an X? 45, 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O T H E 
 
 Birmingham Dialogue Writer'x 
 
 SECOND PART, 
 
 Upon the following Subjects: 
 
 The Divinity of Chrift. Free-will. 
 
 Election. Imputed Righteoufnefs. 
 
 Original Sin. Perfeverance : And, 
 
 Free-Grace. Baptifm. 
 
 To which is added, a 
 
 POSTSCRIPT, 
 
 Occafioncd by " 
 
 Mr. Henry Heywood'j Introduction to his 
 Tranflation of Dr. Wbitbfs Treatife of Original Sin. 
 
 By JOHN GILL. 
 
 T 1 7T 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for, and Sold by Aaron Ward, at the King's 
 Armi in Little-Britain. M.DCC.XXXIX. 
 
 [Price Six Pew-] 
 
JAN £2 !99o 
 
A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Second Part 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Birmingham Dialogue-Writer^ &c. 
 
 5||tf HE Birmingham Dialogue-Writer has, at 
 
 limits k n S tn > thought fit to publifh the Second 
 WSsk Part of his Dialogue between a Baptift 
 and a Churchman. Never was fuch a 
 
 * medley of things, fuch a parcel of rum- 
 bling fluff", collected together •, he is refolved to be 
 voluminous at any rate : If he thus proceeds, we may 
 indeed expect to fee the works of the Conjiftent Cbri- 
 fiian in folio. I could wim he had anfwered to his 
 motto in the Title-page, taken from an apocryphal 
 writer, a Blejfed is the man that doth meditate honeft 
 (good) things by (in) his wifdom, and that reafonetb 
 of holy things by his under/landing ; for the things he 
 has meditated are neither good, nor boneft, nor holy ; 
 unlefs things contrary to the divine perfections, to the 
 
 honour and dignity of Chrift. and the doctrine of the 
 
 • r^iiiji **ji|vifjmf nc fir ViriQ el 'sr. oijw wSKpk Sty 
 
 3 Ecclefiafticus xiv. 20. 
 
 A 2 infpired 
 
4 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 infpired writings ; unlefs to mifreprefent an argument, 
 which he frequently does, and mifquote an author, 
 as he has Mr. Millar » particularly, can be thought 
 to be fo. I mall not difturb him in his vain mirth, 
 but let him have his laugh out, at the theatrical be- 
 haviour, as he calls it, and geftures of preachers, and 
 at myfteries in religion •, only let him take care, left 
 he mould find by experience the truth of that faying 
 of the wife man, b As the crackling of thorns under 
 a pot, fo is the laughter of the fool: this alfo is vanity. 
 A man of no faith, or whofe faith is worfe than none, 
 or good for nothing, may go on to defpife creeds, 
 catechifms, confeffions and articles of faith : the right 
 of private judgment will not be difputed 5 both mi- 
 nifters and people have undoubtedly a liberty of 
 fpeaking and writing what they believe to be truth, 
 provided they do not abufe this liberty to the dif- 
 honour of God, the gratification of their own paf- 
 fions, and the injury of their neighbours. 
 
 What I mail attend unto, will be the following 
 things ; the divinity of Chrift, election, original fin, 
 free will and free grace, imputed righteoufnefs, per- 
 feverance, and baptifm ; things that were the fubjects 
 of the former Part, and are now brought on the carpet 
 again, and re-confidered in this. I begin, 
 
 I. With the Deity of Chrift. This writer very 
 wrongly diftinguiflies between true, real, and proper 
 deity, and abfolutely fupreme deity ; as if there could 
 be true, real, and proper deity, and yet that not be 
 abfolutely fupreme ; whereas deity is either fictitious 
 or true, nominal or real, proper or metaphorical. 
 There are many who are called gods, that are not 
 really fo ; there are fuch who by nature are no gods, 
 fictitious deities, the idols of the heathens •, and there 
 are fuch who are fo only in an improper fenfe, as civil 
 
 ■ P. 65, 101. 
 
 h Ecckfiaft. vii. 6. - 
 
 magi- 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer . 5 
 
 magiftrates : Now none of thefe are truly, really and 
 properly gods there is but one that is truly, really 
 and properly God, and who is the only abfolutely 
 fupreme God, Father, Son, and Spirit. To fay, there 
 are more gods than one, who are really, truly, and 
 properly fo, is to introduce the Polyiheifm of the Gen- 
 tiles. To affert that the Father is the abfolutely fu- 
 preme God ; that the Son is truly, really, and pro- 
 perly God, but not the abfolutely fupreme God ; and 
 that the Holy Spirit is alfo really, truly, and properly 
 God, but not the abfolutely fupreme God, is to affert 
 one abfolutely fupreme God, and two fubordinate 
 gods, who yet are truly, really, and properly fo. 
 The arguments for and againft the fupreme Deity of 
 Chrift, and his equality with the Father, are as 
 follow. 
 
 1. This writer having afferted in his Firft Part c , 
 that Chrift is God, or a God, becaufe the Father hath 
 given him divine perfections, the following argument 
 was formed in anlwer to it : d " If the Father has 
 given to Chrift divine perfections, for which reafon 
 he is God, or a God, he has either given him only 
 fome divine perfections, or all divine perfections ; if 
 he has only given him fome divine perfections, then 
 he is imperfectly God, or an imperfect one •, if he has 
 given him all divine perfections, then he muft be 
 equal to him." Now this was argumentum ad ho- 
 minem, an argument formed on his own principles, 
 and not mine, as any one who has the leaft mare of 
 common fcnfe and underftanding will eafily obferve ; 
 and yet this man, either ignorantly or wilfully, re- 
 prefents it as an argument proceeding upon my own 
 principles; whereas it is he, and not I, that fays, the 
 Father has given to Chrift divine perfections. I af- 
 firm, that all that the Father hath are his ; he pof- 
 fcfles and enjoys all divine perfections, not by gift, 
 
 < Page tt. 
 
 Anfv.tr, p. 13, 14. 
 
 but 
 
6 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 but in right, and by neceffity of nature : that no di- 
 vine perfection is given him as the Son of God ; tho' 
 all power, dominion and authority to judge, are given 
 hina as the fon of man. Hence the abfurdity of com- 
 municating any thing to the felf-exiftent fupreme God, 
 and the felf-contradi&ion of necefiity and gift, are im- 
 pertinently alledged, and the argument, as formed on 
 his own principles, ftands unanfwered ; which has 
 brought him into a dilemma, out of which he knows 
 not how to extricate himfelf : For if the Father has 
 given him divine perfections, it muft be either fome, 
 or all ; if only fome, then the fulnefs of the godhead 
 does not dwell in him, nor can he be truly, really, 
 and properly God ; if all, and fo no perfection of 
 deity is wanting in him, then he muft be equal to 
 the Father. 
 
 2. Another argument againft the fubordinate deity 
 of Chrift, and in favour of his equality with the Fa- 
 ther, is this : e "If the Father only is the raoft high 
 God, and Chrift is a God, that is, a God inferior to 
 him, whom he has commanded all men to worfhip; 
 then there are two diftinet Gods, objects of religious 
 worlhip, directly contrary to the exprefs words of 
 the firft command, Thou jhalt have no other gods be- 
 fore me" This is an argument reducing to a manifeft 
 abfurdity, and the Dialogue-Writer 3 '*, replies to it fhew 
 him to be in the utmoft diftrefs •, he is confounded, 
 and knows not what to fay. Firft, he fays, f that 
 if there be any abfurdity, any contradiction here to 
 the firft command, it falls not directly on him, but 
 on Chrift and his gofpel, from whence he borrowed 
 thefe truths. But does Chrift in his gofpel ever teach 
 that the Father is the mcft high God, or even the only 
 true God, diftinet from, and cxclufive of the Son ; 
 and that the Son of God is a God inferior and fubor- 
 dinate to the Father ? Next, he obferves s, that the 
 
 e Anfaxr, p. 14. f Dialogue-Writer, Part II. p. 28. 
 
 6 P. 20. 
 
 firft 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer. 7 
 
 firft command fpeaks of one perfon only to be wor- 
 fhipped as God iiipreme, and not of more perfons 
 than one. Be it fo. Since then, according to this 
 man's principles, Chrift is a God inferior and fub- 
 ordinate to the moft high God, he muft be a diftinct 
 perfon from him, and confequently ftands excluded 
 from divine worfliip by the firft command ; where- 
 Fore the gofpel-do&rine of worshipping the Son, can- 
 not be taken in confiftency with that : and, on the 
 other hand, if Chrift, a fubordinate God, is one per- 
 fon with the fupreme God, this would deftroy his 
 fubordination, and give him fupremacy, contrary to 
 this author's notions. If this will not do, he goes on 
 and tells h you, " You may fuppofe that God him- 
 felf, in commanding men to honour his Son, has re- 
 pealed fo much of the firft command as is inconfiftent 
 with the New Teftament command to honour or 
 worlhip his Son." This is cutting the Gordian knot 
 indeed ! This man, I fuppofe, would not care to be 
 called an Antinomian ; and yet the grofleft Antinomian 
 that ever lived upon the face of the earth, never ven- 
 tured upon what this man does, namely, to afTerr, 
 or fuppofe, that any law, or part of a law, relating 
 to the object of religious worlhip, was ever repealed 
 or abrogated. Laftly, he adds \ " That in the ho- 
 nour paid to Jefus Chrift, God the Father is ultimately 
 honoured, as this is paid to the glory of God the Fa- 
 ther." Now not to take notice of the blunder, the 
 nonfenfe of this pafTage, in talking of honour being 
 paid to glory If the Father is ultimately honoured 
 by that fame honour which is given to the Son, as to 
 himfelf, then I hope " the charge of robbing God 
 the Father of his peerkfs majefty, or of ungodding 
 him," k by afferting the Son's equality to him, is 
 weak and groundlefs. 
 
 h Ibid. ! Ibid, k P. 43. 
 
 3. A 
 
8 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 3. A third argument, proving Chrift to be the 
 moft high God, Hands 1 thus : " If the Mod High 
 over all the earth is he whofe name alone is Jehovah^ 
 and Chrift's name is Jehovah ; if the fame things which 
 prove the Father to be the moft high God are faid of 
 the Son, as they are, why may he not be thought to 
 be the moft high God equally with the Father ?" 
 To which is replied, ra That when the Son perfonates 
 Jehovah^ he may be called Jehovah, as an angel that 
 fometimes fpeaks in the perfon of God ; it being ufual 
 for fuch as deliver mefTages from others, to fpeak 
 after the fame manner, thofe perfons would have done, 
 in whofe name they come : So that no argument can 
 thence be drawn for his fupreme deity ; fince that 
 name is given to an angel, when fpeaking in Jehovah's 
 name. But it mould be obferved, that it cannot be 
 proved that ever any created angel, fpeaking in the 
 name of God, ever calls himfelf Jehovah, or is fo 
 called ; all the places referr'd to by this writer, where 
 an angel is called Jehovah, are to be underftood of 
 the increated angel, the Son of God, as will clearly 
 appear at firft fight, to any who will take the pains 
 to infpect them. The paffages are Gen. xviii. 13. 
 and xix. 24. and xxii. 15, 16. Exod. xxiii. 20, 21. 
 I/a. Ixiii. 9. Mai. iii. 1. All which arefo many firm 
 and ftanding proofs of the truth of the obfervation, 
 that Chrift is called Jehovah ; a name peculiar to the 
 moft high God, Pfal lxxxiii. 18. and therefore muft 
 conclude his fupreme deity, and the argument for it 
 from hence, ftands unfhaken and unanfwered. It 
 may be ufual with mefTengers to fpeak after the man- 
 ner of the perfons in whofe name they come ; but do 
 they ever call themfelves by their names? Or are 
 they ever fo called by others ? Did ever any am- 
 baftidor of the king of Great Britain, when fent to 
 a foreign court with an ambaffy, ftile himfelf the king 
 
 1 Aitpwer, p. 14. m Dialogue, Part II. p. 29, 30. 
 
 Of 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer. 9 
 
 of Great Britain ? or call himfelf by the name of 
 king George ? Or was he ever fo called by others ? 
 
 The doctrine, that Father, Son, and Spirit, are 
 the one moft high God, is charged 11 with being a 
 contradiction to reafon, to the whole bible t, to be a 
 ielf-contradiction ; yea, to have many contradictions 
 in it. To which I anfwer : Though reafon, unaffift- 
 ed by revelation, tells us there is but one felf-exiftent, 
 intelligent creator and ruler of the univerfe, the bible 
 makes a clear and further difcovery of this matter, 
 and acquaints us that more than one perfon were con- 
 cerned in creation and government. Let us make man^ 
 Gen. i. 26. Let us go down arid confound their lan* 
 guage, Gen. xi. 7. Remember thy creators, Eccl.xii. 1. 
 Thy makers are thy husbands , Ifa. liv. 5. Revelation 
 fpeaks of three perfons as concerned herein ; and of 
 thefe, not as making one perfon, but as being one 
 God. There are three that bear record in heaven, the 
 Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, and thefe three 
 are one, 1 John v. y. that is, one God. Nov/ if it 
 is no contradiction to the bible, which every where 
 fpeaks conformable to the voice of right reafon, to 
 fay that Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God ; then 
 it is no contradiction to reafon, or to the bible, nor 
 is it any felf-contradiction, or big with others, to fay 
 that Father, Son, and Spirit, are the one moft high 
 God. But, in confutation of this, we are recom« 
 mended, 
 
 4. To an argument which this writer has borrowed 
 from another perfon, drawn up in the following form j 
 0 " He who is alone the fupreme governor of the 
 univerfe) is alone the fupreme God ; but the Father 
 is alone the fupreme governor of the univerfe. This 
 latter propofition proved. He who never acts in fub- 
 jection to the will of any other perfon, and every oft r 
 perfon whatfoever always acts in fubjection to his will, 
 is alone the fupreme governor of the univerfe : Buc 
 n Ibid. p. 30, 31. 8 Ibid. p. 31, 32. 
 
 B the 
 
io An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 the Father never acts in fubjection to the will of an- 
 other peribn, and every other perfon whatfoever al- 
 ways acts in fubjection to his will •, therefore the Fa- 
 ther alone is the fupreme governor of the univerfe." 
 To which I anfwer, by denying the minor propo- 
 fition, That the Father is alone the fupreme governor 
 of the univerfe for the Son is with the Father the 
 fupreme governor of the world : The kingdom is the 
 Lord's, that is, the Lord Chrift's, for he is fpoken 
 of throughout that whole pfalm p •, and he is the go- 
 vernor among the nations. My Father, fays Chrift % 
 worketh hitherto ; that is, in the government of the 
 univerfe, in the adminiftration of providence: and 
 I work-, I am jointly concerned with him in thefe 
 things : Which made the Jews rightly conclude that 
 he made himfelf equal with God, an equal governor 
 of the univerfe with him. Hence it is clear, that 
 the Father is not alone the fupreme governor of the 
 univerfe. Moreover, the minor propofition of the 
 argument brought in proof of this, that the Father is 
 alone the governor of the univerfe, muft alfo be de- 
 nied ; I mean that part of it on which the proof de- 
 pends, That every other Perfon whatfoever always 
 afts in fubjefticn to his, the father's will : For though 
 the Son of God always acts in agreement, yet not al- 
 ways in fubjeElion to his Father's will ; though he 
 always acted in fubjection to his Father's will in the 
 human nature, yet not in the divine nature ; parti- 
 cularly in the works of creation and providence; in 
 thefe there is an agreement with, but not a fubjection 
 to his Father's will ; all things were made by him in 
 agreement, but not in fubjection to the will of the 
 Father ; by him all things confifl, and he upholds all 
 things by the word of his -power, ' agreeable to his 
 Father's will, but not as obliged by any power or 
 authority fuperior to him. 
 
 p Pfal. xxii. 28. ' John v. 17. r John i. 3. 
 
 Col. i. 16, 17. Heb. i. 3. 
 
 5. This 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-TV riter. 1 1 
 
 5. This writer, in his Firjl Part s , argues againft 
 the iupreme deity of Chrift, in this manner : " Before 
 the Lord Jefus Chrift became man, he came from the 
 Father, was fent and employed by him ; therefore it 
 is impoffible he mould be the fupreme God." It is 
 readily granted, that Chrift before his incarnation 
 came, though he is not exprefly faid to be fent, to 
 redeem Ifrael, lead them through the red fea and wil- 
 dernefs, and bring them to Canaan. And it has been 
 obferved that he appeared with full proof of his 
 equality with the Father, fince he calls himfelf the 
 God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, and, / am that 
 I am, Exod. iii. 6, 14. And Jehovah fays of him, 
 My name is in him ; and that he could, though he 
 would not, pardon iniquity ; all which this author 
 takes no notice of, but catches at the phrafes of fend- 
 ing, and being fent, which he thinks fuppofe fupe- 
 riority and inferiority ; though it has been obferved 
 to him, that of two equals, by agreement one may 
 be fent by the other : But this he thinks, as applied 
 to two perfons, who are the one moft high God, is 
 chargeable with abfurdity and blafphemy. Not with 
 abfurdity ; for though he that is fent is not greater 
 than he that fent him u , he may be equally as great. 
 Nor did he appear at all inferior to the moft high God 
 when he came to redeem Ifrael ; and even when he 
 was fent to redeem mankind, though the glory of 
 his deity was greatly, vailed and hid from the eyes of 
 men in his ftate of humiliation, yet he did not lay 
 aiQde his authority, or give up his fupremacy and 
 government; he was then in heaven, and as much 
 one with the Father, and as greatly concerned with 
 him in the government of the world, as before * fee 
 John i. 18. and iii. 13. and v. 17. Nor is it charge- 
 able with blafphemy ; it is indeed great condefcenfion, 
 a wonderful ftoop of deity ; and the higher the deity 
 of Chrift is carried, the more wonderful his conde- 
 
 * P. n. 1 Anfver, p. 15, 16. u John xiii. 16. 
 
 B 2 fcenfion 
 
1 2 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 fcenfion appears, whether in coming to redeem Ifrael 
 before his incarnation, or for the falvation of his people 
 at it. And here give me leave to correct a miftake 
 of this author's in another place, w in which he repre- 
 fents us as fuppofmg that Chrift was begotten, fent, 
 came forth from the Father as man, before he was 
 man ; Whereas, as man, he never was begotten at all ; 
 and might be faid to be fent, and come before he was 
 man, in order to be fo, with refpect to his office- 
 capacity, which he voluntarily, and in the moft con-r 
 defcendi ng manner, took upon him for the good of men. 
 
 6. Whereas the equality of Chrift with the Father 
 is pleaded for, as being ftrongly afferted in Phil. ii. 6. 
 John x. 30. thefe paffages are objected to. The firft 
 of thefe, as it ftands in our bibles, is fo glaring a 
 proof of the Son's equality with the Father, that the 
 adverfaries of it are not able to withftand it ; where- 
 fore they employ all their wit and learning to de- 
 ftroy the commonly received tranflation, and to 
 eftablifh another ; and inftead of thought it no rob- 
 bery to be equal with God, render it, did not af- 
 fe£i, greedi'* catch at, or c.jjume divinity, or to ap- 
 pear like '. God. The firft after Arrius, who em- 
 braced and contended for this verfion, was Enje- 
 dinus x the Soctnian ; and moft of thofe this author 
 mentions as giving up our tranflation, are fuch who 
 gave into the Arrian or Socinian fchemes, or were 
 inclinable thereunto, contrary to the fenfe of the far 
 greater number of learned writers, ancient and mo- 
 dern. I perceive this Dialogue-Writer is acquainted 
 with a book entitled Fortuita Sacra, written by a 
 perfon of worth and learning ; he would do well to 
 confult that learned writes upon this paffage, who has 
 refuted the tranflation and fenfe thu author feems fond 
 or, and has eftablifhed the commonly receiv'd one, 
 jn agreement with the context, where Chrift is faid 
 
 w Dialogue, Part II. p. 39. 
 
 x Eiplicat. Loc. Vtt. & Nov.Teft. p. 323, 324. 
 
 to 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer. 1 3 
 
 to be in the form of God ; which he ffiews to be the 
 effential form of God, all that is great and glorious in 
 him, his very nature and deity, in which Chrift ex- 
 ifted, and therefore muft be equal to him. This ufe 
 of the word pot><?n he proves from ancient writers y . 
 Nor is this fenfe of it contradictory to right reafon j 
 for fince in nature a fon may be equal to a father, why 
 not in the divine efTence, for any thing this author has 
 faid to the contrary ? Begotten, and not derived, is 
 no contradiction, confidered in different refpects. 
 Chrift is begotten, as a Son, but underived, as God 
 over all : He is not avTouio( y Son of himfelf, though 
 avTodux, God of himfelf : He is Son of the Father, 
 but God of himfelf-, his perfonality and fonfhip he 
 has of the Father, his being and perfections of him- 
 felf : there is no foundation for a diftinction between 
 a begotten and unbegotten efTence not eiTence, but 
 perfon is begotten : And falfe it is, to fay that this is 
 not taken notice of in the /lnfv)er to the Dialogue z . 
 Moreover, the fenfe of the pafifage before us we con- 
 tend for, is no ways contrary to thofe fcriptures which 
 fpeak of Chrift as commifuon'd by the Father, doing 
 his will, and nothing of himfelf; as not knowing the 
 day of judgment •, and that the Father is greater than 
 he, and he is glorified by him ; fince thefe are fpoken 
 of him in his office-capacity, and as man and me- 
 diator. This phrafe, as man and mediator, is greatly 
 found fault with by this writer % as having, by join- 
 ing thefe words together, a mean fallacy in it, whereas 
 the idea of a mediator comprehends the whole perfon 
 of Chrift as God-man, together with his office. But 
 why may not thefe two be joined together without 
 a fallacy, when the fcripture fays h , that there is one 
 mediator between God and men, the man Chrijl Jefus ? 
 True indeed, Chrift is mediator in both natures, hu- 
 man and divine, he having thefe united in one perfon 
 
 v Fortuita Sacra, p. 178, &c. 8 See p. 20, 21. 
 
 a Dialogue, Part II. p. 38. h i Tim. ii. 5. 
 
 as 
 
14 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 as God- man •, fo that what is done in, or belongs to 
 any of thefe natures, may, by vertue of this union, be 
 predicated of his perfon and yet thefe things muft be 
 attributed to the diftinct natures to which they belong; 
 as for inftance, omnipotence and omnifcience may be 
 predicated of the perfon of Chrift, and yet thefe be- 
 long only to him as confidered in his divine nature : 
 So doing nothing of himfelf, and not knowing the 
 day of judgment, may be predicated of the Son, when 
 thefe manifeftly belong to him as confidered in the 
 human nature. This obfervation attended to, will 
 unravel and deftroy all that this author has wrote upon 
 this head. 
 
 The pafiage in John x. 30. is a clear proof of the 
 Son's equality with the Father; where Chrift fays, 
 I and my Father are one -, not one perfon, but one 
 God, of one and the fame nature : By which we mean 
 the fame divine elTence and perfections-, for the Son 
 partakes of the fame divine nature, and pofTefTes the 
 fame divine perfections the Father does •, he has all 
 the fulnefs of the Godhead in him, and fo is equal to 
 him. In this fen fe the Jews underftood him-, upon 
 which they charge him with blafphemy, becaufe he 
 made himfelf God ; and to vindicate himfelf, he firfb 
 argues from his inferior character, as being in office ; 
 That if magiftrates without blafphemy might be called 
 gods, much more might he, who was fanctified and 
 fent into the world by the Father : But he does not 
 let the ftrefs of the proof of his deity reft here, but 
 proceeds to prove that he was truly and properly God, 
 by doing the fame works his Father did. So that 
 the Jews were not miftaken in his fenfe, nor did they 
 belye him -, though they wronged him, in charging 
 him with blafphemy on this account. As for John 
 xvii. 21. where Chrift prays that believers may be 
 one, as he and his Father are one, 'tis impertinently 
 alledged, fince the as there does not exprefs equality, 
 but likenefs ; for none will venture to fay, not even 
 
 this 
 
 \ 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer, 1 5 
 
 this author himfelf, that believers are, or will be one 
 with the Father and Son, in that felf-fame fenfe, as 
 they are one with another; there is not the famenefs 
 of power, action or operation, which is acknowledged 
 in the Father and the Son. Upon the whole, the 
 text in John x. 3. (lands fully againft the fubordina- 
 tion of the Son to the Father, and is a firm proof of 
 his equality with him in nature and perfections; by 
 which doctrine no difhonour is done to the Father, or 
 affront given him ; fince no perfection of deity, or 
 any branch of honour and worfhip, are denied him, 
 or given to a creature ; and fince it is perfectly agree- 
 able to him, that all men mould honour the Son, as 
 they honour the Father. I proceed to, 
 
 II. The doctrine of election and reprobation. The 
 fum of the charge againft this doctrine in the Firfi 
 Part, is, that it is unmerciful, unjuft, infincere, and 
 uncomfortable ; and this is the amount of the whole 
 harangue upon it in this Part. What I fhall attend 
 unto, will be the exceptions to what has been ad- 
 vanced, in order to clear it from this charge. And, 
 
 1. Whereas it is charged with cruelty and unmer- 
 cifulnefs, it has been obferved c that it carries no marks 
 of cruelty and unmercifulnefs in it to the elect, who 
 are vejfels of mercy afore-prepared unto glory, which 
 mercy this writer calls d " unwife and partial mercy, 
 fuch as we are fure, fays he, God can never be guilty 
 of." But pray, does not God fay, / will have mercy 
 on whom I will have mercy ? Upon which the apoftle 
 obferves, So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of 
 him that runneth, but of God that fhevjeth mercy. — 
 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, 
 and whom he will he hardneth c . And will this man 
 call this mercy, ftiewn only to fome, as influenced 
 not by their will and works, but as arifmg from the 
 
 c Anfijuer, p. 24. d Dialogue, Part II. p. 56. 
 
 e Rom. ix. 15, t6, 18. 
 
 fove- 
 
1 6 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 fovereign will and pleafure of God, unwife and partial 
 mercy ? This man himfelf owns, that God's decree- 
 ing help for a few, is not an objection to the merci- 
 fulnefs of God ; but the queltion is, he fays f , where 
 is the pity of God, his grace, the founding of his 
 bowels over them, for whom he decreed no help ? 
 I anfwer, There is pity, mercy and goodnefs mown 
 to thefe, in a general way of providence ; and though 
 none in a fpecial way of grace, yet no cruelty, fince 
 God is not obliged to help them •, and 'tis no cruelty 
 in him to punifh for fin. It has been further ob- 
 ferved ? , in order to remove this charge, that if it 
 was not acting the cruel and unmerciful part, not to 
 ordain help for any of the fallen angels, it would not 
 have been acting fuch a part, had God refolved not 
 to help any of the fallen race of Adam> much lefs to 
 ordain help for fome, when he could in juftice have 
 condemned all. This reprefentation of the cafe is 
 faid h to be unfair in it felf, inconfiftent with our prin-^ 
 ciples, and the illuftration of it evafive ; and it is afked, 
 " Amongft the fallen angels did God fhew mercy to 
 fome, everlafting mercy, while he decreed others to 
 hell, who were no more guilty than the reft ?" I an^ 
 fwer, No ; he mewed mercy to none of them, but 
 configned them all over to ruin and deftruction-, and 
 yet he is not chargeable with cruelty. But fuppofing 
 he had fhewn mercy to fome, and not to others, as 
 in the cafe of man ; would he have appeared Jefs mer- 
 ciful, by mewing of mercy to fome, than by fhewing 
 none to any ? And as for all the other queftions put, 
 whether God fent a proclamation of pardon to them 
 that were fore-ordained to mifery, or offered one on 
 conditions not to be complied with, or exhorted to 
 accept a falvation never purchafed for them, or con- 
 demned to a heavier damnation for not believing a 
 falfhood, or for not doing an impofiibilky, thefe are 
 
 f Part II. p. 57. B dnpwer, p. 26. 
 
 h Part II. p. c6. 
 
 all 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-TV nter. 1 7 
 
 all impertinent, and are no more applicable to men, 
 upon our principles, than to angels. The faljen 
 angels are, indeed, as is obferved, perfonal, volun- 
 tary finners, and are, and will be treated according 
 to their own fhare of guilt •, and fo are all the adult 
 pofterity of Adam, who are and will be fo treated either 
 in themfelves or furety •, and, as many of them as 
 will be condemned, will be condemned, not merely 
 for the fin of Adam, and for their fhare of guilt 
 therein, but for their own actual, perfonal, volunta- 
 ry fins and tranfgreffions ; and as for the infant pofte- 
 rity of Adam, their cafe is a fecret to us, and there- 
 fore, we chufe to be filent about it. Once more, it 
 has been obferved', that the doctrine of election is 
 more merciful than the contrary fcheme, fince it in- 
 fallibly fecures the falvation of fome whereas, the 
 other does not afcertain the falvation of any fingle 
 perfon, but leaves it uncertain, to the precarious and 
 fickle will of man. The reply to this is by afking k , 
 which is more honourable to God, and more for the 
 comfort of men ? whereas the queftion is, which mews 
 mofl: mercy ? tho' one mould think, that doctrine 
 which enfures the falvation of fome, mould be more 
 honourable to God, and more comfortable to man, 
 than that which does not afcertain the falvation of 
 any fingle man. This author does not attempt to 
 difprove the doctrine of election infallibly fecuring 
 the falvation of fome •, and, in a very feeble man- 
 ner does he argue, for the ascertaining of falvation to 
 man in the contrary doctrine ; he asks, " is not the 
 falvation of man fufficiently afcertain'd by the gof- 
 pel's fetting life and death before men, and offering 
 them all needful affiftance in the way of life " : he 
 would have faid, furely, by the law's fetting life 
 and death, fince that is the proper bufinefs of the la w, 
 and not the gofpel ; can that be good news which 
 
 i Anfxw, p. 13, 14. k Part II. p. 77. 
 
 C fets 
 
1 8 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 iets death before men ? But to leave this, Is moral 
 iuafion fufficient to afcertain man's falvation ? Is the 
 bare miniftration even of the Gofpel it felf, enough for 
 this purpofe ? Is this the way God forefaw falvation 
 would be afcertained to men, and the only one in which 
 Chrift and Men could defire it mould be enfured 
 to them ? when, where it is ufed in its utmoft ftrength, 
 it fails in innumerable inftances, and was never fuffi- 
 cient, of it felf, in one ; and befides, is at moll made 
 ufe of but with a few, who are fo in comparifon of 
 the far greater part of the world, who know nothing 
 of the gofpel, and the miniftration of it : how then 
 is falvation afcertain'd to them this way ? 
 
 2 . Another charge againft this doctrine is injuftice, 
 and that it reprefents God as an unrighteous Being : 
 to which has been anfwered ', that the decree of elec- 
 tion does no injuftice, either to the elect or non-elect; 
 not to the former, fince it fecures to them both grace 
 and glory ; nor to the latter, fince as God condemns 
 no man but for fin, fo he has decreed to condemn 
 no man but for fin ; and if it would have been no in- 
 juftice in him, to have decreed to condemn all men 
 for fin, it can be none in him, to decree to condemn 
 fome for fin. The reply to which is m , that this an- 
 fwer is evafive and ambiguous, in regard it does not 
 tell us, whether God condemns and decrees to con- 
 demn men for their own fin, or for the fin of Adam. 
 But where is the evafion or fhift in the anfwer ? If 
 it is for fin, and for fin only, with which men are 
 chargeable, that God condemns, and has decreed to 
 condemn, let it be what fin it will, the obfervation 
 is full to the purpofe, and fufficiently clears God 
 from the charge of unrighteoufnefs •, nor is it ambi- 
 guous, fince in a following paragraph it is plainly 
 intimated and fully proved, that God condemns 
 both for the fin of Adam> and for man's own perfo- 
 
 1 J/ifwer, p. 27.' ™ Part II. p. 59. 
 
 rial 
 
&/jtz jjxi 111111^110.111 jwtui-ug uc—rr / iter . iy 
 
 rial iniquities •, as the iatter will not be denied, the 
 former ftands fupported by thofe words of the apo- 
 ftle ", By the offence of one, judgment came upon all 
 men to condemnation which this writer takes no no- 
 tice of, and makes no return unto; and yet the cry 
 of unrighteoufneis entirely proceeds upon this point j 
 tho' we do not fay that any of the fons of Adam who 
 Jive to adult age, are condemned only for the fin of 
 Adam, but for their many actual fins and tranfgref- 
 fions; and as for infants dying in infancy, it has been 
 obferved, their cafe is a fecret to us ; yet inafmuch as 
 they come into the world children of wrath, fhould 
 they go out as fuch, would there be any unrighte- 
 oufneft in God ? All which, this author has pafTed 
 over in filence : perhaps we may hear more of it un- 
 der the article of original fin. This man has been 
 told°, that as God will not condemn the heathen for 
 not believing in Chrift, of whom they never heard, 
 fo neither will he condemn fuch who have heard of 
 him, for not believing fpiritually and favingly in. 
 him, or that he died for them, or for not being 
 converted : and yet he fays p , not a word is produced 
 to vindicate God from the charge our fcheme fixes 
 upon him, of damning men for not believing falfc 
 hoods, and for not doing impoffibilities. Men who 
 have had the advantage of a divine revelation, may 
 be condemned, not for not believing that Chrift died 
 for them, but for difbelieving that Jefus is the Mef- 
 fiah , and other things , which in the revelation 
 are faid of him ; they may be condemned for their 
 difobedience to the go{pel, not for their being not 
 converted by it, but for their contempt and rejection 
 of it, as an impofture and a falfe report ; and confe- 
 quently, not for not believing fallhoods, and for not 
 doing impoflibilities. 
 
 * Rom. v. 1 8. 0 Answer, p. 28. * Part II. p. 66. 
 
 3. This 
 
20 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 3. This doctrine is farther charged with infince- 
 rity, or as reprefenting God as an infincere and de- 
 ceitful being fince he offers to finners a falvation ne- 
 ver purchafed for them, and on conditions not to be 
 complied with. The anfwer q to this is, that falva- 
 tion is not offered at all by God, upon any condition 
 whatfoever, to any of the fons of men, elect or non- 
 elect.; and therefore God, according to this doctrine, 
 is not chargeable with infmccrity and Deceit. This 
 occafions a terrible outcry r of myftery of iniquity, an 
 abominable tenet, horrid fcheme, which has the image 
 of the devil and the mark of the beafi upon it, and 
 other fuch like language, which breathe out the fpi- 
 rit, the very life and foul of modern charity, and is 
 a true picture of it. This author owns, that here- 
 by we are confident, in preaching and writing, with 
 our felves and fcheme, and fo not chargeable with 
 felf-contradiction ; and fince it is of a piece with the 
 reft of our tenets, and is likely to fhare the fame fate 
 with them, we need not be in much pain about the 
 confequences of it. But this tenet, that there is no 
 offer of falvation to men in the miniftry of the gof- 
 pel, is faid to be inconfiftent with all the dictates of 
 reafon, our ideas of God, and the whole fyftem of 
 the gofpel : not furely with all the dictates of reafon ; 
 for how irrational is it, for minifters to ftand offer- 
 ing Chrift, and falvation by him to man, when, on 
 the one hand, they have neither power nor right to 
 give ; and, on the other hand, the perfons they of- 
 fer to, have neither power nor will to receive ? What 
 this author's ideas of God, are, I know not, but this 
 I fay, it is not confident with our ideas of God, 
 that he fliould fend minifters to offer falvation to 
 man, to whom he himfelf never intended to give it, 
 which the minifters have not power to bcftow, nor 
 ihe men to receive : but, it feems, denying offers 
 
 q Jitfwer, p. zg. 1 Part II. p. 61, 65. 
 
 of 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer. 2 1 
 
 of falvation, is inconfiftent with the whole fyftem of 
 the gofpel ; the bible is hereby knocked down at 
 pnce, and made to be the moft delufive, and cheat- 
 ing book in the world ; when the whole bible is 
 one (landing offer of mercy to a guilty world. What ! 
 the whole bible? The bible may be diftinguifhed 
 into thefe two parts, hiftorical and doctrinal the 
 hiftorical part of the bible is furely no offer of mercy 
 to a guilty world ; the account of the creation of the 
 heavens and the earth, in the firft verfe of it, can 
 hardly be thought to be fo. The doctrinal part of it 
 may be diftinguifhed into law and gofpel the law, 
 which is the killing letter, and the miniftration of con- 
 demnation and death to a guilty world, can be no {land- 
 ing offer of mercy to it : if any part of the bible is fo, 
 it muft be the gofpel •, but the gofpel is a declaration 
 of falvation already wrought out by Chrifl, and not 
 an offer of it on conditions to be performed by man. 
 The miniflers of the gofpel are fent to preach the 
 gofpel to every creature * ; that is, not to offer, but 
 to preach Chrifl and falvation by him to publifh 
 peace and pardon as things already obtained by him. 
 The miniflers are *n?f *s<, criers or heralds ; their bufi- 
 nefs is m<>v<;<jiw, to proclaim aloud, "to publifh facls, to 
 declare things that are done, and not to offer them to be 
 done on conditions ; as when a peace is concluded and 
 finilhed, the herald's bufinefs, and in which he is em- 
 ployed, is to proclaim the peace, and not to offer it; 
 of this nature is the gofpel, and the whole fyftem of 
 it ; which preaches, not offers peace by Chrifl, who 
 is Lord of all. As for the Texts of fcripture pro- 
 duced by this writer, feveral have nothing in them 
 refpedling pardon, life and falvation, and much lefs, 
 contain an offer of either ; as I have fhewn at large 
 in my firfi part of The caufe of God and truth ; whi- 
 ther I refer the reader fuch as Gen. iv. y. Deut. v. 
 
 I Mark xvi. 15. 
 
2 2 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 29. Prov. i. 23. Ezek. xxxiii. 18. Acls iii. 19. others 
 are gracious invitations to the means of grace, and 
 promifes of pardon and grace to poor fenfible Tin- 
 ners ; as If at. lv. 1,7. Rev. xxii. 17. Afts ii. 38. o- 
 thers, exhortations to duty with encouragements to it ; 
 as Pfal. J. 23. Mai. iii. 7. Mat. vi. 5, 6, 15. and vii. 
 21. 1 27;». iv. 8. 2 Cor. vii. 1. Z^-y. xxii. 14. 
 
 4. This doctrine is reprefented as a very uncom- 
 fortable one fmce it makes it a hundred to one to a 
 man that he is not elected, but muft be for ever 
 damned. To which anfwer has been madet, it is 
 not fuch a chance matter, or uncertain thing to a man, 
 as a hundred to one, whether he is elected or no, 
 to whom the gofpel is come, not in word only, but 
 alfo in power and in the Holy Ghojl ; who from hence 
 may truly know, and be comfortably affured of his 
 election of God. This man has now lower'd his num- 
 ber, and made it ten to one, whether a man is elected 
 or no, to whom the gofpel is preached ; but it is no 
 odds at all to a man, whether he is elected, or 
 no, to whom the gofpel is preached'; and to whom 
 that is made the power of God unto falvation, 
 or who is converted by it, which is the inftance gi- 
 ven ; to which this writer replies " Then the gof- 
 * 4 pel is glad tidings to no finner in the world, un- 
 " lefs he is actually converted. " Why, truly, it is 
 not glad tidings to fuch perfons, nor is it judged 
 fo by them. It is fo far from being good news to un- 
 converted finners, that it is difputed, defpifed, hated 
 and abhorred by them ; juft as it is by this Dia- 
 logice-ivriter. There is no doctrine of the gofpel 
 that is really, comfortable and truly delightful to a 
 man in a ftate of nature : the doctrine of regeneration 
 delivered by Chrift in thefe words w , except a man 
 he born again, he cannot fee the kingdom of God , 
 can never be comfortable to an unregenerate man : 
 
 ! Anfaer, p. 30. u Part II. p. 67. w John iii. 3. 
 
 nor 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer. 2 3 
 
 nor can even any doctrine in which fuch as call them- 
 felves chriftians, are agreed; as for inftance, the 
 doctrine of an uriiverfal judgment, when all men 
 muft appear before God, and be accountable to him 
 for the actions of their lives : this is a doctrine, to 
 ufe this author's words, that all the world have rea- 
 fon to be affrighted at, and which no foul can pof- 
 fibly take any comfort from, till he does actually 
 love God, and is irrefiftibly drawn to him ; but it 
 is not a whit the lefs true becaufe it is uncomfortable 
 to fuch perfons, any more than the doctrine of elec- 
 tion, which, however frightful it be to unconverted 
 finners, yields true peace and comfort to thofe who 
 are born again, and have the faith of God* s eleft ; tho' 
 they take no pleafure in the rejection of others, but 
 wifely leave it to the fovereignty of that God, who 
 does whatfoever he pleafes. Nor can the univerfal 
 fcheme afford fuch comfort to a converted man, as 
 that of fpecial grace does ; fince, according to the 
 former, he may be loft and perifti, when the latter 
 fecures certain falvation to him. 
 
 To clofe this head •, it feems, according to this 
 writer *, that as the nation of the Jews are called 
 God's eletJ, in like manner, the kingdom of Chrift, 
 converted ones, have the fame title applied to them, 
 not in their perfonal, but facial capacity, as chriftian 
 churches: fo the whole church at Theffalonica are 
 called God's elect, not v/ith refpect to fingle perfons, 
 but on the account of their being called by the gof- 
 pel. But, furely, the calling of the Theffalonians by 
 the gofpel, muft be perfonal, and not facial, or as 
 a chriftian church •, and therefore their election muft 
 be perfonal too, of which their calling was an effect, 
 fruit and evidence. And tho' the nation of the Jews 
 are called God's elect, or chofen, as fuch, and were 
 diftinguifhed by many favours, as a nation, from the 
 
 % Ibid. p. 60, 67. 
 
 reft 
 
24 Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 reft of the world ; yet there was a fpecial, personal 
 and particular election among them, a remnant, ac- 
 cording to the election of grace 7 : nor are all that 
 bare that name under the gofpel, or in the kingdom 
 of the Mcffiah, churches, but particular peribns : 
 the fen; Chrift faid, were chofen, when many were 
 externally called by the gofpel, were perfons, and not 
 nations or churches ; thefe are the eleil, for whofe 
 fake the days of tribulation will be fhortned, whom 
 falfe prophets cannot deceive, and whom the angels 
 will gather from the four winds : not churches, nor 
 all the members of churches, are the poor of this 
 world, whom God has chofen, and made rich in 
 faith, and heirs of a kingdom : the eletJ lady, and 
 her filler, and Rufus, chofen in the lord, and the 
 elect fir angers , were perfons chofen before the foun- 
 dation of the world in Chrift, to be holy and hap- 
 py 1 . I go on to confider, 
 
 III. The doctrine of Adam's fall, and original 
 fin. Under this head our author endeavours, 
 
 i . To prove the entire innocence of infants, from 
 fcripture 3 . The paflages he produces or refers to, 
 are Jer. ii. 30. and xix. 4. Mat. xviii. 3, 4. the two 
 firft of thefe feem rather to be underftood of the pro- 
 phets, as they are by feveral expofitors, than of in- 
 fants the former of them has no apparent reference 
 to children, and the latter of them difiinguimes inno- 
 cents from the fims, or the children that were burnt 
 with fire, for burnt offerings to Baal; and both feem 
 rather to regard the prophets, who tho' not free from 
 fin, yet were innocent as to any crime for which 
 they (offered, and their blood was fhed. And fup- 
 pofmg infants were intended, they are only called fo 
 
 y See Rem. ix. 6, 7, 8, 27, 29. and xi. 5, 7. 
 * Mat. xx. 16. and xxiv. 22, 24, 31. Jam. ii. 5. z John i. 
 15. Rom. xvi. 13. 1 Pet. L 1, 2. Eph. i. 4. 
 ' Part IL p. 75. 
 
 in 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-TV riter. 2 5 
 
 in a comparative fenfe, in comparifon of others who 
 have added to their original guilt and corruption, 
 many actual fins and tranfgreffions ; and as for the 
 words of our Lord in Mat. xviii. 3, 4. :he meaning 
 is not, that men muft be perfectly innocent, and en- 
 tirely free from fin, or there can be no expectation of 
 entring the kingdom of heaven ; for then no man could 
 hope to enter there, but that men muft be born .-.in, 
 and appear to be fo, and, in a comparative ienfe, 
 muft be holy, and harmlefs, free from pride, am- 
 bition, malice and envy. And even his learned 
 Cicero^ to whom he has recourle, helps him off 
 but very lamely ; for in the very citation he makes 
 from him, he fays, " We are no fooner born, but 
 we fall into a wretched depravity and corruption 
 of manners and opinions ; fo that we feem almoft to 
 fuck in error with our mother's milk." 
 
 2. This writer endeavours ^ to fet afide the proof 
 of the imputation of Adam's fin to his pofterity, 
 and the corruption of human nature by it, taken 
 from Pfal. li. 5. Rom. v. 19. Epb. ii. 3. by giving 
 different turns to, and faffe gloffes cn thefe paf- 
 fages : As to Pfal. li. 5. he infinuates, that David 
 might be bafe born, or unlawfully begotten, and fo 
 fhapen in iniquity ; and a Iks, is this a proof that 
 other men are fo, or that all men are fo ? This is a 
 glofs which is formed at the expence of the charac- 
 ters of David's parents, of whom there is not the leaft 
 fuggeftion of this nature in the word of God, but the 
 reverfe ; for they are reprefented as holy and reli- 
 gious perfons : this fenfe of them makes David ille- 
 gitimate, who, therefore, muft have been excluded 
 from the congregation of Ifracl ; whereas we have 
 no intimation of any fuch exclufion ; but, on the 
 contrary, that he frequently went into the houfe of 
 God with company ; bcfides, he is not fpeaking of 
 
 Ibid. pag. 74, Sec. 
 
 D 
 
 any 
 
26 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 any fin his parents were guilty of, when he was con- 
 ceived and fhapen, but of fin and iniquity, in which 
 he was conceived and fhapen ; nor would it have 
 been agreeable to his defign and view, to expofe the 
 fins of his parents, whilft he was lamenting his own. 
 Our fenfe of Rom. v. 19. that all mankind are made 
 finners by the imputation of Adam's difobedience, 
 is faid c to be contrary to reafon, to the context, to 
 known truths, to other more plain fcriptures, to be 
 injurious to God, and abufive to mankind. It is not 
 contrary to reafon •, imputation is not ufed by us in 
 a moral fenfe, as when a man's own perfonal action, 
 good or bad, is accounted to himfelf; but in a foren- 
 fick fenfe, as when the debts of one man are in a 
 legal way, transferr'd and placed to the account of 
 another ; which is neither contrary to reafon, nor the 
 practice of men : nor is it contrary to the context, 
 which, this writer fays, leads us, by finners to un- 
 derftand fufferers, mortal men liable to die, as ver. 
 12, &c. but this is to make the apoftle a moft mi- 
 ferable reafoner, and guilty of proving the fame 
 thing by the fame ; the fenfe of whofe words, death 
 pafjed upon all men, for that all have finned, mufl 
 be, according to this interpretation, all men die be- 
 caufe they die, or all men are fufferers becaufe they 
 are fufferers •, whereas the apoftle in thefe words, 
 and throughout the context mews, why death patted 
 on all men, why many were dead, why death reign- 
 ed as it did, why judgment came upon all men to 
 condemnation ; becaufe all finned in Adam, and by 
 his difobedience were made, reckon'd, and account- 
 ed finners : Nor is this fenfe contrary to known 
 truths, and other more plain fcriptures ; as to the lat- 
 ter, this author does not pretend to mention any to 
 which it is contrary ; and as for the former, tho' 
 nothing can act perfonally before it has an actual 
 
 c Ibid. pag. 76. 
 2 perfonal 
 
the Birmingham Uialogue-TVriter. 2 y 
 
 perfonal being ; yet as men, may have a reprefenta- 
 tive being, before they have an actual one, fo they 
 may act in their representative, as Levi paid tithes 
 in Abraham before he was born ; and tho' fin is a 
 perfonal act, and a tranfgrcffion of a law, yet it may 
 be transferr'd to another, by imputation, not in a- 
 moral way, but in a judicial one : nor is our fenfe 
 injurious to God, his being and perfections, or con- 
 trary to his methods of proceeding, who, in many 
 cafes, has vifited the iniquities of the fathers upon 
 the children : nor does it abufe mankind, but only re- 
 prefents how mankind are abufed by fin, to which is 
 owing all the miferies and calamities endured by man 
 in this, or the other world : On the whole, our fenfe 
 of the pafTage before us Hands firm, without giving 
 up any plain rule of interpretation of fcripture, and 
 which is further confirm'd by the other claufe in the 
 text ; for as men are made righteous in a forenfick 
 fenfe, or are juftified, and have a right to life, thro' 
 the righteoufnefs or obedience of Chrift, which this 
 author owns, fo they are made finners in a forenfick 
 fenfe, by the difobedience of Adam, that is, by im- 
 putation ; and this gives light to another pafTage of 
 the apoftle's d , in Adam all die, and fhews a reafon 
 for it, becaufe all finned in him, or were made fin- 
 ners by his difobedience. The text in Eph. ii. 3. 
 And were by nature children of wrath even as o- 
 thers, is not forgotten by us to be underftood of 
 God's elect ; who, confident with their being be- 
 loved in Chrift with an everlafting love, may, con- 
 fider'd as the guilty and polluted defcendants of Adam t 
 be called children of wrath, that is, deferving of it; 
 for fo they are by nature, guilty thro' the impu- 
 tation of fin unto them, being the natural pofterity 
 of Adam, and filthy thro' a corrupt depraved nature, 
 propagated and communicated to them by natutal 
 
 1 Cor. xv. 20. 
 D 2 
 
 gene- 
 
28 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 gereration, for whatfoever is born of the flef/o is flefh y 
 carnal and corrupt, and not by cuftom or habits of 
 fin, which become fecond nature. 
 
 3. We are called upon to prove that God made a 
 covenant with Adam and all his pofterity, which is 
 the ground of his imputing fin unto them. That 
 there was a covenant made with Adam^ I fuppofe, 
 will rot be dcied, fince a promife of life was made 
 tj him upon his obedience, and death was threatned 
 in cafe of difobedience, to which he agreed in his 
 ftate of innocence ; all which formally conftitutes a 
 covenant, and is fo called, Hcf. vi. 7. They like men* 
 or Adam^ have tranfcrejjed the covenant. That this 
 covenant was made with Adam and his pofterity, in 
 which he was their federal head and reprefentative, 
 appears from his being called e the figure of him that 
 was to come ; which is to be underftood either of all 
 mankind, who were to fpring from him, or of the 
 Lord Jefus (Thrift, who was to come in the fullnefs 
 of time ; if of the former, it proves that Adam was 
 a type or figure of all his pofterity, that he perfo- 
 nated them all, and that they were all reprefented in 
 him and by him, which is the very thing 'tis brought 
 to prove ; if of the latter, that is of Chrift, Adam 
 could only be a type or figure of him, as a publick 
 perfon and a covenant head, and the parallel between 
 them as fuch, is clearly run by the apoftle in the 
 context, and in another place' ; fhewing that as the 
 one conveys fin and death to all his pofterity, the 
 other conveys grace, righteoufnefs and life to all his. 
 Without allowing fuch a covenant made with Adam 
 and his pofterity, in which they were to (land or 
 fall with him ; and without confidering him as a co- 
 venant head, and reprefentative of them, in whom 
 they finned and fell, it cannot be accounted for, how 
 Adam's fin mould " bring death on many, or ren- 
 
 * Rom. v. 14; f 1 Cor. xv. 
 
 der 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-tVriter. 2 9 
 
 der them liable to be treated as finners, or make 
 them more liable to both fin and death, or that they 
 mould {hare in the fatal confluences of his Dif- 
 obedience ; " all which is acknowledged by this 
 Writer % . 
 
 IV. Free grace and free will come next into de- 
 bate. 
 
 1. This man's notion of free grace is, that it is 
 free and common to all men ; upon which fcheme 
 he is asked h , what grace is that in God to decree to 
 fave all men conditionally, to fend his fon to redeem 
 all mankind, and yet to whole nations, and that for 
 many hundred years together, does not fo much as 
 afford the means of grace, of the knowledge of fal- 
 vation, nor vouchfafes his Spirit to make application 
 of it to them, but leaves them in their fin, and eter- 
 nally damns them : to which he anfwers " when 
 we are upon the nature of the gofpel and the uni- 
 verfality of its offers, there is no need to evade the 
 argument, by transferring the fcene to the heathen 
 world. " I am at a lofs to know what argument is 
 evaded by putting the queftion for, if grace is free 
 and common to all men, if God's decree of falvati- 
 on is univerfal, and reaches to all the individuals of 
 mankind, and Chrift has died for them all, then, 
 furely, the heathen world has a concern in thefe 
 things ; and it muft feem ftrange, if all this is true, 
 that the knowledge of falvation, and the means of it, 
 fhould not be afforded them, and they left in their 
 fins to periffi without law. Where is the grace of 
 this fcheme ? What is now become of free, com- 
 mon, and univerfal grace ? And an idle thing it is, 
 fo talk of the univerfality of the offers of the gofpel, 
 when the gofpel is not preach'd to a tenth part of the 
 
 e Part II. p. 77, 78. h Jnfwer, p. 30, 40. 
 
 1 Part II, p. 81. 
 
 world, 
 
30 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 world, nor any thing like it when multitudes, mil- 
 lions, whole nations know nothing of it. What 
 this man means by faying that this is equally a diffi- 
 culty againft God's Government of the world, I know 
 not ; fince this argument does not concern God's go- 
 vernment of the world, but the adminifcration of 
 his grace to the fons of men. 
 
 2. That there is a free will in man, and that man 
 is a free agent is not deny'd by us ; the natural liber- 
 ty of the will, and the power of man to perform the 
 natural and civil actions of life, and the external 
 parts of religion, are owned by us. We affert, in- 
 deed, that there is no free will in man of himfelf 
 to do that which is fpiritually good, nor any power 
 in him to perform it. This is the account of free 
 will which we have k already given, tho' this author 
 iuggefts, that we have given no other than he has 
 done, and dare not define it 1 : he thinks that man 
 can not be free who is under a necejfitating decree to 
 fin •, and, that if man has no power to do any thing 
 fpiritually good, and yet obliged to do it, then he is 
 obliged to impoffibilities, and damned for not per- 
 forming them. To which may be replied, that 
 whatever concern the decree of God has in the fins 
 of men, it does not neceffitate or force them to do 
 them ; it does not at all infringe the freedom of their 
 will, or deftroy their free agency •, as appears in the 
 cafes of Jofeph's being fold into Egypt , and the cru- 
 cifixion of (Thrift j which were both according to the 
 decree and counfel of God, and yet Jofeph's bre- 
 thren, and the crucifiers of Chrift, afted as free a- 
 gents, and with the full liberty of their wills. The 
 things fpiritually good which man cannot do, have 
 been inftanced in 171 ; as to convert and regenerate 
 himfelf, to believe in Chrift, and to repent of fin in 
 an evangelical manner s and thefe are things which 
 
 k Jtt/wtr, p. 41 . 1 Part II. p. 84. m Anfwer, p. 41 . 
 
 he 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer. 3 1 
 
 he is not obliged to do of himfelf, and will not be 
 damned for not performing of them. There are in- 
 deed things which man is obliged to, which he now 
 cannot do, as to keep the whole law, which im po- 
 tency of his is owing to his fin and fall, by which 
 we mean the fin and fall of Adam, and of all mankind 
 in him ; and this author may make what ufe he 
 pleafes of it. 
 
 3. An 0 yes is cried, and all men are defired to 
 attend n ; to what ? to this •, " writers on your fide 
 have not the courage and honefty plainly to deny 
 that men are in a ftate of trial, tho' a confequence 
 of their principles ; yet now and then they craftily 
 infinuate this article of their dark and hideous 
 fcheme. " That the faints whilft in this life, are in 
 a ftate of trial, that is of their graces by afflictions, 
 temptations, &c. is readily owned ; but then all 
 mankind are not in fuch a ftate, only converted 
 perfons, who only have grace to be cried •, but if by 
 a ftate of trial is meant, as I fuppofe it is, that men 
 are upon probation of their good or ill behaviour 
 towards God, according to which their ftate will be 
 fixed as to happinefs or mifery, that being as yet unfix - 
 ed, fo that whilft this life laffc 'cis uncertain whether 
 they will be faved or loft : if this, I fay, is meant, 
 I have had courage and honefty, as this man calls it, 
 plainly to deny it years ago, and have publifhed 0 my 
 arguments and reafons againft it, which this writer, 
 if he pleafes, may try if he can anfwer. 
 
 4. This writer thinks p that the drawings of God 
 are necefiary to converfion ; but that thefe are only 
 by moral fuafion, and not by any powerful influence 
 of divine grace, and fo not irrefiftible. He owns ir- 
 refiftible evidence, illuminations and convictions ; 
 but fuch as may be refilled, and ftifled, and come to 
 
 n Part II. p. 35. 0 The Caufe of God and Truth, part I. 
 
 P- 30, 31, 32. P Dialogue, part II, p. 87. 
 
 nothing : 
 
3 2 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 nothing : How then are they irrefiftible ? To ufe his 
 own words, " Tr they may be refuted, then they are 
 not trrefiftifete V We own, indeed, that the grace 
 of God may be refilled, but not fo as to be ftifled, 
 and come to nothing, to be overcome, and entirely 
 fruftrated. The inftances given of God's grace being 
 fruftrated, and of refilling internal operations, are 
 not at all to the purpofe ; fince the paffages alledged, 
 Hof. vii. i. Luke xiii. 34. and xix. 42. Afts xxviii. 
 24 — 27. regard not fpecial grace, and internal ope- 
 rations, but external, temporal things, or the outward 
 miniftry of the word. It has been urged \ that if 
 no man can come to Chrift unlefs irrefiftible grace 
 draw him, then there can be no fault in not turning 
 to him. To which it has been anfwered s , that " to 
 live in Cm. is blame-worthy •, and though man, by 
 finning, has involved himfelf in a ftate out of which 
 he cannot extricate himfelf, yet is he not the lefs cul- 
 pable on that fcore, for living in it :" Which anfwer 
 (lands good, for any thing this man has replied to it 1 j 
 fince men are involved in this ftate not merely by 
 another's, but by their own fin, and their continu- 
 ance in it is of their own free-will. The argument 
 from the offer of help has been fet afide already, by 
 denying there is any. The inftance of a man's 
 drinking himfelf into a fever, and continuing in it, 
 notwithftanding commands of recovery, and offers of 
 remedy, is ftupidly impertinent ; fince not continuing 
 in a fever, the confequence of his drinking, but in 
 the fin it felf, of which fuch an habit may be acquired 
 he cannot break, can only have' any fhew of agree* 
 ment with the cafe before us. We readily allow, that 
 no internal operations are employed, as to thoufands 
 who hear the gofpel. But then, fays this writer u , 
 fuch cannot believe and obey, and therefore cannot 
 
 q Ibid. p. 89. ' Parti, p. 31. 5 Anpwer t 
 
 p. 42, 43. t Part II. p. 88. u Ibid. p. 89. 
 
 be 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-TV nter. 3 3 
 
 be juftly punilhed for not believing and obeying. 
 I reply, Thac fuch indeed cannot believe with the faith 
 which is of the operation of God, nor perform new 
 and fpiritual obedience, to which the Spirit of God is 
 neceffary, and for which he is promifed in the cove- 
 nant, and therefore will never be punifhed for nor be- 
 lieving and obeying, in this fenft : but then, without 
 internal operations, or fpecial grace, fuch as are fa- 
 voured with an external revelation, ar? capable of be- 
 lieving the outward report of the gofpel, and of yield- 
 ing obedience to it ; that is, of attenoing on the mi- 
 niftry of the word, and performing the externa' parts 
 of religion ; and in failure of thefe, may be juftly pu- 
 niflied for their unbelief and difobedience. I take no 
 notice of our fcheme being called by this mar. Ahii- 
 chriftian and Diabolical ; I am now pretty well ufed 
 to fuch language, and indeed expect no other from 
 men of modern charity. 
 
 V» The doctrine of ju ftifkation, by the imputed 
 righteoufnefs of Chrift, conies next under confidera- 
 tion. And, 
 
 1. Some paflages of fcripture, as Ifa. Ixiv. 6. 
 Phil. iii. 9. which reprefent the infufficjency of man's 
 righteoufnefs to juftify him before God, are brought 
 under examination. As to Ifa. Jxiv. 6. our author 
 feems to be at a lofs whether he fhcuM follow the in- 
 terpretation of Grotius, or Henry However, that 
 the prophet fpeaks of a hypocritical people, he thinks 
 is a clear point, for this wife reafon ; becaufe it is faid, 
 at the end of the verfe, We all do fade as a leaf 9 and 
 our iniquities like the wind have taken us away: 
 Whereas hypocrites are not fo free to own their de- 
 clenfions and tranfgreflions, and to confefs the impu- 
 rity of their hearts, and the imperfection of their obe- 
 dience j they generally make the leaft of their fins, 
 
 » Part II. p. 91. 
 
 F. and 
 
34 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 and the molt they can of their righteoufnefs : So that 
 thefe words are a reafon againft, and not for, his fenfe 
 of the pafTage. St. Paul, in Phil. iii. 8, 9. he fays, 
 only renounced his Ceremonial, not his moral righte- 
 oufnefs. But it is not the righteoufnefs of the cere- 
 monial, but of the moral law, which the apoftle con- 
 tinually oppofes to the righteoufnefs of faith; fee 
 Rom. iii. 20, 21, 22. and'w. 13. and ix. 30, 31. and 
 x. 5, 6. And when we fay that he renounced this 
 righteoufnefs, he knows very well our meaning is not 
 that he renounced doing it, or objected to the per- 
 formance of it; but that he difclaimed all dependance 
 upon it for juftification before God, and, in refpect 
 to that, defired only to be found in Chrift : Which 
 is not to reprefent the Apoftle falfely, and abfurdly, 
 but perfectly agreeable with himfelf, and his prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 2. This man has no other notion of imputation, 
 but of accounting that to a man which is done by 
 himfelf, and not what may be done, or contracted 
 by another, contrary to the apoftle's fentiments, Rom. 
 iv. 6, 11, 23, 24. Philem. ver. 18. He argues a- 
 gainft the imputation of Chrift's righteoufnefs in this 
 manner * ; If no one fingle act of the righteoufnefs of 
 Chrift is imputed to us, then the whole of it is not. 
 Very right ; for how indeed fliould the whole be im- 
 puted, if no one part of it is ? But what are the par- 
 ticular acts of Chrift's righteoufnefs ? his incarnation, 
 baptifm, poverty, failing, his victory over Satan, 
 preaching, miracles, his confeflion before Pilate, obe- 
 dience to death, giving a commiflion to his apoftles, 
 his interceffion, and governing and judging the world. 
 All falfe. Not thefe, but the feveral nets of his obe- 
 dience to the moral law are the righteoufnefs of Chrift, 
 by which men are made righteous, and by which they 
 can only be made fo, by the imputation of it to them > 
 
 * Part II. p. 95. 
 
 the 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer. 3 5 
 
 the ground of which imputation is Chrift's being their 
 head, furety, and reprefentative •, fo that the righte- 
 oufnefs of the law being fulfilled by him, in their room 
 and (lead, it is all one as if it was fulfilled by them, 
 and is laid indeed to be fulfilled in them : which does 
 not exempt them from fervice to God, or obedience 
 to his law, but lays them under greater obligation in 
 point of gratitude to an obfervance of it, though not 
 in order to juftification by it. 
 
 3. It is ftill infilled on, that there is no text of 
 fcripture to be found, proving the imputation of the 
 righteoufnefs of Chrift. As for Rom. iv. 3. he Hands 
 to it, that it mult be underftood of Abraham's faithful 
 obedience, or obeying faith, and not the object of it; 
 which, he fays y , was the promife of God that he 
 fhould have a fon, that was imputed to him for righ- 
 teoufnefs. Now whatever may be laid for the im- 
 putation 0$ Abraham's act of faith to himfelf for righ- 
 teoufnefs, nothing can be faid in favour of the im- 
 putation of the act of faith, that he mould have a fon, 
 to us, for righteoufnefs, ;/ we believe on him that 
 raifed up Jefus our Lord from the dead ; where the 
 apoftle clearly alferts that that it, which was imputed 
 to Abraham for righteoufnefs, is alfo imputed to all 
 them that believe. To which this man makes 
 no reply. Nor does he take any notice of Rom. iv. 6. 
 1 Cor. i. 30. 2 Cor. v. 21. which were produced as 
 proofs of the imputation of Chrift's righteoufnefs to 
 his people. He allows that we are made righteous 
 by the obedience of Chrift, in the fame fenfe we are 
 made finners by the difobedience of Adam ; and fince 
 he owns before z , that we are made righteous by the 
 obedience of Chrift, in a forenfick fenfe, it muft be 
 by the imputation of it to us. 
 
 4. This author having fuggcfted that the doctrine 
 of imputed righteoufnefs was a poifonous one, and 
 
 y Ibid. p. 98. 2 Ibid. p. 78. 
 
 E 2 tended 
 
36 An Anfwer to the Secdrnd Part of 
 
 tended to licentioufnefs, the contrary was proved from 
 Rom. iii. 3?. Tit. ii. II, 12. and iii. 7, 8. which he 
 has faffed in filence; and inftead of offering any 
 rhing in fupport of his former fuggeftion, he runs to 
 fhe iao&ririe of reprobation, of God's feeing no fin in 
 his elect* and o 4 " irrefiftible grace; to which he adds 
 a teftirrjbny of bifhop Burnet's, concerning fome per- 
 ions in king Edward the Vlth's time, who made an 
 ill ufe of the doctrine of predeftination. This is no 
 new thing with this writer ; nothing is more common 
 with him, than to jumble doctrines together; never 
 was fuch a lumbering, immethodicai piece of work, 
 publifhed to the world. It would be eafy to excul- 
 pate the above doctrines, as well as this of justifica- 
 tion, from the charge of licentioufnefs ; and I have 
 done it already % to which I refer the reader. I go 
 on to confider, 
 
 VI. The doctrine of the faints perfeverance. 
 Under which article, 
 
 1. Some paffages of fcripture, made ufe of in fa- 
 vour of this doctrine, are reprefented b as a fandy 
 foundation to build it upon. It feems that Job xvii. g f 
 is not a promife of God, but only the fentiment of 
 Job. Be it fo : Since it is a good one, and God has 
 teftified of him that he fpoke the thing that was right, 
 it fljould be abode by. Moreover, fince Job fpake 
 under divine infpiration, why mould not thefe words 
 be efleemed a promife of God by the mouth of Job ? 
 The good work, mentioned in Phil. i. 6. which the 
 apoftle was confidently perfuaded, not barely hoped, 
 would be performed until the day of drift, he inti- 
 mates, was either planting the church at Phit?ppi, or 
 an inclination to liberality ; he does not know wnich. 
 
 a In a Sermon, called, Tie do3mc of Grace chared from the 
 charge of Licentioufnefs ; and in another, entitled, Tfre Latv ejta- 
 f>li/hed by the Gofyel. 
 
 b Part II. p. 10 1, 102. 
 
 What 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer. 3 7 
 
 What fhould induce him to propofe the latter fenfe, 
 I cannot imagine •, fince there is not the leaft hint, in 
 the text or context, of the liberality of thefe perfons: 
 And as for the former, that can never be intended ; 
 fince planting of a church was a good work external 
 • and vifible among them, and not a good work begun 
 in them, in their hearts, and that in each of them 
 fingly and feparately, as this was ; for the apoftle lays, 
 even as it is meet for me to think this of you all. The 
 everlajling righteoufnefs, faid to be brought in by 
 Chrift, Dan. ix. 24. is fuggefted to be a covenant, 
 whofe terms of acceptance are unalterable. But the 
 covenant of grace never goes by this name ; and was 
 it fo called, it mull be with refpecl: to the everlafting 
 righteoufnefs of Chrift, which always continues a ju- 
 ftifying one 10 thofe interefted in it ; and therefore 
 they ihall never enter into condemnation, or finally 
 and totally perifh. Betides, the covenant confirmed 
 by Chrift, is fpoken of ver. 26. as diftincl from this 
 righteoufnefs. Once more: If the juftification and 
 glorification of converted Gentiles are infeparably 
 connected together, Rom. viii. 30. then thofe who 
 are truly converted, and are juftified by the righte- 
 oufnefs of Chrift, fhall certainly be Hived ; and which 
 is a doctrine to be defended, without eftablifhing the 
 principle of fatality, or ftoical enthufiafm. The pro- 
 phetic texts, in Ifa. liv. 10. and lix. 21. Jer. xxxii. 
 38, 39, 40. Hof ii. 19. in favour of the faints final 
 perfeverance, are left untouched, and are not meddled 
 with by this writer. 
 
 2. Such paffages of fcripture as feem to militate 
 againft the perfeverance of the flints, are brought 
 upon the carpet c ; particularly, we are charged with 
 giving an abfurd and contradi&ory turn to Ezek. xviii. 
 24 — 26. in fuppofmg that the prophet, by a righ- 
 teous man's turning from his righteoufnefs, means a 
 
 f Ibid. p. 102, 103. 
 
 hypo- 
 
3 8 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 hypocrite's turning from his hypocrify, from his 
 feigned righteoufnefs. But this is to give a perverfe 
 turn to our words and fenfe •, for we fay not, that the 
 prophet means an hypocrite turning from a counterfeit 
 and hypocritical righteoufnefs to a real one, but a 
 man's turning from an external moral righteoufnefs 
 to an open, ihameful courfe of finning : All mere 
 outward righteoufnefs is not hypocrify, as the cafe of 
 Paul before conversion fhews, Atts xxiii. i. Phil. 
 iii. 6. which a man may have, deftitute of the true 
 grace of God, and may turn from into open fin ; and 
 is no inftance of the apoftacy of a real faint, or a truly 
 juft man •, which this man is not faid to be, in the 
 pafTage referred to ; and is elfewhere defcribed d as 
 one that trufis to his awn righteoufnefs, and commit- 
 teth iniquity. The text in Heb. vi. 4, 5, 6. is only 
 tranfcribcrd at large, and the reader left to judge of 
 the meaning of it. The fpiritual meat and drink, 
 1 Cor. x. 3, 4, 5. the Ifraehtes partook of in the wil- 
 dernefs, were the typical manna, and the water out 
 of the rock ; which they might do, and not partake 
 of the fpiritual bleflings of grace fignified by them : 
 though, no doubt, many of them did ; for the tem- 
 poral calamities that befel them in the wildernefs, are 
 no proofs that they perifned eternally. SeePfal. xcix. 8. 
 To perfevere in grace and holinefs, is a bledlng of 
 grace beftowed upon truly converted perfons ; to 
 make ufe of means of enjoying this bleffing, is adury, 
 fuch as to be ftrong in the Lord, to watch in prayer, &c. 
 Eph. vi. 10, 19. and which the apoftle Paul himielf 
 made ufe of : Though, when he lays, e Left I my 
 felf fhould be a caft-away, the word ot/o/.///©-, which 
 he ufes, does not fignify a reprobate, or one rejected 
 of God, but one rejected and difapproved of by men ; 
 his concern was not left he mould fill from the di- 
 vine favour, or come fhort of happinefs, of both 
 
 Ezek. xxxiii. 13. 
 
 ' j Cor. ix. 27. 
 
 which 
 
the Birmingham I)lalogue-TV riter. 3 9 
 
 which he was fully pcrfwaded, Rom. viii. 38, 39. 
 2 Tim. i. 12. which perfuafion was not built upon his 
 own refolution and watchfulnefs, but upon the na- 
 ture of God's love, and the power of (Thrift ; but 
 left by any conduct of his, his miniftry fhould be 
 render'd ufelefs among men. The inftances of Da- 
 vid and Peter are no proofs of the final and total 
 apoftacy of faints, fince they were both recover'd 
 from their falls by divine grace. Judas, indeed, fell 
 from his election to an office, but not from election 
 to grace and glory, in which he never had any in- 
 tereft ; and alfo from his miniftry and apoftlefhip, 
 which is never denied to be an outward favour, tho' 
 no inward fpecial grace, and fo nothing to the pur- 
 pofe. The chapters referr'd to, 1 Cor.x. Heb. vi. and 
 x. Rev. ii. and iii. Ezek. xviii. 2 Pet. ii. I have 
 largely confider'd elfewhere f, and have fhewn that 
 they have nothing in them repugnant to the flints 
 final perfeverance ; where I have alfo confider'd 
 the feveral cautions and exhortations given to the 
 faints reflecting this matter ; and have fhewn the na- 
 ture and ufe of them, to which I refer the reader. 
 
 3. Under this head is again introduced s the doc- 
 trine of God's feeing no fin in his people. In order 
 to fet this doctrine in a proper light, we diftinguifh 
 between God's eye of omnifcience and of juftice ; 
 with the one he does, and with the other he does not 
 behold the fins of his people, being juftified by the 
 righteoufnefs of his fon : we alfo diftinguifh between 
 the correction or chaftifement of a father, and the 
 punifhment of a judge •, which diftinction we think 
 might be allowed, and thought fufficient to keep the 
 door fhut, and not to open it to all manner and de- 
 grees of immorality, falfhood and lewdnefs, as this 
 man fuggefts h •> tho? we don't diftinguifh, as he fool- 
 
 11 The Caufe of God and Truth, part I. 5 Part II. p. 106, 
 h Ibid. p. 107. 
 
 iftily 
 
4-0 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 iflily infinuates', between being chaftened and punijh'd 
 in hell fire : whoever talked of fatherly chaftifements 
 in hell ? The text in Numb, xxiii. 21. He bath not 
 beheld iniquity in Jacob, &c. he fays \ is fpoken of 
 the whole body of Ifrael, all the pofterity of Jacob, 
 who apoftatized, rebelled, fell and were cut off thro' 
 unbelief, and fo no ways ferves our caufe. I anfwer, 
 that that whole body of people were a typical peo- 
 ple, typical of all God's elect, or his fpiritual Ifrael, 
 and what is fpoken typically of them, is really true 
 of the other ; and as all that people were, on the 
 day of atonement, typically cleanfed from all their 
 fins and tranfgreffions, hence God, in refpect to that, 
 beheld no iniquity in them ; fo the whole fpiritual 
 Ifrael of God, or all God's elect, being cleanfed from 
 their fins, and having them all really expiated by the 
 blood and facrifice of Chrift, God fees no iniquity 
 in them to take vengeance on them for it. But if 
 this won't do, this man has more to fay, and that 
 is, that learned men fay, for he is no judge himfelf, 
 that the Hebrew original will juftify another reading, 
 namely, he doth not approve cf outrage againft the 
 pofterity of Jacob, nor vexation againft Ifrael. I re- 
 ply, that as our verfion agrees with the context and 
 defign of the writer, fo it entirely accords with the 
 original Hebrew ', and much more fo than this other 
 reading does ; and is confirmed by the Samaritan, 
 Syriac and Arabic verfions, and by fuch learned men 
 as Vatablus, Pagnine, Arias Mont anus, Junius, and 
 c TremelIius, Dn{/ius,Fagius,Ainfwort.b, &c and could 
 this new tranfiation, tho' it is wholly borrowed from 
 Gataker, be juftified, it would be fo far from mi- 
 litating againft, that it would rather eftablifh the 
 doctrine we contend for ; for, if God difapproves of 
 
 1 Ibid. pag. 106. k Pag. 107, 108. 
 
 1 itsrm^ hay n«i x!r\ apptwa iran xh 
 
 ? outrage 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-Writer. 4 1 
 
 outrage and vexation againfl: his people by others, 
 he himfelf will give them none •, or, in other words, 
 he fees no fin in them fo as to punifli them himfelf: 
 moreover, if this text was out of the queftion, the doc- 
 trine we plead for will ftand its ground, we are not 
 in fuch poverty and diftrefs ; for bcfides Jer. 1. 20. 
 which has been produced already, tho' this writer 
 takes no notice of it, we have many others which 
 contain the fame truth ; fee Pfal. xxxii. 1. and Ixxxv. 
 2. and J. 2. and li. 7. 1 John i. 7. Cant. iv. 7. Ezek. 
 xvi. 14. Ifa. xliii 25. and xliv. 22. Col. i. 21, 22. 
 and ii. 10. Rev. iii. 18. and xiv. 5. 
 
 VII, We are now come to the lift thing in the 
 debate, the ordinance of baptifm. What is faid 
 upon this point may be reduced to thefe two heads, 
 the fubjects and the mode. , 
 
 1. The fubjects. The probability of the Jews 
 baptizing the children of gentile profelytes ; of the 
 apoftles underftanding and executing their commif- 
 fion, in conformity to their Jewijh notions and cu- 
 ftoms', and of the early baptifm of infants in the 
 chriftian church, this writer thinks is ground fuffi- 
 cient for the practice m , that is, of infant baptifm. 
 But is it probable that there was fuch a practice a- 
 mong the Jews, before the coming of Chrift to bap- 
 tize their profelytes and their children ? fince there is 
 not the lead hint of it, nor any allufion to it in the 
 writings of the old teftametit, in which difpenlation ^. 
 this practice is faid to obtain ; nor in the apocryphal 
 writings of the Jews ; nor in the writings of the new 
 teftament ; nor in thofe of Philo and Jofephits, both 
 Jews, and well verfed in the cuftoms of their na- 
 tion ; nor even in the Mifna it felf, a collection of 
 their traditions ; the authors and compilers of that 
 have not the leafi: fyllable of this practice in it. This 
 
 :n Ibid. pag. 1 10. 
 F 
 
 man, 
 
42 An Anfwer to the Second Part of 
 
 man, therefore, has either miftook his authors, or 
 they have milled him : the truth of the matter is, 
 this rite is firft mentioned, not in the Mifna, but the 
 Gemara, a work later than the other, of fome hun- 
 dred years after Chrift : and was this cuftom proba- 
 ble, Is the probability of it a fufficient ground to efta- 
 blifh fuch a practice upon, as a new teftament ordi- 
 nance ? Is it probable that the apoftles underftood and 
 executed their commiffion, according to their Jewijh 
 notions and cuftoms, tho' it does not appear, nor is it 
 probable that they had any fuch as this ; and not rather 
 according to the plain mind and meaning of their 
 lord and mafter, who by his example and doctrine 
 had taught them both how, or in what manner, and 
 whom they mould baptize? What probability is there 
 of the early baptifm of infants in the chriftian church? 
 and, if there was, is that a fufficient foundation ? 
 Should there not be a plain proof for what claims 
 the name of an ordinance, a pofitive inftitution, a 
 part of religious worfhip ? Does it appear that any 
 one infant was baptized by John, by Chrift, or his 
 orders, or by his apoftles, or in the two firft centu- 
 ries ? There was a talk about infant baptifm in the 
 third century, but it will be difficult to prove a An- 
 gle fact, even in that •, and if it could be proved, 
 would this juftify a practice that has neither precept 
 nor precedent in the word of God ? But it feems it 
 was agreeable to the Jewijh cuftoms, to admit 
 profelytes and their children by circumcifion, and as 
 loon as capable, to inftruct them in religion " ; and 
 that the Jewijh children were entred into their church 
 by circumcifion, and fo baptifm is the only fign 
 of admifiion into the chriftian church : to which I an- 
 fwer, as to Jewijh cuftoms, we have feen already 
 what foundation there is for them, or probability of 
 them •, and as for the Jewijh church, 'twas national, 
 
 " Ibid. pag. 1 13. 
 
 and 
 
the Birmingham Dialogue-TV riter. 43 
 
 and the children of the Jews, as foon as born, before 
 they were circumcifed, belonged unto it, and there- 
 fore were not entrcd by circumcifion. The inftance 
 produced by this man, clearly proves it ; for the 
 little children reprefented in Deut. xxix. n, 12. as 
 entring into God's covenant, and belonging to the 
 congregation of Ifrael, were not as yet circumcifed, 
 fee Jojh. v. 5. and confequently could not be entred 
 this way. Nor is baptifm any admiflion, or a fign 
 of admiffion of pcrfons, infants, or adulr, into a 
 vifible church of Chrift ; perfons may be baptized, 
 and yet not admitted into a church : What vifible 
 church of Chrift was the eunuch admitted into, when 
 he was baptized, or his baptifm a fign of his admif- 
 fion into? 
 
 2. The mode of it. That there is any efficacy in 
 baptifm, to regenerate perfons, take away fin, or 
 make men more holy, is what is never aflerted by us; 
 nor do we think that a quantity of water is of any 
 confequence on that account : we affimi it to be de- 
 clarative and Jignificative of the death, burial, and 
 refurreclion of Chrift ; for which reafon we contend 
 for the mode of immerfion, as being lb, and only fo. 
 The waffling a part, the principal part of the body, 
 this author thinks 0 may ftand for the whole. The 
 inftance with which he fupports this, is in Exod. 
 xxiv. 8. His fenfe of that paffage is, that not the 
 people, but the pillars were fprinkled \ which, he 
 imagines, muft appear to every man in his fenfes: 
 though, according to his own account, it did not fo 
 appear to fome, who thought the twelve young men 
 were fprinkled, inftead of the people ; and though 
 rejected by the learned Rivet, and others ; yea, tho' 
 Mofes, and the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews, 
 fay not a word of fprinkling the pillars, but affirm 
 that the people were fprinkled. And if this man was 
 
 0 Ibid. p. no, in. 
 
 F 2 
 
 in 
 
44 An Anfwer to the Second Part, &c. 
 
 in his fenfes, he would have feen which of thefe fenfes 
 would have ferved his purpofe belt ; for if not the 
 people, but the pillars were fprinkled, in their (lead, 
 then not a part, a principal part, nor any part of 
 them, were fprinkled-, and fo no inftance of fprinkling 
 or warning a part of the body for the whole. He is 
 now brought to allow that fprinkling, or wafhing the 
 face, does not fignify the death, burial, and refur- 
 reclion of Chrift ; though dipping the face or head 
 in water, may do it. But why not go further, and 
 rather fay, dipping the whole body in water does it ? 
 fince we are mid to be buried with Chrift in baptifm, 
 Rom. vi. i. Col. ii. 12. which men of fenfe and 
 learning allow to refer to the ancient mode of bap- 
 tizing by immerfion. Baptifm is never called cir-r 
 cumcifwn ; nor are perfons in baptifm faid to be cru- 
 cified with Chrift, but to be baptized into his death, 
 and to be buried with him •, and which can be repre- 
 fented by no other mode than that of immerfion, or 
 covering the whole body in water. But, after all, 
 this way muft ftill be infinuated to be unfafe, and in- 
 decent ; and the old rant and calumny continued, 
 againft the cleared evidence, and fulleft convictions 
 to the contrary. 
 
 Thus have I confidered and replied to the material 
 things objected to the doctrines before in debate. 
 One might have expected, that, in this Second Part, 
 the author would have proceeded on fome new fub- 
 jects. This, to be fure, cannot be the Second Part 
 he formerly intended. Perhaps his long harangue on 
 the freedom of fpeech, and liberty of writing, is to 
 pave the way for what he has farther to communicate. 
 I am very defirous he Ihould fpeak out freely, and 
 write all he has to fay. What it is he has farther in 
 defign, does not yet appear : We muft wait patiently, 
 and in the mean time bid him adieu, until he obliges 
 us with his Third Part. 
 
 POST- 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 HfNE Mr. Henry Heywood has thought fit 
 to publifh a tranflation of Dr. Whitby's 
 treatife concerning original fin. I fhall 
 not pretend to enter into this man's rea- 
 fons for engaging in fuch a work. The 
 learned Doctor was of opinion, that what he has 
 wrote in that treatife, was almoft above the capacity 
 of the common people ; that men of learning were 
 the only proper judges of it, and therefore he pub 
 lifhed it in a language they only underftood. With 
 fuch words he begins his treatife, and which this 
 tranfiator has wifely fupprejfed : And it feems this 
 man himfelf, after he had taken the pains to tranf- 
 late this work, did not like it when he had done ; 
 but writes a large introduction to it, one conficlerable 
 part of which is taken up in confuting the Doctor 
 in a certain point. But every man mult do as he 
 pleafes. Nor fhould I have concerned my felf about 
 this matter, were it not for fome charges brought 
 againft me by this tranfiator : And they are very 
 considerable indeed no lefs than great ignorance, 
 impertinence, weaknefs, partiality, and unfairnefs, 
 with refpect to fome paffages of the ancients, in the 
 Fourth Part of my Caufe of God and Truth. To 
 the proof of which I fhall now attend. And, 
 
 i . I am charged ? with great ignorance in tranfla- 
 ting •, of which three inftances are given. The firfi 
 is, that I render antiqua ferpentis plaga, the old 
 plague of the ferpent. I take it, that the fuppofed 
 miftranflation is of the word plaga, which fignifies 
 a wound. But fince our Englijh word plague is ma- 
 nifestly derived from it and fince Irenaeus, in the 
 paffage referred to, is very plainly fpeaking of that 
 peftilential diforder, with which the old ferpent by 
 p Introdudiion, p. 32. 
 
 his 
 
46 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 his venomous breath has infected all human nature ; 
 I thought I might, without an impropriety, or do- 
 ing injury to Irenaeus's fenfe, fo tranQate it: And 
 this man himfelf has rendred q plaga ferpentis, the 
 difeafe of the ferpsnt. Pray, where is the great dif- 
 ference ? and efpecially, fince our Englifh word 
 plague is not always ufed of one particular difeafe, 
 but is applicable to more, or other difaiters: See 
 Lev. xiii. 40. Deut. xxviii. 61. 1 Kings viii. 37. 
 Mark v. 29. Rev. ix. 20. The fecond is a pafTage 
 out ofTeftullian, in which he fays, every foul is rec- 
 koned fo long in Adam, donee in Chrifto recenfeatur ; 
 which I tranfl ite, until it is re-reckoned, or renewed 
 in Chrijl % this man renders it, until it be enrolled 
 anew in Chrift : And fuppofing a third perfon mould 
 render it, until it be fegifief.d in Chrift one word 
 may be more apt than another, but I fee no igno- 
 rance in tranflating it either way. But, perhaps, this 
 is not what is defigned. It follows, So long unclean, 
 as long as recounted ; it mould have been, as long as 
 not recounted : A little candour would have fupplied 
 the negative, and have attributed this to an inadver- 
 tency in writing, or an efcape of the prefs, and not 
 to ignorance in tranflating. I might as well, and with 
 more appearance of truth, charge this man with 
 ignorance in tranflating, inobedientia, * obedience: 
 Though I mould, willingly, impute it to one or other 
 of the things mentioned. Could I condefcend to fuch 
 a low and ufelefs employment of time, as to compare 
 his tranflation with the original, I doubt not but I 
 mould meet with more miftakes of this nature, or 
 greater ones. Tertullian's meaning is, that a man is 
 reckoned fo long in Adam, until he is born again, 
 renewed by the fpirit of Chrift, gives up himfelf to 
 him, and makes a profeffion of him ; when he is 
 reckoned, both by himfelf and others, to belong unto 
 him. The third instance is, that in another quotation 
 of Tertullian I render damnatio, damnation which, 
 
 1 Treatife, Chap. viii. p. 268. * Ibid. p. 269. 
 
 whether 
 
P 0 STSTC R I PT. 47 
 
 whether it means only condemnation to a bodily death, 
 or the fentence of condemnation which paffed on Adam, 
 and all men in him, foul and body, fub judice lis eft ; 
 and may be a point of controversy, but no inftance 
 of ignorance in tranflating. 
 
 2. The next charge is great impertinence in ci- 
 ting fome paffages not to the purpofe. Two paffages 
 are produced by me, out of Clemens Romania ; in 
 both which that ancient writer fays, that men are 
 called, or fanEtified, by the will of God. One of them, 
 our tranflator fays, relates only to the controverfy about 
 juftification. But where are his eyes ? Could not he 
 read thefe words in it, And we alfo being called by his 
 •will in Chrift Jefusl the fame with the other, where 
 the church at Corinth is ftiled the called and fanclified 
 by the will of God. But this, it feems, is nothing 
 to the point ; fince none of the Remonftrants affirm 
 that any perfon can be fanctified, but by the will of 
 God. Yes; but not without the co-operation of man's 
 will, by which grace becomes effectual. They af- 
 firm, that the difference of calling-grace in men lies 
 not fo much in the will of God, as in the will of man; 
 and that it is no abfurdity to' fay, that a faint is di- 
 ftinguifhed from an unregenerate man by his own will: 
 Whereas Clemens, in thefe paffages, attributes voca- 
 tion and fanctification entirely to the will of God. 
 I have a citation from Barnabas, to prove the cor- 
 ruption and weaknefs of the heart of man, before 
 the grace of God is implanted in it; which is this: 
 Before we believed in God, the habitation cf cur heart 
 was corrupt and weak — for it was an houfe full of 
 idolatry, and idolatry was the houfe of devils. One 
 would have thought this was full to the purpofe: this 
 man fays no ; lince, adds he, it plainly fpeaks of 
 idolaters, and what they were, not by nature or birth, 
 but by practice and cuftom : Whereas Barnabas is 
 fp°aking not of external practices of idolatry, in wor- 
 fljipping images cf filver and gold, but of internal 
 
 ' Introuuft. p 33. 
 
4 8 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 lufts, thofe idols and devils unregenerate mens hearts 
 are full of* - , <^'* T ° not--® o<ra. nv iya.vrtct tu> Siu^ Where- 
 fore they do thofe things which are contrary to God. 
 What I quote from Ignatius- he fays, are of the fame 
 kind, and to the fame purpofe with the firft quotation 
 from Clemens : Whereas, befides what agrees with 
 him, I cite pafiages expreffing that carnal men cannot 
 do things that are fpiritual ; and that a man is made 
 a cliriftian, not by the dint of moral fuqjion, but by 
 the greatnefs of divine power. But what this man 
 thinks is of all the molt impertinent is a pafTage of 
 Jufiin Martyr ; cited by me, with others, to mew that 
 man, by the natural fharpnefs of his wit, cannot attain 
 to the knowledge of divine things. His words are 
 thefe ; Neither by nature^ nor by human under/landing, 
 is it pcjfible for men to acquire the knowledge of things 
 fo great and divine : In which words, the thing to be 
 proved is afferted in exprefs terms. But, fays Mr. 
 Tranflator, this pafTage proves, that, in Jujlin's opi- 
 nion, the doctrines of the fcripture could not have been 
 difcovered by the light of nature only, without the 
 infpiration of the holy. penmen ; fince it follows, but 
 by a free gift defcending from heaven upon holy men, 
 who had no need of the contentious and vain-glorious 
 way of fpeaking y but to exhibit themfehes pure to the 
 energy of the divine Spirit. This is very true : But 
 I think Jufiin means more than this ; namely, That 
 man, without the Spirit and grace of God, cannot 
 truly underftand the doctrines of the fcriptures, tho" 
 they are externally revealed. This, I am fure, is his 
 fenle in other paflages I afterwards s produce, and in 
 others cited by me elfewhere 1 and which alfo is the 
 fenfe of the citations from LaElantius. Though the 
 Rcmcnfirants and Dr. Whitby allow of the neceflity of 
 the aids of the Spirit and grace of God to conversion 
 ana good works, they mean no more than what Pela- 
 gius calls the grace of nature, or moral fuafion, or 
 objective evidence, in reprefenting truth to the under- 
 
 *Tbc Caufe of Gcd and Truth, PartlV. p.22C. f lb. p. 3 1 1,312. 
 
 {landing 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 49 
 
 Handing, and bringing it to remembrance. Befidcs 
 this, they allow u of no fupernatural grace infufed, 
 or fupernatural aid requifite to converfion and good 
 works : whereas both the Greek and Latin Fathers, 
 as Vojfius obferves w , afiert the neceflity of fuperna- 
 tural grace to thefe things, for which I have cited 
 them ; and which grace is fpecial, and infruftrable. 
 
 3. Another thing I (land charged x with, is great 
 weaknefs, in fuppofing that every paflage of the an- 
 cients, which proves that men by the fall became 
 mortal, loft the image of God, are expofed to greater 
 temptations to fin, and more prone to it, make for 
 the Cahinijiical opinion of original fin. I anfwer: 
 All this agrees with the Cahinijiical opinion of it; 
 and furely it can be no piece of weaknefs, when giv- 
 ing an account of the fenfe of the ancients concerning 
 original fin, to give the whole account of it; of that 
 part in which they and we agree with the Rernon- 
 Jirants, as well as of that in which we differ. Do 
 the paffages cited by me, under this article, only 
 prove that men by the fall are liable to a temporal 
 death ? Have I not produced palftges y , Chewing 
 that by the fall men are under a fpiritual darknefs and 
 death; or that they are dead in fin, through the fnare 
 of the ferpentj and cannot do that which is good ? 
 Did the image of God in man confift only in the im- 
 mortality of his body ? Did it not chiefly lie in the 
 rational faculties of his foul, in his knowledge, and 
 holinefs ? And was not this the fenfe of the ancients, 
 when they fpeak of the lofs of this image ? Do they 
 not fay % that through the difobedience of Adam the 
 whole image of man was deftroyed, and that he loft 
 true reafon ; fo that that which is good has no place 
 in him ? Do not the citations 3 made by me fliew, 
 not only that men arc expofed to fin, and are prone 
 to it; but that they are born fmners, born under ori- 
 
 u Whitby on the FivePoints, p. 217, 226, 231. w Hill. Pclag. 
 p. 267, 268, 272. x Intrcduft. p. 35. 1 Ihe Cattfe of God and 
 Truth, Part IV. p. 2J4, 267, 269, 271, 284, 290. lb. p. 224, 
 253, 268, 274, 277.' a lb. p. 219, 235, 253, 254, 263, 264, 
 268, 283, 284. 
 
 G ginal 
 
5 o POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 ginal fin, born with impurity; yea, infefted with fin 
 before they were born ? Nay, that they fell, and were 
 condemned through the difobedience of Adam ; info- 
 much, that, without (Thrift, they cannot be faved ? 
 and that men are held by the devil in hell for the fin 
 of Adam b ; the fault of which is transferred to them. 
 
 4. A further charge againft me is great partiality, 
 in reciting all the paffages of Voffim which relate to 
 original fin, without taking notice of Dr. IVbitby's re- 
 plies to them. But have I recited all the paffages of 
 VoJJius relating to this point ? Have I recited thofe of 
 Pfeudo Ignatius, Pfcudo Bionyfius, Pfcudo Jufiin, Me- 
 thodius, Macarius of Jerufalem, Reticius and Olym- 
 pus, produced by Vcjfvus? I have not recited one of 
 them. Of the writings I have made ufc of with VoJfius y 
 have I Ci teu a 11 the teftimonies he has ? Or has he cited 
 all that I have? Have I recited all the paffages in Ire- 
 naeu~, Cyprian, Hilary of Pointers, Bafd, Nazianzen, 
 Hilary the deacon, Ambrufe, Chryjoftome, and Jerom ? 
 I have not. Has VoJJius all the paffages I have quoted 
 from J aft in, Irenaeus, Origen, Arnobius, Macarius the 
 Egyptian, Aihanajius, Cyril of Jerufalem, Nazianzen , 
 Hilary of Poitliers, Hilary the deacon, and Ambrose? 
 He has not. Are not fome ancient writers produced by 
 me, as Gregory of Neocefaria, Gregory of NyfJ a, and 
 Mark the Eremite, who are not mentioned by Vof- 
 Jius at all ? On the other hand, has Dr. Whitby re- 
 plied to ail the citations of Voffius ? Has he faid one 
 word by way of reply to the teftimonies of Arnobius \ 
 Reticius, Olympius, Hilary of Poiffiers, Ambrofe 
 and Jerom? Not one fyllable. And of the writers 
 he has thought fit to take notice, has he replied to 
 all the teftimonies taken from them ? He has not. 
 He has alio pafTed over in filence the many paffages 
 of the ancients VcJJiv.s - refers to, fhewing what ufe 
 they made of Gen. vi. 5. and viii. 21. and xvii. 14. 
 Job x'w. 4. Pfal. li. 5. John iii. 5, 6. Rem. v. 12, 
 14, 18, 19. and vii. 20, 23. 1 Cor. xv. 21. Eph. ii. 3. 
 
 b The Caift of God, &C. p. 233, 253, 259, 273, 282, 283, 284. 
 c Introduft. p. 36. 6 Hift.Pe/ag. 1. 2. Pars i. Thef. 3. p. 1 35, &c. 
 
 in 
 
POSTSCRIPT. 51 
 
 in favour of original fin. Upon the whole, it is eafy 
 to fee what truth there is in the obfervation this man 
 makes ; that my book, fo far as this point of original fin 
 is concerned, was anfvvered before I publifhed it. Should 
 it be afked, why I take no notice of the replies that are 
 made by Dr. Whitby, to a few of the citations ; my an- 
 swer is, becaufe they are weak, trifling, andevafive ; and 
 the tcftimonies continue firm, notwithstanding the op- 
 pofition made unto them ; which generally proceeds by 
 fetting other paflages againft them •, and which arc 
 fometimes taken not out of their own writings, but fuch 
 as go by their names; thus, for inftance, the teftimony 
 of Optatus c is oppofed by another taken out of the 7th, 
 book againft the Donatifts, which is none of his, on- 
 ly afcribed to him : moreover, it fhould be obferved, 
 that it is not to be wondred ar, that thefe antient 
 writers mould fometimes fay things which feem to 
 militate againft this doctrine, fince they wrote with- 
 out guard, no controverfy having been moved about 
 it : but if this was a device of Aujiin% as it is faid 
 to be, 'tis ftrange that fo many of thefe writers 
 Ihould hit upon it, and fo ftrongly exprefs it. One 
 teftimony in favour of it, before the controverfy was 
 moved, is of more weight than ten againft it. 
 
 5. Laftly, I am charged fwith great unfeimefs, in 
 fupprefiing thofe paffages of the ancients which make 
 plainly and evidently for man's free will. I am not 
 confcious to my felf of this matter : I have cited or 
 referr'd to thofe very paffages from Jujlin, Athena- 
 gorasy Tatian and Irenaeus, quoted by this Tranfla- 
 tor and even all that Dr. Whitby has produced, 
 and a great many more tt ; and have either given my 
 fenfe of them, or have freely owned that they are 
 not eafily reconcileable to other exprefTions of theirs 5 
 nor did I, nor would I undertake to reconcile them 
 one to another : my view, in my fourth volume, was 
 not that truth mould ftand upon the teftimony of men, 
 
 c Treatife, c. vi. p. 179. f Introduft. p. 36. e The Cau/e of 
 Grid, &c. Part IV. p. 221, 222, 226, 227, 230, 243,258,259, 
 262, 266, 267, 270, 272, 276, 2?p, 281, 288, 294, 303, 304. 
 
 which 
 
52 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 which, if thefe writers had been entirely againft, would 
 have been no;: a whit the lefs truth •, but to fhew that 
 the Arminians have no great reafon to boaft of anti- 
 quity on their fide; and by this feeble oppofnion made 
 againft me, it appears that that point is gained. 
 
 Thefe charges are clofed with the moft wilful Jlu* 
 died lye that could be devifed. The fin of lying 
 feems to be a reigning, governing iniquity in this 
 man : he has belied me before in the cafe of Vq/fius's 
 citations-, yea, he has belied his own dear doclor : for 
 he faysh, that the doctor, in his difcourfe on the five 
 foints, is content to touch lightly on the fubject of 
 original fin, and refer his reader for further fatisfac- 
 tion to the prefent treatife ; whereas, the prefent trea- 
 tife was not then publifhed ; nor does the doctor 
 ever refer to it as in manufcript, throughout the 
 whole of that performance ■■> only in his preface he tells 
 his reader, that he had compofed fuch a treatife twen- 
 ty years before, but had not thought it advifeable to 
 publifii it. The lying pafTage I now refer to, is in 
 thefe words 1 , " Thefe I could have been contented to 
 have pafs'd over in filence, had I not* fays he, been 
 ienfible, that of late he is fo elated with his own per- 
 formances, particularly his libel againft Mr. Chan- 
 dler, as to go from houfe to houfe to trumpet forth 
 his own praifes. " Here I muft call upon my friends 
 and all that know me, to bear witnefs for me, and 
 againft this man •, yea, I challenge even the greateft ad- 
 verfaries I have, to point out any inftance of this na- 
 ture, tho' in the moft diftant manner. If any who are 
 ftrangers to me, mould, from an imperfect mangled 
 citation he has made, out of a late tract of mine, in 
 order to give countenance to his lye, conceive that I 
 have behaved with pride and vanity, and not with 
 that modefty and humility which become a minifter of 
 the gofpel ; it mould be known, that what I have there 
 written was in felf-vindication, when my character was 
 rudely attack'd, and is what was forced from me, thro' 
 the haughty infolence of an over-bearing creature. 
 
 h Introdu<ft. p. 4. ' Ibid. p. 41. 
 
 FINIS.