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
testimony as to build my faith upon it or to reject their doctrin meerly for its dissent from them which he insinuats and yet to his own self-contradiction confesseth I say I would not much regard all that if it had any ground in Scriptur and he denies not his union with the Dominicaus and that he may shew how little he cares for good company he willingly rejecteth the chief and first Reformers to wit the Lutherans whom according to his charity he denieth so much as the name of Reformed Protestants ¶ 3. Pag. 146. n. 16. He cometh to prove that this their doctrin maketh not God the author of sin but he laboureth here like a man in a sweat and giveth so little of a direct answer as scarce deservs any reply such as amounts to this being by way of retortion that if I acknowledge God fore-saw sin permitted it and might have hindred it I will make God the author of sin too but I deny the parity and he has forgoten to prove it His other answer is from the authority of Cicero and Plautus who oppose author to dissuasor and then he asketh whether they say God perswadeth any man to sin But Zanchius one of their Doctors saith he moves the thief to kill and that he sinneth God putting him yea forcing him to it and sure that 's more than perswading But the poor man must be at a low ebb when he is forced to go to the Heathens of whom he has expressed he has so mean thoughts for a shelter to his doctrin At last to come off with some seeming credit he desires me to confute the Apostle Rom. 9 11 12 13. because that he thinks from that as much as from their doctrin this charge may be inferred but here he doth only begg the question he and I do both agree that the Apostle makes not God the author of sin but it doth not thence follow that their doctrin doth not infer it since from the positive saying of their Doctors and the doctrin itself it is manifest as is more largely shewn in my Apology and this remains yet by him to be removed For his desiring me to refute the Apostle is no more answer than if to all his arguments in his book I should only say Confute the Scriptur which contains our Doctrin and therefore dispute no more against us untill thou first do that Would he reckon this suffieient As for their misapprehensions of Rom. 9. he may find them refuted in many Authors that have written upon that subject particularly in the examination of West Confess of Faith chap. 3. to which I refer him To the citations I give him of their Authors making God the author of Sin he saith If they give more ground than the very expressions of Scriptur he will not own them And what then the consequence is but very small whether he will or not It is enough for me that I have shewn the absurdity of their doctrin which even by the testimony of their chief Doctors makes God the author of Sin unless he will reply all this is nothing because I I. B. will not own them and if to say he that forceth another to do a thing is the cause author of it who without contradicting their own Reason can deny they make God the author of sin As for the many testimonies of Scriptur brought by him I own them and both agree they make not God the author of sin but that the saying of their Divines doth it what is above said doth evince Pag. 149. He cometh but as may be observed unwillingly to vindicat the twofold will they ascribe to God the one revealed by which he commands men to repent and the other secret and quite contrary how he is pained here the Reader may observe by his IFs and AN Ds thinking to turn it by without any direct answer The sum of what he saith resolvs in this That the Purpose of God is not of the same natur with his Command but what if that should be granted The question is Whether they be quite contrary and that in respect to one and the same subject so that when a man is commanded by God to do a thing by his secret Purpose he is forced to do the quite contrary Pag. 150. n. 19. He comes to answer my saying that their affirming Man sinneth willingly will not avail because according to them his propensity of Inclination to sin is necessarily imposed upon them by God To this in stead of answer he refers me to Rom. 9. of which before and for want of reason he falles a railing calles me a proud Quaker saying I agent the Devil's cause but whether that be to remove my objection or vindicat their doctrin the Reader may judge Pag. 151. n. 20. In answer to my shewing their doctrin is injurious to God because it maketh him delight in the death of a sinner contrary to Ezech. 33 11. 1 Tim. 2 3. 2 Pet. 3 9. he saith nothing directly but would be retorting that if I prove any thing from this then I must say That God did absolutely Decree that all men should be saved But I deny this consequence albeit it is injurious to God to say he decreeth that which he declareth to take no delight in it will not follow that it is injurious to him to say he permitteth what he delighteth not in For on all hands it is confessed he permitteth sin and yet on no hand that he delighteth in sin so that this injuriousness of their doctrin to God is no ways removed by him albeit he would fain be mincing and covering it saying they do not say that God purposes to punish any not for their sins but meerely to satisfie his own Pleasur but such silly shifts must only satisfie blind men Do not they say God purposed to damn Many to eternal torment and that Sin is no ways the cause of this purpose And will he say to be eternally tormented is no punishment And was not this a purpose to punish men and not for their sin His alledging in this page that this is not injurious to Christ's Mediation is upon the supposition that Christ dyed not for all which comes after to be examined ¶ 4. Pag. 152. n. 22. He comes to prove their doctrin makes not the Gospel a meer mock as I shew it did by proposing the offer of Salvation to many who yet by an irrevocable Decree are excluded from receiving any benefit by it and to this he gives the instance of Moses being sent to Pharaoh whose heart was hardned and Esai to the People of Israel to make their ears heavy and shut their eyes with others of like import But this is easily answered considering I grant many men out-live the day of God's Visitation to their Soul and are justly hardned and yet the offers of Mercy and Peace is no illusion because they were once in a capacity to have by it received it But he thinks here
but removing of the filth as wel as of the guilt is the act of God's Mercy and Grace as saith the Apostle Tit. 3 5 6. and yet we are saved and consequently justified according to his Mercy by the washing of Regeneration since this is the fruit of the Grace and Spirit of God freely given us And therefore it is not enough for him pag. 302. to affirm that I pervert the Apostle's words 2 Cor. 5 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself upon this bare supposition that this World is only understood of the Elect for if this reconciliation had been absolute and not in part only that is a readyness on God's part to be reconciled with them if they repent which I affirm to what purpose should the Apostle as an Embassadour intreat them to be reconciled there needed no intreaty to that which was already done neither are his meer assertions to this p. 303. any answer It is strange that to prove that all for whom Christ dyed are certainly made alive one time or other he brings these words And that he dyed for all that they which live should not hence forth live unto themselvs but unto him which dyed for them c. for he doth not say here that all he dyed for are made alive but that they that are made alive should so live neither doth the saying Christ has born the sins of all in his own body on the tree import any being actually freed of the guilt of sin untill they receive the condition as above be ye therefore reconciled unto God But he overturns what he earnestly pleaded for before p 310. n. 23. where he saith they owne not that reconciliation was so perfected by Christ on earth that there is nothing to be done by man in order to his actual justification if so then no man is actually justified untill something be done by him and this doing imports a work so here a work of man is necessary for justification and this is rather more than I say And if something be to be don on man's part ere actual justification be obtained then that which is don by Christ before must be only a potential justification and what is this more than a capacity of being justified which yet he batters against in me and yet he must confess this to distinguish himself from the Antinomians whose opinions albeit he divers times disclaims yet he shews not how he can liberat himself from it and therefore in contradiction to what is here observed both his assertions and proofs resolve in the Antinomian doctrin and concludes for it as much as for him which I might therefore pass all as impertinent But for instance his great example of a Cautioner or Surety used often as pag. 299. 310 311. for when a Cautioner pays a man's debt for him so soon as he lays down the money which is a sufficient intimation to him to whom the debt is due the person for whom it is paid is really acquited albeit he have done no act yea know not of it and this as I observed before himself acknowledgeth in the application saying p. 304. that some who are united to Christ by Grace and surely such are justified can neither see it nor acknowledge it So then if this example of his Surety hold true men are justified before they believe as say the Antinomians and therefore all the Scripturs brought by him p. 308. to prove that Christ made a proper real and full satisfaction in the behalf of men will conclude for the Antinomians as much as for him whereas p. 314. he looks upon it as a calumny to say they speak not of a real justification for he concludes p. 312. that imputative justification is real He argues for the Antinomians also since he accounts this imputation to be only of righteousness wrought without men by Christ in his own person for if by this imputation men be really justified then they are as much or at lest as really justified before they believe as after since faith is an act of man's will and no such thing according to him can have place in Justification and yet to go round he saith p. 308. that they say not that God justifieth any remaining in their sins But do they not say so since taking his opinion the safest way and furthest from Antinomians he concludeth a man justified in the act of conversion and such he supposes to have been great sinners yea and that they may not be purged from them many years after yea and how can they if they must sin daily as they say in thought word and deed of which more hereafter are not such then remaining in their sins according to them justified Pag. 306. N. 16. he would infer a contradiction upon me from saying good works are necessary as causa sino qua non for this he saith contradicts my saying We are justified by the inward birth and not by our works seing works being but the consequence of that birth is but the effect even a causa sine qua non must be before the effect on which he also insists p. 319. n. 38. But this contradiction is founded upon the supposition that this birth is brought forth without good works which I deny seing regeneration is a work of the Spirit in us by which we are justified that is really made just and the works which proceed therefrom are but a consequence of it And now as to his proofs and also his examining of mine they are inserted pag. 204. n. 13. where he saith that the redemption of Christ is a far other thing and hath far other effects than to make men capable of salvation even remission of sins But I never denied but that it brought remission of sins to such as embrace and receive it neither do the Scripturs cited by him prove more 2 Cor. 5 19. Dan. 9 24-26 Col. 1 19 20. Ephes. 1 11-15 Ioh. 17 2. Heb. 9 12 13. 2 Cor. 1 v. 20. none of which speak of the reconciliation made by Christ to be in itself more than procuring a capacity of Salvation other ways than as received and laid hold-on by believers and when it is spoken of with respect to such I never denied but it was more for the capacity is brought unto action he addeth the very texts cited by my self make against me Eph. 2. 15. he dyed to make in himself of twain one new man so making peace ver 13. but now in Christ Iesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ asking was this only a capacity of coming near but the Apostle here speaks of those who had received and not resisted the benefit of that capacity And whereas he saith 1 Joh. 4 10. the Son of God's being said to be a propitiation for our sins is more than a meer possibility of friendship But doth not the same Apostle say he is a propitiation for the whole World yet