not be Creatures but the Devil is a Creature therefore certainly God made him Secondly If God made not the Devil then the Devil is an Uncreated Independent Being for a Being he is existing from himself and so there is not one but two Uncreated Independent Beings the one of them Essentially Good the other Essentially Evil being the very same thing with Sin as the Quakers would which is the demented Ghost of old Manicheus before the time arisen from the dead but that is most absurd Blasphemy Thirdly If Original Sin be the Devil then the Original Sin of all Mankind was existent before any Man had Sinned and would have been to this day though never Man had Sinned seeing Mankinds continuance in Obedience would not have destroyed the Devils Being but these things are ridiculous and yet that which is aimed in this Query hath been often said by Quakers in my face and hearing Lastly If Original Sin be the Devil then there can be no Original Sin inherent in any Man but we must be all born as Innocent and Spotless as ever Adam was Created for the Devil being a compleat Substantial Being can never inhere as an accident into any other Subject But it 's most false that we have no Original Sin but are born Innocent and Clean which by these few Scriptures I prove Rom. 5.12 Death hath passed upon all Men because all have Sinned but all have not sinned actually viz. Infants have not Therefore it must be meant of Original Sin seeing of one of the two it must be meant or else the Apostle ignorantly mistakes the reason why Death passes upon all Men viz. because of Sin but that cannot be said John 3.6 That which is born of the Flesh is Flesh Job 4.14 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean no not one viz. naturally and in an ordinary course Again I have proved that God Ordains Infants to be Baptized which is given us for the Remission of our Sins as is shewed Infants then must have Sin to be Remitted otherwise there needed no Remission of Sin but they have no actual Sin Therefore Original Sin Again Except a Man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God John 3.5 But Infants as well as others partake of the Kingdom of God as is before proved Therefore there are Infants born again and so they must surely be sinful naturally or else they could not be born again or Regenerated Again David for the deeper sence of his own Vileness ascends to the fountain and source of all the Evil and Uncleanness that he was liable unto confessing that in iniquity he was formed and in sin his Mother conceived him Psal 51.5 where what I pray would it have done to Davids deeper sence and further acknowledgment of his Vileness which undeniably is his scope that his Mother being in sin as Pelagianizers have learned to answer did conceive him spotless and without sin Nay surely the wanting of Original Sin would have made him to be the less vile not the more and beside it was his own Sin not his Mothers which he came to confess and again lastly We are by Nature Children of Wrath Ephes 2.3 therefore by nature we must be sinful which must be Original Sin seeing we have no other Sin by nature and that we are born in The Consequence is Infallible seeing we cannot be Children of wrath in that very respect and under that very consideration in which respect and under which consideration we are sinless and pure for then as we are sinless and pure we should be heirs of wrath which is an absurd Blasphemy and cannot stand with the justice of God to curse a Man when he is Innocent tell me not the instance of Christ Jesus who though he was altogether spotless in himself inherently yet he stood in our room as our Cautioner and all our sins were laid upon him Isa 53.6 Pelagianizers answer us that the Posterity of Adam Sins only by Imitation of their Predecessors But Contrariwise then we are only by Imitation and not by Nature Children of wrath contrary to the Apostles Doctrine For we cannot by nature be Children of wrath and yet by nature be pure and sinless Secondly I have shewed that Infants have sin in them but not by imitation surely seeing they are not capable to imitate therein Therefore they must be sinful by nature not by imitation Thirdly if we were made sinners only by Imitation then some men might escape from that for we are not such perfect Apes as to imitate necessarily what we see in others Lastly if Adams sin be propagat to us only by Imitation then we shall be made righteous in Christ only by imitation of his righteousness also But the consequent is utterly false Therefore so is the antecedent from which it followes The connexion of the Major which only needs proving I prove from Rom. 5 19. Where the Apostle declares that as by one mans disobedience many were made Sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous Which comparison requires some special proportion betwixt these members so exactly compared whereof there is scarce any shadow betwixt the imitation and true and real Communication Pelagianizers again answer that though we be by nature corrupt yet that corruption is not our sin but our affliction and punishment only Contrariwise as the habit principle and seed of grace is grace and so also all habits are still of the same nature with their acts so also the seed and principle of sin must be sin Rom. 7.23 is called the Law of sin Warring against the Law of the mind and so it s an enemy to grace and the Image of God Rom 8.7 it s called in the very abstract to shew its wicked nature Enmity against God and that it is not neither can be Subject to this Law Galat. 5.17 Paul sayes it lusteth against the Spirit and is contrary thereunto Shall that then which is the source principle and spring of all our actual sins is enmity against God his whole Image and his Laws and a contrary enemy to the Spirit shall that I say not be sinful nay then surely there is no sin in the World nor is it possible to render a definition of sin if that be not sin George Keith in his Quakerism no Popery page 75 76 answers that our natural concupiscence doth not infer any real guiltiness upon us nor makes us guilty of death without our actual consent thereunto and which is more strange that it doth not indwell in any except where it is kindly received and obeyed and that therefore which is his direct scope our natural corruption is none of our sin untill we consent actually unto it But contrariwise the Scripture which I beleive much better shews that by the sin of Adam all were made sinners and guilty of death Rom. 5.16 17 18 19. and that by nature we are Children of wrath Eph. 2.3 and so George Keith
supposed are all satisfied for misbelief and all I cannot stand no longer upon this But who so pleases may see this universal Conditional Redemption very solidly and yet very breifly Confuted in worthy Mr. Durhams Exposition of the Book of the Rev. from pag. 299 the pag. 326. Objections Answered But now we must hear what our Adversaries have to say for themselves Therefore First they instance that Scripture 1 Joh. 2 2. where it s said that Christ was a Propitiation for the sins of the whole World that is as they will for the sins of all Men whatsoever Ans By the whole World John does not mean all Men whatsoever without exception but his meaning is that Christs death was not only a Propitiation for the sins of the Jewes and Men of their Nation but also of the Nations of the Gentiles throughout the whole World and for that cause he calls it the whole World because the benefit of Christs death was not any more restricted and limited to the Nation of the Jewes with their few Proselyts as it was before but was extended to any Nation throughout the World as well as to them And that this must be the meaning of this Text the Scripture arguments which are already produced against universal Redemption from which the Adversaries can make no evasion as is shewed by the confetation of their Chiefest devices and answers doe Evidently prove seeing this Text of the Scripture does not contradict these but is explained by them Beside the whole world and all Men doe not always in the Scriptures signifie all Men whatsoever without exception as may be easily seen Isai 40 5 Joel 2 28 Joh. 12 32. Rev. 13 3. Secondly they object from 1 Cor. 15 22. where its said For as in Adam all die even so in Christ shall all be made alive Say they Christ died for all men whatsoever Ans If they will have this Scripture to be meant of all men whatsoever without exception it will prove that all men whatsoever shall be made eventually to live in Christ for the sence of this Text is plainly eventual They shall be made alive in Christ says it But the Adversaries themselves know that all men whatsoever are not made eventually alive in Christ and so they cannot urge this Text as meant of all men whatsoever but only of these who eventually are made partakers of Life The meaning thereof is That all that Dye Dye in Adam and he by his fall is the Author of their Death So all that again get Life they get it in Christ and he is the Author thereof unto them seeing out of him there is no Life Act. 4.12 Thirdly They object That Christ is the Saviour of all Men especially of them that believe 1 Tim. 4 1◠Therefore Christ Died for all men whatsoever The Text cited for answer is meant only of Gods general providence which he hath over all men in this Life in preserving them and providing for them which is chiefly extended towards Believers otherwise in the sence of the Adversaries who mean it by the objection of Eternal Salvation it will prove that all men whatsoever are Eternally saved especially Believers which I am sure the Adversaries will acknowledge to be false and absurd too Fourthly They object That if Adam hath lost more than Christ hath restored then Adam was stronger than Christ which is most absurd Ans This Argument endeavours to prove that the number of them that are eventually saved is greater than of the eventually damned contrary to the Scriptures Matth. 7.13 14. and 20.16 for as long as the number of the eventually lost is more than that of the saved Adam hath still lost more than are by Christ restored Secondly Christs Death was indeed sufficient to have expiated the sins of all men and to have restored all that Adam lost but it was not appointed to expiate all mens sins whatsoever but only of the Elect and so the Argument reaches not that which it aims at Lastly It is an act of much greater power to quicken one dead man than to kill many Millions of living men for Adam was able to destroy many Millions but not to restore one man and so still the Consequence comes short Fifthly God will have all men to be saved 1 Tim. 2.4 Therefore Christ died for all men whatsoever Ans The Apostle by all men means not of all men whatsoever but of all Sorts Ranks and Degrees of men as the word all is frequently in the Scripture understood as I partly before shewed and as it is expresly explained Revel 13.16 and so the word all is meant of Genera singulorum that is all kinds of Men Not of Singula generum that is every Individual man An answer of the same kind may be given to the Objection which they draw from Heb. 2.9 where we have it turned Christ tasted Death for every Man But the truth is there is no more in the Original in this Text but that Christ tasted Death for all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the word Men is not in the Original and so it may be as well supplied in our Language with the word Elect or Believers as with the word Men or albeit it be supplied with the word Men yet it must be understood as is said of men of every Sort Station Condition Calling Quality and Degree not of every Individual Man seeing by our foregoing Arguments that would be utterly false Sixthly We are forbidden to destroy him for whom Christ Died Rom. 14.15 and again there are some 2 Pet. 2.1 that deny the Lord that bought them Therefore Christ Died for some who for all that may be destroyed and damned Ans The Apostle in the first cited Text means plainly of laying a scandal before a weak Brother of whom he there speaks whereby we destroy him as much as in us and gives him an occasion and temptation to destroy himself if that could be but it is not meant that any for whom Christ Died do or can eventually perish yea in that same Chapter Ver. 4. the Apostle expresly says the contrary where he confidently affirms That he shall be holden up The second place cited does not mean of these mens being bought and redeemed from Hell but of their being bought redeemed or delivered from the ignorance of the World in a Moral or Historical sence through some common Illuminations and from the external pollutions of the World through some common Operations from all which they did once seem to the Church to be also bought and redeemed from Hell and were so in her Judgment of Charity according to which respects the Apostle there speaks most part whereof may be seen in that same Chapter Ver. 18.20.21 where the Apostle says That these men had escaped the Error of the World and the Pollutions thereof and had got some knowledge of the way of Righteousness viz. an External Moral and Historical knowledge and the rest of it is declared by John 1
outward things Doth he not bring them off things that are seen to things that are not seen And whether or not ye ever intend ye your selves called Ministers or your hearers shall come any nearer to Christs Death and Die and be Buried with him but only to take Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christs Death lest ye and they should come to forget Christs Death Answer us plainly these things Yea or Nay Twelfth QUERY What is Original sin Whether it be not the Devil yea or nay For doth not the Original signifie the beginning And what did Christ come to Destroy Was it not the Devil and his works Thirteenth QUERY Whether or not did Christ die for all the ungodly in the world and Sinners that they should live and die in their ungodliness and sins or live unto him and whether or not did Christ shed his blood for all men and was a Propitiation for the sins of all men and whether or not these that do not hold this are these that make Sects and are out of the same Spirit and Doctrine of the Apostles Fourteenth QUERY What makes a Believer Whether or not is it by believing in the Light according to Christs Doctrine who says He is the Light of the World and doth enlighten every one that comes into the world that all men through him might Believe and who follows him shall not walk in darkness for he is the Light and says That he that believes is saved Then is not the Light saving which he believes and he that does not believe in the Light is damned already Then is not the Light or his disobedience to it his Condemnation Yea or Nay Fifteenth QUERY Can any man be saved by his own works Self-righteousness Will-worship and are not all men in the Self-righteousness that are not in the Righteousness of Christ Jesus and are not all of their own works that be out of the Light and the Faith that is the Gift of God and are not all in their Will-worships that are not in the worship that Jesus Christ the heavenly man set up above Sixteen hundred years since that is in the Spirit and the Truth So must not every man come to the Truth and to the Spirit in their own hearts if they come to the worship Jesus Christ set up and are not your Catechisms Confessions of Faith and Directories your own works and your own worship which ye have set down for people to fall down and do worship to and be saved by and have ye not set up this since the Apostles days and since Christ set up his worship Sixteenth QUERY Whether or not your Directory and Catechism and Confession of Faith be Gospel yea or nay And if so whether it be not another Gospel then that which the Apostles Preached who said the Gospel was the power of God Rom. 1.16 Seventeenth QUERY Whether or not the Scriptures do not say that he that believes hath ceased from his own works as God did from his and entred into his rest and whether or not your Directory and Church-maid Faith and Catechisms and Confessions be not your own works and ye follow them and worship them and not cease from them And whether or not in so doing ye keep people and your selves in your own works and from the Rest or we desire you shew us what difference their is betwixt Spiritual Babylon and Sodom and Egypts works of their hands and Temporal Babylon and Sodom and Egypts works of their hands and their worship Of each distinguish I desire you Distinguish the mystery from a plain outward Idol These Queries were Subscribed I. S. and I could fill up his Name at length but I forbear for some reasons that I think more pertinent to Conceal than Divulge unto the world This is the true Transcript of their Queries which were directed unto me as is said which I can Attest by many others that saw and read them before they came to my hand and some after that knows they owned them and they are also the true Pourtraiture of their known Principles and beside I have in this Controversie carried along two of their most famous Books yet extant the Positions whereof which I always Cite do exactly agree with the Scope and Import of these Queries viz. their Confession of Faith Subscribed by Eight or Nine of their most famous Ring-leaders in England by them called The Principles of Truth or a Declaration of their Faith and their Quakerism no Popery written by Mr. George Keith and Subscribed both by him and Mr. Robert Barclay two of their chiefest Luminaries and greatest Apostles forsooth in Scotland This Book Mr. Keith writes against Reverend Mr. Menzies Professor of Theology at Aberdeen a man of so great Veneration and Learning that it may be justly thought a daring boldness for him to have meddled against him So that no man knowing the Quakers Principles or searching these grounds will in the least doubt the faithfulness of my Transcription beside what Credit may be allowed unto my own Ingenuity who never loved the straining of any mans Principle too sore in Consequences unclear and remote much less the fixing of Principles falsly upon such as disclaimed them But of this I need say no more for the Quakers Principles are known and these Queries they will own An Alphaâ—â—â—ical TABLE A GRacious Acts necessarily require gracious Principles proved pag. 157. Adam a common Representative head of Mankind pag. 134. The Analogy of Faith what it is pag. 78. Apocryphal Books not Canonical or of immediate Inspiration pag. 209. Apostacy of the Saints confuted pag. 162. Christian assurance needs not immediate Dictates p. 32. Authority of the Scripture-rule over all other Rules proved ibid. The Pope before the Reformation had Church-Authority and how pag. 199. B THe Baptism of John and the Apostles the same in substance p. 69. Baptism with Water of Divine Institution under the Gospel p. 68. Baptism with Water only properly called Baptism p. 78. Baptism with Water meant in the Text of Matthew Matthew 28.19 proved p. 76. Baptism with Water necessary to Salvation and how p. 74. Baptism with Water not an Old-Testament Ceremony p. 68. Baptism succeeded in the room of Circumcision p. 86. Baptism of Believers Infants a Divine Institution under the Gospel ibid. Baptism the Initiating Seal proved ibid. Probable Evidences enough for admission to Baptism p. 88. The great Beast mentioned in the Revel not our will pag. 195. Bilocation pregnant with Contradictions p. 191. Blasphemies reported in Scripture not Scripture-sentence p. 20. C EXtraordinary calls attended with extraordinary Furniture pag. 7. An inward call not necessary to the validity of Ministerial Acts. pag. 202. A Catechism requisite in a Church and why pag. 123. Our Westminster Catechism aimed at materially Scripture-sentence pag. 129. How the Command is said to be nigh unto us Deut. 30.14 p. 37. Christs coming again mentioned 1 Cor. 11.26 not meaned of his coming at the Pentecost but at the
because it is worthy of a Thousand Deaths for its proud Usurpation we shall reach it some few Blows more in particulari Specie First therefore the principal Rule of Faith and Manners must be Essentially right and Infallible or else we can trust nothing to it with any assurance and all were gone it would mislead and deceive us But the Dictate within every man is not Essentially Right Ergo it is not the principal Rule I prove the Minor because many men have not the Spirit as all unrenewed men Rom. 8.9 1 Joh. 4.13 Jud. 19. and so their Dictate within not proceeding from the Spirit cannot be Essentially Right or the principal Rule of Faith and Manners and this destroys the Quakers Principle that the Dictate within every man is the principal Rule Nor doth the Spirit Teach even Believers by an inward immediate objective Dictate seeing God and Nature do nothing in vain and Beings ought not to be multiplied without some necessity which here there is none that can be shewed for seeing the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures so that our understandings being subjectively Enlightened and our Eyes in any measure opened we may plainly see therein the exactness and purity of the Law the Riches of the Promises and in fine our whole Rule by the good help of other means and Ordinances appointed to further our Instruction and Knowledge in these by opening up and explaining their Doctrine and Sence and so clearing the Object quoad nos or in order to our understanding And what needs then I pray another objective Rule Neither is there any reason for the continuance of the immediate Inspiration of the Doctrine of Salvation in the Church more than all the other extraordinary Gifts which are gone long since the Intire Rule of Faith and Manners being now compleated and publickly Recorded which is as Infallible as any immediate Dictate seeing it is the Word of God that cannot Lie and it is more sure for us than any in regard of the Devils Cunning who can and often does bear in a strong Delusion with so much of seeming Evidence as makes it be received for a Divine Dictate And what needs more George Keith who pleads that the Dictate within is the principal Rule and Touchstone of all Doctrines in his Quakerism no Popery pag. 59. albeit most inconsistently as I think he grants the same Authority to the Scriptures pag. 28 thereof does yield that for all their Infallible Dictate yet its possible for them and that is much indeed both to Speak and Write and so to think too in a mixture Quakerism no Popery pag. 33 that is to say Fallibly for if he means of a Mid-way betwixt Fallibly and Infallibly which I am not yet acquainted with nor ever read it he speaks like a man in a mixture Infallible Contradiction For all the World cannot find me a midst betwixt Fallible and Infallible George Keith then it seems is not Infallibly or immediately Inspired for he can both Speak and Write in a mixture which a man immediatly Inspired cannot be Guilty of Habernus confitentem reum Secondly that cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners which hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it or else it is but an Usurper But the Dictate within every I or any man hath no Divine Institution to Warrant it to be the principal Rule of these or else produce it if they can for all they have hitherto produced shall be Confuted and Answered too when I come to to their Objections Therefore the Dictate within every man or any man is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners Thirdly a Rule to be examined by another Rule cannot be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners I am sure But the Dictate within all men is such Therefore it is not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners The Minor I prove from Isai 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony says the Text if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no Light in them where all Dictates or Doctrines of Faith and Manners are very expresly commanded to be Tryed and examined by the Scripture and if they agree not with that not to receive them seeing so there is no Light in them they are but Dictates of Darkness And again George Keith Confesses that all Doctrines and Principles of Christian Religion are to be applyed to the Scriptures as a Test and Touchstone in all external Debates and Disputations whatsoever and if they agree not therewith to be denied and disowned for ever Quakerism no Popery pag 28. and so the Scriptures are a Superiour Rule to the Dictate within if it be a Doctrine of the Christian Religion seeing it must be examined by these as a Test and Touchstone and rejected if it agree not therewith I can say no more than is dropt twixt sleeping and waking perhaps from the Pen of an Adversary Fourthly the Scriptures we have seen before are the principal Rule of Faith and Manners positively Ergo the Dictate within cannot be such a Rule The Consequence is plain seeing two Rules each of them positively principal are repugnant for so each of them should be above and below the other Fifthly if the Dictate within be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners then we must either follow its Directions absolutely and without Questioning or Trying them or else conditionally only that they be right if conditionally only then we must examine them by some other Rule to know if they be right or not and so they are not the principal Rule against the supposition nor Infallible seeing an Infallible Rule needs no Superior Rule to be examined by being it self Essentially right If then we must follow the directions of the Dictate within absolutely and without any Tryal then he whose Dictate within prompts him to think that Christ has not two distinct Natures or that he has two distinct Persons aswel as Natures or that he is not Co-eternal Co-equal and Co-substantial with the Father or First person or that his Sufferings and Death was not a Satisfaction for our Sins or that God is a Corporeal Being subject to all humane Passions or that in the Eucharist the Bread is substantially Changed into the Body of Christ or that the Pope is Infallible and so a great Quaker or else each of them a small Pope or that we are not Justified by the Righteousness of the Redeemer I say all of these and other such deluded Hereticks must absolutely follow these Principles as their principal Rule And if the Dictate within bid a man Worship the Sun and Moon and Idols of Gold and Silver worship the Devil and cut his own Throat too he is bound to obey his Rule There is nothing can be answered to these things but this viz. That these and such like evil Directions cannot proceed from the Spirit of God but allanerly from a mans own self and the Devil But
straight contradicts the Apostle Secondly Adam is not to be considered as a single Person in the matter in hand but as the Scriptures last cited proves as a Common undertaker for and representative head of all mankind and so his deed in Law was the deed of all men albeit they did not personally consent even as the Publick transactions and deeds of the representatives of a Kingdome State or City are in Law the fact and deed of all Thirdly George Keith who as I am informed did dispute once for a Professors place should have remembred whatever be said of primo primi that there are motus secundo primi in us preceeding our actual consent which when towards evil are sinful as when a temptation is tampered with or somewhat listened unto though in end it be rejected and the consent not given Fourthly gracious Principles and gracious Inclinations are truly grace or else a man is not gracious though he be graciously principled and inclined therefore sinful principles and inclinations that is principles and inclinations bending to sin and evil must be sin by the rule of Contraries yea the worst of sin being the bitter Fountain and Source of all the rest Fifthly George Keith grants in the pages of his Book cited that this natural Concupiscence in men is an evil thing and inclines to evill and sin and so by a Metonymie he allowes it to be called Sin Therefore it must be properly and formally sinful and not by a Motonymie only seeing if it were not properly sinful it would not incline so for grace cannot incline to sin nor can that which is neither good nor evil or sinful incline more to evil than to good That which he says of our natural Concupiscence it s not indwelling without our actual consent and kindly reception I cannot but think he was in a strange mixture when he dropt it from his ill-inspired pen. For I am sure St. Paul says in a Text often handled and by George Keith abused too as shall after appear that there was sin and corruption dwelling in him when he hated it disallowed it and gave no consent thereunto nor kindly reception Rom. 7 Chap. from Ver 15 to 23. and certainly our natural Concupiscence which George Keith denys not to be in us but there confesses that it is and it would be repugnant to be otherwise as is clear though he deny it to indwell in us or to be our sin till we actually consent to it being an accident must indwell into and have union with some subject of dependence seeing it cannot exist without some vehicle nor move one nails-breadth by it self In whom then dwels it when it is not consented unto If he says in the Devil and he can say no other thing then when he does not consent unto it he has the Devil and it both to lodge seeing if it be Subjected and dwels in the Devil it cannot be in him without its Subject with it And in my opinion he had better lodge it alone as it and the devil too for two such Devils are worse together then any of them it self These are the dictats of a witty Inspirer However George here objecteth from Ezekiel 18 Chap Ver 4. where its said the Soul that sinneth it shall die To prove that without an actual consent unto our natural Concupiscence we are not held guilty of death Ans The whole Chapter is concerning the sins of nearest Parents as is clear by reading it and so makes nothing against original sin derived from our first Parent Adam Secondly the manifest scope of the Chapter is to give assurance to every man of mercy upon his repentance and turning to God whatever his Parents or himself have been before But will that infer that such a man who findes mercy upon his Repentance never had original sin O brave consequence again there is not the same reason of Adam and of our other nearer Parents for he was our common representative not they and therefore we may be involved into his sin though not into theirs before we were capable actually to consent for we do not stand and fall in any of them but in him we did as the Scriptures cited plainly proves But having dispatched George Keith albeit I will not stand upon all the objections here which are commonly brought seeing this Controversie hath been much handled betwixt our Writers and the Papists where it may be seen they have one great Objection which I must answer and that is That if our Nature be Originally sinful that sin must either be propagated by the Soul or by the Body or by both Not by the Soul for seeing God alone creats that so God should be the Author of Sin which cannot be Not by the Body for so the Soul should be free of it seeing the Body being a dull thing cannot propagate it into the Soul Not by both for the first reason given especially Ans Whatever way it be propagated I have shewed from the Scripture that it is propagated and therein we ought to acquiesce though we could no ways comprehend the manner how it is propagated Secondly I answer that there is not a sufficient Enumeration of the Parts for our Natural Corruption is neither Originally propagated into the Body by the Soul nor into the Soul by the Body but by our Impure Natural Generation into both which is evident seeing abstracting from and laying aside our Natural Generation and our dependence thereby upon Adam neither our Souls nor our Bodies had been naturally infected with that Plague It descends therefore most clearly by our Natural Generation not unto the Soul alone or the Body alone but unto the whole Compound consisting of both united which is the direct Effect of Generation seeing it is not Souls or Bodies separated but Men consisting of both united that Men begets in their generative actions In the following part of the Query they begin to use Grammar against their Profession Original say they signifies the beginning and therefore Original Sin must be the Devil forsooth A brave Consequence indeed which must stand upon the verity of this proposition viz. the beginning is the Devil which if they hold for truth then they must say that God Created Heaven and Earth in the Devil Gen. 1.1 and let them see to these Texts Colos 1.18 Revel 1.8 where the beginning is attributed to Christ but I never heard it ascribed Intransitively as they call it and in the Nominative Case unto the Devil till now Origo for I have learnt my Latin signifies a Root Birth Fountain as well as a beginning why then may it not signifie when the term Sin is joyned with it the Sin which we have from our Root of Mankind Adam or the Sin we are born in or which is the Fountain and source of the rest But let it only signifie a beginning why may not Original Sin signifie the Sin of our beginning to come into the World or that Sin in us
Affirmer only be bound to prove his Affirmation yet until they do that I shall confirm our Negation Therefore first If Christ Died for and Redeemed Reprobates upon condition of their Believing then God intended that seeing Christ did not Dye for or Redeem any man either against or beside Gods intention But God never intended that Christ should Dye for or Redeem any Reprobate upon condition of Believing seeing so he should have intended the Redemption of Reprobates and that upon a condition which he infallibly foresaw would never come to pass which sort of Intention cannot even befall any may of sound mind much less can it befall the Infinitly-Wise God Secondly According to this Doctrine whereby Christ is said by his Death to have Redeemed all men whatsoever Conditionally Christ shall by his Death have purchased Redemption upon condition of their Believing for these who long before his Death were already actually damned in Hell for whom there was no place left for Redemption which is extreamly absurd that a price should be exacted from the Redeemer for these who themselves were then Suffering and Eternally without hope to suffer the Vengeance of Eternal Fire for their Sins This cannot stand with Justice Thirdly If Christ hath Redeemed Reprobates Conditionally then the performance of the Condition viz. Believing is either in their own power or else it is a gift of God whether purchased by Christs Death or by God bestowed without being thereby purchased all is one to our present Argument It is not in their own power Joh. 6.44 and 15.5 1 Cor. 2.14 Eph. 2.8 Philip 1.29 Heb. 12.2 If then the Condition be a gift of God then God either bestows it upon Reprobates or not if he doth then he either bestows it upon them Absolutely or else Conditionally if Absolutely then Reprobates shall thereby be made believers and so be saved seeing as is supposed God doth Absolutely bestow saving Faith upon them if Conditionally then seeing Faith is the condition by the Adversaries own principles the sence hereof will be that God bestows Faith in Christ upon Reprobates upon condition that they first have Faith in him which is both nonsense and it also implies a contradiction that they should believe when they have no Faith as is supposed If then God doth not bestow Faith upon Reprobates then they cannot be said to be redeemed seing so their Redemption as is clear from what is now said depends upon a Condition which is neither in their own power nor yet doth God bestow it upon them and so it is utterly impossible for them ever to perform And will any Man say that a Man is Redeemed when yet his Redemption is not made so much as possible to him his Redemption is upon the suppositions and grounds now laid down as impossible for him as when a Man says if ye will bring down the Stars I will give you my Daughter the Marriage with his Daughter is impossible How then comes it to be a thing actual when yet it is impossible I confess that object would be worth the seeing that were at once actual and yet impossible Fourthly if Christ by his death Redeemed all men whatsover only upon Condition of believing and otherwise Redeemed them not then he by his death Redeemed only believers and none else as is manifest But all men whatsoever are not believers therefore Christ did not by his death redeem all men whatsoever from the Adversaries own principles and yet they contend that Christ by his death Redeemed all men whatsoever and so they directly contradict themselves and their universal Conditional Redemption is repugnant Lastly for I will stand no longer upon a negative especially if Christ died for all men whatsoever give it what name they will then he satisfied Justice for all mens sins whatsoever But the Consequent is most false and absurd therefore so is the antecedent from which it follows The falshood of the Consequent and its absurdity are obvious for if Christ satisfied Justice for all Mens sins whatsoever then all Reprobates are most unjustly Condemned Seing their sins for which they are Condemned are by Christ satisfied for and so their Condemnation is an Act of great injustice done both to Christ and them which cannot be charged upon God without extream Blasphemy I Prove the Connexion of the Major because the very immediate end and Intention of Christ dying for any Man was to satisfie Justice for his sins as appears from Isaia 53 8 9 10. Mat. 26 28. Rom. 4 25. and 5 9 10 2 Cor. 5 21. Galat. 3 13. Heb. 9.26 28 and 10 12. 1 Pet. 2 24. In all which places it is manifest that for whomsoever Christ died he died to satisfie Justice for their sins for it is expresly asserted in these Texts that He was smitton for their Transgressions made his Soul an offering for their sins Shed his Blood for the Remission of their sins reconciled them to God by his Blood was delivered to die for their Offences was made sin for them was made a curse for them to deliver them from the curse appeared to put away their sin by the Sacrifice of himself Offered himself a Sacrifice for their sins bare their sins in his Body on the Tree All which declares that for whomsoever Christ died he died to satisfie Justice for their sins If they Answer that Christ satisfied for all Mens sins whatsoever upon condition of their beleiving as they use and otherwise not Unto this I shall subsume that not all Men whatsoever beleive but only some Few Therefore from the Enemies own principles he did not satisfie for all Mens sins whatsoever but only for believers sins and none else and so their principles involves a Contradiction viz. he satisfied for all Mens sins whatsoever say they and yet from these same very principles he did not satisfie for all Mens sins whatsoever but only for believers sins Secondly seeing misbelief is a chief and Mother-sin Christ hath surely satisfied for it also amongst the rest for all for whose sins he did satisfie otherwise he could not at all have Redeemed them from the curse if he had left any of their sins unsatisfied for and so if Christ died and satisfied for any Man that is for all that Condemned then still that Man is Condemned for that which yet is satisfied for which is an Act of extream injustice What did not Christ satisfie for all their sins for whom he satisfied if not how came he to satisfie for a part and not the rest and how are they said to be Redeemed by a partial satisfaction which cannot Redeem any Man and who should satisfie for the rest of their sins If then which is certain Christ satisfied for all their sins for whom he did satisfie and so for their misbelief among the rest I would gladly know if Christ satisfied for all Men whatsoever for what Reprobates are Condemned for it cannot without the greatest injustice be for their sins which as is