actually saved for if in Christ 1 Cor. 15.22 all are made alive that are alive and that he that is alive liveth unto God through Iesus Christ our Lord Rom. 6.11 then as Christ himself such dye no more sin hath no more dominion over them Rom. 6.9 for they live unto the Lord Rom. 14.8 and 1 Joh. 3.9 his seed remaineth in him Being born again 1 Pet. 1.23 not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever Next And Christ rendreth the light of the Spirit of Grace to every man in the world It s true we have some expressions Ioh. 1.9 that Christ lighteth every man that cometh into the world but that is to be understood of the common light of nature or the actings of reason as the two next following verses do evince for the world knew him not and his own received him not they had not the spirit of grace and faith for 2 Thes 3.2 all men have not faith But how doth Christ tender the light of the Spirit of grace to every man surely after that ordinary manner that God hath sanctified to wit the preaching of the Gospel for Rom. 10.14 faith cometh by hearing and how shall they hear without a Preacher then that is apparently false for it is too well known that there are many thousand thousands in the world yea divers nations which never enjoyed the blessing to hear of Christ or the Spirit of grace but Ephes 1.12 lived without a God in this world and at last shall go Psal 49.19 unto the generations of their fathers and never see light If the meaning be that Christ tendreth the light of the spirit of grace inwardly and after an extraordinary manner this is but petitio principii as they say in the Schooles a plain begging of the question without any proof of Scripture or probability in common reason Nay it is flat against the Scripture for Luke 16.19 they have Moses and the Prophets they are to hear them Esa 8.26 to the law and to the testimony c. 2 Pet 1.19 We have a more sure word of prophesie whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place Next God also giveth a Talent to every man and power to improve it but man not improving it when received with a power is the cause of mans destruction Now what weight this talent bears with this Dictator or what power is given unto frail men to improve it and how far and to what or whom either of these talents or power is extended when he hath better studied the point and comes to understand his own meaning if he please then to communicate it he shall be sure to receive a further answer but in the mean time by way of Anticipation if his sense be as I conjecture through his clouded and dark expressions That God hath afforded sufficient means of grace and power to improve that means to every man whereby they may come to the knowledge of the truth and so be saved then I utterly deny it and my ground of such denial rests upon these ensuing Arguments 1. Arg. If God do purposely for the raising of his own glory harden some blind others and make fat the hearts of many then a sufficient means of salvation nor power to use the same is administred to all indifferently But God doth blind some hardens others and makes fat Therefore The major or first proposition is undeniable because blinding hardening and making fat is destructive to the use of means The minor or second proposition is proved from these express texts Ex. 4.21 and 7.3 and 14.4 Rom. 9.18 whom he will he hardeneth Ex. 9.16 and Rom. 9.17 even for this same purpose have I raised thee up Ioh. 12.40 he hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts that they should not see with their eyes nor understand with their hearts c. Esa 6.9 Rom. 11.7 election hath obtained it the rest are blinded Esa 6.10 make the hearts of this people fat 2. Arg. If God willingly suffers Nations to walk in their own wayes and winkes at or lets them alone in their sins and ignorance then God doth not exhibite a sufficiency of means nor inables them with a power of acceptation of life and salvation But the first is true therefore the latter For the proof of the major is unnecessary for the minor see Acts 14.16 and 17.30 3. Arg. If the preaching of Christ crucified in the doctrine of the Gospel be the onely ordinary sufficient means to bring men to life and to salvation and that many nations never enjoyed that means then God hath not afforded a sufficiency of means to all men but the first is true therefore the latter That the Gospel is the onely ordinary means Rom. 10.14 How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard c. Acts 4.12 there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved Ioh. 14.6 No man cometh to the Father but by the Son 1 Ioh. 5.12 He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not the Son hath not life 1 Tim. 2.5 One mediator between God and man the man Christ Iesus Now that many nations want this means t is too evident and therefore no sufficiency The Seventh Position That Christ hath redeemed all men from the first transgression and crost the score of Adams sin I cannot well interpret what this dreamer means for if his sense should be by way of limitation in all men to all the elect of men then I imbrace his Position and should much enlarge it But I suspect worse that he covertly denies the being of original sin secretly insinuating that the death of Christ hath blotted out Col. 2.14 that hand-writing that was against us from any further imputation of Adams sin or obligation unto punishment onely the guilt and pollution thereof still remains inherent in us However it is I will shoot at rovers and adventure an argument or two in defence of the truth 1. Arg. That unto which the Scripture doth apply the name and nature of sin deserving punishment that without controversie must be sin indeed But unto original sin both the name and nature of sin are applyed in the Scripture Therefore For proof hereof see Psal 81.7 Rom. 5.12 14 16 19. Ioh. 3.6 Rom. 7.7 8. and 8.13 Iam. 1.14 2. Arg. If temporal death hath been the lot of every one which yet hath not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression then there is original sin still in being in respect of punishment for Rom. 6.23 the wages of sin is death and every sin is either actuall or originall but temporal death hath been the lot of many who yet have not sinned actually Rom. 6.14 and this we may see instanced in the death of Infants which die without actual sin Therefore The last Position is Christ hath laid his life and shed his bloud for
perceives not the things of the Spirit nor is there any such power given them of God for unto you is given to know the secrets of the kingdome of heaven but unto them it is not given Joh. 15.5 and without Christ they can do nothing What then was become of this mans reason thus to bragg of men in their pure naturals which are so befogged that they are never able to extricate themselves I have done with the first reason and left it naked and bare I shall next proceed to your second reason which as it is by you worded is scarce common sense but such as it is take it thus 2. Because those that were given over of God to a reprobate mind being filled with all unrighteousness Rom. 1.28 are said ver 31. to to be without natural affections now if natural affections had been such an unrighteous thing as that it should lead them into sin and they being filled with all unrighteousness could not have been without it To which I answer First you mistake in your reading t is affection in the singular number and not affections Secondly the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the Translators natural affection is yet by them in the margent rendred unsociable and if Scapulaes Lexicon be consulted with such are there denoted and so the word properly signifies in quo non inest affectus amoris illius mutui inter parentes liberos who are destitute of that reciprocal love that ought to be between husband and wise parents and children And now be judge your self what a sad reason you have brought upon the Stage for the advancing of nature that as you say it is so far from leading men to sin that the teachings of it are against sin because for such is the strength of your reason or else it is nothing such given over by God to a reprobate mind are without that reciprocal or mutual love that ought to be between husband and wife parents and children I pray Sir in the next look before you leap And now for the third and last reason which is of the same size the former were and this it is Because the Apostle himself directeth the Saints to the teaching of nature it self 1 Cor. 11.14 and certainly if Paul had been of that mind that nature had been such an evil principle as that it being followed would lead men into a wicked and filthy conversation he would never have mentioned it as a teacher unto them therefore the teaching of nature doth not lead men into sin but the contrary Answ The Apostle in this part of the Chapter is giving directions what suits best with decency and order in their Church-assemblies and in particular concerning prayer whether covered or uncovered and thereby occasionally of short hair and long hair and ver 14. Doth not nature it self teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him the doubt now is what is meant by nature here and first not any principle connatural to man in the state of innocency for thereof there is neither precept nor rule nor example either for long hair or short hair But secondly by nature is to be understood that which by a common consent was taken up and brought it into a custom or fashion and that especially among the Greeks for if we look upon other nations and take the pains to search Antiquity concerning their fashions you shall find that it was a long time before the Romans used any clipping of the hair neither was it practised in France or Germany till of later years nor would Lycurgus suffer it among the Lacedemonians and if it were unnatural why did Absalom were long hair 2 Sam. 18.9 or why was the law of the Nazarites permitted It is very apparent therefore that the Apostles meaning is that custome being as it were another nature it was not the manner custome and fashion of these parts at least among the Corinthians to weare long hair because it was an Argument of too much effeminacy And now Sir do but revise the strength of your reason as I have clothed it and see what weight it may bear which any man of common reason and thus it lies the teachings of nature lead not to sin because the Apostle directs the Saints what is fit for them to do about long hair from what the custome was then in use among the Grecians I pray Sir take more reason with you when you next offer any reason to a reasonable man Your next endeavour is to make a gloss upon this text but it is such a one as doth corrupt the text and thus it is But as the law written in tables of stone did discover or make known sin to the Jews so the law of nature did discover or make known sin to the Gentiles and so the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and all unrighteousness of men as well the Gentiles as the Jews as appeareth Rom. 1.18 and as the law written doth work wrath to the Iews Rom. 4.15 when they sin against it so the law of nature doth work wrath to the Gentiles when they do that which is contrary thereunto and so the Ephesiaens which Paul directeth these words unto being Gentiles were not lead unto sin by nature but nature did in its measure and degree witness against sin and did by its teaching declare them to be the children of wrath when they lived in such an evil conversation which was contrary to the teaching of it Answ In answer to this paraphrase of yours it is not enough for me to unsay what you have said but rather to say that you cannot gainsay in giving of the genuine sense of the words we are all by nature the children of wrath i. e. we that are converted whether Jews or Gentiles all were alike children of wrath wherein there are two things to be opened first what it is to be a child of wrath secondly what it is to be so by nature First what it is to be a child of wrath First some by this do understand one that is guilty of and obnoxious to eternal death and condemnation because of sin but this though it be somewhat yet it is not the whole for Adam after his sin committed was made obnoxious to the wrath of God and guilty of eternal death and yet he could not be said to be a son or child of wrath for by this manner of speaking such an one is denoted as is born such and by his nature is such For the clearing whereof take notice of some such parallel places It is well known to those who are Divines indeed that these are Hebraismes to say one is a son or child of perdition as Ioh. 17.12 2 Thes 2.3 or that one is a child of disobedience Eph. 2.2 and 5.6 and Col. 3.6 and hence this manner of speaking doth a I se because whosoever is begotten or born of a man is a man that which is
things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness unto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned No Sir it is the peculiar work of the Spirit to regenerate and convert Lydia's heart was opened Acts 16. Mat. 13.3 Rom. 1.16 before she so diligently attended to Pauls words The word of God that brought forth fruit did not make the ground good but it was so before by the special working of that Spirit The word which is the power of God to salvation doth not make believers but God first makes them so by sanctifying of their natures and giving them to believe Phil. 1.29 The word of God in Regeneration hath no greater force or power then the word of the Prophets and Apostles had in raising of the dead which had no other operation then to be tanquam signum as a sign of the thing done or as a moral instrument for there is no lesser power requirable in the recovery of a poor soul from a spiritual death to a spiritual life then there is from a natural death to a natural life And therefore as it is Gods peculiar to raise from death to life natural so it is his alone prerogative to raise from a spiritual death to a spiritual life The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live Ioh. 5.25 Yea the same power is exerted in the work of Regeneration or the new creation as was at first in the work of the old creation 1 Cor. 4.6 no less then an hand of omnipotency in them both and therefore not communicable to any creature From all of which I shall hence infer that if it be Gods peculiar work to regenerate and not the word in the hearing of it and that Regeneration is principally necessary to give us ingress into heaven Joh. 3.3 Mat. 5.8 God may then as well regenerate infants by his secret power unsearchable to us though they neither hear nor understand as he doth those that are of riper years by so weak an instrument as the word and Gospel is which hath no such inherent power in and of it self Secondly this your assertion labours of another sickness viz. a false supposition that nothing but actual sins expose men to the danger of being cast into the lake of fire whereas the truth is That original sin or that hereditary pravity we brought with us into the world deriving it from our parents Psal 51.5 who conceived us in sin hath so much of filthiness and uncleanness in it that God may justly cast a new-born infant into the lake of fire for it unless it be washed clean by the blood of Jesus who is the alone way the truth the life Joh. 14.6 and through whose alone merits we have an access into the Holy of Holies into which place are admitted onely these whose names are written in the Lambs book of life Rev. 21.27 Luke 10.20 Rev. 20.15 whose names are written in heaven registred there in the eternal immutable decree of Gods election unto life all the rest whose names are not there recorded infants as well as others are cast into the lake of fire which is the second death But enough of this at present I shall be sure to meet you again more about this when you lay out your strength against original sinne Another thing which you give out in the nature of a reason why infants cannot be damned is viz. for that their not having of faith will never be charged upon them as sin Sir suppose I grant so much and so likewise what you produce out of Rom. 4.15 as a confirmation or rather as a reason of your reason for where no law is there is no transgression both may be very true as set disjunctively but as you have woven them both into one sentence they may not be true nor applicable to your purpose for herein you vary your terms that which you write takes notice of sin the text speaks of transgression wherein I conceive sin and transgression are not terms convertible for though every transgression of the law be a sin yet every sin is not a transgression of the law as in the case now before us for original sin though it be a sin properly and really yet it is not a transgression of the law as personally acted in and by the infants but as imputatively and as a defect of original righteousness So what you further say by way of illustration that there can be no law to infants as such and sin is not imputed where there is no law I grant you as to infants now in existence which law might require the exerting or putting out of any act or duty which their minority is uncapable to receive or to perform But I must withall tell you that as Adam as a publick person as a root and stock received Grace righteousness and holiness for him and his even for those in his loins so he received a law to him and his even the Covenant of works do this and live which law was incumbent not onely on Adam himself but likewise on all those that were in his loins So that infants now are born under a law and their want of original righteousness and that for the defect thereof their being conceived and born in sin and uncleanness shall be a deserving cause of their just condemnation What you bring forth in evidence to what you here aim at viz. Rom. 5.13 sin is not imputed where there is no law is so far from answering your desire that it cuts the throat of your assertion For the clearing whereof its expedient to search into the mind of the Spirit by the scope of the place The Apostle in this Chapter is prosecuting that grand point of Justification by faith in Christ and ver 11. laies down this that we have received attonement by him whence he makes this corollary ver 12. that as by the first Adam sin and death entred into the world so by Iesus Christ righteousness and life are restored to us But ver 13. he meets with an objection that sin is not imputed where there is no law where he argues after this manner If all have sinned in the loins of Adam then those likewise have sinned who lived before the law was given by Moses but before the law was given there could be no sin because where there is no law there is no transgression as Chap. 4.15 and therefore all have not sinned in Adam Now here the Apostle denies the assumption or minor proposition affirming the contrary that sin was before the law given by Moses constantly affirming that howsoever it was not imputed i. e. reckoned or accounted or reputed to be sin yet indeed and in truth sin was then in the world and this being of sin in the world before the law ver 14. he proves by the effect viz. death was then in the world and that all had sinned because that
a can or a will I mean power or desire that there is neither of them in professed Christians Phil. 2.13 but what is of Gods own working who giveth both to will and to do according to his good pleasure And as for the heathen instead of doing or any desires thereunto as to good there is nothing but backwardness indisposition aversness yea an enmity against any thing that is really good at least in a saving way But alas what persons or cause is there in the world that are so base and degenerate that cannot suborne some luxuriant tongues to plead their case though never so abominable I have now done with this and so proceed to hear what you can speak for your selfe in the defence of the position from the third absurdity which is this The third absurdity If the foresight of sin should be the cause of reprobation then the elect should be equally lyable to the decree of reprobation as the reprobates themselves they all being alike in the corrupt mass and lump of Adams transgression Answ See how he minceth his argument that he may bring forth absurdities from his own expressions and then father them upon us In the front of his argument he putteth in unbelief and the rejecting of the means but leaveth out the word continuing and now he hath thrust out all except it be this one single term Sin that he may bring reprobation to eternal destruction to the narrow scantling of Adams transgression but that shall never be granted by me until I see a better proof for it than he hath yet brought and I can allow him more Scriptures then he hath set down to his argument Iob 14.4 and 15.14 Psal 51.5 all which together with the Scriptures he bringeth do I confess prove that the whole lump of mankind is polluted with Sin and I deny not but that this pollution or corruption is in a measure from Adams transgression but that any ones being reprobated to everlasting destruction in the lake of fire which is the second death is for Adams transgression I deny for although all the fruits and effects of that sin in the first Adam do accompany us untill we come to the dust from whence we were taken which is Gen. 3.16 17 18 19. Womens sorrow being multiplyed and their conception and bringing forth children in sorrow together with the curse that is upon the ground for mans sake so as that man must eat of it in sorrow all the dayes of his life eating bread in the sweat of his face being accompanied with pain and sickness which are the companions of death till he return to the ground for out of it was he taken for saith God dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return and this was the sentence of that condemnation that God hath pronounced against the first Adam or 1 Cor. 15.27 earthy man and we being then in him when the sin was committed and the sentence pronounced we have our part with him in these things as our portion in this life for the original sin or first transgression But the holy Spirit in Scripture doth no where declare as I could ever yet find nor as any one could ever yet shew me that mans reprobation to the second death is for being in Adams sin nor for sin in their own persons no nor yet for unbelief simply so considered but for continuing in sin and unbelief For if they do repent confess and forsake their sins they shall find mercy and be saved as hath been already proved and if the elect should continue in sin and unbelief and not repent and believe or imbrace the means of Salvation they should be equally lyable to the decree of Reprobation as the reprobates themselves and there would be no difference but they in repenting believing and embracing the means of salvation fall under the unchangeable decree of Gods election so as they cannot miss of salvation as hath been already shewed Answ Truly Sir before this I did not rightly apprehend where the shooe did wring but now I find that it is Original sin that pinches you so sore that you cannot well endure the name of it which had I foreseen I would not have minced any thing in the Argument no not so much as the continuing in sin for howsoever it is that we affirm that Original sin is an hereditary disease which every soul brings with it into the world yet it leaves not a man suddenly no not when he is regenerate but continues to the end of a mans dayes It is the very last enemy of ours that death destroyes so that in respect of this Ante obitum nemo supremaque funera debet dici beatus Now what you have to say against our doctrine of Original sin I find not much in this your discourse for this you grant First that the whole lump of mankind is polluted with sin and which pollution as you say flows from Adams transgression And secondly that all the fruits and effects of that sin do accompany us till death there is onely then your bare denial that eternal death is not the reward or wages of this sinful pollution the contrary whereof is incumbent on me to prove to make my charge good against you with that third absurdity Now to prove that the first sin of Adam was ours not because he is our father by nature though that be a ground of the imputation also but because he is such a father by Covenant and law the law and Covenant of works being laid in pawn in his hand we are to understand that there be three parts in Original sinne 1. First a partaking of the first sin of Adam we all sinned in him Rom. 5.12 14 15. 2. Secondly the want of the Image of God Rom. 3.23 called the glory of God or original righteousness 3. Thirdly Concupiscence or a bentness or proneness of nature unto sin Rom. 7.7 14 17 23 24. As to the first Adams sin is ours really and truly not so much because it is ours as because it is imputed to be ours by God who so contrived the law of works as that it should be made with Adam not as a single father or person but with Adam as a publique person representing all mankind and having our common nature as a father both by nature and law which came from the meer free-will of God He was as the root and stock of all mankind Rom. 5.19 By one mans disobedience many were made sinners i. e. morally and legally but not physically and personally the fruit and effect of which is death and damnation for Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death not onely temporal or natural death but as the Apostles Antithesis necessarily carries it spiritual and eternal death in opposition to eternal life acquired by Jesus Christ the second Adam Yea and the whole series and purport of the Apostles discourse Rom. 5.12 to ver 19. carries this clear that every mouth may be stopped
by a comparison of our righteousness and life received by Jesus Christ with sin and death contracted from Adam that as by the disobedience of Adam we were made sinners viz. sinners by imputation his sin being laid upon our account as much as if we our selves had eaten of the forbidden fruit So by the obedience of Christ we are made righteous i. e. righteous by imputation God being so pleased to accept of Christ his righteousness as though we in our own persons had fulfilled all righteousness either in doing or in suffering See for further satisfaction 1. Cor. 1.30 and 15.22 and 2 Cor. 5.15 The second thing considerable in original sin is a privation of the Image of God the glory of God or original righteousness of this see Rom. 3.23 Eccles 7.29 Ephes 4.24 which uprightness had been hereditary had man kept his first station but he failing in the breach of the holy law of God he lost that righteousness both to himself and all his posterity So that there unavoidably succeeding a defect of conformity to the law of God which sinless nature did enjoy necessarily must it draw with it the sin of that nature which it voluntarily had contracted viz. Original unrighteousness Whence I reason thus Every transgression of the law of God takes along with it the true and proper name and nature of sin and to have eternal death as the reward thereof 1 Ioh. 3.4 Rom. 3.23 But every defect of conformity with the law of God is such a transgression Therefore c. The Minor is proved from those places 1 Cor. 2.14 and 2 Cor. 3.5 Rom. 3.10 and Rom. 7.18 cum multis aliis The third thing considerable is a proneness aptitude and bentness to sin not by imputation but by inclination As the young Lion and the young Serpent have not the bloudy and stinging nature of the old Lion and the old Serpent by imputation but by natural and intrinsecal inherencie so it is with men from the womb they are sinners from the birth bringing into the world a body of sin and death Whence I argue thus Every evill concupiscence or proneness in man to sin or rebellion to the law of God or enmity to God carries with it the name and nature of sin But original sin Synecdochically taken for the habit of original unrighteousness is that evil Concupiscence or proneness to sin c. Therefore For the Major I presume none dare question it and for the Minor that is confirmed abundantly and that in a special manner in the greatest part of Rom. 7. where the nature of original sin is most lively represented and the Apostle not onely for himself but for all others bemoanes their sad estate in respect of the natural inherency of that depravation of our nature And whereas you Sir were pleased to supply me with places to prove what I intended as to original sin I must tell you it was not for want of stock that I had then in store but onely because I would not then in so short an epitome be tedious and troublesome to such dissatisfied persons for whose alone satisfaction I composed that breviary but never intending it should have been exposed to publick view it was onely your pleasure to bring it into the sun light naked and bare as it was And therefore that you may see that the subject is not any wayes lame or defective for want of sufficient authority to support it take these texts of Scripture ex abundanti for the confirmation of it Gen. 6.5 and 8.21 Iob 14.5 Psal 57.7 Isa 64.10 Ier. 17.9 Matth. 15.12 Ioh. 3.6 Rom. 5.12 c. and 6.16 c. and 8.6 7. c. Eph. 2.3 and 4.22 Col. 3.9 11. Tit. 3.3 Heb. 12.1 Iam. 1.14 15 c. For what you conclude this paragraph with that if sinners should repent confess and forsake their sins they should find mercy And if the elect should continue in sin and not repent c. they should be equally lyable to the decree of Reprobation I say Sir though to affirm this doth utterly interfere with your first position where you affirm that the elect cannot become reprobates neither can reprobates become elect And yet there is some truth in it according to the Gospel manner of expressions but this hath been fully spoken to already Your next encounter is to answer a place by me quoted where you write thus But yet lest it should be thought that there is some weight in that Scripture which he quoteth out of Ephes 2.1 2 3. Children of wrath even as others to prove that reprobation to the second death is for that sin in Adam or that infants dying in infancy should be cast into the lake of fire for the same I doubt not but by the help of my God I shall make it appear that there is no such thing in it for first consider that these words in ver 1. you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins cannot relate to their being in the corrupt mass or lump of Adams transgression for that is but one being in the singular number but that which is there spoken of is in the plural number or more than one to wit trespases and sins Secondly it doth appear that it doth not relate to that sin they had as they were new born infants because it relateth to their conversation or course of life as they had a being in this world ver 2.3 wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world amongst whom we all had our conversation in times past c. By which it doth appear that he doth not speak to the Ephesians of what they were as they first came into the world as Infants for they could not upon that account be said to walk according to the course of this world neither can new born Infants as such be said to have their conversation in times past in the lust of the flesh of the mind and therefore they were not children of wrath upon that account but the Apostle there speaketh of that course of life or conversation in which they lived in time past as they were grown persons in the lusts of the flesh and the mind fulfilling the desires thereof and being by nature the children of wrath even as others Answ What man are you so confident of this first fruits of your brain as to think that you have answered all things of weight in what I have formerly written to your positions Truly Sir if I have any judgement at all there is not one parcel of all that I have delivered that you have given the least colour of satisfaction to But let us examine the reasons you give in why those words were the children of wrath even as others cannot prove reprobation to the second death or expose infants to a desert of the lake of fire Your first reason is because those words ver 1. you hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sins cannot
forth all day long were spoken to the Israelites Rom. 10.21 But to Israel he saith But in what place soever sin or unbelief or rejecting of the means are mentioned as any cause of Reprobating blinding shortning or cutting off it is spoken onely of reprobation in time which is but the execution of that decree which was determined before all time and about which immanent act of God and not these transient is our present debate And so I leave both these objections as yet unresolved by you and standing in as full force for any thing that you have thereunto answered as when they were first endited by the Holy Ghost penned by his holy Apostle Paul Give in an answer to it in the heavens if you can for you are never able to do it here upon earth And so I proceed to the sixth and last Absurdity which is this Absurd 6. Hereby we confine Gods infinite soveraignty over the creatures to that narrow scantling of our subordinate power as though he might not do with his own what he list without our controll and not make a vessel either to honour or dishonour unless he were accountable to us for a reason of his so doing Answ We confine not Gods infinite soveraignty over his creatures to any subordinate power in man whatsoever neither doth any principle that we hold tend to the limiting the holy One of Israel in the least in the disposing his creatures any otherwise then it seemeth good in his good will and pleasure to do as hath been by me already made to appear For as I have already granted so I say yet again that God might have left his creature man in that lost condition that his own sin had brought him into and needed not to have been countable to any for a reason of his so doing But it was meerly the good will and pleasure of our God to be moved onely from that fountain of love that was and yet is in himself to give forth his Son Christ to dye for all and tast death for every man and that all whatsoever was in man or acted by man did not merit the least drop of the bloud of Christ but by the grace of God it came freely and he might have withheld that great mercy from his creature and needed not in the least have been countable to any for a reason of his so doing but through that good pleasure of God the Lord Jesus is that lamb of God that was in the purpose and decree of God Rev. 13.8 slain from the foundation of the world which purpose and decree of God was put into execution in the fulness of time for our everlasting good and notwithstanding we could not in the least have looked for these things from God as a debt yet it hath been the pleasure of God by grace to send his Son into the world and to make known the mystery of his will in these things and freely to give us an account or shew unto us a reason of his so doing which will appear plainly in the resolving those following questions by the express words of the holy Spirit in Scripture without either inference or comment Quest 1. Wherefore did God give his onely begotten Son or send his Son into the world Answ That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life Ioh. 3.16 and that the world through him might be saved ver 17. Quest 2. Wherefore did Iesus Christ come a light into the world Answ That all men through him might believe Ioh. 1.7 and that whosoever believeth in him should not abide in darkness Ioh. 12.46 Quest 3. Wherefore was Iesus Christ delivered to death Answ For our offences Quest 4. Wherefore was he raised again Answ For our Justification These and many more of this nature that might be mentioned are laid down in Scripture as grounds and reasons whereby it hath been the pleasure of God to be accountable unto us wherefore he hath done these great things for us not in order to the limitation of himself to any subordinate power in us but in order to the accomplishment of his own will and pleasure for our good And so in like manner Gods disposing of his creature in making vessels of honour or dishonour is not in respect of any confinement of his soveraignty over his creatures to any subordinate power in us but the confinement of himself therein is to his purpose decree and promise which must stand and cannot be disannulled So that the question now is not What God might have done with his creature being once at liberty but that which we are to take notice of is How he hath disposed or doth dispose thereof as having freely and voluntarily bound and ingaged himself thereunto by purpose decree and promise Isa 14.27 for the Lord of hosts hath purposed and who shall disannul it his hand is stretched out and who shall turn it back So that what God for ought that we know might have done with his creature being once at liberty cannot now by him be done he having bound himself as aforesaid Take but this one instance for the further illustration of this to be a truth God might if it had been his pleasure to have kept himself at liberty for ought that we know have destroyed the world with the waters of a flood since the flood that was in the dayes of Noah but since it hath been the pleasure of God freely to enter into a Covenant with all flesh Gen. 9.9 10 11. yea with every living creature and to make a promise that all flesh should be cut off no more by the waters of a flood neither should there any more be a flood to destroy the earth therefore now he cannot destroy the earth so any more because he changeth not neither can lye Answ My good friend I cannot look upon you as a licentiate Chirurgion but rather as an upstart mechanick Mountebank who though you profess by a tedious tautology to plaister up the wound given to your Position by this Absurdity yet it sticks as close to it as a bur to your garment neither can it be cured or removed by any thing you have applyed for you do but daub with untempered morter a multitude of words will never do it I would rather have one solid convincing Argument then a whole volume of such nonsense and impertinencies as you have surfeited me withall And therefore in answer to what you would say I deal thus plainly that I do resolve not to pursue you in this your rambling discourse you have served us here with a dish of cockcrowne pottage whereupon if I should insist to frame an answer it would but wast my most precious time and nauseate the Reader for from this to the end of your Pamphlet there is nothing of new but a recapitulation and vain repetition of what hath been spoken to over and over again and fully answered Onely one thing about the liberty of the will which