if his citation from him be true and therefore finding this to pinch him he brings it up again p. 126. where bringing me in saying Infants are under no Law he answers but the Apostle saith the contrary He would have done charitably to have told me where that I might have observed it What he saith in this as wel as the former page in answer to my affirmation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may relate to death and that it 's understood upon which occasion man sinned urging absurditys by the like application of Christ's Righteousness is solved by a serious observation of the comparison as stated by me betwixt Christ and Adam His arguing from Childrens dying doth not conclude untill he prove Death simply considered necessarily to infer guilt in the Party dying of which I have spoken before p. 126. n. 20. to my answer to Psal. 51 5. alledged by them wherein I shew that David saith not my Mother conceived me sinning and therefore it proves not his assertion His reply is after he has given a scoff it quite crosseth David's designe But why so because in that Psalm he expresseth his sorrow and humiliation for his sins and what then might not David lament upon that occasion that he was not only a sinner himself but also came of such as were so But when I urge this place further shewing their interpretation would make Infants guilty of the sin of their immediat Parents since there is no mention here of Adam his answer to this is a repetition of his own doctrin A rare method of debate very usual to him And then taking it for granted he asks me whether this originated Sin of which he supposed David spake for he never offers to prove it though it be the matter in debate came from another Original than Adam What he affirmed here of my insinuating Marriage-Dutys to be Sin is but a false conjectur but as to the hurt and loss that Man got by Adam which I ascribe to no other Original as being no Manichee I spake before but he should first prove before he obtrude such things upon others and I desire yet to be informed of him in what Scriptur he reads of Original Sin and whether if the Scriptur be the only Rule he can not find words in it fit enough to express his faith or must he shift for them elsewhere ¶ 8. Pag. 127. n. 21. He urges Paul's saying the wages of sin is death and to my saying This may be a consequence of the fall but that thence it can not at all be inferred that iniquity is in all those that are subject to death he saith it is in plain terms but my modesty dare not speak it out to say the Apostle speaketh not truth Answ. Is not this to take upon him to judge of another man's heart which elsewhere he accounts a great presumption why takes he no notice or gives he no answer to the absurdity I shew followed from thence since the whole Creation received a decay by Adam's fall and yet we say not Herbs and Trees are Sinners and while he would make-out this great charge of my contradicting the Apostle he forgets the half of his business which is to prove the Apostle meaned in that place Natural death and not Eternal since the Apostle opposeth it there to Eternal Life and eternal death he will confess is the wages of Sin which the Apostle shews they shun by Jesus Christ's obtaining Eternal Life whereas Natural death they do not avoid Likewise he should have proved that all the Scripturs mentioned by him p. 128. are meant of natural death which he will find not very easy As for his citing Death as mentioned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. the Apostle's words ver 56. confirm what I say That death is only a punishment to the wicked not to the Saints for the words are The sting of death is Sin so where sin is taken away there death has no sting and that is the Saints Victory Now he can not apply this to Infants without supposing that they have sin which were to begg the question And whereas he asks Whether Death be NO punishment for Sin I answer that I said not so neither is that needfull for me to affirm seing it is sufficient if it be not always a punishment of sin which if it be not it can not be concluded that because infants dye therefore they must be guilty of sin Since then the absurditys he after urges follow from his supposition that death is No punishment for sin which I say not they do not touch me He judgeth p. 128. n. 22. that I run wilder than Papists in saying we will rather admitt the supposed absurdity of saying all Infants are saved to follow from our doctrin than with them say that innumerable Infants perish eternally not for their own but only for Adam's fault This he reckons a contradicting of my doctrin of Christ's dying for all saying I here grant that all Infants will be saved without Christ. What horrible lye is this Where say I that all Infants will be saved without Christ If he say it is by consequence that I say so which he must needs do or els be an impudent unparallel'd lyar then he infers it either from my saying Christ dyed for all Therefore if all Infants are saved it must be without Christ or that If all Infants be saved Christ can not have dyed for all for one of these two must be if I contradict my self But such consequences are only fit for such an Author as seems to have abandoned all sense of honesty and Christian reputation and resolvs per fas aut nefas and without rime or reason as the proverb is to bespatter his adversary As for his adding they that have no sin have no need of a Saviour to save them from sin he overturns it all by asking me in which also lies the pinch of his matter since I affirm they have a seed of Sin in them wich is called Death and the Old man how can they put-off this and sing the Song of the Redeemed which all that enter into Glory must do Does not this then shew I believe they have need of Christ as a Saviour who dyed for them to deliver them from this and is not the contradiction his own in urging this question which I thus answer How are those he accounts elect Infants saved whom he affirms to be really guilty of Adam's sin and so in a worse condition than I affirm Infants to be for he will not say with Papists and Lutherans that the adminstiring of that they call the Sacrament of Baptism does it When he answers this he will solve his own argument To insinuat that some Infants are damned he asketh me what I think of those of Sodom Jude v. 7. the words are these Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the Citys about them in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange
flesh are set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire But it is strange the man should be so desperatly audacious as to proclame his own sottishness to the world Is there a word here of Infants Is not the very reason of suffering the vengeance of eternal fire given because of their giving themselvs over to Fornication which reason could not touch Infants Pag. 129. he thinks I wrong Zuinglius upon the credit of the Council of Trent but if the Counçil of Trent wronged Zuinglius in condemning him for that he was not guilty of he and his Brethren have the honour to have their judgment approved by that Council while ours is condemned and let him remember how he useth to upbraid me with à ffinity with Papists yea in this very chapter upon less ground Pag. 130. he goes about to prove his matter from several Scripturs but how shallowly the Reader may easily observe 1. He citeth Gen. 6 5. Man's thoughts are evil continually What then Are Infants therefore guilty of Adam's sin that 's the thing in question But the Hebrew signifies à pueritiis from their infancy What then how proves that the case I do not deny but Children may become guilty of sin very early but the question is Whether they be guilty of Adam's sin even in their Mothers womb And hereby we may see he thinks not their version so exact but I. B. must take upon him to correct it to help himself at a dead lift as they say The same way is answered the other Scripturs that follow Ezech. 16 4. Matth. 15 19. Eph. 2 3. which are yet more impertinent as the Reader by looking to them may see and I might easily by examining them particularly shew if it were not that I study brevity and delight not to glory over the man's impertinency And though Infants perished in the flood and that was brought upon the men and women that sinned for their iniquitys yet it will not follow thence that infants are guilty of sins untill he better prove that natural death is always and to all the wages of sin albeit I confess with the Apostle eternal death is And indeed if these infants were punished at all it must have been for the sins of their immediat Parents which he will not affirm since the flood is not said to have come for Adam's sin but for their own so this instance clearly overturns his assertion I leave to the Readers judgment the Scripturs not mentioned at length but set down by him in this to judge whether they prove the thing in debate to wit that Infants are guilty of Adam's sin The citations out of Augustin and Origen brought by him in the next page 131. the Reader may also judge of in case they be truely cited which I can not examin at present whether they have weight enough to overturn what has been here proved from Scriptur The words of Eliphaz Iob 15 14. speak of a Man not of a child and therefore not to the purpose neither do I believe though the Spirit of God gave a relation of what Eliphaz said that we ought to build our Faith upon his affirmations Next he urges Gen. c. 5 v. 3. And Adam begat a son in his own likeness after his image but this would prove Adam's sons as guilty of all sins as that first which he denied or let him shew a ground for such a distinction And thus is further answered what he saith next page Gen. 17 14. where it is said the man-child that is uncircumcised shall be cut-off which he thinks so strong that in a vapor he desires me to chew my cud upon it for if this cutting-off was a punishment of these children for sin it must be for that of their immediat parents who neglected to circumcise them which Adam could not do and therefore could not sin in omitting it and since he will not say this he can urge nothing from that place He saith the Fathers used to make use of these words of Christ Ioh. 3 5. Except a man be born of water c. but their using it was upon their mistake that Baptism took away Original sin and that therefore infants unbaptized could not be saved That regeneration is needfull to Infants I deny not and whereas he asks how are they regenerat I answered that before asking him how those he accounts Elect Infants whom he confesses to be guilty of Adam's sin are regenerat He confesses the Fathers argument taken from sprinkling infants with water which they and he falsly call Baptisme will conclude nothing against me but since he names here Initial Sacraments in the plural number which the Fathers made use of it seems they had some more than Baptisme And since he and his Brethren make use of no more as Initial but Baptisme it seems he differs from them in what they judged needfull here as wel as the Quakers I have shewn above how I evite both contradicting myself as to Universal Redemption and excluding infants from the benefit of Christ's death And for his last question wherein did Christ excell other Infants if they be born without sin he should have said not guilty of Sin I answer In that he had no Seed of Sin in him as other infants have and that not only but he had nothing of that weakness and propensity to yeeld to the evil influence thereof as other Infants but was in greater strength glory and dominion over it than Adam even before he fell This shews his privilege above others and in nothing contradicteth what I have said before Section Sixth Wherein his Seventh and Eighth Chapters Of Reprobation and Vniversal Redemption are considered ¶ 1. IN his seventh chapter of Reprobation he expatiateth himself at great length in large and tedious homilies which will make my reply the shorter who look not upon it as my concern to answer them because these controversies are largely handled by others and what is said by him is abundantly answered yet if he will affirm he has said something that is new upon this Theam and poynt to it it is like it may not want an answer And indeed the Reader may observe him much pained and strained to put a fair face upon these foul doctrins and though what he saith here may be and it is most probable is to be understood of the reason he gives in his Epistle in being so large because of the opposition of others besides Quakers and also because I touched these things but passingly as being a Theam much debated and common to us with others I might pass it by with a reference to those Authors who largely treat of them yet I will take notice of what he saith in direct answer to what by me is affirmed And first as for his accusation of me as not being positive and punctual enough in setting down my judgment of the Decrees of Election and Reprobation it is of no weight All do at times confess that
he has goten me in a contradiction because he supposeth that I willingly grant that the Light within may continue to exhort such to repent and turn whose Day of Visitation is expired but it is no wonder the man's arguments are weak that are built upon so groundless suppositions For I will never grant that the operations of the Light are every way the same in man after as they were before his Days of Visitation were expired for albeit before they judge reprove and condemn for sin yet this is accompanyed with a gentle drawing and Invitation to Life but that he has this afterwards I utterly deny as is clear by Christ's weeping over Ierusalem To prove p. 153. that this their doctrin is not injurious to Christ's Propitiatory Sacrifice by making it a great judgment and plague to many he asks Must not Christ be for the fall of many in Israle Luk. 2 34. çiting other Scripturs of the like import Answ. All this urgeth nothing but upon supposition that all these never had a Day of Visitation so that he doth but beg the question His supposed contradiction which he repeats again here is before removed Pag. 154. N. 24. To prove their doctrin putteth not men in a worse condition than Devils he saith Devils are under no offer of Mercy now and hear not the Gospel but is not this a pretty solution whereas he confesseth this offer of Mercy and hearing is no advantage nor was ever intended to advantage those who are damned and therefore fore-seeing the weakness of this he brings-in my words where the pinch of the matter lies to wit Devils had once a possibility of standing but so not Men according to their doctrin to this he has no answer but that all Mankind once stood in Adam But did not God decree that Adam should fall Let him answer me this directly where then was their capacity of standing or his either If he say not let him take home his own reasonings that something came to pass which God decreed not and consequently according to him fore-saw not But suppose this difficulty were solved let men of sense and Reason judge whether men be not put by their doctrin into a worse condition than Devils while they affirm that Devils had once a standing and fell by their own personal disobedience and presumption but Men had only a standing in Adam fell by his act and not by any of their own all of them before they had a being and many several thousand years before but to befool his Reader he saith in the end of this paragraph their Doctrine is consonant to that Rev. 22 17. and whosoever will let him take of the waters of Life freely and this he repeats in the end of the next paragraph But how deceitfull he is in this cannot be hid from the understanding Reader since that invitation signifies nothing to those that are by an absolute Decree excluded from the benefit of it and is but to deal with such invited ones as the Poet feigned of Tantalus who was up to the chin in water but restrained from drinking which he takes notice of as objected by me p. 155. and labours to remove it but in vain What he saith to that end resolvs in this question Have Heathens or Reprobats as great a desire to Salvation as Tantalus had of drinking And what if they had not the comparison is not impertinent for he that hath resolved to starve a man whether he do it by hindring him to eat or by destroying his stomach that he has no appetit and therefore doth perish doth equally contribute to his death And the like doth their false doctrin most injuriously ascribe to God As for the Scripturs here brought by him such as all men have not Faith 2 Thess. 3 2. and others of the like import they are not to his purpose for the question is not Whether all men have the exercise of those gifts that lead to Salvation but Whether the most of men be by an irrevocable Decree before they had a being yea from all Eternity secluded from all means of obtaining these Gifts that they may be saved and that because ordained to be damned albeit by the Gospel as the revealed will and command of GOD invited to repent and be saved ¶ 5. Now I come to his 8 chapter of Universal Redemption where I shall not have much ado for many pages for after according to his custom he has introduc'd himself with railing and reproaches and that in the first 4 pages he has told the various opinions of those that held universal Redemption and at last his own as conceived in the Westminst Confess of Faith he goeth about to prove that there is no Universal Redemption and that upon this medium that there was a Covenant betwixt God and the Mediator which would be destroyed by such as assert this Universal Redemption because according to them it might have faln-out notwithstanding that Eternal transaction that not one person should be saved Upon this he enlarges endeavouring to shew the absurdity of it both from Reason and Scriptur unto page 194. All which toucheth me not at all who do not say that Christ by his Death purchased a meer possibility against which he battereth thtough all these pages since I have expressly affirmed and he himself observs it that Christ's death purchased not only a sufficiency of Grace for all but also such a prevalency for some by which they were necessarily brought to Salvation and yet is so unjust as to affirm that I am for this meer possibility saying p. 178. n. 28. I embrace this opinion with the Arminians and p. 179. n. 30. he saith or as this Quaker saith who in effect saith that it may so fall-out that there shall be no application whether this be malice or forgetfulness himself best knows But this is sad he seldom forgets to be malitious but often to be just yet as to the bulk of his reasonings of that matter perhaps he bestows them for the confutation of those others he speaks of besides the Quakers against whom he saith he writes who if they judge it their concern may answer it Yet in this prolix disputation he has cast-in some arguments which seem not only to urge against this meer possibility as he terms it but also against Christ's dying for all in any respect such as from page 169 N. 19. to page 175. But these are such as his usually are which only proceed upon the question 's being begged for whereas he saith that those for whom Christ dyed he dyed to take-away their sins it is not denyed provided they resist not the Grace purchased thereby so that faith and repentance be wrought in them But he urges this in the following page 170. that since this non-performance of the Condition is a sin if he dyed for all sins he must have dyed for this also and if there be another Condition imagined for that too and so in infinitum
burn them thence he highly exalts the great depth of this his little Presbyterian David as he cals him in the shining light and sharpness of his Examen Sober men will blush to read such shameless flattery And truely this Presbyterian Prince looks liker cursing Shimei than little David and he himself looks like the daring Philistim who thus commends him proclaiming a defiance in his name as if no solid answer could be given but such crying of triumph before hand will have small weight with men of reason His jeering quibble at my words in my book of Universal Love where I speak overly of the felicity of my understanding shews he wanted matter but not malice Many modest men will be found to have said as much of themselvs neither did I that as a thing by which I would have any to measur now either me or my writings the greatest natural understanding wherein I confess my self freely to be inferior to many availeth but little yea often hurteth to the chief thing needfull to wit regeneration which by Grace and not by Nature and therein I desire to glory His petty remark upon Barclaij Argenis is both childish and malitious he must know that the Quakers and my self do both abhorr and condemn such books and truely my love to my name is not so great that I would have that exempted and therefore I could freely give my vote that all Romances were burnt and he will find it hard to prove that such are used by any of us whileas I know some who passed and yet go for pious and elect Ladys among them that bestowed no small share of their time in reading them and Preachers may be found eminent enough whose closets are wel stored with most approved Romances and some being challenged even of note among the Presbyterians by some serious professors for their reading of them did justify it as that whereby they were helped in their pulpits to give their sermons a better lustre So he may see these books are of more use to his brethren than us who can content our selvs with such homely language as the holy Scriptur teacheth For what he saith of James Naylor I need return no answer having sufficiently done it in the former section And whereas he gives the example of the AntiNomians to shew the Quakers are not singular in not being called after a particular person he doth but miss of his aime for the Quakers are known by that name as such being an imbodyed People consisting of several hundred gathered Churches or Congregations but the Antinomians are only here either some having these particular notions and no such imbodyed people else let him tell us where we may find these Anti-Nomian Churches I need say no more to this Postscript which hath nothing in it but meer railing assertions as to me and that the rather as I suppose R. M. C. will long ere this appear in print receive a solid and grave Letter from an old friend and acquaintance of his which may make him sensible of his iniquity in this matter if there be yet any Christian ingenuity abiding with him and that by prejudice he is not totally blinded ¶ As for his railing assertions of George Keith's book we will see how it is refuted in the promised answer to it and then it will be time to answer them as to that as wel as to the list of the blasphemous assertions which they pretend they have goten out of it but all Christians may judge how they are like to prove it blasphemous when as an instance of the blasphemous assertions they give G. K's saying that the Man Christ Jesus is the Mediator And to help them to do their work fully I desire them when they go about to prove this assertion to be blasphemy they may not forget the Apostle's words 1 Timoth. 2 5. For there is One GOD and One Mediator between GOD and men the MAN Christ Jesus and shew how G. K's words are more blasphemous than these of the Apostle which to make it more plain to the Reader I will add thus G. K's position which I. B. and R. M. C. two eminent Presbyterian Preachers in the Index at the end of J. B's book affirm to be one of the abominable heads of Quakerisme is That the MAN CHRIST JESUS is the MEDIATOR The Apostle his assertion 1 Tim. 2 5. is That there is One MEDIATOR between GOD and men the MAN CHRIST JESUS We desire the sense and censur of the Presbyterian Ministery upon this or otherwise we hope they can not in reason be offended if justly reputed accusers of the Spirit of God that taught the Apostles to speak and thence condemned as signal Calumniators and Heretiks Here follows the Letter of Lillias Skein to R. M. C. AN Expostulatory EPISTLE directed to ROBERT MACQVARE Friend ROBERT MACQUARE MY tender Love and Sympathy was great towards many of the Non-Conformists who were suffering for Conscience sake and not for interest espousing that opinion of whom thy self being one thou was often very near me notwithstanding I knew generally the Non-Conformists are more imbittered and prejudiced against us called Quakers than any other men yet this I often constructed to flow from misinformations concerning us being so little acquainted with and conversant among us whereunto your being so shy was but like the Disciples in a storm seeing him appear in a manner they had not seen him before thought he was coming nearer them for deliverance yet they cried-out through fear as if it had been the appearance of some evil Spirit Other times I have looked upon the great prejudice many had against us answerable to Christ's saying No man having drunk old wine straightway desireth to drink new they say the old is better which hitherto hath and yet doth cause me bear with you and love that which is good amongst you wherever it appeareth And so because of this love towards thee I am the more concerned at this time with what thou hast lately published for though my acquaintance and intimacy with thee was not so much as others yet it being in a very serious season with both of us as I very wel remember when thou was shut up close prisoner and was daily in expectation of the sentence of death thy deliverance from which I retain the fresh sense of it was and is with many such like seasons wherein the Lord prepared my heart and bended his ear a sweet encouragement to trust him and a singular engagement on me to wait for his immediat leadings and the manifestations of his will at all times But Oh! since I heard of and read thy Postscripts to Iohn Brown's book and S. R his Letters as is supposed I am astonished and much ashamed on thy behalf O! is this the best fruits of so many years affliction thou hast to publish to the world that one called and suffering as a Non-Conformist to this sinfull time should have learned no more conformity