Justification of the Fathers and Schoolmen, Treatise

Justification of the Fathers and Schoolmen · Treatise

p. 1foreign, OR, A Juſtification of the Fathers and Schoolmen in their Opinion, That Sin hath not a Poſitive Beeing.

EXerciſing my Miniſtry at Brackley, I came into acquaintance with Mr. William Barlee, who upon the publication of his Correptory Correction, was pleaſed to beſtow one Copy on me, deſiring me freely to ſpend my thoughts upon it: In my Anſwer, though I could not but Intimate how much I diſliked the ſharpnes of his ſtile, in ſome paſſages relating to his adverſary, yet I could not but ſay, that there was ſomething in the Argumentative part, unto which Mr. Pierce would ſcarce be able to returne a ſatisfactory p. 2Anſwer: Which my opinion I yet ſee no reaſon to recant. For notwithſtanding all his buſtle and ratlings, yet impartiall and judicious men may diſcerne, he is but like that Goth in Procopius, who, though he fought fiercely, had the mortall arrows ſticking in his helmet, whereof he ſoon after fell. The Gentleman had ſome part of his education among the Oxford Cavaliers, who were wont to outface their defeats with bone-fires, and to ring their Bells after the greateſt routs, and being a little tainted with that humour, reſolves to Triumph who ever gets the victory. And indeed a Spirit of moſt childiſh inſultation ſeems to have poſſeſſed as many, as have lift up an Engliſh pen againſt the Orthodox, in this quinquarticular controverſy. Il'e inſtance onelyonly in Mr. John Goodwin, who in the Preface to his Triumviri, ſaith, that he hath not met with any thing in the writings of any, or of all the three men conteſting with him, which had in the leaſt ſhaken his confidence concerning the truth of the things by him aſſerted, or that, for the leaſt ſpace of time, put him to any ſtand or loſſe in his underſtanding concerning them, or to ſeek what to Anſwer to any p. 3thing they offer or object againſt any of them? which lines the greateſt charity muſt needs look upon as ſo much vapouring Rhetorick dropt from his pen, in the abſence of Judgment and conſcience: Or as an eſſay of the Spartanes valour, who being ſtruck down by a mortall blow, uſed to ſtop their mouths with earth, that they might not be heard to quetch or groan, thereby to affright their fellowes, or animate their Enemies. The reader hath not yet the occaſion of my calamity: Mr. Barlee reſolves to undertake the Divine Philanthropie, and writes a ſecond letter to me, deſiring to borrow ſome books, and withall to know what I thought of his aſſailants reply: I had not then peruſed it, nor have I yet peruſed it, nor ſhall I ever peruſe it, except I can find ſome of the Rabbines hours, which belong neither to night nor day. But it ſeems I had eſpyed that his ſtrange and long ſince exploded opinion of the poſitivity of ſin, which made me write, that if he held ſin to be poſitive, he muſt either hold it to be from God, (which is the blaſphemy he chargeth upon the Calviniſts) or elſe hold it to be God, which would be to beſtow an Apotheoſis on ſin. Becauſe p. 4whatever poſitive thing is not from God, is God. This my friend, without any leave obtained or asked from me, puts in print under my name: with no ill intent, I hope, but yet ſome what againſt the rule of friendſhip. But having entituled me to the old, innocent, Metaphyſicall maxime, that omne ens eſt vel primum vel a primo, how doth Mr. Pierce paratragaediate? How doth he tumble in his ugly Tropes, & rowl himſelfe in his rayling eloquence? You would think he were ſome Tertullus, hired by an angry Pariſhioner, to accuſe me before the Committee for ejection, of Ignorance, and ſcandall. I cannot, without perfect affront to my Conſcience, and the rules of Chriſtianity, returne him blaſphemer for blaſphemer: For though I think the forementioned blaſphemy doth naturally and lineally deſcend from that opinion, which he firſt vented in his Philanthropy, and now ſeeks to maintain; yet I think it no way conſiſtent, with the ingenuity of a Scholar, or of a man, to charge an adverſary with that blaſphemy, which he every where diſclaimes, becauſe in my opinion ſuch a blaſphemy flowes from his principles. I know that the Lutherans are no better than infidells, p. 5if they deny the reſurrection and aſcenſion of Chriſt, and am pretty confident that their opinion concerning the ubiquity of the humane nature, cannot conſiſt either with the one or with the other: ſhall I therefore ſay in print, that the Brethren of that perſwaſion deny thoſe two fundamentall Articles? nay rather let my right hand forget its skill, than write any thing of that nature concerning them. And yet this is the caſe of the Calviniſts, they hold an abſolute decree of reprobation, hence it followes, ſayes Mr. Pierce, that God is the Author of ſin, and that mans deſtruction is not of himſelf. They deny any ſuch conſequences can be inferr'd, and write books upon books, to ſhew the grounds and reaſons of their denyall, ſufficient one would think to ſtop the mouths of any calumniator, though as wide as a ſepulchre. Withall declaring that they refuſe not to be curſed with the bittereſt Anathema's, if they ſhall be found to father the leaſt obliquity upon the moſt holy Law-giver. And yet Mr. Pierce finds a forehead to ſay they make God the Author of Sin. And is angry with thoſe that will not be as hugely uncharitable as himſelf. This he will p. 6pretend to do in great affection to the moſt vulgar and leſſe intelligent readers, whoſe deliverance & liberty from the worſt kind of thraldome he doth eſpecially aime at in what he publiſheth; as he tels us Pag. 5. That the vulgar may not be in danger to ſtumble at what was written in Latine, by men ſome of whoſe names they ſcarce ever heard of, whoſe Books they to be ſure would never have bought, Mr. P. hath in great affection to their ſouls, tranſlated ſome of the worſt ſayings of tranſmarine Divines into Engliſh. You are indeed obliged to do good to all, but eſpecially to thoſe vulgar ones of your own perſwaſion, and party, who are ſo exceedingly prejudiced againſt Mr. Calvin and others, from whom you pretend to derive your frightfull expreſſions, that theyl' not be in any danger of being miſled by them. Therefore it would have been your wiſeſt courſe to have drawn a Catalogue out of the writings of Biſhop Abbot, Dr. John & Dr. Francis White, Dr. Field, Dr. Sanderſon, Dr. Featley, Biſhop Prideaux, who were their friends in point of Ceremonie, whoſe Books are moſt of them in Engliſh, and commonly to be had, and the Authors of them acknowledged to be men p. 7of great deſert and piety, and ſo may be the more apt to do miſchief by inſtilling theſe killing Doctrines into the minds of men. But what if the maintainers of the abſolute decree did deſerve ſo ſevere a condemnation, how come I to be concerned in it? why, becauſe he cannot conceive how that argument of mine (If ſin is a poſitive entity, either God is the Author of it, or it is God,) ſhould flow from any other fountaine than my conceit of Gods predetermination (before his preſcience) of all events without exception. …nd yet he knows that Ieſuits twenty & ten do uſe this Argumēt, who yet are the ableſt, acuteſt, and moſt malicious oppoſers of the abſolute decree, as ſtated by Calvin & others of our reformed writers. I have already ſecured him that I ſtudy no retaliation, onelyonly I will make bold to deal with him as Alexander did with his Bucephalus, take him a little by the bridle, and turne him to the Sun, that other men may ſee how he layes about him, though himſelf will not.

Firſt, he joynes me with that commune dei hominumque odium, Mr. Hobbs, & when he hath called me Hobbiſt, what can he ſay more, except he ſhould call me Devill? But did I give him any reaſon to joyn p. 8me with that prodigious writer, or doth not Mr. Pierce rather do this on the ſame account as Ithacius, who having no other virtue but his hatred to the Priſcillianiſts, became ſo wiſe in the end, that he ſet down all that differed from him for Priſcillianiſts? Sulpit. Sev. lib. 2. p. 413. Both Mr. Hobbs, and Mr. Pierce ſay, that if God be the Author of the Action, then he is alſo the Author of the obliquity of the Action, and that there is no difference betwixt the ſinfull act, and the ſin of the act, and this he knowes I deny. And would the Reader think that I am an Hobbiſt for diſſenting from Hobbes, and Mr. P. an Anti-Hobbiſt for agreeing with him? That Authour is known to be one who exceedingly ſcornes the parts of all that differ from him, who contradicts the old received Philoſophy, who bitterly inveighs againſt Presbyterians. And whether theſe Characters doe better fit me or my adverſary let others judge.

Secondly, in his title-page he makes me an example of foreign, by which if he could be ſuppoſed to meane, that I were one that upon conſideration of my many unworthyneſſes condemne my ſelf, I muſt thank him for his commendation, p. 9and pray unro Chriſt for grace that I may abound in ſo noble an effect and part of repentance; but queſtionleſſe with him I am foreign in the Apoſtles ſenſe, Tit. 2.11. i. e. foreign, ſaith Theophylast, and this is in effect to call to all people to break of familiar converſe with me, and to make me worſe then an Heretick; for he was not thought ſelf condemned till after the firſt and ſecond Admonition, and that by a Biſhop, ſaith Dr. Hammond; but he for a ſuppoſed overſight in Metaphyſicks thinks meet to print me ſuch to all the World, though I be to this day Ignorant whether there be a Biſhop in rerum naturâ, of a different opinion from me. Pref. that he might ſlurre mee he defiles his own conſcience all over with an untruth; (thou wilt find men obtruding new Creeds on the Church, one inſerting this Article, that God is no Spirit, another this, that God is the maker of all things reall, and ſo by conſequence unavoideable of all the wickedneſſe in the World.) I confeſſe I had ſo much charity as to think hee intended not mee, but ſome other in this ſo high charge. But that I find him Ch. 3. p. 163. thus deliver himſelf. Mr. Hick: builds backward, p. 10thus he layes it down as his principle, that God is the maker of all things that are reall without exception, therefore of Davids lying with Bathſhebah, therefore of his adultery. If in that ſentence which Mr. Barlee hath excerped out of my letter, he can find the word reall, then I muſt neceſſarily either explain, or condemne my ſelf; but having never uſed it, nor any terme ſynonymous, I might leave him with thoſe words delivered will thunder & lightning, thou ſhalt not bear falſe witneſſe. I ſay indeed that all things poſitive are either God, or from God: But is poſitive and reall all one? The darkneſſe (which he ſaith improperly enough, was created by God) no wiſe man will call poſitive, yet all will ſay that it was reall: privations are indeed ranked among entia rationis, but that is not becauſe they do not antecedere operationem intellectus; for the aire would be darke, and Bartimaeus blind, though no one thought ſo; but they then become entia rationis when they are conceived of otherwiſe than they be, as when darkneſſe is conceived of as if it were ſome poſitive blackneſſe. But what if I had ſaid that God is the Author of all things reall, why muſt this be called an article of my faith, or an obtruding a new p. 11article on the Church? Doth every one that gives his opinion, and brings an argument to confirme it, make a new Creed? Then ſhall wee have more Creeds than there be ſound believers. Theſe are the two articles of my Creed, God is Holy, God is omnipotent, if any one do cordialy aſſent to theſe, I ſhall give him the right hand of fellowſhip, if in the explication of theſe two divine attributes he differ from mee, I ſhall not make him a blaſphemer, or expunge him out of the Catalogue of Chriſtians, but charitably ſuppoſe that his error, if not too groſſe, proceeds rather from want of Philoſophy than from want of piety, and do here once for all profeſſe before the ſearcher of hearts, who hates nothing more than Hypocriſy, and that ſevere Regiſter within me, to which I owe more reverence than to affront it with a willfull lie, that I ſhould be the leſſe zealous in defending the privative nature of ſin, if I did not think that this my aſſertion were the moſt probable way of reconciling thoſe two Divine perfections of purity and omnipotence. I love Philoſophy onelyonly as an handmaid to Divinity: as to thoſe Scholaſticall ſpeculations in which Theology p. 12is not at all concerned, I matter not much what opinion men be of, nor whether they be of any opinion at all. But I will not uſe ſo great ſeverity, as to aggravate his ſo unworthy ſpeeches, take them barely as thou findeſt them: Pref. I have envenomed Mr. Barlee, and intermedled in his affairs, to ſuch a deſperate degree, that if I preach as is printed, my Diſciples of all others have need of a preſervative: Pag. 11. I am one of the prodigious pair of writers: Pag. 107. cap. 3. Mr. B. ſafeſt way is to ſpit in my face, who betrayed him to that ſenſeleſſe blaſphemous inference; Pag. 154. My argument is the moſt horrible of all, hard to ſay whether more impious or more unſcholarlike. Pag. 156. I muſt make ſome kind of ſatisfaction for ſo ſcandalous an attempt. Ib. my medium is a crying and a killing Doctrine. I am a malefactor, and fallen headlong into dangers, nay reall miſchiefs, by my own wilfull precipitation of my ſelf and others. Pag. 157. He corrects himſelf for talking Metaphyſicks to ſuch a Scholar as I, who ſeeme ſo great a ſtranger to them, that he may very well take up the Proverbiall verſe.

foreign.

p. 13pag. 159. The brethrens way of arguing, is the fantaſtick creature of the brethren. Pag. 161. I am a Beetle flying in the face of the Eagle, ſtriking at God and his purity, by giving ſin an foreign, and laying my child, when I have ſo done, at another mans door. Pag. 162. My traiterous child hath done exactly to me, as I thought to have done unto my brother. Pag. 164. I argue like the Libertines, and as it were out of their mouthes, Pag. 167. Mr. B. is debauched by me. Pag. 175. My apprehenſion is ſadder than if I had thought Apotheôſis to be derived from foreign pono. Ib. All I have diſcovered is my being overflown with an foreign, which could its banks have contained it, would not thus have guſhed over upon no occaſion, when 'tis plain the effect could be no other, but to drown my credit with a yellow, as well as my cauſe with a blacker Jaundiſe. And for a concluſion I am bid to read, conſider, and apply what is ſpoken in Mark 3.28, 29, 30. as if I had done ſomething bordering upon the coaſts of the moſt accurſed blaſphemy againſt the Holy Ghoſt. Having with the Badger bitten till his teeth meet, he lets goe; and I trow it was high time: for was there ever a man, ab orbe condito, in whom malice, p. 14upon ſo ſmall, ſo no reaſon, raged at that tedious and importune rate and height? Hath this learned Rector been lately made free of the Cart? Doth he think he may raile by authority? Or was he ambitious to publiſh a Treatiſe dirty enough to transform the gilded Angel in Ivy-lane into a black one, able to juſtifie all the ugly brats of the wildeſt Sectaries that G. C. hath midwiv'd into the world? I utter not the words of paſſion, but ſobriety, knowing that many a poor ſcold hath been duckt in the Gumble-ſtool, many a deluded Quaker caſt into priſon, for words incomparably more civil and tollerable than moſt of thoſe beſtowed on me. Had my Antagoniſt been a reſident in the Univerſity,foreign. Mr. Vicecan. had been bound upon my complaint to have puniſht him with banition, or at leaſt with incarceration, or publick recantation; and yet Mr. P. who metes out all this hard meaſure to me, does every where complain of Mr. B's foul language againſt himſelf; not regarding that of Plutarch, which I have thrown into the Margin, nor that of the Apo…le, Rom. 2.2, 3. nor that of our Saviour, Mat. 7.34, 35. Nay, as if all this were not enough, he makes himſelf alſo guilty of the p. 15greateſt Hypocriſie, by giving it out to the world, that he hath done no more than hee was in conſcience and duty bound to. p. 156. and Pref. he would needs perſwade me, That all he hath done is in order to my eaſe and ſafety too; and that I ought to be thank full for the diligent and impartial hand, which for ſome ſhort time doth ſeem to hurt me. But ſeeing he himſelf had the ſame Phagedaenous and eating ſores which he tels us were cured by good company, and good bookes, what neceſſity was there that mine ſhould be touch'd with either the launce or cauſtick? If he had not delighted in ſuch a compoſition, whoſe every line is gall and wormwood, why did he not before he thus blur'd me with his blackeſt ink, Firſt, enquire whether ever I did write any ſuch thing to Mr. B. or no? For if Mr. B. be ſuch a lyar, as he repreſents him, why would he beleeve me the Author of ſo monſtrous an Argument, upon the bare Authority of his report? 2. How did he know whether I related this Argument as from my ſelf, and not onelyonly as the Argument of others? Or 3. why did he not by ſome private letter, endeavour to purge the peccant humour, before he made the paſſionate adventure of calling p. 16it obſtinate? Let's try whether wee can gheſs what might move Mr. P. who ſaies in his Letter to Doctor Bernard, that in all his dealing with Mr. B. he was not ſo much as heated, ſo to flame againſt me. Firſt; it was not ſure the Argument it ſelf; for that being uſed by Fathers, by Schoolmen of all Sects, by Proteſtant Writers of all perſwaſions, particularly by the moſt judicious Mr. Tho. Barlow (with whom for Metaphyſical Learning Mr. P. will in modeſty confeſs himſelf not worthy to be named in the ſame day) could not deſerve ſo ſevere a cenſure. Seeing he tells us, that he reſolves to doe nothing untill the moſt ſober, unbiaſſed perſons ſhall think it publickly uſefull, I ſhall make this requeſt to him, that hee would procure any one ſober perſon, to give it under his hand, that it was publickly uſefull to call all thoſe fooliſh and impious, who have uſed this Argument; or if ſuch Epithetes belong not unto others, why to me? Others have de induſtriâ printed the Argument, whereas I never thought that any thing which I wrote ſhould have come to the Preſs: nay what I did write, was written in ſuch haſte, that I might well ſay with Jerome, Qui non ignoſcit ingenio, p. 17ignoſcat tempori: But I believe the ſober men of his own perſwaſion, will be ſo far from approving his language, that they will rather let him taſte of Memnons diſcipline, who hearing a mercenary Souldier, with many bold and impure reports, exclaim againſt King Alexander, lent him a blow with his Launce, ſaying, That he had hired him to fight againſt Alexander, and not to raile.

Secondly; though not the Argument in ſelf, yet my party and my Maſters, with whom he doth ſo frequently upbraid me, might juſtly move his choler: Indeed I find, Mr. P. guiltie of partiality to ſo deſperate a degree, that he makes Arminianiſm enough to a mans commendation, but Anti-arminianiſm a blaſting of all graces, and an alloy to all endowments; as if it might be ſaid of his Opinion, as Auguſtine ſpeakes of Diſcretion, Tolle hanc, & virtus vitium erit. Once I finde him acknowledging, that Piety and Learning might be found among the Abſolute Predeſtinarians, but being now faln from his firſt love, he thinks meet to brand Dr. Reynolds with the ſuſpicion of being an Hypocrite; as if becauſe he were a man of great parts and worth, he could not be p. 18in earneſt of that party whom he hath owned in Praying, in Preaching, in Covenanting: Nay thoſe againſt whom he writes are the wicked, and ſo by him not onelyonly thought, but alſo called in the Adv. to Mr. Bax: But as for thoſe that are for the reſpective Decrees, and are no friends to Presbytery, they are, eo nomine, religious, excellent, renowned, immortal, what not? I will inſtance in two or three, upon whom he beſtows the greateſt commendations, ſure not without ſome regret and recalcitration of his conſcience. Firſt, he bleſſeth the Author of an unlicenſed Pamphlet, called, An Hiſtorical relation of the Judgement of ſome moſt worthy Biſhops, holy Martyrs, and others, concerning Gods election. Divi. Phil. p. 93. ch. 3. with the honourable appellation of a moſt learned Divine and Confeſſour, and ſeems to bewaile it, that the book is in ſo few mens hands; but I ſhall let the Reader ſee, that if this book had had its deſert, it muſt have been in fewer mens hands than it is. The forementioned ſcurrilous Pamphlet was reprinted Anno 1631, and licenſed by Mr. Martin, Biſhop Laud's Chaplain: when Sir Humphrey Lind, and Mr. Prynne complained to Archbiſhop p. 19Abbot of this execrable Impoſture, the book was called in, Biſhop Laud profeſſing to his Grace, that he had given to his Chaplain ſuch a ratling, as would make him never meddle with Arminian books or opinions more; nay at the Lords Barr he ſaid, that he did put him out of his Chaplains place for licenſing that Pamphlet. The firſt Author of this book was anſwered by Mr. Robert Crowly, as may be ſeen in our Univerſity Library, 4^o O 5. This Crowly was a fugitive for Religion in Queen Maries dayes, an eminent laborious Preacher in the time of Qu. Eliz. He not knowing the name of Mr. P's Confeſſour, calls him Cerberus; but Mr. John Veron the Queens Chaplain, who was principally concern'd in the book, found out his name to be Champneys, and in a Tract of his dedicated to her Majeſty, and called a Defence of the Doctrine of Predeſtination, ſpeaks thus of him [In this I comfort my ſelf, that his tongue is known to be no ſlander: For the like did he moſt proudly attempt, in your moſt gracious Brother good King Edward the ſixth's dayes, againſt all the godly Preachers of that time, calling them marked Miniſters of Antichriſt, and men void of the Spirit of God (for none, be they never ſo p. 20godly, never ſo earneſt and faithfull labourers in the Lords vineyard, have the Spirit of God, or doe know the efficacie of it but he onelyonly) as many godly perſons be able to teſtifie to his face: That he did therefore, and for many other abominable errours, which he then ſtoutly maintained, bear at that time a Faggot at Paul's-croſs, Father Coverdale making then the Sermon there. Belike fearing now the like puniſhment, and that he ſhould be compell'd to revoke his Pelagian-like opinion, he durſt not, for all his proud boaſt, ſet his own name to his railing and venemous bookes, nor yet ſuffer them to be ſold openly or publickly in the Book-ſellers ſhops, but cowardouſly ſuppreſſing both his own name, and the name of his unwiſe and fooliſh Printer, got the whole Impreſſion into his own hands, that ſo he might in huggermugger ſend them unto his private freinds abroad, whom belike he ſuſpected to be of his affinity and damnable opinion: Howbeit this could not be wrought ſo privily, but that within a while, ſome of his bookes came into my hands, whereby ſhortly after the Printer was known, and brought to his Anſwer, whom this ſtout champion of Pelagius hath left in the bryars; and leſt himſelfe ſhould be fain to ſhew a reaſon of his Doctrine, p. 21doth keep himſelf out of the way ſtill, and dares not once ſhew his face: If he be able to maintain his Doctrine againſt my Book, let him come forth and play the man, I am ready at all times to yeeld to the truth, and unto the ſincere teachers thereof] And doth this Gentleman deſerve to be ſaluted a Confeſſor?

A ſecond Aethiopian, whom he ſeekes to make white, is the Engliſh Tilenus; he's ſtiled the excellent, and this is ſaid of him; If he be alive to undertake his own cauſe againſt Mr. Baxter, the world will find 'twill be but impar congreſſus: Yea he ſeems to complain, that he hath not the happineſs to know him in the leaſt degree. But what is there in this ſcribler that may deſerve ſuch Elogies? Firſt, he caſts the higheſt ſcorn upon the Tryers, making them to ask ſuch queſtions of thoſe that come before them, as in all probabilitie it never came into their thoughts to ask, which is ſuch a piece of Impudence, as no one hath ventured to imitate him in, but that Iſhmael of Coleman-ſtreet, whoſe hand being againſt all men, hath provoked all men, even the common Pamphleter to lift up a hand againſt himſelf. Secondly; This poor fellow makes himſelf an adverſary, out of p. 22his own fancy, and driving him before him from one end of the Book to the other, ſhootes all his arrows at this man of ugly clouts of his own framing, as if it were that venerable Synod of Dort: And does he not deſerve to be call'd excellent? and to bee preferred to Mr. Baxter?

But as to my party and Maſters, I have ſome ſatisfactory things to return in way of Anſwer.

Firſt; I have the thouſand witneſſes to atteſtate, that the deſires of my ſoul are, to receive a Diſciple in the name of a Diſciple, a Prophet in the name of a Prophet, not as concurring with me in any opinion, concerning the Mint and Cummin of Church Diſcipline. My cordiall affections to thoſe Epiſcopal Divines, whoſe endeavours are to promote that in which all confeſs the power of Godlyneſs to conſiſt, are as well known, as I my ſelfe am. And I challenge all the world to produce that eare that ever heard me ſpeak the leaſt ſyllable that might tend to inodiate the perſon, or to vilifie the parts and pains of any one Prelatiſt, becauſe ſuch.

p. 332. Though that little I have read of Mr. Calvins Inſtitutions which, is not above the fourth part, makes me fully of Salmaſius his mind, who ſaid in Epiſtola Verini, he had rather be the Author of that Book, then of all that ever were made by Grotius; yet ſo unhappy is Mr. P. in gheſſing at my Maſters and the Books in which I converſe, that I can ſafely profeſſe, as a preciſe and meaſured truth, when I ſent that letter to Mr. B. I had read more in Doctor Tailor, and Doctor Hammond, then I had in all thoſe Authors mentioned in his Title-page, upon whom he pretends to make occaſionall reflections: And if Presbytery be a crime, I muſt needs ſay that I have learn't it from Epiſcopall men.

1. Is this Presbytery to ſay that a Presbyter and a Biſhop differ in degree onelyonly, and not in order? that I learne from the late right Reverend the Primate of Ireland, from Doctor Holland Regius Profeſſor, who ſo determined in Publicis Comitiis, in direct contradiction to Dr. Laud.

2. Is this Presbytery to hold that an ordination by Presbyters is valid? That I learne from Biſhop Andrews, who ordained a Scotchman Biſhop, never made p. 24Prieſt but by Presbyters, which he would not have done, had ordination by Presbyters ſeemed unto him a nullity. I learn it from Biſhop Downam in his conſecration Sermon, Pag. 43. Who ſaith that the contrary opinion is proper to Papiſts: from Doctor Forbs, who in his Irenicum largly proves it. Indeed among the Epiſcopall Divines I ſcarce know any contrary unto me in this, except thoſe who drew the ſcheme of their opinions after that Biſhop Laud was Lord of the houſe. And I think it no uncharitableneſſe to ſay, that ſome of later times, in making their Judgements, had very great reſpect unto the Stars that were culminant.

3. Is this Presbytery to aſſert the ſole power of Juriſdiction was not in the Biſhops, & that they had no warrant to delegate their power unto a Lay Chancellour? This I learn from the judicious Lord Verulam, who ſaith, that the firſt was a thing almoſt without example in good Government, and therefore not unlikely to have crept in, in the degenerate and corrupt times. As to the 2. the deputation of their authority. I ſee no perfect and ſure ground for that neither; being ſomewhat p. 25different from the examples & rules of Government: we ſee in all Laws in the World offices of confidence and skill, cannot be put over, nor exerciſed by deputies. In his works printed 1657. p. 239. 240.

4. Is this Presbytery to aver that after a great abuſe of the Epiſcopall power, the civil Magiſtrate might take it away root and branch, and commit the whole Government of the Church unto Presbyters, at leaſt for a ſeaſon? This I learn from the learned Grotius, at whoſe name Mr. P. is wont to riſe up in an extaſie of Admiration, de Imperio Sum. poteſt. chap. 11. Nay, if this be Presbytery to maintain the greater antiquity and primitiveneſſe of Presbytery then Eſpiſcopacy, for that I need not conſult David Blondell, the Lord George Digby a great ſtickler for our Engliſh prelacy ſo inform's mee in his letter to Sr. K. D. Pag. 119. The Presbytery of Scotland in point of Government hath a greater reſemblance then either yours or ours to the firſt age of Chriſts Church.

5. Is this Presbytery and Calviniſme to aſſert an abſolute decree of election and reprobation, and to manifeſt the greateſt indignation againſt thoſe who giuegive it out p. 26unto the World, that thoſe opinions either take away the liberty of the will, or make God the Author of ſinne, this alſo I learn from Epiſcopall divines of the firſt magnitude. Reader, peruſe their words, and then tell me whether I miſtake their meaning. Dr. Abbot calls Biſhop for aſperſing the forementioned tenent, as if it made God the Author of ſin, Elymas, and his fellow Wright on the ſame ſcore, foul mouth'd dogge, and a filthy ſwine, who wallowing in the muck & dirt of Popiſh Ignorance, hath his eyes ſo daubed up therewith, that he ſeeth not his own way. Anſwer to the Preface. All this in a book dedicated to King James, who in requital of his paines beſtowed on him the Biſhoprick of Salisbury. Yea the forementioned Writer in his Defence againſt Mr. Higgons ſaith, That if Luther have any where in that lewd and impious manner calumniated the Church of Rome, he will not deny but that Mr. Higgons ſhould have cauſe to ſtile him a foule mouth'd dog.

When the Apoſtate Spalatenſis objected this againſt the ſame Doctrine, what words Dr. Crakanthorpe thought meet to uſe againſt him, Mr. Barlee hath already told Mr. Pierce: I ſhall onelyonly adde the Book p. 27was dedicated to King Charles, and hath this title put to it, Defenſio Eccleſiae Anglicanae; of which Church Mr. P. profeſſeth himſelf a dutifull and obedient ſon; and that Dr. Abbot ſaith of that Treatiſe, that it was the moſt accurate peece of controverſie that was written ſince the Reformation. Next let us hear the moſt learned and peaceable Dr. Sanderſon, con. 2. ad Clerum, p. 29, 30. Sundry of the Doctors of our Church teach truly and agreeably to Scriptures the effectual concurrence of Gods will and power, with ſubordinate agents in every, and therefore even in ſinfull actions; Gods free election of thoſe whom he purpoſeth to ſave of his own grace, without any motives in or from themſelves; the immutability of Gods love and grace towards the Saints Elect, and their certaine perſeverance therein to ſalvation; the juſtification of ſinners by the imputed righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, apprehended and applied unto them by a lively faith, without the works of the Law. Theſe are ſound and true, and (if rightly underſtood) comfortable, and right profitable doctrines; and yet they of the Church of Rome have the forehead, (I will not ſay to ſlander, my Text alloweth more,) to blaſpheme God and his Truth, and the Miniſters thereof, for teaching p. 28them; Bellarm. Gretſer, Maldonate, and the Jeſuites, but none more than our own Engliſh Fugitives, Briſtow, Stapleton, Parſons, Kelliſon, and all the rabble of that crew freely ſpend their mouthes in barking againſt us, as if we made God the author of ſinne; as if we would have men ſin and be damned by a fatal neceſſitie; ſinne whether they will or no; be damned whether they deſerve it or no; as if we opened a gap to all licentiouſneſſe and prophaneſſe; let them believe it is no matter how they live, heaven is their own cock ſure; as if we cried down Good Works, and condemned Charity: Slanders loud and falſe, yet eaſily blown away with one ſingle word, foreign; theſe imputations upon us and our doctrine are unjuſt, but foreign, let them that miſreport us know, that without repentance their damnation will be juſt. Dr. Field, B. 3. p. 117. The next Hereſie which they ſay we are fallen into, is the Hereſie of Florinus, who taught that God is the author and cauſe of ſinne; This, ſaith Bellarm. Calvin, Luth. Martyr have defended in their writings; of this ſinfull, and wicked, and lying report, we are ſure God is not the author, but the devil. & pag. 140. Cal. Then is not worſe than the Manichees, in making God the author of p. 29thoſe evils which the Manichees attribute to an evil beginning, as Bellarm. is pleaſed to pronounce of him; but is farther from that helliſh conceit than Bellarm. is from hell it ſelfe, if he repent not of theſe helliſh ſlanders. Dr. Ward. prae. de pecca. orig. p. 148. Prodiit non ita pridem clanculum liber, quem author intitulavit, amor dei erga genus humanum, qui acriter contendit ex conceſſis ſublap. ſatis evidenter inferri omnium peccatorum hominum reproborum deum eſſe verum & principalem authorem. Audax aſſertum vel verius impudens calumnia.

I might mention more, but I forbeare, and doe earneſtly deſire thoſe Epiſcopall Divines, who cloſe with us in the points of preſent conteſt, that they would bethink themſelves and conſider, what favour they muſt expect from theſe Arminian Ardelio's, no more than what Polyphemus promiſed Ulyſſes, to be laſt devoured. If they cannot fall down and worſhip the Idols which theſe men have ſet up, they muſt expect to be thrown into the fierie furnace; nay they are tormented in it already in Auguſtines ſenſe, who calls the mouth of an angry adverſary by that name; for mark his word, ch. 2. p. 61. Whatever diſhonours have been done unto the Proteſtant p. 30name by thoſe of the Kirk, or Conſiſtory, or their adherents here in England, yet the dutifull ſons of the Church of England have ever been free from any part of that guilt. This doth expunge Biſhop Hall, Biſhop Morton, Biſhop Brownerig, whom we (as they deſerve) call Fathers, out of the number of the dutifull Sonnes of the Church of England: Nay he ſticketh not in the Preface to the Reader, p. 6. to place them among the very unſound and unruly members of this Church. Let me take the boldneſs to beſeech them who are of any authority in that party, as they love the truth, than which nothing ought to be more precious, as they tender the wellfare and ſafety of poor ſoules, for whom Chriſt dyed, that they would either plainly ſay, that they have all this while been miſtaken, and through ignorance Preached and Printed Blaſphemy, or elſe brand this falſe accuſer with the letter K, which when the I aw I allude to was made, was the firſt letter of the word Calumniator.

3. I have ſpent more time in reading the Authors Pro & Con about theſe points, than ever I intend to doe, being of opinion that the greateſt Scholars will never p. 31be able fully to ſatisfie their own, or other mens Reaſons about them: Nor ſhould this ſeem any wonder to us, who cannot be ignorant how many points there be in Natural Philoſophy, in which a man plungeth himſelf into inextricable difficulties, whether he affirm or deny them. With what confidence have I heard one young Sophiſter maintain, that continuum fit ex indiviſibilibus? and another, that continuum non fit ex indiviſibilibus? both thought themſelves in the right; but men of mature judgements ſtanding by, could eaſily ſee, that neither the one, nor the other could free his Aſſertion from the common Objections brought againſt it. I thank God I have not the leaſt temptation to doubt concerning the Trinity of the Perſons, nor the Hypoſtatical Union of the two Natures; yet I never thought my ſelf able to vindicate thoſe myſteries from all the ſubtile Arguments and niceties of unbelieving ſophiſters. The like I think concerning the Doctrine of Gods Decrees, and the manner of the Spirits working Grace in the hearts of the Elect, theſe are matters ſo very myſterious, and my underſtanding ſo dark, that I can ſcarce hope ever in this world to be freed p. 32from all ſcruples about them. Would you therefore know why I hold Abſolute, Eternal, Perſonal Election, Efficacious determining Grace, and the certain infallible perſeverance of all Believers; Truly becauſe I finde theſe opinions moſt agreeable to Scripture, to the communis ſenſus fidelium, the inſtinct and impulſe of the new creature in all ages; and, becauſe I finde they doe moſt tend to the debaſing of ſinfull man, and to the exaltation of Chriſt my Saviour, and that free Grace of his, by which I hope to be acquitted at the laſt day.

To this end I will relate two Hiſtoricall paſſages, with which J have been much taken; the one from Father Paul (who hath filled the Chriſtian world with his admiration) Hiſt: of the Counc. of Trent, lib. 2. pag. 212. he ſpeaking of the debates in that Aſſembly concerning theſe two opinions, thus expreſſeth himſelf. The firſt opinion (which is the opinion Mr. P. ſo declaimes againſt) as it is hidden, and myſtical, keeping the minde humble, and relying on God, without any confidence in it ſelf, knowing the deformitie of ſinne, and the excellencie of divine grace, ſo the ſecond was plauſible and popular, cheriſhing p. 33humane preſumption, and making a great ſhew, it pleaſed more the preaching Fryars, then the underſtanding Divines, and the Courtiers thought it probable as conſonant to politick reaſons, it was maintained by the Biſhop of Bitonto, and the Biſhop of Salpi ſhewed himſelf very partiall, the defenders of this uſing humane reaſon prevailed againſt the others, but coming to the teſtimonies of the Scripture they were manifeſtly overcome. The other ſtory I find in the Preface to the Parallells, drawn up, as I ſuppoſe, by Doctor Featly, and Doctor Good. Accacius Baron of Dona, reſiding ſome months in England, to ſolicite the recovery of the Palatinate, was often ſet upon, and much laid at by a ſtranger there, named Roergheſt, a man deeply engaged in the Arminian party, who though he could not draw him from the truth to that ſide, yet caſt ſuch miſts of doubts before him, that his Lordſhip, for better clearing, deſired the conference of ſome Engliſh Divines verſed in Controverſies of this nature, and opportunely meeting with two at once, he demanded of them why the Divines of England ſo generally diſtaſted the Doctrine broached by Arminians, their anſwer was, that albeit thoſe tenents p. 34were plauſible to corrupt reaſon, and ſet out to the beſt advantage by the wit and art of the Patrons thereof; yet that the ſacred Scriptures, to which naturall reaſon muſt bow and ſtricke ſail, throughly ſearched and impartially ſcanned gave no ſupport at all to the new modell of Gods councells framed in mans braines; and that the prime Fathers of moſt eminent note in the Church, above twelve hundred years ago, at the firſt birth of thoſe miſhapē brats daſhed them againſt the ſtones, and conſequently that by the ſame Orthodox ancient Church the new Revivers of thoſe errors at this day were damnati antequàm nati, precondemned in the loines of their parents. The Baron ſomewhat affected with this anſwer, replied, certe ſi Arminius Pelagium refodit, merito vos Arminium defoditis. Not long after the ſaid ſolicitor came to the Baron again, hoping to make him his Proſelite, the Baron acquainting him with the Engliſh Divines anſwer, he was at firſt ſo confident as to ſay, quid tandem Arminio cum Pelagio? But when thoſe Divines had exhibited to the Baron a Paralell betwixt them, ſince printed, this confident Gentleman, though he undertook to returne forthwith a direct and punctuall anſwer, quitted the p. 35field, took Sea and returned into Holland, and was never heard of more. I know Mr. P. alſo doth very much fume to be accounted Pelagian, Semi-pelagian, Maſſillian, &c. But if his feet were not crooked, how came their ſhoes to fit him ſo well? I remember a ſaying of Doctor Sanderſon, in his fifth Sermon, ad Populumi, that the Propheſies of ſaint Paul and ſaint John make it ſo unqueſtionable that Rome is the ſeat of Antichriſt, that they who will needs be ſo unreaſonably charitable, as to think the Pope is not Antichriſt, may at leaſt wonder by what ſtrange chance it fell out that theſe Apoſtles ſhould draw the picture of Antichriſt in every point and limbe ſo juſt like the Pope, and yet never think of him; Mr. P. his quick wit hath prevented me in the application, never did the ſtile of an unfortunate writer belong to man, if not to him, ſuppoſing him to have no communion with thoſe old Hereticks, for he hath formed no weapon, againſt which I cannot furniſh my ſelf with armour from the Magazine of Auſtin and others, who had to do with Pelagius and his Diſciples.

But it may be the party with whom he ſuppoſeth me to ſay a confederacy are, the Puritans, for thoſe he cannot name with p. 36any patience or moderation he tells us (advertiſement to Mr. Baxter) that they were defined at Hampton Court, to be proteſtants frighted out of their wits, ſuch as are known to be painted ſepulchres, having the forme onelyonly of godlineſſe, without the power of it: thought by judicious Hooker to be fit inhabitants for a wilderneſs, not for a well ordered City. Such as have ever deſpiſed dominion, and ſpoken ill of dignities, have been formerly boutefeus, and men of bloud, the proverbiall Authors & Fautors of ſedition and violence in Church and ſtate. The words of the relator of the Hampton Court conference are theſe: Pag. 37. This and ſome other motions ſeeming to the King and Lords very idle and frivolous, occaſion was taken in ſome by-talke, to remember a certain deſcription which Mr. Butler of Cambridge made of a Puritan, A Puritan is a proteſtant frayed out of his wits. And muſt what is ſaid in ſome by-talke be called defining? If I were minded to pay Maſter P. in his own coine, how eaſily might I tell him, that the Arminians were defined by a wiſe King in a premeditated declaration Atheiſticall ſectaries, that many of them are known to have neither the forme nor the power of godlineſſe, of whom judicious p. 37Amyraldus ſaith, that they can ſcarce be ſuppoſed ever to have felt the power of the Holy Ghoſt, concerning whom the foreſaid King ſaid that if they were not with ſpeed rooted out, no other iſſue could be expected than the curſe of God, infamy throughout all the reformed Churches, and a perpetuall rent and diſtraction in the whole body of the State, concerning whom alſo the States themſelves ſaid, that they had created them more trouble than the King of Spain had by all his wars. And one would think the King and the States ſhould know better how to ſet the ſaddle upon the right Horſe then Maſter P.

Ob. Theſe were Presbyterated Arminians, our Engliſh Epiſcopall Arminians are free from any ſuch guilt.

Anſ. Concerning them, not I, but the Viſcount Falkland ſhall ſpeak, who as he had more courage than to be afraid of them, ſo had he more ingenuity than to wrong them, in the before commended ſpeech to the houſe of Commons, Pag. 3, 4.

Maſter Speaker, he is a great ſtranger in Iſrael who knows not that this Kingdome hath long laboured under many and great oppreſſions, both in Religion and liberty, and his p. 38acquaintance here is not great, or his ingenuity leſſe, who doth not both know and acknowledge that a great, if not a principall, cauſe of both theſe, hath been ſome Biſhops and their adherents. Maſter Speaker, a little ſearch will ſerve to find them to have been the deſtruction of unity, under pretence of uniformity, to have brought in ſuperſtition and ſcandall under the titles of reverence and decency; to have defiled our Church, by adorning our Churches: to have ſlackned the ſtrictnes of that union which was formerly between us and thoſe of our Religion beyond the Sea, an action as unpolitick as ungodly. And becauſe I know the Reader will not account me tedious whileſt I uſe the words of ſo eloquent a Lord, I ſhall recite more paſſages from him to the ſame purpoſe, Pag. 9. We ſhall find of them to have both kindled & blown the Common fire of both Nations, to have both ſent and maintained that book, of which the Author hath no doubt long ſince wiſhed with Nero, utinam nefciſſem literas, and of which more then one Kingdome hath cauſe to wiſh, that when he writ that, he had rather burned a Library, though of the value of Ptolomies. We ſhall find them to have been the firſt and principall cauſe of the breach, I will not ſay of, but ſince the pacification p. 39at Barwick, we ſhall finde them to have been the almoſt ſole abettors of my Lord of Strafford, whilſt he was practiſing upon another kingdom, that manner of Government which he intended to ſettle in this, where he committed ſo many, ſo mighty, and ſo manifeſt enormities, as the like have not been committed by any Governour in any Government ſince Verres left Sicilie. And after they had called him over from being Deputy of Ireland, to be in a manner Deputy of England (all things here being governed by a Juntillo, and that Juntillo governed by him) to have aſſiſted him in the giving of ſuch counſels, and the purſuing of ſuch courſes, as it is a hard and meaſuring caſt, whether they were more unwiſe, more unjuſt, or more unfortunate, and which had infallibly been our deſtruction, if by the grace of God their ſhare had not been as ſmall in the ſubtletie of Serpents, as in the innocence of Doves. But in entitling the honeſt Puritanes to the manifold violences that have been attempted or practiſed in Church and State, he borrows a piece of policy from the Jeſuits, who if they had proſpered in blowing up the Parliament houſe, had intended to give it about, that that ſo horrid and helliſh a fact was perpetrated by he knows whom. Honeſt p. 40Biſhop Carleton in his Examination of Mr. Montagues Appeal, ſaith; That albeit the Puritans diſquieted the Church about their conceived Diſcipline, yet they never moved any quarrel about the Doctrine of our Church, and that till Montague there was no Puritan Doctrine known. Mr. Wotton ſaith in his anſwer to the Popiſh Atti: p. 33. Hee that makes difference between the Proteſtants and Puritans in matters of Faith, doth it either ignorantly or maliciouſly. Mr. T. Fuller 610. p. 99. We muſt not forget that Spalato (I am confident I am not miſtaken therein) was the firſt who profeſſing himſelf a Proteſtant, uſed the word Puritan to ſignifie the defenders of matters doctrinal in the Engliſh Church. Formerly the word was onelyonly taken to denote ſuch as diſſented from the Hierarchy in Diſcipline and Church-government, which now was extended to brand ſuch as were Anti-arminians in their judgement. So that by Puritanes, in all probability muſt be meant non-conformiſts. And if Mr. P. dare ſay, that ſuch men as Mr. Paul Baine, Mr. Arthur Hilderſham, Mr. Dod, and Mr. Cleaver the Decalogiſts; Mr. Tho. Hooker, Mr. John Ball, Mr. Tho. Shepheard, were void of the power of godlyneſs, or that they had not more of it than had their perſecutors, p. 41he muſt either expect not to be believed, or ſeek ſome other place than England to vent his paſſion in.

If by the Puritanes he meaneth the giddy Browniſts, I have not a word to ſay in their excuſe, but this, that the Prelaticall oppreſſion was ſuch, as might have made wiſer people than they madde. Had they not a colourable pretext to call ſome of our Prelates Antichriſtian, whoſe Courts vexed ſundry laborious Preachers, becauſe they could not bow at the name of Jeſus, when as ſundry idle ſots, whom they might frequently obſerve to ſtagger in the ſtreets, were never queſtioned.

But the moſt probable ground of his fury is yet behind, my being noted by Mr. Barlee in the Margin, to be a man of his own Colledge: for doe but obſerve the phraſes and periods of the man upon this occaſion. For ought I know he may be alſo in poſſeſſion of mine own Fellowſhip, and mine own Chamber, and mine own meat and drink, and thoſe yearly revenues which are mine own too; and for the which I may the rather expect to have ſome ſatisfaction, becauſe it ſeems the Viſitors made him one of my Receivers and Uſufructuaries (for my p. 42legitimate heir or ſucceſſor they could not make him) And I have reaſon to be glad that he is thought ſuch a pious and learned man; becauſe if he is pious, he will the ſooner pay me my Arrears; and if he is learned, he will not object againſt my known and indiſputable right pag. 155. and Div. Phil. p. 147. I ſuffered the loſs of what I thought to be the pleaſanteſt poſſeſſion on earth; for being ſecretly ſuggeſted to be the Author of ſome bookes, which to this very day I could never hear named; and though I earneſtly deſired that I might hear my ſelf accuſed, and know diſtinctly my accuſation, and be heard ſpeak for my ſelf, yet Dr. Reynolds could not obtaine that for me. Thus he hath thrown his fierie darts at me, at farre the greater part of Heads and Fellows of Colledges in Oxon: at the Viſitors, and at the two Houſes of Parliament. But I know not how I am ſo little ſollicitous concerning the quenching of theſe Darts, that I find my ſelf carried away with a very pleaſing diverſion concerning two different kinds of ſober diſtraction or melancholy; the one wherein the brain is generally and equally ill affected to all objects; the other, where the p. 43diſtemper is confined to ſome one object or other; the brain being otherwiſe very ſound and ſober upon all other objects and occaſions. So Laurentius tells us of a Noble man, that otherwiſe had his ſenſes very perfect, and would diſcourſe of any ſub…ect very rationally, but was perſwaded that he was glaſs. And Huartus tels us of a Noble mans foot-boy in Italy, that thought himſelf a Monarch: And Joſephus Acoſtae tells us a ſadder ſtory of a Doctor of Divinity, who would affirm, that he ſhould be a King and a Pope too; the Apoſtolical See being tranſlated to thoſe parts of America: which, together with ſome other frantick diſtempers, made him condemned to the fire for an Heretick. Farre be it from me to wiſh or preſage any ſuch kind of puniſhment to Mr. P. for his impudence againſt the ſupream Authority of the Nation; but I am under ſome temptation to think, that Mr. P. how diſcreet and ſober ſoever in other matters, is fallen into ſome Hypocondriacall conceits much of that nature; for what elſe could make him, after that he hath been known for ſome years, to be an Husband, and peaceably to have enjoyed the Rectory of Brington, to talk of an indiſputable right to a Fellowſhip, chamber, p. 44meat, and drink, yearly revenues in Magdalene Colledge? Nay, he prints as if he had right unto two Fellowſhips, one for Mr. Thomas, and another for Mr. Pierce, how elſe am I but one of his Receivers? Let's try whether by a few queſtions we can make him more ſober,

1. What would hee have me pay him Arrears for? the uſus fructus is mine; why elſe am I ſaid to be made uſufructuary? An uſufructuary wanteth nothing but the title; he hath jus in re, though not ad rem. Well, ſith he doth ſo pleaſe himſelf in a title to yearly revenues at Magd. Coll. I ſhall deſire him to look over his Poſt-predicaments once more, and there hee ſhall finde, that the modus habendi uxorem, is by Logicians called peſſimus: by which they mean, that it is the moſt improper, but to a Fellow of a Colledge it is the worſt on another account, becauſe it doth evacuate and nullifie his title to all Academical enjoyments.

2. Had he not better have ſaid nothing, than ſaid any thing, which might look like an affirmation, that he ſuffered the loſſe of his ſweeteſt enjoyment, for being ſuſpected to be Author of a Libel? When as we all know, that he was turned out, not by p. 45the Viſitors, but by the Comittee of Lords and Commons, for non ſubmiſſion to the Authority of Parliament in viſiting the Univerſity, for the doing of which a liberty was reſerved in the Articles granted by the Lord Fairfax at the ſurrender.

3. Is it not impudence to ſay, that the Viſitors authoriſed by the two Houſes, under the broad Seale of England, could not make me his legitimate ſucceſſour? Let him alſo ſay, that the Honourable Judges are Murderers, or elſe tell us how the Parliament, which could give them power to take away mens lives, could not alſo give power to others to take away his Fellowſhip. I have all this while gratified him in his ungrounded ſuppoſition, upon which his pen did run ryot, viz. my being in his Chamber, and ſucceeding him in his Fellowſhip, but the truth is (and that Mr. P. had opportunity to know) his place was void before I was ſo much as Demy, nor am I in poſſeſſion of the Chamber which was once his. For a concluſion, I ſhall deſire this my Adverſary to commune with his own heart, and impartially to enquire whether it be not envy, and not conſcience, which maketh him to exclaim with ſo much bitterneſs againſt the late p. 46ejections, ſequeſtrations, deprivations; and whether he was ſo much offended at thoſe who enjoyed the places of ſuch Heads, or Fellows of Colledges as were ejected, whileſt Oxon being a Garriſon was not Oxon; and whether our late ſequeſtrations (which yet I undertake not in all things to acquit) were not more juſtifiable than thoſe proceedings in the late Archb. times, when men were ſuſpended ab officio & beneficio, meerly for not reading the Book of Sports.

Having removed the rubbiſh, we may now come at the queſtion, which is, Whether moral evil, as ſuch, be a privation? Concerning which, the termes being explained, 'twill be no difficult matter to determine. What evill in general is, can perhaps ſcarce be declared by any one common definition, nor hath ſuch a definition been attempted by any but Voetius the ſon, in his Theol. Nat: p. 539. ſometimes things very perfect and poſitive are called evil, as the venemous qualities in Plants, not that they are evill in themſelves, but by extrinſecall denomination, in regard of their efficiencie, of this kind of evill we now diſpute not. And indeed nothing is properly ſaid to be evill, but that which is p. 47ſuch by intrinſecal denomination, as wanting ſome either natural, or moral perfection that it ought to have. The moſt common diviſion of evill is into evill of puniſhment, and evill of ſin, called by Tertullian, malum ſupplicii, and malum delicti: by Baſil, foreign. Our debate is of the evill of ſin, which onelyonly can be called morall evill. The next term is the reſtrictive particle (as) by which we underſtand malum formaliter ſumptum, ſin conſidered abſtractly from that either act, habit, or faculty in which it is, and unto which it gives denomination. The not diſtinguiſhing betwixt the ſinfull act, and the ſin of the act, is the ſtone at which Mr. P. hath all along ſtumbled. He tells me, that ſin being a complexum quid in the acknowledgement of all, cannot admit of an abſtraction, and yet remain the complexum that it was before abſtraction, p. 164. very wiſely and warily ſpoken; as who ſhould ſay, I cannot abſtract, but I muſt abſtract; I cannot indeed abſtract ſin from a ſinfull action, ſo as it ſhould ſtill remain ſinfull; nor can I abſtract whiteneſſe from a white wall ſo as that it ſhould ſtill remain white; for 'tis conſtituted white by whiteneſſe: But p. 48though it be the whiteneſſe that makes it white, yet it is not the whiteneſſe that makes it a wall; and therefore I may conſider the whiteneſſe and the wall apart: The Abſtract and Concrete word doe both ſignifie the ſame form, but not in the ſame way; becauſe the Concrete doth in obliquo connote that ſubject unto which the denominating forme agrees; but if at any time the Concrete be uſed with a reduplication, then it is all one with the Abſtract, ſaith Smigleſius; indeed album qua album, and albedo differ little. Sinfull ſignifies both the ſubject that is ſinfull, and it's ſinfulneſſe, ſin or ſinfulneſs, the meer pravity and irregularitie: Bus this will not down with Mr. P. therefore he tells us, p. 83. 1. That action and quality are both accidents. 2. That an accident is not the ſubject of an accident. 3. That ſome accidents are ſeparable from their ſubjects of inheſion, ſome not, as riſibility from a man. Bluſh all you that have any reſpect for Magd. Coll. to finde that one that was for ſome years Fellow of that Foundation, ſhould be ignorant of that which Freſhmen of two Terms ſtanding commonly know. May not an Accident be the immediate ſubject of inheſion to an accident, p. 49though onelyonly ſubſtance can be the ultimate? If not, then the Queſtion, An fides ſit in Intellectu, an in voluntate, with ſix hundred more of the like nature, are at an end. Or what if the Action were but the Subject of Denomination, might not its evill bee diſtinct from it? Nor would this exact Gentleman, if he had to do with a Sophiſter, eſcape the laſh, for calling Riſibilitie an Inſeparable Accident, it being the moſt common inſtance of a Propriety, betwixt which, and an Inſeparable Accident, there is a moſt groſſe difference. But if hee think that the evill quality doth as neceſſarily flow from the Eſſence of an Action, as Riſibility doth from the Eſſence of a man (which he muſt think, unleſſe hee hath written ridiculous impertinencies) I conceive he hath not one man alive of his judgement. Yet at laſt, in a lucid intervall, he tells us, p. 84. He can diſcern a difference betwixt the Action and its quality, by which it is evil. Let him but ſtick to that diſtinction, and I'le ne'r put him to diſtinguiſh between the ſame evil action and it ſelf: Nor did any one elſe; but he hath frequently frightfull apparitions in his own fancy, in the vanquiſhing whereof he takes not a little pride. Nor will I p. 50offend his terſe eares, with ſuch a barbarous word as pecceity, which he tels us occurs not in any Author ſacred or prophane. OnelyOnly I muſt obſerve how variouſly his pulſe beats, p. 13. Sin it ſelf is a Phyſicall Abstract at the groſſeſt, of which ſinfulneſſe at least is an Abſtract Metaphyſical, which admitting not any compoſition, cannot further be Abſtracted, no not ſo much as in Imagination. p. 78. c. 2. Sin is a Concrete in reſpect of ſinfulneſs, and doth note the ſame thing in one word, thot ſinfull action doth in two, which I will make him to apprehend, do he what he can to the contrary: beſides, not reading what I write, by ſhewing that a ſinne and a ſinfull action, or act, or motion, have the ſame enunciation in all propoſitions imaginable: p. 84. To prevent a foreign, I give this notice to to Mr. W. that if the word wickedneſſe be not alwaies ſynonymous with ſinne, yet it is ſo often: pag. 164. Sin is a complexum quid in the acknowledgement of all.

1. That ſin is a complexum quid, is not acknowledged by all, or any; except by complexum you'll mean complexum ex genere & differentlâ; for ſin is an abſtract word, and doth not in it's ſignification connote any ſubject.

p. 512. It hath neither truth nor ſenſe in it, that a ſin, and a ſinfull act, or action, or motion, have the ſame enunciation in all Propoſitions Imaginable; I can ſay, not to doe what a man is bound to doe is a ſin; but I hope it is not a ſinfull act, or action, or motion; ſin may be predicated of original and habitual corruption, ſo cannot ſinfull act, or action. Let Mr. P. explain how ſin is a Phyſical abſtract, and how it is ſynonymous to the word wickedneſſe, and yet ſignifieth but the ſame thing in one word, that ſinfull action doth in two, and he ſhall reconcile what to me ſeemes not reconcileable. If I had ſaid albedo is a concrete in reſpect of albedineitas, and ſignified that in one word, which ſuperficies alba doth in two, I ſhould be thought at Magd. Coll. to forget my ſelf extreamly. And to prevent a Logomachy, I further adde, that ſin and ſinfulneſs are to me ſynonymous, and therefore perhaps I may uſe them promiſcuouſly, meaning by them what the Latines doe by peccatum, pravitas, malitia, and the Greeks by foreign, &c. Little probability may the Reader think wee ſhould agree; for hee ſaith, p. 150, 151. That ſinis ſo perfectly a Concrete, that unleſſe it is a Concrete, it p. 52cannot be conceived to be a ſin, no more than a concrete can be conceived not to be a concrete; but I ſay that ſin is ſo perfectly an abſtract, that if we conceive not of it as an abſtract, we conceive not of it as ſin; I am to ſeek what vox Abſtracta is, if ſin be not ſuch.

The third term is privation: which I muſt the rather explain, becauſe he tells me, Pag. 162. That I ſeem to make no difference between a ſimple Negative, and a Privative. A Privation with me, (as with all others) is the abſence of a poſitive form, in a ſubject capable of ſuch a form: Inſtances are commonly given of blindneſs, deafneſs, &c. Mr. P. indeed, ſeems not to know the difference between a negation, and a privation, as any Scioliſt, will gather from his words, Divin. Phil. p. 111. It cannot ſo much as be pretended, that every ſin is onelyonly privative; for every privation preſuppoſeth a habit, which every ſin cannot doe: becauſe a man may be covetous, or cruell, who never was liberall, or compaſſionate, which rather implies a negation, than a Privation of thoſe virtues which he hath not loſt, but never had: This is one of the convincing demonſtrations which he tells me I had not the courage to venture upon. Muſt not he be very ſpleen bound, that would not ſmile at ſuch ſtuffe? p. 53Did this diſputant never peep into a Philoſopher, to know the ſignification of the word privation? if he did not, why doth he venture to uſe a Philoſophicall dialect? If he did, how could he make ſhift, not to remember, that privation is as well the abſence of a form that ſhould, or might have been in the ſubject, as of a form that ſometime was in it? One of the three principles of naturall generation, doth denote the abſence of a form that never was in the ſubject, but of which the ſubject is onelyonly capable, and yet ſure it was wont to be called privatio: But the reader hath had too too much of theſe trifles: I had rather that he would take notice that there is a twofold privation, in reſpect of a habit: The one pure, the other not pure, the one in privari, the other in privatum eſſe, as Aquinas doth expreſſe it ſomewhat more roundly. The privation alſo which hath reſpect to an action is twofold, one that altogether takes away the act, the other that takes away but the rectitude of the act: the queſtion therefore is; Whether that evil quality, or quaſi quality, from which any act, or habit is denominated evil, be a privation, as I ſay, or a poſitive entity as Mr. P, ſaith. That it is not a poſitive entity, p. 54I proove by good authority, & better reaſons. By authority, 1. of the Fathers and other ancient Chriſtian writers, who did not write in the Scholaſticall ſtile and ſtrain: they with one mouth aſſert the meer privative nature of ſin. Dionyſ. Areop. in his book de Divinis nominibus frequently ſpeaks to this purpoſe: foreign. Let the Reader peruſe the whole diſcourſe of that ancient, in that place, with the two Greek Scholiaſts on him:

Greg. Nyſſen. foreign. Oratione Catechetica, pag. mihi 490. Joan. Damaſcenus: Orthod. fid. lib. 4. foreign. Lib. 2. foreign. Greg. Naz. Orat. ad Julianum, is of the ſame minde. foreign; his Scholiaſt Nicetas, p. 1045. Neque enim malum ſubſtantia ulla p. 55eſt, ſed boni privatio, quemadmodum & tenebrae luminis receſſus: Non enim alia eſt mali ſubſtantia quàm virtutis abſceſſus. Athanaſius I ſhall commend hereafter. Amongſt the Latines Auſtin and Anſelm, (who have both, not obiter, but data operâ, enquired into the formalis ratio of Sin) have determined it not to be poſitive: Aug. toto libro de natura boni: Anſelm, de concep. Virg. lib. 1. cap. 4, 5, 6. De caſu diaboli, à Cap. 8. ad 11. Now though I would not erre with the Fathers, yet do I leſſe diſtruſt my ſelf to erre, while I keep them company, and do with the more confidence, look an adverſary in the face, when my quiver is full of their Teſtimonies: & 'tis in favour to the Readers purſe and patience that I fill it no fuller.

Secondly, I might ſtrengthen my opinion from the Schoolmen, amongſt whom I have an Army to a man: as is confeſſed even by Arriaga. The firſt that ever was againſt me, as Faventinus thinks, was Cajetan, and thoſe that aſſert the poſitivity of ſin are by Rada called Cajetaniſtae; ſo that I may ſay to Mr. P. where was your opinion before Luther? for Luther and Cajetan are known to be contemporaries. Yet not to wrong Cajetan, he onelyonly holds p. 56the eſſence of the ſin of commiſſion to be poſitive, but that the ſinfullneſſe of omiſſion was ſo, he never dreamed. Do theſe authorities ſignify nothing with Mr. P? hear him: Pag. 174. If either the Schoolmen erre, or were miſtaken, or were never read, who can help it? I ſee judgement often varieth with intereſt, and things acquire a price, not ſo much for what they are in themſelves, as for what they are relatively to our ends and purpoſes. The Schoolmen's authority is no good money when he ſhould take it; is currant coyne when he ſhould pay it, I muſt needs ſay that the generall ſuffrage of the Schools doth ſignify much to me, in matters where they are not overawed by a Church Canon. But he hath a prettier evaſion than this, Pag. 170. The Jeſuits in waggery did purpoſely propagate many blaſphemies, ariſing from the tenet of unconditionall reprobation, in Proteſtant parts of the Chriſtian world, that by making them odious, they might fright men from thence into the Church of Rome. If there be any Jeſuits that do propagate what they apprehend to be blaſphemy, I ſhould think a fitter name might be given to ſo Deviliſh a practice than that of waggery. Who p. 57betrayed him into this obſervation? Dr. Jackſon; who yet doth not bluntly ſay, that it's the deſigne of the Factours for the Church of Rome to have this Doctrine generally embraced, or acknowledged by us; but inſerts theſe words of Caution, or at leaſt to have the World believe that it were generally acknowledged by us: Beſhrew Mr. Bar: who put Mr. P. upon a neceſſity of reading this Author, if he can make no better uſe of him. The Jeſuits are generally reputed very Politick; but if this be the beſt policy they have, I ſhould think we need not much fear their plots: For what if they ſhould faſten the Doctrine of abſolute reprobation upon the Church of England: Why thence it would follow that the God of heavē were worſe than an incarnate Devil, yea thou any wicked Spirit, or the Devil himſelf can without ſtander be ſuppoſed to be: But doth he not think that men would enquire, whether that frightfull concluſion were rightly deduced from the former principle, would they not tell thoſe Popiſh factours that their Paſtours teach them to confeſſe their ſins, and to take the ſhame of them to themſelves? Would they not bid them p. 58dwell at home, and take notice of their own Dominicans, who as ſtrenuouſly aſſert the Doctrine of abſolute reprobation as any that go by the name of Calviniſts: the ſame Dr. Jackſon ſaith, Pag. 3012. He that would diligently peruſe Aquinas his writings, and in particular his reſolution of that Queſtion, An detur cauſa praedeſtinationis, may finde him as ſtrait lace't as Calvin was; one and the ſame girdle would be an equall & competent meaſure for both their errors: Nay the Dr. ſaith the Dominican's and other Schoolmen were more faulty than Zuinglius, or his followers.

But with Mr. P. Doctor Twiſſe, is worſe than the Jeſuit's, though the Jeſuit's and Dominican's are too bad, Pag. 170. Let me adde that two Papiſts as learned as ever did engage for upholding the Popiſh cauſe, do acquit us of this imputation the making of God the Author of ſin, Suarez opus, lib. 2. cap. 2. p. 111. The Hereticks (poteſtants) know well that God intendeth not that which is formall in ſin, nor inclineth the will of man to intend it. Vaſquez, diſ. 99. cap. 4. n. 22. Calvin, Zuinglius, Beza, do plainly affirm that ſin as ſin is not to be referr'd to God as the cauſe thereof, both p. 59theſe Teſtimonies I take upon truſt from D. F. Wh. P. 145. Having not the books themſelves by me at the preſent. But to requite him for this obſervation out of Dr. Jackſon, who attempts not the proof of it by any one example, I ſhall give him another: That the Popiſh Prieſts will ſometimes go over to the Lutherans and pretend a converſion, whereas their deſigne is onelyonly to blow up the coals of contention betwixt them and the Calviniſts: And at the managing of ſuch a deſigne I am ſure Mr. P. hath as good a faculty as any man alive. What ſucceſſe can Mr. Duree, expect in his negociations for peace, when as men of bitter Spirits from among our ſelves, do not ſtick to make the opinions of the Calviniſts worſe then thoſe of the Atheiſts; And that the Arminians are the conſin-germanes to the Jeſuits, and do underhand aime at the introducing of Popery, I ſhall give him the opinion of the whole houſe of Commons, whoſe word's in a Declaration of theirs to his Majeſty, are, The hearts of your ſubjects are perplexed, when with ſorrow they behold a dayly growth and ſpreading of the faction of the Ariminians, that being, as your Majeſty well knows, but a cunning way to bring in Popery, and the p. 60Profeſſors of thoſe opinions, the common diſturbers of the Proteſtant Churches, and incendiary's of thoſe ſtates in which they have gotten any head, being Proteſtants in ſhew, but Jeſuit's in opinion and practice. Vid. a neceſſary introduction to the Archbiſh: tryall by Mr. Prinne. If he except againſt the houſe of Commons, let him learn the ſame from a Jeſuit's letter to the Rector at Bruxells. Father Rector, &c. We have now many ſtrings to our bowes, and have ſtrongly fortify'd our faction, and have added two Bulwarkes more; for when K. James lived, we know he was very violent againſt Arminianiſme, and interrupted with his peſtilent wit, and deep learning, our ſtrong deſignes in Holland, now we have planted the ſoveraigne drug Arminianiſme, which we hope will purge the Proteſtants from their hereſy. This letter was ſeized in the Archbiſh: Study, and atteſted againſt him at the Lords bar: If yet there be not witneſſe enough, wee'l call in the Lord Falklands ſpeech, p. 7. As Sir Tho. Moor ſayes of the Caſuiſts, their buſineſſe was not to keep men from ſinning but to inform them quam prope ad peccatum ſine peccato liceat accedere; ſo it ſeemed their worke was p. 61to try how much of a Papiſt might be brought in without Popery, and to deſtroy as much as they could of the Goſpell, without bringing themſelves into danger of being deſtroyed by the Law: Mr. Speaker, to go yet further, ſome of them have ſo induſtriouſly laboured, to deduce themſelves from Rome, that they have given great ſuſpicion, that in gratitude they deſire to return thither, or at leaſt, to meet it half way: Some have evidently laboured to bring in an Engliſh, though not a Roman Popery: I mean not the outſide onelyonly and dreſſe of it, but equally abſolute, a blind dependance of the people upon the Clergy, and of the Clergy upon themſelves: And have oppoſed Papacy beyond the Sea, that they might ſetle one beyond the water: Nay common fame is more than ordinarily falſe, if none of them have found a way to reconcile the opinions of Rome to the preferments of England, be ſo abſolutely, directly, and cordially Papiſts, that it is all that 1500. per annum can do to keep them from confeſſing it. Dr. Abbot, in a Sermon before the Univerſity preached at St. Peters, on Eaſterday, 1615. Men under pretence p. 62of truth, and preaching againſt the Puritan's, ſtrike at the heart and root of faith and Religion now eſtabliſhed among us. This preaching againſt the Puritan's, was but the practice of Parſons and Campian's counſell, when they came into England to ſeduce young Students, and when many of them were afraid to loſe their places, if they ſhould profeſſedly be thus, the counſell they then gave them was, that they ſhould ſpeak freely againſt the Puritan's, and that ſhould ſuffice: And they cannot pretend they are accounted Papiſts, becauſe they ſpeak againſt the Puritan's; but becauſe they are Papiſts indeed they ſpeak not againſt them. If they do at any time ſpeak againſt the Papiſts, they do beat a litle upon the buſh, and that ſoftly too, for fear of troubling or diſquieting the birds which are in it. They ſpeak of nothing but that in which one Papiſt will ſpeak againſt another; as againſt aequivocation, the Popes temporall authority, and the like, and perhaps againſt ſome of their blaſphemous ſpeeches; but in the point of free-will, juſtification, concupiſcence being ſin after Baptiſm, inherent righteouſneſſe, p. 63certainty of ſalvation, the Papiſts beyond the Sea can ſay they are wholly theirs, and the Recuſants at home make their braggs of them, and in all things they keep themſelves ſo near the brink, that upon all occaſions they may ſtep over to them.

From the Doctor of the Chair in Oxon I'le lead him to the Univerſity of Cambridge, in which I finde a Letter ſubſcribed unanimouſly by the ſeveral Heads of Colledges, March 8. 1595. to their much honoured Chancellor, deſiring from his Lordſhips hands ſome effectual remedy for the ſuppreſſing of Baro's opinions; Leſt by permitting paſſage to theſe errours, the whole Body of Popery ſhould by little and little break in upon us, to the overthrow of our Religion. And a little after theſe words doe occurre; Vouchſafe your Lordſhips aide and advice both to us (wholly conſenting, and agreeing in judgement) and all others of the Univerſity ſoundly affected, and to the ſuppreſſion in time, not onelyonly, of theſe errours, but even of groſs Popery, like by ſuch means in time eaſily to creep in among us, as we find by late experience it hath dangerouſly begun.

The Reader will pardon me (who can p. 64ſcarce pardon my ſelf) for this excurſion, occaſioned through a deſire to acquaint the world, what our former Worthies did think concerning the ſpirit and deſign of our Engliſh Demonſtrants.

3. It were no difficult matter to compaſſe about my Theſis, denying the poſitivity of ſin with a cloud of witneſſes, from among our Modern Divines; but that I have reaſons more than enough, to conceive, they ſtand but for cyphers in Mr. P's account: Melancthon, it may be ſhall bee regarded; let's hear him; He wiſheth that there were ſome one common definition of ſin, unto which all would ſtand; and, for his own part, declareth in more places than one, that he well approveth the Definition given by Anſelm, that Original ſin is, privatio originalis juſtitiae debitae ineſſe. Nay, Tom. 1. p. 163. hee anſwers Mr. P's Argument. If ſin be not a poſitive entity, then God puniſheth for nothing, by diſtinguiſhing between nihil negativum, and nihil privativum, by the ſame token that he calls that convincing demonſtration by no better a name than Cavillatio; hence I hamper him in this Dilemma; either Melancthon's judgement is ſomewhat worth, or it is not: if not, why p. 65is it made ſo much uſe of by Mr. P? If it be, then down falls the poſitivity of ſin. I confeſſe theſe horns are in themſelves ſo blunt, that I am almoſt aſham'd to make any uſe of them; but ad hominem they are ſharp enough; for with ſuch a pair he fancieth he hath toſſed Dr. Reynolds concerning King James, Div. puri. p. 8. And yet this deplorable Dilemmatiſt, would needs be dealing again with that incomparable Doctor, quite and clean forgetting what befell the poor Frogge in Aeſops Fables, that would needs be ſwelling againſt the Oxe, a ſecond, and third time. I now inform him, that the Doctor will meddle no more with him; and indeed to undertake an Anſwer, would be, intemperanter abuti & otio & literis, nothing being offered againſt his Epiſtle, which hath weight enough in it to turne thoſe Scales at Sedan, of which Capellus ſaith, that they would break with the four hundreth part of a Grain. After ſo many teſtimonies, it may ſeem needleſſe to urge reaſons unto Mr. P. who profeſſeth, Divi. Phil. p. 100. That none of his principles appeal to reaſon, againſt the judgement of the whole ancient aod modern Church. If by the whole Ancient and Modern Church, he mean every p. 66Learned man that hath in any Age been of the Church, I queſtion whether wee can finde a conſent ſo unanimous in any point, except the twelve Articles of the Apoſtles Creed: But that ſin is a privation, hath been as generally held as any one thing of this nature. Among the Fathers, I know none of a contrary minde: Some few Schoolmen, as alſo Dr. Field, I grant were, in reference to ſins of commiſſion; as to ſins of omiſſion, that they alſo ſhould be poſitive is ſo ſtrange, that I know not whether ever it were aſſerted by any, but Cerberus, alias Champneys, Mr. Dukes the Keeper of the great Ordinary at Hell in Weſtminſter, Mr. P. and (whom I would not joyn with ſuch company) the Reverend and Learned Dr. Hammond: Yet wee will alſo contend by Arguments artificiall.

Mr. B. had uſed one, p. 112. in which becauſe Mr. P. will have me equally concern'd, I ſhall ſuffer it, and his Anſwer to play a little before us.

If ſin, as ſin, be a poſitive entity, then it is a thing in it ſelf good, but ſo it is not, therfore neither is it a poſitive entity. The conſequence is founded upon a very rational, and commonly received p. 67Maxim, that Ens & bonum convertuntur, though Mr. P. be pleaſed to call this, The printed Article of Mr. B's unchriſtian Creed, p. 151. But what doth he anſwer?

1. That all the force of this argument is onelyonly to prove that ſinne is good; whereas he that hath but half an eye may ſee, that the deſign of the Argument is to fright Mr. P. out of his ſad opinion concerning the poſitivity of ſinne, by bringing him to the grand abſurdity, of ſaying ſinne is good.

Secondly, he ſaith, That a thing privative in one reſpect, is alſo poſitive in another; and every Scioliſt can tell, that the corruption of one thing is the generation of another: Quorſum haec? If he mean, that the corruption of one thing is formally the generation of another, hee falls into ſo loathſome a contradiction, as would make any Scioliſts ſtomack riſe at the naming of it. If he underſtand the Propoſition in ſenſu concomitantiae, then it is true, that in the ordinary courſe of nature, the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, and the corruption of one thing the generation of another; becauſe the matter cannot exiſt without a form, nor under two diſparate forms: But quid haec ad Iphicli p. 68boves? How that which is properly, and by intrinſecal denomination privative in one reſpect, ſhould be poſitive in another, falls not as yet under my comprehenſion. His examples will perhaps clear my Intellectuals; The darkneſs which God created, was not more privative of the day, than it was poſitive of the night; and that which is privative of life or ſight may be poſitive of death and blindneſs. If his meaning bee, that from the want of light in the aire wee may as truely ſay it is night, as from the preſence of light wee can ſay it is day, that is a truth but very vulgar, if he would either hint or hold forth, that the darkneſſe doth actuate and inform the air per modum qualitatis poſitivae, as the light doth, there ſeems to be ſuch a darkneſs upon the face of his own underſtanding, as I had thought till now had not been incident to a man of Academical education. If darkneſſe be a Poſitive Quality, pray tell us to what ſpecies of Quality belongs it? 'tis not habitus, nor potentia naturalis, nor yet is it qualitas patibilis, which never was, nor ever can be ſeen, felt, heard, ſmell't, taſted by any one. He hath not yet made himſelfe noyſome enough, the peccant humour ſtill operates; A Carneadiſt will be glad to introduce p. 69an opinion, that Sin is good by calling it bonum Metaphyſicum, or tranſcendentale: If ſo, then Mr. P. hath deſerved his humble thanks, who beſtows a poſitive Entity on ſin. We poor thick-pated Mortals, who make it but a privation, ſhall merit none of his favour. Mr. B. muſt be taught, that the adequate ſubject of Metaphyſicall ſcience is, Ens quatenus ens, reale illud, non omnimodò poſitivum quatenus eſt poſitivum. A ſtrange ſentence: Can any thing be directly contained under the ſubject of Metaphyſicks, which is not poſitive? or can any thing be unum per ſe (and ſuch is the object of every ſcience) which is partly poſitive, and partly privative? but we have more either of his ignorance, or inadvertencie: Bonum in Metaphyſicks doth no more ſignifie good in Engliſh, than canis the Star doth ſignifie the Dog which walkes about with four feet. Bonum …n Engliſh doth ſignifie good, as oppoſed to e…ill; but in Metaphyſicks, no more but Ens …n ordine ad appetitum. How came Engliſh and Metaphyſicks ſo to fall out, that …hey ſhould ſtand in oppoſition? Is it not …nough that it is oppoſed to Greek, and …atine, and other languages, but it muſt ſo ſtand as the oppoſite term to Metaphyſicks? p. 70I ſee others beſides Presbyterians can ſometimes talk non-ſenſe: But doth not Bonum, the affection of Ens, if it were to be rendred in Engliſh, ſignifie good as oppoſed to evill? Mr. P. ſure thinks it doth, and therefore in policy he forbears to Engliſh it, onelyonly in Latine he gives us this deſcription: Bonum eſt Ens in ordine ad appetitum; and that Sin is ſuch, Mr. B. knows by ſad and minutely experience. What uncharitableneſſe is this, to ſay that Mr. B. hath minutely experience, that ſin as ſin is the object of his appetite? Malum qua malum is not the object of any rational creatures appetite; Nor can it be the object of the rational appetite any more than falſum quâ falſum can be the object of the underſtandings aſſent. For a cloſe, he tels us, that malum morale eſt bonum Metaphyſicum; and if Mr. B. aimed at nothing but this, he hath gained nothing. Yes, he hath gained enough: For who would aſcribe a tranſcendental goodneſſe to moral evill, but one, who hath either loſt all his Metaphyſicks, or never had any to loſe. Seeing you have made a ſhift to ſwallow ſuch a Camel, wee'll try whether we can fetch it up again. May it therefore pleaſe yo… p. 71to underſtand, that they who deſcribe Metaphyſical goodneſs, per ordinem ad appetitum, underſtand it primarily with relation to the Divine will: And will you make ſin the object of the Divine will? But Suarez will tell you, that good is not ſo compared to the appetite as truth is to the intellect: for Metaphyſical truth, includes in its formall nature and denomination ſome conformity to the underſtanding, but ſo doth not goodneſs include a conformity to the appetite, though ſuch a conformity be a neceſſary conſequent of goodneſſe. A thing is not therefore good, becauſe deſired, but it is therefore deſired becauſe good. Hence they expreſſe the nature of good by the word perfectum, and conveniens alicui; and let Mr. P. if he can, tell me how ſinne bonificates any ſubject, or addes any perfection to that in which it is.

The ſecond Argument uſed by me in the Letter, was to this effect: If ſin be a poſitive Entity, then it is either God, or from God; but it can be neither: ergo, Cajetane found himſelf ſo hard beſet with this Argument, that he ventured to ſay, God was the Author of malum morale, but not p. 72of malum ſimpliciter ſic dictum: For the abſurditie of which diſtinction he is ſufficiently ſchooled by Suarez in more places than one; but Mr. P. hath an art worth twenty of the Cardinals diſtinctions, he hath alwaies a whole flood of vilifying words at command; and if he meet with a hard and ſtubborn Argument, he ſoakes it in that liquor ſo long, till the leſſe underſtanding Reader forget that ever any ſuch Argument was uſed. What Mountaines he rowled up together to keep my Argument from being ſeen, I before obſerved: I will now take notice of a relenting pang, with which he ſeems to be ſurpriſed in the height of his perſecutions againſt my Argument: Obſerve how it works, pag. 156. He muſt know that there is a medium betwixt God and his creatures, and I wonder what ſhould aile him, that he ſhould ſay there is none. Nay, if I muſt, there is no remedy; but till he have more authority over me, than I yet conceive him to have, I ſhall without fear give him my reaſons, why I neither doe, nor can acknowledge any medium.

Firſt, becauſe I finde thoſe that had to doe with the Manichees, and heathen Philoſophers, building their Argument upon p. 73this Baſis, that Omne ens eſt vel primum, vel à primo; and that malum is therefore not cauſed by God, becauſe it is not ens, but non ens, as they commonly call that which is but a privation: e: g: foreign. Orat. contra gentes, p. 6. & De: incar. verbi, p. 37. foreign. Greg. Nyſ. Tom. 2. 490. foreign, &c. Who is ſuch a ſtranger to St. Auguſtin, that hath not read ſuch ſentences as theſe from him, de lib. arbit. lib. 1. Credimus, ex uno Deo, eſſe omnia quae ſunt, & tamen non eſſe peccatorum auctorem Deum? in 1 cap. p. 74Joh. v. 1. Peccatum quidem non per ipſum factum eſt, quia peccatum nihil eſt. Mali author non eſt qui omnium quae ſunt author eſt: quia in quantum ſunt, in tantum bon… ſunt: 83 Quaeſt. It would be endleſſe to put together all ſayings of the Ancients that are of this nature. I ſhall take off my Pen when I have only tranſcribed the remarkable determination of Aquinas, 1^a, 2^ae, q. 79. ar. 2. in corpo: actus (ſaith he) peccati & eſt ens & eſt actus, & ex utroque habet quod ſit adeo: omne enim ens quocunque mod… ſit oportet quod derivetur a primo ente-omnis autem actio cauſatur ab aliquo exiſtente in actu, quia nihil agit, niſi ſecundum quod eſt actu; omne autem ens actu reducitur ad primum actum. ſc. Deum ſicut in cauſam qu… eſt per ſuam eſſentiam actus: unde relinquitur quod Deus ſit cauſa omnis actionis in quantum eſt actio; peccatum nominat ens & actionem cum quodam defectu. Defectus autem ille eſt ex cauſâ creatâ ſc: libero arbitrio in quantum deficit ab ordine primi agentis, i. e. Dei, unde defectus iſte non reducitur in Deum ſicut in cauſam; ſed in liberum arbitrium, ſicut defectus claudicationis reducitur in tibiam curvam, ſicut in cauſam, no… autem in virtutem motivā: a qua tamen cauſa tur quicquid eſt motionis in claudicatione, & ſecundum hoc Deus eſt cauſa actus peccati p. 75non tamen eſt cauſa peccati, quia non eſt hujus quod actus ſit cum defectu.

Nor ſecondly, do I know any other way of defining what ens primum is, but this that it is ſuch a being, which is not from any other being, and which is the cauſe of all the beings that are. Thirdly, this poſitive being of ſin is it a finite and participate being? If not, how is it not God? if? How is it not from the Fountain of all eſſences? Fourthly, I am the more confirmed that ther's no medium betwixt Deus & creatura, becauſe Mr. Pierce after all his enquiry hath not been able to finde any. For whereas he doth tell me that the works of the Devill are a medium, he could not ſure but think that I would diſtinguiſh in blaſphemy, lying, &c. Betwixt the vital act and it's deficiency and diſſonance from the Law of God, the act it ſelf I hold to bee poſitive, and from God; the irregularity of that act from which it is denominated blaſphemy, lying, &c. I would derive onelyonly from mans corruption, and the Devills temptation. If he will not take this from me, let him take it from thoſe Gamaliels, at whoſe feet he'el not account it any diſparagement to ſit as a diſciple. Dr. Fr. White, p. 76Pag. 104. Defence of his Brother, whereas ſin is a deficience and aberration from the rule of juſtice, it cannot ſubſiſt alone; but even as halting muſt neceſſarily be joyned with ſome motion of the body, & hoarſneſſe of ſpeech with the action of ſpeaking, ſo the evill of ſin is conjoyned with ſome action, or motion of the Soul, or body which hath a naturall and poſitive being, and where unto there hapneth a going aſtray from Divine Law, even as it hapneth to a lame mans naturall motion, to have halting concurring with it. Of that which is poſitive & naturall in ſinfull actions Divines acknowledge God to be the Author both in that he perſerveth mans will and faculties, whereby he is enabled to his operations, and alſo becauſe as the firſt cauſe he produceth together with the 2^d. cauſe all poſitive motion. Dr. Sand. 1 Tim. 4.4.5. Ser. Ad pop. there is a naturall (or rather tranſcendentall) goodneſſe, honitas entis, as they call it, in every action even in that where to the greateſt ſin adhereth, and that goodneſſe is from God, as that action is his creature, but the evill that cleaveth unto it is wholy from the default of the perſon p. 77that commiteth it and not at all from God, Dr. Abbot, anſwer to Biſhop, Pag. 124. We ſay, and you will ſay no leſſe that God is the Author of all the actions in the World, yet we ſay that ſin is wholly and onelyonly of man himſelf. diſtinguiſh the accident from the ſubject, the ſin of the action from the action it ſelf, God in the one ſhall be glorified & man juſtly condemned for the other. Nay what if M. Pierce, himſelf ſay that the ſinfull action, ſo far as it is an action, is from God? He ſaith that every good action of man is from the ſpecial grace of God. Now ſeeing all the good actions that are done per gratiam viatoris be and muſt neceſſarily be on ſome account ſinfull; concerning theſe actions I demand are they from God? If not, how is every good action from God? If they be, then he ſpits in the face of his judicious Dr. Jack. who ſaith exact: Col. p. 3013. To imagine there ſhould be one cauſe of the act and another of his obliquity, or ſinfullneſſe of the act would be as groſſe a ſolaeciſme, as to a aſſigne, or ſeek after any other cauſe of the rotundity of a ſphere, or bullet beſides him that frames the one, or moulds the other, or elſe he muſt ſay that the action, & that in p. 78perfect morall goodneſſe which is in it are from God but the ſinfull imperfection it ſelf is from man through Gods permiſſion, and this he doth ſay 172. But then he ought not to be offended if we take the ſame liberty, Pag. 158. He ſaith God made idolaters men. And 159. men themſelves are the works of God onelyonly, which is to grant more then with truth can be granted. But thus I argue, if God be the cauſe of men, than of Davids child begotten by the action of Adultery, for Scripture will alow me to call that child, ſo ſoon as borne, a man, John. 16.21. If the cauſe of that child, undoubtedly then the cauſe of the action of generation by which, as by a cauſality, that child was produced. Yet was he not the cauſe of the adulterious pravity cleaving unto that action. Quid mirum ſi dicaemus, deum facere ſingulas actiones quae fiunt malâ voluntate, cum fate amur eum facere ſingulas ſubſtantias quae fiunt injuſtâ voluntate & in honeſt â actione, Anſ. de caſu diab. c. 10. So that we are but where we were at the firſt ſetting out. For the actions in which the evill of ſin is ſubjected, I'le grant to be poſitive, but from God as well as the creature; the evill of ſin from which they are denominated ſinfull, p. 79is but a privation and requireth no proper efficient cauſe at all, ſuch as it hath man is and not God. But I have obſtructed his good nature in working, Pag. 157. He goes on further to tell me that res in Metaphyſicks hath three acceptions, in the firſt of wich it comprehendeth entia rationis, as oppoſed to nihil. Before he tell what the other two acceptions are, he corrects himſelf, my deſign is to convert and not confound him, this charity (as is more than probable) did both begin and end at home had any benefit been intended to me by it, you ſhould have ceaſed ſooner. For I was confunded before that politick foreign was made. For let any one tell mee how this diſcourſe about ens rationis is here brought in: Firſt, was it to let the World underſtand, that our Author knew what ens rationis meant? That's but a low deſign, and yet he cannot accompliſh it neither, for he placeth the model of an houſe to be built hereafter among entia rationis, & yet that is as far from being onelyonly objective in intellectu, from not being longer than it is thought on, as the Eaſt is from the Weſt. Secondly, hath he a mind to inſinuate that ſin is ens rationis, if ſo, it muſt either be privatio, which is that he p. 80all along denieth, or a negation, againſt which his arguments militate with more ſtrength, or a relatio rationis, which is affirmed by Vaſquez, but againſt all good reaſons, as I ſhall ſoon ſhew him if forced to ſo great ſeverity by his owning ſuch a paradox. Thirdly, was it his buſineſſe to intimate that all the entia rationis are ſo the works of men, as that God cannot be termed the cauſe of thoſe actions, by which they are made? I will not torture his ingeniolum with that perplexed queſtion, whether the Divine intellect do fabricate ens rationis, but without all peradventure, the action of the underſtanding, though not the imperfection is from God, are not all our notiones: 2^ae. in Logick, entia rationis, yet is the act of the underſtanding, cauſing them ſo far from not being from God, that God hath indeed a more than ordinary & common concourſe to it.

The privative nature of ſin may be thus further evicted. If a thing be therefore ſinfull becauſe it wants ſome perfection that it ought to have, and ceaſe to be ſinful when it hath all the perfection which it ought to have, than is ſin a privation; but a thing is therefore ſinfull, &c. Ergo, the conſequence of the propoſition is as p. 81clear as the noone day light, the aſſumption alſo needs rather explication than confirmation, ther's not a novice but knows the old rule, bonum ex integrâ cauſâ, malum ex quolibet defectu. To make an action good there muſt be a concurrence of all the three goods, object, end, circumſtances, the mere want of any of theſe three makes the action ſinfull, becauſe the Law requires that all the three goodneſſes ſhould be in the action, & the want of that which the Law requires to to be in any ſubject is a ſin: or elſe we muſt reject, not onelyonly Ariſtotle, but the Apoſtle, who ſaith; foreign. This argument is uſed by Greg. Arim. a noble and ancient Schoolman, and largely inſiſted upon by Faventinus, the moſt acute Scotiſt. I'me not ignorant that various replies are made to the argument; but anſwers alſo are commonly given to thoſe replies, which to tranſcribe would be a matter of more trouble than profit.

My fourth and laſt argument againſt the pretended poſitivity of ſin I diſpoſe in this enthymem, Original ſin is not poſitive, ergo, ſin as ſin is not poſitive. The conſequent (I conceive) will be yeelded ſine ſanguine & ſudore, otherwiſe the old Canon, a p. 82quatenus ad omne valet conſequentia, would ſoon command it, as to the antecedent. I deny not but our Proteſtant Divines in their diſputes againſt the Papiſts, doe make a poſitive, as wel as a privative part of original ſin; but how that terme may be underſtood ſo as not to prejudice my aſſertion in the leaſt is largely ſhewed by Gisber. Voetius, in his accurate diſcourſe de propagatione peccati originalis. He that calls it a privation of Gods image, ſaith the whole nature of it, is a ſentence of Mr. John Calvin. That I may prove original ſin not to be poſitive in the ſenſe we now uſe the word poſitive, I muſt lay down this as a poſtulatum. That the ſoul is not by propagation, or ex traduce, (as they ſpeak) but immediately created by God. If this poſtulatum ſhould not be granted me, I ſhould not fear the demonſtrating of it by evidence of Scripture, and ſtrength of reaſon, to any gain ſayer; but ſuch my charity forbids mee to think Mr. P. This ſuppoſed, I thus argue. If original ſin be a thing poſitive, 'tis either the ſoul it ſelf, or ſome of its faculties, or ſome accident or adiunct agreing immediately to the faculties, mediatly to the ſoul it ſelf, but none of all theſe; ergo. To ſay with Flaccius Illyricus, p. 83that it is the ſoule it ſelf, were with more than heatheniſh impiety to calumniate the goodneſſe of our Creator, and the like abſurditie will follow if we aſſert it to be one of the faculties of the ſoul. If we ſay it is an accident inhering in the faculties of the ſoul, then it was either put into them by God, which will make God the Author of the worſt of ſins, or elſe it is cauſed in them by the ſouls preſence in, and union to the body, or from ſome action of the ſoul it ſelf: Not by any action of the ſoul it ſelf for it's faculties are ſinfull before it put forth any one act of reaſon: Not from its preſence in, or union to the body: for who can imagine how the ſoul, which is ſpiritual and immaterial, ſhould be defiled by being joyned to a body? which thoughfull of naturall imperfections is not ſinfull, and if it were ſinfull could nor communicate its ſinfullneſſe to the ſoule that informes it. But now holding original ſin to be a privation in an active ſubject, we do avoid all theſe inconveniences, by ſaying, that Adam by his firſt tranſgreſſion did ſin away the image of God from himſelf, and his poſterity, who were in him, not onelyonly as a naiurall, but as a federal head alſo, and ſo God createth p. 84the ſouls of men void of his image, and yet juſtly looks on them as ſinners, for wanting this image, becauſe they ought to have it, and by their own folly deprived themſelves of it.

As for the reaſons Mr. P. hath againſt the privative nature of ſin, he hath ſo ſlipt & glided them into all the ſeverall parts of his book, that it is allmoſt impoſſible, to refute them without committing as many tavtologies, as he uſeth himſelf in making them, I muſt therefore fall a picking of thē up, like ſo many dayſies in a bare common, here and there one where I can find them; but firſt me thinks 'tis ſomewhat ſtrange, that my aggreſſor ſhould put forth a diſcourſe tending to prove the poſitivity of ſin, and never conſult the Schoolemen, among whom the queſtion hath been for many years agitated, or if he did conſult them, then it is more ſtrange that he ſhould not find ingenuity to acknowledge whence he borrowed his arguments, and take notice of the ſolutions, ſo commonly and plainly given to them: Yet I confeſſe, ſometimes our diſputant hath let fall ſuch reaſons, as were never thought on by any before him, this is the happineſſe, or rather, unhappineſſe of ſome, that p. 85they can uſe and urge ſuch mediums, which thoſe with whom they deal had not wit, great, or litle enough to foreſee: ſo I remember I once heard a fellow with extreā confidence ſtrive to prove, that there was no neceſſity of repentance in order to ſalvation, becauſe the gifts and callings of God are without repentance; an argument, I dare ſay, with which the Miniſter never expected to be encountred: will't thou ſee its parallel? look Pag. 156. unleſſe Mr. Hick. will embrace the ſuds of a contradiction, he muſt confeſſe that to be poſitive which Chriſt came to deſtroy. The ſuds of a contradiction! A pretty ſimilitude. But I would faine know whether Mr. P. will ſay there be any proper privations? If he ſay there be none, he muſt think of making our freſhmen ſome kind of ſatisfaction, for robbing them of one of their poſt-predicaments; if he ſay there be any, he muſt either let fall this ſad looſe way of arguing, or elſe ſhew us ſome one example of privation, which Chriſt either did not, or could not have deſtroyed, had he ſo pleaſed, by introducing the oppoſit forme into the ſubject, 'tis ſaid 1 Cor. 15.26. The laſt Enemy that ſhall be deſtroyed is death. Will it hence follow, p. 86that death is no proper privation? The beſt crowers are not alway the beſt fighters.

A 2. argument is from habitual ſins, which I confeſſe were a good one had it been well managed; but Mr. P. can no more uſe it than young David could Sauls armour; for marke the letters & ſyllables of the man, Pag. 161. Sins of commiſſion being riveted in a man by long cuſtome and continuance, are commonly called habitual ſins, ſo then Mr. H. cannot but confeſſe that vices are habits, as wel as virtues (there is an habit of drunkenneſs as well as of ſo briety) and that habits are qualities he cannot be ignorant if he is but able to tell his fingers; and that a habit is a thing poſitive his poſt predicaments have taught him, where a habit and a privation are ſet as oppoſite termes ſuch as do mutually neceſſitate each others abſence.

1. What conſequence is this, if I can tell my fingers I can not be ignorant that habits are qualities? Did not Mr. P. know how to tell his fingers before he knew that habits were ſpecies of qualitie? Well, but grant him (which is denied by learned Piccolominee) that habits are qualities, what's gained? Juſt nothing: he makes a face as if he had intended a So…es but p. 87hath ſo miſcarried in the purſuance of his medium, that I cannot with all my skill mould his words either into a Sorites, or any other good forme of argumentation. I ſuppoſe the propoſition habits are qualities is redundant, and that the thing he aimes at is this, that which is an habit is poſitive, ſome ſins, as drunk. are habits. Ergo, the proof of the Major, becauſe habit in the poſtpredicaments is ſet as an oppoſite terme to privation. This would almoſt make a man think, that he took the word habitus to be of as limited a ſignification in the poſtpredicaments as it is in the 4^th. predicament, but that is too ſad a failing to charge a Scholar with, yet he falls into one as ſad; for, by making the habit of drunkenneſſe a fit example of habit in the poſtpredicament, he muſt ſet the habit of ſobriety as its oppoſite terme, and make it a privation, which is to cut his own throat: but had his hand been ſoſteddy as that he had hit the marke at which he ſhot, I think he did not take his aime aright; for I doubt not whether the habit be poſitive, but whether that vitioſity from which 'tis called an habit of drunkneſſe be a poſitive entity. How evil actions may be ſaid to produce evill habits, p. 88evill habits produce evill actions, and yet ſin not be poſitive, ſee Baro. met. de nat. mali. And to remove prejudice, though he were a Scotchman, yet he was no Puritan. Ibid. There muſt be ſomething poſitive to make a man poſitively foul, which foulneſſe ſuffers a privation when the man is cleanſed of his filth. Would not one think that all things conſpire to make the good Rector ridiculous? It muſt indeed be ſome thing poſitive that rendreth the ſinner poſitively foul: But how will he prove the filth of ſin to be poſitive? Not from the Rom. 22.11. For there be not ſo many Chapters in that Epiſtle; Nor doth he offer any other proof: Therefore we may make the ſpiritual filth to conſiſt in the want of that nitor gratiae, which either was, or ſhould have been in the ſoul.

His main argument is from actual ſins as lying, and blaſpheming, and believing that there is no God, even in the proſecution of this argument, he ſhews more of the Palme than of the fift. But that he may not have the ſame quarrel with mee that Fimbria had with Scaevola, who appointed him a day, becauſe he did not totum telum in ſe recipere I would give his argument the beſt advantage I can, by p. 89ſuppoſing his inſtance to be made in the very worſt, and moſt intrinſecaly evill of all actions; that of hating God, and will ſhew. 1. Why ſuch acts, are called intrinſecaly and eſſentialy evill. 2. What others have anſwered to this objection. 3. What I conceive is to be anſwered according to truth. Such actions are called intrinſecally evill, both becauſe they are evill antecedently to any poſitive Law, and becauſe they are evill ex genere, & objecto, and not meerly through the want of ſome circumſtance: for a Scholar to walke in the night ſeaſon, when by the ſtatutes he is bound to be within his Colledge walls, is ſinfull, to walke at a time allowed, in a convenient place, and to a good end, is not ſinfull: but the hating of God is ſuch an action, as no circumſtance of time, or place can make lawfull.

Some to anſwer the objection, do make the totum complexum, odiſſe Deum, the very determination of the hatred to God, to be the material part of that ſin, and then the formal part, they make to be the want of conformity in this action to the Law of God, and ſo they labor to ſhew, or rather to feigne, ſome conditions in the concurrence p. 90whereof, ſuch an act is ſeperated from it's pravity: Let the Reader, if he pleaſe to ſatisfie his curioſity, conſult, Greg. valent. 2. Tom. in Tho. diſ. 6. q. 9. puncto 1. Or, Bradwardine lib. 1. cap. 26. I recite not their words, becauſe I need not their helpe, and becauſe they ſeem to make impoſſible hypotheſes, as if the hatred of God were produced by God in a ſtone, whereas it cannot be that there ſhould be the hatred of God in a ſtone, which neither hath nor can have any knowledge; nay the beaſts, though they have love and hatred, yet cannot be ſaid to hate God, of whom they have no knowledge, or repreſentation. I ſay therefore, that the hating of God is complexum quid, and muſt not be ſpoken of, as if it were one, the vital action of hatred, is a thing poſitive, but the undue referring, or terminating of that act to ſuch an object which is altogether lovely, that's the ſinfulneſſe of the action, and not poſitive but privative: indeed omne eſſe morale eſt valde jejunum & diminutum, moral goodneſſe and evill are rather modi entium than entia, which made Vaſquez, though otherwiſe a very acute Doctor, place them, as I noted before, among p. 91entia rationis. Yet becauſe it belongs to the Univerſality of the firſt cauſe to produce not onelyonly every reall being, but alſo the reall poſitive modifications of beings. Therefore we ſay, that in good workes, both the workes themſelves, and their rectitude are poſitive, and are from God; in evill workes there are alſo two things conſiderable, the workes themſelves, and their pravity; the workes themſelves we doubt not are poſitive, and from God, as all other poſitive things; but their pravities adde no new entities to them, but conſiſt in a meer privation; in thoſe things which are to be done according to a rule, good conſiſts in a conformity to, and convenience with the rule, but evill in a difformity, or diſcrepance from the rule; conformity is poſitive, difformity is privative. And in this Anſwer I am very much confirmed, by the ſayings of Anſelm, and Twiſſe: Thus Anſelm, deconc. Praedeſt. & liberi arbitrii cap. 1. God cauſed all things which are done, either with a juſt, or injuſt will, that is, good workes, and evill: in good workes he both cauſeth, that they be, and that they be good; in evill, he onelyonly cauſeth that they be, not that they be evill, adding this reaſon of the difference, p. 92becauſe to be evill is to be nothing: Dr. Twiſſe, vind. lib. 2. There is a twofold actual concourſe of God, one of Generall influence, the other of ſpeciall grace; the concourſe of generall influence is neceſſarily required to every action, whether good, or evill; but the concourſe of ſpeciall grace, is onelyonly required to a worke throughly good: every good work therefore needs a twofold help, one of generall influence as it is a work, another of ſpeciall grace as good; but an evill work requires onelyonly the concourſe of generall influence, as it is a work, but that it be evill, no more is required than the denyall of ſpeciall grace: Thomas ſpeak to the ſame purpoſe, 2 Senten. diſt. 37. art. 2. p. 2.

A 5. thing which Mr. P. would fain have to do the office of an argument is this, if every ſin be privative, than there will be no difference betwixt ſins of omiſſion and ſins of commiſſion, but a difference there is betwixt them, therefore, &c. I ſuppoſe thoſe words, Pag. 167. Would if reduced to mood and Figure appear before us in ſuch a form, as I have now repreſented, he makes no difference betwixt not bleſſing and curſing God, betwixt ceaſeing to give almes and grinding the faces of the poor, betwixt not ſaving and killing another p. 93man: Anſw. Sins of omiſſion and commiſſion are ſufficiently diſtinguiſhed, notwithſtanding they be both made to conſiſt in privation: Omiſſion will be the tranſgreſſiō of an affirmative precept, commiſſion the trangreſſion of a Negative precept. 2ly. They differ in reſpect of their immediate foundation, the fundamentum proximum of a ſin of commiſſion is ſome act or habit; but theſe are not the fundamenta proxima of a ſin of omiſſion: it vexeth me, that I am forced to inculcate theſe ſo vulgar and obvious things, which none are ignorant of, but thoſe who never learned the A, B, C. of Philoſophy. To the ſame Cluſter I may reduce what he hath, P. 146. Murder muſt have ſomething in it of poſitive to diſtinguiſh it in ſpecie from all other ſins: But Scotus in 2. diſ. 35. will tell him that the ſpecifical diſtinction of ſin is taken from the different privation of different rectitude, & Joh. Rada, will tell him that there is no reall difference betwixt Thom. & him in this: deafneſſe and blindneſſe are privations, yet ſpeeifically diſtinct, becauſe one is the privation of the power of ſeeing, the other of the power of hearing: But how then are the two extreme vices diſtinguiſhed. e. g. Covetouſneſs & prodigality ſeing? they are p. 94privations but of the ſame habit of liberality. Anſw. Becauſe covetouſneſſe is a privation of liberality, as it puts a man upon honeſt ſpending, prodigality is a privation of liberality as it doth incline a man to avoid ſuperfluous ſpending. Thus I have eked out my adverſaries argument, which was ſomewhat ſhort and ſcanty, this made him ſeek to peece it with a patch of Grammar, for ſo it follows, ſome are not onelyonly poſitively but ſuperlatively evill: the jeſt lieth in poſitive and ſuperlative I am content he ſhould thus uſe his wit with out any rival: But I have been told that ſome years ſince there was one T. P. lived near the Schools, who would have made ſuch clenches with him and given him 3. for one.

A 6. argument that he will needs preſſe to fight for the poſitivity of ſin is taken from thoſe Scriptures, which do ſpeak of greater and leſſer ſins, Pag. 163. At this I would ſtrike with my Anſwer, if I could find where the veine of proof did lye; if I may gheſſe it lyes in this, that there can be no degrees in a privation, but this is a meer miſtake: Among privations ſome are greater, ſome leſſe, with relation to that forme unto which they are oppoſed: if the forme have degrees of intention, p. 95that may Phyſically be accounted the greater privation which removes more degrees of the Form from the Subject; that the leſſe which removes fewer: if we reckon morally, then we may alſo calculate the degrees of privation from the greater or leſſe obligation, that the ſubject is under, to have that form, which for the preſent he wants.

A. 7. If ſinne be a privation, how are actions and operations aſcribed to it? How doth the Apoſtle ſay ſinne wrought in him all manner of concupiſcence? Rom. 7.8.

Anſw. In ſuch ſpeeches ſin ſignifies not abſtractly and formally; but it ſignifies our nature and its faculties as under corruption. The faculties in which the ſinfull privations are, by reaſon of thoſe privations doe luſt againſt the working of the Spirit.

And now I might take my leave of Mr. P. but that I am told of no leſſe than 17 cogent Arguments uſed by him in his Divine Philanthropie, which I had not the courage to venture on. When Mr. B. told him, that he durſt not quote the Aſſemblies Confeſſion, he is made a lyar for that ſpeech: If he deſerve ſuch a cenſure, ſo I am ſure doth Mr. P. How could I be p. 96ſaid to want courage to meddle with that which I had never read over? And which now that I have been forced to read over, hath rather exerciſed my patience than my courage; ſo far am I from looking upon them as convincing Demonſtrations, that I think I ſhould honour them ſufficiently, if I but ſay that they are good enough for a Sophiſter to uſe when he is put to courſe in the Horſe-fair, ex tempore. He ptetends to have proved in ample manner, That ſinne hath an efficient cauſe, properly ſo call'd, being angry it ſeems with the ſaying of Auguſtin, that makes it to have a deficient, rather than an efficient, properly ſo call'd. Pag. 145. If man be not the efficient cauſe (ſaith our doughty Diſputant) then he is either the material, or formal, or final. Rather than we will ſeem to be too much frighted, we will ſay that man is the material, or ſubjective cauſe of the action; ſuch a material or ſubjective cauſe as evill can have: And he is the efficient cauſe too of the evil of the action, if by an efficicient he meane no more than that unto which it may be aſcribed. But he and I both were beſt not to make too much noiſe, leaſt wee ſhould awaken the youngſters to fall aboard us with ſuch an Argument as p. 97this. If man be the efficient cauſe either of a good action or a bad action, then hee doth effect it by another action, and ſo we may proceed in infinitum. To let that paſs: the deficient cauſe is reduceable to the efficient; and this is to be ſaid; Suppoſe the firſt ſin of Angels to have been a proud deſire to be equal unto God; the cauſe of this proud deſire was the will of the Angel; but it was the cauſe of the action (in ſuch a ſenſe as a cauſality may be ſaid to have a cauſe) per ſe, of the vitioſity of the action, it was onelyonly the cauſe per accidens, & per concomitantiam; nor doth the vitiotſiy of the effect alway ſuppoſe a vitioſity in the cauſe; though it alway pre-ſuppoſeth an imperfection in the cauſe; and where the cauſe it ſelf is vitious, its vitioſity is not the cauſe of the vitioſity of the effect; for vitioſity of it ſelf, neither can effect, nor be effected; but the vitious cauſe, taking together the being, and the ſupervenient privation, is the cauſe of the vitious effect, taking it in like manner for the beeing, and the ſuperadded privation. But if we contradict him, we muſt ſay, that God damns men for nothing. Anſelm, in the place I before referred my Reader to, makes this objection, and laugheth at p. 98its, weakneſſe, De Con. vir. c. 6. Quidam cum audiunt peccatum nihil eſſe ſolent dicere: ſi peccatum nihil eſt, cur punit Deus hominem pro peccato, cum pro nihilo puniri nemo debeat; quibus quamvis humilis ſit quaeſtio, tamen quia quod quaerunt, ignorant, aliquid reſpondendum eſt. What doth hee mean when he ſaith, that God then muſt puniſh men for nothing? If he meane that God would puniſh men becauſe they have not that in their faculties, habits, actions which ſhould be in them what abſurdity is there in that? Is not the puniſhment juſt, except it be for poſitive entities? How many men have been impriſoned for not paying ſummes of money which they did owe? Yea I beleeve Mr. P. could well enough bear my being puniſhed for not paying him his Arrears which he (vainly enough) fancyeth to bee due to him, and yet non-payment cannot be accounted a poſitive entity; nor doth Mr. P. know how to place it in any predicament of Beeings. Siu is a puniſhment, but puniſhment is a poſitive entity. erg. There is a puniſhment of loſſe, which ſcarce ever any man ſaid was poſitive: There is a puniſhment of ſenſe, and this we ſay is no other way an evil or a puniſhment unto p. 99us than as it doth deprive us of ſome perfection of which we are capable. The puniſhment of ſenſe may be ſaid to be poſitive as to its foundation, not in its formality; that is, it is not poſitive, if wee conſider that in which the very evill of that puniſhment formally conſiſts. As to the reſt of his Arguments, they are partly ſuch as I have met with before, and partly ſuch as others upon whoſe expreſſions they are grounded, are more concerned in than my ſelfe. When Mr. P. will undertake to vindicate every expreſſion that hath been uſed in the managing of theſe controverſies by men of his opinion, then may I perhaps ſenſe ſome kind of obligation, to try whether I can juſtifie every thing that hath fell from Mr. W. and Mr. B. in the mean time they are of age, let them ſpeak for themſelves, if they count it needfull: if they count it not needfull, why ſhould I ſpend labour about that, …n the doing of which I cannot take any great pleaſure, and for the doing of which …hey will con me no great thanks. This I …annot but obſerve, that though none durſt undertake Dr. Twiſſe in the Arminian Con…roverſies, whileſt he was alive, yet ſince his death every puny will be nibling at p. 100him upon all occaſions, which puts me in minde of that paltry fellow in Pauſanias, who being never able to get the maſtery in his life time of one Theagenes a famous Wreſtler, came many a night after hee was dead and ſcourged his Statue, which was erected in the honour of him. Pauſ. in Attic.

If Mr. T. P. or Mr. I. G. doe verily believe Dr. Twiſſe to be an enemy of that Divine grace, which he pretends to have maintained, let them follow him foreign, as he did thoſe with whom hee tooke occaſion to deale; and when they ſhall have ſo done, Mr. Jeanes, a perſon of a very ſcholaſtical head, will not long let them be without an anſwer. And ſo I leave my Combatant, reſolving, if it may be, never more to come ſo near him, till I am told by others, that his breath ſmels ſweeter.

Upon the review of my book J cannot but recal what I have often read from Gilbertus Cognatus, of a man with an ulcer in his face, who paſſing over a Bridge where the paſſengers were to pay a certaine piece of mony for every malady of body found upon them, was required to pay the accuſtomed tribute for the ulcer in his face; but hee refuſing to pay it, the Officer pulls off his p. 101hat, intending to keep it for a pawn; his hat being taken off, another malady appears in his bald head. Now Sir (ſaith the Officer) I muſt have a double tribute of you; Nay (ſaith the Traveller) that you ſhall not, and begins to ſtrugle with the Officer; who being too ſtrong for him, gave him a foyl, by means whereof there was a rupture perceived under his coat: Now (ſaith the Officer to him againe) I muſt have a treble tribute of you. The more Mr. P. doth ſtruggle, the more doth he diſcover his infirmities; yet I beleeve he will not be quiet; for they that have a bad cauſe will alway have the laſt word, if death doe not ſtop their mouthes. But as to my ſelf, I think we had both been held wiſer men if we had held our peace, eſpecially ſeeing the heat of theſe Epidemical controverſies hath produced more Writers then (to uſe Plautus his ſimilitude) an hot ſummer brings forth buzzing flies; and therefore, though Mr. P. through his provoking language, hath made a coward to fight for once, yet will he ſcarce draw me into the field again; for neither can I undergoe the judicious tryal of the Learned, nor am I willing to hazard the paſſionate p. 102cenſures of the ignorant; nor have I obſerved, that many have been healed by going into the troubled waters, though moved by the beſt Angels of the Church. Truth is ſo lovely, and beautifull, that they who embrace Falſhood, will needs have it to be Truth; and becauſe they are unwilling to be deceived, they will not be convinced that they have been deceived. If Mr. P. doe reply ſeriouſly and judiciouſly, ſo as that I be convinced, it will be ſufficient, that in a private Letter I thank him for undeceiving me, and authorize him to publiſh to the world, that I am his Proſelyte. But if his Reply ſhall be ſeaſoned with the ſalt of Momus, not of Mercury; or if it be ſtuffed and coloured onelyonly with an ignorantia elenchi, defending that which is not impugned; or if he ſhall like the flyes, ſeek for, and ſtick onelyonly upon a ſore place, fall on the ſick and weak parts of my diſcourſe, and never attempt to charge through the main body, I ſhall vindicate my ſelf only with contempt and ſilence. When a Nobleman of this Nation had a controverſie in Law with a Brewer, who had a Garden and dwelling houſe bordering upon his: The p. 103Brewer gave it in charge to his ſervant to put in ſo many hogſheads of water more into all his Brewings, than he was wont to doe, telling him that ſuch a ſupply would bear the charge of his ſuit with his adverſary; which being overheard by the Nobleman, he ſent preſently to the Brewer, reſolving he would no longer goe to Law with him, who upon ſuch eaſe and cheap termes could manage his part of the ſuit. I neither make my ſelf the Nobleman, nor Mr. P. the Brewer, but yet ſeeing he ſuffers his fancy to flye abroad ſo faſt, ſeeing he hath a fluid ink-pot, as ready at hand as the Thames to the Brewer; ſeeing he can print more Books in two years, than a wiſer man would undertake to print in all his life; nay, ſeeing rather than not bee a good cuſtomer to Mercurius Politicus, he will clap a new Title to his old Works. I may well be excuſed if I have no mind to meddle further with him. Of all diſtempers I hope I ſhall keep my ſelf free from the itch of diſputing and writing many books: And I doubt not but wiſe men will count it more commendable to ſtand out, than to play at ſmall games.

p. 104The God of Truth and Love, teach us to follow the truth in love, that we may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Chriſt.

FINIS.

End of the text · Henry Hickman, Justification of the Fathers and Schoolmen (1659)