to think that there are more than one Bara Elohim is the sacred Text good Hebrew and sound Doctrine But Creavit Dii is scandalous no true Latine nor good Divinitie And because you think good to joyn with those that hold it not to be a bare Hebraism but an intimation of the Sacred Trinitie I pray you to remember on the other side 1. that the plural number implyeth two or four as wel as three so wholly it is but a matter of uncertaintie 2. because you say here it is a scandal for Christians to Judaize for so you are pleased to Lutheranize if indeed you beleeve that God is called Elohim because of the pluralitie of persons then wheresoever that word be found though ascribed to one several person it must signifie the whole Trinitie and then in stead or Judaism you are in peril to fall into Sabellianism or the errour of the Patropassians And for the common people I hope they will be warie how they walk and how they speak in such points of Faith as this is And because it is a matter of consequence and because the ground is slipperie let them in Gods name lay fast hold upon the Athanasian Creed beginning thus Whosoever will be saved for their guide and conduct let them read it often and hear it with their best attention and prefer it before all Catechismes much more before any new-fangled one There shall they soon learn by plain Analogie according to the Doctrine of the Scripture and the Doctrine of the Catholick Church That the Father is Creatour The Son Creatour The holy Ghost Creatour yet are there not three Creatours but one Creatour And this may suffice for your second chapter CHAP. III. Sinfull lusts THe Question is Whether in those words of the English Catechisme Sinfull lusts of the Flesh the word Flesh signifieth created nature as you taught or the corruption of nature as I said making the epithet sinfull serve onely to amplifie and not as you make it to distinguish Here you say Be it so the matter is not material it is to trifle about a toy Yet I gave some reason why it was requisite that Christians young and old should understand the meaning of that term Matter of words is so far material as to preserve what is material Verba quasi vasa as the shell preserveth the kernel and the vessel keepeth what is put into it But though you say Be it so yet presently after it must not be so Sinfull may be an epithet to distinguish withall Why so Because we are taught to renounce not the works of the Devil onely but the Devil also why not also the other two enemies the world and the flesh Those words of the Catechisme refer to Baptisme In the form of Baptisme these three enemies are twice named singly or solely without any epithet or addition namely Grant they may triumph against the Devil the World and the Flesh also To fight under his banner against Sin the World and the Devil By which two places compared together any one that will may plainly see what Flesh in the form of Baptisme and in the form of the Catechisme doth signifie namely Sin for what is called Flesh in one place is called Sin in the other And every one that will may plainly see also that you are resolved to uphold whatsoever you have said yea though it be an evident absurditie This Question with the answer you left out wholly in your later Edition which when I perceived I made some doubt whether or no I should take notice of it in my Review because I did interpret the omission to be a kinde of confession of your mistake yet did I note it for the reason given in my Postscript But here you declare your self to be for confused signification rather than a nice distinction and what you threw out of your second edition you call home for your relief in defence of your first Neither are you well contented as it seems that every one should interpose or meddle and mislike that which haply may deserve to be misliked Nemo sibi extrane us est sicut in vulnerum tract atione saith Julius Scaliger Ossa mihi extraxi egomet minimo dolore No Chirurgeon can so inoffensively touch or handle a wound or sore or fracture as the Patient can And more than this I shall not say to your third Chapter CHAP. IV. The tree of knowledge VVHen upon the marginal note of your fourtieth Question and Answer I mentioned that horrible errour as you well call it The Denial of Divine Prescience I did it so fairly and softly that I thought I had not given any just cause of distaste or anger I gave you account of my intention in making stay at it It was because the Socinians had gone that way verie far and some of the Remonstrants were following I had some other reasons which I then kept to my self but now my expectation thus failing me you shall have them One was because there was a pestilent Sectarie who to prove that God doth not know free actions before they come to pass produced those words Gen. 2.19 God brought the beasts and fowls to Adam to see what he would call them and because I thought your gloss upon the ninth verse of that chapter might unhappily help that errour forward namely that it was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil because God would trie whether man would do good or evil I therefore endeavoured to give the true reason why it was called the Tree of knowledge And Socinus disproves Divine prescience from those words Gen. 22.12 Now I know thou fearest God seeing thou hast not withheld thine onely son and your explication of a place of the same kinde with these two was likely to promote that pernicious errour Another reason was this I did observe of you in your writings that you do in a manner wholly symbolize with the Remonstrants and in some things with the Socinians as in these for instance 1. In neglecting the authoritie custome and manner of the Church upon pretence of walking onely by the Scripture-rule witness the verie first Question of your Catechisme and Open door Preface § of this You bid the people prefer the Apostles expressions before mens glosses as here pag. 44. you contented your self with the Scripture phrase and used not that of the Church 2. In your opinion that Christs death was onely a Preparation to his Sacrifice 3. Ut fideles panem frangant are the words of their Catechisme and Professours to break bread are the words of yours 4. You hold with them that Faith is wrought by no immediate power but onely the word preached 5. You would have the Names written in the book of life to be Qualities and Socinus Praelect 13. pag. 72. Satìs est eorum qualitatem quandam certam esse quae in hac metaphora proprio nomini planè respondet It is sufficient that those who are said to be elected
of They shall not plant and another eat they shall not plant a tree and then never live to taste of the fruit but they shall last as long as the tree so it follows in that verse They shall long enjoy the work of their hands as elsewhere the just is compared to a tree for growth and continuance so here he is compared to this tree here spoken of Now your Authour after the Septuagint readeth thus As the days of the tree of life so shall the days of my people be The days of the tree of life he understood to be a thousand years which Adam should have lived had he not transgressed the law given But eating of the other tree the tree of knowledge he could never attain to that age nor any of his posteritie But that he took to be the age that men should live to after the first Resurrection Thirdly In those words of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you are to know that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is restrictive he doth not say that all Christians held it but they that were in all things orthodox did hold it because he held it himself and therefore held that to be a part of orthodoxy But some who were orthodox but not in all things did not hold it for you may read a little before that he confisseth Multos verò qui purae piaeque sunt Christianorum sententiae hoc non agnoscere Many pious and right good Christians did not acknowledge so much not regarding what some thought who were called Christians but were impious Atheists and blasphemous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every way or in all things And that learned writer who would without so much as pretending any copie insert a negative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth make Justin speak to this effect some blasphemous Atheists are orthodox Christians but not in all things Not those that are in all things impious but those that are in some things orthodox must stand in opposition to that limitation in all things orthodox Tertullian held this opinion too but it was when he was not a man of the Church but had fallen to Montanism and this was a piece of his Montanism too as he saith in his third book against Marcion cap. 24. Novae prophetiae sermo testatur it was witnessed by the new prophesie but this we might not know because you were in hast Lactantius also was of this minde but his chief proofs were partly from the Sibyls with Virgils Eclogue and partly from the prophesies of the old Testament which he understood litâ—rally and marvelously whereas we be taught by the Apostle Peter Act. 2.16 and by the Apostle James Act. 15.15 to apply those prophesies to the time of the new Testament or Christs first not his second coming Now because you give this regard to ancient writers and the ages foregoing I will produce one argument of this kinde against your Millenarian belief and then conclude this chapter and it is this That opinion which was generally condemned by the Church of Christ and was afterwards upheld by none for above the space of a thousand years is no Catholick doctrine nor sound belief But this opinion that Christ Jesus should raise his Saints and reign with them upon earth for the space of a thousand years being condemned was not held by any for above the space of a thousand years Therefore it is no Catholick doctrine The Major I hope needeth no proof with you at this time but because it may seem not safe or good discretion to adventure much upon a Negative I desire leave to mollifie and interpret the Minor with this request that I may have libertie to think so untill you be able to produce some instance to the contrarie And the space I mean is that betwixt S. Hierom who opposed it and the Anabaptists who revived it And if there be any policie in the Papists coyning the lives of some of our Reformers to discredit their doctrine I am sure it is no credit to any opinion to claim parentage or resuscitation from the Anabaptists CHAP. XI How God had power enough to help man TO the Question What God had done for man when part of your Answer was That God had power enough to help him I noted that though your Answer was true yet it seemed to argue thus He can do it therefore he hath done it which I said is not safe And I suspected a dark insinuation of this that God had done all he could do to help man being fallen Hereupon in this Chapter although you are angrie with me for collecting any such thing so much as by way of intimation from your words And although secondly you charge the adverse partie with thinking so yet in the third place you own and acknowledge it to be true what I said might be darkly gathered from your Answer and you think it must pose me and all men else to tell What he could have done more as if you cared not what you say so you may revile and contradict It must be left to the Reader to compare the first of these with the third and to judge whether there be wrong offered to you or to your companion who would not beleeve but that God releeved the whole world when he had means and opportunity you needed not to except against me for saying That in things of this world we walk by sight and to say that it seems I walk so rather then by faith The Apostle Paul did walk by Faith and gives this the reason why he did so because he was absent from the Lord and saw him not but in things of this life he did walk by fight Be pleased therefore to know that in that saying of the Apostles 2 Cor. 5.7 We walk by faith not by sight the word Faith is taken in a proper and strict meaning as it stands opposed to sight and it is called the evidence of things not seen In things of this present world we walk by sight not by faith not by faith strictly taken yet by faith largely taken we may walk in this life and yet walk by sight too like as Thomas both saw and beleeved Augnst Enchirid. 8. Melius hanc appellamus Fidem quà m divina eloquia docuerunt éarum scilicet rerum quae non videntur It is best to call that by the name of Faith which is of things not seen as holy Scripture useth to speak You prove that your Adversaries hold God cannot help the most part of men because D r. K. said He can have no new immanent Act of will So then that onely which he hath willed be can do and our partie may answer He had not power enough for he cannot will anew concerning them and he had so willed already as to tie his hands You seem to speak both ignorantly and unreverently of Gods Attributes It is no wonder you should be jealous of our liberty who are afraid lest Gods Decrees should deprive him of his own
account of his death undertaken pag. 65. the second when he came in mans nature to suffer that death It is to your purpose that you should mean the first But that cannot be meant because it is said If I had not come and spoken and If I had not come and done the works that none ever did of his second coming therefore it must be meant Now let me ask Had Christs capital enemies no sins to be charged upon them before Christ came or unless he had come You have had some dealing with the people called the Quakers Did ever any of them take a text of Scripture more crudely than you do this Was there no guilt of sin laid to the Nation upon killing of the Prophets or messengers sent beforehand till the Son himself came Doubtless there was a stock of sin charged upon them before though now it came to be compleated and filled up in measure It is wonder you would not compare this with other places which might soon have shewed you how soul your errour was Or why would you not view the context or that which went before v. 20. If they have persecuted me and v. 24. You have both seen and hated me It was the kinde of sin Persecution and hatred and it was the degree of the sin it was hatred without a cause it was malice against cause to the contrary against so many good deeds convincing and obliging That was the sin which they had not been guilty of if Christ had not come You bring another text Sect. the last out of Rom. 5.14 where you say the Apostle implies a distinction answerable to what you make Some sins are after the similitude of Adams transgression namely against light knowledge and engagement or with free unnecessitated consent Other sins are not so Now man being fallen and restored again sinneth as Adam did upon a new engagement by Christs death against Gods goodness and some libertie brought into their wills Answ Adams sin was against a positive and express law others till Moses came sinned against the law of nature written in their hearts The Apostle speaks nothing of light nor of libertie nor engagement and dare you set on soot such a pestiferous opinion as you do because the Apostle implies something answerable which yet he doth not Where doth he so much as obscurely or implicitely teach that all men from the beginning were brought to a new engagement new light and new libertie in their wills Or where doth he say that some sins are forgiven of due debt and some not but upon Repentance Your discourse in the other Sections is so frivolous that I must not bestow much time upon it I will consider that place which you bring in your 10. Section the which as it seemeth you esteem alone sufficient to uphold the Universalists cause and to prove the necessitie of teaching their doctrine as without which there is no hope of any good to be done upon any man in the world by preaching of the Gospel The words are 2 Cor. 5.14 15. The love of Christ constraineth us because we thus judge that if one died for all then were all dead and that he died for all that they which live should not live unto themselves but unto him But I suppose you would not have spent so great a part of the fourth chapter of your Essayes in your boisterous and uncharitable deductions from that place if you had bestowed a little time rightly to understand it Be pleased therefore calmly to take notice First that the Redemption there spoken of is not that universal Redemption which you so much insist upon but that which is efficacious and actually applied so that a Christian thereby is regenerated justifyed and sanctifyed and Those for whom Christ is said to have died had been dead and were now alive and ought therefore in all good reason not to live to themselves but to him that died for them The like exhortation and upon the same ground we finde Rom. 14.9 Christ died that he might be the Lord of the living and that they might live to him and 1 Pet. 4.1 2. forasmuch as Christ hath suffered for us let us cease from sin and live the rest of our time to the will of God And if it be such a Redemption as is actually salutiferous and bringeth with it a new life and if it be such a Redemption of which Sanctification is a consequent as clearly it is by the Apostles discourse and by parallel places then it cannot be that which is called Universal This is further confirmed because Secondly The love of Christ there spoken of is not in probabilitie to be taken actively for that love wherewithall Christ loveth us but passively for that whereby we love Christ To this sense the scope of his words there do best sute as even they seem to acknowledge who interpret it otherwise He would not have them to imagine that what he spake of the Dignitie of his Ministerie tended to his own commendation or that such carnal end or designe had any place in him If we be besides our selves as you may think we are it is for Gods sake whom we seek and serve The love we bear to him compelleth us to do what we do whom alone we desire to know and no man else and nothing else And if it be the love active that is there spoken of for I will not much contend with you about it then we are to know there is a twofold love that God beareth to man as well as a twofold Redemption A general love spoken of Joh. 6. So God loved the world and a particular or special love most commonly understood where his love is spoken of Rom. 5.8 9. Love to the justified and those that shall be saved 1. Joh. 4.19 Love that causeth us to love him again we loved him because he first loved us such must that love be that constraineth and that causeth extasie that setteth us as it were besides our selves and is not likely to be that which is born towards all mankinde whatsoever in right reason it ought to be And thirdly whereas you say that the Apostles were carried out to all their service for Christ because of the love he bare to all men as if they would not have been half so zealous in preaching the Gospel to all men if they had not thought all men had been alike chosen without difference and no man had been denied the gift of Faith it is a very weak phansie of yours What they did was principally done for the elect people of God for his Bodies sake which is the Church Col. 2.24 for the Elects sake 2 Tim. 2.10 As for the rest they knew and testified and held themselves contented that they were unto God a sweet savour even of death unto death in them that perish The love they bare to Christ did carrie them on to do the work appointed them leaving unto God the success of their work