THE DIVINE PURITY DEFENDED. OR A Vindication of some Notes concerning God's Decrees, especially of Reprobation, from the Censure of D. Reynolds in his Epistolary preface to Mr. Barlee's Correptory Correction.  
By THOMAS PIERCE, Rector of Brington.  
The Second Edition.  He that is First in his own cause seemeth Just; But another cometh and findeth him out. Prov. 18. 17. 
LONDON, Printed by S. Grissin, for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1659.   

The Introduction.  
IT having been wondered at by some, and expostulated by others, why having finished these papers so many Months since, and fully prepared them for the Press, I should have carried myself towards them with so much indifference and neglect, as to have laid them quite aside like things forgotten & out of mind, not vouchsafing them the Freedom to enjoy the End of their Conception, I am moved now at last to pay my Reader that little Debt, which my voluntary Promise hath made his Due; To wit, a survey of that Epistle, which was prefixed, by D. Reynolds, to Mr. Barlee's Satire. And to the making of this Survey, I was somewhat more Invited, by the remarkable Difference, which I observed, betwixt that Adversary, and This. For in my former Defensative, I was enforced to wipe off many Personal Aspersions, which was a very unpleasing and irkesom Task; whereas now having to do with a Nobler Adversary, who is less apt to lead me from the subject matter of our Debate, I cannot choose but think it a happy change, and suppose that my Reader will think so too, as that which affords us so much more both of ease, and pleasure.  
But this is not all. For I cannot but hold myself obliged (that I may not say Invited only) to plead as boldly and as publicly in the behalf of sound Doctrines, as other men have adventured to plead against them. I say, I hold myself obliged by these ensuing Considerations.  
First, the Merit of those Doctrines for which I plead; which seem to me to be Doctrines of so great moment & importance, that according as the subjects about which they are conversant, are either truly or falsely stated, they are apt to shed either the best or the worst kind of Influence upon our Lives. The sum of that which I contend for is briefly this. That the God of Heaven hath not appointed any Creature to do wickedly, but hateth sin with an unfeigned & perfect Hatred, & doth not give a necessity to all Events, but to those alone which are agreeable to his Holiness, and are the objects of his absolute unconditional Decree; That God's Decree of Reprobation was eternally respective, & respective of sins as well actual, as original; That God's Decree of Election was eternally respective of our being in Christ, and of our abiding in him unto the end; That God's Execution of his Decrees are in a just Conformity to his Decrees; That jesus Christ is a General, but a Conditional Saviour, a Saviour to all who do the duties by him required, to none without it; That they who stand may fall for ever, and must therefore very watchfully 
* John 15. 2, 6. Matth. 24. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 12. 1 Tim. 4. 1.  take heed lest they fall, ever giving all 
* 2 Peter 1. 10 Heb. 12. 15.  diligence to make their Calling and Election sure; These, I say, are the Doctrines that I contend for, and the most necessary Doctrines by which to disabuse the Understanding, wheresoever we attempt to reform the Will. And I do rather choose to hazard some loss of Time, as well as Labour, in the possible fruitlessness of my Attempt, than to be guiltily sparing of my Endeavours, to rescue the lives and Conversations of certain seduced and injured Men, whom the 
* Cum de Impietatibus arguuntur, non aliud se agere praetendunt quaen quod à Deo ordinati sunt, & suae Praedestinationi repugnare non posse dicunt.— Christianorum Nomen sibi vindicantes reipsa à Christianismo alieniores sunt, quam sint ulli Ethnici. Cuthbert Tonstal Episc. Dunel-contra impios Blaspematores Dei Praedestinationis, Cap. 1. p. 22, & 23.  contrary Doctrines and Opinions are wont to carry into Debauches. For though I cannot but acknowledge with joy and Comfort, that through the Grace and Mercy of our God, many Men of ill Opinions have yet been men of good Lives, and have been marvellously restrained from those Errors of Practice to which those Errors of Judgement had else so naturally betrayed them; yet when I seriously consider, of how great a number, how few they are, and what multitudes on the contrary both of Stoics and Mahomedans, of Marcionites and Manichees, of Gnostics and Ranters, & other visible Sectaries (who are 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Justin. Mar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, page 42.  professors of Christianity, and even Pretenders to Reformation,) have ascribed their blackest and most frightful Deeds, not to the passive permission or forbearance only, but to the active Providence and to the absolute Decrees of God Almighty, (who is of 
* Habak. 1. 13.  purer eyes than to behold evil, & cannot look on Iniquity, saith the Prophet Habakkuk,) I think it the Duty of every Christian to be so zealously concerned for the Glory and Reputation of his Creator, and so tenderly affected towards the Interest of souls, as not only to shake off the venomous fruits, nor only to lop off the cursed Branches, but to lay his Axe to the Root of this Tree of Evil; and so to free his own 
b Ezek. 33. 9  soul, whatever Influence he may have upon other men's.  
Secondly, It ought to be one of my Inducements, that He who publicly assaulted the Truth, and Me, in his Elaborate Epistle to Mr. Barlee, is a person of great Authority, as well as Fame, amongst the men of that way, which it is my Duty to write against. Who by approving and abetting the very worst of those Doctrines, which were delivered by Mr. Barlee, and by his maste●s before him, may possibly give them some Reputation with that sort of Readers, with whom I am most of all desirous to bring those Errors into Disgrace. It is not safe for the people to be entrusted with the Fayling of so eminent a person as D. Reynolds. For what He dictates, they may swallow down whole, neither examining the Ingredients whereof it is compounded, nor what kind of nourishment 'tis apt to breed. And hence I think it extremely useful, to give an account 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of what it hath pleased him to publish concerning the Points under Debate, for the better undeceiving of Those especially, who are in danger to be misled by so great a Name.  
Thirdly, I do conceive it no less than Duty, to make one reflection upon myself, when I find myself accused to all the world of having wrongfully charged such men with Blasphemy, who were eminent Servants of Jesus Christ, and deeply acquainted with the mind of God. A Heavy Crime without Question; of which, if my Accuser is able to prove that I am guilty, whatever mercy I may have from others, I will show but little upon my self. If I have wronged those Writers whom he so zealously commendeth, or have spoken of them more severely than some of their own dear Brotherhood are made appear to have done, I will be avenged upon my self, as far as mine Adversary can wish me. But the willinger he is to have it thought that I am guilty, it doth concern me so much the more to make it known that I am Innocent. Nor will it cost me any more Pains to do this throughly and with effect, than by desiring my Readers Patience, and his Impartiality. For first admit it were so, that none of those writers whom I accused had ever written any such thing, as that God is the Author and Cause of sin; Admit they had said it only in substance, or by way of Consecution, in terms equivalent, or tantamount, (as the speaking very falsely, is equipollent to a Lie, althought it is expressed in cleaner phrase) yet, If the Holy Father Irenaeus was deeply offended with Florinus for merely 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Iren. in Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. p. 510.  seeming to make God the Author of sin; If the blessed Martyr St. Polycarp (an Apostolical Father) upon the hearing of any word which did but 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 20.  sound that way, would have started out of the place where he stood, and have stopped his ears, and have broken out upon a sudden into a passionate Ecphonésis, as if a Dart or Javelin had been shot into his Eye; sure my Disorder and Indignation had been excusable, in case the Doctrines which I accused had only seemed so much injurious to the Spirit of Holiness, & merely sounded that way; If that Ancient Author (the very Contemporary of Austin) who writ the Haeresis Praedestinatorum, did worthily reckon it a 
c Silentium n●strum Reatus docebitur, & Taciturnitas videbitur esse consensus. In Praefat. p. 12.  sin to be but silent in such a Case, such silence seeming to give Consent; If the Famous Synod at Orange (which my Adversaries themselves pretend to reverence) did pronounce an 
d Concil. Secund. Arausic. cap. 1. Can. 25.  Anathema against it, and that with great sharpness to its Abettors; If 
e Bib. Pat. Gr. Vol. 2: p. 286. l. 15, 16, 17, 18 Consul Nice●ae (de more qui nunc observabitur cum quis à saracenismo ad nostram Fídem transfugerit) ex l. 2. Thesauri Orthodoxiae fragmentum, In Bibl. Patr. Gr. excus. Parisiis. 1624.  Nicetas did account it the frightfull'st Blaspemy of Mahomet; If learned Moulin was frighted by it into the Doctrine of Arminius touching the Business of Reprobation, (which made him suffer so great a measure of Dr. 
f Vin. Gra. l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 6. Sect. 4. c. 1. p. 92, etc.  Twisse his Correptory Correction;) If the pacific Melancthon is often provoked out of his Patience, and shows that one great 
g Philip. Melancth. in loc. de Causâ Pec▪ p. 48.  end of our Saviour's coming into the world, was to teach us that the Devil is the Author of sin; If the most moderate Hemingius doth express the Doctrine of unconditional Praedestination) almost as often as he speaks of it) by such disgraceful 
h Nic. Hemmingius de Praedest c. 1. de viâ vitae c. 5. In Syntag. Instit. Christ. loc. 28, etc.  phrases, as Parcarum Tabulae, and Fatum Stoicum, and affirms it mischievous to the manners of men, as well as blasphemous against God; If 
i Nulli Necessitatem imposuerit ut malus esset, & aliud esse non posset. Hoc enim si fecisset, (quod absit de ejus Bonitate sentire) Ipse utique esset Author Malorum, etc. Remig. Ludg. Reg. 5 in Hist. Gotteschalci. cap. 11. p. 173.  Remigius Lugdunensis and the greatest Favourers of Gotteschalk, and Dr. Whitaker himself, with our late most learned and Reverend Primate of Armagh, did count it an evident and an horrible blaspeming against God, to say He imposeth upon his Creatures any Necessity of sinning; (yet by how many, and noted Men, how often, and how publicly hath that been said?) If S. 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chr. Edit. Savil. ●. 4. p. 745.  Chrysostom thought it better to be ten thousand times buried, than that God should hear any such word because of us; If Bishop Bancroft at Hampton Court, with the good liking of King James, did call it 
l Confer. at Hampt. Court. p. 29.  a Desperate Doctrine of Praedestination, from whence King James was of opinion that a 
m Ib. p. 30, 31.  desperate Presumption might be arreared, by inferring the necessary Certainty of standing & persisting in Grace; If learned Deodate of Geneva did so much abhor the ascribing unto God the least Causality of sin, as not to allow a 
n Iddio non è, ne pùo essere Autore, ne cagione della malveget d della sua Creatura Deodate in Prov. 16. 4.  possibility of his being so much as the occasion of it; In a word, If St. 
o In Praefat. ad Artic. falsò sibi Impofitos.  Austin, and 
p Adobject. Gall. Capit 7.  Prosper, and divers others whom I shall mention [Chapter 4. §. 5. & 6. & 7.] were as deeply concerned as I have been, and much more pungent in their Expressions; Then why should I have been charged, in so high a Degree as I have been, for having been jealous of God's Honour as well as They, and equally zealous for his Glory, who is my Redeemer, as well as Theirs? If I have met with such writers who pretending to be godly, as well as learned, have sent those Doctrines to be printed, and left for lessons to Posterity, which have not only made God to be the Author of sin, even in those very words, but also in all other words in which an Author can be expressed, and even in many more words than can be used (with any Truth) of any Reprobates whatsoever, whether Men, or Devils, whereby to charge them with the sins of such as are ensnared by their Seducements, why should any Man condemn me for the natural effects of my Resentment? If my Reverend Assailant may be allowed to be a public Defender of those very Doctrines which are condemned by Holy Scripture, by the public reason of the Church throughout all Ages, and by the private reason all the world (excepting the Sectaries themselves who have been the Authors or Fautors of them) as destructive to the purity & to the verity of the Godhead; with how much a greater force of reason must I be allowed (if not commanded) to assert the purity of his Goodness against the daringnesses of men, who carry their life in their Nostrils, & whose Foundation is in the Dust? If 
r They ran in ● among the people, crying out, and saying, sirs, why do ye these things? Acts 13 14, 15.  Paul & Barnabas on such an occasion would have torn their hair from off their heads; Nay, if a Jewish High Priest would have 
s That was the high Priest's Custom when real Blasphemy was spoken, as well as when he falsely supposed it such. Matt. 26. 65.  rend his Garment upon the hearing of any sentence reproachfully spoken against his God; Nay, if the Heathen man 
t Plato in secundo Libro, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Plato would not have any one to live in a well ordered City, who should say or hear (with any patience) any such horrible affirmations, as that God doth Predestin or Decree the moral evils of his Creatures, why then should a Christian be less Religious? Nay if 
u Vedelius in Arcan. Arminianismi, Cap. 10.  Vedelius, and his 
w Correp. Cor. p. 54, 55, 118;  Followers, have affirmed those Doctrines to be so perfectly essential to Religion itself, that we cannot be Advocates for God but at the peril of being Atheists, how can we choose but look upon them as on the worshippers of Hermes, who thought that to hurl stones at him, was the godliest Instance of their Devotion? Let my Reader carry in his mind from the beginning to the ending of what I have or shall publish, as well for whom, as against what, my plead are, And then I shall demand no other favour. If He that struck at the Father did force the * Dumb Child to speak, 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Herodot. l. 1. c. 85 p. 36  who but for that provocation had lived in silence, it must needs be difficult for me, whose provocations were so much greater, to keep myself from an outcry against the Persecutors of Heaven, and bold Invaders of Immortality, who, but for that solicitation, had never once appeared upon these subjects.  
Fourthly, I do consider I am in Duty both to God, & to myself, and perhaps to some of my Brethren also, to lay to heart the Nature of true Repentance, which doth import an endeavour of Restitution, and (in some degree) of satisfaction, as well as Grief. It is not enough to cry Peccavimus in our Closets, or to shed some Tears behind the Door, as Peter did when he repent; but we must imitate St. Peter in that better effect of his Contrition, his peaching publicly for Christ, because he had privately denied him. I cannot but think myself admonished by the words of Christ to St. Peter, [
y Luke 22. 32.  when Thou art converted, strengthen thy Brethren.] Had I never been misled into the contrary opinion, I had never been concerned so much for this. But having found by sad experience, that the same Errors in judgement which made me strain sometimes at Gnats, 
Mat. 23. 24.  did also teach me to swallow Camels, I cannot choose but be desirous to do some good with my Misfortunes. 
O felix Culpa quae talem ac ta●tum meruit habere Redemptorem! Gregor.  Sure I am, I am the better for them myself; for had I not dangerously erred, I had not valued my safety, as now I do. If Saint gregory's Exclamation may be allowed of, (as intended only to celebrate the Depth of God's Mercy, and not the Dignity of Adam's sin,) then perhaps I may say, It is good for me to have Erred, because, I hope, it is good for others. There being nothing in this world which I do covet with more sincerity, or more heartily contend for in all my Prayers, then that the means of my cure may be to others for prevention; that they who hate me the most may be profited the most by my Endeavours, and that my Readers in general (which way soever they stand affected) may reap the Benefit, and the fruit both of my Dangers, and my Escape.  
There is yet a Fifth Reason of this my Enterprise, which being pertinently rendered in the 1. Section of my Fourteenth Chapter by way of answer to one passage in D. Reynolds his Conclusion (to which I think it sufficient that I at once direct and refer the Reader,) I shall not take any occasion to lengthen a tedious Introduction, but admit as many as are furnished with sufficient Patience or Curiosity, to the immediate perusal of that which follows:   

The General Contents of the several Chapters.  

CHAP. I.  
D. R. His Thanks to the Correptory Corrector. His way of Civility to T. P. and the truth.   

CHAP. II.  
King james his Censure of Bertius, and Arminius, and Presbyterianism itself, which was Arminius his worst Qualification. The True Cause of the Distempers in the Belgic Nation, not Arminius, but the other Presbyterians who were more Heterodox than Herald   

CHAP. III.  
A Vindication of Tit. 1. 13. from strange Misconstruction. No Necessity of ill Language from one Minister to another. The Reviler is encouraged, but ought not. The Advise for soft words, and hard Arguments, How observed by Him that gives it.   

CHAP. FOUR  
Two sorts of Blaspemers. D. R. his Application to Mr. Calvin, and Doct. Twisse. A survey of the Doctrines accused of Blasphemy. Proofs that they are Blaspemous in the highest degree, as striking at the Purity, and Holiness of God, and by consequence at his Essence, by affirming him to be the Author of sin, not only in that very Term, but also in all other Terms in which an Author can be expressed, and in Terms much worse. Evidences, that Doctrines less heinous, have been always branched with the name of Blasphemies, as well by the Ancient as Modern Writers of the Church, from Apostolical Timts to this day. Catalogues of Examples. One from the Principal Patrons pretended to by that Party. Dr. Reynolds his Partiality to one party, and his Injurious usage of the other unavoidably inferred. The Marcionites, Manichees, and Carporations, not so bad in their Assertions, as the modern Teachers of irrespective Reprobation. The unequal Comparison made by Dr. Reynolds, betwixt the Case of Christ, and of his Party.   

CHAP. V.  
Of Mr. Calvin and Dr. Twisse. How fairly treated by T. P. how sharply by others. How sharply others were treated by them, Mr. Baxter's Censure of Mr. Pemble, and Dr. Twisse, for their opinions.   

CHAP. VI  
Dr. Reynolds his Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi. The disparity betwixt T. P. his usage of his Friends, and the Massilians or Pelagians usage of Austin and Prosper. These two Fathers calumniated by them that erred on the right hand, just as T. P. by those that have worse erred on the left. The Author of [God love to Mankind] vindicated. He formerly a Calvinist in the points now controverted, but his judgement changed upon weighty Reasons. Prosper and Remigius alleged quite besides the purpose.   

CHAP. VII.  
Dr. Reynolds his citing of divers Writers, who however of his Party, are both at Enmity amongst themselves, and destructive to the purpose for which he citys them, Mr. Perkins, Bp. Abbot, Maccovius, Dr. Twisse. Dr. Twisse for Mr. Perkins, Bp. Abbot against both. The Synod of Dort's thanks to Moulin for that which Dr. Twisse censured [as Arminian, & jesuitical.] The Calvinists Doctrines suspected, and disowned, or owned only with Reluctancy, by the more discerning of their own party. The Remonstrants ill usage at Dort. D. Reyn, his flying from plain words to secret Intentions. An Implicit charge upon Austin. A Heavier on the Scriptures. The Scriptures vindicated from leading any into Blasphemies. The first Instance of joseph and his Brethren against the purpose for which 'tis urged: All that follow quite besides it. That the verbs [To harden, to blind, to deliver up, to send delusions, to deceive, &c,] are by an ordinary Hebraism only permissive in signification, though active in sound. Proof from the verdict of all the Fathers; the confession of the chief Calvinists that all the Fathers do so expound them; the Judgement of Austin: the Adversaies' Confession of Augustine's Judgement; the Judgement of Melancthon, Du Plessis, Bp. Andrews; and from other plain Scriptures. The Instance of Shimei cleared. They who made God the Author of the first sin that ever was, cannot pretend it to be the punishment of a Former sin. The only warrantable meaning of that saying, That God doth punish sin with sin, is Negative.   

CHAP. VIII.  
D. Reynolds his onset to the stating the Doctrine of Praedestination. The Result, not what is, but what May-be without a Contradiction. His Fallacy Plurium Interrogationum. His very May-be disproved, by the Contradiction which it is proved to imply. God's workings on the will Hic & nunc ad unum, a groundless Invention. Mr. Baxter for freewill. D. Reyn. his confuting of no Adversary. His supposing God to work on the will by his creative Omnipotency implieth a Contradiction. Of the will's determining itself. Fallacious arguing from the Power to the Act. The Parable of the Talents in opposition to D. R. his May-be. Other Maybe's produced, to show how little is got by his. The several ways of God's working with several Creatures.   

CHAP. IX.  
D. Reynolds his mistake from Rom. 11. 33. God's Will is revealed in his Word, And plainly revealed against absolute preterition in Adam's Loins. This flatly Injurious to the Death of Christ, to the extent of his Love, and to the sincerity of his Intentions. D. Reynolds his tacit confession that the Doctrine is unjustifiable which T. P. contended against, but the other most true which He contended for.   

CHAP. X.  
D. Reynolds his 8. Propositions of no use to him, but the contrary. His best amounteth to a May-be. He disputes against himself, if all were granted which he desires touching Man in Mass● his being the Object of Predestination. His Inconsistence with the greatest Pillars of his own Party, who differ from him, and from each other. Beza, junius, Piscator, Dr. Twisse, Du Moulin, all at odds with one another in stating the Object of the Decree. Nor is Mr. Calvin at unity with himself. Dr. Twisse his Argument overthroweth the Snblapsarian way upon a principle which they grant him. His sharpness against the Doctrine of the Synod at Dort. D. Reynolds his 7th. position is the destruction of his 5th. as his 4th. was of his 3d. The worst effects of the worst Doctrine exemplified.   

CHAP. XI.  
D. Reynolds his last reserve of Forces least useful to him. The same matter in several Dresses. Gratis dictum. His arguing à Potentia ad Actum. His mistake of Free Election for irrespective. Election respective as well as Free. God's mercy over all his works, particularly over Infants. Why of the all that are called but few are chosen. D. Reyn. irreconcilable with his Friend Mr. Barlee, whilst he plainly saith what T. P. did, (but in terms less wary) and so by consequence, a considerable part of Mr. Barlee's book is wholly spent against the Doctrine of Dr. Reynolds, and against his very words too. He comes not home to that which he had undertaken to excuse touching God's having to do in the production of sin.   

CHAP. XII.  
D. R. his confession of the Grounds which were the Basis of T. P. his Superstructure. His not pretending the least illegality in T. P. his Deductions from either of those Grounds. And so his granting the whole cause. His wrong Conjectures of Cassianus, and Bradwardine. Prosper's commendation of the Semipelagians. S. Hillary told Austin, that the Massilians held no more concerning Grace than they cited him for. Pelagius, and his Followers extremely commended by S. Austin as most excellent Christians.   

CHAP. XIII.  
B. Andrews vindicated, and compared with S. Austin. His Censure of the Lambeth Articles vindicated from the Negative Argument of D. Reynolds.   

CHAP. XIIII  
D. Reynolds his Confession, that his Assault made upon T. P. was more than was desired of him by Mr. Barlee. The Necessity he imposed on T. P. to make him this return. His great commendations of Mr. Barlees Book examined, and refuted, by a short specimen of the Doctrines contained in it. Particularly his Doctrine, that a child of God in acts of Murder and Adultery without repentance cannot be in a state of Damnation; and that David at his worst had not lost the Spirit of God. Melanctthon's detestation of that Doctrine more than of any.  
The Conclusion    

The Divine purity Defended.  

CHAP. I.  

E. R.  
For his Reverend and worthy Friend, Mr. WILLIAM BARLEE, Minister of the word at Brockhole in Northamptonshire.  
Sir,  
I Return you many thanks for communicating unto me, your Elaborate and learned Answer to an Anonymous Book lately published concerning God's Decrees, reported to be written by one, whom, for his polite parts of wit and learning, I have and do respect; 
Arist: Eth. l. 1: c. 4.  but have been long since taught a very good Rule by Aristotle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

T. P.  
§. 1. IF the Correptory Correptor is one of his Reverend and worthy Friends, it is for my Honour and advantage, not to be of their Number. And if the Correptory Correction (with such sad Greek, such rueful Latin, such Incongruities even of English, such virulence & inventions as have been publicly discovered) did pass with the Author of this Epistle for no less than an Elaborate and learned Answer, It is matter to me of admiration, whether he read what he commended before he commended it, or only spoke at a venture, but read it not. For if he read it in good earnest (as he professeth afterwards to have done) I admire his Patience very much, but very much more his Partiality; in that he could see, (or oversee) so many fruits of the flesh, and so much filthiness of the Spirit, so many weaknesses of Reasoning, with such profound wants of Logic, and then be thankful for the perusal of (what he calleth) an Elaborate and learned Piece. But if he did not read what he commended, my admiration doth still increase; for he should neither have told us that he did, nor have commended what he did not. And therefore  
§. 2. Secondly, As it affords me matter of wonder, so doth it also of Humiliation, to find myself thus commended for I know not what Polite parts of wit and learning, both in the very page, and by the very same Pen, by which the Correptory Correptor is so much praised. Wit and Learning are two things, of which I find I have less than a very ordinary proportion. The comfort is, I find a full supply in my Cause for the utmost Defects which I have discerned in my self. The very Nakedness of the Truth is that alone which enables me to make it good. Wit and Learning are noxious weeds, till they are seasoned by Grace, and (by the sanctifying influence of That) attended with singleness and integrity. The highest glory and commendation (as I conceive) is to worship the God of Heaven in the sincerity of obedience; to be a man without guile; not to act, or design, or so much as imagine or wish mischief to any Enemy, much less to undermine or invade a Neighbour, by secret fraud, or open violence; but rather to suffer the greatest injury, than to offer the very least. A Heathen may be learned, an Atheist witty, and a Devil may be both in great Abundance. Mr. Barlee told me, more than once, that I had over-gallant parts, by the same Token that he told me, I was not a little proud of them. He (I say) would needs commend me for Wit and Larning, even in that very Pasquil, wherein he called me Dragon, and my innocent Book a Noon-day-Devil. So that my Reverend Aggressor, had he been pleased, might with my free leave, have professed his Despising or Accusing of me, if he found nothing better to respect me for, than what he calls my Wit and Learning. When Apelles of Macedon commended Taurion to the King, or rather 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  traduced him with commendations (as the Historian words it) and that to no other purpose than to destroy him the more securely, by turning him out of his employment, Polybius tells us that he invented a 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Polyb. l. 4. p. 348. A B.  new way of callumniating; which was not by speaking ill, b●t by malignantly commending whom he designed to hurt. Be it so, that Apelles was the Inventor of this Knack, and that Polybius did think it New; yet since the death of Apelles, it is (I suppose) two thousand years. And therefore now I may say, it is a very old, and an easy art, by commending him a little, whom we do afterwards intend to revile a great deal, to gain some credit to our Revile. How Polybius hath censured such commendations, I have only related in my Margin, and not transmitted to the knowledge of English Readers, because his censure is so Severe. For no provocation shall ever tempt me to say the most that I am able against an Enemy. I wish it were a thing possible to defend my Self, and the Truth, without reflecting upon them, who have set themselves against Both. I am every where willing to put the fairest construction upon the words of my Assailant, and not the worst that they can bear. But what he meant by his Oil and Balsam in the beginning of his attempt, he hath enforced me to feel by his After-Blowes. To make profession of respect (not for Honesty, or Truth, or Ingenuity of dealing) for profane polite parts of wit and learning, and presently after to accuse me of injuriously fixing the Name of Blasphemy upon the Doctrines of some men, whom he espouseth for their Opinions, when (as himself will confess upon his serious perusal of my fourth chapter) I only called that Blasphemy which hath been ever so called, and is acknowledged to be Blasphemy by the ablest men of that party from whose public writings it hath been cited, This I cannot but pronounce to be a very corroding and wounding Balsam. I would not for all the world be so unhappily polished with wit and learning, as my Glycupcirous Assailant would make the world believe I am. It is so far from being grateful, or pleasant to me, to have my head thus broken with Commendations. But yet I will possess my soul in patience, I will 
* Pythag. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nay farther yet, I will endeavour to take some 
* 2 Cor. 1●. 9, 10. Rom. 5. 3. Heb. 11. 25, 26  pleasure in such afflictions, which I suffer for being sensible of dishonours done unto my God. When mere mortal men are pleaded for against me, in revenge of my having pleaded for God himself against men; when I am sullied as a Bolsec, (who is presumed to be of a foul complexion) merely for proving that God is 
a Psal. 145. 17.  Pure, and that he 
b Hab. 1. 13.  cannot endure to behold Iniquity, that he cannot 
c Isa. 1. 13.  away with it, that his soul doth 
d Verse 14.  hate it, that 'tis a 
e Verse 14.  trouble unto him, that he is 
f ibid. & Mal. 2. 17. Isa. 7. 13.  weary to bear it, that he will rather have 
g Mat: 10. 28. Romans 3. 8.  us die, or be temporally undone, than commit it in the least measure when we are able to avoid it through him that 
h Philip. 4. 13.  strengthens us, that he will punish it with 
k Mark 9 44.  infinite and endless pains, (so far is he from decreeing, that men shall inevitably commit it, and suffer for it unavoidably through the necessitation of such Decree;) when I am defamed, by no unplausible man, as very scandalously erroneous, merely for saying in effect, what St. Paul said before me, 
l Romans 3. 4.  Let God be true, and every man a liar, and every man a Blasphemous liar, who shall say (in contradiction to the true word of God) that God is the 
* Who they are that say thus, and more than thus, hath been sufficiently showed, and farther shall be as occasion serves. See Correct Copy p. 9 10. And Divine Philanth. Defend. l. 3. Sect. 34. p. 132. to p. 141.  Willer, Ordainer, Predestiner, Decreer, Necessitator, Author, and Cause of Sin; When I say, I am a sufferer, for not enduring or suffering such things as these to seduce the People without control, by making them Libertines, and Atheists, at least in practice, if not in judgement, and (as far as they have power, or opportunity) subverters of Government, and razers out of the distinction 'twixt Right and Wrong, which is the Foundation and the Cement of all Civil society, I will endeavour to 
m Mat. 5. 12. Coloss. 1. 24. 2 Cor. 11. 30. Hab. 10. 34.  rejoice in such my sufferings. And sure in this present case of my being thus assaulted by Dr. Reynolds, I need not take any thought as to my personal concernment. For  
§. 3. Thirdly, He hath used me no otherwise than he hath used the very Truth, which he commends and persecutes in the very same breath. I say he commends her in that Rule of Aristotle, That 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  truth is preferable to all other Friends. But then he persecutes her too, by giving thanks and commendations even to that very Lictor, who gave to truth, rather than me, such store of Correptory Correption; And by styling that signal volume no less than an Elaborate and learned Answer, which was so full of the most groundless and the most palpable 
o See Divine Philanth. defended cap. 3 etc.  Inventions. It is not my Accusation, but the observation of the people, That Mr. Barlee's papers are gone abroad with the concurrence and approbation of Dr. Reynolds. And this partaking with the Erroneous must pass for friendship to the Truth, because a Text out of Aristotle is misapplyed to make it good. The youngest birds peradventure may be caught with such chaff, till they are warned to consider, That never any man yet hath so contended for an error, as not at least to pretend a friendly praeference of the Truth. Truth hath many great flatterers; but few true friends. To give her very good words, is cheap, and easy But whether it is truth, or specious error, which my Reverend Adversary doth here prefer, our Impartial Reader will best discover by the following parts of his Epistle.    

CHAP. II.  

E. R.  
I was sorry to see this controversy revived amongst which caused anciently so much Trouble to the Church of God, 
King james his Declaration against Vorstius in his works in English. p. 350. & 355.  & in our memory so much Danger & Distemper to the Belgic Nation: whereof King James was so sensible, that in a letter to the States he calleth Arminius an Enemy of God, & chargeth Bertius with grossly living against the Church of England, in avowing that the Heresies contained in his blasphemous Book of the Apostasy of the Saints (they are the Kings own words.) were agreeable, with the Religion and profession of this Church, and he did solemnly desire the Ambassadors of that state to forwarn them from him to beware of the Disciples of Arminius, of whom though himself lately dead, he had left too many behind him.   

T. P.  
§. 1. IT seems the Authority of King james is of great weight with him; And (since it hath made it his own choice to imbue his Reader in the first place with the judgements and censures of that wise King) I am heartily glad to find it is so. For although that King in his younger years had imbibed and sucked in, even before he was aware, that Presbyterian opinion of the genevizing Scotish Kirk (which no man living will think strange who knows the place of his Birth, and his Education,) yet in his riper and wiser years he found so great reason to retract and abjure his former error, that he readily accepted of Bishop Mountagues appeal, and commanded it to be printed, and to be dedicated also to his royal self, when even this was the Doctrine appealed for. [That the children of God may fall away, according to the Tenor of our sixteenth Article,] which saith, that [After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace given and fall into sin, and by the Grace of God we may rise again, and amend our lives.] Which the King perceiving to be the words and mind of the 
* Compare the 16. Article of our Church with the first part of the Homily touchin Falling away from God. p. 54. & 57 with the Form of Baptism, with the Catechism, and all with the Conference at Hampton Court p. 29. 30, 31.  Church of England, and that Bertius had discerned it a great deal sooner than himself, he did not think it below him to grow in Knowledge and Wisdom, as well as years. To forsake an error, & repent, is an ingenuous and valiant, as well as pious, nay farther, a glorious and Princely thing. Therefore Melancthon was not ashamed to write against that opinion which he had formerly been of. And my contemptible self, till I was Master of Arts of half a years standing, was as fully, if not as fiercely, of Dr. Reynolds his opinion in these Controversies, as Mr. Barlee himself appears to be. But when by reading better Books than I had formerly done, and by conversing with better company, and by not-resisting the Grace of God, I looked through the fallacies wherewith I had been blinded, and observed the ugliness of their looks whilst now I beheld them without their Wizard, I was gladder to be recovered from those diseases of my Soul, than from the painfullest maladies which have ever happened to my body. And if my Reverend Antagonist is not afraid of a recovery, as that which implies him to have been sick, He may change his judgement, as I have done, though not because I have done it. At least King james, and Bishop Andrews, and good Melancthon, and the late Primate of Armagh, 
* Of his change I have witness beyond exception.  and learned Dr. Potter, are sure most worthy his imitation. And therefore  
§. 2. In the second place, I offer him this short Dilemma. Is a man's later opinion to be preferred before his former, or is it not? If he say, Yes, His own example of King james doth fly back into his Face. But if he say, No, His only Father S. Austin must be neglectfully cast behind his Back. And by necessary consequence, his worthy Friend Mr. Barlee (in the plausiblest part of all his Plea) must be contemptibly trampled beneath his Feet. Let him escape which way he pleaseth; there is a Precipice before him, and behind him there is a Wolf. But yet the greatest of his Dangers is still to come. For  
§. 3. In the third place I offer him another Dilemma with sharper Horns; (since Logicians will needs callit Argumentum Cornutum.) Is K. james his judgement of any Authority, or is it not? If he saith, it is not, why is it urged so largely against Arminius, and Bertius, and their followers, in the very Front of his Epistle, which is intended for a strengthening to Mr. Barlees Book? And if he saith Yes, (as of necessity he must) his inconvenience is worse than if he said, No, for then farewell to the Presbytery, both Head and Tail, (it is the King's own 
* Spotsw. Hist. Scot l. 7.  word) which was never so much hated by any one of the Hierarchy, as by the Orthodox King james (the very Epithet that is given him by the very Correptory Correptor.) 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 2 p. 38. & seq. to p. 44.  Witness his Excellent Basilicon Doron, and his remarkable Predictions what the world was to look for from the Presbyterian sect, of which he gave so many black and dismal characters; witness all his resentments of their incomparable behaviours in the sixth and seventh Books of the History of Scotland, most impartially composed by Archbishop Spotswood, with so much Wisdom, Temper, and Moderation, as may well commend it to all men's Readins; witness his Answer to Dr. Reynolds at Hampton-Court, where that Doctor had seemed to plead for something like a Presbytery. [A Scottish 
* Conference at Hampton Court, p. 81. Edit. 1638.  Presbytery, said the King, as well agreeth with Monarchy, as God and the Devil. Then jack, and Tom, and Will, and Dick, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me, and my Council, and all my proceedings, Then Will shall stand up and say, it must be thus; then Dick shall reply, and say, nay marry, but we will have it thus. And therefore here I must once reiterate my former speeches, Le Roy s'avisera: stay I pray, you for one seven years before you demand that of me, and if you then find me pursy and fat, and my windpipes stuffed I will perhaps hearken to you: for let thae government be once up, I am sure I shall be kept in breath, then shall we all of us have work enough, both our hands full. But, Dr. Reynolds, till you find that I grow lazy, let that alone.] And this puts me in mind of a remarkable passage in his Basilicon Doron, where speaking of the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ l. 2. p. 39  fiery spirited men in the ministry of the Kirk, who getting a guiding of the people at the time of confusion, and finding the gust of Government sweet, began to fancy to themselves a Democratick form and having (by the iniquity of the time) being over well baited upon the wrack, fi●st of his Grandmother, and then of his own Mother, and after usurping the liberty of the time in his long minority settled themselves so fast upon that imagined Democraty, as they fed themselves with the hope to become Tribuni Plebis, and so in a popular Government by leading the people by the nose, to bear the sway of all the Rule; speaking I say of these Men, whom he calleth (a little after) the 
* Ibid. p. 40:  unruly spirits among the ministry, he adviseth his son to take 
* p. 41.  heed of such, concluding in these words,— I protest before the great God (and since I am here as upon my Testament, it is no place for me to lie in,) that ye shall never find with any Highland or border Thiefs, greater ingratitude, and more lies and vile perjuries, than with these fanatic spirits▪ 
* p. 42.  And suffer not the principles of them to brook your land, if ye like to sit at rest: except ye would keep them for trying your patience, as Socrates did an evil Wife.] The Reader cannot but observe that these expressions are very sharp, and I hope he cannot but consider that they were spoken by King james, and were publicly legible from the Press before they came to my knowledge, and that I have quoted them no otherwise than in my Necessary Defense. My Reverend Aggressor hath drawn me to it by his Assault, and by the quality of his weapon hath forced me to use this very Helmet. I am no Bertian, or Arminian, yet he proclaimed me to be such (if he will own having been pertinent in the second Paragraph of his Epistle) by urging King james his sharpness against those Persons, on that occasion. And if it was charitable or pertinent to set upon me in such a manner, and in the beginning of such a Book, with King james his declaration against Vorstius, Arminius, Bertius, and their Followers (including me to be one) how much more hath it been both, to defend myself, as I have done, by the same King's writings? From all which together,  
§. 4. It cannot but follow in the fourth place, That if King james his judgement and authority is of any weight or moment against Arminius and Bertius (whom yet I am not concerned to plead for any farther than my Assailant hath made me mistaken for an Arminian) it is of much more weight against the Sect of Presbyterians, of which Arminius himself was One. The Danger and Distemper which this controversy caused to the Belgic Nation, (if it must be said to have risen from the controversy in hand) arose from that very Party, and from those very Doctrines which I oppose; as I could easily Remonstrate, were this a place for so much Length; and which I shall do, if need require. And therefore I seriously advise my Reverend Adversary, that in his next undertaking against me, and my writings, he will be pleased to think twice, before he utters his Conceptions; that he will look round about him, and grasp the whole matter of which he treats; that he will not give me so many Advantages, as to occasion my being tedious. For that opponent doth please me most, in whom I find least matter of Confutation.    

CHAP. III.  

E. R.  
When you first acquainted me with your purpose to answer that Tract, (which was before I had seen it, it being then manuscript, and had only heard from you the Drift of it;) you well remember what my judgement was, That in Polemical writings, it was the best to forbear the persons of men, and to hold close to the Argument. I learned it of Tertullian, a grave Writer, Viderit persona, 
Tertul. adversus Hermog. cap. 1.  cum doctrina mihi quaestio est. And it was the speech of an aged holy Divine of this Country, now with God, that in Disputes, Soft words and hard Arguments were best. Yet I deny not but the Case may be so, that in writings of this Nature, there may be a Necessity as well of sharp Rebukes, as of strong refutations, Tit. 1. 13.   

T. P.  
§. 1. THE first thing to be noted in this his third Paragraph, is, that in writings of this Nature, that is, of one Inferior Presbyter against another (who may be allowed to be his Equal) in the debate of this Question, whet●er God's decrees are any of them conditionate or no, he allows a Necessity of sharp Rebukes; and (which is more to be admired) he pretends a reason for it from Tit. 1. 13. A passage written by St. Paul, first to Titus a Bishop at least, and by this Commission superindowed by the Divine Authority of that Apostle, and so not pertinent to an Inferior Presbyter whose small Diocese of Brockhole makes him yet less fit to be my Diocesan. Secondly; To Titus, presiding over those under his charge at Crect, who were in Subordination, and not Coordinate, as here we are, and therefore here is no ground for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thirdly, That commission given to Titus was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only precise, durè & sine ambagibus, (as 
* Beza in locum.  Beza speaks) but by way of Excision, or Excommunication, (as better 
* See Dr. Ham. Annota. upon 2 Cor. 13. ch. and in his Tract concerning the power of the Keys.  Interpreters explain it) and so not pertinent to that strange railing and calumniating, calling Pelagian, Socinian, Heretic, Devil, Dragon, and a world of such stuff which in the Correptory Correptor is here commended, at least excused. Fourthly, The Persons thus to be used by the Discipline of Titus were those insufferable Heretics, the jewish Gnostics, who abused the Grace of God by Wantonness, denying Christ to be come in the Flesh, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Verse 14:  subverting the Truth, that is to say, the whole Gospel, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ver. 15.  defiled and unbelieving, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vers. 16.  denying God in their works, being abominable, and disobdient, and unto every good work reprobate. Upon which I ask, Did this writer consider the rational scope and importance of that Text which he cited, or did he not? If he did not, what commendation can be pretended to, for having so hastily taken so sharp a sword into his hands without considering how to use it, and for the want of which consideration, he hath now received from it so great a Wound? But if he did consider it, and compare it with the Context (as I have just now done,) how much less is he commendable for having knowingly and wilfully so misapplyed it? and how strange a specimen hath he given his Reader of all his future undertake, when he holds forth Scripture to such an Author as Mr. Barlee, whereby to justify his Railing, and to make him believe that there is a necessity of his so doing? Nor is it ordinary Railing which is thus pleaded for, but so extraordinary in all kinds, that Mr. Barlee himself in his first Dedicatory Epistle, doth offer even in Print to undergo a 
a Correp. Cor. Epist. Ded. p. 9  public Penance, thereby confessing it a heinous Sin. He cries Peccavi, and to 
b Ibid.  peccavi, adds 
c Ibid.  Fateor, (here is an open confession, and in a white sheet, tantamount to the stool of Repentance,) after this he 
d Peto veniam, si ●●quam post hac. Id. ibid.  asks Forgiveness, and promiseth 
e Peto veniam, si ●●quam post hac. Id. ibid.  hereafter to mend his manners. Yet immediately he makes another Dedicatary Epistle, and that on purpose to break his promise; on purpose to call me Dragon, & Noon-day-Devil; nay, Daemon meridianum, is such a Devil, as till that time was never heard of, both Masculine and Neuter, yet neither He, nor She. And if my offspring is such a monstruous Devil, what doth he make me to be, who avow myself the Father of those very harmless and well-meant Papers, whose whole business it is to clear the God of all Purity from having any thing to do with the stool of wickedness? Now upon whose Incitation and Authority I was so vehemently railed at for my perfect zeal to God's honour and the greatest interest of Souls, let Enemies and Friends and Strangers judge. For  
§. 2. Secondly, In the twelfth pa. of Mr. Barlee's Declaration, he pleads a necessity of not being Toothless at his Tongue's end, and that it was within his Commission to be cutting, and he fetcheth his Commission from Tit. 1. 13. Which how perfectly agreeable with the present passage under debate, I need not show in many Words. They both pretend to a necessity, and both from Tit. 1▪ 13. And if we compare the Necessity pretended, with their known opinion of God's Decrees, we may guests the meaning to be plainly this, That he who rails against his Neighbour hath a necessity of railing, he being limited and determined from all Eternity to every action of his life by a decree antecedent. to the foreknowledge of his Will. And therefore Mr. Barlee doth say in plain 
f Correp. Cor. p. 22.  terms, [That God will have it at this time to be so,] for which he citys that of the Heathen Poet, [Deus, Deus nob is haec otia fecit.] Such principles, and such practice have already frighted not a few, who are no 
g Epist. Ded. p. 16, 17.  Beggars or mean Disciples (as Mr. B. hath confessed in the close of his Dedicatory Postscript) from ever being of his religion. This is the thing, for which he ought to be deeply 
* Id. ib▪ p. 16.  humbled, and to bewail (as he words●i●) in tears of blood, that after such crying sins, as railing, and forging, and bearing false witness against an inoffensive and patient Neighbour, he should pretend to a Commission from such a 
* Tit. 1. 13.  Text. Dr. Reynolds is far enough from being another Paul, and Mr. Barlee much farther from being another Titus, (notwithstanding his 
h Correp. Cor. p. 64.  Proclamation that he was beloved of Dr. Twisse, as another Timothy,) and I am yet much farther from being one of those Gnostics, concerning whom that Text is spoken. But this is not all. For  
§. 3. Thirdly, The Reverend Author of this Preface doth contradict the Former with the Latter part of this Paragraph. He doth acknowledge, that in disputes, soft words and hard Arguments are best; for which, besides his own judgement, he citys Tertullian. (A Father as contrary to his opinions, as he is worthy to be cited where he condemns them.) And yet he denies not but that the case may be so, that in writings of this nature there may be a necessity, etc. But let him now speak out, was the case so here, or was it not? If this was the Case, and this a Writing of such a Nature, than what truth can there be in his own, and Tertullian's, and the aged holy Divines judgement? And if this was not the Case, we have here an Advocate of Contradiction, as well as of unconditional Decrees, who pleadeth the necessity of that thing which he confesseth to be an evil. Whereby he patronizeth Mr. Barlees sin, and helps to make him 
k Correp. Cor. Epist. Ded. p. 14.  sorry for his Repentance.  
§. 4. Fourthly, He professeth that his judgement is for soft words, and hard Arguments; for omitting the Person, and keeping close to the Purpose. Very good. How Mr. B. hath practised, I have largely showed from the Press. His calling me Atheist, Dragon, Devil, and the like, was neither hard Argument, nor soft word. And though when he said that I am 
l Correp. Cor. Ep●st. Ded. p. 16, 17.  furnished with the Greatest Advantage of Wit, Art, Oratory and Applause, he gave me indeed a soft word, yet it was no hard Argument whereby to prove me a 
m Id. p. 102.  Satanical Blasphemer, nor was it spoken in favour to me.  
§. 5. I am next to discover (my irreverend Adversary being dispatched) how my Reverend Antagonist hath observed his own Rule. I acknowledge he hath given me some very soft words by professing to respect me for Polite parts of Wit and Learning (for which I will labour to requite him by very heartily acknowledging his Learning, and Gravity, his happiness of Fancy, and Elocution, his very civil Disposition, and comparative moderation,) But of the hardness of his Arguments I shall hasten to make an easy Trial.    

CHAP. FOUR  

E. R.  
Truly it was matter of much trouble to me, to find in that Treatise a distinction of modest Blasphemers, and other who are for Ligonem, Ligonem: and to find so eminent Servants of Christ, as Calvin, Dr. Twisse and others to be ranged under one of those members, as men that tell the world (though such words are no where found in thm, but the quite contrary) that the evil of sin in man proceedeth from God only as the Author, and from man only as the Instrument; yea, to be worse than the Manichees & Marcionites of old, as to this particular Blasphemy. For though the names of the Authors are not, as is said, in civility cited, yet the References in the margin of the book (which surely were not set there to bear no signification) make me think of Tacitus his observation, 
Tacit. Anal. l 3. verb. ult.  touching the effigies of Brutus and Cassius in the funeral of Junia, Praefulgebant Brutus & Cassius eo ipso quòd effigies eorum non visebantur. It had been much to be wished that imputations of such a strain had been left by men professing Modesty and Ingenuity, unto Bolsec and others of his complexion. But by whomsoever used they are but as the Confectioners beating of his spices, which doth not at all hinder, but strengthen the fragrancy of them▪ I do not jurare in verba either of Calvin or any other man. But I cannot but with grief be sensible of so high a charge as Blasphemy, to be laid upon persons so deeply acquainted with the mind of God in his word, as they were. The vindicating of them I leave to you, and shall only say, that their Lord and their Brethren before them have met with the same measure, Mar. 2. 7. Mat. 26. 65. Acts 6. 13.   

T. P.  
§. 1. HIS first hard Argument from King james his bitterness against Arminius, I have already mollified and softened in my second Chapter. This is his second hard Argument, the many soft parts of which I shall discover and demonstrate by these degrees. First, That Distinction which I made was in my p. 23. where I did not instance or exemplify in any man whatsoever, much less in Calvin and Dr. Twisse, (as every Reader may see and witness;) but to render me unacceptable to every lover of those two, he is fain to leap as far back as to my p. 9 & 10. where yet I did not name them neither; but only set down their own words, amounting in brief to this effect [That all things (and by consequence all sins) do happen not only by God's prescience, but by his positive decree. That men do sin by God's impulse; and execute as well as contrive all mischief, not by God's permission only, but by his Command too. That God makes Angels and Men Transgressor's. That Adultery or Murder is the work of God; that God is its Author, (and which is worse a Compeller. That besides God's Administering ☞ the occasions of sinning, and his Pr●stitutions to sin, he doth so move and urge them, that they smite the sinner's mind, and really affect his Imagination, etc. and (what I had almost forgot to say) that God's Decree is no less efficatious in the permision of evil, than in the production of good. And that God's Will doth pass, not only into the permission of the sin, but into the sin itself which is permitted.] These were the horrible affirmations, which I there inserted as a specimen of what is taught by some Men, both to Forewarn my Readers of all such noxious and kill Weeds, in what ground soever they found them growing, and to manifest a Duty incumbent on me, to vindicate God from those Aspersions. The Author's Names I very obligingly concealed, that no ordinary Reader might know who they were; but yet I quoted their works where they were legible and in print, that extraordinary Readers might find me Faithful in my Quotations, and that an Enemy might not say, that I had only obtruded mine own Inventions. But so far were my References from being like to the effigies of Cassius and Brutus, that Mr. Barlee himself knew not what I meant by them; no, nor the Author of this Epistle, when he perused that Declamation. For if he had, he would not have suffered such an 
* See Diu. Philanthrop. Defended ch. 2. Sect. 32. p. 127, etc. And ch. 4. Sect. 32. p. 36, 37.  enormity to have passed the Press without control.  
§. 2. Secondly, when I said that some were for Ligonem, Ligonem, (but did not name any Creature) I meant such bold and barefaced Sinners, wh have spoken even in print the very worst Blasphemies of God Almighty, that the malicious Wit of Hell hath ever been able to invent. As for Example, That God made Man on purpose that he might Sin, and that he might have something to damn him for justly. That the necessity of Sinning is cast upon Men by Gods own ordination That God is the Author of all evil, as well of Sin as of Punishment; not only of those Actions in and with which Sin is, but of the very Pravity, Ataxy, Anomy, Irrigularity, and sinfulness itself which is in them; yea, that God hath more hand in men's Silfulnesse than they themselves. That God doth Necessitate Men to Sin, Incite, Seduce, Impel, Compel, Pull, and Draw, and Command Men to Sin, injects Deceptions, and Tempts Men unto Sin. With a numberless company of like Expressions, a 
* See Diu. Philan. defend. ch. 3. Sect: 34. p. 132. to p. 141.  small Catalogue of which I have collected in no more than 8. or 9 pages in my Account of the Correptory Correction: If such of these are no Blasphemies, then am not I to be excused for having avowed them to be such. But if they are Blasphemies in grain, and published to the world by the Authors of them, and if the Authors of these Blasphemies are led into them by those opinions which my Reverend Adversary asserteth, and I resist, how will he make me a reparation for having publicly done me so great a wrong, as to blame me for my distinction? How can he answer to all good Men, to the Church of God, and to God himself, that it was matter of trouble to him that I should make a distinction of modest Blasphemers, and others who for Ligionem, Ligonem? Is it not a Blasphemy to speak against God? Is it not the very blackest and most insufferable-Blasphemy to speak against the very purity and holiness of God? Is not his Purity himself? and therefore it is not worse to asperse his purity, than to deny his being? And have not those Men, whom Dr. Reynolds pleads for, aspersed the purity of God with all the Foulest Affirmations that can be thought on? Let him, or any Man living, sit down, and study, with what variety of words and phrases, it is possible to express the Author of sin, and I will publicly demonstrate that all that variety of words and phrases hath been used even in print (by the Men of that way which he asserteth, and I resist,) in direct Affirmations of God himself. I am sufficiently prepared to show a very large Catalogue, besides the several Catalogues already shown. And though I was so courteous as not to name them at the first, yet I had reason to say, that there were some in the world for Ligonem, Ligonem. And  
§. 3. Thirdly, when I said that some were modest Blasphemers, that is, bashful and shamefaced, but did not name any Creature) I meant. Such Writers, as have only made God to be the Author of sin, by way of necessary consequence, and avoidable deduction; but have not said with 
a Borrh. Posit. 1. Impr. A. D. 1551.  Borrhaeus, that God is the Author of evil, whether of punishment or of sin; nor with 
b Zuing. de Pron. l. 6. abetted 〈◊〉. Twisse Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1 p. 36.  Zuinglius, That Adultery or Murder is the work of God; nor with 
c Piscat. in Resp. ad Tauff. p. 65.  Piscator, That whatsoever sinners and flagitious men do, they do it by the source of God's own will; nor with 
d Sturmius de Praedest. Thes. 16.  Sturmius, That God effecteth those things which are sins; nor with 
e Musculus l. c. de desperatione.  Musculus, that God's Reprobation is the cause of the incurable Despair; nor with 
f Trigland. Defence. fol. 180.  Triglandius, That both the Elect and Reprobates were preordained to sin quatenus sin; nor with 
g Beza Cont. castle. p. 417.  Beza, That God predestined whom he pleased, not only to damnation, but to the causes of damnation; nor yet with Peter, 
h Peter Mart. Verm. Flor. in 1 Sam. 2.  Vermilius, That God seemeth to be the cause, not only of humane actions, but of their very defects and privations; nor yet with 
k Adrian. Smout. in Heautontim. et in Concordiae sua, p. 107.  Smoutius, that Man ought to have sinned, and to have fallen from grace, that God might have matter whereon to manifest his justice.. Now if I was so civil, as not to name either the modest, or the immodest Blasphemers, I should rather have been thanked by their Disciples and Followers, than have been reviled for my civility. But  
§. 4. Fourthly, Let us descend in particular to those Things and Persons, of which my Reverend Antagonist hath undertaken a defence, I mean the Citations in my Notes p. 9 and 10. I will begin with that of Zuinglius, because neither Mr. B. nor his Friends have yet discovered it to be his, at least they have not owned it under its Authors own Name. [When 
l Huldericus Zuing. in Ser. de Prov. c. 5. & 6.  God makes an Angel or a Man a Transgressor, he himself doth not transgress, because he doth not break a Law. The very same sin, viz. Adultery, or Murder, in as much as it is the work of God, the Author, Mover, and Compellor, it is 
* Note, that when sin is said to be good as being the work of God, 〈◊〉 himself confesseth it is the excuse of the Libertines, and unexcusable. Calv. Instruc. adversus Libertim. The Scope of that Blasphemy  not a Crime; but in as much as it is of Man, it is a wickedness.] Is not the scope of those words undeniably this, That although God is not a sinner, yet he maketh both Angels and Men to be so? That Adultery or Murder is the work of God, although it is not evil in as much as it is his? that God is the Author of sin, viz. Adultery or Murder, though sin is not sin in as much as He is the Author of it? nay, that God is a Compeller of Men to sin, though it is only sin as Men commit it, and not as God compels them to it? If this cannot be denied, why then said the Prefacer, that such words are no where to be found in them, but rather the contrary? That they are there to be found is apparent to all eyes which shall examine the place by my quotation, and is abundantly 
m Dr. Twisse Vind. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. Digres. 2. c. i. Crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 37.  confessed by Dr. Twisse. Whom I observe in 
m Dr. Twisse Vind. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. Digres. 2. c. i. Crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 37.  that place, not only approving, but commending Zuinglius for those expressions, which being every whit as bad as if he had spoken the words himself, is all that here needeth to be said of him: besides that the sixth, seventh, ninth, and tenth instance in my Notes, may here be noted to have been his. My first Citation from Mr. Calvin, [That all things happen by God's Decree, etc.] Without any the least exception of all ungodly and sinful things, nay, purposely including as well the evil as the good, (as I shall prove by and by) will soon appear to be a Blasphemy, to wit, a constituting God the Author of sin, by the public confession of Mr. Calvin himself. For in a fit of Anger against the Libertines, and in other fit of Forgetfulness (which Anger easily produceth) what himself had said at other times, he chanced to let fall these expressions,] Whilst the 
n Calvin Instruct. adversus Libertinos.  drunken Libertines do jabber that all things are made [or done] by God, they constitnte him the Author of Sin. Yet 
o Beza contra castle. Aphor. 1. 6, 7.  Beza saith plainly, more plainly than the Libertines,) That God efficaciously acteth or effecteth all things without any the least exception whatsoever. And that Calvin means the same thing, when he saith [that all things happen by God's Decree,] is not only very evident by his agreement with Beza in these affairs, but by his own positions in other parts of his works: as when he saith, for example [that God did 
p Calvin Instit. l. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 7. p. 325.  therefore Foresee things, 
p Calvin Instit. l. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 7. p. 325.  because he decreed them,] and again, [that no other 
q Idem ibid. Sect. 4.  cause can be rendered for the 
q Idem ibid. Sect. 4.  defection of Angels, then that God did 
q Idem ibid. Sect. 4.  reject them.] Which is to say in effect, That God, by his rejection or reprobation, was the only cause of the first and greatest sin that ever was, to wit, the defection or rebellion, or Apostasy of Angels; and again he saith, [that Man doth sin or do that which is not lawful for him to do (which we know is all one) impulsu Dei by God's impulse, or compulsion, or enforcement (let him translate impulsus, which way he pleaseth.) And this last as well as the first being one of my instances p. 9 I admire the Author of this Preface would seek to justify such horrid Things. What pretence of Reason he had for so doing, (Besides his partiality and concernmen for one of the chiefest of his Party) we shall see hereafter in his Reply.  
§. 5. Fifthly, 
That that is Blasphemy to which I gave that Name is more than proved by that which follows,  whilst he blameth me for giving the Title of modest or immodest Blasphemy to such as make God to be the Author of Sin, sometimes in those very words, sometimes in such as are equivalent, and sometimes worse, he quite forgetteth how great a Contumely he hath heaped upon them, who have spoken more broadly than I have done, though not with a purer or more disinteressed zeal to the honour of his Attributes for whom I pleaded. May he be pleased to consider these following Instances.  
1. When Florinus did but seem to make God the effecter or Cause of Sin, 
Irenaeus told Florinus for merely seeming to make God the Author of sin, (that is, for saying things which did but sound that way,) that it was worse than the Heretics durst ever speak.  although he said it only by Consequence, and not in plain or downright terms, yet Irenaeus (an Apostolical Father) thought it fit to confute him and chide him too. And entitled his Epistle which he wrote to Florinus, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning God's not being the cause of Sin.] It may satisfy some Readers to be told a few of the Fathers own words. [These Opinions, O Florinus, are not of wholesome Doctrine, they are disagreeable to the Church, they carry them that believe them into the greatest Impiety. These opinions the very Heretics without the Church were never so daring as to affirm; the Elders before us, who conversed with the Apostles delivered no such things unto us. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Irenaeus Edit. Colon. 1625. p. 510. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 19  [To which he adds,] I am able to testify before God, that if Polycarp had heard any such things, he would have stopped his Ears, and have cried out as he was wont, O good God, unto what times hath thou reserved me, that I should endure such things! He would have fled from the place wherein he sat or stood, when he had heard such expressions. And this might be manifested (saith Iranaeus) out of Polycarp's Epistles which were written to Neighbour-Churches, or to some of the Brethren; the words follow thus, as a new Testimony;  
2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
St. Polycare, that blessed & Apostolical Martyr, if he had heard any expression which only seemed to have a Tendency to the making God the Author of sin, he would have started out of the place, and stopped his Ears, and Cried out, O my God, etc. Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 20. Iren. loco Citat●.   
3. When St. Augustin was accused, by some of his Correptory Correctors, 
Saint Austin reekoned the Denial of universal Redemption for one of the foolishest Blasphemies, & one of the ungodly profane opinions, though not so foolish or so ungodly, as to impute unto God any Causalty of sin. His words are, Ineptissimarum Blasphemiarum prodigiosa mendacia. Impiarum profanarumque opinionum nullum cordibus nostris vestigium inhaesisse agnoscant, & Blasphemias, quas perspex: rint nostrâ professione damnari, in earundem repertoribus censeant debere puniri. Augustin. in Praesat. ad Artieulos quosdam sibi impositos, p. 855, 856. Sed in operibus Prosp. p. 934, 935.  of having Denied universal Redemption, and other things of that nature, which all my Adversaries do hold and teach, he was so angry and so impatient of such slanderous Imputations, that he could not withhold his pen from sharper language than I have used, though more provoked than he could be. He did not only say, that [those ungodly and profane opinions had not the very lest footstep in his Heart,] nor did he content himself to call them [Blasphemies] but [prodigious lies of most foolish Blasphemies,] and no less than Diabolical.  
4. When the same Austin was accused by some Pelagians of making God an Accepter of Persons by asserting irrespective and unconditional degrees of Reprobation and Election; he did not give them the lie only, but told them besides, [they were 
r cum videamus, vos sic d' Diabolo esse fascinatos. August. l 6. Hypognostic. in praefat. p. 879, 880.  bewitched by the Devil to its invention,] what then are They who either directly or indirectly do make God himself to be the Author of sin?  
5. When the French Massilians objected it as the opinion of St. Austin, that God denieth perseverance to some of his Sons who are regenerate in Christ, because they were not elected out of the Mass of perdition: 
Prosper calls it an immoderate wickedness, and a calumniating of God, to impute any Man's Ruin to God's not electing him to the final means of Salvation, though nothing near such a wickedness a●alumniating ●alumniating of God, as the many black speeches which I have cited and condemned.— Sed horum Lapsum Deo ascribere, immdodicae Pravitatis est, quasi ideo Ruinae ipsorum Impulsor atque Author sit, quia illos ruituros propriâ ipsorum voluntate praescivit, & ob hoc, à filiis Perditionis nullâ praedestinatione discrevit. Prosp. Acquit. ad ob. Gall. capit. 7. p. 320, 321.  Prosper makes answer in these expressions. [That of those that are regenerate in Jesus Christ, some forsaking their Faith and pious manners do apostatise, and fall from God, and end their wicked life in that aversion, is proved too plainly by many examples. But to ascribe their fall to God is an immoderate wickedness, as if God were the Impulsor and Author of their ruin, because he foresaw that they would wilfully fall away, and for that very reason did not sever them from the sons of perdition; and therefore men ought not to calumniate God.] How many ways this makes for me and my cause againg my revereud Assailant, let who will judge.  
6. The second Arausi can Council which was held in the time of Leo the first against the Semiplegians (let that be marked) as it hath much for my cause (who have been publicly calumniated for more than Semipelagianism) so it hath this sharp passage against the very Man that hath opposed me. 
The Arausican Council pronounced a Curse and that with all Detestation upon such as should believe: that God did praedestine any Man to evil. Secundum fidem Catholicam credimus, quod acceptâ per baptismum gratiâ omnes baptizati, Christo auxiliante & cooperante, quae ad salutem pertinent, possint & deteant, si fideliter laborare usluerint, adimplere. Aliquòs vero ad malum divinâ potestate praedestinatos esse, non solùm non credimus, sed & seqq.  [This we believe according to the Catholic Faith, that all who are baptised, and have by Baptism received grace, are both able, and bound in duty, (by Christ his help and cooperation) to fulfil those things which do belong unto Salvation, if they will faithfully labour in order to it. But that any were Predestinated to Evil by the divine power we do not only not believe, but withal, if there are any who will believe so great an evil, we do with all detestation pronounce an Anathema against them.] If the indifferent Reader will compare this definition of that Council with either my 
a The Divine Philam. Defen. ch. 3. Sect. 34. p. 132, etc.  greater or 
b Correct Copy. etc. p. 9, 10.  lesser Catalogue of those horrible doctrines which I condemned, and for the condemning of which I have been publicly condemned by that reverend Person with whom I now deal, he will not fail to think it much more than strange. For as all the great and holy Men of that so venerable a Council, who were deeply acquainted with the mind of God in his word, have detested those Doctrines as well as I, 
Sed etiam. si qui sunt qui tantum malum credere velint, cum omni detestatione illis Anathema dicimus. Concil. 2. Arausic. Cap. 1. 25. mihi p. 902▪  so that unseasonable reproof (to say no worse) which was given to me by my Antagonist, doth reach as far as those Fathers of which that Council was composed.  
7. In Nicetas his Saracenica there is this solemn form of renouncing Mahomed and his Religion. 
Nicetas shows it a Blasphemy to be anathematised as the very worst thing in the wicked Religion of the Turks, to say in equivalence and effect (though not in those very terms) that God is the Author of Sin: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vide B. B. Patr. Grac. Vol. 2. p. 286.  [I do Anathematise the Blasphemy of Mahomed, saying, that God deceiveth whom he will, and whom he will he leadeth to what is good; for if God would, Men would not war one with another, but he doth what he will, and is himself the cause of all good and of all evil; all things are governed by Fate and Destiny; which infers a necessity of all events.] If the Authors whom I cited both in my greater and lesser Catalogue have said the very same things with the Idolaters of Mahomed, and every whit as much worse as worse may be, (and whether they have not so done, I appeal to all who shall compare them) it will not be much for my Adversaries credit, that the loss of my thanks should be the best reward of my Devotion.  
8. Melancthon saith, 
Melancthon calls it a stoical opinion, & such as supposeth a stoical God; pernicious to practice; and such as was abhorred by Heathen Plato; to aver a necessity of all events. Nequaquam stoicae opiniones in Ecclesiam invehendae: quomodo enim invocabit Deum is qui omnia necessariò evenire statuit? deinde moribus perniciosum est, etc. Plato honestiùs loquitur, cum, etc. adest Deus Creaturis, non ut stoicus Deus, etc. Melancthon in loc. come. de Causa pec. p. 54, 55. Apparuit Filius Dei, ut victima fieret pro peccato, & ostenderet, Diabolum esse Authorem Peccati. Id. ibid. p. 48.  [that no Stoical opinions are to be brought into the Church; for how can he call upon God, who holds that all thengs do come to pass of necessity? Plato [though a Heathen] doth speak more honourably of God, and would have every one banished from the Society of men who should say in a Poem or any other narration, that God is the cause of any Man's evil. In the opinion of Melancthon, they make a Stoical God, who feign him giving a necessity to all events.] And is not that to blaspheme him, without saying in terminas, he is the Author of Sin? Whilst Melancthon saith plainly, that the Devil is the Author of Sin, what doth he make them to be who say the same of God Almighty? Whether they do so or not, I again refer it to be judged by what I have showed in my greater and lesser Catalogue, as well as by what I shall show anon.  
9 Bishop Cuthbert Tunstal of Durham, 
Bp. Tunstal saith they are more blasphemous than the Devils, who say that God doth predestin men to sin. Domini nostri majestatem blasphemant, creatori suo petulantiae suae ●asciviam imputare non formidant, nihil verecundantes in Deum opificem sua scelera retorquere, quia ab illo se praedestinatos ut sint flagitiosi, pro Apologiâ respondent. Lib. contra Blasph. praedest. Dei in praes. p. 3.  who lived in the days of King Henry the eighth, and was one of those chief Men who did cast the Papacy out of this Kingdom, (no Bolsoc therefore) a very moderate Writer, a great opposer of Pelagianism, and very inclinable to the way of Saint Austin, (as it doth appear by his discourse from p. 35. to p. 40. etc.) this learned Writer is very severe against the Men of his time, who did blaspheme the Majesty of the Lord by imputing the lust of their Petulance to their Creator, laying their sins to his charge, and alleging this for their Apology, that they were predestined to be wicked by him that made them. These he calls 
* Monstra hominum longè pejora Daemoniis quae Deum blaspemarc non audent, ibidem p. 4.  monsters far worse than the Devils, because the Devils do not dare to blaspheme God in this manner. And thereupon concludes with a Prayer to Christ thae he would 
* Vt ab his blasphemiis suam Ecclesiam purgans, muta reddat hujusmo di labia dolosa. sub finem.  purge his Church from these Blasphemies by sealing up the lips of such as vent them. Every 
* Sceleratus quisque ipsum Deum scelerum suorum authorem esse impie blasphemare non formidat: ego à Deo creatus sum, in quem finem ipse opifex novit. Si ad interitum me praedestinavit, cum certa sit ejus sententia, & quae ille futura decrevit mutari nequeunt, cur ego in vanum contra slimulum calcitrem, & me defraudem Genio? Si autem praedestinatus sum ab eo ad vitam aeternam, quantumcunqae hîc deliquero,— in fine tandem salvus ero; neque enim ejus de me praesciencia falli quovis modo potest. Id. ib. cap. 1. p. 5, & 6.  wicked one (saith the Bishop in his following pages) doth not fear to affirm, that God himself is the Author of his sins, (and thus blasphemeth within himself) I●was created by God, to what end God knows. If he predestined me to Destruction, by an immutable Decree, why do I kick against the prick, and defraud myself of my voluptuousness? But if I was predestined to life Eternal, how much soever I sin, I shall be saved in the conclusion, for his Foreknowledge concerning me cannot be frustrated or deceived.  
10. That worthy Disciple of Melancthon, 
Hemmingius his marks of Detestation of the absolute way, which he could hardly think of without a holy kind of Impatience.  Nicolaus Hemmingius, (whom for his Learning, Piety, and Moderation, perhaps I may call Melancthon junior,) doth seldom or never make mention of snch as propagate the Doctrine of unconditional Decrees, and the absolute necessity of all events, without a token of his adhorrence and Indignation. He calls them stoical 
a De pastore. pag. 150.  imaginations, to which he opposeth the Word of God; again, the stoical 
b De praedest: cap. 1. class. 3. pag. 408, 409, 410.  opinion of predestination, whereby the glory of God is injured, evil manners confirmed, and Epicurism introduced. It Feigns an Inequality and partiality in God; and makes Men careless to lay hold on that Grace which is offered unto all? 
c De viâ vitae. cap. 5. Benes. 2. pag. 550.  Again, This perverse opinion is not only blasphemous against God, but also seduceth many Men either into despair of forgiveness, or into carnal security. Again, 
d In Syntag. Institur. Christ. loeo 28. de Praedest. p. 770 771.  by stoical Dreams, and fatal Books, and the Tables of the Destinies, which they imagine and fancy to themselves, they do miserably entangle themselves, and perniciously pervert others. Again a little after, he obliquely compares them to the 
e Id. Ibid. p. 771. Theorem. 10.  Family of Zeno, and concludes with an Exhortation, not to value or esteem those 
f Id. Ibid. p. 776. Theor. 52.  stoical Decrees, though some great Men do patronise them. These are the expressions of that Grave writer, who was public professor of Divinity to the King of Denmark; and is 
g Cum Theologis qui aliter sentiunt, agit D. Hemmingius ut modestum & pium Christi Servum de●et. S. G. S. in observat Hemming. praefixit.  acknowledged by a Dissenter to have spoken of Dissenters, as became a Servant of jesus Christ.  
11. The Ingenuous Author of the preface before Castellio (as Mr. B. himself did very happily call him) affirms [the necessity of all things future to be an opinion invented by the Devil for the destruction of Christian people, 
Felix Turpio his sharp censure of such as hold a necessity of all events. Mahumetanis ac planè perditis hominibus reliquenda est ea, quam Diabelus ad Christiani populi perniciem induxit, futurarum rerum Necessitas, ex cujus opinion, quin maxima pars scelerum, quae in Ecclesis Christo initiatis regnare cornimus, tanquam ex perenni quodam sonte deriventur, non dubito. Fel. Turp. in Praes. ad castle▪ p. 10.  and to be left wholly to the mahometans and men desperately wicked, as being the Fountain of most enormities in Christendom,] which I observe the rather because our correptory Correptor gave him in the Epithet of Ingenuous, and because he speaks more sharply than I did, although his motive is not so great; for the Men whom I accused had said much worse, and in words more silthy, than that there is a necessity of all things Future.  
12. Immortal Grotius in his Investigation of Antichrist doth devoutly breathe forth into this expostulation. 
Grotius, the Great, calls them the Enemies of God, who make God the Author and cherisher of sin. though not in those very words, yet in such as are equal to them. Cui magis competit nomen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [Deo adve●santis] quam iis qui summè bonum faciunt omnium Scelerum Auctorem & Fautorem? etc. Grot. in Appendice de Antichristo. p. 64, 65. vide etiam p. 85.  [To whom can the Name of Antichrist, or him that opposeth himself against God, be more agreeable, than to them who make the good God to be the Auctor and Fautor of all Impieties? Thereupon he reckons up some of their prodigious speeches who are wont to hide themselves with their pretended enmity to Arminius, of which I intent to give account in my following Section. I will only here observe, that he alludes to those very Men who were a part of my Catalogue; and shows how contrary they are to the Protestant Confession at Augusta, (and therein to Melancthon) which teacheth freewill in the Orthodox Notion (Art 18.) and that the will of the wicked is the cause of their wickedness, (Art. 19) and that they who are not righteous who commit mortal sins, because God requires that we resist our vile affections. (Art. 20.) and which condemns them that say, That men being once justified can never lose the Holy Ghost. Ib. editionis Grotianae 34.  
13. It is no less than Rank Blasphemy to make God the Author of sin. 
Bishop Hall, that pious and learned Prelate, and who was one of the Synod of Dort. calleth even them blasphemous Cavillers, who cast their condemnation (which is not sin, but its effect only) upon the absolute will of an unrespective power. Select Thoughts, Medit. 34. &c 35. from p. 102. to p. 107.  Psal. 5. 4. Our sin is our own, and the wages of sin is Death. He that doth the work earns the wages; so then, the righteous God is cleared both of the sin, and our death, only his justice pays what we will needs deserve, we ought to give the Devil his due, it is possible for us to wrong that Malignant Spirit, in casting upon him those evils which are not properly His. There are carnal Temptations that are raised out of our own corrupt Nnture, which needs not Satan's immediate hand; being once depraved we can act evil of ourselves, and if Satan be the Father of sin our will is the Mother, and sin is the cursed Issue of both— The Devil could not take, unless we gave; our will bewrays us to his Tyranny, (and before p. 102.) how unjustly hath the presumption of Blasphemous Cavillers been wont to cast the envy of their Condemnation merely upon the absolute will of an unrespective power, as if the Damnation of the Creature were only a supreme will, not of a just merit, etc. How very heavily this falls, in several respects, upon all my Accusers, any Reader who is awake cannot choose but see without a Candle or a Comment.  
These few examples (few I mean in comparison of what I am able to produce) are enough to make it appear, how very mildly I spoke in the Correct Copy of my Notes, and through how great an in advertency I have been blamed. I hope he will not now say, that Imputations of such a strain as are found in the writes of ancient Fathers, and Counsels, and modern Divines of the Protestant Church, might have been left by Men professing Modesty, unto Bolsec and others of their complexiou. But what will he say, if I said no more against the Teachers of such Doctrine, than themselves, by sits, have many times said against themselves? I will show in one paragraph the great severity of their Censures, and in another I will manifest how very patly those Censures do hit themselves.  
§. 6. Sixthly therefore, 
Mr: Calvin's own censure exceedeth mine, if not that of Bellarmine and Bolsec too.  Is it not so that Mr. Calvin disputing against the Libertines is fain to say in plain terms, [that 
a Notandum ex hoc Alticulo, tria admodum qorrenda consequi, 1. nullum inter Deum & Diabolum discrimen fore, etc. Calvin contra libert. c. 23.  from this one Article God worketh all things, three things do follow extremely frightful; of which the first is, that there will be no difference between God and the Devil? etc. nay further, (in the 
b Ipsum ● se negari opertet, & in Diabolum transmutari. Id. ib. c. 14.  next Chapter) that God must be renowced by himself, and be transmuted into the 
b Ipsum ● se negari opertet, & in Diabolum transmutari. Id. ib. c. 14.  Devil?] And doth not Beza himself incur that censure, whilst he so interprets that Text [God worketh all things, Ep. 1. 11.] As to say to that that unversal particle [all] could not be 
c Ac ne peccata quidem excipi possunt. Beza advers. castle. Aphor. 1. & 6.  restrained by any the least exception, & that 
c Ac ne peccata quidem excipi possunt. Beza advers. castle. Aphor. 1. & 6.  sins themselves cannot be excepted? And doth not Calvin say again the direct contrary to Beza, that S. Paul there speaks only of the graces of the Holy Ghost? and yet doth not Beza cite calvin's own judgement for his exposition which is so contrary to calvin's? as when he saith, that in the judgement of Calvin, those things which are wickedly done by Men are the righteous 
e Ejusdem Calvini judicio, quae perperam & injustè ab h●minibus fiunt, eadem justa & recta sunt Dei opera. Id. ib.  works of God? And again, doth not Calvin incur his own censure by what he saith in my greater and lesser 
* To which add Instit. l. 3. c. 23 Sect. 6, 7, 8. & Sect. 4.  Catalogue? (and in many other places, which I can name if challenged to it?) or if he had not thus spoken against himself, yet is it sufficient for my plea against my Assailant, that he hath spoken such bitter things as have lighted so heavily upon his own Party. He saith expressly elsewhere, that it is a monstrous 
f Certè ut quidvis contra tam prodigiosam Blasphemiam dicatur, libenter patiar. Calvin de occult. Dei Prov. p. 736.  prodigious Blasphemy to say that God is the Author of Sin, and consents that 
f Certè ut quidvis contra tam prodigiosam Blasphemiam dicatur, libenter patiar. Calvin de occult. Dei Prov. p. 736.  any thing be said against it. Now it having been evidenced (as it shall be also farther) that the chief men of his Party have affirmed that horrible proposition, both in equivalent, and downright Terms, and in Terms of a more fulsome and blacker strain, (it being worse to compel men to sin, than to be simpliciter an Author of it,) I was permitted by his 
g This Mr. B. confesseth, Correp●. Corr▪ page 64. Dr. Whitaker's severe Censure of his own party upon supposition that they say what I have proved, and shall prove they have said with a witness. Si Calvinus aut Martyr aut quisquam nostrum affirmet, Deum esse autorem & Causam peccati, non repugno, quin simus omnes horrendae blasphemiae scelerisque rei. Whitaker. lib. 8. contra Duraeum. Sect. 1:  leave to have spoken as sharply as any Bolsec of those expressions which I mentioned, and I had thanks due to me for having been no sharper.  
2. Doctor Whitaker himself hath these words following. [If Calvin, or Martyr, or any of our Men affirm God to be the Author and cause of sin, I do not deny our being guilty, all of us, of detestable Blasphemy and wickedness.] Here the Reader may observe a very remarkable Concession in 3. respects: First if any of their Party shall so affirm, not only Calvin and Martyr. Secondly, if any shall so affirm, they are all of them guilty without exception; of which the reason must needs be this, because they do all without exception hold the very same principles of irrespective Decrees of Reprobation, etc. and the absolute necessity of all events, from whence any of them do draw such detestable conclusions. Thirdly, that they are all of them guilty of horrible blasphemy and wickedness, if there is any Truth in that supposition. From which three things I do in charity conclude, that if Doctor Whitaker had observed such affirmations of his party, as have been observed by 
* Note, that Dr. Whitaker in the place cited, seemeth not to have heard, at that time of Melancthon's change.  Melancthon, learned Moulin, my insignificant self, and many others without number, he would have been frighted out of their Tenants of unconditional reprobation, as Melancthon and Moulin are known to have been. For 
h Huld. Zuing. Serm. de Pro. c. 5. & 6.  Zuinglius, 
k Mart. Borth. in Isa. 28  Martin Borrhaeus, and others, have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in plain Terms, that God is the Author of the evil of sin, and that sin is the work of God, and particularised in Adultery, and Murder. Zanchy hath said that Men were prae-ordained by God to 
l Ad peccatum quà peccatum. Zanch. de Nat. Dei l. 5. Thes 4. de Repr. p. 555.  sin as sin. Piscator hath affirmed, that Reprobates are predestined to the very 
m Piscator contra Tauf. p. 47.  Causes of Damnation; that is, to sins; and that 
n Idem in Resp. ad Dupl. Vorst. part 1. p. 10, 11.  Incredulity (by name) doth depend upon God's Predestination, as the Cause upon the effect, Triglandius saith, God willeth and 
o Trigland Apolog. p. 172.  effectheth that ungodly Men do live in their concupiscences. Musculus avoweth, that God's Reprobation is the hidden 
p Musculus l. c. de Desperatione.  Cause of final despair, (no peccadillo.) These are some of that party, and of the chief. Come now to those Men which he particularly nameth, viz. Calvin and Martyr, Calvin saith, That there is no other 
q Calvin. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 4.  cause of the Angel's Defection (which was the first and greatest sin that ever was) but God's rejection or Reprobation. Nay farther, that Men do sin by God's 
r lllius impulsu agit quod sibi non licer. Id, Ib. l. 1. c. 18. Section 4.  Impulse. And Peter Martyr speaks as broadly as ever Man did; which though I have 
s The Diu. Philan. c. 3. Sect. 34. p 139.  publicly showed already: yet because he is the Man whom Doctor Whitaker thought fit to Name, I shall set down a passage which I have since observed in reading his Comment upon the Book of Samuel. [The 
t Vulgus existimat, cum Deus excaecare, indurare, tradere, immittere, decipere discitur, nihil aliud significari, quam ipsum permittere ut ista fiant; in quam sententiam permulti ex Patribus eas locutiones interpretantur, eâ procul dubio ratione adducti, quòd impium & blasphemum judicarent, si Deus Auctor Peccati haberetur: nolentes, homines peccatorum suorum Causas in Deum ipsum rejicere— Deus non tantum permittit, sed & vult peccatum, Pet. Mart. Vermil. in 1 Sam. chap. 2. p. 21.  vulgar sort (saith he) are of opinion, that when God is said to blind, to harden, to deliver up, to send delusions, and to deceive, nothing else is signified, but that he permitteth that those things be done. And to that same purpose very many of the Fathers (he should have said all) do interpret those expressions. And doubtless they were induced so to do, because they thought it impious and blasphemous that God should be accounted the Author of sin; and because they were unwilling, that Men should lay the causes of their sins upon God himself. (But he would have them all to know, that) God doth not only permit, but also Will Sin.] Here we have a Taste of this valiant Florentine, who contemns the cowardice of the vulgar (such as Melancthon and Hemmingius) and the squeamishness of the Primitive Fathers, because they were startled at such Bugs, as God's being the Author or cause of sin. So again in his Comment upon the Epistle to the 
u Omnes serè Patres docent, Tradere perinde esse, ac si diceretur, sinere, permittere, aut deserere; abhorrere videntur ut dicant, Deum esse Causam peccati.— Sed non videtur propter istas rationes Idonea persuasio adduci, ut interpretemur haec verba Tradere, obdurare, excaecare, persinere, permittere, desere. Idem in Rome 1. Edit. Basil. A. D. 1570. pag. 78, 79, 80  Romans, he confesseth that all the Fathers (at least almost all) do teach, that to deliver up to sin doth signify no more, than to suffer, or permit, or forsake, because they have an abhorence to the saying that God is the cause of sin. But he rejects their opinion, and pretends to refel it by striving to dissipate their Reasons, (p. 79 80.) and so he finally concludes against them, and to confirm what he hath done (without the least fear of the Father's Scarecrows) he makes Austin to be for him, whom he confesseth to be against him; and whose words against him he first of all citeth, before those others which he will have to make for him. From all which it follows, that I had the favourable allowance of Mr. Calvin and Dr. Whitaker, to accuse those writers of horrid Blasphemy and wickedness, who are commended by my Adversary for their deep acquaintance with the mind of God. But I have not yet showed him the last degree of his misfortune in that Assault which he made upon my Cause and Reputation. For  
§. 7. Seventhly, 
That they are guilty of the Blasphemy who were by me accused, is more than proved by that which follows.  I have the suffrage and Vote almost of all, (and of such, whom I am sure he will not dare to contradict,) that the men of that party which he defendeth, are guilty (of all, and) of more, than I have laid to their charge.  
1. His own beloved Dr. Twisse whom he so vehemently commendeth, 
Doctor Twisse his Censure and Confession. Negari non potest, Aquinatem jam olim docuisse ipsum actum Peccati, esse à Deo: idem docent ho●ie Jesuitae, ex quibus quam facilè quaeso fuit viris istis indoctis, quales erant Libertini, colligere, Deum auctorem ●uisse omnium Scelerum, quae ab hominibus perpetrantur? Addunt Dominicani, Deum determinare voluntatem Creaturae ad omnem actum suum, etiam ad actum peccati, nunquam tam diserté sententiam suam expressisse hactenus reperti sunt Calviniani. Twiss. Vin. Gra. l. 2. part. 1. crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 52.  is more ways his Enemy than he is aware, for first he avoweth, that from the sayings of Aquinas and of the jesuits [That the act of sin is from God] the unlearned Libertines might very easily collect, that God was the Author of all the Lewdnesses which are committed by wicked men. And yet I think that no man is so ridiculous as to say, that Aquinas and the jesuits have spoken so broadly, as the followers of Mr. Perkins and Mr. Calvin; and though the Doctor saith of the Dominicans, that they have expressed their opinion more distinctly than the Calvinists, by saying that God doth determine the will of the Creature to every one of their acts, the act of sin not excepted, yet we know by sad experience, that the Doctor either was deceived, or had an Intention to deceive; besides, that himself 
w See Correct Copy. p. 10.  elsewhere hath blamed the Dominicans for mincing the matter, and not speaking out so distinctly as he would have had them. He also palpably implieth, that the Calvinists opinion is just the same with the Dominicans, though he supposeth the Dominicans to have made it out in plainer terms. Secondly, Dr. Twisse accuseth the 
x Vin. Gra. l. 1. par. 1. Sect. 4. c. 4. Dig. 4. p. 88  Sublapsarians, (and our Reverend Epistoler is one of them) of having fallen upon the Rock which they hoped to have escaped by their escape of the Supralapsarian way, viz. their making God to be the Author of sin. And I accused none of them of any more, than they all accuse one another, and this shall be seen in an other example.  
2. Gomarus, 
The Divided Members of that party who call themselves Antipelagians and the Enemies of Arminius, are irreconcilable Enemies to each other, and may be called Anti-autians, or Anti-Allelians. Deo nihil insipientiùs nec stultiùs affingi potest. etc. Nihil injustius excogitari potest, etc.  and Festus, and other Supralapsarians, do very bitterly contend against Acronius and Dontelock and other Sublapsarians, [That nothing more foolish or more sottish can be fictitiously fastened upon God, than that he should have created Man without having constituted his end either of salvation or damnation, or the making of his wrath and his Power known in the perdition of the Reprobates.] Acronius on the contrary, and the rest of his way, exclaim as much against the Supralapsarians [That no greater injustice can be imagined, than that Man should be reprobated or created to destruction, without the least intuition of his being polluted with any sin.] And whilst the Learned 
y Si utrique parti adversariis blasphemias atroces objicienti credam, utramque Blasphemiae reamteneo; si neutricredam, neutram absolvere possum à Calumniâ; neque enim innocentes esse possunt, qui aliis tam calumniosè blasphemias impingunt. N. Greu. contra Smoulium p. 52. see Act. Syn. Dord. sess. 107. p. 272.  Grevinchovius finds them playing thus at Tennis, bandying Blasphemy as a Ball towards the faces of one another, and with such back-blows as always Hit, he is so equal to both sides, as to clear them both from the guilt of Calumny. For whilst they charge each other with fearful Blasphemy, they both speak Truth, because they both are in an Error. They are the Conquerors and Captives of one another; and both sides must acknowledge, that if there is Blasphemy but on one side, there must be Hellish contumely on the other. Now with which of these should I have sided to have freed myself from Correptory Correption? Not with the Sublapsarians; for the Sublapsarians would have told me that I had fallen into the Frying pan; nor with the Supralapsarians neither; for the Supralapsarians would have told me that I had leaped into the Fire.  
3. Doctor Abbot Bishop of Sarum, 
Bishop Abbot's censure of the absolute Decree. Tristis illa, & omni modo abhorrenda, nuper certè nata, sententia de Absoluto Decreto Reprobationis, quae ante ista tempora, opinor, nunquam in Ecclesia audita est, quam nos quidem aliquando excusate tentavimus, nunquam amplexi sumus, usu autem ipso didicimus, quám perniciosa, quam periculosa, quam à salutari doctrina aliena sit. Rob. Sarisbur. de Gra. & persev. Sanct. in praef. ad Lect. p. 11.  whom my Adversaries are so forward to allege in their behalf, is one of those Reeds on which the harder they lean, the farther he runs through their Elbow. For he calls their opinion of the Absolute Decree of Reprobation a very sour opinion, and as much as may be to be abhorred, an upstart opinion, and before those times never heard of in the Church, an opinion which he had sometimes indeed endeavoured to excuse, but never embraced it as his own; and had found it by experience to be very dangerous, and pernicious, and far ramote from salutary Doctrine.] If he abhored that doctrine for itself, how much more must he have hated its sad effects? if he was ever heartily of that opinion which he calleth pernicious, it was but natural, that being a convert, he should detest it so much the more.  
4. In the judgement of Du Moulin, 
Du Moulin's censure of the same. Quicunque Gloriae divinae amantes sunt, & conscientias turbare metuunt, etc. in Epist. 1. Junii edita Hagae. 1617.  (one of the learnedst Protestants the French Church hath enjoyed) [they are not Lovers of God's glory, nor make any scruple to disquiet Consciences, who say that God doth destroy or reprobate his Creatures, merely because it is his pleasure, and not because they do deserve it.] yet we know 
z Gesselius in speciminis c. 13. p. 52.  who they are, though 'tis not easy to know their number, who say that men are reprobated, not for their sins, but merely because God will have it so. And how angry Dr. Twisse was with learned Moulin, whom he called Arminian, notwithstanding his Book against Arminius, and what other hard words he was pleased to fling at him, as well as against his other Brethren, I have 
* The Diu. Phil. Def. c. 3. Sect. 31. p. 124, 1 25.  already observed in my account of Mr. B.  
5. Moulin also shows the odiousness of an antecedent irrespective Decree of Reprobation, 
Quis non regem abominetur sic loquentem? Ego hunc hominem addico sufpendio; sed ut justè suspendeatur, volo paetret homicidium vel Peculatum. Moulin in Anat. Arm. c. 12. p. 73.  by the similitude of a King, who secretly intending to hang a subject, should contrive to make him a Malefactor, that he might justly send him to the Gallows, that he might have something to hang him for. But who (saith Moulin) would not abominate such a King? and yet 
a Piscator in Resp. ad Dupl. Vorst. part. 1. p. 210.  Piscator saith plainly, that God [did therefore predestine men to sin, that he might justly punish them.] And thence perhaps Mr. B. calls him the Honest Piscator.  
6. It will be yet of greater moment to ascend a little higher, 
Prosper, objicienti, quando servi Dominos occidunt, ideo fieri, qui● ità Deus Praedestinavit ut fieret,] respondet, si Diabolo objiceretur, quod talium facinorum ipse Author, ipse esset Incentor, puto quod aliquâ ratione exonerare se hac posset Invidiâ, & talium scelerum patratorem de ipsorum voluntate convinceret,— probaret se non intulisse vim criminum. Quâ ergo dementia definitur ad Dei referendum esse consilium, quod nec Diabolo in totum ascribi potest, qui in peccantium flagitiis illecebrarum Adjutor, non voluntatum credendus est esse Generator? Nihil ergo talium negotiorum Deus predestinavit ut fieret nec illam animam nequiter turpiterque victuram, ad hoc ut taliter viveret, praeparavit; sed talem futuram non ignoravit, & de tali juste se judicaturum esse praescivit, atque ità ad praedestinationem ejus nihil allud referri potest, nisi quod aut ad de bitam justitiae retributionem, aut ad indebitam pertinet gratiae lusgitatem. Prosp. ad Objec. Vincent. 11. p. 341, 342.  and consider the testimony of Prosper, who thinks it so great an Injury to God Almighty, to say that sins are committed because God predestined that they should be committed, that he believes those words had been injuriously spoken, had they been spoken of the Devil, because the Devil himself can but solicit, and not compel us to do wickedly. And therefore God (saith he) did not predestin that any of those things should be done.— He was not ignorant that such a wicked soul would be, and for saw that he would judge it for such commissions. Nor can any thing more be referred to God's Predestination, than that he doth render justice where it is due, and bestow mercy where it is not.] This is the Sum of that famous Chapter. Which is as contrary to the Doctrine of Mr. B. and his Masters, as any thing can be invented. The chief thing observable I take to be this, that, though there was nothing in the objection, but that, when Servants kill their Masters, or Parents vitiate their Daughters, it is therefore done, because God Predestined that it should be done; yet Prosper takes it for granted in the very beginning of his answer, That God is inferred, by those words in the objection, to be the Author and Incentor of such abominations. Of which if the Devil were accused, he might in part clear himself, because he enforceth no man to sin, but only helps and assists him in it. Observe now the contrariety betwixt Prosper and those men whom I oppose. Prosper saith [It is a madness to refer that to God's Counsel or Purpose which cannot wholly be ascribed to the Devil himself.] yet (saith Piscator) God made men [hoc 
b Johan. Piscator. Thes. 27. & 33.  consilio] with this counsel, or to this purpose, that they really might sin.] Again Prosper saith, that nothing of those affairs was predestined by God that it should be done. Yet (saith Mr. Barlee) God will that sin should fall out, p. 78. He is an absolute determiner in a sovereign way of the several acts of obedience, and Disobedience in relation to Them, p. 88 He did voluntarily decree that sin shall fall out, p. 73. (nor can Mr. B. mean a conditional, but an absolute Decree, witness his principles, & what he saith, p. 88) He doth determine that sin shall be done, p. 79. and may be said to tempt men unto-sin, ibid. and many the like, but also may much worse as hath been showed.  
7. The late Primate of Armagh hath from the very Patrons of that Cause which I oppose, 
Gotteschalk's Patronizers as severe as can be wished. Qui vecessitatem peccandi Deum intulisse hominivel infer dicit, horribiliter in Deum Blasphemat, quem Autorem peccatiesse confirmat. Hist. Gottes. Cap. 10. p. 138.  put this confession upon Record, [That he doth evidently and horribly blaspheme 'gainst God, who saith that he imposeth any necessity of sinning upon his Creatures, because he thereby makes him to be the Author of sin, by compelling men thereunto,] yet these men say, that God 
c See the Catalogue of Blasph. in the Divine Philan. Def: c. 3. p. 132. & seq.  necessitates sin; that it cannot possibly but come to pass, and that he secretly thrusts men on to those sins which he forbids, and when Mr. Barlee justifies the like expression in Mr. Calvin, he adds his own wit to it, and illustrates God's stirring up of sinners by a man's setting of Spurs to a Dull jade, p. 61. and whilst he saith that God is not blamable in so doing, he skips from the Question, which is not [whether God doth sin,] but [whether he willeth the sins of his Creatures, and impels them to wicked acts,] so that he saith in effect the same with Piscator, who endeavours to blaspheme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to be civilly injurious against his maker, by saying, [that God doth 
* Piscator in Praefat. Disp. de praedest. p. 8:  holily thrust men on unto wickedness, that he may punish sins with sins.] And this perhaps may be the reason, why Mr. B. will not hear of any fall from Grace either final, or Total, and why he is so 
d Correp. Cor. p. 221, 222.  indulgent to David's Adultery and Murder, (how much soever aggravated by many foul and black circumstances) as to say, they did not place him in a state of damnation, but only robbed him of the joy of it; of which what reason can be rendered except this one, that David was a better Adulterer, and committed a wilful premeditated murder more holily and unblamably than other men? as if his sins were the less damning by being committed against a clearer light, and against greater obligations, and against more means of Grace, than what is afforded to the Reprobates. But farther,  
8. The famous Archbishop of Lions, 
Remigius Lugdunensis accounts it all one to necessitate sin, and to be the Author of it. Hist. Gotteschal. c. 11. p. 173. Reg. 5:  who is reckoned by them a Patron too, will be as much in their disfavour as I have been whilst they shall reflect upon what he saith on the same occasion, viz. That if God had brought upon any man a necessity of doing wickedly, he had been then the Author of sins.] how much for my opinion, and against them whom I oppose, my opponents themselves may now Conjecture.  
9 Bishop. 
Bp. Cuthbert of Durheme doth show the rise of that Blasphemy in his book entitled [Against the impious Blasphemers of God's Predestination] viz. 1. omnem Dei voluntatem esse decretum, & irrefragabilem. 2. Praedestinationem Fati vicem habere. 3. praescienti●● Dei necessitatem rei eventurae infer. cap. 1. p. 6. & seq.  Cuthbert Tunstal, having pronounced it to be more than a hellish Blasphemy, to say that God is the Author of sin, (as appears by the place already cited) proceeds to discover the very Grounds of so great Impiety, and those he judgeth to be Three; viz. the Doctrines or Tenants, 1. That every will of God is a Decree, and unreversible. 2. That Predestination is instead of Fate. 3. That the foreknowledge of God doth imprint a necessity on what is future. Which he therefore thinks needful to be confuted as the original of the evil, and accordingly sets about it in three distinct Chapters.  
These things being spoken of our Adversaries Doctrines, even by them who are wont to be reckoned upon as Patrons, they may receive their confirmation from other Protestant writers. But I will first mention one who is too old to be a Protestant, although an Orthodox member of the very same Church.  
10. The Anonymous Author of the book entitled [Praedestinatorum Haeresiis] one of St. Austin's Contemporaries set out by learned Sirmondus, 
Arnobius junior, or Hyginus, or whosoever were the Author of [Praedestinatorum Haeresis] Nonagesima Haeresis; quae asserit, Dei praedestinatione Pecca●a committi. l. 2. p. 69. l. 3 p. 71.  doth reckon the opinion of unconditional Degrees to be none of the least of all those Heresies of which his Book is composed, and accordingly give's it this solemn Title.  
The ninetieth Heresy, which asserteth, that sins are committed by the Predestination of God.  
11. Certainly Grotius (if ever any man did) understood the Importance of words and phrases; 
Grotius his● Cento of Blasphemies, which he judgeth to be such, as affirming God to be the Author of sin. Omnium Scelerum Auctorem faciunt, cum docent, ad peccatum quà peccatum praeordinatos esse, etc. Reprobos ver● praedestinatos esse ad hanc conditionem, ut non queant non varia scelera admittere, eósque Necessitate peccati constringi, & quidem sine resipiscentiâ. Deum operari Impium ●d peccatum, ne poen●m ei justè in ●●igere non possit Hoc consilio conditos homines, ut laberentur. Deum cum hominem ad Necessitatem Pecc●ti necessitat, justè agere, qui● potentiam habet gubernandi, ut vult. Deum operari omni● etiam in Impiis. Deum esse, qui ad prav●s actiones incitet, seducat, trahat, jubeat, induret, deceptiones immitt●t à Deo externè ad salutem vocari, quibus immutab●● decreto statuit 〈◊〉 non confer, Grot. de Antichristo p. 64, 65.  he knew when an Inference was right or wrong; and out of what things, what things do follow. But he affirmeth [that those men do make God to be the Author of all the Villainies in the world, who say that men are predestinated to sin as sin; that Reprobates are predestined to this condition, that they are constrained with a necessity of sinning, and that without repentance; that God doth act the wicked to sin, that he may punish him justly; that men were made to this purpose, that they might fall; that God doth justly when he necessitates men to sin, because he hath the power to govern as he will; that God worketh all things in all, yea even in the wicked; that it is God who seduceth, draweth, commandeth, hardeneth, inciteth to wicked actions; and that they also are called outwardly to Salvation, upon whom God purposed not to bestow it by an immutable Decree.] This is that that makes God to be the Author of sin in the unparallelled judgement of that Great man, and although he doth not name the Authors of those several expressions, yet the Authors of them are so obvious, that I am very well able to name the Books and pages where they are written, and shall do it as readily as any Adversary will have me.  
12. He adds another sort of the same men's Aphorisms, 
Grotius his Judgement of those doctrines, which make God an Abettor and Incourager of sin. Omnium scelerum Fautorem faciunt, cum doceant, Fideles in Adulteria, homicidium, Proditiones prolabi posse, non tamen unquam è gratia excidere; manere enim semper viros secund●● Cor Dei; neque peccata illii ob●utura; quia peccata praeterita & futura 〈◊〉 remissa esse. Fideles per peccata ulla etiam gravia, non posse à Dei Grati● ad tempus excidere; opinionem verò contrariam esse ●●ygiae Credulitatis, atqu● à Diabolo profectam, Id. ib.  whereby they speak God to be the cherisher of sins; as when they teach, [that the faithful can fall into Adulteries, Murders, Treasons, but yet they can never fall from Grace, but do still remain men after Gods own heart; nor are their sins any hindrance or disadvantage to them, because all their sins are remitted both past and future. That the faithful cannot fall from the Grace of God by any grievous sins, no not so much as for a time, and that the contrary opinion savours of hellish Incredulity, and proceedeth from the Devil, and many more maxims of this kind may be collected (saith Grotius) from this kind of men. And because the Augustan confession which is unpassionately, purely, and discreetly protestant, doth condemn those Doctrines which are taught by those men, who call themselves Protestant's as well as we, and Reformers (forsooth) of our very Reformation; I did therefore in my Notes prefer the Augustan confession to any other of the Protestants except our own: and thence Mr. B. was so unhappy as to tell the world, that out of pure love to the Augustan confession I am extremely addicted to the M●sse of Ceremonies, with how profound an Incongruity, English Scholars may now judge.  
11. The most learned Bishop Montague, 
Bp. Mountagues censure of irrespective Decrees without relation to those worst effects of the Error of which I spoke. Appel. Caesar. c. 7. p. 68, 69.  with whom, for knowledge of Antiquity perhaps there have not been many who will compare, hath left these words upon Record in his very Appeal to King james, (whom my Assailant hath quoted as an utter Enemy to Arminius) unless from damned Heretics, or stoical Philosophers, I never yet read in Antiquity, of any prime, previous determining Decree, by which men were irrespectively denied grace, excluded from Glory, or enforced to Salvation.  
Should I set down the censures of as many writers as I am able, wherewith my Adversaries Doctrines have been condemned, I should hardly make an end before the Greek Calends. I hope that these are sufficient to convince my Reverend Antagonist, that I was not the first, much less the only Person, who hath spoken severely of those opinions, in opposition to which my Notes were written; and that few have ever spoken of them with greater Patience and moderation than I there did; and that He by consequence hath misplaced his reprehensions; and under pretence of beating me, hath struck at those Authors whose words I have alleged in this long Section, and (whether purposely, or through Incogitancy, I cannot tell) he hath scourged them all upon my Back. Not only Grotius and such as he, but Irenaeus, nay Polycarp, St. Austin and Prosper, nay, the Arausican Council, Bishop Abbot, and Bishop Hall, nay Remigius himself, and the whole Church of Lions, Peter Moulin, and Melancthon, nay Doctor Whitaker himself, His own Brethren of the upper, and lower way, nay Doctor 
* See also Mr. baxter's speeches of Dr. Twisse which shall be recited ch. 5. Sect. 3.  Twisse and Mr. Calvin have not escaped him. These are not all whom I have cited in vindication of my severity against those Doctrines which are severe against God. Amongst them all, there is not a Bellarmine, or a Bolsec, though in such a point as this is, they are as fit to be heard as any others, because the points debated are neither Protestant, nor Popish; or if they are either, they are both. And when the question is, whether black or white is the lighter Colour, or least fit for mourning, I suppose a Papists judgement upon that matter may be allowed; They having sense, and reason, and erudition, as well as we. Besides, The Papists do cast no more upon Protestants, than upon those other Papists, who jump with the Calvinists in these opinions. Nor do the Protestants cast more upon the Papists, than upon those other Protestants, who jump with the Papists in these opinions. Nor do the Papists say worse of the Protestants, than some Protestants do of Papists. And if my Assailant knew this before I told him, I wish he had considered as well as known it. But (not to speak of their suffrages) if those unquestionable Authors, whom I have cited, have only beaten the precious spices as so many Confectioners, merely to draw out the fragrant sent, I do not envy their being beaten, but am very well content that they smell as sweetly as they are able.  
§. 8. Eighthly, Now I have showed what it was upon which I fastened the charge of Blasphemy, and that I could not in charity or in conscience, have spoken less than I did; I cannot but mark in the next place the transcendent partiality of D●. Reynolds, who having timely perused the whole Correptory Correption, before it was sent unto the Press, whilst yet it was capable of some Amendment, was yet so far from blotting out those vast excesses of Railing which his eyes beheld in every page, (against my person, and my opinion, and against every great Author who seemed to stand in his way,) that he rather endeavoured to prove it lawful; nor only lawful, but even necessary in writings of this nature, (they are his own words.) He farther prompted him to a Text to comfort him up in his commissions. And so the Correptory Corrector being [an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] a Favourite, or white Boy, may be allowed to frame a charge of Atheism both [Major and Minor] against all that agree not to [God necessitating of sin;] His Book may be commended as an elaborate and learned piece, for calling slanderous Dragon, and noonday Devil, Satanical Blasphemer, an exceeder of the Devil himself in Blasphemy, worse than Diabolical, and a maker of God to be worse than the Devil. Whereas when I did but distinguish of modest Blasphemers, and such as were for Ligonem, Ligonem, (without the naming of any person,) that is, of such as speak God to be the Author of sin in those very broad and downright Terms, and of such as say the same thing in terms less Blunt, I was surprised from the Press with a chiding Preface, and modestly accused of immodesty, and implicitly affirmed to be of Bolsec's complexion, and all this by a Person professing Friendship and Civility.  
But now I hope he will confess, that I had great and weighty Reasons, to say that the Manichees and Marcio●ites were not so bad in their Assertions;) as they who teach, with contention, that God is the Author or cause of sin: and for this I have the judgement of 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iren. in Epist. ad Flo. p. 510: Edit Colon.  Irenaeus, who saith, that the Heretics never durst to entertain such an opinion, as should but seem to make God the Author of sin. He speaks of Heretics in general, of all that were without the Church; and no doubt but 
f Idem, l. 1. c. 24.  Carpocrates as well as 
g Idem l. 1. c. 29.  Martion, was in his memory and his mind, because he hath written concerning the Heresies of both. Was it not better, or less ill, to make two principles coeternal, the one distinctly of good, the other distinctly of evil, than to ascribe all evil to the God of all goodness? ' Bate but the word Coeternal, and we shall find it good Doctrine, that of good and evil there are two distinct principles; God of the first, and Lucifer of the second. Now those Heretics not believing the liberty of the will, and thereupon not understanding, that without the liberty of the will of the Creature, no imaginable wickedness could ever have come into the world, they concluded that God must be its Author. But then again considering, that the very same fountain cannot yield both kill and healing water, and that the best as well as worst fruit doth never grow from one Tree, and that uncleanness as well as purity could not possibly issue from the very same God, they found it safer to conclude, that there were two distinct Gods to be the contrary principles of good and evil, than that the very same God should be the Fountain and source of both; so that the Heresy of Martion may seem to be in this respect a degree of Reformation: for though he ran into a mischief extremely great, yet it was with an intent to escape a greater. And if it were not so as I have said, why was it said by Irenaeus, that the Heretics themselves had never the boldness to affirm, that the God of holiness and purity was the original Fountain or Cause of sin?  
So far was Carpocrates from such a boldness, that being not able to discern, how the will of men and Angels was able to choose the things forbidden and to refuse the things commanded, a●d thereby to be the cause of sin; he rather chose to say, that there is no sin at all, that good and evil are only words and only differ in the fancies and opinions of men, than to say that one God is the cause of both. For if all things are done by God's will and decree, they must all be good, because he willed and decreed them. But Carpocrates thought then (what our Adversaries say now) that all things are done, without exception, by God's will and decree; upon which he conluded ●that all things are good without exception; and that sin, as well as conscience, is nothing else but a political or Ecclesiastical word. So that his foul Heresy of making no sin at all, in comparison of the other which feigneth God to be its Author, may also seem a pretender to some Degree of Reformation.  
From both these cases it doth appear, that the very worst of the worst opinions, must be that which makes God to be the Author of sin, and when men are frighted by such a Fiend to fly for sanctuary to any thing that lieth next, let every rational man judge how smooth a passage lay open for such as Carpocrates and Martion, to enter, and lie down, and nuzzle themselves in an opinion that there is no God at all; and that Atheism itself is a comparative Reformation; (that is) a flying out of the greatest into somewhat a lesser evil. All which mischiefs would be avoided, if men were so humble as to acknowledge, that they themselves are the Authors of sin and misery. 2 That their Wills are 
* Christ himself hath made them free (Gal. 5. 1.) and so not left them under any necessity to sin & perish.  free, and not necessitated to sin. 3 That being free, they can 
† Through Christ who strengthens them, as well by the preventions, as the further Assistances of his grace, they can choose to avoid▪ sin whilst yet they are able to embrace it also (Phil. 4. 13.  choose either to shun, or to embrace it. 4 That God's withholding of grace is no man's guilt, but man's abusing of grace which God afforded. 5 That God expecteth to receive after the measure that he hath given 6 That no man living can be condemned for never having had a Talon, but for having been an ill servant in wilfully squandring it away, or in the wilful neglect of its Improvement. And now I hope it is evident from all that hath hitherto been spoken, that there was reason and modesty in all I said concerning modest and immodest Blasphemers, who say directly, or indirectly, That God is the Author and cause of sin. And therefore  
§ 9 Ninthly, My Reverend Assailant is least of all to be excused, for that which he adds in the last part of this Paragraph. viz. [that their Lord and Brethren before them have met with the same measure. Mar. 2. 7. Mat. 26. 65. Act. 6. 13.] But here I ask him, and let him answer if he is able, (and if he is not, let him confess his error) Did Christ ever let fall such expressions as those, which I have proved to be blasphemous? Did our Lord and Master ever say, that men do break God's Law by God's own Impulse or Compulsion, or by his precept and command? That God can will that man shall not fall by his revealed will, and in the mean while ordain by his se●ret will, that the same man shall infallibly and efficaciously fall? Did our Saviour ever say so much as in appearance, That God doth make men Transgressor's, That Adultery is the work of him the Author, mover, and Impeller? That God's Decree is no less efficacious in the permission of evil, than in the production of good? That God doth not only prostitute men to sins and administer the occasions of sinning, but doth also so move and urge them, that they may smite the sinner's mind, and really affect his imagination?] Was He called Blasphemer for such things as these? and were not These the very things, upon which in My Notes I laid my charge? Things confessed to be Blasphemy by the very Authors and Patrons of them, when in their sober fits or lucid Intervals, they look upon them as spoken by other men? See the matchless absurdity of the comparison, by consulting those Texts to which my Adversary refers us. [jesus said to the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee; upon which said the Scribes within their hearts, why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Mark 2. 7.] jesus to●ilate ●ilate, that he was the Christ the son of God, whereupon the High Priest rend his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy, what farther need have we of witnesses? Behold now ye have heard his Blasphemy. Mat. 26. 65.] St. Stephen did miracles among the people, and disputed against the jews; and therefore they suborned men to say, that they heard him speak blasphemous words. Acts 6. 11, 13.] Let these sayings of Christ and of St. Stephen be well compared with the sayings of Mr. Calvin and his Disciples, and we shall find the difference to be as great, as betwixt Christ and Calvin, betwixt the followers of Christ, and the followers of Calvin, betwixt St. Stephen, and Dr. Twisse, or betwixt me, and those jews in our several Churches. And here I challenge his answer to this Dilemma, Did our Lord and St. Stephen meet with the very same measure from the jews, which the men whom I cited received from me, or did they not? If he shall answer that they did, then must he prove that the sayings of those men whom I cited were as far from blasphemy as the saying of Christ and St. Stephen; or that the sayings of Christ and St. Stephen had as much of blasphemy in them, as those which I cited for making God to be the Author of sin. But if he shall answer that they did not, he must not only eat his words in a Corner▪ but make public satisfaction; not only to me, but to every one of those Authors whom I have quoted in this chapter▪ speaking much more sharply, than I have done. He alone is to be blamed, that this Dilemma doth fall so very heavily upon him. It was no fault of mine, that he would needs utter that, which reflecteth upon him with so much sharpness, but on the contrary I wish, a●d I wish it heartily, that he had either brought me an harder argument, or at least that he had given me a softer word.    

CHAP. V.  

E. R.  
There have been men of great Learning, and not wholly devoted to the judgement of Calvin, who have taught even Dissenters thus to say of him, 
B. Andrews, opusc. p. 115.  Calvino, illustri viro, nec unquam sine summi honoris praefatione nominando, non assentior.   

T. P.  
§ 1. BEhold the utmost that I can gather from this third way of arguing. Men of great learning have spoken honourably of Calvin, therefore I have done ill to call that blasphemy whereby God is concluded to be the Author of sin. It might suffice me to say, that I deny his Sequel, but I have something to say besides; for first there is not a Page in all my Notes, wherein I give Mr. Calvin the least dishonourable Term. I fairly name him and cite his words, and consider the matter of which he speaks, and show the reason of my dislike, and so I am sure did Bishop Andrews; and therefore this paragraph is nothing at all to the purpose, unless it would intimate to the Reader that I had said of Mr. Calvin, what its Author knows I never did, if I have forgot, and he remembers, let him do me the justice to name the time, or the place.  
§ 2. He confesseth that Bishop Andrews had his dislikes to Calvin, and that himself doth not jurare in verba, either of Calvin, or any other, amongst whom Dr. Twisse must needs be one, and why might not I descent from either? And offer my arguments or reasons against their Doctrine, whilst (he knows) I meddled with nothing else? I spoke indeed of Blasphemers without applying the word to any person in particular; yet I meant it of all in general, who have any way affirmed God to be the Author of sin. But my Adversary applied it to Mr. Calvin and Dr. Twisse, which why should he have done, unless he thought he had reason for it, by verily believing that they were guilty? Yet he compares me to the jews imputing Blasphemy to Christ. How much better had he applied it unto the Correptory Correptor who suborned false witness (a Rev●rend Minister he called him, but no man living can tell where he dwells) to make me a Ranter, and a what-not? Fictions, as remote from all probability, as well as truth, as the wit of Calumny could have removed them, whereas I spoke not a word of Mr. Calvin or Dr. Twisse, which was so much as uncivil, much less untrue. I had no such word, as Calvino-Turcismus; nor did I call him an Enemy to the three persons in the Trinity for calling them 
h Grot. in Voto pro Pace p. 15.  Tres proprietates; nor did I call him an enemy to the Nicene Creed, for not approving of Christ's being 
h Grot. in Voto pro Pace p. 15.  God of God; nor did I say (with Hunnius,) Calvinus judaizans; or that the fault of 
k Hunnius apud Grot: Discuss. Rive●. Apol. p. 115, 186.  Impertinence and falsehood was laid by Calvin to the charge of three Evangelists, St. Matthew, Mark, and john; nor did I call Mr. Calvin, as Mr. Calvin called others, viz. Serpent, Pest, Fool, Hangman, Knave, Devil, Impudent Impostor, and filthy Dog.] These and others without number, are Mr. calvin's own Terms, which he frequently heapeth upon great and good Men; yet every Reader is my witness, that I did not fasten on Mr. Calvin any one uncomely or unfriendly Epithet, though Bucer himself had called him Fratricide: so I can say of Dr. Twisse, that I did not call him Antinomian, as he is said to have been called in the Assembly of Divines but whether truly or falsely, I cannot tell. I can name a worthy person who professeth to have read it in Mr. Baxter. Nor did I use him as others use me; nor as he himself was wont to use others. I had to do with his Doctrine but not with his person.  
§ 3. To conclude. If my Assailant is so zealous of other men's good Names, as to complain of me in public for merely seeming to be injurious, In how tragical a manner must he needs protest against that great number of Ministers (all, I think, of his party) who have reckoned the Reverend Doctor Hammond, (a person never to be mentioned without a preface of Honour and Veneration) amongst the 
l A Testimony to the Truth of l. C. in Praes. p. 2.  Cursed Blasphemers, the 
m Ibid. p 4.  abominable erroneous, and the 
n Ibid. p 4.  Damnable Heretics of the Times, alleging no better reason than this which follows, That in his practical Catechism he had used these words [
o Ibid. p. 9  Christ was given to undergo a shameful Death, voluntarily upon the Cross, to satisfy for the sin of Adam, and for all the sins of Mankind.] Whosoever shall compare these few plain words both with the 
p Art. Eccl. Angl. 2. 7, 15. 31.  Articles of the Church of England, and with the whole Tenor of the 
q 1 John 2. 2. Heb. 2. 9 John 4. 42. 1 Tim. 4. 10. 2 Pet. 3. 9 Act. 17. 30.  Scriptures, he will think it somewhat more than wonderful, that Men should be so unlucky in their Devices, as to rank the greatest Maxim of Christian Religion amongst the greatest Abominations that they were able to describe. And which if it had been a Blasphemy, they themselves had been guilty of the thing which they condemned, by having said it in effect in the very same Book. p. 32. line 14, 15, 16, 17. Or if he will not be severely sensible of this irreverence to Dr. H. yet what damnatory sentence will he pronounce on Mr. Baxter, who hath laid to the charge of Mr. Pemble and Dr. Twisse, 
r Aphorisms of justif. Thes. 36. p. 173.  That their own mistake of Iustification's being an immanent Act of God did lead them to that error and Pillar of Antinomianism, viz. justification from Eternity? adding further in the same Book] 
s Id ib. Append. p. 163, 164.  That they sought against jesuits and Arminians with the Antimonian Weapons, and so they ran into the far worse Extreme; and immediately after undertakes to demonstrate, that [The Doctrine of Christ's immediate actual Delivering us from guilt, wrath, and condemnation, is the very Pillar and Foundation of the whole Frame and Fabric of Antinomianism.] And what his Thoughts are of the Antinomian Faith, he hath expressed 
t Saints everlast. Rest. part. 3. c. 3. sect. 2. in marg. p. 40, 41.  elsewhere by [A believing the Devil the Father of Lies, and not God, yea against God; A resting on the deceiung Promise of the Devil for justification; (and are not such like to be well justified by their Accuser?) nay, it is a making the Devil their God, etc.] Not many Pages before this, He had laid it to the charge of the same Dr. Twisse, that [
u Id ib. part. 3. c. 2. sect. 15. p. 38. in ma●g.  The physical active Determination of Man's Will to sin, or the act which is sinful, by God's effectual Influx, is asserted by him.] professing also just before, that [He detested their Doctrine and way of preaching, who teach Men to lay the chief cause of their sin and Damnation from themselves on God, and would have wicked men believe that none but the Elect do sin against the Price that was paid for them, and so would quiet their Consciences in Hell, as if they were not guilty of any such sin.] Now if Dr. Twisse was so eminent a servant of Christ and so deeply acquainted with the mind of God, as my Assailant is pleased to dictate, his next Assault (I suppose) ought to be made on Mr. Baxter. of whom it hath also been elsewhere showed, that he hath spoken not a little to the Discredit of 
* Saints everlast. Rest. part. 1. c. 8. sect. 2. p. 154.  Mr. Calvin.    

CHAP. VI  

E. R.  
But it is no new thing to draw invidious consequences from such opinions as we have a mind to render odious unto the world. A Fate which hath ever followed these controversies from the beginning of them▪ Nine or ten Pelagian Calumnies, Austin, that renowned Champion of Grace, 
Vide etiam contra Julian. l. 2. c. 1. & l. 3. c. 24. & l. 4. c. 3.  is put to remove in his second and third Books, contra duas Episto las Pelagianorum. In the Epistles of Prosper and Hilary unto him, we find many heavy consequents charged by the Massilians, upon his Doctrine, the vocatione secundum propositum & de Praedestinatione, that it giveth occasion of sinning, makes men careless of standing, careless after lapses of rising again, taketh away all industry and regard of virtue, induceth a Fatal Necessity, weakeneth vigour of preaching, is contrary to the edification of hearers, rendereth fruitless all Christian Correption, and driveth men into Despair. 
In resp. ad Artic. falsò sibi impositos in Edit. Bas. Prosper ad Capit. object. Vincent. Histor. Gotsch. c. 2, 3. Amica Collatio p. 294.  Yea that holy man, or Prosper his Follower (for the work goes under both Names (was fain to conflict with these very objections of Gods making men to destroy them, and of his being the Author of sin. And after that, the same objections were made against the same Doctrine of Austin under the odious name of Haeresis Praedestinatiana, as the renowned Bishop Usher, & learned Camero have observed. And the same we find revived in handling the same Controversies in our days, rendering those opinions odious which please us not, as sore Impediments unto true Piety, by the Author of the Book, called God's love to Mankind, and others. From which charge they have been sufficiently vindicated, 
Prosp. ad Cap. Gal. Hist. Go●teschalc. c. 5.  as of old by Prosper, Aquitanicus, Remigius, Lugdunensis, and others, so of late by those learned men, who have answered the forenamed Book. But this being a taking Medium, I find also used by the Socinians. Ionas Schlitingius hath written a disputation against Meisner a Lutheran Divine, in defence of Socinus to this very effect.   

T. P.  
§ 1. It is impossible to conceive wherein the hardness of this fourth argument doth lie. Here are many premises to one purpose very plainly expressed, from which the conclusion is very bashfully implied Observe Reader how it stands. Austin was put to remove 9 or 10. Pelagian Calumnies, the Massilians charged many heavy consequents on his Doctrine, his Doctrine was objected against under the name of Haeresis Praedestinatiana, etc. Ergo, what? The Conclusion (if any) must needs be this, that Mr. T. P. hath done like the Pelagians & Massilians, (& like the Socinians against Meisner) in setting down the express words of some modern Writers whom he did not name neither. And so here is the Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi, which the unconsidering Reader may chance to swallow, if the palate of his judgement is so thickly paved, as not to feel it or taste it in gliding down. But every Reader who is awake will find a strange Incongruity betwixt the Premises and the Conclusion; for first, those in the premises did name St. Austin. Secondly, they did not set down his own very words. Thi●●ly, they drew s●●h consequents from Augustine's words, which were disavowed by him and Prosper but never justified by either of the● whereas my case (which must be hi● conclusion, if he own any pertinence of all here spoken) doth differ from that [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] as much as may be: for first, I 
w Correct. Copy of Notes. p. 9 & 10.  named not the 〈◊〉 whom I accused. Secondly, I set down their very 〈…〉. Thirdly, The Correptory Correptor was so far from disavowing those frightful speeches, that he 
x See the 10. last sections of the Divine Philan. defended.  ●ndeavoured to justify, and make them good. And as my irreveren●, so also my Reverend Adversary doth not 〈◊〉 to cloak them with pretensions even of Scripture. 〈…〉 Correptory Correptor was not satisfied with that he said, that the expressions of holy Scripture do go 
* Corrept. Cor. p. 56.  beyond the very highest of either moderate or bold Blasphemers, (though some of them affirmed God to be the Author of Adultery, and not only the Author but the Impeller too,) accusing all Men of 
y Id. ib. p. 143. 118 56. & 68  Atheism who will not give him their suffrage.  
§ 2. 'Tis true that Austin and Prosper did vindicate themselves from the Pelagian Calumnies, as I have vindicated myself from the more groundless Calumnies of the worse extreme; and 'tis a most pleasing observation, that they did so vindicate themselves, as to declare their Detestation of all those Doctrines which I condemned, and their express Approbation of those very Doctrines which I asserted. He that shall read St. Augustine's answers add Articulos sibi falso impositos, Prospers answers ad Capitula objectionum Gallorum, and his other answers to the objections of Vincentius, will say, that my Reverend Assailant could not possibly have done me a greater favour, than to produce those things to my prejudice (as he thought it) which I have often 
z See The Diu. Philanth. ch. 1. sect. 5. p. 29.  urged to my advantage.  
§. 3. His mention of the Book called God's love to Mankind, hath proved also a favour to me. For having sent for that Book on this occasion, I find the Author of it a Convert from the Sect which he there opposeth. He professeth in the entrance to give the reasons, by which he was moved to 
a p. 1.  change his opinion in some controversies debated between the Remonstrants and their opposites. And (not to speak of his other reasons) the second reason of his change he 
b p. 24. to p. 37.  professeth to be this, that the opinion which he forsook (to wit, the opinion of the Calvinists which I have also forsaken upon the very same grounds) chargeth God with men's sins ●n Earth, and makes him the Author, not of the first sin only that entered by Adam into the World, but of all other sins that have been, are, or shall be committed to the World's end, no Murders, Robberies, Rapes, Adulteries, Insurrections, Treasons, Blasphemies, Heresies, Persecutions, or any other Abominations whatsoever fall out at any time, or in any place, but they are the necessary productions of Gods Almighty Decree. Behold the liberal and ingenuous Confession of that Conscientious and learned Calvinist. First I say Conscientious, because he was not ashamed to retract his errors, nor to publish his Retractation; nor did he fear what might follow, by his contracting the displeasures of a revengeful party; next I say learned, because he Confuteth his former judgement in an unanswerable manner; which is the likelier to be so, because an answer hath been attempted by the learnedst Men of that party, who could arrive no higher than to attempt it,) neither of them avowing the very same Doctrines which he opposed (and betray a dissatisfaction in each others performances, why else was it attempted by more than one? Last of all I say Calvinist, as presupposed in his Conversion. He could not first cease to be a Calvinist, and then discover the reasons why, the motives to his Repentance must needs precede his change of life. He disliked that Sect, before he left it, however his leaving of it might tread upon the heels of his dislike.  
§. 4. Prosper, Aquitanicus, Remigius, L●gdunensis, are thus distinguished with Commas in that Edition of his Epistle unto the Correptory Correptor. As if four of the Ancients had been instanced in, whereas Prosper of Aquitanea was but one Man, and Remigius of Lions was but another, nor he a very old one neither. But I suppose those Commas the error only of the Printhouse; all that I charge on my Assailant is his unreasonable mention of those two Men, very much to his prejudice, but not to his purpose in any kind, they having not vindicated the speeches of Mr. Calvin, Zuinglius, and Dr. Twisse, (they were neither so young, nor yet so giddy) but vindicated themselves from being thought to be Patrons of those opinions, which by the three Men mentioned were since espoused, and (as I have partly already showed, Chap. 4. §. 6, 7.) they did vindicate themselves, as well from those foul Doctrines which I discover and oppose, as from those very calumnies then framed against them.    

CHAP. VII.  

E. R.  
But how ill it beseemeth Sons of the Reformed Church of England, to take up that charge, which Bolsec, Bellarmine, Becanus, Kellison, Fit●simon, Stapleton, Fevardentius, and others of that party, have unjustly cast upon the worthy Instruments of God in the Reformation of the Church, and which have been so expressly disavowed, and so fully wiped off by a whole cloud of learned writers, (some 
* 31. Are named in his Margin, and being there but named, this Margin is not concerned in them, because not a syllable is produced of words, or matte●  few of whom I have è meâ tenui supellectile in the Margin pointed unto,) I leave unto you to show.  
Sure we are, that upon a Candid examination, it will appear, that in this Argument, Protestant Divines have intended no more than Austin before them did say, whom none will by name accuse, for making God the Author of sin, though some, as Baronius observeth, dumb in Novatores (so he calleth our Divines) insurgunt, à sancti Augustini sententia de praedestinatione recedunt. Nor h●ve they intended any more than by multitudes of places of 
a 38. Texts are referred to in the Margin, but the words not mentioned, much less explained, or applied to any one sentence which they are pretended to excuse.  Scripture they were led unto, which places as we read with Adoration and trembling, at the unsearchable judgements of God, so we cannot but with all submission acknowledge the holiness and Authority of them.   

T. P.  
§. 1. ALL these Propositions thus put together do look as if they would be glad to have the force of a fifth argument, and though they have not the luck they have the willingness to infer, that I have done very ill in setting down that 
c Correct. Copy of Notes. p. 9, & 10.  Catalogue of Dr. Twisse his expression●, and two besides, Calvin and Zuinglius. But here he miscarries in as many respects as it was possible. For first, I did civilly conceal their names. Secondly, I cited their naked words, and therefore could not charge them falsely; if the words did blush to be seen in English, the fault was theirs who first divulged them in Latin. Thirdly, they were not all Instruments in the Reformation of the Church; for Dr. Twisse and Mr. Calvin, were far from being Contemporaries, and (as to the matters in debate) as far from being of one opinion; and that wherein Dr. Twisse had his part, and presided, was far from being a Reformation. Fourthly, they never expressly disavowed what I transcribed out of their works; or if they had done it, their crimes had been but so much the greater; nor am I to be Blamed, if other Men will say foul things in print, and then disavow the having said them. Fifthly, Doctor Twisse his speeches made up half my Catalogue; and so far have they been from being fully wiped off by a whole Cloud of learned Writers, that of the 31. Writers whom my Reverend Assailant is pleased to name for that purpose, there is not one that hath attempted to do him that Favour, much less▪ they who were dead before he came into the world. Sixthly, so far is Dr. Twisse from excusing the Sublapsarians, that he accuseth them rather, like some Bolsec or Bellarmine, as I would here show, if I had not done it enough 
d The Diu. Philan. Defen. ch. 3. sect. 31. p. 123, 124. & seq.  already. Seventhly, another whom he names is Bishop Abbot, who yet is as bitter an enemy to the absolute decree of Reprobation, as either Bellarmine or Bolsec. He calls it [a 
e Robert Sarisb. de Gratiâ & Perser. sanct. in Prae●at. ad lector. p: 13.  cruel opinion, contrary to Scripture, and to the Fathers of the Church, a wicked opinion, a 
f p. 12.  Rock of mischief to be avoided] he speaks most severely of all the Supralapsarians, of Mr. 
g Idem in Thomsoni Diatribam. cap. 1. p. 83, 84.  Perkins by Name, and by inevitable 
g Idem in Thomsoni Diatribam. cap. 1. p. 83, 84.  Consequence of Dr. Twisse, he holds them as bad as the Pelagians; and professeth that their Doctrines do make men fly unto Arminianism by way of Refuge: of whom I add no more, because I speak of him above, (viz. chap. 4. § 7.) Whosoever shall compare the places cited in Bishop Abbot, with Mr. Perkins and Dr. Twisse, will say that my Assailant should have thought a second time, before he put them into his Catalogue. Eighthly, nor was he less unfortunate in his pitching upon Maccovius, who in the Synod at Dort did very publicly contend, [That 
h This the Reverend Assailant might have found in the Book by him mentioned called God's love to mankind. p. 3. And he alone is to be thanked for this Citation.  God doth will sins, ordain men to sin, as sin, and wills not by any means that all men should be saved, (as directly contrary to the Apostle as he could possibly have spoken) and as if this were not enough, he farther declared in the Synod, [that except these things were held and maintained by them, they must come over to the Remonstrants.] The Reader may now judge what is meant by my Assailant when he saith, that the charge which is brought against his party, is so fully wiped off by blunt Maccovius, and such as Herald But what was done to Maccovius for those expressions? He was pronounced in the Synod to be pure and Orthodox, and only admonished as a Brother, to take heed hereafter of such words, as might give offence to tender Ears, and could not well down with those, who are yet uncapable of such Mysteries.  
§ 2. By these three or four men, it will be easy to judge of all the rest in his Inventory, to whom notwithstanding I should have spoken in particular, if He had ventured to set down any one of their words: and had he seen any thing in them to his Advantage, I make no doubt but I should soon have heard of it, at least the Correptory Correptor would have found it out, whom it concerned so nearly, and for whose assistance this Catalogue was so professedly intended. But I have made it appear, that he hath wiped them fouler (if fouler may be) than they seemed to be before he wiped them, (as I have seen some Houses, which however unclean in other respects, yet the uncleanest thing of all hath been the Besom.) So that the utmost which I learn from the long Catalogue of writers, is this; that my Reverend Antagonist is the possessor of many Books, whose Authors being of his party do write in favour of his opinions, that is, of their own; and being naturally willing to be well enough thought on, they have done their brotherly-endeavours to make the best of a bad matter, that the Enormities of the party may be abhorred so much the less. It is one thing to excuse, or alleviate a Fact, but quite another to plead its Innocence. Bishop Abbot did his endeavour to excuse the Doctrine of Mr. Perkins, although he called it the 
k Non satis▪ consuluit nomini suo, qui tanquam equum quendam Trojanum Contentionis tam dirae seminarium intra Fidei Muros invexit. Robert: S●risb. in Praes. ad. lect. de Persev. Sanct. p. 11.  seminary of dire contention, which like some Trojan Horse was brought within the walls of Faith; and also 
l Perkinsius— erravit errorem non le●em, cujus ● doctis quibusdam vir is inita jamdudum, & suscepta. defensio turbas Ecclesiis non necessarias dedit, quas etiamnum non sine Scandalo & periculo haerere videmus, dum, & Idem in Toms. Diatr. p. 1, 2. mihi 83, 84.  blamed those men (of whom Dr. Twisse must be the chief) who undertook the defence of so great an Error, as that which was not only troublesome, but dangerous and scandalous to the Church of God. In like manner Dr. Twisse doth sometimes labour to excuse the Synod at Dort, although he labours to confute it with all his might; and again doth bitterly inveigh against learned Moulin for his opinion of Reprobation, for which the Synod at Dort thought fit to 
m Act. Synod. Dord. part 1. p. 348. Sess. 144.  thank him. I say they thanked him for all his Letter without exception of any period, although they could not but know, that he was perfectly 
n Act. Syn. Dord. part 1. Sess. 143. p. 339, 340.  Arminian in what he said of Reprobation. It seems Du-Moulin was a Favourite, and (for his other opinions sake) to be commended even for that, for which a Remonstrant had had their Correptory Correption.  
§ 3. How inexcusable the Doctrines of many Calvinists have been, and how little to be owned by the more ingenuous of their own party, the Reader may easily pass a judgement by these following observations: First the Remonstrants were 
o Submonuit Praeses, ut poti●s quoestionibus illis inhaererent, quae circ● suavem de electione doctrinam versarentur, quam ut odiosè doctrinam de Reprobatione exagitarent. Act. Synod. Dord. part. 1. Sess. 32. p. 12●.  submonished by the Precedent of the Synod (who must be remembered to be Bogerman) not to exagitate the p●int of Reprobation, but rather to insist on the pleasant Doctrine of election; thereby discovering, where his shoes did most pinch him. Secondly, the Remonstrants repeating that submonition, affirm it to have been, that they should rather meddle with Election, than with the 
p A. R. D. Praeside moniti sumus, ut à negativis abstineremus, & de Electione potius, quam odiosâ Reprobationis materiâ ageremus. Ib. Sess. 34. p. 133.  odious matter of Reprobation. And had they added the word odious, or put it i● stead of odiosè, they had been certainly reprehended by them that had them in subjection. Thirdly, from the beginning to the ending of that affair, the Synod would not endure to 
q Ibid. a Sess. 32. usque ad Sess. 65.  hear what the Remonstrants could object against the Calvinists Doctrines of Reprobation, but commanded them to answer to all such Questions, as Mr. Bogerman should please to ask them. Fourthly, there were 
r Ibid. Sess. 132. pa. 1. p. 277.  some in the Synod of more moderate dispositions, and fearing God, who did plead for a Rejection of such expressions, as appeared to make God the Author of sin; which is a Token of their dislike, although they could not prevail against the Number of their Opponents; nor indeed is it a wonder, when such men as 
s Ibid. Sess. 128. p. 276.  Triglandius must have the composing of their Canons. Fifthly, when they find such expressions in the 
t Correp. Corr. p. 57 Twis. vin. Gra. l. ●. p. 1 crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 52.  Dominicans writings, or the 
t Correp. Corr. p. 57 Twis. vin. Gra. l. ●. p. 1. crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 52.  jesuits, they are forward enough to fling a stone at them, although they cannot look inward, and see themselves; sure he that spies a Mote in his Adversaries Eye, commends not the Beam that is in his own. If Ocham and Gabriel are confessed by Medina to have said that God is the Cause of sin, and that in the rigour, or propriety of speech 
t Correp. Corr. p. 57 Twis. vin. Gra. l. 2. p. 1 crim. 3. Sect. 1. p. 52.  Mr. B. will tell us, that we shall not find that expression in any Calvinist of Note; as if the men in my larger Catalogue had been obscure, if it is added by the Dominicans, that God determins the will of the Creature to every act of sin itself, 
* loco jam citat●.  Dr. Twisse will say that the Calvinists have not discovered their judgement in terms so plain, as if peccatum qua peccatum, and adultery in particular, had been concealments of their opinion. Sixthly, Let them say what it is to be the Author of sin, and how many ways an Agent is said to be an Author, and by how many expressions it may be spoken, or made out, and I will parallel it all from some or other of their writers.  
§ 4. If there were any possibility of excusing the words and expressions of my Assailant's Party, why should he make it his last refuge to judge of their words by their Intentions, when all that are Mortals have thought it fitter, to judge of men's Intentions by the signification of their words? God alone, (we all grant) is the searcher of the heart and the infallible discerner of men's Intentions. Yet as my Correptory Correptor did make it his ordinary practice; to confute my heart, and report my thoughts, and quarrel with my Intentions, when he found my words were true, and candid, and so cross to his ends, as not to be liable in the least to his exceptions; so here my Reverend Antagonist on the contrary extreme (which is indeed much the better) will needs be sure that his Brethren intended no more than Austin before them did say. And again, that they intended no more than by multitudes of places of Scripture they were led unto. Suppose it were possible, that he being but a man should know their Intentions however different from their words, yet he cannot but remember, that I accused their words, not their Intentions. And I judged of their words by what they signified, not by what they did conceal. If we may judge of their Intentions by such Interpreters as Maccovius, Piscator, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and the like, and if such men may be allowed to judge of intentions by words, (such as I have mentioned Chap. 4. § 6. & 7.) then I have made it appear, that I have hit their intentions too.  
§ 5. But let us look a little more nearly into his words [sure we are,— that protestant Divines have intended no more than Austin before them did say, etc.) 1. Protestant Divines is very equivocally spoken. For those that are of the Remonstrant's opinions are known to be Protestants as well as others, of whom notwithstanding he will not aver, that they intent no more than Austin said. 2. The Papists, (as he confesseth of Baronius, and must confess of many more) dislike receding from S. Austin, as much as any of their kinsmen, the presbyterians; which proves the notreceding from Austin to be not the least character of a Protestant Divine. 3. Hath Austin any where said what I cited out of those men? If my Opponent will produce either the same expressions or others equal to them, then will He (not I) be the accuser of S. Austin. But as he hath not done it, so I have reasons to believe he is not able. 4. Suppose there had been such profaneness in any part of Augustine's writings, this would only have inferred he was not then Saint Austin. Nor would falsehood have been the better for having proceeded out of his mouth. He that shall say the child is damned that is not baptised before he dies, or that hath not received the other Sacrament of Eucharist, may say he means no more than Austin said, but yet he must be taught to mend his meaning and his words too. The truth ' on't is, Austin was not only a Learned, but a well-natured man; and desired nothing more, than that he might not be followed in any one of his Infirmities. [For neither aught I to deny (they are 
u Neque●nim negare deb●o sicut in ipsis moribus, it● multa csse in tam multis opusculis meis, quae possint justo judicio. & nullâ temeritate culpari. Aug. l. 4. de Animâ & ejus origine, ad Vincent. Vict.  Augustine's own words) that there are many things, as in my very manners, so in my works also, which may not only without rashness, but very justly and judiciously be blamed.] Thus we see that Father had more humility than his Admirers, and took a care not to be able to authorise their Errors. Nor will I here conceal the public confession of 
w Haec quoque non gravatim agnosco, si quando iterum recudantur nostra opera,— in quibus ●ffensionis periculum veremur, moderari etiam & mitigate, etc. Calvin de lib. arb. con●ra Pighium.  Mr. Calvin, because confession is one step to Repentance, and to be thought to have repent is the greatest Honour in the world. His confession was this, [That of at any time his works should be reprinted. he would moderate & mitigate those things, wherein he feared the danger of scandal, or offence.] Indeed these words do help to wipe off the stains, which his unwary Admirers are wont to fasten upon his Name; whilst instead of contending that he was sorry for his failings, and intended to publish his Recantation, they endeavour to justify what he condemned; and so the Calvinists in effect do write the most against Calvin. So vast a difference there is, betwixt them that are but the Followers of that Learned man, and us who are his real Friends. Who do not follow him where he erred, through thick and thin, but just as far as he followed Truth, and as far as, we hope, he did intend his Retractations.  
§ 6. Whereas my Assailant is pleased to add, that they intended no more than by multitudes of places of Scripture they were led unto, (referring by figures to many Texts, but in words at length not naming One,) I have several things in answer to him. First who told him, that they intended no more? or that places of Scripture did lead them to the speaking of what they speak? 2. What Errors or Heresies have there been within Christendom, which have not pretended the very same thing, that multitudes of Scripture did lead them to their assertions? 3. Why did he not compare one of the frightfullest speeches which I accused with any one Text of Scripture by him producible? 4. Let him name for the future one place of Scripture, whereby Zuinglius was led to say, [That God makes a man Transgressor, that Adultery or Murder is the work of God the Author, Mover, and Impeller.] what places of Scripture led Smoutius, Vermilius, Beza, Triglondius, Musculus, Sturmius Piscator, Borrhaeus (not to mention the Doctrines of Mr. Calvin, Dr. Twisse, Mr. Hobbs, and a multitude the like,) to say that 
* Note that the several Quotations of these are already premised ch. 4. Sect. 3.  God is the Author of evil, whether of punishment or of sin? that wicked men sin by the force of Gods will? that God effecteth those things that are sins? that his Reprobation is the cause of incurable despair? that both the Elect and the Reprobates were ordained to sin Quatenns Sin: that he is the cause, not only of the actions but of the very defects and privations? that is, of the obliquities, irregularities, and sinfulnesses themselves? Thus we see who they are whose Doctrines of irrespective and unconditional Reprobation (not places of Scripture) have led them to charge God with sinful actions, sins, sinfulness, metaphysically abstracted, beyond which no language, no tongue can speak; above which no fancy, no wit can reach 5. Though the wonder already is very great, yet will it still be much greater, if we compare one of the Texts by which they are said to be led to their Intentions of speaking thus. The first Text he refers to is, Gen. 45. 5, 6, 7, 8. from which place it is evident, that God is affirmed by joseph to be the Author of much good, which his guilty Brethren never thought of, but not at all of the evil which they thought against him. And it will seem to me somewhat more than strange, if Dr. Reynolds cannot distinguish betwixt God's 
* Note here the Confession of Peter Vermilius himself, that almost all the Fathers, and particularly Austin (which is more than almost all) do interpret Tradere ad peccandum by sinere, permittere deserere. Pet. Merl. in Rom. 1. p. 78, 79, 80.  permitting or suffering evil to fall out by the wills of wicked men, which are free to evil, and by which they are said (not to be unavoidably, fatally, or necessarily wicked, but) to be voluntarily, and wilfully wicked, I say it is somewhat more than strange, if he cannot distinguish betwixt Gods permitting that evil, that he might draw good out of it, and his being the Author or Cause of that Evil▪ upon occasion of which the good is wrought. Before he had resolved to give an instance from that Text, he should have compared it with what went before chap. 37. where because jacob loved joseph more than all his Brethren, (v. 4.) and therefore made him a finer Coat (v. 3. they hated joseph, and could not speak peaceably unto him (v. 4.) but they did not hate him by the Impulse of God (as Mr. Calvin) at first spoke) nor did God urge them or smite their minds (as Dr. Twisse.) For the Devil, and their own Flesh, (one or both) did entice, and tempt, though they could not force them to hate their Brother. Well, Joseph dreamt a Dream, which was also a Prophecy, that his brethren's sheaves should make obeisance to his: (v. 6, 7.) which dream was from God, and accordingly both good, and true. But his brethren hated him the mor● (v. 8.) which greater hatred was from the Flesh, and the Devil. Joseph, kind to his brethren, as well as obedient to his Father, went to seek out his brethren from the vale of Hebron to Sichem, and thence to Dothan (v. 14, 17.) This was from God. But before he came to them, they conspired against him to slay him (v. 18.) This from the flesh, and the Devil. Reuben said, let us not kill him, shed no blood, and would fain have rid him out of their hands to deliver him again unto his Father (v. 21, 22.) This was from God, the wise and holy disposer, of all that happens, to his Glory. But they plundered joseph of his Coat, and sold his Body to the Ishmalites, for 20. pieces of silver (v. 23, 28.) This was merely from the flesh and the Devil, being not hindered, but permitted by the long-suffering God to execute their wills against his own. And this he suffered the rather, that he might order and dispose their wicked Fact of cruelty to their innocent Brother (which was also their Rebellion against the commandment and will of their patient God) to many great and good ends, which never could enter into their thoughts. For by the wise, and holy providence of God, (whose excellency it is to draw good out of evil, not evil out of Good) Joseph was sold by the Midianites into Egypt (v. 36.) and advanced in Potiphar's House. (c. 39 5.) and by his Interpreting of Dreams (which was a gift from God and not from Satan) he was so advanced from one degree to another, that he was made a Father to King Pharaoh, Lord of his House, and Ruler over his land (ch. 45. 8.) This was Gods doing, but no sin sure for injured joseph to be advanced. There was a Famine in all lands, over the face of the Earth, (ch. 41. 54, 56.) But that was no sin, Joseph's brethren went up to Egypt for a supply (c. 42. & 43.) still no sin. Joseph supplieth them (c. 45.) which was charitably done, and so without sin. What said joseph of God's oeconomy, to comfort his brethren when they wept aloud, and were troubled at his presence? (v. 2, 3.) He said no worse things of God, than that he sent him before to preserve 
a Gen. 45. 5  life, (and that I hope is no sin) to 
b Vers. 7.  preserve his brethren a posterity in the Earth, and to save their lives by a great deliverance, who had delivered him up to be destroyed with vassalage. Nor was it his si● to requite them, with so much love, for their hatred, with so much good, for their Evil. joseph goes on, [it 
c verse 8.  was not you that sent me hither, but God.] For they sent him no whither, but sold him to arrant strangers for nothing but money, and sweet Revenge; neither knowing, nor caring, nor at all considering, what the Buyers would do with him; nay, they had killed him outright, but that judah put them in mind, there was 
d ch. 37. 26:  no profit in his blood, but the sole pleasure of Revenge; whereas if they sold him, there was revenge, and profit too, and so 'tis plain, they did not send him into Egypt. But God did work such a kindness within the hearts of them that bought him, as brought joseph into Egypt; I mean not only that place, but pitch of Dignity: so that what God did, was transcendently good; good and wise to admiration, tending to his Glory, and all men's good; to good temporal, and spiritual; to all of that age, and all of this; more particularly to the good of joseph, and his Brethren; crowning the former with successes in exchange for his afflictions, as well as leading the latter to a sight and sense of their sins.  
§ 7. I have already said more than was due, or needful, by way of vindication of that passage of Scripture from being apt to lead any into such horrible affirmations, as it was brought to authorise by my Assailant. But I have done it the rather, that the common Reader, by this one, may partly judge of all the rest, which he will find to be Instances of sinful men, whom God by his wise and righteous judgement delivered up to the wickedness of their own Inventions; that is, he did not restrain them having refused and resisted the sufficient workings of his grace, but left them graceless to themselves as desperate patients, because they had 
e Prov. 1. 29, 32.  hated, and despised the means of health and Reformation. To this, and that which I have spoken in my 
f The divine Philan. ch. 1. Sect. 5. p. 23. 24, 25. & ch. 4. from p. 37. to the end.  Account of Mr. Barlee, and to that which I shall speak in my following Section, I refer my Assailant for an answer to those Texts, to which he doth nakedly refer the Reader, withal I add this promise, that if he will descend to every Text in particular, setting down the words, (and not the figures only, which not one Reader of Ten thousand will take the pains to examine) and arguing from the rational Importance of them, as much to his advantage as he is able, I will return him a full, and (God giving health) a speedy account of his Endeavours.  
§ 8. In the mean time it is observable, how very willing and careful my Rd. Adversary was, to decline the Question which was in hand, and to lead the thoughts of his Readers to another thing. Else why should he allege so many Texts of Scripture (not in words, but in figures) which were so wholly impertinent to the subject matter of my charge? I had charged some men (whose words I produced without their names) as guilty of charging God with all the sins of the Reprobates, for the effecting of his Decree of irrespective Reprobation. Wherein were comprehended (and by those Authors expressed) not only subsequent sins, to which the wicked are given up by God's Desertion, and are 
* Peccata subsequentia sunt praecedentium Poenoe. Lomb.  called the punishments of other antecedent provoking sins, but also the very first sins, which were committed by Adam even in Paradise, and by Lucifer even in Heaven. Now the Texts which are referred to by my Assailant, in excuse of those Blasphemies which I accused, do only show the punishment of sin with sin, they being spoken of such sinners, and of such subsequent sins, as those sinners were permitted to fail into, by the just judgement of God upon them, whom they had provoked to forsake them, and leave them to themselves, in revenge of their having forsaken him first, and rebelled against him by their former wickedness. So that as his first Text was no less than against his purpose, the rest which follow are quite besides it. And that no poor soul may be betrayed, by the false application of all those Scriptures, to think reverently of his sins, and irreverently of his God, I will denudate the falseness of it by these following steps.  
First, when God is said to harden men's hearts, to deliver them up to a reprobate mind, to send them strong Delusions that they shall believe a lie, and the like, it is infinitely 
* Augustin. ad Simpl. l. 5 c. 2.  far from being meant of an efficacious Impulse in God Almighty. God never hardens any man's heart, as the Sun hardens clay by shining on it, but as the Sun hardens wax by not shining on it; by not softening it any longer, and so leaving it to harden itself. And that all those verbs, [to harden, to blind, to deliver up, to send delusions, to deceive, and the like,] are by an ordinary Hebraism only permissive in signification, though active in sound, is placed without all controversy. First, by the verdict of all the 
a Pet. Mart. Virmil. Florent. in Epist. ad Rom. 1. edit. Basil. 1570.  Fathers both of the Eastern and Western Church. Secondly, by the 
a Pet. Mart. Virmil. Florent. in Epist. ad Rom. 1. edit. Basil. 1570.  confession of the chief Calvinists themselves, that is the judgement of the Fathers. Thirdly, by 
b Indurare nihil aliud est quam nolle emollire; excaecare, non illuminare; repellere, non vocare. August. in lib. de praedest. & Gra. cap. 4.  Augustine's judgement in particular, whom our Adversaries prefer before all the rest. Fourthly, by the Adversaries 
c Pet Mart loco praedicto. Habet (inquit) hanc interpretationem sinendi, & permittendi, Augustinus:  confession, that that is Augustine's own way of Interpreting such Texts. Fifthly, by the peremptory assertion of Melancthon, 
d Melancthon in loc. come. de Causa pecc. p. 49.  from whom my Adversaries cannot comfortably recede. Sixthly, by the grant of 
e Dieu est dit ramener du Sepulchre, quand il impesched'y descendre; y mener, quand il y laisse tomber, facon de parler common a● psalmist, & aux Prophets, etc. philip's de Mornay Seig du Plessis Marli. en medit. sur le ver. 4. du ch. 16. des Proverbes.  Du-Plessis, that in the usual stile of the Scripture, he who doth not restrain when he can, is said to give up; he who doth not take away when he can, is said to give; and He who doth not give, is said in that case to take away. God is said to raise out of the Grave, when he only hinders from going thither; and to lead a man thither, when he only suffers him to fall, or does not hinder him from falling. The same Seigneur du Plessis doth farther exemplify his Doctrine, not only by that petition, lead us not into temptation, of which the meaning he saith is this, Do not suffer us to be vanquished by the Temptations of the World and of the Devil; but by that common Idiotism of the French tongue, which is as common also in the English. Vous me donnerezla vie, c'està dire, vous ne la m'osterez point; you shall give me my life, that is to say, you shall not take it from me. So when 
f Jos. 2. 13.  Rahab did capitulate with the Spies of jericho, that when they took the City, they should save her life, or permit her to live, the French Translation doth read, vous me vivifierez, ye shall make me to live. Now if this figure of speech is admitted to be a figure, where if it were not admitted, it would not be of much moment, how dares any man exclude it from those passages of Scripture, where to exclude it, is to blaspheme? And if the learned Du Plessis doth acknowledge that figure, who is of irrefragable Authority with many Followers of Mr. Calvin, why should any man deny it, at the hazard of making God to be the Author of sin? But seventhly, this matter is farther evident, and that by the preachings of Bishop Andrews, from whom his Adversaries in this case, will hardly publicly descent; because they are loath to have it visible to common Readers, that he he was frighted out of Calvinism (which first bespoke him) by the horrible Conclusions to which it led, upon those words of our Saviour in the Imperative mood, Destroy this Temple, meaning the Temple of his Body, that Holy man hath these words. 
* Bp. Andrews. Sermon 10. of the Resur. upon Joh. 2. 19 p. 486, 487.  That it should enter into any man's heart, to think, that Christ would open his mouth to command or to counsel his own making away, (that is, the committing the most horrible foul murder that ever was) God forbid, give me any Religion rather than that, that draweth God, into the Society of sin; makes him, and makes Christ, either Author, or Adviser, Commander, or Counsellor, of aught that is Evil. Any (I say) rather than that. First, how then? if no command, what is it? all that can be made of it (say the ancient Fathers) is, but either a prediction (in the stile of the Prophets) come down Babel, 
Isa. 47. 1.  that is, Babel shall be brought down; so solvite, ye shall destroy; to warn them, what he see they were now casting about, and whither their malice would carry them in the end. even to be the Destroyer's and Murderers of the son of God. 
Act. 7. 52.  Secondly, either this; or (at most) but a Permission, which in all Tongues is ever made in this mood (in the Imperative,) so we use to say, go to, do and ye will; or do what ye will with my body, when we mean but sufferance, and no command at all. This solvite was to them, as Fac citò to judas after; Quod facis, that which thou art resolved to do, and hast taken earnest upon it, 
John 13. 17.  fac, do it; fac citò do it out of the way; which yet (it is well known) was nothing but a permission, and not a jot more. 3. But should so foul an evil, as that, be permitted though? No, nor that neither, simply; it is not a bare permission, but one qualified; and that with two limitations, will ye mark them? For first, he would not suffer any evil at all, (lest of all that) but that out of the evil he was able (able and willing both) to draw a far greater good. Greater for good (I say) than, that was, for evil. And that was solutionem peccati ex solutione Templi. ●2. But neither was this enough yet: Neither would he for all this, have at any hand let it go down, but that with all he meant to have it up again presently.— The world with us, hath seen a solvite, without any Excitabo, Down with this, but nothing raised in the stead. But this is none of His. Solvite, without excitabo, is none of Christ's.— With these two limitations, under these two conditions; one of a greater good by it; the other, of another as good or better, in lieu of it; may solvite be said permissive: and otherwise not, by any warrant from Christ, or from his Example. 8. This figurative use of the Imperative mood, which is also fitly called the permissive mood, may be demonstrated by such Scriptures, as cannot be otherwise understood, though not one of those Authors by me alleged had declared their judgements on this occasion. God said unto Satan concerning that 
g Job. 1. 1. 8.  perfect and upright man, 
h vers. 12.  All that he hath is in thy power, and 
k ch. 2 ver. 6.  behold he is in thine hand. Our blessed Saviour said unto the Devils, 
l Mat. 8. 32.  Go, but he commanded them not to go away into the herd of swine, only gave them permission, for which they 
m verse 31.  petitioned, and yet he said [go] in the Imperative mood. But the Devils also petitioned him in the Imperative mood, when they said, 
n verse 31.  suffer us to go, who yet cannot be thought to have commanded him whom they petitioned, and whom they 
o vers. 29.  acknowledged the Son of God, who had an ability to Torment them. And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the concession must bear proportion to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Petition. For Petitioners they were in that they 
* vers. 31.  besought him however they besought him in the Imperative mood. In the Case of job, Satan entreated God in the Imperative mood, 
p Job 1. 11. & ch. 2. v. 5.  Put forth thy hand, and Touch all that he hath. Who yet cannot be thought to have commanded his Master, because his Master cannot be thought to have obeyed him. For when God said, behold, he is in thine hand, he clearly spoke of a permission: where by the way it is observable, (and may it be usefully observed by them, who take a delight to do mischief, and seek to justify their Cruelties by God's permitting them to do what they desire, and possibly pray that they may do it) that when we beg of God, (as Satan did) that we may prosper in doing wickedly to any man in the world, as Satan to job) and when God shall grant our petition (as he did Satan's) by permitting us to do, or not-hindring us from doing all the evil which we desire, we must conclude that God's grant of such petitions is only an Argument of his wrath, (as it was to Satan, Job 1. 11, 12. Mat. 8. 31, 32.) and not at all of his kindness, or approbation. Israel's 
q 1 Sa. 12. 17.  wickedness was great in ask a King (as Samuel told them,) yet God gave them their own ask, and God himself 
r Host 13. 11.  tells us, that He gave in his anger the thing they asked. Having a King, they would have none, and God took him away; but the same Text tells us that he did it in his 
r Ibid.  wrath. 'Twas ill to live with a King, in one Case; but ' 'ttwas worse in an other, to live without him. Now from these 8 things which I have spoken, and especially from the last, it doth appear to all without Dispute, That when God said to the lying spirit, Go, and prevail, 1 King. 22. 22, 23. (which is one of the chief instances alleged by my Assailant) he said no more than our Saviour said to the Devils Matth. 8. 32. which amounted to no more than a permitting them to do, what they would choose to do, if they were not hindered. God said go, that is, he gave him leave or sufferance, which he expressed in the Imperative mood, in which mood also petitions may be expressed, (as hath been showed) which are as opposite to commands as we can wish them.  
But to this my Assailant may object his other chief Instance 2 Sam. 16. 10, 11. where David saith of cursing Shimei, Let him alone, for the Lord hath bidden him, which though urged by Mr. Barlee, and sufficiently answered by me 
s The Divine Philan Defen. ch. 4. Sect. 35. p. 47, 48, 49.  already, yet I will add in this place, to what I said in that other; For we who are fishers of men, must strive to catch them to the Truth, by several Baits. Thus than I reason within myself; (1) What God doth command us we ought to do, and not to do it, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or breach of Law. Thence it was not the mercy, but sin of Saul, to save the life of wicked Agag. Whom if he had killed, it had not been murder, but obedience. Nor had it been parricide, but sacrifice, if Abraham had slain Isaac with his hand, as he had done already in the obedient purpose of his Heart; which that Friend of God purposed, not by Cruelty, but Faith. Heb 11. 7. Hereupon it follows (2) that if God had bidden Shimei to curse David in that literal sense wherein we commonly use the word, Shimei (like Nathan 2 Sam. 12. 7, 8. etc.) had done his Duty. Nay, he had been a Rebel against God, if he had not done like a Rebel against David. He had cursed his Sovereign, as Balaam's Ass reproved his Rider, and had been every whit as innocent, if God had literally bid him, it being as great a Truth in Ecclesiasticus, as if it had been in Ecclesiastes, 
* Eccl. 15. 12.  that God hath commanded no man to do wickedly. Here than I ask, did Shimei sin, or did he not; If he did sin, God did not literally command him, but permit him only. If he did not sin, nothing is gotten by my Assailant, in case he had been commanded. But granting Shimei to have sinned, (as indeed he did) and by consequence to have acted, not according to God's command, but point-blank against it, (for every sin quà tale, is the transgression of some precept, 1 Joh. 3. 4.) one of these two things must inevitably follow; either that David was in an Error, when he hastily said, [The Lord hath bidden him,] and was betrayed into that error by making reflection upo● his sins, especially his being a man of blood (as Shimei called him very truly, verse 7, and 8:) or else, that David meant no more, than that God permitted him: if the first is granted, than the error of David's judgement (which was very fallible) doth put an end to the objection; if the second is granted, (but not the first,) than God was only signified, not to hinder, but to permit that sin of cursing, and so it ceaseth to have the force of an objection; nor is it any the least excuse, much less yet a justification, of those horrible things which I accused in my 
* p. 9 & 10.  Notes; for there it is said by those Writers, whom my Reverend Assailant doth do his utmost to excuse, that God doth (not only permit, but also) command, yea compel. His bare permission of sin is called a fiction, and against it, is set up his will, and Decree, and that Decree is called efficacious, & that will, transient into the sinful act; nor only his transient will, and efficacious decree, but his Impulse also, and that in particular to Adultery and Murder, of which God is also there said to be the Author. And to vindicate the purity of the Almighty from such aspersions, which are perversely laid upon him by the literal exposition of some Texts which are figuratively expressed by the sacred Penmen. I have, and shall eternally, put the people in mind, to understand such Scriptures according to the figure, which they find to be contrary to the plainest Tenor of other Scriptures, and as contrary to the nature of a good and holy God, so far forth as they are taken according to the letter. For as when St. Paul saith, the weakness of God, 1 Cor. 1. 18. Yea, and the foolishness of God, 1 Cor. 1. 25. He doth and must mean according to the figure, because the literal meaning is both false and Blasphemous; so when God is 
t Jer. 4. 10.  said to have deceived the people or the like, it is and must be meant according to the figure, that he hath suffered, or permitted, or left them to themselves, and to their temptations to be deceived. And as it is a less sin, to say that Saint Paul was a weak and a foolish speaker, then that God is capable either of weakness or foolishness; so is it also a lesser sin, to say, that jeremiah was a deceitful prophet, than that God is a Deceiver. which as it prompts me to conjecture what kind of principles they are, by which so many are made Atheists, and Scoffers at the Scriptures, so it puts me in mind of what was said by King james at 
u A. D. 16. 18.  Falkland, [that taking all things to the straight Tenor of the written letter, is the matter of jar betwixt Puritans, and us.] To do it in many other cases, (as in that alleged out of St. 
w ● Cor. 1: 18, 25.  Paul) is unpardonable sottishness, but to take such places according to the letter, which are literally opposite to the purity of God, I want a word whereby to express how ill it is, for I must ever say with the Stupendous Bishop Andrews, 
x Bishop Andrews in the place before cited.  Give me any Religion, (any Expositor, any Exposition,) rather than that, that draweth God into the Society of sin; making him either the Author, or Adviser, Commander, or Counsellor of aught that is evil, I say any, rather than That. I have said much more, than I intended, to show the ill use that hath been made of that congeries of Scriptures, referred to by my Assailant in his defence of his party, and having been thus long in my first general step, I will truly endeavour to be the shorter in my second.  
Secondly, though all should be granted which my Assailant can desire, touching the Texts by him alleged, (which God forbid I should grant) yet they would not be able to come home to the purpose, (as I said before) because Pharaoh, and the rest who are said to be hardened by God, Elies sons, they who did not like to retain God in their hearts, they who regarded not the love of the truth that they might be saved, Absalon, judas, & the like, are no where said in the Scripture to have been predestined to those sins which were antecedent to their being hardened; their not hearing the voice of the Father, their being given up to a reprobate mind, and to strong delusions, and to all those sins which they were permitted to commit by the just judgement of God for their former wickedness, wherens he is not, he cannot, he must not be said to have any efficiency, or Approbation. But the writers, whose writings were accused by me of Blasphemy, do teach, that God did fore ordain, and fore-determin, all the sins in the World, all things, and events, without exception; and that he did not foresee them any otherwise, than because before ordained them. Mr. Calvin is less unwary than others are, and yet the same Mr. Calvin who saith in 
x Calvin. Instit. l. 3. c. 23. Sect: 6. p. 324. sub finem.  one place, that all things happen by God's ordination, will and Decree, and not only by his foresight; also saith in an 
y Idem ib. Sect. 7. p. 325.  another, that God did therefore foresee them, because by his Decree he had so ordained them; nay, he saith in the same place where he said the former, (and that with commendations bestowed on Valla, for having said it as well as he,) that God 
z id ib. Sect. 6. p. 324.  forseeth things future by no other means, or reason, or way, than because he decreed that they should be so done. And to assure us that he placeth the Decree of God before the foresight, he puts the foresight in the 
a Non aliâ ratione quae futura sunt praevideat, nisi quia ita ut fierent decrevit  Present tense with the Decree in the Preterperfect; and again the foresight in the 
b Ideo praesciverit, quia decreto suo sic ordinârat.  Preterperfect tense with the Decree in the Preterpluperfect. As if he thought that God's Decree were before his prescience or foresight even in order of time, and that the portions of that Creature could have place in Eternity: if he did not think so, he might have satisfied himself with a [non aliâ ratione, quam] and not have added an [ideo, quia, therefore, because] in the very next Section. But let his ablest Followers construe his words, how they will, or can, they must grant his Doctrine to be this, 
☞  That whatsoever comes to pass which God foresaw from all Eternity, he did also decree from all Eternity; But it was also his Doctrine, that God foresaw from Eternity all the sins in the world without exception; therefore it was his Doctrine, that God did also decree all the sins in the world withot Exception. Nor can they possibly pretend, that all sins are the punishments of former sins, because than they would incur one of these absurdities either that no sins are the first, or that there are sins before the first, and so that the first are the second, and the antecedent the consequent, which would imply an unexcusable contradiction. They are avowedly of this judgement that there is a necessity of all events, and that God doth necessitate the very first obliquity of his creatures, and for that very first doth also damn them, as appears by what they say of the Damnation of Infants, which though sufficient of itself, to show the false application of the 38. Texts; yet is it not all I am to say of my Assailant's misfortune in that Attempt. For,  
Thirdly, If those places by him alleged were not figupatively spoken, (that is) according to the Hebraisme already mentioned, but did intentionally import God's efficiency of sin in any kind or any thing else which imports him to will it only, then would they be so contradictory to all the other places of Scripture wherein no figure can be pretended that we should find it impossible to reconcile them. For when God in 
* Habak: 1. 13. Psal. 5. 4 & 81, 13. Psal. 45. 7. jam. 1. 13, 14 Eccles. 7: 29. Dan▪ 9 7. Eccles. 15. 12, 13. job 34. 13. Ezek. 18. 29. Isa. 5. 3, 4. Acts 17. 30. 2 Pet. 3. 9 Heb. 7. 26.  Scripture expresseth his hatred of sin in the highest terms of Detestation, and forbids it by a Law, and provides against it by Threats, as well as by many other means, and clears himself from all aspersions which Carnal Fancies have imagined to his dishonour; his words are so plain, and their literal importance is so rational, that every man as he is man, doth as naturally believe it, as he naturally believes there is a God. And such as have learned to disbelieve it, have not learned that lesson, as they are men, but they have learned it so far only as they have learned to be inhuman. And I appeal to all the world, whether, when two places of Scripture do seem to clash, and contradict, we are not obliged to interpret the hard, by the easy, the evivocal by the nnivocal; the harsh, by the agreeable; and that which according to the letter hath materiam odiosam, by that, which according to the letter hath materiam favorabilem.  
It follows from all which I have said, that those 38. Texts are nothing at all to the purpose, for which they were alleged by my Assailant, for they amount at the most to no more than this, that God doth 
* Fatente D. D Hen. Altingio, in Synod. Dord. sess 69. p. 237.  punish men's sins by not restraining them from sinning farther; which is expressed in Scripture by giving up, or hardening, or some other word, which (according to the Hebraism so often mentioned) is active only in sound, but permissive in signification. For when God is said to punish sin with sin, it is meant negative. As for example, 
* Ezek. 24. 13.  because God had purged Israel, and Israel was not purged, therefore he would not purge them from their filthiness any more; that is, he would permit them to be filthy still; he would not cleanse them against their wills; and so we see it is explained by God himself, what is meant by his punishing of sin with sin. He that 
* Rev. 22. 11.  will be filthy, and is resolved on'c, and rejects the means of his purification, is left by God or given 
* Rom. 1. 26. 28,  up, or given 
* Rom. 1. 26. 28,  over to be filthy still; so that the writers whom I charged with making God the Author or cause of sin, were not led into those mischiefs by multitudes of Texts of holy Scripture, (as my Assailant hath very dogmatically, but very groundlessly pretended, (but rather they led those Texts of Scripture which way they pleased to serve their Turns. The word of God hath been ever used as a Lesbian Rule, by all sorts of Heretics, who have been first preengaged [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to be humble servants to their opinion. And when the Scripture is led by them (or rather dragged and tortured) to the maintaining of those Errors which they espouse, they pretend to say no more than what they are led unto by Scripture. And some of the people are so shallow, so credulous, so unexercised in reasonings or so unwilling to take the pains to consider, and examine what they are taught, as to swallow so dangerous and so thick a Fallacy. But so far is the Scripture from leading any, to say, that God is the Author or Cause of sin, (as some,) much less the Necessitator, and Compellor to it, (as others,) that it even compels us (if we are sober) to say the contrary. There are indeed some 
* Isa. 63. 17: Ezek. 20. 25, 26. Ezek. 24. 21. job 2. 3. 2 Sam 12. 11.  figurative expressions which carnal men have profanely 
* ler. 7. 9,. 10. Et ejusdem farinae alii, atque alii.  used; but the figure in those expressions is so visible a figure, that they who cannot endure to see it are fain to wink very hard. There being nothing in Scripture so plain as this, that as the 
* Mat. 2. 22. which compare with Acts 9 34. & that again with Acts 14. 9  woman's faith is said to have made her whole, not because it did heal her but because without it she had not been healed; so God is said to have done many things, not because he did, or could do them, but because without him they had not been done, fo● nothing can be, or be done, with his 
* Acts 14. 16.  sufferance.    

CHAP. VIII.  

E. R.  
For my part I thus Judge, That if men would candidly carry this Controversy to its Native and proper Issue, it would amount to this. 1. Whether the Graces of Faith, Perseverance, and the glory following, be not God's own? 2 Whether being so, he may not do what he will with his own? 3. If so, whether he might not, ab aeterno, absolutely purpose in himself, on whom to bestow them, from whom to withhold them, without any Injury unto any?   

T. P.  
§ 1. NOW Reader observe, how he displays his strength. He consideringly begins to handle the matter of main Debate. Some weighty thing may here be looked for from one whose Parts and Abilities are so acknowledgedly great. He now undertakes to state the Question and that by amassing together some Propositions, which are not at all to the Question in hand, and which being granted will not do him the least good office; for it would never be thence conclusible, that I have erred in any one period, or that the Correptory Correptor hath justly charged any the least error on me. He doth but grant what I would have him, That Faith as well as Perseverance are God's own free Graces, not imputable to us before he gives them, (and when he hath so given them he calls them ours.) He is farther of my judgement, that God might purpose ab aeterno without Injury to any, on whom to bestow, and from whom to withhold them. But here it is to be observed, that his two or three Propositions (for we may call them either) which he premiseth as the ground of his state, do clearly belong to nothing else but to the giving or withholding of Grace and Glory, not at all to the Decreeing eternal Torments without the consideration of their Transgressions on whom those Torments are presupposed to be decreed. And this he knows was the Question he should have stated, as that to which my Notes did more especially belong, and which alone had been pertinent to his Paragraph going before. But let us see how he proceeds.   

E. R.  
4. Whether it imply a Contradiction, for God by his power so to determine the will of the Creature, hîc & nunc ad unum, as that it shall retain its own Nature, and yet shall not the facto, fully and victoriously resist Divine Grace, but shall 
* Let the Reader compare this with his following Section, which shall be the Theme of my fifth Section of this 8th. chap. for there he speaks of God's omnipotency in determining the will, and from thence we m●st fetch his true meaning in this place.  invincibly and most certainly, as to God's 
* Let the Reader compare this with his following Section, which shall be the Theme of my fifth Section of this 8th. chap. for there he speaks of God's omnipotency in determining the will, and from thence we m●st fetch his true meaning in this place.  Determination, and yet most sweetly and willingly, as to its own manner of working, make choice of that Good, in the choice whereof, it is demonstratively convinced, that its felicity doth stand?   

T. P.  
§ 2. FIRST it is not our Question, what may be without a Contradiction, butwhat is. Many millions of things may be, which are not; and particularly in this very case, many things I might do, and yet retain my own Nature, which yet I do not. And if I, much more may God. But what Logic is it to argue, à potentiâ ad Actum? or what would be thought of that Disputant, who should prove that God doth commonly make New Suns, and many times create new worlds, because it implies not a contradiction for God to do it? This is a visible unhappiness, that from the ability to do, unto the Act of doing, should be the utmost force of this Argument. But 2. Here is the Fallacy called ●plurium Interrogationum, for one Question is, whether it imply a contradiction for God by his 
* Note Reader, that by Power, in this place, he means omnipotent, controlling, necessitating power, as he explains himself in his next Section; where he ranks and Illustrates God's working man's will to conversion, with his saying in the creation, omnipotently, Let there be light, and there was light. Whereas had he spoken of such a power as depriveth the will of its Servitude, without depriving it of its Liberty, and by consequence of its Nature, we had been then at agreement. But as it is, I am forced to show his Failing.  power to determine the will of the Creature hic & nunc ad unum, and yet it still retain its own Nature? A Second is, whether it imply a contradiction, for God so to determine it ad unum, as that it shall not the facto fully and victoriously resist Divine Grace? A Third is, whether it imply a contradiction, for God so to determine, as that it shall invincibly and most certainly, as to God's determination, make choice of that Good, in the choice of which it is demonstratively convinced that its felicity doth consist. These are three distinct Questions not to be stated the same way. And if any, yet at least the two last are not the Questions that are controverted betwixt me, and my Adversary, in case my Adversary is Christian, and if he is not a Christian, let him but say the word, and I will dispute with him upon it. But having severed his 3 Questions which he fallaciously conjoined, (as if they were all three equal in respect of what he demanded) I shall speak to each of them, how little soever I am concerned. And since his fashion is to ask, I will prepare for my Answer to his first Question, by a●king him also this other Question; whither Liberty of will be of the Nature of the Creature, that is▪ of man here in via▪ If it be said that it is not, I oppose two things; first man's state before the Fall, of whom it is acknowledged by my Adversaries themselves▪ that He then had a Liberty to stand or fall. But fall he did, who had [à posse non peccare] sufficient Grace to have 
* Natura, cum potestatem habue● it non delinquendi sponte deliquit; & deceptori suo propria volu●tate se subdidit. Augustin. ad Artic. falsò sibi Impoes. 5. p. 864. He doth not say, that men by nature but that nature had a power of abstaining from sin, which had I said, as Austin did, I had been called a Pelagian.  not fall'n. And of him in his Innocence I demand, as of a Creature; Could God by his power determine him hîc & nunc ad unum, and yet he retain his own Nature, and Liberty? could God absolutely decree his eating the fruit that was forbidden, and yet he retain his Liberty not to eat? what would this be, but to determine, and not determine? and what are they, but the two parts of a Contradiction? But here I suppose my Assailant will say, that he is least of all concerned to differ from me, because he is not a Supralapsarian. And therefore in the second place I oppose Man after his Fall; of whom whatever is apprehended of his Liberty to Good, 'tis universally granted that he hath freewill to evil, unless when God doth determine him to the contrary. But (excepting that one Case) He hath a freewill to evil, even then when God gives him to will and to do, and when by Christ he doth free him from the slavery of sin. For my Assailant will not say, that man is so much advanced upon this Earth above the first state of Adam, as to have arrived to [a non posse peccare] an Impeccability, or inability of sinning. Upon which it follows, that the posse peccare, or ability to sin, is of the Nature of Man as Man. And therefore, for God by his power to determine him hîc & nunc ad Hoc, scilicet ad non peccandum, what is it but contradictory (in that very particular of his being so determined) to the retaining of his Nature? for when he is determined hîc & nunc, to a not ssnning, then hîc & n●nc, he cannot sin; because if he can, he is not determined, else where were the difference betwixt being determined and undetermined? but if he cannot sin, so far, as he is determined by God not to sin; and if by Nature he can sin, (which is as undeniable) then to be determined by God's power, and yet to retain his humane Nature (as to the liberty of his will) must needs imply a contradiction. Now that the most unlearned Reader may not fail to comprehend, how the project of my Assailant is plucked up by the Root by what I have spoken unto his first Question, I will desire him to consider, before I go any farther, That I have not disparaged, but vindicated and cleared the Almightiness of God, from an implicit Calumny which must of necessity be cast upon him, when his Almightiness●s ●s extended to the doing of those Things which do imply a Contradiction. The Infinity of his power is seen and celebrated in this, that he can do all things which are not evil, or unworthy, or unbeseeming his Godhead. He who out of Nothing created All, can again (if he please) turn all to Nothing. But he cannot so make things out of nothing, as that they shall be nothing still. Nor can he so turn his Creatures into nothing, as that they shall retain their own Nature of Creatures. He cannot so deprive his Creatures of any thing, that they as shall keep and retain the things of which they are deprived; it being impossible, (as implying a Contradiction) to have what we have not, even whilst we have it not. It was of the Nature of that Fire in Nebuchadnezars Furnace, to scorch and burn, and God by his omnipotence did determine that Fire [illic & tunc ad hoc unum] not to burn the three Children. But will Doctor Reynolds say, that the Fire at that instant and in that Case, did retain its own Nature? and that it had the power to burn them, even whilst it had not the power to burn them? these are the opposite parts of a Contradiction, which God cannot verify, because he is of necessity what he is, true, and Almighty; which he could not be, if he could verify Contradictions. But the most immediate Reason, doth seem to be this, why God cannot verify Contradictions; even because they have not a passive power of being verified. For the affirming of the one is the denial of the other. And they cannot be both true, because they should not be contradictions, if the truth of the one did not make the other false. But this is a thing, which all the world, I suppose, doth unanimously grant. So that as often as we say, God cannot do that which doth imply a Contradiction, we do say in effect, He cannot cease to be God; He cannot do evil; He cannot do that, which is therefore impossible, because unworthy for him to do. He can draw good out of evil by dispesing of evil to good ends, but he cannot so make evil good as that the evil shall still retain its own Nature. He can destroy his Creature either in part, or in the whole, much more can he alter or change his Creature, but not so as that it shall remain unaltered under that alteration. God can determine the will of man hic & nunc ad unum, and so deprive the will of that part of its Nature, but not so as that the will shall continue undeprived, or retain its Nature, of which it is deprived, even whilst it is deprived of it. When God determines a Man to one thing, 'tis certain he cannot do another, for if he can, he can resist, not Gods will only, but his Power. And then to say he retains that very part of his corrrupt Nature, his being able to sin, whilst he is determined by God's power to a disability of sinning, what doth it but imply a contradiction? I could be heartily sorry to find my Opponent in this method, of raising and supporting the whole Fabric of his Errors, upon that which is not only the greatest Falsehood, but the greatest Impossibility in all the world, but that by giving me opportunity (as well as provocation) to treat with him hereupon, and to show him the Fallacy or Quicksand on which he builds, I make no doubt but he hath opened a speedy way to his being undeceived; And that he will resolve, upon a review of his first Question, That when God gives sufficient, yea and effectual Grace, both to will and to do any thing that is good, he doth not always by his power (which is not resistible) determine his Creature ad hoc unum, but permits him to retain so much of his own Nature, as the liberty of sinning, of resisting, or of grieving his Spirit comes to, (which Scripture, and Reason, and daily experience doth make apparent.) And that when he doth otherwise, either in some one act here in viâ, or else in all acts in statu comprehensorum, by confining and determining the will ad hoc unum, he takes away that Liberty or power to sin, which was Natural to the Will before its said determination.  
§. 3. This being said thus largely in Answer to his first Question, doth put his second out of all possible dispute. For it being once supposed and taken for granted by the Adversary, that God by his power doth determine the will ad hoc; the Creature shall not have the least liberty to resist, because the Creature is not stronger than God. But withal it is as certain, that though God doth only efficaciously move the will by his Grace, (without interposing his irresistible power, by which he determins the will ad hoc,) yet there are some who, de facto, do not victeriously resist; and therefore grace irresistible, where efficacious and congruous will serve the turn, is not only a groundless, but a needless Invention. And if he useth the word [victoriously] as if he thought it a disparagement for the Grace of God to be so resisted, St. Paul will tell him of a quenching, as well as a grieving, and resisting the Spirit of God. 
g Saints Ever●-Rest. part 3. Sect. 15. c. 2. p. 36, 37.  Mr. Baxter also will tell him (whom he will own as a Brother) that the Reprobates in Hell had the means of escaping their going thither. And that they had not been there, but that they forsook God, and took pains to be damned, resisted Grace, * conquered the Spirit, did * overcome the * Power of Mercies, judgement, the Word itself, did silence Conscience, seek diligently for their own Perdition, and would not suffer themselves to be saved. He farther adds, that even they who are in Hell had Heaven purchased for them, but they rather made choice to buy the Flames of Hell so dearly, then to have Heaven on free cost. Thus we see, there are some Presbyterians, who are sufficiently convinced of such opinions and Doctrines, which by other Presbyterians are called Arminian.  
§. 4. His third Question, like his second, is without all Question, and that which no Man can be concerned in, for it being supposed (as by him it is) that the will of the Creature is determined hic & nunc ad unum; it will presently follow that it is not undetermined; which is the upshot of my Assailants in●erence. And it is as certain, as well as more to the purpose, and better sense, that God is able by his grace, without interposing his determining power, to work in the Creature a will to good [faciendo ex nole nte volentem] and when the Creature is confirmedly willing, he will then most certainly, in respect of that change which is now wrought in him, and yet most willingly, as to its own manner of working, make choice of that good, etc. So that no kind of strength is in this part of his process, what was before matter of Question, remains so still, viz. whither in every Man's conversion God doth determine his will ad hoc, so as the Man shall not possibly be able to resist it, and what never was questioned, being granted, is the refuting of a Chimaera, or the industrious doing of nothing. But what means the addition of these words to the former. [In the choice whereof, it is demonstratively convinced, that its felicity doth stand?] First, we know it is an assent of Faith, and not of knowledge, that our felicity doth stand in the choice of good; and Demonstration is scientifical, produceth knowledge, and assurance; but absolute knowledge and assurance are those perfections of the Saints, by which their Faith and their Hope are done 
h 1 Cor. 13. 8. 9, 10, 12. ● Cor. 3. 18.  away. Scientia & Fides non possunt esse de eodem secundum idem. That of which the Saints in Heaven are much too perfect to have a Faith, is that of which the Saints on Earth are too imperfect to have a knowledge. Secondly, False Felicities many times are so far preferred before the true, that he who is strongly persuaded, and believes without doubting, that eternal felicity doth ●●nsist in due obedience to the Law of Christ, as directly leading to the joys of Heaven, doth yet frequently pursue his false Felioities on earth, and 
* Video meliora proboque. Deteri●ra seq●or.—  Medea-like, doth follow the things which he disalloweth. How else comes it to pass, that Men will preach against stealing, whilst they themselves commit Sacrilege? or commend the suffering and receiving of wrong, 
k Rom. 2. 21, 22.  whilst they 
l 1 Cor. 6. 8.  do wrong and defraud, and that their Brethren? Now upon all this it follows, that nothing is gotten by my Assailant towards his proof of the Certainty and Invincibleness of making that choice, from the Man's being convinced that his felicity consisteth in it. I might here examine, what he means by the word [Invincibly] and exagitate his use of the word [choice] whilst he is speaking of a will which he supposeth to be determined hi● & nunc ad unum. But I will not insist upon each Infirmity which I espy. It is enough that I observe them, and can then speak of them at large, when he shall attempt me by his Reply. Having observed the laying of his Grounds, I will now consider what he is pleased to lay on them.   

E. R.  
If this imply not a contradiction, (as I believe it will be difficult for him to prove, who shall undertake it, for why may not God determine the will, as easily as the will can determine itself?) then sure I am, that that 
* Compare these words of Dr. Reynolds with what he said in his Section going before, which was the Theme of my second Section of this Chapter▪  Omnipotency which could say, let there be light, and there was light, can say, let there be a will unto conversion, and there shall be such a will; That Omnipotency w●h could give a Creature a Being out of nothing, can by an Invincible persuasion or traction (the radical indifferency of the will remaining still the same) suspend the actual praevalent reluctancy thereof, & work it determinately unto such an action, as is rationally most convenient & ' behooveful for a rational Appetite, as the will is, viz. to choose its own Blessedness: for that is it which every Convert in his effectual vocation, by the power of Grace really doth.   

T. P.  
§. 5. IN this short passage there are two of his strong Arguments. One in the Parenthesis, and another out of it, I will hasten to try the force of both. First he saith in the Parenthesis, that 'twill be difficult to prove that that implies a contradiction which was the subject of his first Question. To which I answer three things. 1. That which is but difficult may yet be done; and therefore it doth not advantage, but rather prejudice his Cause, for seeming difficult to him, unless he could have made it seem more than difficult to me also. I fear not that which my Assailants call difficult, so long as I am not to encounter with Impossibilities. For if they are difficult indeed, it is but studying the harder to overcome them, and if they be but called Difficult, (as certainly this is) they are then too weak for any elaborate Resistance. But 2. What is difficult to one Man, is many times easy to another, and though I am but a 
m Mr. Whitfields' observation before the Correp. Correction.  Novitius in these controversies, (as old Mr. Whitfield did very valiantly call me▪ when he gave an example to Mr. Barlee in what kind of Logic he was to deal) yet I have proved that to be easy, which is here believed to be difficult. For thirdly, I have showed, (and I hope with perspicuity,) that to be determined by God's power ad bonum hoc, doth imply and infer a disability to sin, in respect of this good to which the will is determined; and this doth grossly contradict the wills retaining [in hoc] that liberity of Nature, which doth confessedly consist in its ability to sin; and cannot possibly be denied in this state of Imperfection, unless it be by the Ranters, who corrupt themselves with the opinion that there is equal Necessity of all Events, as equally issuing from God's absolute Decree. My Assailant speaks of God's Omnipotency, which could and did say, let there be light, etc. to show what he means by God's power determining the will, which is in effect by making it no will, and then to call it a will is a contradiction. But for this I refer to what I have spoken so much at large in my second Section of this Chapter. I proceed to the reason which he allegeth [why may not God determine the will, as well as the will determine itself?] to which I answer that he may when he pleaseth; but what of that? Doth it follow that he doth, because he can? God may, if he will, create more worlds; and I will ask my Assailant [why may he not?] But I will not argue from thence, that he therefore doth, because he may; yet let it be granted that he doth too (as well in earth sometimes, as in Heaven always,) that will be found to be gratis dictum, and will not bring the least advantage unto my Adversaries pretensions. For the Question is not, whether or no he may, or doth, but whether when he doth determine the will hîc & nunc; to this one good, he doth leave it in that act unto the liberty of its own Nature, that is, hic & nunc free to evil. This (I call him to witness) is the very Question to be resumed, if he desires not to pass over ab Hypothesi ad Thesin, and of this he speaks not a word. But this is the point to which our Attentions are to be held, whilst I give his Question in the Parenthesis (or his second Argument proposed by way of Question) a full and satisfactory Answer. For first it is evident, that man's determining his own will is very reconcilable with the retaining of its Nature; for 'tis an act of his liberty to choose the object of his option, and by actually choosing to determine his will, which as soon as he hath chosen, then as to that which he hath chosen he is not free; for freedom supposeth him yet to choose; and when he hath determined his will ad hoc, he cannot in sensu composito, not have determined it, although in sensu diviso he could have not done it, before 'twas done. Thus we see in reason how Man may do it, and in every-days experience we find how he doth. But (secondly) when God determins him by his power, irresistibly ad hoc, that is no more reconcilable with the leaving of him free or undetermined, than the Man's having actually determined himself is reconcilable with the leaving himself free. He can no more do otherwise when God's power hath determined him, than he can have chosen otherwise when he hath actually determined his will ad hoc. Behold this, Reader, in one example, or Illustration. A weak Man by his choice may move himself from one place to another; and a stronger Man than he is, may by his power do the same. He that moveth himself by choice doth not impeach his own liberty, because he chooseth to do it freely. But if the other Man move him by his greater strength and power to do it, he is so far forth the strong Man's Prisoner, and so receiveth some impeachment to his liberty, though he may possibly be pleased with his confinement, as being tied up in Golden bands. This I say not to argue, but to illustrate my former meaning, that the slowest Reader may apprehend it with greater ease, and expedition. Again, A Man determining himself to any one of two competitors, is thereby cleared to be free to choose the one, and refuse the other; and till he hath chosen one, doth not determine that freedom, which by actual choosing (we know) he doth. But when God by his power doth determine the will of Man to this or that very object, there is no resisting that power, and so no freedom to the Contrary. So far is the will from retaining any imaginable indifferency, as to that very Case of which we speak, though my Assailant is so 
* Note, That Dr. Reyn. doth acknowledge the radical indifferency of the will, its being a rational appetite; and its making choice of Good. And all his party do grant freewill. Yet in his printed Sermon on Psalm 122●6, 7, 8, 9 p. 31. He saith, that those Doctrines which affirm free will have a secret aspect and Tendency to Rome.  forgetful as to drop such words.  
§. 6. Having showed thus far, that this implies a contradiction, which he saith doth not, and withal uncovered his reason why, it is not needful to examine what he is pleased to conclude, upon his Hopes that it implies not a contradiction. I may well be allowed not to value the conclusion, when I have so largely disproven the premises. And yet, to show what the Importance of a strong argument is, he concludes no more from what▪ I have disproved, than that when all comes to all he is fain to subscribe to my Opinion; viz. [That God may by the power of his Grace, suspend the actual praevalent reluctancy of the will, and work it determinately to such an action, as is rationally most behooveful for the will.] This is the opinion of all the world who do believe there is a God, and that he is Almighty, and may do what he will. This was my affirmation in my return to the third of his plures Interrogationes. Nor was it ever a Question betwixt any two Men, much less was it ours [whither God may by his power do what he pleaseth?] So that here is plainly Ignoratio Ele●chi once more committed. I say therefore again, That God may by his power (if he please) determine any man's Will unto Conversion, so as ●e●sl all not only infallibly▪ but also of necessity and irresistibly be converted But the Question is, whether what he can do he always doth, whensoever he gives sufficient grace; and whether multitudes of men do not resist that Grace, which was on God's part sufficiently and sincerely by him intended for their conversion. Here I professedly maintain that man hath a power to resist that Grace, which was sufficient in itself, and designed by God to work upon him for conversion. But in this ● desire that none will purposely mistake me; for in saying what I have said, I do not either explicitly or implicitly deny, that God may (if he will) interpose his power, & actually and infallibly, & irresistibly convert him. Yet I find no Ground or Cause of thinking, that God ever did, or ever will thus convert any one single Person; and therefore I must not only think it, but proclaim it most unsafe and most unchristian to teach men to depend upon this work of his absolute power, and thereupon let slip those blessed and gracious opportunities which by the grace of God may be embraced and made use of, and may c●st us dear, if they are not. ●or as God may do what he will with his own, and therefore give, when he will, irresistible Grace, or Grace (not irresistibly but yet) infallibly converting, and whensoever he doth so, no man hath reason to complain of his superlative mercy; so it must also be granted by my Assailant, that God may also, if he will, proceed no farther with his Creature, then to give them sufficient Grace, to every man a Talon to negotiate with, and to him more Talents who useth that Talon as he ought, and from him who useth it not, or costs it away, or refuseth to receive it, or most unprofitably lays it up in a Napkin, God may justly take away his Talon of Grace which he hath given, or withhold what he had offered and was refused; my very Adversaries must grant, that thus God may most justly do, & not interpose his irresistible power to determine the will of man, to make use of his Grace, or to convert him infallibly without those steps. So that if matters in dispute were to be carried by several May-Bees, I have gained what is sufficient by my opponents endeavours to make me lose.  
§ 7. But I have very much more than a naked May-Be in the behalf of my Cause, although my Assailant hath no more for his, (nor doth so much as pretend to any more than a may be.) And He himself in time will clearly see it, if he will duly consider the famous 
* Matth. 25.  Parable of the Talents wherein this matter is clearly handled, as well as the Ninth to the Romans, where it is not clear, and where the context doth manifest, that the Apostle there speaks of another thing. 
n Vers. 15. 16, 17. 18. 19 29.  Talents are there given to every man according to his several Ability (Mat. 25. 15. some improved their Talents, (v. 16, 17.) But an idle servant hid his Talon in the Earth, (v. 18.) They were all called to a reckoning (v. 19) And the conclusion is express, that unto every one that hath, (that is, maketh use of the Talon of Grace, which was freely given him to trade withal, which cannot belong unto the acts of God's power determining the will hic & nunc ad unum) to him more shall be given, and He shall have abundance: but from him who doth not thus husband his Talon, shall be taken away even that which he hath. He shall no longer have what he abuseth (v. 29.) From which way of dispensation, we learn what is, not only may be, nay what certainly must be when God hath absolutely decreed that so it shall be; not only what might be (abstracted from God's Decree of the contrary) without implying a contradiction. There are several Courses and oeconomies which to God are all possible; but here our Saviour doth teach us, which of all those courses God is pleased to choose in his proceedings and dealings with us. All that my Adversary allegeth amounts only to this, that it is barely possible, or that it implies not a contradiction, for God's power to interpose in the conversion of a sinner (meaning his absolutes determining, irresistible power,) but hitherto he pretends not that thus it is, that God hath bound himself to this constant method, or indeed that he ever useth it at all. Whereas I have showed on the other side, both that the other method is possible. and, farther, that God is pleased to use it; and hath chosen to make it a principal part of the message, for which his Son was sent unto the world, even to publish that method, that men might know it, comply with it, depend upon it, and not deceive and destroy themselves by giddily fancying any other. And for this I have produced a very evident passage of Scripture, and shall produce many more as occasion serves. I will not run out into greater length by insisting on his acknowledgement of a natural indifferency in the will of man (for which I had Correptory Correption though I never spoke of it.) Nor will I prosecute his use of the word Invincible, by ask whether he means irresistible, or not, of which 
o Act. Synod. Dord. part▪ 1. Sess. 98. p. 236. & Sess. 99 p. 256.  Paraeus did seem to be ashamed, in those papers which he sent unto the Synod at Dort, when he was threescore and ten years old. I will only leave one thing to my opponents consideration, to be compared by him with the present manner of his reasoning. God may give us the ability to fast, without eating, as many days and nights, as Moses, or Elias. He may also, if he is pleased, make our victuals to increase in the very eating, by such a power as he showed in the Widow's Cruse (1 King. 17. 14, 16.) He may feed us and clothe us, like the Birds and the Lilies, by the same omnipotency by which he said, Let there be light and there was light. He may convert us, as he did Paul, with equal power and expedition; or as the Thief upon the Cross when we have only time left to cry peccavi, to think a good thought, and to make a short Ejaculation, (though that either of these two was irresistibly converted, we have no reason to imagine) For God to do those greater things doth not imply a contradiction, and therefore he may do them by that omnipotency, which could give the Creature a Being out of Nothing. but what of this? We cannot prove from hence, that these are the Courses which God doth ordinarily use, or that he useth them once in a thousand years; and if we should thus argue, we should but teach men to tempt their Maker, and to ruin themselves by their Security. It will be much more profitable to admonish the Reader in this place (I speak of the unlearned and unconsidering Reader) of the several ways of Gods working with his several Creatures in proportion to the Natures which he hath given them. He worketh one way with Natural Agents, (as we proverbially call the irrational Creatures) but with voluntary Agents he useth another way of working. We have an example of the former in that necessitating Omnipotence, whereby he said unto the Sun, stand still in Gibeon; we have examples of the later, in those compassionate wish revealed to us in his word, 
q Deut. 5. 29.  O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me and keep all my Commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their Children for ever! 
r Deut. 32. 39  O that they were wise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end! These, and all other ways, whereby God works upon the wills of Men, are such as are congruous and agreeable to the nature of a will, or rational Appetite; as by enlightening the Understanding, and by persuading the will, and by inclining the affections, by strengthening the hopes, and the fears of the voluntary Agent, by the proposing of promises, and denouncing of Threats, by Exhortations, and Dehortations, and all other such means as are congruous to the nature of rational Creatures; and for that very reason they cannot be irresistible, like those other operations whereby God doth necessitate his natural Agents. The whole may easily be discerned by all that shall read and consider, jer. 5. 22. 23. Where God 
s Jer. 5. 22.  complains of his Israel for not fearing Him; and for not trembling at his presence, who had placed the sand for the Bound of the Sea by a perpetual decree that it cannot pass it. To which absolute will of the Omnipotent, the Sea is obedient of necessity; but his People (said God) hath a 
t Verse 23.  revolting and a rebellious heart, they are revolted and gone. Which passage of Scripture doth plainly teach us, that the consideration of that power which God had showed in his ruling the Sea, was sufficient to move his People Israel to fear and tremble at his presence; but it teacheth us also as plainly, that it is not the same way of working by which he ruleth the Sea, and by which he ruleth the wills of Men. He ruleth the Sea as the Sea, but Men as Men, and the wills of Men as the wills of Men. It was therefore a strong Adventure in my Reverend Assailant, to infer and argue from God's Omnipotency, that he doth those things which are incongruous both to the Nature of his Creature, and to the rules of his working, which it pleased his Wisdom to set himself. And having said thus much by way of admonition to the more unskilful, unwary Reader: I now proceed from the fourth Question of my Assailant (which consisting fallaciously of three, hath occasioned this length,) unto the fifth general Question by him proposed.    

CHAP. IX.  

E. R.  
Whether the Lord hath not been pleased so to reveal in the Scripture the doctrine of his Decrees touching his purpose, of glorifying himself in a way of mercy and justice, as that there shall be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Creature to stop at and to adore, that he will not have his counsels fathomable by the shallow line of humane reason, but when he doth with his Creature as the Potter with his Clay, of the same common and equal Lump, choose one part unto honour, and leave another unto dishonour, his purpose be not, that we should acknowledge and adore his Sovereignty, and lay our hands on our mouth, as amazed at the unsearchablenes of his judgements? now certainly in all this there is no blasphemy. God doth permit sin, and what ever he doth, he doth by the council of his own will, therefore he did ab aeterno decree to permit it. For otherwise he could by confirming grace have hindered and prevented the committing of it, as well in all Angels, as in some; as well in Adam, as in Angels, and that without any violence offered to their nature at all. Gen. 20. 5. Gen. 31. 7. 1 Cor. 10. 13. Neither can there be given any Cause out of God himself, and the Council of his own will, leading and inducing him rather to permit then hinder it. He did decree to permit it in order to his own Glory, which is the supreme end, and therefore by him absolutely willed, because the being thereof by his unsearchable wisdom and power was ordainable thereunto, He may out of that common & equal Mass, wherein he did decree to permit it, decree in some in whom he did permit it, to pardon it, and on them to show free mercy, in others to punish it, and in them to show due and deserved justice; the one having nothing to boast of, because the Grace which saves them, was God's, the other nothing to complain of, because the sin which ruins them is their own. He may by his huge discrimination of persons, who were in their lump and mass equal, and in themselves indiscriminated, show the absolute sovereignty which he hath over them, as the Potter over his clay. He may by his most sweet, and yet most powerful efficacy, work the graces of faith, repentance, new obedience and perseverance in the wills and hearts of those, on whom he will show mercy, giving them efficaciously both to will and to do of his own good pleasure, and leave others to their own Pride, and stubbornness, his Grace being his own to do what he will withal. And I say once again, in all this there is neither modest nor immodest blasphemy.   

T. P.  
§ 1. TO what he saith in the beginning of this long Question concrning God's Counsels being secret and unfathomable, I have these things to return him. First, That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is once mentioned Rom. 11. 33. doth not belong to this matter of election of persons absolute, or conditional; but to the depth of God's goodness, in patiently bearing the contumacy, both of the Gentiles, and of the jews; to the depth of his wisdom, in making the desertion of the jews a means of calling in the Gentiles; to the depth of his knowledge, which found a way to work upon the obstinate jews, by those Jews very Envy and Emulation towards the Gentiles, etc. He would have found that these things had been alluded to in the Text, had he compared it with the Context, or consulted the Paraphrase of the most Reverend Doctor Hammond; whose Volume of Annotations if he doth not admire and profit by, it is only because he doth not read them. Besides, it is to be wondered, how he could be so unmindful of the words immediately going before, [God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all, v. 32.] and In consideration of that rich mercy, the Apostle cries out [O the Depth, etc. v. 33.] So that the purpose is very different for which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by S. Paul, and Dr. Reynolds. S. Paul alleging, that God may have mercy upon all, and D. Reynolds the contrary, that God may not have mercy upon upon all. But 2. If the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostle did belong to that business for which he brings it, why doth he himself search into those very mysteries, which he confesseth to be insearchable? God's secret purposes were not secret, much less insearchable; if a Mortal (such as my Assailant) could find it out● If I may not affirm that God's decrees are conditional, and respective of 〈◊〉 being either in Christ by Faith, or out of Christ by infidelity; then my Assailant may not affirm that God's Decrees are unconditional, and without respect of men's being, or not being in Christ. For if insearchable to me, it is insearchable to him, and if revealed in the Scriptures, it is not revealed to him alone. Nay, thirdly, rather less, then more, to the men of his 
* Dr. Twisse Vind. Grae. l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 10. c. 1. Sect. 12 p. 140.  party, who deny the Scriptures to be the revealed will of God, and say it is but called the will of God, and that improperly too, whereby they virtually confess, 〈…〉 nothing of the will of God; but only what men 
* Dr. Twisse Vind. Grae. l. 1. part. 1. Digr. 10. c. 1. Sect. 12 p. 140.  ought or ought not to do, which they so distinguish from the signification of God's will, as to say, that what men ought to do is often contrary to the will of God; and what they ought not to do is many times according to Gods own will. This is such strange dogmatizng, that the Reader will be in danger to think I charge them falsely, if I do not carefully refer him to what I 
p The Divine Phil. Defend. ch. 4. p. 57, 58. 59 compared with the Correct Copy of Notes p. 10.  have cited and proved against the Correptory Correptor. If my Reverend Assailant will endeavour to disclaim or disprove what I have urged, I am able, and ready, to make good my Accusation; but I have really a better opinion of him, then to believe he will vindicate those ugly Doctrines. Fourthly, what ever is secret in the point of Election, wherein God may do what he will with his own, yet he hath clearly revealed himself in his word, as to the point of Reprobation or damnation or preterition (as they call it.) As for Reprobation or damnation, he hath sufficiently revealed, that he will never deal with man by rules of mere sovereignty, but of righteousness and justice; such as man himself is permitted to judge of, and is 
* Isa. 5 3, 4. Jer. 2. 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, etc. Isa. 43. 26. Mich. 6. 1, 2, 3. Ezek. 18. 23, 29, 30. Gen. 18. 23, 25  appealed to by God, whether or no it is not thus Then for the later, viz. Preterition, God hath revealed himself as plainly, that the Son shall 
q Ezek. 18.  not die for the iniquity of the Father; and that with the precious blood of Christ, he hath 
r 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2 Cor. 5. 14. 2 John 1. 2. Rom. 5. 15. to 21.  bought every one who was lost in Adam. And not to insist in this place on the universality of Christ's death with his sincere Intentions of extending the benefit of it to all who were included in Adam's Loyn●, which doth utterly overthrow the dream of absolute preterition, I refer to what I have spoken in 〈◊〉 (f) defence of God's philanthropy. Chap. 1. § 2. p. 4, ●, 6 besides the other places pointed out in the 
s Chap. 1 Sect: 5. p. 21, 22, 23. & ch. 3: Sect. 23. p. 85. to p 97. & ch. 4. Sect. 26. p. 28, 26.  Margin. That which is added by my Assailant concerning the Potter and his clay, doth prove nothing in the world, but that he misunderstands the ninth Chapter to the Romans; for the better interpreting of which I refer him to castle lio and to Grotius, and more especially to Dr. Hammond his Annotations. Or if either of those three takes him not off from the ordinary Presbyterian mistake, I shall be ready to deal with him when he shall think that fit to be the Apple of Contention.  
§ 2. What he saith of Gods permitting sin, and his decreeing to permit it is only siding with my Doctrine, and saying the same which I said 
t Correct Copy of Notes. ch. 1. Sect. 12. p. 15, 19  before him; and so against me, neither strong nor weak● argument can be deducible from thence; but against himself and his party in two respects for first his party are wont to say, that God doth tempt men unto sin (as Mr. Barlee) that he makes men Transgressor's, (as Zuinglius that men do sin by God's Impulse (as Mr. Calvin) that the will of God doth pass into the sin which is permitted as Dr. Twisse,) that God ordains men to sin quatenus sin (as Maccovius and Smoutius;) that he is the Cause of sin (as Piscator) the Author of sin (as Borrhaeus,) and six hundred things of this kind which I will not weary my Reader with. All which though my Assailant hath done his endeavour to excuse in the former part of his Preface, yet here he tacitly condemns them all, and very orthodoxly casts Anchor at God's permission. Secondly, whilst he proves that God decreed ab aeterno to permit it, from his actual permitting it in time, he justifies me, and condemns the Correptory Correptor as well as Mr. Whitfield, in as high a manner as can be wished; for when I argued in my Notes from the executions of God's decrees, as from the very best Topick whereby to demonstrate à posteriori the nature of the Decrees. of which they were the executions, the Vetulus Novitius in these controversies (to use his own words) being not able to distinguish betwixt my Topick, and my Argument, supposed that I had not distinguished betwixt God's Decree, and the execution of it, and thence complained from the Press, that I had jumbled these both together; and thereupon Mr. B. gave me his correptory Correption; as if I were to be punished for their defects of Apprehension. But my Rd. Antagonist, who is exceedingly above those two Adventurers, doth here well argue from the execution to the decree, Thus, [God doth permit sin, and what ever he doth, he doth by the Council of his own will, therefore he did ab aeterno decree to permit it.] Now if this way of arguing is sound and rational, (as certainly it is, and may be demonstrated to be) than my Reverend Antagonist must cease to be my Antagonist, from this time forwards, upon his own ground. And this I hope to evince by the following chain of propositions, whereof the one will be firmly linked within the other.  

1 What God hath willed shall come to pass, shall come to pass as he hath willed it, and no otherwise than as he he hath willed it, (for his will of the circumstance is as truly His, as his will of the substance 

from whence it follow's, That    
2. What doth come to pass absolutely (as the Creation of the world, the mutability of man, the tending of heavy bodies downwards, and the like) he did eternally will should come to pass absolutely, and what doth come to pass conditionally he did eternally will should conditionally come to pass. But all men confess and God's word tells us that  
3. Man's eternal Reward or punishment doth come to pass upon condition of his obedience, or by reason of his Rebellion. 

Therefore    
4. Man's eternal reward or punishment were eternally willed or decreed to come to pass in the very same manner in which they do come to pass, to wit, on condition or in respect of his obedience, or Rebellion.   
If he will now assent to these propositions, we shall for ever shake hands; but if he thinks there is a fallacy or falsehood in them, I am desirous to know wherein: nay, I do humbly exact it as a deed of charity, that he will communicate his discoveries, and s●ew where my Fallacies (if I have any) do lie concealed. I thus explain my propositions, Gods decrees are adequate to their events, and the effects of his decrees are exactly answerable to his decrees (as Face answers Face when a man looketh into a glass.) For whatsoever and howsoever he decreed to do before time, that thing and in that manner he doth in time. Again, 
a The Major is granted by n●y opponent, and confirmed from Eph. 1. 11.  whatsoever and howsoever he doth in time, that thing and in that manner he decreed to do before time; 
b The minor is granted by all sides, and is confirmed from all the Scriptures, as Rom. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.  but God in time doth cast men into Hell in regard of all their sins as well actual as original. 
c The conclusion is granted in the premises.  Therefore he did decree, before time, to cast men into Hell in regard of all their sins as well actual as original These three last propositions are a plain and perfect Categorical Syllogism. To which I hope I shall receive either a generous Concession, or a perspicuous answer. And to preven all cavils which may arise from the distinction of Reprobation positive, and negative, or Preterition and Damnation, I think it fit to give notice, that in stead of [cast into Hell] I might have said as well, and as truly, and as convincingly to my purpose, [reject, or reprobate, or forsake,] for none will deny, that God doth reject, and leave men, and cast them off, for their personal Infidelities, Apostasies, Rebellions, Murders, or whatever abominations they do actually commit without repentance and change of life; and what he doth do in time, he decreed that he would do from all Eternity, which is just as much, as I desire to have granted.  
§ 3. Should I now give strength to my Assailant's main Argument to which himself hath given None, by supposing or granting, that God might justly have reprobated his Creatures merely as lying in Massâ, or Adam's Loins, by not affording them an interest in the Death of Christ, without any respect to actual sins, yet this would do him no more service than if it were not granted him at all. Because when Christ is given for all that Mass, (as hath been proved in the first Section of this Chapter,) It is impossible that God should frustrate and null the end of Christ's deaths by punishing any man eternally, under this second covenant of grace, merely for the sin of Adam, without incurring that punishment by his rejection of Christ, or by actually sinning some other way. I have the charity to hope, that my Assailant retains not that unreasonable opinion of God's casting into Hell those new born babes; whose souls he will acknowledge to be much whiter than his own. And yet his opinion of preterition, as an Act of mere sovereignty; and a respecting of persons, (which God 
* Rom. 2. 11.  disclaims) doth naturally lead to the opinion of the Damnation of Infants; so as I wonder how any man can detest the one, and at the very same Instant embrace the other. Now though God doth disclaim that wicked proverb, of the children's teeth being set on edge, 
d Ezek. 18. 2.  upon the Father's eating sour Grapes, though God doth 
e Ezek. 33. 14.  swear that he wills not the death of a sinner, (much less of the babe which never actually sinned) though he declares himself to have a 
f 1 Tim. 2. 4. 2 Pet. 2. 9 etc.  willingness that all men should be saved, (who are as willing as he is & do not stand in their own light,) though there is no ground in Scripture for such an absolute preterition for which my adversary allegeth his three remarkable Maybees, yet I never did say that there is Blasphemy in them. The propositions which I charged with so much guilt, were of a blacker complexion. Here then the Reader may observe, a very strange Tergiversation in my Assailant; who wilfully lies under the blemish of Ignoratio Elenchi, rather than he will manage his undertaking. He undertook to prove it to be no blasphemy, to say that men do sin by the Impulse of God, 
☜  that God doth make men Transgressor's, and that Adultery is the work of God the Author, mover and Impeller, and the like: in stead of which he here saith, that God doth permit sin, and may do what he will with his own gifts, and is insearchable in his Counsels, and the like: and when to these things he hath added three may be's, he concludes that in all this, there is no blasphemy. So that here his Fancy is his opponent, and he only fighteth, as one that 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Cor 9 26.  beateth the Air. Yet there is one period in this paragraph, wherein if his meaning is, as his words do seem to import, I am unwilling to say how ill it is. His words are these [He did decree to permit 
* The particle [it] relates to sin, & not possibly to any thing else.  it in order to his own glory, which is the supreme end, and therefore by him absolutely willed, because the being Thereof by his unsearchable wisdom and power was ordainable thereunto.] if these words are sense, and proper English, without a parenthesis, or an hyperbaton, than the word [Thereof] must needs relate to Sin, which was said truly to be permitted, and not to God's glory; because 'tis nonsense to say, That the Being of his glory is ordainable to his glory. Again [thereof] relates to [absolute willed] as [because] too [Therefore.] And if so, then [absolutely willed] relates too Sin. And if that is his meaning, that when God decrees to permit sin, sin is absolutely willed by God, because in order to his glory (as God forbid it should be his meaning) than I say it is a Blasphemy against the nature and word of God. For he is [Deus non volens Iniquitatem] a God that willeth not Iniquity Psal. 5. 4. And when he decrees to permit sin, it is only ex hypothesi and in foresight that men will voluntarily commit sin if they be not hindered by main force, or if the liberty of their wills to sin be not taken away, by their being determined, and confined▪ and necessitated to good. But because God decreed that man should be a free Agent, and therein differ, from a Beast, and that he should not be determined to good alone, in his state of mutability. and therein differ from those in heaven who are in a state of confirmation, he did therein decree not to hinder men from sinning by uncreating their natures; and not to hinder sin, is to permit or suffer it. I hope my Adversaries meaning is better than his expression of it, for it cannot be ordainable to God's gl●ry absolutely to will the being of sin, although it may be ordainable to his glory to permit or suffer the being of sin. But I hope he intended that the two middle clauses of this period should only stand as a parenthesis, which is the only way of reconcilement that I am able to imagine. Yet from hence there ariseth a great Advantage to the Truth, however the Author of that period shall explain his meaning. For if he avow's it as his opinion, that sin is absolutely willed by God Almighty; He shall be forced to confess, that he himself makes God to be the Author of sin; and if he disavows it, he must forsake his present judgement concerning absolute Decrees, as I and others have done before him.    

CHAP. X.  

E. R.  
1. God's glory is dearer to him than all the things in the world besides are, or can be. 2. Every Attribute of God is infinitely and absolutely glorious, and the glory of every one of them, infinitely dear unto him. 3. Whatever is infinitely and absolutely glorious in God, he may by an absolute will and purpose decree to show forth the glory thereof in his works, without fetching an Antecedent reason ab extra, from without himself, leading and inducing him to make such a Decree. 4. The subject on which God is absolutely pleased to manifest the glory of his mercy and justice as to mankind, is Massa perdita. 5. Out of this Mass of lost or lapsed mankind, he hath ex mero beneplacito, chosen some unto Glory and salvation, for the manifestation of his free and undeserved mercy, and passed by others, leaving them under deserved wrath for the manifestation of his justice, 6. That such and such particular persons out of the same equally corrupted mass are chosen, and others are rejected, belongeth unto the deep and hidden counsel of God, whose judgements are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out, to whose sovereignty it appertaineth to form out of the same Lump, one vessel unto Honour, and another unto dishonour, to show mercy on whom he will show mercy, and to pass by whom he will pass by. 7. God doth so absolutely will and decree ab aeterno, the manifestation of the glory of his Attributes, in his works, as that withal he purposeth that the temporary execution of those eternal and absolute Decrees shall finally be in materiâ aptâ & dispositâ for such a manifestation. 8. All those intermediate dispositions between the decree and the execution thereof, whereby the subject is fitted for such manifestation of God's glory, if they be gracious, they are by God's eternal will, decreed to be wrought, and accordingly are in time effectually wrought by himself, and his grace, in and with the will of the Creature. If they be evil and sinful, they are in his eternal purpose permitted to be wrought, and are in time actually wrought by the deficient and corrupt will of the Creature, and being so wrought, are powerfully ordered by the wise and holy will of the Creator to his Glory.   

T. P.  
§ 1. STILL I find it is worse and worse with him. For having got nothing at all by his chain of Questions, he now tries what he can get by 8 propositions, which are in effect the same stuff, but dressed up in another fashion of Apparel, to see if the Reader will like it better in this Garb, His three first propositions may very easily be granted by all the world, but yet his Cause never the luckyer. The third and highest of the three being again but a May-be, how can it do him any pleasure; whilst the contrary may-be, as well as That? Himself will grant, that God may decree to fetch a reason [ab extra] from without him, viz. from men's actual provocations, the sins most freely committed by them, in the punishment of which he may glorify his justice, as well as by passing them by in the Loins of Adam. I demand of him and all his party. Is it not at least as just a thing, to decree the misery of the far greatest part of mankind for those personal Impieties which they do wilfully commit, as for the m●er sin of Adam, which was committed by Adam before his posterity had a Being, much less a Will, and a Personality? Here then are at least two equal Maybe's and I do him a favour, in supposing, my May-be no more than equal. But when we say what may be, we do not prove what is. That can only be defined by the revealed will of God, which tells us that Christ is the propitiation, not for our sins only (who hope we are of the Elect) but for the sins of the 
* 1 John 2. 2.  whole world, and so unavoidably for the whole massa corrupta, for all that were lapsed or lost in Adam. So as no man can be damned for Adam's sin only, without his own, but for adding his own to Adam's sin whereby he forfeiteth his Interest in Christ. But my Assailants unhappiness in his third Question is not yet at an end. For granting him his Doctrine of Man in Massâ being the object of God's Decree without any regard to his actual sins, we shall find him disputing against Himself. For doth not he by that doctrine, suppose God to fetch a Reason of his Decrees ab extra, from without himself, whereby to glorify his justice in the punishing of man? I say, was not Adam's sin, and the corrupted mass in his Loins, every whit as extrinsical to the Essence of God, as the actual corruptions of Cain or judas? how then doth he dash one part of his arguings against another? If my Assailant is willing that God's Decrees of Predestination should have no motive from without himself, he must destroy his fourth Thesis, and all that lean's on it; and in Reverence to his Third (if he desires to have it any more than a may be) he must presently set up for a Supralapsarian, and send a farewell to the Synod of Dort.  
§. 2. His fourth position doth declare, that he is for the Sublapsarian way, notwithstanding what he had said but 2 lines going before. And here he shows his Inconsistence with the greatest Pillars of his own Party, in his stating the object of Predestination, and affirming it to be Massa Perdita. For first, herein he sets himself against Beza, and all his followers, who are for Massa nondum condita. Next he disobligeth Franciscus junius, as able a Card as most are in the Pack, who is for Massa condita nec dum corrupta, Thirdly, He is at variance with honest Piscator (as Mr. B. calls him) who is for no less than a Threefold Mass, 1 nondum condita, 2 condita duntaxat, 3 condita & corrupta. Fourthly, he affronteth his own Dr. Twisse, whom he commended for his Acquaintance with the mind of God, and who although he prefers Piscator's opinion before the rest, yet he condemns Piscator's too; and sets up, in the room, who-can-tell-what? Fifthly, He opposeth the famous Moulin of Sedan, who slits the Truth in the midst, and (as to this particular) hath one foot in the Consistory, but another in the Church. Touching the object of Election, he holds indeed with the Calvinists; but touching the object of Reprobation, he runs full speed with the Remonstrants. Sixthly, He differs from Mr. Calvin, as Mr. Calvin differs from himself, who although in the general for Massa Corrupta, yet he is sometimes also for nondum condita. Seventhly, he despiseth his Reverend Friend Mr. Barlee, who professeth to be a good friend to both the upper and lower way, though Dr. Twisse hath 
h Twiss. vind. Gra. l. 1. par. 1. Digr. 4. Sect. 4. c. 2. p. 84.  discovered a very great Gulf fixed betwixt the one, and the other; and saith that they of the lower way, whilst they try to escape the darts of their Enemies, are compelled to fight under their Banner. Well therefore said Mr. Barlee, that he is for both, that is, for neither, because indeed he is for nothing unless for Correptory Correction. To satisfy my Reader for my being thus long, I ought to be a little longer, that I may tell him the pretty jest of Dr. Twisse his arguing, against all his Friends and Admirers without exception; and though he builds upon a Fallacy, yet his Friends are so far from having seen where it lies, that they have swallowed it down as a postulatum; and because they use it as a medium against the doctrine of the Remonstrants, 
Dr. Twisse his argument against my Assailant's Opinion of Massa perdita etc. and against the Correptory▪ Correptor, his Beloved Timothy.  Doctor Twisse hath ruined their Cause for ever.  
If Reprobation presupposeth a Mass Corrupted, it must needs presuppose mankind created. But if the Creation was sooner in God's intention then Damnation, than Damnation shall be sooner in Execution, than Creation. In the same manner; If God did sooner intent to permit Original sin then to damn, it would follow that man should be damned before Original sin is permitted to enter into the world (for what is first in Intention must be last in execution) all which things are so foolish, 
Si Reprobatio praesupponat massam corruptam, etiam genus humanum conditum prae supponat necesse est: at si creatio in Intention divinâ prior sit quam Damnatio, in executione prior erit Damnatio quam Creatio. Ad eundem modum. Si prius intenderet Deus peccatum Originale permittere quam damnare, sequeretur prius hominem oportuisse damnari, quam peccati originalis ingressum permitti. (Nam quod in Intention est posterius est prius in executione.) Quae omnia tam delira sunt, ut in hominem sana sentientem cadere non possint. Vind. Grat. l. 1. par. 1. Digr. 4. c. 3. p. 87.  as not to enter into a man who is in his wits.  
Here we see it is evident, that Dr. Twisse doth heap the greatest disgraces upon the Calvinistical opinion in the Synod at Dort, that can be possibly imagined. For he affirmeth it to infer the grossest absurdities in the world, as that men are damned in Hell before the world is created, and actually punished for sin before the entrance of sin into the world; things implying contradictions, and such as none but mad men can entertain, saith Dr. Twisse. Yet old Mr. Whitfield is so thankful, for having his Doctrine and his Person so implicitly reproached by Dr. Twisse, that he swallows his axiom as a wholesome Bit, and upon the strength of its nourishment, he fights (in his first animadversion) against the man in the Moon.  
§. 3. In the fifth position of my Rd. Assailant, I am glad to find him saying what God hath done ex mero beneplacito, no longer now what he may only. Only I wish he had given some show of reason and offered at least at some kind of proof, that I might have had an opportunity to answer. But since he hath crudely affirmed, what he supposeth to be true, I will patiently expect, until his leisure will permit him to prove 3. things. 1. That God hath absolutely (not now that he may, but that he hath) without any foresight or consideration how his talents will be used, chosen some to glory, & left the rest to inherit a Lake of Fire, which is unquenchable. 2. That his undeserved and free mercy cannot as well be manifested another way, to wit, in giving his free grace, and rewarding with infinite unproportionable joys; very weak and imperfect, very light & short obedience. 3ly, and especially, that he hath passed by others, and left them under deserved wrath, merely considered in that state which the First man brought upon them, (when yet on the contrary Christ was given a propitiation for that whole Mass, as the Scripture very expressly, and very frequently affirmeth.) And till these three things are proved, his sixth proposition will weigh as lightly as his fifth. Because it matters not to inquire, to what purposes and counsels the electing or rejecting men in Massâ doth belong, until it is proved that there is any such thing, as that in Massâ they are elected or rejected. Nor is the Question of his sovereignty, what he may, but of his decree, what he will; and what is revealed in his word concerning what he will do, which, if it is not there revealed, we cannot know. Just as little material are his seventh and eighth propositions, which do wholly stand and subsist upon the Credit of the fifth; nor must the fifth be granted until it is proved. Yet if care must be taken in the seventh, that this matter spoken of be finally apt and disposed for the manifestation of God's Glory, and if 'tis confessed in the eighth, that this is actually wrought by the corrupt will of the Creature, than it seems the Creature as it lies in Massâ, without any acts of its own corrupt will, is not fit to be punished, or to manifest God's Glory in being punished; and if so, then how could that be the subject (in the fourth proposition) on which God is absolutely pleased to manifest the glory of his justice? In plainer words, If until the Creature hath actually sinned, it is not [materia apta & disposita] matter fitly disposed for the eternal vengeance of the Almighty, or for the manifesting his Glory in their eternal punishment, than even my Adversary must acknowledge (upon his own grounds) that there cannot in massâ be any absolute Preterition. Thus his seventh proposition is the destruction of his fifth, and brings him over to my opinion, by irresistible consequence, even before he is aware; for he confesseth that the matter of Reprobation must be fitly disposed, and that it must be by the corrupt will of the Creature, but he knows that the Reprobates had no such thing as a will when they were in massâ, some thousands of years before they were born; and therefore they must be born, and have wills of their own, before their wills can be corrupted, or make them matter adapted for condemnation, and as they are in time, just so they were considered from all Eternity. But to conclude this Chapter. If all were granted which is desired in these eight propositions, yet would it not come home to Mr. Barlee's pretensions, 
k Correp. Cor. p. 88 lin. 8, 9, 11, 12.  who saith that God is not a mere legislator of conditional Decrees, Laws, and Statutes, but An absolute Determiner in a sovereign way of the several acts of Disobedience in relation to them; & though he saith also, that God himself is without sin, and determins the several acts of obedience also, yet that doth not lessen, but rather aggravate his Blasphemy; because he makes no difference betwixt Gods determining the Acts of obedience and Disobedience, whilst he saith he is an Absolute [unconditional Determiner, of both the one, and the other. Whither james Nayler hath said any thing like it, I have not hitherto been informed; but They who adored him as a Christ did give the Magistrate this reason, 
l The Grand Impostor. p. 25.  That they were forced thereunto by the power of the Lord; and 
m p. 28. & 31.  commanded so of the Lord; and thereunto 
n p. 30.  moved of the Lord; and 
o p. 32.  directed by the spirit of the Lord. And when the Presbyterian Ministers of the Kirk of Scotland sent a Letter to the Lord Hamilton inviting Him to head their Forces (which without the least pretence of Authority of Parliament, the Preachers and They only had made to rise,) they told his Lordship in their Letter, 
p Spotswood Hist. Scot l. 6. p. 330, 331.  that the people were animated by the word and motion of God's Spirit to take up Arms; that is, to Rebel. Now by what principles and opinions they were betrayed to these things, I leave it to be judged by other men. It is in perfect hatred to blasphemous speeches against God, but not for want of perfect charity to any man's person in the world, that I am forced to name the Authors of such Impiety, which if I should not do, I might be suspcted by a few to have born falsewitness. For the peace, and safety, of Church, and State, as well as for the Interest, and good of Souls, I am 
q Leu. 19 17. Ezek. 33. 7. 8, 9, 10. Ezek. 34. 2, 4, 8, 10. Amos 5. 10.  obliged and concerned to deliver mine own soul by giving fair 
q Leu. 19 17. Ezek. 33. 7. 8, 9, 10. Ezek. 34. 2, 4, 8, 10. Amos 5. 10.  warnings to other men's. And may it for ever be remembered by such as are of a party, which they are kind to, and extremely willing to excuse, That he who 
r Prov. 17. 15.  justifieth the wicked is an Abomination to the Lord, as well as He who condemneth the just. To show my 
s Psal. 19 13.  Innocence from so great a Transgression as the latter, I have not whispered my Accusations in a Corner, but spoken them out unto the world; nor have I urged them from giddy Rumours and Reports, (as one sort of men are wont to do) but from the published writings which I accuse; as may be seen in the Catalogues which I have heretofore made.    

CHAP. XI.  

E. R.  
So then, 1. God did, ab aeterno, most absolutely will and decree his own Glory, as the supreme end of all▪ consulting therein the counsel of his own will, and not the wills of any of his Creatures. 2. In order unto that supreme end, he did freely elect some Angels, and some lapsed men unto blessedness; for he might do with his own gifts what he would himself. 3. In order to the same supreme end, he did leave some Angels, and some lapsed men to themselves, to their own mutability and corruption, not being a debtor unto any of them. 4. But he did not ordain any Creature to absolute Damnation, but to damnation for sin, into which they fall (as they themselves know) by their own wills, and whereof they are themselves the alone Causes and Authors. God's work about sin being only a willing permission, and a wise, powerful, and holy Gubernation, but no actual efficiency unto the formal being and obliquity thereof. I am sorry I am led on by mine own thoughts thus far into your proper work. But here I stop.   

T. P.  
§. 1. ONce more he begins with four Positions, trying whether this course will be more prosperous than the former. So 
t Judg. 16. 8, 12, 14.  Dalilah cast about which way to bind Samson, that his strength might depart from him. So when 
u Num. 22. 41. ch. 23. 13, 14.  Balak was successless upon the high places of Baal, he brought Balaam (to do his work) into the field of Zophim on the top of Pisgah; 
Vers. 27, 28.  and when that also was in vain, He would try another mountain, and therefore brought him to the Top of Peor; for peradventure (said he) it will please God that thou may'st curse me them from thence. But 'twas strange that Balak should imagine any virtue in the mere change of places, when the Cause of his war was still the same. And I cannot but wonder, that my Assailant should attaque me by several sets of Questions and Propositions, when he knows the matter is still the same. Mine Host in Livy did not amiss when he made such variety of unexpected Dishes, all of one and the same Porket, in entertainment of the Ambassadors who came from Rome. But in the management of a controversy it cannot be so graceful, to say the same thing often in several shapes; yet as a token of my respect, I will proceed to say something to this last Quaternio of Propositions.  
§. 2. The first is granted by all the world, for no man living can be so mad, as to say, or think, that God consulted the will of the Creature in decreeing his own Glory. The second is backed with a show of Reason; and it runs in this Form, [He did, for he might;] but à potentiâ ad Actum non valet argumentum. God might have made us all, as he did Adam, out of the Earth, without the methods of generation, and Birth, but hence it follows not that he did. Nor was there need of any proof, (much less of that which was worse than none) for the confirming of an assertion. which Nothing in Christendom ever denied, for all unanimously agree, that God did freely elect some Angels, and some men. If any quarrel with him for his first position, they must be a Sect of his own party (which I showed before to be multisariously subdivided) to wit the supralapsarians, who perhaps will require him to blot out the word Lapsed, although they need not to be so nice. For that the men who are elected, as sons of Adam, are lapsed too, Dr. Twisse himself could not deny. And the Remonstrants do all allow, that actual sins suppose a Lapse. Only my Assailant must here be minded, that by the word [freely] he must not mean [necessarily or unconditionally;] for if he does, there is not a Dictionary in the world will bear him out. Our Faith and Obedience do merit nothing, nor indeed are they ours but by God's free gift, nor do they bear any proportion with an eternal weight of Bliss and Glory; so that the mercy of God is free though it exacts somewhat of us to make us capable of it. Which he that ventures to deny, must either deny that God exacts any Duties from his Elect, or that the Graces of God are free. If the former, he opens a Door unto the Libertines; and if the latter, he ruins the Cause which he asserteth. He needed not here have mentioned Angels; as not belonging to the matter of which he treats (for they were never in Adam's Loins) And of them he must be told, (since he hath put them into his Thesis) that God eternally foresaw that some of them would persevere, and not follow Lucifer in his voluntary defection, and that for their voluntary Obedience he would reward them with Confirmation. (So we know he doth men, when he takes them up into their Masters 
w Mat. 25. 21.  joy.) which if my Assailant will deny, I know not what should scare him from Embracing the way of the Supralapsarians. But come we from Angels to men, of whom in relation to this matter, the plain truth is briefly this. God was in Christ 
x 2 Cor. 5. 19  reconciling the world unto himself, who from all eternity elected, in Christ, those that he saw would persevere in the Faith of Christ (which Faith is not salvisick, unless it 
y Gal. 5. 6.  worketh by Love, all manner of duty which God requires, in whomsoever he doth require it.) And all this he did freely, and justly might do; yet he did it not therefore, because he might, but because he chose it as most for his Glory to be done. And we know he did so, (not because we know he might, but) because he hath been pleased to assure us of it in his word.  
§. 2. His third position, or proposition, he could not but know, would be denied, and yet his offer of proof is very feeble. He knows it is denied that God did leave some lapsed men to unavoidable Damnation, merely as lying in Adam's Loins; which he cannot possibly be thought to have done, if he gave his own Son to be a Ransom and Sacrifice for Adam's sin, and a propitiation for all that were in his Loins. Which this Reverend Author doth not once offer to deny throughout his whole Preface. And for his proof of the supposed Preterition, if it is any at all, it is but this, That God was not a debtor to any of them, who were thus left to Damnation in Adam's Loins. Which at its utmost Improvement hath but the force of another may-be. And is this a strong Argument [God did leave some lapsed men in massâ, because he might, without doing them any wrong?] How much more rationally may it be argued even the same irrational way (I mean by a may-be, à potentiâ ad actum,) God did not leave any by an absolute preterition in massâ, because he might give Christ for all that Mass, and might show mercy to all then lying in Adam's Loins, without doing wrong to any vessel of Election, whose Eye, ought not to be 
† Mat. 20. 15.  evil because God is good? Besides, it is a cold commendation of any tolerable Christian, to say he doth no wrong, and that the rule of his Actions is mere legality. God forbid that we should do whatsoever is barely and merely lawful, (for many things that are lawful, are not 
* 1 Cor. 6. 12. & ch. 10. 23.  expedient) or content ourselves with doing no more. A good man is desirous, not only to do no wrong to his Neighbour, but all the good that he is able. From whence we may argue â fortiori, That he who is kind to the 
z Luke 6. 36.  unthankful and to the 
z Luke 6. 36.  evil, and commandeth us to be merciful as 
a Verse 37.  He is merciful, by loving 
z Luke 6. 36.  our Enemies, as he did his, was more likely to show mercy upon all that were in massâ, because he is kind to his Creatures, and delighteth to forgive, and in the midst of 
b James 2. 13.  judgement remembreth mercy, then to leave them in Adam's loins under a desperate impossibility of being saved, or of having any Interest in the Saviour of the 
c John 4. 42.  world, and all because he is no man's Debtor. The Psalmid saith plainly, That the 
* Psa. 145. 9 The Lord is good to all; & his tender mercies are over all his works.  mercy of God is over 
* Psa. 145. 9 The Lord is good to all; & his tender mercies are over all his works.  all his works. He saith not justice, but Mercy, which importeth much more than the doing no wrong. Nor doth He say that God's Mercy is over some of his works, but over all without exception. Which how could David affirm with Truth, if the far greatest part of mankind, (the very noblest of all his works under the Canopy of Heaven) had been decreed to infinite and endless Torments, without the least respect or consideration, of any one the least sin committed actually by any one of them? Suppose it were justice to damn an Infant of a day old to all eternity merely as descending from him, who descended from him, who descended from him, who (after a succession of numberless Generations) descended from him, who desceuded from Adam, yet where were the Mercy to that poor Infant? My Assailant in this place must either contradict David, by denying that God's Mercy is over all his works, or say with Dr. Twisse, that it is better to be miserable for ever, than not to be; and so a comparative Mercy to that Infant, not to annihilate him, but to allow him the Dignity of a Creature, and an Immortality in Hell, where is weeping, and wailing, and guashing of Teeth, where the worm dieth not, and where the fire is not quenched. But I will sum up my Answeh to his third position, in these few words. That God is merciful above 
d Eph. 3. 20.  all that we can to ask or think, and may give, as well as not give, what he owes us not. Otherwise I am sure it could not be free grace. And that he really doth, what he thus may, He tells us as often as he saith, that he giveth Christ to die for all; in giving whom, he giveth 
e Rom. 8. 32.  all things, which are sufficient, and necessary to man's salvation. And though of the all that are called and called seriously) but 
f Mat. 20. 16.  few are chosen, yet it is not for want of a serious call on God's part, but because all that are called do not 
g Isa. 50. 2. & 66. 4.  answer; or if they answer, they do not 
h Luk: 14. 20.  come; or if they come, they do not 
k Mar. 10. 12.  stay with him; they wilfully 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 7. 30.  reject the counsel of God against themselves. And so have received the grace of God 
* 2 Cor. 6. 1.  in vain.  
§. 3. The Fourth proposition in this Section being wholly the same with the seventh and eighth of the former Section may be sent thither for its Answer, as having there sufficiently been spoken to, yet here my Assailant is to be thanked for saying so plainly, and expressly, [That men do fall into Damnation, as they themselves know, by their own wills, and whereof themselves are the alone Causes and Authors] For if this is heartily acknowledged (as here it is very plainly) Then 1. Farewell to Austin's rigid sentence pronounced upon un baptised Infants; for the Infants fall not by their own wills, or against the light of their understandings, they having no use of either faculty. 2. Farewell all consideration of Adam's: sin in the Damnation of any Creature; for they that are damned (saith my Assailant) are the alone Causes and Authors of their Damnation; and if so, then was Adam no part of the Cause or Author. If I had said thus much, how many times had I been called a Semipelagian? and of what Correptory Correction had I been thought worthy? But now 3. Farewell to all that is said by Mr. Barlee against the second Chapter of my Notes. For I had said only that man is the sole efficient Cause, and explained myself sufficiently by saying that Satan and the Protoplast were Promoters of my Gild (p. 6.) But my Assailant saith farther, that man's own will is the alone Cause, and the alone Author of his Sin and Damnation. Which gives me occasion to admire, how M. Barlee could read this passage in his worthiest Friend, and rail so vehemently against it, as to say it 
m Corrept. Correct. p. 94. to 100 especially p. 96, 97.  fights against God, against Scripture, against all Authority, ancient, and later?] Again I admire, how D. Reynolds could read all that bitterness of his Friend against this part of his own Epistle, and yet retain this proposition which is there so railed at; yea and how he could commend his Reviler's work for an Elaborate and learned Thing. Nor is the wonder lessened, in that the ill language of all those pages is directed to me by name, and not to D. Reynolds, since the Doctrine against which the ill language is levelled, is delivered by D. Reynolds, as well as by me, nay, by D. Reynolds after me, nay, by D. Reynolds in defence of me even in that Epistle▪ which was intended against me in partiality to Mr. Barlee, nay, by D. Reynolds more obnoxiously and more unwarily then by me, nay, more like Massilian and Pelagian by D. Reynolds then by me. Let both our words be considered, and I do seriously believe, that he himself will say as much.  
§. 4. What is added in the position concerning God's Permission and gubernation etc. is gratis dictum, as to me, and cannot with any the least colour be fitly aimed against my words, who said as much in my Notes (§. 12.) But only against his and my Correptory Corrector, who besides permission and Gubernation, disposing, and ordering, is for Determination, and stirring up, as a Man puts spurs to a Dull jade, (it is his own simile.) So that if my Rd. Assailant doth here mean no more than he speaks, not conceiving that God's will of permitting sin is efficacious, nor that he doth impel men to any thing that is unlawful, nor that he did Decree Adam to contract a 
n Name & decrevit Adamum, ex lapsu suo, vitiositatem natura immobilem contracturum. Twiss. Vind. Gra l. 1. par. 2. Digr. 8. Sect. 4. p. 115.  vitiosity by his Fall, (as Dr. Twisse speaks.) then the things which I accused as blasphemous may still be blasphemous by his free leave; and I shall once more thank him for having thus joined with me against the Correptory Corrector. And since he professeth to be sorry for having been led so far in another man's proper work, I will have so fair an opinion of him as to believe, that from this time forward, he will express his sorrow by his Amendment.    

CHAP. XII.  

E. R.  
I was glad to see two orthodox and sound Axioms, stand before the book of your Author as the Basis of his Superstructure. Two men of quite different judgements in these very Arguments I find to have done so before. The one Cassianus the Collator, 
Prosper cont. Collat. c. 14.  of whom Prosper hath these words, Catholicarum tibi aurium judicia conciliare voluisti, quibus de praemissae Professionis fronte securis, facile sequentia irreperent, si prima placuissent. Which words of his bring into my mind a saying of the Historian, 
Liv. decad. 3. l. 8.  Fraus fidem in parvis sibi praestruit, ut cum operae pretium sit, cum magnâ mercede fallat; and the censure of Austin upon Pelagius, Gratiae vocabulo frangit Invidiam, & offensionem declinat. 
Aug. de Grat. Christi. cap. 39  The other the famous Archbishop Bradwardine (whom learned and good men will honour, notwithstanding the hard censure passed by Hugo Grotius upon him) who premiseth two Hypotheses as the ground of that profound work of his, De Causâ Dei. I will have so fair and just an opinion of your Author, as to believe that he did this in Candour and Integrity, following therein rather the learned example of Bradwardin, than (if Prosper's Censure may be taken) the Artifice and cunning of Cassianus; yet because this is a course, which may by the Credit of true Principles, draw the less cautelous and circumspect Readers, to consent to deductions not naturally consequent upon them; it is requisite, as for writers, as Pliny adviseth, Saepius respicere Titulum, so for Readers to follow the Apostles Counsel, to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.   

T. P.  
§. 1. THis is somewhat a strange Paragraph in several respects. For first 'tis apparently unkind, because although he professeth that I had two great patterns for what I did, whereof one was most excellent in his own opinion; nay, though he professeth to have so just an opinion of me, as to believe I followed Bradwardin rather then Cassianus, and that I did what I did in Candour and integrity, he did yet make choice to begin his Descants upon the other; not insisting on the good mea●ing of Archbishop Bradwardin, but on the fraud & cunning of the Presbyter Cassianus. Yet secondly, he makes me some part of requital by confessing my two principles to be a couple of orthodox and sound Axioms, and that they were the Basis of my superstructure. Now he cannot but confess, that where the deductions are duly made, nothing but truth can be inferred from truth: such good 
o Luke 6. 43.  Trees, as two orthodox and sound Axioms, cannot bring forth such corrupt fruit, as my Notes were accused of by the correptory Corrector. Had not my Deductions been naturally consequent upon my grounds, (as here it is hinted, and merely hinted, but no where held forth, that I can find,) no doubt but some of the grieved party would have endeavoured at least to find it out. And had they found any such thing, no doubt but I should have heard on't with both my Ears. They cannot say that they were not at leisure; for the illness of a deduction might have been showed in few lines, and they had leisure in abundance to amuse the Reader with other things, which (in their own confession) must needs have been wholly impertinent, if my deductions were legal from such unquestionable grounds. And they tacitly confess that my Deductions were legal, by not attempting to show me their illegality.  
§. 2. My Reverend Assailant thinks I followed the example of learned Bradwardin, in my choice of those grounds: but Mr. B. is peremptory, that Dr. jackson was my Example. Why could they not have thought, that the Reverend Bishop Davenant might be the man, who hath the 
* Sentent. D. Davenantii. p. 20.  substance of my two grounds in his Epistle to Duraeus? Why not St. james? Chap. 1. 13, 14, 15, 17. Rather why not every man, or no man at all? For is there any thing more obvious in the very writings of the Heathen, or in the Hearts and Mouths of all who are not quite inhuman, then that all our good things are from the Fountain of goodness, that is, from God, and all our evils from their Fountain too, that is, our own corrupt wills consenting to the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the Devil? These are such known and vulgar Truths, that they might have been expected from any A. B. C. darian, who is but a little catechised in the Elements of Religion, without recourse to a Bradwardin, and then perhaps much less to a Dr. jackson. That Cassianus did use that Method, as well as Bradwardin, is as much to Bradwardin's prejudice, as it can be to mine; although it ought not to be to either. For Cassianus was a learned and pious man; and so commended even by Prosper who writ against him, and who calls him somewhere Virum divinum; though I can now as little find out the place where, as I can find out that speech in his 14th. Chapter, to which by the Margin of my Assailant I am directed. The worst that can be said of Cassianus, is, that being a Semipelagian he erred on the right hand; which however to be misliked, is yet exceedingly preferable to Semimanicheisme, which will easily be proved to be an Error on the left. Prosper 
p Prosper in Epist. ad Aug. de relig. Pelag. Her. p. 884.  confesseth of the Semipelagians, that they were eminent, and godly, and learned men, and such with whom he was not able to compare, either for strength of Argument, or unblamableness of life. He farther 
q Illud etiam qualiter diluatur, quaesumus patienter Insipientiam nostram ferendo demonstres, etc. Id. Ibid. p. 886.  confessed to the same Austin, to whom he confessed all the rest, that their Reasonings were such, as he was not able to answer, upon which he desired that Father's help. 
r— Et hoc non solum aliorum Catholiorum Testimoniis, sed etiam sanctitatis tua disputatione antiquiore se probare testantur, ut & illùd quoth, etc. Hilar. Arcl. in Epist. ad Aug. mihi p. 1199.  St. Hilary also told Austin, that the Massilians in France did hold no more concerning grace, than they quoted Him for, as well as other Catholic Fathers; and Him they quoted for what he had written in his dispute against Porphyry; wherein he spoke as if he had spoken out of the Semipelagian's mouth, when indeed the Semipelagians did speak expressly out of his. And because my Reverend Assailant hath noted Augustine's censure upon Pelagius, I will also note how much Pelagius was reverenced by the very same Austin at other times; not because I am concerned in the credit of Pelagius or Cassianus, any more than any man who loves to give his very enemies their due, but because I would show how little of argument there is in the censures of Prosper and of Austin, produced here by my Assailant in this part of his Epistle. First, for 
s Haec ego & alia quae hunc sequuntur errorem, credo quod vir ille tam egregie Christianus omnino non sentiet. Aug. de Peccat. merit & Remiss. l. 3. c. 3. Nos non oportet advertere istum● honum & praedicandum virum. Ibid. Pelagii quaedam Scripta legi, viri, ut audio, Sancti & non parvo profectu Christiani. Ib. c. 1.  Pelagius himself, we have Austin speaking so highly of him, that he professeth not to believe, that so excellent a christian as Pelagius should assent to those Errors of which he was reported to have been guilty. And then for the Sect of the 
t unde & isti qui contra haec disputant, cum sint castâ vitâ, moribusque laudabiles, nec dubitant facere quod illi diviti pro consequendâ vitâ aeternâ consilium requirenti, cum se respondisset jam omnia legis implevisse mandata, praecepit Dominus, si vellet esse perfectus, venderet omnia quae haberet, & daret pauperibus, thesaurumque transferret in Caelum. August. de pec. mer. & Remiss. contra Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 16.  Pelagians in general, St. Austin hath liberally declared, that though they disputed against that which he asserted, yet he could not but acknowledge that they were men of good life, and laudable for their manners, and such as did not scruple to obey the very strictest of Christ's commands, even by selling all they had and giving it to the poor; such were the Pelagians, and such was Pelagius, if we believe that Austin who was the greatest Enemy to him, and Them, and sure an enemy's commendation is not likely to be untrue. If the greatest haters of the Pelagians Doctrines had not been the greatest Haters of their example, [selling all, and giving to the poor,] it had been better than now it is, with the men who are at Enmity with each extreme.    

CHAP. XIII.  

E. R.  
I observe in your Author, much credit given to a Paper published under the name of Bishop Andrews: If Controversies were to borrow their credit from the Names of men, you could easily oppose the great Bishop of Hippo, and a cloud of many other learned men, unto that great Name. But I know not whether the Ipse dixit of an Anonymous publisher, be attestation enough to prove the Authenticalness of that Paper. Dr. Sanderson, a learned writer, who once drew the divers opinions touching these controversies into Tables, speaketh of Dr. Overal's judgement, but maketh no mention of this. And the two Prelates, unto whom the publication of his Opuscula, was by special order referred, do not give any account of this paper to the world, but (that which seems to induce the contrary) they diligently satisfy the Reader, Cur haec & non alia (speaking of the things by them published) sibi ad scribendum delegerit. Therefore it is probable, that either they owned not this as his, or willingly suppressed it; for something they did suppress, as they intimate in these words, illud quidem nobis curae huit, ne quicquam prodiret, cujus occasione sancti manes queri jure possent famae suae apud Posteros male consultum à nobis esse. Therefore till I come to have a better assurance of it, than the Testimony of the two letters, F. G. and the company of Fur praedestinatus. I shall take the liberty of an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this particular.   

T. P.  
§. 1. I Do willingly profess to be a great Admirer of Bishop Andrews, not only as Master of 15. Languages, an irresistible Disputant against our Church's Enemies of each extreme, a most unimitable Preacher, a Bar to sacrilege and schism, a very 
* See what Austin said of the Pelagians charity, in the place above cited.  Pelagian in point of charity, (though not of Doctrine) a Conservator of Discipline, a Patron to public peace, (and a good friend to Grotius,) but as a vindicator of God's Essence, and Attributes, from all that tendeth to his dishonour. And were there no one man, besides the renowned Bishop Andrews, to be alleged against the fancy of irrespective decrees, and the other fictions which issue thence, he would exceedingly outweigh whatsoever stands in the contrary scale. To whom it was not fairly done to oppose the Bishop of Hippo, because the Bishop of Hippo doth speak as much for the Doctrines of Bishop Andrews as he can be pretended to speak against them. And if he is found to speak both, that is, For and against, it is his own 
t Neque quorumlibet Disputationes quamvis Catholicorum & laudatorum hominum, velut Scripturas Canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat Saluâ honorificentiâ, quae illis deberur hominibus, aliquid in eorum Scriptis improbare atque respuere, si fortè invenerimus, quod aliter senseri●●, quam veritas habet, divino adjutorio, vel ab aliis intellecta, vela nobis. Talis ego sum in Scriptis aliorum, Tales volo esse Intellectores meorum. August. Epist. 3. ad Fortunat.  desire that he may not be heeded: for having found by sad experience that he was subject to great mistakes, he desired the Readers of his works to use their liberty of rejecting what they should find to be amiss, and also professed not to take it as any dishonour or disrespect to either his quality, or his learning; of which as I have given sufficient proofs in other places, so now in my margin, I add another. I have two Reasons to allege why the judgement of Bishop Andrews, the great Bishop of Winchester, is (in this particular at lest which lies before us, not only as much, but perhaps) much more to be esteemed, than the judgement of Austin the great Bishop of Hippo. 1. Austin was actually betrayed into greater Errors, then can be pretended to the prejudice of the other. For not to speak of his praying to Saints, and his praying for the dead, of which he is accused by Mr. Rivet, the Presbyterian, not only as of an Error, but as of a very great crime; nor to speak of his many Massilian Doctrines which St. Hilary himself alleged to him very frankly out of several of his writings; what 
u Si ergo tot & tanta divina testimonia concinunt, nec salus nec vita aeterna sine Baptismo & corpore & sanguine Domini cuiquam speranda est, frustra sine his promittitur Parvulis. August. de Peccat. Merit. & Remiss. contra Pelagianos. lib. 1. c. 23. p. 670.  grosser mistake could there be, than even that which he discovered in his Dispute against the Pelagians, when it most concerned him to have been wary? I mean his Error of belief, that no Infant could be saved without the receiving of the Communion, as well as the Sacrament of Baptism, and his wresting of that Text john 6. 53. to authorise so great an Error, and (which is most to be admired) his great 
w Audiamus dominum de sacramento Sanctae mensae suae dicentem, quò nemo rite nisi baptizatus accedit, [nisi manducaveritis earnem meam, & biberitis sanguinem, non habebitis vitam aeternam,] Quid ultra quaerimus? Quid ad hoc respondere poterunt? An vero quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit, quod ad parvulos h●c sententia non pertineat possintque sine participatione Corporis hujus & sanguinis in se habere vitam? Id. ib. c. 20. p. 666.  Triumphs thereupon, as if his argument from thence were not possibly to be answered. 2. Where Austin differed from Bishop Andrews touching the points now controverted (if yet he must be said sometimes to differ) he also differed from all his own Teachers, the Fathers of the Church who went before him, for four Centuries after Christ; who did unanimously hold, that the Decree of Election (much more of Reprobation) is respective and conditional, and that not only of Faith, but of perseverance unto the end too; which is confessed 
x Prosper in Epist. ad Aug. p. 886.  by Prosper, and by 
y Aug. de bono pers. c. 19 & 20.  Austin himself approved of.  
§. 2. To the Arguments which he useth against the Anthenticalness of that Piece which I delighted to make use of in my Notes on God's Decrees, I have several things to return him by way of Answer. 1. Dr. sanderson's making no mention of it is but a negative Argument, and therefore signifies very little to an intelligent Reader. 2. Nor can he possibly be ignorant, that Dr. Sanderson's Tables were quite finished before this piece of B. Andrews was sent forth into the light. But how can any man expect, that he should mention a writing, which he had not then the opportunity of seeing? Or if he had, could he be thought to mention All he ever saw? He had reason to mention the famous Opinion of Bp. Overal, because it had something peculiar which made it famous; and if he thought he had not the same reasons to mention that of Bp. Andrews, how can He or I help it? 3. There was something else which the two Prelates did very willingly suppress, as his pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, which yet my Rd. Assailant will not deny to have been his, because it was not published by special order. But 4. There was some reason for the suppression of this, as well as that. Not because this was the issue of his Youth, as well as that, (for this he did in his riper years) but because they published his Opuscula much about that Time, when the public Discussion of these Points were interdicted by special order, and because this Piece was not so polished by its Author, as the other things in that Volume, which they committed to the Press. 5. Nor ought it more to be censured for being found in the Company of Fur Praedestinatus, then Fur Predestinatus ought to be censured for being the Title of a Book, or for being found in the company of the Articuli Lambethani. They say that Fur Praedestinatus is an ingenious Dialogue, which hath nothing of ill in it, except the Doctrines of those Men who helped the Thief to presumption, in lieu of Faith. And those are there mentioned for righteous ends; viz. by way of prevention to one sort of Readers, and by way of Remedy to another: that some may be afraid of entertaining such Doctrines, and that others may be ashamed of having taught them. 6. As it hath hitherto appeared, that there is not any force in any one of those reasons, which would not have men believe that that small piece is Bp. Andrews', so there are reasons for the contrary of force sufficient. For 1. The language and the frame, and the inward spirit of the thing, do partly tell us that it is His, who may be guest at by his finger, as well as Hercules by his Foot. 2. Part of it is discernible even in some of those Sermons, whose publication was referred to the Bishops of London, and of Ely, except that the one hath it in Latin, as the other in English. 3. The Publisher of it, F. G. (if I rightly guess at him) is both a learned and pious man, whose Integrity would not suffer him to put a deceit upon the Reader, especially in a matter where there could not accrue to him the least advantage or convenience. For 7. That that inestimable Bp. was, (in his most mature and ripest years) very severe to those Doctrines which are commonly called Calvinistical, is a thing so known, that I cannot think it will be denied. Nulli nota magis domus est sua.— His solemn Sermons at the Court do often declare him to be that, which the Ignorant and the Passionate will call Arminian Of which I do not torment my Reader with Examples, because I imagine, there cannot be the least need. But if my Rd. Assailant will have me, I will do it as soon as I know his Pleasure. At present I hasten to his Conclusion.    

CHAP. XIIII.  

E. R.  
I now conclude with answering your desire, which was, that upon reading your Book, I would give you my opinion of it. I have read it so well as I could, a Copy not in all places alike plainly transcribed. And truly, so far as my weakness is able to judge, for the Theological and Argumentative parts of it, it is so solid and substantial, as that I assure myself, it will be very acceptable to many learned men, and very useful to the Church of God. You have therein given a good account to the world, that you did converse with that second Bradwardine, D. Twisse unto very good purpose. I heartily wish, that there may be no further reciprocation of the Law of contention between you, but that Truth may so prevail, as that you may become both one, both in opinion and Affection. It will be a happy time with the Church of God, when swords shall be beaten into Plowshares, & spears into pruning hooks, when the earth shall be so filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as that all polemical writing shall be out of Date; when the Lord shall be one, and his name one, and we shall all serve him with one shoulder: Unto this let all our writings tend, for this let all our prayers contend. I commend your person & labours unto God's Blessing, and remain,  
Your most loving Friend and Fellow-Labourer, ED: REYNOLDS.   

T. P.  
§. 1. HERE is a palpable confession, that the only thing which was desired, is the last and least thing by him performed. Mr. Barlee courted his opinion concerning his Correptory Correction, and in the room of that, he hath told him his opinion of other things. I did never desire him to give me his opinion upon the reading of my Notes, nor did I expect that he should read them, much less did I desire him to declare his opinion to all the world, much less to declare it as much as might be to my discredit, much less to the discredit of Bp. Andrews, and the Doctrines by Him espoused; yet he hath turned over his Books, and made a muster of Citations, and spent almost his whole Preface in that which did not belong unto him, nor was at all desired of him, either by me, or my angry Neighbour. Which why should he do, if he had not a willingnefs to own his Cause, to gratify his Party, to abett his Fellow Labourer, to show his strength, and to challenge me to an Encounter? I have answered his Challenge so much the rather, because I think him one of the ablest of those that err on that side, and in the conversion or confutation of whom, the greatest good is to be done to them that read us; I had also more respect for a person of his Fame, then to affront him with a contemptuous silence; and a greater care of his Orthodoxy, ●●en to suffer him to live in such a dangerous mistake, as to believe his Epistle unanswerable in case it were unanswered. For as soon as he had wished, and wished heartily, that there might be no further reciprocation of the law of contention, he immediately added, [but that truth might so prevail etc.] Upon which I considered within myself, that if I had not made him some return to his Assault, he might have imagined, that Truth had been on his side, and have ascribed both the patience, and the modesty of my silence, unto the prevalence of that which he is pleased to call Truth. Let this suffice for his confessed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. 2. Secondly, He next goes on to encourage his Fellow-Labourer with some applause and commendation, which his Fellow-Labourer had earned of him by quoting a passage of his Sermon preached before the Lord Maior, 
Correp. Cor. p. 35.  taking that occasion to call him the Eminent and sweet Dr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. First, he commends the Theological and argumentative parts of his Book, (which he did well to distinguish from the scurrilous and Invective,) as very acceptable to many learned men, and very useful to the Church of God. How directly contrary this is to the real merit of the thing, I have partly showed already, and can do in greater abundance when my Rd. Assailant shall call me to it. If to teach a wicked world, that God doth tempt men unto sin, that he praedestins, and stirs them up to that which is unlawful, that his will and Decree of men's sins is efficacious and absolute, if not a few, but a multitude of such like Doctrines, (which have made so many Ranters and Libertines in Christendom, to the great scandal of the heathen and the dishonour of Christianity) is acceptable to the learned, or useful to the Church, than the Correptory Corrector hath highly deserved his commendations. And let that suffice for a specimen of his Theological performances, which if I listed to pursue in all the particulars that I have noted, they would make a new Volume with too much ease. Of his argumentative faculty (which is the second thing commended) I will also give no more than one or two Tastes. It being a part of his Theology, that though a Saint may be guilty both of ●urder and Adultery, with a complication of other sins, and continue in them for some time without repentance, yet that Saint cannot be possibly (no, not at that very time) in a state of Damnation, he seeks an argument to prove it from the Case of 
* Correp. Corr. p. 221. 222.  David, who though 
b 2 Sam. 11. 2, 3, 4.  deliberately guilty of Adultery, and with the wife of Vriah. one of the loyallest of all his subjects, and added 
c vers. 13.  drunkenness to thirst, and though when that would not take, he endeavoured to conceal it by 
d vers. 15.  wilful murder, and by the murder of most excellent Vriah, to whom he was very much obliged, and whom he had wronged too much already, though he continued in these sins without remorse, adding a deep 
e vers. 25.  Dissimulation and Hypocrisy, and instead of repenting, took possession 
f vers. 27.  of Bathshebah, (as Ahab did of Naboths Vineyard,) never crying peccavi till 
g chap. 1●, 13.  after the message of Nathan, yet he was not all this while in a state of Damnation, saith 
* Note, that Mr. Simsons Doctrine; which was in substance the same with this, was condemned as a Blasphemy by Mr. Cawdrey, and above 50 Ministers besides of the same way, in their book entitled, A Testimony to the truth of jesus Christ. p. 16. Nor was D. crisps much unlike it in the same page.  Mr. Barlee; who farther tells us, that David was not fallen from the state of salvation, but from the joy of it; and that he had not, even then, lost the holy Spirit of God. But because all this is but the begging of his Question, he endeavours to prove it by several Arguments; first from the suffrage of Bertius, that very same Bertius whom he calls Apostate, and who was called a Blasphemer by learned King james (as my Assailant saith.) And though he doth not 
h He only refers to the whole book de Apostasiâ Sanctorum.  name the place where Bertius is of his judgement in this particular, yet that is his first proof, the Concession of Bertius. Secondly, he adds his misapprehension and strange abuse of that Text of Scripture Psal. 51. 11, which, every child knows, was penned by David after the time of his Repentance. Thirdly, he adds, that if this had not been true (which was said by him and Bertius) David after his fall must have been circumcised again, and (to give the Anabaptists as much advantage as he is able) he adds to that also, that all Christians at any time falling into enormous sins, must be baptised again. Fourthly, he argues, that 
† So he reviles that extraordinary Person, (now with God, as we ought in charity not to question)? whom Bp. Abbot himself commended, if not admired, as a very great and learned man, even in that very book which he writ against him. Who if he was possibly overtaken, with Lot, and Noah, in drinking wine, yet he repented with Lot, and Noah; Nor was he ever known, in all his life, to play the Correptory Corrector.  Drunken Dick Tompson did also maintain a falling damnably from Grace, meaning a Total, though not a final Fall, whereas he and his party do not believe either of them; but only they say (putting it off with that Trick) that whensoever any man falls into any sin, he falls damnably, that is, so as to deserve Damnation, which is the same that he saith of all the whole Mass in Adam's Loins. Now from the Doctrine of Mr. B. thus argued, they that are so shallow may make a very sad use. For having first swallowed it down, as an unquestionable thing, that they are vessels of a most absolute unconditional Election, and that they cannot fall totally, much less finally from Grace, in so much that although they commit Adultery or Murder, or whatsoever sins besides, and live indulgently in them for no small time, as David did, without Repentance, yet they have not 
† See how this dangerous Error is detested by good Melancthon loc. Com. de bon. oper. 169. 179. 180. De discrim. pec. mort. et ven. p. 228. manifestus error, & necessario reprehendendus— nec confirmemus in stultis securitatem & caecitatem.— nec fingamus Deum saxeum & stoicum— saint oicae illae disputationes execrada sunt, Electos semper retinere spiritum sanctum. De pecc. Actualibus. p. 83, 84.  lost the Holy Ghost, nor can be possibly in a state of Damnation, they will immediately conclude, that all the sins they can commit are not able to do them any considerable discourtesy; they may make them the sadder, but not the worse; somewhat less cheerful, but not less safe; they can fall no otherwise than David did, that is (saith their Teacher Mr. Barlee) 
k Correp. Corr. p. 221. lin. 22, 23, 24, 25.  not from the state of salvation, but only from the joy of it, and therefore they need not be 
k Correp. Corr. p. 221. lin. 22, 23, 24, 25.  rebaptised. And if they can but sin merrily, as not discerning the guilt, or not fearing the danger, they shall not fall so much as from the joy of their salvation, Now, Reader, judge by this Taste, of this writers Theological, argumentative parts, and how 
† See how mischievous that Doctrine is in the opinion of King james and Dr. ●●verael at the Conference at Hampton-court. p. 30, 31. especially p. 42, 43.  useful they are to the Church of God. I will give another Taste of him whilst it is now under my eye. Because I said in my Notes, that none were Elected unto Bliss under any other notion then that of being foreseen from all eternity to be found to be in Christ, and persevering in Christ unto the end, Mr. Barlee affirmeth me to have said, That no man is elected 
* Correp Corr. p. 222. lin. 11, 12, 13.  until he hath persevered in faith and repentance, which cannot be till he is dead. As if when I spoke of God's Decree, which I there proved to be respective, and expressly distinguished it from its execution, I could have placed the Decree after the time of its execution. But He having had so little Grace as to invent such a Calumny, had withal so little wit as to cite my 69 page, as the place where he pretends that I had spoken those words; that so every Reader who will but consult the place cited, might stand amazed at the strangeness of that invention. Nor can he and Mr. Whitfield pretend to an Ignorance in their excuse, unless by confessing that they could not apprehend, how God should eternally foresee as well the means, as the end; as well the Sin, as the Damnation; as well the Faith and Perseverance, as the life after death. And this may suffice for a second Taste of Mr. B's Argumentations, and of their usefulness to the Church of God.  
§ 3. He is next commended by his Encomiast, for having conversed with Dr. Twisse, that second Bradwardine, unto very good purpose. Which is as much as to say, that he hath showed himself able to write and read. For all the use he hath made of Dr. Twisse, is to transcribe a great deal of him, sometimes nothing to his purpose, sometimes against it. Indeed Dr. Twisse was as great an enemy to their way, and difputed against it as earnestly, as either of them can dispute against me. And the more they commend him as a second Bradwardine, an eminent servant of Christ, and the like, the more they do implicitly condemn themselves. Mr. B. hath done him the dishonour to speak well of him, to talk much of his Friendship, and to pretend that he loved him as another Timothy. No doubt he may have seen the Doctor's face, which he describes to have been stern, p. 64.) but sure I am, he knows but little of his meaning, more than what I have showed him, upon occasion of his mistakes.  
My Reverend Adversary concludes with a hearty wish, that contention may cease, and Polemical writings be out of Date, that the Lord may be one and his name one (as the Scotsmen concluded the second Article of the Covenant.) But how heartily he wished it, and how much he hath contributed to the accomplishment of his wish, the Reader may easily pass a judgement, 1. by his meddling in this matter of his own accord, confessedly beyond what was desired by Mr. Barlee; 2. by his assaulting of me who never gave him the least degree of provocation; 3. by telling a Correptory Corrector (who needed a bridle and not a spur) that though soft words and hard Arguments are best, yet in writings of this Nature there may be a necessity of sharp Rebukes; 4. by forcing a Text of Scripture (qua si obtorto collo) to help to excuse the sharpness of a book, of which the common voice is, that it is perfectly unexcusable.  
§ 4. I will also conclude with a hearty wish, (and which I verily believe is sincerely such) That we who are divers at present, may after some short time be One in judgement; Or if our Heads cannot be brought to an agreement, yet at least that God's Grace may be so prevalent in our Hearts, that whilst we are divers in judgement, we may be One in Love. That all the Hottest of our Contentions may be in order to conviction; and to the conviction of the Gainsayer, not by the ruin of his Person, but of his Argument and his Cause. Yet because there is an usual and easy passage, from breach of judgement, to breach of Charity, And because Agreement in Error is the sinew of Faction, but not of Peace; it concerns us to pray that we may endeavour, and to endeavour sincerely whilst we pray, That Truth as well as Unity, and Unity in the Truth, may be the only scope first, and then the only conclusion of our Debates. Were this obtained in Disputations, we should not finally change weapons, and pass à calamo ad gladium. We should persecute the Syllogism, but not the Man; destroy his Error, but not his Family, or his Fortune. In the mean time it were well, if we would not think it a noble Constancy to persevere in that Opinion which first be speaks us, nor blush at the Glory of confessing our former Errors, as soon as we see, and dislike them for having hurt us. For (to use the words of Mr. 
* Quorsum enim viveremus, si nihil aetas, nihil usus, nihil assi●ua exercitatio, nihil lectio, nihil meditatio conferret? Calvin. de lib. arbit. contra Pigh ium.  Calvin concerning himself, and his public works, which he professed an Intention to have reform) wherein lies the benefit of growing older and older, if Age, and experience, and assiduous Exercising ourselves added to Reading, and Meditation, did not confer something on us, whereby to set us above the pitch of our younger selves? I am resolved, for my part, not to be longer of an Opinion, than I am able to see good reason for it. And do so desire to try all things, as to hold fast nothing but what is 
* 1 Thes. 5. 21.  good.  
The End.