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
angry that I should condemne the Socinians and Pelagians but the reason is manifest because he would so willingly have it believed that I am one with them and albeit I could not in reason be obliged to say any thing more to these pages yet that none of these fictitious and false conjecturs may catch any unwary Reader I do freely affirm that I believe man fell and was degenerated both as to Soul and body and I understand the first Adam or earthly man to comprehend both but that there was something in Adam which was no part of his Soul and body nor yet constitutive of his being a man in my judgment which could not degenerate and which was in Adam by the fall reduced to a seed and could never have been raised in him again to his comfort but by a new visitation of Life which from Christ by the promise was administred unto him and is to all men in a day for to say the affirming such a Seed remained in Adam when he fell doth infer his understanding was not hurt and as he doth p. 94. is a consequence I deny and remains for him to prove That to believe there was such a thing in Adam which the Scriptur calleth spiraculum vitarum the breath of Lives is no new coin'd doctrin these may see that will read Athanasius de definitionibus and his third dialogue de Trinitate 4 oration against the Arians and Cyrillus Alexandrinus in his Treatise upon John lib. 2. 3. lib. 8. 47. and in his Thesaurus lib. 4. and others that might be mentioned As for his arguing p. 96. that because I affirm the Seed of God is a Substance therefore according to me the seed of sin must be a substance also which consequence I deny and therefore what he builds against me upon this supposition falls to the ground What he saith here and there scattered in these pages of the Light will in its proper place come more fully to be considered ¶ 2. Pag. 98. n. 17. after he has saluted me with the titles of effronted and impudent he will have me one with Socinians and Pelagians because I deny outward death to be a consequence of the fall but where he proves I do so I see not It 's true I say the death threatned Gen. 2 17. was not outward death for Adam did not so dye the day he did eat and I do still believe so neither offereth he me any thing to give me ground to alter my mind but to conclude thence I deny outward death to be a consequence of the fall was too hastily inferred But what if I were undetermined in this matter and that it remained a mystery to me for I believe not the being positive therein essential to my Salvation which if I were truly what he saith seems not to me sufficient to proselyt me to his opinion for albeit I willingly confess with him that sickness and all the other miseries attending this life yea and death it self considering the anguishes wherewith it is now generally accompanyed are the consequence of the fall and of sin yet I see not how it would thence follow that Adam should not have dyed seing death to him if he had not faln would have been freed of all these miseries and rather a pleasur than a pain which has been known to have befaln many Saints As for his n. 19. he confesseth the matter of it is left to the next chapter where I may meet him ¶ 3. Pag. 100. n. 20. he goes on at an high rate of perverting for after he has said Who would suspect but I mean honestly he applieth to me the saying of Solomon he that hateth dissembleth with his lips we must not believe him for there are seven abominations in his heart But why am I with him guilty of this great charge Because albeit I affirm that man is wholly degenerat yet I say Whatever good man doth in his natur that doth not proceed from him but from the Divine Seed in him Answ. These words are none of mine but a forgery of his own so incident it is for the man to lye and pervert and therefore all his vaporing and absurd inferences drawn from this throughout this Paragraph fall to the ground My words are that the natur by which the Apostle saith the Gentiles did the things contained in the Law cannot be understood of the proper corrupt natur of man but of a Spiritual natur which proceedeth from the Seed of God as he receiveth a new visitation of the Divine Love Where it is very plain I consider man as visited anew and that in the strength of that Grace thereby received not of his degenerat natur he doth that which is good Nor do I any where say as he falsly insinuats That this Spiritual Natur is in all men though I do say That all men are visited by God in order to beget this spiritual Natur in them as will after come in its place to be spoken of Now all his battering of this my assertion in the three following pages depends upon this supposition That the good acts done by the Gentiles are not done by vertue of any such visitation but only by a Light of corrupt natur which remained in them after the fall so that it is but a meer begging of the question untill that be first debated But he thinks he has brought me under a great dilemma p. 103. urging That since I say all their imaginations are evil I must say every Heathen has this Spiritual natur in him yea and the Devils must be partakers of it because they believe there is a God which is a good thought Answ. He is too hasty in his reasonings for that the knowledge a man may receive from the Divine Seed makes him instantly to partake of the Divine Natur is not proved by him and he knows I believe all men to be visited by this Divine Seed which may give them an head-knowledg which they may retain as some men do the Truth in unrighteousness and yet not receive it in the love of it so though they have it from a Divine Seed yet it will not follow they must necessarily so receive it as to become partakers of the Divine Natur. And as for the Devils he wil confess that once they had this knowledge from a Spiritual Natur and though they have faln yet they may retain the memory of it for that their fall and Man's is every way alike he will not affirm He saith p. 102. That to believe good done by Heathens that is by such as have not the benefit of the outward knowledge of Christ is done in vertue of a Divine Seed overturns the Gospel but he leavs the confirmation of it to the sequel where I shall attend him N. 25. he tels me very fairly the Apostle doth not contradict himself as if I had ever imagined he did but the question is whether the meaning he gives the Apostl's words implys not
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
I answer This reasoning would inferr those to be saved by the death of Christ who never repent especially with those who judge men may sin yea must sin all their life-time and yet be saved neither doth the absurdity reach those who affirm Christ to have dyed for all as to obtain remission of sins that are past and Grace sufficient to work faith and repentance yea and restore those that may fall into sin after their conversion if not resisted and this is sufficient to infer that Christ dyed for all neither can that absurdity more reach them than the Apostle who speaks of such as denied the Lord that bought them And since the Evangelist placeth the benefit upon the reception saying but unto as many as received him he gave power to become the sons of God all these Scripturs afterwards cited by him signifiing the efficacy of Christ's Blood is not denied they themselvs confess it was sufficient and of value enough to have redeemed every man but that doth not hinder it from proving ineffectual to such as will not receive it as is above shewn And therefore his question p. 172. If Christ dyed for the sins of all persons how cometh it that they are not all actually pardoned is easily answered Because of their non-reception of the Grace by which his Death should be made effectual to them and albeit this maketh Free-will author of condemnation as himself will acknowledge yet not of Salvation as shall after appear His next argument p. 174. is that If Christ had dyed for all men all men should be saved because he hath purchased Faith and Salvation for all for whom he has dyed and this he supposeth he has shewn before but his confidence in his own arguments doth not influence other men I am yet to see where he has proved any such thing The Scripturs he brings such as Rom. 8 32-39 c. to prove this speak of those who had really received the Grace and in whom regeneration was working by it and do indeed very wel prove that Christ dyed for them yea what if I should say hath purchased them Grace prevalent to Salvation Yet they will not prove that he has not dyed for others also that may miss of Salvation Pag. 175. N. 25. he saith It is considerable That no where in Scriptur we find it expressly affirmed That Christ dyed for all Men. Why then is all this trouble made But is it not expressly said Heb. 2 9. that we see Jesus that he by the Grace of God should tast death for every man Let him tell us what less that importeth yea if it be not more emphatik to say Christ tasted death for Every man than to say Christ dyed for all Men. It is much the man would so proclaime his ignorance ¶ 6. After more of his tedious and superfluous reasonings against this meer possibility as he calls it he comes p. 195. n. 48. to overturn my grounds for Universal Redemption and first in answer to the Angels song Luk. 2 10. urged by me wherein they hold-forth the coming of Christ as tideings of great joy to all People This he saith is to shew the Offer was to be made now to all Kindreds Nations Tongues and Languages And what then It is not said only so excluding all Particulars of these since the word ALL in the common acceptation comprehends every Particular as wel as all sorts and he should have given some reason from Scriptur why he restricts it here but in stead of that he contradicts himself in the very following words saying for he was to reign over the house of Iacob Luk. 1. v. 13. for this if it urge any thing it will exclude his former concession if it be not exclusive he can prove nothing from it Neither doth he more pertinently alledge Matth. 1 21. that he was to save his People from their sins for that Scriptur doth not say that he purchased not a capacity for some to be his People who by their resisting lost the benefit oftered them How often would I have gathered you and ye would not saith Christ Mat. 23 37. Luk 13 34. He saith further this would not have been glade tideings if it had been a meer possibility But I affirm no such thing To my urging Christ's commission Mark 16 15. to preach the Gospel to every creatur and that of Paul Col. 1 28. he saith it will no more prove that Christ dyed for all men than for Devils and Beasts for they are creatures But how silly and perverse this answer is is easily apparent for is it lawfull to preach the Gospel to Beasts and Devils or is it as unlawfull to preach the Gospel to any men as it is to do it to Beasts and Devils But on the contrary since he will not deny but it is a duty to preach the Gospel to all men indefinitly yea in this place he acknowledges it they being the proper subjects of it so that of them must be understood every creature here mentioned Pag. 196. N. 50. To my arguing the Gospel inviteth all and that it would be a mocking of men if Christ dyed not for all to command them all to believe that Christ dyed for them he saith This is built upon an untruth that the Gospel doth not command all to whom it is preached to believe that Christ dyed for them but only to flee to an all-sufficient Saviour But what 's the preaching of the Gospel especially in his sense even as a little before acknowledged by him but a declaring and offering of Salvation to all to whom it is preached Mercy and Good-will through the merits of Christ who dyed for them Next the argument still holdeth good if the Gospel commands as he saith to flee unto an all-sufficient Saviour for unless it be possible for such who are so commanded to do it the preaching of it to them is a mocking of them and that to purpose if this impossibility be imposed upon them by him by whose command the Gospel is thus preached The example of Moses to Pharaoh and Esaias to the Iews has been before answered He ends this paragraph begging the question as if the Gospel could be said no where to be but where there is an outward dispensation of it by the ministery of men ¶ 7. Pag. 197. N. 51. He confesseth there is no Scriptur that saith Christ has not dyed for all men and there is that saith he has tasted death for every man which is rather more and not a probation by consequence only as I have already shewn then he cometh to consider my argument from 1 Tim. 2 13 4-6 shewing that Salvation can not be impossible for all since we are commanded to pray for all and that since Christ gave himself a Price of Redemption for all it can not be impossible that all should be saved as is more largely illustrated in my Apology Now how he is pained in answer to this and in his nibblings about
do justice to themselves as wel as right to the injured Author of this Treatise not only in respect to the appeal added to the end of the last Section but also to the many other gross abuses falshoods and railings detected herein to be most impudently asserted by John Brown since he comes forth under no less character than a Presbyterian David and that given him by so eminent a man as Robert Macquare is reputed among them which justice is also the more hoped for since the more moderat Presbyterians have themselvs felt the fruit of J. B. his violent furious and unchristian temper in his fomenting Divisions among them and encouraging Cameron by his Letter whom they repute an Heady Turbulent Incendiary and the effects of whose work strengthened by J. B. have produced no small mischief both to the Cause in general and to many poor People who have been thereby ruined if the occasion some of themselvs represent of the late rising in Scotland be true ERRATA The Reader is desired to correct these following Errors which have escaped the Press other literal ones which do not so much touch the sense are left to his discretion and if any others considerable have not been observed and here remarked it is hoped the courteous Reader will not impute them to the Author because of his absence from the Press In the Preface page 1. line 20. for still read style P. 3. l. 24. for which r. them P. 4. l. 6. r. who that speaks In the Book pag. 16. l. ult r. owne P. 17. l. last save two r. Sects P. 22. l. 6. r. do P. 23. l. last but two r. preparatory P. 26 l. 25. after may d. not P. 32. l. 4. d. of P. 34. l. 25. r. spirits d. of P. 43. l. 26. r. bonds P. 57. l. 9. r. arcady P. 68. l. 9. r. him P. 83. l. 13. d. by which P. 88. l. 11. r. he P. 102. l. 5. after is read not P. 78. l. 2. add after dye for themselvs 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 P. 98. l. 34. r. is P. 101. l. 14. r. say l. 15. r. is P. 110 l. 28. r. sine P. 113. l. 16. d. by P. 135. l. 16. r. by Papists against Protestants Pag. 184. l. 15. r. he hath but said it l. 18. r. so as all P. 192. l. ult r. and. P. 168. l. 17. for proof read reply P. 180. l. 3. r. corruptions P. 175. l. 34. for and r. add R. B's. APOLOGY For the true Christian Divinity VINDICATED From J. B's. Examination and pretended Confutation thereof in his book Called QUAKERISME the path-way to PAGANISME Section I. Containing the Introduction and the Method the Author proposeth to himself in this Treatise with the reasons wherefore together with some general Considerations relating to I. B's. whole book and Remarks on his Epistle to the Reader ¶ 1. AMong the many evils that abound amongst those that bear the name of Christians this is a great one that in the unhappy difference they have among themselvs there appears so much malice bitterness and envy and so little of that candor and sincerity true and unmixed zeal and of the meekness peaçablness and gentlness of Iesus so that there is often-times observed an eager willingness to represent their Opposits other ways than they are But among all sorts of such as profess Christianity I know none have more reason to complain of this abuse than we who albeit we have not a little laboured to make known to all the plain Truth held by us yet our words have been most miserably perverted upon many occasions and we most horribly misrepresented as is abundantly manifest to many who are acquainted with the books writ against us and our answers wherein many if not most of the arguments used against us are not levelled at those things we truely hold but at the monstrous and horrid conceptions which our adversarys have framed to themselvs and then would needs fasten upon us as our Principls and doctrins Many of us have been thus exercised in the controversys wherein we have been concerned and I my self in some small rencountres that have heretofore faln to my share have had my part but I confess inferior to many of my Brethren But now that B's work appears I think considering the bulk and natur of it hereafter more particularly to be viewed I may come up with most For I scarçe think that ever a man's words were so horridly and constantly throughout perverted or that ever a book of controversy of its bulk to wit as I take it betwixt 70 and 80 sheets of paper was so stuffed with a continuall strain of Railing from the very first page unto the last Yet when we consider the man's design which appears from the natur of his work perhaps there will be less occasion of wonder ¶ For either he or some brother of his abroad having without any provocation from us the People called Quakers faln into the most gross and vilest sort of railing against us in a Post script to S. R's Letters and that without the least offer of probation it seems they judged themselvs concerned to give the people some reason for their so doing And there could not be a finer knack to beguil the credulous and implicit Multitud than to answer a book writ in Latine and not extant in their Mother-tongue for there a man as to them who can not read understand and compare it with that to which it relates may pervert words as he will draw consequences at pleasur and make to himself what monsters best please his fancy or like his humour best to batter And yet he can not find in it by all his perverting enough to make us so black as he would have us so that he is often-times constrain'd to fish for this by citing the writings of some that have writ against us and bring us up some of their old threed-bare calumnys long ago answered by us in which his injustice shall be afterwards observed And so he being thus furnished can the more easily abuse especially while he is almost secure that the generality of those he writes to are such as will not call in question as to the truth of it what is said by one esteemed by them a pretious and gratious Minister and sufferer for the good cause to boot But blessed be God! the number of such implicit believers groweth daily less and many that had wont to do other-wise begin to love to see with their own eyes and not to pin their faith so much upon the Clergy's sleeve as they had used formerly to do For this cause had I had to do only with the more judicious and Learned who could have wel understood the Latine edition I should have thought my self the less concerned
he has goten me in a contradiction because he supposeth that I willingly grant that the Light within may continue to exhort such to repent and turn whose Day of Visitation is expired but it is no wonder the man's arguments are weak that are built upon so groundless suppositions For I will never grant that the operations of the Light are every way the same in man after as they were before his Days of Visitation were expired for albeit before they judge reprove and condemn for sin yet this is accompanyed with a gentle drawing and Invitation to Life but that he has this afterwards I utterly deny as is clear by Christ's weeping over Ierusalem To prove p. 153. that this their doctrin is not injurious to Christ's Propitiatory Sacrifice by making it a great judgment and plague to many he asks Must not Christ be for the fall of many in Israle Luk. 2 34. çiting other Scripturs of the like import Answ. All this urgeth nothing but upon supposition that all these never had a Day of Visitation so that he doth but beg the question His supposed contradiction which he repeats again here is before removed Pag. 154. N. 24. To prove their doctrin putteth not men in a worse condition than Devils he saith Devils are under no offer of Mercy now and hear not the Gospel but is not this a pretty solution whereas he confesseth this offer of Mercy and hearing is no advantage nor was ever intended to advantage those who are damned and therefore fore-seeing the weakness of this he brings-in my words where the pinch of the matter lies to wit Devils had once a possibility of standing but so not Men according to their doctrin to this he has no answer but that all Mankind once stood in Adam But did not God decree that Adam should fall Let him answer me this directly where then was their capacity of standing or his either If he say not let him take home his own reasonings that something came to pass which God decreed not and consequently according to him fore-saw not But suppose this difficulty were solved let men of sense and Reason judge whether men be not put by their doctrin into a worse condition than Devils while they affirm that Devils had once a standing and fell by their own personal disobedience and presumption but Men had only a standing in Adam fell by his act and not by any of their own all of them before they had a being and many several thousand years before but to befool his Reader he saith in the end of this paragraph their Doctrine is consonant to that Rev. 22 17. and whosoever will let him take of the waters of Life freely and this he repeats in the end of the next paragraph But how deceitfull he is in this cannot be hid from the understanding Reader since that invitation signifies nothing to those that are by an absolute Decree excluded from the benefit of it and is but to deal with such invited ones as the Poet feigned of Tantalus who was up to the chin in water but restrained from drinking which he takes notice of as objected by me p. 155. and labours to remove it but in vain What he saith to that end resolvs in this question Have Heathens or Reprobats as great a desire to Salvation as Tantalus had of drinking And what if they had not the comparison is not impertinent for he that hath resolved to starve a man whether he do it by hindring him to eat or by destroying his stomach that he has no appetit and therefore doth perish doth equally contribute to his death And the like doth their false doctrin most injuriously ascribe to God As for the Scripturs here brought by him such as all men have not Faith 2 Thess. 3 2. and others of the like import they are not to his purpose for the question is not Whether all men have the exercise of those gifts that lead to Salvation but Whether the most of men be by an irrevocable Decree before they had a being yea from all Eternity secluded from all means of obtaining these Gifts that they may be saved and that because ordained to be damned albeit by the Gospel as the revealed will and command of GOD invited to repent and be saved ¶ 5. Now I come to his 8 chapter of Universal Redemption where I shall not have much ado for many pages for after according to his custom he has introduc'd himself with railing and reproaches and that in the first 4 pages he has told the various opinions of those that held universal Redemption and at last his own as conceived in the Westminst Confess of Faith he goeth about to prove that there is no Universal Redemption and that upon this medium that there was a Covenant betwixt God and the Mediator which would be destroyed by such as assert this Universal Redemption because according to them it might have faln-out notwithstanding that Eternal transaction that not one person should be saved Upon this he enlarges endeavouring to shew the absurdity of it both from Reason and Scriptur unto page 194. All which toucheth me not at all who do not say that Christ by his Death purchased a meer possibility against which he battereth thtough all these pages since I have expressly affirmed and he himself observs it that Christ's death purchased not only a sufficiency of Grace for all but also such a prevalency for some by which they were necessarily brought to Salvation and yet is so unjust as to affirm that I am for this meer possibility saying p. 178. n. 28. I embrace this opinion with the Arminians and p. 179. n. 30. he saith or as this Quaker saith who in effect saith that it may so fall-out that there shall be no application whether this be malice or forgetfulness himself best knows But this is sad he seldom forgets to be malitious but often to be just yet as to the bulk of his reasonings of that matter perhaps he bestows them for the confutation of those others he speaks of besides the Quakers against whom he saith he writes who if they judge it their concern may answer it Yet in this prolix disputation he has cast-in some arguments which seem not only to urge against this meer possibility as he terms it but also against Christ's dying for all in any respect such as from page 169 N. 19. to page 175. But these are such as his usually are which only proceed upon the question 's being begged for whereas he saith that those for whom Christ dyed he dyed to take-away their sins it is not denyed provided they resist not the Grace purchased thereby so that faith and repentance be wrought in them But he urges this in the following page 170. that since this non-performance of the Condition is a sin if he dyed for all sins he must have dyed for this also and if there be another Condition imagined for that too and so in infinitum
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
ascribed to the Grace so as he saith it was not he and yet this man asketh p. 248. if to be justified by Christ within be not to be justified by our works adding to render me odious especially seing this is Christ formed within and not Christ who laid-down his life a ransom for sinners which Christ in our account he saith can not cleanse nor do any good which is a gross calumny But the evil he intendeth here to us returneth upon his own head for if to assert Christ formed within be to assert another Christ than dyed and suffered Then the Apostle was guilty of this crime Gal. 4 19. I travel in birth again untill Christ be formed in you yea he cals Christ within the hope of Glory Col. 1 28. Will he thence dare to say the Apostle held another Christ than he that dyed And let him prove if he can that in our speaking of Christ formed within we say more than the Apostle Another of his calumnies is p. 302. where because I say that all have sinned that come to man's age therefore I deny that the wicked actions of such as are not come to be men and women are sin which is utterly false as I never said so so I never intended as he malitiously affirms to insinuat any such thing Pag. 303 304. he would screw my words speaking of a twofold Redemption whereof the first is the capacity of being redeemed purchased by Christ without and the receiving of and enjoying that wrought by Christ in us to make an absurdity because I say that as to us they can not be separated then all must be redeemed the one way who are redeemed the other and that then every man must be redeemed from the power of corruption and saved But here according to his custom he cites not my words justly which are that they are both perfect in their own nature albeit in their application to us ward they can not be separated that is he that comes effectually to enjoy the benefit of the one must enjoy the other he that receivs the second partakes of the first also he that really receivs the first receivs the second also but that hinders not but many may be offered the benefit of the first and by rejecting and resisting it lose the benefit both of first and second and he that rejecteth it at any time albeit he receive it for a season as by his falling he loses what of the second is wrought in him to wit of purification so he doth also lose the first which was remission of sin His last cavill at this is very impertinent which is by way of question that if this second redemption be necessary to salvation as it indeed is what shall become of the child of God that hath no light what shall become of them that have true grace uniting them to Christ c. and yet through darkness can see and acknowledge no such thing For to pass-by the absurditys here supposed that saints can be said to have no light or have grace and be united to Christ yet neither be able to see it nor acknowledge it and that not during their life-time here for unless this be also supposed he can not conclude what he will for that a saint may be clouded at a time is not denied yet this maketh nothing for his purpose Will it follow because they see it not that it therefore is not needfull to their Salvation His own words imply a contradiction to this And thus the man confutes that by which he would urge another in the very words by which he expresses it for is not grace to unite the heart to Christ necessary to Salvation He will surely say Yes if then the acknowledgment of that and seing of it which is needfull to salvation be not needfull then the not seing or not acknowledging of a thing makes it not a thing unnecessary to Salvation which is the absurdity he would insinuat ¶ 3. Thus having removed out of the way his most obvious perversions and abuses I come to treat of the main matter which all depends upon this one question What is that whereby a man is justified so as to appear truely just in the sight of God This he supposes to be don by the righteousness and death of Christ without even before any work of righteousness be wrought in man even as a cautioner to whom he compares Christ in this case frees him whose debt he pays I on the contrary affirm that albeit reconciliation and remission of sins be by the death of Christ without and the door opened so that all may be at peace by the offer of grace made in Christ if they reject it not yet hereby no man can be said to be justified or appear just properly untill Christ be received in his heart there to renew and purifie him and make him just so that however justification may be distinguished from sanctification yet not divided nor yet so distinguished that a man can be truely said to be justified who is unholy and unsanctified And therefore upon the examining of what he urges against this and for his position as also what he answers to my probations for it depends the whole matter but before I enter particularly upon this and that there may no interruption meet me when entred in it I will first take notice and remove his mistakes and misapplied proofs thereupon both in what he opposes me and affirms for himself as also here take notice of his meer assertions And first then pag. 299. he supposes there can be no reconciliation by the blood of Christ's cross c. unless for such in whose room Christ dyed as a Cautioner and Surety and so made satisfaction that they should be redeemed and delivered But albeit upon this notion and affirmation all depends yet I miss the proof of it if his after proofs say any thing to it I shall examin them that which he mentions here written Rom. 8 3 4. is so far from doing it that it proves the contrary For albeit the Death of Christ was that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us yet it follows not that the righteousness of the Law must be fulfilled in all for whom he dyed yea the following words who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit shew this to be the condition requisit on our part that we may partake of the benefit of his Death If to prove that man should be reconciled redeemed and delivered by the Death of Christ he bring the instances of the righteousness of the Law to be fulfilled in us then men can not be said to be reconciled redeemed and delivered untill this righteousness of the Law be fulfilled in them What he addeth to this that we can not be said to be accounted righteous and absolved from Accusation upon the account of our works of righteousness since I say no such thing freely confessing that not only pardoning of sin