in contradictâ—on to the express Text expoundeth it neither is his reason more weightie than his exposition is sound which is that the whole Creation received a decay by Adams fall and yet Herbs and Trees are not to be called sinners seeing the Apostle is not here speaking of herbs and trees but of Men Women who are capable of receiving the wages of sin as being the workers thereof and certainly one may with the like reason say that Hâ—rbs and Trees are capable of eternal life as that they may be capable of the wages of Sin. His other shift which he hath Ibid by which also he destroyes the former viz. that by death is not to be understood Bodily Death because Eternal Life is put as the Opposite of the death here spoken of and obtained by Christ Iesus and yet natural death is not avoided is not much better then the former seeing that after the resurrection the Bodies of the Godlie shall live as well as their souls and the re-union of both doth belong to Eternal Life and so natural Life is comprehended in Eternal Life as well as Spiritual Life and tho believers die a Bodily Death yet it is not a punishment to them on this account that the Sting and Bitterness thereof is removed by Christ who did bear the same otherwise death is in it self a punishment being the separation of Soul and Body the most strictly united friends and companions in the World. 3ly Our Doctrine of Original Sin is clearlie evinced from Rom. 5.12 As by one Man Sin entered into the World and Death by Sin c. together with the following verses whence diverse strong arguments may easily be collected for 1. The Apostle that he may prove justification not to be by works but by Faith or the imputed righteeousness of Christ maketh a comparison betwixt the two common Heads or Representatives Adam and Christ in this that both of them represented the parties related to them the same way so that Adam was a Type of Christ in his standing in the room of one partie as Christ did in the Room of another by bearing of their Iniquities Isa 53.11 By being made sin for them 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. by Imputation thereof unto him for no otherwise this text can be understood without Blasphemie that they may be made the Righteousness of God in Him i. e. by imputation of it to them as their Sin was imputed to him Therefore Adam the Type stood in the name and Room of Mankind so as his doings or failings were imputed to them Robert Barclay Vindication Sect. 5. numb 7. Alledgeth that this comparison spoileth all our doctrine because if the Righteousness of Christ is not to be imputed to men for Iustification untill they actually joyn with it apprehended by Faith so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam imputed to Men for Condemnation untill they actually joyn with it But I wonder not to see a man intending by right or wrong to Stick to his preconceived opinions make use of Fig-leaf defences when he can find no other For may not Children before they come to the use of Reason be justified and Saved by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and by consequence others before the use of reason stand guilty of Adams sin imputed to them which is the Conclusion he fain would evite Moreover he may as well say that Adams Sin doth not at all hurt any of his posterity untill they having the use of reason actually joyn with it which yet he no where sayeth but granteth the contrary in several places of this Section 3ly Omne simile claudicat this parallel ought not necessarily to be stretched to every particular mode and circumstance but only to the particular which is intended here viz. the Imputation of what the two common representatives did or suffered unto the parties represented by them but the Quakers have Learned Bellarmin's Art who by racking of this Parallel thought to overthrow our Doctrine of Justification by faith 2. The Sin of Adam is such that if this Text have any sense at all by this Sin of his all have sinned and by it Death without exception is brought upon all Mankind 3. It is such a sin of which they are guilty who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam seeing death reigned over them for death can reign over none but Guilty persons but Infants are subject to Death tho they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam i. e. by actual transgression Ergo Infants are guilty of Adams sin 4. This Offence of Adams was of such a nature that the Guilt of it or judgement flowing therefrom came upon all the partie represented by him to the condemnation thereof i. e. if it be any thing so that this party stood really condemned thereby v. 18. But all Mankind were represented by Adam Ergo all Men are condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to them To this Robert Barclay answereth Vind. pag 101. That Iudgment or Guilt is not expressed in the Original which is true but while he sayeth it ought not to be supplied one would expect that he should give a better answer which I looked for but all that he giveth is an individuum vagum Something which supplement denudeth the Text offense making a Welshmans hose thereof therefore certainly there can be no other thing understood but either Iudgement as our Translation hath it or Condemnation as the version of Tremellius out of the Syriak or Guilt as Beza Seeing the effect thereof was the condemnation of the whole party represented by Adam as the Text clearlie sheweth But to declare his Harmonie with Rome he followeth the Versio Vulgata which in this place hath non-sense supplying nothing From all that is said I argue thus that sin which is described to us by the Apostle that he saith brought death upon all Men that men Sinned by it and were made Sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that they all became Guilty of Death and condemnation that Sin by imputation is the sin of the whole Nature included in Adam and rendreth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation but the first Sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostles c. Ergo that sin is the sin of Nature c. Robert Barclay denyeth the Major of this argument and that to the admiration of all Logicians seeing no connexion can be clearer in the World as might easily appear to any that consider it for who can deny not to mention other Members of this Argument that if these who had not actually sinned are made sinners by this Transgression of Adam then this is the Sin of the whole Nature or imputed to it which is our Doctrine of Original Sin who I say will deny this Seeing there is no other thing in the consequence then in the antecedent except a variation of words and Phrases holding forth the same thing which yet cannot be
cited after several serpentine windings and turnings to the end he may tho he retain the thing yet evite the Name wholly rejecteth Augustin and therefore giveâ—h up the Cause ridiculously enquiring at his Adversary if he will assert every thing that Augustin said ridiculously I say seing the question is if Augustin did not hold our Doctrine anent Original Sin as the Antithesis to that of the Pelagians in this point which Pelagians have had many successors tho known by other Names as Socinus and his School and holy and pure Anabaptists as they called themselves and were by contrariety of speech called by others the Fry of a deluded Enthusiast Thomas Muncer The horrid abominations of which Sect and this their Doctrine of Original Sin among the rest that famous reformer Bullinger hath by Scriptures and Reason so hammered that one in reason should have thought that it should never have had a Resurrection as may be seen Lib 1. cap 11. adversus Anabaptistas where he also to purpose vindicateth Zuinglius from the calumny of the denyal of Original Sin wherewith first the Council of Trent although contrary to their own Light as judicious Soave observeth and of late Rob Barclay both in his Apology and Vindication hath traduced him Secondly Altho this Doctrine hath by many Ages been assaulted most fiercely by corrupt men both of subtile wit and earnestness of Intention yet the providence of God hath sufficiently pre-occupied what they have said or can say and fortified all who truly believe what God hath said in His Word where there is good Store both of Sword and Buckler for managing of this War and of these many I shall here excerpt and vindicate a few And First Gen. 2.17 For in the Day thou Eatest thou shall surely Die or Dying thou shalt Die where is a clear proof of our Doctrine whence we reason as well against Pelagians Anabaptists Socinians and Quakers as against the Papists who deny Original sin in Infants after Baptism Thus Infants Die Ergo they are guilty of Original Sin seeing according to this present Text Death is the punishment due to the breach of the Command To this the Pelagians as Augustin in several places and particularlie Quest. 3. C. 899-tom 4. colum 666. And the Socinians as Pareus on the place sheweth with other Enemies of the Christian Religion and at this day the Quakers answer that Bodily death is not included in this Threatning But besides that the Pelagians were anathematized for this doctrine by one Council of Carthage consisting of 224 Bishops Photius Biblioth Colum. 42. This answer is evidently false seeing that by this word Death frequently in Scripture Bodily as well as Spiritual is understood and by the Phrase to die the Death the separation of Soul and Body is frequently holden forth Moreover none can deny that Bodily Death of it self is an evil and no evil could have befallen Mankind persevering in the State of Innocency But Chap. 3.19 Will aabundantly dissolve all doubts about the meaning of the text to any unbyassed Men Where God himself describing the punishment of Adams transgression denounceâ—h and foretelleth his return to the dust as not the least part thereof But we need not multiply reasons for the vindication of this text seeing none except Socinians and Pelagians oppose our meaning thereof and the reason adduced by our present adversaries common to them with the Socinians and in particular Crellius for it s overthrown in strength excelleth not a cobweb although they pitched upon it as the only weapon which had any Teeth or keenness therein The reason is Adam died not that day that he did eat therefore say they Bodily death is not Comprehended in the threatning Neither hath this reason any stronger nerves than the rest used by Pelagians Socinians which yet for ought any thing I can find the Quakers do not use judging them as it seems unfit to serve their turn Therefore Robert Barclay tho he had Apolog chap 4. Fought with this Reason as the only prop of his cause his adversary chap. 5. num 8. Having hewed it in pieces in his Vindication essayeth not the reinforcement thereof only Sect. 5. num 3. In stead of a Vindication hath its repetition adding that death as it is now circumstantiated with Sickness and the like miseries is a consequence but not a punishment of Sin which distinction is most Blasphemouâ— as here it is made use of seing it insinuateth that God Transgresseth his own Law by inflicting more miserie on fallen man than was denounced in the Threatning Either this he must say or else that Sickness and Death as they are now circumstantiated are not inflicted by God which I am sure is little better than the former But to shut up all he sayeth that his Adversarie hath not said enough to proselyte him to his Opinion notwithstanding that he had so dâ—shed his reason upon which it was builded that the Quaker attempteth not the Restauration thereof He addeth further as a reason why his Adversary had not said enough to proselyte him that death to Adam in the state of Innocency should have been a pleasure not a pain which reason is altogether reasonlesse seeing the reason why death is pleasant to any is its being the port to free Men from all evil especially from Sin without which Adam should have wholly remained if he had persevered in his integrity but it is too evident that the Quaker is of Bellarmins mind who de Statu primi Hominis alledgeth that man during his Integrity was not free of concupiscence and evil inclinations which doctrine maketh God the Author of sin But I leave this matter only I cannot but here observe which I might do in most places and weightiest points of Robert Barclay's Vindication that per fas aut nefas as they say the Quakers must have the last words for who will think it requisite to write after one who can tell his Adversary that he hath not said enough to proselyte him and yet never so much as essay to vindicate his own or remove his adversaries reasons as Robert Barclay doth here and yet publishes his book to the world as a sufficient answer or refutation of what his adversarie had said living in the mean time without so much as an attempted vindication these points with which the whole frame of Quakerism standeth and falleth for if Bodily death was included in the threatning then our doctrine of Original sin is proved which doctrine once being evinced all the pretended absurdities and blasphemies which Socinians Quakers and others infer from our Doctrine of Original sin and Reprobation fall to the Ground and they are if they be Christians obliged to remove these themselves Further its clear from Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is Death where death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages not the consequence only of sin as the Quaker both in his Apology and Vindication Sect. 5. num 8.
counted a Tautology in strict Syllogistical aâ—gâ—mentation the scope of which is to evince the same sense by a clearer phrasiology or way of speaking 2. He sayeth that in this argumentation words not in the Text are foisted in viz. they who have not actually sinned But in this he only bewrayeth his Own and his Brethrens capital error that the Scriptures ought not to be interpreted or reasoned from for his adversary used only this argument as a clear deduction from the Text yet because it is not in so many words in the Text he rejecteth it yea he saith Ibid. let him shew me the place of Scripture that saith that Infants are guilty of Adams sin Behold Reader how the Quakers new light hath extinguished the light of sound reason and provided for their ancestors the Sadducees a shield such as it is toward off the argument of our Saviour whereby He to purpose proved the Resurection from the dead but had Robert Barclay been there he had given him more ado by saying shew me the plain Scripture that sayeth the dead shall rise again Moreover we say that this followeth clearly from these words in whom all have sinned To this he answereth that it is to be understood of all that could sin i. e. actuallie having come to the use of reason but this answer hath in its bosom a blasphemous falshood that the righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to Infants and therefore that they are not saved by him only and come to Heaven throw his Righteousness for whatever he say for the defence of this hâ—â—â—nswer doth of its own accord tend to the protection of this Blasphemy for altogether with the like reason it might be replyed to any pleading from this Chapter that the Justification and Salvation of Infants is to be ascribed to the Righteousness of Christ that these are only righteous for the Righteousness of Christ who could be righteous i. e. After the use of reason actually joyned themselves to that Righteousness 2. He may as well say that these received hurt and damage by the sin of Adam who could receive it i. e. actually join themselves to it for there is alike reason for both His reason why Infants cannot sin is because they are under no Law for the proof whereof he refers me to what he has said above whither with him I will return which is num 4. where he requireth in what Countries they use to kill all the Children whose Fathers are put to death for their crimes To which I reply 1. That it is enough to prove Children to be under a Law that tho in non-age or unborn they undergo forfeiture and deprivation of Goods and priviledges for no evil of their own but their Fathers misdemeanors only 2. Both in divine and humane writing Children are recorded to have suffered deaâ—h who had committed no actual sin and yet suffered the same punishment with their Fathers who had actually sinned In divine story the Sodomites I am sure were put to death for their crimes all whose Children were killed with them Gen. 19. Behold reader how easily his most perplexing questions are resolved The like fell out to the Children of Core Numb 16. The Children of Achan Jos. 7. and to the Canaanitish Infants the Children of Benjamin the inhabitants of Iabesh-Gilead of the like examples humane Histories are full of which the reader may see good store collected by that excellent divine Turret in vol. 1. loco 9. Quest 9. pag. 671. I am sure there is nothing more common than for Kings or Common-wealths to sack the Cities and Countries of Obstinate rebells and thus to destroy the Children with the Fathers and to kill the hostages of Covenant-breakers without respect regard to their age examples of which see in Livie decade tertia 3. If in any point of Religion and Faith the admirable depth of the judgmâ—nt and Secret Counsel of God be to be seen certainly it is be observed here for I am sure Mans luxuriant reason can find so much to object against even the very inherent corruption of Man his miseries tho in non-age and his deprivation of the image of God as being the effects or sure consequence of Adams eating of the forbidden fruit as may send the answerer to Pauls Sanctuarie Rom. 9.20 Who art thou c. We answer therefore 1. That Adam was a publick person standing and falling in the Room of his posterity in whose name and behalf the Covenant of works was made with him as their representative so that his first sin was not personal but the sin of the whole Nature To this Robert Barclay replyeth num 6. requiring Mr. Brown to prove by plain Scriptures that Adam ceased to be a publick person after he had committed his first sin Answer he denyeth not if this be proved but that our Doctrine of Original sin will stand for so much he here insinuateth I therefore with the more chearfulness prove that Adam did cease to be a publick person which is evident from this that he died in that day he did eat and therefore made the Covenant void and null now certainly no Man with reason can say that a Man dead in Law as Adam was after the breach of the Covenant by eating can in his future actions be a publick person in respect of the same Law broken by eating Therefore seing the day he did eat did put a term to this Covenant of Life as no man with reason can deny it and a period to this common headship for the one of these standeth and falleth reciprocallie with the other it is clear and manifest to all that Adam after his fall was no more a publick person Moreover the sin of Adam whereby we were damnified is still holden forth as one and not as many sins as for example Rom. 5. All along in the comparison betwixt Christ and Adam Robert Barclay replyeth that we may as well hence conclude that we are only justified by the first act of Christs obedience and so have nothing to do with Christs death and sufferings But by his favour Bonum oritur ex integra causa Malum autem ex defectu qâ—ovis The Scriptures every where and in particular Isa. 53. throughout express a long series of doings and sufferings agreed upon in the Covenant of Redemption none of which could be wanting for the fulfilling of the bargain and accomplishment of our Salvation Whereas on the other hand one defect in Adam was enough to compleat so to speak his fall and make the breach of the Covenant it being an evil thing for the makeing of which one defect is enough And thus his Gordian and insoluble knot for so he accounteth it is with all easiness untyed But we need not insist on this seing he endeavoureth to Shreâ—d himself under the covert of his accustomed antiscriptural dottage calling for plain Scripture that is That Adam was a publick person before his fall in so many Letters and Syllables knowing
their own words to say we calumniat them If we draw from this or the like passages that they deny the Authority of the Old Testament Robert Barclay Ibidem 5ly Both Anabaptists and Quakers deny Original Sin for proof of which see cap. 3. of this Treatise 6ly The Anabaptists Muncer and the rest of his sect taught that Christ made no Satisfaction for sins and compared these who taught the contrary to the rable of Scribes and Pharisees Bulling lib. 1. cap. 11. they taught also that its damnable and dangerous Doctrine to assert that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ or by Faith and not also by Works Bulling lib. 4 cap. 1. Sequ. In which Doctrine the Quakers have not only equalized but outdone and outstript their Ancestors as cap 5. of this Treatise more abundantly evinceth and here it is to be observed once for all that all the Capital adversaries of the Christian Religion how contrary soever they may be or seem to be one to another symbolize in this grand heresy and conspire together the overthrow and subversion of the Doctrine of Iustification by Faith or the imputed Righteousness of Christ which is acknowledged by all the Orthodox to be articulus stantis cadentis Ecclesiae the grand pillar of the Christian Doctrine without the support of which all must go to ruine Hence to name no others Pelagians the bulk of Papists Socinians and the old Libertine Anabaptists and their successors now called Quakers harmoniously agree in deriding and abominating this Cardinal and Fundamental Doctrine of the imputed Righteousness of Christ. 7ly These Anabaptists asserted the possibility of fulfilling the Law. Bulling lib. 1. cap. 8. and that they were arrived at a perfection of degrees and without sin Bulling lib. 1. cap. 11. From this the Doctrine of the Quakers differeth nothing yea the latter hath far outdone the former for besides that they commonly assert that men may altogether fulfil the Law in this life and be without sin For the denyal of which Robert Barclay promised continually to rail upon all the reformed they to the horror of all men assert that man is equal with God which I evince from the Words of Hubberthorn in chap. 4. of this Treatise and that the Soul is a part of God which is made good from the words of the famous and leading Quakers Ibid. 8ly These Anabaptists with blasphemous Melchoir Hofman denied the perseverance of the Saints Bulling lib. 3. cap. 13. with whom these Quakers also conspire which any man in reason may judge a contradiction to their Doctrine of perfection however they commonly maintain it with Robert Barclay Prop 9. with his Apology and Vindication thereof contradicting his own express words cap. 2. where explaining that text 1 Iohn 2.27 He had asserted that the unction there spoken of doth remain for ever in these to whom it is given 9ly These wicked Anabaptists with their abominable Leader David George denied the Resurrection of the Flesh or of the same body talking much of the Resurrection of another more spiritual body Bulling lib. 2. cap 10. In this also the Quakers are not a whit short of these as is made manifest chap. 5. of this Treatise 10â—y These abominable Anabaptists following their pernicious Leader Michael Servetus denyed the Sacred Trinity and the Divinity of Christ In this blasphemy also the Scholars excell the Masters as the Reader may find at large made out chap. 4. of this Treatise 11ly These Anabaptists asserted that the Ministers of the Gospel ought not to be tyed to the explaining of Scriptures that all in the Church ought to speak by turns that which they judged the Spirit offered unto them that the Ministers ought to have no certain Stipend and many other things of this sort Bulling lib. 1. cap. 8. which is at this day the known Doctrine of Quakers 12ly These Anabaptists denied that a Christian ought to be a Magistrat or in any case make war to take or administrate oaths to trouble any man upon the account of his Religion or to prohibite any kind of Religion In all which points the Quakers exactly jump with them for tho they do not in words deny the lawfulness of Magistracy yet seeing they expresly deny the lawfulness of all Wars and Oaths and maintain an unbridled Liberty to do whatsoever is right in a mans own eyes all which is their known Doctrine by most clear consequence they take away all use of Magistracy and Magistrates 13ly Anabaptists with Servetus and the Socinians spake contemptibly of the Sacraments and denied Infant-Baptism but the Quakers have gone a further length not only denying but railing against both Sacraments labouring by might and main to abolish these pledges of the Love of God out of the World I could easily prove the sameness of the Doctrine of the Muncerian Anabaptists with that of the Quakers in many other particulars But at present these may serve to shew that both of them are acted and guided by the same Spirit which is that at present intended by us 3ly If the Spirit or the light within every man were the Supreme and principal Rule then those who persecuted to death the Apostles and Saints of God did not sin in so doing but I am sure the latter is false Ergo the former The Consequence of the Major is most evident for they followed their light within thinking thereby they did God good service Iohn 16.2 neither can they say that then the day of all these persecutors visitation was past for Paul himself was one of them whose light taught him that he according to all that he had for light ought to do many things against the Professors and Servants of Jesus Christ Acts. 26.9 whose day of visitation I think the Quakers themselves will not say was expired 4ly Divine light or that light which is of God is alwayes consonant to it self but so is not that which the Quakers call their spirit or the light within every man for nothing is more evident than that the light within one man is quite contradictory and opposite to that within another and that even in the most weighty necessary and soul-concerning things in all the world as the many and great controversies in all ages do but too too well make out neither can it be said that every one of these who oppose the truth either act against their own judgment or that sometime before they knew and embraced the Truth in their heart and afterward did not hearken to that light this we say cannot be said for it is clear from the earnestness and zeal of both Hereticks and Heathens for their own erroneous Principles that they really think as they speak yea have not many sacrificed their lives to their own fantastick and damnable Opinions which Opinions from the very beginning of their use of Reason they did still hold but not to multiply instances all this is clear in the Person of Paul for certain it is that
well that unless underproped with such damnable hypotheses his Doctrine cannot stand but he buyeth bad Wares at a full dear price for with the same breath he overthroweth both his own Apology and Vindication with whatsoever beside he has written in the defence of his principles seeing these are not found in the Scriptures in so many Letters Syllables But I again return to his seventh number and in it next he alleadgeth Augustin as the Patron of his opinion in contradiction to his own Apology Chap. 4. Where he granted Augustin to be of the same Opinion with his Adversary acknowledging that according to the mind of Augustin Infants even before their birth are Guilty of Eternal Death and the pains of Hell. Thus he either speaketh self contradictions or would make Augustin to do it 2. The words of Augustin from which he would conclude this self contradiction are these Serm. 7. Ex verb. Apostoli what do ye think to say And whose eares can hear it Did they sin themselves Where I pray you did they sin When and how did they sin They know neither good nor evil Shall they sin that are under no Command Prove that Infants are sinners prove what is their Sin is it because they weep that they sin Do they Sin because they take pleasure or repell trouble by motion as dumb Animals If these motions be sin they become greater sinners in Baptism for they resist most vehemently But I say another thing You think they have sinned otherwise they had not dyed but what say ye of such as die in there Mothers womb Will you say they have sinned also You Lye or are deceived c. Thus Augustin in opposition to the Pelagians who to evite the force of the arguments of the Orthodox proving Original sin did assert that Children presently after their birth become actual Sinners And yet from this the Quaker will conclude that Augustin in these words contradicteth his own doctrine of Infants being guilty of Original Sin of which there is not the least appearance seing this will be admirable Logick to inferr from Augustin his proving of Infants not to be guilty of actual sin therefore he denyed them to be guilty of Original sin Now what wouâ—d not these Men adventure to say in the dark when they are so audacious as to publish to the world in print that Augustin denyed Infants to be guilty of Original sin when his own works do every where and the World proclaim the contrary yea and the Quaker himself also confessed it Here he alledgeth that the Apostle no where sayeth that Children are under any Law which is true if he understand it in so many words which yet notwithstanding may be gathered from the 13. and 14. verses of this Chapter where the Apostle having said That there is no Sin where there is no Law subjoyneth that nevertheless Death which I have in my former Section proved to be a punishment reigned even over these who had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam Which holdeth true of Children who never sinned actually as Adam did When he seeth that it cannot be denyed that in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same meaning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the words to run thus In which or by occasion of which death all have sinned A Pelagian exposition makeing men sin by imitation only and the righteousness of Christ to be the occasion and patern only and not the price of our acceptation and Salvation And altho he say that this is resolved by a serious consideration of the comparison between Christ and Adam as stated by him in his Apology This is not to be regarded seing after an impartial search nothing of this resolution can be perceived He ought therefore to have shewed uâ— how in particular he had in his Apology preoccupied our argument whereby they are proved to be amongst the grossest of Socinians who make the death and sufferings of Christ an occasion or example only whereby to walk and so to be saved But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation but Vltra posse non datur esse But indeed this is a fine way of Vindicating ones Doctrine to say in opposition to their Adversaries argument how pressing soever in the general only you do not understand our doctrine aright or consider what we say And upon this answer only erect his Triumphal Arches and Cry Victoria 4. Our Doctrine is to the conviction of all except of the Old and New Pelagians evicted from Eph 2 3. and yet Rob Barclay following Bellarmin who played the like audacious pranks with Rom. 4. whereby we evince against the Papists Justification to be by Faith would turn our weapons against our selves and overthrow from this place our Doctrine of Original Sin alledging that Mens evil walking is the cause why they are counted the children of Wrath But if the Apostle had so meaned in all likelyhood he should not have spoken so generally as he did but had made some Intimation that Children were excepted which he neither here nor any where else doeth 2. This Phrase by Nature is still taken in Scripture for so soon as a thing hath a beeing or for its very rising or Original which these Scriptures confirm Rom. 2.27 and 11 24. Gal 2.5 and 4.8 1 Cor. 15.44 46. Hence we thus with Calvin in opposition to the Pelagians on the place reason What is naturally in every one is in them from their very Original and therefore if all be the Children of Wrath or 〈◊〉 to wrath by Nature they are so 〈◊〉 their very Original These Scriptures and this Argument of Calvin used by his Adversary Robert Barclay in his Vindâ— Is so far from attempting to answer that he maketh not the least mention thereof From which one Omission though there were no more any may easily see that his book deserveth nothing less than the name of a Vindicaâ—tion 3. We add as a good secondary Confirmation that the primitive Châ—rch used still this place to prove the same Doctrine which we hold of Original sin in opposition to the Pelagians denying it and in particular Augustin de Fide ad Petram diaconum Cap. 26. who sayeth firmissime tene hold most constantly and without so much aâ— once wavering that every one who is conceived by the conjunction of man and woman is born with Original sin under the power of ungodliness subject to death which he explaineth of eternal as well as bodily death Ibid and upon the same very account a Child of wrath concerning which the Apostle saith and we were by nature the Children of wrath And the like Doctrine did Fulgentius and fourteen bishops with him assert as also Theodoretus Primasius and Haimo on the place taking by nature c. to import all carnally born and partaking of the nature of Adam and so to be verified of all brought
the begetting of many to a lively hope for which generations to come shall call thee blessed whose beeing and habitation is in the power of the highest in which thou rules and Governs in Righteousness and thy Kingdom is Established in peace and the increase thereof without end Date 21. day of the 12 Moneth 1658. See Tyr detected pag 19. CHAP. VI. Of Perfection ALthough we have already given several instances of the damnable Doctrine of the Quakers together with their miserable defence thereof We shall notwithstanding for the more abundant evicting hereof trace the Footsteps of one of their cheif Authors Robert Barclay in his Vindication of one or two of their cheif principles The first of which shall be that of Perfection The Doctrine of the Quakers in this point is In whom this pure holy birth is fully brought forth the Body of death and sin cometh to be crucified and removed and their hearts united and subjected to the truth so as not to obey any Suggestions or Temptations of the evil one to be free from actual sinning and Transgressing of the Law of God and in that respect perfect Yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth And there remaineth alwayes in some part a possibility of sinning where the mind doeth not most diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord. These are the words of his eight These And afterward he sayeth that there may be a State in this Life in which a Man cannot sin it is so natural unto him to do Righteousness Let us in the next place consider how he vindicateth this Doctrine which is our main purpose Having vind Sect 9. Spent a while in accusing his Adversarie as guilty of railing and in rejecting his own Brethrens books such as Sauls errand to Damascus In which they maintain themselves to be equal with God. Which is also asserted by Hubberthorn against Sherl pag 30. I say rejecting these or denying that they have said them for he still insinuateth that Hicks only said these things although it be evinced by particular citation of book and page where they are In the next place he giveth away the cause wholly by saying that he pleadeth for no more than Mr. Brown sayeth N 6. viz. That by perfection in this life is understood a change in the whole man so that he yieldeth impartial obedience to all the Commands of God though in a small degree yet that he may seem to say somewhat he enquireth How this Doctrine is reconciled with that of dayly breaking the Commands in thought word deed In answer to which question it is enough to enquire how he evinceth them to be contradictory Seing he may know if he will that the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees as well as parts and that it is a disconformity to the Law of God and consequently a sin to be deficient in the one as well as in the other And whereas he enquireth if to break Gods Commands dayly in thought word and deed be the way to grow in grace To put off the Old Man and on the New. He but only useth his old Custom viz. maliciously to calumniate For who said such a thing Or from what point of our Doctrine will he prove this We shall attend his proofs of it Which untill we hear we cannot but in reason Judge that he delighteth in malicious lies For though we say according to the Scripture that even the regenerate carrie about a body of death with them until death which defileth all their actions Yet where did any of the reformed teach that to endeavour to break Gods Commands is the way to grow in grace as this Man insinuateth they do What kind of light is this he has that teacheth him such a facultie of lying He goeth on saying but he addeth that this perfection rendereth gospel commands useless but are the Commands useless if men obey them But certainly He that is above the breach of the Law as the Quakers say many may be has no more use of the Law or need of it to learn any thing from it in order to the obedience thereof And where is his vain subterâ—uge now But that he may yet further contradict himself and his Brethren He sayeth He has shewn in his Apology that all have need to repent and pray for forgiveness For if some be equal with God above the breach of the Commands want a bodie of death The most that they have to do is to give thanks and not to pray or repent For I think he will not say that they pray or repent which are in heaven These duties presupponing sorrow of which they are incapable And far lesse Horresco referens these that are equals with God. In opposition to his Adversary shewing that this Doctrine tendeth to the fomenting of pride and security he sayeth but where freedom from sin is where can Pride and Security have place Ans. This answer had been as fit to the Apostles Question Rom. 3 27 as to this Argument For he inferred that boasting might follow upon Justification by works It might then have been as well replyed If a man be perfectly Just and so without sin how can he incur the fault of boasting 2. How will he shew but this Doctrine of his doth bring many under a mistake as if they were secure from sinning when indeed they are not Whereas he sayeth that according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life the wicked Villains do lesse make uselesse Gods Commands than others because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and prayer for forgiveness of God We only refer him to Rom 3.8 where he may have the like Objection with a fit Answer And here he promiseth alwayes to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus And why Because sayes he they must be made useful in breaking the Commands in thought word and deed His reason is a Calumnie if it have sense at all What Ordinance teacheth which we maintain that it is ones duty daylie to break the Commands of God that the Ordinances may be the more useâ—â—l to us If this be not of the same nature with Cavil wiped off by the Apostle Rom 3. then certainly two and three are not five But such malice the Church must resolve to be the Butt of so long as she is militant He goeth on to remove this Absurdity from their Doctrine of Perfection viz. that then none that are regenerat could sin at all but would be beyond the possibility of it Which inference is very clear for the ground which they give for their Doctrine is Ioh. 3.9 He that is born of God doeth not commit sin Which place they abuse taking it without restriction not attending to the context speaking of a Tread and Custom of sin and of a commission of it from Malice like the devil and the wicked his Children Which absurdity that he may evite He assureth that a man is not regene rat
that because it is said that they are not all Israel that are of Israel therefore it seems that all are not elected To which he answers that the Apostle intimatâ— that the Carnal Israel or all that are come of Jacob surnamed Israel are not the Israel to whom the promises of Salvation are absolutly and finally made tho in general the conditional promises belong to all Israel as the Apostle shews vers 4. That we may not be misunderstood know that among others there are seven promises made to the overcomers Rev. 2 3 Chap. and such as persevere in the Christian Race unto the end or to the death and burial of sin Now these and the like promises belong unto the Elect that are chosen out of the furnace of affliction Isa. 48.10 Which with Paul have fought the good fight of Faith. 2 Tim 4 7 8 And so may fullie expect the reward because God is faithful that hath promised it Heb 6 12 and 10 36. James 1.12 I Reply this commentarie I shall not say a comment is founded upon some Scriptures violentlie detorted for none of them doth in the least insinuat that these of whom they speak were chosen to grace only not to glory which groundless distinction was invented of old by the Pelagians and condemned and refuted by the Orthodox as is evident in the Epistles of Prosper and Hilarius Arelatensis and tendeth to the overthrow of the Covenant of Redemption and the promises of God the Father to Christ viz. that he should see his seed and the travel of his soul. Isa. 53.10 11. and many such like for if this Doctrine were true it might so fall out that none should come to Glory for according to it the gift of perseverance is bestowed upon none and so the Apostle's perswasion that None could separate him from the Love of God Rom 8.35 Should have been vain and groundless And the promise to cause the Israel of God to keep his Statutes and his Judgments to do them Ext 36 27. Should be meer words of deceit these and six hundred beside of such absurd blasphemies are unseparably linked to this Doctrine As for the Scriptures cited by him they hold forth a Character of such aâ— shall be saved viz. That they do through grace overcome love the Lord Jesus exercise Patience Faith and the like graces but they do not at all hold forth that these graces and perseverance therein are in Mans own power so that he may reject or refuse them according to the inclinations of his own will and that God doth not make Men irresistibly yet sweetly of unwilling to become willing All which this Neo Pelagian through the Violence of torture makes these Scriptures to speak but the verse it self doth sufficiently refute this exposition for according to it the word or promises of God might be without any effect seing it might fall out that tho all were elected none might be saved Now seing this Exposition cannot Stand the other which this Arminian would fain reject of its own accord follows viz. That not all and every one is from all Eternitie elected and chosen to Salvation as the whole Scope and series of this Chapter doth demonstrate as we shall evince while we reply in particular to the Answers he makes to the objections which he frames from this place 2. He goeth on thus Rom 9.7 Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called Where the Apostle alludeth to Gen 17.18 19 20 21. It may seem then that only Isaac and not Ismael was chosen Ans. Isaac was chosen alone to be the representative seed of God being a Type first of Christ in whom God hath made his Covenant 2. He being a seed born by Sarah represents Faith out of the promises rather then by the Strength of Nature So is a Figure of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham which are begotten or born by vertue of the promises For so the Apostle explains himself v. 8. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh of whom Ismael carried the Type These are not the Children of God but the Children of promise are counted for the Seed As for Ismael who was begotten by the Strength of Nature and according to the Flesh of Hagar which represents the the Law Gal. 4.21 31 He figured forth these which should be saved not by the grace of the promises but by the works of the Law a people with whom God has not erected His Covenant that they should be saved in that way but tho Ismael carried the Figure of such it was without any prejudice to his Eternal Election or Salvation For Abraham praying thus for him Gen 17.18 O that Ismael might live before Thee or in thy presence v 20 As for Ismael I have heard thee His being such a Type was no more prejudicial to Him then that Moses and Aaron were debarred entrance into Canaan They therein being a Figure of those that should be shut out of Gods Kingdom for unbelief without any hazard to their own Salvation as hath been said before In order to our Reply to this and the following Objections we premit 1. That this and the following Verses of this Chapter are brought in by the Apostle as Arguments to prove his Proposition laid down v. 6. viz. That all are not Israel that are of Israel therefore whatever floweth from these Verses as their immediate Consequents is the meaning of the sixth Verse 2. That the convincing clearness of this place hath forced all to acknowledge that the Apostle is here speaking of Predestination of men in order to their eternal estate and not as to the things of this Life only as Bellarmin de Grat et Lib. Arb. L. 2. C. 15. Stapleton Ant pag. 526. And among the modern Lutherans Hunnius upon the place in hand who confesseth that the Apostle digresseth into the large field of Predestination Yea Arminius himself in his Analysis of this Chapter dareth not deny it tho he fain would Having premised these things we come to his Answer The Substance of which is That Ismael was not himself rejected of God but only a Type of these that are not the Children of God which we shal refute by evincing these two Things 1. That tho Ismael be considered here as a Type only this place gives good ground for the Doctrine of our Confession of Faith against which he here fighteth 2. That Ismael himself was not elected As for the first of these Propositions it is evident For otherwise there should be no Correspondence betwixt the Type and the Antitype and so a Type should not be a Type I prove it If Ismael was excluded from being counted the Seed of Abraham only by the meer good pleasure and absolute Dispensation of God and not conditionally so that Ismael himself could have caused it to come to pass that he should have been counted the Legittimate Heir and Lawful begotten Son of