SECT. I.

AS Mr. Whitfield found it his safest way, to s [...]end no lesse then eighteen [...]ages,1. M. W's distrust which he puts in his cause. be [...]des his E [...]istle to the Reader) upon a Subject of his own choice, before his courage would serve him to split himself u [...]on the Rocks, which he pretended to attempt in his valiant Title; so when he is brought to his proper Task (t [...]nquam Bos ad Ce [...]ma) of answe [...]ing such Ob [...]ections as had been made against his Doctrines in the Divine Philanthropie defended, he is fain to shrug three times together, before he is able to fall on.

First he tells us, ‘It is agreeable to right reason, that God being a most free, absolute, and omnipotent Agent, he might design the creatures that were of his own making to what ends himself ple [...]sed, without giving account to any, &c. (p. 19. Num. 1.)’ And this he calls his first Generall Answer, or thing propounded by way of An­swer.

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

3. Yet over­throwes his own Rampire.For Thirdly, If God was pleased that his Mercy should be over Ps. 145.9. Ps. 103.8. Ps 145.8. Ps. 86.15. all his works, and might do what he pleas'd, (as Mr. W. confesseth) why does he daringly exclude the greatest part of mankind from any imaginable share of that rich mercy? The least degree of Gods mercy hath some of comfort: But is it a comfort to the Reprobates, that by a peremptory Decree they are rendred incapable of Hea­ven, and sure of Hell, without respect unto their sins, and yet inevitably sinful without repentance, that so they may not be damn'd for nothing? Why then do men, who are as wormes, advance themselves against God, denying hisM. whitf. p. 2. l. ante-pen. penult. ult. & pag. seq. 1. Eternity. 2. Immutability, 3. Omnipotency, 4. Simplici­ty, and all his other perfections, because he was pleased to decree the end of his rational creatures, in an eternal con­sideration of the respective means? If God determin'd from eternity that Cain and Judas should beGen. 4.14, 16. Mat. 25.30. Act. 1.25. cast out of his presence, in regard of their Murder and Impenitence, (and no otherwise) what is that to Mr. Whitfield? Job 33.13. Why dost thou strive against him, for he doth not give account of his matters? as Elihu pleaded for God in another case. [Page 3]TheProv. 16.4 [...] Lord hath made all things for himself, them that are good, for the day of good things, them that are (a) wic­ked, for the day of evil; yea in an eternal foreknowledge and consideration of their wickedness. If God was pleas'd to give his Son to be a ransom for all the World (upon their several performances of no impossible conditions) why should a Calvinist be offended, that all others are savable as well as he, whose bodies areJob 33.6. formed of as good a clay, and whoseEccl. 12.7. souls can pretend to as high a pitch of extraction? why should theMat. 20.15. Creatures eye be evil, because his God is exceeding good, and it seems much more, than Envy and Avarice can well endure? Let Mr. Wh. therefore cease from contriving Objections a­gainst himself; or if his Invention must needs be busie, let him conjure up no more than he is able to exorcize; norWisd. 1.12. pull disgraces upon his Doctrine, with the work of his hands. But withall let him be told, that as God was not bound to give account of his wayes to any creature, (and as little to those of the Kirk, as to those of the Synagogue,) so when it pleased him (of his mercy and free love to Mankind) to reveal as much of them, as lies open to our eyes in his written Word, who dares call him to account for giving account of his Dispensations? if God is pleased in some Cases (and that as an instance of his freedom) to becomeIsa. 5.3, 4, &c. Ezek. 18. accountable to his creatures, and to become likeHeb. 4.15. Mat. 8.17. one of us (sin alone being excepted) he is not to give an account to any.

4. His second overthrow of himself, and of his absolute de­crees.Fourthly, What is added by Mr. W. ‘That God might appoint his creatures to such ends as should make most for his glory, is very true, and very impertiment, and very much to the downfal of his Poetical Reprobation.’ For to de­cree men to punishment without respect unto their sins, makes not so much for Gods glory, as to decree them to punishment in consideration of their sins: Unless Mr. Wh. is of opinion, that 'tis a more glorious thing to torment a creature as a creature, then to punish a sinner as being sin­ful; of that eternal Decrees are not every way answered by their Temporal executions. God created Mankind as he [Page 4]was mighty, but decreed to reprobate and elect as he was in [...]nitely just. For Reprobation in all senses (nega­tive, or positive) imports a very sore punishment, as every punishment imports a sin, for which the punishment is in­flicted. That is most for Gods glory, which is most for his justice and Mercy too: but to decree a man's misery, for the meer shewing of a Soveraignty over the work of his hands, (and therefore to decree it without respect unto sin) hath nothing in it of Justice, much lesse of Mercy; and so is incompetible to [...]im, who could not chuse but be al­wayes (from all eternity) at once a Just and a Merci­ful Soveraign: it being destructive of his glory (and by consequence of his Being) that any one of his Attributes should (for an Article of time) exclude the other. From whence it followes that Mr. Wh. hath confuted all his own Doctrine in less than two lines. Nor can he be other­wise disintangled from his own dear [...]. Lime-twiggs, un­less he can prove that Gods dishonour doth make most for his glory: or unlesse he will adde to his other miseries, that to be sinful by a Decree, or to be punished without sin (which by the way is a contradiction) tends nothing at all to Gods dishonour. But for such things as these Ishall rec­kon with him hereafter: I hasten now to his Second General.

His third over­throw of him­self by a most crimson contra­diction.Sect. 2.

His second Propounding (as he words it) in way of General Answer to no-body-knowes-what (nor doth he venture to tell us what) General Objection, doth very happily run thus; ‘That which the Scripture plainly, clearly, and positively asserteth that God doth, we ought not to deny that he doth it, though we cannot discern the manner how he doth it:’ and p. 19. bear witness Reader, a­gainst anon; for when he comes to those Scriptures, which do plainly, cleerly, and positively assert, that Christ hath died for all men, and tasted death for every man, and is the pro [...]itiation for the sins of the whole world, and the like, then the Case is alter'd with him; and in a flat op­position to what he here tells us, ‘It is (saith he) a very weak way of arguing, to argue from the signification of words; especially such words as have various significations; [Page 5]as all men, every man, the world, the whole world, and the rest, which are oft-times used, not to signifie every particu­lar man and woman, but a part of them onely, (p. 71, 72.)’ Well fare the Disputant indeed, vvho vvill never lay down the Cudgels, so long as he is able to break his ovvn shins with them; let his cause be never so bad, he vvill not fall from his principles, so long as self-contradiction can hold him up: rather then others of his kind shall be as saveable as He, the whole world must signifie the smallest part of it; and we must not argue from the signification of words, we are not bound to adhere unto the letter, (p. 72.) So abomina­ble and impious is Universal Redemption, that it cannot stand with Gods wisedome (saith Mr. Whitfield) not be con­sistent with other Scriptures, nor can it agree with the Ana­logy of Faith, (p. 73.) Any vvay of exposition must be in­vented and embraced, rather then Christ must be admitted to have died for mankind. But here on the contrary side, vvhen Mr. W. desires to prove, that God hath a hand in all sin, an efficiency in sin, that sin is Gods work, and that God is actively the cause of sin, (and more such stuff, as shall be shevved and cited in its proper place) this is such comfort­able Doctrine to a man of his life and conversation, that all Texts of Scripture must be taken according to the Letter, vvhose outside and Letter doth sound this vvay: any thing must be svvallovved against the Analogy of Faith, and a­gainst the plain tenour of all other Scriptures, rather then God must be exempted from the causality of sin. Mr. W. then must needs argue from the signification of words, vvhich to do in other cases he calls a very great weakness, (p. 71.) This is the man of mettle, vvho cannot possibly be conque­red, he is under the protection of so much frailty: or grant him conquered, he must not possibly be caught; for if he cannot out at the door, he vvill escape at the window. Yet I vvill follovv him so far, as to lay some hold on him; and vvill not vvillingly let him go, until he shall promise a Recantation. For if in any one case, it may be pertinent in this to use the [...]. Greek proverb, That for a wicked man to prosper in making God the fountain and source of wicked­ness, [Page 6]vvill be apt to turn to Gods discredit. The name of God will be Rom. 2.24. blasphemed among the Gentiles, if such Theo­logy as this shall pass abroad among [...]t Christians vvithout control. Observe hovv he goes on, p. 19.

2. ‘It rather becomes us humbly to acknowledge our Ig­norance 0688 0136 V 2 in the manner of Gods working, 2. Mr. W. enters upon the worst part of Libertinism, as Mr. Calvin himself judg­ed it. Contra Libert. c. 3. then to deny any of his works, then to deny that he worketh all things, &c. —then to deny that he worketh most determinately, cer­tainly, and infallibly, in the various and mutable motions of mans will.’ And to shew his meaning to be no better then that of Beza, Piscator, and the rest of his Tea­chers, viz. that sinful works are some ofZuingl. in Serm. de Prov. c. 5 & 6. Gods works, and that heBeza advers. Castell. Aphor. 1. & 6. See The Divine Purity desend­ed. p. 21. 30. worketh all things, whether good or evil, with­out any the least exception, and that God doth determine the will of man to the most sinful Act which he commit­teth, he addes many things to make it evident that this indeed is the scope at which he here drives. For he tells us a little after, that when God is said in Scripture to har­den mens hearts, to send them strong delusions, to bid Shi­mei curse David, to bid the evil spirit go and deceive Ahab, to turn the hearts of the Egyptians to hate his people, to have given up the Gentiles to vile lusts, to put into the hearts of the ten Kings to give their power unto the beast, and the like, (p. 22.) we must not expound such Texts by the com­mon Hebraism, but take them as literally as we do those other wherein God is said to make the earth, to form the light, to create man, and the like, (p. 23.) He also saith that Gods permission of sin is not without action and operation, (p. 21.) that he must needs have some efficiency in it, (p. 24.) that he doth both will and work it, (p. 26.) that he hath a hand in effecting of it, (p. [...]6.) And gaping so wide as he does, (nay wider then all this, as shall be shewed in due time,) how can we fail to know his meaning by his gaping? Let us then contemplate the large Dimensions of his swal­low, that at last we may demand what it is will stick with him.

3. His now con­tradiction, a­bout the man­ner of Gods working.3. First, an huge Contradiction goes down very glibly; for as soon as his ignorance is acknowledged as to the manner [Page 7]of Gods working, (p. 19.) he describes the manner of it, and sets it down as dogmatically, as if he had been an eye­witness, and of counsel to that secret and hidden will of God, which the men of his way are wont to oppose to his revealed one. He saith consentingly out ofNegari non potest, illum aliquo modo procurare ne­gotium, cujus consilio & de­creto genoti­um geritur. Piscat. ad Am. Collat. Vorst. sect. 17. Piscator, (but blusht to put it into English) that God doth procure the business of sin] by whose counsel and decree the business is managed or carried on, (p. 21.) my more distinctly as to the manner, in another shred of Latine, which he calls a true Rule, but puts it not into English. The true English of it is this, That Deus agit in peccato, non tanquam causa moralis, sed tanquam causa natura­lis. God doth act in sin, not as a moral, but as a natural cause, (p. 25.) that is to say, He doth not so act as to perswade onely (which yet is bad enough of it self, and the worst that the Devil can arrive unto) but in such a natural way, as to necessitate the sinner; (which is infinite­ly worse then to perswade him.) Nor will it advantage him to say, that God decreeth, and procureth, and is the natural cause of the positive act of every sin, but the accidental cause onely of the sin it self, (as He and Mr. Barlee shall be shewed to say in plain terms.) For Davids lying with Bathsheba was the positive act of Adultery, and sin it selfe, (but Davids lying without Bathsheba was no sin at all, either in whole or in part) which if Mr. Wh. cannot deny, as I am sure he cannot, (and do challenge him to do if he thinks he may, or dares to do it) then must be confess it to be his Doctrine, that God was the natural cause of Davids lying with Bathsheba, and that that positive act of Adultery was Gods work, and his Creature; because of positive acts (he saith) that God is the proper efficient cause, (p. 24.) This lies on him unavoidably, unless he can separate the positive act of Davids lying with Bathsheba, from Davids sin of Adultery, which was his lying with Bathsheba, and no­thing else: which I shall shew he cannot do (if so gross a visible needs shewing) when I discover how Mr. Hicks be­trayed Mr. Barlee into a Blas [...] hemy (no less then sins being God, if a pos [...]tive act) and hovv Mr. B. vvas even vvith him, by sending his Treachery to the Press. So much for Mr. W's. nevv self-contradiction.

4. His down­right Liberti­nism.4. Next Mr. W. must be observed to speak the language of the Libertines [...] to a syllable, as I lately inti­mated, but novv shall openly express. Saint Paul having said, God worketh all things, (Eph. 1.10.) meaning all the Graces of the Holy Ghost, of vvhich alone he there speaks (as Calvin himself confesseth,) the Libertines concluded (as Efficit omnia, id est, omnia sine exception [...]. Beza in locum. 1. Facinus, puta Adulterium aut homicidium, est Dei Auto. is, Mo­toris. Impulsoris opus. Zuing. de Prov. c. 6.2. Deus videri potest causa, non modò humanarum actionum, ve­rùm etiam D [...]fectuum atque Priva­tionum quae ipsis inhaerent. Pet. Mart. in 1 Sam. c. 2.3. Deus efficit ea quae peccata sunt. Sturm. de Praedest. Thes. 16.4. Idem facit Deus, scilicet, pro­curat adulterium, maledicta, men­dacia. Piscat. resp. ad Apolog. Birtii, p. 143.5. Omnes peccatores & flagitiosi, vi voluntatis Dei faciunt quicquid faciunt. Id. Resp. ad Tauffr. p. 65.6. Deus efficaciter agit seu efficit, & suâ efficacitate perag [...]t omnia, sine ullâ prorsus quantulâcun­que exceptione. Beza contra castel. Aphorism. 1, 6, 7. Beza did, and as Mr. W. novv doth) that all their sins vvere Gods works. For that vvas their rule, vvhich is novv Mr. Whitfields, ‘that what the Scripture both plainly and positively asserteth that God doth, we ought not to deny that he doth it, (p. 19.) not admitting any Hebraisms, or other figures of speech, or restrictions and limitations of universal terms, but taking all by the Letter to serve their turn, as Mr. Wh. doth to serve his, (p. 23.)’ Hence are those ordinary Do­ctrines amongst the men of that batch: ‘1. That adultery or murder is the work of God the Author. 2. That God may seem to be the cause, not of humane acti­ons only, but of the very defects and pri­vations which cleave unto them. 3. That God effects those things which are sins. 4. That God procures adultery, cursings, lyings, &c. 5. That all wicked men do all that they do by the force of Gods will. 6. That God efficaciously acteth or effecteth, and by his efficacity performeth all things with­out any the least exception.’ From vvhich very saying, be­ing pronounced by the Libertines, Mr. Calvin discovers tvvo horrible, but unavoidable sequels. 1. That there is not any difference betwixt God and the Devil. 2. That God, by this Doctrine, is transmuted into the Devil. Calv. ad e [...]s. Libert. cap. 13. & 14.) Novv vvhen the Calvinists and the Libertines do teach the very same thing, vvhy shall not I hate it in the Calvinists, as Calvin hated it in the Liber­tines? [Page 9]nay, vvhy not more? since a Blasphemy is the worse (not one vvhit the better) for proceeding out of a learned and a leading mans mouth.

Nor doth it move me that some Calvinists vvill take it ill at my hands (vvhilest others not rigid vvill take it vvell) for no doubt but the Libertines took it as ill of Mr. Calvin. The Treasure that I covet is not their Favour, but their Amendment. Let this precede, and that vvill follovv un­avoidably. I therefore ask Mr. Whitfield, A Dilemma as a touch-stone to try his mea­ning. Is his mean­ing the same vvith Beza's and Peter Martyr's, and the rest in my margin, vvhen he saith, we must not deny that God worketh all things, or is is not? If he say, Yes, he is a Li­bertine, and Mr. Calvin shall be my witness; and then let him renounce the Christian name and Religion, that theRom. 2.24. Name of Christ be not blasphemed among the Gentiles. For we who are Christians do assert, that God worketh not all things without exception, good or bad, but all things only which are good, [...], all things vvhich become him. All the rest are the1 Joh. 3.8. works of the Devil, and of his genuine Children, vvho are resolved to do theirJob. 8.41, 44. Fathers works. This vvas Christs Doctrine, this vvas Saint Johns, and Saint John (believe me) vvas a Christian. All Gods works are done in Psal. 33.4. Truth, therefore lyes are none of his: and soPiscat. loco paulo superi­us citato. Piscator vvas out. The Lord is Psal. 145.17. holy in all his works, Adultery and Murder are therefore none of Gods vvorks:Zuing. loc. jam citat. Zuinglius therefore vvas deceived by his Do­ctrine of Decrees, and Mr. W. by Zuinglius. The Lord shall Psal. 104.31. rejoyce in his works, but hath Psal. 5.4. no pleasure in wick­edness: therefore Martin Borrhaus spake very madly, when he dared to say thatBorrhaus in Exod. cap. 4. p. 448. sins do please God; and Mr. Wh. more madly, when he saith that God doth will sin with a perfect will. p. 22. We see what must follow if Mr. W. shall answer, yes, to my Dilemma. But if his answer shall be, No, then he must burn his own Books, and all those Books from whence he made up his Cento, and publickly subscribe to [Page 10]the truth of mine. If he shall say his meaning is (p. 22.) that Gods will, of which he speaks, is onely objected on the wise permission or patient suffering of all sins, and not upon the sins themselves, why then did he entitle his book against me, and not against Mr. Barlee, or against his un­converted self? He and I will shake hands, if he will say he meant thus, and not as Doctor Twisse, whoSee the place cited Correct Copy, p. 10. saith, that the will of God doth pass, not onely into the permission of the sin, but into the sin it self which is permitted. Utrum horum mavelit, accipiat: Let him now take his choice, and spea­king distinctly to my Dilemma, let the world know what he is for, without any Tricks or Tergiversations. But I will tell him for his security, that he were better be try­ed by the waters of jealousie, if his meaning shal be found in the former part of the Dilemma; by how much a lesser e­vil it is, forNum. 5.21. the thigh to rot and the belly to swell, then for a man but to mean (or say in hisPsal. 14.1. heart) that adultery and murder are the works of God. And therefore timely let me advise him to use theNum. 19.13. waters of separation, that the uncleanness of such Doctrines may not be on him.

5. The Determina­tion of mans will to wicked actions is not Gods work.5. In the next place let us consider what he means by those words, ‘God worketh most determinately, certainly, and infallibly in the various and mutable motions of mans will.’ I do but passingly take notice of his unscholar-like use of the word Infallible, as if he knew not its meaning, or did not consider its Derivation (the fault is too small to be observed in a Writer of his bredth and thickness) I will rather try him by another Dilemma. Doth he mean that God doth so work on the wills of men, as to determin them of necessity to all their objects and actions, both good and evil? or doth he not mean this, but rather grant that mans will doth determine it self? If the later, all is well; he hath no more to do next, but to abandon hisEspecially Mr. Barlee, and his brother Hickman, who say, that what­soever positive thing is not from God is God. c. 3. p. 112. The apex of Blas­phemy, as shall be shewed hereafter. party, and burn his books: whereas if the former is his meaning, (as hitherto it hath been) I know not what to do for him, to lighten the weight of his calamities, which will press him down deeply, do what I can: For first he implyes a con­tradiction, as I demonstrated to a person of greater worth. [Page 11]And therefore here I repeat it not, but refer him to theSee The Di­vine Purity de­fended. ch. 8. sect. 2. p. 80, 81, 82. & sect. 5. p. 86, 87. place where he cannot fail of it. Next it inferreth un­avoidably, that God is the natural cause of all the wicked­ness in the world. For example, suppose a wicked man hath conceived Adultery in his mind, or committed it in his Heart (as ourMat. 5.28. Saviour speaks.) If God did predetermin that wicked man to that physical Act of Concupiscence, and the will of that man to a consent, as well as the appetite to a complacency, he was not onely the cause, but the sole cause of the Adultery. Nay farther yet, if the inward in­tention of the end is the determination of the will to the first act of sin (as the subtilest of them do say,) and if that In­ten [...]ion, or whatever else is the Determination of the will, and the Determination it self, is a positive act (which none can deny,) and if God is the Creator or Maker, or proper cause, of whatsoever thing is positive (as these precious ones do affirm;) He is not onely concluded the sole cause of the Adultry in his Creature, [Verum etiam id ipsum quod dicere nolo] but also that which is worse, and ineffably blas­phemous. And here I ask Mr. Wh. was that adulterous thought or intention so determined to its object, in that re­spect evil, or was it not? If in that respect evil, he accuseth God; if not evil in that respect, he acquitteth the wicked man; and unavoidably inferreth, that there was never any Adulterer, Murderer, or the like, but was carried to the doing of all his wickedness with a good intention, a good desire, a very good determination of his will. And reason good too; For the Determination of mans will (they say) is Gods work, or Gods share in the procurement and ac­complishment of sins. And Gods part in the business they say is good. But then they leave man no share at all in his impieties: if they do, let them name it, which they never yet did. Indeed they talk in the general, [that God is the Note this distinction which Mr. Barlee makes ch. 3. p. 55. natural cause of the meer Act of sin, and a meer Acciden­tal Cause of the obliquity of the act of sin.] But bid them in­stance in some particular, then they see that they are blind, and quickly speak themselves speechless. VVhen a man hates God, orLevi [...]. 24.15. curseth God, or any otherwise blasphemes [Page 12]against him, let Mr. Wh. or Mr. B. or Mr. Hick. be asked, which is the act of that sin? and which is the obliquity of the act of that sin? you shall have them as mute as three dead Fishes. If the cursing of God is a whole sin, it is an act of sin, or an obliquity of an Act, or both together, and that either separably or inseparably: If onely an act, where is the obliquity? if onely an obliquity of an act, where is the act it self? (for all the whole sin is the cursing of God, nor more, nor less) if both together, and separably, let them make that separation in words, or dumb signs, that we may hear, and conceive it. But if both are inseparably together, let them confess the thousand blasphemies, and the six hundred contradictions, which have and may be detected in all their Doctrines and Distinctions; and after confes­sion, let them amend too; I ask no more.

6. His meaning ferreted out of his words.6. It may from hence be collected, what is meant by Mr. W. when he immediately addeth, [that God worketh most holily in those very Actions wherein man works unrigh­teously, p. 19.] Even the same withSee Correct Copy, p. 10. Zuinglius (abetted also byTwiss. Vind. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. p. 36, 37. Dr. Twisse) that the very same sin, viz. Adultery or Murder, as it is the work of God the Author, Mover, and Impeller, it is not a crime, but as it is of man, it is a great one; which is onely to say, that sin is Gods work, but God is no sinner. He is the Author of sin in others, but sins not himself. He co-operates with the sinner to the effecting of his sin, but being God he is not guilty. That this must be the meaning of Mr. W. I can demonstrate by many Ar­guments. 1. By his denying Scientia media (though I am not sure he understands it) and holding with Mr. Calvin, that God foresaw nothing, but because he fore-ordained it. 2. By hisNote that in his Epistle to the Reader he argues the later from the former with a [must.] concession, that there is the same reason of the fore sight of sin and the Decree of Reprobation, with the foresight of Faith, and the Decree of Election. But 'tis the Doctrine of him, and all his party, that Faith is the proper effect of Election, and not foreseen untill decreed. Ʋpon the very same ground (to use his own words in my violen­tum) he doth and must hold, that God did not foresee sin, until he had decreed it too. Nor will it lessen the absurdi­ty, [Page 13]to say that God decreed to permit sin onely, unlesse by permission he means a sufferance, or a wise not hindering: if so, he is right, but then he must burn Doctor Twisse his books, and retract his own: it being their constant do­ctrine, That God's permission of sin is efficacious. Nay ‘no Twiss. Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1 p. 142, 143, &c. lesse efficacious is God's decree in the permission of evil, than in the production of good: so very sore are their very salvo's.’ Thirdly, His meaning may be evinced, (as by all other passages of his book, which I have, and shall cite, so) by comparing his present words with the nature of sin it self, which is found to consist in such an indivisible point, that to say, God works in it, is to say as much as that he works it. As for example, To hate God is a sin, or a sinful action (two expressions for one thing). The very sinful­ness of the sin doth intirely consist in the hating of God; not in God without hating, (for he is purity it self) not in hating without God as the object of it (for hatred in it self is a thing indifferent, and as apt to be good as evil, and e­ven communicable to God, who hateth sin with a perfect hatred) but in the union and application of that act to that object. As the nature of man consists not in a body one [...]y, nor onely in a soul, but in the union of the one with the o­ther; so that the sinfulness of that sin of hating God, is nothing else but the union of that act with that object. And that is punctum indivisibile: for sin it self is a Physical ab­stract at theNote that there is no such thing as pecceit [...] in any Profane, or Sa­cred Writer. grossest, of which sinfulness at least is an ab­stract Metaphysical; which admitting not any Composition, cannot farther be abstracted so much as in imagination. How then can God work in the hating of God, and that no lesse than as a natural cause, (for so he doth, saith Mr. W. p. 25.) without being the cause of the sin it self, when in the hating of God there is nothing but sin? Here I exact of Mr. W. to tell the World what he means, or to satisfie for his words, of which he dares not tell the meaning. But again 4. He gives us notice of his true meaning (if not of the meaning which he will own) by three Texts of Scripture, which he applies to the purpose of which I spake: for thus run his words;

‘7. His abuse of Scripture to serve his turn.7. How else can it be said when Josephs brethren sold him into Egypt out of envy, that God sent a man before? &c. And when David numbred the people, it is said not onely that Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked Da­vid to number the people, 1 Chron. 21.1. but that the Lord moved David against them, in that he said, go number Israel, 2 Sam. 24.1.’ By these he seeks to make it cre­dible, that God doth work in the wickedst actions as a na­tural cause, although these Texts do prove the contrary. To the first and most impertinent of the two allegations, I have f [...]oken soIn the Divine purity defended, ch. 7. Sect. 6. p. 63, 64, 65. largely to Doctor Reynolds, that Mr. W. must fetch his answer thence. To the second, consisting of two contradictory Texts (as to the letter) I make an ease return, by shewing the literal inconsistence of the one with the other, unlesse the first may be allowed to ex­plain the second. For when the very same thing is said to be done by God, and by Satan, either one of the two must needs be figuratively spoken, or else there will be [ [...]] irreconcileables in Scripture, not onely [ [...]] the bare appearances of Discord: else farewel to Torniellus, and all other Writers in that kind, who recon­cile the Scriptures which seem to differ and contradict. First I take it for granted, that the word of God is not chargeable with any self-contradictions; That the very same action cannot at once be good and evil, Divine and Devilish; That God and Satan cannot do the same works. From whence it followeth of necessity, that when God is said toActivum pro Passivo, ut saepè, inquit Grotius in locum. move David to number the people (2 Sam. 24.1.) the meaning must be, He * permitted Satan to move David. For so the Scripture explains it self afterwards (1 Chron. 21.1.) by saying that Satan provoked David to that deed. Another example will make it plainer. It is said of the Devil (the God of this world) that he hath blinded the mindes of unbelievers, lest the light of the Gospel should shine unto them (2 Cor. 4.4.) Again it is said of our God who cannot endure the least sin, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardned their hearts, that they should not see with their eyes, &c. (Joh. 12.40.) where because the two senses of [Page 15]those two Texts cannot possibly be the same, the former must needs be active, and the later onely permissive. It is to be seriously considered, whether any such men can be fit for the Ministry, to be intrusted with the Key of Know­ledge, to be Stewards of the Mysteries of the living God, who are not able to distinguish betwixt those Scriptures which differ most; but help the people to confound the works of God, and of the Devil. I confesse my indig­nation is very great at this instant, whil'st I observe M. W. (in a bookSo he pro­fesseth in his Epistle to the Reader, p. 2, & 3. intended for the unlearned) to present the let­ter of such Texts without the least explication, nay oppo­site Texts without the least offer of reconcilement, nay teaching that God hath anP. 24. efficiency in sin, andP. 19. worketh in the worst actions as a natural cause, and25. He speaks worse of God then can be tru­ly said of Sa­tan. determines the wills of men to every event; whereas the Devil himself cannot contribute so much to sin, by the utmost force of his Temptations: He can but perswade, and incline, as a mo­ral agent, which cannot necessitate to wickednesse, as the natural doth. And if his parishioners, or others as void of learning, shall ask him the manner of God's working and efficiency in sin (that they may know how it differs from the Devils manner of working in the very same sin, and from the manner of working in which the sinner him­self worketh) behold his answer is onely this, [ ‘It be­seems us humbly to acknowledge our ignorance in appre­hending the manner of his working (p. 19.) and again, we be not able to apprehend his secret and wonderful man­ner of working in evil actions, p. 23. lin. ult.’] How then, Good Sir, saith the amazed Catechumenist? what shall we do in this Case, when our light is darkness? where shall we seek knowledge, when our Priests lips cannot pre­serve it? Mr. W's answer is at hand, ‘P. 24. lin. 3, 4. Though he doth it miro & ineffabili modo, as Austin speaks, yet we are not to deny the doing of it.’ But first the people are abus'd with Austins name, who never said any such thing; HisP. 20. lin. 1. Enchirid. ad Laurent. c. 100. words are quite contrary: id non fit, that is not done beside the will of God, which is done against it. Mark Reader, He doth not say, what God doth, but what is done against Gods will [Page 16]by Gods permission, which is not beside his will to permit it. Next suppose Austin had said any such thing, had not that been one of his many Errors? But thirdly, 'Tis well Mr. W. will yield any authority to Austins Enchiridion, which is perfectlyAugust. En­chir. c. 98. destructive to Mr. W's Doctrine. Well, Mr. W. declares his ignorance to the unlearned Quaerist, touching the manner of God's working and efficiency in sin, as a natural cause (which being precisely his own expres­sions, do put us in mind of his contradiction, whilst he confidently defines in some places, what he professeth not to know in others, as being wonderful and ineffable.) Make but room for Mr. Barlee, and he will help his Fellow-labourer to make it out with a wet finger. [Mr. B's Ne­ces. vin. ch. 3. p. 12. He that cannot or ‘will not tell how God may be said to excite men to the Act of Adultery, which to the Adulterer so excited is sin, ☞though not to God, neither will he tell how God without sin doth stir up men to the act of lying with their lawful Wives; ad utrumque ejusdem gene­ris excitatio & concursus. Idabid. for the excitation and concurrence to both is of the same kind.’] Observe the growth of this Student since his Cor­rep. Correction. He there expressed his Divinity of God stirring up men to sin, by his putting spurs to a dull Jade. Now he tells us [ [...]] in downright terms, that God hath the same concurrence to the most unlawful, and the most lawful actions. S. Paul no sooner said, Marriage is honourable, but immediately added, and the bed undefiled, [...], immaculate, pure, and spot­lesse: but Adultery is Rebellion against the Monarch of all the world. And yet he stirs up the wicked to the unclean Act of Rebellion against Himself by the same incitation (saith Mr. B.) whereby he excites his loyallest subject to the most blamelesse thing that can be named; not onely not forbidden, but commanded by God for propagation; where­as Adultery is an Act which God forbids by his law, and from which he restraines by his Grace, disswades by his Spi­rit, and which his children cannot commit, but by resisting his Grace, and by grieving his holy Spirit, by whom alone we are sealed unto the day of Redemption. But M. B. may say, that I now torment him before his time. I [Page 17]therefore return to his majorite, whose third general An­swer doth now ensue.

Sect. 3.

Mr. Whitfield saith,Mr. W's third General An­swer a m [...]er Majestick mistake. [ ‘that the summe of what Mr. P. or any of his Predecessors in this controversie about Gods absolute Decree hath objected against it, is included in that which the Apostle objects against himself, speaking of his subject, Rom. 9.14. Is God unjust? and, who hath resisted his will? which he answers with an Absit, & quis tu es? — And if we should give no other answer but this, it might suffice, p. 20.]’ What will not some be bold to say, rather then want wherewith to gain-say? First he forgeth a certain Tale, and gives it the Name of a Third general Answer. If he had called it a Whirligig, his impropriety had been lesse; for the Question there is the contrary to what it is here. There it was of God free mercy, which well might be without mans merit: Here it is of his wrath, which cannot be without our demerit. No lesse are the wandrings of Mr. W. But Secondly, Where was he told, that this is the summe of whatsoever hath been objected against his mythical Decree? He nei­ther names his Author, nor gives his Reason, nay speaks precisely against his knowledge, and crudely dictates (stilo satis praetoriano) This is the summe. I answer with more Truth, but much lesse Majesty, that this indeed is the summe of all their subter-fuges and salvo's, Quis tu es? Who art thou, O man, who objectest against God, that he hath not an efficiency and hand in sin? This was the very last plank which Mr. Hobbs was fain to betake himself unto, when he found himself ship-wreckt by the most learned Bishop Bramhall, in his book of Liberty and Neces­sity, p. 20. The shift is common to the Libertines and Ranters, with Mr. Hobbs, and Mr. W. and Mr. B. &c. This is the ablest of their Answers, when nothing else will do the work, to say that God would have it so because he would, and however contrary to his word, yet 'tis a part of his secret will, (revealed onely to that Tribe) at which the rest of mankind must content themselves vvith [...], and must hold themselves confuted vvith the [Quis [Page 18]tu es] of the Presbyterians. Thirdly, It is his other abso­lute leasure, to say that Saint Paul did speak of this sub­ject, Rom. 9.14. It is enough to say No, and that 'tis senseless to imagin it. But I vvill tell him farther, thatNon fuit levis offensio, quòd tam pauci Judaei credierunt.— Nomen populi Dei objiciebatur Apostolo.— Haec est (meo judicio) occasio harum disputa­tionum. Melanchth. in Praef. ad cap 9. ad Rom. Saint Paul is there disputing against the male-contented Jewes, vvho vvere very much offended that the Gentiles should be received, and the Jews rejected (the greatest part of them) vvho hither­to vvere vvell knovvn to be Gods peculiar and chosen people. This (saith Melanchthon) vvas the occasion of that vvhich follovves. AndNon aliud vult Paulus, Rom. 9. [...]0, 11. quàm docere, Gratiam universalem esse; contra Judaeos, qui culpâ suâ exciderunt Grat [...]â, &c. H [...]mming. Praef. in Exposit. Epist. ad R [...]m. See Doctor Ham. Annot. upon that Chapter. Hemmingius thus, That S. Paul intented nothing else (v. 10, 11.) but to teach that Grace vvas universal, and ex­tended also to the Gentiles: This vvas contrary to the Doctrine vvhich vvas then espoused by the Jewes, as novv it is by the Consistorians. Were this a place and a time to argue from the genuine and demonstrable sense of that Chapter (vvhich of it self vvould make a Volume) there could nothing prove more destructive to Mr. W's Doctrines, then that one Chapter; and that not onely according to S. Paul's sense, but even according to the senselesness vvhich the2 Pet. 3.16. unlearned and the unstable are vvont to wrest from that Scripture. Fourth­ly, The Quis tu es may fit my mouth a great deal better then Mr. W's. If God vvas pleased to punish none in his eternal Decree vvithout respect unto their sins, and toTit. 2.14. give himself a ransom for all mankind, Quis tu es, Who art thou O man that repliest against God? shall the thing for­med say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Why was I not decreed and necessitated to bliss from all e­ternity? why have I not grace irresistible? why shouldst thou leave it in my povver to be unhappy? vvhy should any kind of wickednesse be able to put me into a state of damnation? or vvhy should all men be capable of e­scaping Hell, as vvell as I and my party? vvhat have [Page 19] moral honest men to do vvith heaven? vvhy vvere they not rejected before they were? The Puritanical Jewes vvere apt to mutter to this effect, but let not Christians be so irrational. This vvere ansvver sufficient to all the ill­natur'd murmurings of carnal men. But for the good of the vulgar (for some of vvhom Mr. Wh. may be too hard) I vvill apply my [...] to the particular dangers novv spread before them.

Sect. 4.

Mr. VV. saith truly,He descends from Generals to Particulars, and begins with the charge of ma­king God the Author of sin. [ ‘that the first and prin­ci [...]al objection against the Doctrine of absolute De­crees, is, that it makes God to be the Author of sin, p. 20.]’ But doth he say hovv vve prove it? No, he durst not do that; Hovv then should he have ansvver'd? He therefore proves it his own way, taking on him the per­son of T. P. or the like; but does not so much as pretend to have read the objection vvhich he proposeth to be an­svvered. And to one who speaks lesse then nothing it is not fit to speak much, although it is hard to abstain from speaking. The last part of his objection is somevvhat honestly fram'd, [if God decrees the Being of sin, then he is the Author of it] Let us observe hovv he ansvvers it, for in that vve shall shortly find a very great jest.

First he saith vvhat vvas never denied I think by any,I. He begins with a Tergiversati­on, and imposi­tion on the Scripture. that God doth permit sin, and hath decreed to permit it. But then he addes (vvhat is most false, unlesse it be carefully explain'd) [The Scripture is plain, that God decrees those actions, which when men do, they do very sinfully, (p. 20.)] 1. He here addes to the vvord of God: there's no such Scripture. 2. He slides from vvhat he said of God de­creeing to permit, and (vvithout any transition, or pretense for the change,) pronounceth quite another thing, that God decrees the sinful actions, or sins themselves; for that these are synonymous I shevved before. But let his own words shame him y these degrees. Davids lying vvith Bathshebah vvas an Action, vvhich vvhen he did, he did very sinfully. Such Actions so done Mr. W. saith that God decrees. The Action specified vvas Adultery, and that vvas sin: and so according to M. W. God decreed that sin, [Page 20]that Adultery, that actual lying vvith another mans wife, that action vvhich, vvhen David did, he did sinfully. The instance vvhich he gives Act. 2.23. & ch. 4.27, 28. is cross to his purpose; for tvvas in a foresight and consideration that Christ vvould be crucified by the Jevves, if not vio­lently hindred, upon vvhich God determin'd he vvould not hinder, and so (by a consequence unavoidable) that the thing should be done by his permission. And there­fore the first Text Act. 2.23. affords an excellent exposi­tion to the second, Act. 4.27, 28. for 'tis said there expresly, he vvas delivered by the Counsel and foreknowledge of God. The vvord [...] to determine doth no vvay exclude, but suppose [...], to foreknow. And this vvas the ansvver of Justin Martyr to Tryphon, as I have elsevvhere noted, and spoke so much by vvay of ansvver to this very objection of Mr. W. that I must send him thither for a fuller account, though vvhat I have novv said is somevvhat more then I ovv'd him. [See Sinner Impl. part 2. ch. 2. p. 258. to p. 264.] And because the vvords of that Father vvere not there given at large, I have here thought fit to set them dovvn in the Margine [...]. Just. Mart. contra Tryph. p. 370. porrò illam objectionem, [...], ita solvit Justinus.. I am very vvell plea­sed, that the same is objected against my Doctrine, vvhich vvas objected by vvicked Tryphon against that lear­ned Apostolical and holy Father. What is added by Mr. W. of God permitting sin to be, is onely for me, and against himself, unlesse he vvill declare that he is just as I am, and fairly publish his Retractations.

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

Pag. 21. ‘But though God hath decreed that sin shall be, and therefore hath decreed to permit it, without☜ which it could not be, yet it doth not follow that he is the Author of it.’

Doth he mean by Gods decreeing that sin shall be, His meaning caught in a Dilemma. that he decreed it absolutely, and antecedently to his prescience that it would be, if the sinners will were not hindered be some violent means? or that he decreed not to hinder it upon his eternal foreknowledge that the sinner would determine his will to sin, if not miraculously impeded? Which soever he shall say, it will be equally pleasant (and he must say one, for there is not a third.) If the former, he makes God to be the first and principal cause of every sin, but denyes the sequel of his being the Author: which is as if he should say, Paul was a rational creature, but it doth not follow he was a man. Sophroniscus did beget Socrates, but yet was not his Father. The Jewish high Priests were the first and principal contrivers and procurers of the murdering of Christ (to which Judas and the Romans were instrumen­tal) but it doth not follow they were the Authors of that murder. Thus Mr. W. with the same breath, denyes what he affirms, whilest he affirms it, if he owns the former meaning of his words. And if the later, he yields the whole cause, by overthrowing the foundation of all his Doctrines; which is the placing Gods Decree before his Knowledge, his preordination before his prescience; which although the most against Reason and Philosophy of any thing that can be nam'd, hath been swallowed by the Calvinists from Mr. Calvin's ownIdeo prae­sciverit quia sic ordinavit. Calv. Inst. l. 3. c. 23. sect. 7. fol. 325. See Div. Pur. c. 7. p. 74. mouth. Thus it fares with Mr. W. if he means either of those two senses. If he can think upon a Third, I will speak to it when he shall name it. But be his sense what it can be, it was faulteringly done, to baulk the words in the Objection, and to substitute others in the Answer; and unskilfully resolv'd, to obtrude a bare De­nial, without pretending a dram of Reason to give it at least a little weight: nay, he hath not so much as an evasion to supply the room of an Answer; never an Orthodox put-off. The total of his answer (to bate the other flawes in it) is [Page 22]the syllable [No. It doth not follow, For it doth not.]

3. And because he mingles the word [permit] in this and many other places,3. His soul use of the word per­mission. Of which see Div. Philan. Def. ch. 3. p. 129, 130, to p. 139. & ch. 4. p. 53, 54. as a necessary Emollient to asswage the hardness of his sayings, the Reader must once more be put in mind what is meant by [permission] in the writings of this and such like Authors. Their common accom [...]t of their meaning is by the word efficacious: and if we ask how far forth Gods permission of sin is efficacious, Doctor Twisse is Prolocutor, and tells the sense of the Party. Gods De­cree (saith he) is no less efficacious in the permission of evil, ☞ then in the production of good. But in the production of good, they all affirm with one mouth that Gods Decree is abso­lute, irrespective, and irresistible; nor is it less (saith that Doctor) in the permission of sin. That Mr. W. thinks the Doctor Orthodox, his Book forbids us to disbelieve; for he saith that God hath a hand in sin, and a hand in the ef­fecting of it, (p. 26.) that he hath some efficiency in it, (p. 24.) that he acteth or worketh in sin (not as a moral Agent by disswading from it, but) as a natural cause pro­moting the Being and Act of sin, (p. 25.) that Gods per­mission of sin is accompanied with Action and Operation, (p. 21.) and all this in the ugly sense, as I shall shew more and more in the following Sections. And therefore his using the word permission doth but aggravate his guilt, un­till he shall declare, that he takes it in a passive and nega­tive sense, so as to signifie the suffering, and not hindering of sin. But then he must adde a Recantation of those un­sober expressions, with which the word Permission is incon­sistent.The odious impropriety re­presented in o­ther less odious colours. For suppose a man shall command or excite his Son to steal a Horse, and that so effectually, that the Horse is stolen by that Son upon his Fathers excitation; can the Father be thought to speak truth or sense, if he shall plead that he did onely permit his Son to steal by an efficacious permission, which could not be resisted because of its effi­cacy and force? Or will it avail him to plead not guilty, by saying he had but a hand in that stealth, or an efficiency in it, or that he onely commanded and stirred up his Son to that vile Action, but was not the Author of that sin which [Page 23]cleaved to the Action, nor was it he, but his son who stole the Horse? Reader, this is the Case, but represented in fairer colours then Mr. W's Doctrine doth deserve. For he and hisNote that those Authors are defended by Mr. W. and Mr. B. as well as imitated and followed. Teachers have said of God, that he decreeth, willeth, commandeth, determineth, seduceth, exciteth, stir­reth up, impelleth, tempteth, effecteth, and maketh men to sin, and that not onely as a moral cause (as some) but as a natural cause also (as others) as the Author of sin (say some) to sin quatenus sin (say others.) All which, and much more, I have formerly shewed in three distinct Tracts, to which I must ever refer the Reader, though I am ever adding to my Supellex. And let this serve for their Emollient, made up of contrary ingredients (as Emplastra and Cataplasmes may sometimes be) for the discussing the peccant Humour (at least for the concealing the ugly face of the Disease.) The first Ingredient is Active, and they allay it with a Passive, which is the second. The first they think hath too much of Positive in its Nature, and so they qualifie it with that which hath somewhat of Negation in it. They adde permission to efficacious, to save their credit; and efficacious to permission, for the salving of their cause. Their Dictio­naries can tell them (and they who never read Tully, may easily look into Nizolius) thatNote that to permit is not the En­glish of permit­to; any more then to occide is the English of occido. But permit is pure­ly Latine, made use of in English; as occide is Latine, not made use of in English. And as to occide is in English to kill; so to permit is in English to suffer. permitto and sino are words of one signification. Sino signifies to suffer, or per­mit; Permitto signifies to permit or suffer. Judge how sore that part of their Doctrine is, to which an efficacious permission (that is an active sufferance, or an operative not-hindering) hath been onely applyed by way of Poultice. But some Patients are so unhappy, that either they tear off the Poultice from the Oedematous Tumour, or else they adde to the composition as much as robs it of its anodynous and healing virtue. This will appear in the next Objection which Mr. W. hath raised against himself, as fittest (he thought) to fall before him.

Sect. 5.

Object. [But if he hath willed and decreed it, 1. Mr. W. moulds, a new objection against himself, wherein he grants what his Doctrine is charged with. his ‘Decree is an energetical, and operative Decree, therefore [Page 24]he hath some hand in working and effecting of it, as Cal­vin, Piscator, and others teach, who are for the absolute Decree. Negari non potest illum aliquo modo procura­re negotium, cujus consilio & decreto negotium geri­tur, saith Piscator: and if his Decree be operative, so as he hath any hand at all in the working of it, then he must needs be the Author of it. p. 21.]’ Bear witness, Reader, that this is also an Objection of his own making up against his own Doctrine; which no doubt but he did with as much tenderness as he could, in special regard unto the weak­ness both of the Answerer and the cause. Yet even thus it is such, as we shall find by and by he is not able to elude. But first observe his acknowledgement, that Calvin and Piscator, and the rest of his way, do in good earnest main­tain the ugly premisses in the Objection, viz. that God hath willed and decreed sin, and hath some hand in working and effecting of it; & negari non potest, it cannot be deny­ed (saith Piscator) but that God procures the business, and that it is transacted by his Counsel and Decree. These things, I say, he doth not offer to deny in any part of his Answer, but doth his utmost to make all good (as shall immediatly be seen;) he onely denyes (and 'tis a naked denyal without the least reason) that they do hence infer God to be the Author of sin. Mark well his Answer, or rather his shifting himself of it in lieu of an Answer.

2. His Answer consists in shif­ting the duty of a Respon­dent, and spea­king quite ano­ther thing.Answ. For Answer of this, two things are to be clea­red. 1. That Gods permission is not such a bare permis­sion as is without all action and operation. 2. That though his permission is accompanied with some kind of operation, yet he is no Author of sin. p. 21.]

This is an [...], an atchievement never to be forgotten. For in the Objection, there was not a syllable of Gods Permission, which yet in his Answer is All in All. The Objection was of Gods willing, decreeing, working, effecting, procuring sin, and the like. The Answer standeth in the clearing of Gods permission, and shewing it is not unac ompanied. Here then I must ask him (as before I did) doth he mean that Gods permission is efficacious, and ac­companied [Page 25]companied with those things which are ingredients in the Objection, viz. decreeing sin by an operative energetical Decree, willing and working, procuring and effecting it, (which is all the language of his Predecessors?) or doth he not mean any such things? If the first, I take hold of his confession, and will demonstrate that he doth worse then if he meerly call'd God the Author of sin. If the second, he doth not answer, but sneak from giving any answer. He layes down a Cushion, and sits beside it. And if when one thing is objected, he shall answer to quite another, he is no sitter for a Disputant then a man that's deaf, who if he is askt what's a clock? will answer, a Windmill, or a Pump. But let him be granted to have a pertinent meaning (how­ever his words are nothing lesse) yet the state of his affairs will be but so much the worse: For by that he discovers, how many dismal mysteries are closely couched in the word Permission; enough to shew the great usefulness of what I spake on that subject a few minutes since. Now then let us observe how he clears his two things, which he calls in his margin by the name of two Arguments.

3. His first part of his escape, clea­ring his first thing with a very great blot.3. [ ‘That Gods permission of sin is accompanied with some kind of operation, appears, because when he permits sin he doth volens permittere, he doth willingly permit it: then there is some act of his will about it. p. 21.]’

Mark his notable passage à genere ad genus. The per­mission he speaks of, is in relation to sin; but the will of God he here speaks of, is in relation to the permission. Did he take permission to be a sin, or not? If he did, he chargeth God with that sin, which (were it such) would denomi­nate him a sinner. And this would be blasphemy in its [...]. For the avoiding of which, if he shall say he did not, then he must say he is a shifter, not a Disputant or Re­spondent in any sense; for the thing he is to clear (and 'tis a task he imposed upon himselfe, without being bid,) is Gods permission of SIN attended with operation (not his permission of his PERMISSION, which is perfect non­sense, and yet implyed by Mr. W. unless he professeth to be impertinent) which in stead of clearing, he gives the slip, [Page 26]by saying that God doth willingly permit it. Where the willingness relates to the permission of sin, (which permission is no sin) not at all unto the sin which is permitted. Which if he did not discern, O the depth of his Apprehension! if he did, and yet pass'd it, O the depth of his Dissimulation! whether he did, or did not, he hath done a strange thing; for thus he argues, [God doth willingly permit sin, there­fore there is some act of his will about it.] About what, good Sir, is the Act of Gods will? about the permission spoken of, which is Gods? or about the sin permitted, which sin is the Devils and his Instruments? The first is as impertinent, as the second is blasphemous. And though 'tis plain that Mr. W. doth mean the second, yet he offends against Logick, as much as against Theology: for thus he argues; God doth will to permit sin, which to do is no sin; therefore he willeth sin, which cannot be divided or distinguished from sin: which is to say in effect, Gods will is conversant about what is good (such is permission) therefore it is conversant about what is evil (such is sin per­mitted.) Because he doth not will sin (but onely to suffer or to permit it, or not to hinder the sinners will) therefore he doth will it. One part of a contradiction is his proof of the other. But though he miscarries (to a prodigy) in his way of probation, yet he discovers his affection to his o­pinion, that God doth velle peccatum, immediately will sin, and that with a perfect will, as he goes on p. 22.

4. His abuse of St. Austin.4. Thus then he advanceth (if that can be in a Circle wherein he onely runs round.) HeDeus per­mittit aut vo­lens, aut no­lens & invi­ [...]s; non certè invitus, quia id esset cum Tristitiâ, & potentiâ se majorem haberet: Si volens permittit, est genus quoddam voluntatis. Enchir. aed Laur. p. 100. cites a passage out of Austin, in which he confesseth that that Father doth grant but this, [that God hath some kind of will in the per­mission of sin, p. 22.] So grants Arminius, and Pelagius, and all mankind. But what then (Mr. W?) A will in the permission is not a will in sin; for Gods permission is of a contrary nature. If Austin had said, that God hath a will in the effecting of sin (which is contrary to his holy wil) he had then said something to bear you out, or rather he had fallen [Page 27]into the same ditch with you. But Austin doth not, nay durst not say, that sin (permitted) is according to Gods will; for he saith that sin isFit contra voluntatem. Id. Ibid. against his will; and that at the ve­ry same time, when he saith he hath a will in the PER­MISSION of sin. Now be it remembred by the Reader, that Mr. W. doth mean an efficacious permission when he speaks of Gods permitting sin. And how much he meanes by efficacious, I lately shewed. Together with that, com­pare his process.

5. His arguing that God doth will sin per­fectly, because be perfectly wills the per­mission of it.5. ‘If any kind of will, this must needs be a perfect will; for no imperfect will agrees to God, who is perfe­ction it self: and how can he be said to will any thing with­out any Act of his will? p. 22.]’ Now the Doctrine comes more into the light. Gods efficacious permissive will (as Mr. Barlee and others are wont to word it) is the same to sin, as to sinlessness, saith Mr. Whitfield: for more then perfect it cannot be when objected upon the best things; nor is it less then perfect (saith Mr. W.) when objected upon the worst: (for from Gods will to permit sin, he ar­gues Gods willing sin.) Which reasoning of his is so ex­cellently absurd, that it demonstrates the contrary to what he seeks to prove by it. For because nothing in God is im­perfect, and whatsoever he willeth he willeth in perfection, therefore he willeth not sin at all; it being of his perfection, that he cannot will sin; and the greatest imperfection in the worst of all Creatures, that they are able to will sin with a perfect willingness. And what a Divine must he be, who shall say the same of God, which is the very worst thing that can be said of the Devil, that he willeth sin with a perfect will? If to evade this whirlpoole, Mr. W. shall say, he meant the permission onely, nor the sin permitted, then 'tis the least of his misfortunes, that he hath onely made Answers to the Man in the Moon, and then he will be splitted on the less dangerous Rock. But to make good his meaning, he must abjure his whole Book: for to say that Gods decree is energetical onely (not permissive) and to say that he de­creeth the being of sin (which is his and his Teachers Do­ctrine) is in consistent with meer permission; which is not an [Page 28] exertion, but a suspension of the will, from interposing any Impediment which might forcibly hinder the Creatures choice. Nay one thing I must adde for the vindication of Gods holiness, & for the instruction of Mr. W.(whose meer want of instruction I have the charity to hope is his greatest stumbling-block) That though God doth not hinder a man from sinning by any such physical impediment, whereby the man is rendered not able to sin wilfully, yet even then he doth hinder by such moral impediments, whereby the man is rendered able not to sin wilfully.

6. He strives to prove Gods Activity in the production of sin from Gods own word.Now let us see how he clears the second thing he pro­posed in stead of Answer to the Objection. [Scripture-Expressions ‘do constantly hold forth Gods manner of wor­king in sin, by way of action. It doth not say, God suffered Joseph's Brethren to sell him into Egypt, but that God sent him, Gen. 45.8. It doth not say, God suffered Pha­raoh to harden his own heart, but that God hardened it, Exod. 9.12, &c. p. 22.’] Here he tells us that the Scrip­tures hold forth, what before (p. 19.) and after (p. 23.) he professeth to be ineffable and incomprehensible, viz. the man­ner of Gods working in sin. This is his first degree of mi­sery. Again, he takes those Texts meerly according to the Letter, which Mr. Barlee himselfe confesseth to be figura­tively spoken, givingNeces. Vind. ch. 3. p. 55. this reason for it, [ ‘that God ac­cording to the Letter of many of those Texts, seems to be made a moral cause of sin as sin.’] So that now Mr. W. hath plaid such a prank, as his own fellow-laborer must needs con­demn in him. This is his second. Again he saith, that this is constantly held forth in Scripture by way of action, Constant­ly, good Sir? how can that be? Did not God tell Israel, that because he had purged them, and they were not purged, they should Ezek. 24.13. not be purged from their filthiness any more? that is to say, he would leave them to themselves, he would permit or suffer them to be filthy, he would not cleanse them against their wills? Which one Text is sufficient to have taught Mr. W. the true importance of all those at which he stumbles. And from thence it is evident what is meant by the School-men, when they say that God punisheth sin with sin: [Page 29]which must thus be negatively expounded by Gods forsa­king such sinners, withdrawing his grace so long resisted and abus'd, not clensing them any more from their beloved fil­thiness. Let M. W. answer to this Question; Doth the Scri­pture express or hold forth the real command of the holy Ghost, in using that imperative, Rev. 22.11. Let him that will be filthy, be filthy still? Or was our Saviour accessary to the Jewish mur­der, in saying,Joh. 2.19. which com­pare with Mar. 14.58. destroy this temple, meaning the Temple of his body? To have commanded it in the sense (as he did in the letter) had been a kind of [...], laying hands upon himself; yet the Jewes (like Mr. W.) were so intent upon the letter, that they took an occasion from those words to bear false witnesse against our Saviour. [We heard him say, I will destroy this Temple made with hands, &c. Mar. 14.58.] But enough of Mr. W's degrees of misery in his position, come we now to his examples.

1. From the sell­ing of Joseph.His first (Gen. 45.8.) is most remarkably impertinent to that for which it was produced: for in stead of saying God sold Joseph into Egypt (in which sale of Joseph his bre­thren sinned) he confesseth that Joseph did onely say unto his brethren, that God had sent him: nay he spake it with an Antithesis to his Brethrens action, and to a contrary scope to what Mr. W. directs the words. Reader, consi­der, and stand amazed at his matchlesse inconsideratenesse in this particular. Josephs speech runs thus,See the Di­vine Purity Def. c. 7. p. 63, 64, 65. [God hath sent me before you, to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance: so now, it was not you that sent me hither, but God, and he hath made me a Father to Pharaoh, and Lord of all his house, &c. v. 7, 8] He speaks of nothing but the good which God had done for him, upon occasion of that evil which they that sold him had done against him. Yet this is urged by Mr. W. for Gods Activity and work in sin.

2. From Pharaohs obduration.His second Instance is not quite so ridiculous. [Exod. 9.12.] but tis ridiculous enough. For though God is said to harden Pharaohs heart by doing somewhat, yet was it not by working in sin, but by removing punishments, and all other means of his recovery, which had so long been afforded [Page 30]him, and all in vain. It was said before, Pharaohs heart was hardned, Ex. 7.22. which implies the permission, not efficiency of God. Nay farther it was said, That Pharaoh hardened his own heart, Ex. 8.15. Again after that, it was said that Pharaoh sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants, Ex. 9.34. (whom God is said to have endured with much long-sufferance, Rom. 9.22.) as 'twere on purpose to deliver us from the very possibility of erring grossely, when we afterwards reade, God hardened his heart. And how did God do it? sure not as Pharaoh, nor as Satan, by any activity or efficiency of obduration, (for Satan hardned Pharaohs heart, as well as Pharaoh himself) but by a to­tal and final withdrawing of his Grace, Indurabo cor Pharaonis, id est, sinam in­durari, non fle­ctam genui­nam impii cor­dis duriciem, Melan. in Praef. ad Comment. in c. 9. ad Rom. leaving him in a state of irremediable wickednesse, by such a kind of dereli­ction by which the damned are left in Hell. Nay even this very dereliction and leaving Pharaoh to himself, (the cer­tain consequence of which was his final obduration) was awarded to him as a punishment for his having hardened his heart so often, when God by his Messengers and their Mi­racles had often called him to repentance. Compare Gods words to Israel, Ps. 95.8.

3. From the Ca­naanites hard­ning.His third Instance is taken from Josh. 11.20. but more irrationally then the former. For it is said there expressely, the Canaanites hardened their hearts; which because they could not have done if God had not suffered them, it is therefore said it was of the Lord: for had he given them a cogent and irresistible Grace, or destroyed their human nature, their hardening their heart could not have been. And for GodIndurare quem si libe­ret, emollire potuistes, est non emol­lire— & paulò supe­tiùs, roli it Deus in perdi­tis salvificam vim explic [...]re. Dallaeus Apol. part. 2. p. 117. In eundem sensum Au­gustin. in Epist. 105. ad Sirtum. Idque fatente Calvino Instil. l. 2. c. 4. Sect. 3. sol. 95. not to hinder, or not to soften their hearts, which the Text saith expressely they had hardened against Israel, was no more then to permit what they committed by their option; and this for ends of his providence, that his people Israel might destroy those wicked Canaanites for their sins, the measure whereof they had filled up. But besides it must be noted (to shew the impertinence was the greater) [Page 31]that for the Canaanites thus to harden their hearts against Israel, that is, to oppose and resist them coming to take away their land, could not be censured as a sin in them, unlesse they had a revelation that God had given their land to his People Israel; which as it appears not in Story (for ought I can learn) so if it doth, then Gods revealing it to them was far from having any hand in the hardening of their hearts: all he did was not softning what he found obdurate; and not to soften, is not to have any hand; the negative to that which is affirmed by Mr. Whitfield.

4. From Absa­lom's defiling his Fathers Concubines.His fourth Instance is taken from 2 Sam. 12.12. in which he seems to be unhappier then in all the rest which went before: for observe how he applies it. [ ‘It is not said, God suffered Absalom to defile his Fathers Concubines, but he tells David, what thou hast done secret, I will do in the sight of this sun, p. 22.’] Now if it is literally meant (as Mr. W. contends) that God did do the same in publick which David had done in private, the blasphemy is such as cannot modestly be named: for what was that which David did in secret, but his adultery with Bathshe­bah? And can it be possibly imagined, that God could do the same thing openly? yet so run the words, [what thou hast done I will do.] vvhich undeniably proves, that the vvords are spoken by an Hebraism (vvhich M. W. very shortly vvill be found in the Act of denying) and are per­missive onely in sense, though active in sound. For God could not do actively in the sight of the Sun, vvhat David had done in secret. (That is such a grosse and impious thought as some Heathens conceived of their carnal Jupi­ter.) And if Mr. W. had but read unto the end of the Sto­ry (vvhich vvas at the most but the completion of Gods Prophesie) 2 Sam. 16.22. He vvould there have found, that it vvas Absalom vvho did vvhat Mr. W. applies to God. A Tent was spread upon the top of the house, and Absalom went in unto his Fathers Concubines in the sight of all Israel. This (Reader) is the sin, vvhich Mr. W. urgeth as an instance, [vvherein the manner of Gods work­ing is held forth to us by way of action, p. 22.] But not to [Page 32]speak more of the impiety, behold the unskilfulnesse of the Respondent. I will do this thing (saith God to David v. 12.) And what was this thing? It is expressed (v. 11.) I will raise up evil against thee, that is, the evil of punish­ment. I will take thy wives and give them, that is, permit Absalom to enjoy them. There was not the least need of any more from God, because Absalom of himself was rea­dy enough to do it, his ownJam. 1.14. flesh was sufficient to draw him on. And besides his own flesh, he had Ahithophel at his ear to set him forward (ch. 16. v. 21.) nay both he and Ahithophel had the Devil at their elbows to urge and tempt them.Frustra fit per plures quod fieri po­test per pau­ciores. Was not all this enough to bring the wickednesse to passe, but God himself must be affirmed to have a hand in it, an efficiency in it, to work, to act, to operate in it, and that as a natural (which is a necessitating) cause? yet by all these expressions Mr. Wh. doth teach us his thoughts of God. I commend one thing to his consideration. It is acknowledged by him, and by all his party, that if God withhold or withdraw his Grace from any one of his crea­tures indued with reason, the creature is prone of him­self to do abundantly evil. Let them content themselves with that then, and go no farther, untill they can imagine some reason why.

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

6, 7, 8. From three Texts already answered in equivalence.So his sixth, seventh, and eighth Instances, from 1 King. 22.22. & Job 1. & Isa. 63.13. are answered out of the Answers which I have given to the five instances now im­mediately preceding, as also out of my Answers to D. Reyn. [Page 33]chap. 7. Sect. 8. particularly pag. 69, 70.

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

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

11. From giving up to vile af­fections.His eleventh Instance Rom. 1.26. is of the same impor­tance with the former Instances above. By giving up is meant forsaking, Tradere in desideria si­gnificat deser­tionem. Malanchth. in cap. 9. ad Rom. pag. 132, 133. no longer calling them from vile affe­ctions. See The Sinner impleaded part 1. ch. 1. p. 9. where Austins Exposition in the Margin is the same with mine.

12. From giving eyes not to see.His twelfth Instance from Rom. 11.8, 9. doth onely serve him to let us know that he reads the English Trans­lation onely, and mistakes the meaning of the Translators: for there is no such thing in S. Pauls own words as [...], though our English Bibles read, [he gave them eyes that they should not see.] It is in the Greek [...], eyes of not seeing, or not to see, or eyes which see not. The sense is evidently this, that the major part of the people who made not use of that grace which God had offered, and resisted Christ when he was preached in their streets, did grow so obstinately blind (God withdrawing the means so long resisted, and so much abused,) as to fulfil the prediction of the Prophet Esay, ch. 29. v. 10. or at least to parallel the case of which the Prophet there speaks. And this doth farther appear from S. Pauls Psal. 69.23. citation of the Psalmist v. 10. Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see: words spoken by David, not as a Curse, but a Prophesie, that the things intended for their Vers. 22. welfare would become their trap. Their very Table (whose proper end was to refresh and feed them) would by their wicked­nesse be made theirIbid. snare: And even the preaching of the Gospel (resisted by them) would accidentally advance their induration. If Mr. W. read the note ofNon accidit haec induratio, nisi interveni­ente Dei De­creto. Beza in Rom. 11.8. Beza, and also took it by the worst handle, he alone must answer for it.

13. From sending delusion.His thirteenth Instance from 2 Thess. 2.10, 11. makes me think that his Concordance is his chief Commentator: for had he compared that Text with the whole Context (which your Concordance-Preachers seldom do) he had found the sense to have been this, That because they re­ceived [Page 35]not the love of the truth Mark the Chasm or El­lipsis which must of neces­sity be thus filled up [Which truth was offer'd to the end that they might be saved.] that they might be saved, (p. 10.) [...], for this cause (or to punish this wickedness) God will suffer the man of sin (v. 3.) whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signes and lying wonders (v. 9.) to come upon them with such advantages of strength and subtilty, as would gain credit vvith them, being not wonderfully restrained. God is said to send, what he (can, but) doth not hinder from being sent. We are taught to pray, Lead us not into temptation, when yet our meaning is, suffer us not to be led, or leave us not help­less in our temptations, permit us not to be tempted above our strength, let thy Grace be sufficient for us: and thence it followes, but deliver us from evil. Thus our Saviour may be said to have sent the Devils into the herd of swine, because when they besought him, he gave way to their prayer; when they said, Suffer us to go, he answered, Go. Of which the meaning must needs be this, I suffer you to go; for he granted what they ask't, and they ask't for suf­ferance.

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

Sect. 6.

From all which it is evident,How Mr. W. most ground­lesly inferreth God to fit still, p. 23. and to be an idle Beholder, p. 26. that none of those active expressions alledged by Mr. W. (in his 22. page) can [Page 36]be pretended to denote Gods working in sin; more then his punishing of it doth (vvhich yet is active) vvhen he casts the sinner into hell. The consequent to vvhich is the sinners continuance to all eternity in his sins. Nor doth it fol­lovv (vvhat he saith p. 23.) that if God hath no manner of working in sin, See more of this subject Sect. 17, 18, 19. he sits still as a spectator. For he is work­ing in divers respects; as by the motions of his Spirit dis­swading from sin, and also by his word, both writ and preached. Again he is working in over-ruling, ordering, and disposing sins committed to many excellent advanta­ges, to which he is able by his wisdom to make them serve. But all this is nothing to his active working in sin, or his having a hand in it, (as Mr. W. phraseth it) but on the contrary, it shews that he hath no hand in it: for over­ruling sins to good, suppo [...]eth them committed, and when it is said (as it is commonly) that God draweth good out of e­vil, the meaning is, (not that he maketh it to be good in one respect, which is evil in another, as such men dream, but) that upon man's doing evil he takes an occasion of doing good: such was the saving of the world upon oc­casion of that murder which▪ the wicked ones committed in killing-Christ. And as good things are made an occasion of evil, yet are not evil, (as I lately shewed) so are evil things made an occasion of good, yet are not good: which some men not descerning, are betrayed into the worst and uncleannest speeches; as, that adultery, or murder, as it is the work of God, its Author, mover, and impeller, is no sin at all, but onely as it is of man: which though the saying of Zuinglius, a great Master of those men, yet 'tis abetted and approved by Doctor Twisse in particular; and in particular by Mr. Barlee, and aequivalently by Mr. Whitfield also. If any others of their way shall re­nounce the Doctrine, let them do it in print, and then the World will forgive them. Having shewed that God is no idle spectator, (as the brethren do both speak) because he restrains from sin, and (when he suffers it) doth over­rule it (as hath been shewed) and doth also note it in his book (as the Prophets speak) and doth satisfie his justice in [Page 37]the punishment of sin, as well as exercise his mercy in for­giving it to the contrite and penitent sinner, and giveth the continuance of a Being unto his creature, by whose free-will the sin is made; I will adde this little, that it were much a lesser evil in Mr. W. and his partners, to say that God sitteth still as a spectator onely; then to as­perse him with a working and activity in sin: for as to the commission of the sin it self, God is truly a meer spectator. The Sinners sole will determines it self unto the Sin.

Sect. 1.

TO such Texts of Scripture as are literally taken by that sort of men,Mr. W. begins with the end of that book, to which his Title-page pretended a Reply. who do not onely take the boldness to bear false wit­ness against God, by charging his Majesty with having a high hand in sin, but most lewdly also do indeavour to make him bear false witness against himself, I did amongst many other things (which Mr. Whitfield studiously omitteth, that he may speak to that onely which he thinks is least above his strength,) afford my Correpto­ry Corrector this short note of Instruction,

Divine Philanth. de­fended, c. 4. p. 48. That by a common Hebraism, such verbs as are active in sound, are onely permissive in signification: by the admission of which Rule, those horrible absurdi­ties would be avoided, and Scripture expounded [...].

To which part of my Answer,M. W's wonder­ful reply in behalf of M. B. Mr. Wh. adventures this sad Reply. ‘This he dictates, but doth not demon­strate, nor bring the least patch of an Argument to prove it, neither will all his skill in the Hebrew enable him to do it. And may he not by this shift evade the cleerest and strongest Scriptures that are brought against him, by telling us that they signifie quite another thing then the nature of the words doth import, if we will be­lieve him? 2. Why may he not then interpret other Scriptures in the like manner, where the like expressions are used; as when the Lord saith, I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil, Isa. 45.7. I have made the earth, and created man upon it, my hands spread out the heavens, Psal. 12? Why may we not by Mr. P. his Hebraismes, interpret these verbs that are active in sound to be permissive onely in signification, and say that God hath permitted light and darkness to be created, and suffered the earth to be made, and the hea­vens to be spread out? p. 23.’]

How many wayes Mr. Wh. hath uncovered himself in these words before the face of all people, I could never have shewed, if himself had not made it thus needful for me; which I beseech his best friends to carry alwayes in their mindes, that they may not accuse me of severity in any one of the particulars which now ensue.

His great un­skilfulness in the things of a Divine.First he uncovers his no-acquaintance, not only with the He­brew, but with the plainQuod autem in Scripturis legitur, Indurabo cor; item Tradidit eos in capiditates, & similia; haec figura ser­monis facilè potest explicari, si quis observet naturam Hebraici sermonis: certum est enim has figuras habere significationem permittendi. Melanchth. in Comment. in c. 9. ad Rom. fol. 132. edit. Argentorati A. D. 1536. spanhemius & Dallaeus huc accedunt. Latine Writers by whom the Idio­tismes of Hebrew have been observed. How else could he complain that I did not demonstrate the Sun at Noon? I [Page 39]expected that Lay-men should believe me as a Divine, in setting down that as a granted Rule; and that Divines should receive it upon their knowledge that it was true. But 'twas my fault not to remember that of the Clergy, as well as Laity, there are several sorts; and that many of the former are very ignorant, whereas many of the later have perfect knowledge. Be it so, that Mr. P. hath but a little skill in Hebrew, (who yet hath more then Mr. Wh. if he hath none) yet if any man living, sure Hugo Grotius had a great deal. And Grotius hisDecepisti, i. e. sivisti decipi. Saepe enim a­pud Hebraeos, verba sono a­ctiva, signifi­catu passiva sunt. Grot. in Jer. c. 4. v. 10. Annotations are guided much by that Rule. Nec figurae illae verborum in sermone Hebraico pug­nant cum sen­tentia quam dixi, Indura­bo cor Phara­onis, & sim [...]les: certum est e­nim, Hebrai­câ phrasi signi­ficare eas per­missionem, non voluntatem efficacem: Mel. in loc. de causâ pecc. p. 49. Melanchthon (I am sure) was a great that Rule. It shall suffice me to say that in my Answer to Doctor Reynolds (ch. 7. p. 67, 68, &c.) I have proved the use of this Rule in the interpretation of such Texts, by the verdict of all the Fathers, by that of S. Austin in par­ticular, by the exact Bishop Andrews, nay by the publick acknowledgments of the most skilful Hebreicians of Mr. Wh's own party, even Philippes de Morney, and Pe­ter the Calvinist of Florence. I farther proved it by Scri­ptures agreed upon by all the World to be onely capable of that construction. All which if Mr. W. did never see, nor what I said toDiv. Philan. c. 1. p. 23.24. ch. 4. à p. 37. ad finem usque. Mr. Barlee, I am not guilty of his omissi­ons. And if he really did see, but made as if he did not, it is a commission he must repent of. Here lies the won­derful [...] of this shrewd undertaker. Once I men­tioned and onely mentioned the abovesaid Hebraism, but in divers places I fully proved it; Mr. Wh. finding the naked mention, cries out I dictate, but do not prove; butNote that my proof was in the first chap­ter (p. 23, 24.) my naked mention in the fourth, (p. 48.) so as he passed by the first, before he fell upon the second. finding also my ample proof, of that he wisely makes no mention. From whence we may rationally infer, that all the fault was in his Will, and not (this bout) in his Understanding.

Secondly, He uncovers his moneths mind to the literal [Page 40]sense of those Texts,His frightful adherence unto the letter: which say (according to the letter) that God did2 Sam. 16.10. bid Shimei curse David, which was to do wickedly, andEzek. 20.26. polluted the people in their own gifts, and2 Sam. 13.11, 12. raised up evil, andEzek. 14.9. deceived, andJer. 35.1, 2, 3, 4. tempted, and Isa 63.6. made men drunk; which (according to the letter) do seem to charge God with the efficiency of sin. And yet (saith Mr. Wh.) such verbs as those must be actively, not permissively, understood; ‘for this (he tells us) is a shift, by which a man may evade the cleerest Scriptures, by tel­ling us that they signifie quite another thing then the na­ture of the words doth import.’ So unwilling is the old Eph. 4.22. man (as the Apostle speaks) that God should be cleer­ed from all impurity, and the word of God rescued from blasphemous contradictions, that he will rather reproch the antient Fathers of the Church, as well as the modern up­holders of it, with ridiculous shifts and evasions, then sub­mit to the judgment of common sense. For saith not the Scripture in other places, that God is ofHabak. 1.13. purer eyes then to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity; and will havePs. 94.20. nothing to do with the stool of wickedness; and who is not a God that hath Psal. 5.4. pleasure in wickedness; and that all his wo [...]ks areGen. 1.31. very good; and that sin by one Rom. 5.12. man entred into the world; and that all the wickedness in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life,1 Joh. 2.16 is not of the Father, but of the world; and thatJam. 1.13.14. God tempteth no man: that heIsa. 1.14. cannot in­dure sin, and hates it, and isibid. & M [...]l. 2.17. weary to bear it; and all things which may express, not onely his perfect unwil­lingness to be dishonored by sin, but his utmostZechar. 8.17. hatred and detestation? Now when two sorts of Scripture do con­tradict each other [...], in respect of the surface and letter of them, there must be a way to reconcile them, or they will not be thought to be every where true, nor by consequence the1 Tim. 3.15. word of God. They cannot be other­wise reconciled, then by taking one of the two in aNote, M. W. himself conf [...]s­seth, [...]. 48. that some Texts would contra­dict each other if literally ta­ken. figura­tive sense, and so the reconcilement is very easie. Now whether the figurative speaking is in the first sort of Texts, which do seemingly and literally asperse the goodness of [Page 41]our God, or in the second fort of Texts, which do really and plainly clear the goodness of God from all aspersions, let the Reader judge betwixt me and Mr. Whitfield. Nay Mr. Barlee himself, although he sometimes judgeth on Mr. W's side (as in hisSee Divine Philanthr. ch. 1. p. 24, 25. Correptory Correction, p. 69.) yet at last he is forced to judge against it: for he saith in plain terms (as I lately observed) in this his last print, [that God according to the letter of many Texts seems to be made a mo­ral cause of sin as sin, ch. 3. p. 55.] so that Mr. W. and Mr. B. are as much at odds in their very conspiracy and conjunction against a third person, as Mr. B. is at odds with his dearest self.

His overthrow­ing his own in­terest in other cases.Thirdly, If M. W. admits of Hebraisms in any parts of Scripture, much more must he do it in those we now speak of; where if they are not admitted, the inconvenience will be greater then any where else. But no doubt in some parts he will not dare not to admit them, for fear of being censured a direct enemy to Christ, and to take part with the Socinians, nay (which is worse) with such as Julian, and the profane Helvidius. For how many prophesies of Christ are read by us in the Preterperfect Tense, the He­brew Idiotism being retained in the English by our Trans­lators? Isa. 9.6. there are two Hebraisms at once, which no creature can deny who doth acknowledge that Text to have a prospect upon Christ: [unto us a child is born] for [unto us a child shall be born.] And when the Jewes ob­ject (as they do often) that Christs name was Jesus, not wonderful, counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Fa­ther, the Prince of peace; which yet (according to the letter) is affirm'd to be the name by which he should be called who is there spoken of (Isa. 9.6.) what can Mr. W. alledge for himself, unlesse he mind them of the most vul­gar Hebraism, by which the Name is put to signifie the Being? A man is said by the Hebrews to be called thus and thus, to whom such titles and epithets do well agree. SoCited from Isa. 7.14. Mat. 1.23. [They shall call his name Emmanuel] would be literally truer of theIsa. 8.3. com­pared with vers. 8. child of the Prophetess given to Ahaz for a sign, then of Jesus Christ the son of Mary, [Page 42]which yet according to the Hebraism is truer of Christ then of that child. Again, if our Greek copies of S. Mark did read [...], Mar. 3.29. (as well they may, because the ancie [...]t Manuscrip [...]s were found to do so, and out of them the vulgar Latine) what other reason could be rendred for our translating the words thus [in danger of eternal damnation] rather then [in danger of eternal sin] but that sin, by an Hebraism, is set to signifie the punishment of sin? Nay, it is much more probable (in the judgment of Grotius) that S. Mark himself writ [...] [of sin] and that [...] [of judgment or condemnation] was nothing else but Interpretamentum Hebraismi, the Exposition of that Hebraism which was used by S. Mark, who is known by all to have been an Hellenistick Writer; I say, by all, excepting such as Mr. W. who complains of hard words in a most plain English Writer. Again, if Helvidius his three objections (from Mat. 1. vers. 18. & vers. 25.) against the Virgin Maries being [...], (as the Greek Fathers are wont to call her,) a perpetual Virgin, should be urged by some Helvidian again [...]t Mr. W. he would be thankful to that man who should help him to answer unto the third, that there were three [...] among the Hebrews, the Principality, the Priesthood, and the right of Inheritance, which were all the privileges of the first-born, and in respect of which our blessed Saviour was so called. How much gladder should he be, to understand such Texts by the common Hebraism, whose literal acce­ption is of so dangerous importance as hath been shewed, if he did not [ [...]] live in vassalage to an opi­nion, which cannot otherwise be defended, then by making God to have a hand in sin?

He is convin [...]ed by that which he cannot but con­fess.Fourthly, M. W. cannot but confesse, that the verb sino is an active, that is to say, of the active voice, and yet its signification is onely passive, for it onely signifies to suffer. And when the Devils besought our Saviour, [Mat. 8.31. suffer us to enter] they did not command him, but begg'd his leave, although they spake in the Imperative or com­manding mood. Our Saviour said to the Haemorrhois [Page 43](Mat. 9.22.) Thy faith hath made thee whole: which was not literally, but figuratively true. S. Peters words to Aeneas were not figuratively, but literally true, [Act. 9.34. Jesus Christ maketh thee whole:] and if Christ healed the later, much more evidently the former. Thus when we are said to be justified byGal. 3.24. Faith (in S. Pauls phrase) and byJam. 21. & 24. works (in S. James) neither is literally true, without the help of a distinction or explication; for in exact propriety of speech, we are justified byRom. 8.33. God, and by God alone. And Mr. W. might have known, that there is nothing more common in the opening of Texts, then to distinguish the literall from the rational importance.

The mischiefes which ensue upon his way of exposition.Fifthly, Whereas Mr. W. alledgeth, [that the c [...]earest Scriptures may be evaded by this shift, &c.] I will shew him by some instances what kind of mischiefs have ensued by his way of apprehending those Texts of Scripture, whose Hebraism he slanders with the name of shift. One of his own examples is (p. 22.) David's saying of wicked Shimei, that the Lord had 2 Sam. 16.10, 11. bid him to curse his Soveraign, quite contrary to that which the Lord had commanded, [Exod. 22.28. compared with Jer. 19.5. Thou shalt not revile the Gods, nor curse the Ruler of thy people.] nay Shimei being penitent2 Sam. 19.20. Quomodo di­xit Dominus Semei male­dicere David▪ non jubendo, &c. Austin. degra & lib. arbit. c [...]0. confessed his sin a little after. In this case, say I, either David was mistaken, (as well he might be who could commit such scarlet sins) and thought that Shimei might really be sent by God in that message (as Nathan before ch. 12.) to pronounce that curse which David confessedly had deserved; and in particular cases, it is manifest that God can dispense with his precepts to the sons of men, who yet must never pretend to any such dispensation, unlesse they can prove it to us by miracles, and shew that the counter-precept was revealed to them from Heaven, which till then must be concluded to have been sent up from Hell: else any man may say, that God hath commanded him to kill, as well as to curse the Ru­le of his people, or whatever else is forbidden. But Shi­mei had nothing to shew for it, nay he had afterwards something to shew against it. And therefore if David was not mistaken, he must needs have spoken by an He­braism; [Page 44]it being impossible that David should be an ab­solute Reprobatarian, and so imagine that God could bid a man sin. God could have sent a curse to David for his sins, by what Messenger he had pleased, as well by Shi­mei as by Nathan; but then that curse had been Gods, and not his Messengers. Shimei could not have sinned in the delivering of his message, whilest he did as God bid him: yet 'tis apparent by the Text, that Shimei sinned a­gainst Gods Precept, Exod. 22.28. From whence it fol­lowes unvoidably, that the words of David are onely permissive in signification, though active in sound. Nay this (saith irrefragable Melanchthou) is the true Haec est ve [...]a Grammatica inter­pretatio, & nihil habet absurdi: Tradere in desideria significat desertionem: Deus deserit impins, & sinit [...]eo [...] furere, & non cohibet eorum furorem. Indurabo, id est, sinam indurari, non flectam im­pii cordis duritiem. Melanchth. in cap. 9. ad Rom. sol. 133. Grammaticall interpreta­tion of such Scriptures, and hath nothing in it of absurd; because the most active expressions imaginable do by an ordinary figure onely signifie desertion, and sufferance, a not re­straining of mens fury, and a not turn­ing of their hearts. But alas! Me­lanchthon was a poor shifter to Mr. Whitfield. He was onely admired for his learning and holiness, by the most learned and the most holy of the Christian world; he was courted and consulted by no greater persons then Kings and Princes: whereas Mr. W. is obliging the greatest Em­perour of the East, and in a zealous contention for the Mahumetan Decree, confutes Melanchthon and his He­braisme, and all the Pillars of the Church, (both ancient and modern) with the least puff of his breath. [By this shift the clearest Scriptures may be evaded.] Mr. W. and the Scotish brethren, and James Naylors worshippers, and Andrew Smith, with Coppinger, Artington, and the rest, are for a literal understanding of Gods bidding Shimei to curse King David. God did not onely permit, but was active and operative and efficacious in the villany, say these Expounders: nay, decreed it absolutely (say they) from all etermity, antecedently to his praescience of Shimei's will. And in conformity to these dreams, Coppinger said [Page 45]he was commanded by the Spirit of God to murder the Pri­vy Counsellors of Queen Elizabeth: a second had a call to slay the Ministers: and a third, who could not write or read, was to be the executioner of the Lords most holy will. (Dang. Posit. l. 4. c. 10. p. 164.) The same command was alledged by them who adored James Naylor: and when Andrew Smith, at prayer time, had stabb'd the Quar­ter-Master Farley in Farfar Church, he very seriously protested, that Christ commanded him to do it. Mr. Eger­ton was a Minister of no small note in the Presbyterie, to whom when Coppinger had revealed his extraordinary call to execute vengeance upon the Magistrates, Mr. E­gerton would not discourage him in his intentions: To use his own words,Dang. Posit. l. 4. ch. 14. p. 174. [he would not hinder the zeal of Cop­pinger, and should be loth to quench the Spirit of God in him.] Again, the Ministers of the Kirk, when they had caused the people to take up armes against theExod. 22.28. Ruler of the People, said they wereSpots. Hist. Scot. l. 2. p. 330, 331. moved thereunto by the Spirit of God, (without the shift of an Hebraism, you may be sure.) I know not whether Eldavid was brought up in the Doctrine of irrespective Decrees; but of this I am sure, that when he gave himself out to be the fore-runner of the Messias, he said he did it (without an Hebraism) by the See The self-Revenger Exempl. ch. 1. p. 3, 4. commandment of God. The time would faile me, if I should speak of all the Impostors whom I have met with, from Numa Pompilius to Mahomed, and so downwards, who did all pretend (without an Hebraism) to a secret re­velation of Gods command. I will conclude with one in­stance, which (in several pertinent respects) will be as good as a thousand; and which having touched upon elsewhere for another purpose, I shall exhibit more fully, and with a new application. This Story is to be had either in Knox his Hist. of the Church of Scotl. p. 143, 144, 145 or in Bish. B a­crests: Dang. Pos. l. 4. ch. 15. p. 177, 178. ‘Norman Lesly (who was son to the Earl of Rothsey) had fallen out with the Cardinal who was withal the Archbishop of S. Andrews, upon a pri­vate cause (faith Buchanan) between them two. He, together with James Melvin, and Peter Carmichael (zealous Reformers of Religion in the Kingdom of Scotland) forcibly brake into the Castle, and into the [Page 46] chamber of the said Cardinal; where they found him sitting in his chair, and crying out in these words, [I am a Priest, ye will not slay me?] Lesly strook him once or twice, and so did Peter. But Melvin (sweet man!) perceiving them both to be in choler, (and being himself in cold blood) withdrew them from their teme­rity, which he reproved in these words: [This work and judgment of God, although it be secret, ought to be done with great gravity.] and then presenting to the Archbishop the point of his sword, he preached thus; [Repent thee of thy former wickedness, &c.—Note that the Historian is Mr. Knox, who calls this Murder, the work of God; and writes in his margin, The Godly Fact and words of James Mel­vin. we from God are sent to revenge it: for here before God I protest, that neither the hatred of thy person, nor love of thy riches, moveth me to strike thee, but onely thy being an enemy a­gainst Jesus Christ and his holy Gospel.] Having so prea­ched, he fell to practice; first running him through se­veral times with a Stog-sword (to shew it was not any hatred of hi [...] person) and then seizing on all his Goods, Plate, and Jewels, (to shew it was not any love to his Riches.)’

Let it now be but remembred, how the men of Mr. Knox and Mr. Melvin's way do distinguish of Gods se­cret and revealed Will, what they acknowledge themselves to mean by that distinction, and in what manner they do apply it, and how without any Hebraism they understand such Texts of which I am speaking; let this, I say, be re­membred by the considering Reader, and then he hath met with the Application.

Sixthly,6. Mr. W's. Ma­sters commit contradictions by not observing the Hebraism. For want of using the said Hebraism in giving the sense of such Texts whose letter seems to make God to be the Author of sin (as Mr. Barlee saith, c. 3. p. 55.) it is wonderful to behold, into how many absurdities, and civil wars, the Commanders in Chief of that party have unawares betrai'd themselves.Piscator in Resp. ad du­plic. Vorst. par. i. p. 325. & in praefat. enunti­ato 6. Piscator flatly denies, that God doth will whatsoever he commands; and yet he flatly confesseth, we ought to grant and believe, that God will have to be done by us whatsoever he commands, and to be omitted by us what he forbids. Again, Doctor Twisse, [Page 47]although he saith inTwiss. Vin. Gr. l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 10. c. 1. sect. 12. p. 140. some places, that Gods secret will may be contrary to his precept or revealed will, which is improperly called his will; yet he saith in other places, that God must need; will whatsoever he commands: for thus he argues, [Idem l. 2. ad­vers. Arm. C [...]im. 3. sect. 5. p. 150. Col. 2. God cannot be denied to have willed that Shimei should cu [...]se David, because the Scripture pro­fesseth that God commanded Shimei to curse him.] But now Spanhemius, of the same party (and as eminent as either) doth wholly deny what is granted (and also denied) by those two; saying positively, thatSpanhemius in Exercitat. de Grat. univers. p. 147. God doth sometimes com­mand what yet he wills not that it shou'd be done: adding this for an instance, that they who neve [...] shall repent, are yet commanded by God to do what God intends they never shall do. Lastly, Dallaeus, at least as learned as either of them, and a professed Anti-Arminian, confutes all Three in a most excellent manner; andNon possum non admirati duos illos summos viros propositio­nem hanc, Deus ea vult quae jubet, quâ eae quae ipsis probantur ar­gumentatio­nes totae ni­tuntur, alibi fortiter nega­re. Dal. Apol. pro duab. synod. part. 2.104. admires at the two former, that men of their learning should abjure in some places, what at other times and places they make the Ba­sis of their reasonings, viz. That God doth will what he commands. What should be the reason of such enormi­ties? They could not think it a fine thing for Brethren to be at odds, nor did they purposely study for self-contradi­ctions. Why then did they run such deadly Risques? It was sure because they could not help it. When they had swallowed the great Camel, they could not strain at such Gnats. When a man begins in irrespective unconditio­nal Decrees, he cannot possibly foresee at what absurdity he shall end. Dato hoc uno sequuntur mille. AndDallaeus his ingenuity in leaving his brethren when they leave rea­son. there­fore Dallaeus was so ingenuous as to acknowledge, what a man of his judgement could not but know, that all those Actives above mentioned must be explained byDeus voluit indurare, id est, non- [...]mollire Pharaonem. Ibid. p. 118. In eundem senfum Polanus Partit. Theolog. l. 1. p 75, 76. permis­sion. He farther addes this observation, That the Hebrew [...] which is the word expressing the Induration of Pharaoh's heart, (Deut. 29.4.) is of that conjugation which is commonly called Hiphil; and verbs of that conjugation, by theSunt interdum [...], sive [...] potiùs quàm [...], verba hujus generis. Sp [...]n. Exerc. p. 214. confession of Spanhemius (a prime Author with [Page 48]Mr. W.) are many times rather privative then positive. So that when it is said, God hardned the heart of Pharaoh, the meaning is, he did not soften it, but permitted it to it selfe. I hope Mr. W. will not say, that the Orthodox Preacher at Charenton is a shifter, much less his admired Professor at Leyden, whom the Preacher at Charenton hath well confuted.

☞ Seventhly,Mr. W. makes Light to be sin, or Absalom's filthiness to be none, by ma­king a parity of Gods work­ing in either case. Mr. W's greatest unhappiness i [...] in the second part of his Answer before recited. Mark his words, good Reader: [ ‘Why may we not then interpret other Scriptures in the like manner, where the like expressions are used? as when the Lord saith, I form the light, I create darkness, Isa. 45.7. I have made the earth, and created man upon it, my hands spread out the heavens, Psal. 12. Why may we not by Mr. P. his Hebraisms, interpret these verbs which are active in sound, to be permissive onely in sig­nification, and say that God permitted light and darkness to be created, and suffered the earth to be made, &c? p. 23]’ I have thus recorded his words in the seventh part of my Answer, though I had set them down in the beginning of the Section, because they are the most memorable I ever met with, and are alone sufficient to make a penitent Au­thor of Mr. W. For, first, I demand of his dearest Friends and Partizans (who will certainly condemn him for this adventure, in whatever else they may excuse him) Is the case the same in those other Texts and these? Is Light a sin? Or is it no sin to be hard-hearted, to defile the Concu­bines of a Father, to curse the Ruler of the people, and the like? The Texts expounded by an Hebraism, were such as I spake to in the fifth Section of the former Chapter, which to take according to the Letter, is adjudged by Mr. Ba­lee to be an impious Fact, if it is an impious Fact to asperse God with the causality of sin as sin. But when it is said, God formed the light, and created darkness, it cannot be pretended that the literal acception of the words doth so much as seem to make God the Author of sin. I therefore challenge Mr. Whitfield to publish his reasons for his pre­tended parity of Reason, by which he hath publickly affir­med, [Page 49] we may interpret Gods creating of light and dark­ness, of his permission to create them, as well as his harden­ing Pharaoh's heart, and his deceiving the false Prophets, of his permission and not hindering, that the former should be hardened, and the later deceived.] If he hath no reason to give (and sure if he had we should here have heard of it) I then require him, in the name of God, to take off the scandal which he hath given to many credulous soules for whom Christ died. Let him either declare it to be his Do­ctrine, that God had as really an hand in Shimei's cursing his King, in Absalom's polluting his Fathers Concubines, in the Egyptians hatred of his Israel, in sending strong delusion, in putting it into the hearts of the ten Kings to do wickedly, (as he interprets the Text Rev. 17.17) and as really an hand in Pharaoh's obduration, as in creating the light and the darkness, in making the earth, and in spreading out the heavens; or if he dares not declare this, then let him print his confession (to adequate the Plaister unto the wound) that he onely spake out of his stomach, and not out of his reason, because he was resolved to contradict my Answer to Mr. Barlee, and knew not how to do it better. He could not be otherwise revenged on me, then by ven­ting himself against the Scripture: wherein he conjectu­red very truly, if he took that course to make me smart; because there is nothing so grievous to me, as to find a professor of Christianity to turn Gods word against the ho­liness of his will. But whilest I pray for his amendment, I will necessitate his confession, or confusion of Face, and that by this following violentum, by which in the person of a Jew, or rather of an Atheist, I will turn his weapon upon himself. Secondly, therefore let us imagine, that Mr. Whitfield is to defend the two Natures of Christ, Divine and Humane, against the personated Atheist, who shall thus object against them both.

Ath. That which is really a Tree cannot be really a Man, Mr. W. beaten with his own weapons by any Atheist who shall oppose him. much less really a God: But Christ is really a Tree. And thus I prove it. That which is a true Vine (not a fictiti­ous one) is very really a Tree▪ But the Scripture saith plain­ly, [Page 50]that Christ is a Vine (Joh. 5.5.) nay a True Vine (v. 1.) Therefore Christ is really a Tree.

Mr. VVh. Those words of Scripture are onely spoken by a figure, and parabolically, which amongst the Hebrews was an usual way of expression. Christ did onely represent his relation to his members by that which is seen betwixt the Vine and its Branches.

Ath. ‘This indeed you dictate, The Atheist replyes in Mr. W's. own words, p. 23. but not demonstrate; nor do you bring the least patch of an Argument to prove it. And may you not by this shift evade the clearest and stron­gest Scriptures when brought against you, by telling us they signifie quite another thing then the nature of the words do import, if we will believe you?’

Mr. W. I tell you Christ was a Jew, amongst whom it was common to deliver themselves in Parables, as you may see throughout the Old Testament as well as New. And indeed all Nations have used Apologues and Tropes, not onely to signifie, but to imprint their mindes upon the hearers.

Ath. ‘VVhy may we not then interpret other Scriptures in the like manner, The Athest re­plies in Mr. W's own words, p. 23. where the like expressions are used? as when the Lord saith, I and my Father are one, Joh. 10.30.’ Or when the Scripture saith that Christ said, I am the true Vine, why may we not say that the Scripture speaketh by a Parable, and brings in Christ speaking by a Prosopo­poeia, as divers Authors of Mythology do make Dialogues and Discourses betwixt Trees and Rivers? For how can a True Vine speak indeed, and say, I am a True Vine?

Mr. W. But 'tis granted by all story, as well secular as sacred, and by men of all Religions, as well false as true, that Christ did truly speak and teach in the Synagogues of the Jewes, and in many other both publick and private places.

Ath. That doth onely infer, that Christ was a speaking and didactical Tree, not that he was not a Tree at all; for if he really spake, this was one of his real speeches, That he said he was a True Vine. Had he said onely a Vine, you [Page 51]might have said he onely meant he was a Figurative Vine: But to anticipate that evasion, he said, I am the True Vine. And as when it is said, [God hardened Pharaohs heart, The Atheist re­plies in Mr. W's own words, p. 22. de­ceived ‘the false Prophet, and the like, the Scripture doth hold forth the manner of Gods working in sin by way of Action;’] so when it is said, that Christ said, I am the true Vine, the Scripture doth hold it forth by a verb substan­tive, which denoteth existence, and not Phraseology. AsAgain Mr. W's. own words, p. 22. it is not said, God suffered Pharaoh to harden his own heart, but that God hardened it, Exod. 9.12. so it is not said, I am a metaphorical Vine, or I am called, or ac­counted, or compared to a Vine, but I am the true Vine, Joh. 15.1.

Mr. VVh. But how can those words be literally meant, which infer such an absurd and unintelligible thing, as that a Tree should be rational, and yet a Tree still? This im­plyes a contradiction, for Christ to go about doing good, by preaching, healing, and exemplary life, and yet to be a True Vine in the literal notion of the word.

Ath. ‘But that which the Scripture plainly, clearly, The Atheist re­plies in Mr. W's own words, p. 19. and positively asserteth, you ought not to deny, though you can­not discern the manner how it can be; It rather beseems you humbly to acknowledg your ignorance in apprehending the manner, then to deny the thing.’

Let the Reader now judge, whether the Atheist in this Dialogue hath not replyed to Mr. W. as much like a Dispu­tant, as Mr. W. hath done to me. Nay, whether there is not this difference betwixt the two cases, that it is much a lesser evil, to say that Christ is a Vine without a Figure, then to say that God without a Figure did harden Pha­raoh's heart, and will that Absalom should do filthily a­gainst his Father, andMaledicere Davidi actus est malus, à pi­etate, & cha­ritate, adeoque & à Dei vo­luntate alie­nus. Dallaeus Apol. part. 2. p. 103. bid Shimei curse David, and de­ceive the Prophet, and the like. Again, it was said by our Saviour, I am the true Vine; but it was never said in Scri­pture, that God was a true hardener of Pharaoh's heart, or that he did truly deceive the Prophet.

Eighthly, Since Mr. W. asks,8. Mr. W. con­demn'd out of his own mouth. [why may we not interpret [...]ther Scriptures in the like manner, &c.] to which I have [Page 52]given at least a satisfactory Answer, and shewed him the wofulness of his Question by an Argument ad hominem, and since he jeers me with my Hebraisms (which yet are his Masters as well as mine;) I will now proceed to justifie my self, and to condemn him out of his mouth. For when he comes to deny Universal Redemption, and to resist the Scriptures which are point-blank against him, he is then so gracious as to use these words; ‘Scripture must be inter­pre [...]ed by Scripture: and though we are not to recede from the literal sense when it will agree with other Scrip­tures, and with the Analogy of Faith; yet when it is de­fective both these wayes, we are not bound to adhere to the Letter, p. 72.’ Very good: I thank Mr. W. for this justice, in the dispensing of which he doth not spare his own selfe. For if the words of SaintHe is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours onely, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 Joh. 2.2. John were two wayes defective as to the Letter, as neither agreeable with other Scriptures, nor with the Analogy of Faith, (as Mr. W. liberally dictates) how can all those Texts whose Letter seems to make God the cause of sin as sin (saith Mr. Barlee) be either agreeable to other Texts, or to the Analogy of Faith? Are any Scriptures inconsistent with the words of Saint John in the Letter? not one in any appearance; but all on the contrary do sound the same way. Or with what Analogy of Faith are Saint Johns words unagreeable? even the Faith of Mr. W. and them of his Creed. But I haveSee the second thing replied in this Section. proved by examples, that the Letter of those Scrip­tures which are cited by Mr. W. to prove that God hath a hand in sin, are inconsistent with those others by which God is affirmed to have no hand in sin; nor can it agree with the Analogy of any Faith but Mr. Whitfields. If the Letter of the Scripture may be two ways defective, (as Mr. W. tells us it may) where is it likely so to be, if not in the places of which we speak, since nothing is dearer to God Almighty, then the inviolable honour of his Purity and his Truth? And if we are not bound alwayes to adhere un­to the Letter (as Mr. W. also granteth, to serve his ends) why doth he hold himself to it where it is most to be for­saken? because 'tis more for his turn, that God should be [Page 53] operative and active in all the wickednesse in the world, then that Christ should die for all mankind? If that is not his reason, let him tell me what is. And if that is his rea­son, we know the length of his foot. Judge (good Rea­der) of this mans Doctrines.

9. Again,9. How Scripture interprets Scri­pture against Mr. W. if Scripture must interpret Scripture (as Mr. W. also doth acknowledge) I desire no more to prove my Hebraism. For all those Scriptures of Gods hardning Pharaoh, bidding Shimei curse David, delivering up to vile affections, sending delusion, and the like, receive the same interpretation (which I have given) from the words of S. Paul (which are also Scripture) who told the Peo­ple of Lycaonia, that [God in times past Act. 14.16. which com­pare with Act. 17.30. Rom. 2.4. 1 Cor. 10.13. 1 Pet. 3.22. Exod. 34.6. Act. 13.18. suffered all Na­tions to walk in their own wayes.] Their wicked wayes were wholly their own, and they alone did walk in them without Gods help: he gave them their being, life, and motion, which were very good things, but he had not the least hand in the determination of their wills to wickedness, or their consenting to their temptations; he onely suffered them with patience to walk in the wayes which they had Isa. 66.3. chosen, to wit, their own wayes, which were called their own, because they chose them. And here 'tis fit that I meet again with Mr. W. For as he said (p. 22.) that it was not said, God suffered Pharaoh to harden his own heart, but that God hardened it; so here I say on the other side, it was not said by S. Paul, God excited, or commanded, or decreed all nations to walk in their own wayes, but that he suffer'd them to do it. Come we then to a tryal of Scripture by Scripture, which to do for the benefit of common people (whom I am sure in my writings I most consider) I wil com­pare 2. Scriptures, by placing one on the right hand, another on the left; that men may see so much the better, which of the two must be the Rule, by which the other is to be guided; which the Touchstone, by which the other is to be tried; which the Standard, with which the other is to comply.

[Page 54]

They are both the sayings of S. Paul, as well the Active on the left hand, as the Passive on the right. By which of the two, which of the two must be expounded? when God is said to have given up to uncleanness, is it not onely meant that he sufferd them to be unclean? or when he is said to have suffer'd them to walk in their own wayes, is it also meant that he had aNote that p. 26. Mr. W. saith of sin, that God doth both will and work it, and hath a hand in effecting it. hand and efficiency (to use the phra­ses of Mr. W.) in such their doings? Res ipsa loquitur, The Case it self speaks it self. For, first, the uncleanness, and vile affections, were the uncleannest and vilest that can be thought on: and how could God have a * working or * active hand in such villanies, more vile then which the Devil himself cannot invent? Secondly, They were be­fore habituated in the practice of their uncleanness, and that is rendred for the reason why God gave them up: These are also M.W's ex­pressions. as appears by the wherefore v. 24. and for this cause v. 26. But what sense is it to say, that God did actively and operatively give them up to filthy habits, to which they had given up themselves too long before? or admit they had not, yet what madnesse is it to say, that be­cause their tempter and their own hearts had made them admirably wicked, God should therefore be active to make them worse? Thirdly, There isNote, I mean the con­f ssion of M.W's Teachers, who know any thing of those matters; not of himself, who hath printed either his ignorance that there is any such thing, or at least the dissimulation of his knowledge. confessedly an Hebraism, by which actives in sound are permissives in significati­on; but no such Hebraism, or other figure, by which passives in sound are actives in sense. Fourthly, [Page 55]For God to suffer or indure the sins of men is exact­ly agreeable to the Analogy of Faith; but to will and work sin, or to have an hand in the effecting of it (as M.W's words are) is according to the Analogy of what is worse then infidelity. From all which it is apparent, that the Scripture in the left Column must be interpreted by that in the right. And now I will add some more Examples.

Now what opinion they were of concerning Gods De­crees, who wearied him with their words, and said they were delivered to commit all those abominations, (and that in an active sense, without an Hebraism,) is very obvious to be imagined. Again, whether it implies not a most blas­phemous contradiction, for God to will what he hateth, and to decree what he forbiddeth, & to set forward what he hinder­eth, (as far as promises, and threats, and perswasions come to) and to have a willingness of the same thing of which he is perfectly unwilling, every A B C darian may well in­form [Page 57]us. And then (by a consequence unavoidable) whether the Scriptures on the right hand are not theNote, that what is spoken by an Hebraism, Is. 6.10. Shut their eyes, and so repeated by S. John, he hath blinded their eyes, Joh. 12.40. is ci­ted thus by our Saviour, Their eyes they have closed, Mat. 13.15. and so 'tis explained by S. Paul, Act. 28.27. Touch-stone, and the Rule whereby to try and to interpret the other Scriptures on the left; And whether those on the left hand are not spoken by the Hebraism of which I spake, and to be meant of Gods permission, not of his working or efficiency (as Mr. W. tell us;) And whe­ther my way of understanding the Scriptures on the left hand is not perfectly agreeable to those Scriptures on the right, to the Analogie of Faith, to the judgment of right reason, to the constant assertion ofNote, that I exclude from the universali­ly of the Fathers all sorts of Libertines, by whatsoever Titles they are distinguished. all the Fathers, nay to the dictate of common sense, I leave it to be determined by the indifferent Reader.

Well therefore said S. Paul to the Heathens of Lycao­nia, that God had suffered all Nations to walk in their own wayes: for had he said (with Mr. W. p. 26.) that God did will and work sin, and had an hand in effecting of it, the Lycaonians might rather have ston'd him, then have been ready to doAct. 14.18. sacrifice. S. Paul therefore added, (that they might not think ill of God for suffering the wick­ednesse of the Nations) that although God had suffered them to walk in their own wayes, yet he left not himself without a witness, in that he did good (v. 17.) which had not easily been believed, had he said to those heathens (as Mr. W. to us) thatNote, that M.W, makes this his medi­um whereby to prove Gods hand in effect­ing sin, p. 26. lin. 5, 6, 7. sin does make for Gods glory, who in that respect doth both will and work it, and hath an hand in effecting of it. It being hard to believe, that sin, which is Gods dishonour can make for his glory, or that God, who is all purity, can will and work sin. Hard (I say) for a Heathen to believe such stuff, but impossible for a Chri­stian, who believes his Saviour affirming plainly,Mat. 7.18. that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a cor­rupt tree bring forth good fruit. There is an infinite dif­ference betwixt sins making for Gods glory, and Gods ta­king [Page 58]occasion from sin (which dishonors him one way) to glorifie himself some other way. The Jews murdering of Christ did not make for Gods glory, (for 'twas the greatest dishonour could have been done him, that they should com­mit such a wickedness whom God had owned for his people) but God did glorifie his Mercy, his Wisdom, and his Justice, in accepting the death of Christ for the propitiation of all our sins. I say, in accepting the death, not the murdering of Christ. As Ch [...]ist did willingly lay down his life, and suffer himself to be put to death, he was the sacrifice of the world, and that did make for Gods glory: But as the Jews did violently take away his life, they were murderers in the highest, and that did make for Gods dishonour. No so­ber man did ever say, that God can make evil good; but some have said, that God can draw good out of evil, which is quite another thing. Nor do they mean by so saying, that God draws good out of evil, as we draw water out of a ditch, but that from mens doing evil he takes an occasion of doing good.

Sect. 2.

Mr. W. proceeds to a new Objection, but of his own invention,His return to his first me­thod of serg­ing objections to himself. not taken out of my writings, or out of any mans else; for if it had, he would have cited the place where it is legible. And yet he confidently saith, [He further objects p. 23.] so that here I must as confi­dently accuse him of Forgery, and charge him to make me satisfaction. But what superchery is this, to intitle his book against mine, and to omit a hundred things which I did really there object, and to forge a ridiculous objection, and (which is the top of the Commission) to call it mine? I have already been too tedious in speaking to his Chimae­ra's throughout my first Chapter, and will now be shor­ter to make amends.

1. He is at odds with D. Twisse.First, I observe 'tis his opinion, [ ‘that though God work­eth not in the same manner in evil actions as he doth in good, or as evil men themselves do, yet me must not deny that he hath any work at all in evil acti­ons, since himself doth so often and so expresly affirm [Page 59]it: p. 23, 24.’] Dr. Twisse and Mr. W. are at odds, for the DoctorSee Correct Copy, p. 10. saith undauntedly, that Gods decree is no less efficacious in the permission of evil, then in the produ­ction of good.

2. To make men sin is a sin of the worst size.2. To say that God doth not work in sin as sinful men themselves do, is no more then to say, that God doth nor sin, or is not a sinner, but onely makes men sinners, asSee Correct Copy, p. 10. Zuinglius expresly speaks, whom Mr. W. defendeth p. 24. but to say that God did decree sin, and praedestine men to sin, and work sin in men as a physical cause, and compel men to sin, so as they cannot but commit it, is worse then truly can be said of any sinner; neither Man nor Devil can compel any one to sin. Tarquin could ravish Lucretia, but could not compel her to be lascivious. The Devil could torment and plunder Job, but not compel him to be impatient. Now that those men do teach, that men are compelled by God to sin, (besides myDiv. Philanth. ch. 3. Sect. 34. p. 132, &c. Catalogue of e­xamples) I can prove by theQuoties quenquam im­pelli à Deo aut cogi dicunt, rhetoricè potiùs loquuntur, &c. Twisse. Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. sect. 1. Crim. 3. c. 1. p. 29. confession of Doctor Twisse, who doth acknowledge, and excuse that very expression in his own party. Besides, Jeroboam did not work in Israels sins in the same manner that they did, (because he was not them) but 'twas the worst part of his Character, that he made Israel to sin, (2 King. 15.18, 24, 28.) yet he neither did, nor could compel them. It was the worst part of the unbelieving Jews, that they stirred up the Gentiles, and made their mindes evil affected against the brethren (Act. 14.2.) yet they proceeded not to compulsion. Nay, it was reckoned by Nathan as the worst thing in David, that by the sins he had committed, he had given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme (2 Sam. 12.14.) which was far from coaction or compulsion, the very terms applied by those men to God. And therefore Deodate himself, though the chief Minister of Geneva, denies that God is so much as theDeodat. in Prov. 16.4. occasion of sin; much lesse could he judge him to be the cause, or the coactor.

3. Yet ascribed unto God by that sort of men.3. Though it is said by M. W. that the manner of Gods working in sin is secret, & not to be apprehended, (p. 23.) yet he and his predecessors have described the manner of it, in the [Page 60]most plentiful manner that any description can be made in. They say [ ‘he tempts, and prostitutes, and acts, and operates, and works, and wills, and seduceth, & draws, and commands, and compells, and moves, and drives, and stirrs up to sin, as a natural cause (say some;) as a moral cause (sayothers;) as an efficient cause of the sinful act, as an accidental cause of the obliquity of the act, as a man puts spurrs to a dull Jade, and as a man is excited to enjoy his own wife, &c.’] All these expressions I have met with in Mr. W. partly, and partly in Mr. B. yet these are far from being All; they are but All which I can remember in the present haste that I am in. But whosoever shall examine my seve­ral Catalogues in other books, and compare them with what they find in this which now I am upon, will say that all this is truth, yet not the whole truth.

Sect. 3.

1. The easie and ordinary perver­sion of the Scri­ptures. But Mr. W. proceedeth thus. [ ‘But all those Scriptures mentioned, it may appear what little reason Mr. P. had to make such a clamour against those our Pro­testant Divines, —as if they made God to be the Au­thor of sin, when he knows that they positively professed, and some of them strongly proved the contrary, p. 24.’] So he saith, and saith onely. But 1. I have proved in my Sect. 1. of this Chapter, that the abuse of those Scriptures is a great portion of the impiety. Suppose that some Lu­cian should make a Cento out of the letter of the Scri­ptures, as Ausonius did out of Virgil; would the impiety of the thing be any whit the more excusable, because he could shew that his expressions were all from Scripture? or would it not rather be so much the worse? 'Tis known that Proba Falconia composed a history of the Life of Christ, and a good part also of the Pentateuch of Moses, from out of the works of Virgil a Heathen Poet. And out of the very same Virgil (however so chast in his expressions, that he hath won the Title of the Parthenian Poet) Ausoni­us very wittily, but yet mostIngeniosum, sed adeo foe­dum, ut neque Scriptore nec Auditore dignum sir. Scaliger l. 6. p. 825 detestably, made up the fil­thiest Fescennine that hath been read. Again, the [Page 61]Empress Eudoxia writ the life of our Saviour in the words of Homer, (a blinder Heathen then Virgil was.) And were it not every whit as possible, to patch up the life of Achilles in a Rhapsodie collected from the holy Pen-men of our Gospel? If Mr. Wh. will know what may be done in this kind, let him consult the Capilupi, both Laelius, and Julius, set out by Henry Meibomius; and Otho Gry­phius of Ratisbon; or Lilius Greg. Gyraldus; or whom else he pleaseth. Let me mind him also of this, that all the Heresies in Christendom have suck't out a nourishment to themselves from the sincere milk of the word, although immediately flowing from the breast of truth. So great a difference is to be found amongst the several digestions of the very same meat.

Mr. W. mistakes the Errors for the Persons of some Prote­stants, and con­founds them with the Papists.2. I did not clamour against Protestant Divines, but a­gainst the heathenish asseverations which had been pub­lished in the writings of Presbyterians and Papists, not on­ly Dominicans, but Jesuits also, for which IS [...]e Div. Phi­l [...]n. ch. 1. sect. 5. p. 27, 28. produced the confessions of Doctor Twisse and Mr. Barlee. But being a Protestant my self, I had by so much the greater reason to declare against the blasphemies of any Protestant Divines, that I might not be accessary so much as by my silence; and that some Papists might cease to say (what they commonly have done) that those horrible Doctrines are indiscriminately the Protestants, and that quà tales. Nor can I but think it well worth my labour, if I have made it more known then it was before, that whatever dishonours have been done unto the Protestant Name, by those of the Kirk, or the Consistory, or their adherents here in England, yet the dutiful Sons of the Church of England have ever been free from any part of that guilt. Besides, the chief exclaimers against the Presbyterians (for Protestant Divines is an equivocal expression, and comprehends those Prote­stans whom I assert, as well as those whom I oppose) were the other sort of Presbyterians, I mean the Arminians & Re­monstrants in the Low Countreys, who still remained Pres­byterian in point of Discipline (for ought I can learn) al­though they left their own party for the enormities of [Page 62]their Doctrine. Farther yet; My clamours were no greater against the Dogmatical sort of Calvinists, then were their own clamours against each other; nor indeed so great, as I conceive I have evinced uponSee The Div. Purity defend­ed, ch. 4. sect. 6. p. 31, &c. another occasion. And how Doctor Twisse in particular hath made his clamours against his Brethren, I haveSee the Div. Philan. Def. c 1. p. 12. & ch. 3. p. 123, 124, 125. acquainted Mr. Barlee when he wanted that knowledge.

3. His party cla­mour against themselves, and affront God with an Epitro­pe.3. What Mr. W. plead for them, doth make their case so much the worse: for if they say in some places, that God is much more then the Author of sin (as the word Au­thor may be expounded;) and again in other places, that he is precisely the Author of it (both which I have shew­ed again and again;) and yet do say in a third sort of pla­ces, that God is not the Author of sin; they are [...], self-condemners, and contradictors, and have ju­stified me in all my sayings, as well when I accuse them of breathing hot and cold too, as when I accuse them of brea­thing all Fire. Besides, to say that God decreed sin by an Absolute Decree, that he wills and works it, that he is the cause of it, that he hath a hand and efficiency in it, tempts, excites, and compells men to it, but yet he is a good God, and therefore not the Author of it, what is this but to af­front him with a dishonourable Epitrope? If my memo­ry doth not deceive me, it was in a speech against Verres, where Cicero used such kind of Rhetorick: Sit fur, sit sacrilegus, sit flagitiorum omnium vitio­rumque Prin­ceps; at est bo­nas Imperator & felix. Cic. in Verr. ‘Be it so that he is a Thief, a sacrilegious person, the Patron in chief of all villanies and vices, yet however he is a good and a happy General, &c.’ I clearly find that Mr. W. and many others of that way, do not hitherto understand the full importance of the word Author, its derivation, or use in classick Authors. I shall therefore make that a peculi­ar business, when I shall come to demonstrate, that I did use them with tenderness in saying no more of their Doctrines then plainly this, That they did make the God of purity to be the Author of sin. What can I think of that man, who shall tell me that I lye, and yet affirm when he hath done, I am a very true speaker? I cannot but think him a very bitter Rhetorician, and that he mocks me by [Page 63]an Epitrope. Doctor Twisse apologizeth (as I lately said) for the men of his way, by saying that their speeches are but Rhetorical, when God is said by any of them toSee the D [...]v. Philan. ch. 1. p. 26. com­pel men to sin. And when that Doctor doth plainly say, [that there is on Gods part aTwiss. Vin. Gr. l. 2. p. 1. sect. 2. Cr. 3. Digr. 2. c. 15. p. 156. prostitution to sin required, which prostitution cannot be perfected without temptations leading up to the act of sinning,] 'tis likely he would alledge that he did yet deny God to be the Author of sin. But then I should think it a shrewd Epitrope, than which I cannot conceive a greater dishonour to the Almighty.

4. Mr. W's. cla­mours against Protestant Di­vines.4 Mr. W. must call to mind, what clamours he and his party have commonly made against Protestant Divines, by calling them Enemies to the Grace of God, and Introducers of Atheism, without a tolerable colour of reason for it, nay quite against it; since they are enemies to Grace, who sa­crilegiously inclose it, and seek to rob it of its extent; and they are rather the Introducers of Atheism, who repre­sent God to be such, as cannot modestly be owned: for when men have been taught such Notions of God, which as soon as they believe, they cannot conceive him to be good, they think it modesty to infer that there is [...]. no God at all, and that the notions which they were taught were but the characters of a Chimaera.

5. And jumps in so doing with the Jesuited Papists.5. What Mr. W. saith in his parenthesis [that some of his Authors were instruments in advancing the work of Re­formation, p. 24.] it most concern'd him to have conceal'd: for in that he joynes hands with the most Jesuited Papists, who did purposely infect some noted Protestants with their invention of irrespective Decrees, that they might have some little colour for which to defame our Reformation; betraying some Protestants into the mire, upon a design to accuse them of being dirty. But we know, as well as Aristotle (from whom we learnt it) that the [...] may be faulty, and yet the [...] without all blame. Again, we insist upon Melanchthon, and the other brave persons of the Augustan Synod; upon the Orthodox Bishop Tunstal, who helpt to begin our Reformation; upon the Confessors and Martyrs (such as Cranmer, Cooper, Latimer, and the [Page 64]like) who carried it on here in England. As we think not the worse of Christianity, for what is spoken by Zosimus of Constantine the Great; so neither do we conceive our Reformation to be concerned in the personal Aberrations of Mr. Calvin, or Zuinglius, any more then in the vices of King Henry the eighth. If there were any sound argu­ing from some particular Reformers, unto the general work of the Reformation, or from the same mans errors in one kind, to his being erroneous in all others, (then which sort of arguing there is nothing more silly) Geneva and Helvetia must looke to that. But Luther in Saxony prece­ded both in that work; who though he fell into the errors of other men at the first, yet he exchanged them for the truth in his riper years, as well as Melanchthon and other Worthies.

Sect. 4.

1. His foulest Im­putation cast upon the Scrip­tures. Mr. W. saith further, [ ‘that what expressions they used in this subject, were but the same in effect with Scripture-expressions, yea not altogether so high, p. 24.’ 1. This is so admirably false, that I wonder how he durst say it. And because it is the Word of God upon which he hath cast this foul aspersion, In the name of God I do require him, either to make good his words by a collation of the particulars, or to take away this stumbling-block in as pub­lick a manner as here he sets it in the peoples way. 2. If he shall make a Parodia of Holy Writ, which is a Rhap­sody invers't, and so endevour to palliate this ghastly speech, the fraud will be the more visible, by having on it so thick a cloak. And 3. If he is really of opinion, that the sense and mind of the Scriptures (though not the words) doth not onely go as high, but higher too, then the expressions of his party, and of himself, whilest they say, [ ‘that God doth make men transgressors, and that adultery is his work, that he tempts men unto sin, nay compells them to it, that he wills and works it, nay that he preordained men to sin as sin, that not onely the Action it self, but the very pravity and deformity of it makes way to Gods glory, and a world the like stuff;’] If he thinks that [Page 65]this was meant by the Apostle Saint Paul in his Epistles, God gave them up to uncleanness, Rom. 1.24. and God shall send them strong delusion, 2 Thess. 2.11. (which yet is infi­nitly different from those expressions I just now mentioned) I think it a duty incumbent on me, to admonish the follow­ers of Mr. W. that they take great heed to that important Advertisement which is given them by Saint Peter; and that they accommodate it at least to this occasion. It being likely,2 Pet. 3.16. Saint Peters Caveat tou­ching Pauls Epistles. That there are divers things in S. Paul's Epistles, which being hard to be understood, they that are unlearned and unstable are apt to wrest to their destruction. The mat­ter we see is of no small moment. A man may wrest Gods word (not to some little inconvenience onely, but) to the greatest mischief to be imagined, the eternal destruction of Body and Soul. Scripture is easily mistaken; mistakes of Scripture are not easily rectified; and being not rectified, they do pervert the word of God, which is the River of Life, not onely into a dead, but a killing Letter. Those two sayings of Saint Paul were both cited by Mr. W. (p. 22.) in the behalf of his own and his Teachers Doctrines. The ugly Nature of those Doctrines I have many times shewed: what he now saith of them, and of the Scriptures compared with them, the Reader hath seen in the be­ginning of this Section. And whether or no he is a wrester, good people judge.

I know 'tis said by Mr. W. (p. 19.) that in the places a­bove mentioned ‘the Scripture doth plainly, and clearly, and positively assert what God doth;’ and so by conse­quence he may ask, what can be easier then a short sentence wherein there is never a hard word? Every man who hath been cheated may know the meaning of de­lusion, and every child who can but go on an errand can tell us what it i [...] to send. Saint Peter speaks of [...], difficult things to be understood in the Epistles of Saint Paul. But what need we have a Key when the Door is open?

2. The literal plainness of some Scriptures doth make them difficult to some. 2. But here the unlearned and the unstable must be in­formed, that in the plainness of some Texts the greatest [Page 66] difficulty consists. And dangers are greatest, when least suspected: which no doubt is the reason why many stum­ble in plain ground, because they there take no heed unto their footing. Nothing seems to be plainer then those words of our Saviour, My Father is greater then I: And, This is my Body, This is my Blood; My Flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed. Yet from the plainness of the former, how many have stumbled into Arianism? and from the plainness of the later, how many have fallen into the error of Transubstantiation? And from the literal plain­ness of such words, God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lye, how many have stumbled and fal­len head-long into that worst of errors, that God hath an hand and efficiency in sin? Even by those and the like ex­pressions, Mr. W. hath made us see (such hath been his own blindness) that such plain Scriptures are hard, because they are plain: hard as to the sense because so plain, as to the Letter. But we know that Satan is the spirit of Delu­lusion; that the Magicians there alluded to were the Emis­saries of Satan, and not of God; that God is the spirit both of holiness and Truth; that sin and Satan are none of Gods Messengers; that Simon Magus (that man of sin, v. 3, 9.) was Satans Apostle, and sent by Satan, but not by God, who did onely not hinder him from being sent; that Saint Paul's own words are [...], (not strong delusion, but) the working of errour, and [...], to the belie­ving of a lye, which signifies nothing but the event; it is not [...], that they may believe a lye, which might seem to the illiterate to note the end of an intention. But suppose it had been [ [...], That,] yet Mr. W. must have lookt into the whole importance of the word; and I do earnestly beseech him (since he takes upon him to be a Shepherd, nay aNote that He and Mr. B. did joyn in that prank of a mock-ordina­tion of Mini­sters. sender out of Shepherds into Christ his Fold) that he will vouchsafe to know the difference betwixt [...], and [...], the conjunction [That] as it is causal (and so in most places) or meerly consequen­tial, (and so in many:) this one distinction will preserve him from falling in many plain paths of Scripture (plain I [Page 67]mean as to the Letter) and in the path where he is fallen (2 Thes. 2.11.) it will contribute to help him up: whereas for want either of knowing, or at least of heeding this little thing, hee hath frequently fallen, and very foully.

3. A short directi­on to the means of remedy or prevention. 3. I will finally reinforce my Admonition upon the vulgar, that they take great heed in their perusal of many Scriptures; not that any Scriptures can be unsound or dan­gerous in themselves, but because they are capable of being wrested. Some are unlearned, and some. unstable, and the rather unstable, because unlearned. These must not be in­trusted (by us or by themselves) with the less fordable pas­sages of the waters of Life. I could give my instances in many Scriptures, but Saint Peter gives his in the Epistles of Saint Paul, that Learned Preacher of the Gentiles, whom none but such as are learned should dare to read without a Clavis. The Tremendous mistakes of the Texts above mentioned (Rom. 1.24, 26. 2 Thes. 2.11.) and of the greatest part of the ninth Chapter to the Romans, (to name no more) may serve for a warning to the ignorant and seduced people of the Nation, not to presume on such places without an Interpreter at their Elbow; I mean a qualified, authentick, uncontroulable Interpreter, and such as may easily be had, and be as easily used by English Readers, that is in a word, Doctor Hammond's An­notations upon the whole New Testament.

Sect. 5.