Quakerism the Path-Way to Paganism

CHAP. VI. Of Original sin.

1. THat Man is now fallen and lying into a State of Sin and Misery, until he be delivered there from, cannot by any rational man be denied. The very Heathen Philosophers have complained, as sensible of this; & vented many strange & uncouth Notions thereanent▪ But as to the Rise & Cause of this Disorder, Confusion & Misery, which was everywhere obvious, they remained blind: the wisest of them, only were brought to say, that there was some hidden cause of all these evils; but what that was, they knew not: The proud and vain glorious Stoics thought, that all this sin and misery did proceed from every man's own Free Will and Choise, immediately; and that there was no other cause. Hence they thought, that every man came into the world free of any Vice or Inclination to sin: errasti (says Seneca Epist. 94.) si existimas nobiscum vitianasci; supervenerunt, ingesta sunt : so again ib. nulli nos vitio natura conciliat▪ nos illa integros ac liberos genuit : And yet the same man must elsewhere (lib. 3. quaest. c. 30.) confess, that vice is learned without any teacher. Hence also they thought, that man by his own Ability, Paines and Industrie, might recove • all his losses; and that nothing more was requisite, but to live according to nature, Senec. Epist. 41. Howbeit their very care and industry to make laws, for bearing down of vice, and setting forward of virtue, was sufficient to Redargue, and Confute their foolish Imagination, had they but improven Natures light, as they might, or made use of right Reason, as they pretended. However, we see Stoics and Quakers are nigh of kin.

2. Plato speaks more clearly concerning this Fallen and Degenerat State of Man; but it is not improbable, as Mr Gal • showeth, in his Court of the Gentiles part. 1. lib. 3. c. 5. that • e had help from Scriptures, or Jewish Tradition, when he speaketh of the • ron age ; and particularly, when he saith in his Tim • e •• Locrus fol. 103. That the cause of vitiosity is from our Parents and first Principles▪ rather than from ourselves: and elsewhere. There is well nigh in everyone an ingenit • evil and disease. And de legib. lib. 5. The greatest evil of all is implanted in many men, and fixed in their souls: And this state of misery he terms (Gorgias fol. 493.) a moral or spiritual death, and that according to the opinion of the wise, saying, I have heard from the wise men, that we are now dead, and that the body is but our sepulcher.

3. However, the generality of Philosophers were utter strangers to the Rise of this contagion; and the hints that Plato giveth, are but very dark: But when Christianity came, and spread itself through the world, that, which the wise Men of the world, were utterly ignorant of, became plain and notoure to everyone; for without the knowledge of this, there could be no right Improvement of the Remedy offered in the Gospel; and therefore the knowledge of this was a necessary part of Christianity. In causa duorum hominum, (said August. lib. de Pecc. orig. c. 24.) quorum per unum venundati sumus sub peccato, per alterum redimimur a peccatis—proprie fides Christian • consistitpunc; So that the doctrine of original sin, with the reality and manner of its • raduction from Adam, and downward by natural Generation, was unquestioned in the Christian Church, until that unhappy enemy of the grace of God arose, who raised up his heresy upon the ruins of the proud • ottages of the Heathen Philosophers, I mean, Pelagius ; who, to strengthen himself, in his opposition and enmity to the Grace of God in Christ Jesus, did take upon him the defense of Corrupt Nature, and denied Original sin, saying lib. de Natura (apud August. lib. de Nat. and Grat. c. 9.) that all sinned in Adam, not because of sin attracted by birth, but because of Imitation. See more of this Vossij Histor▪ Pelag. lib. 2. par. 2. thes. 1. And Julianus the Pelagian (as we may see there also) said against Augustine, that God could not impute the sin of another unto Infants, and that no man is born with sin; And that the children cannot be guilty, until they commit something by their own will. How Augustine set himself against this Palagian cardinal error, his books declare: And how the whole Church did appear against it, is notoure. Pelagius himself subdolously seemed to deny his own opinions, in a Council in Pal • stine at Diopolis, condemning himself for saying, That Adam was made mortal, and so should have died, whether he had sinned or not. That Adams sin did only hurt himself, and not mankind, That infants new borne are into the same condition, that Adam was in before the fall. And again these and others of Pelagius errors were anathematized by the Council of Milevum, in Numidia. And August. tells us lib. • . de Bono persevere. cap. 2. that the Catholic Church defended against these Pelagians, among other truths, this, That man is borne obnoxius to Adams sin, and bound by the bond of damnation.

4. This same Pelagian error is maintained by the Socinians. Socin. Pral, c. 4. de Christ. Serv. part. 4. c. 6. Catech Racov. cap. 10. de Proph. Mun. Christ. Smale. de justif. disp. 4. Volkel, lib. 5. c. 18. Ostorod. Instit. c. 33. By Episcopius against Heidanus Pag. 116. and by the Remonst. Armin. Apol. cap. 7. fol. 84. So is it maintained by the Anabaptists. And D. Voetius Select. disp. part. 1. pag. 1079. tells us, that the Jews ordinarily this day deny Original sin, citeing the words of one at Venice, saying that the sin of Adam doth not condemn souls, but only hurt the soul in so far as it bringeth in the body of Adam whence it is, that it becometh more difficult to the Posterity of Adam to do good, &c. Mr Stephens, in his defense of the doctrine of Original sin, showeth that one Mr Robert Everard, and D. Jeremiah Taylor, and some Examiners of the late Assemblies Confession of faith, did appear against Original sin: and in his preface he tells us that Anno 1654. Feb. 22. Some Brethren of the Separation, did at a private dispute maintain, That all Infants were-free of Original sin. To these Opposers of Original sin, This Quaker, in the name of the rest, adjoineth himself; and so deserteth the Tru • h, maintained by the Orthodox Churches, and explained in their several Confessions ; and particularly by our Confes. of faith Chap. 6. § 2.3, 4. By this sin, they (i. e. our first Parents) fell from their Original righ • eousness, and communion with God; and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled, in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all Mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. And thereafter § 6. Every sin, both Original and Actual, being a transgression of the righteous Law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the Law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal. And more briefly in the larger and sh • rter Catechisms, to this Question, Did all mankind fall in Adams first transgressi • n ; tis answered thus. The Covenant being made with Adam, as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him, by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in that first transgressi • n.

5. Concerning this sin, which is under various names and titles pointed forth to us in Scripture (being called Sin by way of eminency Rom. 6.12 & 7:8. the Old Man Rom. 6:6. a Law in the members Rom. 7:23. the Body of sin Rom. 6:6. a Body of death Rom. 7:24. In dwelling sin Rom 7:17, 20. Evil present Rom 7:21. These are meaned of this Sin, as seated in, and derived unto the posteri • y: but as committed first by Adam, Paul Rom. 5▪ calleth it Sin, Offence, Transgression Diso • edience ) and concerning its Propagation or Traduction unto the posterity, many questions and doubts are moved, which we are not to meddle with: our purpose not being to treat of this Subject; but only to vindicate the orthodox doctrine, from the exceptions of this Quaker ; and to discover his error in this particular. For which cause, we need only take notice of two things concerning this Original sin. First There is the Sin, disobedience, offense and transgression of Adam, in eating of the forbidden fruit: This, though it was the sin of our nature in Adam, yet is said to be imputed to our persons, when we come to have a being by natural Generation, and de • cent from Adam. Secondly There is that, w • ich followed upon, and flowed from, that transgression of Adam, according to the nature and tenor of t • e Covenant, wherein he stood, as the head and representer of all mankind viz. The Privation or Want of that Original righteousness, which our Nature possessed in Adam ; and the Depravation, Corruption, Deordination of the whole man, whereby he is Disabled to all good, and wholly Inclined and disposed to evil, and all evil, and only evil, continually till grace make a change. This cannot properly be said to be imputed, but being a just punishment (as well as a sin) of the sin committed by Adam, is justly inflicted, by the righteous God, and conveyed from Adam to all his posterity, as a leprosy, and infectious disease, corrupting the whole man▪ which therefore is seated and subjected in the man, so soon as he hath a being by natural generation, from his immediate parents; though both the guilt, and this contagion, be not received immediately from our next parents, but immediately from Adam, from whom we have our Nature, as our Personal being from our immediate parents, who stand in no nearer relation to Adam, as the Head of Nature, than we, but all, Father, Son and Nephew &c. stand in the same near relation to him, in respect of Nature, as lines to the same center,

6. Having premised these things, let us now consider, what this Quaker hath to say against this: in his Fourth Thesis towards the end, he setteth down his Assertion, in few words; where, before we mentione his words, we cannot but take notice of a piece of more than ordinary shamelessness, in this Man; for in the words immediately before, he cometh in with a triumphing parad, saying, hence the errors of Socinians and Pelagians &c. are rejected, as if he would make his Reader believe, th • t he did anathematize all the errors of Pelagians and Socinians ; w • en yet he licks up and hugs in his bosom, a special & fundamental part of Pelagianism and Socinianism ▪ adding (which are the words we are now to take notice of) Yet nevertheless this seed is not imputed unto infants, but when they join themselves to it actually, by sinning. We must bear with this man's following the Quakers dialect; for he will speak but as he pleaseth. But for understanding of w • at he meaneth▪ we must call to mind his foregoing words, which we took notice of, in the foregoing Chapter, and examined, where he mentioned the Seed of God, of the touch whereof, he said, all Adam's posterity was deprived. This cannot be the seed he here meaneth He mentione • another Seed of Satan, to which Adam's posterity was subject; and this Seed, he said, Satan did sow in the hearts of Men, &c. Now this must be that malignant and depraved seed, whence all their Thoughts, Words and Actions are evil, which he here meaneth: And this Seed, he saith, is not Imputed to Infants: And we said lately, that this originated sin, or Corrup • ion of nature, could not properly be said to be impu • ed; becau • e it was properly inherent, as a disease of nature: But the thing that he would say, is plainly enough expressed in his Apology Pag. 54. But others (saith he) go so far, in the • there extremity (to whom Augustine in his declineing age, moved with zeal against the Pelagians, did first of all the Ancients open the way) as not only to confess, that Men of themselves are unfit for good, and inclined to evil; but also to affirm, that man, even while in his Mothers womb, and before he commit any actual sin, is under the guilt and crime of sin, by which he deserveth eternal death. Whereby we see, that he freeth Infants from the guilt of Adam's first sin: and again Pag. 55. he saith, they impute nothing of Adam's sin unto Men, until they make it their own, by such like acts of disobedience. He is clear then for the Non-imputation of Adam's sin unto Infants, and the Arguments, he adduceth, clear his judgment yet more.

7. Thus we have seen, what are his thoughts of the Imputation of Adam's guilt. But what thinketh he of the other particular, the Corruption of Nature? His Thesis could mean nothing else by the Seed of the Serpent: and when he cometh to the explication of this part of the Thesis, in his Ap • logy Pag. 59, §. 4. he tells us, that this evil and corrupt seed is not imputed unto infants, until they actually join themselves unto it by sin. And by this evil and corrupt seed, he meaneth that, whic • he had been speaking of, viz. the Corrupt nature of Man. But Pag. 55. he would seem to c • ntradict this, when he saith We cannot conceive, how Man, who is naturally come of Adam, can have any good in his nature pertaining to it, which he had not, from whom he is derived; if then we may affirm, that he in his nature retained no will belonging to it, nor light, capable of itself to manifest spiritual things; so nor his posterity. Whence you might think, that as Adam, by his fall, lost Original righteousness, and all aptitude, in Will, or Unde • standing, unto spiri • ual things, so • lso his Posterity, that came naturally of him, in this man's opinion; but his t • ue meaning is, that though Infants descend naturally from Adam, yet this Privation of Righteousness, and Corruption of Will and Understanding, is not imputed to Infants, nor do they partake thereof, until they sin actually; for in the end of his discourse upon this head Pag. 62. he says, that this seed of sin, is not imputed to any, till by sinning they actually join themselves to it : And, this seed of sin is frequently in Scripture called d • ath, and the body of death : and that, this seed, and that which cometh of it, is called the old man, the old Adam. Thus then, in • hort, his judgment is, that nothing of original sin, neither Originans, nor Originatum, neither the Guilt of Adam's sin, nor the Corruption of nature, is imputed to, or inherent in any man, till he commit some actual transgression; and so sin cometh not by Propagation, or Traduction, but by Imitation, as said the Pelagians of old, and as the Socinians and Anabaptists today maintain. And the Arminians, with their Episcopius, deny, that anything that is truly sin is found in any of Adams Posterity, before their own proper act.

8. Let us now see, what he saith in defense of this Error; and let us first take notice of what he said of Augustine, that much honored Instrument of the Lord, against the errors, that Satan was soweing in the Church, in his time. He would make us believe, that Augustine wrote of this subject, when under the dottage of old age, while as it is manifest, to such as read his life, that what he wrote against Pelagius was written, while he was in the prime of his Vigour and Understanding; and his works themselves declare the same. But what will this pedantic Quaker think of that singular and self-denying woe • k of that worthy person, called his Retractations, wherein he reviewed all his former writings, and retracted several th • ngs, asserted by him, in his younger, and less studied years? belike this man will look upon that work, being written after these, he now excepteth against, as containing nothing but greater dottages; because, as he • upposeth, the longer persons live, though not yet coming near the ordinary attendants of stouping or declineing old age, they grow the greater fools; and consequently, that himself must now be a greater fool (though I see little d • ff • rence) while become a Quaker, than he was in his younger days, when he was a Papist. Next, the man is not ashamed to judge of the very Though • s and Motives of that noble Instrument; yea he is so bold, as to condemn him of acting upon corrupt motives; as if no • hing had moved him to write for O • iginal sin, but eagerness of Z • all against Pelagius ; no inward conviction of the truth not of the damnableness or danger of the Pelagian he • esie in this; no conviction of his duty to appear for truth. Doth this Q • aker consider, that hereby he is audaciously arrogating to himself God's prerogative royal, of judging the secrets of the heart? Remembe • eth he that God is a Jealous God, who will not give his glory to another? But what grounds can he give of this his bold presumption? What evidence is there of that holy Fathers writing against his own conscience? I • ay no more of this, but leave this Quaker to his judge, and take notice of a Third untruth, when he saith, that Augustine was the first, that appeared in this controversy against the Pelagians : Had he but consulted Vossius, in his Historia Pelagianismi, a book that sometime he citeth, he should have found, that whole Councils appeared against Pelagius him • elf, to speak nothing of Jerome, in this particular, before that Augustine, wrote of it; particularly the first Synod at Carthage, and that Synod in Palestine, where Pelagius himself was present; and hiding his abominations, deceived the Fathers with fair words: and the Council of Milevy, that dealt more roundly with that heresy, tells us in plain terms, that the Truth, which they maintained, was owned by the whole Catholic Church all the world over: and so it was indeed, and never once questioned, till that unhappy instrument of Satan, to whom this Quaker adjoineth himself, broached his pernicious doctrine. It is true, the Pelagians called this Orthodox truth, a forged device of Augustine's, as this man doth: but Augustine replied (as Vossius tells us, Hist. Pelag lib. 2. part. 1. Thes. 6.) in these words. I did not devise original sin, which the Ca • holick faith believed of old, but thou, who deniest this, without doubt, art a new heretic: and lib. 1. contra. Julian. Cap. 2. he citeth no fewer then ten or twelve of the Fathers for him: and lib. de Pecc. Merit. & Remis. he says, he never heard one that owned the Scriptures speak otherwise. If this Quaker had perused Vossius, in the place last cited, he would have seen, how the • ame truth, which Augustine maintained, was asserted by ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latin, before Augustine's days, such as Ignatius, Dionysius Areopagia, Justin Martyr, Tatianus, Irenaeus (whom Augustine himself citeth) Origen, Methodius, Macarius Hierosol., Macarius Aegyptius, Athanasius, Cyrillus, Nazianzenus, Chrysostom, and others: of the latin Fathers he citeth Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Reticius, Olympius, Hilarius, Ambrosius, (whom Augustine citeth) Hilarius Diaconus, Hieronimus, (whom he also citeth.) And moreover, he should have found Pag. 179. that Augustine did not assert this truth merely out of ze • l gainst the Pelagians (as he ignorantly and boldly affirmeth) for he had asserted it, in h • s books de Libero Arbitrio, written before Pelagianism appeared: and how, in his 6. book against Julianus the Pelagian Cap. 4. he says expressly, that he was in that judgment from the very beginning of his conversion, & that he had said nothing through heat of dispute, which was not the ancient doctrine of the whole Church, Ego (saith he) per unum hominem in mundum intrasse peccatum, & per peccatum mortem, & ita in omnes homines pertransisse, in quo peccaverunt omnes, ab initio conversionis meae sic tenui semper, ut teneo. Extant libri, quos adhuc laicus re • entissimâ neâ conversi • ne conscripst, et si nondum sicut postea sacris literis eruditus, tamen nihil de hâc re jam nunc sentiens, & ubi disputandi ratio poposcerat, dicens, nisi quod antiquitus discit and docet omnis Ecclesia. Let this Q • aker read these words, and if he be not above measure effronted, let him blush at his shameless boldness. Let hi • read also August. lib 4 ad Boni • ac. c. 8. contra dua • Pelagianorum E • istolas, & lib. 3. de Pecc. Mer. & remiss. cap. 6. & 7. & lib. 1. adv. jul, resp. poster Pag 5.8. & 125. and he will see further cause of repenting of his groundless confidence and audacity; if his conscience be not feared.

9. We have had one great proof of this Quakers confident boldness; now the • e followeth another; for the only confirmation, which he adduceth, of his He • esie, in his Thesis, and that, which he first speaketh to in his Apology Pag. 59. is brought from Ephes. 2:1, 2, 3. a passage out of which the old Fathers proved Or • ginal sin, against the Pelagians, as August. lib. 6. c. 12. cont. jul. Scriptor Hypognost. lib. 2. Fulgent. and fourteen Bishops with him, ad Petrum diaconum. c. 26. Theodoret on the place, also Primasius and Haimo, commenting on the place, and others cited by Vossius, ubi Supra Pag. 150. taking that by nature, &c. to import (as none with any show of reason can otherwise think) all carnally borne, and partaking of the nature of Adam, and so to be verified of all borne by the conjunction of man and woman: so that by nature is as much as naturally: And Calvin on the place saith, that it is a notable passage against the Pelagians ; for saith he, what is naturally in everyone, is in them from their very original; & therefore if all be children of wrath, or obnoxious to wrath, by nature, they are so from their very original. But what way doth this Man evade? The Apostle (saith he) assigneth evil actions, not anything, that is not yet reduced into act, for an argument proveing them to be children of wrath. By which we see how backwardly this man readeth the Scriptures; for the Apostle, to commend the riches and power of the grace of God, towards these. Ephesians, whom the Lord had quickened, showeth what persons they were, and all are, before grace take hold of them: He saith not that these Ephesians were children of wrath, because walking according to the course of this world, &c. but that they had so walked, & were, moreover, children of wrath by nature: and it is observable (though this Man putteth out his own eyes, that he may not see it) how the Apostle changeth the person from the second to the first, verse. 3. saying, among whom also we all had our conversation, in times past,—and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others : And thereby showeth, that this was not the condition of the Ephesians, and other Gentiles, only; but of the Jews also, himself not excepted, because nature corrupted in Adam is one and the same, common to all, both Jews and Gentiles; so that all, as soon as they partake of Nature, come under this guilt, and are Children of wrath. He himself immediately before told us, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mentioned, 1 Cor. 2. the Carnal man, was not the Animal man, but the Rational man, so that this is true, not only of the beastly man; who by his actual sins b • utifieth himself, and maketh himself a mere Animal, but even of the Rational man; who hath a rational soul, and so soon as he hath a rational soul. The usual import of the word Nature and Natural in Scripture confirmeth this, Rom. 2:27. & 11:24. Gal. 2:15. & 4:8. 1 Cor. 15▪ 44, 46.

10. We need not then regaird what he addeth, saying, that the Gospel condemneth nor threateneth no man, but him, that hath actually sinned ; for in some sense the Gospel condemneth no man that heareth it, but the final unbeliever; but offereth life & pardon to all, to whom it is preached, of all their sins actual & original, upon condition of accepting of Christ offered therein: And as for the New Test. we have seen enough in it already, and will see more, to evince our point, and albeit this were not, we Judge that the Old Test. could prove the point, as we shall also see. The Gospel moreover tells us, that except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God ; and so, that as long as he hath but the first birth, of the flesh, he is under the wrath of God. Infants are not capable of threatenings, but they are capable of death, which we proved, in the preceeding Chapter, to be the punishment of sin.

11. Nor is that, which followeth, much worth the noticeing, when he saith God will visit the iniquities of the fathers, upon their children, who abide in sin, and so homologate and follow thir fathers iniquities: For there is a vast difference betwixt Adam's first sin, and the sins of other Parents: Adam's first sin, or breach of the Covenant, was not a personal sin, as the sins of other Parents are, and his after sins were; but the sin of the whole Nature, whereof he was the Head and Representative; therefore all that partake of that Nature participate of the guilt of Nature; when Infants have a being, they partake of the nature of Adam, immediately: and though they have this nature by means of generation of their immediate parents, yet they have not this nature from them, but from Adam, as I said: And though they have their personality from their immediate parents; yet they do not partake of their Fathers personality, but have their own; human personality not being a thing propagable; & therefore they cannot in strick sense be guilty of their parents personal sins: And yet, if it were of moment to debate the matter, we might show from Scripture, how the holy Lord, who is Just & Righteous, punisheth even children for their Fathers faults: and though the children be sometimes found guilty of actual sins, and so homologate their Fathers transgression; yet it is not found always to be so. It was not so, I suppose, with the infants of Careh, Dathan and Abiram, and the rest of that conspiracy, nor with the Children of Achan, nor with the Infants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of the Old world; nor with these that were carried away captive by the Assyrians and Babylonians, and several other instances; to speak nothing of the Children of Cain, Ishmael, Esau, and of the Jews, when cut off the Old and Natural stock, Rom. 11. And further the very expression of God, Command, 2. of visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the Children, showeth, that whatever sins they may have of their own; yet it is the fathers guilt, that bringeth on that punishment; else it could not be a visiting of their fathers iniquities; but only of their own.

12. It seemeth more considerable, that he saith, our opinion is contrary both to the mercy and justice of God, if he had given any proof; But he must follow the footsteps of Socinians and Arminians, who Assert this also, but will not much trouble us with their probations. He told us just now himself, That God can and doth visit the Iniquities of Fathers on their Children: and how can this comport with his goodness and justice, seeing their fathers sins are not properly their own, because they were personal; when he thinketh it Incongruous to God's Justice and Goodness to impute the sin of Nature, to all that partake of that nature, though it be their own, by virtue of their partaking of Nature? And strange it is, that men will be that bold, as to call God to their bar, and accuse him, as Unrighteous, because he taketh vengeance▪ when upon a far unlike account, they will not impute iniquity unto Men▪ we see that for crimes of • ese Majesty, or the like, one man is not only punished; but all his posterity after him, though not yet borne, are forfeited. When a person representing others (which cometh near • to our case) committeth any fault, as such a person representing, all whom • e representeth must bear the guilt, and the inconvenience following there upon; and no man will account this unjust, or iniquous. and yet behold the Righteous God cannot be acquit in that, which is every way more justifiable, though He hath absolute dominion over us, and may dispose of us, as He will; which no man hath over another. The truth is, this dissatisfaction with God, in all his ways, is an argument, beyond all denial, of our Rebellious, Natural, Inbred Corruption, and Wickedness of heart: what, would they not have said, that it had been Goodness and Equity both in God, if Adam had stood, to have made us all partakers of the Benefit thereof? and shall it now be against both Goodness & Equity, if by reason of his Fall, we be deprived thereof, and be Obnoxious to the evils threatened? what unequal dealing is this? In fine, This is the old c • ant of the Palagians, as Vossius showeth us Hist. Pelag. Pag. 206. And what Augustine replied, he way see Ibid. Pag. 20 • .

13. He addeth a rhapsody of non-sense telling his readers, our opinion floweth from our self l • ve, because we maintain an absolute decree of election for ourselves and ours, and so care not to send all the rest to hell, and leave them into inextricable difficulties. The reading of wh • ch might indee • excite any man of Understanding to commiserate this man's case, who is thus so transported with pa • sion, as he knoweth not what he is saying: only we see, that he mu • t spew out his gall again • t the Ortho •• x doctrine of Election, before the fit time come; but when he cometh to t • e right place of speaking to this (as we shall see in the next Chapter) he dar not meddle with Election, but contents himself with Reprobation: But what an evident demonstration of Corrupt Self love and Pride against God, is in his Pelagian heresy, he is blind that seeth not. These Quakers, with other Pelagians, will not be beholden to the Grace of God, but as little as may be; and therefore so frame their doctrine, that themselves, and not the grace of God, may have all the praise of their Salvation; as we will have occasion frequently to show, ere all be done. When he hath deluded himself and other Quakers, and made some others believe, that they have no Original sin to mourn for, and thereby hath brought them under the dominion of Satan, more than befo • e, hath he done them any good service? Is it good service to poor souls, to hoodwinke them, that they may post to the pit, wit • a lie in their right hand? Woe, I say, and thrice woe to such, as drink-in this man's doctrine, and live and die accordingly.

14 Thereafter he is better pleased with Papists, who allow a limbus to the Infants, dying without baptism, than w • th us: But we must be satis • ied, that he look more warmly to his old friends, the Papists, among whom he drank-in, no doubt, much of that prejudice, which now he is pleased to vo • ite fo • th, as Quaker, rather than as a Papist: And as to this particular, whereupon now we are, his opinion will accord better with the Papists, than with Ours for Bellarm. will not have concupiscence to be owned as sin Formally, but only Originally, and Effectively or Terminatively. and they say, that Adam was created in puris naturalibus, which naturals remain whole and entire, as yet; and will not this Quaker grant all this, as to Infants? Nay, he agreeth well with the Error of Albert-Pighius, who will have no sin propagated to us from Adam, and saith, that there is nothing in us, when new borne, but what is good, and that death cometh not upon Infants because of sin, but floweth from the constitution of the body: But whether he will say with him, that because of Adam's sin, all his posterity are banished out of Heaven, though not obnoxious to eternal Death, I know not. It may be he will allow them a limbus; or else make them all sure of heaven▪ if he will grant a heaven to any. But how come they thither, seeing they have nothing to do with Christ? all tha • come to heaven must be beholden to Christ the Redeemer, and hold their crown of Him: But this Qvakers Religion, will teach old persons, let be Infants, to be little beholden to Christ, as we shall hear.

15. He is so bold, as to tell us next, that our opinion is contrary to Scripture: Because the Apostle saith Rom. 4:15 that where there is no Law, there is no transgression, and 5:13. but sin is not imputed, when there is no Law. And he, like a man, proveth that Infants are under no Law. But is the man such a stranger to the common practices among men, who forfeite the Children, yea Infants, yea such as are not borne, with their Fathers, for great crimes; and yet they know, that Infants are not obnoxious to their Laws, especially if as yet unborne. But our plain answer is, That the Nature of Mankind was under the Law, proposed unto Adam as the Head; and when he, as the Head and Representative, broke that Law, the whole nature of Mankind became guilty; and consequently, every Infant becometh guilty, when they partake of that guilty nature. And that thus it was with all the posterity of Ad • m, the Apostle expressly asserts, in the last place cited viz. Rom : 5:12, 13, 14. even notwithstanding of this very O • jection, which he proleptically bringeth-in there, as the cohes • on cleareth, and we shall evince afterward.

16. His last reason is from Ezekiel 18:20. which Socinians also urge, and it receiveth a quick dispatch: for he himself must loose this doubt, if there b • any, as well as we; for he said before, that God punisheth the sins of the Fathers on the children, when guilty of actual sins, whereby they homologate their Fathers wickedness: And Ezekiel doth plainly and frequently enough make it out, • hat t • ese children were as wicked, as their fathers; if not more; and so the Lord might, according to this Mans own concession, visit the iniquities of their Fathers upon them: But the scope of the place being clearly this, That so little grou • d had these people to alleige, that they were innocent, and that God had no quarrel again • t them, but for their fathers transgressions, so that their fathers did eat th • sour • rapes, and their teeth were therefore set on edge, though they themselves did eat no sour grape, being inn • c • nt▪ that on the contrary the Lord tells them by the Prophet, that though he should not visit one iniquity of their Fathers upon them, as h • might do in justice, and had one with others; but should follow a way with them, more suitable to their own mind viz. only take notice of their own guilt personal; yet they could not escape, because their own personal iniquities were so many, and so great; This, I say, being the scope of the place, it is obvious, how impertinent it is for him, here to alleidge it. And beside, let him make of it what he will, it cannot reach us; for we have told him, that this original sin is not the sin of another Person, as Adam's after sins were, and the sins of other parents are; but it is the proper sin of all Mankind, who are partakers of that Nature by ordinary generation, and so it is the proper sin of every infant, so descended of Adam, as well as it was Adam's ; for it was not Adam's sin, as a Particular Person, but a sin committed by the Head and Representative of • umane Nature, to be propagated by ordinary generation.

17. He cometh §. 5. &c. to consider what are our Arguments: and first he mentioneth our saying, that Adam was a public person, and therefore all sinned in him, when he sinned. He replieth thus, That Adam was a public person, I deny not; and that by hi • , the seed of sin was propagated to all men, which of its own nature is defiled, and inclineth men to sin; yet it will not thence follow, that Infants, that do not join themselves thereunto, are guilty thereof. Excepting what must be allowed to the Quakers, as their peculiar dialect, this is not far different from what the Arminians say Apol. Cap. 7: Fol. 84. They own not original sin, as a proper sin, which makes Adam's posterity obnoxious to God's ha • red; nor as an evil, which cometh upon them, as a proper punishment, but as an evil, infirmity, vice, or by what other name it can be called, which is propagated from Adam void of original righteousness; whence all his posterity are d • stitute of the same righteousness, and indisposed for life eternal &c. The Socinians speak also much after this man's dialect▪ for Smalcius saith, We confess, that we are now corrupt, and far from that state of Innocency, which Adam had; but this is not to be ascribed to the fall of Adam, but to men themselves, who of their own accord corrupt themselves : and Ostorodus saith, we willingly confess, that there is a great proclivity to sin almost in all men, but that cometh not from the first sin, but from men's corrupting of themselves, which afterward they propagate to their children. But to return to our Quaker. (1.) In what tolerable, or intelligible sense, can he yield that Adam was a Public Person; if what he did as such, is not to be accounted as done by all, whom he did represent? Did ever any hear of one stated as a public Person, whose failings could have no e • fect, until the persons represented did testify their approbation of it? By this reasoning, if Adam had stood, and continued in innocence, infants could have had no benefit thereby; for if the evil that Adam did, as a Public Person, could not hurt infants, neither could his good have advantaged them; And then I would fain know, wherein did consist his being a Public Person? or what he thinketh a Public Person is? (2.) whether is this Seed of sin itself, sin, or not? If it be not sin, why calleth he it afterward, the Original of all sin ? why calleth he it, the body of death, and the Old Adam ? The Scripture speaketh of these as Master sins. If it be sin, how can it be propagated to all Men, and to Infants among others, and they not be denominated sinful thereby? Can the seed of sin be transmitted to • nfants, and they be the subjects • hereof, and yet they not be sinful? shall the seed of all poison and venom be transmitted from the old serpents to the young, and shall the young thereby not be accounted poisonful and venomous? (3.) He saith, this seed inclineth those, in whom it is, unto sin: But this inclination to sin, is sin, and contrary to the Law of God. Therefore Infants, in whom is this seed inclining to sin, must have sin within them. (4.) This, which he saith is propagate by Adam to all his posterity, is either something good, or something evil: good it cannot be, because of what is said: If it be evil, it must either be the evil of sin, or the evil of punishment, or both: If it be the evil of sin, than sin is propagated: If it be the evil of punishment, than it presupposeth sin, for all punishment that is just, is the punishment of sin; poenam istam esse (said August. lib. 2. de lib. arb. c. 18.) quis dubitet, omnis autem poena, si justa est, peccati poena est, & supplicium nominatut. (5.) But it may be, he will say with the Arminians, that because it is a punishment, therefore it is not a sin: But th • Scripture • calleth it Sin, and the Body of sin. Indwelling sin, and several other Epithets it getteth, all showing that it is sin, and contrary to the Law of God, and so deserving death, spiritual, temporal and eternal. Let him consider Col. 2:11. & 3:11. Ephes 4:22. Rom. 6:6 & 7:17. not to mention Rom. 7:15. &c. And himself calleth it, the Fountain and Spring of all actual transgressions: And that concupiscence, which James showeth to be the spring of evil, I am. 1:14. Paul calleth sin Rom. 7:7, 18. & is prohibited by the Law saying, thou shalt not covet. (6.) Julianus the Pelagian spoke at this rate, saying, that the Law in our members, which is repugnant to the Law of our mind, dwelleth indeed in Man, and doth instigat the resisting mind, so that the conflict, though it be not damnable, because it doth not perfect sin, yet is miserable, because it hath not peace. See August. lib. 1. adv. Iul. c. 68. To which Augustine replied, That it was madness in the man to confess, that sin was evil, and yet say that the concupiscence of sins was good; and yet more intolerable to say, that it did provoke to evil, and yet was not evil. And else where, in the same book Cap. 83. he chargeth Manicheisme upon Julianus, upon this account, that he granted misery did attend the posterity, and yet would not grant sin was imputed. Tu ergo adjutorem Manichaei te non esse, ostende si potes, qui miserias hominum, cum quibus eos nasoi, quoniam sine dubio sentit genus humanum, no • ens tribuere peccato vitiatae naturae nostrae, facis, ut ease ill permixtae nobis naturae tribuat altenae. (7.) This man would fain have fastened this sin upon us, that we made God Unrighteous and Unjust; but here he declareth himself manifestly chargeable therewith; for evil and misery, he granteth, is propagated to all men, and the seed of sin, which inclineth to sin; and yet will not have sin the procuring cause propagated. Quia ergo (said August. lib. 2. cont. Iul. oper. posth. Cap 110.) gravi jugo, à die exitus de ventre matris, puniti sunt parvuli, agnosce judicem justum, & confitere original peccatum: punire enim nullius peccati meritum habentes, sicut etiam ipse confiteris, non potest sine eversione justitiae : & in the following Chapt. he hath these words. In illo gravi jugo, quo etiam parvuli premuntur, quomodo est Iustus Deus, si nullus nascitur reus? (8.) He talketh of Infants joining themselves unto this Seed of sin, before they become guilty. But when are they in capacity to join themselves to this seed of sin? Is it when they are in capacity to commit actual sin? But of this the question may be renewed; when may we judge them in this capacity? shall we suppose that they are not in case to sin actually, or to adjoin themselves to this seed, until they come to the full use of reason? then it will follow, that Idiots can sin none at all, & that the Envy Selfishness Pettedness and the like, that appear very early in Infants, shall be no sins; and yet Augustine was of another m • nde. And there were some of the Old Pelagians, who to evite the force of arguments against them, alleiged that the Infants committed actual sin, so soon as they were born, and therefore came under death, as a punishment; against whom August. wrote Serm. 7. de Verb. Apost. saying what do you think to say, and whose ears can hear it? did they sin themselves? where, I pray, did they sin? when? and how did they sin? They know neither good nor evil: shall they sin that are under no command? Prove that Infants are sinners: prove what is their sin. Is it because they weep, that they sin? do they sin, because they take pleasure, or repel trouble by motions, as dumb • nimals? if these motions be sin, they beco • e greater sinners in baptism, for there they resist most vehemently—But I say another thing, you think, they have sinned, other ways they had not died, but what say you of such as die in their Mothers womb? will you say they have sinned also▪ you lie, or are deceived &c. Whether this man will be of this judgment, or not, I know not; but it is like, he will not own it, for he looketh not upon death as a punishment of sin (9) I would gladly have him explaining to me, what that is, to join themselves to this seed of sin ; and that so much the rather, because it is a piece of their proper dialect, and is nowhere else to be found, so far as I know: Is this Seed lying within them, as a stranger, or as a tempter alluring them to sin, in which they have no concern, until they submit to the temptation, and consent? then why may we not suppose, that such a seed of sin might have been in Adam before he fell, from the very minute of his creation; seeing it could not have dammaged him, if he had not actually consented? But why should this Seed of Sin be more looked upon, as a stranger, so as by virtue thereof they, in whom it is, shall not be accounted sinners, than the Seed of Grace, of which the Scripture speaketh, and by virtue of which they, in whom it is, are denominated gracious, even when they are not actually exerceing grace? But it seemeth this man looketh upon the seed of sin, and the seed of grace, as two contrary solicitors, attending man, with their contrary motions and solicitations; so that man abideth still in puris naturalibus, till he hearken to the one, or other, and yield his consent. But then (10) I would ask, if it be in man's power to withhold his consent from the urgent soliciting of this seed of sin? If this be in his power, than he can live all his days, and never once sin; and act his part, better than Adam did; And how cometh it, seeing this is in every ones power, that there was never one such found, borne of a woman, and begotten of a man, that lived and died without sin? If it be not in man's power, than his soul hath gote a sinful bias, which Adam's soul had not, when first created; and shall this sinful bias and inclination be no Deformity, no Sin, no Imperfection, no Contrariety to the law, which prohibiteth all inclinatio • to sin? (11.) Let him explain to me, how the childes actual sin, can make him really guilty of Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit, and to deserve hell fire upon that account: doth he think, that the first actual sin of the ch • lde, maketh him really guilty of all his fathers faults? doth he think, that the fi • st actual sin of the child maketh him as guilty, and as obnoxious to the wrath of God, for all Adam's after sins, as for his first sin? This must be cleared by Him, who putteth no difference betwixt Adam and other parents, in this matter; and it must be cleared so, as no stain of Injustice be put upon our Maker: and with all, he will do well to consider that main argument of the Socinians and Arminians against us; for, though it doth not reach us, yet I see not, how he shall evite it: It is this, one act cannot make an habit, one act of sin could not have that force, to corrupt the whole nature of Adam : for here, this man's judgment is, that one act of sin, consenting to the seed of sin, corrupteth that man's whole nature, which was pure before: one act of sin can deprive a man of Integrity, and of Original Righteousness, and bring on an Inclination to all sin; but these evils are not sinful, in this man's account, & therefore he is concerned to loose his friends Objection (12) The ground of this man's mistake, (though he be not that ingenuous as to declare it) is, that no guilt can be imputed to a person, who doth not actually consent thereto, by an act of his own personal Free Will; for this was the main Objection of the Pelagians, and of others: But then, what will he say of sins of Ignorance and the like? How cometh it that sins are divided into Voluntary and Involuntary? What will he say to Psal. 19:13 14.? But we have told him, that even Originals in was fully voluntary in our nature, and in the Fountain, when first committed; for it was not, as to us, a personal sin, and so the personal consent of such▪ as are contaminated therewith, is not requisite thereto; but a sin of our Nature: and to this no more consent or will is required, than the will and consent of him, who was the head of this nature, whose will was not extrinsic to us, we being in him, as members of that Body, whereof he was Head. Beside that this Voluntariness • elongeth not to the Essence and Form of sin, Scripture defineth sin otherwise, calling it a transgression of the Law 1 John. 3:4. and who say other ways, join with Bellar. de Amiss. Grat. C. 1. (13.) By this means, he must say, That infants are neither Righteous nor Unrighteous, neither Holy nor Sinful, endued neither with Good, nor Evil qualities; and consequently neither heirs of Hell, nor of Glory: and thus make them mere Stocks or Brutes, and not Rational, Creatures.

18. Next, he speaketh to our Argument from Rom. 5:12. &c. and because this place i • the proper seat of this doctrine, which we hold, the Apostle treating there of it professedly, and maintaining it, we shall premise some things to clear our Argument, and then shall examine what he saith. And (1.) It is obvious to all, that look upon the place, that the Apostle, to the end he might clear up the way, how believers partake of the benefits of Christ's death, maketh a comparison betwixt Adam and Christ ; and so cleareth up, how it is that all Mankind is become Corrupt, and that in and through the first Man Adam, from whom this corruption is derived, not by Imitation, for they cannot imitate it, who never heard of it, and yet even they partake of this corruption; therefore by real Participation of the guilt, saying verse 12. as by one man sin entered into the world &c. and that in him all sinned; and afterward, that upon this sin death passed upon all men ▪ and reigned even over them, that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgressions, that is, over infants, that had not yet committed any actual sin, and that judgment was by one to condemnation ; so that the fruit of this sin was Condemnation, or Obnoxiousness to condemnation; and that because by this one sin, the posterity were made sinners (2.) By Death here is meaned every kind of death, Temporal and Eternal and Spiritual; for it is a death that reigned over I • fants, and is called Condemnation (3.) we find no person, old or young, that come of this first Adam ▪ by ordinary generation, here excepted▪ nay, Infants are expressly enough included, verse 14. (4.) So that all the posterity of Adam, young and old, being in Adam, their Natural and Federal Head, partake of his sin, having sinned in him; and of the miseries or just punishment of that sin. All this is so clear and manifest, both from the very words and expressions of the Apostle, and from his scope, that whoever speak against this, must do violence to the text, and weaken the Apostles argueings. This same passage did the ancients, Augustine, and others, urge against the Pelagians, as is to be seen in Vossij histor. Pelag. Pag. 146, 147. By this argument. That sin, which is so described to us by the Apostle, that he saith is brought death upon all men, that men sinned by it, and were made sinners, even they who could not as yet actually sin, that thereby all became guilty of death and of condemnation, that sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature, included in Adam, and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death, and to condemnation. But the first sin of Adam is decribed to us by the Apostle &c. Ergo That sin is the sin of nature; because Adam did sustain the person of all, who potentially were in his Ioines, and by virtue thereof all are liable to death, the punishment thereof. Vossius tells us moreover, that the Ancients took much notice of Paul's calling Adam a Type, and of the particle As ; and did hence gather, that as the Obedience of Christ belongeth to all such, as are spiritually begotten, not by Imitation, but by Imputation; so the Disobedience of Adam is conveyed, not by Imitation, but by Imputation, unto all such as corporally come of him. They took notice also, as he showeth us, of the particle By, which did denote the Efficient cause; & of that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in whom, which saith that the posterity did sin in Adam, or if it be rendered because, or in as much, or for which, it will show, what is the Adequate cause of death, and that it hath also place in Infants.

19. Thus we have seen the Argument of the orthodox Church, and its ground let us next see, what he s • ith against it, As concerning the words of the Apostle (saith he) the reason of the condemnation, in whom all did sin, that is in that seed, or by occasion of that seed: for no man is said to sin, but in his own person. But I pray, By what warrand may he foist-in words at his own pleasure, into the t • xt? Is there the least mention made of seed, in all the text? Is not this intolerable boldness, to deal so with the Scrip • ures of Truth? But if Infants be condemned, because they sinned in, or by occasion of, that seed, then that seed was imputed to them: Yes he will say, but that was when they began to sin in their own persons. No, say I, that cannot be, because the text importeth no such thing: yea, it saith the contrary, viz. that death, which is included in the condemnation, passed upon all men, and reigned, even over such, as had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, that is, had not as yet sinned actually. So that his reason is directly against the Apostle, and we have further above discovered its untruth. He addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 aggreeth with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and so showeth how Adam, by his sin, gave entry to sin into the world, and so death by sin entered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. by which viz. occasion, or in which viz. death, all others did sin, i. e. actually in their persons, viz. who were capable of sinning, of which number Infants are not, who are under no Law, as was shown, and where no Law is there is no transgression, as the Apostle saith. This upon the matter, is the same that the old Pelagians said, as Vossius showeth us Hist. Pelag. Pag. 182.183. For they interpreted these words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in whom all have sinned, by sinning after example or Imitation; and this man, by sinning upon that Occasion, when they become capable: and the Socinians with Episcopius homologate with the Pelagians, and have been abundantly answered by the orthodox, who show that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of Xenophon, Aristophanes, Demosthenes, and other Greek Authors. But For Answer unto this Quaker I would say (1.) If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 agree with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , then the meaning must be this, and so death passed upon all men, in which death all men sinned : and what sense can this make out? May not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 agree as well to Man? If not, let him give us the least color of reason, either from the text, or context. (2.) If Adam by his sin gave entry unto sin into the world, this must be meaned of his first sin, for the Apostle speaketh always of one sin, or of Offence, in the singular number. & that Vers. 18. may be read, by one offense: And so sin entered, not by Imitation, nor yet by Occasion! for his after sins might have laid the way for Imitation, and have given Occasion as well, as the first; Yea more; yea only; for while the first sin was committed, there were none to imitate him: and if this had been the Apostles meaning, he had spoken of sins in the plural number. (3) If this had been the Apostles meaning, he had not named One man, and One man, as a Type, & a Type of him, that was to come; for Eva's sin, & the Devils sin, might also have been an Occasion (4.) Hence it will follow, tha • believers are made Righteous, only upon Occasion of Christ's Righteousness, and have • othing of it Imputed unto them; which, though this man may account no way absurd; yet all Orthoeox Christians will be of another mind (5) He speaks dubiously concerning the Import of these two words, and knoweth not, whether their meaning be, by which occasion, or in which death : and we have seen, that the meaning cannot be, by which Occasion ; And it will further appear from this, that Adams sin could be no Occasion to such, as never heard of it, and our nearest Parents sins should be a greater Occasion; and further, what could Paul's me • tioning an Occasion, contribute to his design? (6.) Paul asserts, that death passed upon all men, and giveth this as a ground thereof, that all men had sinned: but this Man perverteth the Apostles words and meaning, and maket • the Apostle speak thus; death passed upon all men, because all men will sin actually, when they become capable, (7.) The Apostle showeth, that death passed upon all men, and reigned, even over Infants; and so supposeth, that Infants had sinned, other ways his argument verse 12. had been of no value for the Instance of Infants, who are a great part of Mankind, had destroyed the Apostles reasoning, if they bad not been included under, all men (8.) He is angry at the Orthodox (as we s • all hear afterward) for restricting the particle all, or the words all men; though it be according to the exigence of the context: But here he excludeth a great part of Mankind, contrary to the whole scope and disigne of the Text; yea and to the Apostles express including of Infants, and making use of their Case, as a confirmation of his point (9) If he exclude Infants from this sin; he must exclude them also from all benefit in Christ's Obedience: and then where is his Universal Redemption, and his Universal Grace, whereof he speaketh in the following Theses ? (10) That Infants are capable of sinning in their Head, is as clear as they are capable of dying for the sin of the Head: & this the Apostle proveth from their death, and from death reigneing over them (11.) But says he, Infants are under no Law. But the Apost • e says the contrary, viz. that there was both Sin and Law, before Moses days; because death reigned even over Infants; and consequently, that Infants were under sin, and therefore also under a Law, for, where there is no law, there is no transgressi • n. But this was the Law given to Adam, as head of Mankind, which Law all transgressed, when Adam transgressed; because the whole Nature transgressed it, Adam representing all, as their Natural Root; and by virtue of the Covenant, in which he stood. And thus we see, how this Man perverteth and inverteth the Words, and Arguments, and Scope and All of the Apostle, (12) If death was inflicted on old Persons, because of their actual sins: wherefore was death inflicted upon Infants? Sure the Apostle maketh no distinction of Deaths; nor doth he speak of distinct causes of Death; but only mentioneth an universal Cause of an universal Effect, sin the cause, and death the effect; and therefore, if the effect come upon infants, the cause must also come upon them; or the Apostle argueth very loosely; and he must impute cruelty & injustice to his Maker (13.) This addition of his to the text, viz. who were capable of sinning, is the same that Castalio made, saying these, to wit, who in regaird of age, could have sinned: And in this, he was no less bold with the text, then our Quaker is; for as we have seen, and the text is clear, it is not all these only that die, but even such, as come not to that age; and the Apostle always speaks of death, as the wages of sin: And when he here saith of Infants, that they sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression, he clearly intimateth, that they sinned some other way, viz. in Adam, which also the 19. verse manifestly proveth.

20. He taketh notice Next, of our argument from Psal. 51:5. behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me: where the Psalmist, is exaggerating his iniquity before the Lord, (as all true penitents will do) traceth his sin to the very Spring, and Fountain, as to him, viz. that Original Corruption, which he brought into the world with him; and showing, that even while he was a forming and warming (as the word importeth) in the womb, this corruption did adhere to him; so that the very mass, out of which he was framed, was corrupt: and what greater proof could we desire of the origina • ed part of this Original Sin, than is here? The Ancient Fathers made use of this passage for the same end, as Vossius showeth us, Hist. Pelag. Pag. 144.145. And some Jews, such as Ibn Ezra. & Sal. Rashi. expound it of innate Concupiscence. Now what saith this Quaker to this? He cannot see our Inf • rence: and why so? It seemeth to me (says he) that this iniquity and sin is rath • r ascribed to the parents, than to the Infants; for he saith, in sin did my mother conceive me, not, my mother conceived me sinning, Ans. Is not this a quick observation, and worthy of a Quaker ? But the misery is, it quite crosseth David's design. This man must think, that it was a great argument of David's Sorrow and Repentance, to lay iniquity upon his Parents, now, in all appearance, dead; but I should look upon this, as no argument of a true penitent heart. What could his upbraiding of his Father and Mother, after this manner, contribute to the aggravating of his own sin? And that this is David's design, I think this Quaker will not deny, if he but look upon the place, and read over the Psalm, or the first part of it. Is not David about the confessing of his own sin? Read the title of the Psalm & the preeceeding verse, and see. Is he not seeking pardon and remission of his own sin? Or shall we suppose, that he is praying for remission to the dead? all Confession of sin to God is in reference to Remission; and if David speak here only of his Parents sin, he is tacitly seeking Remission. If he speak of his Parents sin in begetting and warming him, in the womb, it must be as including himself, at least, as shareing thereof; and this will prove that David had sin upon him, from his very conception. And by his answer, he would seem to make marriage duties unlawful, contrary to 1 Cor. 7:2, 3, 4, 5. Heb. 13:4. He addeth another answer, thus, Such an interpretation would contradict the Scriptures formerly cited, while it maketh infants to he hurt by their immediate parents sin: And there is no mention here of Adam. Answ. I do not prove hence, that David was guilty of his immediate Parents sins, but that original contagion doth so cleave to every ordinary Infant (unless we could suppose some singular thing in David, without all ground) that in his very warming in his Mothers womb, he is corrupted; and albeit David make no mention here of Adam, the thing which we infer is manifest viz. the originated sin, or the corruption of nature, which here David calleth Sin. And if this Quaker think, that this came from another Original, than from Adam, let him tell us, what it is, and not join in with the Manichees, nor make God the Author and cause of sin, if he can.

21. Another of our Arguments is from that word of Paul's the wages of sin is death. And seeing infants die, they must have sin, as a procuring cause. That death was and is a Punishment of sin, we cleared above, and the Apostle asserteth it here so manifestly, calling it the Wages, and due Desert, that it must argue wonderful impudence, in any to question it: What saith this Quaker ? He granteth that death is a Consequence of the fall, but denieth, that hence we can necessarily infer, iniquity to be in all those, that are subject to death. That is in plain terms (but the man's modesty dar not speak it out) to say, the Apostle speaketh not truth; whoever imagined, that wages were no more but a Consequent of the workmans labor? If Death be the Wages and Reward and just Punishment of sin, it can certainly be inflicted by the Righteous Judge of the world upon none, but such as are guilty of sin. How oft doth the Apostle speak of death as the just Desert and Punishment of sin? Rom. 5:12▪ death entered by sin, death passed on all, for all had sinned : suppose that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not signify in whom, (as it doth Marc. 2: verse. 4. Luk. 5▪ verse. 25.2 Cor. 5: verse. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being several times put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Heb. 9:10, 15, 1 • . but did only import the Cause, as Socinians would have it, it would sufficiently confirm this, that death is inflicted because of sin: so verse. 15. through the offense of one, many be dead, and this is called verse. 16. judgmnt to condemnation : and verse : 17. by one man's offense: or by one offense, death reigned. And verse. 21. sin reigned unto death. And then again Chap. 6:23. for the wages of sin is death. So likewise 1 Cor. 15:21.22. by man came death—for as in Adam all die. He addeth as a reason of his denial, that it might appear, he did not contradict the Apostle without reason. For (saith he) all the outward creation suffered detriment and ruin, in some respect, by Adam's fall; and yet the herbs and trees &c. are not therefore sinners. Ans. Is not this a valide reason, wherefore to reject death as a punishment of sin? Nay, seeing the vanity, under which the world groaneth, because of sin, is a punishment to all Mankind, to Infants, as well as to Adult persons, it is hence manifest, that all are guilty of sin, that is, all mankind, who are capable of sin, as trees and herbs are not. But yet more, he addeth to Confront the Apostle, and saith, death is no wages of sin to the saints, but is gain Phil. 1: v. 21. Answ. Why is death called an enemy, and the last enemy 1 Cor. 15: v. 26. w • at meaneth that, that when corruptible hath put on incorruption, and mortal hath put on immortality, death shall be swallowed up in victory ? 1 Cor. 15: verse. 54. Because the Lord by grace through Jesus Christ hath taken the sting of death away, and made it a passage to glory, unto his own, shall we therefore look upon it, in itself, as no punishment of sin, or as not coming into the world because of sin? This will tend as much to prove, that Adult persons are not sinful, as that Infants have no sin, and that a woman's pains in child birth, or a Mans purchaseing his bread with the sweat of his face &c. are no punishments of sin, Original or Actual, because all these Paines, Troubles, Afflictions, &c. work together for good, to such as love God Rom. 8: verse. 28. And so the Godly have no Punishments, Chastisements, Visitations, Corrections or the like, for sin; though the Scripture say so in hundereds of places. Here this Quaker joineth with Antinomians.

22. He mentioneth another argument, which, as he thinketh, fools only make use of, which is this. If Infants have no sin, they must all be saved. Well, what replieth he to this argument? We will rather (saith he) admit this supposed absurdity, as a Consequent of our doctrine, then say, that innumerable Infants perish eternally, not for their own, but only for Adams fault. But though he should not value such Absurdities, notwithstanding he therein run wilder, than Papists, and join with Anabaptists and some Pelagians. Yet, me thinks, he should take heed of contradicting his own doctrine; for afterward we will hear of his pleading for Christ's dying for all Mankind: And sure, if that be true, he must say, that he died also for Infants; and yet here he granteth, that they will be all saved without Christ; for they have no sin, they have no need of a Savior to save them from their sins: But how can they be all saved, seeing they have the Seed of sin • n them; and the Spring of all actual sins, and that seed of sin, which in Scripture is called death and the body of death, the old man, and the old Adam, as he himself speaketh Pag. 62? When Paul speaketh of the body of death Rom. 7:24. he looks upon it, as that from which Christ must deliver him. How will this Quaker reconcile these things? The old man must be put off, or we cannot enter into glory: and if Infants have the old man, how can they enter into glory? And beside, All in glory must sing the song of the Redeemed, and praise him, that hath redeemed them by his blood Revel. 5:9, 10. How can Infants do this, who have never been washen from their sins in the blood of the lamb, as never having had sin? And Pag. 55. he told us, that none of Adam's posterity had any good in them, which he had not, from whom they descended: Adam then being deprived of his Original Righteousness, none of his Posterity, no not Infants, can lay claim to that Righteousness: how, I pray, can Infants go to heaven, who want a righteousness? The heaven then, which they go to, must be a heaven, wherein dwelleth no Righteousness: and what can this be, but some new Limbus ? But, to be more plain with him; It is not enough for him to say, he may grant such a Consequence from his doctrine; for we must have sure Scripture grounds, ere we believe, that all Infants, even of Turks and Heathens, shall certainly go to heaven; The Scripture giveth more ground of hope of those that are within the Covenant, I am sure, than of those, who are without: what thinks he of the Infants of Sodom ? See Iud. verse. 7. and of Coreh and his company: not to mention the Infants of the old world: And why doth the Scripture call the children of such, as are without the church 1 Cor. 7:14. unclean ? Nither can it advantage his Charity, to found it upon an Untruth, and that his Charity in this matter is founded upon an Untruth, we have seen already; and shall yet make it more evident. He supposeth, that when Infants perish because of Original sin, they perish for no • in of their own, but only for the sin of another, of Adam. But how groundless this mistake is, we have seen; and we have told him, that Original sin is the proper sin of human Nature, and so is traduced from Adam, to all that come of him by ordinary Generation, and so partake of human nature.

23. In end he saith, that Zwingli did deny, and refute our Opinion: But all his proof is from the Counc • l of Trent, which hath not much credit with us, Whatever it hath with him: we have more Reason to take Bullingers testimony Decad. 3. Serm. 10 and cont. Anabapt. lib. 1. c. 12 & Gualters in Apol. pro Zwingli, & Operib. ejus ; than either Bellarmins, or the Council of Trent. Nay, Zwingli declared himself abundantly for the truth, in the conference with Luther at Marpurg, where these words are, we believe that Original sin is in-born in every man, from Adam, and is hereditary, and is a sin condemning all, and that unless Jesus Christ had help • d by his life and death, we had all, because of it, perished eternally, neither had we been partakers of happiness and of the Kingdom of God. And if he read his confession of faith to the Emperor Charles V at the diet at Ausburgh A. D. 1539. he will find the ground of his mistake, for he will there see, in what sense he said original sin, was not sin, viz. that the original sin in Infants was not their Actual sin : and who can say that they did actually eat the apple; yet he said, that up • n the account of that, they were born Enemies to God. His words are these, as Bullinger, where now cited, relateth them. I confess Original sin to be borne with all, who are begotten of man and woman: I know we are by nature the children of wrath: Nor do I stick at this disease being called, after Paul's manner, sin; yea it is such a sin, as whoever are born in it, are Enemies to God, and unto this they are drawn by their birth, not by committing of wickedness, but in so far, as the first father did commit it &c.

23. We have now seen all that he hath said against the Orthodox doctrine about original sin, and have vindicated such arguments, as he was pleased to take any notice of: I shall now, ere I leave this matter, propose some moe Arguments to his Consideration. And first I shall mention that, which himself adduced, when he was speaking of man's lapsed state, of wh • ch we heard in the • oregoing chapter, to wit Gen. 6:5. & 8:21. from which places the old fathers argued against Pelagianism. See Vossij Hist. Pelag. Pag. 142, 143. and indeed there is no small force in these passages; for, though the Lord be there speaking of the guilt and sin of Adult persons; yet he is aggravating the same, by traceing it up to the very Root & Rise of all; saying that it was so with them from their Infancy or Child hood, (so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth) yea from every state of their child hood, for the word is in the plural number ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a pueritiis ejus) and thus the Lord useth to aggravat the sin of people Ezech. 16:4. &c. Mat. 15:19. Ephes. 2, 3. Doth not such corrupt Fruit evidence an evil Tree with a bitter root of wickedness? Mat. 7:16? And seeing such are the fruits and acts of men, so soon as they begin to act and bud, who can say, that the Root is good, and not corrupt & rotten, Chrysostom's words on Gen. 6. Hom. 22. are remarkab • e. Neque aetas intempestiva, & alioquin inexperta, malorum expers erat, sed statim, & ab incunabulis omnes malum hoc praelium certabant, contendentes, ut malis operibus alter alterum superarent. And it is certain, that the Infants of the old world perished in the •• ood, & the Lord saith here, that it was for sin & wickedness, that this judgment came on; if then these Infants did not perish for their immediate parents sins, as this Quaker affirmeth, they must have perished for their own; & having no actual sins of their own, they must have perished for their original sin; so that they also must be comprehended with the rest, in the forecited places, and the evil there spoken of must be as well habitual, as actual; as well innate as acquired. It is observable, that Gen. 8:21. the same words are used of the new World, that remained, to wit of Noah and his posterity.

25. We might add other Scriptures to the same purpose, such as Psal. 14:1, 2, & 53:1, 2, 3. Rom. 3:9, 10, 23. & 11:32. Gal. 3:22. These universals, in such a matter as this is, admit of no Exceptions; yea all Exceptions are expressly excluded in the very text▪ and the scope, at which the Apostle driveth Rom. 3. admitteth of no exception, for all have need of Christ, and of God's mercy in Him: otherwise the Apostles argument should be Inconsequent, concluding an Universal from a Particular: and because we dar not think thus, therefore we must say, that all are included; and because all are not to be charged with actual sins, original sin must be here included.

26. Origen, Cyrillus, Chrysostom, Augustine. and others of the ancients adduced to this purpose, these words of Job Chap. 14:4. hence August. de Praedest. & Grat. Cap. 3. saith Vitiatae radicis macula it a propaginis traduce per generationum sarmenta dissusa est, ut nec infans quidem unius diei, a culpa sit primae praevaricationis alienus, nisi per indebitam Salvatoris gratiam fuerit liberatus: quodsi nec quidem sine peccato est, qui proprium habere non potuit, conficitur ut illud traxerit alienum, de quo Apostolus dixit, per unum h • minem, &c. Now that the import of this passage may be the more noticed, we would consider, that when Job saith, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. He is speaking of an inward unclea • ness, an uncleanness of soul, by which we are exposed to the judgment of God, of which he speaketh verse. 3. and which he pointeth forth, as inevitable, and as such, as no man can prevent or remedy: So is he also speaking of an uncleanne • s, which is Universal, and therefore habitual : for wh • t is only actual is not universal, Infants being free therefrom; and of an uncleanness, which is Permanent and Adherent; as also of that which is Traduced, or Propagated from Father to son; and is hereditary: all which do manifestly make it appear, that he is speaking of Original sin, in respect of which everyone is Unclean, & cometh into the world unclean, and can be no other ways than unclean. To wh • ch words of Job we may add the words of Eliphaz. Job 15:14. what is man, that he should be clean? and he which is borne of a woman, that he should be righteous? Origen's words Hom. 11. super Levite. are considerable: Omnis qui ingreditur hunc mundum, in quadam contaminatione effici dicitur, Propter quod & Scriptura dicit, Nemo mundus a sorde, nec si unius diei suerit vitaejus (he meaneth this place of Job, as it is rendered by the 70.) Hoc ipso ergo, qui in vulva matris est positus, & qui materiam corporis ab • rigine paterni seminis sumit, in patre & in matre contaminatus dici potest. Aut nescis, quia cum quadragint a dierum factus fuerit pure masculus, offertur ad altare, ut ibi purificetur, tanquam qui pollutus fuerit in ipsa conceptione vel pat • rni seminis, vel uters materni: Omnis ergo homo in patre & in matre pollutus est.

27. An argument for our purpose may be taken also from these words, Gen. 5:3. And Adam—begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, compared with verse. 1.— In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him : As that Image of God, in which Adam was first created, did denote that Original Righteousness and Integrity, which Adam had; so this likeness and image of Adam, in which Seth was begotten, must denote Adams corrupted state, whereof Seth in his very generation was a partaker; and this was Original sin, which was thus traduced and propagated from Adam to his posterity. It is true, Cain and Abel both were so also generated, but it is thus expressly said of Seth, because Abel had no posterity, and Cain's posterity was excluded from the Covenant, & Seth’s was to continue within it; and therefore it is said of him, that even his pos • erity might know their true Original, and be humble, notwithstanding of this privilege. As also to show, that no length of time betwixt the fall, and this generation of Seth, had worn this corruption away.

28. The ancient Fathers made use of, to this end, these words of Christ to Nicodemus, John. 3:5.6.— Except a man be born of watter and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit : And indeed the proof hence deduced is irrefragable; for Christ, the Amen and faithful witness, asserts with a double asseveration, verily, verily, that a man, and every man (no exception made of Infants) must be regenerated, before he can enter into the Kingdom of God; so that his first generation, if there be no change, will advantage him nothing: And the Reason is added, for by the first generation he hath a fleshly birth, which is corrupt, and not meet for the Kingdom of God, what is borne of the flesh is flesh, and nothing else: and this probation annexed showeth, that Christ mean • th here even original, natural and habitual corruption, and this must principally be put from its dominion, by Regeneration. Beside that the words flesh and Spirit, opposed thus to other, in Scripture, denote Natural Corruption, and Grace reforming Rom. 7:14. & 8:1, 3. &c. Gal. 6: verse. 16:17. 1 Pet. 2: verse. 2.

29. The ancients to this purpose made use of Gen. 17:14. and said, the Covenant, which these infants did violate, who were not circumcised by their Fathers neglect or carelessness, was the Covenant made with Adam See Vossii Hist. Pelag. Pag. 143. I shall not urge this place upon that account: only, seeing the Text saith expressly, that the uncircumcised man child was to be cut off, because he had broken God's Covenant, we see, that they were under a Covenant & Law, & in some sense capable of breaking it, & therefore obnoxious to off cutting: Now, we heard above this Quaker say, that Infants were under no Law, & therefore obnoxious to no punishment: Let him chew his cood upon this place, & contradict Moses, as he did lately contradict Paul. They cited also Isaiah. 48:8. Yea, thou heardest not; Yea, thou knewest not, yea from that time, that thine ear was not opened: for I know that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and was called a transgressor from the womb. So did they make use of Rom. 7:23. I see another Law in my members: and verse. 18. for I know, that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing. As also 1 Cor. 15:22. of which we have already spoken a little. And indeed this last place clearly pointeth forth that we are made alive by Christ, through his merits conveyed to us by spiritual Regeneration, as we died in Adam, through his Sin and Corruption, made ours by Natural Generation.

30. Augustine (as the forecited Author showeth us Pag. 151.152) made much use of the Paines, Torments & Death, which Infants were subject to, as an irrefragable argument for Original sin: and we have spoken something of it already. The Fathers also made use of the initial Sacraments, as a confirmation of this. But I know, this Quaker will regaird little anything, we can say of Baptism, for among the rest of his Errors, he must not want this of Antibaptisme, of which in due place. Pelagius was much puzzled with this perplexing Argument, & was forced to grant that Baptism to them, was not for remission of sins; & so made it useless. And as for Infants, that died before baptism, he knew not what became of them; quo non eant, scio; quo eant, nescio : and he devised a mid place betwixt hell & heaven for them. And so made two kinds of felicities, one with in the Kingdom of God, & one without the Kingdom of God: And he said, that by baptism, they were brought out of the middle state, into the highest. See for this the forecited Author Pag. 192.193. Thus that man & his followers were miserably Entangled: But this Quaker, I confess, taketh a more consequential course, (but whether more consonant to Truth & Piety, I doubt) when he denieth all Baptism. But not to speak of Baptism now, for which there is a proper place reserved, what will he say of Circumcision? He cannot deny but that was an ordinance appointed of God; And that it had reference to the body of sin, Paul tells us Col. 21 11. And therefore it could not but presuppose sin, in the Infants. It is called by Paul Rom 4:11. a seal of the righteousness of faith : and did point out the circumciseing of the heart, Deut. 30:6.

31. The Fathers made much of this Argument. That by this opinion of the Pelagians, Infants were wholly excluded from any Interest in the Death and Merits of Christ. And how this man will evite this, I know not; nor know I, how he will accord with himself, in asserting Universal Redemption, as we shall hear. But to put a close to this. I would only ask this question of this Quaker : If Infants be borne pure and free of sin, as he saith; How can this be the peculiar prerogative of Christ, to be conceived and borne without sin? And in reference to this, what necessity was there, that he should have been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and borne of a Virgin? Let him answer this, at his own leisure.

CHAP. VII. Of Reprobation.

1. WE have heard this Mans Opinion concerning the State and condition of fallen Man: Now his Fift and Sixt Thesis come under consideratio • , wherein he giveth us an Account of the way and means, how man is delivered from this miserable and depraved Condition: But howbeit his Theses were sufficiently large: Yet he toucheth moe things in his Vindication or Apology, than he gave any hint of there: but this is no material ground of challenge, for the more full he be, in explaining his mind, and the moe the particulars be, which he speaketh to, we come to know his mind the better. Though he made no mention of Reprobation, in his Thesis; yet he giveth us, in his Apology, Pag. 64. &c. a large discourse thereof; and beginneth his Explication of these two Theses, with this matter; And though he spareth no pains or paper, in venting his displeasure against that, which he supposeth to be the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, concerning Reprobation; yet I cannot find, that he giveth us any account of his own positive Judgment, of this matter; be like he thought it his Wisdom to forbear that, lest he should entangle himself into inextricable difficulties; and howbeit his Admirers may commend him for this; yet I think his dealing the less ingenuous and upright.

2. It is observed, that since the truth of God, in the matter, of Predestination, began first to be questioned by Pelagius, and his Followers, in the days of Augustine, there hath hardly been any Seck or Heresy, wherewith the Church of Christ hath been infested, that hath not stumbled upon this stumbling stone, and encouraged themselves thereby, to continue fixed in their Errors; and not only to blaspheme, in their pride and audacity, the Truth of God; when it had favored more of Christian sobriety to have been silent; and when they could not, with their corrupt and blinded Understandings, satisfyingly comprehend this truth, to have stooped unto God's Revelation of the mystery, rather than to have condemned it, and that in such a petulant and intolerable manner, as if God and his mysteries must stand at the bar of man's Judgment, and either conform to the Apprehensions and Conceptions of M • ns corrupted, blinded & biased Reason, or be rejected as reprobate matter, not to be tolerated in Church, or Common wealth: so that this corrupted and blind judge must umpire, without the remedy of an appellation, most peremptorily and absolutely, in the sublime acts of the Great & Absolute Sovereign, Jehovah. And therefore, it should seem less strange to us, that these Quakers, whose chief Excellency, or rather most desperate Madness and Wickedness, lieth in this, that they rake together all the filthiest brats of other Heretics, and therewith patch up a complete Cento, for their Religion; and whose chief and only rule, for faith and practice, is the dim Light of Nature, a light within every man; which, as to the great mysteries of God, revealed in the Gospel, is pure hellish darkness, have, following the Light of their corrupt guide, not only Rejected, but also blasphemously Inveighed against the Truth of God, in this particular: For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild asses colt.

3. It is likewise observable, that the proud rebellious adversaries of the Grace and Sovereignty of God, that they may, in their popular discourses and scriblings, make the truth, concerning the Absolute and Free Grace of God, more odious and hateful to such, as usually measure the Incomprehensible God and all his ways, by their own carnal Imaginations, and not by the sure Revelations of his will in his Word: It is, I say, usual with such, to pitch upon this point of Reprobation, knowing that carnal self lovers are so blinded with prejudice at any truth, that crosseth their humors; and at this especially, which, at first look, seemeth so repugnant unto the fixed delusory apprehensions of God, which they satisfy themselves with all: And though the Judicious know, and they themselves cannot be igno • ant, that what is spoken against Reprobation, reflecteth upon Election, these being as twines, which must die and live together: for take away Reprobation and Election is forthwith destroyed, and grant once Election, and Reprobation is thereby established without further dispute, by such as know what they say, and whereof they affirm; yet such is the Unmanly, let be Unchristian, yea and Unscholastick Disingenuity of these, more enraged than rationally acted, Adversaries, that they pass over the matter of Election, as finding it possibly too hot for their fingers, and exaggerat the matter of Reprobation, with all the strength of their Invention, and keenness of their Rhetoric; whereby, though they contribute to the fixing of themselves in an Error (it may be, contrary to the very suggestions of their more Impartial, and a little more Enlightned Consciences) and to the raising of scruples and prejudices, in the minds of the simple; yet they but render themselves more ridiculous unto the more understanding and exercised persons, in these debates. And this is the whole of the present work and design of this Quaker ; for not one word hath he of Election, less or more; but runeth out in such a rage, against Reprobation, that he runeth himself blind; so that he cannot see the most palpable and obvious Contradictions and Inconsistencies, which himself uttereth; and no man, of common sense. would ever speak; and so doth his irrational rage drive him, that to all intelligent beholders, he proclameth his own brutish Ignorance: Take one instance which will demonstrate both: Towards the very beginning of his discourse Pag. 64. & 65. he presenteth us, as speaking thus. That God did predestinate to everlasting damnation the most part of men, without any respect had to their sin, only to demonstrate the glory of his justice. Now, let all men of common sense judge, (to speak nothing of the learned, who cannot but look with indignation upon this ridiculously and perversely false Representation of our meaning) if ever man in his wits did, or any, who understood what they said, could say, That God did predestinate any man to damnation, for the glory of his justice, without any consideration had of the man's sin? who seeth not what a palpable contradiction is here? can God have the glory of Justice, any other way, than in punishing of sin? And can God intend to gloryfy his Justice, and not intend to punish sin? and can he Intend to punish sin, or men for sin, and not consider their sin?

4. This Man inveigheth much against absolute Reprobation, as he calleth it, but what sort of Reprobation he maintaineth, he never once acquanteth us; why, and upon what design, himself best knoweth. Nor doth he speak anything of Election, that we might thereby understand his meaning better, concerning Reprobation. It is true Pag. 59. (as we took notice in the proceeding chapter) he gave us a little taste of his humore, in giving a wipe, without any true ground or real occasion, at absolute Election: and so we see, that he is equally enraged against Absolute Election, and Absolute Reprobation: But what his own true Opinion is, he leaveth us to conjecture. Some might think, that he were of one opinion, as to this, with Pelagians, Jesuits and Arminians, who plead for Conditional decrees of Election, and Reprobation, and for satisfaction to their own searching mind, poreing into this matter. The Jesuits do coin a Scientia Media, through which, as a necessary pair of spectacles, they consider God looking a far, to read what is written on the will of man, placed in such and such circumstances, that accordingly he may order his unchangeable decrees, either to Elect this man, who as he foreseeth, through this prospect of Scientia Media, will be a good and holy man, and continue in faith and obedience to the end; or to Reprobate that other man, who, as he espyeth by the same medium, will prove a son of belial, and will not believe, nor repent. If this man be of this opinion, I am far mistaken, if his Election and Reprobation, howbeit he call it Conditional, be not more fatally Inevitable, than what we say; for by this opinion, the Lord Jehovah himself is under a Fatal necessity of Electing those that are elected, and Reprobating such as are reprobated; for according as he seeth the determination of man's will, (which he cannot alter, matters standing in the supposed circumstances,) so must He pass his decrees. But others may think, that he rather embraceth the Opinion of the Socinians (and Arminians homologate, as to several particulars, with them) who deny all Eternal Decrees, whether of Election or Reprobation, as concerning particular individual persons, granting only one general decree, which they call Predestination, whereby the Lord decreed to Elect in time all, that should be found in time to be Believers and Obedient, and Consequently to Reprobate and reject the rest: and this Election and Reprobation only in time they ascribe unto God; because they rob Him of all Fore knowledge: and they make it twofold, one Infirme, Conditional and Imperfect, which may alter, as men change their manners, so that a Reprobat today may be an Elect tomorrow, and an Elect today a Reprobat the next day; another Firme, Fixed, Peremptory and Absolute, when the man hath finished his course, and ended his days: In all which the Arminians agree with them, except in this one thing, that the Arminians grant an eternal Election of Individual Persons upon the foresight of Faith, and Obedience, which the other grant not. Hence the greatest of my difficulty will flow from my ignorance of this man's true principles, for I shall not know how to vindicate truth, which we maintain, so as to convince him, and stop his mouth, upon his own grounds; as other ways, I should not doubt, through the assistance of his Spirit and Grace whose cause I plead, to do.

5. As concerning this matter, enough hath been said by the Orthodox against Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Socinians, and Arminians; and this man confesseth he hath brought no new accusation against our doctrine, but he hath only scraped together as it would seem what he could get out of the dunghill of Jesuits and Arminians: And therefore we might dismiss him, by referring him to such as have written copiously, and very far above his reach, on this subject; even to some papists, such as the Dominicans, Alvares, Estius, Rispolis, Cajetan, Sixtus Senensis, and to others more ancient, such as Aegidius Romanus, Gregorius Ariminensi • , and others cited by Estius: yet lest he should boast, we shall • view what he hath said, without enlarging much upon the matter. And as to our doctrine, the Reader may satisfy himself with what is Succinctly, Solidly, Plainly and Satisfying set down in our Confession of faith cap. 3. sect. 3, 4. & 7. and for cl • aring of the whole matter, he may read the whole Chapter, and there find much in little bounds. For facilitating of our way in the f • llowing examination, I shall only propose a few things here in the entry, for understanding the true • h, about Reprobation, without speaking to Election particularly.

6. And (1.) No man can den • a Reprobation, but he must withal deny an Election, for Election, being a choosing of some, cannot but import a leaving of others: And, I suppose, this Quaker will grant this, unless he be of the opinion of Hilberus, who asserted, that all men were Elected in Christ to salvation, whether they believed or not; not only contrary to the native & proper import of the word Election, which is a choosing & separating of some from others; but to plain Scripture Mat. 20:16. & 24:24. John. 10:26. 1 Cor. 1:26. Rom. 9:22, 23. & many other places. (2.) Seeing then the Scripture is so full in proving of Election, we must assert that there is also a Reprobation : and beside, the Scripture pointeth forth the matter to us, Mal. 1:2. Rom. 9:13.22. 1 Pet. 2:8. Iud ver. 4. Mat. 25:41. Prov. 16:4. (3.) When we speak of Reprobation, (as opposed to Election, & as comprehended under Predestination, as a species, or part) we consider either the Act of God Reprobating; or the thing Decreed & Purposed by the act of Reprobation; that is, as the Schoolmen speak, vel quoad reprobantis actum, vel quoad reprobationis terminum. When we consider the Act of God reprobating, nothing in man can be any moving cause thereof; nay it is impossible it should be so; for, as Aquinas 1. p. quae • t. 23. art. 5. saith, there can be no cause of the will of God, a touching the act of willing; and the reason is manifest, because that act of God's will (as all immanent acts of God are) is Eternal: now man, & all that is in man, is of yesterday, & could not cause an eternal act; yea that act of God's will is God himself (unless we blasphemously say with Socinians, that the decrees of God are accidents in God, & so destroy his Simplicity;) and therefore we can no more imagine a cause in man of the act of Reprobation, than we can imagine, that there is something in man, which is a cause of God himself; which were absurd blasphemy. The will of God hath no cause, no antecedent, is dependant on, limited & determined by nothing in man, or any creature. The learned Doct. Twisse hath this argument further. If (saith he) sin be the cause of Reprobation, it is either so of its own Nature, or by the Ordinance of God: Not the first, as all will confess. Not the second, for then God should ordain, that upon the foresight of sin, he would ordain man to damnation, & thus an Eternal Ordination should be the object of an Eternal Ordination. When we consider Reprobation in respect of its terminus, or thing willed & purposed by that act of God, we divide it into two parts, or say there are two main things intended & purposed; (presupposing, & not mentioning, what is common both to Election & Reprobation, as Creation, &c.) as first the denial of Grace, whereby they may be recovered from their state of sin: the second is the denial of Glory, or adjudging them to eternal death. This last Being for sin, & a just execution of a righteous sentence, is not, neither can it be, without consideration of sin, as the meritorious procuring cause: So that, to speak properly, God doth not damn whom he will, Damnation not being an act of mere pleasure, but an act of justice, conform to an established Law: But the other, the denying or not giving of grace, is an act of Absolute Freedom & Good Pleasure; for He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will he hardeneth Rom. 9:15, 18. And as God's granting of grace is an absolute act of his good pleasure, & free, & not for any merit or goodness in man; as all, except Pelagians, will confess; (yea Pelagius himself confessed it, at the Synod in Palestine ;) so the Lord's denying of this g • ace and mercy must be Absolute and not Conditional▪ an act of the Lord's free will and good pleasure, for the praise of his glory, there being no fixed Law constitute by God, according to which, he bestoweth Grace, or bestoweth it not; and there being no Reason imaginable, why the Lord should conf • rre grace upon Jacob, and not upon Esau, upon Moses and not upon Pharaoh, upon Peter and not upon Judas, beside the good pleasure of God: as the Lord did set his love upon the people of Israel, because he loved them Deut. 7:6 7. so no cause can be given, why he would not have mercy on Pharaoh, on Esau, on Judas, as well as on others, beside his God will and Pleasure, who hardeneth whom He will.

7. We must therefore in this matter carefully distinguish, betwixt God's Decree, and the Things decreed: Things decreed may have their Causes, and one may depend upon another, as on the meritorious procuring cause, but the Decree of God is absolute, having no dependence upon anything without, being the Absolute and Free act of his Will. God may and doth Decree, that this shall be because of that; and yet because of this he cannot be said to Will that. So when the Lord decreeth to damn some persons because of their sins, though sin be the procuring meritorious cause of damnation; yet it is not the procuring meritorious cause of God's willing or decreeing to damn: Therefore though it be true, that God decreeth to save none, but such as Believe and continue in Faith and Obedience to the end; and to damn none but such as are Sinners and Continue in sin to the end; yet we must not say, that as Faith and Obedience in adult persons do precede salvation, as some way disposeing causes thereunto, and as Final Perseverance in sin preceedeth damnation, as the meritorious cause thereof; so the Foresight of Faith, Obedience and Final Perseverance in both precede election, or the decree of God, as disposeing causes or prerequisites thereunto; and the Foresight of Final Perseverance in sin precede Reprobation, or the decree of God, as the meritorious cause thereof: for as the purpose of God, according to Election, is not of works, but of him that calleth Rom. 9:11. so the purpose of God according to Reprobation, cannot be of works; for the children being not yet born, neither having done good or evil, it was said, the Elder shall serve the Younger Rom. 9.11, 12. As the potter hath power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor Rom. 9:21. so the Lord willing to show his wrath. & to make his power known, may endure with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath, fitted to Destruction; and he may make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory Rom. 9: verse. 22.23.

8. As the Scripture holdeth forth Reprobation, as we heard, and may be further gathered, even as to the name, from Ier. 6:30. Heb. 6:8. 2 Tim. 3:8. So it holdeth it forth to us, sometimes in Negative terms, sometimes in Positive terms. Hence some speak of a Negative Reprobation, called Preterition, or passing by; which is a real Positive act in God, and not purely Negative, as some suppose; and of a Positive and Affirmative Reprobation, which they call Praedamnation. By the Negative Reprobation, they understand a Positive eternal act of God, whereby, according to the counsel of his own will, he passed by such as he did not Elect, and resolved not to give them saving grace, whereby they might be delivered from sin: as when Ch • ist saith Math. 7:23. I n • ver knew you: and Mat. 11:25, 26. I thank thee, ó Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise—Even so father, for so it seemed good in thy sight : And when mention is made of some, in the Revel. Chap: 13: • ▪ and 20:15. whose names were not written in the Book of Life. And when Christ saith John. 10:26. Ye are not of my sheep. By the Positive or Affirmative Reprobation, they understand the Lord's positive Resolution, according to the unsear • hable counsel of his own will, whereby he ordaineth such, as he hath passed by, to dishonor and wrath for their sin. Hence such are said to be hated Rom. 9:13. to be vessels of wrath fitted for destruction Rom. 9:21, 22. to be appointed unto stumbling at the word, &c. 1 Pet. 2:8. & ordained to condemnation Iud. verse. 4. to which also belongeth the Lord's just and judicial smiteing with blindness, giving up to a Reproba • mind, and to their own hearts lusts, hardening their hearts, and the like Rom 1:24, 26, 28. & 9:18. & 11:7. Psal. 81:12.

9. Now, as touching that question, that this Quaker is most busied with, viz. Whether Reprobation be absolute, and without all respect had to sin, or not; the Reader may see, by what is said, what is to be Answered thereunto. The Quaker, loving darkness, speaks undistinctly, either because Ignorant of the true question; or out of a malicious Design, to render the Truth, & us for maintaining it, odious; or both: But we shall endeavoure, in a few words, to clear the mater. If we consider the act of Reprobation, as in God of whose will it is an Immanent and Eternal act, there can be no more cause of it, in man, or a • y creature, than of any other of his decrees, which are all one act, and so one with Himself: Yet this act of Reprobating, that is, of appointing and designing such or such individual persons, to the condemnation of hell for their sins; cannot be said to be, as to its terminus, without all respect to sin: because, by it persons are appointed to punishment for their sins; and whatever God doth in time execute, He r • solved and determined from eternity to do the same, in the self same manner. As for the Execution of this decree in time, in reference to the denying or not giving of Faith, Repentance, Regeneration, or G • ace to recover out of the state of sin; we say this act is Absolute: as h • s giving of Grace, and Regeneration, upon the one hand is free, as the Scripture richly declareth; so th • withho • ding of this Mercy & Grace is an act of his Absolute Sovereignty and Free Will, who hath mercy on whom he will, and hardeneth whom he will : As concerning the act of inflicting spiritual Iudgments, the forerunners of hell, this being an act of Justice, is not without respect to sin, its procuring cause, as the Scriptures lately cited evidence. The same we say of adjudging impenitent, and wicked persons, unto hell; for this is an act of justice, conform to the established Law of God.

10. Though what we have said might suffice upon our part, for clearing of the truth, which we own: yet because this Quaker rageth so much against Absolute Reprobation, by which he doth not mean, the actual Execution of this act, but the Act itself, we shall in short propose some things, which will serve for confirmation of what we say. And (1.) There is a certain Analogy betwixt the decree of Election, & the decree of Reprobation ; so that the one giveth light unto the other; & the one cannot be conceived without the other; for where there is an Election of some, there must be a Rejection of others, & so the one is opposite to the other: from this it is manifest that if Election be Free & Absolute, so must Reprobation be: for the objects of both are supposed to be in the same state & condition, equally represented in the mind of God, or considered, when the act passeth upon them; none deserving Election more than the rest, nor none more meriting Reprobation than the rest. If then Election be not upon the account of any good foreseen, in the elected, more than in others, whether it be Faith, or Obedience, or Perseverance in both to the end, or whatever else can be imagined; as all our Divines have shown, writing against the Arminians ; it is manifest & clear, that Reprobation cannot be upon the account of the Foresight of the contrary. Sin foreseen or considered in Judas, could not be a cause moving God to Reprobat him, more than Peter, because the same was to be seen in Peter. And the Apostle cleareth & confirmeth this, when he saith Rom. 9:11, 12, 13. for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil—it was said unto her, the Elder shall serve the Younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Which place (2.) Doth further confirm, what we say; for here is a Discrimination made, one Loved, & the other Hated; that is, one Elected & the other Reprobated & Rejected, without any consideration had of good in the one, or evil in the other, as a procuring cause of these Acts of God's will; for both Jacob & Esau are considered as being in a like condition, yet unborn, neither having done either good or evil. (3.) The supreme wheel, moving all, is here said to be, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ; & so there can be no procuring cause of this, in man. The one was preferred to the other, that the purpose of God, according to Election, might stand; & the other consequently was made to serve, that the purpose of God, according to Reprobation, might stand. (4.) Works, both good & evil, are here in plain terms excluded, not of works ; & there are no works excepted: if Election be without foreseen works, Reprobation must be so also; or we must say, that the Apostle argueth not acuratly; & that the Spirit of the Lord, in the Apostle, doth not clear & explain the point. (5) Vers. 17. from the instance of Pharaoh, of whom it is said, that God even for this same purpose had raised him up, that He might sh • w his power in him, &c. the Apostle inferreth, that God hardeneth whom he will, as well, as from the instance of Jacob, preferred to his brother Esau, he inferred verse. 15. & 18. that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and that he hath compassion on whom he will have compassion. (6.) The Objection, which the Apostle preoccupieth, Vers. 19. Thou wilt say then, why doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted his will ? doth manifestly speak the truth, we plead for: for if Election & Reprobation were not absolute, but upon foreseen works, what place could this Objection have? Why would the Apostle speak to an Objection, that were no way pertinent? Should there be any color for any to propose this scruple, if the good & evil works of man, were the ground of all? (7.) The Apostles reply confirmeth this, when he saith. Nay, but O man, who art thou, that repliest, or dispurest, or it may be rendered responsats, or carps against God ? Importing, that it is high arrogance, in the Clay creature, to call Jehovah to its bar, & to judge, or quarrel with, or dispute against God, whatever he do, according to the purpose of his own will: But what ground were there for such a Pride-laying, Man-humbling, Mouth-stopping, Creature-abaseing, & felling answer, if all this matter did run upon the wheels of justice, or had its rise from man, or were ultimately founded upon something in him? (8.) The answer added putteth the matter beyond all further dispute: Shall the thing formed say to him, that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor ? Where we see, That man is but as a lump of clay in the hands of the great Potter; & as there is nothing in one part of the same lump of clay, calling, inviteing, or moving the potter to make of it a vessel unto honor, or a vessel unto dishonor; so is there nothing in man, calling or moving God to make this man a vessel unto honor, & the other a vessel unto dishonor. And next we see, That all is ultimately resolved into the pleasure of God, as the Potters mere pleasure is the cause of the discrimination of vessels, which he frameth out of the same lump (9.) These words verse. 22. further confirm our point; for, saith the Apostle, what if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted, or made up for destruction? &c. Importing that it is so, and that man hath nothing, to say against it. So we see, That as the vessels of mercy are afore prepared unto glory, so the vessels of wrath are afore prepared and made up for destruction: and that, as the first is done, that He might make known the riches of his glory, so the last is done, that He might show his wrath, and make his power known. (10.) Christ Mat. 11:25, 26. referreth the Lord's hiding of the Gospel-manifestations of life and salvation, from some, unto the good pleasure of God! and if this part of the execution of the decree of Reprobation be referred unto this Absolute Sovereignty & good Pleasure of God, as its first and only spring, much more must the Decree itself be reduced to this only Fountain. (11.) The like we may observe from 1 Pet. 2.8. & from Iud verse. 4. & from Revel 13:8 & 17:8. (12.) We are told, that the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved Act. 2:47. and that, as many as were ordained to eternal life believed, Act. 13:48. where we see, that the appointing some to be saved, and ordaining them to eternal life, is given as the prime ground and cause of their being added to the Church, and Believing: whence it followeth, that the Lord did not add others to the Church, nor give them grace to Believe, because he had not ordained and appointed them to life: the consequence of the Negation is as manifest, as the consequence of the Affirmation; and is clearly intimated, when the other is expressed.

11. Thus the Scripture confirmeth our point: we shall add a few reasons, as (1.) No temporal thing, such as is man's sin, can be the cause of that, which is Eternal, as is God's act of Reprobation. If it be said, that the foresight of what is temporal may be the cause of an Eternal Decree: I answer. This cannot be; for how is it imaginable, That God's prescience should be the meritorious cause of his Decree? can one eternal Act of God be the meritorious cause (and of such a cause we speak here) of another? All the Eternal Acts of God are one, and they are the same with himself: how absurd is it then, to imagine one to be the meritorious cause of another? or the same act as terminated on one object, to be the meritorious cause of itself, as terminated upon another object? If it be said, that sin fore • een can be the cause of an Eternal act of Reprobation. Answ. But sin cannot be foreseen as a thing that shall exist, without a previous decree concerning its existence, by the permission of God; and so sin must first be permitted, or decreed to be by permission, before any man can be Reprobated because of sin, by this Objection: and then, when we suppose sin to be permitted by a decree, I ask, for what end is this decreed permission? God decreeth nothing but for a certain end; and what is His End in this? is it that he may thereby be moved to Reprobat? Then his intention of Reprobation is first, for the intention of the End is before the Intention of the midss: and how absurd, and a theological is that to say, that God intended an End, and then he Intended Means to move him to intend that end? Again, by this Assertion, the decree of Permitting sin, should be before the decree of Damning for sin; and so we must imagine the same order in the decrees, that we see in the things decreed; while as, how various soever the things decreed be, the decrees themselves are all one pure act in God, who is actus purissimus & simplicissimus ; and therefore sin foreseen can no more be the meritorious cause of the decree of Reprobating for sin, than of the decree of Permitting sin: And if we should imagine an order betwixt these two decrees, of Permitting of sin, and of Reprobating for sin, it must be such an order, as is betwixt the Intention of the End, and of the Means; and so the intention of Permitting sin, being first, should be of the End, which is always first in intention; and the intention of Reprobation, being the last of these two, should be of the Means: and so, we should be damned for sin, that we might be Permitted to sin: and that, which is first in Intention, as the End, being last in Execution, and that, which is a Means being first, it would follow, that man should be first damned, and then permitted to sin: which is obviously false and absurd (2.) if sin be the meritorious cause of Reprobation, then it is so either by necessity of Nature, or by the free Constitution of God. But neither can be said; as we saw above ( • .) The decrees of God can have no more a cause, than himself can have: all the Acts of God's will, being his Will, and his Will being Himself, we cannot imagine a cause in man of an act of his will, more than of himself (4) we should reason proportionably of the decree of Election, as we do of the decree of Reprobation (as we saw the Apostle doing) and so, if sin foreseen be the cause of Reprobation, grace foreseen must be the cause of Election: against the whole Scripture, and the Apostles express argueing Rom. 9. (5.) That procuring cause of Reprobation God could have prevented, or taken out of the way, if he had pleased; else we must imagine a stoical fate, overpowering God himself. If he might have taken it out of the way, and did not; can any reason hereof be given beside his own good pleasure, or his design to manifest the glory of his justice, in the just damnation of such? and doth not this refer the decree of damning for sin ultimately unto His good pleasure? (6.) what are those sins, which are the procuring cause of Reprobation ? This man will not say, that Original sin is the cause; for he denieth it; as we saw, in the proceeding Chapter. And what can that actual sin be? and whatever be supposed, it must be such, as could be foreseen in no other, otherwise the foresight thereof could not be the proper meritorious or moving cause, why this man was Reprobated more then that man; for what is to be foreseen in an Elect, cannot be the meritorious cause, why the other is Reprobated. Again whatever actual sin that be, final Unbelief, or what you will, it must either be such as God could have prevented or taken out of the way, if he had pleased; or not: if the first be said, then it is manifest, that the decree of Reprobation cannot ultimately be resolved into sin, as a procuring cause, but into the good pleasure of God; who would not take that sin out of the way, nor prevent its being. If this Last be said, then God was under a fatal necessity of decreeing and doing all, which he decreed and did; and could not hinder sin, nor not create that man, nor alter any one circumstance, which did occasion that sin: and thus God himself shall be bound by the fetters of a fatal Necessity; yea and all this fatal Necessity shall have its rise from Man; which were most absurd and blasphemous, (7.) if actual sins be the consequent of Reprobation, and a mean whereby the execution thereof is brought about, they cannot be the procuring cause thereof. This is manifest. But the former is true. Therefore &c. That the former is true, is manifest from these words of Peter 1. Pet. 2:8. Where we see that these stumblers at the stumbling ston, and disobedient persons, were appointed, or ordained thereunto. So John. 10:26: But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep : where it is manifest, that their not believing, was a clear consequent of their not being of his sheep. So Rom. 11:7..- Israel hath not obtained-but the Election, and the rest were hardened. So that it was from Election that such obtained, as did obtain, and from Non-election that the rest obtained not, but were hardened (8) Sin is the moving cause of Actual damnation▪ If sin also be the moving cause of the decree of Reprobation; It would follow, that because of sin God decreed to damn because of sin: which is strange language.

12. Having premised these things, we come now to take notice of what he saith: we observed before one great mistake, in his set • ing down of our judgment, as if God had determined the demonstration of his Justice, without any resp • ct had to sin: Then he saith, (as further declaring our opinion,) that God, for perfecting of this, did appoint, that these miserable souls should necessarily sin. Resp. Here are moe mistakes; for first we say not, that Reprobation imposeth any necessity of sinning. The decree to punish for sin, doth not impose a necessity on the sinner to sin; nor yet the decree of denying grace, whereby they might be delivered from their sin: for that is only a decree of not delivering them out of that state, wherein they have brought themselves under a necessity of sinning; and so imposeth no necessity. Next as to God's Decreeing or willing that sin should exist, through his permission (which doth not properly belong to this question) neither doth that impose any absolute necessity, or take away the liberty of Mans Will, or the Contingency of events, as to second causes. And it would seem this man knoweth no difference, betwixt an Absolute necessity, and that necessity, which is merely Hypothetical, But thirdly, there is another mistake here: for he would make his Reader believe, that we said, that all the necessity of sinning did flow from Reprobation ; as if no necessity of sinning arose from their sinful state, wherein they are by the transgression of Adam: Beside, that we might observe, how, in this sentence, he contradicteth what he said in the former. He addeth, That by his Justice, he might according to right, rebuke and afflict. This would import, that according to our judgment, Sin is permitted, or decreed to exist, the Lord permitting it, as a Mean, to the punishment, as the End; as if God intended punishment, as an end; and therefore suffered sin, as a mean • s; while as we look upon both the permission of sin, and the punishment thereof, as one means, for the setting forth of the glory of divine Justice. He proceedeth, as declareing our opinion: And therefore, that God not only suffereth these to be obnoxi • us to this misery, in many parts of the World, by withdrawing the preaching of the Gospel, and the knowledge of Christ. And here we find some more mistakes; for we say, that all men by nature are into this state of sin and misery, whether they hear the Gospel, or not: and so their obnoxiousness unto that misery dependeth not upon their want of preaching, and of the knowledge of Christ, though this be a necessary mean of delivering them out of it. Again his Therefore pointeth out another mistake; for as we speak not thus, so far less do we infer this from what he mentioned before. Thirdly, his word subtrahendo, withdrawing, pointeth forth a third mistake; for it will import, that we say, that the Gospel is once preached to every person, yea and to every Reprobate; for how else can it be said to be withdrawn. And here is a further mistake, when he addeth, and the knowledge of Christ, for hereby the Reader might think, that we thought every Reprobat had the knowledge of Christ, but because he was a Reprobat, it was taken away from him, and withdrawn, He saith moreover, that we say, God, even in these places, where the Gospel is preached, and salvation is offered by Christ, withdraweth from them all grace, whereby it was possible for them to apprehend the Gospel. Here are also several mistakes; for his subtraxisse importeth, that God hath given to everyone, who heareth the Gospe • , grace, whereby they may embrace the Gospel; and then withdraweth it from the Reprobate, because they are such: where readeth he such language in the writings of our Divines? Next we say not (as he here insinuateth that we do) that the grace, which God withholdeth from the Reprobat, is that by which faith in the Gospel is merely possible; but that rather, without which they cannot believe, and with which they cannot but believe: that is, He withholdeth the grace of Faith, which being his own free gift Ephes. 2:8. He bestoweth it upon w • om He will: for he blesseth with all spiritual blessings such, as he hath chosen before the foundation of the world, that they might be • oly Ephes. 1:3, 4. He proceedeth in relating our opinion thus; Because by his own secret will, he did decree, that they should not obey, and that the Gospel should never be effectual to their salvation, and that without all respect had to their sin. Where there ar • other mistakes to be observed, for first He nowhere readeth, that Reprobation is a decreeing that men should not obey. Next whe • our divines speak of God's decrees about sin, they never utter their mind so bluntly, as to say, Go • decreed that they should not obey; but th • y use to speak thus, God willed, or decreed, that sin should exist he himself permitting it: or, as some, He willed the permission of sin. Thirdly here is another mistake: for as to some, who hear the Gospel, and harden their hearts beyond ordinary, God in Justice giveth them up to the power of unbelief, as a Spiritual judicial stroke, or taketh away the Gospel from them, a • d so Non-churcheth them, and this as a punishment: and as the Lord doth so in time, so he decreed to do so; therefore there was some consideration of sin here, though sin was no procuring, or meritorious cause of the decree. At length he concludeth, and saith further (as if it were our opinion,) that God decreed to send the Gospel to such, as obey it not, only to accumulate their damnation. Where is another mistake, as if this were God's End, or his only End; and as if we affirmed it were so; while as both are most false, and contradicted by what himself said a little before.

13. Thus have we briefly considered his Representation of our Judgment, and have found no fewer than twelve abuses and untruths: so that, no honest man can acknowledge this for a true declaration of the truth, which we maintain: and with this open discovery of his unfaire dealing, might we rest satisfied, because it is to be presumed, his following reasons can conclude only against this, he hath laid forth, as our judgment; but as we have shown, This is not our judgment, and therefore his Ar • uments cannot touch us, if they lavel at nothing, but at this man of straw, which he hath made for himself to shoot at: Yet, lest he boast, as if we were not able to look his Reasons in the face, we shall view them.

14. He tells us, that this is a new opinion, there being no mention made thereof, in the first four hundred years after Christ: and that Augustine laid the first foundation thereof, in his later writings, out of zeal against the Pelagians, and sowed some sayings, which some have unhappily laid h • ld on, to strengthen this error, whereby they contradict both truth, and the sayings of Augustine, and others. Answ (1.) This man would make us b • leeve, that he had read all the Fathers, that wrote before Augustine : but we know, whence he hath this, for it is, the old saying of Arminians. But (2.) This can conclude nothing against the Truth, which we have seen asserted in the Scriptures of truth. The Fathers, in those ages, had not to do with such heretics, as were the Pelagians. Before that Enemy of the grace of God arose, the Church was in p • ace, as to these controversies, and the Fathers had no occ • sion to debate such questions, as Pelagius afterwards gave occasion unto. Can he evince, that all the Fathers before Augustine, were of a contrary opinion to what we maintain? (3.) Is this man's Religion grounded upon the authority of men? And will he believe no more, than what the Fathers said in the first four ages? Let him follow what cisterns he pleaseth, we will satisfy ourselves with the Word, as the ground of our Faith; and we do look upon the Apostles, as more ancient than these Fathers, and take their positive assertions as of more authority, than the silence of these (4.) Yet Augustine de dono persevere, Cap. 11. citeth Ambrose, Nazianzen, and Cyprian, as concurring with him, in the ground of his doctrine of Predestination. (5.) as concerning Augustine, what this man groundlessly suggesteth of him, is the same he said before, when speaking of Original sin; and there we answered it. (6.) what contradictions are in our doctrine either unto Truth, or unto Augustine, he hath not shown: Augustine, it is true, in his later days, and after more mature deliberation, and consideration of the matter, occasioned by his disputs with the Pelagians, did retract some things said by himself, in his younger years; But all this is for the further Confirmation of the truth▪ which we own. The Reader, who desireth more satisfaction, concerning this matter of Antiquity, as to this point, may consult the learned D. Twisse against Mr Hoord, Sect. 1.

15. He next tells us, that the Dominicans embraced this Opinion: And so he giveth us to understand, that he is more pleased with the doctrine of the Jesuits. But all, except Pelagian-Arminians, confess, that in these points, the Dominicans are preferable to the Jesuits, who are more down right Enemies to the grace of God. And then with a crocodile tear, (as it were) in his eye, he tells us with an Alas, that Calvin espoused this opinion, and addeth that he wronged his name much hereby ; But with none of the orthodox, I am confident; for as to what this Quaker, and his Arminians, say in this, we value it not. He addeth that hereby the Christian and Protestant Religion was defamed. And yet the world heard of no such thing, but by Papists, Jesuits & Arminians ; & who is bound to regard their scandal, who are blind leaders of the blind? must truth be foresaken, because these Enemies to the grace of God like it not? He confesseth that the Synod o • Dort did defend our opinion; but addeth; that notwithstanding it is exploded by the major part of learned and pious men in all the Churches of Protestants. We know indeed, that too many nowadayes are turning from the truth, and imbraceing Pelagian, Jesuitical and Arminian errors: but that they make up the major part we deny: possibly he will take in the Lutherans : but we account them not Reformed Protestants.

16. But Pag. 66. he tells us, he would not much regaird all this; if our opinion had any ground in the word : And we have shown that it hath good ground, there. Then he saith, that it is most injurious unto God. If this be true, it must certanly be an Error; but how is this made good? It maketh (saith he) God the Author of sin. An heavy charge if true: yet this is so clear (thi • keth he) as that two and one make three. But a Quakers confidence, following a blind guide, is no strong argument to us: let us hear his reason If (saith he) the Lord decreed, that these predestinate ones should perish, having no respect unto their evil actions, but out of his mere good pleasure; and if he also decreed, long before they did exist, or in any capacity did either good or evil, that they should be in these sins, by which secondarily they were to be led unto that end: who is the first Author and cause of this our God, who so willed and decreed it? then which there cannot be a more necessary consequence. Answ. (1.) The word Predestinate being usually taken in a good sense, as meaned of these Elected to glory, the man vents his gall, in thus misapplying the word to render the truth Odious. (2.) Though no consideration of sin was, or could be the Meritorious, Moving or Procureing cause of God's eternal decree; yet when he decreed to puni • h everlastingly th • Reprobat for their sins, he cannot be said to have no respect to sin, in his decree (as he here alleigeth, who considereth not well what he saith) (3.) Though he decreed to punish everlastingly for sin such and such persons, and none else, merely out of his own good will and pleasure; yet he cannot be said to have had no respect to sin, which punishment always presupposeth, and answereth unto. (4) If God's decrees be not before man exist, or do any good or evil, they cannot be Eternal, but Temporal: and so this man is a Socinian : and the decree of God concerning every individual person, must exist when the man hath done good or evil; and so, as many men, as many decrees▪ nay according to this man, the Lord can make no decree, concerning the Everlasting state of man, so long as he liveth; and so not only we cannot, but God himself cannot say to, or of any man, before the point of death, that he is a Reprobate or an Elect: what Apprehensions these men have of God, I tremble to express (5.) What he meaneth by these words, ut in iniquitatibus illis versarentur, I know not, unless their meaning be, as I have expressed it. And what would he then make of them? He cannot deny, but God did permit sin; nor will he say, that God could not have prevented sins coming into the world, if He had pleased: will he say, that God did not foresee sins coming into the world? If he did foresee it, and might have hindered it, if he had pleased, and did not hinder it; shall we say, that sin came into the world, whether he would or not? And if he willed or decreed that sin should exist, through his permission, shall we call him the author of sin? Then he must be the author of sin, because he did not hinder sin effectually by his Omnipotency: and then, whatever we say of Reprobation, whether we affirm it to be Absolute, or upon sin Foreseen, there is no remedy as to this, for God must always be the Author of sin: But hallowed be his Name. (6.) The Decree of Reprobation putteth no man into a state of sin: It is true, the Execution the • eof presupposeth sin: but hence it will no more follow, that the decree of Reprobation placeth a man in sin, than that the decree of Election doth so; for the execution here presupposeth also man's being in sin. (7.) Where readeth he that expression, among our divines, that by virtue of the decree of Reprobation, the Reprobat are secondarily led or to be led to destruction, as the end? The Lord leadeth no man to destruction, but every reprobate runeth head long thither, of his own accord; and because the Lord hath designed and decreed to let them run-on, and not restrain them by saving grace, shall he therefore be the Author of their sins? Then all the sins that are committed, must be charged upon the Holy one of Israel: because He did not prevent them by his grace. And thus the devils may come in play, and learn of this man to plead Excuse for themselves, and lay the blame of all their wickedness upon God: Sure this must be Develish doctrine. (8.) But what is it, that God is the Author and Cause of? His hujus doth not distinctly inform us. That he is the Author and Cause of his own Act and Decree, is most true: But that he is the Cause and Author of sin, as this man would infer, we see not the Antecedent, from whence this Consequence can follow. Beside, that the Author of a thing, is he by whose authority or judgment, it is done, or upon whose testimony, it is believed; for Cicero opposeth Authorem and dissuasorem, and joineth these together, as of the same import, Hortator atque Author; Consiliarius & Author; Suasor & Author : & Plautus said, Impero autorque sum : Now dar this Man say, that God Exhorteth, Counseleth, and persuadeth to sin? Dar this Man say, that we hold▪ or t • at it followeth from our ju • gment, that by God's Authority, Sentence and Swasion, sin is committed? Let him prove this, and then carry the cause. (9.) In a word, we refer this Man to the Apostle Paul Rom. 9:11, 12 13. to receive his answer, and let him dispute no more against us, till he once take the boldness to confute that: & his inferring from our doctrine, that God is the Author of sin, is but the same, which the Apostle saw would be deduced from his doctrine, by men of corrupt minds, when he addeth by way of Objection, verse. • 4.— Is there unrighteousness with God ? And if our answer will not satisfy him, let him confute the Apostles answer; for we but say the same, viz. That God hath mercy on whom he will, & hardeneth whom he will. And if for this cause, our doctrine be blamed, we cannot help it; but must be content to be contradicted: and if he make use of the reply used verse. 19. we must give the return, which the Apostle giveth verse. 20, 21. And if all this will not satisfy, we must leave him to the judgment of the great day, when that God, against whom these proud carpers thus reply, shall answer them by himself, & put them to eternal silence and everlasting shame.

17. Thereafter he citeth some sayings of Calvin, Beza, Zanchius, Pareus, Martyr, Zwingli, & Piscator, out of which he would infer, that they allaiged, God was the Author of sin. All which and moe, he might find collected to his hand by Bellarmine. and answered by the learned D. Twisse, in his Vindiciae. And therefore, as also because, this belongeth to a distinct question, we need neither spend time in searc • ing out what truth is in all this; not yet in vindicating of them. One thing I shall say; That among them all, he shall not find one, that saith directly that God is the Author and Culpable Cause of sin: and if he suppose, that this may be drawn from their expressions, I shall only reply. That if there be any of them that giveth more real ground for such an Inference, than the very Expressions used in Scripture, I shall not own them: and if they say no more, and yet are condemned by him, as making God the Author of sin, though they expressly deny it; let him see, how he shall vindicate the Spirit of Go • from the same charge, or rather how in his blind boldness he charges the Spirit of God. As for these passages of Scripture, which our Divines a • duce against the Pelagians and Jesuits, who ascribe unto God, in the mat • er of sin, an Idle Provide • c • a • d Perm • ssion, Bellarmine ranketh them up in five classes: First, Such as speak of God's Willing and Decreeing from eternity, that sin shall exist: such are Act. 2:23. & 4:27. Isaiah. 53:10. Second, Such as import God's creating evil men, for this end, that his righteousness might shine forth in their punishment: such are Prov. 16:4. 1 Sam. 2:25. Exod. 9:16. Rom. 9:17, 21. Third, Such as import God's setting of Satan and men to evil, and using of them, as instruments, to do that which could not be done, without sin: such are 1 King. 22:20, 23. Job. 1:12. & 2:6. 2 Sam. 16.10. & 24:1. Isaiah. 5:26. & 10:5, 15. & • 3:17. & 19:2, 4. Ier. 50:24, 25. & 51:11. Ezech. 12, 13. Psal. 105▪ 25. &c. Fourth, Such as speak of God's blinding, hardening, &c. as Exod. 4.21, & 7:3, 13. & 9.12. & 10:1, 20, 27. & 1 • :10. & 14:4, 8. Deut. 2:30. Joshua. 1 • :20. 1 Sam. 2:25. Job. 12:16, 20, 24. Isaiah. 19:14. & 63:17. Ier. 20:7. John. 12:3 • , 40. Rom. 1:24, 26, 28. & 9:18. 2 Thes. 2:11. &c. Fift, Such as import God's doing of those things, which are evil; as 2 Sam. 12 11. Luk. 2:34. Rom. 9:33. Isaiah. 8:14. & 28:16. Gen. 45 8. 1 King. 11:31, 37. & 12:15, 24. 2 King. 9:3. & 10:30. &c. Now, if he can adduce any testimony of our Divines, whence he can with more probability infer, that God is the Author of sin, I shall not, as I said, own it. And if such as are but consonant to the Scriptures, do not please him, the next time he must dispute against the Scriptures of truth, and not against us.

18. •• e inveigeth next Pag 67. against that monstrous (as he calleth it) and twofold will, which they (he meaneth the orthodox) feign of God, one by which he openly and manifestly declareth his sentence, the other plain contrary, more secret & obscure. But to what purpose is this brought in here? And what would he make of it? He saith we seem to assume this distinction; and hereby, he seemeth to reject it. But not to run out into a debate with him, upon every light occasion. I would only inquire, if he acknowledgeth any Decrees of God, at all? If he do, what are these Decrees else, than acts of God • s will? If they be nothing else; than, we may say, God willeth what he decreeth: for, sure, we cannot say, God nilleth, or willeth not, what he decreeth to be. Again I would ask, whether the Commands and Law of God be signs of his will? If they be, as, I suppose, he will grant: then I would ask, if he thinketh, that God Decreeth the same thing, which He Commandeth, and nothing else; and so that God's Decree and Command are all one? If he say that they are one; than the decrees of God may be Resisted, Opposed, Contradicted, Contraveened, and have no effect, for it is oft so with his Commands; But all Divines will hiss at this: If he say that they are not one: where is then the Monstrosity or Absurdity of this saying? He must also assume this distinction. The truth is, This man speaketh he knoweth not what. The Scriptures oft give the name of will unto God's Purposes and D • crees, as Act. 21:14. Rom. 1:10. 1 Pet. 3:17. Rom. 9:15, 18, 19. Ephes. 1:5. Revel. 17:17. Luk. 22:42. Mat. 26.42. So doth it often times give this title unto his Commands, as is everywhere manifest. And though these two, the Purpose of God, and the Will of Command, do not always agree, as to the same event; Yet there is no monstrosity here of a twofold contrary Will; for the Purpose of God is not of the same nature, with his Command: His Purpose, (which Divines commonly call his Will in proper sense) is purely concerning the Event, and respectet • God as the first Cause & Prime disposer of all Events in the world; but his Command, or Law, toucheth not the Events of actions, but only pointeth forth man's Duty, and respecteth God, as the supreme Lawgiver, prescribing the duty of his Subjects. These both are cleared by that one Instance (to adduce no moe) of Abraham, whom God commanded to offer up his Son, and so made it Abraham's duty to • et about this; and to endeavor it, But as to the event, the Lord had decreed, that Isaac should not be offered, nor Abraham get leave to offer him up indeed, where is this contrariety then the man talks of?

19. Next he tells us that it availeth nothing to say, that man doth willingly and of his own accord sin, for this proclivity and propensity to sin, according to us, (saith he) is necessarily imposed upon him, because God did decree it should be so. Ans. Not to debate these questions, with this man, who seemeth not to understand the matter, I shall only tell him, that his Objection here is very near of kin with that Rom. 9:19. Thou wilt say unto me, why doth he yet find fault; for who hath resisted his will ? If this be not the very compend of his following words, let any that read them judge: It is the same (saith he) as if I should take an infant, that cannot resist, and cast him d • wne from an high place, though his weigh • cause him descend, yet I am the cause of his death &c. Now, what saith the Apostle to this? Nay O man (take heed to this O Quaker) who art thou that repliest, or disputest against God? &c. Thus the proud Quaker forgetteth that he is a thing formed of God: or he is so unreasonable▪ as to debate the matter with God; and say, Why h • st thou formed me thus ? Can we think to satisfy this Quaker, who will not be satisfied with this? What says he to that word 1 Sam. 2:25. notwithstanding they h • rkened not unto the voice of their Father, because the Lord would stay them ? will this man advocate the ill cause of these wicked sons of Eli, and lay all the blame upon the Lord? He must plead also for Pharaoh ; and say he did no wrong, in refusing to let the people of Israel go; for he could no otherwise do, because the Lord had hardened his heart. But it is little, that this man should plead the cause of these wicked ones; and of the King of Assyria, the rode of God's anger, and the staff in his hand, Isaiah 10:5. yea and of all the wicked, whom God hath made for the day of evil, and that for himself Prov. 16:4. seeing he taketh upon him, to agent and plead the Devils cause, against Jehovah; because, when God decreed, that he should affl • ct Job, he was free of sin; all the blame lay up on the Lord: for Satan could do no other wise, an inevitable necessity was put upon him▪ by the decree of God, according to this man's doctrine. Is not the Devil much beholden to this Quaker, for his good will to learn him how to speak, in his own defense against the Lord. But I am afraid, his reward shall not quite his cost. We have told him already, that the decree of Reprobation imposeth no necessity upon man to sin; but this necessity cometh from man's natural corrupted state: Yea Corvinus himself at knowledgeth, that it was Arminius his doctrine, that all men naturally are cast upon a necessity o • sinning. See D. Twisse against Mr Mason. Pag. 18. It is all one thing with this man, whether a thing come to pass by the free will of the second cause; or by Necessity of nature, as the sun shineth; if there be a decree past, all the guilt must lie upon Jehovah: and thus either God hath made no decrees at all, touching the actions of free agents, good or evil: or all their actions must be acts of Necessity, yea Pure and Absolute Necessity; and so all contingency is taken away, and all Freedom, from second causes; or men and angels must be Absolute and independent Agents, over whom and whose actions, God must pass no decree: let everyone judge, whither this doctrine tendeth: and what an exalter of Free will into the very throne of God, this Quaker is.

20 Next he saith, our doctrine is injurious to God, because it maketh him to delight in the death of the wicked, and to will, that many should die in their sins, contrary to Ezech, 33:11. 1 Tim. 2:3. 2 Pet. 3:9. Answ. (1) If he think to prove hence, that God did not decree absolutely to suffer any to lie in sin, and to punish them at length because of sin, he must think from this effectually to prove, that God did Absolutely Decree, that all men should be saved: and so, either all men must be saved, or else God's decree is null: and if all men must be saved, then indeed there is no Election: if all men shall not be saved, but some damned, how then willeth God, that all men should be saved? Or how is his Will Efficacious and Irresistible? (2.) It is true, the Lord, to speak of Him, after the manner of men, for in God there are no Passions, of Joy, Delight, or Sorrow &c. is not a God that taketh delight in the death of sinners, yea such delight in their hurt and destruction, that whether they repented & amended, or not, he would notwithstanding destroy them: as these wicked Jews, to whom this was said, did wickedly alleige. See and consider verse. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20. so that the whole scope cleareth this to be the proper meaning; as also the parallel place Ezech. 18. from Vers. 19. to 30. Now will any hence gather, that the Lord hath no delight in the just punishment of impenitent sinners? If they do, their Conclusion will be contradictory to Scripture Prov. 1.24, 25, 26. Ier. 9:24. Isaiah. 1:24. Ezech. 6:13. (3.) The thing that he would infer from hence is, that God doth not Reprobate any Absolutely; that is, doth not purpose to punish them, out of his mere pleasure, and not for their sins: And say we, that he punisheth, or purposeth to punish any not for their sins, but to satisfy his own pleasure? No, we say no such thing: His Conclusion then can make nothing against us: nor doth his Argument hence reach this, which we say, that God of his mere pleasure, without anything to move him from without, decreeth to punish, or to inflict Death and Damnation, for sin: and if he think, that the one followeth the other, he must lay this down for a ground, that the Decree, and the Execution of the decree are all one thing, or that the decree to damn for sin, and damnation for sin is all one thing: But he, nor any man, shall never evince this: or that everything, which is the cause of of Damnation, must also be a cause of the Decree to damn.

21. He proceedeth §. 4. & tells us, that this doctrine is injurious unto Christ the Mediator. And why so? Because it maketh his mediation ineffectual. Answ. Not at all, as to these, for whom it was intended and appointed; that is, the Elect. As if he hy his Passions had not broken down the middle wall of partition Ans. That middle wall of partition, that was betwixt jew and gentile, was quite taken away: But the middle wall betwixt the Elect and Reprobat, was never Intended to be taken down. Nor had pacified the anger of God towards all men. Ans. Nor was that the End of Christ's coming and dying. How he pacified the anger of God towards such, as perish eternally, and were already in hell, we understand not. He carps at that which some say viz. That Christ's death was sufficient for all (of which saying I seee little use, seeing Christ's death was a price, upon a compact, and so its sufficiency and value is truly and properly commensurable with the compact, and is so to be considered) and saith, that it cannot help, if the virtue thereof be not extended to all, s • as all may be made capable of salvation; or if salvation be not thereby made possible unto all. And as to this, I am not far from his judgment; But yet, if there be not another way laid down, than he yet mentioneth, I see not but Christ's death might have been only Sufficient for all; and not Effectual for any one; for as he is against Reprobation ; he must be against Election also; and so must say, that Christ laid down his life for all; though he knew not if any one should be saved by it; yea that he might have had all he died for, though not one should have been saved; and how injurious this is unto the death and mediation of Christ, let any judge; and we will have more occasion to speak of this, in the f • llowing Chapter.

22. In the fourth place Pag. 78. he saith. The preaching of the Gospel is, by this doctrine, made a mere mock and illusion, if many of them, to whom it is preached, be secluded from receiving any good thereby, by an irrevocable decree • the preaching of faith and repentance is vain; and so is all the scope of the promises and tbreatnings; seeing all is referred to the foresaid decree &c. Ans. (1.) The preaching of the Gospel cannot be said to be in vain, when the end for which it was mainly sent, is gained, viz. the Elect are converted and established thereby: and the decree of Reprobation cannot hinder this. But as to the Reprobat, he will say, it is fruitless and vain. Then he should not have spoken so generally, but should have restricked his discourse. But (2.) even as to the Reprobat, it may gain the end, for which it was sent of the Lord, notwithstanding of the decree of Reprobation, even as the Command of God by Moses to Pharaoh had its end, and was no Illusion, notwithstanding that the Lord hardened his heart, that he should not obey, till the Lord had brought all the plagues upon Egypt, that he resolved to bring: And as the commission which Isaiah gote, Chap. 6. was no cheat, or moke, though it was to make the heart of that people fat, and their ears heavy, and to shut their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, hear with tbeir ears, and understand with their hearts, and convert and be healed verse. 10. Will this man say, that the Lord was but mocking the people of Israel▪ when he made them see all that he did before their eyes, in the land of Egypt, unto pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great temptations, which their eyes had seen, and the signs, and the great miracles, because the Lord did not give unto them an heart to perceive and ears to hear and eyes to see, unto that day Deut 29▪ 2, 3, 4? was it were mo • king that God sent Ezekiel, whether the people would hear, or whether they would forbear, when yet they should know, there had been a Prophet among them, notwithstanding that the Lord told the Prophet, that the house of Israel would not hearken unto him, for they were impudent and hard hearted, Ezech. 3:7, 11: & 2:5. & 33:33? Did not Christ know, that his word should not do good to many, that did hear it? Shall we therefore think, that he but mocked, when he preached the word unto them? (3.) The Apostle tells us, that he made himself a servant unto all, not as thinking to gain all, but that he might gain the more, 1 Cor. 9:19. And again verse. 22. He became all things to all men, that he might by any means save some. And who were these some? See 2 Tim. 2:10. Therefore I endure all things, for the Elects sake, that they may also obtain the salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. And shall we think, that the Lord cannot send out his servants, to call-in the Elect, but he must point them out unto them, by name and surname? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, shall endure with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? Rom. 9:22. Shall we quarrel with the Most High? If God make the chief Corner stone, that is Elect and Precious unto Believers, a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were ordained, 1 Pet. 2.6, 7, 8. must we impute folly unto our God, and say, that He is mocking? (4.) The whole of this discourse is founded upon this grand Error, that Faith and Repentance is not the free gift of God, contrary to Ephes. 2:8. & 6:23. Phil. 1:29. 1 Cor. 4:7. Act. 5:31. & 11:18. 2 Tim. 2:25. For, if Paul may plant and Apollos water, but God only must give the increase, 1 Cor. 3:5, 6.7. Then the giving of success unto the preaching of the Gospel, must be God's free gift; otherwise what can Quakers pray for; or Ministers say, when they are praying to God for a blessing on their labors? Nay, it seemeth Quakers are against all such prayers, being pure Pelagians ; and so asserte, that Man of himself may Believe and Repent. If not, will they not grant God liberty to distribute his own gifts as he will, 1 Cor. 12:11? Is God under any Obligation to give grace to all, that hear the Gospel? This were pure Pelagianism, to say that grace is conferred according to works. (5.) This man's own doctrine is exposed to the same Inconvenience; for he telleth us afterward, as we shall hear, that there is a time and date prescribed to every man, after which their salvation is not possible: now I suppose he will grant that the Word, or at least the Light within, may continue exhorting such to repent and return, & yet all is in vain, for the door is shut: will he say, that God thereby is but mocking them? Let him first liberate his own doctrine, and then return upon us.

23. In the fifth place he tells us, that our doctrine is injurious to the coming and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. Why so? Because it makes it a great judgment & plague unto many, &c. Ans. And must not Christ be for the fall of many in Israel? Luk. 2:34. Why else is he called a stone of stumbling? Isaiah. 8:14. Rom. 9▪ 33. 1 Pet. 2:6. Why doth Christ say, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon, at the day of judgment, then for Chorazin and Bethsaida ? And for the land of Sodom, than for Capernaum, Mat. 11:21, 22, 23, 24. And why saith he John 15:22, 24, 25 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin, but now they have no cloak for their sin. If I had not done among them the works, which no other man did, they had not had sin—but this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled, that is written in their Law, they hated me without a cause ? Why saith he John. 9:39— for judgment I am come into this world—that they which see might be made blind ? Let the Quaker answer these passages, and then rant, according to his own mind: And let him tell me, how it will fare with those, that do not repent before their day of visitation goeth over? It is this man's had to wound himself, out of a keenness in pursueing us.

24. In the Sixt place, he saith, that it is injurious to mankind, making man's condition worse then the Devils. Ans. This were an injury indeed; but the Challenge is neither True nor Honest; for we look upon Devils as already under the Execution of the decree of Reprobation, and in the same state, as to this matter, that Reprobates are into, after death; and we suppose it is far otherwise with men, though Reprobate, before death, than it is with Devils: Devils are under no offer of mercy now, Men are: Devils know themselves to be damned; men do not: Devils are damned irrecoverably, for their first sin; man that cometh to age, sinneth himself more and more unto damnation: Man that heareth the Gospel is punished because he will not accept of the offer, but doth willingly reject it; He doth not believe, and he will not believe; can this be said of Devils? Devils are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day Iud. 6. This cannot be said of the Reprobat yet alive: Many of the Reprobats have common graces, and favors of God, and are restrained from many sins: which cannot be said of Devils. But what is the matter? The Devils had once a possibility of standing: But many millions of men had never any opportunity of salvation; but because of Adams sin, of whom they never knew anything, were to be perpetually tormented. But did not all mankind, by our doctrine, stand in Adam, & fall with him? They are not then punished for another's sin, but for their own; as we manifested, in the foregoing Chapter. How doth this reach all mankind, when God, according to his everlasting good pleasure hath chosen a goodly number, whom he will glorify forever: will the Lord do so with any of the Devils? Belike, that their condition may not be every way worse then man's, this Quaker will give them hopes, that some of them, at least, may be saved, provideing they hearken well to the Light within, & they have th • conviction & faith of a God, & know that he is Merciful, Holy, Just, &c. as well as men; & Are of as sharp Understanding & in knowing what is right & wrong, as many men are. But if all this will not satisfy this Quaker, let me speak to him, in the words of the Apostle; for it may be, he will carry some respect to them, the words are to be found Rom. 9:20. Nay, but O man, who art thou, that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him, that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? &c. But he addeth, that we put man in a worse condition, than the beasts are in. Why so? Because their owners require no more of them, than they are able to do; and when they are dead, there is an end of their misery: but by our doctrine, man is perpetually tormented, because he doth not that, which he cannot: and thus God dealeth with man, worse than Pharaoh did with the Israelites; for though he withheld straw from them, they could get it with a little more industry. Answ. What shall we say unto this Man, who thus barketh and belcheth out against God: He supposeth, that he is spewing out this gall against us; alas what are we, that he should thus bark against us? His barkings will be found against the Lord; and therefore I shall say again, O man, who art thou, that repliest against God &c. Art thou also offended, that God hath given thee an immortal soul, and made thee a man, out of the same lump of clay, out of which he made the beast? Why art thou then angry that God, out of the same lump, maketh one, a vessel of honor, and another, a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction? But next, will he say, that all men naturally can Believe and Repent and fulfill the conditions, upon which salvation is offered? Yes, this he must say, or he saith nothing against us here; and then he must be as much a Pelagian, as ever Pelagius was himself. Then Faith is not the gift of God, but of ourselves, contrary to Ephes. 2. v. 9. and other Scriptures above cited. Then Faith is not the faith of God's elect, contrary to Tit. 1:1. Then a natural man, and he that is in the flesh, can please, God, contrary to Rom. 8:8. Then the natural man can receive the things of the Spirit of God, contrary to 1 Cor. 2:14 Then he contradicteth all his own doctrine formerly examined Chap. v. Then we need not pray for faith and Repentance, or a Circumcised heart, or Regeneration, or a New heart, or an heart of flesh; nor give God thanks for any of these things, because they are all in our own power, and then the Believer maketh himself to differ, contrary to 1 Cor. 4:7. What a contradiction this is to the whole Gospel, and to the whole tenor thereof, no man, that hath once read it, can be ignorant. We thank him this once, for this plain and ingenuous insinuation. This may help us to understand him better in what is following. But if he say, that they can do, what is required, by the help of the grace of God. He knoweth, that we say so; but his Aggravations here have a far other tendency; for his instance of the beasts & of Pharaohs carriage, were else utterly impertinent. Nay, what meaneth the man to compare the matter, unto Pharaoh's withdrawing of straw; yea and make it worse? Say we that God taketh away that Grace to believe and Repent, that wicked men would as fain have, as the Israelites would have had straw? or that Reprobation maketh men unbelievers against their will, and taketh away the Power and Grace to believe, which they had? It is little wonder, that this man, who dar thus open his mouth against heaven, spew out lies and calumnies against us. We must bear it, knowing that he will come to Judgment; and that our Doctrine is consonant to that Rev. 22:17.— and whosoever will, let him take of the waters of life freely ; and to that John. 6:37.— and him that cometh to me, I will in no ways cast out.

25. He proceedeth in his calumnies and saith P. 69. That by our doctrine, we place Mankind in the same state, that the Poets feigned Tantalus to be in, who being thirsty was placed in water to his chin, so that he could not drink : And why? because we say, that the works of creation and providence among heathens, are not to bring them to salvation, but only to convince them of sin, & so serve for their condemnation. Answ. (1.) But what hath this to do with Reprobation? The man in his rage runneth himself blind, that he knoweth not what he saith (2) Do Heathens make up all mankind? (3.) Are the Heathen as desirous of Salvation and of the Crown of Glory, (of which they never once heard,) and of the Grace of Faith in Christ, (of whom they never heard a report,) as Tantalus was of drinking the water, that did run by his lip; as the verse might have minded him, Tantalusà labris sitiens fugientia captat—pocula —If not, is the man so transported with passion, that he seeth not his palpable impertinency? (4.) we see then, that according to his Opinion, the works of Creation, and Providence, are as effectual means to save the Heathen, as the Gospel is to save such as hear it; and by these may Heathens come as soon to glory, as such as live under the Gospel by it: why then came Christ into the world? Was it that the works of Creation and Providence might become preachers of the Gospel and of Salvation? but we will possibly hear more of this afterward. He addeth, that we say the preaching of the Gospel, the use of sacraments, prayers &c. suffice to condemn Reprobats, that live within the visible church, and that they are all ineffectual unto them by reason of a secret impotency, which they had from their infancy &c. Ans. (1.) Here still more Pelagianism ; for he would say, that all within the visible Church are borne able to believe the Gospel, and do duties required therein (2.) That the peaching of the Gospel is to many the favoure of death, we are told by Paul 2. Cor. 2:16. and that it tendeth to the aggravation of their guilt, and condemnation, we heard lately out of Christ's own mouth (3.) Is he angry with us, because we will not say, that every mothers son, that heareth the Gospel, can believe and obey the same, without the grace of God; or because we will not say, that Christ hath given sufficient grace to all that hear the Gospel, to Believe and Obey? Let him be angry with the Scriptures, if he dar; for we speak according to them, that • else us, all men have not faith 2 Thes.