therefore finding this to pinch him he brings it up again p. 126. where bringing me in saying Infants are under no Law J. B.'s proofless Assertion of Infants under a Law he answers But the Apostle saith the contrary He would have done Charitably to have told me Where that I might have observed it What he saith in this as well as the former page in answer to my Affirmation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may relate to Death and that it 's understood upon which occasion Man sinnedâ— urging Absurdities by the like Application of Christ's Righteousness is solved by a serious observation of the Comparison as stated by me betwixt Christ and Adam His Arguing from Childrens dying doth not Conclude until he prove Death simply considered necessarily to infer guilt in the Party dying Whether Childrens DEATH argues Guilt in them of which I have spoken before p. 126. n. 20. to my answer to Psal. 51.5 alledged by them wherein I shew that David saith not My Mother conceived me sinning and therefore it proves not his Assertion His Reply is after he has given a Scoff It quite crosseth David's design But why so because in that Psalm he expresseth his Sorrow and Humiliation for his Sins and what then might not David lament upon that occasion that he was not only a Sinner himself but also came of such as were so But when I urge this place further shewing their Interpretation would make Infants guilty of the Sin of their Immediate Parents since there is no mention here of Adam His Answer to this is a Repetition of his own Doctrine A rare Method of Debate very usual to him And then taking it for granted he asks me Whether this Originated Sin of which he supposed David spake for he never offers to prove it though it be the matter in Debate came from another Original than Adam What he affirmed here of my Insinuating Marriage-Duties to be Sin is but a false Conjecture but as to the Hurt and Loss that Man got by Adam which I ascribe to no other Original as being no Manichee I spake before But he should first prove before he Obtrude such things upon others and I desire yet to be Informed of him In what Scripture he reads of Original Sin and whether if the Scripture be the only Rule he cannot find words in it fit enough to express his Faith or must he shift for them else-where The Wages of Sin is Death proved Eternal ¶ 8. Pag. 127. n. 21. He urges Paul's saying The Wages of Sin is Death and to my saying This may be a Consequence of the Fall but that thence it cannot at all be Inferred that Iniquity is in all those that are subject to Death he saith It is in plain terms but my Modesty dare not speak it out to say the Apostle speaketh not Truth Answ. Is not this to take upon him to judge of another Man's heart which elseâ—where he accounts a great Presumption and why takes he no notice or gives he no Answer to the Absurdity I shew followed from thence since the whole Creation received a Decay by Adam's Fall and yet we say not Herbs and Trees are Sinners And while he would make-out this great Charge of my Contradicting the Apostle he forgets the half of his business which is To prove the Apostle meaned in that place Natural Death and not Eternal since the Apostle opposeth it there to Eternal Life and Eternal Death he will Confess is the Wages of Sin which the Apostle shews they shun by Jesus Christ's obtaining Eternal Life whereas Natural Death they do not avoid Likewise he should have proved that all the Scriptures mentioned by him p. 128. are meant of Natural Death which he will not find very easie As for his citing Death as mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. the Apostle's words ver 56. Confirm what I say That Death is only a punishment to the Wicked not to the Saints for the words are The Sting of Death is Sin so where Sin is taken away there Death has no Sting and that is the Saints Victory Now he cannot Apply this to Infants without supposing that they have Sin which were to beg the Question And whereas he asks Whether Death be NO Punishment for Sin I Answer that I said not so neither is that needful for me to affirm seeing it is sufficient if it be not always a Punishment of Sin which if it be not it cannot be Concluded that because Infants die therefore they must be guilty of Sin Since then the Absurdities he after urges follow from his Supposition That Death is No Punishment for Sin which I say not they do not Touch me He judgeth p. 128. n. 22. That I run wilder than Papists in saying We will rather admit the supposed Absurdity of saying All Infants are Saved to follow from our Doctrine than with them say That Innumerable Infants perish Eternally not for their own but only for Adam's Fault This he reckons a Contradicting of my Doctrine of Christ's dying for all Infants saved without Christ J. B.'s horrible Lie saying I here grant That all Infants will be saved without Christ. What horrible Lie is this Where say I That all Infants will be saved without Christ If he say it is by Consequence that I say so which he must needs do or else be an Impudent Vnparallel'd Lyar then he Infers it either from my saying Christ died for all Therefore if all Infants are saved it must be without Christ or that If all Infants be saved Christ cannot have died for all for one of these two must be If I Contradict my self But such Consequences are only fit for such an Author as seems to have abandoned all sense of Honesty and Christian Reputation and resolves per fas aut nefas and without Rime or Reason as the Proverb is to bespatter his Adversary As for his adding They that have no Sin have no need of a Saviour to save them from Sin He Overturns it all by asking me in which also lies the pinch of his matter Since I affirm they have a Seed of Sin in them which is called Death and the Old Man how can they put-off this and sing the Song of the Redeemed which all that enter into Glory must do Infants are saved by Christ who died for them Does not this then shew I believe they have need of Christ as a Saviour who died for them to deliver them from this And is not the Contradiction his own in urging this Question which I thus answer How are those he accounts Elect Infants saved whom he affirms to be really guilty of Adam's Sin and so in a worse Condition than I affirm Infants to be for he will not say with Papists and Lutherans that the Administring of that they call the Sacrament of Baptism does it When he Answers this he will solve his own Argument To insinuate That some Infants are damned he asketh me What
Sense above mentioned it doth as also for the necessity of pressing after Regeneration begun and Perfection pressed after and for the possibility of obtaining it after Regeneration begun since so far as Man is joined to Sin his perfect Regeneration is Retarded Yet as himself towards the end of this Paragraph saith It may be begun where some Members may yet be to be mortified and albeit some Corruption be not wholly purged out yet God can have Fellowship with his own work of Grace in the Soul and with the Soul so far as it is sanctified and renewed but no further Pag. 339 n. 19. he saith I wickedly dispute for God c. to say It is against his Wisdom not to have found Means whereby he might be served but by such Actions by which the Devil is no less yea is more served But his Charge is upon the naked Supposition that their Doctrine is the Truth which is pitifully to beg the question Yea he indirectly notwithstanding much winding about to avoid it Confesseth my Charge saying There is no formal service performed to the Devil so he grants some Material Service to be performed to him Is not the Devil served and that Service justly displeasing to God unless it be a Formal Service for to serve the Devil formally is to acknowledge him as their Master and give him Service as due to him which many do not who yet may be said truly enough to serve him He addeth The Spiritual Warfare J. B. pleads for is not to Overcome but to break daily the Commandments of God in Thought Word and Deed. That God bath seen meet his Children be in a spiritual Warfare What then Can no Man be in a Warfare unless he be Overcome Men may be Engaged in War and may be liable to be Assaulted yea may be often-times narrowed straitned and beset by the Enemy and sometimes wounded and yet never overcome but what he pleads for is not only a Warfare but a being Worsted and Overcome and that Every Day for so truly are such Overcome by the Devil Who daily break the Commandments of God in Thought Word and Deed as he affirms of all God's Children He goes on n. 20. to say I run my self blind in saying it is against God's Justice to require Men to abstain from all Sin and not enable them to do it because it would prove all the Wicked are Perfect for God requires of them Obedience But it seems himself has been blind when he made this Answer I never urged that because God gave Men power therefore they are perfect as he foolishly throughout this Paragraph Imagineth and then battereth against this Man of Straw of his own making And that this proves that Wicked Men might if they had not Resisted God's Grace have forsaken their Wickedness and been Perfect I deny not neither doth he prove the Contrary He confesseth Manâ—s Imperfection to be of themselves but he thinks it cannot be accounted Vnrighteousness in God to Require and yet not to give that measure of Grace whereby Men should become Perfect because that power which was once given was sinfully Cast away But all this dependeth upon the Supposition that Man lost his power in Adam which was before Discust and is now in him but a begging of the Question And when I shew That their Doctrine maketh God more Vnjust than the vilest of Men J. B.'s Doctrine makes God to give a Stone instead of Bread c. who will not give to their Children asking Bread a Stone c. he reproacheth me as a Blasphemous Tongue But let us see how he frees their Doctrine of this foul Consequence The Lord forbid saith he they hope for a full Deliverance but it is in Heaven This Answer confirmeth the Charge and doth not lessen it and so for all his Brag the Stone yet remains according to them instead of Bread and is like to Choke him unless he find some better way to digest it than thus for God requires to forsake Sin here and yet according to them denies the power here for concerning being free from Sin in Heaven there is no question He addeth pag. 341. That my saying Their Doctrine is Injurious to the Sacrifice of Christ's Death which was To take away Sin destroys all I said of Vniversal Redemption but he forgets to shew How perhaps we may Expect it next since his 8 th Chapter is already Answered His saying They affirm that the stain of Sin is taken away and Victory obtained doth not answer because they refer that to another Life and the question is concerning this And to my saying That if the Children of God Sin in Thought Word and Deed daily then there is no difference betwixt the Holy and Profane he answereth The difference is great because what the Wicked do is done with full purpose of heart c. but the Other mourneth over and repenteth of his Sin This difference is in respect of Repentance not of Sinning in their Sinning they are both alike That there is a Difference betwixt him that Continueth in Sin J. B.'s Godly continue in Sin all their Life-time and Sin daily and him that Repenteth I deny not but since he supposes the Godly to Continue in Sin all their life-time yea in daily Sinning the Similitude still remaineth and such will do well to take heed Who break God's Commands daily in Thought Word and Deed lest notwithstanding they may be in J. B.'s Account the Godly yet in Jesus Christ's they prove such to whom it shall be said Depart ye Workers of Iniquity I know you not ¶ 4. Pag. 343. N. 23. Instead of answering my Argument shewing Their Doctrine maketh the Work of the Ministry Preaching and Praying useless he saith Hence we see the necessity of a standing Ministry which I am against This is false as shall appear He adds The Ministry is to bring them on toward Perfection but the question is Whether that Perfection is not attainable here For a Perfection that admitteth not of a growth I plead not If he would have had this Answer understood to be to the purpose he should have said That such as Sin not cannot be said to admit of a growth which he doth not so much as attempt nor offer to prove What I affirm to the Contrary in the Example of Christ who notwithstanding he was always free of Sin is said to Increase both in Favour with God and Man Luk. 2.52 To this mentioned in my Apology notwithstanding his Prolixity he is as Mute as a Fish How their Doctrine makes Prayers useless I have shewen before Instead of answering Col. 4.12 where Epaphras is said To labour fervently in Prayers Perfection prayed for and Vnblameableness c. that the Colossians might stand perfect and compleat in all the Will of God and to 1 Thess. 3.12 13. where Paul prays That the Lord would make them increase and abound in Love c. to the end he might
may be mistaken or forgotten answers nothing seeing that more sure Word we speak of is not a Transient Voice but that Word of God which is always with us nigh us in our hearts if we be willing to hear it and regard it and can far less be either forgotten or mistaken than Scripture for it speaks plain home and near even to such some times who would willingly both mistake and forget it Hebr. 4.12 Though I could freely refer his sixth Head concerning Justification to be compared by the Judicious Reader with that which is contained from page 32. of my last to page 44. as being a Confused Mass which needs no further refutation yet because he makes a great noise here I shall subjoin these few Observations a little to unvail him in this matter And in his first Section from pag. 52. to 58. I observe how hastily he passes over the Charges laid by me to his door page 23. Which because he cannot clear himself of therefore he hath not leisure to Answer Secondly I observe how after he repeats my words of our sense of Justification which the Reader may see at length pag. 33. of my first he can say nothing against them but only I seem to insinuate they had no need of inward Righteousness It appears his Guilt has made him so jealous in this thing as if I had been reproaching him where I only gave an account of my own Belief His accusing or suspecting me of Fraud or Cheating signifies nothing except he produce some reason for it In order to discover this he proposeth Justification before God is the Making a man Just by an inward Righteousness What may be the sense of the word Justifie in Scripture as it imports the sinners Justification before God which he determinately affirms Only to be a pronouncing or accounting a man Righteous and not a making him so citing for proof Prov. 17.15 Though Justifie in some places may be so understood as in this which indeed hath no relation to the sinners Justification before God yet where it hath such a relation it may be understood otherways viz. a Making a man Just as in that notable expression of the Apostle Paul 1 Cor. 6.11 But ye are washed ye are sanctified ye are justified c. For if Justifie â— here were not to make men Righteous but only to impute them or account them so then Washing and Sanctifying were not real but only imputative also Imputative Righteousness a Cloak for Wickedness And at this rate the Corinthians could not be esteemed truly washed of their sins which the Apostle mentions in the former verse such as Stealing Drunkenness Covetousness but only thought or imputed so and this were to make the Christian Religion a cloak for all wickedness as if men were not by it truly cleansed of these evils but on the contrary fostered in them In these places also Justification was taken in relation to inward righteousness Rom. 8.30 Whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified Rev. 22.11 Qui Justus est Justificetur adhuc for so the Greek and Latin hath it which being rightly Translated is He that is just let him be justified still It is to be observed that I deny not but the word Justifie is sometimes taken in Scripture for pronouncing men just though he falsly seems to insinuate the contrary Thirdly I observe his alledging That our speaking of being Justified by Christ revealed in us is a falling in with the Popish sense of Justification adding That our more full agreement with them doth appear in that wherein I say we differ from them But here his shameless dis-ingenuity is manifest in that he hath not answered at all pag. 34 35. of my last as to that wherein I shew our dis-agreement with Papists and how this manner of Justification by the indwelling of Christ is denied by them and particularly disputed against by Bellarmine For to prove our supposed Affinity with Papists and imagined opposition to Protestants he formeth a Question viz. What is that which causeth a man to stand pardoned and so Just before God and for which he is pronounced Righteous adding That the Papists have herein recourse to Infused Righteousness but Protestants to the Imputed Righteousness of Christ namely the Satisfaction and Merit of his Death But here is to be observed how confusedly he hath tumbled things together that ought to be distinguished whereby he may the more securely lurk under them Though Originally the Cause of both be the infinite Love of God in which Christ was given who offered up himself a most sweet and satisfactory Sacrifice as the Ransom the Atonement the Propitiation for our Sins but as to our being Justified it is by Christ and his Spirit Our Justification is by Christ and his Spirit as he comes in our hearts truly and really to make us Righteous which because we are thus made therefore are we accounted so of him as the Apostle plainly intimates in 1 Cor. 6.11 That it is by the Spirit of God we are Justified Nor is this any connivance with Papists who as is abovesaid deny Justification in this manner And it is but to befool Children and simple Ignorants that he covers himself so much with the general term of Protestants as if our Doctrine were generally denied by all such seeing many and that very famous Protestants have been of our mind and have eagerly pleaded for this Real Righteousness as to Justification against his sense of it particularly Osiander one of the first and most Renowned Reformers of Germany who not without ground averred Luther to be of this Judgment And Melanchthon in the Apology of the Augustan Confession saith To be Justified in Scripture not only signifieth to be pronounced Just but to be made Just or Regenerate Johannes Brentius and Chemnitius admit also of the same signification The Testimony of some of the first Protestant-Writers concerning our Justification in the Life of Christ. so Epinus and Bucenus include in Justification not only forgiveness of sins but Regeneration and Righteousness wrought in us And Borheus sive Cellanus a German Protestant and Professor of Theology at Basil In the Imputation saith he by which Christ is ascribed and imputed to Believers for Righteousness both the Merit of his Blood and the Holy Spirit given unto us by the virtue of his Merits is equally included and thus saith he we shall consider wholly Christ proposed to us unto Salvation and not a part of him Lib. in Gen. pag. 162. Again pag. 169. he saith In our Justification Christ is considered who breatheth and liveth in us viz. Put on by us through his Spirit And pag. 181. he saith The form of our Justification is the Divine Righteousness whereby we are formed Just and Good this is Jesus Christ who is esteemed our Righteousness partly by the forgiveness of sins partly by the Restauration and Renovation to Integrity lost by
Act of Sin and never actually sin in their own Persons do for this sin of Adam Eternally perish Now whether this Doctrine be sutable either to the Justice or Mercy of God I leave the Christian Reader to judge I shall examine the Reasons he brings for it His chief Argument for this in his Dialogue page 47. was That because Children die citing Rom. 23. The wages of sin is death Now I shew him pag. 41. of mine how that made nothing because natural Death of the Saints is not the Wages of Sin for their Sins are forgiven them c. this he hath not so much as mentioned far less answered And whereas he might as well argue that the Earth The Saints natural Death is not the Wages of Sin Trees and Herbs were Sinners because they received great decay by Adam's Sin He slightly passes it over alledging It will not therefore follow that all Mankind who suffer Death are not Sinners Now this is no answer but a meer shift and the thing I intended against his Assertion doth very naturally follow from my Argument thus If as W. M. says Infants be guilty of Adam's Sin because they are subject to Diseases and Death then the Beasts who are subject to the like and the Earth Herbs and Trees who have received their decay are Sinners before God But this is absurd therefore the other Let him answer this the next time more effectually The first proof he brings here is 1 Joh. 3.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh adding This intimates man by his natural Birth to be Corrupt and Fleshly But for this his gloss he bringeth no proof Though That which is born of the flesh be flesh he sheweth us not how it followeth thence that Infants are guilty of Adam's Sin After the like manner he concludes this his Doctrine from Job 14.4 Psal. 5.5 Whether Infants are guilty of Adam's Sin But as the words in these places do not plainly express any such thing so he brings no Reasons to make his Consequences deduceable from them After the like proofless manner he alledgeth Rom. 5.14 By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Now though the matter in question be Whether these many were made Sinners before they actually sinned in their own Persons He doth not so much as offer to prove it In the like manner though David said his Mother conceived him in sin he sheweth us not how it followeth from thence that David was guilty of Sin before he actually sinned And here I observe how he asserts That men are guilty of the Sin of their immoderate Parents contrary to the plain Testimony of the Scripture Ezek. 18.20 The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of the Father To prove Infants thus guilty he further addeth Rom. 5.12 alledging these words For that all have sinned includes Infants But I shew him this includes not Infants because the Apostle clears it in the next verse saying Sin is not imputed where there is no Law and that there being no Law to Infants they cannot be guilty of sin To this he Replies There was a Law to Adam and that he represented mankind and stood as a publick Person Therefore Children had a Law in him But for this signification of his own he produceth no proof and it cannot be received as being direct contrary to the Scripture above-mentioned The Son shall not bear the Father 's Iniquity He alledgeth That those the Apostle speaks of who sinned not after the similitude of Adam 's Transgression are Infants But after his usual manner bringeth not the least proof for it The 1 Cor. 15.22 cited by him is so far from making anything for his purpose that it maketh directly against him which any that have the least grain of true understanding may perceive The words are As in Adam all died even so in Christ all are made alive for here All are said to die in Adam None die in Adam until they actually join with his Vnrighteousness even as All are said to be made alive in Christ now as none are made alive in Christ until they actually receive and join with his Righteousness so none die in Adam until they actually receive and join with his unrighteousness c. He maketh a deal a do page 110 111. about the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wherein though it were easie to refute him were it not needless to fill up Paper with Grammatical Criticisms For giving but not granting the words might be Translated In Adam all have sinned it will not from thence follow that Infants are guilty before they actually sin seeing All are said to die or have sinned in Adam even as All are said to be made alive in Christ and yet none are said to be so until they actually receive his Righteousness as is above demonstrated Page 113. He alledgeth Though it be said that the Kingdom of God is of little Children yet some Infants are not saved because they are not of the Kingdom of Grace But for this he bringeth no proof at all And I here take notice That he acknowledges that God Sanctifies and Regenerates some Infants W.M. contradicting himself and thereby he notably contradicts his second Section concerning the Light and page 29. of his Dialogue where he condemns it as a dangerous Error in us to say Any can be saved without the outward Knowledge of Christ of which Infants are not capable To prove That some Infants perish even Eternally he alledgeth The burning of Sodom and Gomorrah citing Jude 7. But his wresting this Scripture is very manifest For the reason Jude gives of their suffering Vengeance was because they gave themselves up to Fornication and went after strange flesh Now of this Infants were not capable of whom therefore Jude speaks not one word He terms Impudent or else Ignorant for bringing Matth. 1.22 against them alledging It is an unjust charge to say they plead for a Salvation in their sins And yet he has the Impudence immediately to aver it himself saying They are but in part delivered or saved in this Life do they not then dream of Salvation while in part they remain in their Sins Compare Matth. 1.21 with 1 Joh. 1.7 Christ is said to cleanse us from All Iniquity not a part of it It is bad Inference drawn from my Assertion that Children are not guilty of sin to say that therefore they need not a Saviour I told him in my last Christ was truly a Saviour unto them in that he kept them from sinning as one How Christ is a Saviour to Children that 's kept from falling in a Ditch is as truly saved as he that 's taken out of one It is altogether Inconsequential to infer from this That Christ died to save the holy Angels from sin because they are not suffered to fall into it For Christ is said only to have died for Adam's Posterity of which number Infants are but not Angels It is likewise
and then to Pray as is above shewed Sect. page 125. He says Quakerism tends to make Mortification of sin Useless and to me asking Whether Mortification be useless where the end of it which is Perfection is attained He answereth That Perfection is twofold Comparative and Absolute and seeing we are for an Absolute Perfection there is no use for Mortification Answ. There can none come to this Absolute Perfection as he terms it but by Mortification of Sin and even such Perfection attained by Mortification as are so Perfect while on Earth do constantly use Mortification to keep down Sin least it rise again and to resist the Temptations of the Enemy wherewith even such as be Perfect are daily assaulted He alledgeth I Triumph before the Victory in quarrelling him for saying That a sinless Perfection wounds the very Vitals of Religion But his silly Subterfuge in this place may easily be discovered I asked him in my last That seeing he says so Whether the Vitals of Religion consisted in sinning or not sinning Adding That if it consist in sinning they that sin most are most Religious but if it consist in not sinning than to plead for such a thing as attainable hurts not the Vitals of Religion To this he answereth That the Vitals of Religion consist in the means appointed of God Who seeth not this to be a meer Evasion Why did he not give a direct Answer But that he could not without either denying his former Antichristian Expression or else falling into palpable Grosness And whereas he adds That these Means are Repentance Mortification Believing Application of the Blood of Christ Though it be no Answer to my Question I deny not but that Religion consists in these things but I suppose he will not say that they are sinning It is not in the least absurd that one who hath attained to Perfection may practise these Duties Man though he have attained to Perfection cannot too much Repent of his former Wickedness And therefore it is without ground that he alledgeth That I shift and cannot deny but the forbearance of these Duties flow as a Consequence from our Principle Nor is my saying that they who come to Perfection witness the true use of these things any Shift at all though he be pleased to term it so without any proof after his wonted manner according to which he addeth That under the pretence of Perfection we take Men off from the practice of these Duties and so strike at Christianity in the Vitals of it Which though it fall of it self as being a meer Assertion yet the contrary is above abundantly shewn He saith He doth not contradict himself in inferring a sinless man to be sinful He affirmed only the Quaker's conceitedly sinless men to be sinful who discover much sin in their pride passion bitterness railing accusations adding If such say they have no sin they are but liars and the Truth is not in them Answ. There was no such Addition in his Dialogue as Conceitedly Sinless but absolutely he said Bring me to the Man that is sinless and therefore his Contradiction remains Moreover let him name that Quaker if he can that told him he was Perfectly free from all sin and yet was guilty of those Crimes he speaks of else he can deduce nothing from his own false Supposition Page 127. To prove the Saints Continuance always in Sin he desires to remark that 1 Joh. 18. It is even such who have heard seen and handled of the Word of God The Saints were cleansed from All Vnrighteousness c. Who say If we have no sin we are liars And here indeed is to be observed his detestable Impudence in adding to the Scripture-words citing verse 7. which he repeats thus We who are cleansed from the guilt of sin whereas there is no such word as Guilt in that place but only We are cleansed from all Sin which imports a Cleansing from the Filth Mark these words verse 9. From All unrighteousness now when the Guilt is only taken away and the Filth remaineth as W. M. falsly supposes they could not be said to be cleansed from All Vnrighteousness For it is an improper speech to say W.M. pleads for a Cleansing from the Guilt or Punishment but not from the Filth or Act of Sin We are cleansed from Guilt It is from the Filth we are cleansed and the Guilt is forgiven us Therefore saith the Apostle verse 9. first He is faithful to forgive us and next he adds To cleanse us from all unrighteousness Nor will John's saying If we say we have no sin import John himself to be of that number more than than the Apostle James speaking of the Tongue James 3.9 saying Therewith Curse we Men who are made after the similitude of God will prove James to have been of these Cursers Now in answer to me shewing that that Scripture 1 John 1.8 is Conditional else it would contradict what follows verse 9. Chap. 24. and Chap. 3 9. he returneth no Answer but his own Assertions He saith The 9 th verse speaketh of Forgiveness but it also adds Cleansing as is above observed He saith That 1 John 2.4 is understood of a sincere not absolute keeping of the Commands of God but for this he brings no proof at all He saith That John 3.9 whosoever is born of God sinneth not Is meant of sinning unto death from which the Child of God is secured The reason he gives of this gloss is Because the Apostle Chap. 5. verse 16. speaketh of a Sin unto Death which Sin W. M. supposeth to be that the Apostle means He that 's born of God cannot Commit But to prove this Supposition we have nothing but his own meer Assertion Reader These are the best and strongest Arguments he hath to prove his Doctrines His Seventeenth Head page 128. is to shew his Doctrines not to be acceptable to the Wicked and his Eighteenth Head page 131. is To prove ours to be so But he is so pitifully ridiculous in this matter that such as have the least measure of Vnderstanding and are Unprejudiced cannot but see his Weakness Yet that he may be left altogether without a Cover I shall Answer his Objections and leave the Unbiassed Reader as he desires to judge which Principles in their nature have most tendency to strike at or foster Wickedness To prove that it is not acceptable to the Wicked to hear they must always Sin he says Some are so conceited of their honesty that they cannot be convinced of their Sins And that Mortification of Sin is distastful to them But how he makes this to answer the other is not told us If Hypocrites love not to hear of their sins it doth not therefore follow that pleading for a constant Continuance in Sin is not acceptable to the Wicked Continuance in Sin pleaded for is acceptable to the Wicked they may be the easier induced to acknowledge their Sins that they hear it told them
the Love of God because He laid down his Life for us Hebr. 9.15 And for this Cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of the Redemption of Transgressions that were under the first Testament They which are called might receive the Promise of the Eternal Inheritance Q. Is Christ then the Mediator 1 Tim. 2.5 A For there is One God and One Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus who gave himself a Ransom for all to be testified in due time Q. Was not Christ the Mediator until he appeared and was Crucified in the Flesh Rev. 5.12 and 13.8 A He is the Lamb that was slain from the Foundation of the World Q. Is it then needful to believe that the Saints of old did partake of Christ as then present with and nourishing them 1 Cor. 10.1 2 3 4. A. Moreover Brethren I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the Sea and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the Sea and did all eat the same spiritual Meat and did all drink the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ. Q. But whereas most of these Scriptures before-mentioned do hold forth that the Death and Sufferings of Christ were appointed for the destroying removing and remitting of Sin Did he so do it while he was outwardly upon Earth as not to leave any thing for himself to do in us nor for us to do in and by his Strength A. For even hereunto were ye called 1 Pet. 2.21 because Christ also suffered for us leaving us an Example that ye should follow his Steps Whereof I Paul am made a Minister Col. 1.23 24. who now rejoice in my Sufferings for you and fill up that which is behind of the Afflictions of Christ in my Flesh for his Body's sake which is the Church Always bearing about in the Body the Dying of the Lord Jesus 2 Cor. 4.10 11. that the Life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our Body For we which live are alway delivered unto Death for Jesus 's sake that the Life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our Mortal Flesh. And that he died for all that they which live 2 Cor. 5.15 should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him that died for them and also rose again That I may know him and the Power of his Resurrection Phil. 3.10 and the Fellowship of his Sufferings being made conformable to his Death CHAP. IV. Of the New Birth the Inward Appearance of Christ in Spirit and the Vnity of the Saints with him Question DOth Christ promise then to Come again to his Disciples Answer I will not leave you Comfortless I Come unto you John 14.18 Q. Was this only a Special Promise to these Disciples Or is it not the Common Priviledge of the Saints A. For thus saith the High and Lofty One that inhabits Eternity whose Name is Holy I dwell in the High and Holy Place Isa. 57.15 with him also that is of a Contrite and Humble Spirit c. For ye are the Temple of the Living God as God hath said 2 Cor. 6.16 I will dwell in them and walk in them Behold I stand at the Door and knock if any man hear my voice Rev. 3.20 and open the Door I will come in to him and sup with him and he with me Q Doth the Apostle Paul speak of the Son of God's being Revealed in him A. But when it pleased God Gal. 1.15 16. who separated me from my Mother's Womb and called me by his Grace To Reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the Heathen Q. Is it needful then to know Christ within A. Examine your selves whether ye be in the Faith 2 Cor. 13.5 prove your own selves Know ye not your own selves how that Jesus Christ is in you except ye be Reprobates Q. Was the Apostle Earnest that this Inward Birth of Christ should be brought forth in any A. * Gal. 41.9 My little Children of whom I travel in Birth again until Christ be formed in you Q What saith the same Apostle of the Necessity of this Inward Knowledge of Christ and of the New Creature beyond the Outward A. Wherefore henceforth know we no Man after the Flesh yea though we have known Christ after the Flesh yet now henceforth know we him no more 2 Cor. 5.16 17 Therefore if any Man be in Christ he is a New Creature Old things are passed away behold all things are become New But ye have not so learned Christ if so be that ye have heard him Ephes. 4.21 22 23 24. and have been taught by him as the Truth is in Jesus That ye put off concerning the former Conversation the Old Man which is corrupt according to the deceitful Lusts and to be Renewed in the Spirit of your Mind and that ye Put on the New Man which after God is Created in Righteousness and true Holiness Q. Is this Christ-within the Mystery of God and Hope of Glory which the Apostle Preached Col. 1.27 28. A. To whom God would make known what are the Riches of the Glory of this Mystery among the Gentiles which is Christ in you the Hope of Glory whom ye preach Q. Doth the Apostle any where else press the putting on of this New Birth A. Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ and make not Provision for the Flesh to fulfil the Lusts thereof Rom. 13.14 Q. Doth he write to any of the Saints as having put off the Old and on the New Man A. For as many of you as have been Baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal. 3 27. Seeing that ye have put off the Old Man with his Deeds and have put on the New Man Col. 3.9 10. which is renew'd in Knowledge after the Image of him that created him Q. What speaketh Christ himself of the Necessity of this New Birth John 3.3 A. Jesus answered and said unto him Verily verily I say unto thee Except a Man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God Q Of what Seed cometh this Birth 1 Pet. 1.23 A. Being born again not of Corruptible Seed but of Incorruptible by the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever Q. What doth the Apostle Paul witness of himself concerning this New Life A. I am Crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me Gal. 2.20 Q. What is the Preaching of the Cross of Christ 1 Cor. 1.18 A. For the Preaching of the Cross is to them that perish Foolishness but unto us that are saved it is the Power of God Q. What Effect had this Cross in the Apostle and how much preferreth he the New Creature to all outward and visible Ordinances
Ineffectual to bring them the least step towards Salvation and do only Contribute to render their Condemnation the greater and their Torments the more Violent and Intolerable Having thus briefly Removed this false Doctrine which stood in my way because they that are desirous may see it both learnedly and piously Refuted by many others I come to the Matter of our Proposition which is That God out of his Infinite Love who delighteth not in the death of a sinner but that all should live and be saved hath sent his Only-begotten Son into the World that whosoever believeth in him might be Saved Christ tasted Death for every man Which also is again affirmed in the sixth Proposition in these words Christ then tasted death for every man of all kinds Such is the Evidence of this Truth delivered almost wholly in the Express words of Scripture that it will not need much probation also because our Assertion herein is Common with many others who have both earnestly and soundly according to the Scripture pleaded for this Vniversal Redemption I shall be the more brief in it that I may come to that which may seem more singularly and peculiarly ours § VI. This Doctrine of Vniversal Redemption Christ's Redemption is Vniversal contrary to the Doctrine of Absolute REPROBATION or Christ's dying for all men is of it self so Evident from the Scripture-Testimony that there is scarce found any other Article of the Christian Faith so frequently so plainly and so positively Asserted It is that which maketh the preaching of Christ to be truly termed the Gospel or an Annunciation of glad Tidings to all Thus the Angel declared the Birth and Coming of Christ to the Shepherds to be Luke 2.10 Behold I bring you good Tidings of great Joy which shall be to all people He saith not to a few people Now if this Coming of Christ had not brought a possibility of Salvation to all it should rather have been accounted Bad Tidings of great sorrow to most people neither should the Angel have had reason to have sung Peace on Earth and good Will towards men if the greatest part of Mankind had been necessarily shut out from receiving any Benefit by it How should Christ have sent out His to Preach the Gospel to every Creature Mark 16.15 a very Comprehensive Commission that is To every son and daughter of Mankind without all Exception He Commands them to Preach Salvation to all Repentance and Remission of sins to all Warning every one and Exhorting every one as Paul did Col. 1.28 Now how couldd they have preached the Gospel to every man The Gospel is preached to Every man as became the Ministers of Jesus Christ in much Assurance if Salvation by that Gospel had not been possible for all What! If some of those had asked them or should now ask any of these Doctors who deny the Vniversality of Christ's Death and yet preach it to all promiscuously Hath Christ died sor me How can they with confidence give a certain Answer to this Question If they give a Conditional Answer as their Principle obligeth them to do and say If thou Repent Christ hath died for thee doth not the same Question still Recur Hath Christ died for me so as to make Repentance possible for me To this they can Answer nothing unless they run in a Circle whereas the Feet of those that bring the glad Tidings of the Gospel of Peace are said to be beautiful for that they preach the Common Salvation Repentance unto all offering a door of Mercy and Hope to all through Jesus Christ who gave himself a Ransom for all The Gospel Invites all and certainly by the Gospel Christ intended not to deceive and delude the greater part of Mankind when he Inviteth and Crieth saying Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden and ' I will give you Rest. If All then ought to seek after him and to look for Salvation by him he must needs have made Salvation possible to all for who is bound to seek after that which is Impossible Certainly it were a mocking of men to bid them do so And such as deny that by the Death of Christ Salvation is made possible to all men do most blasphemously make God mock the World in giving his Servants a Commission to preach the Gospel of Salvation unto ALL while he hath before decreed The Absurdity of that Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation that it shall not be possible for them to Receive it Would not this make the Lord to send forth his Servants with a Lie in their mouths which were blasphemous to think commanding them to bid all and every one to believe that Christ died for them and had purchased life and Salvation whereas it is no such thing according to the fore-mentioned Doctrine But seeing Christ after he Arose and perfected the work of our Redemption gave a Commission to preach Repentance Remission of Sins and Salvation to all it is manifest that he died for all For he that hath Commissionated his Servants thus to preach is a God of Truth and no mocker of poor Mankind neither doth he require of any man that which is simply Impossible for him to do for that No man is bound to do that which is Impossible is a principle of Truth ingraven in every man's mind And seeing he is both a most Righteous and Merciful God it cannot at all stand neither with his Justice nor Mercy to bid such men Repent or Believe to whom it is Impossible § VII Moreover if we Regard the Testimony of the Scripture in this matter where there is not one Scripture which I know of that affirmeth To Pray for all for Christ died for all Christ not to die for ALL there are divers that positively and expresly Assert he did as 1 Tim. 2.1 3 4 6. I exhort therefore that first of all Supplications Prayers Intercessions and giving of Thanks be made for all men c. for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour who will have All men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth who gave himself a Ransom for all to be testified in due time Except we will have the Apostle here to Assert quite another thing than he intended there can be nothing more plain to Confirm what we have Asserted And this Scripture doth well answer to that manner of Arguing which we have hitherto used For first the Apostle here Recommends them to Pray for all men And to obviate such an Objection as if he had said with our Adversaries Christ prayed not for the World neither willeth he us to pray for All because he willeth not that All should be saved but hath ordained many to be damned that he might shew forth his Justice in them He obviates I say such an Objection telling them That it is good and acceptable in the sight of God who will have all men to be saved I desire
of the week At Troas the Supper till Midnight deferred when the Disciples came together to Break Bread Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the Morrow and continued his Speech until Midnight Here is no mention made of any Sacramental Eating but only that Paul took occasion from their being together to Preach unto them And it seems it was a Supper they intended not a Morning-bit of Bread and Sup of Wine else it 's not very probable that Paul would from the Morning have preached until Midnight But the 11 th Verse puts the matter out of Dispute which is thus When he therefore was come up again and had broken Bread and eaten and talked a long while even till break of day so he departed This shews that the Breaking of Bread was deferred till that time for those words and when he had broken Bread and eaten do shew that it had a relation to the Breaking of Bread afore-mentioned and that that was the time he did it Secondly These words joined together and when he had broken Bread and eaten and talked shew it was no Religious Act of Worship They only did Eat for refreshing the Body but only an Eating for bodily Refreshment for which the Christians used to Meet together some time and doing it in God's Fear and Singleness of Heart doth notwithstanding difference it from the Eating or Feasting of profane persons And this by some is called a Love-Feast By some called a Love-Feast or a being together not meerly to feed their Bellies or for outward Ends but to take thence occasion to Eat and Drink together in the Dread and Presence of the Lord as his people which Custom we shall not Condemn but let it be observed that in all the Acts there is no other nor further mention of this matter But if that Ceremony had been some Solemn Sacrifice as some will have it or such a Special Sacrament as others plead it to be it is strange that that History that in many lesser things gives a particular Account of the Christians Behaviour should have been so silent in the matter Only we find that they used sometimes to Meet together to Break Bread and Eat Now as the Primitive Christians began by degrees to depart from that Primitive Purity and Simplicity so as to accumulate Superstitious Traditions The Christians began by degrees to depart from the Primitive Purity and vitiate the Innocent Practices of their Predecessors by the intermixing either of Jewish or Heathenish Rites so also in the Vse of this very early Abuses began to creep in among Christians so that it was needful for the Apostle Paul to Reform them and Reprove them therefore as he doth at large 1 Cor. 11. from ver 17. to the End 1 Cor. 11.17 Concerning the Supper of the Lord so called Explained which place we shall particularly Examine because our Adversaries lay the chief Stress of their matter upon it and we shall see whether it will infer any more than we have above granted 1 st because they were apt to use that Practice in a superstitious mind beyond the true Vse of it as to make of it some Mystical Supper of the Lord he tells them v. 20. That their Coming together into one place is not to Eat the Lord's Supper he saith not This is not the right Manner to Eat but This is not to Eat the Lord's Supper because the Supper of the Lord is Spiritual and a Mystery 2 ly he blames them in that they come together for the worse and not for the better the Reason he gives of this is v. 21. For in Eating every one hath taken before his own Supper and one is hungry and another is drunken Here it is plain that the Apostle Condemns them for that Why the Custom of Supping in Common was used among Christians because this Custom of Supping in general was used among Christians for to increase their Love and as a Memorial of Christ's Supping with the Disciples that they should have so vitiated it to Eat it apart and to come full who had abundance and hungry who had little at home whereby the very Vse and End of this Practice is lost and perverted And therefore he blames them that they do not either Eat this in Common at home or reserve their Eating till they come all together to the Publick Assembly This appears plainly by the following verse 22. Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in or despise ye the Church of God and shame them that have not Where he blames them for their Irregular Practice herein in that they despised to Eat orderly or reserve their Eating to the Publick Assembly and so shaming such as not having Houses nor Fulness at home came to partake of the Common Table who being hungry thereby were ashamed when they observed others come thither full and drunken Those that without prejudice will look to the place will see this must have been the Case among the Corinthians For supposing the Vse of this to have been then as now used either by Papists Lutherans or Calvinists it is hard making sense of the Apostle's words or indeed to conceive what was the Abuse the Corinthians committed in this thing Having thus observed what the Apostle said above because this Custom of Eating and Drinking together some time Tee Rise of that Custom had its rise from Christ's Act with the Apostles the Night he was betrayed therefore the Apostle proceeds ver 23. to give them an Account of that For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same Night in which he was betrayed took Bread c. Those that understand the difference betwixt a Narration of a thing and a Command cannot but see if they will that there is no Command in this place but only an Account of Matter of Fact He saith not I received of the Lord that as he took Bread so I should command it to you to do so also there is nothing like this in the place yea on the contrary ver 25. where he repeats Christ's Imperative Words to his Apostles he placeth them so as they import no Command This do ye as oft as ye drink it in Remembrance of me That as often imports no Command of this Supper And then he adds For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come But these words as often imports no more a Command than to say As often as thou goest to Rome see the Capitol will infer a Command to me to go thither But whereas they urge the last words Ye shew forth the Lord's Death till he come Object insinuating That this imports a necessary Continuance of that Ceremony until Christ come at the end of the World to Judgment Answ. I Answer They take Two of the Chief Parts of the Controversy here for granted without proof
sometimes fled but to persecute is the Invention and Argument of the Devil which he seeks against all And after he saith In so far as the Arrians banish those that will not subscribe their Decrees they shew that they are contrary to Christians and Friends of the Devil But now O lamentable Hil. contra Aux saith Hilarius it is the Suffrages of the Earth that recommend the Religion of God and Christ is found naked of his Vertue while Ambition must give credit to his Name The Church reproves and fights by Banishments and Prisons and forceth her self to be believed which once was believed because of the Imprisonments and Banishments her self suffered She that once was consecrated by the Terror of her Persecutors depends now upon the Dignity of those that are in her Communion She that once was propagated by her banished Priests now banisheth the Priests And she boasts now that she is loved of the World who could not have been Christ's if she had not been hated of the World The Church saith Hierom was founded by shedding of Blood Hieron Ep. 62. ad The. and by Suffering and not in doing of Hurt The Church increased by Persecutions and was crowned by Martyrdoms Ambrose speaking of Auxentius saith thus Ambr. Ep. 32. tom 3. Whom he viz. Auxentius could not deceive by Discourse he thinks ought to be killed by the Sword making bloody Laws with his Mouth writing them with his Hands and imagining that an Edict can command Faith And the same Ambrose saith That going into France Ambr. epist. 27. he would not communicate with those Bishops that required That Hereticks should be put to Death The Emperour Marcio who assembled the Council of Chalcedon Marc. Ep. ad Archimand c. Mon. Eg. in acta concil Chalced. tom 2. conc gen protests That he would not force nor constrain any one to subscribe the Council of Chalcedon against his Will (a) Hosi epist. ad Constit. apud Ath. in epist. ad solit vit tom 1. Hosius Bishop of Corduba testifies That the Emperour Constans would not constrain any to be Orthodox (b) Hil. l. 1. ad Const. Hilarius saith further That God teacheth rather than exacteth the Knowledge of himself and authorizing his Commandments by the Miracles of his Heavenly Works he wills not that any should confess him with a forced Will c. He is the God of the whole Vniverse he needs not a forced Obedience nor requires a constrained Confession (c) Ambr. comm in Luc. l. 7. Christ saith Ambrose sent his Apostles to sow Faith not to constrain but to teach not to exercise coercive Power but to extoll the Doctrine of Humility (d) Cypr. epist. 62. Hence Cyprian comparing the Old Covenant with the New saith Then were they put to Death with the outward Sword but now the Proud and Contumacious are cut off with the Spiritual Sword by being cast out of the Church And this answers very well that Objection before observed taken from the Practice of the Jews under the Law See saith Tertullian to the Heathens if it be not to contribute to the renown of Irreligion to seek to take away the Liberty of Religion Tertull. Apol. c. 24. and to hinder Men their Choice of God that I may not be admitted to adore whom I will but must be constrained to serve him whom I will not There is none nay not a Man that desires to be adored by any against their Will Id. Apol. cap. 28. And again It 's a thing that easily appears to be unjust to constrain and force Men to sacrifice against their Wills seeing to do the Service of God there is required a willing Heart And again It is an Human Right and Natural Power that every one worship what he esteems Idem ad Scapul c. 2. and one Man's Religion doth not profit nor hurt another Neither is it any piece of Religion to enforce Religion which must be undertaken by Consent and not by Violence seeing that the Sacrifices themselves are not required but from a willing Mind Now how either Papists or Protestants that boast of Antiquity can get by these plain Testimonies let any rational Man judge And indeed I much question if in any one Point owned by them and denied by us they can find all the old Fathers and Writers so exactly unanimous Which shews how contrary all of them judged this to be to the Nature of Christianity and that in the Point of Persecution lay no small part of the Apostacy which from little to more came to that that the Pope upon every small Discontent would Excommunicate Princes absolve their Subjects from obeying them and turn them in and out at his Pleasure Now if Protestants do justly abhor these things among Papists is it not sad that they should do the like themselves A thing that at their first Appearance Luth. lib. de Captivitate Babylon when they were in their Primitive Innocency they did not think on as appears by that Saying of Luther Neither Pope nor Bishop nor any other Man hath Power to oblige a Christian to one Syllable except it be by his own Consent And again I call boldly to Christians that neither Man nor Angel can impose any Law upon them but so far as they will for we are free of all And when he appeared at the Diet of Spiers before the Emperour in a particular Conference he had before the Archbishop of Triers and Joachim Elector of Brandenburgh History of the Council of Trent when there seemed no possibility of agreeing him with his Opposers they asking him What Remedy seemed to him most fit He answered The Counsel that Gamaliel proposed to the Jews to wit That if this Design was of God it would stand if not it would evanish which he said ought to content the Pope He did not say because he was in the Right he ought to be spared For this Counsel supposeth That those that are tolerated may be wrong and yet how soon did the same Luther ere he was well secure himself press the Elector of Saxony to banish poor Carolostadius because he could not in all things submit to his Judgment And certainly it is not without ground reported That it smote Luther to the Heart so that he needed to be comforted when he was informed That Carolostadius in his Letter to his Congregation styled himself A Man banished for Conscience by the Procurement of Martin Luther And since both the Lutherans and Calvinists not admitting one another to Worship in those respective Dominions sheweth how little better they are than either Papists or Arrians in this particular And yet Calvin saith That the Conscience is free from the Power of all Men. If so why then did he cause Castellio to be banish'd because he could not for Conscience-sake believe as he did Calvin Inst. c. 19. sect 14. That God had ordained Men to be damned And Servetus to be
have quick Eyes indeed that see it from thence to be Inferred that they were such ere they Committed any Actual Sin since the Apostle expresly mentions his and their having had their Conversation among the World as a Reason of their having been in the same Condition He saith further 1 Confess 1 Cor. 2. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be understood of the Rational Soul And what then Therefore so soon as they partake of the Rational Soul they become Children of Wrath This is indeed a rare Consequence But he must Excuse me for not Admitting it till better proved It would seem much more Rational to say That so soon as they come to the Exercise of their Rational Soul and then do Evil they become guilty for he cannot deny That the Gospel nor Condemneth nor Threatneth any Man but him that has Actually Sinned And whether this destroys not his Cause the Reader may judge That Except a Man be born again he cannot enter the Kingdom I never denied Albeit Children be capable of Death yet it will not follow that they are Guilty of Sin since Death is no Punishment but rather an Advantage to such to whom it 's a Transition to a better Life He thinks p. 117. that my saying Such as homologate their Fathers Sins God will visit the Iniquities of their Fathers upon them is no worth Noticing but whether his Answer be worth Noticing the Reader may judge which is That Adam 's sin was not a personal Sin as other Mens are and his own After-sins but the Man forgot to prove this and therefore may do it next But he thinks the Children of Core The Children of Core c. Instanced Dathan and Abiram of Achan and the Sodomites were judged guilty of their Fathers Sins for unless he proves that he saith nothing But for what Reason I know not unless that they were outwardly destroyed But until he prove that infers Guilt he must forbear making his Conclusion He is highly offended should say Their Opinion is contrary to the Justice and Mercy of God alledging It is without proof But if to account one guilty for a Sin committed by another Thousands of years ere they had a Being and to punish for it be not against Justice and inconsistent with Mercy I desire to know of him what is more Vnjust and Vnmerciful To say that this is an Accusing of God is but a silly begging of the Question until he has first proved his Opinion to be true It 's no Accusing of God to Condemn Mens Opinions when contrary to his Nature He will have it to be a Rapsody of Non-sense when I say This proceeds from Self-love founded on their Opinion of Absolute Reprobation but whether it be or not the Reader may judge Sure his saying it makes it not so That this of Infants being guilty of Adam 's Sin and therefore many of them being damned depends upon their Doctrine of Reprobation no Man of Sense that knows their Doctrine will deny since they say some Infants are saved because Elected Are not the rest then according to them Damned because Reprobated He gives me nothing here in answer but Railing and so concludes this Paragraph with this notable Saying Wo Isay that is Some Infants Elected some Reprobated J. B.'s Opinion J. Brown forsooth and thrice Wo to such as drink-in this Man's Doctrine and live and die accordingly p. 118. n. 14. He thinks my saying Papists are more Charitable in allowing a Limbus to Children shews my Affection to them but he has not heard me allow of their Notion of a Limbus as he does in the Chapter of Justification p. 310. of the Opinion of a certain Popish Cardinal preferring it not only to what is said by William Forbes a Protestant Bishop but even as it would appear to Richard Baxter his ancient Presbyterian Brother And in pursuance of this he asks How they come to Heaven meaning Children who have nothing to do with Christ But then what will he say of those he accounts Elect Children go they to Heaven without Christ If not the difficulty is the same way resolved To prove Children are under a Law and subject to Transgression he gives the Common Practices among Men who forfeit Children yea such as are unborn with their Fathers for great Crimes But in what Country do they use to kill all the Children when the Father is put to Death for a Crime and unless this were done his Comparison infers not the Point His plain answer he saith is Adam his being a Publick Person of which hereafter To my Citation Ezech. 18.20 The Son shall not bear the Father's Iniquity how Explained by J. B The Son shall not bear the Father's Iniquity he preaches at large upon the Words alledging his Meaning is that those Persons he wrote to had so much Sin of their own that God might justly judge them albeit he did not visit them for their Fathers Iniquities And this is the quick Dispatch he saith this Place receives It is a quick Way to Dispatch indeed if it were Valid to make the Meaning destroy the Text But Men of Sense use not to be sudden in receiving such Dispatches The Words are plain and positive The Son shall not bear the Father's Iniquity therefore until he give Ground from plain Scripture to take it away it must stand to the overthrow of his Doctrine for the greater Sinners those Men were the more justly and deservedly might their Father's Iniquity be laid upon them ¶ 6. Pag. 120. n. 17. He cometh from my Confession J. B. Infers Original Sin from Adam's being a publick Person That Adam was a publick Person to infer That the guilt passeth from him to all And first in this page he affirmeth That this Sin of Adam 's from whence Original Sin proceeds is the Sin of the whole Nature of Mankind and not like Adam 's After-sins and the Sins of other Men which he confesses are not the Sins of the whole Nature And because upon this dependeth much of what he infers he had done well to have proved this in the first Place by some Scripture Till which Time his Inference is not to be Received For did Adam Cease to be a publick Person after he had Committed that Sin If he say Yea let him prove it by plain Scripture for I deny it If not then his other Sins must be Imputed to all Men which he denies or else nothing can be urged from his being a publick Person And while to urge it he asketh Did ever any hear one stated as a Publick Person whose Failings could have no Effect until the Persons represented did testify their Approbation of it For here speaking of Failings he must either Conclude in Contradiction to himself That Adam's Sins are laid to the Charge of his Posterity or his Instance is wholly Impertinent And yet to go round again he takes notice p. 125. That the Apostle names One Offence in the
had said any thing to the purpose he should have proved that in these places there must be a Restriction and not have bestowed many words to prove all sometimes to be Restricted which I never denied and the pinch lieth here wherein I desired to be satisfied but find not as yet he has given any Answer J. B. c. make the word All express of two Numbers the least to be Elected Where is all made use of in Scripture to express of two Numbers the least which yet according to their Principle they make it to do since they usually affirm that the Number of the Elect is much less than that of the Reprobates After the like manner ere he make an end of this he would turn-by the word World as being understood of a part and not All but he is mightily pinched upon this occasion where he comes p. 208. n. 64. to answer what I urge from 1 Joh. 2.1 2. where Christ is said to be a Propitiation for the sins of the whole World and that he may do it the more easily he omits a long time the word whole to shew that the word World is sometimes taken with a Restriction And at last he tells us fairly that the Phrase the Whole World cannot prove any thing and that It is but rational to suppose that the Whole World here denoteth no more J. B. by the Whole World understands only the Elect falsly c. and and for this he referreth to Rev. 3.10 and 12.9 and 13.3 c. But these Scriptures are so far from hurting me or making against what I say that they Confirm it for I argued that All and Every one was included by the Apostle in these words wherein he saith Christ was a Propitiation for the sins of the Whole World because he mentions the Saints before not for ours only but also for the sins of the Whole World and so it must be the Whole World as Contradistinguished from the Saints Now these places of the Revelations cited by him do denote All and Every one as Contradistinguish'd from the Saints which himself I judge will not deny for will he say That the hour of Tentation Rev. 3.10 came upon Every one as Contradistinguished from the Saints and that the Beast 12.9 did in this sense deceive the World that is All and Every One and that 13.3 All the World wondred after him The other places marked by him have no relation to the Whole World in the sense I here urge it which is that the Whole World when used in Contradistinction from the Saints expresseth All and Every one and the thing he should have done if he would have truly Refuted me which he has not so much as attempted was to prove That the Elect or any part of them at expressed by the word We or Us by any of the Pen-men of Scripture are Contradistinguished from the Elect or any part of them under the term of the Whole World Until he do which he no ways overturns my Argument and therefore what he saith besides this is beside the purpose ¶ 7. Pag. 204. N. 59. In answer to Joh. 3.16 compared with I Joh. 4.9 God so loved the World c. and God sent his Only-begotten Son into the World c. he tells Whosoever albeit Indefinite is not Vniversal unless it be in a necessary matter J. B's frivolous and wicked Exceptions against God so loved the World c. which this is not But he should have defined what he means by a Necessary Matter distinctly and then proved this not to be such till both which be done that 's now omitted by him his Answer is deficient His next Quibble is That the World in these two places is not the same the one being understood of the Habitable World and the other of the Inhabitants But the last may be understood of the Inhabitants as well as the first Where is the Absurdity of saying God sent his Son into the World that is unto Men or among Men 3. He supposeth I will not say God sent his Son into the World that all Inhabitants might live the life of Faith For all Men have not Faith and all Men will not be saved or God should be disappointed of his Intentions and therefore he adds as his Commentary upon Rev. 3.3.4 What if some do not believe shall their Vnbelief make the unchangeable Purposes of God of none Effect No. Answ. I perceive as most of the Man's Reasonings are built upon Suppositions so most of his Suppositions are false For God sent his Son into the World to put all Men into a Capacity to live the life of Grace and therefore who do not the Fault is their own Nor are God's unchangeable Purposes of none Effect since God has not unchangeably purposed to Damn any which he supposeth he did And upon this meer and unproved Supposition according to his Method he builds his matter He adds Joh. 3.16 is directly against the meaning of his Adversaries I judge he means all those who Assert Vniversal Redemption who build much upon it albeit I had not the Wit to Improve it But it seems had I had a great deal more Wit than I have he judgeth himself to have Wit enough to prove it all to no purpose Why because according to the Greek it is For God so loved the World that all believing or all Believers or every one that believeth in him might not perish c. And what then We must prove that either all are or shall be Believers and then he will easily grant without Dispute that Christ died for them all But the Man has not here well heeded what he saith There is no necessity of proving That all are or shall be Believers it is enough to prove that All are put in a Capacity to Believe and that Faith is not made by an Absolute Decree Impossible to most This in part is done already and more of it will appear hereafter That Christ by this place intended to shew that his Death should not be Restricted to the advantage of the Jews only is not denied In answer to Heb. 2.9 that he Tasted death for every Man he saith that the Greek here for every Man importeth in their room and stead shall we think that Christ died so for every Man and yet many of these Men died for themselves But if any Absurdity be inferred here it will redound upon himself no less than upon me who will Confess as his after-words make manifest the saying here Christ tasted death for Every Man Imports his dying here for the Elect and yet do not many of the Elect die for themselves if he mean a Natural Death but if not I see no Reason of admitting his Figure nor is there any Strength in it to prove that it imports his Dying in their room and stead as he would have it Here again he saith This sheweth the Benefit of his Death is not restricted to the Jews
saith here He will ask one word more Where I read that Christ's Flesh and Blood came down from Heaven for so my words should be Translated it seems he is either very Ignorant J. B'S Ignorance of the Scriptures or forgetful of the Scriptures and therefore let him read John 6.51 where Christ saith he is the Living Bread that came down from Heaven adding that Bread to be his Flesh. In like manner is his other Malitious Perversion denied and returned upon him where he would Infer upon us That each of us esteemed our selves as much the Christ of God as Christ was so that the Blasphemy he exclaims against is his own who speaks evil of others without a Cause Another of his Perversions is p. 236. where repeating my words he rendereth them thus out of the Latine J. B. falsly Translates the Author to seek Advantage against him This is that Inward Christ of which we Only and so often speak whereas it should have been Translated Which we so much and so often speak for as the English Edition doth verify the Latine word tantum signifies so much as well as only and was so intended here by me that it must be so both the Context and what I say elsewhere sheweth But he would have it only that he might pervert and rail the more liberally albeit he cannot be ignorant that the Latine word tantum signifies so much as ordinary Dictionaries shew and Cicero saying Nec tantum proficiebam quantum volebam nec quicquam posthac non modo tantum sed ne tantulum quidem praeterieris Those who debate fairly use not to strain their Adversaries words to abuse them when they know they may bear a better Interpretation His next Perversion is yet more Gross and Abusive p. 238. where from my denying That we equal our selves to that Holy Man the Lord Jesus Christ c. in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily He Concludes I affirm him to be no more but a Holy Man and because I use the words plenitudo Divinitatis that I deny his Deity which is an abominable Falshood I detest that Doctrine of the Socinians and deny there is any ground for their Distinction and when I Confess him to be a Holy Man I deny him not to be GOD as this Man most Injuriously would Insinuate for I Confess him to be really both True God and True Man Christ true God and true Man And whereas he rails and exclaims here and in the following page at a monstrous rate as if the Comparison I bring of the Difference betwixt every Saint and the Man Jesus from the Sap its being other ways in the Root and Stock of the Tree than in the Branches did further Confirm our Equalling our selves to him he doth but shew his Folly since Christ himself useth the same Comparison Joh. 15.5 I am the Vine ye are the Branches to which I alluded And upon this he runneth out in a vehement strain of Railing p. 239. exclaiming against us as if we denied the Deity of Christ and his Incarnation which is utterly false and therefore his work there to prove what I deny not is in vain And yet he repeateth this Calumny p. 242. adding That my saying That we believe what is written of the Conception Birth Life and Death of Christ c. to be true doth not vindicate us from it and then he subjoins Do you believe that that Body which was Crucified at Jerusalem Rose again and is now in Glory Speak your mind here if you dare This Defiance to all Men of Reason will Insinuate as if I did not believe this or durst not speak my Mind of it and therefore if this be found false he must in the judgment of all sober Men pass for a malitious Perverter For answer then I say I do believe that the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was Crucified at Jerusalem Our Belief of the Body of Christ Crucified Raised again and Glorified was again Raised by the Power of God in which glorified Body the Lord Jesus Christ dwelleth and I dare him to shew where in my Apology or elsewhere I ever said or wrote any thing to the Contrary Of the like nature to these Perversions is what we saith p. 264. where from my urging from Heb. 4.12 13. the Word of God is said to be a Discerner of the Thoughts of the heart he would Infer That the Quakers then must know other Mens Thoughts who have this in them and are sensible of it But the Absurdity here is his own Do not they say Every true Believer has the Spirit of God in them And albeit the Spirit know all things yet Every Believer knoweth not all things Since he is so ready by Consequences to make Men Blasphemers for asserting Scripture-Truth how can he avoid passing this Censure upon the Apostle who saith 1 Cor. 2.15 He that is Spiritual judgeth all things and no Man can judge any thing He that is Spiritual judgeth all things but what he knows And whereas he Rails here in saying We ascribe to the Light within the property of God and have no other Christ as also to the same purpose p. 242.237 saying The Christ we Command to believe in is not the Christ the Scriptures testify of but one born with every Man neither God nor Man c. is all answered and the Absurdity he draws from it Removed by what George Keith hath said in his Book called The Way Cast up wherein he shews by the Extension of the Soul of Christ how this is no denying of the Man Jesus but on the Contrary And if either I or any other have called the Light within GOD or ascribed to it the Property of God it is no more upon this Hypothesis than they do who say The Man Christ is God and by reason of the Personal Vnion ascribe sometimes the Actions of the one nature to the Person denominated by the other The Personal Vnion in Christ. as the Westminster Confession it self acknowledges Chap. 8. And since R. Macquair hath promised a Refutation of that Book of G. K. by J. B. in his name when we see it this may be further spoken to if need be upon which also will depend the full Discussion of that Question mentioned p. 240 241. Whether the Seed be a Substance since he will not deny the Soul of Christ is a Substance and consequently distinct from Reason as also that of Christ's being Crucified in the Wicked which p. 246. he calls a Non-sensical Dream and of the Seed's being a distinct Principle from the Soul spoken of p. 247. The full Treating of all which being Referred until that promised Work of his appear As to that I shall only say in short at present that whereas I say This Seed is not the being of God simply considered he addeth p. 230. That then all Men are Partakers of the being of God some other way Considered and what Blasphemy