In thee fhall all Nations be bleft-Where it's plain, that in Chrift they were to be • bleft-Whence he proceeds to enlighten the Myfteries of this Promife, and adds, It ⚫ was confirm'd to Abraham before the Law; therefore 'fince on this Promife depended our Salvation, tho' the Law of Mofes enter'd 430 years after, and great Punishments were inflicted on those who broke it, yet none could be Heirs to this 'Promife, unless they broke this Law. So that the Law entred to make Man fit to receive this Promife, by bringing Man under Sin, ⚫ and condemning him to Death for it, that he might be bleft in this Promife, juf tify'd in Chrift's Blood, and fo glorify'd For those that can keep the Law have no occafion of Chrift's Blood, there's no Punishment in the Flesh for 'em, they fhall live here for ever. So that the Children of the Flesh being cut off by the Law, by Death for Sin, are not the Chil⚫dren of God, but the Children of the Promife, being glorify'd Perfons, or ordain'd fo to be. The Law of Mofes is the Law of Sin and Death; the Gofpel the Law of the Spirit: fo that if we had never fin'd, we had ne ver been glorify'd.' Whence St. Paul fays, Rom. 6. 9. God be thank'd that ye were the Ser vants of Sin; not that he lov'd Sin, but because thereby were we glorifyd. Whence he pretends to interpret feveral Places of And this is the Subftance of his Affertion in his fixth Queftion. In answer, That Ifaac was the Type of the Meffiah, none deny; or that Jefus was he, except the fews: But that Jacob typifies the Soul, and Efau the Body, he only affirms, without giving any Reafon for't. That the Jews were ignorant of the Promife he there mentions, has not the leaft face of probability with it, fince Mofes and the Prophets were read in their Synagogues every Sabbathday; and they took notice enough of those Promises, which feem'd to foretel any Advantage or Grandeur to their Nation, especially what related to Abraham, of whom they fo much boafted that he was their Father. We fay, 'tis not to be fuppos'd they could be ignorant of the Promife, tho' they might of the fulfilling it, which are things vaftly different. This Promife, he fays, was neceffary for their entring into Reft, or being fatisfy'd of their Salvation: But neither was the Promife abfolutely neceffary, for the thing might, and would have been, tho this Promife had never been made to Abraham; that is, Chrift would have come in the Flefh, having been promis'd to Adam and Eve almoft 2000 Years before he was to Abraham. Nor is entring into Reft, Reft, and Satisfaction of Salvation the fame thing, the first being long after the latter, nay may be without it; this Reft fignifying either the Sabbatifm in this World (whereof we have difcours'd formerly, and fhortly may again) or elfe the eternal Sabbath. But again-How is this Promife neceffary for our entring into Reft, when we could not but have entred in, whether there had been any fuch Promife or no? nay, whether we have Faith, Affurance, or any thing elfe; tho' we have been Atheists, Infidels, or guilty of the vileft Immoralities: nay, tho' we have ferv'd the Devil all our Lives, according to our Querift's Hypothesis. He goes None could be Heirs of this Promife, unless they broke the Law of Moses. This we deny, for Infants are Heirs of it, and yet to be fure they never finn'd against Mofes's Law, as he acknowledges in his former Objection from Original Sin. on Nor did the Law enter to bring Man under Sin, in that fenfe wherein he afferts it (tho' it did indeed to make Sin more clearly known) for Man was certainly under Sin before the Law, elfe he had not died. Again, fays he, Thofe that can keep Mofes's Law, have no occafion of Chrift's Blood; fuppofing any could keep Mofes's Law perfectly, they'd yet have need of Chrift's Blood for Original Sin, for there's no other way of being cleans'd from it. He adds, there would be no A Punishment for them in the Flesh, but they'd live here for ever. I. There might be Punishment for them in the Flesh, or temporal Punishment, tho' 'twere poffible they fhould live here for ever. gain, they muft die for Original Sin, as we fee Infants do, tho' they had not finn'd againft Mofes's Law, as before; and therefore it's not true, that they fhould live here for ever. He again afferts, If we never had finn'd, we could never have been glorify'd, which we have before confuted. As for St. Paul's faying, God be thank'd, ye were the Servants of Sin, he no more fays fo than David, That there is no God.' 'Tis indeed only a piece of a Sentence, be cutting off what follows, and for which the Apofile praises God. • But ye have obey'd from the Heart, and ye are the Servants of Righteoufnéfs; as if he had faid, Tho' you have been one, Thanks be to God ye are now the other. He fays, the Children of Flesh and Promife, tho' mention'd as diftint in Scripture, are yet really the fame Perfons; but he only fays it without proving it, nor is't worth the while to confute fo abfurd an Opinon. We shall here go on with feveral Queftions fent us by the Gentlemen mention'd in our laft Mercury. Quest. Whether Justification and Forgiveness of Sin be all one? Anf. We muft own it's our Judgment, that the Schoolmen of old, and others after 'em, 6 have made too much noife in the Book, is thereby principally intended; where the prefent Cafe is fufficiently clear'd. See. p. 12. (the first of that Sermon) They which in Act or Deed do fin after Baptifm, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewife wath d by this Sacrifice from their Sins (the Sacrifice of our Saviour before mention'd) • in fuch fort, that there remaineth not any Spot of Sin that fhall be imputed to their • Damnation. This (N.. E.) this is that Juftification or Righteoufnefs which St. Paul fpeaketh of, c.' Whence it's plain, that Forgiveness of Sins is at leaft included in Juftification, nay is the main part, if not the whole thereof; and indeed may without Violence be reckon'd a convertible Term with it; fince other excellent. Advantages we attain thereby, feem rather Fruits or Effects thereof, than included in its very Effence, But our Sins being pardon'd, our being efteem'd righteous by God, our Juftification thro' our Saviour's Merits, we think are but the fame thing in different Expreflions. about these words Juftification, Queft. Whether Arminianifm or Antinomianifm may le the more dangerous and pernicious? Anfw. If the Arminians do really hold, that we may be fav'd by our own natural Power or Will, without God's Grace thro' Chrift, preventing us and working with us, we think they are as far from Truth as from the good old Doctrine of the Church of England, which expreffes worft, without enquiring any farther, whether juftly or unjuftly charg'd, only what the height of their reputed Opinions would probably produce, if reduc'd into Practice. The former, as is faid, would take Men off from depending on the Divine Affiftance, and fet 'em, like the old Heathens, on Actions morally good by their own Strength and Power; and thus far they might at It expreffes its Judgment, Art. 10. exactly contrary to any fuch Opinion. But the fobereft of them, nay all that we e'er met with, abfolutely deny any fuch thing, and proteft they depend upon God's Grace in all their good Actions, tho' Man's Will must be taken in as a fubordinate Agent, and we are to work out our own Salvation, without which we fhall never obtain it. However if any of them, undertain, tho' hardly to any Chrif this fair Covert, do really tian Perfection. The latter hide any poisonous Pelagian leaving Men at liberty to do Doctrines, confounding Na- Good or Evil, would foon ture and Grace, their Opi- make them ufe that Liberty nions ought to be detefted, as for a Cloke of Licentiousness, taking off Man from his de- as we find by the Event it nopendance on the Almighty, toriously did when formerly and rendering him equally vain more commonly believ'd. and miferable. But this muft vacates the main end of Chrifbe first clearly prov'd upon tianity, which was to make 'em, before 'tis imputed or be- Men better, not leave 'em to liev'd; nor do we think it fair be worfe than before, nay to to ftretch Confequences, as if be worfe than Heathens. upon the Rack, to make 'em not only borders on Blafpheconfefs what was never inten- my, but we can't fee how it ded: Nay, nor fo much as to can get clear of being really take advantage of every warm fo In that intolerable NoExpreffion that flips from a tion, that Chrift is actually Man in Heat of Difputation, and really, not imputatively, but appeal to his fober felf, ef guilty of the Sins of all Bepecially if for the main we lievers, as they'll call themhave reason to believe him felves; tho' a Turk at this rate truly religious. For the Anti- may be reckon'd in that numnomians, it's notorious that they ber, at least the Greatest Dehold good Works not neceffary bauchees in Nature, who too to Salvation, only a Compli- commonly, if they think fit ment we pay to Heaven out of to be call'd Chriftians, run inCivility and Generofity, which to that way, and hope Chrift the World is not now much in- will fave them, let them be clin'd to. Now to give a fair as wicked as they please. On Judgment between thefe two the whole, we think AntinoAntagonists, we must compare mianifm, if believ'd and practheir Confequences together, tis'd, would, by direct Confeand take them both at the quence, deftroy both Chriflia : It nity and Morality. Arminia nifm might fap the Foundations of Chriftianity, at least extremely endanger them, but would ftill leave us indifferent good Heathens; for not only Morality but Natural Religion would be ftill left us: For which Reasons we think it of Bad, not the Beft, for there's no degree of Goodnefs in either, but the lefs harmful and dangerous. Tho' we heartily pray God to preferve the Church from them both, fince both would prove extremely pernicious unto it. Queft. From which of the three Sons of Noah did the Europeans proceed? Anfw. There's little queftion to be made but that they came from Japhet, tho' neither perhaps from his firft Planta tion, but fome after Colonies: nor are we to think the Divifion of the Earth into four Parts, of which Europe's one, was near so antient as this firft Divifion thereof after the Flood, among the Sons of Noah; nor are we to find all the Sons of Japhet among the Europeans, many of them being first feated in Afia. Now to difcover the Colonies, we muft ftrft find the Original Seats, and there we are like to find the Sons where we find the Father. Japhet himself, or lúzios, is a common Name in the Greek Stories, as one of the firft of Men. We also find Javan his Son, both in the lones, which are call'd Jaones by Homer, and exprefly Jaunas, or Javanas, by Suidas being the most antient of all Greeks, and in Janus the Founder of the Italians; part of whom retain'd both the Name and Language of Greece. Let us proceed to Javan's Sons, who, as well as all the reft of his Fathers and Grandfather Japhet's Stock, were to dwell in the Tents of Shem, or near his Portion. And they are four, as we find them in the 10th of Genefis (the antienteft piece of Geography in the World) their Names are Eliha, Tarhish, Cittim and Dodanim, which it's but reasonable to think were feated near their Father, Elifba the Eldeft is affign'd to Achaia and part of Peloponnefus whence fome. times all the Greeks are call'd Ellenes: and many Marks or Footsteps of his Name, notwithstanding fo vaft a Tract of Time, ftill remain legible in that Country more than others, as a great part of that Land call'd Ellas, the River Eliffus, or Iliffus, the Elyfian Fields, the Eleufinia Sacra, and Goddefs Elenfis, the City Elifus in Arcadia, and Elis in Peloponnefus, and Æolis a Colony of Achaia. Tarshish the fecond Son was feated in Cilicia, where was the famous City of Tarfus, a Colony of the Romans, the Birth-Place of St. Paul, and the Tarshish whither Jonas fled from the Prefence of the Lord; Tarshish being often nam'd in the Prophets, together with Tyre, to which this Tarfus is a near Neighbour, and the whole Sea being alfoTM call'd Tarshish in the Sacred Writings, because the Sons of Tarshish were Lords of it. The Cilician |