will may turn sufficient grace into effectual grace when they list or God without palpable absurdity cannot be said to intend salvation to them all (d) Mr. T. P. may do well to see a large discourse about this in Dr. Amirald the very man he boasteth to be of his side Defens Calvin de Reprobat p. 198 199. inde †Innocentius tertius Sanguis Christi pro Solis praedesti natis effusus est quantum ad efficientiam sed pro cunctis hominibus effusus est quantum ad sufficientiam Thom. Aquin. super 5. Caput Apocalypseos De passione Domini inquit loqui est dupliciter aut secundum sufficientiam sic passio redemit omnes Omnibus enim red mendis salvandis sufficiens est etiamsi plures essent mundi ut dicit Anselmus Lib. 2. Cap. 14. Fifthly All his tedious discourse which he begins p. 93. and at length concludes thus p. 94. from all this together it is as clear as noon-day that they who deny him to be the Saviour of all the World intentionally cannot say with any reason that he is so much as sufficiently the Saviour of them whom he eternally decreed he would not save c. Answ 1. I say all this Discourse is grounded upon a mistake of the usual diâ—tinction received in the Schools and which in his Margin p. 93. he relates well out of Dr. Overal viz. of Christs death either as sufficient for all or efficacious only for some the first member of this distinction about the sufficiency of Christs death is not by the Authours of it †Innocentius tertius Sanguis Christi c. as it is known opposed to Intentionaliter as he reports it but to efficaciter as they use it 2. Both he and his Dr. Overal with him p. 93. are out if they suppose them who do mannage this distinction best (e) See Mr. Perkins Dr. Twisse and others distinctly opening the sense of this distinction D. Twisse Lib. 1. §. 21. 22. p. 252. 254. Hujus pretii soluti virtus efficacia inquit Rev. Perkins tum quoad meritum quoad operationem infinita est tamen distingui debet est enim vel potentialis vel actualis Efficacia potentialis est qua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in se sufficiat pro redimendis Singulorum absque exceptione peccatis etiamsi essent mille mundi hominum verum si spectemus efficaciam illam actualem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illud quoad consilium Dei quoad eventum pro Electis tantum praedestinatis est solutum Dr. Twisse Ibid p. 254. Christum mortuum esse pro omnibus non est idem quod Christi mortem sufficientem esse pro omnibus Illud enim negaret Perkinsius nos unà negaremus hoc affirmaret nos unà secum affirmantes haberet idque nulla sub conditione ne voluntatis quidem Divinae licet contrarium Perkinsio sed sine omni candore imputat Arminius c. to take the ground of the sufficiency of Christs merits to arise from his Hypothetical will of saving all without any difference whereas they take the sufficiency of his death for all even of a thousand Worlds if there could be so many and without which it could be sufficient for none to arise from the Dignity of Christs person as he is God and man so that tâ—ey maintain the death of Christ to be absolutely sufficient for all and not only to be so upon supposition In a word they say not when they deliver their mind accurately that Christs death as a price sufficient was actually offered up to the Father for all but that his death is in its own nature of such worth as to be able to save all and that it will efficaciously save all who are by Faith made partakers of it Thirdly Christs Eternal Decree which to make the matter the more odious to carnal undiscerning people some few lines before he calls his irreversible Decree whereby he was not able to resist himself is at all no barre to the sufficiency of Christs merits for saving all it is only a voluntary Barre of his own making which renders him not unable but for Reasons best known to himself not willing i. e. not decreeing to save all Fourthly If P. Bertius Shield-bearer to Arminius himself may be believed we need not much contend for the distinction of Sufficienter and Efficaciter because it is not properly of Divine but humane Tradition which was the reason why Arminius would not prosecute it (f) Exam. Armin. Perkins praedest p. 99. Sixthly and lastly from what hath been said in my Corrept Correct as well as in this writing to other Scriptures parallel to that of 2 Cor. 5. 14. it will be easie to discover what must be said to all that extravagant Discourse upon which Mr. T. P. spends no lesse then 4. whole pages Chap. 4. from p. 28. to 32. for after all said and all done pro or con it will be most clear to any attentive Reader who will either seriously mind that Text with its context or consult with the best Interpreters 1. That the Apostle in his proposition 2 Cor. 5. 14. speaks of an all such as himself who were constrained by the love of Christ and sure such are not the all Mr. T. P. pleads for and therefore that the all in the Minor v. 15. must needs be taken as it was in the Major 2. That the death the Apostle speaks of v. 14. is not a natural death as Mr. T. P. would have it p. 30. but it is a moral death viz. such a one by which in Christ our head we did as it were all die no otherwise then as if we had died and satisfied for our selves and procured for our selves a vertue to dye unto sin and no more as the Apostle speaks v. 15. to live not unto our selves but unto him which died for us c. 3. He will find that v. 14 15 17. the Apostle makes a tacit Antithesis which elsewhere he had done most explicitly Rom. 5. 11 12 13 14 15. c. 1 Cor. 15. 21 22. betwixt the first and second Adam who are by him made to be two different Roots whereof the first after his fall derives nothing else but death and sin to his natural Off spring but the second derives to his spiritual Off-spring life and righteousness (g) Vide J. Camer De Ecclesia p. 105. 107. Ut Adamus Auctor generis nostri est secunduÌ„ carnem homo terrenus terrenorum ita Christus auctor generis nostri est secundum spiritum homo Coelestis Coelestium Attamen diversâ ratione Fusiûs idem p. 127. ejusd Libri Quam sit haec nostri cum Christo unâ—â— efficax vel inde facile colligi potest quod quae Christus in nostrî Gratiam pertulerit ea eodem apud deum loco sint ac si nobis tam gravis poena incubuisset Hoc verò est quòd Apostolus
thoâ—e his labouâ—s tending to those Subjects which hath been usefull and acceptable to them the whole reformed Church are concerned in it I find him still punctually observing his former expression viz. rejecting all the doctrines of Geneva in which besides the latitude there is this ambiguity whether it be meant according to Calvin or Beza for both were of Geneva between whom in some of these points there was the like difference as between Mr. Perkins and Bishop Abbot with us viz. in the Superlapsarian opinion with Beza was for but Calvin held it otherwise It had been better to haâ—e named the particuâ—ers than thus to cloud them in the Generalls The only point which he names here is That the Primat embraced the doctrine of universall redemption and saith in that he doth as good as say all He doth not assert it from his own knowledge but saith he hath it from many most unquestionable persons which had it poured into their ears by the Primates own mouth If it were in a Sermon of his at a Church in London the last he preached in that City and many months before his death which I am enformed by others is the sense of it I was present at it and with me there was no new thing observed to have been uttered by him differing from what his judgment was many years agone since I had the happinesse to be known unto him It may be some of these persons produced for witnesses being strangers to him and taking him to be of the other extremity might apprehend it as a retractation but they were much mistaken in it If they heard him affirming That by the death of Christ all men receive this benefit that they are savabiles or put into a capacity and possibility of saâ—vation That termes of peace are procured for all mankind That all mens sins are become pardonable mercy attainable in which state those of the Angeâ—icall nature which fell are not That there is some distinction to be made between his satisfaction rightly understood and his intercession according to that of our Saviour I pray for these I pray not for the world c. It is possible for ought I know some such expressions might be his then But that by this Universall Redemption should be understood such an Universall grace that the same measure of it without any distinction should equally and alike be conferred and applyed to Judas which was to Peter and that the only difference was the free-will of Peter in accepting without any further cause of thanks to God for his grace in inclining him accordingly c. This I suppose will not be attested to have been professed by him either in this or any other Sermon or private conference with him And in this present inlargement I would not be understood to interpose my self in the controversie or to affix thus much upon Mr. Piercyes Judgment but only to averre that the Primate at his last in this particular differed not from what he had declared formerly That which he saith is the summe of what he had sayed viz. That the reverend Primate did conforme his judgment to all the fathers of the Church for the first four Centuries after Christ This he might averre without any relation to these poynts in controversie it being the terme or thereabouts which he accepts of in his answer to the Jesuit Malones Challenge in the justifying or condemning those twelve points of controversie between us and the Church of Rome of which one concerning Freewill is of this fraeternity What the Primates judgment was of that is sufficiently declared there and he continued in the same without any change the last time I saw him by the discourse I had then with him of it and St. Augustine unlesse we be over strict may be admitted within that compasse being accounted by the Primate at the time when he was consecrated a Bishop to be but in Anno 410. as Prosper reckons his death but in 433. being then of age 76. Before whose time these poynts were never discussed by the Fathers at large singly nor determined by them joyntly in any Councill which Pelagius gave the first occasion of and t is known that the doctrine of St. Augustine against him is inclined unto and defended by the Primate in his workes And to say no more the Articles of Religion Agreed upon by the Arch-Bishops Bisheps and the rest of the Clergy of Ireland in the Convocation holden at Dublin Anno 1615. which fully determine and declare all those poynts accordingly he had then the honour to be appoynted by the Synode as a principall person to draw them up Now the last time that I saw him which was after that pretended Testimony of the witnesses of his change either in publique or private he did fully confirme and commend that to me to be heeded and observed by me as the summary of his judgment in those and other subjects of which I have said somewhat more elsewhere That of Mr. Piercyes drawing in more to bear him company viz. King James Bishop Andrews Melancthon in their châ—nges also for the better as he is pleased to determine doth not concern me to take notice of only if he have found it under their hands as their last will and Testament in their workes he shall but Charitably erre to use his own words if he shouâ—d be mistaken but no such matter appears here is to the Primate In a word I cannot but professe my restect to Mr. Pierce both for his own worth as the great esteem which in this postscript morethen in his former book he â—ath expressed of this Eminent Primate can easily believe he would account it a reputation to his opinion that his might patronize it by the great esteem had of him in all parts of the reformed Church both for his learning and piety and I have so much Charity as to believe that this error is more to be imputed to his informers then himself and if I were known to him I would advise him not to infist any farther in it it being by these several circumstances so improbable but according to his own ingenuous offer to make an ample satisfaction and what he hath so highly extolled in the Primate to have been his glory and honour in preferring truth before error in that his suppoâ—ed imaginary retractation I may without offence return the application to himself which with all prudent men will be much more his own commendation and though according to his profession he be innocent as to any voluntary injury thinking he did God and him good service yet it being a wrong in it self will deserve some Apology And indeed it will be hard for any prudent impartiall man to believe that what the Primate upon mature deliberation and long study for so many years had professed in the Pulpit and at the presse he should be so soon shaken in mind as without any convincing force of argument from any other
quae plantantur aut rigantur sed quibus Dâ—us dat incrementum Cur autem ille credat ille non credâ—t cum ambo idem andiunt si mirâ—câ—lum in eorum conspectum fiâ—t ambo idem vident altitudo est divitiaâ—um sapientiae scientia Dei cujus inscâ—utabilia judicia apud quem non est iniquitas Let me but once for all which I am sure iâ— viz. easie for me to do prove him a Pelagian and a Mâ—ssilian every understanding body will then presently concâ—ude that his sense of Antiquity can never be right that he can have no good opinion of Austins Writings that it will be â—ay he what he will to the contrary impossible for him to maintain special grace in any true Christian Catholique sense § 1. Then in this extreme short Parallel which were most easie to be inlarged I prove his down-right Pelagianisme in the chiefest and most considerable head-points thereof First (a) See my Corrept Correct p. 154. in margine The Pelagians denyed the sin of our natures commonly called original sin to be any sin at all and that because it was involuntary And what can he in truth maintain otherwise who first in all his Writings confounds Adams first sin with our Original Secondly Who every where diâ—tinguisheth that sin from our sin as being in no sense committed by our wills (b) Corrept Correct Ibid. p. 154. Thirdâ—y Philanthrop p. 8. He will by no means allow me to profess that saying of Austins that there is no sin but what is voluntary to have been abuâ—ed by the Pelagians to the denyal of original sin when as Austin himself tells us that it was an Objection which the Pelagians used against him (c) August contra Julian Pelag. Lib. 2. Lib. 1. operis Imperâ—ect f 37 and which he doth therefore so explain as that it may do them no service or him no hurt (d) Lib. 1. Retract Cap. 13. Potest videri falsa haec definitio sed si diligenter excutiatur invenietur esse verissima Peccatum quippe illud intelligendum est quod tantum modo peccatum est non quod est poena peccati c. Illud quod in parvulis dicâ—â—ur Oâ—iginale peccatum cum adhuc non ut anâ—â—â— Libero arbitrio voluntatis non absurdè vocatur etiam voluntarium quia ex prima hominis malâ— voluntate contractum factum est quodammodo haereditarium 2. The Pelagians maintained all Infants dying in their Infancy to be saved (e) Aug. in Libris de peccat merit Remissione Salutem vitamque aeternam habituri sunt infantes quontam nulltus peccati vâ—nculâ— obstricti sunt so doth Mr. T. P. strenuously in his Sinner Impleaded p. 147. Chap. 3. No truth shines clearer to me than this that no man ever hath or ever shall suffer eternal death for no other sin than that of Adam it being actually his sin and but originally ours To the same purpose in two several Chapters 3. They held all Infants to be innocent to be harmless and without sin (f) Aug. Lib. 1. operis imperfect contra Julian f. 61. Parvulus infucata primaevitate felicior bonum simplicitatis suae vitare non potuit lib. de nat grat c. 21. Sani sunt propter quos medicum quaeritis so doth Mr. T. P. who having in his Correct Copy called them all Babes of Grace p. 67. is in his Philanthrop Chap. 1. p. 7. and Chap. 4. 25 26 27. c. extreme sharp with me for maintaining them to be sinful and guilty before God which his Conscience told him well enough that I could not understand of any other than of original filth who was never so mad as not to believe Infants to be free from actual sin and comparatively to be innocent when compared with such as himself or my self 4. They introduced concupiscence and inclinations unto sin into Paradise and that before the Fall without which they think the Protoplasts could not have fallen (g) Aug. Lib. 6. Contr. Jul. c. 18. Concupiscentia mala qualitas non est c. This opinion of theirs Austin doth largely confute in divers parts of his works Enchirid. Cap. 13. de Genesi ad literam Lib. 2. De Civitate Dei Lib. 13. Cap. 10. And maintains an assertion quite contrary to it viz. Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inâ—st illi â—nâ—bâ—dientia contra dominaâ—um mentis poena peccati est quia reddita est meritis inobedientis causa peccati est defectione consentientis vel contagione nascentis Contra Julian Lib. 5 Cap 3. And even just so doth Mr. T. P. and that for the very same Reasons see him at large Philanth Chap. 4. p. 24 25. 5. They placed the wills liberty even after the fall in an absolute indifferency unto good or evil without which they maintained the Essence of mans liberty to be lost (h) Lib. 1. operis impersect Julian definit Libertas in admittendi peccati abstâ—neâ—di à pâ—ccato possibilitate consistere ut liberum habeat alterutrum velle in suopte jure utram sugâ—ereâ—tiae partem sequeretur id est vel ardua asperaque virtutum vel dâ—mersa palâ—stria volâ—ptatunâ— and so doth Mr. T. P. in his Correct Copy p. 64 65. insomuch as he saith that he dares be no more inquisitive why God made man with such a freedom of willing or nilling than why he made the hand with those two muscles whereof the one doth move to the takâ—ng of a thing and the other to the throwing of it away 6. They at least at first maintained Grace to be given according to works (i) Prosper ad Demetriad Gâ—atiam contendebant secundum merita hominum dari p. 134. they allowed of no other Grace than a meer Doctrinal or minisâ—erial one (k) Aug. de grat Christi C. 41. loquens ex Pelagianorum sententiae Adjuvat inquiunt nos per Doctrinam et revelationem suam dum cordâ—s nostri oculos aperit dum nobis ne praesentibus occupemur futura demonstrat dunt Diaboli pandit insidias dum nos multiformi inâ—ffabili dono Gratiae coelestis illuminat And it is extremely to be observed that when our Mr. T. P. had longer hetorâ—cated about the forces of such kind of external Auxiliaries of grace then at length concludeth his long winded Dâ—scourse with this saying Sinner impleaded p. 366. This is the utmost of what is meant by Gods drawing or constraining any man to obedience they liked of no praevenient Grace which did infallibly determine the will voluntatem secum rapere as one speaks before the will hath determined it selfe That Mr. T. P. doth and must by vertue of his principles maintain all these opinions I shall have occasion to shew elsewhere for whosoever is necessitated to defend the first which is the worst of them he will never be able to forsake the rest but so long as he upholds his opinion of Election ex fide
morally deficient and in that circumstance faileth and transgresseth the Law doth yet effect and produce the actâ—on which is so deficient and irregular Answ 1. It hath been oftentimes shewed him that man is the true and proper cause of every sinful act considered as an act though he is not the only cauâ—e of it in genere entis physici as it is a natural thing but he and he alone is the only cause of its Irregulation by way not of proper efficiency but by way of most proper deficiency in genere entis moralis in the way of a moral evil 2. But how here-hence any of those loose consequences should follow which he mentions p. 116. viz. That then God is not the Authour of death The very thing which he stourly pleads for Chap. 2. of his Correct Copy p. 21. 2. or that he is the Authour of sin or of both or of neither 3. or that the sinner himself is not the Authour of sin neither Man nor Devil I say I may suppose no man sees nor can he show how these Sequels depend upon his own last praemisses granted by me and therefore I need no further to trouble others about Calv. Contra Libertinos them These be but desultations à gallo ad â—sinum skips as we use to say from the Cock to the Bull. I therefore leave these bulls to stand for Bulls § 12. To his Sect. 31. from p. 123. to 127. about his ramping and raging against the names of Mr. Calvin and Doctor Twisse Answ 1. Those men are as well calumniated and so raged against who have a false sense fastned upon their words as those be who have false words devised against them or else our Saviours Evangelists knew not how to define a Calumny John 2. 19. 20 21. with Matth. 26. 61. and as little did David Psal 52. 2 3. with 2 Sam. 22. 9. 2. Unto the Worlds end he will never be able to prove that most impudent assertion of his p. 123. That he said no more of Doctor Twisse and Mr. Calvin than Doctor Twisse himself hath said not only of Mr. Calvin but of all the rest of his own party who place the Object of Predestination in massâ corruptâ viz. that p. 124. he as a Supralapsarian should argue against the Sublapsarians as inferring God by their way to be of necessity the Authour of sin For first To all those who ever have read Dr. Twisse it is well known that he doth very often ingenuously confess that he was once a Sublapsarian (a) Vindic. Lib. 1. Saepissime and yet then did not he believe that God was the Authour of sin 2. Since from the lower way he clambered up to the upper way he divers times professeth that the differences betwixt the Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians are only Logical and meâ—aphysical and not at all or not considerably Theological (b) Lib. 1. p. 52. alibi passim Ingredimur speculationem de ordine decretorum divinorum multo magis difficilem meo judâ—cio quà m praesenti instituto necessariam Neque enim nos in Arminio reprehendimus quod Creationem Lapsum praestruxerit decreto praedestinationis sed quod sidem infidelitatem Sic p. 319. Col. 2. 3. Since he left the lower way he hath taken a world of pâ—ins I think to admirable purpose for the reconciling of both parties (c) Ibid. from p. 55. to 92. which I am sure he would never have done had he believed what Mr. T. P. doth that they all do must maintain that God is the Authour of sin Yea fourthly Most volumâ—nously since his betaking of himself to Supralapsarianism give me leave now so to speak he hath spent above a 100. of Pages in folio to clear the Sublapsarians from all such crimes (d) Answer to Mr. Hoard in his second part from p. 128. to 299. even as Dr. Davenant about the same time had done much what the same Christian Office for the Supralapsarians (e) Doctor Davenants Animadversions against the same Mr. Hoard from p. 84. to 198. Psal 133. 2. behold how good and pleasant a thing it is notwithstanding the seeming differences betwixt these two great Doctors to see Brethren to dwell together in unity though himself a Sublapsarian in his Defence of the Synod of Dort and Arles both which were for the Sublapsarian way he stoutly (f) See Doctor Twisse in defence of those Synods an English pithy Book in quarto all along against Tilenus his Scoptick Libel maintains that no such matter will after any fashion follow from the Doctrines of the Synods of Dort and Arles who yet are known to be for Sublapsarianism Fifthly There is therefore nothing so plain as that what Mr. T. P. transcribes out of him p. 124. that in the Judgment of all Sublapsarians the Supralap do infer God to be the Authour of sin for holding God to decree sin as a means accomodated for God to attain to his purposed ends of Praedestination the Doctor speaks b Vâ—ndic Lib. 1. p. 87. Si hunc timorem in anem esse docuero ad omnem ad tum huic sententiae praecludendum nihil puto reliqui facturus sum not of what the Sublapsarians do usually infer against the Supralapsarâ—ans who are known every where to do the quite contrary but of what they might be apt to infer if they by falling into the lower way should gratifie the Arminians too much He expresseth what the feares of Sublapsarians might be not what their Faith was concerning their Brethren of the upper way And therefore in the following words next ensuing those quoted by Mr. T. P. he sheweth how vain their fear is g and how little they gain by their seeming condescension to their known adversaries the stubborn Arminâ—ans Sixthly It was impossible for him to charge the Sublapsarians with any such crime as Mr. T. P. chargeth them with unless he would much more besmudge his own Doctrine from whence it may seem and it doth but seem the crime will more handsomly be concluded But all those who are acquainted with the perspicaciousness of that transcendently acute Doctor will laugh at any man who surmiseth him to have been such a silly com senseless (h) The Sublapsarian opinion is candâ—dly and pithily set down by Wollebius in Compend Theolog. Christianae Cap. 4. De praedestinat Thes 5. 8. Peccatum non est reprobationâ—s causa impulsiva sed materiae seu objecti conditio necessaria Licet autem non causa sit Reprobationis est tamen causa reprobabilitatis 8. Diversae quaestiones sunt 1. Quo jure Deus hominem creaturam suam reprobet 2. Cur non omnes sed quosdam elegerit quosdam veró reprobárit 3. Cur hunc e. g. Petrum elegerit alium vero e. g. Judam reprobârit Ad primum respondetur ex causa materiali quia homo quà lapsurus reprobabilis erat Ad secundum ex fine quia Deus gloriam miserâ—cordia
it is possible for any one man to destroy himself so as to become his own Executioner it is Austins Simile in the very case before us (d) Aug. Eâ—chirid Sicut enim mori est in hominis potestate cum velit nemo est enim qui non sese ipsum ut nihil aliud dicam vel non vescendo possit occidere ad vitam veró tenendam non satis est si adjutoria sive alimentorum sive quorum cunque tutaminum desint Sic homo in Paradiso ad se occidendum relinquendo justitiam idoneus erit per voluntatem ut ab eo teneretur vita justitiae parum erat velle nisi ille qui illum fecerat ad juvaret yet I trow all men have not inclinations to cut their own throats a thing most abhorrent to nature This possibility of Adam's falling was a consequent of his being a Creature quà a Creature distinct from his Creator but was not as Mr. T. P. fancieth p. 25. exsua natura a gift of God yet it was matter enough for the Devil to work upon who had unhappily before man reduced his sinless possibility to sin into the abhorred act of sinning Jude 6. Thirdly It is therefore now most easie for any man to see how impossible it is that by our Tenents who deny God to haâ—e made our first Parents with so much aâ— any inclination unto sin we should maintain God to be the Authour of sin as he objects p. 25. and in like sort he may as easily see how impossible it is for the Adversary who maintains the contrary to avoid the force of his own Objection § 14. To what he hath Chap. 4. p. 25 26 27. § 25. in his Plea for Infants He accuseth me of saying That Infants are harmless notwithstanding original sin and that none in the World dying Infants are damned in his p. 39. But first in my p. 9. which he citeth there is not any such thing And secondly if there were it were not lyable to reproof Answ 1. Both the things which I object Corrept Correct p. 39. are plainly in so many words and syllables in his first uncorrect Copy which I followed and unto which I do there most expresly refer 2. If the latter were not to be found in the Manuscript which I objected yet it is at large to be found in his Sinner Impleaded (a) Sinner Impleaded Chap. 3. p. 147. No truth shines clearer to me then this that no man ever hath suffered or ever shall suffer eterrall death for no other sin then that of Adam which in all his writings he doth all along confound wâ—th Original sin 3. The former he doth in this his Infantile Plea for Infants maintain not to be lyable to reproof and therefore he should not have blamed me for laying an harmless Opinion as he takes it to be to his charge 4. In all this his Plea for Infants p. 25 26 27. he doth either most shamefully mistake me as if I would have blamed him for maintaining that Infants are comparatively harmless and actually so as to any injurious thought word or deed I gave him small rea on to make such a ridiculous misrepresentation of me or else he doth without any the least haesitation maintain that all Infants are absolutely originally and habitually so from the Birth the Wombe and the Conception and may for harmlesness be compared with Job David Zachary Elizabeth the Philippians who all as we know were renewed by the spirit of Gods grace to that innocency and sanctity which they attained to And is this the condition of all Infants who are free from actual sin If so first what becomes of Original sin †No wonder that Chap. 4. p. 27. L. 1. 2. he seems to make a mere nominal sin of it when he saith according to others that they are polluted with that sin which is called Original because it never was actually committed by them though for the covering of the shameful nakedness of that expression he presently subjoyned for expiation of which their Saviour dyed Ergo. Infants had original sin but now have none Is he not as highly a Pelagian as Pelagius himself was at his very first and worst setting (b) August Epist. 106. Peccatum Adami ipsum solum laesit non genus humanum Gelas in Epist ad Episcopos per Picenum citante J. Latio Lib. de Pelagio Cap. 11. Cum in uteris matrum opere Divino creantur Infantes justum non videri quod factura Dei sine ullis propriis actionibus cuiquam peccato nascatur obstricta Parvulos sine Sacro baptismate decedentes pro Solo Originali peccato non posse damnari forth Come not all his pleas for the innocency of Infants from the Pelagian School (c) They maintained them to have bonum inviolatae inculpataeque naturae Aug. L. 6. Contra Jul. c. 1. Laudabilis esse sanctitatis et puritatis naturae Li. de peccato originali C. 4. Sanos esse propter quos alii medicum quaerebant Lib. de Nat. Grat. c. 21. Serm 8. de verbis Apostolic 6. Sic Lib. 1. oper imperfect Contr. Jul. Infans est infucatâ primaevitate felicior bonuÌ„ felicitatis suae vitare non potuit nullum habes de actibus meritum sed hoc solum retinens quod tanti opificis dignatione possedit 2. If Infants be altogether harmless what becomes of Gods Justice in his signal punishing of very many of them Rom. 5. 14. (d) Aug. Lib. 2. posthum contra Julian Cap. 110. Quia ergo gravi jugo à die exitus de ventre matris puniti sunt parvuli agnosce judicem justum confitere originale peccatum Punire enim nullius peccati meritum habenteâ— sicut etiam ipse confiteris non potest sine eversione justitiae Et cap. 3. In illo gravi jugo quo etiam parvuli premuntur quomodo est justus Deus si nullus nascitur reus 3. Why should they at all be baptized what needs washing if there be no filth The whole need no Physick nor Physitian but those that be sick (e) Aug. de peccato Orig Cap. 29. Quâ—squis humanam contendit in qualibet aetate naturam non indigere medico secundo Adam quâ—a non est vitiata in primo Adam non est in aliqua quaestione in qua dubitari vel errari salva fide possit sed in ipsa Regula fidei qua Christiani sumus Gratiae Die convinc itur inimicus 4. Because he is off and on in the business of Original sin and that according to his principles he knowes not what to make of it is he not forced ever and anon to interfere with himself like a Satyr to blow hot and cold doth not his Sinner Impleaded contradict this his Philanthropy Read part 1. § 28. p. 68. where he writes thus As a Leprosie is the foulest of all Diseases so sin is the foulest of all the Leprosies in the World 'T