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
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
ther the Glory of God not the 〈…〉 of the people We haâ—e no malâ— knowing that he who hates his Brother is a Murtherer and no Murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him To the Examples of Enoch and Noah being called perfect He saith R B confesseth they once bad sin Therefore how came they at another time to be free of it altogether The answer is easie 1 John 1. 9. If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness As for the word Perfection its having diverse significations It may be so But I am sure it can never be truely predicated of him who breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed. He comes next to vindicate their Arguments for the Devils Kingdom or Sinning Term of Life The first whereof is 1 John 2. 3. misunderstood by them If we say we have no sin c Answer first I say with Augustine upon the Galatians Aliud est non peccare aliud non habere percatum Secondly The following words of the Apostle are If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness And he that is cleansed from sin is the same that was before said to have sin Now it is said in the 7th verse The Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin Here cleanseth is in the present Tense Now to be defiled with sin and cleansed from all sin at the same time seems a contradiction and therefore must be admitted to be two several times Let our Author solve this by a fair Commentaty with the next To his Answer That it follows no more that the Apostle John was at that time defiled with sin then that the Apostle James was a Curser when he said of the tongue herewith curse we men Our Author Replyes There is no Parity And why Is it because they are both in the plural Number and present Time No But saith he James speaketh of gross outbreakings and John simply of the nature of sin Very good I see our Author can distinguish betwixt morial and venial sins Of which sure lying must be one in his Judgement or else he had been unsainted long since But knowing this would not do he tells us the Apostle John even in his best Frame had sinful actions and citeth Revel 19. 10 11. and 22. 8 9. The first place is That he falls down at his feet to worship him And the second is That he fell down to worship before the feet of the Angel Which second place cannot be understood of worshipping the Angel but of Worshipping GOD before the feet of the Angel But admit they both meant so our Author must acknowledge this to have been one of his venial sins if a sin at all For it was but a mistaking the Angel who in Chapter 18. 1. Is said to have great Power and the Earth was enlightned with his Glory I say it was but a taking this Angel to have been Christ And therefore he may see the LORD did not permit the Apostle to commit the sinful action upon that mistake but stopped him And he reads not that John offered to worship the Angel after he knew him to be his fellow servant And so these two Texts he boasts of can do hm no service To the rest in this Paragraph he giveth no Answer but It 's false And again we know c without any Reason but his imperious assertion which deserves to be neglected Next he indeavours to prove from Ecclesiastes 7. 20. That Men sin daily c. Which place he little urgeth only tells us He hath considered the Hebrew and hath found it the Indicative Mood So saith our Author Ergo verum But he must excuse me to think Jerom and Junius Tremellius as good Linguists as he and yet have translated it in the Potential Mood and may not sin His next is Rom 7. 17. From which Texts he saith J B. hath proved That the Apostle was in Carnal State in respect of sinning at that time But he hath not been so just as to tell us how he proved it least his Arguments should have been sound like these he cites page 200. But I wonder how a Man of Sense can assert it if he but read the next Chapter throughout The second verse whereof cleareth this matter where the Apostle saith The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus had made him free from the law of sin and death And many times after witnesseth a better Condition As that he had sought the good fight c Nothing could separate him from the Love of GOD c And Phil 4. 13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me His Objection of the Apostle John is already answered That of Peter proves no more then that a Man may sin which is not denyed He comes at last to his great Argument If we find no Instances in Scripture of such persons as were so perfect as that they did not sin then to imagine such a Perfection is but a groundless fancie and dream But the former is true Ergo c. For answer let the Reader observe first that our Author finding his Brothers Argument fully refuted by R B hath not attempted the Vindieation of it But he saith the Argument was proponed three different wayes the first of which he chooseth to answer unto Answer Either this Argument which he answereth unto was to the purpose or not If it was to the purpose it was right to answer it Seeing our Author calls them not three arguments but one proponed three different wayes any of which his Adversary might lawfully choose If it was not to the purpose as was the greatest part of his book then he might have spared it But because R B took not our Authors argument to task which perhaps was not there he saith he must confess he skipt over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the Jugular Vein This is a Rhodomontado expression more like Don Quixot then a sober man writing about Religion tho very ordinary with our Author But let us see what cause there is for all this froath First then I deny his Minor for I can find him many recorded in Scripture of whom there is no failing recorded to wit Enoh Melchizedeck Elias John the Baptist and many of the Prophets and let him prove by Scripture that these men did sin For Athanasius in his fourth Oration against the Arrians saith That many were born holy and free from all sin and particularly Elias and John Baptist Secondly I ask him whether the sins of the Saints were recorded in Scripture for our imitation which he seems here to insinuate for we say not that we ought not to walk according to the Scripture But that the sins of the Saints are recorded that we may shun them not that we should follow them neither is there
his Followers c. To this Argument he sers down R. B's Answer but slily omitteth what followeth which is And therefore most weak is his Reasoning in page 461 That such Revelations cannot be more sure then the Scriptures which are the Objective Revelations of the Apostles written down since the certainty of these Writtings depends upon the certainty of these Revelations by which they were written And if any case that Maxim of the Schools hold it must in this Propter quod unum quodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And this may serve to answer his talk of a chief binding power and prerogative to be the Touchstone of all Doctrines For if they be so it is because they were Divinely inspired And therefore Divine Inspirations must be much more so But let us consider his Argument First He saith The Prophets and Apostles for Christ wrote no Scripture could by infallible Evidence and proofs even to the conviction and self condemnation of the greatest Opposets demonstrate that they were sent of GOD but whence came it then that their greatest Opposers did not receive their Testimony Why did they persecur them even to death As their Successors the Presbâ—terians and their Brethren the Independents have done to some of us Was it not because they were not convinced that they were sent of GOD Or was it because they maliciouslie hardened their hearts and would not believe it The same is the case with our Author and his Brethren at this day But perhaps he expecteth miracles for Proofs and Evidences And in this followeth the footstepts of his predecestors the Papists who dealth so by the first Reformers And the same Answer the first Reformers gave to the Papists may serve him For as they said They needed not Miracles because they preached not a New Gospel So we pretend not Revelations of New Things But a New Revelation of the Good old things And again what can he pretend to that we want He hath produced nothing Only in page 81 He saith on the other hand It is beyond denyall that we have the Scriptures And is it not as true that we have them But the Question is Who hath the true sense of them The Papists say They are the only true Infallible Proponders J B and our Author say Christian prudence and Wisdom comparing the Text with the Text And we say The Holy Spirit who gave them forth is the only Right Interpreter Et ad buc sub judice lis est But he falls upon R Barkclay for saying That others pretending to be led by the Scriptures as their Rule as much as J B have been deceived To which he answers If the Scriptures through the corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the patrocinic of errours and corrupt practises Then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them and square their Life exactly according to them Yet they are no more able to be a Rule to them then these Revelations can be which Jobn of Leyden held This he saith is the first proposition into which R B's Argument resolveth And the second is no better then this Viz He that will not admit of such Revelations which cannot be distinguished from these that led their followers into the most blasphemous opinions and most wicked practises immaginable He who will not admit of them for his Principal Rule but preferreth unto them the Scriptures c Provideth an Argument for Atheists and Scepticks Answer Could the Devil himself in his most cunning subtile transformings have more deceitfully and dissingenuously represented this sober and discreet Answer of R B But it seems the man is past all shame For first He insinuats that R B saith That men firmly believing and clearly understanding the Scriptures and squaring their practise exactly conform to them may err as did John of Leyden Secondly That he ownes the Revelations which John of Leyden pretended to to be a Rule And thirdly That he denyeth the Scriptures to be a Rule All which three are gross and notorious Lyes unworthy of a man of any Candor or Honesty His second Proposition is drawn from these words of R B And indeed this is a fine Argument he hath produced for Scepticks and Atheists for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain For since their ground and warrand for writing the Scripture was in his own account Inward Immediat and extraordinary Revelation And if such be as he affirms uncertain then the Truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such must necessarly be uncertain Now the man certainly knew that R B was pleading for none other Revelation but Divine Inward and Immediat Revelations But being straitned by this Answer he betakes himself to the covers of Deceit and the refuge of Lyes for his Reply instead of the Revelation of the Spirit of GOD which he knew his Adversary meant he puts in the Revelations of Jobn of Leyden Which impudent treachery is obvious to Reader at first view Hence he might conclude That because Micajah wrought no Miracles to prove his prophesie more then the Priests of Achab did therefore he was not to be believed And because Jobn Huss George Wishart and Samuel Rutherfoord wrought to Miracles Therefore they were no more to be trusted then Jobn of Leyden For Miracles only excepted I know no proofs he can lay claim to but we can do the same But the best is That in page 80 he would father these Deductions upon his Adversary Saying And now Reader speak thy mind in good earnest Thinkest thou that this man was in his Witt or to be numbred among Rationals when he made these Deductions c. Truly he is very weak Reader That seeth not this man 's affronted deceit And seeing the Deductions are intirely his own and none of R B's He must by his own Confession be numbred among Brutes And whereas he saith That J B never called the Revelations of the Prophets uncertain He should have told what hath made Divine Revelation uncertain now which he cannot Or have proven that it is altogether ceassed which he dare not undertake tho it be an Article of his Faith And thus by denying the certainty of Divine Revelations for R B pleads for none else let the Reader judge if lie have not laboured to confirm his Brothers Atgument for Atheists and Seepticks In page 81. He thinks to put an end to the contraversie by some positions whereof the first is to this purpose We cannot know whether they have any Revelation at all They may be lyeing unto us For any thing we know we have only their naked words for it whereas on the other hand it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures This had been very suitable language for their predecestors The Jews when they stoned the Proto-Martyr Stephen Acts 7. 56. When he said Behold I see the Heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the Right Hand of GOD And for Joash the King when he