if his citation from him be true and therefore finding this to pinch him he brings it up again p. 126. where bringing me in saying Infants are under no 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 wel as the former page in answer to my affirmation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may relate to death and that it 's understood upon which occasion man sinned urging absurditys 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 untill he prove Death simply considered necessarily to infer guilt in the Party dying 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 designe 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 immediat Parents since there is no mention here of Adam his answer to this is a repetition of his own doctrin 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-Dutys to be Sin is but a false conjectur 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 Scriptur he reads of Original Sin and whether if the Scriptur be the only Rule he can not find words in it fit enough to express his faith or must he shift for them elsewhere ¶ 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 can not 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 elsewhere he accounts a great presumption 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 Scripturs mentioned by him p. 128. are meant of natural death which he will find not very easy 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 can not apply this to Infants without supposing that they have sin which were to begg the question And whereas he asks Whether Death be NO punishment for Sin I answer that I said not so neither is that needfull for me to affirm seing it is sufficient if it be not always a punishment of sin which if it be not it can not be concluded that because infants dye therefore they must be guilty of sin Since then the absurditys 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 admitt the supposed absurdity of saying all Infants are saved to follow from our doctrin 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 doctrin of Christ's dying for all saying I here grant that all Infants will be saved without Christ. What horrible lye 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 els be an impudent unparallel'd lyar then he infers it either from my saying Christ dyed for all Therefore if all Infants are saved it must be without Christ or that If all Infants be saved Christ can not have dyed 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 resolvs 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 wich 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 Does not this then shew I believe they have need of Christ as a Saviour who dyed 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 adminstiring of that they call the Sacrament of Baptism does it When he answers this he will solve his own argument To insinuat that some Infants are damned he asketh me what I think of those of Sodom Jude v. 7. the words are these Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Citys about them in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange
stated as a publick person whose failings could have no effect untill the persons represented did testifie 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 singular Number as if thence he would infer that one sin is only transmitted but how he proves his consequence thence he has not shewn for albeit by that first offence he gave entrance to sin that being his first yet it will not follow he then ceased to be a publick person and if not nothing can be proved from granting him to be such as is above observed Next the words are the offence of one and not one offence as he would insinuat which though in the singular number may include many yea all his offences For whatever way he seek to urge this from this place as to Adam the parallel will allow it to be interpreted of Christ where the Apostle speaking of his Righteousness useth also the singular number and thence according to him we might say that it is only the first act of Christ's righteousness that is imputed unto us and none of the rest so that we have nothing to do with his Death Sufferings and Resurrection What thinks he now of his own Divinity Let him loose his knot the next time to give him one of his own modestest proverbs The absurdity he seeks to draw from denying this consequence of his being a publick person that if Adam had stood infants should have no advantage by him since they have no hurt by his fall toucheth not me at all who no where say that Infants have no hurt by Adam's fall Adam by his fall lost his glory his strength his dominion by which he could have easily withstood the Devil and came under great weakness whereby the Enemie's tentations had already access to him and he became very obnoxious to fall under them and so all his Posterity are come under the same weakness and obnoxiousness to the Enemie's tentations who influenceth them by entring into them and powerfully inclining them to sin and this malignant influence is that seed of sin in all men whereunto they become obnoxious by reason of the fall which though in it self really sin yet is it not Man's but the Devil 's untill Man give way to it But I deny not but the least yeelding is Man's sin among which I reckon concupiscence to be one and so differ from Papists For albeit the tentation simply considered or as presented by the Devil be not Man's sin yet if he have the least love or desire to it albeit he joyn not actually that shews his mind is already defiled and corrupted and that he is become a partaker of it Thus are answered his reasonings and questionings how this seed of sin can be and yet not the persons sin p. 121 122 c. as the Reader by comparing may observe only it is remarkable p. 121. where he seems to put a great stress upon the judgment of Augustin and citing him he brings him in saying these words among others concerning Infants Shall they sin that are under no command Now since they who are under no command are under no Law for every Law imports a command how will he reconcile this saying of his holy Father which he brings as a matter of authority with his accounting it both foolish and strange in me p. 119. to prove children are under no Law So that either the authority of Augustin he brings is not to be regarded or his reasonings to prove children under a Law that is a command must be naught let him chuse which he will and clear himself of impertinency His argument in this page that as the Seed of Grace denominats a man gratious even while not exercising works of Grace so the seed of sin must denominat a man sinfull is but a begging of the question as in its place will appear when I come to treat of the Seed of Grace ¶ 7. When he cometh p. 123. n. 18. to reply to my answer to their objection Rom. 5 12. among his preliminary observations the first is very proper where he saith It is observable the Apostle makes comparison betwixt Adam and Christ. I answer it is indeed so for as the righteousness of Christ is not imputed to men for justification untill they actually joyn with it or apprehend it by faith as himself will acknowledge for I suppose by his accounting the Antinomians heretiks he will not with them affirm that men are justified before they believe so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam imputed to men for condemnation untill they actually joyn with it but this comparison spoils all his doctrin Then after he has begg'd the question a while by meer allegations affirming his doctrin to be so clear from the Apostle's words that it can not be contradicted without doing violence to the Text he forms an argument thus That sin which is so described to us by the Apostle that he saith it brought death upon all men that men sinned by it and were made sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that thereby all became guilty of death and of condemnation that sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature included in Adam and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and to condemnation But the first sin of Adam is described to us by the Apostle c. Ergo That sin is the sin of Natur c. This argument may perhaps satisfie such as are already proselyts of his Theam but will not convince one that either believs other ways or doubts since the Major is a meer begging of the question and if any thing be a foisting-in of words to the text this must be it since he foists-in the thing in debate and words not in the text such as even they who could not as yet actually sin and joyneth them with the words of the text without distinction and not as an interpretation that his unwary Reader may conclude them to be of the text and yet the man has the impudence in the same page to accuse me of intolerable boldness as foisting words into the next while I expressly shew it is but an interpretation by saying That is c. so much is he blinded with self-interest but I am content there be neither addition nor so much as consequence made use of Let him shew me the plain Scriptur that saith Infants are guilty of Adam's sin If he say it must be necessarily inferred from these words in whom all have sinned I say it as necessarily follows that it is only to be understood of all that could sin which Infants could not as not being under any law as I have above proved and Augustin whom he so much reverenceth doth affirm
flesh are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire But it is strange the man should be so desperatly audacious as to proclame his own sottishness to the world Is there a word here of Infants Is not the very reason of suffering the vengeance of eternal fire given because of their giving themselvs over to Fornication which reason could not touch Infants Pag. 129. he thinks I wrong Zuinglius upon the credit of the Council of Trent but if the Counçil of Trent wronged Zuinglius in condemning him for that he was not guilty of he and his Brethren have the honour to have their judgment approved by that Council while ours is condemned and let him remember how he useth to upbraid me with à ffinity with Papists yea in this very chapter upon less ground Pag. 130. he goes about to prove his matter from several Scripturs but how shallowly the Reader may easily observe 1. He citeth Gen. 6 5. Man's thoughts are evil continually What then Are Infants therefore guilty of Adam's sin that 's the thing in question But the Hebrew signifies à pueritiis from their infancy What then how proves that the case I do not deny but Children may become guilty of sin very early but the question is Whether they be guilty of Adam's sin even in their Mothers womb And hereby we may see he thinks not their version so exact but I. B. must take upon him to correct it to help himself at a dead lift as they say The same way is answered the other Scripturs that follow Ezech. 16 4. Matth. 15 19. Eph. 2 3. which are yet more impertinent as the Reader by looking to them may see and I might easily by examining them particularly shew if it were not that I study brevity and delight not to glory over the man's impertinency And though Infants perished in the flood and that was brought upon the men and women that sinned for their iniquitys yet it will not follow thence that infants are guilty of sins untill he better prove that natural death is always and to all the wages of sin albeit I confess with the Apostle eternal death is And indeed if these infants were punished at all it must have been for the sins of their immediat Parents which he will not affirm since the flood is not said to have come for Adam's sin but for their own so this instance clearly overturns his assertion I leave to the Readers judgment the Scripturs not mentioned at length but set down by him in this to judge whether they prove the thing in debate to wit that Infants are guilty of Adam's sin The citations out of Augustin and Origen brought by him in the next page 131. the Reader may also judge of in case they be truely cited which I can not examin at present whether they have weight enough to overturn what has been here proved from Scriptur The words of Eliphaz Iob 15 14. speak of a Man not of a child and therefore not to the purpose neither do I believe though the Spirit of God gave a relation of what Eliphaz said that we ought to build our Faith upon his affirmations Next he urges Gen. c. 5 v. 3. And Adam begat a son in his own likeness after his image but this would prove Adam's sons as guilty of all sins as that first which he denied or let him shew a ground for such a distinction And thus is further answered what he saith next page Gen. 17 14. where it is said the man-child that is uncircumcised shall be cut-off which he thinks so strong that in a vapor he desires me to chew my cud upon it for if this cutting-off was a punishment of these children for sin it must be for that of their immediat parents who neglected to circumcise them which Adam could not do and therefore could not sin in omitting it and since he will not say this he can urge nothing from that place He saith the Fathers used to make use of these words of Christ Ioh. 3 5. Except a man be born of water c. but their using it was upon their mistake that Baptism took away Original sin and that therefore infants unbaptized could not be saved That regeneration is needfull to Infants I deny not and whereas he asks how are they regenerat I answered that before asking him how those he accounts Elect Infants whom he confesses to be guilty of Adam's sin are regenerat He confesses the Fathers argument taken from sprinkling infants with water which they and he falsly call Baptisme will conclude nothing against me but since he names here Initial Sacraments in the plural number which the Fathers made use of it seems they had some more than Baptisme And since he and his Brethren make use of no more as Initial but Baptisme it seems he differs from them in what they judged needfull here as wel as the Quakers I have shewn above how I evite both contradicting myself as to Universal Redemption and excluding infants from the benefit of Christ's death And for his last question wherein did Christ excell other Infants if they be born without sin he should have said not guilty of Sin I answer In that he had no Seed of Sin in him as other infants have and that not only but he had nothing of that weakness and propensity to yeeld to the evil influence thereof as other Infants but was in greater strength glory and dominion over it than Adam even before he fell This shews his privilege above others and in nothing contradicteth what I have said before Section Sixth Wherein his Seventh and Eighth Chapters Of Reprobation and Vniversal Redemption are considered ¶ 1. IN his seventh chapter of Reprobation he expatiateth himself at great length in large and tedious homilies which will make my reply the shorter who look not upon it as my concern to answer them because these controversies are largely handled by others and what is said by him is abundantly answered yet if he will affirm he has said something that is new upon this Theam and poynt to it it is like it may not want an answer And indeed the Reader may observe him much pained and strained to put a fair face upon these foul doctrins and though what he saith here may be and it is most probable is to be understood of the reason he gives in his Epistle in being so large because of the opposition of others besides Quakers and also because I touched these things but passingly as being a Theam much debated and common to us with others I might pass it by with a reference to those Authors who largely treat of them yet I will take notice of what he saith in direct answer to what by me is affirmed And first as for his accusation of me as not being positive and punctual enough in setting down my judgment of the Decrees of Election and Reprobation it is of no weight All do at times confess that
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 truely reâ—uâ—ed me which he has not so much as attempted was to prove that the Elect or any part of them as expressed by the word We or Us by any of the Pen-men of Scriptur are contradistinguished from the Elect or any part of them under the term of the whole World untill 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 Ioh. 3 16. compared with 1 Ioh. 4 9. God so loved the World c. and God sent his Only-begoten Son into the World c. he tels whosoever albeit indefinit is not universal unless it be in a necessary matter 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 wel 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 unbelief 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 Ioh. 3 16 is directly against the meaning of his Adversaries I judge he means all those who assert Universal 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 disput that Christ dyed for them all But the man has not here wel 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 dyed so for every man and yet many of these men dyed for themselvs 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 dye for themselvs Here again he saith this sheweth the benefit of his death is not restricted to the Jews which is granted but that proveth not that it is not therefore Universal Next he taketh notice of the context where it is said it became him in bringing many sons unto glory c. and therefore these are the all for whom he dyed But this is strongly to affirm not to prove albeit Christ brought many sons unto glory and called such Brethren it doth not follow he tasted death only for such The Apostle sheweth us first the general extent of Christ's death in saying he tasted death for every man and then sheweth us how it became effectual to many and yet the man is so confident albeit he has urged nothing but only affirmed that he adds If this context do not sufficiently confute this conceit we need regarde the Scripturs no more But here he has spoken out the truth as it is for this evidently shews that for all their pretence to exalt the Scripturs yet they regard it no more than it favours their opinion This is the account for which they regard the Scripturs if it favour their opinion and confute their advetsaries but if it do not they need no more regard it else surely he should have said If the Scripturs do not confute that which he esteems an error then he will not judge it so any more but regard the Scripturs more than his own judgment but on the contrary he is resolved if the Scriptur do not confute what he thinks a conceit that he need no more regard them Likewise in the rest of this page he gives himself a notable stroak for to my saying that their doctrin would infer that Christ came to condemn the world contrary to his own words Ioh. 3 17. 12 47. he answereth that prejudice has so blinded mine eyes that I can not see the beam in mine eye for in my opinion not one man might have been saved because Christ only procured a meer possibility and no certainty for any one man c. But as I have above observed I assert as my judgment the express contrary that Christ has so dyed for some that they can not miss of Salvation and this himself also noticeth afterwards p. 276. I would know then and let all honest men judge if there be any spark of honesty left in him whether himself be not the man whom prejudice has blinded Almost at the same rate p. 207. he
who arrogat righteousness to themselves though it do not belong to them and at these he carpeth saying the very first Exod. 23 7. is spoken of God of himself he should have said it is God speaking of the wicked that he will not justifie them some of them speak of a not justifying Job 9 20. 27 5. and what then the places were marked to shew the import of the word justify and to shew that many of them speak nothing of justifying at all whence he concludes in these words So unhappy is the man in his citations He notes first Esai 5 23 but it seems he has been in hast and therefore to rectifie his mistake let him read the words which are which justify the wicked for reward and what though where many Scripturs are noted together by the mistake of the transcriber or Printer the figurs may be misplaced and so miss Truely they must be very happy that can secure themselvs from this hazzard he has not been so happy who denied the words to be in a place where the knowing of it depended not upon the diligence of others but of his own looking to it as I have just now shewn Pag. 315. to prove that justified is not taken in the epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Rom. Corinth Gal. for making just as I affirmed in the passages cited by me he saith to take it so would make the Apostle contradict himself But this he affirms upon the meer supposition that the Apostle with him excludes all works from Justification which is but to begg the question as will after appear What he adds here and in the following page in answer to the citations I bring out of divers Protestant Authors I need not trouble the Reader with a reply to it because he turns by the most material of them as not having the Authors by him to examin them others he positivly rejects as not agreing with them as Forbes and Baxter and at last insinuats that the trial is not to be by humane Testimonies for such he accounts all the writings of his Brethren whereunto I do very wel agree only I brought some of his own folks not as if I needed them to confirm me in my opinion but as having weight with those among whom they are esteemed Doctors In this page answering what I urge from Rom. 8 30. shewing how in that golden chain sanctification must be excluded or justification must be taken in its proper sense he saith that sanctification is comprehended under Vocation If this be true which he asserts then he gives again away his cause for then no man is sooner called than he is sanctified and since he will not say seing he disclaims to be an Antinomian that any man is justified before he be called it follows then necessarily that no man is justified before he be sanctified and then to what purpose has he been fighting and wrestling all this while Pag. 316 n. 33. he accuses me of unparalleled falshood impudency and boldness for saying that I have sufficiently proven that by justification ought to be understood to be made really just whereas I undertook only to prove that the word might be so understood without absurdity adding I wonderfully conclude a must be from a may be c. but the best is his greatest charges are built either upon forged calumnies or his own pittyfull mistakes I never concluded by justification ought to be understood to be made really just only upon that which I said from the etymology of the word nor by justification there did I understand meerly the word but I conclude from all my Scriptur arguments of the thing as my following words manifest where I say We know it from sensible experience but he may be sure it is not the etymology of the word we know so And if thence he urge that this falleth not under the inward sensation of the Soul he but fights with his own mistake for that the real justification of the Saints falleth under the inward sensation of the Soul I think no man of sense will deny for Christ is formed in the mind where he is said to be revealed inwardly and that gives a sense of justification albeit he seem to wonder at it asking what Scriptur speaketh so he may read Gal. 1 16. Whether was not the Apostle here justified and under the sense of it He is angry p. 317. that I call the life of Christ an inward and spiritual thing but will he say it is an outward and carnal thing But what thinks he of 2 Cor. 4 10 11. He confesseth this Life of Christ supported and carryed the persecuted Apostles through many miseries and deaths will he say then it was not an inward and spiritual thing that carryed them through these trials But he addeth But who except a Quaker could say that the Apostle sayes we are justified by this life I answer all except such absurd men as will deny that where we are said to be saved by a thing we are said to be justified by it Rom. 5 10. Tit. 3 5. we are said to be saved by regeneration And whereas he saith the Apostle saith not that this is the Formal Objective Cause of Iustification these are words the Apostle useth not at all and therefore no wonder there be no word of it here He looks upon it as being absurd for me to think that Reprobation is Non-Iustification but I would know of him if there be any Reprobats who are justified That the marks and evidences are not always taken from the Immediat Nearest and Formal Cause I confess but that therefore the not having Christ revealed in the Soul is only a sign and no cause of Reprobation remains for him to prove wickedness is a signe of Reprobation will he therefore affirm it is not the Immediat nor Formal Cause of it After the same manner he denieth p. 31. 9. that we must lean to that which the Apostle calleth Col. 1 27 28. Christ within the hope of Glory his reason is because the Apostle saith Phil. 1 28. And in nothing terrified by your advarsarys which is to you an evident token of salvation asking must we also lean to that in Justification But will he say there is no difference betwixt that which is only a token and Christ within If there be his reason concludes nothing ¶ 6. Lastly he comes to answer what I say of the necessity of good works to Iustification and what I urge from Isai. 2. he confesseth that Good Works are an Instrumental cause which concession doth prove all I affirm if they be an instrumental cause they must be a cause sine qua non and necessary since the instrumental cause of a thing must be necessary towards its being What though Abraham was justified before he offer'd up his son it will not follow that he was justified without works His absurdity as if it would thence follow that no man is justified when he sleeps or is