weight in this Chapter but his indeavours to prove that Infants are condemned for Adams sin upon which he acknowledgeth their Doctrine of Reprobation depends I shall offer him the thoughts and arguments of some Protestants upon this subject and then take notice of his argumentations And First the learned Jeremy Taylour in his book called Unum necessarium denyeth this Presbyterian Doctrine and reason thus Either Adam was condemned eternally and is now suffering in hell for that transgression or he was pardoned and is now a Glorified Saint the first he saith no Christian will alledge Adam being a Tipe of Christ and also that GOD entered into a new Covenant with him So that he was not condemned for that sin And if the second be true that is that he was pardoned and is now a glorified Saint How then can these men be so wickedly audacious as to charge the Infinitly Just and Merciful GOD with such cruelty and injustice as the wickedest of men would be ashamed of To wit to pardon the Malefactor yea put him in a better condition then he was before for his transgression and yet to punish his Posterity innocent Infants who had no being till five Thousand years after who never had accession nor so much as a consent to that sin and yet upon this wrong and wicked notion of the Deity depends their doctrine of Reprobation Secondly There is no remission without repenâ—ance saith the former Author and alledgeth he never yet met with the man that could say he had Repented for Adams sin and I doubt if our Author will say it either for Repentance is either to be understood Penitentiam agere to do penance or resipiscere to grow wise again or to do so no more let our Author chuse which of the two he will and tell us with the next whether he hath repented for Adams sin Thirdly It is the Soul that sinneth or is guilty of sin which according to themselves we have not from Adam but from GOD by new creation who made never any thing impure and therefore I will expect something next from this learned man concerning the Soul Quid unde for I acknowledge they are little enough cleared yet by the Learned tho I think our Country man Barron is inferior to none I have yet seen But if our author be for preexistance will more easily give us a reason for our inclinations to evil The next I shall cite is the sorenamed John Humphery with R Baxters approbation who asserts page 26 of Eelection Redemption that a discharge of mankind from damnation for Adams sin only is a fruit of Christs death immediate and Universal Again in page 28 of the Covenant he asserts that Infants being Baptised are saved And adds if they be not Baptised we are yet to look on them as such who have not broken this new Law or never resuled and rejected their remedy and so long as by the Redemption of Christ they are delivered over with all the World from the Covenant of works to the New Law to be judged I will not be the man that shall condemn one Infant to Hell or unto torments And here I must tell our Author that its strange to see him contend so much for the Scripture to be his Rule and yet be so dogmatical in a matter so lubricous when he can produce no plain Scripture for it nor a consequence without excessive straining and whereas he objecteth some Protestants and some Fathers I had rather with one Athanasius believe the Divinity of Christ and wonder that the whole world was become Arrian then follow the multitude in such a gross error as that was and is In the next place I shall consider where the strength of his Arguments ly rather then follow his rambling for I perceive he makes the greatest noise and clamour when he hath least to say and boasteth greatly when he hath done nothing The whole strength of this Chapter lyeth in two Hypotheses First that If Adam had not sinned he should have been Immortal Secondly that as the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to man for Justification So Adams sin is imputed to man for Condemnation And to prove these two Doctrines upon which much of the Presbyterian Religion depends he should have proceeded candidly and given us Scripture proofs obvious to every well disposed intelect whereas he hath brought no Scripture which any plain man like me can think to relate to such a matter First He calleth R B tidiculous for enquiring if his Adversary would assert every thing that Augustine said But he should have confessed that Augustine erred in this very Matter in saying That all Infants dying without Baptism were demned And then have told us That he who erred in one thing might have erred in the other But this tho true would have wronged his Cause His first Argument he draws from Gan. 2. 17. For in the day thou eatest thou shall surely die Hence he arguds Infants dies Ergo they are guilty of Original sin This Consequence is very gross for if bodily death had been hereby threatned Then Adam could not have lived one day after the commission of that sin whereas he lived some hundreds of years after it And the Westminster Confession is wiser then to make it a part of Adams punishment in all the first five Paragraphs of it till they joyn actuall sin with it calling it only a death in sin and a defilement or corruption of our whole nature But he pleads death is an evil and no evil could have befallen tâ—an if he had not sinned This he answereth himself confessing That to the Scints where the sting of death is taken away it is no evil Therefore if Adam had not sinned death had been no evil to him But I must ask him a Question seeing it is consessed by all that Eternal death is a punishment of sin from which the Saints are freed How comes it that the Saints are not freed from bodily death also Seeing according to our Author Bodily death is no less a punishment of sin then Eternal Death is If he say That all Mankind were to die because of Adams sin altho all Mankind were not to be condemned for it which yet is nothing but his own assertion How came it that Enoch and Ellas dyed not but were translated And that Paul saith We shall not all die but we shall all be changed c. All which seems to bear that the Earth should not have been Etetnal nor Adam have lived Eternally on it altho he had not sinned Which being the grand Pillar upon which he builds his Doctrines of Original sin and Reprobation he should have proven by plain Scripture or sound Reason which he hath not done to the satisfaction of any Reader yea he hath scarce attempted it except by a Rapsody of railling words But he had an easier way to have proven both and more consonant to his own Principles By telling us That it was
foreordained from Eternity that Adam should sin and that all Mankind should die and that the far greater part of them should be reprobates and be damned eternally For the Westminster Catechism saith GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass But all these things comes to pass Ergo GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained them His next is Rom 6. 23. The wages of sin is death Where saith he Death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages of sin If the Apostle had meant more kinds of Deaths then one it is like he would have said deaths in the plural number But the Apostle intends here no other kind of death then the same kind of Life he mentions in the same sentence which is Eternal The words are For the wages of sin is death But the Gift of GOD is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our LORD Now to cause the first speak of bodily death and the last of Eternall Life is so strained an Interpretation as might nauseat a Reader He would mock R B for saying The whole Creation suffered a decay for Adams sin But it seems he hath forgotten that GOD cursed the Earth for mans sake and yet the Earth was not guilty of Mans sin But saith he The body shall after the resurrection live as well as the Soul and therefore bodily death is a punishment of sin This is pretty singular for it is acknowledged by all that the body is a meer Instrument to the Soul And at this rate our Anthors Pen is guilty of all the Lies and blasmphemies in his book and Patroclus Swordguilty of the blood of all the Trojans he killed But proves nothing that bodily death was here meant by the Apostle yea he confesseth that bodily death is not a punishment to believers â—eing the sting thereof is removed by Christ Now are we come to his second Argnment I spoke of To wit That as we are justified by the Righteousness imputed to us So infants are damned by the sin of Adam imputed to them So that it the first be false in the Presbâ—terian sense the last is also false I shall first tell him what J Humphrey saith of it Treatise of Justification page 21. As for what they add usually saith he in the definition that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and made ours by Faith as an Instrument I must confess they are notions which as they never came into the head of Saint Augustine nor were received I suppose into the Church till within a Centurie or two of years since so do I question whether a Centurie or two more may not wear them quiâ—e away again Again page 25. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us as if it were ours in its self it must be the Righteousness of his active or passive Obedience or both If his active Obedience be imputed to us then we must be look upon in him as such who have committed no sin nor omitted any Duty And then what need will there be of Christs Death How shall Christ die for our sins if we be lookt upon in Christ as having none at all If Christs passive Obedience be imputed then must we be lookâ— upon as such who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the Law and born the full curse of it And then how shall there be â—oom for any Pardon The Man who payes his full debt by himself or Surity can in no sense be forgiven by his Creditor If Christs active and passive Obedience both are imputed then must GOD he made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of works in the business of Justification when nothing is more aparent in Scripture then that by Grace we are Justified and by Grace saved A little after he saith There was no need to bring in this notion of Christs imputed Righteousness into the Church But that our Protestants mistake themselves and forget that we are justified and saved by the Covenant of Grace and not by the Law of Moses or Covenant of our Creation And in the foregoing page he saith I would fain know whether any of the Disciples James John or Paul himself whether Clemens Roman or Alexanderin Justine Martyr Cyprian Ambross Augustine or any of the Fathers Whether Gounsels or School men whether John Huss or Wickliff or any Father or Holy writer without resting on some bare incoherent scraps of sentences did ever understand or receive the full notion of Faiths instrumentality and the imputation of a passive Righteousness before Luther And if not whether it be possible it should be of any such moment as is made of it by most Protâ—stants I have set down these that the Reader may see we are not alone in this matter but that as good Protestants as the Presbyterians yea and some of themselves to wit Baxteâ— are of the same mind with us And yet in page 134 he is so confident of this his new notion unknown as this man saithâ— to the Apostles Fathers Counsels and first Protestants that he asserâ—eth either Adams sin to be such as by it all have sinned and by it death without exception is brought upon all mankind or else that the Spirit of God speaketh nonsence in this Text. Certainly the Apostles were plain men and had more plain simple and less intricat thoughts of the Christian Doctrines then our School-men have devised and I believe few of them would have understood their terms of Art now in vogue and if the Appostles or rather the Spirit of GOD had intended any such Doctrine as necessary to our Salvation It would not have needed Hathenish Philosophie and Logick to have strained a consequence from the Text which prehaps the writer never intended and our School mens seeking to cause the Doctrine of Christ quadrate with Heathenish Philosophie hath beeh the baâ—e of Christianity tho is he now made no less then absolutely necessary to the being of a Minister And yet for all this man is so confident let the Reader but look to the 16 Verse of the Chapter where the comparison is made and he will see that condemnation Eternal death is meant and not bodily Death His other Argument that Death Reigned from Adam to Moses can prove nothing for bodily Death hath Reigned from Adam to Patroclus and what than Ergo Infants are condemned for Adams sin for none can die but sinners this is boldly to begg the question and no more His great Argument in page 135 is That sin which is descrived 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 rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation But the first sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostle c. Ergo that sin
therefore he will do well with the next to give us Scripture for proving this lunscriptural Dogma of the damnation of Infants for Adams sin Or else acknowledge that the belief of it is not necessary to Salvation And certainly if it necessary the Scriptures will be sufficient to prove it Tho our Author be pleased to call our saying so an Antiscriptural dottage His words concerning Augustine I have told him before were cited by R B to prove that Infants are under no Law Which he â—â—veth and deceitfully insinuateth that R B cited these words to make Augustine say That Infants are not guilty of Adams sin Which he never intended further then the words bear To witt That they are under no Law Yet our Author defends Augustine in condemning Infants And again cannot chuse but condemn Augustine for saying That Infants dying without Baptism are condemned So he owneth Augustine when he pleaseth him and rejecteth him when he dilpleaseth him In the end of page 141 He gloryeth a little upon his false Insinuation which only manifests his deceit and folly as is his ordinary Custome In page 142 He returns to prove that Infants are under a Law which he acknowledgeth cannot be found in Scripture in so many words but may be gathered by a Presbyterian Commentator from the 13 and 14 verses of Romans 5. For until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed where there is no Law Nevertheless Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them who had not sinned after the similitudâ— of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that was to come Now let the unbyassed Reader judge whether any word hâ—â—â— câ—â— inferr that insants are under a Lâ—w or are condemned for Adams sin To prove this he saith Infants die and the death here mentioned is a bodily dâ—ath and Death is a punishment of sin and referrs â—â— to his former Section already answered But R B saith it may rather signifie that which Paul cals a body of Death and is often called Death and Old Adam and flesh and the Law in the members bâ— which coâ—ruption os mans nature Man kind is made obnoxious to fall under the temptations of Satan and is naturally in clined to evil as R B hath described aâ— large in his Vind page 57 which he sliely or rather deceitfully passeth by and then crycth out a Pelagion exposition as if R B had said that men sinned only by imitation then which he could hardly have devised a greater lie and I intreat the Reader to see the page now cited and consider what faith these men can deserve And as to the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ in R B his Apologie and again in his Vind page 58. he sayes they are not to be regared because they are to be accounted among the grossest Sooinianâ— who make the the Death and suflerings of Christian occasion or example only c. But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation This needs no other answer but this Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Brother and I hope we should know our own Faith better then this liâ—ing Priest His next to prove Infants guilty of Adams sin is Ephes 2 3. The words aâ—e Among whom we all also had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh sulfilling the dâ—fires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the Children of wrath as well as others Who is he that reads this verse and seeth not that it mentions actual sins And that by nature is understood that corrupted nature which hath brought forth these forenamed transgressions But that any word here can intimate that Infants are condemned for Adams sin is a wild consequence He saith if the Apostle had meant otherwayes he would have excepted Infants But he might as well have said he meant no such thing as the damnation of Infants because he hath no where afserted iâ— But to prove that by nature is meant original sin he citeth some Scriptures but so impertinently as a man might think he dreamed Gal 2. 5 and 4. 8. 1 Cor. 15 44 46 c. Which the Reader may see and consider his citation of Calvin he might have spared his pains and if R B pasled by them it was because they were not worth his while and so his conclusion resolves in Wind. Next he gives us a whole page of Augustine and some others against the Pelagians and what then Will he own all that these men have written but he tells us of fourteen Bishops and therefore I must ask him whether these fourteen Bishops were Lâ—mbs of Anti-christ as our Bishops use to be called Or if a Bishop can be a good Christian His next is Psalm 51. 5. I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my Mother Conceive me Saith he R B denyeth the inference which yet is clear from Nehemiah 9 But hath not been so honest as to tell the verse and I can find no such thing there except in the 2 verse whether it is said they Confessed their sins and the iniquities of their Fathers and so throughout the whole Chapter but no mention of Adams transgression What he saith of the Marriage duty is most impertinent except he can say that Davids Parents had no sin except it were the marriage duty which I think no â—resbyterian will assert But he thinks he hath done a brave late in asking when his adversary readeth of actual sin because R B asketh him in what Scripture be readeth of Original sin but he may find if he will that he shall receive according to the deeds done in the Body whether good or evil And 1 John 3. 8. He that committeth sin is of the Devil and John 8 34. He that committeth sin is the servant of sin and many more Let him bring as plain Scripture that Infants are condemned for Adams sin and he hath done this busmess In page 146 He oflers us several pregnant arguments as he words it to demonstrate his Doctrine as first Infants are deprived of the Image of GOD therefore they are guilty of Adams sin he proves his consequence because to be deprived of the Image of GOD is a punishment equal with if not greater then the torments of hell But our Author hath mistaken all his measures here For if it be a punishment to be deprived of that which a man never had then it is a punishment for Patroclus to want the Bishoprick of St. Andrews so called that it was a punishment to Adam who once had it I deny not but he cannot prove that Infants had it and so cannot be deprived of it His next is None go to Heaven exâ—ept those thâ—â— were guiltypâ—rsons therefore Infants who haâ—e never committed actual sin are guilty before GOD None are saved but sinners which was Christs â—râ—and to the Earth c. And such like trash of John Browns fully answered by R B page 60 and 61. He at last resolves all
into a Question How infants if not guilty to come to Heaven without the death and meriâ—s of Christ What he intends by this Quâ—stion is hard to be understood it s much if he knows what he â—ayes for we never said nor believed that any person Infants or Old man came to Heaven without the Death and Merits of Christ So that his Question if it have any sense at all must be what need have Infants of Christ if they he not sinners nor guilty of Adams sin This is â—nswerâ—d by R B page 61 They have â—eâ—d of Christ who died for them as a Saviour to deliver them from the seed of sin â—nd corruption in them which is called â—aâ—th and the Old man that they may â—uâ— off this â—â—d sing the song of the Reâ—eemed as John Brown words it But how by what means he doth this he hath oâ— tollâ—us and I desire not to be 〈◊〉 above what is revealed â—â—s answe◠〈◊〉 B's Question how elect infants come to besaved whom he accounts guilâ—y of 〈◊〉 Is by the imputed Righteousness of Christ But then what becomes of the 〈◊〉 mentality of Faith without which they deny imputation let him help this same â—nswer with the next His next is These who in the sight of GOD are dogs are guilty persons to be excluded from Heaven and therefore to be cast into hell but whole Nations without exception are â—uen therefore Infants being a part of these Nations deserve to be excluded from Heaven and â—ent unto hell To â—rove his Minor he bringeth Matt. â—â— 26. It is â—â— meet to take the Childrens bread and â—ast it to dogs but it seems he hatâ— forgoten to look unto the 28 Verse O Woman Great is thâ— Faith c. And â—â— they be dogs who have Faith yea and great faith I must ask him who are Children And iâ— such who have great Faith deserve to be excluded from heaven and sent to hell He might have considered that many of the Gentiles who formerly wallowed in the lusts of the Flesh and were dogs came afterwards to be washed from their polutions and that Publicans and sinners entered the Kingdom of Heaven when such professing Sâ—ribâ—s and Pharisies as our Author were shut out The other place he citeth 1 Cor â— 14. For the unbelieving husband is Sanctified bâ— the wife and the unbelieving wife is Sanctified by the Husband else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Iâ— this be any thing to the purpose it is against our Author seeing it relates to the uncleanness and holiness of the immediate Parents and can never be thought to intend Adams sin but any thing may serve to make a Muster His next is â—en 1â— 14. The man Child that is Vncircumâ—ised shall be cut off Hence he saith that Mr. Brown inferreth that Children may be in some sense apablâ— of breach of Covenant and therefore under a Law desiring his adversary to chaw his Cude upon it First I observe how timorously they propose this argument with a may â—e and in some sense But it is strange how men pretending to sense could propone in it for whose sin was it iâ— the Child was un-Circumcised Could it Circumcise it self or could it desire another to do it Or did ever the Just and Merciful GOD require such an impossibility of an Infant of â—ight dayes old It was therefore the Father and not the Child who was oblidged by this Covenant and who sinned in case of Non performance So that R B needed not trouble himself with such nonsensical stuff His fourth pregnant Argument is John 3. None â—an enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again Upon this he argueth the New Birth is a Gift of GOD which he may withhold from whom he will And therefore without prejudice to his Justice may exclude whosoever hath it not from the Kingdom of Heaven But none are excluded from it but guilty persons which I believe none will deny Therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons I answer in short when he tells us hâ—w his Elect Infants are born again he may take the same waâ— with the rest For I have told him before I pretend not to be wise above what is revealed But his Doctrine of Imputation will not serve his turn here Lastly He comes to answer that of Ezek 18. 20. For which he bringeth no answer But tells us Mr. Brown hath cleared this Text Why then did he meddle with it But he sayes it contradicteth the second Commandment Answer No such matter for the second Commandment saith Visiting the sins of the Fathers upon the Children c Which is generally expounded of Temporary punishments and relates to the immediat Parents But Ezekiel saith The Soul that sinnâ—th it shall die which is meaned of Eternal punishments And now to conclude I must ask this great Pretender to a knowledge of the secret Counsel of GOD and the state of Infants after death Whether they shall continue Infants and be such every way at the Resurection and to all Eternity as they are the time of their decease And I shall expect his answer with the next Chapter IV. Of GOD. HE begins this Chapter with three malicious and false Accusations according to his custome saying in this Chapter I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things each of which is enough to Un-Christian the Maintainer thereof But I hope not the Denyer thereof His three things are First That they deny the Holy Trinity with Arrius and Sahellius Secondly That their Doctrine maketh GOD the author of sin Thirdly That they bold the Soul of Man to be GOD. All which three we positively deny our selves to be guilty of and I hope all sober and unprejudiced Men will acknowledge that we know what we believe better then this our deceitful and malicious Enemie doth And therefore this whole Chapter needeth no other Answer But the LORD rebuke this lying spirit that is gone forth into the mouths of these lying Propâ—ets Who take pleasure to defamâ— and bespatter innocent Men thereby to lay them open to the fury of their bigotted Admires and blind folded followers But the just GOD who searcheth our Hearts knoweth our Innocency and will in due time rip off these covers of deceit and take away this refuge of Lies wherewith these Men cover themselves that they may hurt the Innocent To begin with the first R B in his Apologie George Keith in his Book of The Way cast up have so fully vindicated us from the Arrians and Sabellian herefies that I wonder with what face this Author can accuse us And it is evident to all single hearted Men who read our Writings that it is the Words only we oppose To wit words invented by the deformers of Christianity the Clergie who by their heathenish philosophie by a new name called School Divinity have invented and brought into the Church these heathenish and unscriptural terms which we reject Nevertheless this perverse and
malicious Author like an Advocat pleading at a Barr Bawls Cryes Rants and Tears and will perfâ—â— nefâ—s have us guilty of Arrianism And first he sets down that Arrian herefie to be That the Son is separated from or divided from the Eternal and Ineffable Substance of GOD the Father Now I charge him and all the Presbyterians in the World to produce on sentence in our Writings bearing this Doctine which I am sure they cannot Moreover Philip Melanchton in Chron Carionis page 264. Saith That Arrius denyed the Divinity of Christ and That the Son was Co-Eternal with the Father that he was a Creature ex non existentibus That is ex nibile All which we detest and abhor But to stop his mouth for ever I tell him we owne the Nicen Creed which I shall here insert so farr as concerns this Contraversy I believe in one LORD JESUS CHRIST the only begotten Son of GOD born of the Father before all Ages GOD of God Light of light True GOD of true God Begotten not made Consubstantial with the Father by whom all things were made who for us Men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven and was Incarnat of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary and became Man was also crucified for us suffered under Pontius Pilate was buried and arose again the third day according to the Scriptures he ascended to Heaven sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father and is to come again with Glory to judge the Quick and the Dead of whose Kingdom there shall be no end And now what can our most malicious Adversaties require more of us for I hope it is evident to all Men that it is the words of Mans Wisdom invented that we oppose and not the Mystery it self And here by the way I must tell him that this Counsel hath been no friend to Presbytry For we read of no Presbyters there but such as were Legats sent by Bishops who for age or sickness could not come As also that they appointed two Metrapolitan Bishops one in Rome and another in Alexandria See Chron Carionts page 205. The rest of his Tatle is only about the Translation of Hebr 1. 3. For which he citeth a number of Lexioons I have none of them by me but one Serevellius who in his Lexieon Graco Latinum translats it Persona and in his Lexcon Latino Grâ—cum translats it Substantia But Hiâ—rom Erasmus and Melanchton translats it Substantia And so if George Keith have said any thing which offends our Author in this or any other point he may deall with his Books when he hath a mind and I do not Question his ability to answer for himself I cannot omit one notable proof he gives to prove his salsehoods Thus It is most evident from their perpetual bellish roillings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity calling it an abominable and stinking Doctrine as they that heard them told me c. Now Reader consider what can be expected from such an Adversary whose malice blinds him that he cannot see his own folly Perhaps as great a Liar as himself told him a Tale and he will print and publish it to the World to defame an Honest and Innocent Body of People This is Hicks and Faldo downright As for the Word Persona it is not to be found in the Nicen Creed and not only Augustine but Jerom and Laurentius Valla find fault with it as no fit word to express the Mystery But a late Writter who calls himself a Protestant Minister poircâ— eâ—gh rationales de DEO c. disputeth at large against the word Persona to whom I refert our Author That it is an unscriptural word he confesseth and then why may we not seek plain Scripture for it as well as his Brother Jo Brown in page 175 saith It is considerable that no where in Scripture we find it affirmed expresiv that Christ died for all Men. why then is all this trouble made But it seems Presbyterians may do many things which are not allowable to others seeing they would fain be accounted Dictators over all Consciences in Brittan But I hope what is said will suffice to clear us of Arrianism to any prejudiced Reader And therefore I shall proceed to his second Calumny Which is that according to the Quakers doctrine GOD is Author of sin We have heard of some Witches who after they were condemned have impeached many Innocent Persons So our Author being unable to clear his Brethren of that guilt charged justly on them by R B and fully proven would have the Quakers as guilty as they Solatium est miseris multos habere pares But two Blacks make not a White His Argument is GOD is the Author of every Substance But according to the Quakers sin is a substance Ergo c. He proves his Minor thus Grace is a Substance therefore sin is a substance He saith R B denyeth the Consequence which he thus proveth Sin can hear feel and perceive as well as Grace and Light it may feel and perceive the things of Satan as well as Light And Grace feels or perceives the Things of GOD and may be in the Heart of a real Godly person Therefore it is a Substance Thus our Auther Answer The Scripture is cleat That the Life of the Son of GOD is the light of men and that this is a substance I think he will not dare to deny and he hath seemed to grant that there was a substantial life in Adam before the fall which he saith was extinguished by the fall Hence came the darkness the Death the Polution the Corruption the lust the flesh or Body of Death and all sin as the West-minster Confession teacheth Now to compare these together and to say the light enlighteneth therefore the darkness enlighteneth the life of Christ in man feeleth and perceiveth therefore Death Polution and Corruption doth feell and perceive is a most wild consequence and if he intend to make the seed of the Serpent every way equal to the seed of the Woman it s but the path way to Manichism and indeed he hath manifested his favour to the Serpents seed very much by contending so warmly for its Kingdom in his Chapter of perfection But it will not do for no Man can deny that he hath had the Counsels Prohibitions Approbations and Reproofs of the Light and Grace of GOD either before or after the doing of the Good or evil act which speak forth a living and substantial Principle Whereas the other is a meer defect privation weakness corruption and a want And hath more of the nature of an accident tho I dare not call it one That is which may be present or absent without destroying its Subject For Adam had no sin and was better without it then with it And so will our Author if ever he have the good Luck to be delivered from it tho contrary to his Faith And Christ the best Man that ever was never had it as he
desire thou may consider That there is not one of the thirteen wherein he hath not either grosly belyed or deceitfully misrepresented us And in some things these Anabaptists as in his twelsth Instance for which he hath cited no Book he alledgeth they denyed the Lawfulness of all Warrs Wheras Sleidans Commentaries lib 5. Mieneer incited the Boors of Germanie to undertake the Holy Warr as he called it against the Princes Telling them That he was commanded of GOD to cut off all wicked persons and Princes And how well this agrees with the Presbyterian practises and Doctrines is but too nottour Read the Hynd let loose and Zions Plea Fol 262. Strick the Basilick Veine Nothing but this will cute the Pleurisee of our State And to say That they were for Libertie of Consâ—ience is no less inconsistent with their Practises for they laboured to propagate their Religion by the Sword And so did our Presbiterians Yea and put themselves under a necessity so to do by a solemn Oath Only the difference betwixt Muneer and the Presbiterians was this I lle crueem seeleris preâ—ium tulit hi diadema There was another Doctrine common to them both Anabaptists and Presbiterians Viz all is Durs Which Text they expounded thus That all the wealth of the World belonged properlie to the Saints and whatsoever other men possessed was but by usurpation Agreeable to this was the practise of our Presbiterians who after they had got possession of the Kings Revenue the Bishops Rents the Papists Estates and these they called Malignants and were squeezing the Nation with insupportable Cesses and Excise They at last devised a trick how the Israelite might robe the Aegyptian by forcing every man who was not as Zealous as the servency of the times required To lend them his money upon the publick Faith commonly called the Blind Bonds which Faith certainly will never justifie them For the wicked borrweth and paveth not again Yet in all this the Judgement of GOD was visible for the most part of them who gote the spoil of their Native Country lest their Heirs in a worse condition then they might have done if they had never meddled By all this it is evident That the Mans malice hath blindfolded him and that all his Lies and Perversions cannot help his bad cause But their enmity and hatred to Truth drives them on tho they might remember that he who hates his Brother is a murtherer and no murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him Had it not been as easie for him to have said The Lollards taught several Doctrines which the Quakers hold and which we have neglected tho we desire to be accounted their Successors Such as First It is not lawful to Fight for the Faith Secondlie That Tiths ought not to be paid to Ecclesiastical Persons Thirdlie That every faithful Man and Woman is a Priest Fourthly That in no case it is lawful to Swear Fifthly That true Christians receive the Body of Christ every day c. All these we should have acknowledged tho this backsliding and degenerat Tribe have denied them Next we come to his third Argument against Divine immediat Revelation viz If the Spirit or the Light within every Man were the Supream and Principal Rule then these 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 To prove the Consequence of the Major he citeth Paul and John 16. 2. alledging That Paul walked according to his Light and that his Light taught him that according to all he had for Light he ought to do many things against the Professors and Servants of Jesus Christ Answer Let the Reader observe First His constant disingenuity whereof he hath been so often found guilty For he should have said If the Teachings of the Spirit of Christ and His Light wherewith He hath enlightned every Man be the principal Rule c. Which would have urged upon Blasphemy if the rest of his Argument had been added to it Which notwithstanding is the true state of the Controversy Secondly Observe how blind the Man is for he hath fallen in the Ditch he digged for us Paul saith he according to all that he had for Light Ought to do many things against the Servants of Jesus c. But Paul had the Scriptures and was learned in the knowledge of them for Light Ergo according to our Author Paul according to the Light of the Scriptures ought to persecute the Saints Thirdly By this Argument the Old World yea all who lived before Moses wrote had no Sin because no Scripture and the Light of Christ and Teachings of the Spirit was no sufficient Rule to them All the Mahumitans and Pagans at this day have no Rule therefore no Sin These are the wild Consequences of this Argument Fourthly His instancing Paul is very impertinent For Paul had the Scriptures and was one of them who thought they had Eternal Life in the Scriptures and no doubt he thought them a Rule for his persecuting the Saints For he said he had lived blemlesly according to the Low And therefore it could be no other thing but the Light of Christ and the teachings of his Spirit which brought Paul to a better Understanding And whereas he saith in his next Argument That Paul never counteracted his Light was always of the same Judgement and therefore never had a true Light till the day of his Conversion This clearly contradicts the Scriptures and the experience of all Ages John 12 Chap. 36. While ye have Light believe in the Light that ye may be the children of the Light Hence it is clear Men have Light before Conversion or becoming Children of Light And again he said John 3. 19. The condemnation of the World was not for want of Light but for Loving darkness more then Light Every Servant received a Talent and it was said From him that had not shall be taken away even that which he hath All which intimats that it is not want of Light but not believing in nor taking heed to the Light that causeth Men to err And Prov 1. 23. Turn ye at my Reproof behold I will pouer out my Spirit upon you c. 24. I have called and ye refused and I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded verse 25. Ye have set at naught all my Counsells and would none of my reproofs 30 They would none of my Counsel they despised all my reproofes therefore they shall eat the fruits of their own waies Hence it is manifest That CHRIST the Light the Wisdom of GOD calls reproves stretcheth out his hand oflers his Councils even to such as reject him and do not regard him and therefore are at last rejected by him And lastly The Experiences of all Ages sheweth that it is a Law engraven or imprinted on the Souls of all men not to do that to another which we would not should be done to our selves
World perceiveth clearly that there is no light common to all mankind except some small Relicts of that once bright shinning of GOD like the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lantron And herein lyes the stress of the contraversie We on the other hand assert that when man had by his fall brought himself and his posterity into a miserable condition GOD had mercy on him and entered into a new Covenant with him in the seed of the Woman CHRIST JESUS Upon better terms then the former Covenant and that Christ the Light did of New Enlighten him or to use his own words Light the Candle of that extinguished Lantron whereby he might see and know the things of GGD and be saved from out of that miserable estate whereinto he had brought himself his fall and that this is most consonant to Scripture and sound reason will appear by the Sequal First The Covenant of works was made with Adam in his integrity and the Covenant of Grace was made with man in his fallen estate and confirmed to Abraham and David and all the Law and ratified by by the Death of Christ under the Gospel Now the question here is whether the Covenant of Grace left mankind in the same condition it found him That is to the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lantron which our Author saith are never able to shew the wandering traveler in the dark night his way homeward or whether Christ the Mediator of this Covenant the Light which enlightneth every man coming into the World did give unto man light and grace sufficient for fullfilling the Terms of this New Covenant For to deny this were to impeach the justice of GOD For the Adam had sufficient Light Grace and Power to fulfill the First Covenant I hope our Author will not deny And to assert that his Posterity had not Light nor Grace sufficient to fulfill the Terms of the Second Covenant were no less then to say that men were nothing bettered by the Covenant of Grace but were left to seek their way with their extinguished Lanthron And that the Old World was drowned and they damned for want of Light or Knowledge of the Will of GOD which is absurd as well as contrary to the Scriptures For the Spirit of GOD strove with them and told Caâ—in that if he did well he should be accepted and if he did evil sin lay at the door Which saying presupposeth that Cain knew the God and the evil Did not Christ preach to the Old World in the dayes of Noah I Pet 3. 19. And if this be true that fallen man had no Law nor Light but an extinguished Lanthorn by what Law could the men of Sodom and Gomorah be condemned I know nothing he can say to this but that direful Doctrine of Reprobation which yet will not serve his turn Secondly That this Light wherewith Christ hath enlightned every man is supernatural sufficient is so largely proved by Samuel Fisher William Penn George Keith and Ro Barkclay and all the Objections answered is nottour to any who hath been at pains to read their Writings so that it might suffice to direct my Reader thereto Yet shall I take notice of what seems to have any weight In the first he comes above board and calls it Reason And then for I wave his railing and reflections Reason is Natural and Man is Rational That Man excrising his Reason and contemplating the Works of Creation and Providence cannot but conclude that they are the Product of an Infinite and Omnipotent Creator who is to be Loved Feared and adored which thoughts as to the substance of the Action are certainly good And what saith all thi to the purpose Are not the prayers and plowing of the wicked as good as the substance of the Action and yet sin But the Question is Whether man had no other Principle in him whereby he could discern these things but his natural and corrupt Reason which was the thing incumbent upon him to prove and which he hath wholly omitted Seeing the Apostle saith The natural man cannot discern the Things of GOD. His Second Argument is Whatever is in man and common to all Mankind is Natural but some sparks of the Knowledge of a Deitie and some good Thoughts as the desire of self-preservation are in man common to all Mankind Ergo c The Major is false otherwayes it would follow That the Grace of GOD which bringeth to Salvation which is in Man and hath appeared to all Men must be Natural and the Life of Christ the Light of Men must be Natural both which are absurd His Third is much to the same purpose That which is originally born with every Man and up to more and more maturity is undoubtedly natural but some remainders of the Knowledge of God are originally that is in the Principle or Inclination born with Man and grows up to more and more maturity according to the growth of him in whom they are Ergo c. They are Natural Certainly if this Argument hold Man that lives long and grows up to a great hight must acquire a great Knowledge of God which is ridiculous And Seneea had more Knowledge than this Author as before cited who said There were Divine Seeds sown in Man which grew according to the entertainment they melt with And whether this of Seneea be more consonant to our Saviour's Parable of the Sower and the Seed than our Author's Argument let the Reader judge The Seed was sown by Christ in all Grounds the Seed gtew Ergo according to our Author it was Natural And the Talents were given to the profitable and unprofitable Servants and they grew as they were improved Ergo they were Natural His Fourth Argument is That which is common to Devils is not supernatural But to know and believe that there is a God which is of it self a good thought is common to Devils Ergo c. When our Author gives us a learned Treatise of Nature of Angels of their Fall and what they Lost and what they Retained And tells us whence he learned it and then proves that Men and the Devils in their nature in their Fall and since their Fall are in all things alike he may have an Answer For my part I seek not to be wise above what is revealed I know that Men and Angels Fell and that Man was Redeemed by Christ and not Devils And that he purchased for Man Grace whereby he might attain to Faith Repentance and New Ohedience which are the Terms of the Second Covenant I know also the Devils believe that there is a God and that this their belief of His immutable Justice is no small patt of their present as well as future Torment where by they know that they shall be eternally tormented in Hell And if ever our Author come there which God forbid he will find this to be a part of his Nature as he would insinuate in his next Argument where he saith That which