2. I must crave leave once more to mind him of the rule he hath given us in his preface, namely, "That where a thing is improperly as- cribed to God, in some other place it is denied of him," as he instances in that of his being weary; so that whatever is denied of him in any one place is not properly ascribed to him in any other. Now, though God be said, in some of the places by him produced, to repent, yet it is in another expressly said that he doth not so, and that upon such
'"rocnitentia infert ignorantiam proetei'iti, presentis, et futuri, mutationem Toliin- tatis, et eriorcm in consiliis, quorum nihil in Deum cadere potest : dicitiir tamen ille me- taphorice poenitentia duci, quemadmodum nos, quando alicnjus rei pccnitet, abolemus id quod antea feceramus : quod fieri potest sine tali mutatione voluntatis, qua nunc homo aliquid facit, quod post mutato animo, destruit." — Manasseh Een. Israel, conciliat. in Gen. vi. q, 23. " Pcenitentia, cum mutabilitatem importet, non potest esse in Deo, dicitur tamen poeuitere, eo quod ad modum poenitentis se habct, quando destruit quod feccrat." — Lyra ad 1 Sam. xy. 35.
120 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.
a general ground and reason as is equally exclusive of all those other passions and affections, upon whose assignment unto God the whole strength of Mr B.'s plea against the prescience of Ood doth depend : 1 Sam. XV. 29, "Also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent." The immutability of his nature, and unlikeness to men in obnoxiousness to alterations, are as- serted as the reason of his not repenting ; which will equally extend its force and efficacy to the removal from him of all the other human affections mentioned. And this second general consideration of the foundation of Mr B.'s plea is sufficient for the removal of the whole.
3. I desire to know whether indeed it is only the free actions of men that are not yet done that Mr B. denies to be known of God, or whether he excludes him not also from the knowledge of the pre- sent state, frame, and actings of the hearts of men, and how they stand affected towards him, being therein like other rulers among men, who may judge of the good and evil actions of men so far as they are manifest and evident, but how men in their hearts stand affected to them, their rule, government, and authority, they know not? To make this inquiry, I have not only the observation premised from the words of the close of Mr B.'s query being of a negative importance (" Yea, that there are such actions"), but also from some of the proofs by him produced of his former assertion being interpreted according to the literal significancy of the words, as exclusive of any figure, which he insisteth on. Of this sort is that of Gen. xxii. 1, 2, 10-12, where God is said to tempt Abraham,^ and upon the issue of that trial says to him (which words Mr B., by putting them in a different character, points to as comprehensive of what he intends to gather and conclude from them), "Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with- held thy son, thine only sou, from me." The conclusion which Mr B. guides unto from hence is, that God knew not that which he inquired after, and therefore tempted Abraham that he might so do, and upon the issue of that trial says, "Now I know." But what was it that God affirms that now he knew? Not any thing future, not any free ac- tion that was not as yet done, but something of the present condition and frame of his heart towards God, — namely, his fear of God ; not whether he would fear him, but whether he did fear him then. If this, then, be properly spoken of God, and really as to the nature of the thing itself, then is he ignorant no less of things present than of those that are for to come. He knows not who fears him nor who hates him, unless he have opportunity to try them in some such way as he did Abraham. And then what a God hath this man deline-
' " Ex liac actione propter quam ab omnibus Deum timens vocaberis, cognoscent omnes, quantus in te sit timor Dei, et quosque pertingat." — R. Mos. Ben. Maimon. More Nevoch. p. 3, cap. xiiv.
OF god's prescience or foreknowledge. 121
ated to us! How like the dunghill deities of the heathen, who speak after this rate!^ Doubtless the description that Elijah gave of Baal would better suit him than any of those divine perfections which the living, all-seeing God hath described himself by. But now, if Mr B. will confess that God knows all the things that are present, and that this inquiry after the present frame of the heart and spirit of a man is improperly ascribed to him, from the analogy of his pro- ceedings, in his dealing with him, to that which we insist upon when we would really find out what we do not know, then I would only ask of him why those other expressions which he mentions, looking to what is to come, being of the same nature and kind with this, do not admit of, yea call for, the same kind of exposition and interpretation.