it, then he absolutely w [...]leth the a­ctuall hating of himself; which of all absurdities is the greatest. And again, when man is forbid by God to hate him, and when God does grievously complain, and threa­ten to punish with Hell fire, the man that doth not obey his prohibition; It cannot choose but follow, that if he absolutely willeth the positive act which he forbiddeth (to wit, the sinners hating of him) he willeth and nilleth the [Page 42] same thing, and after the very same manner, which is a blasphemous contradiction. And thus it is proved to Mr. Hickman, (to whom alone I am henceforth speaking) that the sin of hating God hath a positive being, because that quality or action which hath a positive being is clearly proved to be a sin. And it is proved to be a sin, by being proved to be a Thing which is not made or produced, but onely suffered or permitted by God Almighty to come to pass. And only made or produced by them that hate him.

A tenth Argu­ment or Reason out of Cardinal CAJETAN. in 1.2. q. 79. art. 1. et 2,§. 18. CAIETAN proves the positive Entity of sin, because (saith he) it consisteth, as well of a con­version to an object contrary to the object of virtue, as of an a­version from the law. And hence (saith the Cardinal) there is in sin a double nature of evil, the one arising from the ob­ject, the other from the not observing of the law: the first is positive, the second privative. The first inferreth the se­cond; for it cannot be that a man should hate God, but that in so doing he must break the law; because it is simply and intrinsecally evil, so that to do it, is a sin. And as this is observed by D. Field in confirmation of his Doctrine, (l. 3. c. 23. p. 120.) so I find the same Cardinal Idem. ib. q. 18. art. 5. else­where saying, that in moralibus pars subjectiva mali est ma­lum; and est in moralibus malum dupliciter. Implying the whole sin to be a concrete; not a repugnance to the law without an act, which doth imply a contradiction.

§. 19. THe most acute EPISCOPIVS doth implicitly thus argue,An eleventh Argument col­lected from EPISCOPI­VS. part. 1. l. 4. c. 11. p. 380 col. [...]. although by way of paralipsis. As an act commanded by the law is the virtue it self, or ordi­nation of the will unto the law; so the act forbidden by the law is the vice it self, or inordination of the will against the law. And as the act of virtue doth not contain or con­note any reall thing positive superadded to the act, which may be called ordination; so the act of vice doth connote nothing privative, superadded to the act, which may be called inordination.

[Page 43]§ 20. DOctor STERN (a very late,A 12. and 13. Argument ur­ged by Doctor STERN in his Animi Me­dela l. 2. c. 16. p. 280, 281. but Learned Writer) doth briefly urge six Arguments, to prove that sin may have a positive being; four of which I praetermit, because I have already shewd them, as long since urged by other men; though otherwise urged by him than others, and perhaps in some places to more ad­vantage. The other two I shall mention, as not yet touched.

First (saith he) a Non-entity may be morally good, and therefore an entity may be morally evill. Non-esse, Bo­num morali­ter esse po­test, proinde & esse potest esse moraliter malum — Antec. pro­batur; quia pura omissio actus prohibi [...]i, licet fit merum non-ens est moraliter bona. pag. 280. The Consequence is evident, both by the Rule of opposites, and because there is not more repugnance betwixt Obliquity and Entity (as obliquity is taken or mistaken by the adverse party) then betwixt goodness, and Non-entity. The Antecedent is proved, because a mere omission of a forbidden act, al­though a Non-entity, is morally good.

Again, the Schoolmen do hold a twofold punishment, Schola consti­tuit poenam duplicem, &c. ib. pag. 281. the one of sense, the other of loss; whereof the latter is the wages of an aversion from God, as is also the former of a conversion to the Creature; so that if sin were nothing but mere privation, the poena sensus would be inflicted without all justice, under the notion of Revenge for a con­version to the creature.

§. 21. AGain it may be thus argued, (and out of BARONIVS his Metaphysica Generalis) That which hath not a positive entity cannot be the cause of any thing. But sin many wayes is the cause of something. A fourteenth Argument out of BARONI­VS his Metap. Gen. Sect. 5. p. 54. For 1. it is the cause of punishment; and (2) one sin is the cause of another. A vitious act is the cause of a vitious ha­bit. A vitious habit is the cause of vitious actions. And a natural propension to evil (which Baronius calls original sin) is said by him to be the cause of all the vitious actions o [...] our will.

[Page 44]Tis true, he answers this argument; but his answer may be refuted by my Replyes to Mr. Barlow; and by what Ba­ronius grants; (of which anon▪) as the Reader will finde, if he makes a triall.

The Arguments back [...] by the Authority of the most dis­cerning.§. 22. Now besides these Arguments thus largely ur­ged, and that from many more Authors, then Mr. Hick­man hath named for his opinion, I shall exhibit a larger Catalogue (but with a lesser expense of time and paper) of such eminently learned and knowing men, as have justified my judgement with the authority of their own, and of whom (unawares) I have undertaken a justification. I will begin with those Writers, with the concurrence of whose opinions Dr. Field thought fit to credit his.

§. 23. ALVAREZ saith,Alvarez. l. 6. de auxiliis div. Grat. disp. 44. the sin of commission is a Breach of a negative Law, which is not broken but by a positive Act. Aquinas also saith, Aqu Quaest. 2 de malo art. 2. ad. 4. that though in a sin of omission there is nothing but a privation, yet in the sin of commis­sion there is some positive thing. Idem. 22. q. 10.5. ad 1. Nay he saith more plain­ly (what Dr. Field doth not observe) that the ratio for­malis of sin is two fold, whereof the one is according to the intention of the sinner. 12. q. 77.6.0 And that it consisteth es­sentially in the Act of the free-will. He also infers it to be an accident, whilst he 12. q. 74.1.0. saith that every sin is in the will, as in its subject. And very often, 12 q. 71 6. c. & passi [...]. alibi. that in every sin there are two things, whereof the one is a quality or action, and so the whole sin must have a positive being. Farther yet it is con­sequent to the opinion of Cajetan, (Greg. de Va­lent. Tom. 2. d. 2. q 13. punc. 3 art 5. saith Gregory de Va­lentiâ) that sin, formally as sin, is a positive thing, which he expresly also affirmeth in primam. 2dae. q. 71. art. 6. Some hold (saith Cumel dis [...] var. ad pri­mam & 1.2. p. 104. Cumel) that the formal nature of sin consisteth in some positive thing, to wit, in the manner of working freely with a positive repugnance to the rule of Reason, and the law of God, Ockam. l. 3. sent. 12. Ockam saith further, that the very deformity in an act of Commission is nothing else but the act it self (viz. actus elicitus) against the Divine Law. And these are cited by Dr. Field. l. 3. c. 23. p. 120.

[Page 45]§. 24. To these I add many more, which partly were not, and partly could not have been observed by Dr. Field. Lessius de perfect. divinis, l. 13. cap. 26. num. 176. LESSIVS saith that an evil act is in som [...] sort evil even according to its Physical Entity. Nay upon this passage of C. VORSTIVS, Omne ens quà ens bonum est, C. Vorst. Ami­ca Colla [...]io. p. 141 Sect 64. Piscator himself hath this note, (and it is a note of exception) At vitiosa illa qualitas in nobis, unde oriuntur actu [...]lia pec­cata, bona non est. The learned Matth. Ha­fenrefferus in Loc. Theolog l. 3. Stat. 2. p. 246▪ 247. Professor of Divinity in Academiâ Tubingensi affirmes Original sin to be an ac­cident, as the opposite member to substantia; and calls it the accident of a substance; and compares it to the image of God in man, which (he also saith) was not a substance, but an Accident. And that will be yielded to have a positive being; especially if he means as Piscator did, that that ac­cident is a Quality. Another Doctor Pri­deaux in Fas­cicul. Controv. c. 3. p. 100, 123.126. learned Professor in A­cademiâ Oxoniensi, by saying Concupiscence is a sin, infer­reth that sin to be a positive entity, which concupiscence will be granted by all to be. And if it is with consent, it is an actual sin; if without consent, it is an inbred Rebellion of the flesh, against the law of God. He also takes it to be an accident, by ascribing to it subjectum quo, & subjectum quod: because by entring at the flesh, it did infect the spirit. Dr. GOAD in his disput. of the Necessi­ty and contin­gency of events 2. Arg. for Thes. 1. Dr. GOAD, who was sent to the Synod at DORT, whilest he was speaking (in that Tract which some do call his Retractation) against an ordinary Calvinian di­stinction, which he conceived to make God the Author of sin, expressly used these words. Might I here, without wa [...]dring, discourse the nature of sin, I could prove sin it self to be an action, and confute this groundless distinction that way. The tract is a Manuscript, but divers have Copyes as well as I. And sure the world must enjoy it, if not by other men's care at least by mine.

That Great Divine Dr. IACKSON, (who was withall a great Philosopher, and inferiour to none for skill in Meta­physicks,) doth not content himself to say of original sin, DR. IACK­SON l. 10. p. 3024. that it is not a mere privation, but also defineth it to be a positive Renitency of the flesh or corrupt nature of man a­gainst [Page 46] the spiritual law of God, ch. 10. p. 3028. especially against the negative Precepts, &c. And as he highly commends Illyricus, (for an extraordinary writer,) so he vindicates his notion, by explaining his true sense of Original sin, which if the Dr. took by the right handle, Mr. Barlow took it by the wrong, in the latter part of his 2. excercitation. It was the See ILLY­RIGUS his aime made ap­parent by Dr. JACKSON l. 10. c. 1 2. p. 3035, 3036. busi­nesse of Illyricus (saith Dr. IACKSON) to banish all such nominal or grammatical definitions, as have been men­tioned out of the Precincts of Theology, and to put in con­tinual caveats against the Admission of abstracts, or mere relations, into the definition of Original sin, or of that un­righteousness which is inherent in the man unregenerate. The Judicious Doctor doth also tell us, (and who could tell better then he?) that Austin. and Melanchthon, (as wel as A­quinas) say as much in ef­fect as Illyri­cus did. ibid. St. Austine, Aquinas, and Melanchthon, do say in effect as much as Illyricus, if their meanings were rightly weighed, and apprehended by their Followers. Nay Calvin and Martyr, and many other good writers, ib. ch. 13. p. 3036. consort so well with Illyricus in their definitions of sin in the unregenerate, that they must all be either ac­quitted, or condemned together. Illyricus himself explains his meaning, by producing the definitions of Original sin, not onely given by Calvinus & Martyr [...]pud Ilyr. lib. cui Ti­tulus, [...] p. 140.141. ib. Calvin and Martyr, but explained by themselves into Illyricus his sense. In so much that Dr. Iackson, (ranking Calvin and Martyr with Illyricus) doth affirm them to p. 3037. make original sin to be the whole nature of man, and all his faculties, so far forth as they are corrupted. Yet still their meaning was no more then the Scripture meanes, when it saith, the old man, and the body of sin, thereby expressing (most briefely) all the works of the flesh, all unhallowed desires, and vitious habits, which are contrary to the law or spirit of God. For so I gather from Dr. I. p. 3039. where he also gives notice: that Illyricus his book was commended to him, upon very high termes, by the Reverend Dr. Field then Dean of Gloucester.

§. 25. Next for the Reverend DOCTOR HAM­MOND (who ever occurs to my Remembrance, when I hear or speak of judicious, Hooker, or Dr. Iackson,) he [Page 47] hath prov [...]d, as well as taught, D. Hammond of Fundamentals▪ p. 182. that the Act of sin is not separable from the obliquity of that act, (the act of Blasphemy from the obliquity or i [...]regularity of blasphemy,) the least e­vil thought or word against an infinite good God being as croo­ked as the rule is straight, & consequently he that predetermins (or makes) the act, must needs predetermine (or make) the obliquity, so far is the act of sin (which is granted by all to have a positive being) from being one of Gods Creatures, (as Mr. Hickman feareth not to say) that [...]o all acts of sin saith Dr. Hammond) God doth not so m [...]ch as incline, ibid p. 183. and the Devil can do So Aquinas. 1.2 q. 80. art. 1. Resp. no more then perswade any man. For his demonstrating of these, and other things, (as that the men of that way which Mr. Hickman walks in do unavoidably make God the Author of sin) confu't the latter part of his 16▪ Chapter of Fundamentals. And now for the Reverend Dr. SANDERSON, Dr. SAN­DERSON in his Sermon on 1 Tim. 4.4. he hath abun­dantly inferred the positive entity of sin, even in that very Sermon which he preached in his younger years, before he changed his judgement as to the 5. points in cont [...]o­versie; I mean that Sermon, which Mr. Hickman would have wrested to serve his turn. For the Doctor there teacheth (as St. Paul doth to Timo [...]hy, 1 Ep. c. 4. v. 4. that every creature of God is good. And therefore to hate God, wich is an action intrinsecally evil, can be none of Gods crea­tures, in his opinion; though it hath in the Devil a posi­tive being and existence: for that there is goodness in hat­ing God, Ibid. p. 278. is the sole opinion of Mr. Hickman and his In­structers. 2. Common reason taught the Maniches (saith Dr. S.) that from the good God could not proceed any evil thing, no more then Darkness from the Suns Lustre, or gold from the scalding of the fire. But the pos [...]ive act of hating is wholly evil, ibid. p. 279, 280. and so a sin notwithstanding its having a posi­tive entity. 3. God hath imprinted some steps and footings of his goodness upon the Creatures (saith Dr. S.) but in hating God there cannot be any such; therefore he hold [...] it to be a sin, ib. p. 281. though a positive entity. 4. Look upon the work­manship, and accordingly judge of the workman (saith Dr. S.) but we cannot judge of God, by the positive being of hating [Page 48] God; therefore he holds it to be a sin, although it hath a positive being, ib. p. 281. 5. Doctor S. saith, we must not blame Gods creatures, or say why was this made? or why thus? what good doth this? or of what use is that? it had been better if this or that had never been, or if it had been other­wise.] But there are many positive entities, which we may blame; as Blasphemy, pride, hypocrisy, hating of God; and we may very well say, why did David contrive the murder of Uriah? and why thus treacherously? what good did that murder of so loyal a subject? of what use is the Divels hating God? it had been better there had been no such thing: therefore those are all sins, as well as positive entities, in the opinion of Dr. SANDERSON.

VASQVEZ in pr. 2. disp. 95.§. 26. VASQVEZ inquiring into the formal part of sin divides his Disputation into thirteen Chapters. The subject of the first is the opinion of Cajetan, that the moral obliquity doth consist in ratione Cajetan. in 6. art. & poste [...] art. 5 q. 18. positivâ. The subject of the third is the opinion of sundry modern Writers, that it consists of a privation and something positive besides. The subject of the fifth, is to shew how they vary and disagree among themselves, who are against its positivity about the assigning of that privation, in which they suppose it to consist. In the tenth he gives the judgement of subtil Scotus in Quodlibet. 18. art. 1. Scotus, that obliquity sometimes is positively contrary to Rectitude. Then adds his own in these words. Ego ta­men existimo, omne peccatum commissionis, sive fiat de­fectu circumstantiae debitae, sive habeat circumstantiam contrariam, semper esse peccatum ex relatione extrinsecâ oppositionis & inconvenientiae, cum Naturâ rationali: Vtroque autem modo actus contrarius est. In the eleventh Chapter he answers t [...] the Authorities alledged for its con­sisting in mere privation. In the twelfth he answers to the Reasons offer'd for that opinion. In the thirteenth he considers, what was the Judgement of Aquinas in this affair, which though at first he seemingly conceives to be somewhat doubtful, (Aquinas speaking in diverse pla­ces as if he had been of diverse minds too) yet he proves [Page 49] his true Judgement to have been this, That sin according to its Formality hath a positive being. [Affirmat malum in moralibus esse differentiam Actus moralis,Aquinas in pr. part. 2. q. 48. art. 1. in sol. 2. non quâ ratione est privatio debiti finis, sed quatenus est entitas quaedam & positivum, cui privatio conjungitur. Idem docuit 3. con­tra Gent. c. 9. Praeterea in hac primâ secundae q. 18. art. 5. ad 2. & q. 72. art. 1. affirmat, species peccatorum non ex priva [...]ione, sed ex ordine ad objecta desumi. Eo quod pri­vatio per accidens se habeat cum peccato, objecta vero per se. Cùm igitur supra q. 19. art. 1. dixit malum & bonum esse per se differentias actus, in ratione actus, Intelligi de­bet, non de malo quod in privatione consistit, (quia pri­vatio non potest essentialiter & per se in actu aliquid con­stituere,) sed de malo positivo. Quare ex hac parte aut no­strae, aut Cajetani sententiae favet.

Our late Apologist for Tilenus (who is very much con­sider'd by knowing Readers) hath so far asserted the posi­tivity of sin; and so baffled M. Hickman, The learned Apologist for Tilenus in his Preface to the Calvinists Cabinet un­lock'd p. 23. to the end. even upon some of his own Grounds; that instead of some Answer, which M. Hickman by promise had obliged himself to give, he hath given no more then a Tergiversation.

That MEDINA held sin to have a real, positive, absolute Entity;Medina in 1.2. q. 71. art. 6. Vasquez in 1.2. q. 95. cap. 9▪ Timplerius a­pud Rob. Ba­ron. Met. Gen. Sect. 5. p. 60. Durand. & A­Dol [...]. And that Vasquez would have it to be a positive Relation; M. Barlow did acknowledge in his dissent from both, Exer. 2. p. 53, 54. Timplerus held sin to have an efficient cause per se, and so by consequence a positive be­ing. Reprehending Suarez, for allowing it no more then an efficient per accidens. Durandus & A Dola are ac­knowledged by Churchman, (as Mr. Hickman is concei­ved to stile himself in that Pasquil,) to deny Gods con­currence to sinful acts, and by consequence to hold the positive entity of sin. Three Reverend Bishops have prae­fixed their approbation of what is asserted by Doctor Stearn, in his Animi Medela; of which I have given an account §. 20. And though I have not a convenience to exa­mine the Truth of what is told me,Ariaga. Ami­cus. Cardinal de Lugo. yet it is told me by a person of great repute for integrity, That Ariaga, Amicus, [Page 50] and Cardinal de Lugo, do ex prosesso assert the posi [...]ive entity of sin. 1. The Bishop of Damascus. 2. Clau▪ De­villius. 3. Emanuel Chalom▪ in approb. pr [...]fix­is opuse Theol. Fr. Diotall. I am sure the Bishop of Damascus, and Claudius Devillius appointed to censure Books by the Archbishop of Lyons (Claudius de Bellieure) and Emanu­el Chalom, his Vicar General, (An. Dom. 1611.) did very highly approve of what was taught by Diotall [...]vius of A [...]iminum, concerning sins having a positive being; from whence I groundedly conclude them to have been of that judgement. Mr Hickman confesseth he cannot deny, but that our Protestant Divines, The Protestant Divines (in­definitely) in their Disputes against the Pa­pists. in their Disputes against the Papists, do make a positive as well as privative part of original sin ▪ (pag. 85.) and though he labours to salve the matter with a distinction of positive (out of Macco­vi [...]s) yet that appears to be a shift, (and a shamefull one too) by what I have cited from Doctor Iackson and other Writers of greatest Note, and by what I shall cite from the Fathers also, (Chap. 5. §. 3.) as well as from some of the learnedest Moderns,) Chap. 5. §. 4.

Last of all the REMONSTRANTS do say expresly, REMON. in Exam. cens. c. 7. p. 85. A. Culpa est actus hominis, & [...]. A very short, but an important Instance.

§ 26. The case in hand is so clear, that I need no o­ther proof,By the explicit and implicit confessions of the Adve [...]sa­ries them­selves. then the confessions of those on the other side. For sure that Truth is irresistibly praevalent, which is sub­mitted unto by such, as do most endeavour to oppose it. Doctor Robert BARON was one of the learnedst of those men, who were ingaged (by education) to deny what they felt, and had a daily experience of; to wit, the positive be­ing of sin. But yet he was forced to ROB. BA­RON in Met. G [...]n▪ de naturâ mali; p. 49, 50. Resp. verum quidem esse illud quod afferitur in Argumento, Ipsam pos [...]ivam Entitatem vitiosae actionis esse quid non appetibile, sed fugibile.—quia cum ea entitate positiva inseparabiliter connex [...] est quaedam Disconvenientia &c. conf [...]ss it to be a ve­ry great Truth, That not onely the privation annexed to the vitious habit, but even the habit of vice it self, the ve­ry positive entity of the habit of luxury, and the positive entity of a vitious action, is not quid appetibile (or good) [Page 51] but fugible, (or evil.) An instance was given (from the objection) in the action of lying with a beast; which very action he confesseth to be quid execrabile. And though he saith that such an entity becomes a sin, by reason of a Dis­convenience which is inseparably annexed, yet he doth not (by that) deny the positive entity of the sin, but onely saith how it comes to be a sin, which all men say, as well as he, who affirm the most professedly its positive being. It be­ing granted to be impossible for any action to be a sin, without some kind of disconvenience, as to the rule of right reason, and to the perfect nature and wil of God. He also Ib. p. 56, & 59. ascribeth, unto the will of man, a real efficacy and production of the effect. And farther saith that Ib p. 57. Ens positiv [...]m est quod po­nit aliquid in ea re cui at­tribuitur, ib. p. 64. sin original is a natural propension of the will to evil. Nay giving the definition of ens positivum, he saith it is that which puts something in the thing to which it is attributed. And whether sin doth not do that, I leave the Reader to judge by his own experience. In a word he joyns with Timpler, in refuting the vulgar Errour (which hath im­posed so much on Mr. Hickman) of sins having onely a Ib. p. 58. deficient cause, and smartly sheweth the absurdities, to which it leads.

§. 27. Mr. Barlow also doth seem to have implicitly confessed the positive entity of sin, Mr. Barlow exer. 2. p. 75. by acknowledging that God (in the sin of hating God) is meerly positive in termi­nating the act of hatred, and does not actively excite the act. 1. If his meaning is onely this, that God is passive alto­gether, and the sinner alone active, Deus Op. Max. se so­lum passivè habet actum odii termi­nando; non active eum excitando. ib▪ in producing the act of hating God, then he grants the very act to be the crea­ture of the creature, and not of God; which he cannot grant possibly, but by granting also, that the act it self (al­though positive) is wholly evil; Because he every where saith, (in terms aequivalent to these,) that God is active in the production of every thing that is good. 2. If his meaning is precisely, That God is onely passive, (so as merely not to hinder, but to suffer, or to permit,) whilst the sinner doth determin his will to hate God; Then he grants [Page 52] that Act of determining the will to a thing forbidden to be the meer production of the Creature, and by consequence a sin, for the reason now mentioned. And in granting that act which hath a positive bei [...]g to be a sin, he must needs g [...]ant a sin to have a positive being. One of these two things I suppose he must mean, (a [...]d which of the two, it matters not;) because though he saith a little before, That Deus Opt. Max. potest esse causa, vel occasio mora­lis, & objecti­va malitiae in actu odii ad eum termina­ti &c. ibid. God may be the cause of the very pravity (or obliquity) in the act of hating God, (which he certainly doth wish he had never said) yet he explains his meaning (of the word cause) to be nothing but a moral or obj [...]tive occasion of that obliquity: which proves his sense to be onely this, That God is altogether passive, (the conditio sine-qu [...] [...]on,) in the creatures determining his will to sin, (which determining of the will is a sin also) and in producing that act, which is intrinsecally evil, and so the sin of hating God. If I have hit his right meaning, I have my end; But if I have not, I shall be glad to be told another, which may agree with the context as well as this which I have given▪ be­sides he confesseth (with Hurtado de Mendoz [...]) that in the exercis [...] of the will there is a positive act (p. 63.) such as is the act of willing sin. And that to will sin is sin, I know he will not deny.

By numerous confessions of Mr. Hick. him­self.§. 28. But now Mr. Hickman, out of all measure con­fesseth the thing that he denyes, I mean the positive being of sin. For 1. he confesseth it a sin, to hate God, which he also confesseth to be an action, and so to have a positive being. (p. 93, 94, 95.)

Again 2. the first sin of Angels he supposeth to have been a proud desire to be equall unto God. (p. 103.) Now that pride and desire are both in the praedicament of Quality, and have as positive entities or beings, as any qualities to be nam'd, is so vulgarly known to every youngster, that Mr. Hickman dares not sure deny it, for fear the youngsters should fall aboard him, which he professeth to fear in an­other place. They might well fall aboard him for calling proud desire, an action, (p. 103. lin. 13.) as a little before [Page 53] he call'd hatred (p. 95. l. 17.) but that it is likely they know him too well, to think it much that a Thistle should bear no Grapes. I shall not therefore insist upon his no skill in Logick, (whilst again and again he takes a quality for all action, and a positive entity for a privation, unless he purposely writes against his own enterprize in calling a proud desire a sin,) but onely pluck him by the ear, as Cyn­thius did Tityrus, and admonish him for the future not to act the ultracrepid [...]st, by taking upon him to be a Scholar and a School-Divine, when he was mimically ordained to be no more then a Lay-preacher. Could any man but Mr. Hickman have intitled his Book against a truth [...] which he was forced to acknowledge, whilest he meant to deny and disown it onely?

3. He doth not onely acknowledge, that the act or ha­bit of any sin hath a positive being, but further adds (be­yond all example) That the privation it self is an evil Quality, (p. 56.) even that privation, which is called by some the formall part of sin; and is said by himself to denominate the act, or the habit, evil. Nor will a quasi superadded serve to do him a good turn. For let him call it an action, or any thing else, to which an Epithet may be added; he will still imply it to have a positive being. And whilst he saith [an evil quality] he implyes the privati­on, which he so calleth, to be a concrete. Not remem­bring his famous saying, that he cannot so much as conceive of si [...], unless as perfectly an abstract, (p. 54.) and that sin is synonymous with sinfulness it self. (p. 53.) Again he seems here to speak of an external denomination, as if he were not aware of what he was afterwards to say concern­ing the action of hating God, That it is intrinsecally and essentially evil, not meerly through the want of some Circum­stance, (p. 94.)

Again he saith, 4. That in hating God, the terminating of that act to that object is the sinfulness of the action. (p. 95.) Now we know it is an action, for the will to deter­mine or fix an act upon an object, and so (according to [Page 54] Mr. Hickman) sinfulness it self hath a positive being, even whilest he saith it is but privative.

5. He goes but one line farther, when he saith in plai­nest terms, that moral goodness and evil are rather modi entium than entia. (p. 95.) whereby he yields me as much advantage as I can wish to my whole cause. For when sin or moral evil, is allow'd as much entity, as moral good­ness, and moral goodness as little entity as sin; It must ei­ther be his Tenet, that sin hath also a positive being, or that goodness hath none at all. If the first, he at once be­tray's his whole cause: and withall makes God to be the Author of sin, (for he saith, He is the Author of all po­sitive beings.) if the second, he must needs deny God to be the author of goodness, or lose the benefit of the shift, by which he would seem not to make him the Author of sin.

6. Again, If the evil works themselves be positive, (which he confesseth p. 96.) there needs no more to be added by him. For that there is also some privation, none is con­cerned to deny, whilst what is positive in sin is so fully yielded.

7. He grants as much as a man can wish, p. 102. viz. That man is the efficient cause of the evil of the Action. And the youngsters Argument against it, holds as much a­gainst good, as evil actions. See his Confession, p. 103.

8. That the deficient cause is reducible to the efficient, the cause of the action per se, of the vitiosity per concomi­tantiam, he confesseth p. 103.

9. Farther yet he confesseth, that sin in Scripture doth not signifie abstractly, but that it signifies our faculties which do lust against the working of the spirit. p. 100. much less will he deny the very lusting it self to be a sin; which is as positive, as the faculties, to which the lusting is ascribed.

Nay 10. he confesseth that a sin is an action, if he is not unpardonably impertinent, p. 102. for an account of which, see forward chap. 8. §. 24.

CHAP. IV.

§. 1. BUt Mr. H. being convicted of (what himself doth acknowledge) the greatest Blasphemy, Mr. H's distin­ction of the po­sitive Act of ha [...]ing God and its obliquity frees him not from making God the Author of sin. to wit, of making God to be the Author of sin, by bluntly af­firming he is the Author of whatsoever is found to have a positive being, (by name, of that very action of hating God p. 95.96.) hope's to lessen the odium which cannot but lye on so foul a Doctrine, by putting his Trust in the com­mon shift. I mean by making such a distinction betwixt the Act and the obliquity, as to entitle God unto the first, and the sinner only unto the second. That action of David, his ly­ing with Vriah's wife, (which in Scripture is called Adulte­ry) He saith is positive and from God, and therefore one of Gods Creatures; And thus he saith over and over,look forwards on Ch. 5. S. 3. (p. 79.82.95.96.) But the pravity, or obliquity, (which he call's the evil quality that doth denomin [...]te the Action) he is content to fasten upon MAN TOO, (ibid.) Now it re­maines that I endeavour to make him ashamed of so lewd a Refuge, as doth but serve to incourage (by giving shelter and protection) not at all to extenuate his great Im­piety.

§. 2. For first (to condemn him out of his mouth) he speakes a while after without the Vizor of this Distinction, Proved first out of his mouth. whilest he saith (it doth belong to the universali [...]y of the first Cause to PRODUCE not onely EVERY REAL BEING, but also the real positive. MODIFICATIONS OF BE­INGS p. 95.] Now that the very repugnance of the Act to the ob [...]ect hath at least a Reall (if not a positive) Being Mr. Hickman doth many times acknowledge, as when he ranks it with Moral Goodness in affirming both to be Modos [Page 56] entium. p. 95.the Field of 3. c. Church l. 23. p. 120. That profound Divine and subtil Disputant, Dr. Field, allows nothing to be in the sin of hating God, but what is positive. The very Deformity that is found in it is precisely (saith he) a positive Repugnance to the Law of God. And his reasons for it are such as Mr. Hickmans Teachers are puzled at. But letting that passe, Mr. Hick. is convicted of the crime alleaged in the Indictment, if the Repugnance hath nothing more then a reall Being: nor dares he say, it hath no being at all; for that were to cast the whole Adultery upon God, by affirming Him to be the producer of all that is positive, or Reall in it, (they are every one Mr, Hickmans words) and to acquit the Adul­terer from having any share in it, whereby he also doth infer him to be but Titularly such.

§. 3. But secondly let us suppose, the man had never charged God in so gross a manner,2. By Reason. as to intitle him to the production of all things Reall; Yet his shift will not save him from being found to make God the Author of sin. For when he saith that Action of hating God is from God, he means it is from him as the mediate, or the immediate cause. If as the mediate, so as to move the second cause to be immediatly the cause of such an action, it follows then that the 2. Cause being subordinate and determined by the first, to that Numerical and particular Action, which hath its specification from the influx of God, either the action of hating God cannot possibly be a sin, or not imputed as a sin to the second Cause (thus acted by the first, as hath been said;) But whatsoever it is, must rest upon God, as its Cause, and Author. If Mr Hick. (for an escape from this impiety) shall rather say it is from God, as the Immediate Cause, his case will then be so much worse, as it is worse by some odds to make God a sinner, then only the cause of his Creatures sin. Now besides that God is said to make the action which he forbids, (and at the Instant that he forbids it,) we know the obliquity to the action is so inseparably annexed, that the Author of the One must needs be the Author of the other, the inseparability is [Page 57] granted by Baronius (§. 5. p. 50.52.) and not denied (I think) by any. But I am truely so much in pain, whilst Mr. Hick. makes it my duty to expose him thus to pub­lick view, that I will onely refer him to the several parts of my ' [...], for the applying of this to his Di­stinction, and choose to shew him the Danger of it, out of other mens writings: partly that Reason may not be slighted, for want of Authority to commend it; and partly to shew him I am no sharper, then the necessity of the Case doth make it needful: Because no sharper then o­ther men, who yet are famous for moderation. I will begin with Dr. Field, and the great Divines by him alledged; and then proceeding to Dr. Goad (one of the Synodists at Dort) to Dr. Iackson, and Diotallevius, l. 3. c. 23. p. 12 [...] and other valuable Writers, I will conclude with Dr. Hammond, whom no­thing but love to the truth of God, and perfect zeal to his Honour, could make to utter the least word that looks like sharpness to a Dissenter.

§. 4. This distinction (saith Dr. Field) will not clear the doubt they move, 3. By Autho­rity in conjun­ction with Reason. Durand. l. 2. d. 37. q. 1. touching Gods efficiency and working in the sinful Actions of men. Whensoever (saith Durand) two thins are inseparably joyned together, whosoever (know­ing them both, and that they are so inseparably joyned together) chooseth the one, chooseth the other also. Because though haply he would not choose it absolutely, as being evil, (and by the way no sinner doth so choose sin) yet in as much as it is joyned to that which he doth will, neither can be separated from it, it is of necessity that he must will both: The case appeareth in those actions, which are vo­luntary and mixt; As when a man casteth into the Sea those rich commodities, to save his life, which he would not do, but in such a case. Hence it followeth that the act of hating God, and sinful deformity, being so inseparably joyned together, that the one cannot be divided from the other, (for a man cannot hate God, but he must sinne damnably) if God doth will the one, he doth will the other also.

[Page 58] Suarez Me­taphys Tom. 1. d. 22. Sect. 4. p. 522.§. 5. This of Durand is confirmed by Suarez, who saith, He shall never satisfie any man that doubteth, how God may be cleared from being author of sin, if he have an efficiency in the sinful actions of men, that shall answer, that all th [...]t is said touching Gods efficiency and concurrence, is true in respect of the evil motions of mens wills materially considered, and not formally, in that they are evil and sinful. For the one of these is consequent upon the other. For a free and Deliberate act of a created will, about such an act, and such circumstan­ces, cannot be produced but it must have deformity annexed to it.

[...]umel Disput. var. ad, pri­mam & primam ▪ 2. p. 104.§. 6. There are some operations or Actions (saith Cu­mel) that are intrinsecally evil, so that in them we can­not separate that which is material from that which is formal; as it appeareth in the hate of God, and in this act ☞when a man shall say and Resolve, I will do evil, so that it implyes a contradiction, that God should effectually work our will to bring forth such actions, in respect of that which is material in them, and not in respect of that which is formal.

§. 7. And this seemeth yet more impossible (saith Dr. Field) if we admit their opinion,Dr. Field. ubi supra. who think, that the for­mal nature and being of the Sin of commission, consisteth in some thing that is positive, and in the manner of work­ing freely, so as to repugne to the rule of Reason, and L [...]w of God; so that it is clear in the judgement of those great Divi­nes, that if God hath a true reall efficiency in respect of the substance of these sinful actions, he must in a sort produce the deformity, or that which is formal in them.] And again the Dr. saith, If God doth determine the will of man to work repugnantly to the Law, he must needs move and deter­mine it to sin; seeing to sin is nothing else, but to repugne unto the Law, (p. 125.)

Dr. GOAD in his Disput. of the Necess. & Cont. of events, &c▪ 2d. Arg. for Thes. 1▪§. 8. ‘Its a hard case (saith Dr. GOAD) when they have but one frivolous distinction to keep God from Sin­ning. [Page 59] —And then he confutes the evasion thus.— That which is a principall [...]use of any action, is a cause of those concomitants which accompany that action ne­cessarily. This Rule is most certainly true. Therefore if God by his Decrees do force us to do those actions which cannot be done without sin, God himself (I am afraid to rehearse it) must needs be guilty of sin.— He gives an Instance in Adam's eating the forbidden fruit.’ And I will gratifie my Reader with a Transcript of it, because the Doctors Disputatio [...] is not commonly to be had. ‘If God decreed that Adam should unavoidably eat the for­bidden fruit, seeing the eating of that fruit which he had forbidden must needs be with a gr [...]ss obliquity, I do not see (saith the Doctor) how this Distinction will justifie God.’ For Adam sinned because he ate that fruit that was forbidden; But they say ‘God decreed that he should eat that fruit which was forbidden, necessarily & unavoid­ably’; The Conclusion is too blasphemous to be so often repeated. The Reader may see (as the Dr. goes on, by which tis plain he intended his Disputation for the Press) how wel that common distinction holds water. ‘Yea if this nicety were sound, man himself might prove that he commit­ted no murder although he stabbed the dead party into the heart. For at his arraignment, he might tell the Judge, that he did indeed thrust a dagger into his heart, but it was not that which took away his life; but the ex­tinction of his natural heat and vital spirits. Who seeth not the wilde phrenzie of him that should make this Apo­logie? yet this is all our Adversaries say for God. They say his Decree was the cause that Adam took the forbid­den fruit and put it into his mouth, and eat that which he had commanded he should not eat; yet they say he was not the cause of the transgression of the Command­ment ▪ &c.’ But let us hear Dr. Iackson also.Doct [...]r JACK [...]SON in exact. Collect. Book. 10. c. 5. p 3011 3012.

§ 9. The Hypothesis, for whose clearer Discussion these last Theses have been praemised, is this; [ ‘Whether it being once granted or supposed, that the Almighty Crea­tor [Page 60] was the cause either of our mother Eves desire, or of her actual eating of the forbidden fruit, or of her delivery of it to her husband, or of his taking and eating it, though unawares; the same Almighty God must not upon like ne­cessity be acknowledged to be the Author of all the obliqui [...]ies which did accompany the positive acts, or did necessarily result from them] This is a case or Species Facti which we cannot determine by the Rule of Faith: It must be tryed by the undoubted Rules of Logick, or better Arts. These be the onely perspective Glasses which can help the eye of Reason to discover the truth or necessity of the consequence; to wit, [whether the Almighty Cre­ator, being granted to be the cause of our mother Eves first longing after the forbidden Fruit, were not the cause or Author of her sin.] Now unto any Rational man that can use the help of the forementioned Rules of Art (which serve as prospective Glasses unto the eye of Reason) that usual Distinction between the Cause or Author of the Act, and the Cause or Author of the Obliquity which necessarily ensues upon the Act, will appear at the first sight to be False or Frivolous: yea, to imply a manifest contradiction. For Obliquity or whatsoever other Relation, can have no cause at all, be­sides that which is the Cause of the Habit, of the Act, or Quality whence it necessarily results. And in par­ticular, that conformity or similitude which the first man did bear to his Almighty Creator, did necessarily result from his substance or manhood, as it was the work of God undefaced. Nor can we search after any other true Cause of the First mans conformity to God, or his integrity, besides him who was the cause of his manhood, or of his existence with such qualifications as by his creation he was endowed with. In like manner whosoever was the cause whether of his coveting or eating of the Tree in the middle of the Garden, was the true cause of that obliquity or crooked deviation from Gods Law, or of that deformity or dissimilitude unto God himself which did necessarily result from the for­bidden [Page 61] Act or Desire. It was impossible there should be one Cause of the Act, and another Cause of the Ob­liquity or Deformity whether unto Gods Laws or unto God himself. For no Relation or Entity merely rela­tive (such are obliquitie and deformity) can have any other Cause, beside that which is the cause of the (Fun­damentum) or Foundation whence they immediately re­sult. It remains then that we acknowledge the old Serpent to have been the first Author; and Man (whom God created male and female) to have been the true po­sitive Cause of that obliquity or deformity which did result by inevitable N [...]c [...]ssity from the forbidden Act or desire, which could have no Necessary cause at all▪’] and more to this purpose p. 3013. &c.

§. 10. Diotallevius doth also prove, that they who make God the Author of the positive act of hati [...]g God, Diotall. opus [...]: Theol. p. 84.57 101. Nullâ ratione potest Deus efficere, ut ad entitatem. A­ctus intrinsecè mali liberè e­liciti non se­quatur malitia moralis; quia implicat contradictio­nem, ut Actus intrinsecèma­lus, v. g. actus [...]dii. dei libere eliciatur & malus non sit, seu malitiam formalem conjunctam non habe [...] &c. do make him the Author of the obliquity, Because (saith he) God himself cannot effect (what doth imply a contradi­ction) that the moral obliquity of an Act which is intrinse­cally evil and freely exerted by the creature, shall not fol­low (or rather attend) the positive entity of the act, which is such as hath been said, and so exerted. For it implies a contradiction, that an act intrinsecally evil, (to wit, the act hating God) should be freely exerted, and yet not evil, or that it should not have a moral pravity conjoyned with it. 2. They who hold all positive entities to be effected by God himself, must needs believe him to be the cause, as much of the worst, as of the best actions in the world; both be­cause hating is as positive, when it is fixed upon God, as it can possibly be, when it is fixed upon the Divel; And be­cause an obliquity is as vnavoidable to the one, as rectit [...]de or conformity can be possibly to the other. 3. If an imme­diate working of the formal obliquity, be required to make an Author of anothers sin, then neither Man, nor Divel, (in perswading another to do wickedly) can possibly be the Author of it: because they are not any otherwise the cau­ses of the obliquity, then by tempting to that act to which [Page 62] the obliquity is annexed. And for the very same reason, no creature could be the cause of any such sin within him­self; because he doth not produce the moral obliquity of the act, but by producing the act to which the obliquity is annext. 4. When we do absolutely and simply inquire af­ter the cause of another mans sin, we do not inquire after the cause which immediately reacheth to the obliquity of the act, but after the inducing or moving cause, by which he is led to such a voluntary act, whose object is repug­nant to the rule of Reason. (That is the method of A­quinas, De malo, quaest. 3. art. 1. & 3. & 1.2. q. 75. per totam) from whence it follows, that if God doth induce us efficaciously to an aversion from himself, and so to a ha­tred of his Divinity; it is every whit as true, that he is the Author of our sin, as that he induceth us efficaciously to that aversion and hatred which is intrinsecally evil. And there­fore Mr. Hickman must recant the first, or contentedly smart for the Impiety of the second.

§. 11. Doctor STEARN is very severe, (and upon very just ground) to the use that is made of the same Di­stinction. Dr. STEARN de Animi Me­delac. 11. p. 248, 249. For he doth not content himself to say, that to be the cause of the action from which the obliquity cannot be separate, is to be the very cause of the obliquity it self, be­cause the obliquity is annexed to the entity of the Action, and th [...]t in a manner unavoidable; Nor doth he onely add this, That man himself is no otherwise the author of his sin, then as he is author of that action to which the obliquity is annexed; But he saith yet farther, [Proinde, si Deus est sci­ens malitiam esse ab actio­ne Insepara­bilem, & vo­len [...], ipsam suo concursu producat, non t [...]ntum non immunis erit à malitia, verum etiam illius magis erit reus, quam ipse ho­mo: utpote qui raro vel nunquam de malitia annexa cogitat, &c, ib. p. 249. That if God, well-knowing the absolute inseparability of the obli­quity from the action, doth w [...]llingly produce that very acti­on; he is so far from being free from the obliquity of the action, that he is môre guilty of it, then the man himself, in whom that action is [...]o produced; as who does seldome or never think of the obliquity annext, quam Deus nun­quam [Page 63] non cognoscit & animadvertit. Nay he chargeth the Adversaries with a higher blasphemy then that, even with making God more guilty then the divel; which how they can answer, let them consider whom it concern's. I shall onely, for the present, subjoyn his words. ‘Immo, Dae­mones hominem ad peccandum tentantes, minori jure Authores peccati sunt censendi, quam Causa Libera A­ctionis illam producens, & non tantùm sciens malitiam esse illi annexam; Nam Daemones non producunt Acti­ones quibus malitia est annexa, sed tantum solicitant, &c.—multo itaque magis Malitiae reus est, qui sci­ens & volens non tentat aut solicitat, sed actionem reip­sa producit, cujus malitia (ut ab ea prorsus inseparabi­lis) ipsi quàm clarissimè patet.’ What kind of Adver­saries they are, whom the Doctor thus handles, and how much Mr. Hickman becomes concern'd, he gives us to know by his two instances, in Twisse, and Zuinglius.

§. 12. A whole Colledge of Remonstrants, (men of renown for their piety and learning too) thought fit to shame the common subterfuge by these two wayes of Ar­gumentation.A whole socie­ty of Remon­strants in de­fens. Sent R [...] ­monst. circà prim. de praed. art. p. 254▪ Quandocun (que) causa superior & omnipo­tens ita infe­riorem & im­potentiorem movet, ae de. terminat, ut ea sic mota non possit non peccare, tum sane jure su. per. & omnip. causae tot [...] pec. cati culpa tran. scribetur. &c. 1. Whensoever a superiour and omnipo­tent cause doth so move and determine the inferiour and im­potent, that it being so moved cannot choose but sin, Then must the guilt of that sin be wholly transferred on the su­periour and omnipotent cause. But according to those men, who affirm the positive acts of all the very worst sins to be the creatures and works of God, the inferiour cause is so moved by the omnipotent and superiour, as that it cannot choose but sin; Therefore according to those men, the sin is wholly to be transferred on the superiour cause. 2. When two causes do concurr to one action, (to wit the action of hating God) whereof the one act's freely, and the other of necessity, then must the cause which acts free­ly sustain the whole fault of its coming to pass. But accor­ding to the men aforesaid, God acts freely in the producing of such an action, (which M. Hickman reckons amongst Gods creatures) and the inferiour cause of necessity; There­fore [Page 64] according to those men, God sustains the whole fault of its coming to passe. And we know in the whole fault is included the obliquity, as well as the act.

The Apologist for Tilenus in praef. Epist.§. 13. The Apologist for Tilenus, doth make this An­swer to the distinction. 1. That man doth seldom or never entertain sin, or consent to it, with a designe to oppose him­self to the divine Law, but to enjoy his P [...]easure, and satisfie his appetites. 2. He supposeth that a man should consent to sin, with such a set purpose to oppose Gods Law. And then infers, that (according to Mr. H.'s Doctrine) that consent, and that purpose (being positive entities and acts of the soul) are from God and of his production, from whence it fol­lowes, either that man doth not sin when he commits such an act; or that the fault is imputable to God, who is (called by Mr. Hickman) the first cause of that Act. I wonder when Mr. H. will give that Author a Reply.

Dr. Hammond▪ of Fundamen­tals ch. 16.§. 14. But after all, and above all, I commend to conside­ration the words of the Reverend Dr. HAMMOND, who having shewed how those Doctrines (which are common­ly called Calvinistical) are so noxious to the practice and lives of men, as to be able to evacuate all the force of the Fundamentals of Christianity;p. 156. (those I mean by him fore­mentioned.p. 180.) And coming to speak of the Distinction be­twixt the act and the obliquity, which the Assertors of those Doctrins have commonly used as an Artifice, p. 178. for the avoiding of those consequences, by which their Doctrines are rendred odious; at last proceeds to make it appear, [p. 182.183. That this is no way applicable to the freeing of God "from being the Author of that sin, of which he is said (by those men) to predetermine the act. ‘For 1. Though a free power of acting good or evil, be perfectly distinct and separable from doing evil, and therefore God, that is the Author of one, cannot thence be inferred to be the author of the other, yet the act of sin is not separable from the obliquity of that act, the act of blasphemy from the obliquity or irregularity of blasphemie, the least evil thought or word against an infinite good [Page 65] God being as crooked as the rule is straight, and conse­quently he that predetermines the act, must needs predetermine the obliquity.’

‘Nay 2. if there were any advantage to be made of this distinction in this matter, it would more truely be af­firmed on the contrary side, that God is the author of the obliquity, and man of the act, for God that gives the rule, in transgressing of which all obliquity con­sists, doth contribute a great deal, though not to the production of that Act, which is freely committed a­gainst that rule, yet to the denominating it oblique; for if there were no Law, there would be no obliquity; God that gives the law that a Jew shall be circumcised, thereby constitutes uncircumcision an obliquity, which, had he not given that law, had never been such; But for the act (as that differs from the powers on one side, and the obliquity on the other) it is evident that the man is the cause of that.]’

To conclude this Chapter. It is a thing so undeniable, that the Author of the act of hating God, must needs be the Author of the obliquity, that as the men of the Church of England affirm man to be the Author and the sole au­thor of both, and God of neither, so the rigid Presbyterians (as well as Papists) affirm God to be the Author, not one­ly of the act, but of the obliquity of the Act. Witness Mr. Archer (so much commended by Thomas Godwin) in his Comfort for believers p. 36.37. Mr. Whitfield also, and Mr. Hobbs, Occham in sent. 3. q. 12 (cited by Dr, Field p. 128.) and Mr. Hickman in effect, when he saith that God is the Cause of all Beings, p. 78. and p. 95. and Pet. Mart. in 1 Sam. c. 2.

CHAP. V.

§. 1. THE positive entity of sin is so clear from Scrip­ture, The positive entity of sin made undenia­ble from scrip­ture. and from the writings of all the Fathers both Greek and Latine; that as Mr. Hickman hath not attempted to give us Scripture for his opinion, so the FATHERS are very few, whose very figurative spee­ches do look that way. And their meaning is so conspicu­ous, by what the same Fathers say (before and after,) that if he drank out of the Fo [...]ntaines, Psal. 115.4. & Psal. 135.15▪ Idolum hoc loco (Inquit Beza, ad 1 Cor. 8.4.) sumitur pro simulachro ad Numen re­praesentan­dum afficto. [...] 1 Cor. 8.4. [...]. 1 Cor. 1, 28 1 Cor 7.19. [...]. Isa. 41.24. as I see he hath done out of several Cisterns, I admire the greatness of his delu­sion: His performance being no better, then mine or any mans would be, who should prove that an Idol hath not a positive being, (although the work of mens hands, and made of Massy Gold or silver) because it is said by the A­postle, an Idol is nothing in the world. Or that the Planters of Christianity had not onely no positive, but not so much as a Real Being, because it is said by the same Apostle, that God hath chosen the things that are not, to bring to naught things that are. Yet this ad hominem, is a strong way of arguing; very much stronger then Mr. Hickmans, by how much that of the Scripture is the greatest Authority in the world. Now though it is said by the Holy Ghost, that Circumcision is nothing, that the foreskin is nothing, that wicked men are of nothing, that every man is but vanity, yea and altogether lighter then vanity it self, (which will be granted by all the world to have positive beings) yet doth he not say in any one text, That sin is nothing in the world, or that Blasphemies and Rapes have no positive be­ing;1 Iohn. 3.8▪ but on the contrary, sins are said to be the works of men and devils. And now to prevent any exception to the propriety of the word,

[Page 67]§. 2. Those are properly called sins,God is fittest to be the Iudge of what is pro­perly called sin. which God him­self in his written word doth commonly call by that name. And how many things are there that have positive entities or beings, (by the very confession of Mr. H. and all that are of his way,) of which wickednesse and sin are found to be predicated in scripture? As for example, For the man to lie with the Masters wife, Ioseph called a great wicked­ness, and a sin aginst God. To take another mans wife, Gen. 39.9. & carefully com­pare it with vers. 7. Gen. 20.9. [...] 2 King. 17.21 was called a great sin by King Abimelech. And Ieroboam, in driving Israel from following the Lord, is said to have made them sin a great sin. Davids sin is called a deed, that is, an act or fact 2 Sam. 12▪ 14. If St. Paul had not thought that some sins are actions, and that other sins are qualities, Rom. 7.5. Rom. 6.12. he would not certainly have told us of the mo­tions of sins, and the lusts of sins. The motions of sins which were by the Law, did work in our members to bring fruit unto death. (Rom. 7.5.) So in the 7. verse of that Chapter, he expresseth sin by lust, as lusting by coveting. And yet so far is the Apostle from ascribing those positive things to God, that speaking there of wilful sin (in the person of a Carnal unregenerate man) the doing that which he would not do, Rom. 7.20. he doth not add (like Mr. Hickman) It is not I that DO it, but GOD that DOTH it in me. No, his words (on the contrary) are justly these, It is no more I that do it, but SIN that dwelleth in me. That I may not be over­long in so clear a case, I fain would know of Mr. Hickman; whether those works of the flesh which are manifest (saith the Apostle), and set in opposition to the fruits of the spirit, Gal. 5·19, 26, 21. (and by an opposition of contrariety too, Gal. 5.17.) I say I would know of Mr. Hickman, whether those lusts of the flesh are not properly called sins ▪ And whether Adultery, Fornication, Vncleanness, Lasciviousness, Idolatry, Witch­craft, Hatred, Variance, Strife, Seditions, Heresies, Envy­ings, Murders, Drunkenness, Revellings, and such like, have not real and positive beings. He will not sure deny this, because he knows that these things are either qualities or actions. Nor can he deny they are sins, because they are [Page 68] set in a contrariety to the Fruits of the spirit, and because it is added presently after, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And (as I take it) they must be sins ▪ for which the Doers are to suffer the loss of heaven, which is waited on with the paines of Hell too. When Iudas said, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed inno­cent blood & Cain complained that his sin was greater then he could bear, meaning the killing his brother Abel; who sees not that sin is predicated in Recto of two such actions, as are granted by all the world to have positive beings? It is but dipping into the Scripture, to finde abundance of such examples.

Confirmed by the Concur­rence of Anti­ent Fathers.§. 3. 'Twere easy to write [...] just volume, in shewing the concurrence of Antient F [...]THERS; and even the least that I can shew (with a desire of Brevity) will be more then Mr. Hickman was able to wrest to his seeming in­terest. I cannot better begin, then with the great ATHA­NASIUS, whom several mens misapprehensions have helpt to speak for their judgement, against his own. Athanasius [...], p. 3 First he delivers his true meaning, when he useth the expression of [...] applied to [...]. And therefore with the Apostle, he first applies it unto Idols, which had as positive beings as those that made them: [...]. Next he sets down the reason, [...]. p. 5. why he useth that expression, [...]; and his reason is, because they are not from him who is indeed the [...], but from those free and depraved Agents, who revolting from their maker made them Idols or Gods of their own invention: [...]. p. 4▪ where the lusts of the flesh (which he calls the body) are given as Instances of the sins, to which the creature was now de­scended, and by much repetition had made [...]. p. 4▪ ibid▪ p. 5. habitual. Af­ter this he asserteth the opposition of contrariety twixt vice and virtue, thereby proving the positivity as well of the [Page 69] one as of the other. And giving examples of those actions, as well as qualities, which man is able to produce by being a voluntary Agent, (abusing the Liberty of his will to [...], &c. pag. 5. de­sires and lusts of his own [...], &c. pag. 5. forging) he names the committing of Adultery, Murder, Rebellion, Blasphemies, Comumelies, Perjuries, plundering, Beating, Gluttony, Drun­kenness, which though granted by all the world to be positive things, are affirmed by that Father, to be the wick­ednesse and sin of the soul of man; [...]; p. 6. And to make it yet more undeniable, that he opposeth his [...], to the excellent Creatures of God himself, (whom he often calls the [...] ▪) and not to all that hath a positive being, [...] pag. 5. He sets Concupiscencies or Lusts in opposition to the Creature; that is, the crea­tures of wicked men in opposition to those of God.

Then shewing the power of the soul to incite the mem­bers of the body, and [...]. p 6. of her self to excite her self, he saith (in the [...]. p 6. concrete) she formeth evil unto her self. And so he proceeds to shew the errour of certain Graecians, who held sin to have a substance, (and not to be a meer accident) A substance created by a God too, whom they would have to be coeternal with the Father of Lights, and the maker of sin as a second Nature, which from all eter­nity was collaterall with the First. (First in Dignity, though not in Time.) [...]. p. 6. which shews Mr. Hickman the strange Impertinence of what he citeth from Athana­sius, p. 76. not onely quite beside, but (as I shall shew when I come thither) against his purpose. For the Fa­ther, having proved against those hereticks, [...]; p. 7. That there is one onely God, and that evil is a thing temporal, not derived from God, but from the voluntary creature indu­ed with liberty of will, goes on (for several whole pages) to speak as much for my purpose, as I can wish him. He [Page 70] shews the folly of their distinction, who so endeavour to put a difference betwixt the act of h [...]ting God, and the sin of ha­ting God, (which they call the obliquity of the act) as to affirm the first to be from God, and therefore good; the other evil, and from the Creature, [...]. p. 7. whereas 'tis impossible (saith the Father) that good and evil should be so inseparably together. For what he [...]. p. 7. Note, this ☞ is a Con­firmation of the whole 4. chapter. saith of a good and an evil God, is as true of a good and an evil act, and in a sense as co­gent as that he speaks in; for it implyes a contradiction, that one and the same should be a good and an evil act too, to wit, that the a [...]t of hating God should be no less a good A [...]t, as being from God, then it is an evil one, as having an obliquity which is from m [...]n. I say such a m [...]x [...]ure of good and evil, in one and the same numerical act, must needs be absolutely impossible and con [...]radictory, [...]. And is not that an unchristian Fabrick, which hath no better a Buttress whereon to lean? But I must hasten to other Fathers, be­fore, and after Athanasius.

DIONYSIUS the AREOPAGITE, how much soe­ver he lived before the great Ath [...]n [...]sius, Ad quinti se­culi ultima vel sexti ini­tia pertinent quae Dionysii Areopagitae nomine lau­dantur. Dallae, us de confir­matione. p. 203 I thought the fitter in this place to follow after, the more conducible I thought it for the finding out his right meaning; of which at first I began to doubt, because I found him so much mistaken by so learned a person as Mr. BARLOW, to whom Mr. Hickman is beholding pag. 56. Its true he useth such expressions, as I lately shew'd and explained in A [...]hanasius, (and Master Barlow saith in what pages, though Mr. Hickman doth not.) But he useth the very [...]. Di­onys. Areop. de Div. Nom. c. 4. p. 574. same of God himself in some places, whom yet I hope Mr. Hickman will not thence conclude a meer privation, or a Non-entity. [...]. Di­onys. Areop. de Div. Nom. c. 4. p. 574. God (saith Dionysius) is deprived of essence. Nay [...]. Idem de mystic [...] Theolog. c. 5. p. 45, 46. He is neither a substance, nor a spirit, nor any thing of the things that are, or exist: shall an Atheist [Page 71] now say, that Dionysius was of his mind, and urge the letter of these words to bear him out? No, Mr. Hick­man will tell him, the words are spoken in a sublime and figurative way, and must be explained by the context, to yield the Authors true meaning. The very same shall I say in the other case, That when the Father saith of sin, [...], he must be so understood, as Aquinas understood Austin, deny­ing the Look for­wards on S. [...]. num. 8. act of sin to be anything; opposing that act (be­ing an accident) to res simpliciter, which is substantia. And accordingly Corderius does render [...] by substan­tia, not by essentia, much less by entitas. What gave oc­casion to Dionysius to speak of evil in that stile, holy Ma­ximus tells us in his Scholion upon the place. For Dionysi­us having said, that that which is De Divin. Nom. cap. 4. Sect. 18. pag. 570. not doth desire that which is good, [ [...]] and again a few leaves before, that there is a will in that which is not: S. Maximus in locum jam ci [...]. p. 617. — [...], &c. Maximus tells us that the words being spoken against the Manichaeans, he must largely explicate what is meant by [...], and why the thing that is evil is called that which is not: of which, as I have spoken in the praecedent paragraph, so I shall speak once for all in the 5. § of this Chapter, Number 9. But if the Que­stion is to be carried by words and phrases, even so the very truth will be found to rest on my side. For the [...]. ib. pag. 618. An­tien [...]s (saith holy Maximus) did express the same thing by the word matter, and extreme turpitude, which is ex­pressed also by [...], or that which is not: and thence forwards when he speaks of things that are not, (meaning evils) he [...], &c. ib. pag. 620. explains himself presently by things material. In a word, Dionysius does give the reason, why that which is evil is said not to be, even because it is more remote from God, then that which is not in being. For that I con­ceive must be the sense of the Greek, (what ever was [Page 72] thought by the Translator, who seems not to hit the Fa­thers meaning.) Dionys. Are▪ op. de Div. nom. c. 4. p. 571, 572. [...]. Which how many several wayes it makes against Mr. Hickman, the in­different Reader is left to judge. So clear to me is the meaning of that figurative Writer, that he saith of the sinner (not onely of the sin) that he is [...]. ib. p. 575. not in being, so far forth as he is a sinner, and desires nothing that is. Had Mr. Hickman prepar'd himself for the Reading of the book (if at least he ever read so much as a page or line of it) by reading the general observations prefixed to it by Corderius, in particular, Baltha. Cord. observ. Gen. 8. p. 21. Baltha. Cord. observ. Gen. 8. p. 21. that of his making God to be the position and Baltha. Cord. observ. Gen. 8. p. 21. Baltha. Cord. observ. Gen. 8. p. 21. privation of all things, [ [...]] I think he could not have swallow'd so great an errour. That something is positive, as well as privative in sin, Note his Im­plying the a­ctivity of sin, whilst he saith, [...], p. 317. Dion [...]sius (or whoever is the Author of that book, which is thought unduly to wear his name) hath sufficiently inferr'd by his answer given to this Que­stion, [...]; to which he answers, [...] (pag. 580.) and again, [...]. (p. 584.)

But I have dwelt so long upon these two Fathers, that I must study to be brief in those that follow: and that by satisfying my self with one or two instances out of each. The force of which I shall not shew, (as I have hitherto done) but modestly leave to my Readers judg­ment. I shall onely propose to consideration, whether those qualities or actions are not worthily called sins, of which the word sin is wont to be praedicated in recto. And whether that which is granted, to be a true proposition, (by all the world,) can possibly lose of its Truth, by the at­tempts of so gross a Fallacie, as à dicto simplicitèr ad Dictum secundum Quid.

CLEMENS ALEX. strom. [...]. edit. Com­mel. pag. 219. & edit. Paris. p. 511.— [...] [Page 73] [...]. Here to sin is by such an action to pollute the Title of man, and is said to be placed (or to consist) in the action or ope­ration, not substance, or essence; and this is the ground, why it is not the work of God. So afterwards sin not brought to repentance is defined [...]. 5. p. 281. And though elsewhere he calls sin a variation from right reason, yet there is added a Idem [...]. p. 39. l. 39. positive entity of each, [...]. (But I am ready to break my promise, almost as soon as I have made it.)

CYRILLVS HIEROS. [...]. edit morell. p. 30. [...].

HIERONYM. in Malach. c. 3. p. 284. A. Nequa­quam levia putemus esse peccata, perjurium, calumniari viduam, & opprimere alienigenam, quae male sicio & ve­neficiis & adulterio comparantur.

BASIL. in Hex. Homil. 2. p. 19. [...].

CHRYSOST. in 1. ep. ad Cor. c. 6. Hom. 16. p. 167. [...];

ATHENAGORAS in Legat. pro Christianis. p. 35. c. [...].

ANSELMVS super 2. ad Hebr. Peccatum est vel facere vetita, vel non facere jussa.

IUSTIN. MART. Q. & Resp. ad Orth. p. 419. [...]. [Page 74] [...].

Sanct. THEOPHILVS ad Autolychum lib. 3. p. 125. [...].

TERTULLIAN. de Poenit. p. 375. Porrò peccatum, nisi MALVM FACTVM, dici non meretur. Nec quisquam benefaciendo delinquit▪ — Ibid. p. 376. Cùm Deum grande quid Boni constet esse, utique Bono nisi Malum non displiceret, quòd inter CONTRARIA sibi nulla A­micitia est.

MACARIVS in Hom. 15. p. 100. c. [...] ▪ (having spoken before of Adam's disobedience.)

Hom. 24. p. 137. [...].

Hom. 38. p. 204. [...], &c. [...] — And long before (Hom. 3. p. 15. A.) [...];

LACTANTIVS in Instit. l. 2. c. 7. p. 102. Dupliciratione peccatur ab insipientibus; primum quod Dei o­pera Deo praeferunt; deinde quod elementorum ipsorum figuras humana specie comprehensas colunt.

—l. 5. c. 18. p. 315▪ Haec facere, peccatum est.— ib. c. 19. p. 316. ib. l. 6. c. 10. p. 349. Nesciunt quan­tum sit nefas, adorare aliud, praeter Deum.

Si libido appetit thorum alienum, licet sit mediocris, vi­tium tamen maximum est. — ib. c. 17. p. 364. Cupiditas inter vitia nu­meratur, si haec quae terrena sunt concupiscat, &c.

[Page 75]—ib. c. 20. p. 371. Recens natos oblidere, maxima Impietas, expone­re & necare, duplex scelus. See much more l. 5. c. 9. p. 299. especially c. 20. p. 319. So whilst the Blasphemy of Marcus the Magician, and his Followers, or their posi­tive speaking against the honour of Gods essence, is cal­led an Impiety by IRENAEVS adv hares▪ l. 1. c. 13. p. 94. [...] ▪ IRENAEVS, and [...] above all Impiety, he unavoidably imply's the positive being of Impiety, which (I hope) M. Hickman will not affirm to be good; or say impiety is one thing, and sin an­other.

AMBROS. de Cain & Abel. lib. 2. cap. 9. fol. 260. Quanto gravius pec [...]ato ipso, ad Deum referre Quod f [...] ­ceris? There the positive fact is said to be a sin, though the ascribing it to God (which is done by Mr. Hickman) is said to be worse then the sin it self; that is to say, [...] greater sin.

CYPRIAN. de Eleemosynâ, 1. Serm. p. 179. Coarcta­ti eramus, &c. nisi iterum pieta [...] Divina subveniens, —viam quandam tuendae salutis aperuisset, ut Sordes post­modum quascunque contrahimus Eleemosynis abluamus. compare this with Daniel 4.27.

— ib. p. 452. Quia voluntas non erat in culpâ, providit Deus generali Damnationi remedium, & suae sententiam Justitiae temperavit, haereditarium ONVS à sobole removens, & misericorditer ablutione & unctione medicinali corruptio­nis primitivae Fermentum expurgans.

ORIGEN. ad Ioan. 2. in Cat. pat. Gr. p. 77. [...] — ib. p. 95. [...].

AUGUSTINVS Confess. c. 11. Talis motus (nimi­rum voluntatis) Delictum atque peccatum est.— Id de lib. Arb. l. 2. c. 10. apud Author. Anim. med. p. 258. Me­tus ille Aversionis, quod fatemur esse peccatum, vide quò pertineat, &c.

[Page 76] SALVIAN. l. 4. p. 128. Furtum in omni quidem est homine malum Facinus; sed damnabilius ab que dubio, si Senator furatur aliquando. Cunctis Fornicatio interdici­tur, sed Gravius multò est, si de Clero aliquis, quàm si de populo fornicetur. Ita & nos qui Christiani Catholici esse dicimur, si simile aliquid Barbarorum Impuritatibus faci­mus, Gravius erramus. Atrocius enim sub sancti nominis professione peccamus — quanto minori peccato illi per Daemonia pejerant, Ib. p. 237. quàm nos per Christum? Quanto mino­ris Res Criminis est, Jovis nomen, quàm Christi &c. The force of this last testimony may be learnt by Mr. H. from Dr. Field. [It must not be said, that God is the original cause, that man hath any such action of will as is evil ex ob­jecto, for if he should Originally and out of himself will any such act, he must be the author of sin, seeing such an a [...]t is intrinsecally evil, so that it cannot be separated from deformity. p. 125, 126.] after this let Salvian speak — Nil ad Deum pertinens Leve ducendum est;Idem l. 6 p. 207. quia etiam quod videtur exiguum esse Culpa, Grande hoc faciebat Di­vinitatis In [...]uria.

EPIPHANIVS adv. Haer. l. 1. Tom. 3. p. 265. [...],ib. p. 671. ib. p. 585. [...], &c.— [...],ib. p. 587. p. [...], &c. — [...], — [Page 77] [...],ib. p. 588. [...]. More instances may be seen p. 281.548, 549. And [to sin] is expressed at every turn, by [...], and by [...], for [...]. All importing the positivity of sin.

BERNARDUS de modo bene vivend. Serm 37 p. 1281. Superbia est R [...]ix omnium malorum. Superbia & Cupidi­tas in tantum est unum malum, ut nec superbia sine cupidi­ta [...]e, nec cupiditas sine superbiâ esse possit. — Quid est omne peccatum, nisi Dei Contemptus, quo ejus praecepta contemnimus?— Idem in Serm de ver­vis s [...]p [...]entiae, p. 1702. Luxuria flagitium est, Avaritia spi­ritualis nequiti [...], unde illud vitium corporis, istud Animae, viz. quia nullum est peccatum, quod ita inquinet corpus, sicut Luxuria, — similiter super omne peccatum, avari­tia inquinat Animam; unde & Idolorum servitus di­citur.

Nor do I see how BASIL▪ Homil. 1. in Psal. HIE­RONYM. l. 2. adv. Pelag. ATHAN. O­rat. con. Gent. & de eti▪ Chri­s [...]i incar p. 58. AVGVST. confess l. 8 c. 5 CHEM. ALEX. Pae­dag. c. 3. p. 162 D. ib. l. 2. c. 1. p. 143. THEOPHY­LACT. in Rom. 1.13. those Fathers, who say that an habit of sin is gotten, by the custom of such acts as are avoid­able of themselves, can be imaginable not to hold the positi­vity of sin; or to hold that such acts can be impu [...]able to God, which they affirm the Creature might have avoi­ded. Evitabilium Actuum consuetudine censent generari in homine habitum vitiosum, so Ger. VOSSIVS in Hist. Pelag p. 215.

[...].

GREGORY. NAZIAN▪ Orat. 40. pag. 13. [...] so he calls Idolatry [...] Orat. 38. p. 620.

[Page 78] TATIA­NVS Assyri­us in Orat. cont. Graecos. p. 164. [...].

PROSPER de vi [...]â Con­temp l. 3. c. 2 p. 254. Initium omnis peccati superbia — non solùm peccatum est ipsa, sed nullum peccatum fieri potuit, potest, aut poterit fine ipsâ, siquidem nihil aliud omne peccatum, nisi Dei contemptus est, quo ejus praecepta calcantur; which com­pare with Ecclus. 10.13.

FULGENTIUS ad Monim. l. 1. p. 275. so also p. 302 Si initium peccati requiritur, nihil aliud nisi superbia inve­nitur, — quae tùm initium sumpsit, cum Angelus adversus Deum elatus, per concupiscentiam (quae est radix omnium malorum) volens usurpare &c. — mala opera, hoc est, Peccata, praescisse tantum; non etiam praedestinasse: quia ibi non opus Dei esse dicitur;ib. p. 311. sed judicium. Ideo in pec­cato opus Dei non est — sine operante Deo malus ope­ratur.

LOMBARDUS l. 2. d. 2. Dist. 40. c. Opera ipsa peccata sunt, ut furta, stupra, Blasphemiae,— sunt nonnulli actus, qui peccata sunt —& mala per se—quaerimus quis Actus pecca­tum sit,—dignosces quis Actus sit Peccatum,

The Confession of VOSSIVS for the greatest part of them.In lieu of producing more Antiquity in words at length (which would increase my Readers trouble) I shall insert the confession of Learned VOSSIUS, Plerique Ve­terum ita lo­quun [...]ur. quast peccatum o­riginale cen­seant esse ali­quid positi­vum, sive ha­bitum, sive a­lium Qualita­tem. Histor. Pelag. l. 2. par. 3 209. That the greatest part of the Amients do so speak, as if they thought Original sin to be som [...]thing positive, (to wit,) either a Habit, or some other Quality. I call it the confession of GERARD VOSSIUS, because I find it is none of his own opinions, that Origi­nal sin is something positive, whatever he speaks of actual sins. And I think his confession to be of the greater consi­deration, because of his being so very conversant in Anti­ent writers, and because or his abilitie to understand their true meaning, and lastly of his unwillingness to understand them against himself. Nay when he speaks of those An­tients, [Page 79] who were otherwise minded, he takes their mea­ning to have been, (not so much that this sin was a meer defect of Original Righteousnesse, Potius habi [...]u­alem à Deo a­versionem &c. ibid. p. 210. Aliqui, uti corpus à cor­pore formatur ita animam st [...]tuunt ab animâ accen­di &c. p. 211. as) that it was rather an habitual aversion from God, proceeding from the defect of Original righteousness.

They that held it to be a quality, could not otherwise hold it (in his opinion) then by holding also that the soul was begotten with the body, and sin begotten with the soul; or that the spirit being created was at least in­fected by the flesh, some thought that the soul was as it were kindled by the soul in generation; and that the Le­prosie of sin in childrens souls, was by infection from the leprosy with which their parents▪ had been infect­ed. Of which Opinion was TERTVLLIAN, APOLLINA­RIVS by name, a [...]d the greatest part of the Orientals, as IEROM witnesseth. RVFFINVS & AVGVST. apud eundem Voss ibid. APOL­LINARIVS, and the greatest part of the Eastern Fa­thers. [Quomodo corpus ex corpore, sic animam nasci ex animâ, TERTVL. Apoll. & maxima pars Orientalium au­tumavit, uti scribit Hieronymus ad Marcellinum & Ana­psychiam, Epist. 45.] RUFFINUS also and AUGUSTIN are cited for it. But because of the latter tis said by VOS­SIUS, that he durst not publickly avow, what was privately his opinion; His words are the worthier to be obser­ved.

For thus he writeth to OPTATVS, se neque legendo, neque orando, ne (que) ratiocinando, invenire potuisse, AVGVST. Epist. 157. held the [...]ra­duction of the soul; and ori­ginal sin to be a positive qua­lity. Affectio quae­dam mala qualitatis, & morbidus af­fectus Carnis, AVG. dicitus l. de. Nupt. c. 31. Adversus Iulian. lib. 5. cap. 3. see him also c [...]ted by Aquinas for making Original sin an H [...] ­bi [...]. 1.2 q. 82. art▪ 1 He also calls sin malam qualitatem, l. 6. contra I [...]l. c. 7. quo­modo cum animarum Creatione peccatum Originis defendatur. And for more to this purpose the Reader is referred to o­ther places, as Epist. 28. ad Hieronymum, Lib. 10. in Ge­nes. ad lit. cap: 23. & lib. 1 Retract. c. 1. Nay even then when he is doubtful of the souls extraction, (whether cre­ated or begotten,) he still adheres to his opinion, that it is infected by the flesh with some positive Quality, as wine grows sowre by being put in a sowre vessel. And VOS­SIVS himself doth so explain him. Haec enim mens est ver­borum Augustini, [profecto aut utrum (que) vitiatum & ex­homine [Page 80] trahitur, aut alterum in altero, tanquam in vase vi­tiato corrumpitur, ubi occulta justiti [...] divinae legis includi­tur. Quid autem horum sit verum, libentius disco, quàm dico, ne audeam dicere quod nescio.] It seemes he doubted whether the soul were ex traduce, or not; although, un­lesse it were ex traduce, he knew not how to defend Ori­ginal sin. But that he concluded it had a positive entity, appears as by all that hath been spoken,De peccat. mer. & Remiss. l. [...]. c. 16. in Iulian. l. 4. c. vlt. Georgius SOHNIVS tom. 11. loc. de p [...]cc. Orig. & Philip. MARNIXI­VS Sanct. ALDEGON­DIVS. Ger. Voss. ubi. supra. p. 214.215.216. so by the motus bestialis, & bestialis Libido by which he expresseth the sin of Adam.

§. 4. As the most of the Antients, so the most eminent of the MODERNS, have held the soul to be ex traduce, and Original sin a positive entity, two of which number are commended by learned Vossius (but just now cited) for men of Excellency and Renown. And Vossius himself, in divers places, doth sufficiently ass [...]rt the positivity of sin: not so much when he saith of Original sin, that it inclines the minde to vitious acts, so that it may, and is wont to be cal­led a Habit; as when he saith of its effects, (which ar [...] Actual sins) that they are grown over the soul as a spiri­tual Rust ▪ that carnal Concupiscence is wholy vitious, as be­ing a deflextion of the appetite from the Law of its Creation, from whence ariseth a disposit [...]on and propensity to R [...] ­bellion; that Morally vitious Acts are freely drawn out from that propensity; that by the custom of such a [...]ts there is ingendered in the sinner a vitious Habit. Cùm af­fectus sic effraenis lascivit, ut rationis imperium antevertat, plurimùm adversus rationem insurgat, ac (nisi diligenter à ratione valletur) facile aurigam rationem curru excutiat: In graviori tentatione semper sit superior nisi ratio specia­li juvetur Dei Judicio.

2. And as they who affirme the propagation of the soul so also they, who deny that God doth concur to the act of sin, do eo ipso hold sin to have a positive being: such as LOMBARD, BONAVENTVRE, ALEXANDER ALENSIS, ASOTO, DVRAND, AVREOLVS, the learned ARMACHANVS, and others cited by Dr. [Page 81] STEARN in his Animi Medela, p. 256, 257. And though the Master of the sentences doth seem to some not to de­fine which is truest, (the negative or the affirmative of G [...]ds concurrence to acts of sin, but leaves the Reader to judge of both tenets, (to Dist. 37.) yet he is cited by CAMERACENSIS (l. 1. q. 14.) for the defence of the Negative. Because according to his opinion, God doth on­ly permit those evils which are sin, (as saith our learned Dr. FIELD, p. 128.

3. HEMMINGIVS (the Scholar of Melanehthon and known to be of his minde) defineth sin, in general,Nicol. HEM­MINGIVS i [...] opusc. Theol. Cl [...]ss. 1. c. 8. de peccato. p. 355▪ 356. by disobedience against God, and affirmes Disobedience to im­port four things in holy writ, Defect, corruption, inclinati­on, and action. Original sin he defines to be a propagated corruption of humane nature, in which there is a material and formal part. The Material (saith he) containeth,Duo sunt ob­servanda in peccato ori­ginali, materi­ [...]le & formale, materiale est in mente de­fectus, — In corde con­cupiscentia, p. 356. both a defect in the intellect, and a concupiscence in the heart. In the fal of Adam there was a concurrence of these 8. sins 1. A doubting the truth of Gods word. 2. A loss of faith, or incredulity. 3. Curiosity. 4. Pride. 5. Contempt of God, 6. Apostacy. 7. Ingratitude. 8. A murdering of himself, and his posterity. And is expressed in Scripture by di­vers names: Concupiscence, Flesh, the old man, the Law of sin, sin dwelling in us, Rebellion, the law of the members, and sometimes sin without any epith [...]t. De actuali peccato dicen­dum est, quod rectè definitur esse cogitalum, dict [...]m, factum, omissum, pug. nans cum le­ge Dei. Se [...], peccatum actuale est omnis actio pugnans cum lege Dei, cum in mente, tum in volunta­te, & corde, tum in membris externis. p. 358. Actuall sin he de­fines to be something done, omitted, said, or thought, fighting with the law of God. (Or as he puts it in other tearmes) Actual sin is every action committed against the Law, both in the Intellect and the will and in the heart, and the out­ward members. Thus that Regius Professor, famous for learning and moderation.

4. GREGORIE MARTIN of Silesia, GREGOR. MARTINI apud K [...]ckermannum in si [...]. log. part. 2. p. 653, 654▪ stating the sin [Page 82] of our first parents,Lapsus accipi­tur pro actu hominis, qui vi [...]iosus si [...], & quo aliquid malè agit, aut in alterum commit [...]i [...].—aquipollent lapsus primo­rum paren­tum, & pecca­tum, aut Rea­tu [...] &c. — Nos priori modo sumi­mus peccatum, prout est a­ctio, ut pate­bit p. 654. begins to expound the word Lapsus, which he saith importeth a vitious act, with which a man does any thing ill, and is the same with peccatum. Then coming to speak of the term originall sin, he professeth to take the word for the positive act of eating the fruit which was forbidden. And so the expression of Original sin (he faith) doth also include an actual. From the im­portance of the word, he comes to speak of the thing signified. Which first he consider's as to its Genus, which he saith is Action. Its genus rem [...]tum is actio hominis. Its immediate genus, is actio vitiosa, & privativa. Mark good Reader; he doth not say 'tis a mere privation, but a privative action. Positive in one respect, as 'tis an acti­on; though privative in another, as destroying the Agent from whence it is. Take that excellent Logician in his own expressions of himself.—Vidimus nomen, Genus se­cundo loco considerandum est, quod vel remotum, actio hominis; Propinquum actio hominis vitiosa; proximum Actio vitiosa, destr [...]ens ipsum agens, seu privativa. upon this I lay the greater weight, because the judgement and approbation of another great Methodist and Logician, e­ven KECKERMAN of Dantzick, adds credit to that of this wise Silesian.

FRANCO BURGERS­DI [...]IVS in Institut Meta. l. 1. c. 20. p. 122 123, 124. Hine sequitur, malum bono potius esse contrarium, saltem quoad proprias for­ma [...], qu [...]m privativè op­ [...]oni.5. A late professor of Philosophy in the University of Leyden, and a great Aristotelian, saith, that evil includes ens, and adds a reall relation to it, after the manner that Good doth. And this he affirmeth of every evil. [Malum ergo omne, simili modo quo bonum, includit Ens & Enti addit Relationem realem, quâ, quod malum dicitur, ita se habet ad aliud, ut illi inconveniens atque adversum sit.] To which he adds, that those relations are contrary, and have contrary affections; from whence it follow's, (as he goes on.) that good and evil are opposed, rather contrariè, than privativè, and that according to their proper forms too. Convenientia & inconvenientia, being no less contrary, than equality and inequality. His reason is, because a thing is not said to be evil to any one, for being only not conveni­ent, [Page 83] but in as much as it is adverse, or affirmatè inconve­niens (p. 123.) To the objection which he foresees, he an­swers thus. This is the nature of immediate contrariety, that one extream is inferred from the negation of the other. And he means, by Inconvenient, whatsoever is positively adverse to that which is convenient.—licet inconveni­ens, & adversum sit positivè quicquid non est conveniens, &c.—All which doth strengthen my Reply to Master BARLOW'S Answer to Aquinas. (for which look back on chap. 3. §. 13.) He concludes with a caterum, actiones sunt malae per se; Habitus, quatenus ex hujusmodi actio­nibus orti sunt, quae rationem culpae habent. p. 126. If BETVLEIVS had not been of the same opinion, he would not have used that proposition, wherein sin is praedicated of that which will be granted by all to be a positive entity. Racha fratri imprecari, peccatum est. (Be­tuleius in Lactant. l. 6. c. 16.)

6. I forgot (till just now) to note the Doctrine of Mr. CALVIN, CALVIN, In­stit. l. 2. c. 1. S. 8. fol. 75. opera in nobis pro­fert, quae Scri­ptura vocat opera carnis, quali [...] sunt A­dulteria, fur­ta, &c. quicquid in homine est, aut ut breviûs absolvatur, totum hominem non aliud ex seipso esse, quàm concupiscen [...]iam. who saith that sin original doth bring forth in us those works of the flesh, Gal, 5.19.) which he also cals sins, though positive entities. Nay he saith our whole na­tu [...]e is quoddam peccati semen; that sin hath a force and an operation; that the whole man of himself is nothing else but concupiscence.

7. It is observ'd by ALSTED, that as the Hebrews call original Jezer hara, plasma malum; so peccare, Iohan. Henr. ALSTED. in Lex. Theol. c. 8 Cicero. in 3. paradox. pec­care, est tan. quam limites transilire, Iunius in l. de pec. Adami primo, q. 1. c. 2. p. 92. Bellarminus apud Alsted. ubi supra. to sin, doth signifie nothing but an action; not omission, or absence, or meer privation. And as Cicero define's it, by leaping over the hedge which the law doth set us; so accor­dingly by Iunius, it is derived from * pecucare; because a sinner, like a stray sheep, doth leap over mounds. And Bellarmine saith, that evil surpasseth good in this respect, [Page 84] that it aboundeth more in expressions; for to signifie an Action, we have peccatum, crimen, delictum, scelus, faci­nus, flagitium, culpa, erratum. And after all we have vitium, which peculiarly signifies an habit; whereas to si­gnifie an action, or an habit of vertue, we onely use the word vertue.

8. CHEMNITIVS speaking of the sin against the ho­ly Ghost, CHEMNITI­VS in Harm. Evang. c. 59. p. 792. Gerhard, in Har. Ev. p. 70. reckons up six Ingredients in it, whereof the most if not all, have a positive being. And GERHARD does the like by the sin of Peter, who abjur'd his Savi­our no less by his works, then by his words; adding perjury to cursing; and both, to lying. Whence he notes the fruitfullness of sin, for which 'tis called the Divels net, Prov. 5.22.

If I shall now add GROTIUS, who is instar multorum (although but one, GROTIVS de Ver. Chr. Re­lig. edit. Lugd. 1633 p. 27, 28▪) no knowing Reader will look for more. He, in setting forth the verity of Christian Re­ligion, to all the nations of the world which have a prae­judice to the Gospel, takes special care to let them know, that when God is said to be the universal cause, or the cause of all things, it is onely meant of those things that are good, or of all those things which are indued with a subsistence, and are commonly known by the name of sub­stance; Nihil enim prohibet, quo minus ipsa, quae subfistunt, deinde causae sint acciden­tium, quales sunt actiones. This is the judgement also of Prosper and Austin. lib. sent. ex August. pag. 444. which substances are the causes of certain acci­dents, such as are actions; And therefore God is thus freed from being the originall cause of sin. So that tis clearly his opinion, that sins of commission at least are Ac­cidents, even because they are actions, which will be gran­ted by all to have a positive being.

§. 9. And this doth prompt me to shew the way of re­conciling the words unto the meaning, The severall wayes of RE­CONCILE­ING such Writers unto themselves, who plainly holding the positivity of sin, do sometimes seem to speak against it. and of proving un­deniably [Page 85] what must be the true meaning of certain Wri­ters, whom some men's prejudices and praepossessions have unhappily tempted them to mistake.

1. When they say that all entities are good, they onely speak of all those, which are the works of Gods creation, or unavoidably produced by natural Agents, so as the ori­gin of their being is duly imputable unto God; which all our voluntary actions cannot possibly be. For

2. When it is said in the common Axiom, That the cause of the cause, is the cause of the [...]ffect, it is meant of causes which are physically and essentially subordinate. (as saith the Learned BISHOP OF DERRY in his Reply to Mr. Hobbs.) It is meant of such effects;Bish. BRAM. HAL'S Reply mihi p. 105. as do follow their cause by an antecedent necessitation. But the case is quite otherwise when the effects do not follow by a ne­cessity of nature, but by the intervention of humane liber­ty. (for which I have the suffrage of Dr. Stearn.) Again 3. it is meant of such effects,Anim. Medel. p. 270. as proceed from such second causes, as transgress not the order they ought to have up­on the first. (and for this I have Aquinas 1.2. q. 79. art. 3. When God is said to work all things, (Eph. 1.11.) it is meant in the same restrained sense, in which it is said by S. Iames, that every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, (Iam. 1.17.) Implying the contrary to be from below, as coming up from the Father of Lyes. And therefore

4. When it is said,In what sense God is said to be Almighty, see LOM­BARD l. 1. dist. 42. F, G. That God is the Maker of all things visible, and invisible, (in the Nicene Creed) it is explained in the COLLECT for Evening Service, [O God from whom all holy desires, all good counsels, and all just works do proceed &c.] It is not set thus, (as Mr. Hick­man, and the Libertines, it seems, would have it) O God from whom are all desires, holy and unholy; or from whom are all counsels, good and evil; or from whom are all works, just and unjust. I say Mr. Hickman would have it thus, because he saith, the very work of hating God is from God, pag. 95, 96. nay he saith that every positive [Page 86] entity is either God, or from God (p. 75.) and from him as his Creature, (p. 79.) Nay that every reall Being is produced by the first cause, that is by God, (p. 95.) Now it is granted by all the world, That all thoughts, words, and actions, all desires, counsels, and works, have either a positive, or a reall, (and indeed a positive) being. Which being is not diminished by any addition of good, or evil. For to hate God, is as reall, and as positive a thing, as to hate the Divel.

5. When it is said of God, that he can do every thing, (Iob. 42.2.) and that to him all things are possible, (Mat. 19.26.) it must needs be meant with a Restriction of all things that are good: because there are Texts which say the contrary, to wit, that he cannot do every thing; as that he cannot deny himself, 2 Tim. 2.13. and that all things are not possible to him; as that it is impossible for God to lye. Tit. 1.2. In a word, It is no truer, that God can do all things, (meaning things that are good,) then that he can do nothing, which argues uncleanness or imperfecti­on. I may say to Mr. Hickman, as the antient Fathers were wont to do unto the Hereticks,See correct co­py. p. 22, 23. [...]. (Austin to Faustus, and Origen to Celsus, and Isidore to the Sceptick, God can do all things, that is, all things that become him; yet cannot do any thing that is evil, because he cannot not be God. [...]. Or as the Reverend Bishop Bram­hall to Mr. Hobs, (p. 93.) God is said to harden the heart, not causally, but occasionally; that is, by Gods doing good the sinner takes an occasion of doing evil. And as this is a good consequence, [such a thing is from God, therefore it is righteous;] so this consequence is as good, [such a thing is unrighteous, therefore it cannot proceed from God.] We must not therefore thus argue, A Lye is no reall thing, because it is Impossible for God to cause it; but rather thus, because it is impossible for God to cause it, therefore all things reall are not from God. And therefore

[Page 87]6. When it is said of sin, that it is nothing, [...]. Dio­nys. Areop. Peccatum est nihil▪ Aug. de lib. Arb. l. 1. or not in being, that it hath no essence, or is not amongst the things that are, (as Dionysius the Areopagite, and others speak,) me thinks the very extremity of the literal falshood, should have convinced Mr. Hickman that they are figurative ex­pressions. And no more to the support of his sinking cause, then it would be to that Atheist's, who should dispute a­gainst the veri [...]y, because against the wisdome and power of God, by citing the words of our Apostle, [The foolish­ness of God is wiser then men, and the weakness of God is stronger then men. 1 Corinth. 1.25.] how many blasphemies might be broached from the many [...] or seeming contradictions of holy Scripture, if by rational distinctions we might not be suffe [...]'d to reconcile them? As it is said by Saint Paul, Rom. 1.20▪ that the invisible things of God are clearly seen, (and being so are very visible;) and as it is said by the Comedian, hoc aliquid Nihil est; so I may say with great reason, hoc nihil est Aliquid. This nothing­ness of sin is something positive. And I will prove that Mr. H. himself is nothing, at least as well as he prove's that sin is nihil positivum, nothing positive. For M. Hickman is a man, who thinks himself something. And St. Paul hath said it, [If a man think himself something, when he is [...] ▪ Being nothing, he deceiveth himself. Gal. 6.3. nothing, he deceiveth himself, Gal. 6.3.] Mr. Hickman cannot be ignorant, that generation and corruption are two species of motion; whereof the first is defined to be motus à Non esse, ad esse; the second to be motus ab esse, ad Non esse. But would he not be thought a prodigious Disputant, who should write a Book of ten sheets, to prove that Generation is a creation out of nothing, and so that the Generant is a God? or that to dye, is to be annihi­lated, and so that there is not a Resurrection? Yet those two definitions will bear him out to M. Hickman, however ridiculous he would be to all men else. But as the meaning is, that corruptio est motus ab esse tali, ad non esse Tale; so something positive, simpliciter, may be said to be nothing secundum Quid. And in this very sense those words are [Page 88] spoken by the Psalmist, Mine age is nothing in respect of thee, Psal. 39.5. But to make it yet more apparent,

7. By whom can the writings of the FATHERS be better explained then by themselves? If then the very same Father who saith at one time, that Peccatum nihil est, in­quit Bernard. in annum. B. Mar. S [...]rm. 1. p. 123. sin is nothing, doth also say at another, that Quid est o­mne peccatum, nisi Dei con­ [...]emptus, quo eju [...] praecepta con [...]emni­mus [...] l. de mo: [...] viv. Sir. 37. p. 1281 Sin is no other thing then a contempt of God, (an example of which is in my Margin) 'tis plain that the former proposition must be explained by the latter ▪ the like example I shewd out of Scripture, and out of the writings of ATHANASIUS, in the first and third Sec [...]ion of this present Chapter, and the like may be shew'd of all the rest, by the severall citations of the third and fourth Sections. So what is said by AQUI­NAS and his Followers amongst the SCHOOLMEN, must of necessity be explained by such conspicuous asserti­ons as these that follow▪— AQVIN. in 1.2. qu [...]st. 75. art. 1. omne quod fit, habet Cau­sam, sed peccatum fit: est enim dictum, vel factum, vel concupitum, contra legem Dei — ibid. Dicendum, quod pec­catum est Actus quidam inordinatus: & ex parte actus po­test habere per se causam.— ibid. ad 1. Peccatum non solum signi­ficat ipsam privationem Boni, quae est Inordinatio; sed significat actum sub tali privatione &c.— ibid. ad 3. nihil habet rationem mali, antequam applicetur ad Actum. — ib. art. 2. Ipse voluntatis actus, praemissis suppositis, jam est quodd [...]m peccatum. — ib. ad 2. Pe [...]catum consistit principali­ter in actu voluntatis. — Peccatum nominat ens & actionem cum quodam defectu. Thus frequently and plain­ly doth Aquinas assert the positive e [...]tity of sin, and there­fore by this we must explain him, and reconcile him unto himself, whensoever he seem's to say the contrary; or at least accuse him of contradictions. So he saith of original sin that it is Sicut aegri­ [...]udo corpo­ralis—ali. quid habet positivum ▪ Ita etiam peccatum originale—non est privatio pura, sed est quidam corru­ptus Habi [...]us. Idem. 1.2. q. 82. ar [...]. 1. ad. 1 [...] not a meer privation, but a corrupt Habit, comparing it to a bodily disease, which hath something Sicut aegri­ [...]udo corpo­ralis—ali. quid habet positivum. Ita etiam peccatum originale—non est privatio pura, sed est quidam corru­ptus Habi [...]us. Idem. 1.2. q. 82. [...]. 1. ad. 1 [...] positive, as well as privative.

[Page 89]8. It must be carefully observed in ANTIENT WRI­TERS, An accident oppos'd to Res simpliciter. Se [...] Prosper's sent. ex Aug p. 444. that because an accident cannot exist without the subject of Inhaesion which is substantia; and because substantia is ens per se subsistens; they do often take res to signifie a substance, and express an accident by nihil, or non existens; meaning, non per se subsistens. Which as I have hinted by some examples already given, so now I will make it undeniable by one taken out of Saint AV­STIN. Who Augustin de persect. Justi­tiae non longè à pri. lib. in resp. Ratiocin. 4. to 7. saith of the very act of sin, (which is acknowledged by all to have a positive being) that it is not any thing. Actus peccati non est Res aliqua. To which Aquinas makes Answer, AVGVST. nominat ibi Rem id quod est Res sim­pliciter, sc. substantiam sic enim actus peccati non est Res. AQV. in 1.2. q. 79. Art. 2. ad. 1. GREG. NYSS. Hom. 5. in Ecclesiasten, p. 417. opposeth [...] to [...], as that is explained by substan [...]ia, [...]. that by res he means substantia, which is res simpliciter; not intending to deny, that it is an Accident, which (with Aquinas) is res secundum quid. And therefore GROTIVS (in imitation of the Antients) opposeth such accidents as actions are, to things which have a true subsistence. Cum diximus, Deum omnium es­se causam, addidimus, eorum, quae ve [...]è subsistunt. Nihil enim prohibet, &c (ut superius paulo cit.) so [...] is opposed to [...], by Maxim. on Dionys. p. 317.

9. Again it must alwayes be carried in mind, that all those expressions of the Non-entity of sin were taken up in opposition to SCYTHIANVS, and MARCION, The MANI­CHAEAN he­resie occasion­ed some figura­tive expressi­ons. and the following crue of the MANICHAEANS, who a­scrib'd to evil a being of it self, and by it self, and that eternal, no less then God. TERTVL. advers. Mar. l. 1. c. 1. & 23. & 26. HIERON in N [...]hum. c. 3. [...] Nay duos Deos adfert (saith Tertul. of Marcion) tanqnam duas symplegadas naufragii s [...]i. Scythianus (before Manes) composed four books, in which he asserted two distinct, and coequal principles of [...]. EPIPHANIUS l. 2 tom. 2. Haer [...]s. 45. seu 55. pag. 619. B. D. [Page 90] things, to wit, of white and black, of moist, and dry, of body and soul, of heaven and earth, of just and un [...]ust, of good and evil. Now however this Heresie is very worthi­ly exploded by all true Christians, yet right may be done upon a very wrong ground. And so it is, if all the ground be the Non-entity of sin, which yet the Fathers did onely use (by a Ex omni­bus Physico­ [...]um, sive Me­taphysicorum terminls ob­seuris, nulli explicatu di­gniores, quàm [...] duo, [...], & [...]. Me­ric. Casaub. de verb. usu. p. 134. Manichaus ha­ving expressed Substantia by Natura, Ali­quid & Res. catechresis) in opposition to that substance, or self-subsistence, which that many-headed-sect ascrib'd to evil. And this I say in Iustification of the Fathers and Schoolmen, from those mistakes of their meaning, by which the mistakers would make them fall from a great er­rour into a greater. It being worse (of the two) to think that sin hath no being, or that God is the Author, (if it hath any) than to think that good and evil did proceed from two fountains, and both eternall.

10. I am exceedingly confirmed in what I say touch­ing the Fathers, and their acception of the word nature, res, and aliquid, by what I find to be the judgement of learned VASQVEZ, whose words I think wo [...]thy to be inserted somewhat at large. [‘Observandum est (inquit) Patres fere omnes,VASQUEZ. Disp. 95. c. xi. Doctrinam Manichaei, obiter, aut ex professo, refutare voluisse, qui ass [...]rebat substantiam ali­quam in se & ex se malam esse; omnem autem substan [...]i­am naturam appellabat, & aliquid, & rem. (sicut Ari­stoteles in Categor. c. de substantiâ, omnem substantiam di­xit esse hoc aliquid. As Aristotle himself by Hoc aliquid.) Quare nomine Naturae quoties S. Patres disputant cum Manichaeo de hac re, non com [...]le­ [...]tuntur operationem & accidentia, (quae-aliquam habea [...]t naturam,) sed solam substantiam, secuti sententiam A­ris [...]otelis, Whom the An­tients followed in their expres­sions. Not in­cluding Acci­dents in the word nature. But granting [...]in to be an act, and the work of our will. (2, phys. c. 1. &▪ 5. Metaph. c. 4.) qui solùm materiam & formam naturam, appellat▪ Immo ex his proprie solùm formam, materiam autem mataphori [...]è tan­tùm. Contendunt igitur Patres, nullam esse naturam substantiae malam, quatenùs substan [...]ia & natura est; De actu verò non loquuntur. Concedunt enim malum esse opus arbitrii nostri, & actum. Sicut Augustinus l. de per­fect. iustit. qui ratiocinatione 4. quaerit, quid sit peccatum, [Page 91] Actusne, an Res. Quia [...]i res est (inquit) habeat Aucto­rem; & si Auctorem habet, jam alter erit auctor, quam Deus, alicujus rei. Quod si hoc impium est, necesse est di­cere, peccatum esse actum, non rem. An example taken out of S. AUSTIN. —Patres non tam curarunt propriam rationem vitii & peccati in gene­re moris exprimere, quàm per aliquid conjunctum no­bis magis notum eam desc [...]ibere. Quare cùm per boni pri­vationem peccatum definierunt, non sunt ita intelligendi, quasi sit ipsa essentia & ratio formalis peccati, sed quia est necessario peccato conjuncta, & Christianis maximè nota. Multò enim faciliùs per negationem intelligimus.’

11. To this let me add (what does just now occurr to my present purpose) That substantia with many FA­THERS, as wel as with GROTIUS and other MODERNS, Why ens ma­ny times is u­sed onely for substantia. hath often carried away the name of ens; because ens is Analogum, (as every smatterer in logick know's, though Masters in it sometimes forget,) and the common Rule is here verified, Analogum per se positum pro famosiori stare praesumitur. Whosoever therefore is found to say, Pec­catum est non ens, must be known to mean that it is not sub­stantia, unless he be one who dares add, that it is not an ac­cident. And so if any is found to say, that every finite en [...]ity is produced by God, he must be charitably conclu­ded to understand every substance, unless he shall dare to add also, That God produceth as well the worst, as the best of actions. It being granted by all the world, that the former are accidents, no whit less then the latter.

12. Some perhaps, in good earnest,How unhappily some men con­fute the MA [...]NICHEES. do think the best way to confute the Manichees, is by saying that sin is no­thing reall, Because, denying it such a being as Manes gave it, and yet allowing it a being, (although not that) it must needs have a being either from God, or some Crea­ture. If they shall dare to say from God, they sadly fall into the Blasphemy, which Manes (or rather Scythianus) devised his principle to avoid. If they say from some crea­ture, they make that creature a kind of Creator, in making it able to give a being, where God himself doth give none.

[Page 92] How the sin­ner is able to give the whole being unto his sin.But (omitting that this last were the safest errour, if it were any) these men do not consider, that God was a­ble to make a creature with such a light of understanding, and such a liberty of will; as to be fitly left Ecclus. 15.14 in the hand of his own counsel; and to be a self-determiner, to this or that object which lyes before him; And so to be an Arti­ficer of such unclean works, (by abusing the liberty of his will,) as could not by any possibility have been produced by his Creator. God made man upright, but he hath Eccles. 7.29. found out many inventions. And if it be in the power of man, to give being unto any thing, most easily may he be thought to give Being unto s [...]n; sin it self being no more, then what is displeasing to God Almighty; and no where else to be imagined, much less to be, but in the voluntary a­ctings of created Agents, in contrariety to the law which they receive to act by. That so it is, is very evident, by the negative precepts of the Almighty, whereby he for­bids us to give a being to this, or that, which he tells us he hateth the being of. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife, is as much as to say, thou shalt not put such a con­cupiscence in being. And yet to covet another man's wife, is as positively something, as to covet his own; and more po­sitively something, than not to covet another man's; though that is the vice, and this the virtue.

13. They indeed who deny this natural freedome of the will, How they that deny it, must submit to the MANI­CHEES, or worse. must either yield to the Manichees, or else do worse, as hath been shew'd. But this being granted, there needs no new principle (as the Manichees dreamed) for the pro­duction of what is evil. For he that may do good (by ma [...]king use of that Talent which God hath given him) hath eo ipso the power to do the contrary, unless he is irresistibly and unavoidably good, which no man is, on this side hea­ven. Now since both the habits and acts of sin, are as positive as the habits and acts of virtue, (and equally re­ducible to the species of Quality, and that there needs no other power for the production of the former, then what is given us, whilst it is given us to be truly free agents; It [Page 93] will be fit to make it appear, that I have not onely my pri­vate, but publick reason also for what I teach.

§. 6. DIONYSIVS the AREOPAGITE, The concur­rence of the Learned, both ANTIENT and MO­DERN, for the Affi [...]ma­tive, That the sinfull Agent is the sole cause of the sinfull Act. DIONYS. AREOP. de Coelest▪ Hiera [...]. c. 1. p. 1.2. who re­fell's the two principles in the Manichaean sense, doth set them up, and assert them in the sense of the Scripture. Affirming God to be the principle of every thing that is good, and the Divel on the contrary of every thing that is evil: to wit, the evil of sin, which is evil properly so called. He asserts the first in these word [...] of Saint Paul, (Rom. 11.36.) [...]. which he ex­plains by the Restriction thought fit to be added by Saint Iames, (c. 1. v. 17.) [...] &c. he affirms the second in these termes— De Div. Nom c. 4. sect. 18. p. 570. cum quâ con­fer. p. 571. [...]. Yet (3.) the [...]. ibid. p. 574. power to sin (though not the act of sin it self) he rightly affirm's to be from God; which power is innocent, as in Adam and the Angels before their Fall▪ who could never have sinned, if before they actu­ally sinned, they had not had the power to sin. But for the exertion of that power into act, that being evil [...] &c. pag. 577▪ & pag. 578. can­not possibly proceed from so good a fountain.

IGNATIVS in ep. ad Magnes. p. 53. [...].

IUSTIN. MARTYR. in Apolog. 1. pro Christ. p. 35. [...]. see him especially in Quaest. & Resp. ad Orthod. p. 396. & 436.

[Page 94] TERTVL. contra Marcion. Lib. 2. cap. 5, 6. Suae po. testatis invenio hominem a Deo constitutum lapsumque hominis non Deo, sed Libero ejus Arbitrio deputan­dum.

ATHANASIVS (de anima humana loquens) in orat contra Gent. p. 5. — [...],ib. p. 7.— [...] Ne (que) ullam ej [...]s substan­tiam esse, Pe­trus Nannius interpretatur p. 8. [...] And very much more to this purpose p. 9.37. & [...]. de Incar. verbi dei p. 57, 58.

— [...] p. 58.

AVGVSTIN. Retract. l. c. 9. per totum. Malum non exortum nisi ex libero voluntatis Arbitrio,— Quid opus est queri unde iste motus existat, quo voluntas avertitur [Page 95] ab incommutabili bono ad commutabile bonum,Deu [...] non est causa ejus, quod homo sit deterior. Idem apud Aqu. 1.2. q. 79. Art. 3. cùm e­um non nisi animi & voluntarium, & ob hoc culpabile es­se fateamur, &c.

Quae tandem esse poterit ante voluntatem Causa volun­tatis? Aut igitur voluntas est prima causa peccandi, aut nullum peccatum est prima Causa peccandi.

Non ergo est cui rectè imputetur peccatum, nisi volun­tati, voluntas est quâ & peccatur & rectè vivitur.

NAZIANZ. orat. 40. p. 671. apud. D. Barl. p. 52. [...].

[...] vide D. D. Hammondi, Annot. in 1 Cor. 8.4.

FVLGENTIVS apud Aqu. 1.2. q. 79. art 3. Deus non est ultor istius rei, cujus est Actor.

PROSPER ▪ in senten. ex Aug. p. 444. Iniquitas per ip­sum facta non est, quia Iniquitas nulla substantia [...]st. Mark h [...]s Reason, and the two things which it implyes. 1 That iniquity is an Accident, and 2. Such, as is not from God; and therefore elsewhere he saith,Idem in lib. de ingratis. p. 573. that the sole cause of evil deeds is the liberty of the will — ad quam solam male gesta recurrunt.

CLEM. ALEX. [...]. p. 167. [...],ib. p. 169. [...]. And so in the place above cited (§. 3) he saith all substances have their pro­duction from God, but not all Actions or operations, un­less when they are good. The Original of the evil he [...]. Idem [...]. p. 219. im [...]putes to free-will. And thus he disputes against them, who feigned another cr [...]ator even of substances, beside the onely [Page 96] true God. [...].

CYRILLUS HIERO. [...]. p. 30. [...], citing that Text Eccles. 7.30. And that of the A­postle Ephes. 2.10. [...]. And after in the same page, [...], and a little after, p. 34. speaking of the Devil, and applying to him that of Ezek. 28.12. [...],ib. p. 34. he adds, it was very well said [...].

AMBROSIVS de Cain & Abel. l. 2. c. 9. fol. 260. H. Qui peccatum suum ad quandam (uti Gentiles asserunt) Decreti aut operis sui Necessitatem referunt, Divina ar­guere videntur, quasi ipsorum vis Causa Peccati sit.— sed quanto gravius Peccato ipso, ad Deum referre quod Feceris, & Reatus tui invidiam transsundere in Authorem, non Criminis, sed Innocentiae?

EPIPHANIUS l. 1. To. 3. Haeres. 36. p. 266, 267, 268. [...]. Nothing can be without God except sin— [...]. [Page 97] [...].Idem l. 2. tom. 1. Haer. 64. p. 587. and more to this purpose p. 265.588. yet (saith he) God doth not hinder men from sinning (by violence or force upon their wills) [...], p. 671.

AUGUSTIN. de civit. Dei, l. 5. c. 9. Malae voluntates à Deo non sunt, quia contra naturam sunt, quae ab illo est. —Sicut omnium Creaturarum Creator est, ita omni­um potestatum dator, non Mala volun­tas Peccatum dicitur meto­nymicè, se [...] Lombard. l. 4▪ dist. 50. A. voluntatum: where by the will, he means the action of the will.

§. 7. That God gives onely the power to act what he forbiddeth, and that no more is meant by those Fathers, The power to act is from God, but the vitious action is not. who say that all things in some sort do come from God, (still implying the act it self to be solely from the creature when it is wholly against God, as the act of hating God is confess'd to be,) I have already made apparent by diverse instances recited. And Doctor Stearn hath don it by di­verse others, (An. med. l. 2. p. 256, 257.) of which I shall mark but three or four.

ANSELMVS de concord. Praed. & Praesc. Nul­la Res habet potentiam ullam volendi aut faciendi nisi illo Dante.

AVREOLVS in 2. D. 37. Neque ego video quod dicunt, omnis actus est à Deo (dato quod sit posi­tivus) nisi fortè conservando potentiam quae elicit, & natu­ram actus elicitivam.

ALEXANDER ALENSIS part. 2. q. 100. Adjuvat ipsum ad actionem in quâ est malum; quia dat Potentiae, sive Libero Arbitrio, quòd possit operari.

RICHARD. ARMACHANVS l. 17. Quaest. Ar­men. c. 3. Nec Deus attingit hoc modo actiones immedi­atè ad actum, seu effectum productum, sed ad agens im­mediatum ipsius effectus; puta intellectum, aut volunta­tem. [Page 98] —Si quis poterit ex sacris Scripturis probare hanc cooperationem divinam, cum omni agente creato; erit mihi mirandus, & libenter probationem illam acciperem; quoniam hoc facere me nescire fateor.

LESSIVS de Perf. Div. l. 11. c. 3. Hac ratione, Creaturae possunt dici instrumenta respectu Dei, & Deus omnia per illas operari; omnia (inquam) bona, non mala, quae Deus non intendit, neque ex perfectione virtutis à D [...]o insertae, sed ex defectu Creaturae sequuntur.

DVRANDVS 2. D. 37. Action [...]s non procedunt à Deo, nisi secundùm indifferentiam ad bonum & malum. Deus enim non est causa actionum liberi arbitr [...]i, nisi quia liberum arbitrium ab ipso & est, & conservatur; sed libe­rum arbitrium in esse cons [...]rvatum, adhuc est indifferens ad eligendum Actum bonum v l malum, nec determinatio ejus ad malum, est à Deo. Actus enim malus naturam bonam sed imperfectè bonam (cujus Author Deus est) non neces­sariò sed liberè sequitur. Naturae itaque imperfecte bo­nae, non De [...] (qui Deus est non volens iniquitatem) impu­tandus est. (vide Anim. Med. l. 2. p. 270.)

FVLGENTIVS de Praedest. ad mon. l. 1. p. 251. Sicut ergo peccatum in eo non est: ita peccatum ex eo non est. Quod autem ex eo non est, opus ejus utique non est. Quod autem nunquam est in opere ejus; nunquam fuit in Praedestinatione ejus.—Peccatum, homo, non ex prae­destinatione Divina; sed ex voluntate sua, malè concu­piscendo, coepit, & malè operando, perfecit. But I re­turn f [...]om this Antient,p. 302. to other Writers more modern.

MELANCHTHON, de cau. pec. p. 48. Diabolus pa­ter: id est, primus fons, & causa mendacii. Discernit autem Christus mendacium à substantia: quasi dicat, substantiam quidem habet Diabolus aliunde acceptam.— Habet autem proprium quiddam Diabolus, non à Deo ac­ceptum, videlicet mendacium: id est, peccatum, quod libe­ra voluntas Diaboli peperit. Neque haec inter se pugnant, —substantiam à Deo conditam esse & sustentati, & tamen voluntatem Diaboli & voluntatem hominis causas esse [Page 99] peccati. Quia voluntas abuti libertate sua potuit, seque à Deo avertere.—Primus Author peccati est Diabolus.ib. p. 49, —Haec mala non sunt res conditae à Deo, sed horri­bilis destructio humanae naturae.ib. p. 50.—Voluntas libera Evae propriè & verè erat causa suae actionis, ac sponte se aver­tit à Deo.—Quia peccatum ortum est à voluntate Di­aboli & hominis, nec factum est Deo volente, sic erant conditae voluntates, ut possent non peccare. Est autem causa contingentiae nostrarum actionum Libertas volunta­tis. (p. 51.) — Imò Ecclesia Dei,ib. p. 53. cum sciat De­um verè, seriò & horribiliter odisse libidines Neronis, nequaquam dicet eas aut necessariò accidisse, aut volen­te Deo accidisse. — Deus est essentia — volens justa, casta, non volens pugnantia cum suâ mente, injustam cru­delitatem, incestas libidines, &c.ib. p. 55, 56. MELANCH­THONS Di­stinction of the first cause su­staining, but not assisting the second, in evil actions.— Deus adest Crea­turis, non ut Stoicus Deus, alligatus causis secundis, ut moveat simpliciter, sicut movent secundae: sed ut agens liberrimum, susten [...]ans naturam, & suo consilio aliter a­gens in aliis.—Sic agit Deus cum voluntate, susten­tans & juvans ordine agentem: Sed non juvans ruentem contra ordinem, etsi eam sustentat. Sic enim condidit vo­luntatem Evae, ut esset liberum agens, quod posset tueri ordinem, aut deficere. Sit igitur haec crassa solutio: secun­da causa non agit sine prima, scilicet sustentante. Hoc universaliter verum est: sed non semper adjuvante. Non enim adjuvat prima effectum, quem non vult. Est igitur voluntas Evae immediata causa sui actus, cum avertit se à Deo. And again, Sed Christianis necesse est discernere bona & mala. Secunda non agit sine prima, scilicet su­stentante: sed multa facit prima causa praeter secundas, quia est agens liberum. Et secunda, libera: ut voluntas Evae vitiose agit sine primâ adjuvante, quia talis facultas est libertas. And again, Adest Deus suo operi, non ut Sto­icus Deus, sed verè ut liberum agens, sustentans creaturam, & multa moderans. This shews the meaning of ME­LANCHTHON, when he saith in one place (in com­pliance with the vulgar) that original sin i [...] nihil priva­tivum, [Page 100] which according to the Rule of aequipollence in Logick, must needs be tantamount to aliquid positivum. And this he shews to be his meaning, by saying it is that which requires a subject; that it is an Vitium o­riginis est i­psarum parti­um hominis inquinatio & confusio (ib. p. 49.) acce­dunt motus— qui sunt res positiv [...], etsi sunt motus er­rantes, & quae­dam ordinis Confusio &c. p. 50. Inquination and con­fusion of the man; which confusion he explains by wandring Vitium o­riginis est i­psarum parti­um hominis inquinatio & confusio (ib. p. 49.) acce­dunt motus— qui sunt res positiv [...], etsi sunt motus er­rantes, & quae­dam ordinis Confusio &c. p. 50. motions, which he also saith are things positive. And he illustrates it farther by a ship that is tossed with winde and tempest, as well as desti [...]ute of sails and oars. By the former confusion he means original; and actual sin by the latter: giving his instance in Nero's 53. He also saith (in collat. Wormat.) Peccatum vel est defectus, vel inclinatio, vel actio pugnans cum lege Dei. lusts, which he denyeth to have been by the will of God, they having been sins, though positive entities. By which Mr. H. may understand his misapprehensions of Melanchthon p. 68. besides his forgetfulness of the proper task he hath set himself, which is not to prove that some sins are privative, but that no sin is more then a meer privation.

Defens. sent. Rem▪ circa 1. de praed. art. p. 250.The REMONSTRANTS call it a blasphemy, to say that no creature can either do more good, or f [...]wer evil acts, then now he doth. And yet that this is the sequel of Ma­ster Hickmans Doctrine, the Apologist for Tilenus hath well evinced.

M. BAXTER of Iudgement. p. 151, 152.Mr. BAXTER himself (it just now comes into my memory) doth frequently ascribe a self-determining power to the Free will of man, however Byassed by habits. And though himself hath printed as blasphemously as the most, in charging God with the causing of evil, (which, two lines after, he calls a truth,) yet he trounceth some of his brethren, for holding God the determiner of the will in eve­ry sin, as the first efficient immediate physicall cause. And also saith of Freewill, that 'tis a high self-determining prin­ciple, the great spring of our actions. (of Iudgement. pag. 152.) But Mr. B. (as many others) is produced by me in no f [...] place; I not observing any order either of dignity or [Page 101] of time, but giving to every one a place, as he meets my memory, or my eye.

The words of GROTIUS deserve great heed,GROT. de ver. Chr. Rel. p. 27, 28. whilst he saith that the liberty of a man's will is not vitious, but able by its own force to produce a thing that is vitious; that is an action; meaning that a vitious action (as the action of hating God) is meerly from the sinner (man or Divel) and not without impiety to be ascribed unto God, either as a mediate, or immediate cause. And though I cited some part of his words before, yet (not to fail of his inten [...]) I shall intreat my Reader to weigh the whole. Neque ab eo, quod diximus, dimovere nos debet, quod mala multa evenire cernimus, quorum videtur origo Deo adscribi non posse, ut qui perfectissimè, sicut ante dictum est, bonus sit. Nam cum diximus, Deum omnium esse Causam, ad­didimus, eorum quae verè subsistunt. Nihil enim prohi­bet, quominus ipsa, quae subsistunt, deinde causae sint Acci­dentium quorundam, quales sunt actiones. Deus hominem & mentes sublimiores homine, creavit cum agendi liber­tate, quae agendi libertas vitiosa non est, sed potest suâ vi­aliquid vitiosum producere. Et hujus quidem generis ma­lis, quae moraliter mala dicuntur, omnino Deum adscribe­re auctorem nefas est. p. 27, 28.

LYCERUS vindicating God from the very same calum­nie, POLYCAR. LYCERVS in Harm. E­vang c. 103. p. 1460. with which Mr. Hickman hath not feared to [...]sperse him, saith that the Divel did pecc [...]re ex semetipso, (accor­ding to our Saviour Ioh. 8.44.) that he alone is pater & fons malorum, [...], the first inventor of evil things: to which he accommodates that of Austin, Quomodo Deus pater genuit filium veritatem, sic Diabolus lapsus genuit quasi filium mendacium.

God is said to be omnipotent, not because he can do all things (saith LOMBARD out of Augustin) but because he can do whatsoever he will;PET. LOM­BARDVS l. 1. dist. 42. p. 248▪ D. E. F. Omnipotens est, [...]o [...] quod possit omnia facere, sed q [...]ia potest efficere quicquid vult. &c. vide August. Enc [...]i [...] ▪ cap. 96. in fine tom. 3. who cannot will to do any thing, but what is good. But there are some things (saith [Page 102] he) which God cannot do, v. Ar [...]ic. con­dem. & ex­comm. à Stephan [...] Pa­ris. Epis [...]. & per Magistros Parisienses. ad calcem Lomb. p. 953, 967, 969. to wit, those things wich are un­just, sunt alia quaedam quae Deus nullatenus facere potest, ut p [...]ccata. (p. 247.) Non potest Deus facere injusta p. 248. These following Doctrines, [quod voluntas hominis ex ne­cessitate vult & eligit, & quod liberum Arbitrium est po­tentia passiva — & quod necessitate movetur ab Appeti­bili, — item quod dignitas esset in causis superioribus posse facere peccata, Item quod al [...]quis faciat aliquid omni­no, ut Deus vult ipsum facere volu [...]tate Beneplaciti quod talis peccet, &c.] were condemned with an Anathema, by the Bp. of Paris and all the Professors of Divinity in that university A. D. 1270. & 1341. together with the Blasphemies of Ioannes de Mercurio of the Cistercian order, that God is in some sort the cause of the sinful act;ibid. p. 971. col. 1, & 2. And that whatever is caused by the will of the Creature, is so caused by vertue of the first cause. And that God is the cause of every mode of the act, and of every Circumstance that is produced. All which are the Blasphemies asserted as Neces­sary truths by Mr. p. 79, 95.96. &c. Hickman, & accordingly do call for a condemnation.

Bp. BRAMHALL shewes it to be his judgement, whilst he censures Mr. Hobbs for saying,Bp. BRAM­HAL in a re­ply to T. H. Animadv. p. 94.95 that God wills and effects, by the second causes, all their actions, good and bad; and saith it implyes a contradiction, that God should willingly do what he professeth he doth suffer. Act. 13.18. & Act. 14.16. Then he thus states the matter. God causeth all good, id. ib. p. 97. permitteth all evil, disposeth all things both good and evil. — The general power to act is from God, (in him we live move and have our being,) this is Good. But the specification and Determination of this ge­neral power to the doing of any evil, is from our selves, and proceeds from the free will of man — it is a good con­sequence; ib. p. 101. This thing is unrighteous, therefore it cannot pro­ceed from God.

Diotallevius in Opusc. Theol p. 103. p. 2. q. 80 [...] ▪ 1. ad 3.Thus Aquinas and others are also expounded by Diotalle­vius, not to mean that God is any cause of the evil act, but that he doth not withdraw his necessary support from the [Page 103] will, which abuseth its liberty in determining it self to the evil act, and so that God is only the condition without which we cannot do evil, not the cause by which we do it. And so saith Greg in 2. d. 34. & 37. q. 1 art. 3. ad 8. & 12. C [...]preol▪ ib. q. 1. art. 3. Scotus in 2. d 37. q. 2 Suarez in o­pusc. l 2. de con­cursu Del ad actus malos. c. 3. Aquinas, Licet Deus sit universale principium omnis intentionis motus humani quod tamen determinetur voluntas humana ad malum consilium, hoc non esse à Deo, sed ab ipsâ, again he saith, non à motione divinâ sed à disp [...] ­sitione humanae voluntatis oriri, ut malae potius action [...]s quàm bo [...]ae sequantur. He also Greg in 2. d. 34. & 37. q. 1 art. 3. ad 8. & 12. C [...]preol▪ ib. q. 1. art. 3. Scotus in 2. d 37. q. 2 Suarez in o­pusc. l 2. de con­cursu Del ad actus malos. c. 3. cites for his opinion what I have cast into the Margin; and of which the result is this, D [...] ­termi [...]ation [...]m ad produc [...]ndam hu [...]s actus en [...]itatem esse à voluntate humanâ, non autem à Deo, & Deum ita nolle an­teceden [...]er, ut haec entitas sit; ut eam e [...]iam esse patiatur, suum concursum non subtrahendo: si conditio id exigat ex Creaturae libertate opposita. p. 92.93.94. mark how it is expressed by Dr. GO AD.

God made Adam able to be willing to sin, but he made him not to will sin, — that he chose death,Dr. GO AD at the end of his Dispt. Ms. it was by the strength of his will given him by God, but God did not binde him to chose death, for that were (a contradiction) a necessitated choice — if the Nature of a voluntary Agent be well observed, this point will be most evident.] And now the judicious Dr. Hammond will be the fittest to shut up all.

‘He that first gives the Law, and then pre [...]etermines the Act of transgressing (the disobedience, Dr. HAM­MOND of Fundamen­tals ch. 16. p. 183, 184. the doing con­trary to) that law, that first forbids eating of the tree of knowledge, and then predetermines Adams will to choose and eat what was forbidden, is by his decree guilty of the Commission of the act, and by his Law the cause of its being an obliquity: And indeed if the obliquity, which renders the act a sinfull act, be it self any thing, it must necessarily follow, that either God doth not predetermine all things, or that he predetermines the obliquity; and Regularity bearing the same p [...]oportion of Relation to any act of Duty, as obliquity doth to sin, it cannot be imagined that the Author of the sinful Act, [Page 104] should not be the Author of the obliquity, as well as the Author of the pious Act is by the disputers acknow­ledged to be the Author of the regularity of it.’

To conclude this Chapter in the words of Dr Reynolds, Dr. ED. REYNOLDS of the sinful­nesse of sin. p. 212. in 4to. Let not any man resolve sins into any other original, then his own Lusts.

CHA P. VI.

An account of those things which Mr. H. calls his Artificiall Arguments.§. 1. HAving bestowed so much paper on what is thought of most moment, I shall need spend but little in the dispatching of those flyes, to which Mr. H. gives the name of Arguments Artificial p. 69. The first he confesseth was Mr. Barlees. [If sin as sin be a positive entity, then it is a thing in it self good. For twas added by Mr. B. but now substracted by Mr. H.) every positive thing is good.

Sect. 2. To this I answered ' [...]. ch. 3. p. 10. [...]o p. 153. many things (of which Mr. H. reply­eth onely to a few,) As 1. That if sin is a thing positive, he seeks to prove (by this Argument) that sin is good. 2. That I had proved sin a thing positive, in my two last sections; which continuing firm and not dispro­ved, evinceth the force of his Argument to serve for nothing, but on­ly to prove that sin is good. 3. That a thing which is privative in one respect, is also positive in another. As that which is privative of life and sight, must needs be positive of Death, and blindnesse. 4. That Mr. B. himself did grant as much, in confessing the efficient cause of sin, and saying, there may be somthing of positive in a privation. 5. That in saying sin is privative, he confesseth it is not a meer privation, because a privation is but the abstract of privative; and what is most positive in one case, may be privative in another. 6. That sin is not conceiva­ble, unlesse as a concrete, (which hath something positive as well as privative) there being no kinde of difference betwixt Davids lying with Bathshebah, and hi [...] Adultery with B [...]thshebah, at the time of her being Vriahs wife. 7. That bonum Metaphysicum hath quite another signifi­cation, then bonum morale, to which alone we oppose sin, or malum mo­rale, [Page 105] 8. That a Libertine, a Ranter or a Carneadist will be glad to intro­duce an opinion that sin is good, by calling it bonum Met [...]physicum, and confounding that with bonum morale. 9. That the subject of Meta­physicks is ens quatenus ens, reale illud, not omnimodo positivum quatenus positivum, and so (in one sens [...]) it comprehendeth Res & aliquid. 10. That bonum metaphysicum doth not signifie good in En­glish, as Canis astronomicus doth not signifie a dog in our english streets and apprehensions. 11. That Dr. Twisse was betrayed into one of his worst errour [...] [that it is better to be tortured to all eternity, then not to have a real being] by not considering this very thing. 12. That a lye is verum, as much as sin is bonum Metaphysicum; because it hath a positive being, which proved the Argument to be impertinent at the best.

§. 3. Now Reader observe, what an incomparable con­futer I have to deal with.Of 12. things answered bu [...] 4. replyed to. There are but four things of twelve, on which his courage would serve him to try his teeth; which finding also to be too hard, he does as lepidly nibble at them, as the tame creature did at the Thistles, which made Philemon so full of laughter. For to the first he thus replyes. The designe of the argument is to fright Mr. P. out of his sad opinion concerning the positivity of sin, by bringing him to the grand Absurdity, of saying sinne is good p. 70.

But I rejoyn. 1.A rejoynde [...] to the first. That my answer was designed to fright Mr. Hick. from his opinion concerning Gods being the Au­thor of all things positive, nay of all things See his pag▪ 95, lin. ult, real too, (nei­ther Blasphemy, nor Buggery, nor hating God, being ex­cepted,) by bringing him to the grand Absurdities, of say­ing God is the Author of the greatest wickednesse in the world, and withal of saying, the greatest wickednesse is good, 2. He cannot bring me to saying that sin is good, but onely he can say he designed to bring me; which shews the folly of his designe too. For. (3.) as I said that Bonum a­mongst the Heathen Metaphysicians, did not signify good in our English acception of the word, any more then ma­lum which is latine for an apple, can signifie evil in a Translation, (though malum is latine for evil too,) so I shall make it undeniable by appealing even to them who are partial to him; whether we can properly say in English, That it is good to hate God, or good for Mr. Hickman to [Page 106] lie with a beast, ☞ because they are actions which have po­sitive entities, and therefore are Bona Metaphysica in Mr. Hickmans Dialect. Nay in very broad English Mr. H. will tell us that they are Good, and from God, if he dares say twice, what he hath said too often, by saying, once (to wit, in his pages 95, 96▪) 4. I told him Aristotl [...]'s phrase [of every entity being good] should rather have been rejected as unsound and unsafe, (and so returned to that Heathen from whence it came) then have been used by a Christian to prove it good to hate God. And accordingly Dr. Stearn doth somewhere deny that metaphysical Axiom to be of uni­versal truth; for when it was urged that the Act of hat­ing God must be good, because ens & bonum convertun­tur, he called it the begging of the question, as well he might. 5. Mr. H. saith theMaxime is, ens & bonum convertuntur, (not quatenus positivum) and so ascribes an equal goodnesse to the formal obliquity, (which is ens) as to the Act it self to which the obliquity it annexed. 6. Twere easy to prove to Mr. H. that the greatest Lye is as true, as the truth it self because it is Aristotle's Maxime, and as generally received as that he urged, ens and verum convertuntur. 7. I had told him whilest it was time, that if by good, he means bonum morale, (as to be pertinent he must) he must also prove parricide, incest, witchcraft, or Rebellion, (a thing neither better nor worse then witchcraft,) either meer pri­vations of being, or moral good things. For according to his dreaming, they must be nothing, or 2. no sins, or 3. moral vertues, or 4. sins and moral vertues too.

To the 2 [...].§. 4. He replyes to the third, by a full Concession p. 70.71. But conceiving it a disgrace to stick at nothing, he who­ly passeth by my answer, and onely quarrells my Illustrati­on, which yet in one sense he doth approve too. That sense was mine; and as pertinent it was, as whatsoever similitude he hath stoln from Mr. Morice, what I said of darknesse, he confesseth to be a truth, and with a [But it is very vulgar.] p. 71. As if the Sun were the worse, for being an every day spectacle. He thought his axiom the [Page 107] better, for being vulgar; and gave it this commendation, that it is commonly received, p. 70. when he impertinently saith that darkness cannot be felt (p. 72.) he should have ex­cepted the Aegyptian, and that of his own apprehension, which is now so palpable to every Reader. 2. I gave an in­stance in the transgression of the Law, which I said was sin, and yet a thing positive, as well as privative, to wit, priva­tive of virtue, and positive of vice. To this Mr. H. was deeply silent; and so hath yielded my answer, without the offer of a reply, that what is privative in one case, is also positive in another.

§. 5. He replyes to the 8t. Mr. P. hath deserved his humble thanks who bestows a positive entity on sin. p. 72.To the 3 d.] For this crude speech, I first referr him to the third and fourth part of my Rejoynder to the first part of his Reply, §. 3. I onely add for his Instruction (of which he proves his present want) that Carneades spake in a morall sense, when he took away the difference 'twixt right and wrong. And Mr. Hickman hath done the same. For if God is the Author of that positive act, [the Divel's hating God] as Mr. Hickman affirmeth him to be, (p. 96.) then the Divel doth nothing but what is right, as all must be which God himself is the Author of.

§. 6. His Reply to the ninth, hath been already spoken to, in the third and fourth part of §. 1. of this Chapter.To the 4th. I onely add, that if the positive action of hating God is so intrinsecally, essentially, and wholly evil, as he hath liberally confessed (p. 94.) It will be hard for him to shew, where lyes its goodness in any sense; much less in theirs, who when they describe metaphysicall goodness, per ordinem ad appetitum, understand it primarily with relation to the Divine will; yet so they do saith Mr. Hickman p. 74. Could the man have contrived a greater unhappiness to himself? He confesseth a little after, that a thing is not good, be­cause desired; therefore sin may be desired, and yet not good: when he add's, it is desired, because it is good, he should have said, because it seems so. And yet the Divel [Page 108] desireth evil, because it is evil. Or if it seemeth good to him, it doth but s [...]em so; odisse Deum est fugibile secundum se totum; and Mr. Hickm [...]n must say, how it bonificates a subject in which it is, who affirms it to be good and the work of God; not I, who confute him for so affirming.

Sect. 7. His second Argument (he tells us) was in his Letter to Mr. Barlee to this effe [...]t. His second Ar­gument artifi­cial. If sin be a positive enti­ty, then it is either God, or from God. p. 75.] mark, Reader; he doth not say, it was in these words, (he is it seems a­sham'd of them) But to this effect onely. Whereas in Mr. Barlee the account is thus given See the place cited in my [...]. c. 3. p. 154. & examin'd till as far as P▪ 1 [...]6▪, [If sin is a positive en­tity, it is God. For (as a learned friend of mine wrote to me not long since) what ever positive thing is not from God, is God.] But how does [he mean, it is from God? He tells us plainly (p. 79.) It is from God, as his creature; for so he explains what he meant by that other passage, There is no medium betwixt Deus and creatura.; whereby he is so far from understanding, That the action of hating God is the creature of the sinful depraved creature, (man, or Di­vel) that he often scoffs at it, as a ridiculous conceit. And expresly saith of all such actions, as have a positive being, (though never so intrinsecally and essentially evil, as that of lying with a beast, of hating, blaspheming, and cursing God.) That they are FROM GOD, as well as the CREA­TVRE. p. 82.] speaking of the creature, by whom such villanies are committed.

§. 8. To shew him the state of his affairs by this so▪ desperate adventure,How largely answered. I spent no less than twelve pa­ges. And first I objected the Divels pride, or proud de­sire to be equal with God, (which Mr. Hickman supposeth to have been the first sin, p 103.) which will be granted by all the world, (Mr. Hickman not excepted) to have a po­sitive being. And yet it being the very fil [...]hiness of the fil [...]hiest spirit, All the world will also grant, that it was none of God's creatures. And if not so, then Mr. Hick­man will have it God; which is as horrible a blasphemy, as the wit of Hell could have invented. It would be tedi­ous [Page 109] to the Reader, should I here Epitomize what I op­posed to this Argument. And therefore I must referr him unto the place before cited.

§. 9. How now doth Mr. Hickman defend himself?His remarka­ble Tergiversa­tion, without the shadow of a reply. Doth he deny the Divels pride to have a positive being? no such matter. Doth he deny it to be God, by calling it one of Gods creatures? no, not a syllable comes from him touching the one or the other. Doth he take the third course, and deny it to be his creature, by asserting it to be Him? no, that is too intolerable, to be expected from the evil one. What then doth he resolve on, to help him­self at this pinch? Doth he confess he was hasty, and inconsiderate, and so crave pardon from God, and men? No, it seems he is too stomachfull, and too rigid a Presbyteri­an. But what at last doth he say then, if he doth neither accuse, nor excuse himself? Truly he saith never a word, but sleeps-over the Business, hoping that few or no Rea­ders would see that part of my [...], or ex­amine what answer he might attempt to make to it. For the better amusing of his Readers, he begins with a fault which he finds in Ca [...]etan, (though he doth not say where,) then he steals a witty passage (word for word) from Mr. Goodwin, as far from the purpose as it was possi­ble, (and though the passage is not, yet the impertinence is his own;) Next he skips to the Trichot [...]mie, which I had told him he was to know, for the distinguishing of God, and God's works, from the works of the Divel, 1 Ioh. 3.8. To which his Reply is briefly this, [If I must, there is no remedy, (p. 76.) And yet, against this, he will give me his Reasons, and saith he will do it without fear; whether not without wit too, it now comes to be examin'd.

§ 10. His first Reason is,His offers of Reason, why all things positive are either from God, or God himself, and primarily none from men or divels. Because he finds that those who had to do with the Manichees and heathen Philosophers, building their Argument upon this Basis, Omne ens est vel primum, vel à primo; and that malum is therefore not cau­sed by God, because it is not ens, but non ens, as they com­monly call that which is but a privation▪ p. 76.] to which he adds five passages for example, p. 77, 78.

[Page 110] The infirmities of the first▪First for his Ignorance of the Fathers, and his gross mistake of their meaning, and what Absurdities he incurrs by such mistaking, I have abundantly shew'd in the former Chapter; where I was willing to consider it once for all, that I might not repeat one thing too often, whereby to delay, and distract the Reader. I shall onely here add, 1 that 'tis apparent by the confession of Mr. Hickman that if his Testimonies are valid, as to their literal importance, they serve to prove the Non-entity (that is, the nullity) of sin; which Mr. Hickman (with [...] bare forehead) hath not hitherto asserted, whatever he hath done by way of equi­valence and consecution. And if they are figuratively spo­ken, when they say that sin is nothing (which is but non­ens in English) why not figuratively spoken, when they say, that sin is a privation? especially when there are te­stimonies out of the very same Writers, not onely for the reality, but positivity also of sin? 2. The little Greek he produceth, hath so very many faults in so very few lines, (not observed in his Errata) that I conceive he did he knew not what, with an implicit Faith in the skill of others, from whom he borrow'd at second hand; which I believe so much the rather, because I find his own Authorities do overthrow the very errour for which he b [...]ings them. Wit­ness the [...]. Athan. contra Gentes. mihi p. 6. c. words of A [...]hanasius, which prove that sin hath no substance, in opposition to those Greeks, who con­tended that sin had a subsistence of it self; whereas to the having a positivity, there is nothing more required then that it be some kind of Accident. Witness also those o­ther words, affirming no evil thing (positive or privative) to proceed from God, who being the [...], gives occasion to the expression of [...]; which evil things may be called, as not derived from him, who is [...], & [...]. So when it is said by St. Austin, ex uno Deo esse omnia quae sunt, he explains his meaning to be of all good things, and of none besides, because he presently adds, & tamen non esse peccatorum auctorem Deum. And if, when Austin doth elsewhere say, Peccatum nihil est, [Page 111] he means according to the letter, that sin is nothing in very deed, first 'tis a gross contradiction to what he saith in o­ther places: and secondly, 'tis the worst of his many Er­rours. 3. The meaning of Aquinas I have Look b [...]ck on ch. 5. [...]. 5. num. 7. elsewhere shewed. And yet if I say (with Dr. Iackson) that Aqui­nas and his followers have sometim [...]s spoken u [...]excusably concerning God, I shall but speak to the dishonour of Popish Writers, by whom the rigid Presbyterians have been unhappily corrupted in these affairs. Lastly where­as he saith, that hea [...]h [...]n Philosophers did see this, (giving an instance in Salustius, and no one else,) a man that shall affirm the eternity of the world, may urge Aristotle for it, and say the Heathens themselves discernd this truth. Thus I say a man may argue, who can find in his heart to ar­gue no better then Mr. Hickman. But be it that a heathen is of the Presbyterian judgement, the Christian Fathers and Schoolmen are still of mine, unless when they speak in such a manner against me, as to speak as much against them­selves too.

§. 11. His second Reason is, because he knows no other way of defining what ens primum is, but this, Of the second. that it is such a Being, which is not from any other being, and which is the cause of all the Beings that are p. 78.

First I observe from these words, that the Libertine ad­vanceth more and more to a clear discovery of it self. By which he is proved (out of his mouth) to be the worst of Blasphemers. For if he thinks that any sin (as hating, cursing, blaspheming God) hath any being in the world, he professeth to believe that God himself is the cause of it. And the cause is the Author of any being. And so he is caught in the act of that very crime, which himself had confessed to be the worst of all blasphemies, and which is the Quintessence of all blasphemy, saith Theophilus p. 171. Churchman, which is thought to signifie three men, of which number Master Hickman himself is one, in the rationall conjectures of all I meet with. If he thinks that sin hath no being, and by consequence that it is nothing, then his words are most im­pertinent, and prove him besides a meer Carneadist. Se­condly, [Page 112] In saying God is the cause of all beings, meerly because he is the first, he seems to think there is but one way of priority, whereas a Freshman in Logick could have told him there are five. Is it not enough that God is the first of all Beings, and was from eternity without begin­ning, whereas all things else began to be, and so was before the being of sin (and of all things else) in four respects, but he must also be before it as the [...]ause of its being? Thirdly, It may suffice to the defining of ens primum, to say it is that, which alone did neve [...] begin to be, or that, than which there is nihil prius, and which praecedeth all others, as much as eternity praecedeth time. Or if the word cause must needs be added, let it be said he is the cause of all good things that have a being, whether naturally and neces­sarily, or voluntarily acting. But not the cause of those acts or actions, which cannot but argue in the causer either wickedness and guilt, or imperfection.

Of the third. Wherein he makes God the Fountain of the Essence of sin,§. 12. His third Reason in effect is but the same with the second, as the second is the same with what he call'd his second Argument p. 77. And so I referr it for its answer both to the Section before going, and to what I have said in my whole fifth Chapter, especially to §. 5 an [...] 6. Onely I add my observation, that whilst God is by him affirmed to be the fountain of all essences, (p 79.) who yet ascribeth one essence unto sin, whilst he saith▪ the acti­on of hating God is essentially evil (p. 94.) he affirms God to be the fountain of all the sins in the world, and that not only of the act, but of the very essence of sin it self. And because he seems to stumble most at the common axiom in Philosophy,Mr. Barlow in his exercit. 2. de naturâ m [...]li, p. 45.72 which is found urged by Mr. Barlow, seve­rall times upon one account, [to wit, that the cause of the cause, is the cause of the effect] I will first send him back to what I have said in Answer to it, chap. 5. §. 5. num. 2. Next I will set him down (at large) Aquinas his Answer unto the same. Aquinas 1.2. q. 79. Art. 1. ad 3. [‘effectus causae secundae procedens ab eâ, secundum quod subditur causae primae, reducitur etiam in causam primam. Sed si procedat à causâ media, se­cundum [Page 113] quod exit ordinem causae primae, non reducitur in causam primam. Sicut si minister faciat aliquid con­tra mandatum Domini, hoc non reducitur in dominum, sicut in causam. Et similiter peccatum quod liberum ar­bitrium committit contra praeceptum Dei, non reducitur in Deum, sicut in causam.’

§. 12. His fourth pretended reason is most ridiculously pretended; He believes no medium, because (forsooth!Of the fourth▪ Wherein he a­scribeth unto God, what God ascribeth unto the Divel. 1 Ioh. 3.8▪) Mr. P. hath not been able to find any; for whereas I told him the works of the Divel are a medium, (he saith) I could not sure but think he would distinguish in blasphemy, lying, &c, betwixt the vital act and its deficiency &c. p. 79.] The folly of this being discovered throughout my whole fourth chapter, and in the beginning of this sixth, (and I may say throughout my fifth too) but most expresly in my third chapter §. 6. (which is too long to be here re­peated) I shall onely here observe two things. 1, His affirming the act of Blasphemy to be from God, (as he doth expresly lin. 13, 14.) Next, his denying those things to be the works of the Divel, to which the Scripture hath given that Name. He denyes it here partly, and partly pag. 96. what yet the Scripture asserteth plainly 1 Ioh. 3.8. But more of this Reason in the following Section▪ For

§ 13. After five pages of impertinence,His third Ar­gument artifi­cial▪ he argues thus. If a thing be therefore sinful because it wants some perfection that it ought to have, and cease to be sinful when it hath all the perfection which it ought to have, then is sin a privation; but a thing is therefore sinfull, &c. Ergo, pag. 84.]

As this is also taken from Mr. Barlow (but no more acknowledged by the Taker, then all the rest,Look back on c. 3. S. 2. [...] 3, 4, 5, & 7▪) so an An­swer to it is given in my Reply to Mr. Barlow, in vindica­tion of Dr. Field: who having proved that there are acts, to which no rectitude can be due to make them perfect, (as the act of hating God) had such an answer from Master Barlow, as I shew'd to be invalid in five respects. And in each of them Mr. Hickman is equally concern'd. But yet [Page 114] I add, 1. that this makes against those sins onely, which are onely sins because forbidden, not at all against those, which are onely forbidden for being sins. (of which I have spoken ch. 3. §. 6.) That something may be evil [...], is affirmed by Saint Basil, as he confesseth. And that the action of hating God is intrinsecally evil, we have his word, p. 94. But 2. This onely proves that some sins are privative, not that sin is a [...] privation. And what is privative of one thing, is also positive of another; (as hath been shewed §. 1. and 4.) 3. Doctor Field and o­thers have often told him, of a positive repugnance to the Law of God. And when it was said by himself (pag. 79.) he could derive the irregularity from corruption, and the Di­vels Temptation, he did not say, it was not positive, unless nothing can be so, that is f [...]om corrup [...]ion and the Divel. A man may thus make him confute himself, of the vitall acts, speaking, and Blasphemy, or lying, he saith the for­mer is from God, the latter from the Divel; and yet the Blasphemy is as positive as speaking can be, because it is speaking to Gods dishonour: and so at once in opposition, and yet according to Mr. Hickman (who is often Antipus to himself) there are some things positive ▪ which are nei­ther God, nor from God, but from corruption and the Divels temptation,

§. 14. What he is wi [...]ling to inferr from the word [...], (p. 85.) which he saw urged by Mr. Barlow in no less then The positive importance of [...], not considered by Master Bar­low, Ex [...]r. 2. pag. 39▪ 51.65. three places, I shall shew to be faulty in six respects. 1. He seems not to have known (what Mr. Bar­low well knew, but considered not) that [ [...]] in composi­tion hath a threefold importance, and thence is called by three names, [...], And that the Law is transgressed, by him who adds to it, or goes be­yond it. Qui [...] ☞ [...] dicit, qui scortatio­nem, qui fur [...]tum dicit, duo semper dicit, materiale & formale. Alsted. Lex. Theol▪ c. 8. p. 233. 2. By this way of arguing, he might endeavour to prove God to be meerly privative, because he is said to be [...], Infinite; that is, without any bounds, or [Page 115] terms of being. [...] di­cta ex [...], & [...], ut observat. Alst ex Fran. Iu­ [...]io. And Dionysius the Areopagite delights to tell us what he is, by telling us what he is not. (as hath been shewd chap. 5.) 3. What St. Iohn hath expressed by [...], others commonly do express by [...], and [...], and [...], each of which I now see in the same page of Athanasius, who also puts [...] as an instance of [...]. (contra Gentes pag. 4.) 4. There is nothing commoner in the N. T. then for words compoun­ded with [α] to have a positive signification in one respect, as well as a privative in another. As Rom. 1.30.31▪ we find [...] to import Rebellious; [...], covenant-breakers; [...], implacable; [...], cruel; [...] is foolish; but so as foolish signifies unreasonable acti­ons; as [...] doth malice and mischief against Christ, Luk. 6.11. and [...], those that were guilty of brutish pra­ctises. Tit. 3.3. (v. D. H. in locum.) so [...] in Da­mascene is positively liberal, and used as an Epithet of God. [...], positively confident; [...], a positive sor­row. The word [...] Rom. 1.28. does not onely de­note a man, who goes without a reward, but that is posi­tively opposite to every thing that is good, as Doctor Ham. observes upon the place (Noteh.) 5. [...] in aequiva­lence is the same with [...],Vocabulum [...] quo hic utitur Jo­hannes signi­ficat quicquid fit contra le­gem. Hemm. de viâ vitae. p. 554. which with the learnedest Remonstrants is actus hominis: (as hath been shew'd ch. 3. §. 25.) And so it is with Hemmingius, who saith the word [ [...], unrighteousness,] which is used by Saint Iohn, doth signifie (in concreto) whatsoever thing is done in a contrariety to the Law. And accordingly I observe in the most Judicious Doctor Hammond, that he takes the D. H. Ham. in Fundamen. c. 16. p. 183. Transgressing of the Rule to be a positive thing, a doing contrary to Gods commandment, from whence ariseth the obliquity of any act. 6. Nay Mr. Hick. implies as much, in the simplicity at least of his understanding, (which one Mr. Bagsh [...]w was so ignorant, [...]s to believe he had expres­sed by a simplicity of heart) whilst he confesseth that pravi­tas, malitia, [...],See the po­sitive instan­ces of [...] Rom. 1.29.30▪ 31. [...] [...], import the same with pec­catum. p. 54.

[Page 116] The like Im­portance of peccatum, pro­ved by reason and experi­ence.§. 15. And that peccatum doth import (concretively) both a positive Act, and an obliquity (or inordination) may be made undeniable from the origin of the word, as well as from the Authors by whom it is used, 1. Pecco is a verb active, peccare, an action, (just as much as malefacere.) Pec­catum clearly comes from the passive voice of that verb; even as much as benefactum from the passive voice of bene­facio; Peccare signi­ficat Actio­nem tantùm non etiam o­missionem. Alsted ubi Su­pra. multa peccantur, legitur apud Cic. 1. Off. And peccare is a Transi [...]ive, Plant. Bacch'd. 8.29. And peccatum is some­times a passive participle, Terent. in prol. Eunuch. 27. And accordingly 'tis said by all kinde of writers, (as well by our Enemies, as our Friends,) that sin connoteth two things, whereof the one is materia [...], the other formal. Not Aqui­nas onely, and all his followers, but Dr. Twisse, and all his; do affirm Omne. pec­catum DUO connotat. Dr. Twisse. Vin. Gra. l. 2. par [...]. 1. p. 155. Matthaeus ve­ro & Marcus monstrant, quod materia Peccati in Sp. Sanctum sit contemp­tus Christi & Evangelii Hemming. ubi supra. p. 554▪ all sin to import 2 things, sins of Om [...]ssion not excepted. And Hemmingius saith that the matter of the sin against the holy Ghost, is a contempt of Christ and h [...]s Gospel; which he also saith is demonstrated both by St. Matthew and St. Mark I hope Mr. H, will not say, that the contempt of the Gospel being positive, is very good and from God; which yet he must, or he must sing his Recan­tation. In a word, It can no more be proved that sin▪ is a privation and nothing else, from the saying of St. Iohn, that sin is [...], or the Transgression of the Law (1 Iohn 3.4.) then that Christ himself is not positive, from the tropical saying of St. Paul, that Christ was made sin (2. Cor. 5.21.) or that darknesse is as positive as iron, be­cause the Angels were delivered▪ to chaines of darknesse 2 Pet. 2.4. And whether it is not indeed a sin (without any such figure, or catachrestical way of speaking) to ravish Virgins, and lye with beasts, to hate God, and to love the Devil, (which are confessedly as positive, as any actions that can be named) I appeal to the usage of the word Sin, in the common experience of all mankind.

His 4th. or last Argument§. 16. His last argument (as he calls it) is very rare. Original sin is not positive, ergo sin as sin is not positive; p. 8 [...]] First for the manifold Absurdities (as well as guilt into [Page 117] which he falls by his reduplication [sin as sin] I briefly refer to every part of my second chapter, especially §. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12▪ &c. Next for what he saith of Original sin, I refer to all I have produced from the Antient Fathers, and learn­ed modern Divines, (who held it to be a posi [...]ive quality) in the third and fourth Sections of the fifth Chapter of this Book, and also in the 3. Ch §. 23. But (thirdly) as I never yet said, so neither a [...] I concerned to say, that all sins are positive, It is enough that some are, and those the worst to be imagined. Nay Mr. H, must be concluded a strange kinde of Blasphemer, in saying all things positive are ei­ther Gods Creatures, or God himself, although there were but one sin that had a positive being, such as was the An­gels pride, and the Divels hatred of God Almighty or the lusts of the Devil Joh. 8.44. Yet now to speak more of Ori­ginal sin, as that doth signifie the proneness of the will to evil, after the image of Adams will, (from after the time of his Depravation) it must needs be also positive, to wit, a conversion to the creature. And why might not Adam acquire (by his sin) the image of Satan unto himself and offspring too, as well as p. 88. sin-away the Image of God?Bellè dicunt Scholastici in omni Peccato considerari terminum à quo, & [...]d quem. Omne namque pec­catum est de­fectio à Cre­atore ad Cre­aturam. Als [...]ed lex. Theol. c. 8. p. 232. But this is not that, upon which I am obliged to lay a stresse. Nor shall this be the subject of new disputes, whe­ther a man doth beget a man, as much as a Horse begets a Horse. It may be argued for ever on either side; but I believe, with greatest force, for that part of the question to which St. Austin was most inclined, and all that is said by Mr. H. doth but help to disprove Original sin, for which Pelagians and Socinians may chance to thank him. I know St. Paul held that the whole of man doth consist of three things; Body, Soul and Spirit; concerning which Dr. Hammond hath a most profitable Discourse, with a Re­ference to which I will shut up this Section.A short ac­count of those shif [...]s, which pre­tend to be Answers to some few Ar­guments. (see his Anno­tation upon 1 Thess. 5.23.)

§ 17. Having seen his Reasons, let us see what he saith to some few of mine; or rather how guiltily he sneaks from the whole duty of a respondent p. 90. For though he knew what [Page 118] I had said [...]. ch. 3. p. 156. Mic. 6.16. Gal. 5.19. Col. 1.21. Eph. 5 11. Heb 9.14. 1 Iohn 3.8. Rev. 9.20. Of sins being called the works of the Devil. to wit, that Sins in Scripture are called works, (works of Darknesse, works of the flesh, works of mens hands, and works of the Devil,) as it were on purpose to shew that they are positive things; yet he passeth by that, (as if the word works had been of no consideration) and onely nibbles at my saying, That that was positive that Christ came to destroy, concealing also from his Reader, what I had cited from St. Iohn, of Christs being manifested in the flesh, that he might destroy the works of the Devil. 1 Iohn 3.8. nor taking notice of what I said about vacuum vacui implying locatum, as the privation of a privation im­plyeth position by all confessions. I shewed it implyes a contradiction, to say an habit is a privation, because it is called by a Catachresis, the privation of a privation, when af­ter a losse it is recovered; from hence I argued, that if the works of the Devil (which are also called the Lusts of the Devil Joh. 8.44.) had been meere privations, the destru­ction of them could have been none. But Mr. H's very weaknesse doth serve him here instead of strength, for not considering that Death is said to be capable of destruction (1 Cor. 15.16.) by the same catachrestical way of speaking, whereby it is said in other places to have a bo­dy, and a sting, (and so I might prove it, at least to him, to have a positive entity) he urgeth his ignorance for a proof, that of a meer privation there may be properly a pri­vation. How much better might I prove that death it self hath a positivity, from Rev. 21.8. where to be burn­ing in a lake of fire and Brimstone is expressed by the name of the second death. But the work of the Devil is [...] properly so called, and therefore positive. The words of St. Iohn are even litterally true, [...] 1 Joh. 3.4. and lusts are qualities, Iohn 8.44.

His Concessi­ons and con­tradictions about the ha­bit of Drun­kennesse§. 18. To the Argument which I urged from sins habi­tual, or habits of sin, (such as Drunkennesse in a man who is seldom sober,) it seemes he knew so exactly that no good answer was to be given, as to resolve to supply it with meer scurrility, and impertinence p. 91. He is fain to say that I in­tended [Page 119] a Sori [...]es, or rather seemed to intend it, that he might seem to have something at which to nibble. But no such thing as a Sorites was any more in my thoughts, then in my mention. And therefore this is so vile a practice, as may be used by any Atheist, who hath a minde to calumn [...] ­ate any passage of any writer. It i an easy thing to say, that such an Author makes a face as if he intended this, or that, which we have reason to believe he could not possibly intend. But what saith the Rhapsodist to my Ar­gument, Autocatac [...] ▪ ch. [...] p. 161. that vices are habits as well as vertues, and therefore positive Qualities, as well as Vertues? He doth not deny that some sorts of vices indeed are Habits, for he cannot think, that an act of Drunkenn [...]ss is a vice, and that an habit of Drunkennenss is none at all, nor can he think it impossible to be habitu [...]lly drunk,) and that an habit is a thing positive, he is so far from denying, that he affirmes it, he pr [...]fesseth not to doubt of it (p 92.) so that now there is no question, whether Drunkennesse, when an habit, is positive or not. But whether or no it is a sin, or whether it is not from God, in Mr. Hickman's judgement: one of the two (we are assured by hims [...]lf) is his opinion, he having taught expressly, that all things positive are ei­ther from God, or God himself. Nay he plainly enough affirmes the habit of drunkenness; as he professeth not to doubt the positivity of the habit. And he does both within the compasse of 7. or 8. lines.p. 94. But he denyes that this habit is a fit instance of habitus in post praedicamentis, yet that is a Quality, and so is this; as I will make him to confesse by putting the case in another colour▪ for he confesseth it is an action for the Devil to hate God. And that an action implyes a quality, he will be hi [...]s'd by the young­sters, if he denies; (this being one of the 4. things, which are required to every action.) And as the habit of hateing God is as much a sin as the habit of drunkenness can be, so it serves as f [...]ly to evince the thing that I am proving. If he means vice by vitios [...]y, (as sin by sinfulnesse (p. 53.) then he doubts whether that is positive which he saith he doubts not to be an habit; and being an habit, he as lit­tle [Page 120] doubts of its positivity. If he means that vitiosity is the abstract of vice, he contradicts what he had said, p. 53 unlesse he thinks he may distinguish betwixt the vice and the sin of Drunkennesse. If he makes a separation of the habit of drunkennesse (which he will have to be from God, as being positively something) from the obliquity of the habit, which he expresseth by vitiosity, then he incurs the se­veral dangers, which my whole second Chapter doth warn him of. So great and many are the distresses into which this Medler betrayes himself.

§. 19. I had said (in my [...], p. 163.) 1. There must be something positive to make a man positively foul, His Concessi­ons and contra­dictions about the p [...]sitive filth of sin 2. Which foulness suffers a privation, when the man is cleansed of his filth.] The truth of the first Mr. H. confesseth in words at length. p. 93. and the truth of the second he doth not question; for he doth not speak a word to it. What then doth he do for an answer to me? Why, it goes for an an­swer, to call me Rector; and for a jest, to adde Ridiculous. The text which I cited from Rev. 22.11. (let him that will be filthy be filthy still) he found misprinted, Rom. 22.11. on which he fastens, as an occasion to shew his deep know­ledge, that there are not so many Chapters in that Epistle. (Nor did the Printers Apprentice suppose there were.) He saith I did not offer at any other proof, when yet he knows I also added the words of God to the people Israel, I have pur­ged thee, Ezek. 23.13. and thou wast not purged, therefore shalt thou not be purged from thy filthinesse any more. p. 262. from whence I made this observation, that (as the filth of sin is many times so ingrained, that after Gods own cleansings the habi­tual sinner remaines unclean so) the fil [...]h which is positive is mans own Creature, whereas the cleansing which is priva­tive is Gods own work. To this Mr. H. doth not answer one syllable, but falls to his old trade of begging, (what he was sure to be denyed) the thing in Question. And yet he is somewhat more bashful then at his ordinary times. On­ly saying what may be said, not what he dares affirme for truth [we may make the spiritual filth to consist in the want of [Page 121] that Nitor Gratiae, which either was, or should be in the soul. p. 93.] But 1. he contradicts what he had said a little before, unless he will deny that they are positively foul, who are not purged, though God doth purge them, because they are grown so inveterately and habitually foul, that as soon may the Ethiope change his skin, or the Leopard his spots, Ier. 13.23. as they do good, who are accustomed to do evil. 2. He makes God (if not the onely, yet) by far the chiefest cause of the greatest filthiness to be named in men or divels, whilst he makes it to consist in a meer want of grace, which 'tis impossible for us to want, but as God doth withhold or with­draw it from us. 3. He makes not any the least difference, betwixt not-blessing (which is one kind of filthiness) and cursing God (which is another.) betwixt Ammon's not lo­ving, and his ravishing and his hating his sister Tamar. 4. To hate God, is an Action, by his acknowledgement; which however it be attended with, yet it is also somewhat more, then a want of Grace. which although there are men who do wholly want, yet the Divels are more filthy, in whom the hatred of God is more habitual. And even of those very men, in whom is wanting a Nitor gratiae, their filthiness is the greatest, who draw iniquity with Isa. 5.18▪ cords, and sin as with a cartrope. 5. Whilst he speaks [of a want of Grace, which either was, or should have been in the soul,] he implicitly makes God the sole delinquent, in the latter part of his disjunctive; as if he thought there were a case, wherein God did not doe, what he should have done; unless there can be grace, and not of God. But 6. It is not so much the want, or absence, as the re­sisting of grace when it is present, by which the filthiness of a sinner becomes exceedingly more filthy. The Iews were Mat. 11.41. filthier then the Ninevites, not because they more wanted, but more abused the grace of God; because they sinned against greater light, and against more means of grace, to abstain from sinning. The Mat ▪ 25.30▪ unprofitable servant was to be cast into outer darkness, not for having no talent, but for wrapping it in a napkin. All which M. H. is now to take into consideration.

[Page 122]§. 20. To what I argued from actual sins, such as ly­ing, His concession, & tergiversa­tion concerning blasphemy, and Atheism, &c. blaspheming, and positive believing there is no God; &c. he returns just nothing, besides his back. Hostibus hic tergo, non forti pectore notus. And yet as if he were proud of such an unmanlike tergiversation, he steals a passage from M. Morice, that he may glory in his shame with the bet­ter Grace. And though he had found me often urging that divelish sin of hating God, yet he talks of supposing my I [...] ­stance to be made in the very worst, and most intrinsecally evil of all actions, even that of hating God. p. 93. hoping his Readers would believe, he had given my Argument some advantage. But how many Blasphemies, contradicti­ons, and other absurdities of remarque, this piteous cre [...] ­ture hath committed in what he saith of this subject, I have sufficiently discovered in my printed letter to Dr. Heylin, (p. 265▪ 266. to p. 271.) To which I have added diverse things in severall parts of my present enterprise which as I must not repeat, (without a reason to excuse me for so unnecessary a labour,) so it is every whit as needless, as it is easie to add more. I have enough in his concession, that to hate God is an action, and such an action as is essentially and intrinsecally evil, evil ex genere & objecto, and antece­dently to the Law; I say, in this I have enough, wher [...]by to prove him most clearly his own Refuter. And yet I add, that if the undue referring of hatred to God be not posi­tive, but privative, (as he unskilfully saith p. 95.) then hatred, being positive, doth cease to be posi [...]ive by being fastened upon God, (as Mr. Hickman must needs inferr, un­less he denyes the hatred of God to be a sin,) and yet the fastening it on God is as positive, as the fastening it on the Divel.

Hi [...] r [...]marka­ble forgerie of an Argument in his Adver­saries name.§. 21. After this, having itch to steal a discourse from Mr. Barlow, concerning several grounds of Difference be­twixt the sins of omission and commission; And knowing not how to bring it in (either by head or by shoulders) by way of answer to any argument which he had seen in my writings; thought fit to forge such a syllogism, as might be [Page 123] suitable to his purpose, and (setting a bold face upon it) to tell the Reader that it was mine. (pag, 97.) I stood amaz'd, for some time, at his resolution; especially when I saw him making as good as a profession of such impiety. For al­though he had directly laid his child at my doore, and pro­nounced me the father without Reserve, yet few lines after he confesseth in effect that it is his own. For he confesseth he does but suppose, that if my words were reduced to mood and figure, they would appear in such a Form as he hath now represented, (p. 97.) But least his Readers should see my words concerning sins of omission and commission, by being directed to the page where I had spoken of that subject, he straight creates an ignis fatuus, whereby to lead them out of their way. For he saith my words are p. 167. wher [...]as in all that page there are not onely no such words, but no occasion or hint for so leud a Fiction. The onely place (for ought I know) wherein I used any such terms, as sins of omission and commis [...]ion, (but without any likeness to what he forgeth) was pag. 146▪ And there my words were precisely these. If sins of omission (as not praying and not giving alms, &c.) had but a deficient cause, yet sins of com­mission (as cursing and Sacriledge, &c.) have a cause effici­ent with a witness. Its true I said in another place, (p. 162.) that whilst M. Hickman denyes sin to be something positive, he seems to make no difference betwixt a simple ne­gative, and a privative properly so called. And again, con­founds a privation properly so call'd, with a thing call'd pri­vative secundum quid. He makes no difference betwixt not blessing, and cursing God. &c, where first I say not, he makes no difference, but that he seems to make none; meaning none, as to the point of its positivity. And as to the force of my Accusation, he hath not uttered one word in his own defence. Nay he hath proved his gross mistake of a simple negative, for a privative properly so called. And so he proves I had used him with two much candor.

§. 22. Of all the Texts which I had brought,His stupendi­ous impertinence, and supposal of Grace in Hell; or some privation besides All. for the [Page 124] proving of sins being something positive, ( [...], p. 163.) He wilfully passeth by the rest, and shews his im­pertinence upon one, in which the force of my Argument did least consist, unless as it relates to the next text after, of which M. Hickman would take no notice. My A [...] ­gument was, that as we reade of great and litle sins in com­parison, so we reade (in proportion) of greater and l [...]ss [...]r damnation. Mat. 23.14. Luk. 12.48. Now 'tis so evi­dent in it self, and so acknowledged a thing amongst the men of all parties, that all the Damned souls in hell are wholly destitute of Grace, and that of those who have a totall privation of it, some shall have few [...]r, and s [...]me more stripes, some a lesser, and some a greater damnation; that I thought Mr. Hickman could not choose but under­stand me; but being convinced of the truth, which yet he resolved to abjure, sought to hide his conviction by this in­comparable Impertinence; [That he would answer if he could guess where the vein of proof did lye; and if he may guess, it lyes in this, that there can be no degrees in a privati­on. p. 99.] In which words, ' [...]is hard to say, how many wayes he is unhappy. 1. He cannot guess wherein the force of the proof doth lye, and yet he will answer for all his ignorance. But 2. he will not answer neither, unless he may have leave to forge the thing, to which he conceives he can give an answer; if he may make a man of clo [...]ts, he will adventure (on that condition) to strike at it; when he hath done. 3. He either thinks there are degrees even of total privations, of which some are privations of no more then all grace, but others of all and some too; or else 4. of those that are damned in hell, he thinks that some have more grace, some less, or some none at all, some less then none at all. Because some have a greater, some a lesser dam­nation. For my Inference is this; That of those that are wholly deprived of grace, some are greater sinners then o­thers, and more tormented. Whose sin by consequence must be something, besides a whole privation of grace. It was indeed for want of Grace, or by resisting Grace gi­ven, [Page 125] that Ammon lusted after fi [...]st,2 Sam. 13, 14. and secondly loathed his sister Tamar; But besides that want or privation of Grace, there were some positive effects which were damning sins. 1. He lusted after, 2. He dissembled with, 3. He violently defiled, 4. He hated his injured sister. It is not through a want of Grace, but abundance of wilfulnesse, that some do Act. 7.51. resist the holy Ghost, and depart from grace given. And sure besides the privation of Grace, there is that in some sin­ners by which they are [...],Rom. 1.30. Matth. 10.15. Luk. 10.14, & 24. inventors of evil things. In a word, there is some thing p [...]sitiv [...] (above the total privation of Grace) by which it shall be more tolerable in the day of judgement for one reprobate, then another. So Mr. H. aymes purposely beside the mark, unlesse he thinks there is Grace in hell.

Sect. 23. I having argued that sin is s [...]id to work in the Sinner all manner of concupiscence, Of sins work­ing Concu­piscence. Mr. Hickmans Answer ab­surd in 8. re­spects. (Rom. 7.8.) & per­fectius est agere, quàm esse; Mr. H. saith, that in such spee­ches sin signifies not abstractly and formally, but it signifies our nature and its faculties, as under corruption, &c. p. 100] Here is work for a volume, if I could think it not below me to pursue Mr. H. in all his follies. First I note his Confession, that sin doth signifie something positive, concretively and materially, and that in Scripture. Next his self-contradiction, in that he had said (p. 54.) sin is so perfectly an abstract, that if we conceive not of it as an abstract, we cannot conceive of it as sin. 3. His vertual denyal, that sin and sinfulnesse are synonymous, (which yet he affirmed p. 53.) unlesse he thinks our very nature may be said to be sinfulnesse it self, or that our nature and our faculties are meer privations, which yet he cannot say soberly, because he absolutely denyes, that sin doth signifie abstractly. 4. Dr▪ Hammond (who knew best the true importance of the Text) thought fit to paraphrase it to us, by customary sins, not by nature and fa­culties, as Mr. Hickman. 5. By this he justifies Dr. Iack­son and Flaccius Illyricus, whom before at (adventure) he did so liberally condemn. 6. In saying that the faculties by reason of privations, do l [...]st against the working of the spirit, [Page 126] (ibid) he implyes that lusting to be a sin (without a figure) and yet implyes it (as much) to be something positive. 7. If he quarrels with me and others, for expressing the hatred of God by sin, which is positive, but not good; how hath he railed in effect at the blessed Apostle, for expressing that by sin, which he confesseth to be good, as well as po­sitive, and therefore good because positive? 8. Let sin be taken for nature and its faculties, (as he desires) yet con­cupiscence is not, which sin is said to bring forth. And that concupiscence as it is positive, so our selfe-contradictor will hardly deny it to be a sin.

Sect. 24. To prove the efficient cause of sin, I argued thus in the first place.Of the effici­ent cause of sin. Mr. H.'s conviction, & confession in despite of his whole Enterprise If man is the cause of sin, and not efficient, he is the material, formal, or final cause; if the deficient is none of these, (as none will say it is) it is no cause at all. If sin hath no cause, it hath no real being, much lesse can it be the cause of punishment: and so God is in­ferred to punish men without cause, [...], p. 145.] Now comes the Answer of Mr. H. as much for my inte­rest as I could wish. [Rather then we will seem to be too much frighted, we will say, that man is the material or subjective cause of the Action: such a material or subjective cause, as e­vil can have. p. 102.

To which I reply, 1. That Mr▪ H. did either intend to speak to the purpose, or else (for fear of that) he speaks in­dustriously beside it.) if the first, he fully grants that sin is an action, and so a positive being, if the second, he is con­vinced of sinning against his own Light; and effectually confesseth he cannot answer: when the Question is of the cause of sin, why does he answer touching the cause of the Action, if he does not believe it to be a sin? and if he believes it to be a sin, why undertook he in his Titlepage to prove that sin is a mere privation? Here I leave him to be hist by the Colledge-boyes, for having written, as if he had written, on purpose to make himself the object of scorn and laughter. Nor is it fit it should go better with such as write against God, as the cause of all sins, [Page 127] because of all actions, acts, and habits. 2. That here by action he means sin, one would believe by what he saith in his second clause, as an explication of his first,— cause of the Action, such a material cause as evil can have, if he means, it can have none, why did he yield a material caus [...]? if he means it can have any m [...]terial cause, ex quâ or in quâ, then he confesseth it hath a cause, which is not meerly deficient, if ex quâ, it is a concrete; if in quâ, an accident, if either, positive. It hath besides materiam circa quam, and so a threefold subject, constituens, recipiens, occupans sub­jectum. As for his confession (which next ensues) of the efficient cause of sin,) which must needs be meant by the evil of the action) and how again he falls into the youngsters hands, I have long since shew'd, Chap. 3. Sect. 28. num. 7. so ill he prospers with stollen goods out of Robert Baronius, which he would certainly have cited Baronius for, had he so well understood it, as I hope he now doth. For how he builds up my cause upon the Ruins of his own, by what he saith of the first sin, a proud desire to be equal with God (p. 103.) I have largely shewed ch. 3. Sect. 28. Num. 1.

25. To my 2. Argument, that where there is no effici­ent, there is no effect, that is, there is nothing;Of sins being nothing, if no effect. Mr. H [...]ckmans vain attempt to prove kna­very to be nothing. and so (ac­cording to mine Antagonist) men are either not damned, or damned for nothing ( [...] p. 145.) He is so far from the courage to frame an answer, that he dares not be so honest as to repeat my words fairly; but tells his Readers of my inference, without a syllable of of my prem [...]ses from whence my inference was drawn; for fear his Readers should discern, how conscious he is of his disability, and how resolutely bent on Tergiversation, which he had no­thing to keep from being seen, but an easie boast, so that still I am to ask, 1. How that is an effect, which hath no efficient; and 2. How that can be something, which is ef­fected by nothing; and 3. How nothing can be the cause of a mans damnation. To these 3. things he should have [Page 128] answered, had he been able: but nemo tenetur ad impossi­bile, and so he thinks he hath a priviledge to be impertinent what is meant by nihil, applyed to sin (in one case) and to substance it self (in another) I have abundantly in­form'd him throughout my fifth Chapter, especially §. 1.3. and § 5. num. 6. &c. But since he shews himself a se [...] ­ker, he shall not fail to find my meaning. My meaning is, that (p. 104.) God will punish impenitent sinners with damnation, both for not having in their faculties, Habits, and Actions, what should be in them; And also for having that, which should not be in them. He will not there­fore damn infants, for their meerly not-having original righteousness in the root; (for he accepteth according to what a man 2. Cor. 8.12. hath, not according to what he hath not,) but he will damn those adulti, who work unrighteousness, and con­tinue such working unto the end. To this I add 2. things. 1. That no willfull sinner, who is liable to wrath can so omit that which is good, as not to commit that which is evil. 2. That God will punish such sinners, not onely for ha­ving something in their actions and habits which they should not have, but for having such habits, and for exer­ting such actions; or for putting those things in being, which God would not have, and forbid [...] to be. 3. There is a positive abnegation of God, Tit. 1.16 and so Mr. Hick­man doth deny him. So did they also, who forsook God, and followed Baalim. 1 King. 18.18. And therefore that passage, which Mr. Hickman took from Dr. Robert Baron, without so much as saying, by your leave Sir, (as an Ano­nymous writer is known to say) cannot stand him in any stead. For a man cannot not pay the money which he owe's, without detaining or keeping back the money which he should pay. And however non payment is a negative thing, (not a privative, as Mr. Hickman heedlesly supposeth) yet the knavery and deceitfulness, which is the cause of non-payment will be granted by all to be something positive. And so Mr. Hickman saith very well, I could well enough bear his being punisht, for not paying me my arrears, (and [Page 129] bear it I will when that day comes) and for [...]. Hesi­od ▪ usurping a Possession, to which he hath not a better right, than Ahab had to Naboths vineyard; as I shall usefully demonstrate, when I come to that subject. Let non-payment be what it will, yet usurpation, and violence, obduration, and obstina­cy, resolving to be rich, and hastening to it by any means, are positive entities with a witness. And now we see how his principles are run out into his practice. For whilst he pleads against amendment and restitution, by saying that non-payment is no positive entity, and that I know not how to place it in any praedicament of beings, doth he not wipe his mouth (with the lew'd woman in the Proverbs) and confidently say, he hath done no wickedness? Prov. 30.2 [...]. Let the shop-keepers beware how they lend to such a Logician, lest he tell them, non-payment is no positive entity, nor in any praedicament of beings, and therefore not to repay, is a thing of nothing. But then they may serve him in such a manner, as Zeno serv'd his saucy man, (whose Satis perspi­cuè intelli­gent, nequa­quam Stoicas opiniones in Ecclesiam in­vehendas esse. —Zenonis servus dice­bat se injust [...] plecti, quia fato coactus esset peccare, Melanch [...]hon. in loc. com. pag, 54 like opi­nion debauch't his practice) even keep him in Bocardo, (or some such prison) and tell him that non-releasement is no positive entity, nor doth he know how to place it in any praedicament of beings. So much for his impertinence pag. 104. by which he hath made it very pertinent for me, e­ven to speak out of order concerning that, to which I have design'd a peculiar place.

§. 26. I had said that sin is the cause of punishment, The cause of punishment. Mr. H. denial of any positive damnation, un­less he thinks it no punish­ment to be damn'd. and therefore positive, because the cause cannot have a lesser be­ing then the effect.] In stead of this, Mr. Hickman ob­trudes these words upon me. Sin is a punishment, but punishment is a positive entity, ergo, p. 105.] Had he spoken my words, he would probably have cited my pa­ges also. A thing, which he seldome thinks safe for him to do. And yet he saith of the punishment of sense, ('tis well he speaks of it at all, although he gives no reason for [Page 130] it) that it is not positive, if we consider that in which the evil of that punishment formally consisteth] It seems the man is of opinion; that because he takes sin to be a meer non-entity, the punishment of it can be nothing, but a pri­vation of life, added to the loss of the joyes of heaven; and what is said of those torments which are inflicted upon the Reprobates, (made to be firebrands of hell) he concei­veth (with some of the Heathen, Diodorus Siculus, and his peers,) to be but [Hypothesin [...]] a fabu­lous Mormo, or Bugg, whereby to fright such silly babes, as we Praelatists and Arminians are thought to be, for be­ing so simple as to suffer the loss of all in this world, ra­ther then hazzard a greater suffering of somewhat more then a loss in the world to come. This (I say) is his opi­nion, for ought I can guess at his opinion, by his expressi­ons if he did steadfastly believe, there is an infinite pain in Hell, besides the totall privation of bliss and glory; why would he say it is not positive? if he thought the very e­vil of that unspeakable punishment doth not consist in that infinite pain; why did he not tell us what it is, wherein he supposeth it doth consist? If (besides the meer absence or want of pleasure) the pains of hell are not positive, and the worst evil of punishment to be imagined; I will say to Mr. Hickman (as Bishop Bramhall to Mr. Hobs,) Reddat mihi mimam Diogenes. And had I not ☞ See D▪ SANDER­SONS 4. Rea­sons for his rejecting the way of Doct. Twisse, in Do­ctor Ham­mond's [...]. p. 12, 13. reason to with­stand Dr. Twisse, in his withstanding our Blessed Saviour, by asserting it to be better, to be eternally damned, then re­duc'd to nothing? Yet Mr, Hickman is very angry with my resisting that Doctor, in whose behalf he railes at me, but nothing else. p. 106. At least he makes as if he were angry, that so he may take that occasion to slip the neck of his Credit out of the very same collar, in which he hath sense enough to see that his cause is strangled.

An Appendix.

§. 1. HAving done with the main subject, upon which Mr. Hickman should have spent his whole Book, but upon which he was carefull to speak the least, (as if he were conscious to himself of speaking sinfully of sin, whilst he saw he was to speak, as either a Libertine on the one side, or a Carneadist on the other,) I must now, in a large Ap­pendix, review his Book from the Beginning, and shew him the wickedness or the folly in many particulars of the whole, of which he hath not been yet admonish'd. And I must do it so much the rather, that he may not say I have onely stuck upon his sick and sore parts, of which he worthily p. 108. complains in the Tail of the Body of his Dis­course.

§. 2. I begin with his Epistle to the Lecturers of Brack­ley;Mr. H. his flattery and condemnation of himself. wherein having premised by a significant implicati­on, That he, and such as he is, are some of the worthiest men alive, pag. 1. and yet implicitly too confessing, They are not worthy to live, p. 2. (I having proved out of their writings, that they are guilty of such a whole, the half of which (saith Mr. Hickman) makes them worthy of death,) he proceeds from his self-flattery, and from his self-condemnation, to do me the honour of being slander'd in the same breath with Doctor Hammond, who must not look for better usage than God himself, from such an Ad­vocate and Patron of all impiety, as teacheth the action of hating Good, to be God's own creature, or God himself.

§. 3. To begin (in his order) with his calumniating my self, he first tells his Brethren,His willful falshood. that what I charg'd his [Page 132] Masters with were the meer Chimaera's of my brain. But how much to the shame both of him, and them too; I have already made apparent in the beginning of my Bo [...]k. By which I leave it to be judged (and even by them of his own Sect) whether it is not as willful and as malicious, as it was an [...]noccasioned and groundless slander. If he exa­min'd my citations, I have proved to his own, and his Readers eyes, that he is guilty of a studied and a delibe­rate wickedness. But if he examin'd them not at all then it appears that he was resolute to write as bitterly as he was able, without resolving to consider whether his writing would be found to be right, or wrong.

§. 4. Nor doth he content himself with this, but adds a cast of his virulence (though not more impious, His self-con­tradiction, and confession of having written against his con­science. yet) much more obvious to the discovery of the Reader; to wit, That God's being the Author of sin does necessarily follow on an opinion which I maintain, p. 3. But does he o [...] ­fer at any proof, or at any thing else to supply it's place? no, nor so much as tells his Brethren, what opinion he means of my maintaining. Nay he afterwards confesseth He thinks it no way consistent with the ingenuity of a Scho­lar, or of a man, to charge me with Blasphemy: nay that he cannot, without perfect affront to his conscience, return me Blasphemer for Blasphemer. (Book p. 4.) If this is reconcileable with what he saith of me in his Epistle, Then whatever I have said against Calvin and the rest, must be affirmed by this Rhapsodist to be no accusing them of Blas­phemy. But who is a Blasphemer, i [...] he is not, who maintaineth an opinion from which the wo [...]st of all Blas­phemie [...] (Reader, they are his own words) doth unavoid­ably follow? we see the greatest of all memories is excee­dingly too l [...]ttle for a man of his Trade. For not remem­bring in his Epistle, what he had written in his Book, he hath rail'd it out against me, to no better purpose, then to his own self-condemnation. For if in his Book p. 4. he had any truth in him, or ingenuity, he must needs confess he had none at all whilst he was writing to the Brackleians, [Page 133] and boldly committing that very crime which he had cal­led a perfect affront to his conscience, and inconsistent with the ingenuity both of a Scholar and of a man. It now ap­pears (to do him right) that all hi [...] Rhapsodie was not stoln; for his self-contradictions are all his own.

§. 5. His next irreverence is the mor [...],Dr. Hammond. vindicated from Mr. H. his several Falsifications. for being shew­ed to the most learned and truely Reverend Dr. Ham­mond, from whom he pretendeth a Citation, which hath no truth in it, but is injurious in 4▪ Respects, for the better elu [...]cidating of which, I shall first transcribe Mr. Hickmans words. [The privativenesse of moral evil is not a monster h [...]tched under the wings of a few Disciplinarian Zelots; not a perfect p [...]antasy, a mere Scholastical Notion, as Dr. Hammond is pleased to call it, Fundam. p. 178.] First it is to be observed, that all these words (from monster, to notion) are printed in the s [...]me letter, which doth discri­minate Citations from Mr. Hickmans own text; so a [...] no one Reader who looks no further, and is not fore-armed with that distrust, with which the writings of such a Gamester are of necessity to be read, can escape the er­rour of apprehending that all that passage is Dr. Hammonds, and withall to be met with, in the page there cited; where­as in all his publick works, in which I hope I am as perfect as any man of my memory (which I confesse is none of the greatest) is like to be, there is not any such word, as Monster hatched under the wings of a few disciplinarian Ze­lots. Nay I am certified by the Doctor, (in his answer to my request, that he would search his own Memory,) that no such expression hath ever passed from his tongue ▪ much less from his Pen, on any occasion whatsoever, much less on this. But on this I lay no weight, because it is no other then an implicit Falsification. His 2. fault is more gross, whilst he citeth the page, and misreporteth the words of that Reverend Doctor. In lieu of [School-notion] Mr. Hick­man forgeth him to have written [a mere Scholastical No­tion] where tis plain the word [mere] is a mere interpolation; whereby to intimate an enmity betwixt the Doctor and [Page 134] the Fathers, of which there had else been no appearance. For a Father may say that, which is withal a School-notion, though not a mere Scholastical notion. But neither should I have mentioned this, which in a man of his practice is to be reckoned a Peccadillo, if it had not stood betwixt me, and his third misrepresentation, which seemes to me of greater weight and yet to receive some increase by those additi­ons. I say it is his third injury, that he groundlesly fastens the Doctors censure to the above-said privativenesse of mo­ral evil. Upon which it was so far from having been fast­ned▪ by the Doctor, that he neither used any such words, nor any other which can bear any Analogy with such; un­less the privativenesse of sin doth import no more with Mr. Hickman, then doth the non-entity, or nothingnesse of it; which as it will prove him a Carneadist, so it is the most that he can plead, to that with which I now charge him. That Reverend Doctor having but mentioned the perfect Phantasie of some, that sin is a Non-entity, (that is) a nothing. So that now (good Reader) thou knowest the meaning of Mr. Hickman, whensoever he asserts the pri­vativity of sin. He means tis Nothing, or a Non-entity, or else he wilfully prevaricates, as well with thee, as with Dr. Hammond.

His confound­ing the things which he once distinguisht.§. 6. I thought the man had made a difference, betwixt a simple negative, and a Privative; especially when the l [...]t­ter is not a want of all being, but onely of a Rectitude or conformity to a rule: else why did he distinguish (when it was sutable to his need) betwixt a negative, and a priva­tive Nothing? Besides, privativenesse being but a word of relation, referring to somewhat that it had, but lost, or should have had, but mist of having, (that I may grati­fie him for once with this distinction) And Relation be­ing but an Accident Adveniens enti in actu existenti, It follows that that which is privative in relation to some­thing of which it is so, may have a positive being prae­existent to that privation, in order of nature if not of time. Thus in every Transmutation, and in corruption [Page 135] more especially, there is a privation of a form, but not of all; for as one goes out, another enters. Night succeeds Day, as Satans image doth Gods. And what if the last be a pri­vation in respect of that which was before? can it possi­bly argue no entity of the action, by which the Image was introduced, or of the Image it self abstractly taken? I wish Mr. Hickman would minde his Grammar, and know that privo is a verb active, as much as pono; as privare, no less then ponere, is an action properly so called; and by con­sequence privatio, just as much as positio is. Thus the kil­ling an innocent Christ (which was we know, the sin of murder) however twas a privation (in one respect) was yet as positive an action, as the most lawful execution of the blaspheming thief, which (in one respect) was a privation also: yet the murdering of Christ was neither a nullity, nor was it produced by God himself, as Mr. Hickman hath said that every real being is.

§. 7. But there remaines a fourth thing,The s [...]d effects of the Calvi­nian Scheme. of which our Rhapsodist is to be told, to wit, that the error on which Re­verend Dr. Ham. affixt that Character [a perfect phantasie and School notion] was not simply and meerly this, [that sin is nothing or a non entity, but together with this addition [...] so that all things may be predetermined by God and yet not sin. Fundam. p. 178, lin. 23. where shewing the tricks of those men, by which they would hide the ill consequen­ces of the Doctrine which they teach, (to wit, that all man­ner of things were predetermined by the Almighty,) he mentioned this as the first, [That sin is but a non-entity, a nothing;] so that all things (forsooth!) might be eternal­ly predetermined, and yet not sin. Thus they are Liber­tines, or Carn [...]adists, or both by turns, (do what they can,) so long as they adhere to the Calvinian Scheme. But Mr. H. omitted what he found of most weight.Mr. H [...]'s sa [...] ­ciness and irreverence to Dr. Ham▪ added to all his wilful forg [...] ­ [...]ies▪

§. 8. Whilst I am on this subject, I mean the clearing of Dr. Hammond, from this Falsificator, I shall annex to his Epistle, a parallel passage out of his Book, where speak­ing of the positivenesse of sins of omission, he saith [it is so [Page 136] STRANGE, that they also should be positive, that he knows not whether ever it were asserted by any, but Cerberus, alias Champneys, Mr. Dukes the keeper of the great Ordinary at Hell in Westminster, Mr. P. and (whom he would not joyn with such company) the Reverend and learned Dr. Ham­mond. p. 69. Here, for brevities sake, I shall but make these demands, 1. With what colour of excuse this can be said of Dr. Hammond (or indeed of Mr. P.) who never spake of this matter by word or writing, more then what hath been shewed in my former sections? whereas sins of Omission have not been specified, so if they had, it had not follow­ed, that either I, or Dr. Hammond, had ascribed to such a positivity. 2. Why the man should invent such ugly names, as Cerberus (importing the Dog of Hell) and next to that, the keeper of Hell, to joyn with a Doctor of so much eminence in the world, not more for his Learning, then for the holiness of his life, 3. Whether calling him the Reverend and Learned Dr. and expressing to him a seeming tendernesse, is not a bitternesse o [...] Jeere, and so a horrible aggravation both of the falshood and the sauciness, which I have noted in my first and second Quere? yet this is the meek spirited man, who complaines that he is used with too much sharpness, and exhorts his Brethren very demurely, to let their moderation be known unto all men.

His scurrilous usage of Dr. Taylor and its occasion, Ori­ginal sin.§. 9. Having done with Dr. H. He begins afresh to ease himself on Dr Taylor. Whom having taught in what manner he should have Intituled his Book, (Not Deus, but) Pelagius, or Socinus justificatus, (p. 4▪) He immediately lets fly (in as known a falsehood as could be spoken▪) That the Dr. would bear us in hand, he onely quarrelleth with the Presbyterian Notion of original sin] whereas it is clear that Dr. Taylor in his Deus justificatus, extends his Quarrel (though very civilly) even to those whom he owns as his Friends and Brethren, sons (with himself) of the very same mother▪ the Church of England. Let Mr. Hickman read, and hold from blushing if he is able, whilst he be­holds [Page 137] the Transition the Doctor makes in solemn manner (p. 54.) from his Presbyterian, to his Episcopal Opponents, whom he worthily calls his Dearest brethren. That he de­nyes Original sin, he very plentifully denyes, and saith he cannot but confesse that to be, which he feels and groans under, and by which all the world is made miserable. p. 12. But now suppose him a flat denyer of that Catholick Doctrine, which is taught by our Church, of Original sin. And let us consider what it was which made him erre in this point: whether it was not his contemplation of the horri­ble consequences and Tenents, which Presbyterians are ac­customed to superstruct on that Doctrine. As (for exam­ple) that all being dead in Adam, there was yet no remedy for the far greater part, no not in the sufferings and satis­faction of Christ, see how rightly the Doctor gathers the odious consequential Blasphemies, in the former part of his enterprise, (as farr as p. 54.) from what is taught by the Presbyterians. Of he also confesseth his Brethrens Opini­ons to be free, and such as (if they were all agreed) he would not move a stone to disturb. p. 56. The Presbyterians therefore are to be blamed, for whatsoever error he may have publisht in this particular; And not at all the Church of England; which by liberally allowing, that Christ hath dyed even for all who were dead in Adam, directs the onely both pious and unquestionable way, of making good the Antient Doctrine of Original sin.

§. 9. Had Dr. Taylor indeed affirmed (what is but for­ged by Mr. Hick-man, The Diss [...]is­faction of E­piscopal Di­vines. too unintelligent a thing to passe a judgement in such affaires,) that he was not opposed but by Presbyterians, his own letters would have confuted him (as now they do Mr. Hickman) which he directed to the Right Reverend, my Lord of Rochester. But as it is, the result is this. That Doctor Taylor in one point is of a singular opinion, or way of speaking, in which the other sons of the Church of England do avow their sorrow and dissatisfaction▪ who are the only men that can lay sure grounds, whereon to plead with Dr. Taylor to good advan­tage.

[Page 138] Dr. Taylor's errour on the right hand, ex­tremely better then the heresie of Presbyteri­ [...]ns on the left.§. 10. I am one of the meanest (though not I hope the least obedient) of all her children. And though I am well enough qualified, for the clearing this learned Doctor from the calumnie and falshood of his Reviler; yet am I too much a Iunior, to undertake his conviction, as to that which I conceive he hath said amiss. But (with a Praefiscinè be it spoken to so acute and eminent an Author, who I conceive hath onely erred for fear of erring,) I think it better to insist upon the end of Christs Death, then to define what would have been, had he never died. Con­cerning the wisdome of God's oeconomy in the disposal of All things, I think the best way to judge, is to judge as God judgeth, and is revealed to have done in his written Word. We are assured by revelation, that Christ was gi­ven for all in Adam, or for all who are born from Adam: which had he not decreed to have done as he hath revealed, we have no measure of judging, what should have been the just consequence of Adam's sin; or whether, any besid [...]s Adam, should have been concerned in it. We cannot know God's counsels, but by words or deeds revealed to us. Had Christ been given, but not for all, in particular not for Heathen infants, I think we can as little gue [...]s, what should become of those Infants, as what the other world had been; if God, in stead of This, had created That.

By this I am willing to make it known to Mr. Hickm [...]n and his Abettors, both how much I dissent from the Do­ctor's errour on the right hand, and how much more I joyn with him, against their Heresies on the left.

M.H.'s prefer­ring Calvin to the 4. Evan­ [...]elists.§. 11. The man of scorn goes on to teach us, how un­fit he is for a Divine, or to be so much as a lay-Preacher, were he in terrâ Corteriali [...], where no-ordaining is to be had. For speaking of us, and the Presbyterians, in rela­tion to our Ten [...]ts of God's Decrees, he saith we befriend them in giving the people occasion to think, that they onely are the men, who would contend for the Faith once delive­red to the Saints, p. 5.] See how little he understands that [Page 139] easie Text in St. Iude. If Calvin's Doctrine in point of Decrees, is the faith delivered to the Saints, of which Saint Iude spake, then it must not onely be truth, but the whole divine Truth delivered to us as we are Christians. And so farewell (by this Logick) to the four Evangelists, who have nothing of the Faith that was once delivered to the Saints; But welcome Iohn Calvin, who hath it all. For the whole Doctrine of the Gospel is meant by [...], Jude 2. And unless Mr. Hickman did take it too in that sense, how does the affixing the assertions up­on Calvin and his following Presbyterians (p. 3. and 4.) give any occasion to the people, to think that they are the ONELY MEN? It is no wonder, if Bishop Hooper (one of the first of our holy Martyrs, who suffered from the Papists for our Religion, as others have done from the Presbyterians,) did express these men by the name of See the Quinquar [...]icu­larian History, part. 3. c. 16▪ p. 2. Gospellers, as having found out another Gospel, then what had been written by the four Evangelists, (to use the words of Sir Edwin Sandys.) Our Gospellers (said Bishop Hooper) are better learned then the holy Ghost.— over every mischief that is done, they say it is Gods will. And what prodigious stuff it is, which Mr. Hickman cals the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, I leave to be judged by the words, and lines, and pages, which I h [...]ve shewed from Mr Calvin and other Writers. Had an Angel from heaven taught such a Gospel, Saint Paul had set him packing with an Anathema Maranatha.

§. 12. Bishop Carleton saying,The way to sto [...] a papist's mouth. [some take it for a sign of such as are looking towards Popery, &c. p. 5.] gives leave to others, to take it otherwise. When a thing has two handles, one may take it by the right, as well as ano­ther by the left. As I, and my Betters are wont to take it; Our disclaiming the Doctrines of Presbyterians is the way to stop a Papist's mouth; who hath nothing to accuse the Protestants of, but what the Presbyterians have in­troduced; and that in a perfect opposition to the true Pro­testant religion.

[Page 140] Mr. H.'s sense of his s [...]urrili­ty, with his de­sire never to mend.§ 13. In the eighth page of his Epistle (for the sixth and the seventh are fill'd with one large Transcript, ver­batim taken from Mr. Prin, without acknowledging the Author from whence he took it,) he appears to be con­scious of his scurrility, by which he supposeth he hath departed from that meekness of spirit, which is required in a Minister. But he desires his Brethren to think it as lawfull as they may (as if he were acting zeal of the land in his Address to Rabbi Buisy) to put some vineger into his ink, and so to continue in his departure from Ch [...]istian meekness, (supposing he cannot fall totally, much less fi­nally from Grace,) or else in meekness of spirit, to call me Bolsec, and Fevardentius, and what he plea [...]eth. But here I arrest him with one mild Question whilst he is fu­rious. Was my saying that their speeches could be no less then Blasphemous, who said that God was the Author and cause of sin, A making their Graves amongst Blasphe­mers? or a proving by their pages, lines and words, where they had made their own Graves? Perhaps they thought their speeches innocent. And thence I censu [...]'d th [...]ir speeches, not the thoughts they had of them. Suppose the Author of a Dispensatory sha [...]l put a Receipt into his Book, which I know hath poyson'd som [...], and is as likely to poyson others; will my giving a timely warning to be­ware of that medicine, be censured as the making that Author's Grave among murderers? It will it seems by Mr. Hickman, but who can help it? I plainly proved to Doctor Reynolds, That for all I said of Blasphemous Do­ctrines, I had not onely Doctor Whitakers, but Mr. C [...]l­vins good leave. And so Mr. Hickman (unawares) hath rail'd it out against both. But if Bolsec is reformed, I hope he will do the less hurt. And that he is so in earnest, Ba­thyllus tells us.

§. 14. He falls again to confession, p. 9. that 'tis hard for him not to exceede his bounds;His new sense of his carna­lity. whereupon he prayes his Brethren, to give him a call unto repentance. And compares them to the old Puritanes, as to the exercise of [Page 141] their patience. But who were the old Puritanes? were they such as took upon them to ordain Ministers at Brack­ley? or such as took joyfully their neighbours goods? if so, he said ill, That the world was not worthy of such inhabi­tants. The Apostle applying the words to them, who suf­fer'd the spoiling of their own.

§. 15. The malignity which he concludes with against Episcopal Government, And malignlty to the Episco­pal Govern­ment. which yet he holds to be better than none at all, (and none at all hath been the Govern­ment which they have hitherto set up) doth onely serve to put us in mind, in how many respects they have been perjur'd, as well in swearing, as forswearing their Scotish Covenant. They may be said to be Reformers of Episcopal Government, (and if they please, of Regal too) as the Heretick Marcus was said (by many women, and few men) The [...], &c. Iren. l. 1. c. 8. p. 68. Reformer of all that had gone before him. But what kind of Ministers he ordained, and after what an en­ormous manner, and how he Reformed the womens Pur­ses to fill his own, would be tedious to tell upon this oc­casion. They that will, may consult Epiphanius, Haeres. 34. And especially Irenaeus, lib. 1. cap. 9. My observa­tion is chiefly this, That he was reckon'd a great Re­former.

An Appendix for Master Hickman touching his Preface to the READER.

§. 16. Having gon over the main of Mr. Hickmans Dedicatory Epistle, I now proceed to his Praeface, his tedious Praeface to the Reader. On which I shall make the shortest strictures that I am able, untill I meet with such things as do call for length. And because Doctor Heylin [Page 142] hath unanswerably spoken to the Historical part, both in his Certamen Epistolare, (wherein he Refutes it ex pro­fesso) and in his Quinquarticular History, (wherein he vertually Refutes it, though not by name,) I shall not therefore say more to that, than is omitted by Doctor Heylin, or at least omitted for ought I am able to re­member.

The first page of his Pre­face proves all that follows to be but the fruits of his revenge.§ 17. He tells his Reader in the beginning, 1. how much he had been taken with (I know not what) rich vein of Rhetorick, which (he saith) he saw running through all my writings which he had seen. 2. That he hath not mentioned my name without those prefaces of Respect which are due to a Scholar. 3. That notwithstanding his being debased to the Dunghil of Doltisme, he is not so much as tempted, to detract from my Credit and Reputation, &c. p. 1.] If this hath any Truth in it, then there is no truth at all in the far greatest part of his whole performance. For Mr. Baxter himself, in all his Kiderminster-stuff, is a puny Railer in comparison. Not onely all the ill language which he was able to invent, but even all that he was able to filch from others, he hath made it his business to throw upon me; and all for no better Reason, then my asserting Gods honour, to the disgrace of those men who have rai [...]'d against him.) I am so ignorant in his eyes, p. 72. And he espi [...]s such a darkness upon the face of my understanding, p. 71. that from thence you may discover how he respects me as a Scholar. And rather then detract from my Repu­tation, he onely chargeth me with downright impudence, p. 47. with ridiculousness, and malice, and a Treatise dirty enough to justifie all the ugly brats of the Wild [...]st Sectaries, that G. C. hath midwiv'd into the world. p. 13, 14.

But (not to transcribe a great part of Master Hickman's Rhapsodie, by giving in a full Catalogue of all his calumnies and railings) It shall suffice me to ob­serve, how all the rest of his pages do run Antipodes to his first. And how big of rancor, he must confess himself to have been, when nothing could ease him but the delivery [Page 143] of such an unnatural revenge, as could not be whelp't with­out the torment of such a self-contradiction. For first to pro­fess so much respect, and so much tendernesse of my Credit, (as hath been shewed;) and to professe himself farther, Pref. p. 6. A cordial friend to my person; nay (after that) to declare, that he Book p 1. disliked the sharpnesse of Mr. Barlees stile; And yet after all, (nay in the midst of all this,) to behave him­self in such noysomwise, as if he had licked up the See Epist. before Hist. Qui [...]quar. p. 6. Vomits of all his Brethren, on purpose to cast them up again, and all at Me; (for what he do [...]s to the Church of England and to her persecuted Children, I take as done unto my self, and with a greater indignation, then if it were done to my self alone,) this is so very much his misery, as well as it is his Misdemeanour, that to discover it as I have done, is all the punishment I intend him.

§. 18. To what he saith of my Reputation, His frivolous exception to Heathen learning. acquired amongst the young Gallants, by putting the good Greek and la­tin of the old Philosophers into as Good English in my Pra­cticals, (p. 2.) I onely answer four things.

1. That the Prophets and the Apostles were no Heathen Philosophers, from whom my practical Divinity hath been derived. 2. But after my reasonings out of Scripture, I reason also out of the Heathen, to serve the turn of such See my rea­sons for the use I make of th [...] Heathens in my sinner impleaded, par. 1. ch. 1. Sect. 5. Professors, as Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Hickman, who live un­daunted and shameless in some kinds of sin, at which a wellbred Heathen would Blush, or tremble. And I would make them strive to be better then they are, by their scorn­ing to be worse then their inferiours. 3. My use of Hea­then learning is no more then may be justified by the pra­ctice of Dr. Reynolds, who hath translated more of them then I have done, and this I speak to his honour, because the more he abounds in his Humane learning, the liker h [...] is to immortal Grotius. Nay the great Apostle St. Paul in his Sermon at Athens, See Bp. An­drewes his d [...] ­fence of using the Heathens in our writings; in his Sermon of Imaginations. p. 31. citeth Aratus (a Heathen) in [Page 144] matter of Doctrine. Acts 17.28. And in matter of life, he cites Menander, a Note, Rea­der, that Me­nander [...] Co­moedie is of Thais the fa­mous Harlot, out of which St. Paul ha [...]h cited that say­ing to the Co­rinthians. See Grot vot. pro, Pa. p. 116. Comoedian, 1 Cor. 15.33. And so in matter of report, he urgeth the words of Epim [...]nides, or Callimachus, Tit. 1.12. The names of Iannes and Iam­bres he is concluded to alleage from the Iewish Talmud, 2 Tim. 3.8. Besides, Heathen learning is pleaded for by Antient Fathers of the Church, as by Clemens Alexandri­nus Strom. 7, By St. Basil in a set Treatise, how the heathens, are to be read. By Gregory Nyssen in the life of Moses, (who by the way, was well skilled in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, Acts 7.22. that is to say, in Heathen learn­ing.) And so again by St. Austin, de Doctrinâ Christiana, 2.40. All which Mr. Hickman might have learned from Bp. Andrews; to whom I send him somuch the rather, because from thence he may learn the Presbyterian ima­ginations, and because being in English he will be the surer to understand it. I could else have shewed him in Justin. Mar­tyr. [...] ex edit Syl­burg. 1593. p. 7. ad p. 29. Iustin Martyrs own words, How he elaboratly pleadeth for Christianity it self, out of the Heathen Philosophers and Poe [...]s too; and how he fetcheth a kinde of Gospel (as St. Augustine, after him, hath also done) out of the Sybillian Oracles. I could tell him how Clemens of Alexandria did [...]. Clem. Alex. s [...]rom. 7. p. 669. B. professedly defer the use of Scripture, till he had fitted his Readers for its reception. And that the very best parts of the Fathers writings (both of the Eastern and Western Church) are those that are fullest of Heathen Learn­ing.

But I procced to my fourth Answer; that my sinner Impleaded is fuller of Scripture, then humane learning. That my chiefest use of this latter, is in my very first Chap. That Mr. Hickman bewrayes the depth of his Ignorance in Greek, whilest he thinks I translate whatsoever he seeth in my Margin, which for the far greatest part, I onely ac­commodate, [Page 145] and apply. And what I really Translate, I e­ver own the Translating of; directing my readers by my Margin, where the Original is to be found. Nor can I possibly be blamed, (unless Mr, Hickman has any Peeres) if I make some Philosophers to speak as good English, as Greek, and Latin.

§. 18. Tis true indeed that Mr. Hickman hath given no proof of his Humane learning, The Heathe­nish Nature of his own. but onely of stealing other mens, which is inhumane. I cannot finde him translating, and honestly citing the Philosophers Greek or Latin; But chiefly trading in English Writers, out of whom he com­piles what he thinks is most Pretty, (in both senses of the word, as Dr. Heylin hath observed in his See it pre­fixed to his Hist. Quin­quar. A. 3. Epistle to the Reader) Which having done he makes publick, without a fear that his Larcin's will come to light. Had the man been a Fox, he would have preyed afar off, in Greece or Latium; not where every one may snap him who has the skil to read English. But if he thinks it no sin to steal, (like the Heathens in Polyb. l. 4. p. 285. Polybius) because to steal is an action, and so a positive entity; which he professeth to think no sin can be; yet methinks he should esteem it a great un­happinesse to be Caught; For fear his Auditors should sus­pect, if he shall Preach against stealing, that he steales the very Sermon rebuking stealth.

§. 19. How, and whence he hath borrowed (without a thought of Restitution) whatsoever can [...]e thought to be smart, or hansome, I have already set out in order,A new Disco­very of his stealth. by way of Leter to Dr. Heylin, when having promised to discover from whom he stole his little all on the thing in Question, (I mean, against the positive entity of sin,) I am content in this place to be as good as my word. His strength is taken chiefly from my learned Friend Mr. BARLOW, but part­ly too from Dr. Robert Baron, a learned Scot, Neither is ci­ted (so much as once) for any one syllable of the whole. But how they ought to have been cited, if Mr. Hickman had not desired to passe for a kinde of Metaphysician, let it be judged by this parallel, which is as short as I can contrive it.

Mr. Hickman.M. Barlow.
The privative nature of sin may be thus—evicted. If a thing be therefore sinfull, because it wants some perfe­ction that it ought to have, and cease to be sinful when it hath all the perfection which it ought to have▪ than is sin a privation; but a thing is therefore sinful, &c. Ergo, &c. Book. 2. Edit. Arg. 3. p. 84. l. 16. &c.Malum esse privativum ra­tionibus evinco,—si res quaevis, quae est mala, sit id­eò praecisè mala, quia caret aliquo bono sibi debito; & ideò non sit mala, quia non caret aliquo bono sibi debito; tum malitia formaliter erit in carentia seu privatione bo­ni. At ideò res est mala, &c, Et per consequens, &c. Ratio 2. p. 42. l. 5. à fin, &c.
If sin, as sin, be a posi­tive entity, then it is a thing in it self good. The conse­quence— Ens & bonum con­vertuntur. Arg. 1. p. 70. l. 4. &c.Si malitia aliqua esset ens positivum, —tum est bonum, —Ratio est, quia bonitas est passio entis reciproca. p. 44. l. 21. &c. Ratio 5 ▪
This positive being of sin, is it a finite and participate being? If not, &c. p. 78. l. ult. &c.Impossibile est, ut sit en­titas aliqua finita, & creata, &c. Ratio 3. p. 55. l. 5. à fin. &c. ad 10. lineas. vid. & p. 54. l. 19. &c. Ratio 3. & p. 56. l. 23, &c.
If sin be a positive entity, then it is either God, or from God, &c. Arg. 2. p. 75. l. 4, &c.Si—ipsa malitia esset ens —positivum, tum—vel e­rit, &c. Ratio 6. p. 45. l. 9. &c. ad 16. lineas. vid. & p. 73. l. 2. &c.
[Page 147]If original sin be a thing positive, 'tis either the soul it self, or some of its facul­ties, or some accident or ad­junct agreeing, &c. — but none of all these, Ergò, &c. Arg. 4. p. 87. l. 18. &c. for 20. lines.Si praeter privationem—, entitas aliqua esset malo ori­ginali intrinseca, tum enti­tas illa vel erit ipsa natura vel ejus adjunctum aliquod accidentale. At ex his nul­lum — dici possit. Ergò, &c. ita porrò ad 4. lineas. Ratio 1. p. 58. l. 23. &c. Vid. & p. 59. l. 7. &c. ad 19. lineas. Vide etiam p. 90. l. 6. &c.
Such actions are called in­trinsecally evil, both because they are evil antecedently to any positive Law, and be­cause they are evil ex genere & objecto, and not meerly through the want of some circumstance: for a Scholar to walk, &c. so on for 7. lines. p. 94. l. 6. &c.Actus illi dicuntur intrin­secè mali, quod talis malitia ipsis inest ablatâ omni lege positiva▪— non solùm sunt mali ex defectu circumstan­tiae alicujus, sed ex genere & objecto, — ut ambulare, &c. Sic deinceps ad 5. lineas. Exer. Metap. 2. Edit. 2. p. 73. l. 12. &c.
Sins of omission and com­mission are sufficiently di­stinguish'd, notwithstanding —: omission will be the transgression of an affirma­tive precept, commission the transgression of a negative precept. Secondly, they dif­fer in respect of their imme­diate foundation, the fun­damentum proximum of a sin [Page 148] of commission is some act or habit: but these are not the fundamenta proxima of a sin of omission. Answ. p. 98. l. 1 &c.Differunt [malum omissi­onis & commissionis] tamen. 1. Quòd omissio omnis sit legis affirmativae violatio, commissio praecepti negativi. 2. Differunt, quia malum o­missionis in ipsa anima ratio­nali, &c. immediatè funda­tur, non in actu aliquo aut ha­bitu.— (l. 20.) Malum au­tem commissionis—in actu aliquo aut habitu, in quo tanquam fundamento proxi­mo & immediato consistit. Sol. p. 83. l. 11. &c. Vid. & p. 64. l. 22, &c.
Because covetousness is a privation of liberality, as it puts a man upon honest spending, prodigality is a privation of liberality as it doth incline a man to avoid superfluous spending. Answ. p. 99. lin. 3. &c.Avaritia dicit privatio­nem liberalitatis, in quantum liberalitas inclinat ad sum­ptus necessarios, prodigali­tas verò dicit privationem liberalitatis, in quantum à superfluis sumptibus liberat. Sol. p. 82. l. 13. &c. vid. & p. 81. l. 5. à fin. &c.
That there can be no de­grees in a privation, — is a meer mistake. Among priva­tions some are greater, some less, with relation to that form unto which they are opposed: — that may Phy­sically be accounted the greater privation which re­moves more degrees of the form —: if we reckon mo­rally then we may also calcu­late the degrees of privation, &c. on for 3. lines. Ans. p. 99. l. 4. à fin. &c.Dico quòd privatio potest habere magis & minùs — Ratione termini privati; bo­ni sc. quod tollit. Sic ut il­lam—majorem dicimus, quae majorem subjecti per­fectionem tollit; sic in na­turalibusilla caecitas, &c. Et in moralibus illud vitium est majus quod bonum morale majus tollit. Sol. p. 79. l. 16. &c.
There is a punishment of loss, which scarce ever any [Page 149] man said was positive. There is a punishment of sense, and this—is no other way an e­vil—, than as it doth de­prive us of some perfection of which we are capable. So on for five lines farther. Answ. 105. l. 3. &c.Hoc [poena damni] (nul­lo quod sciam dissentiente) est solùm privatio—(p. 50. l. 6.) —poena sensus est s [...] ­lùm homini malum in quan­tum privat hominem per­fectione debita. Sol. p. 47. l. 19. &c. Vid. & p. 50. l. 15. &c. & p. 78. l. 23. ad 5. lineas,
The hating of God is complexum quid, &c. on for 6, lines. Ans. p. 95. l. 14, &c.Vide p. 73. l. 4. à fin. &c.
[Tis not] a relatio rationis, which is affirmed by Vasquez but against all good rea­sons, &c. Pag. 83. l. 5. à fin. &c. See p. 95. l. 3. à fin.Quòd non sit relatio ra­tionis, — quod velle vi­detur Vasquez in 1.2. q. 95. cap. 9. &c. p. 53. l. 4. &c.
Dionysius Areopagita's te­stimony, p. 56. l. 13. &c. see inp. 40. l. 12, &c.
The testimonies of Dio­nys's. two Greek Scholiasts Maximus, & Pachymera, ib. l. 22. &c. & l. pen. &c. See inpag. 40. l. 22, &c. & l. 29. &c.
Gregorie Nyssen's testi­monie, p. 57. l. 5. &c. See inp. 41. l. 13, &c.
Athanasius's testimonie, p. 76. l. 4. à fin. &c. See inp. 55. l. 9. &c.
Greg. Arimin. a noble Schoolman. p. 85. l. 10. &c. compare p. 58. l. 5. à fin. &c. withGregor. Arimin. nobilior Scholasticus.p. 19. & 124. p. 53. l. ult. & p. 30. l. 14, &c.

Mr. Hickman.Rob. Baronius in Metaphysica Generali.
How many men have been imprisoned for not paying summs of money which they did owe? p. 104. l. 19. &c.Apud homines debitor in­carceratur ob non solutam summam pecuniae, quod ne­gativum quid est. §. 5. p. 54. l. 5. &c.
Suppose the first sin of Angels, to have been a proud desire to be equal unto God: the cause of this proud de­sire was the wil of the Angel. But it was of the vitiosity of the Action—onely the cause per accidens, & per con­comitantiam. Nor doth the vitiosity of the effect all­ways suppose a vitiosity in the cause; though it always presuppose an imperfection in the cause. And where the cause it self is vitious, its [Page 151] vitiosity is not the cause of the vitiosity of the effect: for vitiosity of it self neither can effect, nor be effected: but the vitious cause, taking together the being, and the supervenient privation, is the cause of the vitious effect, taking it in like manner for the being, and the superad­ded privation. p. 103. l. 9. to l. 20.Supponamus primum ma­lum culpae in Angelis fuisse vitiosam volitionem aequali­tatis cum Deo, causa efficiens hujus vitiosae volitioni [...] fuit—ipsa voluntas Angelica. Verùm—per accidens & per concomitantiam quandam producta est ea vitiositas.— vitiositatem effect [...] non semper praesupponere vitiositatem in causa. (p. 59. l. 4. &c.) Non — ergò vo­lumus vitiositatem causae per se efficere vitiositatem effe­cti: quia vitiositas causae per se nihil operari potest; viti­ositas verò effecti per se pro­duci non Potest; sed tantum asserimus Causam vitiosam, prout includit ens & privati­onem enti superadditam pro­ducere effectum vitiosum, sumendo similiter nomen ef­fectûs vitiosi, prout inclu­dit ens aliquod & privatio­nem enti superadditam p. 61. l. 12. &c.

Had Mr, Hickman been Heire apparent to Dr. BARON and Mr. BARLOW, With their Aggravation (as sure I am he is to nei [...]her) he should have waited for the Decease as well of the second, as of the first.Nulla fides pietasque viris qui Castra se­quun [...]ur. Lu­can. For how liberally soever a man intends to­wards his childe, he seldom puts off his shooes, till he goes to bed. Nor will any, but such Vermin as are Followers of a Camp, (not at all to fight, but to prey and plunder) strip a man of his cloathes, before the breath is out of his body. Dr. ROBERT BARON indeed is dead, and knows not what is done to him. But I hope Mr. BARLOW is both a­live, and live-like; and so tis too soon for Mr. Hickman, to Note the Rule in the civil Law, that he who steales or purloynes another mans writings, or bonds, or the like, is liable to an action of theft &c. Digest. 47.2.27. &. 32. cited by Dr. Zouch in his C [...]ses of civil law. p. 95. take his goods into possession. If Mr. Hickman shall deny, what is become so proverbial for Notoreity, and ex­cuse himself by an older proverb, that many times good wits do Iump, (which being true when Mr. H. doth knock his head against a post, can have no truth here, even for that very Reason,) A man may fitly say to him, as I have heard Sr. Thomas More once said to Gallus in a Tetrastick; (Although what Gallus had done in verse, as Mr. H. hath done in prose, was many centuries of years, before Sr. Tho­mas was yet in being.)

[Page 152]
Vatibus idem animusque, & vere spiritus idem,
Qui fuit Antiquis, est modo (Galle) tibi.
Carmina namque eadem, versus (que) frequenter eosdem
Quos fecere illi, Tu quoque (Galle) facis.

Now because that great and good man was no Philoso­pher of the Heathens, Mr. Hickman will not be angry at it, if I try to put his good Latine into almost as good English.

Thou (Gallus) hast the same both spirit and minde,
With them that writ in time of yore.
For when thou writest Verses, oft I find
Thou writ'st the same they writ before.

His mistake of Iustice for Drollerie.§. 20. Whereas Mr· Hickman adds further, (p. 2.) that I abused Mr. Barlee with Drollerie, as hansome as ever dropped from the pen of of Ben Iohnson in his polemicals,] I thank him as much as if I did, but I do not accept of his Commendation, of which how ambitious Himself hath been, we see by other mens Drollery, to which he hath put his own name. Vindicative Iustice is such a necessary Vertue, as without which it is impossible for humane soci­ety to subsist. Which if Mr. Hickman will needs call Drolle­ry, I must needs assure him he shews his ignorance of the word. My doing of justice on some offenders, in vindicati­on of God and Man, I own as a Duty incumbent on me. And in particular this last which I have done upon this Compiler, I take to be such, as could not safely have been omitted. For Diagoras turned Atheist, upon his seeing a Plagiarie escape unpunisht.

§. 21. He saith, he reckons me unfortunate in choosing the tremendous mystery of reprobation for my first publick essay. The Calvini­an Tenet ren­ders all study uselesse. p. 2.] Not that he thinks me to be unfortunate indeed, but be­cause his fingers itch [...] to be stealing a passage from Mr. Hales [Page 153] (on 2 Note that that Sermon was long since Printed, be­fore reprin­ted in the Re­maines. of Mr. HALES. Pet. 3.16. concerning Eccius his saying, that he chose to speak of Reprobation as an Idoneous subject, in quo juveniles aestus exerceret, which Mr. H. knew not how to introduce with any fitnesse, unlesse he might say I was unfortunate in making choise of that subject. But was not the Refuting of irrespective reprobation, (and of the horrible Blasphemies deduced from it by its Assertors) a subject fit for my [...], or first ende [...]vours when if that Tenet is once swallowed down, all further study is rendered uselesse, (that I may not say pernicious too?) And when no more then common Reason, improved a little by Philosophy, is required to refute it upon the prin­ciples supposed? And when in the principles I speak of, all who have read our Church Catechisme are very sufficiently instructed? Whether so, or not so, let it be judged by them, who have read me at least as they were running, and not by him, who will not read me. As Mr. H. professeth he neither hath, nor will (p 3.) though he professeth the contrary in other places. For which and other Contradicti­ons, I leave him wholly to their lash, who bid him go forth and be a Preacher, though not a Priest, especially for his saying I was unfortunate in any thing; because by using that word, he hints the falshood of his own and his Brethrens Doctrine, That whatsoever comes to passe was fore-determi­ned by an absolute unconditional decree, importing the Ne­cessity of all events. Which doctrine must needs be false, if I was unfortunate in my choise; and as false, if I was fortu­nate. But if he will have the Doctrine true, then it was clearly the will of God (even according to his own and his Brethrens Doctrine) that I should make it my first endea­vour, to comfute their doctrine of Reprobation.

§ 22. What he saith next of Bp. Montagues visitation. The Kings de­claration for­bidding its be­ing preached. (p 3.) and of his Majesties Declaration, which was not intended as a two edged sword (p. 4.) is many wayes to my Advantage. For 1. the end of that Bishops inquiry in his Episcopal visitation, was to silence the Doctrine of irrespe­ctive Decrees. And the same was the end of my publick [Page 154] Notes.. Next that ought to have been the end both of the one, and the other, because Mr Hickman doth now confesse that even that was the end of the Kings Majesti [...]s Declaration, to which we thought it our Duty to yield O­bedience 3. The two edged sword is strangely joyned by Mr. Hickman, with a charitable designe to settle peace, or stop mouthes. 4. Whilest he saith it was designed to stop the mouthes of the Orthodox, he means by Orthodox, those men, who taught (as since the Assembly men have done) that all things are ordained by God; and so the murdering of the innocent, as well as the punishing of the guilty. And why (forsooth!) were they Orthodox, but because Autho­rity had designed to stop their mouthes? How much rather may Independents bestow on themselves the name of Or­thodox, whose mouths were designed to be stopt by the Pres­byterians? 5. The very truth of it is this: That Decla­ration was intended to stop Discourses on eitherside, any farther then our Church had given a Rule whereby to teach, both in her Catechisme, Liturgie, Homilies, and Articles, whose contrariety indeed to the way of Calvin had very good reason to put a muzz [...]l upon his follow [...]rs mouths, whensoever they were opened to Gods dishonour. And this I am able to make apparent by an eminent Person now li­ving from whom I had the following story, that when a Preacher came to Court, and had put in his Text to the Clerk of the closet then Bp. of Hereford, [why will ye dye O house of Israel?] One of the Chaplaines (now a Bishop) was sent to give him a timely warning, not to have any thing in his Sermon against the Kings Declaration. And he undertaking that he had not, was permitted to preach before his Majesty.

No good Ar­guing from evil custome.§▪ 23. What he saith of the Lord Falkland his speech in Parliament, speaking in favour of his party in one respect, but quite against them in another, (p. 5.) hath no other force in it, then that he either thought what he spake, and so that he had not yet seen his errour, or that at least by his dis­pleasure to some of the Bishops then in power, he was in­duced [Page 155] to declaim in General Termes, without the addition of any proof, or of any thing else to supply its room. And so I could tell of another Lord, who would have (proved I cannot say, but) perswaded onely that the Oath in the Canon against Popery and innovations (of which Presbyterianism was not the least) was someway against the King's Supremacy. But wise men knew what these things meant, as well as what the words signifie. And let it be noted by Mr. H. that the Doctrine which he opposeth was then confessed by the Lord Falkland (in the very same speech) not to be contrary to Law, and had nothing but custom to plead against it. (Not proving whether the Custom, were good or evil.) And of what importance it is in RELIGION, to draw an Argument onely from Custome let it be sadly weighed by Them, who do at any time presse for a Reformation. Down goes Presbyterie (if yet I may imply it was ever up) as farre as the speech of that Lord hath any force or strength in it.

§. 24. But now that the Reader may be informed of the disinteressed Iudgement, The Lord Falk­lands judgment against Calvins which that most learned and noble Lord professed to have of those points, I will lead him to his Reply to the Romanists Answer, in vindication of what he had written against the pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome. My Lord (in his pages 108, 109.) speaking of the great controversy betwixt the Do­minicans and the Iesuites, which was debated and heard before Pope Clement, and of the many dayes spent in exami­ning what St. Austin thought, his Lordship adds these words concerning Austin and his Ancestors. And for Au­stin, [He thought so variously concerning it, that he scarce knew himself which: whereas all the Antients that I could ever meet with (as his Lordship goes on) were with the Iesuits with an unanimous consent.] Whatever that Lord might think, or say, in any other time, or place, here he shews us his most avowed, (and I have reason to believe) his ripest judgement.

[Page 156] Mr Hickmans inhumane and slanderous in­sinuation.§. 25. Now comes the practice of an arrant Bigot in Presbyterianisme, who saith that [If whilst I have b [...]en throwing stones (that is writing controversie) my children have wanted their bread, or have been fain to take it divi­ded to them by a more unskilfull ha [...]d th [...]n mine own; Then have I put something upon my Doomesday Book, which he wishes, I may have Time to take off by Repentance. p. 5, and 6.] Here he intimates to his Reader with a barbarous [If] a thing as false, as it is malicious. And I wi [...]l punish him onely by saying, what is a great and known truth. That I have been as constant a we [...]kly Preacher (and sometimes more then w [...]ekly too) since I writ what I have publisht, and all the time that I was writing, as any Presbyterian within my knowledge; and more then some whom I could name. When indeed I have been vehemently sick (for it is not all sickness that hath excus'd me) my flock hath been fed by some other shepherd. When I have sometimes been Absent, I have seldome preached the less for that, but somtimes the more, and somewhere alwayes where need hath been. If to avoid shifting tu [...]ns with neighbour-Minist [...]rs (the cheap and lazie trick of the Pres­byterians) I have been at the charge to maintain a Br [...] ­ther for my Assistance, (that whether sick or absent, I may not be wanting to my Flock) what hurt have I done to such covetous worldlings, as (rather then be at that cost for their peoples good) will make a scandalous shift, and put their money into their Pockets? I think 'twere happy we had a Law, whereby to compell them to use Assistants, who spread out half their mat­ter thinly, and call it a Sermon in the morning, the other half being reserv'd to be spread as thinly, and so to be called a second Sermon after noon. So mine Host in Livie brancht out his Porket, that his Gu [...]sts might not grumble for want of a second, and third course. And children are pleas'd with a couple of sixpences, when they will not be content with a single shilling. Alas, the dif­ference is as great (I mean in one and the same man) be­twixt [Page 157] Sermon, and Sermon, as betwixt Gold in the ingot, and in the leaf. Nothing is commoner with Preachers, then to thrust up m [...]ny Sermons into one, or to beat out one into many. And whereas it is hinted by Mr. Hickman that I have fed my flock by a hand unskilfuller than mine own; Let it suffice that I am not so self-conceited, as to flat­ter my self with his opinion. My Assistant was very much fitter to teach the people their Christian duty, than Mr. Hickman or his peers can be in hast. Fitter (I say) from after the time of his conversion, whatever he might have been whilst he was yet a Presbyterian. But he hath long since left the world; and well it had been for Mr. Hick­man, if he had not thus rake'd in an honest mans Grave; But that he had rather look'd inward, and laid to heart the common Rule, [Qui alterum incusat probri, &c.]

For if it is true,How much wo [...]se in him­self, then in a­ny other. wh [...]t I have heard from many men of good credi [...], (and what I have partly read in print too) that Mr. Hickman at the same time possessed three Livings at once, (and had not any right to either) to wit an ex­cellent Fellowship in Mag. Coll. besides the Parsonage of St. Towles, Therefore thou art inex­cusable O man; —for wherein thou judgest another thou condem­nest thy self: for thou that judgest dost the same things. Rom. 2.1. Its odiousness sh [...]wn by a pa­rallel case. as its vulgarly call'd (enough to keep a worthy man who has wife and children) and also the Vicaridge of Brackley, (where his neglects of his children are most notori [...]us (if I may call them his, which by another kind of Plagium he seiz'd upon,) then is he of all others, the unfittest creature in the world, to tell his Readers-(by intimation) of my omissions towards my Flock, which are very well known to have been none.

Nor will it advantage him now to plead, that he spake with an [if,] and that his inference is true, upon his bare Hypothesis, or supposal. For then without offence to him, I may also bespeak my Readers thus, [That if Mr. Hick­man is very ordinarily drunk, and if he is given to swear fearfully by fits, and if he is a great-striker when intoxi­cated with rage; Then hath he put something on his Doomes­day book, which I wish he may have time to take off by Re­pentance.] [...]his I speak with an [if] and my supposal be­ing [Page 158] granted, my Inference cannot but be true. But I abo­minate these courses, and have onely shew'd him, (as I have done his brother Baxter) that their Trade is as easie, as 'tis inhumane.

§. 26. In his next ensuing words, (p. 6.) he does di­stinguish my opinion, His profession of cordial friendship, with its effect. (to which he is an enemy) from my person, (to which he saith he is a cordial friend.) And yet in the next words to those, he does not equally distin­guish betwixt the persons and opinions of those Beyond-sea Divines, of whose opinions (I hope) I may use as hard spee­ches, as Mr. Hickman hath used of mine, and yet be no less their cordiall friend. We have seen Mr. Hickman his cordial friendship towards me. But I was never so unman­like, as to exercise the like upon his Divines; whose pages and very lines I have laid together with their words; whilst heaven and earth are call'd to witness, what they have said against God, as well as what (in that case) I have duly said against them.

His sacrilegi­ [...]us Eulogie bestowed on them of his way.§. 27. In that he adds of his pretious Divines, that they are scarce to be equalled by any now alive, or to be excelled by those in any Calendar, ibid.] he hath spoken most un­happily, (to say no worse.) For 1. he knows in some Ca­lendars, Mr. Fox his Martyrs are recorded. And was it not much more excellent to dye for Christ; then to write for irrespective decrees of sin, and damnation? Besides, 2. He either knows, or ought to know, that all the saints are in the Calendar, Novemb. 1. so is Michael the Archangel, and (as our Collect understands it) All the the Angels of heaven, on September 29. John Baptist, the Virgin Mary, (who is no less then [...], or Mother of God, in the expression of the Greek Fathers) Nay Christ himself, and the holy Ghost, and the Father too upon Trinity Sunday, are either by name, or in equivalence, at least in some Ca­lendars. Thus he committ▪ a spirituall whoredome, by I­dolizing Mr. Calvin, and other men of his sect, yet has the heart (more then once) to accuse another of par­tiality.

[Page 159]§. 28. Whilst he talks how he will shew, The Doctrine of the Church of England vindicated, with Bp Laud and Bp. Mon­tague. not that the Remonstrant but the contra-Remonstrant opinion hath been the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England (p 8.) he talks unskilfully enough for a man of his own Breeding, for 1. The Remonstrants and their Opponents are much too young, to denominate the Doctrine our Church es­pouseth; to that here he speaks as a parach [...]onizer. But 2. I do not pretend that in every point, the Remonstrants agree with the Church of England; our Church having avoided to define in some things. 3. That they agree in some things, is as manifest as the Sun, by what our Arti­cle saith of the death of Christ, and the falling away of the Regenerate. And if in every other point they do not speak the same thing, yet they are infinitely liker to one a­nother, then either can be to their common Enemies. And 4. I am sure, Our Church is favourable in nothing to the contra-Remonstrants against the Remonstrants. But 5. If the Remonstrants in some things do adhere too much un­to Arminius, wherein the Calvinists and Arminius do but too much agree, as I have elsewhere shewed of some points and am able to shew of others also,) it is no wonder if our Church doth stand at a distance from both together. And so tis a very grosse Fallacy (whether by ignorance or craft, it comes to passe, I do not say,) To make the Doctrine of our Church, and the Doctrine of the Remonstrants (though the most Orthodox men of the Belgick Churches) to be [...], or Aequivalents, in our Accompt. I can manifest a difference, whoever else will say he cannot. And hold­ing fast mine Antagonist to the precedent limits of my Dis­course, or of the Termes I use in it, I shall proceed to an­swer his next assertion, first, by denying his prooflesse and helpless saying, [that the countenancing of Arminianisme (as that is a Nick-name for the doctrine which we embrace with the Church of England) is no older then Bishop Laud and Bishop Montague] and for a proof of my Denial, I re­fer him to Dr. H.'s Certamen Epistolare, but more espe­cially to his Quinquarticular History. 2. By affirming, that [Page 160] if Bp. Laud and Bp. Mountague did more eminently then others, give great Encouragement and Countenance to what hath been commonly called Arminian, the meaning of it is onely this; that they would not suffer those Doctrines which were exceedingly remote from what was owned by our Church, and in some things contrarie to what our Church had defined, to pass with freedom for the Doctrines of the Church of England, when they were nothing but the mistakes of particular men in the English Church.

Of Mr. H.'s Impertinence implying Presbyterians▪ to be Idola­ters.§. 29, But what hath Arminianisme to do with the words of the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry (p. 9) that Mr. H. should be so giddy, as to make that an Ar­gument for his position? does he think that Arminius and the Remonstrants were as really Idolaters, as the same Arminius and his Followers are very well known to be Presbyterians? As Presbyterians they might be such, if we believe Bp. Andrews, and Dr Iackson; but as Anti-Calvini­ans, they could not be so.

The Arch-Bishop clea­red as to what he did against Sher­field.And as little force hath that Homily, to prove that Arch-Bishop L [...]ud was no obedient son of the Church of En­land, (unlesse because he was a Father) in that he put Mr. Sherfield to so much cost, and a disgraceful acknowledgement of [...]is fault, and caused him to be bound to his good Behavi­our, ibid] For Sherfields fault was no lesse then a publick Riot, even breaking of Church-windows in a private Caprice; such as in which (if he had pleased) he might have bro­ken the Bishops head too. To disallow of pictures, is one thing; and to break them, is quite another. It was decreed at Frankford, by no less then 300 Bishops at once, that ima­ges are neither to be broken nor worshipt. And Dr. Ham­mond himself (who is least liable to the suspicion of shew­ing any favour to what is Popish) saith in his Treatise con­cerning heresie, See Dr. Ham. of Heresie p. 126. [that we indeed in this matter approve of the Doctrine of the Frankford decrees, as that is summed up in * those few words.] It is so generally known that the I [...]o­nomachi were Hereticks, who fell to work in the dayes of old (almost 1000. years agoe) as Mr. Sherfield hath lately [Page 161] don, That I thought Mr. Hickman might at least have heard of it. And pity it is that any Christian should so farr imitate, and gratifie, both the Mahumetans, and the Iews. I have taken some care to inform my self rightly of Sherfield's business, and of the windows at Sarum of which he would needs be a Reformer. And by the favour of a Friend (having no acquaintance there my self) I have an accompt from such a person, as cannot easily be deceived in that particular, and cannot possibly design to deceive another. The truth of the Story is briefly this.

§. 30. In a Parochial Church of that City,An Impartiall narrative of the case. there was painted in a window the history of the Creation. And in each dayes work there was added the figure of an old man. The glass might be of the colours mentioned by Master Hickman (from Mr. Prin.) the proportions were small, and so obscurely described, that very difficult it was to discern the History. Few did ever observe, or appear to take any notice of it; so farr it was from giving scandal to weaker persons. Many old Bibles have the like in the two first chapters of Genesis. Nay the like may be seen in an Impression at Geneva. (let Mr. Hickman mark that) It was a calumny rais'd against the excellent Archbishop, that he justified the picturing of God the Father, by that of the Ancient of dayes in Daniel, (which Mr. Hickman per­haps invented, and pretends no more for it, then a simple Hearsay.) when he onely chastized the presumption of Sherfield; not knowing what mischiefs to Church and State such publick riots might one day end in, if private persons of their own heads might be suffer'd to Reform in such a manner. 'Tis true the vision in Daniel might be described agreeably to Daniels Narrative, that is, by the shape of an old man. What is presented to the mind, and ear, by words and letters, may also by pictures be repre­sented to the eye. But to picture an old man in the Hi­story of the Creation (wherein there is not the least men­tion of any such thing) is to falsifie the History; And I [Page 162] profess (for my part) to abhorr it, as much as Mr. Sher­field can be imagined to have done. Yet would I not take his riotous course, whereby to testifie my resentment; but humbly complain to just Authority, and so amend one fault, without the making of another. Concerning the wisdome and Piety of Archbishop Land: I cannot better convince a Hickman, then by the words of Bishop White; who (if a Bishop at least can be) is thought a very good man by the Presbyterians. Bishop White in his Epistle Ded. before his Treatise of the Sabbath. p. 22, 23. This Bishop speaking of a great scandal, withdrawing many from conformity, Your Grace (saith he) in your Metropolitical visitation, hath begun a good work, in taking this into your religious consideration, and you have endeavoured a Reformation. God Almighty vouchsafe to give a blessing, and good success to your pious intention, and that by your Graces Authority, this scandall before mentioned may be removed out of the Church.

The Doctrine of S. Iohn concerning A [...] ­tichrist.§. 31. After one or two more of his empty hearsayes of Bishop Lindsey and his Chaplain, (too contemptible to be nam'd) he inveigh's against them who do not think the Pope Antichrist (p. 11.) how ill soever, they think and say of him besides. That some indeed of our Church have thought and taught him to be Antichrist, is very certain. But it does not thence follow, that 'tis the Do­ctrine of the Church. They that Attribute it rather to Simon Magus and the Gnosticks, have no less then S. Iohn for their Authority. Saint Iohn saying plainly, that An­tichrist (when he was writing) was already in the world, 1 Joh. 4.3. which compare with what is said, 1 Joh. 2.18. and 22. What is said in the Act for the subsidy, of the Clergy, as I have not convenience to examine, so should I be sorry to find it in contradiction to Saint Iohn. And if the matter were to be carried by the votes of men who are greatly learned, I know not what can be greater, then Hugo Grotius, and Dr. Hammond.

Original sin as­sented to, as taught in the Article of our Church.§. 32. What he add's against Dr. Taylor (pag. 12.) Dr. Taylor alone is concerned in, unless he thinks that That Doctor is the whole Church of England. Let it suffice Ma­ster [Page 163] Hickman, that the Doctrine of originall sin in the ninth Article of our Church, is without any scruple as­sented too; not onely by my self, (who have given a pub­lick proof of it,) but by every other man of my parti­cular acquaintance. What he saith of the Religion, which was sealed by the blood of our English Martyrs, (ib.) should suffice to conjure up the very blood of his Feet into his fore­head. The best of our Martyrs having been Bishops; and such as partly composed, or partly admired our English Li­turgie; and such as taught the very Doctrines, which now are nicknam'd Arminian, and such as never would put asunder, what the Holy Ghost hath joyned in the very same Text, (1 Pet. 2.17.) Fear God, Honour the King. And I will hold Mr. Hickman so wise for once, as to think a word sufficient for him. But when he adds that his Reli­gion hath been defended (or fought for) by the swords of soldiers (ibid.) I shall tell him too in one word more,Loyalty a part of our Religi­on. That those are very unfit weapons for the defending of a Religi­on, where God himself allows nothing but Prayers and Tears to guard it with. The Church of England teacheth none to call their strength the law of Iustice; or to fight for Religion with breach of Loyalty. We leave such pra­ctice to three sorts of men; the Turkish, Popish, and Pres­byterian. Our English Martyrs were none of that num­ber.

§. 33. Christian Reader, I am now arriv'd at that part of. Mr. Hickmans Preface,An accompt to the Reader of the Method ob­served in all that follows. (p. 13.) wherein Doctor Heylin hath ex professo taken him up. See his Certamen Epistolare, part 2. pag. 150. §. 26. from which place for­wards, he hath so fully and effectually performed his en­terprize, as to have given a supersedeas to what I had o­therwise detain'd thee with, and am in some measure pre­par'd for in my Adversaria. And therefore partly not to wearie thee with that enormity of Length, into which I foresee I shall infallibly grow, if I pursue a Fugitive [...], (as I have hitherto done) and partly not to do what is done already, and by one of the exactest Histo­ricall [Page 164] hands, and especially because I am no way concern'd in a very great part of the tedious Preface, as well as be­cause that I alone am left to speak, to the remaining parts of the Book it self; I shall resolve to say no more then thou dost probably expect, and hast reserved a patience for. But if I here and there add, what is not observed, (at least not said) by Dr Heylin; I hope the fault will be such, as will deserve its own pardon.

Bp. Tunstal and Bp. Hooper out-weigh Tyndal, &c.§. 34. If that were true which he saith of Tyndal, &c. (p. 13.) yet besides the five things which are returned by Dr. Heylin, (p▪ 152, 153.) I can requite him with Bi­shop Tunstal in King Henry the eight's dayes, and Bishop Hooper a little after, who both abhorr'd that Doctrine, which Frith and Tyndal are urged for; and wrote against it to better purpose, then these were able to write for it. The seventeenth Article which he urgeth (p. 15.) is pro­ved two wayes to make apparently for us▪ The seven­teenth Article two wayes for us. 1. By the phrase of God's choosing in Christ. 2. By the care which is injoyned, that we receive God's promises as they be gene­rally set forth to us in holy Scripture; which why did Ma­ster Hickman so very fraudently conceal in his recital, but because his heart told him 'twas quite against the whole Frame of Calvinistical Decrees? See Dr. Hammond's Fun­damentals, p. 146.

So the Litur­gie and Homi­lies, and No­wells Cate­chism, which Mr. H. produ­ceth against himself.§. 35. 'Tis very remarkable (p. 16.) that he pretends the Common Prayer and Homilies are for his turn, but is not able to cite a word. And Dr. Heylin makes it appear (as Bishop Overal long ago) that all is destructive to his pretensions. What a rare Argument hath he urged, p. 18? From Doctor Nowel being Prolocutor in Queen Elizabeth's time; He concludes the Articles of the Church to be Calvinistical. And then to manifest how ignorant he is in these points, he cites a passage from Nowels Ca­techism, which he hopes is for his interest, though it is as visibly against it, as can be wish'd. For whereas it is said, [They that be stedfast and constant in this Faith, were chosen and appointed, and (as we term it) predestinated to this so [Page 165] great felicity, p. 19.] It is inferred unavoidably, That God did choose or predestinate to life eternal the stedfast, stable, and constant in the Faith. Which is as much as Arminius did ever desire to have granted, whereby to prove the Decree to have been respective, to wit, respective of that stedfastness and constancy in the Faith, (which imports perseverance unto the end) without which it is confessed, God chooseth none. It being impossible for God (even because he is perfect) to predestinate or choose a person so qualified (as is expres­sed by Doctor Nowell) with out respect to the qualificati­on. So that Nowell was an A [...]minian, or Arminius a kind of Nowellist, (no matter which,) and Master Hickman understands not what 'tis really to be either. H [...] could not else so often write (after the manner that he doth) ei­ther quite beside, or against his purpose.

§. 36. To his Question, (pag. 19.) how came the Church of England to dispose of her places of greatest influ­ence and Trust to such as were of a contrary perswasion, It was not [...]he Church of Eng­land that put the Calvinists into prefer­ments if she consented to the opinions commonly call'd Arminian?] Doctor Heylin's answer is most sufficient, p. 170. &c. But yet I add five things. 1. Our Church in all things was not one way, or other, (there lyes a fallacie in Arminian, which we disown,) and so she was not (in particular) for irrespective decrees. 2. The Church taken collectively (as when we say the Church of England) or used to signifie the Doctrine, never disposed of preferments. But they were ever disposed of (to the better, or to the worse,) as men corrupted with interest and evil principles have been more or less prevalent with those in power, (as of late the Inde­pendents dispos'd of all from the Presbyterians, witness the Deanarie of Christ-Church from which Doctor Rey­nolds was ejected, and the Conscience-stretcher of England (if the song speaks truly) preferr'd before him. And yet whilst I am writing, 'tis vice versâ a like case. Qui color albus erat &c. does it follow they were both in the right by turnes? no, the wisest men say, they were both Vsurp [...]rs.) 3. They could not be Arminians, who lived before Ar­minius [Page 166] was alive. 4. If Calvins Doctrine was that of our National Church, whilest his Followers prevailed in point of Number, and for that very reason, (as Mr. H. now ar­gues) then the contrary to that was her Doctrine too, when the Nick-named Arminians did as much prevail, by his own confession (p. 4.) The absurdity of which will make Mr. H. renounce his Logick. 5. Since he boasts of his number, I shall probably name ten of worth and eminence on this side, for every single man of Note, which he names on that, not that I favour such wayes of arguing, but meerly because I would convince him, by that which he chooseth to make his own. I shall publish (if it be needflul) an ample Cata­logue of the Orthodox, on whom such places have been conferred in the Church of England, as will be granted to have been (ever) of greatest influence and trust. But I ab­stain (whilest it is needlesse) out of that reverence which I beare unto peace, and prudence.

Arch-Bp. Ban­croft an Anti-Calvinist.§. 37. If Arch-Bishop Bancroft had hated that which is called Arminianisme as the shadow of Death, (which Mr. H, pretends p. 20. he would not have shewed such a hatred to Mr. Calvin and his Followers. Nor would he have published the confessions both of Coppinger and Wig­ginton, touching their publishing their Pamphlet of Pre­destination, to prepare the way to their intended murder and Rebellion;Bancrof [...]s Dang. Pos. l. 4. ch. 10. p▪ 161, 162. even by laying the blame of their leud at­tempts upon the absolute decree of the Almighty, which is inferred by that desperate Doctrine to give a fatal necessity to all events, and I therefore call it a desperate Doctrine, because it was called so expressly by Bp. Bancroft himself, in the famous Conference at Hampton Court.

Dr. RICH­ARDSON & Dr OVERAL both publick Professors and most severe to the Calvinian Doctrins.§. 38. Whilst he saith that in Cambridge there was one Dr. Overall, who was suspected a little to Arminianize ibid.] He is unhappy in 2. respects. For 1. If he means one, as opposed to more, (and not by way of contempt, as some have taken it) then he must know that Dr. Richardson was one of the Divinity Professors in Cambridge, a very emi­nent Anti-Calvinist, and commonly called by those men, [Page 167] the [...]at Arminian. For he lay very heavy on all such men, as Calvinized in Disputation. Dr. Sibbs in particular was so baffled by him, that he thereupon preached on [...] to the Clergy. 2. So far was Dr. Overal from being cold­ly, or but a little, what Mr. H. calls Arminian, that it is hard to name any, more averse to the Calvinists in point of Doctrine, as well as Discipline. For not to speak of his Exposition of the Genuine minde of the Church of England in the 5. Controverted points, (which is as crosse to the Calvinists as can be wisht,) his large Epistle to Hugo Gro­tius doth so inveigh against the Tenent of unconditionate Decrees (as well of saving as damning men) that he reckons it one of those opinions, Sententiae quae exalterâ parte sic aft­r [...]unt Decre­tum Dei ab­solutum, gra­tiamque effi­cacem, ut tol­lant volunta­tem salutis conditiona­tam & grati­am sufficien­tem, nullo modo in Ec­clesiâ Dei [...] ­rendae sunt aut tolerandae ut quae pugnent cum bonitate Dei & Philanthropiâ; cum naturâ hominis aut modo a­ctionis humanae; cum verbo revelato t [...]m in lege quàm in Evangelio, Deo (que) aut simulati­onem & mendacium, aut malitiam & Iniquitatem, aut crudelitatem & Injustitiā affingant; Hominibus (que) aut securitatem carnalem, aut desperationem adferant, multa (que) similia Absurda & inconvenientia secum attrahant. IO. OVERALLVS ad Hug. Gro. Maii. 16, 1613. p. 279, 280. which is by no means to be en­dured in the Church of God, as not consisting with the Goodnesse and love of God to mankinde, with the nature of man, and with the nature of humane Actions, with the re­vealed word of God both in the law and in the Gospel; in a word, tis an opinion, (as the Dr. goes on) which doth not onely lead men to carnal security and despaire, and carries a­long with it many other the like absurdities. But it [affixeth or forceth on God himself either counterfeiting and lying, or malice and iniquity, or cr [...]elty and injustice.] such an Anti-Calvinian was the most learned Dr. Overal; with whom our late Primate of Armagh did most happily profess his full concurrence.

§. 39. But I am challenged to name any one Doctor of the chaire who was placed in Oxford, Dr. SAN­DERSON no less, since his change of Judgement. and not a Calvinist ibid.] And I am ready to name one who was instar omnium, equal to all that went before, if not superiour in all re­spects; [Page 168] even the eminently moderate and most learned Dr. Sanderson, who though he was not before the time of the late Arch-Bishop, yet he is more to be considered then all that were; because for many years together he had ever See Dr. San­dersons letter accorded with by Dr. Ham­mond. p. 10. & 11. ac­quiesced in the sublapsarian way, and yet upon great and ma­ture deliberation, having all his 5. schemes in his eyes at once and comparing them duely with one another, He soon discerned a Necessity of quitting the sublapsarian way, (in which till then, he did acquiesce) as well as the supralapsarian, which he could never fancy, so that the whole of Mr. Calvin, as a sub, and supralapsarian, (for he is both by fits, as Dr. San­derson observes, and Dr. Twisse confesseth,) was rejected by him when he was ripest and most impartial which though I knew a good while since, by a letter received from him­self, (that I might not doubt of my intelligence,) yet had I not spoken of it here (how much soever for the honour and interest of my cause) had not his change been made publick by his consent.

Persecution is not a mark of Error in those that suffer it.§. 40. He saith, As many as trod the Arminian path, were wont to be suppressed and censured, so soon as they be­gan to discover themselves, p. 21.] First, if this were true, it were a very impertinent and pitiful way of arguing. For we know there was a time, when the Eastern Churches were overspread with the prosperous heresie of the Arrians, as the Western were in great measure with that other He­resie of the Donatists, whilest the Orthodox were suppressed by those▪ and these. And what objection can it be to the Spouse of Christ, or her children, that in adherence to his Gospel they have borne his Cross too? But 2. It is false, which he so confidently affirmeth, and that without excep­tion too. For did not Mr. Harsenet Discover himself at Pauls Crosse (as may appeare by his Printed Sermon, after which he was preferred from one Dignity to another, first to the Mastership of Pembrook-Hall, and after that to the Arch-Bishoprick of York? Let Mr. H. reflect upon what I told him (§. 36.) and retract the rashnesse of his expres­sion.

[Page 169]Sect. 41,Mr Simpson cleared from his Censors as to Falling from Grace, and Rom. 7. Of Mr. Barret and Mr. Simpson I shall the ra­ther speak in particular, because Dr. Heylin does refer them to his General Answer (p, 175.) And 1. I observe in Mr. Hickman, that he does not name Mr. Barrets Doctrines, for which the censure was passed on him▪ perhaps he was asha­med to name them. For if they were such as Mr. Simpsons, that the commission of a great sin doth extinguish Grace for a time; Tis plain the Censurers themselves were much more worthy of publick Censure. For when our Article saith expressly, that the childe of God may fall away, by what sin may he fall, if not by a great one? (But of this I have spoken in My whole third Chapter to Mr. Baxter,) And then for what he spake of Rom. 7. It must be meant in all reason of committing great sins too, (in consent with that which he spake before,) and so they came not home to the businesse, who understood it onely of a regenerate man according to St. Austin in his Retractations. For there that Father is of opinion, that St. Paul in that Chap. did not speak of great sins, but onely sins of infirmity, which that it really was an error, and a gross error too, and what betraied that Father to it, Mr. Hickman may see though he look no further, then Dr. Hammonds Re­view of his Annotations; especially p. 131. compared with p. 127. where he saith (what doth carry sufficient evidence of its truth in the fore-head of it) that this indeed is all the difference to be assigned betwixt a regenerate and an unregene­rate man, that in the one the Spirit, in the other the Flesh is victorious, that is, the will of the one is led by the spirit, and the will of the other by carnal Dictates.

Sect. 42. Now concerning the Recantation supposed to be made by Mr. Barret, Barrets Re­canting, an arrant fable besides what is said by Hist. Quin­quar. p. 3. ch. 19. p. 72.73. Dr. Heylin to shew its improbability, and the Letter (by him produ­ced) to Dr. Goad; I have another letter of Barrets, copied out from his own hand and directed to Mr. Chatterton, the Master (at that time) of Emanuel College, wherein he saith expressly, that he would not perform the Retractation requi­red of him. And he gives such reasons, as are too long to [Page 170] be here inserted; which I therefore deferr till some other season, when I may fitly publish that, with some other things not hitherto extant. I have also been inform'd of some ejected Masters of Colleges, that having diligently sought, they could not find any such thing. So that for ought I yet see, that Recantation is but a Fable. Nor can I wonder at such inventions of a Puritan faction, when I consider their Forgeries concerning Hampton- [...]ourt Con­ference, 'till Doctor Barlow had put them to shame and silence.

Bp. MONTA­GVE'S vindi­cation.§ 43. To his following Impertinencies I shall speak very bri [...]fly because they are extremely such, p. 23. &c.] 1. As Bishop Montague's Adversaries did indeed object (against him) his Dissent from the Doctrine of the Church of England, so to their shame (if they had any) he freed himself from that charge. Master P [...]m's Report to the House of Commons, is no proof at all, that he was cen­sur'd by the Parliament. And the Order of that House in the behalf of the Articles, was not hurtfull to him who oppos'd them not, but understood them better, and declar'd as much for them, as the Commoners could doe.

Mr. Hickman's confession, That men follow C [...]lvin in their younger, and Arminius in their riper years.§. 44. To Mr. Hickmans rare Question p. 28. [How comes it to pass, that those who now follow Arminius, did heretofore follow Mr. Calvin?] I thank him for the oc­casion to make this Answer, That the older men gr [...]w, they grow the wiser and more impartial. To what end do men study both men and books, but to discover the mistakes of their giddy youth? Is it not fit that the aged Bishop of Winchester, should understand things better then young Mr. Andrews? But he was a Bishop, and one who lived at such a Time, when it was safe to leave Calvin, as King Iames (his Great Master) had also done.

And therefore to satisfie Mr. Hickman, Let the Que­stion be put of Dr. Sanderson;The causes of it given by Dr. SANDER­SON. whose change of judge­ment was never publish'd, untill the last and worst times, [Page 171] whilst yet the Followers of Calvin had power to See Inquifi­tio Anglicana, and other ac­counts given of the Trie [...]s at Westminster perse­cute their opponents: why did he follow the way of Cal­vin in point of Doctrine (I mean his sublapsarian way) be­fore he considered and compar'd it with other wayes, and at last forsook it after such consideration? The very Question suggests the Answer which in all reason is to be made; And may suffice for a general answer to the farr greatest part of Mr. Hickman's long Preface. Observe (Good Reader) the most Ingenuous Confession of that so eminently learned and holy man. [See Doctor Hammond's Pacifick Dis­course of Gods Grace and de­crees, p. 10. Giving himself to the study of practicall Divinity, (he saith) he took up most other things upon trust.] And this he did so much the rather, because Calvin (at that time) was not so wholesomely suspected, as (blessed be God) he since hath been. But (to express it in the words of the Judicious Doctor San­derson) ibid p. 9. The honour of Calvin's name gave Reputation to his very errours. And if so great a Scholar as he did take up opinions upon trust, and was carried down the stream of the common errours, his weaker brethren could not choose but be swept away with so strong a Torrent.

§. 45. But they were farr from being such, whose Que­stions in the Act Mr. Hickman reciteth from Mr. Prin, Of Doctor IACKSON'S Act Questions and Doctor Frewein's. as he hath done the greatest part of his tedious Preface. For Doctor Iackson might well acknowledge all lost in Adam, when he supposed a Recovery of all in Christ. And here it is observable, that Mr. Hickman hath not stoln fairly. For Mr. Prin expressed very honestly, what his jugling Transcriber thought it his Interest to conceal. It was the very first of the Doctors three Questions, An Peccatum originale contineat in se aliquid positivi. And this was held in the affirmative. The other Act-questions were Doctor Frewin's, the now-Right Honourable and Right Reverend Father in God, the Bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, whom I am never able to name, without a pre­face of honour and veneration: Who if he did once Cal­vinizare, (as Bishop Andrews, and King Iames before the times of their conversion,) let it suffice that his latter [Page 172] judgement is much preferrable to his former. It is no more to the disparagement of Doctor Goad, and Master Hales, and Daniel [...]ilenus (the Synodist at Dort) and Do­ctor Potter, and Doctor Godwin, and Melanchthon him­self, and the late Primate, that as soon as they saw, they forsook their errours; then it could be to Saint Paul, that though as long as (in comparison) he was a child, he spake as a child, 1 Cor. 13.11. understood as a child, and thought as a child, yet when he grew to a perfect man, he put away childish things. And hence Mr. Hickman may take the reason, why I parted with those opinions I first embraced, which now he reproacheth me withall (p. 29.) though more to my honour then he imagin'd. But he must know that by the first of the three last Questions, [An praede­stinatio ad salutem sit propter praevisam fidem.] he seems to be ignorant of the difference betwixt the foresight of Faith, and Faith foreseen; as betwixt ex, and propter; a condition, and a cause; secundum praescientiam Fidei, & propter fidem praescitam. And so he is like the vain Iang­lers of whom Saint Paul speaks to Timothy, that they de­sired to be Teachers, understanding neither what they said, nor whereof they affirmed. 1 Tim. 1.6, 7.

§. 46. Of Lambeth Articles, that they were caused to be suppress'd by Queen Elizabeth, Of K. IAMES and Bp. Mon­tague. See Doctor Heylin his Examen Historicum p. 164. That King Iames before he dyed was an Anti-Calvinist, appears by the Conference at Hampton Court, and by his great approbation of all that was preached by Bishop Andrews, which was as op­posite to Calvin, as light to darkness, and by his high e­steem of B [...]shop OVERALL, who was wont to call the Calvinists, The Zenonian Sect, and by his singular favour to Bishop Montague, whom he imployed in composing his Apparatus and [...], and whose Appeal he adorned with his Royal Patronage and Protection. (which yet he could not have done, if he had not been that which they call Arminian.) That Bishop Montague was incou­raged by the special Direction of King IAMES, to De­dicate [Page 173] that Book to his Royal self, is most apparent to e­very man, who wil [...] but read his own words in his De­dication.

If any Reader can yet be ignorant of King Iames his deliverance from that captivity,King Iames his conversion from the Cal­vinian errors. into which he had been l [...]dd by his first and worst Teachers, let him peruse that Epistle with which the learned Tilenus Senior did dedicate his Book to that learned King; even his Vid. Epist. Ded. praefix. No [...]is seu A­nimadvers. Danielis Tile [...]i in Canon. Syn. Dord. Book of Ani­madversions upon the Synod of Dorts Canon. There the Reader will be inform'd, how Tilenus his Paraenesis had pleas'd that King; who gave a proof of his special liking by his speciall command to have it Printed. How a little after that, the King invited him by a Letter, to come o­ver into England, and here to try the effects of his Roy­all Favour. How his Majestie took care, that care might be taken by other men, Not to blaspheme with the Puri­tanes in making God the Author of sin. How he assented to Tilenus, whilst he inveighed against the Error of irre­spective decrees, especially that of Reprobation. A more impious errour then which, he said a —S [...] coacto immundorum spirituum concilio, eo­rum princeps Diabolus à paredris suis Angelis, sive singulatim, si­ve per saty­ram rogatis sententiis, quonam commento odium hominum adversus Deum vehementius incendi, atque in­tendi queat, &c. — Synod of Divels was not able to invent. Thence he styled it the Horrendum il­lud Calvini decretum; and professed to see nothing through­out the whole Calvinian Scheme, which did not either flow out of Zeno's porch, or from the Tables of the De­stinies, or from the stinking Mephitis of the Manichees. By all which it is apparent, that Mr. Hickman is unexcusable as far as his 38. page; where he grows less guilty, though guilty still.

§. 47. That some of our Divines did change their judgement,A change of judgement in some Divines who were se [...] to Dort. notwithstanding their employment at the Sy­nod of Dort, will not (I think) be denyed by any, who hath not the forehead of a Hickman. For Mr. HALES his conversion is known to most, (as Tilenus his to all,) [Page 174] and Dr. GOAD'S to very many. That Bp. DAVENANT was at last for Vniversal Redemption, I have long since [...]. ch. 3. p. 103.104. pro­ved, and more then once, what hath been said by Bp. Hall against the tenent of absolute or irrespective reprobation, I have elsewhere at large informed my Readers. Div. pur. Def. ch. 4 p. [...]29. That Dr. WARD and Bp. DAVENANT were of opinion, that all Infants by Baptisme are freed from the guilt of Original sin, and in a state of Salvation, (implying some to fall totally and finally too, because there are some, who die Impeni­tents being men, notwithstanding being Infants they were Baptized,) Mr Gataker hath assured us by divulging of their Epistles. If I would passe over to France, I could tell him of Famous Moulin, who had an interest in the Synod, (although not there,) and yet was exactly an Ar­minian, as to the point of Reprobation; and accused as such, by Dr Twisse, so was Camero, Amyrald, Testard, and D [...] ­ille, as well accused by Spanhemius, as by other followers of Calvin, for passing over to the Arminians in the point of General Redemption: but to speak of such as these, is to pay Mr. H. in more then full measure.

Mr. H.'s sense of the Vniver­sity, and his un­pardonable scurrility to the late Arch-Bp.§. 48. To Mr. H.'s two Questions proposed in one breath, [what thinks Mr. P. of the Vniversity of Oxon? did not she know the Opinions of the Church of England? p. 46.] I briefly answer; First, that whilest she had the privilege of injoy­ing a Real Vniversity, (which she injoyed until the year 1648.) I think as well of the Vniversity as when she burnt the Book, and condemned the Doctrine of the great Calvi­nist Paraeus, who sowed those Presbyterian seeds of the late prosperous Rebellion, of which such fellows as our Compiler enjoy the harvest. To the 2. I answer by way of Interrogation, Did not the Church of England so much as know her own minde, when she commanded Erasmus his learned Paraphrase to be had in such honour throughout the Nation, as to any Piece of Calvin was never given? how came the prayers of Erasmus to have a place in our pub­lick Liturgy, from King Henry the 8. dayes unto these our own, if all our Church was fermented with Calvins Leven? [Page 175] The Vniversity of Oxford knew well her Doctrins, especial­ly then when she was most of all knowing, which was in the time of the late Arch-Bishop; in the vilifying of whom, Mr Hickman hath shamed his own dear Faction. For whilst he calls him an evil instrument (p. 48.) he makes himself an example of Puritanical Petulancy and passion, whereby the men of his Faction will grow more vile. And whilest he saith they were never well, till they had ☞ N [...]te the breeding of a lay-preacher ordained at Bra [...]kly, to­wards the Pri­mate of all En­gland, whom Chamier al­lows to have been a prince. spewed out his Grace as an evil instrument (ibid.) he im­plyes his Faction was deadly Drunk: so indeed were the Jews, when they were sick of Christ, and thought they could not recover till they had spewed him out of the earth. But as Titus Vespasian came about 40. years after and cured those Jews of all Diseases; so if our Pharisees will be pa­tient but half that time, they may perhaps meet with that, th [...]t will stop their spewing.

§. 49▪ Now I come to the objection, which Mr. H. con­fesseth doth lye against him,Vniversal Re­demption, held as well by K. Iames, the late Primate of Armagh, and Bp. Davenant, as by Armi­nius. [the Church of England is for Vniversal Redemption; The Calvinists that are Anti-Armini­an are against it. p. 48, 49.] To which he answers two wayes, First, by a confession, that King Iames gave it in charge to the Divines sent to Dort, Not to deny that Christ died for all; and that this was affirmed by Bp. Vsh [...]r, (for so he calls the late Primate,) who also said, That he gave in his own judgement to Dr. Davenant for universal Redem­ption; and accordingly it was one of Bp. Davenants con­clusions, Mors sive Passio Christi, ut universalis causa salutis humanae De­um patrem ipso facto ob­lationis eate­nus reddit pa­catum & Re­conciliatum Humano Generi, ut verè nun [...] dicatur paratus quemvis hominem recipe­re in gratiam, simul ac in Ch [...]istum crediderit. Neminem tamen, saltem ex adultis, praedicta Christi mors in statum gratiae actualis, Reconciliationis sive salutis, antequam credat. These the words of Bp, Davenant, by Mr. H.'s confession praef. p. 50. that the death or Passion of Christ as the Vniver­sal cause of mans salvation, doth so far appease and reconcile God the Father to Mankinde, by the very fact of his Oblation, that he is truely now said to be ready to receive every man into Favour, as soon as he will believe in Christ, notwithstanding the aforesaid death of Christ restoreth no man (no man at least who is come to ripenesse) into a state of actual favour, [Page 176] Reconciliation, or salvation, untill he actually believes.] No man (saith the Bishop) no not any of the elect, before he is qualified by faith; meaning that faith which worketh by love, an Universal obedience to the commandments of Christ. But by the offering of himself upon the Crosse, the Bp. saith that he made God appeased and reconciled (observe the word) not onely to the Elect, but indefinitely to all Man-kinde; and that as an Vniversal cause, not one­ly of salvability, but (saith the Bp.) of salvation. Armini­us never said more, no nor ever so much, for ought I am able to remember. Nor was ever so much said by the Church of England, as that Christ reconciled his Father to Man-kinde, ipso facto by the oblation of himself, [ut Vniver­salis causa Salutis Humanae,] as the Vniversal cause of man­kind's salvation. but I suppose by Salvation, he only meant Salvability, or no more by cause then meritorious. And then indeed he doth no more then Arminianize with the Church of England, (as Mr. Hickman is wont to phrase it.) It being the Doctrine of our Church, In the COMMVNI­ON BOOK, after the act of Consecra­t [...]on. that Christ by his own oblation of himself once offered made a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. And again more fully, In the 31. ARTICLE of the 39. See Mr. Clerk's Mar­tyrologie, part 2. in the life of Dr. Preston, p. 129. to p. 134. for a partiall accompt of the dispute between Dr. Preston, Dr. White, & Mr. Montague that the offer­ing of Christ once made is that perfect r [...]demption, propitia­tion, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world both Original and Actual. So exactly opposite to the Calvinists is the Church of England in her belief.

This doth prompt me to tell the Reader (if he knows it not, or hath forgot it) that at a conference held about the Books of Bp. Montague, One of the Lords made it his motion, that the Doctrine of the Dort Synod (as to the points we speak of) might be received into the Articles of the Church of England. But this was opposed by Bp. White, and even for this very reason, because our Church in her publick Catechisme, doth teach her children to be­lieve, (what is denyed by the Synod of Dort) Christ died for us and for all mankinde. Why Bp. Chappel (before Bp.) [Page 177] did refuse an excellent place in Ireland, because he would not subscribe to Dam man, (alluding merrily to Damman, who had the office of Scribe in the Synod of Dort) And how at last he became one of the Bishops of that Church, by the advantage of that Canon, (procured by the po­wer of Archbishop Land in Intuition of Bishop Chappel) That a man was qualified for preferment in the Church of Ireland, without subscribing the Irish, if he would but subscribe the English Articles, is so very well known to many men, that Master Hickman himself perhaps hath heard it.

§. 50. Master Hickman's second Answer is by a proof­less affirmation, and even in that his heart fails him;Mr. H. grants the whole cause but does no [...] know it. His opposi [...]ion to the Assembly­men's confessi­on of FAITH. so as he clogs it with an [almost a word which saves many a lye, (as the proverb is amongst countrey people.) Rea­der, take notice, that these are all his own words, [I am almost as confident, that to grant him universal Redem­ption, is to grant him [...]ust nothing at all] Thus what he forged of Dr. Heylin he fully verifies in himself, (if he is really the meaning of Theophilus Churchman.) For he is an unhappy Writer, and marr's every thing he meddles with, p. 1.] To grant me that which was denyed, by Mr. Cal­vin, and his followers, to grant me that which the Re­monstrants were even persecuted for by those of Dort; To grant me that for which Spanhemius accused Amyrald as an Arminian; and for which the notorious Triers have de­prived so many of their rights; is to grant me just nothing, saith our Automachus. But what now will he say to save the credit of his Assembly men, whom he can never re­concile to the Lord Prima [...]e, or Bishop Davenant, or to himself? Let him read and be ashamed of the publick conf [...]ssion of their faith, chap. 8. Art. 5. & 8. especially the last. Where Redemption is so far from being held to be univers [...]l, that 'tis extended onely to them, to whom it is certainly and effectually applyed, and who are effectually perswaded by the Spirit of Christ, to believe and obey, &c. Now can it be thought by Mr. Hickman that all mankind [Page 178] hath Christ effectually applyed, as is there expressed? if so he is (it seems) for universal salvation, of which the Arminians never dream'd; they were never so vo [...]d of sense and reason. If not so, 'tis evident, how ill he thinks of his Assemblers, and how little he can comply with their Novel Creed, unless he is a kind of Gnostick, and so can side with all by turns.

Mr. H. proved to grant the whole cause at which he rails, and so to be a Calvinisticall Arminian.§. 51. His Answer is not so ridiculous, but that his reason is somwhat more. Take it too in his own words [For what though Christ did so farr dye for all as to pro­cure a salvation for all, upon the conditions of Faith and Repentance? what's this to the absoluteness of Go [...]'s De­crees? &c. pag. 49.] But that the world hereby is made my witness, that the man is indeed a meer Compiler and a Rhapsodist, and is excessively ignorant of these affairs, I would permit my inclinations to follow their bent upon this occasion. Had the Reverend Dr. Reynolds said such a thing, I should gladly have spent a little Volume in his Conviction. But no such words could have proceeded from so intelligent an Adversary. Such as he cannot but know, how See Doctor SANDER­SON'S two Reasons, why his soul so much abhorr'd, and why he was forced to forsake the Sublapsarians. [...]. p. 14, 15. inconsistent this is with irrespective decrees, that Christ should dye for all mankind, and so as to pro­cure their salvability; or so as to make satisfaction for all the sins of all the world, as well actuall, as originall; or so as to make God appeased and reconciled to all mankind. How, I say, can this be, (which yet is granted by the Lord Primate, and Bishop Davenant,) if God decreed from all eternity to reject or reprobate the greatest part of mankind, either without respect to their very creation (as Doctor Twisse) or to their fall in Adam's loynes, (as the common Supralapsarians) or to any the least of their Actuall sins? (as the Sublapsarians do hold and teach.) They that were absolutely reprobated cannot possibly be saved, or have a salvability procured for them. And so they imply a contradiction, who holding the absolute de­cree of Reprobation, do also hold that Christ procured a [Page 179] capability of salvation to all mankind. (But of this I have In the Ap­pend [...]x to [...]. Confi [...]med by the conf [...]ssions of Du Moulin, Paraus, and Dr. Reynolds. spoken to Dr. Bernard, p. 159.)

Besides, I will prove by three as great men, as Mr.Hick­man probably can name of the Anti-Arminians (for so at least they are called by their Disciples and themselves) That Mr. Hickman hath now granted, what Dr. Twisse doth call the Arminian Cause. For 'tis confessed by Du Mou­lin, in the letter which he sent to the Synod of Dort, and by Paraeus the Professor of Theologie at Heidleburgh, (whose judgement was much regarded by the Synod of Dort too) and by Doctor Edward Reynolds by unavoidable implication, That if Christ dyed for all, so farr as to pro­cure salvation for all upon condition, then God decreed he should procure it upon condition for all. (without which condition he did not procure it for any one.) Peter Mou­lin's words are these. Act. Synod. D [...]rdr. part. sess. 143. p. 339 ‘Non est dubium, quin ob quam causam Deus damnat, ob eandem damnare decreverit. Damnat autem reprobos ob peccata actu commissa. Lu­unt enim poenas in Inferno, non solum peccati Origina­lis, sed & actualium omnium. Unde & inaequalitas poe­narum. Ergo & Deus eos damnare decrevit ob eadem peccata. Nihil enim obstat quo minus Deus conside­rans hominem jacentem in corruptione & pravitate na­turali, eundem quoque consideret pollutum iis peccatis quae per istam pravitatem naturalem est commissurus. And again. Ib. p. 340. Deum quenquam destinasse ad poenam ae­ternam sine confideratione Impoenitentiae aut increduli­tatis, nec dicimus, nec sentimus. — Impoenitentia antecedit ordine Reprobationem.’ Now this is down­right Vin. Gra. lib. 1. part. 1. sect. 4. Digr. 6. cap. 1 pag 92. who yet confesseth as much as makes himself Arminian too. lib. 1. p [...]rt. 1. pag. 77. See P [...]i­lan. cap. 3. pag. 124. Arminianisme, saith Doctor Vin. Gra. lib. 1. part. 1. sect. 4. Digr. 6. cap. 1 pag 92. who yet confesseth as much as makes himself Arminian too. lib. 1. p [...]rt. 1. pag. 77. See P [...]i­lan. cap. 3. pag. 124. Twisse, who could better judge of Arminianism, then young Bathyllus. Confirmed fu [...]ther by Dr. Twisse. Now let Paraeus his words be weighed, that we may see if he doth not also conspire professedly with the Arminians; (as Dr. Twisse expresly affirms of Moulin)

[Page 180] Paraeus in Explic. Dubior. c. 9 ad Rom. p. 880. ‘Justus Judex non aliam decernendae sententiae, aliam exequendae causam habet, sed unam utriusque, nempe capitale sl [...]gitium. And again he saith, Ib. 82. col. 2. Deum posse uti jure suo absoluto in Reprobis ad interitum ordinandis, abstinuisse tamen. And yet again. Ib. p. 887. Col. 1. Propter quod De­us in tempore aliquos reprobat à gloria, propter id eti­am Reprobare à Gloria olim decrevit.’ And accordingly In proof to the corrept. cor. Doctor Reynolds thought fit to prove (as well he might) that God decreed from eternity to permit sin in time, be­cause in time he doth permit it. And so by consequence he must grant, that God decreed to reprobate in respect or intuition of actual sins, because he reprobates in that re­spect and intuition. So farewell to Master Calvin, and the Synod of Dort. And by the Sy­nod of Dort. Welcome the men that are call'd Armi­nians. And if we allow Doctor Twisse to have known the Doctrine of Arminius, Then the Synod of Dort was unawares Arminian too. For they decreed to Peter Mou­lin the Statutum est, pro accu­ratissimo eo judicio & con­sensu in Do­ctrinâ gratias esse agendas. Sess. 144. pag. 348. solemn thanks of the Synod, for his most accu­rate judgement and consent in Doctrine. And how the ve­ry same Doctrine which he presented to the Synod hath been affirmed by Doctor Twisse to be Iesuitical and Ar­minian, I have largely shew'd in See Divine Philanthropie defended, ch. 3 p. 124, 125. His scurrilous usage of D. Hey­ [...]in shews the length of his own [...]a [...]s. another Treatise. Now then let Mr. Hickman himself be Judge, who hath con­tended with his own shadow; and what a shame it is for him, to have railed so much at Arminian Doctrines, to which (when he hath done) he is fain to yield.

§. 52. To his slanderous insinuation concerning a Book of Doctor Heylin's, which he affirms to have been burnt by the hand of the common Hangman, as (he saith) he is informed, (p. 53.) Doctor Heylin himself hath made his own Answer. I onely here observe, what shift is made by this zelot to revile an aged and Reverend Divine, without the least fear of the execution which the Bears made upon the Boyes, who made a mockery of Elisha his Reverend Baldness. But what they did was less unexcusa­ble. For they were little young Bo [...]es who wanted teach­ing. But this great Boy is a Boy of years too; and profes­seth [Page 181] (with the Gnosticks) to be a teacher of others, a guide of the blind, and an instructer of the foolish (Rom. 2.19, 20.) Those children in years reproached the Prophet with what they saw, and were sure of, to wit, his bald head. But this child in manners and understanding makes use of a slander to shew his virulence. And hath no more to excuse him, then that he Heard it, which is possibly as false as the Fact it self. But be it so that he heard it; what would become of such creatures, as Mr. Hickman and Mr. Baxter, if other men should put in print whatsoever they hear of their misdemeanours? the best of it is, he hath gotten no more by his printed hearsay, then onely to make the world know how much his ears are too long. Nor do I wish him his deserts; for then I am sure, they would be shorter.

§. 53. To his concluding Question (p. 54.) I briefly answer three things. 1. Dolus versatur in generalibus. His concluding Question chil­dishly fallaci­ous. 2. There is the fallacie plurium interrogationum: some are true, and some false. And by those that are true, no ad­vantage accrues to the Calvinian cause. 3. Some learned men there will ever be, of both the opposite persuasions. And therefore the Doctrine of our Church is to be judged of by her Liturgie, Homilies, and thirty nine Articles. In which, as very many things are clearly for, so there is nothing that I can meet with against the Doctrines which I assert,

§. 54. Having done with his Preface, His self-con­demnation and contradiction. I come to the Remnants of his Book. Where setting out with his dislike of Mr. Barlee's sharp stile, (as if the priviledge of railing had been bequeathed to Mr. Hickman by the proprietarie in chief,) and presently falling on Mr. Goodwin in such a sharpness of style, as he dislikes in Mr. Barlee, his elder brother, (for which I see See his Pre­face to his Tract of Iu­stification. Mr. Goodwin hath long since made him an example, (he next arrives at a profession, [Page 192] [that he never had perused my Defence of the Divine Phi­lanthropie, nor ever would he pursue it, except he could finde some hours, which belong neither to night nor day. p. 3] yet besides his Pref. p. 1, Profession of having been conversant in my writings, and the use he makes of my expressions as his own, he frequently cites the words and pages even of that very Book, and farther avows he hath read it over, (p. 101.) Next he quarrels with Mr. B. for printing part of his private letter; which if it had not been done by his own consent, he might have told me of it in time, either by word or by epistle; or have conve [...]ghed it to me by them, in whose common acquaintance he saith we meet. He is a dull Malefactor, who is not provided of some excuse, and therefore such as Mr. Hickman may finde out many. But how his wit will hold out to reconcile the contradicti­on betwixt [...]he fourth page of his Book, and the second of his Bookish Preface, I am not qualified to guess at so great a distance.

The Calvi­nists draw their own consequences from their tenet of De­crees.§. 55. At last he falls upon a point, which had been ve­ry material, had it not failed in one Circumstance, I mean the truth. For telling a story of the Lutherans (which he had read in Bp. H [...]ll) he misapplyes it by say­ing, This is the case of the Calvinists. They hold an absolute decree of reprobation, hence it follows, sayes Mr. P.) That God is the author of sin (p. 5.) No hence it follows (say the Calvinists faithfully cited by Mr. P. as to their words and pages and very lines,) that God is the author and c [...]use of sin. It was not I who drew the consequence, (though I might rationally have done it, as well as they▪) But it was I who observed by whom it was drawn. Even by them who have contended for their fanciful decrees. I have made this so clear, in al my papers and particularly in this, (Ch. 1. §. 2. p.) that I wonder with what forehead Mr. H. can say I finde a forehead, tosay the Calvinists m [...]ke God the authorof sin. Indeed when they h [...]ve said it in plainest termes, they some­times say they never said it; and thence I condemned them for so much self-condemnation. This the Reader may wit­nesse [Page 193] for me, as by viewing other parts of my Autoca­ [...]risis; so particularly the preface, or Introduction, p. 7.8. And Ch 3. p. 140.141, 142. Now that I am railed at, by such a mouth as Mr. Hickmans, upon no other ground, then my reproving him and others, for their often rayling at God himself is a great addition to my contentments;2 Chron. 32.17. And whilst Mr. H. continues either to be what he hath been or to say what he hath said concerning God, I hope I shall not be so unhappy, as ever to have his good word.

Sect. 56. Had I met with such Blasphemies in any writings of Bp. Abbot, or other men of our Church, How Mr. H. is their accuser. I should have taken that course which the Rhapsodist tells me had been the wisest (p. 6) But haveing met with none such, methinks the man should excuse me for my in­nocent desires to do no wrong. Such English writers as I found guilty, I very liberally named, and as impartially condemned. But our Divines at Dort, as well as those that are named by Mr. H. were for an Index expurgatori­us; and so have justified me, in my severity to the Do­ctrines which they condemned, Mr. H. is therefore a very strange Person, in advising me to passe by the guilt of some beyond the sea, and to charge it on some at home, who (for any thing I know) have ever been clear from that offence: or if he meanes no more then this, that some of our English Anti-Arminians have blasphemed as much as forein Calvinists have done let the Reader take notice that Master Hickman himself is their Accu­ser.

§. 57. That argument of his, [if sin is a positive entity, either God is the Author of it, or it is God, And how is own.] He now con­fesseth to be his own; but onely adds, that the Iesuits do use it as well as he p. 7.] I have often noted the affinity be­twixt the Iesuites & Presbyterians. But why Mr. H. should help my parallel, I cannot guess. Nor doe I think that that Argument was ever used by any Iesuit, unless Mr. H. himself is one; or unless it weredone to debauch [Page 194] the Presbyterians, as well in that, as in other points, whereby to lay a new odium upon the Protestant name.

§ 58. What he saith of my Agreement, in one particu­lar at least,how an Hob­bist, and an Arminian. with Mr. Hobbs (p. 8.) he might as easily have said of Dr. Iack [...]on, or Dr. Hammond, or Dr. Field, or any o­ther, who holds that the Author of the obliquity or sin­ful act must needs be the Author of the sin, and of the ob­liquity; and by consequence that our Adversaries who hold him the author of the one, conclude him so of the other also. And I have made it undeniable that there cannot be any difference betwixt the act of hating God, and the sin of hating God; because that act is that sin. Mr. H.'s de­vice may be thus retorted. He agrees with Mr. Hobbs in the Stoical Doctrine of Decrees, in which he knows I dis­sent from both, would the Reader think that I am a Hob­bist for dissenting from Mr. Hobbs., and Mr. H. an Anti-Hobbist for agreeing with him? so Arminius holds God to be the Author of the act, when the act is sinful. Mr. H. agrees with Arminius, as much as I differ and dissent which of us two is the Arminian, let others judge. And how many things more one might prove Mr. Hickman, at such a Presbyterian rate of arguing.

How in stri­ving to clear he condemns himself, con­fesseth his m king God to be the Au­thor of sin.§. 59. It was not (as he pretends p 9) for his meer over­sight in Metaphysicks, that I made him an example of Au­tocatacrisis; but for holding forth a Doctrine, which Him­self had confessed to be Blasphemous: was not that to con­demn him self? what I said of a man in Print, who ob­truded this sense upon an Article of the Creed, [that God is the m [...]ker of all things real] he knows I meant of an other, in whom I read the words printed, yet I might very well have said it of Mr. Hickman himself, who also hath printed his own belief, that it belongs to God to pro­duce ev [...]ry real being p. 95. And hence he plainly now confesseth, that posi [...]ive and real are not all one. (p. 10.) he must co [...]fesse he makes God to be the author of sin, though sin [...]hould be but a meer privation if it is but some­thing real. And yet that it is more then a meer privation, [Page 185] himself hath also confessed, by confessing that it is priva­tive, (pag. 95.) if he knows the difference between the two conjugates, and thinks the concrete to be more then the abstract. Thus he is every way guilty, and self-condemn­ed too. He beareth witness against himself with every whit as much truth, as with calumny and Falshood against his neighbour.

§. 59. He saith the darkness in the creation (Gen. 1.2.) was such, as no wise man will call positive, His own thick darkness touch­ing the dark­ness in the cre­ation. yet all will say that it was reall. p. 10.] If he thinks that darkness a meer privation, then first he confesseth that a meer privation is a thing reall; and so that God is inferred to be the Au­thor of sin, although supposed to be no more then a mere privation. Next he contradicts the text, by which it ap­pears there was a darkness antecedent to the light. When the light was created, it was divided from the darkness, (vers. 3.) so as the night and the day were reciprocally privative of one another. But thirdly, be it so, that that darkness was a privation, (though not of that light, which was not yet in facto esse) It is sufficient for me, that what is privative of light must needs be positive of darkness, whatever that darkness be said to be. Which if it was not created by God Almighty, Mr. Hickman should tell us how it came to have a being (Gen. 1.2.) if he does not think it was eternally of it self, and run the hazzard of being thought as mad as Manes.

§. 60. Having said that Privations are reall things, he presently adds, that they are ranked among Entia rationis;How he makes the most reall things en [...]ia ra­tionis. And why so? not because they do not antecedere operationem intellectus: but because they are conceived of otherwise then they be. p. 10.] First by this he ranks God amongst his entia rationis, when He is (more then any Creature) con­ceived of otherwise then he is. 2. He supposeth Reason to be here a false Iudge. 3. He intimates a confession, that if Reason judgeth rightly, and not otherwise of the thing then indeed it is, to wit, that privation is privation, (not positive Blackness) it shall then be no longer ens ra­tionis, [Page 186] but ens reale. And by necessary consequence, that it is but an errour to think it otherwise. Thus he clearly makes God to be the Au [...]hor of all things reall, and so of all sins, which he confesseth to be reall, even whilst he denyes that he ever said it.

§. 61. But he asks, why this is called an obtruding a new Article on the Church?How he ob­ [...]rudes a new Article of Faith. pag. 11.] To which I answer two things. First, that his B [...]other with whom I dealt, as with a person of his conspiracie, did thus expound the first Article of the Nicene Creed; 2. He who argues in such a manner, as to conclude the Gainsayer either an Atheist, or somewhat worse, (and even so doth Master Hickman, who saith that sin, if it is positive, is either Go [...]'s creature, or God himself,) doth implicitly make a new Article of Belief.

And makes it a point of omni­potence to be a­ble to do evil.§. 62. The profession which he makes before the Register within him, to which he pretends to owe more reverence, then to aff [...]ont it with a willfull lye. (p. 11.) he seems to make for no other end, then to Comp [...]re his words p. 11. with corr. co­py, p. 1. steal those words out of my Notes, and to use them ambitiously as his own. For why should the privativeness of sin be fittest to reconcile Gods purity and omnipotence? Why will not the way of Saint Austin and Lombard do it as well? Or rather why should God's purity be thus nefariously implyed to stand in need of a reconcilement with his Omnipotence? Let it be granted that God is able to do whatsoever is pure and per­fect; as well as unable to do the least, that is contrary to both; And all is well upon every side. What need he be able to contradict hims [...]lf? Or have power to do that, which is contra [...]y to power as well as to purity and perfe­ction? yet such would be the power to produce a sinfull or wicked action, such as the action of hating God.

H [...] proves his own sins to be positive enti­ties, by ascri­bing his rage [...]o his s [...]briety.§ 63. He reckons up some phrases out of my Auto­catacrisis, which though softer then he deserved, were severer it seems then he could patiently indure▪ And to excuse his fit of Rage, into which he proves he was cast through that temptation, he saith I used him so severely [Page 187] not onely upon a small, but upon no reason at all. p. 14.] As if his making a neighbour guilty of sin's [...], and his making God himself the principal cause of all wickedness, were not any the least reason for a Deportment as I had shewn. Thus Vedelius did nothing to provoke the anger of the Remonstrants, how much soever he had sweated to prove them Atheists. And Mr. Hickman is such a gentle inoffensive Creature, that though he calls them the ugly brats of the wildest sectaries which G. C. hath midwiv'd into the world (p. 14.) he hath injur'd no man, provoked no man. He professeth, in the same breath, He utters not the words of passion, but sobriety, p. 14. And thus the tame Creature hath meekly proved, That All his sins are positive entities, what ever he saith of other mens. For sobriety is a vertue, whose positive entity he allows. And notwithstanding the sad character which is fixt upon railing in 1 Tim. 6.4. 2 Pet. 2.11. holy Writ, Mr Hickman tells us 'tis his sobriety: whereby his Readers are left to guesse, what scurrility he had used in a fit of passion, whose very words, of sobriety are so outragious. As for his virulence to­wards my self, I pass it over for this reason, That he may know my severity is but the executing of Iustice, not for his bitterness to me, but to God himself; whom he hath charged as the cause of all the villanies in the world, which do fall under the Genus of Quality or Action. Whereas the worst he hath said of me, is even infinitely better. And though I must paradigmatize him for his blaspheming the God of heaven, yet I must do it so clearly in that behalf, as not to return him railing for railing. 1 Pet. 3.9.

Sect. 64. From his volley of bitter words discharg'd at once against me, His slanderous charge against Mr. Tho. BAR [...]LOW of [...] in Oxford. he proceeds to calumniate Mr. BAR­LOW, the Reverend Provost of Queens Colledge, (p. 16.) whom he forgeth at least to have used this Argument, [If sin hath a positive or reall being, and is not caused by God, it is God himself.] that is to say, If sin is not no­thing, it must be God, or Gods creature. But when and where did Mr. Barlow thus argue? not in private be­twixt [Page 188] him and Mr. Hickman; for I was told by Mr. Bar­low, what makes me know it to be impossible. Not pub­lickly and in print; For I cannot find it in his exercita [...]i­ons. It is therefore a very enormous thing, to steal a­bundance from Mr. Barlow without the citing of any page where the matters really are to be found; And yet to cite him thus by Name, for that which never fell from him, by word or writing. Hence the Reader may judge of this mans Religion. His commendation of Mr. Barlow, (i [...] such it can be, whilst he bestows it,) I very readily grant him to my advantage. For Mr. Barlow hath a better opinion of me, then I have of my self. And I can yield him a greater deference, then he can think is due to him. Nor will he assert his own Judgement, without a submission to other men's, (Doctor IACKSON, and Doctor FIELD, to name no more) who are more his Seniors, then he is mine. Sure I am, that my Lea [...]ned Friend can never be pleased with a Commendation, which is ush [...]'d into the world with so foul a calumny.

His foul defa­mation of Dr. REYNOLDS.§. 65. And as little can Doctor REYNOLDS take a­ny pleasure in the mockery, which Master Hickman doth mix with his vindication. I did but make it a Question, whether he were not in judgement an Episcopal Divine, how much soever accounted a Presbyterian, (the reason of which Question I shall alledge in due time) and yet I am said by Master Hickman to have branded Doctor Reynolds with the suspicion of being an Hypocrite, and that he could not be in earnest of that Party, whom he hath owned in pray­ing, in preaching, in covenanting. p. 17, 18.] to which I answer by these degrees. 1. In all my writings, there are not found any such words; Had there been, Mr. Hick­man would not have feared a citation. 2. Time was when Doctor REYNOLDS did own the King and the Bishops, both in his Praying and Preaching too; as may appear by two of his printed sermons, for obedience and conformity to those that were Rulers at that time, both Ecclesiastical, and Civil. So that in judgement he is now, what he was [Page 189] twenty years ago, unless he hath turned with the times, and with those that turn'd them. But of this he is accused by Mr. Hickman, who makes him one of the Covenanters; whether truly, or falsly, I cannot tell. If truly, he dis­graceth that learned man. If falsly, he wrongs and defiles himself. 'Twere very strange that Doctor Reynolds, who had taken the oathes of allege [...]nce and supremacy, subscribed the thirty nine Articles, sworn obedience unto his Ordi­nary, lived conformably in the Church, and preached for it from Press and Pulpit, should swear to extirpate those ve­ry things, which he had sworn to assert. It is much more likely that Mr. Hickman ow'd him a spight, and could not hold from giving it vent, though he had nothing to ex­cuse him for such Impertinence. He might have written against the positivity of six, without reviling Dr. Reynolds, as a person that had sworn so lewd a Covenant. A thing the less credible, because he hath declared to diverse Friends▪ (whom I can name if need require) That the order of Bishops in his judgement, was of D [...]vine Institution. And if the Question shall yet be asked, I dare adventure a Discretion he will readily say, yes. But Mr. Hickman it seems is careless, whom he calumniates in his passion; And therefore Doctor Reynolds may the more easily forgive him.

§ 66. To his blind and bitter zeal against the Licencing of a Book,His self-con­trad [...]ction, and blind zeal, as to Dr. Martin. which is Intitl'd [An Historical Narration &c.] p. 18.19. I am able to return him this gentle Remedy. The Learned and Reverend Doctor Martin did avow and justifie (in the House of Lords) his licensing that worthy and useful Book. And Master Maynard much urging that ‘'twas Arminian, on which he insisted before the Lords, The Doctor told them he thought it strange, that That shoul [...] be call'd an Arminian Book, wherein there was not one person either named, or concern'd, who had not been dead before Arminius was alive.’ Whereupon his Accuser was as much disappointed, as Mr. Hickman must needs be when he reads the storie of that affair. But [Page 190] his self-contradiction is most prodigious. Because in one and the same page, and at few lines distance, he saith the book was unlicensed, which yet he confesseth to have been licensed by Mr. Martin Bp. Lauds Chaplain. And what credit can be due to his following proof [...]ess affirmations, who calls learned Champneys by the name of Cerberus? Or what shall we think of his tongue and conscience, who calls Ti­lenus an Aethiopian, a scribler, impudent, and a poor fellow? (p. 21.) If he treats his superiours and betters thus, I won­der how his equalls can endure to come within his Breath. yet in the very next page, he commends himself for Can­dor and moderation, and his cordial affections to Episcopal Divines, for never vilifying the parts and paynes of any Pr [...] ­latist, because such. And then to shew us his skill in books, he saith he had rather be the Author of Calvins one book of insti [...]utions, then of all that ever were made by Grotius (p. 23.) whereby he owns Mr. Calvin in the worst of those things I cited from him; and gives me reason to believe, that he never read the Bookes of Grotius, but takes up his anger upon trust, as he hath done the materi­als which fill his volume.

The nullity of a Priest­hood sinfully given by Pres­byterians.§. 67. He next resolves to spend some pages in ano­ther way of Impertinence, and Tergiversation. It seemes not caring what course he takes, whereby to patch up a little volumn; and yet to stave off his Readers from what he took upon him to prove, to wit, that sin hath no posi­tive being. His little project is briefly this; first, to say how much he hath read in Dr. Taylor, and Dr. Ham­mond; and secondly to adde upon that occasion, (so dexterous he is at the contriving of a transition) that if Presbytery be a crime, he must needs say he hath learnt it from Episcopal men. p. 23. &c.] will you know his Rea­sons? The first is this; The Primate and Dr. Holland were of opinion, that a Presbyter and a Bp. differ in degree only; not in order. But neither doth he attempt a proof, that this could make him a Presbyterian, Or that the Pri­mate and the Dr. did ever think any such thing, much less [Page 191] that they said it either in earnest or in [...]est. I am sure the L. Primate thought our Presbyters unexcusable, for taking upon them the Bishops office to ordain. But he had mercy for the French Protestants, because he thought it neces [...]ity, not choice, which kept them from Episcopal order, see the Letter of Peter du Moulin the son sent to a Scotchman of the Covenant, who proves his Father to be clearly for the order of Bishops. Chamier affirmes them to be (of right) elected Princes. Their Church would have Bps. but are not suff [...]red. The second reason is that Bp. Andrews ordained a Scotchman Bishop, never made Priest but by Presbyters, which he would not have done, had ordination by Presbyters been unto him a Nullity p. 23.24] But 1. he brings not any proof that there was ever any such fact. 2. From Fact to Right no good Argu­ment can be drawn 3. Bp. Andrew [...] might be ignorant that the Scotchman had received any such mock-Ordination 4. Or he might think the man had invincible Necessity to help excuse him, which yet I take to be most improba­ble; much lesse that he could fancy the common Rule had place here▪ Quod fieri non debet factum valet. And there­fore (5) my chiefest answer to it is this, that the story proves nothing (supposing truth to have been in it) but what is a­gainst Mr. Hickmans interest, for it only proves that such a man who had been sinfully dub'd into a Titular Priesth [...]od▪ and was therefore no real Priest, in the opinion of Bp. Andrews, might yet per saltum be made a Bishop. Because in his being made a Bp. he is ipso facto made a Priest. And so tis granted as well of Timothy and Titus, and the rest in their time, that they were consecrated Bishops, without the receiving of previous orders▪ Others having first been D [...]acon [...], were immediately assumed into the order of Bishops. So Linus, who was St. Pauls Deacon as Anacletus and Clemens, who were St▪ Peters, succee­ded both those Apostles in the Bishoprick of Rome. The recanta­tions of [...]ome who were so ordained.

Having thus satisfied Mr. H▪ as to the case of his Scotch­ [...]an ordained per saltum by Bp. Andrews, I shall tell him [Page 192] that there are Diverse, who having been dub'd by Pres­byterians (for without an abusive way of speaking they durst not say they had been ordained) were so sensible of the crimes of Schisme and sacrilege in the thing, that they made their Recantations to several Bishops within my knowledge; and solemnly renounced such Ordinations; and after that, have been ordained by the Bishops them­selves. I am unwilling to name the men, that I may not occasion their persecution. But Bishop Morton is out of their Reach, and so I am free to make it known what he hath done in this kinde. The reader may judge by this Tast, whether Episcopal men could ever teach Mr. H. his Presbyterianisme.

68. He produceth a passage from one of the first Prin­ted Sermons of the learned and Reverend Dr. SANDER­SON, Mr. H▪'s Dis­appointment by Dr. SAN­DERSONS change of judgement▪ concerning Gods concurrence with subordinate A­gents (p. 29.) which he hoped some shallow Readers would think conducing to his end, of making the people to be­lieve, that God himself is the Cause of the wickedest actions in the world, because the wickedest actions have not onely a reall, but a positive being. But besides that that passage of Gods concurrence (to the sustentation of the Creature) is nothing at all in it self to Mr. Hickmans purpose, I have the leave and consent of that most learned and pious person, to communicate as much of his Letters to me on this occasion, as I conceive may tend to his vindication, and with all to the advantage of peace and truth.

Doctor Sanderson's Letters, &c.

1. As to the passage in the fifth Sermon ad Popu­lum, p. 278—9. the Doctor saith, That as he did as well at the time when that Sermon was preached, as at all other times before and since, utterly detest; so the thing principally intended and purposely insisted upon in that whole passage was to root out of mens minds the seeds of that horrid Blasphemous opinion, that God was the Author, or efficient cause of sin.

2. He saith, That the occasion which led him to that discourse being the handling of that 1 Tim. iv. 4. E­very Creature of God is good: the I [...]ference thence was naturall and obvious, That therefore whatsoever was e­vil cou [...]d be no creature of God, was none of his making, nor could he (in any tolerable sense) be said to be the Author or cause thereof.

3. He saith, That if in the Explication, or prose­cution of that Inference he should perhaps have let fall some such improper, incommodious, or ambiguous phrase or expression, as a caviller might wrest to a worse con­struction then was meant (a thing not alwayes to be a­voyded in popular discourses, especially where the mat­ter trea [...]ed of is of grea [...] nicety, or of a mixt conside­ration between Metaphysical and Moral:) it had yet been the part of an ingenuous Reader, to have made the main scope of the discourse the measure whereby to in­terpret such phrases and expressions, rather then by a malign interpretation to extract such a sence out of the words, as it is certain the Author (unless he would con­tradict himself) could not mean.

[Page 194] 4. He saith, That upon as district a review of eve­ry period and clause in that whole passage, as seemed requisite for his concernment in the present debate, he hath not observed any phrase or expression, which is not consonant to his main scope therein, or whereof Master Hickman (without injury and violence to his true meaning) could serve himself in any of those three points: wherein (as far as he can judge, having never seen Mr. Hickmans Book) he conceiveth the difference betwixt Master Pierce and his adversaries to lye. viz. 1. Gods predetermining of mens wills and actions. 2. The po­sitive entity of sin. 3. Gods concurrence to the sinfull actions of men.

☞ Note that this Secti­on shews his meaning in the seventh. 5. For the first of which, the Doctor saith, That he is so farr from believing, that God predetermineth the will to evil actions, that he dares not (without farther assu­rance then he can yet find warranty for) affirm posi­tively, that God at all physically determineth any mans will either to good or evill. It being hard (to his seeming) to suppose such a determination without de­stroying the nature and liberty of the will. Nor doth he find himself obliged to say or believe; That God hath predetermined or eternally decreed all actions, events, and things; if any more be understood thereby then this, viz. That God ab aeterno knowing all both future and possible things, hath eternally decreed to permit the crea­ture to act (that is, not to with-hold from it the con­currence of that his power without which it could not act,) in such sort, as that the event, which he foresaw future should certainly come to pass; and the event fore­seen as possible but not future, should certainly not come to pass.

6. For the second (the positive entity of sin) although [Page 195] taking a reall entity as opposite to meer nothing, even sins of omission also may be said to have a real entity, as all privations and other Entia rationis have: yet the chief contest being about sins of commission (as appear­eth, both by the distinction, so frequently used in this controversie, between the act and the obliquity; and by the particular instances, the hating of God, the mur­thering of an innocent, the ravishing of a wo­man, &c.) the sins of omission set a side as less per­tinent to the present debate, he saith he wondreth with what pretence, or by what subtility of distinction, any man,☜ that acknowledgeth a sin of commission so to consist of an act as the materiall part, and the obliquity of the said Act as the formall part, that if either of both be wanting it cannot be a sin (for without supposal of an act there can be no obliquity, and an act without obliquity is no sin; and acknowledgeth withall the one part (viz. the materiall) to be a positive entity; can deny the totum compositum to be a positive entity. It seemeth to be all one, as if a man should deny Socrates, consisting of a body and a soul to be ens quantum, because his soul (his formal part) is not ens quantum. For no more can the accession of the obliquity to the presupposed Act whereunto it adhereth, make that act cease to be a posi­tive entity, then the infusion of the soul into a body that hath dimensions can make that body cease to be a quanti­ta [...]ive entity. The Doctor acknowledgeth that in a sinfull action the act may be Metaphysically abstracted (abstra­ctione praecisionis, and per primam operationem intellectus) from the obliquity; that is to say, it may be considered precisely as it is a motion of the creature, or an exercise of that naturall power wherewith God hath endued the creature, without considering at the same [Page 196] time the object about which it is conversant, the end whereunto it is directed, or the circumstances appending: And that the Act so abstractedly considered, hath a di­stinct essence of its own, whereby it essentially differeth from them, (otherwise the act and the object, should be the same thing.) But yet for as much as no such act can de facto (in regard of actual existence extra intellectum) be really abstracted from those things, without which (though extrinsecal to its essence) it cannot exist, and by the occasion whereof it first becometh morally good or evil, (for no act is morally evil in its own abstracted es­sence, nor otherwise a sin, then as is vitiated by the co-existence of some undue object, end, or circumstance:) it must necessarily follow, that the totum compositum, the vitiated act and that is the Note that the Concrete, or vitiated Act, is here denominated the sin. And the sin said to be a compound, consisting of two parts, act and obliquity; not separa­tely, but joyntly. sin, act and obli­quity joyntly together) is a positive real [...]ntity, and morally evil. A positive reall entity, from the existence of the act: and morally evil, from the co-existence of those aforesaid vitiating relations, which are acci­dentall to the act, as to the essence of it, but by adhering to it make it formally a sin.

7. For the third point (Gods concurrence to a sinful action) the Doctor thinketh that what he hath now last said, will sufficiently clear from misconstruction, not one­ly that phrase of actuating the power (p. 279.) if Mr. Hickman have hoped for any advantage to his cause therefrom; but that other short passage also (pag. 29.) wherein is acknowledged the effectual concurrence of Gods will and power with subordinate agents in every, and therefore even in sinfull actions also. Especially if the two Texts of Scripture quoted in the margin (viz. Act. xvii.28. and Esa. x.12.) be withall taken into consi­deration. For it is manifest, that by the concurrence signally grounded upon those two Texts there cannot [Page 197] rationally be understood any other concurrence, then such as is according to the importance of those texts, which from Act. 17. is briefly this. As whilest we have any being, we have it by vertue of that his concurrence, which if he should withdraw or withhold from us, we should cease to be; & so long as we live, we live by vertue of that his con­currence, which if he should withdraw or withhold from us, we could not live: so, as oft as we act and move a hand or a foot or a thought, we act and move by vertue of that his con­currrence, which if he should withdraw or with-hold from us, we could not act or move hand, foo [...], or thought. That is to say, we cannot actually exercise any of those natural pow­ers God hath endowed us withal, without that generalis Note the distinction of Mel [...]nch [...]hon, The will doth act, Deo su­stentante, non adjuvante God sustain­ing the facul [...]y, but not assist­ing the choice. concursus causae universalis (as the Schoolmen call it) which hath such an influence upon all the motions of in­feriour subordinate agents and second causes; that if God be pleased at any time to with-hold from them that con­currence, although the natural power remain, the same it was still, yet can they not exsert or actually exercise that power to the producing of any effect. As when God with-held from the fire Dan. iii. his concurrence, it could not put forth that natural power it had of burn­ing, so as to have any operation upon the bodies of the 3. young men, that were cast thereinto. If an ungrati­ous son should be so wickedly disposed as to cut his own fathers throate, he could not take the knife into his hand, nor move his arme to do that foule deed, if God should withhold his concurrence thereunto, and not suffer him to exercise his natural power of reaching out his arme to cut. In which horrible and sinful act all the concurrence, imputable to God at the most is, but the affording (that is to say, Note his exposition of the word af­fording, by not withholding, and the word general added to influx and the locomotiv [...] faculty, which is common to us with Beasts, as distinguished from the will, which is common to us with Angels. the not with-holding of) that his Note his exposition of the word af­fording, by not withholding, and the word general added to influx and the locomotive faculty, which is common to us with Beasts, as distinguished from the will, which is common to us with Angels. general [Page 198] influx into the loco-motive faculty of his creature, without which he could not exercise that faculty so far as to stretch out his hand to cut, which act so far forth one­ly considered, and no farther, doubtless is no sin, for then every stretching out of the arm to cut any thing should be a sin, according to the old Logical axiome, Quicquid con­venit quatenus ipsum, convenit omni. But the ap­plying of such an act to an undue object, referring it to an undue end performing it in an undue manner, or with un­due circumstances, (by any of which obliquities it becometh a sin) proceedeth wholly and solely from the corrupt will of the inferiour agent, and not at all from God, which, as it layeth the whole guilt of the sin, or moral act upon the actor, so it clearly acquitteth God, (such his concurrence to the natural act or motion of his crea­ture as aforesaid notwithstanding) from the least degree of any agency or efficiency therein.

8. He saith, That what he hath here declared concern­ing these two last points, as it is axactly agreeable to what his judgement then was, when the two Sermons, wherein the passages quoted by Mr. Hickman are found, were preached: so it is his present opinion still, which he hath therefore somewhat the longer insisted upon; not onely for that it seemeth to be the consentient tenet of the best School-men, grounded upon discourse of reason, and the Authority of St. Augustin, and other of the antient Fathers, and no way (in his apprehension) derogatory to the holiness, goodness, wisdom, or majesty of God: But also because the due consideration of it might prove (if it were by some able hand distinctly, clearly, and in­telligibly set down) a probable expedient toward the reconciling of some differences among Divines held at a greater distance then perhaps they nee­ded [Page 199] to have been, for want of a right understanding be­tween the dissenting parties. For the Doctor professeth himself, (and he well hopeth he is in most things not much further from the truth for so doing,) as on the one side extreamly jealous of extreme opinions, till they have undergone a severe trial; so on the other side very in­clinable to embrace middle and reconciling opinions, where there appeareth not pregnant evidence of reason to the contrary.

9. Lastly to conclude this whole businesse, so far as he apprehendeth himself concerned; he saith, he is not un­willing the world should know, that having from his younger years (as his Genius led him) addicted him­self mostly to the study of the moral and practical part of Divinity; but especially having (for fear of ap­proaching too neare to the Ark of Gods secret counsels) kept a loof off from medling (more then needs must) with those more nice and intricate disputes concerning Gods e­ternal decrees, the cooperation of Gods free Grace, and mans free-will, &c. He contented himself for sundry years to follow on (as most others did) by a kinde of implicit credulity, in the Sublapsarian way, as the then most troden path; until having a just occasion, (A.D. 1628.) to make a little farther inquiry after the truth in those questions, upon due search he saw a neces­sity of receding from that way in some things: a more parti­cular account whereof is given in a narrative lately prin­ted with his consent, which if well considered, ought (he thinketh) in reason and charity to excuse him from the necessity of justifying every syllable or phrase that might slip from his tongue or pen, in any thing by him spo­ken [Page 200] or written before that year, and whilest he was very little (or rather nothing at all) versed in the study of those Questions.

Now since I have proved undeniably, that the question was from the beginning (betwixt my adversaries and me) whether any kinde of sins (plainly meaning whole sins, not the formal part of sin, which cannot possibly be the sin of which it is but the formal part) have a positive being; And since it is said by Dr. SANDERSON, that the positive acts above mentioned, [murdering and ravishing of men, women,] are (so in the concrete) horrid sins; nay in the plainest tearmes to be imagined, that a sin of commission doth con­sist of two things, an act and an obliquity; and since it is said by Mr Hickman, that it belongs to the universality of the first cause to produce (not onely every positive, but e­very real being, and (not onely so, but also) the positive mo­difications of beings, (p. 95. It is apparent that Doctor SANDERSON is as much for my cause, and as much a­against Mr. Hickmans, as either my heart can wish, or my cause require. For though he conceiveth that the act may be considered, without considering the object about which it is conversant, (in which case it cannot possibly be con­sidered as a sin,) yet he declares that the Act of sin can­not possibly exist without the obliquity, any more then the obliquity without the Act. And farther yet, he doth affirm (towards the end of his sixt paragraph) both that the vitia­ted Act is the very sin; and that the sin which is the vi­tiated act, is not only a real, but a positive entity. I have published this happy concurrence with me, not onely in his sense, but (according to his desire) in his own manner of expression.A vindication of Bp. HALL, Bp. MOR­TON, and Bp. BROWN­RIG from Mr. H.'s slander­ous suggestion

§. 69. I now go on to discover his wilfull Calumny, not so much against me, as against Bp. HALL, Bp. MORTON, and Bp. BROWNRIG; whom though he knew to be Bi­shops of the Church of England, yet he reckons them [Page 201] them with the men of the Kirk, or Consistory, or their Adherents here in England, (whom I had charged with swearing the Scottish Covenant, and making God the Author of sin) who had done dishonours unto the Prote­stant name. p. 31, 32.] For if the Reader will consult my Au [...]ocatacrisis, chap. 2. p. 61, 62. he will see I onely spake against the Papists and Presbyterians, (in words at length, and by name,) and that upon no lesser motive or provocation, then their making God the Author of sin. So that now Mr. Hickman must either prove, that those excellent Prelates were Presbyterians, or Papists, or such at least of their adherents, as have been known to make God the Author of sin; Or if he cannot prove this, (as I know he cannot) he must make some amends for so foul a slander.

§. 70. The request he puts up to the Episcopal Divines, who close with such as he is, in the present contest, The perfect [...] ­mi [...]y and com­munion of all Episcopal Di­vines, for all their difference in judgement as to some con­troverted Do­ctrines. (p. 31.) renders him yet more criminall in two respects. First be­cause there are none of the Episcopal Divines, who ever closed with the Hickmanians, in saying that sin, if it is positive, is either God's creature, or God himself; or that our English Presbyterians have any power to make Priests. (For this, and that, (he must confess) is the present sub­ject of our contest) Next because he calls their Brethren, Arminian Ardelio's, by whom they must expect to be last devoured. By which he would intimate to his Readers, (if I am able to understand him) That we design the Do­ctrines they call Arminian as the condition of our Brethrens Communion with us: which as it hath ever been far from us, (we most joyfully communicating with all the Fathers and sons of the Church of England, how much soever in some points they may differ from us) so of all men living Mr. Hickman's party should least accuse us, whilst Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes? them­selves are as guilty, as we are Innocent in this respect. For they are known to be the men, who fasten the character of See the Rd. D. GAVDEN his Hi [...]ra Da­crua, ch. 29. p. 384. sanctified to their opinions, and have made them the test by which they admit, (or reject) their Betters, to a­ny [Page 202] places of trust in the English Church. Witness all the partialities and inquisitions of the Triers. Whereas the men whom they call Arminians have never required any more then the subscription of the Articles, which are cal­led by Mr. Rogers, our English Creed. And which, as they have not, in particular, defined all that is debated on either side, so they do not (like the late Triers) [...]i [...]t and winnow such persons as come before them; But together with truth, do provide for unity and peace too. In a word. Our Prelates and Prelatists, how much soever Anti Calvinian, do not cast out of their communion, any Calvinist that desires it, upon the account of his being a Calvinist. But the Calvinists in Holland are very well known to have made a schism; plainly dividing from the Remonstrants, and setting up schismatical Congregations. Now to communicate with such is a different thing, from our receiving to our communion such as differ in those points. Concerning that Schism, Master HALES his LETTERS have told us somewhat; And his Treatise of that sin hath told us more. And more then that I could give account of, if this were a season for such pro­lixity.

Mr. Hickmans confession of his ignorance and incapaci­ty to under­stand the points in con­troversie.§ 71. He next proceeds to tell the world (without any colour of Coherence, or the least Formula Introdu­cendi) That he hath spent more Time in reading Authors pro and con about these points, then ever he intended to d [...], [...]. 32. And reason good. For he confesseth his gross Igno­rance and Insufficiency, after all the reading of which he tells us. 'Tis strange he should meddle in the Doctrine of Gods Decrees, and the manner of the Spirits working Grace in the hearts of the Elect, since in the midst of all his med­ling, he professeth them to be matters so very mysterious, and his understanding to be so dark, that he can scarce hope ever in the world to be freed from all scruples about them, p. 33. It seems he is not over-confident, that the Decrees of Election and Reprobation are Absolute; or that Grace in the Elect is irresistibly wrought; for all his railing at [Page 203] the Arminians, and his partiall adhering to the Calvinians. Let him talk what he will of his holding this, or that Te­net; and let him render what reasons he think [...] most spe­cious; we will believe his own confession, that he is Sce­ptical and Scrupulous, and finds his understanding too dark to reach them.

§. 72.His confessed insufficiency to maintain the chief Ar­ticles of the Creed. Again he confesseth his inward conviction of his own insufficiency to do the work of a Divine, whilst he saith of those Articles of the Christian faith [The Trinity of the persons, and the hypostatical union of the two Na­tures,] that he never thought himself able to vindicate those Mysteries from all the subtil Arguments and Niceties of unbelieving Sophisters. ibid.] 'Twould be a sad time for Christianity, if it had no better champions and propu­gnators then UNBELIEVERS are able to baffle, and put to silence, and so to shame. Yet this is the man, who by a schismaticall ordination takes upon him to be a Preacher, nay a Pastor of Christ's flock, (even denying our very Bi­shops to be of an order higher then he, much less such Priests as the Bishops have lawfully ordained,) who yet confesseth he is not able to defend the Flock from Wolves, or Foxes, no not the Articles of our Creed from the at­tempts of unbelievers.

§. 73. Nor may we think his two confessions are the effects of modesty or meekness.Yet his con­ceitedness of his parts is not the less. For (to secure himself from that suspicion) He first premiseth his opinion of the former points, That the greatest Scholars will never be able fully to satisfie their own, or other mens reasons about them, p. 52.] Hence it appears that Mr. Hickman may verily think himself one of the greatest Scholars in the world, (I do not say that he does) notwithstanding the confession which he hath made of his Disability. Nay it is proba­ble that he does too; because he inferrs (with a monstrous arrogance) the greatest Scholars are not able, from the sen­sible Non-ability which he discovereth in himself. As if Mr. Hickman's understanding were the measure of what may be understood, by the learnedest of mortals on this [Page 204] side heaven. If he is not past cure, and will but seek for a Remedie, let him read the Full Accordance betwixt Dr. Sanderson and Dr. Hammond, wherein he will find how those Doctors have fully satisfied themselves; And then he may learn from common fame, that they have fully sa­tisfied others also.

His way to make a rope of sand, whereby to pull in the Puritanes.§. 74. There is nothing worth notice in his next two Stories, besides his form of bringing them in. For having told us that he hopes by the free Grace of God to be acqui [...] ­ted at the last day, he immediately adds (to introduce a new Section) That to this end he will relate two Histori­call passages. p. 34. And then to lengthen his Rope of Sand, he adds a saying of Doctor Sanderson concerning See (con­cerning Anti­christ) Bishop Montague's Appeal ch. 5. p. 140. and Examen. Hist. p. 253, 254. Anti­christ, Another of King Iames against the Arminiars in the Low-countries, (for they were all Presbyterians, and displeasing unto the King;) Another of Viscount Falk­land against some Bishops (without a Name) and my Lord of Strafford; A fourth of Bishop Carleton against the Puritanes, as Disquieters of the Church about their concei­ved Discipline. These are called by Master Hickman The honest Puritanes, (p. 41.) as if he consented to the Di­stinction which had been made by King Iames, betwixt the Puritane Knaves, and the Knaves Puritanes. If there were any such Idle-sots as were seen to stagger in the streets, they were as loathsome in my opinion, though not so dangerous to the publick, as that first sort of Puritanes of which I spake. And yet that Puritane is a sot too, who being dry in respect of wine, is Ebrius sa­crilegio qui resipuit à vi­no▪ apud Au­thorem nescio quem. Drunk with sacriledge. Which, as it minds me to referr him to what I have said on this subject to Mr. Baxter, so it affords me a fit Tran­sition to the following subject of his Digression. For

§. 75. So far is this Rhapsodist from thinking it need­full to repent of his crying sin, His sinful way of defending Robbery by adding a ma­nifold Aggra [...]vation. or else from thinking that Restitution is any necessary part of a true Repentance; that he adds Railing to his Robbery, and slander to his Railing, and Treason too unto his slander. Which I shall shew in that Order, in which I find them committed, and brought to light too.

[Page 205]First, whereas I had complained,His Slande­rous insinua­tion against the two Houses of Parliament, to save the credit of the Visitors in sinning a­gainst their own Commis­sion. and (Dr. Reynolds is my witnesse I did it justly, in so much that himself hath joyned with me in the complaint,) that I suffered the loss of my best possession, (not for any the least crime of which I had any way been guilty, but) for being secretly suggested to be the Author of some Books, which (to this very day) I could never hear named; and though I earnestly desired to hear my self accused, that I might know for what I suffe­red, and if not my Accuser at least my Accusation, and be heard speak for my self, yet Dr. Reynolds professed to me in private he could not obtain that justice for me; Mr Hickman expresseth this just complaint (which I am able to prove just, to any competent Judges who will but heare me,) by my throwing I know not what fiery darts not onely at him, but at the far greater part of heads and Fellows of Colleges in Oxon; at the Visitors, and at the two Houses of Parliament (p. 44.) Now that his Readers may clearly see how great a violence he hath offered to truth, and Candour, and how he hath blurred the two houses with a most scurrilous suggestion, I shall furnish them ve­ry briefly with a perfect Narrative of the Case. I was per­mitted to appeare no more then once before the Visitors, when they onely entertained me with this one question, [Whether I could submit to their Visitation, or acknow­ledge they were my rightful Visitors? My Answer was not Categorical, either one way [...] or other. But as I really wanted, so I modestly besought them to give me time, wherein to consider that weighty question; that so my an­swer might be rational, which it could not be, if it were rash. For being then newly returned out of France, I had not studied the matter of right. And as I would not be perjured for fear of Ruine, so would I not rashly incur my ruine by such a fear of being perjured, as was not very well grounded. They did not deny what I desired, and that I thought was to yield it to me. But they met a little after, to passe a sentence of condemnation (by a most absolute decree) upon me and others; and proclaiming [Page 206] my banishment, before I was summoned to give my answer, (for which I concluded they gave me time) they used the violence of the Souldiers, to put their decree into exe­cution. Now is it likely that the two Houses would Au­thorize them to destroy me without a cause? not only un­convicted, but unaccused, and unheard? (for that they suspected me the Author of I know-not-what-books which were never named, I was privately informed by Dr. Rey­nolds, who was not able to tell me what Books they meant.) Could the two Houses Authorize them to break the Law of the Land in Magna Charta, and to act in contra­diction to the Petition of Right? I rather think that the Visitors did sin against the very r [...]le, to which the two Houses had tied them up in their commis­sion. A Nicodemus was able to ask, [doth our Law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doth? John 7.51.] And as Festus said unto King Agrippa, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, Acts 25.16. before that he which is accused have the Accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him; so with greater force of reason (since the Romans then were Heathens, which we are not,) I may say to Mr. Hickman from Magna Charta, and the Petition of right; It is not the manner of the English,See the New Discoverer discovered ch. 6. p. 131.132. in the two Houses of Parliament, to dispossesse any man, of whatsoever estate or condition, of his land, or Tenement, his freehold, or liberties or free Customes, without his being brought to answer by due processe of Law, and by the Lawful judgement of his P [...]eres.] And this may serve as well for theirs, as for mine own Vin­dication.

Next for the far greater part of Heads and Fellowes of Colleges in Oxon, His disparage­ment of the Visitors in his endea­vours to as­sert them. against whom he accuseth me to have thrown some darts, (ibid.) He knows I never made men­tion of them. And if he meanes that my case was also the case of all others who suffered with me, he wrongs the Vi­sitors extremely, by concluding them worse then indeed they were. For they did not cast out the greatest part of [Page 207] Heads, and Fellows out of their rights, untill they had gi­ven their final answer. I hardly know any (besides my self) who were deprived of their places for being so circumspect onely and modest, as to desire a little respit before they answered, that so their answer might be unpassionate, and after a due deliberation. I know the sufferings of all the rest were illegally inflicted, as well as mine, (as may ap­pear by the case of the Vniversity, which was sent in a let­ter to Mr. SELDEN, and of which I may give account towards the end of this subject ▪) but what I speak against the Visitors was in reference to the case, of which I had a peculiar knowledge.

Thirdly he playes upon himself by telling some stories of d [...]straction, and Hypocondriacal conceits, The work he makes with Hypochon­driacal con­ceipts. as if he were wil­ling that his Readers should suspect me infected with his Disease; And talk as odly of me, as they do commonly of him. But he is strangely unfortunate in this adventure. For he discovers himself afresh to be a second hand-Histo­rian, in citing an Author he never read. He would else have known (had he consulted Laurentius, as well as named him,) that there are Mel [...]ncho­liae differen­tias triplici discrimine assignant Authores: pri­ma proprio cerebri vitio obtingit; se­cunda per consensum totius corpo­ris cujus uni­versa tempe­ries totusque humor est melancholi­cus; ultima ex hypochondriis [...]uscitatur. i. e à visceribus in ipsis contentis, potissin [...]um ab E [...]ate, Liene & Mesen [...]erio. &c. Vide Laurent. de Melancholia Differentiis cap. 4. three sorts of melancholy, where of the first doth happen by the meer distemper of the Brain; The 2. by a consent of the whole body; the third is raised up from the Hypochondres, that is, from the en­trals contained in them especially from the liver, the spleen, and the Mesen [...]erie. The first is simply called Melan­choly; the last with an addition of the Epithet Hypochon­driacal. The first exagitates the patient without intermissi­on, the last affords him some times of truce. The three in­stances produced do all belong unto the first, not at all un­to the last, to which alone Mr. Hickman had the unskilful­ness to apply them, p. 46. And Laurentius (besides) doth adde no less then fourteen, of which there is not so much [Page 208] as one referred to Flatus Hypochondriacus, which by the Greeks is called [...]; but are widely different in two re­spects, to wit, in respect of the Original seat, and of the man­ner of the delirium which is produced. So that poor Mr. H. at once hath laid himself bare, and put a rod into my hand for his due correction. Did he think that Hypochondria were things residing in the brain? or was he as sick as the Italian Foot-boy, and fancied the brain was in the bowels? His own conceit was more likely to be Hypochondriacal then mine, when he reproached me with a distemper, from the very suspicion of which I was ever free; and with which if my Body had ever been affected in any measure, (as I blesse God for it, it never was,) Mr. Hickman should not have been so barbarous, as to have sported his Readers with my disease, which had been honest and helpless too, had it ever invaded my Hypochondres, as much as Fame hath affirmed it to have had dominion over his own. I never was so inhumane, as to upbraid my greatest enemy with any such bodily indisposition; and have rather afforded my ut­most help. But since Mr. Hickman (unprovoked) could not abstain from objecting a sicknesse to me, and such a sick­nesse as I have ever (by the blessing of God) been exempted from; it is his own fault onely (though my misfortune) that I am forced to expose him in this point also. And for the future I do beseech him, not to meddle in mat­ters of which he hath not any knowledge; nor to have so little mercy upon himself, as to scourge his guilty self upon an innocent mans back; but rather to conceal his great infir­mities, or onely reveal them to his Physician, and apply himself to the means of cure. I might (in favour and mer­cy to him) have prompted his Readers to believe, that it was but his spleenative Conceit, which made him say in his Epistle (wherewith he dedicates his collection) that the Doctrines printed before my birth, were the meer chimaera's of my brain. For which prodigious Adventure he is not capable of excuse, unlesse his flatulent Hypocondres made him a kind of Pythagorean, so as to fancy a transmigration [Page 209] of Calvin's soul into my body. I am sure Pythagoras is re­ported to have thought himself to be Aethalides, the son of Mercurie; and that Aethalides being dead, he be­came Euphorbus; and that Euphorbus being departed, he passed also into Hermotimus; and that Hermotimus dying, he lived in Pyrrhus the Fisherman; And after Pyrrhus his decease, he again survived in Pythagoras. Sure 'twere better for Mr. Hickman to think that my soul was once in Calvin, or Zuinglius, or Dr. Twisse then to call their wri­tings the meer chimaera's of my brain, or wilfully to deny what hath been read by thousands, and may be seen in those Writers by all Mankind who can but read them. The former (I say) were so much better then the later, by how much better it is, to be sick, then sinfull. And so 'twere charity to imagine (if that were possible to be done) that this was one of Mr. Hickman's Hypochondriacal conceits.

§. 76. It may be taken for one at least,He adds railing to his robbery, and tre [...]sonably misplaceth the Supreme po­wer of the na­tion. that he should charge me with Impudence against the Supreme Authority of the Nation. p. 45. For if he deals syncerely, as well as simply, he hence inferr's the Oxford Visitors (Mr. Cheynel, and Mr. Wilkinson, and such like things,) to have had the Supremacy, in his opinion. They alone being the men, by whom I complaind I had been injur'd, in their Trans­gressing the Prescriptions of those that sent them. And loosers (by a Proverb) have still had liberty to complain. I did but modestly hope, Mr. Hickman would pay me my Arrears, when again and again he tells his Readers I am impudent, p. 45. and 47. so impudent I am as to own my Right; though not so simple, as to expect it. And it is strange that Mr. Hickman should thus revile me, for onely presuming to hope well of him, or for refusing to dissemble what was so visibly my due. So when the owner in the Parable sent for fruits of his Vineyard, the Husbandmen abused his severall Messengers,M [...]r. 12.23. as well as sent them away empty. I will not say of Mr. Hickman that he is impu­dent, because his manners are none of mine, but I must [Page 210] needs admire the strange nature of his modesty, when he denyed a matter of Look back on c. 1. S. 2. Fact, however attested by all mens eyes.

Sect. 77. If he means the two Houses by the Supreme Authority of the Nation, The two Hou­ses vindicated from his gross insinuation, & the Supreme Power asserted by 19. Argu­ments. (as he seems to do▪ pag. 47.) he contradicts the fundamental Laws of the Land, the Canons of the Church, the Oathes of Allegeanc [...] and Supremacy, and implicitely censures all the Members of the House of Commons (by whom the Visitors were sent, in the year 1648.) as guilty of willful perjury, when they See M. Prin his true and perfect Narra­ [...]ive. p. 46. took those oathes b [...]fore they sate, or could sit, as members in the House of Commons. 1. The members of Parliament did even sw [...]ar, in taking the Oath of Supremacy, [That the Kings Highn [...]ss is the onely Supreme Governour of this Realm, and of all other his Dominions, and Countreys, as well in all Spiritual and Ecclesiasticall Things or Causes, as Temporal.] 2. The King was ever acknowledged in the Prayers of the Clergie before their Se [...]mons, to be the Supreme Head and Governour, in all Causes, and over all P [...]rsons, Ecclesiasticall, and Civill. Nor may we think that the Clergie were either taught o [...] commanded to lye to God in their Publick prayers. Nay, 3. he was utt [...]rly testified, and in conscience declared, as well by the mem­bers of Parliament, as by other subjects upon oath, to be not onely the Supreme, (which shews that none can be a­bove him) but Solus Supremus Moderator, (as Dr. San­derson observes) the Sole and Onely Supreme Head and Governour▪ which shews that none can be so besides him, or that none can be equal to him. 4. In the generall judgement of knowing men, and of Dr. Supremam hanc Potesta­tem▪ quam Majestatem, vel [...] dici­m [...]s, &c. D [...] obl [...]gat. cons [...]i­ent. Praelect. 7. [...]. 258.260, Sanderson in particular, The Kings Supremacy is imported by the stile of Dread Soveraign, and Soveraign Lord, and that of Majesty; expressions used by the two Houses of the late long Parliament, in their h [...]mble Petitions and addresses unto the King; (nor need I here tell my Reader, what an humble Petition is set to signifie) and as well in the most solemn establishment of Laws, as in actions and forms of [Page 211] Jurisdiction. 5. Magna Charta was first granted (in effect by King Iohn, and confirmed (with that Title) by Henry the third, 9, Hen 3. See D [...]. L [...]g­bain's Review of [...]he Cove­n [...]nt. p. 88▪ &c. of his mere free will; and so the li­berties of the subject cannot with reason be presumed to lessen the King of his Supremacie. 6. Other Statutes which have the force of Acts of Parliament are known to be directed as private Writs, with a Teste Meipso; And the common stile of most others is found to run in this strain, [The King with the advice of the Lords at the hum­ble Petition of the Commons, wills this, or that▪] so the form of passing Bills is still observed to be this, L [...] Ro [...] le veult, The King will have it. And s [...]it faict comme il est desiré, Let it be done as it is desired; plainly speaking by way of Grant, to something sought or petitioned for. (From whence by some it hath been gathered, that the R [...]ga [...]ion of Laws does rightly belong to the two Houses; but the Legislation unto the King; That their Act is Prepar [...] ­tive, his onely Iussive.) 7. That Supremacy of Power which the Law hath invested the King withall, is not one­ly over all particular persons, but also 1. Eliz. c▪ 1. over all states; which all the subjects of this Realm, and the Members of Parliament in particular, are bound by oa [...]h both to ac­knowledge, and to maintain. And which they grant to be his Due, when they desire him Exact. col. p. 5. & p. 738. to protect them in their priviledges, and call him alwayes in their Acts Their onely Soveraign Lord, or their Royal Soveraign. 8. The Kings Prerogative (as well as Magna Charta) is proved (by Iudge Lex Terrae. p. 5 (bound up with his work [...]. Ienkins) to be a principall part of the common Law; and Royal Government a Law fundamental. Nay, 9. It is proved, (by the same most learned and pious Iudge) Ibid. p. 8.7. Ed. [...]. S [...]at. [...]t large, f. 42, That the Supreme power even in time of Parliament, was decla­red by both Houses to belong unto the King. 10. The Kings Supremacy hath been proved by so many Arguments out of Bracton, (as may be seen in Dudley Diggs, The Reasons of the Vniversity of Oxford, Iudge Ienkins, and the like,) that I shall onely translate some few short passages into English. Bracton. l. 4▪ c. 24. Sect. 1. The King (saith he) hath power and Iurisdi­ction [Page 212] over all who are within his Kingdome, and none but He. Ibid. Sect. 5. Every one is under the King, and he under God onely. He hath no Peer (or equal) with his Kingdome, m [...]ch less is inferiour unto his subjects. Ib. l. 3. c. 7. l. 5. c. 3. sect. 3▪ de Defal [...]is. God alone is his superiour, and to God alone is he accomptable. In a word, Ib. l. 2. c. 24. sect. 1. The things that concern Iurisdiction and Peace, or are annexed to peace and Iustice, do belong to none but to the Crown, and the Kingly Dignity; nor can they be separated from the Crown, for as much as the Crown consisteth in them. 11. The Kings supremacy is evinced from the Nature of all his subjects Tenures, See M. Dudley Diggs of the unl [...]wfulness of taking up Arms &c▪ p. 80, 81. they holding their Lands of him in Fee. Whi [...]h though it gives a perpe [...]ual Estate, yet is it not absolute but conditionall; as depending on the acknowledgement of superiority, and as being forfeitable upon the non-perfor­mance of some duties, on which supposition it still returns unto the King. For the breach of Fidelity is loss of Fee. In short, it is agreed among the most learned in the Law, [...], That the King alone hath such a property in all his Lands, as Lawyers are wont to call Ala [...]dium, because he doth hold in his own full Right, without any service, or payment of Rent, because from God onely. 2. That subjects of all Degrees do hold their Lands ut Feuda, in the nature of Fee, which implyes Fealty to a Superiour. 12. The Oath of Allegeance hath the force of another Oath of Supremacy. For Legiancy is defined to be an Ibid. p. 82. obligation upon all sub­jects to take part with their Liege Lord against all men living, to aid and assist him with their bodies and minds, with their advise and power, not to lift up their arms against him, nor to support in any way those that oppose him. Now as no Du [...]renus in Comment d [...] Cons [...]ed. Feu­dorum c. 4. n. 3. apud eundem. Liege Lord can acknowledge any Superiour, and though bound to some duties, is not bound under pain of Forfei­ture; so subjects on the other side are Homines Ligii, all Liege-men, owing him Faith and Allegiance as their Su­periour; Which Faith if they violate▪ He is enabled by the Law (as being the Fountain of Iurisdiction, saith Master Diggs,) to seiz upon their Goods and Lands, and to destroy their persons too. Whereas if He fail in the discharge of [Page 213] his duty, he is not subject to any Forfeiture by any Law of the Land I could ever hear of; and Mr. Diggs hath chal­lenged all the world to name any. Doctor Sanderson also affirmeth, That if a King who is Supreme should do the things that are proposed 1 Sam. 8. and Rule as a Tyrant, by no other Law then his own hearts lust, Etsi non esset [...], nec peccato care­ret apud De­um; esset ta­men [...], nec deberet á po­pulo coerce­ri; dici (que) pro­pterea mere­retur, abusus quidem ille potestate su [...], sed tamen suâ. De Leg. Hum. Caus. effic. Prael. 7. p. 260. he would yet be unaccountable on this side Heaven, however liable to the wrath of the Soveraign Iudge of all the World. For however such a Tyrant may abuse his power, yet the po­wer is His which he abuseth; and who shall say unto the King, what dost thou? Eccles. 8.4. (a Text produced by the late King, of most blessed Memorie, against his own most unnatural and Blood Triers.) 13. There is an anti­ent Monument (saith Mr. Diggs, p. 83.) which shews the manner of holding a Parliament before the conquest. [The King is the head, the beginning, and the end of the Parliament, and so he hath not any equal in his Degree.] This I cite to anticipate Mr. Hi [...]kman's possible objection. 14. The King by Law hath just power, 33. H. 8. c. 21. to pass acts of Parliament by his great Seal; to grant out Commissions of Oyer and Terminer for the holding of Assisses; 28. Ed. 1. c. 8, to adjourn the Term to whatsoever place he pleaseth; 27 H. 8. c. 24. To make Iustices of Peace, which wholly depends on his will and pleasure; 27. H. 8. c. 24. Confessed al­so Ex. Col. p. 270.715.90 [...] To pardon Delinquents and Malefactors, (a priviledge, by law, estated solely in the King,) To choose his Officers, to protect all persons, to coin money, to make leagues with forrein Princes, to dispose the Militia, to call and dissolve Parliaments, And to be (in one word) Le dernier Resort de la Iustice. 15. In the thirty seventh Ar­ticle of the Church of England, The King (or Queen) is declared to have the chief Power in this Realm of England, &c. to whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all Cau­ses, doth appertain And this called the Prerogative which hath alwayes been given to all godly Princes in holy Scri­pture by God himself, that they shall rule all Estates, and all Degrees—Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the [Page 214] Civil sword, the stubborn and evil Doers. 16. And accor­dingly in the Canons by law established in the Church, A Supreme Power is declared to be given by God in Scripture to the sacred order of Kings, which is there also declared to be of Divine Right. And that for any person or persons to set up, maintain, or avow, in any their said Realms respe­ctively, under any pretence whatsoever, any Independent co-active power, either Papal, or popular, (whether directly, or indirectly) is to undermine their great Royal office, and cun­ningly to overthrow that most sacred ordinance, which God himself hath established; and so is treasonable against God, as well as against the King. (This I earnestly recommend to Mr. Hickman his consideration, and that which follows in the Canon, viz.) ‘That for subjects to bear Arms against their Kings, offensive, or defensive, upon any pretence whatsoever, is at the least to resist the powers, which are ordained of God: And though they do not invade ▪ but onely resist; 17. Saint Paul tells them plainly, They shall receive to themselves damnation.’ The most excel­lent Recognition which was made by both Houses in the first year of King Iames, is so worthy to be written in Letters of Gold, and so needfull to be rivetted in the hearts and memories of the people, who desire to have a conscience void of offence towards God, and men, that I think I shall deserve many an honest man's thanks, (who hath either never known, or hath forgot what once he knew) by inserting some part upon this occasion.

‘The King is our onely rightfull and lawfull Leige Lord and Soveraign,1. Jac. c. 1. 9. Ed. 4. fol. 8. we do upon the knees of our heart ad­nize constant Faith, Loyalty, and Obedience to the King and his Royall Progeny, in this high Court of Parliament; where all the body of the Realm is either in Person, or by representation: we do acknowledge that the true and sincere Religion of the Church is con­tinued and established by the King. And do recognize, as we are bound by the law of God and man, the Realm of England, and the Imperiall Crown thereof doth be­long [Page 215] to him by inherent birthright, and lawfull and undoubted succession, and submit our selves and our po­sterities for ever, untill the last drop of bloud be spent, to his rule, and beseech the King to accept the same as the first fruits of our Loyalty and Faith to his Majesty and his posterity for ever; and for that this Act is not compleat nor perfect without his Majesties assent, the same is humbly desired.’

‘This proves (saith Judge Ienkins) 1.See his works, p. 23, 24. That the Hou­ses are not above the King; 2. That Kings have not their titles to the Crown by the two Houses, but 3. by inherent birth-right, and 4. That there can be no Statute without his express assent; and so 5. It de­stroyes the Chimaera of the Kings virtuall being in the Houses.’

18. The Kings Proclamations heretofore to severall purposes were of no less force then Acts of Parliament. 31. H. 8. c 8. & 34. H. 8. c▪ 23. And the ground of it was, that the See the Pre­face to that Act. 31. H. 8. supremitie of the Regal power is given by God. And however that Act was indeed repealed by the meek concession of King Edward the sixth, yet the Reason of the Repeal is recorded to have been this; 1. Ed, 6. c. 12. A willingness in the King to gratifie his people, up [...]n trust that they would not abuse the same, but▪ rather be encouraged with more faithfulness and diligence to serve his Highness. So when Charles the First passed a Bill for the continuance of the long Parliament indefinitely, it was upon their promise, Exact. Coll. p. 203. that the gracious favour of his Majesty expressed in that Bill should not encourage them to do any thing, which otherwise had not been sit to be done. And so good is the Rule in the Civil Law, Cessante causa, cessat Lex, That the Lords and Commons even of that very Parliament did Ib. p. 876. d [...]clare it to hold good in Acts of Par­liament.

19. When 'twas declared by 1. Ed▪ 5. [...]. 2. all the Iudges and Ser­geants of Law, [that it cannot be said the King doth wrong] it was by a Periphrasis, A Declaration of his Sup [...]emacy. For the meaning of it must be, (say the grea­test [Page 216] Lawyers) That what the King doth, in point of Ju­risdiction, he doth by his Iudges who are sworn to deal legally between the King and his people. So as the Jud­ges may be questioned for violation of Law, but the King is unaccountable, and on his person or power no Reflecti­on is to be made.

§▪ 78. Thus I have given such an account of the proper subject of Supremacy,And by very many more, for which the Rea­der is intreated to use the works of Iudge Ien­kins. as my Notes of Observation sug­gest unto me at this time. I gather'd my Notes more espe­cially (for my private use and information, that I might know what Party I ought to own, in these times of Triall and Temptation,) partly out of the Papers which passed betwixt the King, and both Houses of Parliament; part­ly from the writings of Mr. Prin, Mr. Diggs, Iudge Ien­kins, and Dr. Langbane; partly out of the Book of Sta­tutes, though I have not time to consult them much. Many more Arguments I could urge out of the works of Iudge Ienkins, but that I find them too many to be transcribed in this Appendix; and withall I consider, that book is cheap, and little, and (I hope) easily to be had which makes me choose to referr my Readers to his whole Lex Terrae, from page 8. to page 63. I have been so convinced by all put together which hath been said, as I cannot but conclude with the most Learned and moderate Doctor Sanderson, Apud nos Anglos saltem quid potest aut certius constare, aut liquidius, (ni­si siqui in sole meridiano cae­cutire malint, quàm uti ocu­lis,) quàm ad unam serenis­simam Maje­statem Regiam Supremam trium istorum Regnorum Potestatem pertinere? ubi su­pr [...], pag 260. That at least, amongst us here in England, there can be nothing more certain or conspicuous, (unless we will not use our eyes, but rather choose to be blind at noon, by stoutly winking against the Sun,) then that the power of these Three Kingdoms doth onely belong to his Serene and Supreme Royall Majesty. This is said by that great and judicious Casuist, in his stating the obligation and efficient cause of humane Lawes. After which, if Mr. Hickman shall yet contend, that the Oxford Visitors were commissioned by the Supreme Authority of the Nation, though by the two [Page 217] Houses onely, (not onely without, but against the pleasure of the King) I will onely referr him to certain Notes on the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance, in a late-Printed Book which is thus [...]ntitled. [The Resurrection of Loyal­ty and Obedience, out of the Grave of Rebellion]

§. 80.How Mr. H. became one of my uncommissi­oned Receivers. But I printed (saith Mr. Hickman) as if I had right to two Fellowships; and asks, how else he is but one of my receivers? p 46.] To which I answer, 1. That for any thing I know, Mr. Hickman succeeded him that suc­ceeded me. And my words of him were these, that for ought I know, he may be in possession of mine own fellowship, &c. Or 2. If he did not succeed my successor, but that his Robbery is immediate, not once removed; I will give him an Answer to chew upon out of the Digests. Digest. 47.2.21▪ Sect. 4. for wh [...]ch s [...]e D [...]. Z [...]uch his Ca­ses and Que­stions▪ p. 92. [When a number of men do jo [...] their strength to steal a piece of Timber, (or any thing else which is anothers,) which none of them singly could have carried away; Vlpian saith, that each of them severally, as well as all of them joyntly, is lyable to an action for the double value of the thing.] And so when the right of a Society is invaded by a Society, (which was our case in Magd. Colledge, when almost all were at once bereaved by men of violence,) all may re­quire their right of all, and every man from every man. For every man by partnership is an Accessary to all that have done the wrong, as well as principall in part, and in­definitely; and so responsible to all who receive the wrong, or do require a reparation. I could prove to Mr. Hickman, that he is guilty of the Visitor's sin, by accepting the spoils of their injustice. But I am ready to pardon, though not to dissemble my being injur'd.

§. 81. I had but said by such a figure as is allowable in Scripture,In what sense he may be cal­led my Recei­ver and Vsu­fructuarie. [It seems the Visitors made him one of my Re­ceivers and Vsu-fructuaries] when taking my words by the wrong handle, he pretends that His is the usus-fru­ctus. p. 46.] But 1. he knows I there added, That my legitimate Successor they could not make him, which is a proof that what I spake, was of what they did, not ought [Page 218] to do; And a Facto ad Ius no good Argument is to be drawn. The Visitors made him my Receiver, as they made their Wisd. 2. strength the law of justice; Or as Lambert made Cromwell the Kings Receiver. 'Tis easie for one man to be m [...]de an other man's Receiver, and yet (by a Proverb) to be as bad as the thief that made him. The sons of vi­olence and rapine made one another what they pleased, as opportunity and power was in their hands. So it was said by Doctor Heylin, that Mr. Hickman had made a Book; But he presently added, [As unhappy Boyes do make Knives, when in very deed they do but steal them.] 2. Had he been made my Receiver by my consent, he must have given me an Account, as the person to whom his Receipts were due. 3. He confesseth An usufructuary doth want the Title, and cannot pretend he hath Ius ad Rem. So that now in the same sense, in which he pretends to the Usus-fructus, he doth implicitly confess I am proprietary in chief; and I may very well summon so saw [...]y an officer to a Rec­koning. When Doctor Heylin said of Mr, Cheynel, that he was the Vsufructuary of the rich Parsonage of Petworth, the English of it was usurper, Exam. Hist. p. 130. and nothing else. For 'tis a Rule (as I remember) in the Civil Law, Potest proprie­tas esse Maevii, Vsus-fructus Titii, & tamen usus Sempro­nii. And even where the usus-fructus is duly setled (as most unduely in Mr. Hickman,) it is but jus in re, by his confession. And usus-fructus is defined by Ius Alienis Rebus utendi fruendi, salvâ rerum substantiâ. So the Propriety is mine who have jus ad rem. The Visitors could not, by doing wrong, either take away my Right, or con­ferr upon another what they could never take from me. To be out of possession is so far from being a prejudice to my Right, That God's Anointed himself hath been as long out of his;How the As­sembly Presby­terians became Abettors of sa­crilege, and prevaricators with the Bible. whose Right hath yet been alwayes greater (at least by one Title) then any subject's.

§. 82. But Mr. Hickman is well satisfied that he wants nothing at all, but a Right and Title to his possession. pag. 46. And the taking that for a small defect, may very pro­bably [Page 219] be the reason why the Assembly Annotators on the English Bible did seem to think it no sin, to be God's and the Churches Vusufructuaries, in such a figurative sense as in which Mr. Hickman may be called mine. For 'tis ob­served by Dr. Gauden (and many others) that in See his Hie­ra Dacrua ch. 21. l. 3. p. 333. 334. and weigh the pas­sage with the professions of these men. ‘every place through the Bible, where the word and Spirit of God signally commands them to brand the sin of sacri­lege with a black marke, as one of the Divels hindmost Herd, the Presbyterian Expositors do so slily and slight­ly pass it over, as if they had neither seen nor smelt that foul beast; as if there were no gall in their pens, no Re­proof in their mouthes, no courage in their Hearts a­gainst this sin; they scarce ever touch it, never state it, make no perstrictive or invective stroke against it; which could not be (saith the Observator) their Ignorance, or inadvertency, but the cowardise, cunning, and Parasi­tism of the Times; in which they were content, for some Presbyterian ends, to connive at sacriledge in those good Lords and Masters, whose charity they hoped (yea Doctor Gauden professeth he heard of them profess they expected) would turn all that stream, which Bishops,☜ Deans, and Chapters injoyed, to drive the Presbyte­rian Mills, to keep up the honour of Ruling and teach­ing Elders.—These soft fingered Censors (saith the Reverend Doctor a little after) very gently touch that rough Satyr of sacrilege, where tis expresly put in the balance with Idolatry, and overweighs it, as more enor­mous.’ Thus farr that Learned and moderate man, whom perhaps the Annotators may charge with impudence (as Mr. Hickman does me) and that against the two Houses too, on whom they probably will bestow the Supreme Au­thority of the Nation; It being a Grace which Mr. Hick­man was pleased to grant them.M. Hickman's confounding possession and right, and ma­king no scruple of many Rob­beries at once.

§. 83. Whereas he saith that my being married doth e­vacuate and nullifie my Title to all Academical Injoyments, (pag. 46, 47.) first I must tell him that I was single, when I was cast out of my Fellowship (which was my Freehold) [Page 220] and some years after did so continue, even till after I was presented to the Rectorie of Brington, my injoym [...]nt of which he seems to envie ▪ (ibid.) And so I hope he will acknowledge my Arrears are due to me till then; Nor can he with any Truth, that I ever pretended to any more. 2. I am not sure my being married can null my Title, un­till Doctor Oliver and the true Fellows shall so declare it; and wise men have thought, that by their good leave I am Fellow still, till by a lawfull Election they put another into my place. For Thomas Goodwin (we know) is a most scandalous usurper, so as the Rhapsodist himself can be hardly worse. And so my modus habendi may still be optimus, as Mr. Hickma [...]'s is pessimus in the very worst sense too. For I have an Academical enjoyment by Right, Mr. Hickman onely by usurpation ▪ I am warranted by Vlpian to say I have it, though many years together I have not held it. Nam & eum Habere dicimus qui Rei Dominus est, aeque ac eum qui Rem Tenet. 3. And it was strange that Mr. Hickman could think me incapable of my own (at Magdalen Colledge) by my having injoy­ed a single Parsonage, whilst (at the very same time) he thought himself capable of things which were none of his, even a Fellowship in the Colledge, a Vicarage of Bra [...]kly, and a Parsonage at Saint Towles too, and all by no other title, then what the wickedness of the Times could be­stow up [...]n him. So Mr. Tombes the Arch-Anabaptist could be qualified by the Times to be Mr. Baxter of Infants Church Mem. p. 202, 203. Parson of Rosse, and Vi­car of Lempster, and Preacher of Bewdly, and Master of the Hospital at Ledbury; All which he was somewhat fit­ter for, then Mr. Hickman, if but capable of something, by being lawfully ordained. Whereas Mr. Hickman having been onely made a Minister, (not a Priest, or a Deacon, as Exam. Hist. part. 1. p. 158, 159. Doctor Heylin doth well distinguish) and made a Minister no otherwise, then as the Fria [...]'s Pork was made Pickerill, cannot be capable of the least, much less of two or three Livings. And perhaps in time he may say as much, if he will reade Doctor Hammond upon the Ordinance of [Page 221] the two Houses for the ordination of Ministers Pro Tem­pore, Printed at Oxford 1644. For which that Great Au­thor was never yet accused of being impudent, though what he writ was against the two Houses.

§. 84. Because he know's I never said,His willful bi [...]erness sadly reflecting upon the Visitors. I was s [...]spected by the Visitors to be the Author of a Libel, (which words the man was resolved to use) he tells his Reader that my words might look l [...]ke such an Affirmation ▪ p. 47.] where­as before he confessed my words were no other, then that I was secretly suggested to be the Author of some books, which to this very day I could never hear nam'd. (p. 44.) were all things Libells which were written for the cause of the King and of the Church, or were any way displeasing to those mens Palates who came to V [...]sit? Or is it lawfull to ruine men upon bare suspicion? Was this for the credit of the Visitors, or them that sent them? Be it so that I was suspected, (as any other man might be,) I was as innocent as the morning, in which I was told by Dr. R [...]y [...]olds of such suspicion. And that he told me as a secret, not ac­cording to the vote of his guilty Brethren, who never charged me with ought, no not so much as a suspicion. Much less did they dare to let me know my Accuser, for fear I should prove him a false Accuser, and spoil the trade they then were driving. Much less yet would they indure that I should have the least tryall, (fair, or foul;) because they were conscious of the nothing, that they were abl [...] to say against me. Their dealing with me, in that affair, puts me in mind of what I read in an English book, See Mr. Ho­well's sober in­spections on the long Parliament. p. 156. [There was nothing so common in those Times, as a charge with­out a [...] Accuser, a sentence without a Iudge, and a condemna­tion without a hearing.] But I was condemned without a charge too; And it seems by no Judge that will own the Judg [...]ment. For

§. 85. Mr. Hickman is fain to say, that I was turned out of my Fellowship, not by the Visitors, And as much on the Lords and Commons. but by the Com­mittee of Lords and Commons, for non-submission to the Au­thority of Parliament, in visiting the Vniversity. p. 47.] [Page 222] To which I answer, 1. That my Answer to the Visitors was judged rational and modest by Doctor Reynolds, who therefore told me it was impossible I should be banished onely for that; but rather for being at least suspected to have written some Books; but what books they were▪ or why I was suspected the Author of them, he either could not, or woul [...] not tell me. 2. Mr. Hickman layes the whole fault on the Lords and Commons, which I ascribe unto the Visitors, transgressing the Commission by which they sate. For would the Lords and Commons undo an Orphan for being modest, and conscientiously desirous to gain some time, to the end he might not answer but upon due consideration? This would justifie Philanglus in the book above mention'd, when he said Vbisupra. That many were outed their Free-holds, Liberty, and Livelyhoods, before a­ny examination, much less conviction; and that the order of a Committee was commonly made to controlle the fundamen­tall Lawes of the Land. I rather think that the Visitors did return a false answer, and so abused the Lords and Commons, then that persons of so much honour would be the authors of such a fact, as Doctor Reynolds (although a Visitor) so much abhorred, and never would give his consent unto. But Mr. Hickman doth acknowledge that the two Houses may do amiss; for he dares not undertake in all things to acquit them. p. 48.

Worst of all up­on the King; in excluding whom, he be­heads the Par­liament.§. 86. But why doth he call it the Authority of Par­liament, which he confesseth at other Times to be no more then two Houses? A Parliament without a King (much more against him) is a contradiction in adjecto. Well said Judge Ienkins, [See his works. p. 49. The leggs, Arms, and Trunck of the body, cannot be above the Head, nor have life without it.] So that supposing the King to be but one of the 3. States of which a Parliament doth consist, He is a part, and that the highest. But in truth (saith the Id. ibid. learned Judge) The King is none of the three estates, but COOKE, their Oracle, in his Chap. of Parliam. fol. 1. apud eundem. above them all. The three estates are the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons. And so Mr. Hickman is unexcusable in [Page 223] beheading the Parliament, by excl [...]ding the King from his Royal Birthright.

§. 87. Again Mr. Hickman proceeds to ask,How he and his Visitors have a­cted against the two Houses and withall against the supreme Power of the Na [...]ion. [ ‘Is it not Impudence to say, that the Visitors authorized by the two Houses, under the broad Seal of England, could not make me his legitimate successor?’ p. 47.] To which I answer, 1. that the Visitors were never authorized by the two Houses to condemn me without some little hearing, or to huddle up their sentence and Execution, without Ac­cuser, or witness, or accusation, face to face. 2. The two Houses could onely make an Ordinance, not an Act of Parliament, which is a Law) as the Houses themselves have oft confessed. And Ibid. p. 195, 197. Laws are the things which bind the people. Nay 3. If any statute shall be made against Magna Charta, (and so against Bishops provided for by Magna Charta, and confirmed by thirty two Acts of Par­liament; or against any man's right without a triall ac­cording to Law;Ib. p. 62. It is by Law declared null. 42. Ed. 3. ch. 1. But it seems Mr. Hickman is like Oliver Cromwell, whose foul-mouth'd by-word was wont to be, See M. Prins Perfect Nar­rative, p. 58. Magna Charta, Magna Farta. Nay 4. It is resolved in Plowden. f. 388, 389. Cook. 8▪ Re­ports. f. 118. Hobards Re­ports. p. 85, 86, 87. apud eundem. p. 34. Law Books, that if an Act of Parliament referr to, or confirm a thing which is not, (as for a man to be a Iudge or witness in his own case,) or a thing that is misrecited, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, there the common Law shall controll, and adjudge such an Act to be meerly void. Now we who were of the Dispersion through the Avarice and Revenge of the cruel Visitors, did find those Visitors in very great part, at once our Iudges, our Iuries, our Ex­ecutioners, and our Heirs. Had they dealt sincerely with us, and bid us plainly leave our Fellowships, because they had Sons, and Nephews, or other good friends to be cared for, (as the Fox was syncere, when he bid the Cock come down from the Tree, alledging this reason, that he was hungry,) I should not have used them as now I do, though I use them better then they did me. But their pretending to Reformation, and Iustice too, did make their sin exceed­ing [Page 224] sinfull. 5. The Broad Seal which he speaks of is cal­led by Judge Ienkins, p 35. a Counterfeit Seal. And the Coun­terfeiting of that he p 37-& 45. proves High Treason. Last of all I will add, that we were taught in our Catechism, by our common mother the Church of England, that we are bound by God in the fifth Commandment, to honour and obey (not the two Houses, but) the King, not the two Houses and the King, but the King and his ministers. Saint Peter accordingly commanding us to Submit our selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, instructs us to do it to the King as 1 Pet. 2.31. Supreme, and unto Governours as sent by him. Now were the Visitors really sent by him? Or were they not flatly sent against Him? Whether so, or so, Let it be judged by the Case of the University; the most materiall part of which shall now become my next Se­ction.

§. 88. The onely question which is by these men pro­pos'd to every single person in the University, The case of the Universi­ty of Oxford A.D. 1648. & The sad Di­lemma all its members were put to, either to be perjur'd, or destroyed. is, Whe­ther we will submit to their Visitation, or to the power of Parliament (as they call it) in this Visitation.

That without the Personall Consent of the King to this Commission, (as far as it respects the University in General, and us as members thereof) we cannot now submit to any Visitation, without incurring the guilt of manifold per­juries▪ In reference to our Vniversity oathes, we have long since given an Account by way of Plea to these men: That our particular Locall, or Collegiate Statutes, (which define us particular Visitors in our particular Colledges) bind us (under the same most evident perjury) to submit to no other Visitation, but that which the Statutes of each have defined, hath been also the Plea of the Heads of our Colledges, in the name of their severall Societies. And for this, and nothing but this, that is, (in plain words) because they have (with all civility to the two Houses, and to the persons sent by them) refused to incur that damning sin of perjury, (which hath already helpt to bring such heavy judgements upon this Nation) the Governours of [Page 225] the University are displaced, and some imprison'd, and Master Reynolds a V [...]si or put into the office of Vice-chan­cellour, and into the D [...]anary of Christ Church,) two pla­ces of the greatest dignit [...], and powe [...]) one of the greatest profit in the Vniversity. And in like manner the Heads of the Colledges, and the Prebendaries of Ch [...]ist-church have many of them already faln under the same punishments, (and the rest expect their turns) and severall of the Visi­tors also are put into their pl [...]ces. And now the slaughter hastens to the door of every of the ancientest, or youngest Student, Fellow, Scholar, Commoner, or other member of the whole Vniversity, and the speed is so great, the pur­suit so vehement, that four whole Colledges have been in one day summoned to [...]ppear before them, without any delay, to give positive Answer to this one Question, Whe­they will submit, or n [...]. By this 'tis apparent to us, that as the state of things now stands, we have an easie, though unhappy choice proposed to us, viz. Whether we will pre­fer the preservation of our Estates, or of our Souls by admitting perjury or ruine. (And in the making of the choice God hath given the whole University such an uni­form constancy, and contempt of the world, that we hear not of above three men that have considered their profit so much, as to yield this submission) And that it may be also apparent to all others, that this is the choice, I shall give you the plain words of our Oaths, by which we are withheld from submitting, that the Honourable Houses may judge, if they please, whether it be probable that con­science hath by us been hypocritically pretended to destroy our selves, as it hath sometimes been made use of by o­thers for their visible advantages. Thi [...] I shall set down first as far as our obligation is founded in our Oathes to the University, and then to our severall Colledges.

The Oath of the University to every man is this. Tis jurabis te observaturum omnia Statuta, Libertates, Privi­legia, & Co [...]suetudines istius universitatis. Thou shalt Swear to observe all the Statutes, Liberties, Priviledges, and [Page 226] customes of this Vniversity. The Scholar answers, Iuro, I swear, and this he renews, and repeats as often as he takes any degree in the University. From hence we conclude, that for any man wilfully to betray any one of the Privi­l [...]dges, or Liberties (as well as to break the Statutes or customes of the University) can never be excused from the guilt and charge of down-right Perjury; for which we must be banished the Vniversity, if ever we be called to ac­count for it by any just power. And that one of our Pri­viledges is, that we be visited by none but the King, or those that are sent by Him, as we are verily perswaded, so have we never heard [...]f any other title, or pretension of any (which is thought even by our enemies to have any shew of Ground in our Charters, or Customes against our Plea) save onely that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Metropolitan; to which our Answer is so clear, and punctuall, (viz. that in the vacancy of the Arch-bishops Sea, all power that can be thought to belong to him, must needs be acknowledged to devolve to the King the foun­tain of his power, and so the Arch-bishop having been long dead, this power of Visiting us (if any such belong to the Arch-bishop) must now needs be onely in the King) that we profess never to have heard of any word of satis­faction that hath been offered to this enforcement of our Plea, but are rather told that the Commission for this Vi­sitation coming under the name of our Soveraign Lord Charles, &c. is a Commission issued out by the King; which as it seems to us an acknowledgement of the truth of all our pretensions; so is it the imposing upon us the belief of that which we know to be otherwise, having certain knowledge that the King never consented to the is­suing of this Commission, and so having no excuse of ig­norance, in case we should yield submission to that Visi­tation (as proceeding from him) which is acknowledged by all to involve us in Perjury, if it come not from him. To this we may add one obligation more, that as 'tis one of the Vniversities Priviledges to be exempt (without al [Page 227] controversie as long as the Arch-bishops Sea is vacant) from all power but that of the King, so 'tis one of the Kings Priviledges and preeminencies to have this full, and (at this time) sole power over us. And then that branch of the Oath of Supremacy that obligeth all Subjects in these express words, [to assist, and defend to our power all Pri­viledges, and Preeminencies, and Authorities granted, and belonging to the Kings Majesty, or annexed to the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdome] doth certainly bind us to defend this, as far as it is in our power to do it.

For the obligations of Colledge Statutes which name us particular Visitors, and exclude all others from that em­ployment, I shall shorten your trouble, and yet not fail in giving you, and all men a perfect satisfaction, by setting down a few plain words out of some of them. In the Sta­tutes of New Coll. Magdalen Coll. Corpus Christi, and St. Iohn's (in each of these without any considerable al­teration) these are the words; Statuimus, ordinamus, & volumus, ut liceat Duo Episc: Winton: Dioc: qui pro tempore fuerit, & nulli alii, nec aliis, &c. per se, vel suum Com­missarium specialem, quem duxerit deputandum (praeter­quam per Cancellarium Vniversitatis, seu ejus Commissari­um generalem, seu procuratores Univers. Oxon. &c. ac prae­terquam Custodem, aut aliquam personam nostri Collegii, aut alios quoscunque in Vniversitate per unam quind [...]nam anno proximo cum visitationem praecedente Studentes, &c. per quos, aut ipsorum aliquem haec nolumus qu [...]m [...]dolibet exerceri) ad Collegii hujus visitationem liberè accedere, & Custodem ac alios singulos socios, &c. nostri Collegii in Sa­cellum ejusdem convocare.

From whence these few things are distinctly concluded by the Statu [...]es of those Colledges. 1. That the Bishop of Winchester by himself, or some body deputed by him is the onely lawfull Visitour of those Colledges; and all other person or persons in direct words (nec alii nec aliis, & prae­terea nemini) are excluded by the Statutes. 2. That it is not lawfull for the Bishop himself to depute any of those [Page 228] persons which are there excepted, viz. the Chancellour or Vice-chancellour, or Proctours of the University, the War­den or President, or any person of the said Colledges, or any S [...]udent in the University, that hath been commorant there fifteen dayes in the year preceding the Visitation; by which exception all th [...]se men, which have lately been the onely actors in this business (having now resided ('tis to be supposed studied) here for some time, and now one nam'd, and by them reputed to be Vice chancellour, others to be Gov [...]rnours of particular Colledges) are made utterly un­capable of that employment. I shall not need to mention any more, it being clear that these men are not deputed by that Bishop, and as clear, that if they were deputed by him, they are not qualified according to the Statutes, but expresly excluded by them. Now what is thus ordained by those statutes, every member admitted into those Colled­ges, is by Oath obliged to observe, and not onely invol­ved in perjury if he do not, but where other penalties are not named (as in this matter there are not) is liable to the pain of perjury, that is, deprivation of all benefits of his Colledge; which is now become the punishment of none but those who will observe them.

Besides these Oathes which particularly and directly look to the grand ma [...]ter of the Visitation, There be ma­ny other branches of our Oathes Academicall, and Colle­giate, which are most nearly concerned in the present trans­actions. The Statutes of the University, to the observing of which our oaths distinctly bind us, prescribe the man­ner of Election of Proctours, (of calling and meeting in Convocations, &c.) And therefore whensoever Proctours have been removed by the KING, the Vniversity Statutes have taken place in appointing the Successours; and those (as the Vice-chancellour also) are obliged to take Oaths, for the discharge of their places according to statute. But all is now done directly cont [...]ary to all this. And therefore herein no sworn member of the Vniversity can think fit, without professing despight to Conscience or reputation, to joyn with them. And so in particular Colledges, the [Page 229] Statutes are punctuall, that after the departure or a motion of any Governour, the Fellows must proceed within such a time to the election of a new, and he and none but he shall be reputed Warden, President, &c. who shall be chosen by a major part of the Electours. And then he that is chosen must take severall Oaths particularly to govern ac­cording to Statute, before any of the muniments of the Colledge may be delivered up to him, or before he enter upon the Government, to act any thing in it. And this is established by severall positive statutes, to the observing of which, all members of Colledges are precisely sworn. And it is evident and acknowledged that no man can be made Dean or Prebendary of Christs Church (nor ever was since the foundation of the Church) but by the KINGS personal consent, and nomination under the Privy Seal, and Broad Seal, by which he is installed; And to him that is thus possest of that Deanary, every Student of that Church is by plain words of the Oath of his admission, bound to perform due obedience &c. All which being now most clearly violated by not onely Sequestring, but removing the for­mer, and putting in new Governours by force, without Ele­ction, or taking of Oaths to the Colledges, it follows that no sworn member of any Colledge can acknowledge any such Governours without wilfull un-execusable Perjury. The onely thing that hath yet been offer'd to us to answer the Force, and urgence of all this Plea (and at the pre­sence of which, all mention of our Oaths must vanish pre­sently) is the pretended Soveraign power of the two Hou­ses to make and abolish Laws and Obligations; which ha­ving interposed here, is consequently said to quit us of all these engagements, which formerly lay upon us. But this is so far from removing our scruples, that it is it self a scruple much more hard to us to digest, then the former. For by our having taken the Oath of Supremacy, we have acknowledged that to be onely in the KING; and by our education in this Kingdome, have been brought up in a firm belief (grounded on the known Laws and Customes [Page 230] thereof) that the power of enacting, and repealing of Laws belongs not to the two Houses exclusively, but to the KING' with the consent of the two Houses; and we do now profess, never to have heard any thing to the contrary, before these times: nor since these times, sufficient to alter our judgements in this particular. And therefore whatsoever question be made of this truth by other men, yet we, whose hearts assure us, that we make no question of it (and consequently acknowledge, that we do not yet con­ceive our selves to be freed from any one branch of any of these Oaths) cannot imagine what colour it is possible for the Tempter to put upon this required submission, by which to perswade us, that it might be reconcileable with a good Conscience now, or with any degree of excuse to God or men, or of quiet and tranquillity within our own breasts at the hour of death, in case we should, on such terms as these, submit to this Visitation. And as I think I might safely appeal to any Divine in the world as to a Confessour, or Casuist for the stating of this Question, Whether it were lawfull for us to submit, supposing our many Oathes con­festly bound us to the contrary, and that we are verily per­swaded, that those Oathes are in full force upon us, and as confident that the two Houses could not dispence with them, nor take off the obligingness of them; So would I likewise appeal to any man living that ever pretended to assert ei­ther the Liberty of Conscience, or p [...]opriety of goods, Whe­ther we ought in this case to be turn'd out of our free hold, to the utter undoing of so great a multitude for no other crime but this of not submitting, when that is nothing else but the following the dictates of our Consciences informed and regulated by the known Laws of the Land. Having gi­ven you this short view of our state, which (as 'tis told us assuredly by the Visitours) is suddenly to bring a per­fect vastation on this Vniversity, I cannot but think it my duty to the publick (which is now so disabled from mee­ting in a body, that it cannot make any formall address to you) to lay this representation before you, and to de­sire [Page 231] by your assistance it may yet be resumed into conside­ration, Whether it will be for the honour of Christian Religion, or of the Protestant Profession, that our bare demurring or refusing to submit our selves to the grossest and most unquestion'd perjuries, should be voted by your Committee to be an high contempt of Authority of Parlia­ment, and such punishments assign'd thereto, which if in­flicted impartially, must necessarily leave no one Scholar of what quality soever in this University (which is of age to have taken Oathes of admission to the University, or to any particular Colledge) which shall not appear to all men avowedly and confestly per [...]ur'd and lyable to all the shame and penalty, that by Law belongs to that crime, whensoever any man shall be willing to prosecute it against him. We hope this representation may produce some o­ther counsels; if not, we shall most chearfully perish in our integrity.

To conclude. 1. That as many Earls and Barons as could stand about the Kings Throne, at his Coronation, did lay their hands on the Crown on his Royal Head, pro­testing to spend their blood to maintain it to Him and his l [...]wful Heirs. 2. That those Lords were cast out of their House by the Commons, as they had joyned with the Com­mons to cast out the King; 3. That the Bishops were acknowledged to be one of the Three States, even by those very Houses which cast them out; 4. That Both the hou­ses, without the King, had but a disputable Authority, even with some of their own Minions; 5. That the Ox­ford Visitation, was null and void; Doctor Heylin hath proved to Master Fuller in his Examen Historicum, pag. 203.251.264.265. &c.

§. 89. Having now dismissed those weighty subjects,A transition to the descovery of his no skil in Logick. in which it concerns every person to be sufficiently instruct­ed, I am arrived at that part of the Filcher's Volume, wherein he comes to the Quaestion, concerning the posi­tive Entity of sin. Of which whatsoever the man hath said, (whether out of Mr. Barlow, or Doctor Baron,) I have [Page 232] considered at large in the 6. Chapters of my Book, to which I have added this long Appendix. Yet because there are still some things remaining, which though not to the pur­pose, may yet be usefully discovered, I will discover them as fully as shall be needfull, and in as few words as can be shish'd.

His insultation added to hide or bear up his ignorance.90. I had said then an Accident is not the subject of an Accident, And that some Accidents are not separable from their subjects of Inhaesion, as Risibility from a man. Then which there are not two greater Truths, either more ordi­narily known, or more generally granted amongst Logici­ans. But so profound was the Ignorance of Mr. Hickman, or so implacable his Rancour, and so incomparable his bold­ness, that he summond all those who had any respect for Mag. Coll. to blush at my Ignorance in those particulars, which commonly Freshmen are wont to know, (pag. 51.) If here he spake against his conscience (which is the like­liest of the two) I wonder how he durst do it, unless he hope that no Scholars would read his Book. But if it was his mere ignorance, which is not so likely, though it is possible, he then was destitute of skill even in Logick, which he last came from, as well as in Divinity, at which he is not yet arrived. And so it is hard for me to judge, whether the sinner or the Sciolist hath the greater share in him. Fo [...] mark the Judgement of Aristotle, as well as that of the Complutenses, and all the Thomists.

Concerning the subject of an Accident. Collegium Compl. in Ari­stot. Dialect. Disp. 12. de substan. quaest. 5 p. 419, 420.Haec est expressa Doctrina Aristotelis. (4 Metaphy [...]. Text. 14.) Accidenti non est accidens, nisi quia Ambo ei­dem accidunt. Estque receptissima inter Thomistas. Pro quâ videri possunt Ca [...]etan. 2. p q. 77. art. 2. A Soto in 4. dist. 10. quaest. 2. art. 2. Mas. Sanch. l. 5. quaest. 11. Bergom. in Concordantiis D. Thomae. dub. 20. & alii.

Fundamentum est, quia omne Accidens definitur per proprium & immediatum subjectum cu [...] inhaeret. Sed sem­per definitur per substantiam▪ ut ex Aristotele patet. Ergo semper substantia pertinet ad proprium & immediatum subjectum Accidentis.

[Page 233]Confirmatur primò: quia quaelibét forma, seu actus immediatè attingit propriam materiam, seu potentiam, ut patet inductione: sed in propriâ materiâ, seu poten­tiâ a [...]cidentium semper includitur substantia, ergò sem­per accidentia immediatè attingunt substantiam. Pro­batur Minor: quià accidens dat propriae materiae esse secundum quid, ergò requirit, & supponit in illâ esse simplicitèr.

Confirmatur secundò: quia ideò in sententiâ D. Tho­mae materia prima non est integrum & immediatum sub­jectum quantitatis, aut alterius accidentis (& idem est de formis materialibus) quià non habet propriam sub­sistentiam: sed nullum accidens habet propriam subsi­stentiam, ut patet; ergò nullum accidens potest esse subjectum integrum & immediatum alterius. Yet in a flat contradiction to all this Authority and Reason too, Master Hickman tells us that an Accident may be the im­mediate subject of Inhaesion to an Accident. (p. 51.) As if he had never so much as tasted of Aristotles Well, or hardly dipped into a system. For even thence he might have learned, that 'tis the propriety of substantia Quarto modo, to be the subject of Accidents.

§. 91. Nay as if he had studyed to talk exactly like an Ideot, Of subjectum ultimum, [...]t ultimatum. he presently adds that onely substance can be the ultimate subject of an Accident (ibid.) whereas on the contrary it is held by all the world to be subjectum ulti­mum, not ultimatum, which an Accident may be by my good leave. So that either he was ignorant, how ultimum differs from ultimatum; or else he conceived that sub­stance signifies an Accident; or else he was wholly of my opinion, even whilst he so much rail'd against it. When I said that an Accident is not subjectum Acciden­tis, I meant ultimum, (as all the world hath ever meant) not ultimatum, (as Master Hickman;) but mention'd nei­ther, because 'twas needless. And so Master Hickman hath no excuse for disgracing himself in this publick man­ner. Of one hundred Authors, I will convince him but [Page 234] with one, whom he pretends to admire, but (I am confi­dent) never read.

Crak [...]nth [...]rp de Accidente p. 33.Subjectum ultimum cui accidentia omnia inhaerent, quodque accidentia sustentat, est vel substantia illa quae est summum genus, vel aliqua species, aut individuum illius. Differentiae quidem substantiales, etiam & unum accidens potest esse alterius subjectum, sedut Logici vo­cant, ultimatum. (therefore Mr. Hickman is no Logician) Nunquam autem sunt accidentia aut esse possunt ultima ac­cidentium subjecta, &c.

Nay there are who are of opinion, (and Hurtadus de Mendoz [...] Phys. Disp. 6. subs. 2. Greg. de Va­lent. 2. dist. 12. q. 2. art. 1. Marsilius 4. q. 9. art. 2. ibid. men of re­nown) that Accidens is neither subjectum quod, nor quo; not ultimum, nor ultimatum. That Quantity is no way receptive of Qualities, sed in materia esse unam potenti­am ad quantitatem, aliam verò distinctam ad qualitatem; in quâ potentiâ, & non in quantitate, Capreolus subji­cit qualitates, saith Hurtadus; who professeth he is dri­ven to this opinion:

§. 92. To his denial that Risibility is an Inseparable Accident, Of an Insepara­ble Accident. (which if a Freshman should deny, he would be hist out of the Schools) I shall not need say any more then this, That 'tis a quality and so an Accident; that 'tis Accidens proprium, and so 'tis accidens; That 'tis pro­prium quarto modo, and so inseparable. For omni, soli, semper & convertibiliter subjecto convenit. Master Hick­man denyes it to be an Accident Inseparable, because for­sooth 'tis a propriety. As if he should say, it is not, be­cause it is, and cannot possibly be otherwise. The cause of his miscarriage must needs be this, that he know's not the difference betwixt a praedicable and a praedicament. Because Accidens and Proprium do make two praedicables, he thinks that that which is proprium, (as Risibility) can­not therefore be Accidens; forgetting that accidens is divided into proprium, & commune, and so does make a twofold praedicable. Now let the Visitors consider what Reformation they have made, when a titular Fellow of a Colledge and a titular Master of Arts is found not fit [Page 235] to be a tolerable Pupil, whilst he stands in need of such Logick Lectures. Is not Cicero a name, because it is a pro­per name? Or is not Mr. Hickman so much as a man, be­cause he is not a learned man? no nor an animal, (by his reasoning) because not Animal irrationale. The black­ness of a Crow he will grant to be an Inseparable accident, but not the Crow's crocitation; because the later is not less, but more inseparable than the former. I will not say, blush, but pity him all yee, that have any respect for Magdalen Colledge.

§. 93. He goes to prove that an Accident may be the subject of Inhaesion to an Accident, Of the substan­tial faculties of the Soul. because fides is either in Intellectu or in voluntate. (p. 51.) And thus he takes it for granted that these are accidents, which are known by all Scholars to be substantial faculties. Aristotle calls the Intellect a part of the soul. A part I say, not as if it had quan­tity, but secundum rationem, as he explains his own words. [...],Aristot. [...]. mihi p. 1416 [...].

Ochamus, Gregorius Ariminensis, Gabriel Biel, By whom they are held to be its very essence. Thomas Garbiu [...], Bonaventura, Parisienses, & complures alii, (in­quit Berigardus. Circulo quinto de anima fa­cult. sive poten­tiis. Berigardus,) dicunt animae facultates esse ipsummet ejus essentiam, quae prout variis in organis obit varia mu­nera, ipsa quoque diversis [...]acultatum appellationibus nun­cupatur.

Ostendi, inquit Hurtadus, Hurtadus de Mendozâ de Anima Disput. 4. Sect. 4. Gratiam imitari Conceptus Naturae, ac propterea esse in substan [...]îa animae. Fides est in Intellectu, id est, in Animâ, ad efficiendos actus intelligen­di: sub quo conceptu Anima est Intellectus. This comes home to Mr. Hickman's Instance. Nay Hurtadus is of opinion, that no vital faculty is accidental. Sed esse adae­quatè idem vel cum animâ, si est spiritualis, vel cum toto composito, si materialis. Ita Greg. Arimin. Henr. Gan­davensis, Gab. Biel, & universa Nominum schola quibus­cum consentiunt Pat. Conim­bricense [...] 2. de Anima c. 3. q. 4 artic. 1. Duran­du [...] 2. dist. 3. quaest 5. non pauci.

[Page 236]Saint August. lib. de sp. & ani­ma. c▪ 2. & 8. Austin saith, that those Faculties are the Soul it self as existing in several parts of the body. And again, Anima est intellectus, Anima est m [...]moria, & Anima est vo­luntas. And again, Tom. 9. Tr. 15. in Joh. apud Hu [...]t. u­bi supra. Intellectus non est aliquid aliud quàm Anima; sed aliquid animae est Intellectus, quomodo non ali­quid aliud quàm caro est oculus, sed aliquid carnis est ocu­lus, &c.

Bernardus in serm. 11. supra cantica apud eund. Stahlius reg. Philos. Tit. 16 de Regulis subjecti & ac­cidentis. In animâ Tria intueor, Rationem, Memoriam & Voluntatem, & haec Tria eandem esse animam.

N [...]c dissentit Scotus cum suâ scholâ, quem adducit Pat. Valentia pro eadem sententiâ, (inquit Hurtadus.)

Videtur ea sententia, quod facultates animae sint se­cundum Rem ipsa substantia Animae, alterâ longè pro­ba [...]ilior.

'Tis true that some Confuted men are of another mind, but they Hurt. de Mend. ubi su­pra. confess that their opinion cannot easily be pro­ved and (as I said before) they are Hurt. de Mend. ubi su­pra. confuted. Howe­ver, for their sakes, (though 'tis likely Mr. Hickman doth not know with whom he err's) I hold our Malefactor the more excusable.

§. 94. But he is utterly unexcusable, when he saith that sin is not acknowledged by any to be Complexum Quid,Of his grant­ing what he denyes whilst he denyes it, and giving up the whole cause.ex­cept by Complexum, we mean Complexum ex genere & Dif­ferentiâ. p. 53.] For first that ' [...]is complexum quid, is so acknowledged by all, (by Doctor Sanderson in particu­lar who is himself a great many) that 'till I heard of one Mr. Hickman, I heard of no man, that e're deny'd it. Next he affirms what he denyes, by saying it is complex­um ex genere & differentiâ; more than which, he could not possibly have said for my advantage. For first Mr. Hickman is but Animal rationale, if we grant him the most that he can desire. And what is Animal Rationale, but onely genus & differentia? Next he clearly here confes­seth the positive entity of sin; (though 'twas more then he knew, until I told him,) For every good Definition must be ex genere & Differentiâ. And every thing must be con­sidered as under some species when so defined. And 'twill [Page 237] be granted by all the world, that all the species in the world must needs imply their individuals to be positive Entities. Which whensoever we say of sins, we must needs under­stand it of Individuals. Such as Murder, Adultery, Pride, and Filching. And, any otherwise understood, then as an Individual man, Mr. Hickman himself hath no posi­tive entity. And yet he is not a sin, but onely a very great sinner.

O the praevalence of Truth over the Advocate of Er­rour! For as [...]. Philo Judaeus pag. 499- Balaam was overruled to bless that peo­ple, against which he intended to pour out Curses; so whilst our Rhapsodist endeavours to plead for errour, the Compare this Section with his Ten Conf [...]ssions. For which look back on ch. 3. Sect. 28. p. 52, 53, 54. truth drops out at his Fingers ends.

A POSTSCRIPT Touching some late Dealings OF Master Baxter.

A POSTSCRIPT Touching Mr. Baxter, condemned out of his own Works, and proved excellently scandalous in Life and Doctrin.

§ 1. HAving concluded with Mr. Hickman, The Synagogue of the Libertines I should gladly have ended my Readers Trouble, but that I finde Mr. Baxter hath dealt with Me, and my Writings, as the Synagogue of the Libertines once dealt with Stephen, and his Oration; when having nothing to Answer in the De­fense of their Rebellion, or for their Murder of Gods Anointed which Acts. 6.9. Stephen had laid unto their charge, they were so Acts 7▪ 54. cut to the heart, (as S. Luke tells us the story) that they gnashed upon him with their Teeth. But finding him still to use the Liberty of his Tongue, they were transported with greater Fury; and so impatient of his words, that Verse 57. that they stopped their ears, and ran upon him with open mouth: and (with violent hands) disputing him out of the Citie, they flung their argu­ments at his head; Arguments as hard as the hardest Verse 58. stones, that He might not fail of a Confutation.

§ 2. That Mr. Baxter is neer of kin unto the Syna­gogue of the Libertines, Fitly applyed to Mr. Baxter. I have See the New Discoverer Dis­coverd. Ch. 3. Sect. 1. p. 61, 62, 63, 64. where Mr. Baxters words and pages are set at large. evinced out of his wri­tings in my New Discoverer Discover'd. Where I have shewed in what degree he hath strengthened the hands of Evil Doers, and encouraged the people in all the Villa­nies to be named; even by striving to perswade them (with all the Artifice he could use) that if a man be once Regenerate, Sanctified, or Godly, it is not Murder, or Adultery, or Drunkennesse, or Incest, or Idolatry, or Perjury, or the denying of Christ himself, that can make [Page 2] him otherwise then a sanctified and Godly man. Now Mr. Baxter (it seems) resolving not to Answer my Book, and yet not able to let it alone, hath rather chosen (once or twice) to gnash upon me with his teeth, and to shew he was cut unto the heart, and to fling some stones (Railing and Calumny) at my Head, than to be thought by his Disciples to have offended, or so little stomachful as to Repent.

His railing on K James and Bp. Bancroft.§ 3. For first in his Pamphlet of Self-denyal, (a [...] is derived fr [...]m [...] and [...]. And is used by Atheneus [lib. 18.] for an In­cendiary, a Boute-few, a setter of things into combustion. Pamphlet properly so called) he saith [a Rogers, a Stubb, a Pierce,] not for any other end (that I am able to conceive) then to give himself Ease by a little vent. To express a sharp Writer [...], by [a Rogers, a Stubb, a Pierce] can amount to no more then the bare shewing of his Teeth, when besides his own Lip, there is nothing Bitten. From this he could not abstein in his very Dedicatory Epistle, (p. 11.) Nor waded he farther into his Praeface then p. 17. when another sharp pang did thus inspire him. [If Fits-Simon, and other Iesuites, and Bp. Bancroft, and Dr. Peter Heylin, Mr. Thomas Pierce, and other such among us are to be believed, what an abominable odious sort of people are they (the Puritans) and especially the Presbyterians, who are (the greatest part of them) intolerable, hypocritical, bloody men.] Now to what purpose was all this, (not so much against Me, whom he ranked with Bishop Bancroft, as against that excellent Archbishop, whom he ranked with the Iesuites) but to discover to all the world whereabouts his shooe wring'd him? Archbishop Bancroft was a most wise, and a most pious Metropolitan; whose learned Books have been rayld at but never answered. Certainly He, and Dr. Heylin are as eminent for the Truth of their several Narratives, as any humane Historians that ever writ. I have vindicated the Former, beyond the power of a Baxter to contradict me. The Later hath vindicated Himself in his Certamen Epistolare; by which Mr. Bax­ter was too much baffled, to think of making a Reply. [Page 3] Fitz-Simons was a Iesuite, with whom Mr. Baxter doth too much cotton. Nor doth he answer one word to my New Discov. Discov. ch. 5. p. 98, 99. Allegations. Concerning the Puritans I spent a whole Chapter, (not a Line of which hath ever been answered by Mr. Baxter) wherein I shewed they were as Odious to King Iames, and Bp. Andrews, Dr. Sander­son, and the like, as to Arch-Bp. Bancroft, or Mr. Pierce. And whatsoever he saith of Me, for speaking severely of the Puritans, doth plainly reflect upon the King, and upon all the greatest Persons, both for piety and learn­ing, Archbishops and Bishops, and Reverend Iudges of the Land, whose pungent Characters of the Puritans I fairly Ibid. from p. 1 [...]3. [...] p. 117. cited.

§ 4. But suppose Bp. Bancroft, and Dr. Heylin, On Bp Andrews and Dr. San­de [...]son for their Iustice to the Puritans. and Mr. Pierce are three Iesuites, (or as little deserving to be believed, yet Dr. Sanderson is confessed by Mr. Bax­ter himself, to be both a Moderate and learned Prote­stant. And He hath so preached against the Puritans (as well from the Presse, as from the Pulpit, that I cannot think of any person (unlesse King Iames, or Bp. Andrews, See that Preface of Dr. Sander­son, Sect. 17, a [...]d 18.) who hath branded that Faction with deeper marks. Not only in his Preface to the Second E­dition of his Sermons, where he placeth us in the middle betwixt the two extremes, Papists and Puritans and shew's how the Puritans have extremely promoted the Popish Interests, nay how See the Reve­rend Dr. Ham­mond his paci­fick Discourse, &c. p. 8. l. ult. Libertinism it self had over­spread the whole Face of the Land, by the means of Fiery Turbulent Presbyterians; But in the latest of all his writings, (set out indeed by Dr. Hammond, yet with his own speciall likeing and Approbation,) He sharply speaks of some books against the Liturgy and Ceremonies, by giving them the Name of Puritanical Pamphlets with a juster Epithete than which he could not easily stigmatize them: And the most Learned King Iames (in his Meditations on the Lords Prayer) doth piously give a special caveat, that we do not make God the Au­thor of sin, as certain Cavendum ne cum Pur [...]ta­nis [...]uibusdam Deum faciamus Autorem pec­ca [...]i. vid. epis [...]. Ded. Dan. Tilen. pref. Notis su [...]s in Canon. Synod Dordr. Puritans are wont to do. Of this [Page 4] his Majesty was minded by that Acute and Learned Frenchman Daniel Tilenus in his excellent Epistle to that wise King, after their happy valediction to the Calvinian Doctrines. Those I hope were no Jesuites Fel­lows, and may deserve to be Believed, if they affirmed of the Puritans (which Mr. Baxter happily confesseth to have been mostly Presbyterians,) that they were Hypocritical and Bloody men. Only here Mr. Baxter must be taught to distinguish of Presbyterians. For with them that are Moderate I have ever had communion and very affectionate commerce, (as many of them can witness for me) But I am ready to consent to what I find said by Dr. Sanderson, [See the last page of the most learned Dr. San­dersons most incomparable preface. Such is the Obstinacy and Madness of the Rigid, Scotized, through-paced Presbyte­rians, that it is vain to think of doing any good upon them by Arguments, till it shall please God to make them of more humble and Teachable Spirits.] These are pungent but very True, yea very Necessary expressions. They could not else have proceeded from that Exemplary Divine, whom hardly any hath ever excelled (if we behold him in his latest and [...]ipest years) for Piety, Meekness, and Moderation. Had Baxter railed at Me alone for my im­partiality to the Puritans, I might have passed it over in peace and silence. But since tis apparent he wreaks his malice upon the Reverend Dr. Sanderson and the Right Reverend Bp. Andrews, and all the other great persons whose words I used, (striking really at Them, although through Me, as Darius (in Horodotus) was bid to run at Patizitham [...]. Herodot. in Thalia. c 78. p. 194. through Gobrias sides) I could not in Conscience let him escape without some usefull Animadversions.

§ 5. He adds in the Margin of the same page, [That I had answered his Expectation, His Confession of his own wick­ednesse again confessed by him­s [...]lf▪ [...]hough but in p [...]rt. and from his own Confessi­on, (not knowing him my self) had drawn his picture, that he is proud, lazy, false, an Hypocrite, unjust, &c.] But why for this am I called Bolsec, in the words nex [...] after, since I was only his Echo, and did but resound his own [Page 5] Confessions? Not his Auricular confessions, (for he had made none to me,) but his Confessions even in print, and in words at length. Mr. Owen had framed a charge against him, that he was proud, selfish, and Hypocritical; Mr. Baxter sub dio (in open Court) pleaded Guilty to the in­ditement. It was not certainly my Fault, that I cited his Pages as well as Words, that all his favourers might find I had neverwrong'd him. Nor could I possibly know him better, then by an abundance of his Own both words and works. Of which how faithfull an accompt I have given the Reader, I leave to be judged of by them, who will compare my citations, as well as read them. Never should I have taxt him either with pride, selfishness and Hypocrisie; but when he had owned all three, I had nothing to do to contradict him▪ I could never have thought him lazy, (whom I found a Polypragmatick) nor so faulty in the discharge of his pastoral Office as he professed himself to be, if he had not avowed it in very plain English, both in his sheet against the Quakers, and in his Saints everlasting Rest. From both I cited his words and pages. And lastly for his injustice, in u­surping the Right of Mr. Dance, I never so much as heard of it, untill he told me. Nor was it without his own intreaty, that I demonstrated to him his great Injustice. Let his Followers but consider my whole Chapter of Se­questrations, and I shall hope they will be wary how they are led by his example. Nay in his Postscript to his True Catholick, he makes an open Confession of one part of his Confession, though not of All. He saith He is aware of Hypocrisie within him. p. 315. And Hypo­crysy (as I take it) must needs denominate an Hypocrite, after the measure that Hypocrisie doth dwell within him.His prodigi­ous falsifying of Common Pray­ers.

§ 6. But he Postscrip. at the end of his True Catholick p▪ 315. saith, he may have my own Consent to tell the world, that there is no truth in me. ibid.] See the de­sperate wickednesse of this Pretender to Reformation, without so much as any colour of Common Honesty. For [Page 6] when, and where did I consent that he should tell the world so gross a Falshood? And yet he saith, he doth perceive he may have my consent to rayl and slander. But how doth he perceive it? Is it by any thing he hath read in all my writings? Or by any kinde of Message which I had sent him? No, he contents himself to say, [It is my ordinary Confession in the Book of Com­mon prayer, ibid.] Does this Professor believe there is a God, or a Devil? A Heaven, or a Hell? Or (believing all four) does he conclude he is Regenerate, and cannot cease to be such by any Sin to be imagined? Were it not for This or That he could not wilfully publish so le [...]d a Fiction. For first, in all the Common prayer there are not any such words. Next, I might use the Common prayer, and yet not All. Thirdly, the words that are likest to it, are expressely taken out of S. Iohn, and are only Hypothetical. If we say that we have no sin we de­ceive our selves, and there is no Truth in us. (1 John 1.8. Insomuch that Mr. Baxter is just as bad as that Fellow, (of whom King Iames doth somewhere speak in his Basilicon Doron) who sought to prove out of the Psal­mist, There is no God, because it is said by the Prophet David, The fool hath said in his heart there is no God. Nay fourthly, we are only commanded to use some One of those many Sentences in the Beginning of the Liturgy; which a man may do for many years, without so much as once repeating what Mr. Baxter doth seem to allude unto. And tis more then he knows, if ever I once us'd it in all my Life. But fifthly, let us suppose there were indeed such a Confession categorically made in the Com­mon prayer. Mr. Baxter is old enough to have known (what Mr. Hooker and others might have taught him, having not read it in S. Ierome, a Latine Father,) That the Priest, in publick prayer, is the Mouth of the people unto God; as he is, in publick preaching, Gods Mouth unto the people· And so Confession is to be made in such General Terms, as may well become the Congregation. [Page 7] To which as the Priest doth address himself with a [Dearly beloved Brethren] so doth he beseech them (in the Conclusion) to keep him Company in the Devoti­on, saying after him what he speaks, with a pure heart, and humble voice. But it seems Mr. Baxter cares not what he Iude 13. foams out, although it be his own shame, if he may ease himself for a time by aspersing the person with whom he deals.

§ 7. Having confessed again in print his printed Con­fession of his Hypocrisie, His denial of that Confession which h [...] con­fessed a lit [...]le be­fore. (p. 315.) He yet professeth he is so far from proclaiming himself an Hypocrite, that he will imitate Job in holding fast his integrity. p. 318.] 1. It seems he either understands not the rule of Conjugates, and believes he hath the privilege to keep his Hypocri­sie, without the danger of being an Hypocrite; or else when he came to p. 318. he forgot what he had said, p. 315. or else he thinks, that to publish his Sins in print, is nothing neer so much as to proclaim them; or else he is desperate, and careless, what becomes of his reputation; or else he thinks it no Disrepute, to print such shameful Self-Contradictions. 2. After publick Convictions of his Pride and Selfishnesse, Hypocrisie and Impatience, (for he somewhere also confesseth he is of a pettish Disposition, as I have somewhere shewed in my New Discoverer Discover'd,) He talks of imitating Iob in holding fast his Integrity. Mr. Dance his Living cannot be called his Intrgrity, which yet alone is the Thing that he hath ever held fast since first he held it. As for Loyalty, and Obedience, Professions, and Principles, Oaths, and Covenants, Those are things he hath playd with at Fast and Loose. Which I proceed to make ap­parent by these following Degrees.

§ 8. First he hath printed a Confession.His perjury and Rebellion prov­ed out of his own words. See his holy Comm [...]nweal [...] Pr [...]f. p▪ [...] ▪ [That our old Constitution was King, Lords, and Commons, which we were Sworn, and Sworn, and Sworn again to be faithful to, and to defend.] These are all his own words in his Praeface directed to the Army, 1659.

[Page 8]Next he hath printed a Confession, That after seve­ral changes of Government,Ibid. p. 10. [we had a Protector go­verning according to an Instrument, made by God knows who. After this we had a Protector governing to the hum­ble petition and Advice, and sworn to both.]

Thirdly, he printed a Confession, that his Protectors came not in till after these four changes, (which I pray the Reader to observe, that thou mayest see in the Conclusion how the Hocus of Kiderminster hath jugled with God, and his own Conscience, and how his Iugling is brought to Light by his own Discovery.) Ibid. p. 9. [...]nd 10.1. The King withdrawing, (mark his words) the Lords and Commons ruled alone. 2. Next this, we had the mi­nor part of the House of Commons in the exercise of the Soveraign power, -Regality and a House of Lords being cast off. 3. Next this we had nothing visible but a General and an Army. 4. Next this, we had All the whole Consti­tution and Liberties of the Common-wealth at once subvert­ed: Certain men being called by the NAME of a Parlia­ment, and the Soveraign power pretended to be given them, and exercised by them, that never were chosen by the people, but by we know not whom. Such a fact (he confesseth) as never King was guilty of since Parliaments were known. 5. & 6. There came a Protector, and a Pro­tector, of whom I noted his Confession in my second Ob­servation.

His playing at fast and loose with his Inte­grity.Having praemised these Confessions, which prove the Titular Protectors to have been the greatest of all VSVRPERS and so the guiltiest Malefactors in all the Kingdome; Let us consider Mr. Baxter in the holding fast of his Integrity of which he boasteth. Let us observe how he defended, and was faithfull to the King, Lords and Commons, to which he was Sworn, and Sworn, and Sworn again, by his Confession. Alluding I suppose to those three Oathes; that of Allegiance, that of Supre­macy, that of the Scotish and English Covenant. Where­in He Swore to be faithfull and obedient to his Majesties [Page 9] person and posterity, to assert and defend them with the utmost of his power, that is to say, with Life and For­tune. He swore the two first with one hand upon the Bi­ble, the third with hands lifted up to the most high God. After which I cannot tell whether he enter'd into the Engagement to be true and Faithfull to that which fol­lowed without the King and house of Lords; but that he did as bad or worse, I shall prove out of his writings by what now follows.

§ 10. First he dedicates a book to Protector Richard, wherein he playes the Parasitaster in a most loathsome manner. The style in which he directs his Flattery, His tim [...] se [...] ­ving and fawr­ing upon his Soveraign Ri­chard. is To his Highness Richard Lord Protector of the Common-Wealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. After which he begins to cogg with the man in these words. Five Dispu [...]. of Church Gov. and wor­ship Epist. De­dic. per totam. These papers are Ambitious of Accompanying those against popery into your Highness presence, for the tender of their service. —I observe the Nation generally rejoyceth in your peace­able entrance upon the Government.— Many are perswa­ded you have been strangely kept from participating in any of our late bloody contentions, that God might make you an Healer of our Breaches, and imploy you in that Temple-work, which David himself might not be honoured with. —This would be the way to lift you highest in the esteem and love of all your People, and make them see that you are Ma [...]k how this suits with the Assemblies Confess. of faith that all things whatsoever are ordained by God. appointed by God to be an Healer and Restorer, and to glory in you, and to blesse God for you as the instrument of our chiefest good. — My earnest prayers for your Highnesse shall be, — that you may rule us as one that is Ruled by God. That you may alwayes remember you are Christs, and your Peoples, and not your own. Your zeal for God will kindle in your Subjects a zeal for you. Compare this with his Con­fession, that was no Parlia­ment, which yet had a bet­ter pretenc [...] then Richard. Parliaments, Ministers will heartily pray for you, and praise the Lord for his mer­cies by you, and Teach all the people to love, honour and obey you. I crave your Highness favourable acceptance of the tendred service of a Faithfull Subject to your Highness — Richard Baxter.

[Page 10]In another Epistle to the same Richard, to whom he dedicates another book,Hi [...] rejoycing in our late miseries &c. he fawns and waggs the tail, and catches at favour by these expressions. Key for C [...] ­tholick [...] Epist. De. per totam. You have your government, and we our lives, because the Papists are not strong enough. Pope Pius V. in his Bull against our Queen Elizabeth, saith, we will and command that the Subjects take up Armes against that Haereticall and Excom­municated Queen. Whether such Note the Presbyterian agreement with the Pope in excommu­nicating Kings K. Charl [...]s might be faught against, but Mr. Richard must not. Opinions as these should by us be uncontradicted, or by you be suffered to be taught your Subjects, is easie to discern. — We desire you that you would not advance us to temporal honours, or dignities, or power, nor make us Lord Bishops, nor to abound with the Riches of this World: these things agree not with our cal­ling. — Give not leave to every Seducer to do his worst to damn mens Souls, when you will not tollerate every Tratior to draw your Armies or People into Rebellion. If you ask who it is that presumeth thus to be your Monitor, It is one that Rejoyceth in the present happiness of England, and earnest­ly wisheth that it were but as well with the rest of the world: and that honoureth all the Note his cha [...]ging upon God all the Villanies of the times. providences of God by which we have been brought to what we are, and he is one that concurring in the common hopes of greater blessings yet to these Nations under your Government, was en [...]ouraged to do what you dayly allow your preachers to do, and to con­curr with the Rest in the Tenders (and some performance) of his service. — That God will make you a healer and preserver of his Churches here at home, and a succes­full helper to his Churches abroad, is the Earnest prayers of your Highness faithfull Subject Richard Baxter.His Flattering mentions of old Oliver, as ten [...]erly care­full of Christs c [...]u [...]e.

After this in a Third Epistle, directed to the Army, He calls the powers that were last laid by (meaning ei­ther Richard, or the Corrupt minority of the Garbled House, but I rather suppose the Former) Ded [...]c. epist. or pref. before his Holy Com­monvvealth p. 6 The best govern­nours in all the world that have the supremacy, whom to re­sist or depose is forbidden to Subjects on pain of Damnation. In what respect he affirmeth those powers the best, he [Page 11] explains by ibid. Wisdom and holyness conjunct. And of the same he saith, ibid. p. 8. shall the best of Governours, the greatest of mercies seem intollerable? O how happy would the best of the Nations under heaven be, if they had the Rulers that our Ingratitude hath cast off! ib. p. 25. Again he tells them, his book was written, whilest the Lord Protector, prudently, piously, faithfully, to his immortall honour, did exercise the Go­vernment. Nay (speaking, I am sure, either of Richard or the Rump, but I think of Richard) he saith ib p. 484. he is bound to submit to the present Government, as set over us by God, and to obey, for conscience and to behave himself as a loyall Subject towards them. Nay his Reason for this is yet more monstrous; first partially to Richard, he saith [ibid. A Full and Free Parliament hath owned it, and so there is notoriously the Consent of the People, which is the Evidence that some Princes had to justify the best Titles.] Next maliciously to the King, his only rightfull So­veraign Lord, he saith, [bid. That they who plead Inheri­tance and Law must fetch the Original from Consent.] Lastly that nothing might be wanting to speak him a Time-server in grain, He said to Richard concerning Oliver (the bloodiest Tyrant in all the World) Epist. Ded. (before his Key for Cath) p. 8. That the Serious endeavours of his Renowned Father for the Pro­testants of Savoy had won him more esteem in the hearts of many that fear the Lord, then all his Victories in them­selves considered.] To which he added [We pray that you may INHERIT a tender Care of the Cause of Christ] plainly implying the Tyrant Oliver to have been Tender­ly carefull of the Cause of Christ, and so becoming by such Cajolrie a most eminent partaker in all his villa­nies ▪ Yet this is the man that stands neer ibid. b. 17. Aeternity, (as he boasteth of himself and therefore unfaithfull Man-pleasing would be to him a double crime.

§ 11.His b [...]ing Ac­cessary to the most parr [...]cidial act▪ the murde [...] of Gods A [...]oin­ted. Having praemised his fearfull daubing with the Titularie Protectors, whom he confessed to have Governed according to an instrument made by God knows who; and according to the humble petition and advice [Page 12] (made by all the world knows whom, to wit a most il­legall and Criminall sort of Traytors, nicknamed a Parliament;) And with that having compared (though not so fully as I intend) his malicious disowning the Lords Anointed, whom he had sworn and sworn and sworn a­gain to be faithful unto and to defend, (against all such usurpers as Oliver See the pre­face to the Es­sa [...] for the good Ol [...] Cause. Ale-seller, and Richard were known to be) I shall now observe in how many respects, Mr. Baxter comes to be 1 Tim. 5.22. Re [...]el 18.4. partaker of other mens sins, besides the hideous and frightful nature of his Own. I mean the sins of both the nominal Protectors, and of that sort of men who had set them up. To which end it will be usefull, briefly to reckon the severall wayes, whereby a man may be Accessory, when another is Principal in a transgression.

1. By Consent and Approbation, so Saul was guilty of Stephens death Act. 8.1. So the Gnosticks were guilty of sins committed by other men,The s [...]ven wayes of parta­king in other mens sins: because they had plea­sure in those that did them. Rom. 1.32.

2. By Counsel and advise, so Achitophel was guilty of Absolons Incest and Rebellion, 2. Sam. 16.23. So also Caiphas had a hand in the blood of Christ, Ioh. 11.49.

3. By Appointment and Command, so Pharoah and Herod are said to have slain the little children they ne­ver toucht. Exod. 1. and Matth. 2. So David is said to have slain Vriah the Hittite, though with the hand, as well as the Sword of the Children of Ammon. 2. Sam. 12.9.

4. By Comm [...]nding, Defending, or Excusing the Fact or the Malefactour. Wo be to you that call evill Good, that put darkness for light, and bitter for sweet, Esa. 5.20. Wo be to them that sowe pillows to all Armeholes, and make Kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls. Ezek. 13.18.

Such were Mr. Baxters Pri [...] ­ [...]es Oliver and R [...]chard.5. By any kind of participation of any illgotten Goods, whether gotten by Rapine, or kept by fraud, and un­just Title. Of this saith the Psalmist, when thou saw'st a [Page 13] Thief thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with Adulterers. Psal. 50.18. Thy s Princes are Rebellious and Companions of Thieves; every one loveth gifts and followeth after Rewards. Isa. 1.23.

6. By too much Lenity and Connivence, which har­den's a sinner by Impunity. And therefore Ahab was threatned, for the unjust Mercy he shew'd to Benhadad, with a sentence of Death without Mercy; Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a Man whom I appointed to ut­ter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. 1. Kings 20.42. This was the sin that brake Eli's Neck. 1. Sam. 3.13. and 4.18. The Magistrate is made to be Gods Revenger, to exe­cute wrath upon him that doth evill. And he ought not to bear the sword in vain. Rom. 13.4.

7. By unseasonable silence and Neglect of the Christian duty of reprehension. For this is a sin against those pre­cepts, Levit. 19.17. Isa. 58. 1. Ezek. 3.17. and 33.7.

Now by how many of these wayes Mr. Baxter hath been Accessarie to the Murder of One King, and to the exclusion of another, and to the debauching the peo­ples souls by his scandalous writings and example, I leave to be pronounced by the Intelligent Readers. Who, that they may judge the more exactly, shall do well to compare his signal Confessions above recited, both with his flattering and blessing the Old and Young Cromwell, And with his other Confessions which now ensue.

§. 12.H [...]s being an in­cendiary in the W [...]rr, and in­cou [...]aging many thousands [...] re­bell proved out of his confessi­ons. He confesseth he was moved to engage himself in the Parliament Warr (Holy Common-wealth, p. 456.) And yet 2. That the Disorders which on both sides were unexcusable, were no just cause to cast the Nation into a Warr. (p. 474.) Nay, 3. That he would have inga­ged as he did, (which was against his natural King and Leige Lord) if he had known the Parliament (he means the 2. Houses) had been the beginners, and in most fault. p. 480. Nay 4. that the warr was not to pro­cure [Page 14] a change of the constitution, to take down Royalty and the house of Lords, but clean contrary. p. 482. (why then did he fawn upon both the Cromwels?) 5. That all of them did rush too eagerly into the heat of Divisions and warr, and none of them did so much as they should have done to prevent it. And that himself in particular did speak much to Though here he conf [...]sseth he was a Cok­blower and in­couraged thousands to Rebell, yet he da [...]es not [...]e­pent, p. 486. blow the coals, for which he saith he daily begs forgiveness of the Lord. (p. 485.) Nay 6. That he encouraged many thousands to engage against the Kings Army: And is under a Mark the tendernesse of his Conscien e first he sought against his King, & then considered if lawfully. self-suspicion whether that engagement was lawfull, or not, yea that he will con­tinue this self suspicion, (p. 486.) Nay 7. he confes­seth what he is, by solemnly making this Declaration, That if any of us can prove he was guilty of hurt to the per­son of the King, or destruction of the Kings power, or changing the Fundamental Constitution of the Common­wealth, taking down the house of Lords without consent of Note that by one of the 3. estates he must mean the King or the Bishops all three States, that had a part in the Sovereignty, &c. He will never gainsay us if we call him a most perfidious Rebell, and tell him he is guilty of farr greater sin than Murder, Whoredom, Drunkenness, or such like. Or if we can solidly confute his grounds, he will thank us, and con­fess his sin to all the World. p. 490. Here then I chal­lenge him to make good his promise. For I have proved him as guilty, as any Rebell can be imagin'd, in divers parts of this Postscript. And his grounds I have confuted in my Appendix for Mr. Hickman §. 78, 79. If he thinks not solidly, let him answer it if he is able.

His Denying the supremacy of the King, which y [...]t he allovved the tvvo Crom­wells, vv [...]reby he is proved by his Confession to be a R [...]bell.§. 13. What his chief Ground is upon which he goes (whilest he speaks of the King as of a Rebell to the two Houses) I easily gather from these words, which I finde in his Praeface Note that by one of the 3. estates he must mean the King or the Bishops to the same book. To this question [did not you resist the King?] His answer is Verbatim, thus Pref. p. 23. Prove that the King was the highest power in the time of divisions, and that he had power to make that war which he made, and I will offer my Head to Iustice as a Rebell.] He here implicitely confesseth, the King was once the [Page 15] highest power and implyes he lost it by the Divisions. But that he never could loose it, and that demonstrably he had it, I have made it most evident in the Appendix of this book, which concerns Mr. Baxter as much as Mr. Hickman, at least as far as I have proved the Supremacy of the King (§ 78.) which both the Houses of that Parli­ment, did swear to acknowledg and to assert. Howe­ver, if his Supremacy had been a Disputable thing, yet whilst the most learned of the Land, both Iudges and Divines did assert it in books which were never answer­ed, Mr. Baxter should have staid for the decision of that dispute, before he resisted that power, for the resisting of which (for ought he knew) he might be damned, Rom. 13.4. Besides when he knew 'twas no sin to abstain from fighting against the King, and that fighting against him was a damning sin, (if it was any) in the judgment of such persons as BP. Hall, BP. Morton, BP. Davenant, BP. Brownrigg, D. Sanderson, D. Oldsworth, & thousands more, he should have taken the safest course, and rather have strained at a Gnat, then have swallowed a Camel. In a word, That the warr was begun by the two Houses, and only followed by the King in his most Necessary Defence, hath been proved too often to be excusably denyed. And that our Law doth declare it to be high Treason, ‘to seize the Kings Ports, Forts, Magazine of war, to remove Counsellors by Arms, to Levy Warr, to alter the Law, to counterfeit the broad Seal, to ad­here to any state within the Kingdom but the Kings Majesty, to imprison the King until he agree to cer­tain Demands.’ Unanswerably proved by the most ex­cellent Judge Ienkins, from page 37. as farr as page 77. That the power of the Militia and of making war is by Law in the King, yea that All Authority and Iurisdicti­on Spiritual and Temporal is derived from the King, there­fore none from the Houses, The same Judge hath evinced p. 20. and 8. and 13. I exhort Mr. Baxter to read the works of that Learned person, and either to baffle all [Page 16] that Law, and to confute that mighty Lawyer, or else to declare he hath been worse then either a Drunkard, or an Adulterer, and offer his head as a Rebell, according to his present promise. I would not exhort him to the later, but that I think it the way to obtein his pardon

§. 14. Whilst he saith that his Protector was set over us by God, and owned also by a full and free Parliament (ibid. p. 484. lin. 2.) he does not only falsifie against a known matter of fact, His being a Traytor to the Houses which he had set above the King, by set­ting Richard a­bove them w [...]en they disowned him. (All the considerable persons in the Land having been utterly against him) but he grosly gives the lye to the Secluded Members, (whom he had called the first s [...]rt of the best Governours in the Land,) and to both the Houses of that very Parliament with whom he engaged against the King. In stead of proving this at large (which is not fit for this Postscript) I will referr him to the perusal of Mr. Pryns True & per­fect Narrative. And to The True State of the Secluded Members Case, in Vindication of themselves. From thence he may see how he hath Trespassed against them. Be­sides that a Parliament cannot be full, without the King (who is the Head) and House of Lords (who are the shoulders) never was any full Body made up of leggs with an Addition of some other Inferiour Members. And for own­ing Cromwells Iu [...]to for a full and free parli­ment. But Squire Cromwell was not the King, nor was the pack of Mechanicks an House of Lords, nor is it less then high Treason, to set up either with those pretentions, yet this was done by Mr. Baxter; let him deny it if he is able. Again a Parliament cannot be Free, unless the Commo­n [...]rs are chosen by all the people who are qualified by law to give their suffrage. Whereas no loyall Man was al­lowd by Cromwell to give a voice at those Elections; and no honest Man could safely do it. For besides the danger of provoking a proud Vsurper, Squire Cromwel had no more right to send out Writs for an Election of Parliament Men, then any Porter or Scavinger in all the Kingdom, Nay he had less rather than more, by being Son to so guilty and foul a Tyrant. Richards Issuing [Page 17] out of writs was a most Treasonable Fact; And could that make a Parliament full or free, for which the maker by Law might be hang'd at Tiburn? Let Mr. Baxter now consider in how many respects he is obnoxious; both to the wrath of God, for all his Perjuries and Time-serving; to the wrath of God's Anointed, (whose Restauration is not impossible, though somwhat remote from the eye of flesh) for all his Treasons, and Note his ungodly Re­solution to take that for granted, which was visibly false, (viz. that the King would have ruin'd the Represen­tatives of the Nation, and its whole security (Holy Com. wealth, page 480. section 19.) slanders; To the wrath of the two Houses (before they were Garbled by the Ar­my and Oliver Cromwell) by setting up, to their destructi­on, a pack of flattering Cromwellians, and affording them the name of a Full and Free Parliament. Lord! to what times are we reserved, when such a Creature may pass for a godly brother, and be entrusted with peoples souls?

§. 16. Whilst he saith [The old Constitution was King, He is evinced out of his mouth to have been perjur'd over and over▪ Lords, and Commons, which we were sworn, and sworn, and sworn again to be faithful to, and to defend, Praef. p. 9. he either implyes there was since a new Constitution, and then he must shew by whose Authority it was made, or else he must confess he spake and acted against his conscience, when he claw'd the Cromwells and their Abettors, as hath been shewd. And he must name by what power he could be absolved from his three oaths, or else acknowledge to all the world, he is a perjur'd, perjur'd, perjur'd person. For where was his Faithfulness to the King, (to which he was sworn, and sworn, and sworn,) when he confesseth he encouraged so many thousands to fight against him? and when he ac­knowledged Mr. Cromwell to be his Soveraign; And set over him by God too, who did but suffer and permit (that is, not hinder,) the Prince of Darkness to set him over us. (Is Mr. Baxter qualified for the Priesthood, being not able to distinguish betwixt Permission and approbation, suf­ferance and appoin [...]ment, or betwixt Gods patience, and the Activity of Satan?) How again did he defend the Lords [Page 18] and Commons of the Long Parliament (in conjunction with the King, or divided from him,) when he asserted Cromwels Iuncto to be a full and free Parliament? yet he knowes what it was, which he was sworn to defend.

His charge a­gainst the Lords and Commons, and his setting aside the King more then the houses ever did.§. 17. Whilst he saith [The King withdrawing, the Lords and Commons ruled alone, ibid,] he first gives the lye to the Lords and Commons; who in their Addresses and Declarations did own the King to be their Soveraign, and called themselves his humble subjects, (Mr. Baxter him­self could say no more to Mr. Cromwel) They protested against the thought of ever changing the Government, or lessening his Majesties just Prerogative, but their Intenti­on was to make him the greatest Prince in Christendome; They confessed that without him they might not Rule, and therefore used His Name to give countenance to their Actions. I could write a volume on this occasion, were it not fitter to referr unto severall volumes already written. Let Mr. Baxter write less till he hath read more, and let him read the writings of the most learned Doctor Ham­mond, both against the Ordinance of the Lords and Com­mons for abolishing the Liturgie, and against taking up of Arms under colour of Religion against the lawfull Magi­strate. Let him read Judge Ienkins against Master Prin's first writings, and let him read the latter writings of Mr. Prin against himself; Let him reade Mr. Diggs, and Do­ctor Langbane, The Regal Apologie, the excellent obser­vations upon Aristotles Politiques, and many more such books, then do occurr to my memory whilst I am wri­ting. Next in saying the King with-drew, he doth un­reasonably imply the King's withdrawing from the Govern­ment; why else doth he add, the Lords and Commons ru­led alone? which, as it is a most senseless and a most trai­terous insinuation, so it seems to be the Reason why the man makes so ill use of Grotius, whom he doth either not understand, (as indeed Mr. Baxter is a very small Lati­nist, and not a small, but rather no Grecian,) or wilfully mistake, and most unpardonably misapply. As the Here­ticks [Page 19] have ever abused Scripture, not onely beside, but a­gainst its meaning.

§. 18. Whilst he adds of the Lords and Commons, His most No­table contra­diction about the Houses ruling with­out the King. [That though they ruled alone, They attempted not the change of the species of Government, ibid.] first he implyes a con­tradiction; for he con [...]essed the Constitution to have been King, Lords and Commons, which species of Government must needs be changed, if the two later do Rule alone or without the Former. Does Mr. Baxter think there is a Monarchy without a Monarch? Or, that the two Houses can make a Monarchy without a single person to Form and Head them? Or that it is no contradiction, to Rule alone, and not alone? Or does he mean that the Lords and commons did onely intend to depose the King, and set up some other (Richard or Oliver,) in his stead, that so the species of Government might still remain? Or does he not know what species signifies? One of these five things must needs be the reason of his miscarriage; But which of the five, let him determine.

§. 19. Whereas I had shew'd him his guilt, and folly, His new Mis­carriage a­gainst Grotius and the Epis­copal Divines in accusing (not onely Grotius, but) in general Terms our Episcopal Divines, and in particular Doctor Taylor, nay Bishop Pierce, and Bishop Wren, whereof not one (for ought he knowes) is of Grotius his mind; He now so juggles with his Readers, as to alleviate the matter in two points, and grossely to falsifie in a third, 1. He saith he did intimate, what he knows he expressed in broadest wise. 2. He saith he did intimate they were addicted to Popery▪ when he cannot but know he had call'd them Papists. 3. He saith he onely spake this of Grotius, and all that are of his mind, when he knowes he spake it of a multitude, whose minds he knows not. Nay I told him (what he confesseth) That the Prelatists are not agreeable to Gro­tius, in that for which he was most suspected; to wit, his thinking that the Bull of Pius Quintus may (for peace) be subscribed in a commodious sense. Yet could not Grotius have turned Papist, for all those Reasons which I ren­dred [Page 20] in my Defense of Grotius, to which Master Baxter doth here turn Tail▪ Neither acknowledging his guilt, (of which I am sure he is convinced) nor making a shew that he is Innocent, unless he thinks it sufficient to beg the Question. To my great Number of Arguments, he hath not so much as brought one answer; to my great num­ber of Answers (against his old Arguments) he hath not given so much as the least Reply; And lastly for his For­geries or Falsifications of the Text, or his false translating ▪ the words of Grotius, (whether weakly or wilfully let o­thers judge) the man is left destitute of all Apologie or Excuse.

He is proved to be a Jesu­ite by as good Logick as he useth.§. 20. But because he relents onely by halves, and con­tinues stomachfull in affirming, that (if we are not quite given up to Popery) we are too much inclined, and addi­cted to it; I will a little be pleasant with him, and prove himself to be a papist (yea a Iesuite if he will,See my Ap­pendix to New Disc. Disc. sect, 5. p. 170. to 174.) by adding now a fifteenth Argument (to the number of fourteen which I had plyed him with before; whereof not one is answered by him,) which at least ad hominem will prove to be of sufficient force. He that espouseth and puts in practice the Iesuites Doctrine of Probability, must needs be a Ie­suite (and so a Papist) by Mr. Baxter's way of Argumen­tation; But Mr. Baxter hath done the former, for o [...]ght I am able to apprehend) and therefore he cannot but be the later, by his own way of Argumentation. The I [...]suits Do­ctrine of Probability is most briefly expressed in these four Rules. I will set them down in my Autho [...]rs own words.

1. Lors qu'ily a differentes opinions probables sur quel­que point,The Jesuites Doctrine of Probability. chez les pro­vinciales. p. 73, 74. Toutes les deux opinions sont egalement seures en conscience. Quamcunque duarum viarum primò diver­sarum homines inierint, rectà tendunt ad superos. Escobar. Theol. moral. Tom. 1. in prael. cap. 3.

2. Il est permis de choisir l'opinion la m [...]ins probable & la moins seure.

3. Une opinion est probable, lors qu'elle est appuyeè [Page 21] d'une raison ou d'une autoritè considerable & iln'est pa [...] necessaire, que ces deux conditions soient jointes ensem­ble, l'une ou l'autre suffi [...]ant. (Note that the former they call an Intrinsecall, the later an extrinsecal probabi­lity.)

4. Selon le sentiment general des Casuists, une opinion est probable, & peut estre communement suivi sans crainte, lors qu'elle est soustenue pa [...] quatre Auteurs graves. Mais pleusiers enseignent que l'Autoritè d'un seul suffit.

Now if Mr. Baxter did not believe, That an opinion is probable, when 'tis supported by a Reason without Au­thority, or by an Authority without a Reason; And that he may with a good conscience choose to follow which he pleaseth of two opinions, or both by turns, or (if he please) [...]he less probable of the two; what could move him to publish so many con [...]radictory Doctrines, as I have shew'd out of his writings? Or how could he hope for any par­don for so many contradictory actions, as I have cited out of his Life, and publick practice? I will leave him to be examin'd by my New Discoverer Discovered, by severall things in this Postscript, compared with the Rules above recited. If he shall say he was not guided by the Iesuites Doctrine, he will be found to be by so much the more In­capable of Excuse. For the more willful a sinner is, he cannot choose but be the worse. And how extravagantly he argues that I am Popishly affected, because I have e­vidently proved that Grotius never turn'd Papist, Let him read (and [...]lush) in my Appendix directed to him. §. 4. p, 167, 168.

I am sure some of his Brethren are more lik [...] Popish then any Grotius, Popery com­mon to Thom. Goodwin with some noted Presbyterians or any English Prelatist within my knowledge. For Thomas Goodwin anointed a sick Gentle­woman with oyie. And in the Church at Arnh [...]im (where Mr. Archer himself was a kind of Pastor) Anointi [...]g the sick with oyle was a standing ordi [...]ance for the Church mem­bers. And upon the propounding with what [...]yle the un­ction was to be made, o [...]le of oliv [...]s was resolved to be the [Page 22] fittest for that use. All this is said by one of the Brother­hood, See his An­tapologia, p. 29. Mr. Edwards; who also tels us of a Gentleman in that Church, (president Lawrence is thought to have been the man.) who propounded (saith my Author) that singing of Hymns was an ordinance, which is, that any person of the congregation, exercising his own gifts, should sing an Hymn in the Congregation, the rest being silent. But it was more like Popery, that See Dr. Ro­ger Drakes let­ter to M. Love p. 7. Doctor Drake should desire Mr. Love to pray for him, (not whilst on earth, but) when in heaven. And when Mr. Iackson (the Presbyterian Mini­ster) had confessed a thing from which he afterwards re­coil'd, (affirming it was true, but refusing to swear it as a witness, the Lord Pres.— (as they call'd him) said o­penly in the Court,—well▪ Iesuites and Priests, they say, you are none, but you are their Brethren [pag. 52. Loves Trial.] Nor do I really think that Mr. Baxter is a Iesuite, though I have proved him to be such, according to the Logick in which he deals. I also proved he was an * Heathen, by an Argument ad hominem beyond exception; of which, 'tis well he is so cunning as not to make the least mention.

Mr. Baxter's Puritanism as well in life as Doctrine.§. 21. He concludes his postscript (as I shall mine) with the odious part of the puritanism of his Life, of which (he saith) he hears little from me, but his own confessions, and his possessing a sequestration, (for he was loath to call it another mans Living,) concerning which, he answe [...]s nothing, (not any one word to all my Chapter) but onely saith he might answer, if the love of Mr. Dance restrained him not. p. 329] In which parcell of Expressions there are obser­vable particulars, to which I shall return these following things.

1. Though I insisted pretty largely on many points of his practical Puritanism, His additio­nal Falshood, as all will say who will but read my New Discoverer Discover'd, (and therefore this is one of his many falsehoods,) yet now I hope in this Postscript he will find a supply of my former mercifull defect, at which he must not be angry, because he hath made it thus need­full for me.

[Page 23]2. The first and worst Puritanes (at least in Christen­dome) were the Followers of Marcus, The originall of Puritanism among Pro­fessors of Christianity. that monstrous Heretick. And Mr. Baxter (as neer as any) hath written after that Copy. Those Antient Haereticks made Accompt they were so pure and [...].— perfect ▪ and under such an Incapacity to fall from Grace and Gods favour, that they might live in any course of the greatest sin, without the least fear, because without the least danger of being damn'd. — [...]. &c. Iren. advers. Haer. l. 1. c. 9. p. 72. For by the Be­nefit of Redemption they had a priviledge of Impunity for all their sins, which was not indulged to other Mortals; And in the midst of all their villanies they were protected with such an Helmet, as they had read of in Homers Ili­ads, And by that (as by a [...]kreen) they were made invisible to the Iudge. Now whether Mr. Baxter does hope to hide himself from God; (as Pallas in Homer· Il. 5. [...]. Irenae­us ubi supra. Homer from the disco­very of Mars, or as Gyges went invisible by the priviledge of his Ring,) or is carried away by the vehement strength of his opinion, That being once godly he must be alwayes unavoidably, and though God cannot but see, yet can he not punish his impieties with pains eternal; whether he sticks to his famous Doctrine, That a man must be a See the pa­ges exactly cited with the word [...], in my new Dis. Disc. c. 3. sect. 1. p. 61, 62, 63. &c. grea­ter sinner then David was in his Murder and Adultery, Peter in his perjury and denyal of Christ, Lot in his Drun­kenness and Incest, and Solomon in his Idolatry, before he can be said to be notoriously ungodly; sure I am I have e­vinced, he is as scandalous in his life, as in his Doctrine; Because I have proved the Kings Supremacie, and that in respect of the two Houses, even of that very Parliament under which Mr Bax [...]er doth seek for shelter. And having proved him to have been a See his Con­fession in his Holy Common weal [...]h. pag. 490▪ lin▪ 9, 10. perfidious Rebell (Reader 'tis his own expression) by having proved the very thing up­on which he confesseth he must be such, and gives the world He hath promis'd neve▪ to gainsay it, on the hypothesis spoken of. leave to say, He is worse then a Murderer, an Adul­terer,, [Page 24] a Drunkard, and the like, (still I speak his own words,) I think I need not add more concerning his Pu­ritanism of Life.

Before I leave this sub [...]ect, (which yet I will never leave finally,Our English Puritanes ca­racterized by Salmasius, one of the lear­nedest of the Beyond-sea Protestants. whil [...]t Mr Baxter shall be so dareing as to continue a publick Advocate for the worst of Hypocrites, whose Rebellions, Murders, Schism, Sacrilege, have evin­ced them to be such by many an ocular demonstration,) I will add the character which Salmasius hath given of our Puritanes, who yet was a friend and Patron to them, un­till he was converted by seeing their usage of the King. ‘Defens. Reg. c. 10.Belli isti sane Puritani sub Regno Elizabethae prodire è Tenebris ORCI, & Ecclesiam inde turbare primùm coeperunt.—persuadent sibi, se posse cujuslibet sce­leris es [...]e Affines, & tamen sanctitatem in medio sceleris Actu retinere. (In English thus) Those goodly Puri­tanes did first come forth from the dark pit of Hell un­der the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, And thence began to disturb the Church. —How neerly this toucheth Mr. Baxter, see the whole third Chapter of my New Disc. Disc. They persuade themselves, that (being once sanctified) they may ingage in any villany, and yet, in the very act, retain their sanctity.’

Mr. Baxter de­clared by God's Anoin­ted to be a factious and schismatical person.3. It were Puritanism enough, if he had onely invaded his Neighbours goods, and Intitled God's service to his Impiety. If he shall say he is established by any Ordinance of the two Houses, (which without the King cannot pos­sibly be a legal and Rightfull Parliament) I shall first re­ferr him for satisfaction to my whole Chapter upon the subject, (against which he hath not off [...]rd one word of An­swer.) Next I shall tell him that the two Houses were bound to keep Magna Charta, and not to break it; And so they were told by his Sacred Majesty, in his Printed Proclama­tion against the opp [...]ession of the Clergy by the Insurrection of Factious and Schismaticall persons into their cures, &c. wherein he said 1. That by the great Charter of England, no Ecclesiastical Possession may be sequestred but by the Ordinary. 2. That what ever was pretended, men of learn­ing and piety were dispossessed for their Loyalty ▪ 3. That [Page 25] he straitly charged and commanded all his Quaere, whe­ther M. Baxter was not the Kings subject, as much as [...]romwell's. subjects, as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal, not to presume to intermeddle in that affair,—notwithstanding any sequestration, or pre­tended orders, or ordinances, or other command whatsoever, of one or Quaere, whe­ther the King, and his learn­ed Iudges with him, did not know his Right, as well as Mr. Baxter. His double in­jury to Master Dance. both Houses of Parliament. 4. That if any should presume to transgress this command, he did hereby de­clare them to infringe the good old Law of the Land, and to assistQuaere, whe­ther the King, and his learn­ed Iudges with him, did not know his Right, as well as Mr. Baxter. His double in­jury to Master Dance.a Rebellion against himself. Let Mr. Baxter mark that, and read the whole Proclamation, to be seen in Bibliotheca Regia §. 3. p. 324.

4. By saying he could say I know-not-what-of Master Dance, if love did not restrain him, he does maliciously imply that Mr. Dance is as scandalous as himself, or at least somewhat near it. Whether a drunkard, or a swearer, he leaves the Reader to suspect. There is no worse slander­ing an Innocent man, than by such a Paralypsis as here is used. Was it not enough, for Mr. Baxter to seize on his neighbours goods, but he must slur his good name too? 'Twas ill done of Antinous, to eat Vlysses his meat, and to beat him too into the bargain,

— [...],
[...].
Homer: Odyf. 17.
—

But Mr. Baxter ought to chew upon Vlysses his Answer thereupon, and if he can digest it, 'twill do him good.

[...],
[...].

§. 22. I should here have concluded with Mr. Baxter, His unparal­lel'd bitter­ness against Episcopacy and our Church seven wayes rebu­ked. but that in casting back my eye upon his p. 299. I find him railing at others, somewhat more then at my self. He saith that commonly the whole Kennels of swearers and drun­kards, and scorners at godliness (so he ever calls hypocrisie) and such like, were continued in the communion of the Prela­ticall [Page 26] Church; to which he adds (page 300.) The scanda­lous Rabble are eager for prelacy, and their mode of Govern­ment and w [...]rship.] To which I answer 7. things. 1. what he saith is but gratis dictum; as proofless, as it is false; and yet no falser of the He means ( [...]y that word) the constant sons of the Church of England. Prelatical, then true of the Pres­byterian party. 2. If it were true, (as it is not) it would hold an obj [...]ction against our Saviour, for admitting Iudas to his Sacrament, as Publicans and Sinners to his converse. 3. Neither drunkenness, nor swearing, no nor murder, nor adultery, (if Mr Baxter himself may be believed) is so bad as Rebellion. And he may fitly consider, what men are admitted to his Communion. 4. That his way of Govern­ment and worship hath been followed by swearers, and per [...]ur'd persons, yea incestuous and murderous, and parri­cid [...]al, I have proved undeniably in my Discovere [...] Disco­vered. 5. He forgets the foul fact with which he had charged the Presbyterian Assembly of Divines, when he said, Key for Ca­tholicks▪ page 416. [That The Assembly had put down Prelacy, for which a Convocation had form [...]d an oath to be imposed on all Ministers but a little before.] Nothing can put down the right of that, which is of divine Institution. No ☞ Note, that in the 42 of Edw. 3. the first chapter doth enact, that if any sta [...]ute be made to the contrary, it shall be hol­den for null. And see Iudge Ienk. p. 62. not a full and free Parliament, much less the two Houses with­out the King; much less the Assembly against the King. O wonder of wickedness! what a company of inferiour and obnoxious Ministers put down the Order of their Su­periors? It was treason for them to sit, after his Majesties Consult Bi­blio [...]heca Re­gia for it, sect. 3. p. 328. Proclamation, [Inhibiting the Assembly of Divines and others, summoned to Westminster by an ordinance of both houses of Parliament; what a dismal character the King did fasten upon that Ordinance, and upon the Divines then Assembled, as men of no Reputation or Learning, and Prea­chers of Rebellion, &c. I wish that all men would reade by having recourse to the Proclamation. 6. He passeth by the sin of Sacrilege, (which the See his Ma­jesties Conces­sions at the [...]sle of Wight. ib. p. [...]57. King proved to reign in the Presbyterians, and so he falls, with his Assembly men, under the lash of Dr Gauden. [‘As See Doctor Gauden's Hie­ra Dacrua, c. [...]1. p. 334. if they were Chap­lains, at once serving the Lord, their Bellies, and the [Page 27] Times, as partaking of the Table of the Lord, and the Table of Divels; They rather cherish than crush this Cockaetrice; fearing to seem but luke-warm Reformers, if they damped some of their good Masters zeal, by justly damning this darling and damnable sin of Sacrilege; which puts on the form not onely of godliness and Refor­mation, but of thrift and good husbandry, to save the publick purse the necessary expenses of a Civil warr; which in some mens desires, as I believe it had never been begun, but onely to destroy the Government of the Church, and confiscate those Revenues, so (all things computed) I no less believe that the secular purse hath had but a dear pennyworth of those Church-Lands, at so vast a charge as hath attended the warr, first commen­ced by Presbytery against Episcopacy ▪’] 7. All the prime of the Nobility, Gentry and Clergy, the King himself, and his Ancestors, all former Parliaments, and Magna Charta, are very eager for Prelacy. Are these a scandalous rabble with Mr. Baxter? No, the Rabble was such, by which Prelacy was decryed, though the Gates of Hell shall not finally prevail against it.

I will add no more of those men (the sons of violence and Rapine) then what was said by Vlysses concerning the ill natu [...]'d Antinous, who took possession of his house,Hom. Odyss, 17. laid siege unto his wife, forbid him to enter his own doors, added Railing to Robbery, and Blows to Railing,

[...].

§ 23. Christian Reader,The Conclu­sion. I am sensible of being tedi­ous by my prolixity. And therefore will end with an Account of my vindicative Iustice to Master Baxter, however some of his Fautors may call it cruel.

As Mr. Baxter is a man, I truly love him, though I spare him not at all as a Malefactor. 'Tis plain I love him, be­cause I labour for his conversion. For I could wish him no greater punishment, then to be still what he is. But to [Page 28] spare the Malefactor, were a twofold Cruelty; as well to himself, as his weaker brethren. It were a cruelty to him­self, because as long as he prospers, he Eccles. 8.11. will not mend. It were a cruelty to his Brethren, who live indulgently in sin by his Example. To make him Contemptible unto such, as do bless themselves in their Rebellions, through the Au­thority they ascribe to his books and Practice, I take it to be as good (I mean as charitable) a work, as I can set my Heart or my Hand unto. For he confessed he blow'd the coals of all our National Combustions; And those I may call the Divel's bonfires. It was the very worst thing in Ieroboam himself, that he made Israel to sin. It is for this very Reason, that the Divel himself is called Satan. And so Mr. Baxter hath been avowedly an Epidemicall Disease to his native Countrie; For, he professeth to have incou­raged many thousands to ingage their force against their So­vereign. And that (in the judgement of Ad quartum actum, & ul­tra, in hoe Dramate de­sultando, f [...]i­gultientes Presbyteriani spectati sunt, —Quinam a­lii merito R [...] ­gis Occi [...]i cri­mine notari magis debue­re, quàm qui viam ad eum occidendum munierunt? Illi sunt, qui nefariam il­lam securim cervicibus e­jus inflixe­runt, non alii. Salmas. De­fens. Reg. c. 10. Salmasius him­self) was to have the highest hand in the blackest murder of the best King. Now the fewer Admirers this man shall have, (by the blessing of God upon my endeavours,) the fewer mens sins he will be answerable for. And let him kick whilst he will, my charity bids me consult his cure. No sinner can be more scandalous, than a sinner in Print. That Mr. Baxter hath been such, in a greater mea­sure than Paraeus, (whose Book was burnt by the Hang­man [...]t the command of King Iames, and again (at the ap­pointment of the whole Praevidit eas quas nunc Britania sentit, Calamitates inde orituras. G [...]ot. vot. pro pace. p. 49. Oxford University,) I have e­vinced in my former and later papers upon the subject. Saint Paul himself thought it a duty, to 2 Thes. 3.14. shame such Sinners for their Amendment; And by him I was perswa­ded to think it mine. When a man hath taken pains to let me know that he is blind, I hold it a duty to make him see, or at least to make him see that he sees just no­thing; for fear he run against the wall, and break his fore­head, [Page 29] or from a praecipice, and break his neck. There is nothing so dangerous as for a Baiard to be Bold, upon a fansifull presumption of being quick sighted.

I very well know that Master Baxter, if he is not con­verted, will be imbitter'd against me by what I say. But I leave it to the Prudentialists to be deterr'd with such Mormo's, who dare be lazie and afraid to serve their God, and their Generation; And even censure their Brethren who dare not fear to serve both. Besides, I am armed by that of Seneca, Quosdam esse Tales, ut pulchrius sit ab His vituperari, quàm laudari. And when I consider that Mr. Baxter hath lick'd up the spittle of the Cromwells, and preached them up unto the skies, thereby becoming a partaker of their very worst sins, whilst he hath railed (on the contrary) as well at the King as at the Bishop [...], and at all that is really Great or Sacred; I think it my Happiness and my Glory, not to have my Name slurr'd with his commendations.

FINIS.

The Typographical Errata the candid Reader will be pleased either to pardon or to Correct.

In Praef. p. 2. l. 5. in marg. r. Borrhaeus. p. 7. l. 22. for good, r. God. p. 14. l. ult. r. needst.

Pag. 3. l. 18. r. Injustitia. p. 4. l. 6. in marg. after cap. r. 28. p. 5. l. 13. in marg. after, pag. r. 20, 21. p. 7. l. 5. r. appetitum. ib. l. 26. r. be. p. 11. l. 1. in marg after promise, r. of. p. 13. l. ult, in marg, r. and. p. 22. l. 24. af­ter so. r. he. ib. p. 9. after will r. not. p. 26. l. 26. after conceive r. it. ibid. l. ult. in marg. r. consequens. p. 27. l. 35. after is r. so. p. 37. l. 24. dele and. p, 40. l. 22. r. forbidding. ibid. l. 34 in marg. r. vetat. p. 44. l. ult in marg. af­ter 12, r. 4. p. 45 (l. ult. in marg. after 3024. r. chap. 9. p. 47. l. 30. after hating r. God. p. 49. l. 3. in marg. after sol. r. 2. p. 54. l. ult. r. c. 6. p. 56. l. 1. in. marg. after of, r. the. ibid. l. 2. in marg. after. l r. 3. ib. l▪ 3. in marg. r. c. 23. p. 57. l. 22 r. thing. p. 76. l. 1. in marg. r. p. 137. p. 77. l. 4. in marg. r. verbis. ib. l. ult. in marg. r. p. 671. p. 78. l. 34. in marg. r. aliam. ib. l. 3. r. of. p. 8. l. 5. r. 2. dist. p. 83. l. 30. after original r. sin. p. 84. l. 1. after an r. evil. p. 85. l. 19. r. unto. p. 88. l. 4. in marg. r. annum. p. 90. l. 7. r. Catachresis. p. 104. l. penult. r. p. 150. p. 106. l. 18. r. is p. 137. l. 18. after of, r. which. p. 144. l. 21. r. sybilline. p. 145. l. ult. in marg. r. stealths. p. 146. col. 2. l. 30. d. ad 10. lineas, & id genus reliqua. p. 149. col. 2, l. 31. r. q. 9. p. 153. l. 8. r. endeavour. p. 159. l. 7. r. so. p. 178. l. 4. r. such. p. 203. l. 29. r. p. 32.

Errata in the Postscript to Mr. Baxter.

Pag. 2. l. 4. in marg r. [...]. ib. l. 11. in. marg r. Boutefeu. p. 4. l. 29. r. Patizitha. p. 5. l. 14. for and r. or. p. 8. l. 4. for. tor. by. ib. l. 8. for the r. thee. p. 9. l. 21. in marg. after that, r. that. p. 10. l. 15. r. Traitor. p. 15. l. 30. after Demands, r. i [...].

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.