it.  All logicians know there is no such universal maxim as he buildeth upon.  The true maxim is but this:  Finis qui primus est in intentione, est ultimus in executione.  In the order of final causes, and the means used for that end, the rule holdeth perpetually:  but in other things it holdeth not at all, or but by chance; or not as a rule, and necessarily.  Secondly, that, foreseeing such consequences would naturally and necessarily follow from his opinion, as would offend the ear of a sober Christian at the very first sound, he would yet rather choose not only to admit the said harsh consequences, but professedly endeavour also to maintain them, and plead hard for them in large digressions, than to recede in the least from that opinion which he had undertaken to defend.  Thirdly, that seeing (out of the sharpness of his wit) a necessity of forsaking the ordinary sublapsarian way, and the supralapsarian too, as it had diversely been declared by all that had gone before him, (for the shunning of those rocks, which either of those ways must unavoidably cast him upon,) he was forced to seek out an untrodden path, and to frame out of his own brain a new way, (like a spider’s web wrought out of her own bowels,) hoping by that device to salve all absurdities, that could be objected; to wit, by making the glory of God (as it is indeed the chiefest, so) the only end of all other his decrees, and then making all those other decrees to be but one entire co-ordinate medium conducing to that one end, and so the whole subordinate to it, but not any one part thereof subordinate to any other of the same.  Dr. Twiss should have done well to have been more sparing in imputing the studium partlum to others, wherewith his own eyes, though of eminent perspicacity, were so strangely blindfolded, that he could not discern how this his new device, and his old dearly beloved principle, (like the Cadmean Sparti,) do mutually destroy the one the other.

This relation of my past thoughts having spun out to a far greater length than I intended, I shall give a shorter account of what they now are concerning these points.

[Sidenote:  Hammond and Sanderson]

For which account I refer you to the following parts of Dr. Hammond’s book aforesaid, where you may find them already printed:  and for another account at large of Bishop Sanderson’s last judgment concerning God’s concurrence or non-concurrence with the actions of men, and the positive entity of sins of commission, I refer you to his letters already printed by his consent, in my large Appendix to my Impartial Enquiry into the Nature of Sin, sec. 68, p. 193, as far as p. 200.

“Sir, I have rather made it my choice to transcribe all above out of the letters of Dr. Sanderson, which lie before me, than venture the loss of my originals by post or carrier, which, though not often, yet sometimes fail.  Make use of as much or as little as you please, of what I send you from himself (because from his own letters to me) in the penning of his life, as your own prudence shall direct you:  using my name for your warranty in the account given of him, as much or as little as you please too.  You have a performance of my promise, and an obedience to your desires from