summum jus we think to merit our Justification by our Inherent Righteousness at Gods Tribunal This I say is an absurd inference and smelleth ranckly of deep prejudice and perverseness of Spirit in I. A. in opposition to which I say that unless God did not only not exact in his Justice the rigid rigour of the Law as he terms it but did not also pardon and forgive us freely for Christs sake multitude of sins so as not only to remit us a Penny but many thousands of Pounds neither we nor any man living could be justified at Gods Tribunal by the greatest Holiness attainable for all that the best of the Saints can attain unto of Holiness or Righteousness is but their duty and therefore can be no ransom nor redemption unto God for the lest by past sin far less for many that they have formerly committed And whereas in my Book aforesaid I charged I. A. and his Brethren to be too much one with the Papists in the Doctrine of Justification both of them denying that the Saints Justified by Christ indwelling in them as Luther expresly Taught in his Commentary on the Galatians And also denying that Gods Justifying his Children is an inward Sentence or Dictate of his Spirit immediately pronounced in their hearts to which the said I. A. can give no reply but a meer evasion and falleth on a fresh to accuse us of Enthusiasme which being already Answered in the former part I need not here to repeat Only I cannot but take notice how ignorantly I. A. opposeth the word or term immediate to the use of means which I have already refuted and shewed how immediate Revelation such as the Prophets and Apostles had doth very well consist with the use of means And so I willingly acknowledge that true and right means are as Vessels whereby ordinarily our Spiritual Meat and Drink are conveyed to us sometimes in the use of one mean sometimes in the use of another but I hope when we Eat and Drink that which is conveyed to us we Eat and Drink it immediately See Taste Savour and Handle and Feel it immediately and can well understand when the Meat is indeed in the Vessel and when it is empty and therefore I. A. his comparison in this respect doth altogether halt and is impertinent Another great impertinency and abuse I observe in I. A. that whereas I. A. blamed our Friends for saying We are not justified by Acts of Righteousness 〈◊〉 Acts grosly inferring that thereby they understand that they are not justified by sinful Acts as Blasphemy Murder and the like yeâ— hâ— himself 〈◊〉 the same kind of Expression as to Faith saying The Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a 〈◊〉 Act And according to I. A. his Logick he means they are not justified by all works as Blasphemy Murder Unbelief according to the maxime cited by him A quatenus ad omne sequitur Vniversaliter Nor is he less Impertinent to accuse me of a self contradiction because I distinguish Faith as it is both receptive and operative for even the receptive Faith I hold it to be a work and also wrought not only in the Soul but in some degree by it as a co-worker through the operation of the Holy Spirit And I say again to affirm that the Saints are not justified by Faith as it is a work is too nice and subtle a distinction unless they mean thereby as work wrought by them and as having an equal proportion to the reward of Eternal Salvation And in this sense that may be as well said we are justified by Love Repentance and all the Acts of men and Spiritual obedience but not as works done by us and having that quality of proportion to Eternal Life I shall not insist to Answer particularly I. A. his pretended Arguments against Justification by Repentance and Conversion and inward Acts of Righteousness as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in Believers The whole force of his reasons being founded on a bare Assertion that hath been often sufficiently refuted both by us and divers noted men in the Episâ—â—pal Church as if Paul did oâ—pose Faith and all works or the inward work of Regeneration and Renewing by the Holy Ghost when he saith We are not saved by Works and the contrary is manifest from Tit. 3. 5. already cited As for his saying That our Souls are of great price in the sight of God and yet do not merit Heaven and consequently nor the best Works although they are said to be of great price with God I grant neither our Souls nor our Vertues merit Heaven nor Redemption as merit signifieth equality But seeing God hath counted our Souls so dear as to give so great a price for them as the Blood of his Dear Son they may at least be said to have some dignity or worth which is to say merit in them otherwise God would never have given so great a Ransome for them if the Souls of men in respect of their Nature and Being had not been of great value which is all I understand by the word merit as used by any of us And truly for our part we very rarely or never use the word merit as with a respect to the Saints best works unless when we are constrained to bear our Testimony against the ignorance and rashness of those who so undervalue and reproach the Blessed Spirit his works in the Saints as to call them not only unclean and underfiled with sin but sin it self for which God might justly condemn them to Hell as some have not been afraid to affirm I take notice also on this Head how I. A. doth acknowledge that Repentance Love and Hope are necessary to Justification by way of presence and existence but not as conditions or qualifications required in order to Justification which is another frivolous and groundless distinction for seeing the Scripture doth equally press our Repentance and Conversion that we may obtain Forgiveness and Justification as it doth Faith The one is certainly as much the condition as the other And it is not Faith barely considered which hath the fitness to receive us into the Favour of God and his acceptance but as it is accompanied with sincere Repentance and Obedience for as it is a most unfit and incongruous thing that any man while remaining in his unbelief should be admitted into Friendship and Favour with God so it is no less unfit and unagreeable to the Wisdom and Holiness of God to receive them into his Friendship and Favour as his Children who remain still Rebellious and disobedient against him As for I. A. his last Assertion on this Head consisting of above three pages wherein he only beats the Air and fights with his own shadow upon a gross and perverse but altogether groundless surmise as if the Quakeâ—s did deny any imputed Righteousness of Christ in what he did and suffered for us but as it is inwardly wrought and inherent in us for we most
anotheâ—s Feet and Anointing the Sick with Oyl and whether these actions were commanded by any part of the Ceremonial or Judicial Law or whether they belong to any piece of Religious Worship under the New Testament The other branch of the Question is Whether every Title from 〈◊〉 to the Revelation be the Word or Words of God To this he Answereth affirmatively and seemeth to be so offended with the Question as if it did conclude That the Quakers judge that the Scriptures are interpolated and corrupted with the additions of men But in Answer I. A. ought to know that to Query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affim or deny what is Queried Again I hope it may without offence not only be Queried but also concluded that the Translations of the Scripture the which Translations are commonly calâ—ed Scripture have divers additions which men have added without any pretence to Divine Inspiration The which Additions are commonly Printed in our English Bibles in another Character than the other words Now is it any Crime to ask if these Addititions be the words of God or only the words of man and if such Additions be any part of the Rule of Faith and Manners And yet those very Additions are of such consequence that they may occasion the Reader to take up another sense of the Sentences then otherwise he would or perhaps the Spirit of God did really intend Nor are there wanting divers both Judicious and Learned men so accounted and of good repute even among Protestants who do acknowledge that some particular words have dropt in into the Greek and Hebrew Texts since their first Writing and what are these various Lections of many places of Scripture especially when they contradict in one and the same place Are not some of them at least only the words of men All which being granted yet do not hinder but that the purity of the Scriptures is sufficiently preâ—erved viz. in respect of the main and necessary things for which we have cause to bless God and acknowledge his great care and Providence as in many other things And thus I. A. may see how much of the weightiest part of his task in giving a sufficient Answer to those Queries he hath still left undone for all his windy Braggings against the people called Quakers CHAP. IV. IN his pretended Survey of the fourth Query he divides it into three Sections In the first he laboureth by many Arguments to prove a thing which we do not deny to wit That the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith and Manners And so he might have spared himself and others all that pains for the state of the Question is not whether the Scriptures are not and may not be called a secondary Rule nor whether they may not in respect of all the Historical part be called an Historical Rule But the true Question is whether the words of the Scripture as they are only written and spoken outwardly be the Principal or only Rule of Faith and Manners Now seeing I. A. hath been at such needless pains to prove a thing against us which we do not deny I need not give a particular Answer to any of his Arguments But because there are divers of his Arguments which have some false premisses although the conclusion be granted therefore I shall a little take notice of one or two of them In his seventh Argument he maketh it one of the Premisses That the more sure word of Prophecy mentioned 2 Pet. 1. 19 20. is the Scripture But this is denyed by us for we believe it to be that Word of God in the heart by which all the true Prophets did Prophecy and without which we cannot understand their Prophecies nor any other part of the Scripture Now the reasons of his Assertion are 1. Because of the coherence of 19 and 20 Verses But this is no sufficient reason for the coherence is as good and better to understand it of the word in the heart as to understand Peter saying thus Take heed to the Word of God in your hearts by which the Prophets gave forth the Scriptures for it is that same word which maketh us sure that the Scriptures are Divinely Inspired and also doth give unto us the true Interpretation of them This is a good coherence and much better then that imagined by I. A. as if Peter had said Take heed unto the Scripture as the more sure Word for no Scripture is of any private interpretation The which violent and strained coherence I for my part cannot understand seeing Peter aimeth at something that is not the Scripture as being necessary to give us its Interpretation And what can that be But that Word of â—od which spake in the Prophets His second reason is That he cannot understand how the Dictate or Light within is more sure than Gods immediate voice from Heaven as that was at the Transfiguration To which I Answer that the inward Voice or Word of God immediately in the heart can very well be understood to be more sure as to us than any outward Voice of God from Heaven 1. Because that which is immediate in the Heart is more near and immediate than that which is outward in the Air which cometh to the Heart and Soul but mediately through the outward Hearing however immediate may be understood otherwise 2. It was by the immediate Word of God in the Heart by which the Prophets when at any time they heard an outward Voice or Word from God did assuredly know that it came from God and that it was no delusion of Satan And they believed the Word of God in their Hearts simply from its own self Evidence and not from any borrowed Evidence of an outward Voice For they oft believed and received the Word of God in their Hearts immediately when they heard no outward voice at all as is generally acknowledged And this inward or intellectual kind of speaking by the Lord unto the Prophets is acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas and Suarez and other Schoolmen to be the most noble kind of Divine Revelation and consequently the most sure at least unto us His 3. Reason Is the Testimony of other Scriptures produced and to be produced But he has neither produced nor can produce any Scripture that proveth that Word of Prophecy or Prophetical Word to be only the Letter of the Scripture and not the Word or Light of God and of Christ in the Heart Again in his eighth Argument he alledgeth That it cannot be the Dictate or Light within by which Spirits are to be tryed because the Dictate or Light within is â—allible And this he undertakes to prove from some words of mine in Quakerism no Popery where I acknowledge That it is possible for us to mistake and erre in Speaking and Writing and consequently in Examining and Iudging if we be not duely watchful But how unreasonable this consequence is I leave unto sober men to judge as to conclude because
in I. A. else he would not run into such needless and idle Tautologies But he thinks I have yeilded the cause to him because I grant all Doctrines that agree not with the Scriptures are to be rejected therefore the Scripture is a superior rule to all such false Doctrines I grant Therefore the Scripture is Superior to the Spirit of God and his Dictate in our Hearts I deny it And though we are to examine the inward Dictates of Gods Spirit by the Scriptures yet that proves not that the Scriptures are superior no more than that it proves that the words of the Prophets were superior to the words of Christ and the Apostles because the people examined the latter by the former His fourth Argument is built upon a Supposition that the Scriptures are the principal rule and consequently not the Spirit inwardly Dictating in our hearts But he hath not proved that the Scripture is a more principal rule then the Spirit Although in respect of all outward rules that can be named or conceived the Scripture is the most principal rule Nor is it any repugnancy to say the Scripâ—ure is the principal external rule by which all Doctrines and Principles of Religion are to be examined and what is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected and yet to say also that the Spirit himself perswading or assuring us of the Truth of the Scripture is the principal inward rule seeing these two principles are in differing kinds the one external or without us the other internal and within us which are very well consistent and mutually bear witness one of another even as Iohn bare witness to Christ and Christ bare witness to Iohn Although Christ needed not the Testimony of Iohn as for himself His fourth Argument concludeth only against a thing which we do no wise deny viz. That every Dictate within is not the Rule And I. A. might have spared his pains to dispute against that which no man holdeth For who is so absurd to think that every Dictate suppose it be of a mans own vain and foolish mind or of the Devil is to be received as his rule The Question is not concerning every Dictate nor indeed concerning any other then that alone Dictate of the Spirit of God and of Christ in men which hath a self evidence unto him who hath it as I. A. must needs acknowledge it had to the Prophets and Apostles But he objects That the Devil may present an Imposture unto a man with so much seeming evidence as with the concurrence of a deceitful heart will make it be received for a Divine Truth especially by that man that for the present time has no Divine Dictate To this I Answer That the person supposed by I. A. is either one that the Lord hath in his just judgment for some great unfaithfulness and abuse of Light formerly given delivered up to Satan's delusions such as these mentioned 2 Thess. 2. 11. And as for him and the like sort the Scripture cannot help him For certainly he that is given up by the Lord to the delusion of Satan as a punishment of his sinning against the Light he once had will misunderstand the Scripture and cannot otherwise do even as the Iews and Sadducees did of old But as for others that are not so given up by the Lord it ought not to be supposed that they can altogether want some Divine Dictate or witness of Gods Spirit to testifie against the strongest delusion of Satan And therefore he to whom Satan presents such a delusion if he hath a sincere love to the Truth by comparing the delusion with the true Dictate or Light of Christ that witnesseth against it may readily discover it to be a delusion and if the said delusion be contrary to any Doctrine expresly declared in the Scripture the Scripture will also be a secondary confirmation to him that what is so presented to him is but a delusion But many times Satan presents delusions to men to do or act things that are not simply in themselves unlawful or contrary to Scripture And then I Query by what rule shall these delusions be discovered But I confess I. A. hath a very short way but yet very false and unsound to resolve this question viz. Positively to conclude that all inward Dictates and suggestions whatsoever that any man finds in himself are utterlâ— to be rejected as being any Command of God or any Divine Testimony seeing there are none such in the hearts of men They are all according to him either a mans own thoughts or suggestions of Satan And therefore nothing that a man hath in him is to be relyed upon But it is strange Doctrine that Satan shall be so near always to Dictate evil even unto the Children of God immediately but God and Christ shall be at such a distance as not once in a mans whole life time to Dictate in him immediately that which is good The which Doctrine of I. A. is so favourable to the Devil and so advantagious to advance and uphold his Kingdom among men that this one consideration is enough to render it suspected that it is not of God but of the adversary CHAP. VII IN the Third Section of his Survey upon the Fourth Query I. A. pretends to Answer our Objections or Reasons That there is a Word or Dictate of God in our Hearts or Christ himself that doth Dictate or Teach in us and who is the principal Rule of Faith and Life All which Objections he brings them not either in matter or form as used by us but miserably perverts the most of them to a contrary sense and intent as if we did use those Reasons to oppose an outward Ministry or the use of outward Preaching Hearing Reading Praying none of which we oppose but on the contrary we own all these things as both needful to be done seeing they are commanded of God and as profitable to men yea to the most advanced and experienced Saints when duly practised And it is an exceeding great mistake in our Adversaries generally to suppose That our Principle of Immediate Revelation or the Immediate Teachings of the Spirit doth destroy or make null and void the use of the Scriptures or any other means For by Immediate we mean not Immediate in opposition to those things that are means truly appointed of God as Reading the Scriptures Preaching Praying Meditating Singing Waiting But on the contrary we say It is only by the help of the Spirits immediate Teachings and Leadings that those and the like means are made effectual and profitable to the People of God For if the Prophets and Apostles their having Immediate Revelation did not make void the use of the Scriptures unto them nor the use of Preaching Praying Reading Meditating Waiting and Watching no more doth our having it Again our Adversaries grant that God doth operate or work immediately by an immediate effective illumination of his Spirit in the hearts of all his People and that
has died for those that perish absolutely or conditionally I Answer partly both first he hath so far died absolutely even for those as by his death and righteousness Grace is come upon them sufficient both to Faith and Salvation within their day of Grace which Grace is given them absolutely for that time and doth continue with them until the day of their Visitation be at an end and then it is taken away from them the Lord ceasing to strive with them any more for their Recovery Secondly I say Christ hath died conditionally even for those that perish that they might have been saved within their day upon the condition of their believing And whereas I. A. doth object That seeing the condition it self to wit Faith is the Gift of God then he either bestowes it upon them absolutely or conditionally if absolutely then Reprobates shall thereby be made Believers and so be saved if conditionally then the sense will be that God bestowes Faith in Christ upon Reprobates upon condition that they firâ—â— have Faith in him To which I Answer that Faith is indeed the Gift of God and God is willing to bestow it upon them and work it in them not upon the condition of their first believing before he give them to believe which I confess would imply a contradiction but the condition on which God is willing to work Faith in them is if they do not finally resist his Spirit of Grace having offered Faith unto all men which moveth and draweth or inclineth them to believe for to every one that doth not resist the motion of Gods Spirit of Grace he giveth Faith and worketh it in them And though men cannot actually do any thing that is good or acceptable unto God before they believe yet when the Visitation of God's Grace is upon them by the help thereof they may cease from resisting the Spirit of God and whereas I have heard it again urged by others Either God willeth that men should not resist the Spirit of Grace absolutely or conditionally if absolutely then say they men shall not resist it for what God willeth absolutely must certainly come to pass if conditionally then the Argument may be renewed concerning that condition and so without end To this also I Answer that God willeth absolutely that men should nâ—t or dâ— not resist his Spirit of Grace for seeing God commandeth that men do not resist it is evident that it is the absolute or positive will of God that they do not for whatever God commandeth is according to his wiâ—l But it doth not follow that whatever God willeth men to do that must certainly be done for how often do men act contrary to the Will of God in some sense although when they do so act it is not without his permissive will whereby he suffers them so to do Indeed I gâ—ant that whatever God willeth that he do himself that must certainly be done and it cannot be resisted and therefore when God punisheth the disobedient it being his own act of Justice and proceeding from his own holy and just will it cannot be resisted in that respect I have the more largely Answered this Objection because it is judged by many of the Adversary side to be unanswerable But I hope by what is said the Impartial Reader who loveth Truth may perceive that there is indeed no strength in it and it is so far from being a clear demonstration that it is nothing else but a Captious Sophism and Fallacy Moreover whereas I. A. classeth us with the Arminians and Iesuits for holding this Doctrine That Christ Died for all men I Answer seeing both Arminians and Iesuits profess to hold many other Doctrines which I. A. doth also profess as that there is one God and one Lord Jesus Christ it is no just ground of reproach to us to own that Doctrine which the Scripture doth own although Arminians and Iesuits profess to own that also But it is the greater shame to I. A. and his party who profess to be more Orthodox to be guilty in denying that which Adversaries confess we find that not only wicked men but the Devils also confessed unto Christ which yet is no reproach unto Christ nor to the true Confessors of him And lastly whereas I. A. pretendeth to Answer our Arguments For Christ his dying for all men Some of them he doth not fairly represent and others being some places of Scriptures he doth only Answer by giving us his private meanings of his own private Spirit without any convincing reason of those places of Scripture which we are no wise bound to receive And at best all his Answers proceed upon a bare Supposition that his own Principle is true which is a common Fallacy called in the Schools Petitio Principii which is to say A begging of the Question CHAP. XV. IN my Answer to I. A. his pretended Survey of the 14 th Query I purpose to use the same way as in the former viz. To lay down some Propositions which may sufficiently Answer to any thing he objects against the Universality of the saving Light and Grace of God unto all men and in so doing I shall both save my self and the Reader the pains â—o follow him in every Trivial thing that is objected PROP. 1. In the Question concerning the Universality of Gods Grace sufficient to Salvation it were altogether wisdom in our Adversaries to forbear pressing so hard in that point and so positively conclude against us and not us only but the Scripture it self That many Nations or Kingdoms of the World are utterly excluded from all sufficiency of Saving Grace and possibility of Salvation and that upon the account of wanting the Gospel outwardly preached unto them and benefit of the Scriptures Do we not read in Scripture That God hath given the Heathens to his Son for his Inheritance and the uttermost ends of the Earth for his possession And doth not Christ invite the most remote and desolate places of the Earth to come unto him saying Look unto me all ye ends of the Earth and be ye saved Mark it is not said some ends of the Earth but all ye ends of the Earth even as well those to whom the outward Testimony of Christ by the Scriptures is not come as those to whom it is come And did not Christ command That the Gospel should be preached to all Nations even those that wanted the Scriptures Testimony and therefore the Gospel did belong unto them even so to speak before it was outwardly Preached uâ—to them for because it did belong unto them therefore was it to be Preached unto them and consequently for the same reason the Gospel doth belong to many at this day to whom it is not as yet outwardly Preached and did not Paul say Rom. 1. 14. That he was a Debter both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians as concerning the Gospel And how can I. A. or any of his party who dispute so fiercely against all possibility
of Righteousness as done by us nor as inherent in us as Acts by which we are accepted of God and justified before him but by Christ the Author and worker of those Acts in us and for us c. He most grosly perverteth the sober and honest intent of those words as if by them they understood only that they hold not themselves justified by all Acts as Blasphemy or any other gross sin But who seeth not that this is a most gross perversion for certainly all Righteous Arts of all sorts they exclude when they say not by Acts of Righteousness and therefore when they say it is not Righteous Acts as Acts whereby we are justified their meaning is most plain and obvious as Acts being understood to be only even as Acts of Righteousness and not simply and barely as Acts though upon this meer Grammatical Quibble I. A. buildeth all his loud clamour against them But I. A. should know better that when the Sense is obvious a word may be understood that is not expressed in the Sentence as so it is in this present Case A fourth gross Perversion of his that he saith of me in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I affirm That we are justified by our inward Graces immediately I. A. doth understand that I mean without all respect to Christ which is a most gross perversion for the express words of my Book are these following The Righteousness of God and Christ by which we are most immediately and nearly justified is Christ himself and then I add and his work of Righteousness in us by his Spirit So that I am so far from excluding Christ that I say in the first place Christ himself is our Righteousness A fifth gross Perversion of I. A. is that in my defunction of Justification I give no other material cause of our Righteousness before God but only our Inward Graces whereas in the said definition I mention expresly Jesus Christ as being the ground and foundation of our Justification both in what he hath done and suffered for us without us and as really and truly indwelling in us A sixth perversion of his is that I confound Justification and Sanctification together making no imaginable distinction betwixt them and that because I say we are justified by inward Righteousnes and sanctified by the very same But this proveth not that I do not distinguish them for one and the same thing may have a respect to different operations as well as to different Causes But this reasoning of I. A. is as one would argue that when a Malefactor is both Condemned and punished for his Crime that his Sentence of Condemnation and his punishment are one and the same without any imaginable distinction betwixt them As also that his Condemnation and guiltiness are the same seeing by his Crime he is both guilty and condemned But as to Justification and Sanctification that they are distinguished although sometimes in Scripture one and the same word doth signifie both I willingly grant and do expresly mention them as distinct in my Book which I need not here repeat And whereas I. A. doth not only accuse me in particular as holding a Popish Justification but saith further That Bellarmine himself was never more Popish on that Head Surely this his assertion proceeds either from great ignorance or something worse For Bellarmine de justif lib. 5. cap. 17. holdeth That good works do merit Eternal Life condignly not only by reason of Gods Covenant and acceptation but also by reason of the work it self so that in a good works proceeding from Grace there may be a certain proportion and equality unto the reward of Eternal Salvation and to the same purpose writeth Gabriel Vasâ—uez a Papist But no such thing is affirmed by any of us nor by me but on the contrary in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I altogether deny the merit of the best works as it signifieth an equality of worth to the reward of Eternal Life Nor do I in any other case or sense allow the word merit with a respect to the best works of the Saints but in that sober and qualified sense used by divers of greatest note among those called Reformers among the Protestants as Melanction and Bucer and also by the Fathers so called and which is agreeable to Scripture which calleth Eternal Life the reward of good works now reward and 〈◊〉 are relative â—â—rms as Richarâ— Baxter highly commended by I. A. elsewhere doth acknowledge And not only the said Richard Baxter a great English Presbyterian but divers of the best account in the Episcopal way as particularly H. Hammond do hold that the Saints are justified not by Faith only but by Repentance Love and New Obedience as well as by Faith as Instruments of Justification and necessary conditions requisite thereunto and that Sanctification in the order of Causes is prior to Justification And Iames Durham a great Scots Presbyterian in his Commentary on the Revelation Digress 11. saith That such who rest upon Christ for Iustification and acknowledge his satisfaction ought not to be blamed as guilty of Popery although they hold that Repentance Love and other Spiritual Vertues and Graces are necessary to Iustification as Faith is Seeing then we have some of the greatest note both among those called Presbyterians and Episcopalians who agree with us in the Doctrine of Justification it must needs proceed from great prejudice and untowardliness in I. A. to charge us as being guilty of Papery in that for which we have not only the Scriptures abundantly to warrant us but divers also both Episcopal and Presbyterian of the best account to vindicate us And as for Henry Hammond a man of singular esteem in the Episcopal Church in Brittain whereof I. A. is a proâ—â—sâ—ed Member he doth not only agree with us on this Head of Justification but also on many other very great and weighty Heads of Doctrine so fiercely opposed by I. A. as particularly in those following 1. That Christ hath died for men 2. That there is no absolute decree of Reprobation 3. That Gods Grace is Vniversal 4. That beginnings of Regeneration may be fallen from 5. That these words of Paul Rom. 7. 14 15. concerning his being Sold under sin are a Metaâ—chematismus and not the present State that Paul was in And I. A. is extreamly ignorant if he know not that an exceeding great number if not the greatest of the most judicious persons of the Episcopal Church both in Britain and Ireland are of the same mind with the said H. Hammond in these things who therefore are so far from esteeming I. A. a Patron or Advocate of their Church that they cannot but judge him in so far at best their Adversary Moreover the great prejudice of I. A. against us appears in this that because I deny all merit strictly considered he inferreth most absurdly that if Justice will not exact the very rigid rigour of the Law from us and take the very