foreordained from Eternity that Adam should sin and that all Mankind should die and that the far greater part of them should be reprobates and be damned eternally For the Westminster Catechism saith GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass But all these things comes to pass Ergo GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained them His next is Rom 6. 23. The wages of sin is death Where saith he Death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages of sin If the Apostle had meant more kinds of Deaths then one it is like he would have said deaths in the plural number But the Apostle intends here no other kind of death then the same kind of Life he mentions in the same sentence which is Eternal The words are For the wages of sin is death But the Gift of GOD is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our LORD Now to cause the first speak of bodily death and the last of Eternall Life is so strained an Interpretation as might nauseat a Reader He would mock R B for saying The whole Creation suffered a decay for Adams sin But it seems he hath forgotten that GOD cursed the Earth for mans sake and yet the Earth was not guilty of Mans sin But saith he The body shall after the resurrection live as well as the Soul and therefore bodily death is a punishment of sin This is pretty singular for it is acknowledged by all that the body is a meer Instrument to the Soul And at this rate our Anthors Pen is guilty of all the Lies and blasmphemies in his book and Patroclus Swordguilty of the blood of all the Trojans he killed But proves nothing that bodily death was here meant by the Apostle yea he confesseth that bodily death is not a punishment to believers â—eing the sting thereof is removed by Christ Now are we come to his second Argnment I spoke of To wit That as we are justified by the Righteousness imputed to us So infants are damned by the sin of Adam imputed to them So that it the first be false in the Presbâ—terian sense the last is also false I shall first tell him what J Humphrey saith of it Treatise of Justification page 21. As for what they add usually saith he in the definition that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and made ours by Faith as an Instrument I must confess they are notions which as they never came into the head of Saint Augustine nor were received I suppose into the Church till within a Centurie or two of years since so do I question whether a Centurie or two more may not wear them quiâ—e away again Again page 25. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us as if it were ours in its self it must be the Righteousness of his active or passive Obedience or both If his active Obedience be imputed to us then we must be look upon in him as such who have committed no sin nor omitted any Duty And then what need will there be of Christs Death How shall Christ die for our sins if we be lookt upon in Christ as having none at all If Christs passive Obedience be imputed then must we be lookâ— upon as such who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the Law and born the full curse of it And then how shall there be â—oom for any Pardon The Man who payes his full debt by himself or Surity can in no sense be forgiven by his Creditor If Christs active and passive Obedience both are imputed then must GOD he made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of works in the business of Justification when nothing is more aparent in Scripture then that by Grace we are Justified and by Grace saved A little after he saith There was no need to bring in this notion of Christs imputed Righteousness into the Church But that our Protestants mistake themselves and forget that we are justified and saved by the Covenant of Grace and not by the Law of Moses or Covenant of our Creation And in the foregoing page he saith I would fain know whether any of the Disciples James John or Paul himself whether Clemens Roman or Alexanderin Justine Martyr Cyprian Ambross Augustine or any of the Fathers Whether Gounsels or School men whether John Huss or Wickliff or any Father or Holy writer without resting on some bare incoherent scraps of sentences did ever understand or receive the full notion of Faiths instrumentality and the imputation of a passive Righteousness before Luther And if not whether it be possible it should be of any such moment as is made of it by most Protâ—stants I have set down these that the Reader may see we are not alone in this matter but that as good Protestants as the Presbyterians yea and some of themselves to wit Baxteâ— are of the same mind with us And yet in page 134 he is so confident of this his new notion unknown as this man saithâ— to the Apostles Fathers Counsels and first Protestants that he asserâ—eth either Adams sin to be such as by it all have sinned and by it death without exception is brought upon all mankind or else that the Spirit of God speaketh nonsence in this Text. Certainly the Apostles were plain men and had more plain simple and less intricat thoughts of the Christian Doctrines then our School-men have devised and I believe few of them would have understood their terms of Art now in vogue and if the Appostles or rather the Spirit of GOD had intended any such Doctrine as necessary to our Salvation It would not have needed Hathenish Philosophie and Logick to have strained a consequence from the Text which prehaps the writer never intended and our School mens seeking to cause the Doctrine of Christ quadrate with Heathenish Philosophie hath beeh the baâ—e of Christianity tho is he now made no less then absolutely necessary to the being of a Minister And yet for all this man is so confident let the Reader but look to the 16 Verse of the Chapter where the comparison is made and he will see that condemnation Eternal death is meant and not bodily Death His other Argument that Death Reigned from Adam to Moses can prove nothing for bodily Death hath Reigned from Adam to Patroclus and what than Ergo Infants are condemned for Adams sin for none can die but sinners this is boldly to begg the question and no more His great Argument in page 135 is That sin which is descrived to us by the Apostle that he saith brought Death upon all men that men sinned by it and were made sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that they all became guilty of Death and Condemnation That sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature included in Adam and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation But the first sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostle c. Ergo that sin
weight in this Chapter but his indeavours to prove that Infants are condemned for Adams sin upon which he acknowledgeth their Doctrine of Reprobation depends I shall offer him the thoughts and arguments of some Protestants upon this subject and then take notice of his argumentations And First the learned Jeremy Taylour in his book called Unum necessarium denyeth this Presbyterian Doctrine and reason thus Either Adam was condemned eternally and is now suffering in hell for that transgression or he was pardoned and is now a Glorified Saint the first he saith no Christian will alledge Adam being a Tipe of Christ and also that GOD entered into a new Covenant with him So that he was not condemned for that sin And if the second be true that is that he was pardoned and is now a glorified Saint How then can these men be so wickedly audacious as to charge the Infinitly Just and Merciful GOD with such cruelty and injustice as the wickedest of men would be ashamed of To wit to pardon the Malefactor yea put him in a better condition then he was before for his transgression and yet to punish his Posterity innocent Infants who had no being till five Thousand years after who never had accession nor so much as a consent to that sin and yet upon this wrong and wicked notion of the Deity depends their doctrine of Reprobation Secondly There is no remission without repenâ—ance saith the former Author and alledgeth he never yet met with the man that could say he had Repented for Adams sin and I doubt if our Author will say it either for Repentance is either to be understood Penitentiam agere to do penance or resipiscere to grow wise again or to do so no more let our Author chuse which of the two he will and tell us with the next whether he hath repented for Adams sin Thirdly It is the Soul that sinneth or is guilty of sin which according to themselves we have not from Adam but from GOD by new creation who made never any thing impure and therefore I will expect something next from this learned man concerning the Soul Quid unde for I acknowledge they are little enough cleared yet by the Learned tho I think our Country man Barron is inferior to none I have yet seen But if our author be for preexistance will more easily give us a reason for our inclinations to evil The next I shall cite is the sorenamed John Humphery with R Baxters approbation who asserts page 26 of Eelection Redemption that a discharge of mankind from damnation for Adams sin only is a fruit of Christs death immediate and Universal Again in page 28 of the Covenant he asserts that Infants being Baptised are saved And adds if they be not Baptised we are yet to look on them as such who have not broken this new Law or never resuled and rejected their remedy and so long as by the Redemption of Christ they are delivered over with all the World from the Covenant of works to the New Law to be judged I will not be the man that shall condemn one Infant to Hell or unto torments And here I must tell our Author that its strange to see him contend so much for the Scripture to be his Rule and yet be so dogmatical in a matter so lubricous when he can produce no plain Scripture for it nor a consequence without excessive straining and whereas he objecteth some Protestants and some Fathers I had rather with one Athanasius believe the Divinity of Christ and wonder that the whole world was become Arrian then follow the multitude in such a gross error as that was and is In the next place I shall consider where the strength of his Arguments ly rather then follow his rambling for I perceive he makes the greatest noise and clamour when he hath least to say and boasteth greatly when he hath done nothing The whole strength of this Chapter lyeth in two Hypotheses First that If Adam had not sinned he should have been Immortal Secondly that as the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to man for Justification So Adams sin is imputed to man for Condemnation And to prove these two Doctrines upon which much of the Presbyterian Religion depends he should have proceeded candidly and given us Scripture proofs obvious to every well disposed intelect whereas he hath brought no Scripture which any plain man like me can think to relate to such a matter First He calleth R B tidiculous for enquiring if his Adversary would assert every thing that Augustine said But he should have confessed that Augustine erred in this very Matter in saying That all Infants dying without Baptism were demned And then have told us That he who erred in one thing might have erred in the other But this tho true would have wronged his Cause His first Argument he draws from Gan. 2. 17. For in the day thou eatest thou shall surely die Hence he arguds Infants dies Ergo they are guilty of Original sin This Consequence is very gross for if bodily death had been hereby threatned Then Adam could not have lived one day after the commission of that sin whereas he lived some hundreds of years after it And the Westminster Confession is wiser then to make it a part of Adams punishment in all the first five Paragraphs of it till they joyn actuall sin with it calling it only a death in sin and a defilement or corruption of our whole nature But he pleads death is an evil and no evil could have befallen tâ—an if he had not sinned This he answereth himself confessing That to the Scints where the sting of death is taken away it is no evil Therefore if Adam had not sinned death had been no evil to him But I must ask him a Question seeing it is consessed by all that Eternal death is a punishment of sin from which the Saints are freed How comes it that the Saints are not freed from bodily death also Seeing according to our Author Bodily death is no less a punishment of sin then Eternal Death is If he say That all Mankind were to die because of Adams sin altho all Mankind were not to be condemned for it which yet is nothing but his own assertion How came it that Enoch and Ellas dyed not but were translated And that Paul saith We shall not all die but we shall all be changed c. All which seems to bear that the Earth should not have been Etetnal nor Adam have lived Eternally on it altho he had not sinned Which being the grand Pillar upon which he builds his Doctrines of Original sin and Reprobation he should have proven by plain Scripture or sound Reason which he hath not done to the satisfaction of any Reader yea he hath scarce attempted it except by a Rapsody of railling words But he had an easier way to have proven both and more consonant to his own Principles By telling us That it was
malicious Author like an Advocat pleading at a Barr Bawls Cryes Rants and Tears and will perfâ—â— nefâ—s have us guilty of Arrianism And first he sets down that Arrian herefie to be That the Son is separated from or divided from the Eternal and Ineffable Substance of GOD the Father Now I charge him and all the Presbyterians in the World to produce on sentence in our Writings bearing this Doctine which I am sure they cannot Moreover Philip Melanchton in Chron Carionis page 264. Saith That Arrius denyed the Divinity of Christ and That the Son was Co-Eternal with the Father that he was a Creature ex non existentibus That is ex nibile All which we detest and abhor But to stop his mouth for ever I tell him we owne the Nicen Creed which I shall here insert so farr as concerns this Contraversy I believe in one LORD JESUS CHRIST the only begotten Son of GOD born of the Father before all Ages GOD of God Light of light True GOD of true God Begotten not made Consubstantial with the Father by whom all things were made who for us Men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven and was Incarnat of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary and became Man was also crucified for us suffered under Pontius Pilate was buried and arose again the third day according to the Scriptures he ascended to Heaven sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father and is to come again with Glory to judge the Quick and the Dead of whose Kingdom there shall be no end And now what can our most malicious Adversaties require more of us for I hope it is evident to all Men that it is the words of Mans Wisdom invented that we oppose and not the Mystery it self And here by the way I must tell him that this Counsel hath been no friend to Presbytry For we read of no Presbyters there but such as were Legats sent by Bishops who for age or sickness could not come As also that they appointed two Metrapolitan Bishops one in Rome and another in Alexandria See Chron Carionts page 205. The rest of his Tatle is only about the Translation of Hebr 1. 3. For which he citeth a number of Lexioons I have none of them by me but one Serevellius who in his Lexieon Graco Latinum translats it Persona and in his Lexcon Latino Grâ—cum translats it Substantia But Hiâ—rom Erasmus and Melanchton translats it Substantia And so if George Keith have said any thing which offends our Author in this or any other point he may deall with his Books when he hath a mind and I do not Question his ability to answer for himself I cannot omit one notable proof he gives to prove his salsehoods Thus It is most evident from their perpetual bellish roillings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity calling it an abominable and stinking Doctrine as they that heard them told me c. Now Reader consider what can be expected from such an Adversary whose malice blinds him that he cannot see his own folly Perhaps as great a Liar as himself told him a Tale and he will print and publish it to the World to defame an Honest and Innocent Body of People This is Hicks and Faldo downright As for the Word Persona it is not to be found in the Nicen Creed and not only Augustine but Jerom and Laurentius Valla find fault with it as no fit word to express the Mystery But a late Writter who calls himself a Protestant Minister poircâ— eâ—gh rationales de DEO c. disputeth at large against the word Persona to whom I refert our Author That it is an unscriptural word he confesseth and then why may we not seek plain Scripture for it as well as his Brother Jo Brown in page 175 saith It is considerable that no where in Scripture we find it affirmed expresiv that Christ died for all Men. why then is all this trouble made But it seems Presbyterians may do many things which are not allowable to others seeing they would fain be accounted Dictators over all Consciences in Brittan But I hope what is said will suffice to clear us of Arrianism to any prejudiced Reader And therefore I shall proceed to his second Calumny Which is that according to the Quakers doctrine GOD is Author of sin We have heard of some Witches who after they were condemned have impeached many Innocent Persons So our Author being unable to clear his Brethren of that guilt charged justly on them by R B and fully proven would have the Quakers as guilty as they Solatium est miseris multos habere pares But two Blacks make not a White His Argument is GOD is the Author of every Substance But according to the Quakers sin is a substance Ergo c. He proves his Minor thus Grace is a Substance therefore sin is a substance He saith R B denyeth the Consequence which he thus proveth Sin can hear feel and perceive as well as Grace and Light it may feel and perceive the things of Satan as well as Light And Grace feels or perceives the Things of GOD and may be in the Heart of a real Godly person Therefore it is a Substance Thus our Auther Answer The Scripture is cleat That the Life of the Son of GOD is the light of men and that this is a substance I think he will not dare to deny and he hath seemed to grant that there was a substantial life in Adam before the fall which he saith was extinguished by the fall Hence came the darkness the Death the Polution the Corruption the lust the flesh or Body of Death and all sin as the West-minster Confession teacheth Now to compare these together and to say the light enlighteneth therefore the darkness enlighteneth the life of Christ in man feeleth and perceiveth therefore Death Polution and Corruption doth feell and perceive is a most wild consequence and if he intend to make the seed of the Serpent every way equal to the seed of the Woman it s but the path way to Manichism and indeed he hath manifested his favour to the Serpents seed very much by contending so warmly for its Kingdom in his Chapter of perfection But it will not do for no Man can deny that he hath had the Counsels Prohibitions Approbations and Reproofs of the Light and Grace of GOD either before or after the doing of the Good or evil act which speak forth a living and substantial Principle Whereas the other is a meer defect privation weakness corruption and a want And hath more of the nature of an accident tho I dare not call it one That is which may be present or absent without destroying its Subject For Adam had no sin and was better without it then with it And so will our Author if ever he have the good Luck to be delivered from it tho contrary to his Faith And Christ the best Man that ever was never had it as he
ther the Glory of God not the 〈…〉 of the people We haâ—e no malâ— knowing that he who hates his Brother is a Murtherer and no Murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him To the Examples of Enoch and Noah being called perfect He saith R B confesseth they once bad sin Therefore how came they at another time to be free of it altogether The answer is easie 1 John 1. 9. If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness As for the word Perfection its having diverse significations It may be so But I am sure it can never be truely predicated of him who breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed. He comes next to vindicate their Arguments for the Devils Kingdom or Sinning Term of Life The first whereof is 1 John 2. 3. misunderstood by them If we say we have no sin c Answer first I say with Augustine upon the Galatians Aliud est non peccare aliud non habere percatum Secondly The following words of the Apostle are If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness And he that is cleansed from sin is the same that was before said to have sin Now it is said in the 7th verse The Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin Here cleanseth is in the present Tense Now to be defiled with sin and cleansed from all sin at the same time seems a contradiction and therefore must be admitted to be two several times Let our Author solve this by a fair Commentaty with the next To his Answer That it follows no more that the Apostle John was at that time defiled with sin then that the Apostle James was a Curser when he said of the tongue herewith curse we men Our Author Replyes There is no Parity And why Is it because they are both in the plural Number and present Time No But saith he James speaketh of gross outbreakings and John simply of the nature of sin Very good I see our Author can distinguish betwixt morial and venial sins Of which sure lying must be one in his Judgement or else he had been unsainted long since But knowing this would not do he tells us the Apostle John even in his best Frame had sinful actions and citeth Revel 19. 10 11. and 22. 8 9. The first place is That he falls down at his feet to worship him And the second is That he fell down to worship before the feet of the Angel Which second place cannot be understood of worshipping the Angel but of Worshipping GOD before the feet of the Angel But admit they both meant so our Author must acknowledge this to have been one of his venial sins if a sin at all For it was but a mistaking the Angel who in Chapter 18. 1. Is said to have great Power and the Earth was enlightned with his Glory I say it was but a taking this Angel to have been Christ And therefore he may see the LORD did not permit the Apostle to commit the sinful action upon that mistake but stopped him And he reads not that John offered to worship the Angel after he knew him to be his fellow servant And so these two Texts he boasts of can do hm no service To the rest in this Paragraph he giveth no Answer but It 's false And again we know c without any Reason but his imperious assertion which deserves to be neglected Next he indeavours to prove from Ecclesiastes 7. 20. That Men sin daily c. Which place he little urgeth only tells us He hath considered the Hebrew and hath found it the Indicative Mood So saith our Author Ergo verum But he must excuse me to think Jerom and Junius Tremellius as good Linguists as he and yet have translated it in the Potential Mood and may not sin His next is Rom 7. 17. From which Texts he saith J B. hath proved That the Apostle was in Carnal State in respect of sinning at that time But he hath not been so just as to tell us how he proved it least his Arguments should have been sound like these he cites page 200. But I wonder how a Man of Sense can assert it if he but read the next Chapter throughout The second verse whereof cleareth this matter where the Apostle saith The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus had made him free from the law of sin and death And many times after witnesseth a better Condition As that he had sought the good fight c Nothing could separate him from the Love of GOD c And Phil 4. 13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me His Objection of the Apostle John is already answered That of Peter proves no more then that a Man may sin which is not denyed He comes at last to his great Argument If we find no Instances in Scripture of such persons as were so perfect as that they did not sin then to imagine such a Perfection is but a groundless fancie and dream But the former is true Ergo c. For answer let the Reader observe first that our Author finding his Brothers Argument fully refuted by R B hath not attempted the Vindieation of it But he saith the Argument was proponed three different wayes the first of which he chooseth to answer unto Answer Either this Argument which he answereth unto was to the purpose or not If it was to the purpose it was right to answer it Seeing our Author calls them not three arguments but one proponed three different wayes any of which his Adversary might lawfully choose If it was not to the purpose as was the greatest part of his book then he might have spared it But because R B took not our Authors argument to task which perhaps was not there he saith he must confess he skipt over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the Jugular Vein This is a Rhodomontado expression more like Don Quixot then a sober man writing about Religion tho very ordinary with our Author But let us see what cause there is for all this froath First then I deny his Minor for I can find him many recorded in Scripture of whom there is no failing recorded to wit Enoh Melchizedeck Elias John the Baptist and many of the Prophets and let him prove by Scripture that these men did sin For Athanasius in his fourth Oration against the Arrians saith That many were born holy and free from all sin and particularly Elias and John Baptist Secondly I ask him whether the sins of the Saints were recorded in Scripture for our imitation which he seems here to insinuate for we say not that we ought not to walk according to the Scripture But that the sins of the Saints are recorded that we may shun them not that we should follow them neither is there
right to the Scripture but Presbyterian Priests Secondly That for Fruits he enumerats four gross and abominable Untruths wherewith he chargeth us To witt That we deny the Holy Trinity the Person of our Lord JESUS CHRIST The Resurrection of the Body and that we assert the Souls of Men yea and devils too to be GOD Almighty Of all which he saith he will prove the Quakers to be undenyably guilty before he end his Treatise This needs no Answer But to say The Lord rebuke this lying spirit which hath gone forth in the mouth of this lying false Accuser For the LORD GOD whom we serve knoweth our Innocency in this matter and will in his due time vindicat his people from these malicious Callumniators But Thirdly The Man might have considered that these are points of Faith and not of Works and that our Saviour spoke here of Works and not Faith only The most wicked Man in the Nation may believe all the Westminster Creed as well as Patroclus doth and yet receive the Sentence in verse 23. of the same Chapter Depart from me ye workers of iniquity And therefore tho he should add another Forsooth to it I will betake me to the Fruits mentioned in Scripture and then let the World which he sayes is not ignorant judge between them and us Galat 5. 20. Where these are reckoned for Fruits of the Flesh Variance Emulations Wrath Strife Seditions Envyings Murthers c. Which whither they have been peculiar to that Tribe let the Nation judge On the other hand the Fruits of the Spirit are Love Peace Joy Long-suffering Gentleness Faith Meekness Temperance c. And whether the people in derision called Quakers be found in the Exercise of such Fruits let such as are acguainted with their conversations bear Witness for or against them And I may say without reflection if to devour and destroy be the fruits of Abbadon and Apollyon These are the only Spirits the Presbyterian Fruits can lay claim to which to enumerat were to writ a history but the late Advocat George Maekenzie hath given an Epitome of them to which I refer the Reader In page 84. He chargeth R. B. with three lies Citing his Vindication But how groundlessly will be evident to any who will be at the pains to examine R. B's words to which for brevity I refer the Reader Only this the first is as really John Browns as his two Hypothetick propositions are his own in page 79. To which R B. answers what a horrible lie is this The Second is no lie For in chap 3 Num 2. Of the Westminerr Confession we have these words Altho GOD knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed Conditions yet he hath not decreed anything because be foresaw it as future or as that it would come to pass upon such conditions And in the very next words they add By the Decree of GOD for the Manifestation of His Glory some men and Angels are predestinated unto everlasting Life and others fore ordained unto everlasting death Let him interpret this with the next for if it bear not all that R. B. saith it is no better then the Answers of the Delphick Oracle So that which he calls a palpable and horrid Lie will be found to be a manifest Truth to any that can read the Confesfion above cited His third is that I. B. makes a preaching to the devil to deny which is impudence with a Witness And as for railing in pulpit and print it is too well known to the Nation to seek to cover it Whereof Brown and Mackquare are two famons instances neither is our Author a Novice in that ignoble art wherein lest he should come short of his Brethren he giveth us a short parralel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers This is an old blast from a new horn a work already done by George Meldrum when he was Preacher at Aberdeen and fully answered by George Keith without any reply To which I might remit my Reader but because it is not yet printed I shall touch at some of them and it is to be suspected not without cause that the hand of Joab is in all this His first is That these men said The Word of GOD was a certain heavenlie thing distinct from the Scriptures Adding the same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers Answer What was their Doctrine I know not for I see little ground to believe their Adversaries did not belie them more then that our Adversaries do not belie us now which they are not ashamed to do in the face of the Sun but our Doctrine is well known to be That Christ is the Word of GOD according to the Scriptures and that the Scriptures are the words of GOD. His second is about immediat Revelation But our Doctrine on this head is sufficient ly cleared in the foregoing Treatise His third is That the express words and phrases of the Scripture is to be adhered to without anie exposition interpretation or deduction That is a gross Callumny may be seen in page 67. of his own Book where he accuseth George Keith of poperie for rejecting their interpretations without the Spirtt And it is manifest we have always contended that the Spirit was the only true Interpreter of hard Scriptures where they were heard to be understood and that the express Words were to be adhered to where plain His Fourth is that we assert that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us but as it is ratified by CHRIST in the new and hath precept or authority from it For which he citeth R B's vindication page 178. Num 5. And to show the Reader his base ingenuity I shall transcribe R B's words which are these He seeks maliciously to inferr that I deny all authority of the Old Testament which is a horid callumny But since there are many things therein which himself will acknowledge are not binding upon us now What shall be the Rule whereby we shall judge what we are now tyed to and what not c. If this be to deny the obligation of the Old Testament or to say it is abrogat let the Reader judge But it seems our Author thinketh the Ninth Commandement to be abrogated else he would not so confidently bear false witness against his Neighbour His fifth inslance of Original sin he referreth to his third Chapter and so shall I. His sixth is That Christ made no satisfaction for sins and compared them who taught the contrary to the Seribes and Pharisees to assert which of the people called Quakers is gross and detestable injustice forgerie and malice But to cover this he addeth another no less false as to us that it is damnable and dangerous Doctrine to assert that we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ c. Which he promiseth to prove in his fifth Chapter but will never be able to prove any thing like