therefore he will do well with the next to give us Scripture for proving this lunscriptural Dogma of the damnation of Infants for Adams sin Or else acknowledge that the belief of it is not necessary to Salvation And certainly if it necessary the Scriptures will be sufficient to prove it Tho our Author be pleased to call our saying so an Antiscriptural dottage His words concerning Augustine I have told him before were cited by R B to prove that Infants are under no Law Which he â—â—veth and deceitfully insinuateth that R B cited these words to make Augustine say That Infants are not guilty of Adams sin Which he never intended further then the words bear To witt That they are under no Law Yet our Author defends Augustine in condemning Infants And again cannot chuse but condemn Augustine for saying That Infants dying without Baptism are condemned So he owneth Augustine when he pleaseth him and rejecteth him when he dilpleaseth him In the end of page 141 He gloryeth a little upon his false Insinuation which only manifests his deceit and folly as is his ordinary Custome In page 142 He returns to prove that Infants are under a Law which he acknowledgeth cannot be found in Scripture in so many words but may be gathered by a Presbyterian Commentator from the 13 and 14 verses of Romans 5. For until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed where there is no Law Nevertheless Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them who had not sinned after the similitudâ— of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that was to come Now let the unbyassed Reader judge whether any word hâ—â—â— câ—â— inferr that insants are under a Lâ—w or are condemned for Adams sin To prove this he saith Infants die and the death here mentioned is a bodily dâ—ath and Death is a punishment of sin and referrs â—â— to his former Section already answered But R B saith it may rather signifie that which Paul cals a body of Death and is often called Death and Old Adam and flesh and the Law in the members bâ— which coâ—ruption os mans nature Man kind is made obnoxious to fall under the temptations of Satan and is naturally in clined to evil as R B hath described aâ— large in his Vind page 57 which he sliely or rather deceitfully passeth by and then crycth out a Pelagion exposition as if R B had said that men sinned only by imitation then which he could hardly have devised a greater lie and I intreat the Reader to see the page now cited and consider what faith these men can deserve And as to the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ in R B his Apologie and again in his Vind page 58. he sayes they are not to be regared because they are to be accounted among the grossest Sooinianâ— who make the the Death and suflerings of Christian occasion or example only c. But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation This needs no other answer but this Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Brother and I hope we should know our own Faith better then this liâ—ing Priest His next to prove Infants guilty of Adams sin is Ephes 2 3. The words aâ—e Among whom we all also had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh sulfilling the dâ—fires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the Children of wrath as well as others Who is he that reads this verse and seeth not that it mentions actual sins And that by nature is understood that corrupted nature which hath brought forth these forenamed transgressions But that any word here can intimate that Infants are condemned for Adams sin is a wild consequence He saith if the Apostle had meant otherwayes he would have excepted Infants But he might as well have said he meant no such thing as the damnation of Infants because he hath no where afserted iâ— But to prove that by nature is meant original sin he citeth some Scriptures but so impertinently as a man might think he dreamed Gal 2. 5 and 4. 8. 1 Cor. 15 44 46 c. Which the Reader may see and consider his citation of Calvin he might have spared his pains and if R B pasled by them it was because they were not worth his while and so his conclusion resolves in Wind. Next he gives us a whole page of Augustine and some others against the Pelagians and what then Will he own all that these men have written but he tells us of fourteen Bishops and therefore I must ask him whether these fourteen Bishops were Lâ—mbs of Anti-christ as our Bishops use to be called Or if a Bishop can be a good Christian His next is Psalm 51. 5. I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my Mother Conceive me Saith he R B denyeth the inference which yet is clear from Nehemiah 9 But hath not been so honest as to tell the verse and I can find no such thing there except in the 2 verse whether it is said they Confessed their sins and the iniquities of their Fathers and so throughout the whole Chapter but no mention of Adams transgression What he saith of the Marriage duty is most impertinent except he can say that Davids Parents had no sin except it were the marriage duty which I think no â—resbyterian will assert But he thinks he hath done a brave late in asking when his adversary readeth of actual sin because R B asketh him in what Scripture be readeth of Original sin but he may find if he will that he shall receive according to the deeds done in the Body whether good or evil And 1 John 3. 8. He that committeth sin is of the Devil and John 8 34. He that committeth sin is the servant of sin and many more Let him bring as plain Scripture that Infants are condemned for Adams sin and he hath done this busmess In page 146 He oflers us several pregnant arguments as he words it to demonstrate his Doctrine as first Infants are deprived of the Image of GOD therefore they are guilty of Adams sin he proves his consequence because to be deprived of the Image of GOD is a punishment equal with if not greater then the torments of hell But our Author hath mistaken all his measures here For if it be a punishment to be deprived of that which a man never had then it is a punishment for Patroclus to want the Bishoprick of St. Andrews so called that it was a punishment to Adam who once had it I deny not but he cannot prove that Infants had it and so cannot be deprived of it His next is None go to Heaven exâ—ept those thâ—â— were guiltypâ—rsons therefore Infants who haâ—e never committed actual sin are guilty before GOD None are saved but sinners which was Christs â—râ—and to the Earth c. And such like trash of John Browns fully answered by R B page 60 and 61. He at last resolves all
is the sin of nature Answer The Major containeth many great lies in it and the Minor is a gross untruth which he and all the Presbyterians in the World can never proves from the words of the Apostles rightly understood the indeed they have a saculty of causing the Scripture speak contraries as we have seen and heard at Aberdeen upon the Text Holiness becomes thy house O LORD c. I shall therefore insert one sentence more of J H There are some apt to conceive only that Adam being the root of Mankind Humane nature it self sinned in him and so when we come to exist his guilt is derived upon our persons as virtually and seminally in him no otherwise then Levi is said to have payed tythes to Melchisedeck in the Loins of Abraham I should saith he incline to this explanation but that I see not then why all the sins of Adam besides of all out Progenitors should not be ours also upon the same account as much as that first transgression He rails at R B for denying the Major of this argument and telling John Brown how he had abused the Scriptures soisting in words of his own to deceive the simple Reader I desire the Reader may be at the pains to see R B's viâ—dication and then judge betwixt him and his adversary In page 136 he reproacheth R B for saying shew me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of Adams sins But it would have wronged the cause to tell why R B said so which was because J Brown had challenged him for adding an interpretation tho he told him it was so and therfore he saith I am content there be neither addition nor so much as consequences made use of adding let him shew me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of Adams sin and now I intreat the Reader to compare the Books and see what candor integrity or honesty is among such adversaries or what Justice we can expect from men of such foreheads as can raise a calumny on such a foundation which themselves gave first ground for He talks aboundantly about the Salvation of Infants but to no purpose forging Blasphemous consequences and Fathering them upon R B while they are his own if they be Blasphemies For he never said that Infants are not saved by Christ only and hath sufficiently cleared himself in his Vindication from this but repeated callumny To R B's saying Infants are under no Law he answereth in three instances that Children are forefaulted and deprived of their Fathers Estate for their Fathers faults 2 That the Children of Sodom c. And of â—â—re and of Achan c. Were punished for their Fathers sins But its strange with what confidence he can repeat these tales which R B hath so fully answered and it is manifest they suffered not for Adams sin if they were at all punished for sin it must needs be the sin of their immediat Parents And in the very words of Austustine cited by himself in page 141 he saith shall they sin that are under no command That is under no Law He would abuse R B as saying Augustine did not think Infants guilty of original sins Whereas he only citeth Augustine to prove they are under no Law which the words plainly impott His Third is a very rare one Thus If in any point of Religion and Faith the admirable depth of the Judgement and secret Counsel of GOD be to be seen certainly it is to be observed here c. I would fain learn from this Author what worse the Faith and Christian Religion would have been tho this contraversy of Infants being condemned for Adams sin while Adam himself was pardoned had never been started in the Church by such capricious Clergiemen as our Author Or does he believe that the belief of this Doctrine is absolutely necessary to Salvation Certainly if it be so the number will be few and somewhat more few then Shepherd makes them in his Sincere Convert But he saith The depth of the secret Counsel of GOD is to be seen and observed here If seen and observed here then it is no secret and if it be secret it is no where seen nor observed But the Presbyterians to know the secret Counsel of GOD and yet deny the Revelation of his Spirit This is unaccountable Doctrine But he sends us to Paul's Sanctuary Who â—rt thou c If he had added the rest of the Doctrine he asserts To wit Who dare deny That GOD condemneth innocent Infants for that sin he hath pardoned to the Transgressour he had come off fairly But he answers Paul's Question saying we answer therefore First That Adam was a publict person standing and falling in the room of his Posterity in whose name and behalf the Covenant of works was made with him as their Representative So that his first sin was not personal but the sin of the whole Nature I wonder whence our Author hath gathered all this Stuff for in all the Scriptures is no such Doctrine to be found And he denys any other Means of Knows ledge And therefore upon good ground lâ—râ—pâ—at it as R B hath done But he should have proved that the Nature of the Covenant of works was on this wise That altho Adam died by the breach of it yet he should be pardoned yea and put in a better Condition then he was before the fall But his innocent Posterity even Infants who never had accession to that sin not had a being for some thousands of years after the same should be condemned Eternally to hell fire for that first sin And till he prove this he saith nothing to the Contraversy But he labours to prove That Adam seased to be a publict person after the fall Because he died in the day he did eat and so became dead in Law What strained Consequences are these Did not Adam live again the same day And was he not a publict person in the Second Covenant made with him the same day Or was there any other Man then on the Earth to make a Covenant with Or was not the Remissiion of that sin through the promised seed Jesus Christ of as large an extent as the sin was That as Adam the Transgresiour was not condemned eternally for that sin So neither was any of his Posterity condemned for that sin only Which I have shewed before to be the mind of as good Protestants as our Author To prove that for Adams one sin only all Mankind are condemned he giveth us a Philosophiek Axiom Bonum ex integrd eausa malum ex quolibet defectu And citeth Isaiah 53. 31. But he should have told us in what verse of this Chapter it is said That Christ suffered for Adams sin For I find not such thing in it But our sins our Transgressions out Iniquities We all as sheep have gone astray We have turned every one to his own way and the LORD hath laid on him the Iniquities of us all And
rightly conclude Now that this Major is particular will be evident if he explain himself what he means by the word That By which he cannot understand Man nor beast nor Angel nor any other thing if he speake sense but that Book And so his Argument will run thus That particular Book which was dictate c But the Book called the BIBLE or the Scripture was dictate c Therefore c If he thinks I have wronged him let him explain himself next and make his Major universal Secondly This is a direct begging of the Question for it is denyed that a Book can be the Primary Rule of Faith for there was Faith before there was a Book in the World and the World was two thousand years without Scriptures and if they had no Rule nor Law to walk by then they had no sin For where there is no Law there is no transgression If they had a Rule it was certainly Prior to the Scriptures and consequently the Primary Rule except that Patroclus would say That GOD had changed his Rule His Minor is a very uncontravetted Truth in the first part of it But he must excuse me to distinguish the second And contains the whole Counsel of GOD Which I think Robert Barkelay hath done to very good Purpose That the Scriptures containe a full account of all the Essentials and fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion But that many things occurr dayly of which the Scriptures do not clearly determine our Experience clearly proveth And first as to Faith I desire he may give me plain Scripture for Persons in the God head Sacraments in the Church and keeping Holy Sunday This was required by K CHARLES the Martyr from Alexander Henderson But how it was Answered the Papers which past betwixt them will evince Secondly As to Life I ask whether it was lawfull for me in my Youth to take the League and Covenant Being first contrary to the Command of Christ Swear not at all And then contrary to the command of the Supreem Magistrate Yea in opposition to Him whome the Scripture commands me to obey This was a Case of Conscience to me and yet by the Presbyterian Church I was commanded his non obstantibus to take it And by George Gillespie in his Casses of Conscience the refusing of the Covenant is called sinful in it self a great dishonour to GOD and a great scandal to the Church no less punishable then the killing of the Apostles Nevertheless I must say I can find no Scripture which allows me to take it And again there is a great doubt at present seeming to arise in the minds of many Protestants and Well-wishers to the Government Which is whether the Popish Monarchical tyrranie in Church Government or Presbyterian Democratical tyrranie be more eligible for it is now become a common Litanie from Popery and Presbytrie libera nos c. As for that great and incureable Schism which destroyed Presbytrie in the Assembly at Dundee Whether a Malignant having in the Nation an Estate Wife and Children might lawfully fight in defence of his Native Country In Case of a forraign Invasion These and such like doubts saith he page 56 Are to be resolved by the Scriptures applyed in Christian prudence and Spiritual Wisdome This is strange That there was neither Christian prudence nor Spiritual Wisdome in all the whole General Assembly That they split upon such a trivial Question and never reconciled again to this day But the cause was They lacked Wisdome and did not ask of GOD who giveth liberally and upbraideth not For had they been taught of GOD and received the Word of Wisdome from his Mouth they would have seen this contraversie to be as impertinent as that about Easter in the Primitive Church Next in page 39 he saith The corruptions of men are to be charged with all these defects This is very true for the corruptions of men and chiefly of the Clergie have separated them from knowing or seeking to know the mind and Counsel of GOD by the teachings of his Spirit and to lean to their own corrupt Wisdom their natural and acquired parts hence some of them have not stuck to affirm that a wicked Reprobate a man void of grace and of the spirit of Christ may be a sufficient Minister Before I leave his first argument with his spurious definition of a Rule I will give him another which I think he will like the better because it comes from his brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum Who sayes The mind and will of GOD however notified to us is the Rule of our obedience Now if Patroclus will prove that the mind and will of GOD was never notified or made known to mankind before Moses wrote the Pentateuch I shall grant to him that the Scriptures are the primary or principal Rule for the words signifie no more but first or belonging to first for the two words Primary or Principal being Latine words signifie no more but first or belonging to first if we believe our Lexicons To prove that the Scriptures contain the whole Counsel of GOD he citeth Acts. 20 27. Whert Paul sayeth to the Elders of Ephesus That he had not shuned to declare unto them all the Counsel of GOD. Here observe that this was before he had written his Epistle to the Ephesians and therefore I intreat Patroclus to inform us where we may find Pauls Preachings recorded that he mentioneth here wherein we may find all the Counsel of GOD For it seems the Fathers at the Counsel of Laodicea have forgotten to add them to the Cannon His second Argument is thus That which was the Principal rule to the Jews is the Principal Rule to us But the Scriptures were the Principal Rule to them therefore they must be the same to us Answer To begin with his Major he saith it is Robert Barkclay's This is the hight of deceit dissingenuity and Impudence For in the second Chapter of his apologie cited by our Author there is no such word to be found In this Chapter he chiefly treateth of the formal object of faith and but little of the Rule he proveth that indeed that Divine immediat Revelation was the formal object of the Faith of the Ancients and citeth Noah and Abraham for examples whom I believe to have had Faith and also a Rule for their Faith before there was either Scripture or a Jew in the World So that granting the Major he gains nothing by it unless he can prove that the Scripture was the Primary Rule of Noah and Abrahams Faith or else that GOD hath changed his Rule His Minor I deny for the same reason Secondly I acknowledge that Moses Law which is a part of the Scripture was more a Rule to the Jews and more binding upon them then upon any of the Nations or any living either then or since And this is all that his after reasonings can prove But what if I should say with other Protestant Writers that the was
that our Author cares not to joyn with Anabaptists Independents whom he accounts Hereticks Yea to take Hell rather then to want some Lie to alledge against the Quakers wherefore I shall trouble you no more with his Citations being fully Answered by others but shall proceed to see what more he hath to say In the end of page 115 he falls a railing and clamouring dispetatly Telling us that by this dim light Men have enough adoe to perceive that there is a Supream Beeing what then is become of his late great assertions That this dim light of Nature Reason Conscience extinguished Lantern c. Could teach men that there was one GOD that he was Infinite Omnipotent to be Loved Feared and Adored and to do others as they would be done by which is the substance of the Law and the Prophets This is confusion and contradiction with a Witness yet he glories in the end and heaps togeher lies in Hypocrsie which deserve no answer In page 116 He would insinuat that we depress the light as much as formerly we had exalted it because when some pretending to it have erred we say their Doctrines are to be subjected to the Judgement of the Church This he calls Popery and at last worse Viz. A subjecting of Christ and GOD to another as capable of deceiving and being deceived Bur I would know from this windie man whether if he or any Presbyterian should teach any Doctrine contrary to the Covenant and Confession of Faith and pretend Scripture for it I say whether he would be lyable to the Judgement of the General Assembly and whether it were the mans pretences or the Scriptures which the Assembly takes upon thē to judge even so we neither take upon us to judge Christ nor his Light which can neither deceive nor be deceived But the deceit and follv of such pretenders as our Author and his Brethren who pretend to the Scriptures and neither understand them not walk according to them In the next place after a little of his accustomed froath be saith he will propose and enervat those of their Arguments which seem to be most strong c. And begins with George Keith citing Truth defended page 87 but is page 85. A Divine Law in all men is an inward immediate dictate but there is a Divine Law in all men ergo c. To this he answereth by denying the Minor which I cannot but admire seeing George Keith hath so abundantly proven it in the same page yet never noticed by our Author But he thinks he hath guarded himself sufficiently in his Preface to the Reader by forbidding them to touch or handle such unclean things as George Keiths books But all this deceit will not cover him for George Keith tells him First that he hath proven this by many arguments in his book of Immediat Revelation Secondly the Americans whom his Adversary names transgress the Divine Law therefore they have a Divine Law For where there is no Law there is no transgression And thirdly he cited Bishop Sanderson saying the Law in the hearts of all men is as really the word of GOD as that Printed in our Bibles But Patroclus reads not this and therefore makes short work with it and glories as if he had Vanquished Euforbis by whose Dart Patroclus fell The next he attempts is R B's Vindication page 39 But this is no Argument as he would falsly insinuate but written to stop the Mouth of a windy man J Brown charging him with Blasphemy But he proceeds page 118. That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation but in not obeying the Light within we sin Therefore it is sufficient to Salvation Answer First he hath neither told us where not by whom this Argument is used and may be his own for any thing I know But Secondly he seems to confess that they sin who do not obey the Light And Thirdly his answer is very nonsensical to wit it is sin to disobey the Lawful commands of Parents which commands are not sufficient to Salvation But what made that disobedience to Parents to be sin If the Law of GOD had not commanded obedience to them Every sin is a transgression of the Law of GOD and therefore every sin presupposeth a Divine Law and here I must tell him that his brother the author of Melius Inquirendum tells him page 303. All that conscience dictats as a Counlelour all that Conscience determines as a judge is in the name of the Supream and Soveraion JEHOVAH adding there is one Lawgiyer who is able to Save and to destroy and a little after Conscience hath in its Commission to dictate before the fact as well as to reflect upon the fact it teaches what we ought to do as well as examine whether we have done well or not By these it appears this man was of the mind that that there was a Divine Law in all men call it by what name he will Next he comes to John 1. 9. That was the true light which enlighteneth every man coming into the World where he giveth two glosses of it J Browns First that Light may be taken for the Light of reason This is nonsence as if man could be a man without reason It is every man not every bruit he enlightneth and till we understand more we believe it is reason makes the difference so the gloss must run thus he enlighteneth every reasonable creature with the light of Reason The Second gloss is that by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which savingly enlightened Upon this R B saith he is puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it Whereupon our airy Author insults saying He inferrs penurie from abundance But sayes he I remembred they were Enemies to Logick But less stoath might have sufficed For I am sure if he had not been puzled he would never have given two such contrary Exposicions The first making the Light meerly natural yet Universal The second Gloss making it saving and supernatural but special and not Universal Which evidently shews that Jo Brown and our Author who would defend him are both in Babel And therefore it being a matter of Consequence to know whether the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men the Light where with every Man is inlightned be Natural or Supernatural Universal or Special Saving or Damning It concerns our Advetlary to consult the General Assembly which of the two Glosses may be best to hold by seing both cannot stand In the rest of this page he doth nothing but undervalue his Adversary whether Justly let the Reader Judge His next Combat is with John 1. 5. The darkness comprehended it He saith That by darkness is meant mon in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is Natural Whence he inferis that man in this estate is void of all Spiritual and Supernatural Light Which Inference is void of all Sense
Revelation except Prophets and Aposâ—les therefore among them the seventy Disciples and Luke who wrote two books of the New Testament and many others mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles But Thirdly The foundation of Faith as well as the Rule of Faith hath still been the same in all ages of the Church as he hath formerly confessed and therefore if immediaâ— objective Râ—vâ—lation was so to the Prophers and Apostles as he granteth it must also be the same to the present professors of Christianity and this shall suffice for his Membrum negatum In page 124. He falls upon the last argument he deals with calling it the chief of his Apostolik Arguments tho I find no such argument in all R B's apologie which he setteth down thus Enoch Noah Abraham and some others had Immediate objective Revelation therefore the whole Church had it He and his Brother John Brown deny the consequence but hath he not hereby cut his own throat by givving way to Tradition as the Rule of that Church saith for sure they had no Scripture and therefore had no other foundation for their Faith nor Rule for their life but Tradition And so having pleaded before that what was their Rule must be ours he must confess that in default of Scripture and Revelation there remains nothing for them but Tradition which must continue to be our Rule also For this the Papists owe him thanks A little after he confesses there was more of GOD in these dark times of the Old World then there is now Viz. In respect of Immediate Revelation But I would know the Reason of this Seeing the Promises are greater even to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh Is his hand shortned or his Ear heavie Or is he dead as our Author insinuats or hath he lest off to care for his Church No But our iniquities have separated him from us and our unbelief But to do his Business fully he adds How will the prove that ever Abel had Immediat Objective Revelations I Answer GOD hath alwayes communicated as much of himself to the Righteous as to the wicked but wicked Crin had Immediat Objective Revelations Ergo Righteous Abell had them Then he tells us that the third fourth and fifth Proposision of the second These falls to the ground But upon what ground he saith so let the candid Reader Judge He concluds this Chapter with a peece of his first Dream of the Trojan Warr and citing Virgil he tells us like the Irojan Warr its couplings being cut the whole Faorick of Quakerism tumbleth down about the Ears of its Authors and Builders It 's a pitty the poor man should have read this Poets and others on the History of Irov For the Reader may see how he extravages upon that Subject it hath quite spoiled him But he hath been a little mistaken here for Patroclus did not live to see the Trojan Tower fall And if he will stretch the Allegory a little further he may remember that the Posterity of the Trojans brought the Posterity of the Greeks under their subjection and made them Tributaries which may happen to be the face of this Author and his Brethren But sure I am this Language is more like a Gallant bowling over his Cups in a Tavern then a lober Christian writing for the satisfaction of a Dissenter Chapter III. Of Original Sin IN this Chapter he begins with his old clamour of Pelagianism But now deservedly we shall see anone And first I shall cite the Westminster Confession Chap 6. Numb 2 By this sin they fell from their Original Righteousness and Communion with GOD so became dead in sin wholly defilled in all the faculties parts of Soul and Body And Numb 4. From this original corruption whereby we are utterly indisposed disabled made opposite to all Good wholly inclined to all evil do proceed all actual Transgressions To both these willingly assent But how this agreeth with the dark Lantern doctrine of our Author who for twenty eight pages together in the foregoing Chapter hath laboured with all the force he hath to prove that fallen man retained such a pottion of the Image of GOD which he calleth Righteousness as there by to know one Infinite Omnipotent GOD who is to be Loved Feared and Adored and that men should Love their Neighbour as themselves which is no more then to do to others as they would be done by let the Reader Judge And expect his Brethren will take notice of him not only for calumniating us but for giving the Lie to the Westminster Confession And here I must take notice of a word he hath inserted into some of his Arguments maliciously insinuating That we said A wicked man could do no Action that was good upon the matter or as to the substance of that Action This is no word of ours but foisted in by him to render us the more odious For we know a wicked man may feed the hungry or cloath the naked And as I told him before The devil confessed Christ before Men to be the Holy One of GOD Which as to the substance of the Action was better then some of our Presbvterian Solemnities Whereof one was their solemn Fast and Humiliation for the Prevalency of EPISCOPACIE appointed for all the Ministers of the Nation immediatly after their late Re-Establishment By which act they resolved to murther the Consciences of their Brethren of the EPISCOPAL Perswasion who esteem EPISCOPACIE a Right and Lawful Church Government And after this for some other pretence to have turned them out of their Livings which is their Lives Many of them being so poor as they cannot subsist without them Which they had certainly done if their beloved Beformers the Babble had been as obedient in the North as they were in the West Now we read of a desperat Millanoise who having forced his Adversary for fear of his Life to blasphem and abjure GOD immediatly killed him calling it a noble revenge to murther both Soul and Body at once Let out Author make the Application and for bear his malicious Fastings and black mouth'd Calumnies for the future Moreover the gross Doctrines of Pelagius were First That man had no loss by Adam and so were as apt from their birth to serve GOD as Adam was before the Fall Secondly That men have no absolute need of Grace of Love and the Gift of the Holy Spirit Only it did facilitat or make the work the easier but Man by his nature could do good without Grace Thirdly He affirmed all the Grace was at best Objective such as the Outward Preaching of the Gospel c. But he denyed any Subjective Grace or any Grace that moved or enclined the Will immediatly unto GOD. All which we renounce And therefore let out Author and his Brethren be for ever hereafter silent of that false and unjust Calumny of Pelagianism Having thus cleared the Truth of the false Accusation of Pelagianism I find nothing more of
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
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
into a Question How infants if not guilty to come to Heaven without the death and meriâ—s of Christ What he intends by this Quâ—stion is hard to be understood it s much if he knows what he â—ayes for we never said nor believed that any person Infants or Old man came to Heaven without the Death and Merits of Christ So that his Question if it have any sense at all must be what need have Infants of Christ if they he not sinners nor guilty of Adams sin This is â—nswerâ—d by R B page 61 They have â—eâ—d of Christ who died for them as a Saviour to deliver them from the seed of sin â—nd corruption in them which is called â—aâ—th and the Old man that they may â—uâ— off this â—â—d sing the song of the Reâ—eemed as John Brown words it But how by what means he doth this he hath oâ— tollâ—us and I desire not to be 〈◊〉 above what is revealed â—â—s answe◠〈◊〉 B's Question how elect infants come to besaved whom he accounts guilâ—y of 〈◊〉 Is by the imputed Righteousness of Christ But then what becomes of the 〈◊〉 mentality of Faith without which they deny imputation let him help this same â—nswer with the next His next is These who in the sight of GOD are dogs are guilty persons to be excluded from Heaven and therefore to be cast into hell but whole Nations without exception are â—uen therefore Infants being a part of these Nations deserve to be excluded from Heaven and â—ent unto hell To â—rove his Minor he bringeth Matt. â—â— 26. It is â—â— meet to take the Childrens bread and â—ast it to dogs but it seems he hatâ— forgoten to look unto the 28 Verse O Woman Great is thâ— Faith c. And â—â— they be dogs who have Faith yea and great faith I must ask him who are Children And iâ— such who have great Faith deserve to be excluded from heaven and sent to hell He might have considered that many of the Gentiles who formerly wallowed in the lusts of the Flesh and were dogs came afterwards to be washed from their polutions and that Publicans and sinners entered the Kingdom of Heaven when such professing Sâ—ribâ—s and Pharisies as our Author were shut out The other place he citeth 1 Cor â— 14. For the unbelieving husband is Sanctified bâ— the wife and the unbelieving wife is Sanctified by the Husband else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Iâ— this be any thing to the purpose it is against our Author seeing it relates to the uncleanness and holiness of the immediate Parents and can never be thought to intend Adams sin but any thing may serve to make a Muster His next is â—en 1â— 14. The man Child that is Vncircumâ—ised shall be cut off Hence he saith that Mr. Brown inferreth that Children may be in some sense apablâ— of breach of Covenant and therefore under a Law desiring his adversary to chaw his Cude upon it First I observe how timorously they propose this argument with a may â—e and in some sense But it is strange how men pretending to sense could propone in it for whose sin was it iâ— the Child was un-Circumcised Could it Circumcise it self or could it desire another to do it Or did ever the Just and Merciful GOD require such an impossibility of an Infant of â—ight dayes old It was therefore the Father and not the Child who was oblidged by this Covenant and who sinned in case of Non performance So that R B needed not trouble himself with such nonsensical stuff His fourth pregnant Argument is John 3. None â—an enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again Upon this he argueth the New Birth is a Gift of GOD which he may withhold from whom he will And therefore without prejudice to his Justice may exclude whosoever hath it not from the Kingdom of Heaven But none are excluded from it but guilty persons which I believe none will deny Therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons I answer in short when he tells us hâ—w his Elect Infants are born again he may take the same waâ— with the rest For I have told him before I pretend not to be wise above what is revealed But his Doctrine of Imputation will not serve his turn here Lastly He comes to answer that of Ezek 18. 20. For which he bringeth no answer But tells us Mr. Brown hath cleared this Text Why then did he meddle with it But he sayes it contradicteth the second Commandment Answer No such matter for the second Commandment saith Visiting the sins of the Fathers upon the Children c Which is generally expounded of Temporary punishments and relates to the immediat Parents But Ezekiel saith The Soul that sinnâ—th it shall die which is meaned of Eternal punishments And now to conclude I must ask this great Pretender to a knowledge of the secret Counsel of GOD and the state of Infants after death Whether they shall continue Infants and be such every way at the Resurection and to all Eternity as they are the time of their decease And I shall expect his answer with the next Chapter IV. Of GOD. HE begins this Chapter with three malicious and false Accusations according to his custome saying in this Chapter I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things each of which is enough to Un-Christian the Maintainer thereof But I hope not the Denyer thereof His three things are First That they deny the Holy Trinity with Arrius and Sahellius Secondly That their Doctrine maketh GOD the author of sin Thirdly That they bold the Soul of Man to be GOD. All which three we positively deny our selves to be guilty of and I hope all sober and unprejudiced Men will acknowledge that we know what we believe better then this our deceitful and malicious Enemie doth And therefore this whole Chapter needeth no other Answer But the LORD rebuke this lying spirit that is gone forth into the mouths of these lying Propâ—ets Who take pleasure to defamâ— and bespatter innocent Men thereby to lay them open to the fury of their bigotted Admires and blind folded followers But the just GOD who searcheth our Hearts knoweth our Innocency and will in due time rip off these covers of deceit and take away this refuge of Lies wherewith these Men cover themselves that they may hurt the Innocent To begin with the first R B in his Apologie George Keith in his Book of The Way cast up have so fully vindicated us from the Arrians and Sabellian herefies that I wonder with what face this Author can accuse us And it is evident to all single hearted Men who read our Writings that it is the Words only we oppose To wit words invented by the deformers of Christianity the Clergie who by their heathenish philosophie by a new name called School Divinity have invented and brought into the Church these heathenish and unscriptural terms which we reject Nevertheless this perverse and
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
may inform us by the next what he intends by these words Whether a Substonce or an accident or only the dim spunks of his extinguished Lantern His next work is is to prove us Pelagians and remits his Reader to his second Chapter which I also do When R B tells J B that the Fathers he cites thought that men might be free from sin by Grace Our Author calls it mancking and clipping and saith Is it not added in the very following words immediatly that none attained that measure of Holiness in this life that he could live any long time without Sin and that this perfection was not full and absolur but which might increass and was mixed with evil deeds so was a perfection of parts only not of degrees Here these Fathers say any long time without sin and therefore I must ask our Author of what extant this long time is I am sure one day is a very short time and no wayes deserves the word long to be added and yet if they grant t is but one day The West minister Divines have done with it for ever I hope our Author will not accuse Augustine of Pelagianism and therefore I must let him see that Augnstine saith as much as R B Also John Humphry perfection page 7 saith Augustine in his second Book Chap 15. De Peo mer rem and de Spiritu Litera hath the luck to treat industriously on this matter Alia est Questio utrum esse possit Homo in hae vita sine pectato Alia utrum sit It is one question whether a man can be in this life without sin and another whether he be so For the former Question he destinguisheth of what is possible by Grace and what is possible by our own strength to hold that any man by his free will only without Grace is able to keep all GOD's Commandments and be without sin is that Grand Pelagian Doctrine against which he sets his face and deâ—astes it But that it is possible to attain this by Grace or the special assistance of GOD's Spirit he thinks it best it seems to grant He thinks it not fit nor safe to say any nor all of GOD's Commandements are impossible Besides Where GOD Vouchsafs his Grace the work he pleads is to be ascribed unto him to whom nothing is impossible And I hope this being all we plead for will forever aquite us of Pelagianism and come pesce all the slanderous tongues of our ignorant and malicious Adversaries As for his Orosms The first is a modest saying like that of R B before mentioned but the second is a heedless expression The man that can be without sin is Christ from which it would follow that Adam was Christ who could have been without sin and once was without it And I hope there are are some now who are clansed from all their Polutions washed and purged from all their sins according to the Scriptures yet are not Christs But because R B saith it is not his work to meddle with what is said against the Pelagians and Socinians he will herefore conclude him a Pelagian and Socinian What triffling is this Beeause our Author will not defend Mahumentism and Judaism therefore he is a Jew and a Mahumetan Is this as good consequence And yet in such doth our Author delight But the best is that he saith Nothing that R B. can say can be of weight against us And why so Patroclus Are Presbyterians Infallible or in accountable Or when came they by this priviledge I thought they had been subject to mistakes as much as other men And here he turns to the Fathers again But the Fathers of the three first Centuries only are reputed Orthodox by Presbyterianâ—â— And it is clear they fall in with Papists there and have as much need of a Purgatory as they His Next is to answer this Viz. That this Doctrine is against the Wisdom of GOD. Our Author answereth Saying he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of GOD whereby they may be free from all sin if they use them well Adding that he mumbleth as one in a confused haste but our Authors hast is much greater For R B hath write a whole page and more upon this Argument and our Author does not take notice of six lines of it But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insinuateth this That the only wife GOD A being to gather to Himself a peculiar People Holy and Righteous And for that Effect sent His Son into the World to save them from their sins and hath given them his Hâ—ly Spirit to sanctifie them throughout and to cleanse them from all sin as the Scripture testifie Now to say that he cannot compass that end is to derogate from the Wisdom of GOD. But he answers This â—â— with great facility denyed for we say saith our Author that it is the Will of GOD that perfect freedom from sin be a property of the Church triumphant only Sat pro imperio He might have left this to the Pope Now for proof of this hold assertion he saith It is enough to challenge him to give any example of one thus freed from sin in the World except Jesus Christ who never had it but by Imputation Thus the Man who tells us Affirmenti incumbit probatio but he confesseth Infants have no sin but by Imputation And I would fain know when Enoch and Elijah were punged Whether in the World before their Translation or in the Empereal Heaven into which they either entered with their sins or were freed from sin in the World And if so he may tell us with the next how long they were so freed before their Translation for I can assure him they had no need of Purgatory To R B's alledging from J â—'s words That he confessed there was some material service performed to the devil He answereth This objection militats as much against the Apostle Saying Rom 7. That with his flesh he served the law of sin For answer to which I remitt him to the 17 and 20 verses of the same Chapter Neither hath he yet proven that Paul speaks here of his present State as the second verse of the next Chapter doth evince That this Instance will overdo he is mistaken upon his begging the Question that the best and most gracious Action of the Saints are tainted with sin which we must take his word for His next is That it is the Will of GOD that his People be under a warefare so long as they are here To which R B answers But is it the Will GOD that they he alwayes overcome After this he adds his own words in stead of his Adversaries according to his Jugling Custome But let us heat his Answer He saith They are 〈◊〉 alwayes overcome What Is not daily while they are in this Life alwayes If to break the Commands of GOD daily in thought word and deed as long as they live be not alwayes he may tell us the difference next