gate it was that he might sanctifie the people with his own bloud 〈◊〉 this is more than a may be Rom. 3 25 26. Why did God set forth Christ to be a propitiation It was to declare his righteousness for the remission of sinnes that are past that he might be just and the justifiâ—r of him that â—eleeveth in Iesus a Certaine Real thing Many moe passages might be added to this purpose but these may suffice to discover the absurd falshood of this Quakers doctrine 17. Adde 6. such passages as mention the Actual Accomplishment and Effect of Christ's death where it will yet more appear that this was no meere May be or Possible thing but that which was to have a certaine Bâ—ing and Reality as to the persons for whom it was designed Such as Heb. 1 3. when he had by himself purged our sinnes Can their sinnes be said to be purged who pine away in hell for ever because of their sinnes could this be true if no man had been saved and yet if it had been a mere possible and may be Redemption it might have come to passe that not one person should have been actually saved So Heb. 9 12. by his owne blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption Is a meer possible Redemption to be called an Eternal Redemption and was that all that Christ obtained Then Christ's blood was more ineffectual in the truth than the type was in its typicalness for the blood of buls and goats and the ashes of an hiefer sprinkling the unclean did not obtaine a possible and may be-sanctification and purifying of the flesh but did actually and really sanctify to the purifying of the flesh vers 13. Againe vers 14. which also confirmeth what is now said how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God So that all such for whom he offeâ—ed himself and shed his blood and none else have their consciences purged from dead works to serve the living God and who dar say that this is common to all or is a meer may be which the Apostle both restricteth and asserteth as a most certaine real thing Againe vers 26. but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself So that he did Actually and Really and not Possibly and Potentially only put away sin the sin viz. of those for whom he was a sacrifice even of them that look for him and to whom he shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation vers 28. and sure no man in his wits will say that this is the whole world Gal. 3 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us 24 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Here are three Ends and Effects of Christ's Redemption mentioned which no Man will say are common to all viz. Redemption from the curse of the Law this was Really not potentially only done by Christ's being made a curse for us the Communication of the blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit which are ensured to such as are Redeemed from the curse of the lâ—w and to none else So Ephes. 2 13 14 15 16. But now in Christ Iesus ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ for he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us having abolished in his flesh the enmity the Law of commandements in ordinances for to make to himself of twain one nâ—w man so making peace and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the crosse having slaine the enmity thereby To which adde the parallel place Col. 1 21 22. 2 14 15. was all this delivery from Wrath Enmity Law of commandements whatever was against us but a meer Potential thing and a May be common to all in whose power it was to cause it take effect or not as they pleased Esai 53 5. He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed with 1 Cor. 15.3 Christ died for our sinnes 1 Pet. 2 24. who his owne self bear our sinnes in his own body on the tree by whose stripes we are healed How can we then imagine that all this was a meer May be seing he was so bruised for our iniquities so died for our sins so bear our sinnes in his own body as that thereby all in whose room he stood are healed by his stripes The Apostle doth moreover fully clear this matter Rom. 5 6. Christ died for the ungodly was this for all Or was it to have an uncertane End and effect No vers 9. much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him The ungodly and the sinners for whom he died are such as become justified by his blood and shall at length be fully saved from wrath And againe vers 10. for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life Upon his death followeth Reconciliation with God and then Salvation and his death is for no more than his life is for By him also they receive an atonement vers 11. As the consequences and effects of Adam's sin did Certainly and not by a May be redownd to all that he represented and engadged for so the fruites and effects of Christ's death do as certainly come unto such as are his as the Apostle cleareth in the following verses laying the advantage on the side of Christ and his vers 15. much more the grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many vers 16. but the free gift is of many offences unto justification vers 17. much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reigne in life by one Iesus Christ vers 18. even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life ver 19. so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous vers 21 so might grace reigne through righteousness unto eternal life by Iesus Christ our Lord. Is all this a Common thing and a meer May be or Possibility Ioh. 10 11. he giveth his life for his sheep vers 15. But may they for all that perish No in no wise vers 28. and I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish He came that they might have life and might have it more abundantly vers 10. To the same purpose he saith Ioh. 6.33 that he
he expresseth not in his Thesis and giveth but a short hinte thereof in his Apology of which afterward That Man at first was living and in a good state he insinuateth when he saith that he is now fallen and degenerate but wherein that good and happy condition consisted he explaineth not iâ— may be he forbeareth to do this lest thereby he should discover some secrets of their mystical Theology which either is not fit as yet to be made known or we are not in case to understand improve aright Some may possibly think that he forbeareth to give an Explication of this or to adde his Testimoâ—y to the orthodoxe Truth in this point because the Natural Light that is in every man cannot discover or comprehend it Natures Light I grant will never discover without the Revelation of the word the Time when the Manner how nor the Cause and Occasion upon which this inundation took its original I finde that Mr Hicks in his 3 Dial. Pag. 40 41. getteth no satisfaction as to this from Will. Pen speaking thus in his book Pag 29. Herein theâ— contradicts thy self abusest the Philosophers and blasphemest the light Thou grants the heathens knew there was sin If so how could they be ignorant of sins coming into the world This I say is no way satisfying for though Philosophers did see and could not but see that sin and misery had overflowed all yet by all their Common Light they couâ—d not understand how sin entered into the world and death by sin how Adam as a publick person was under a covenant obligation for himself and posterity and how he did violate that Covenant by transgressing the commandement and thus brought-in sin and misery And that which Will. Pen addeth Ibid. saying If thou meanest a clear and distinct account that Adam and Eva were beguiled by the serpent who tempted them 't is no wayes to the purpose not only helpeth not the matter but discovereth also some further latent designe for who seeth not how necessary the knowledge hereof is unto the right understanding of the fall and of the true cause thereof If this were not so as Mr Hicks well saith why did the sacred Penmen give such a full and distinct account hereof in the Scriptures But it may be they have a Parabolical sense and meaning to put upon that whole matter as it is historically related and upon all the passages of Scripture relating thereunto It is also observable that Will. Pen in the forecited page insinuateth that the knowledge of this is not necessary unto salvation for he saith That which is sufficient to that faith which concerns salvation is to know that God is and that he hath given Mâ—n the knowledge of himself and his will concerning him by some inward law Mr Stâ—lham also showeth in his book against the Quakers Pag. 96 9â— 100. that I Nailer and R. Farnworth deny That Adam was under a Covenant of works and that he stood by the moral law written in his heart and by the observation of the positive branches given him in command acoâ—rding to that law as we mentioned above And if the matter stand thus how can they give us a distinct account of the manner and cause of the fall and degeneration 3. He sayeth that this Death and Degeneration is befallen all the race of mankinde quoad primum Adam seu hominem terrestrem that is or I know not what it is concerning or in respect of the first Adam or earthly man By which words it is manifest that he pointeth out and declareth in what respect it is true that all mankinde is become dead and degenerate to wit in respect of the first Adam or the Earthly man and hereby he seemeth to point out the extent of this fall death and degeneration or rather a restriction and limitation of its extent as if he had said It reacheth all Mankinde only as to the Earthly man or the first Adam But what he meaneth by this first Adam and terrestial man I cannot well tell His manner of expression will not give us ground to think that he meaneth our forefather Adam because of whose transgression this death came upon all his posterity but rather that he meaneth something in every man going with them under this name and this thing what ever it be is the only Subject of this Death and Degeneration and so in opposition to this there must be some thing in man which with them will go under the name of the Secâ—nd Adam and of the heavenly man and this whatever it be is not obnoxious to this death nor is it degenerated and lapsed This to me must be the native import of his words But how we shall come to a right uptaking of his true meaning I wish he had showne us If we consider what other Quakers have said it may be that thereby we shall be able to make some proâ—able conjecture concerning his meaning Mr Hicks Dial. 1. Pag. 16. tels us that Georg Fox a man eminent among the Quakers and accounted by them infallible in his book called the great mystery Pag 6 8 and 100. affirmeth the soul to be part of God and of Gods being And that it is without beginning Pag. 91. and also infinite Pag. 29. And when Will. Pen accuseth Mr Hicks of false dealing in this Mr Hicks Dial. 3. vindicateth himself by citeing Pag. 20. c. George Fox's owne words thus Geâ—rg Fox in his Great mystery Pag. 90. speaks thus is not the soul without beginning coming from God returning unto God againe who hath it in his hand and Christ the power of God the Bishop of the soul which brings it up into God which came out from him hath this a beginning or ending And is not this infinite in it self Againe says he Georg Fox tels us Pag. 2 that Magnus Byne saith the soul is not infinite in it self but it is a creature and R. Baxter saith it is a spiritual substance Whereunto Georg Fox replyeth Consider what a condition these called Ministers are in They say that which is a Spiritual substance is not infinite in it self but a creature That which came out of the Creator and is in the hand of the Creator which brings it up to the Creator againe that is infinite in it self The same Mr Hicks saith further The Quakers are accused for saying there is no Scripture that speaketh of an humane soul and for affirming that the soul is taken up into God Hereunto Georg Fox thus answereth Pag 100. God breathed into the man the breath of life and he â—ecame a living soul and is not this which cometh out from God which is in Gods hand part of God from God and to God againe Which soul Christ the power of God is the Bishop of Is not this of his being Yea Will. Pâ—n in vindication of Georg Fox Pag. 66. as Mr Hicks sheweth Dial. 3. Pag. 22. saith That all that can be concluded from Georg Fox's words
is this That God inspired Man with some thing of his own substance bestowed something of his own divinity upon him That God did inspire Man with the Holy Ghost 4. Now if this man be of the same judgment with these mentioned we may saifly conceive or conjecture at least that his meaning in these words now under consideration is this That the Body of man which is of the First and Earthly Adam was degenerat and became dead but not the Soul which being a part of God's substance and being and having relation to the Second and Spiritual Adam who is the Bishop thereof was not obnoxious to this Death and Degeneration for being eternal as well as Infinite it could neither die nor degenerate nor fall But how blasphemous an opinion this is every one may see This is the old damnable opinion of the Gnosticks Manichees and Priscillianists and of Cerdo See August Lib. de Origine Animae c. 2. and De Haeres c. 46. and 70. Aquin. 1. q. 90. Ar. 1. Col. Conimb ad 2. de Anima q. 1. Art 6. and was owned by that blasphemous man Servetus and of late also by the Author of Theologia Germanica and of the Bright Star See Mr Rutherf Survey of Spiritual Antichrist Chap. XIV These hold that the soul was a part of God's essence Though God's essence be most Pure Simple and Indivisible and cannot be a part of any composed thing If the Soul were thus of God and a part of God God should be the forme of man Because the soul is the fâ—rme of Man and consequently Man should be God for the whole may be denominated from the forme The Scripture tels us that God is Immutable and that there is no shadow of turning with Him but by this opinion he should be Mutable and change from Power to Act from Ignorance to Knowledge from Vice to Vertue c. and back againe reciprocally Hence also it must follow that either no souls can go to hell or that a part of God must be tormented in hell And what will they say of Devils Either they must deny that there are any or say that they are a part of God for they are Spiritual Substances being Intelligences and with the Quakers forementioned spiritual substances are parts of God and are Infinite in themselves they are no Creatures and if no Creatures they must be the Creator or a part of the Creator It is true Man was created according to the Image of God which as to the Soul consisted as in the spirituality of its substance so chiefly in Wisdome Righteousness and Holiness Eccles. 7 29. Ephes. 4 24. Col 3 10 But the Scripture tels us that as to this Image it was lost even as to knowledg nothing being left but some rubbish of that once stately Fabrick of which afterward and that thus the soul was corrupted and damnified by the fall all the Powers and Faculties thereof being perverted so that thereby Man became not only utterly Indisposed but also Opposite to all that is spiritually good and wholly Inclined to all evil and that continually Rom. 3 vers 10 20. Ehes. 2 2 3. Rom. 5 6. 8 7 8. Gen. 6 5 And this is confirmed by what this Man addeth in the Thesis and prosecuteth at large in his Apology 5. If this be not his true meaning let us try another Conjecture They commonly speak of a Christ within them as Mr Hicks cleareth Dial. 1. Pag. 44. c. and taunt such as beleeve in a Person without them saying Christ is within and that there is no other Christ but that within every man Mr Hicks there tels us also that Crisp one of their ministry asking what Christ he owned and receiving this answere That he did not beleeve any meer Principle or Spirit in men to be the Christ because that was not capable to suffer what Christ suffered returned this reply That this was blasphemy And when Mr Hicks said further that the Christ he beleeved was no other then that person the Scriptures speak of The word made flesh God and man in one person Crisp. replied that then he knew the beginning and date of his Christ Moreover he tels us Pag. 45 46. that Georg Fox in the forecited Book Pag. 206. saith if there be any other Christ but he that was crucified within he is a false Christ and he that hath not this Christ that was crucified within is a Reprobat And Pag 207. That God's Christ is not distinct from the saints and he that eats the flesh of Christ hath it within him Pag. 201. Mr Hicks tels us also Dial. 2. Pag. 10. How G. Whitehead in his Dip. Plu. Pag. 13. saith Christ Iesus a Person without us is not Scripture language but the Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians This language is very suteable unto the language of the Old Libertines against whom Famous Calvin wrote in his Instructio adv Libertinos Cap 17. They made Christs sufferings to be a meer Histrionick Action or Comedie and Quintinus used to be very angry when any asked him how he did saying How can it be ill with Christ. But yet that they may put a difference betwixt themselves and others They use to say as Mr Stalham informeth us Pag. 276. That Christ is in all but none is in Christ except themselves Shall we think that this is thâ—s Mans meaning to wit That man is Corrupt Fallen Degenerated and Dead not according to that part in him which is Christ but according to that part in him which is the Old man As this should contradict what he saith afterward upon this account that then it were manifest that whole man did not fall or became dead and was degenerate so it could not be satisfying for it would have but this import That man was Corrupted Dead and Degenerated in so farr as he was corrupted dead and degenerated and then we should be no wiser than we were Moreover if we should ask how this Christ came into every man The answer must be that he was created in him and as to this part of man Adam did not fall And if we should ask what is this Christ in every man Will. Pen in his Innocency with open face P. 8. as Mr Hickâ— sheweth Dial. 2. Pag. 41. answereth It is God himself And He with Nailer and Hubberthorn in their Answer to the Phanaticque History Pag. 13. will say it is the Light in us and Burroughs Pag 9 and 149. will say that he that was slaine upon the crosse is the â—ery Christ of God and the very Christ of God is in us The same Mr Hicks in his postscript to the Dial. 1. Pag. 82. tels us that Ed. Borroughs and Franc. Howgil said in the hearing of credible witnesses That Christ was as really in every man as he was in that Flesh which suffered at Ierusalem 6. But as yet we are arrived at no clear discovery of the truth in this matter but rather further off from any clear
evils but what that was they knew not The proud and vaine glorious Stoicks thought that all this sinne and misery did proceed from every mans own Free Will and Choise immediatly and that there was no other cause Hence they thought that every man came into the world free of any Vice or Inclination to sin errasti sayes Seneca Epist. 94. si existimas nobiscum vitianasci supervenerunt ingesta sunt so againe ib. nulli nos vitio natura conciliat nos illa integros ac liberos genuit And yet the same man must elsewhere lib. 3. quaest c. 30. confess that vice is learned without any teacher Hence also they thought that man by his owne Ability Paines and Industrie might recoveâ— all his losses and that nothing more was requisite but to live according to nature Senec. Epist. 41. Howbeit their very care and industrie to make lawes for bearing down of vice and setting forward of vertue was sufficient to Redargue and Confute their foolish Imagination had they but improven Natures light as they might or made use of right Reason as they pretended However we see Stoicks and Quakers are nigh of kin 2. Plato speaks more clearly concerning this Fallen and Degenerat State of Man but it is not improbable as Mr Galâ— sheweth in his Court of the Gentiles part 1. lib. 3. c. 5. that â—e had help from Scriptures or Iewish Tradition when he speaketh of the â—ron age and particularly when he sayeth in his Timâ—eâ—â— Locrus fol. 103. That the cause of vitiosity is from our Parents and first Principles rather than from ourselves and elsewhere There is well nigh in every one an ingenitâ— evil and disease And de legib lib. 5. The greatest evil of all is implanted in many men and fixed in their souls And this state of misery he tearmes Gorgias fol. 493. a moral or spiritual death and that according to the opinion of the wise saying I have heard from the wise men that we are now dead and that the body is but our sepulchre 3. However the generality of Philosophers were utter strangers to the Rise of this contagion and the hints that Plato giveth are but very dark But when Christianity came and spread it self through the world that which the wise Men of the world were utterly ignorant of became plaine and notoure to every one for without the knowledge of this there could be no right Improvement of the Remedie offered in the Gospel and therefore the knowledge of this was a necessary part of Christianity In causa duorum hominum said August lib. de Pecc orig c. 24. quorum per unum venundati sumus sub peccato per alterum redimimur a peccatis proprie fides christianâ— consistitpunc So that the doctrine of original sin with the reality and manner of its â—raduction from Adam and downeward by natural Generation was unquestioned in the Christian Church until that unhappy enemie of the grace of God arose who raised up his heresie upon the ruines of the proud â—ottages of the Heathen Philosophers I mean Pelagius who to strengthen himself in his opposition and enmity to the Grace of God in Christ Iesus did take upon him the defence of Corrupt Nature and denyed Original sin saying lib. de Natura apud August lib. de Nat. and Grat. c. 9. that all sinned in Adam not because of sin attracted by birth but because of Imitation See more of this Vossij Histor Pelag. lib. 2. par 2. thes 1. And Iulianus the Pelagian as we may see there also said against Augustine that God could not impute the sin of another unto Infants and that no man is born with sin And that the children cannot be guilty until they commit some thing by their owne will How Augustine set himself against this Palagian cardinal errour his books declare And how the whole Church did appear against it is notoure Pelagius himself subdolously seemed to deny his owne opinions in a Council in Palâ—stine at Diopolis condemning himself for saying That Adam was made mortal and so should have died whether he had sinned or not That Adams sin did only hurt himself and not mankinde That infants new borne are into the same condition that Adam was in before the fall And againe these and others of Pelagius errours were anathematized by the Councel of Milevum in Numidia And August tels us lib. â— de Bono persever cap. 2. that the Catholick Church defended against these Pelagians among other truths this That man is borne obnoxius to Adams sin and bound by the bond of damnation 4. This same Pelagian errour is maintained by the Socinians Socin Pral c. 4. de Christ. Serv. part 4. c. 6. Catech Racov. cap. 10. de Proph. Mun. Christ. Smale de justif disp 4. Volkel lib. 5. c. 18. Ostorod Instit. c. 33. By Episcopius against Heidanus Pag. 116. and by the Remonst Armin. Apol. cap. 7. fol. 84. So is it maintained by the Anabaptists And D. Voetius Select disp part 1. pag. 1079. tels us that the Jewes ordinarily this day deny Original sin citeing the words of one at Venice saying that the sin of Adam doth not condemne souls but only hurt the soul in so far as it bringeth in the body of Adam whence it is that it becometh more difficult to the Posterity of Adam to do good c. Mr Stephens in his defence of the doctrine of Original sin sheweth that one Mr Robert Everard and D. Ieremiah Taylor and some Examiners of the late Assemblies Confession of faith did appear against Original sin and in his preface he tels us that Anno 1654. Feb. 22. Some Brethren of the Separation did at a private dispute maintaine That all Infants were-free of Original sin To these Opposers of Original sin This Quaker in the name of the rest adjoyneth himself and so deserteth the Truâ—h maintained by the Orthodox Churches and explained in their several Confessions and particularly by our Confes. of faith Chap. 6. § 2.3 4. By this sin they i. e. our first Parents fell from their Original righâ—eousness and communion with God and so became dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body They being the root of all Mankinde the guilt of this sin was imputed and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation From this original corruption whereby we are utterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil do proceed all actual transgressions And thereafter § 6. Every sin both Original and Actual being a transgression of the righteous Law of God and contrary thereunto doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the Law and so made subject to death with all miseries spiritual temporal and eternal And more briefly in the larger and shâ—rter Catechismes to this Question Did all mankinde fall in
that look upon the place that the Apostle to the end he might clear up the way how beleevers partake of the benefites of Christs death maketh a comparison betwixt Adam and Christ and so cleareth up how it is that all Mankinde is become Corrupt and that in and through the first Man Adam from whom this corruption is derived not by Imitation for they cannot imitate it who never heard of it and yet even they partake of this corruption therefore by real Participation of the guilt saying verse 12. as by one man sin entred into the world c. and that in him all sinned and afterward that upon this sin death passed upon all men and reigned even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgressions that is over infants that had not yet committed any actual sin and that judgment was by one to condemnation so that the fruit of this sin was Condemnation or Obnoxiousness to condemnation and that because by this one sin the posterity were made sinners 2. By Death here is meaned every kinde of death Temporal and Eternal and Spiritual for it is a death that reigned over Iâ—fants and is called Condemnation 3. we finde no person old or young that come of this first Adam by ordinary generation here excepted nay Infants are expresly enough included vers 14. 4. So that all the posterity of Adam young and old being in Adam their Natural and Federal Head partake of his sin having sinned in him and of the miseries or just punishment of that sin All this is so clear and manifest both from the very words and expressions of the Apostle and from his scope that who ever speak against this must do violence to the text and weaken the Apostles argueings This same passage did the ancients Augustine and others urge against the Pelagians as is to be seen in Vossij histor Pelag. Pag. 146 147. By this argument That sin which is so described to us by the Apostle that he sayeth is brought death upon all men that men sinned by it and were made sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that thereby all became guilty of death and of condemnation that sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature included in Adam and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and to condemnation But the first sin of Adam is decribed to us by the Apostle c. Ergo That sin is the sin of nature because Adam did sustaine the person of all who potentially were in his Ioines and by vertue thereof all are liable to death the punishment thereof Vossius tels us moreover that the Ancients took much notice of Paul's calling Adam a Type and of the particle As and did hence gather that as the Obedience of Christ belongeth to all such as are spiritually begotten not by Imitation but by Imputation so the Disobedience of Adam is conveyed not by Imitation but by Imputation unto all such as corporally come of him They took notice also as he sheweth us of the particle By which did denote the Efficient cause of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom which saith that the posterity did sin in Adam or if it be rendered because or in as much or for which it will shew what is the Adequate cause of death and that it hath also place in Infants 19. Thus we have seen the Argument of the orthodox Church and its ground let us next see what he sâ—ith against it As concerning the words of the Apostle saith he the reason of the condemnation in whom all did sin that is in that seed or by occasion of that seed for no man is said to sin but in his owne person But I pray By what warrand may he foist-in words at his owne pleasure into the tâ—xt Is there the least mention made of seed in all the text Is not this intolerable boldness to deal so with the Scripâ—ures of Truth But if Infants be condemned because they sinned in or by occasion of that seed then that seed was imputed to them Yes he will say but that was when they began to sin in their owne persons No say I that cannot be because the text importeth no such thing yea it saith the contrary viz. that death which is included in the condemnation passed upon all men and reigned even over such as had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is had not as yet sinned actually So that his reason is directly against the Apostle and we have further above discovered its untruth He addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aggreeth with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so sheweth how Adam by his sin gave entry to sin into the world and so death by sin entered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by which viz. occasion or in which viz. death all others did sin i. e. actually in their persons viz. who were capable of sinning of which number Infants are not who are under no Law as was showne and where no Law is there is no transgression as the Apostle sayeth This upon the matter is the same that the old Pelagians said as Vossius sheweth us Hist. Pelag. Pag. 182.183 For they interpreted these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom all have sinned by sinning after example or Imitation and this man by sinning upon that Occasion when they become capable and the Socinians with Episcopius homologate with the Pelagians and have been abundantly answered by the orthodox who shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Xenophon Aristophanes Demosthenes and other Greek Authors But For Answere unto this Quaker I would say 1. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the meaning must be this and so death passed upon all men in which death all men sinned and what sense can this make out May not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agree as well to Man If not let him give us the least colour of reason either from the text or context 2. If Adam by his sin gave entry unto sin into the world this must be meaned of his first sin for the Apostle speaketh alwayes of one sin or of Offence in the singular number that Vers. 18. may be read by one offence And so sin entered not by Imitation nor yet by Occasion for his after sinnes might have laid the way for Imitation and have given Occasion as well as the first Yea more yea only for while the first sin was committed there were none to imitate him and if this had been the Apostles meaning he had spoken of sins in the plural number 3 If this had been the Apostles meaning he had not named One man and One man as a Type a Type of him that was to come for Eva's sin the Devils sin might also have been an Occasion 4. Hence it will follow thaâ— beleevers are made Righteous only upon Occasion of Christs Righteousness
and have â—othing of it Imputed unto them which though this man may account no way absurd yet all Orthoeox Christians will be of another minde 5 He speaks dubiously concerning the Import of these two words and knoweth not whether their meaning be by which occasion or in which death and we have seen that the meaning cannot be by which Occasion And it will further appear from this that Adams sin could be no Occasion to such as never heard of it and our nearest Parents sins should be a greater Occasion and further what could Paul's meâ—tioning an Occasion contribute to his designe 6. Paul asserts that death passed upon all men and giveth this as a ground thereof that all men had sinned but this Man perverteth the Apostles words and meaning and maketâ— the Apostle speak thus death passed upon all men because all men will sin actually when they become capable 7. The Apostle sheweth that death passed upon all men and reigned even over Infants and so supposeth that Infants had sinned otherwayes his argument vers 12. had been of no value for the Instance of Infants who are a great part of Mankinde had destroyed the Apostles reasoning if they bad not been included under all men 8. He is angry at the Orthodox as we sâ—all hear afterward for restricting the particle all or the words all men though it be according to the exigence of the context But here he excludeth a great part of Mankinde contrary to the whole scope and disigne of the Text yea and to the Apostles expresse including of Infants and making use of their Case as a confirmation of his point 9 If he exclude Infants from this sin he must exclude them also from all benefite in Christs Obedience and then where is his Universal Redemption and his Universal Grace whereof he speaketh in the following Theses 10 That Infants are capable of sinning in their Head is as clear as they are capable of dying for the sin of the Head this the Apostle proveth from their death and from death reigneing over them 11. But sayes he Infants are under no Law But the Apostâ—e sayes the contrare viz. that there was both Sin and Law before Moses dayes because death reigned even over Infants and consequently that Infants were under sin and therefore also under a Law for where there is no law there is no transgressiâ—n But this was the Law given to Adam as head of Mankinde which Law all transgressed when Adam transgressed because the whole Nature transgressed it Adam representing all as their Natural Root and by vertue of the Covenant in which he stood And thus we see how this Man perverteth and inverteth the Words and Arguments and Scope and All of the Apostle 12 If death was inflicted on old Persons because of their actual sins wherefore was death inflicted upon Infants Sure the Apostle maketh no distinction of Deaths nor doth he speak of distinct causes of Death but only mentioneth an universal Cause of an universal Effect sin the cause and death the effect and therefore if the effect come upon infants the cause must also come upon them or the Apostle argueth very loosly and he must impute cruelty injustice to his Maker 13. This addition of his to the text viz. who were capable of sinning is the same that Castalio made saying these to wit who in regaird of age could have sinned And in this he was no lesse bold with the text then our Quaker is for as we have seen and the text is clear it is not all these only that die but even such as come not to that age and the Apostle alwayes speaks of death as the wages of sin And when he here sayeth of Infants that they sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression he clearly intimateth that they sinned some other way viz. in Adam which also the 19. verse manifestly proveth 20. He taketh notice Next of our argument from Psal. 51 5. behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me where the Psalmist is exaggerating his iniquity before the Lord as all true penitents will do traceth his sin to the very Spring and Fountaine as to him viz. that Original Corruption which he brought into the world with him and shewing that even while he was a forming and warming as the word importeth in the womb this corruption did adhere to him so that the very masse out of which he was framed was corrupt and what greater proof could we desire of the originaâ—ed part of this Original Sin than is here The Ancient Fathers made use of this passage for the same end as Vossius sheweth us Hist. Pelag. Pag. 144.145 And some Jewes such as Aben Ezra Sal. Iarchi expound it of innate Concupiscence Now what saith this Quaker to this He cannot see our Infâ—rence and why so It seemeth to me sayes he that this iniquity and sin is rathâ—r ascribed to the parents than to the Infants for he sayeth in sin did my mother conceive me not my mother conceived me sinning Ans. Is not this a quick observation and worthy of a Quaker But the misery is it quite crosseth Davids designe This man must think that it was a great argument of Davids Sorrow and Repentance to lay iniquity upon his Parents now in all appearance dead but I should look upon this as no argument of a true penitent heart What could his upbraiding of his Father and Mother after this manner contribute to the aggravating of his own sin And that this is David's designe I think this Quaker will not deny if he but look upon the place and read over the Psalm or the first part of it Is not David about the confessing of his owne sin Read the title of the Psalm the preeceeding verse and see Is he not seeking pardon and remission of his own sin Or shall we suppose that he is praying for remission to the dead all Confession of sin to God is in reference to Remission and if David speak here only of his Parents sin he is tacitely seeking Remission If he speak of his Parents sin in begetting and warming him in the womb it must be as including himself at least as shareing thereof and this will prove that David had sin upon him from his very conception And by his answere he would seem to make marriage duties unlawful contrare to 1 Cor. 7 2 3 4 5. Heb. 13 4. He addeth another answere thus Such an interpretation would contradict the Scriptures formerly cited while it maketh infants to he hurt by their immediat parents sin And there is no mention here of Adam Answ. I do not prove hence that David was guilty of his immediat Parents sins but that original contagion doth so cleave to every ordinary Infant unless we could suppose some singular thing in David without all ground that in his very warming in his Mothers womb he is corrupted and albeit David make no mention here of Adam the
to help his owne to performance of duty in part upon a new score let them mourne for shortcomings and flee to the bloud of Christ conforme to the Gospel that there they may get extracts of pardon and be thankful that the Lord hath so secured the matter that they shall never come into condemnation 21. As to the saints he reasoneth further thus Their imperfection is either from themselves or from God If from themselves then it is because they use not the power they have for that effect and if they have a power it is not impossible if from God as not giving them that measure of grace whereby they may be enabled to do all his will then He should be unrighteous Ans. Thus reasoned the Pelagian Caelestius of old and Crellius the Socinian of late See Hoornb ubisupra Pag. 103. And we say 1. This will at most conclude only for a possibility of Perfection or immunity from sin and so will not serve his point 2. If he mean a culpable cause I say it is from themselves and that not because they have any moral power now for keeping the whole Law perfectly though I grant withall that they have more than they make good use of but because that power which was once given was sinfully cast away 3. It is false that God should be unrighteous if he gave not that measure of grace whereby they should become perfect Nay sayes he God shall be more unjust than are the vilest of men who will not give to their children asking bread a stone nor a serpent to them when asking for fish Ans. The Lord rebuke this blasphemous tongue what ground is there for this They confess sayes he that they must ask of God deliverance from sin Very true And yet such a thing is never to be expected The Lord forbid We expect and hope for growing deliverance and final and full deliverance in end when the saints shall say and sing O grave where is thy victory and O death where is thy sting And they shall come unto the upper mount Zion the city of the living God to the Spirits of just men made perfect when all teares shall be wiped away from off their faces But it seemeth our Quakers expect all their heaven here Where is now the stones that God giveth instead of bread the serpents he giveth instead of fish His following calumnious insinuation hath been spoken to already elsewhere 22. His third argument followeth Pag. 156. § 5. He sayes our opinion is injurious to Christ and his sacrifice Christ was manifested chiefly for this end to take away sin and gather a people to himself zealous of good works Tit. 2 14. and to bring in everlasting righteousness that is Evangelical perfection Answ So hote is this man in his pursuite that to reach us he careth not though he pierce his owne bowels for by this one argument he destroyeth all that he said of Vniversal Redemption as we cleared above Chap. VIII But as to us it reacheth us not for we grant that Christ came to take away sin both as to guilt and this he did by the sacrifice of himself and as to the staine and being of it and this he doth by his Spirit piece and piece till in end he give full victory and so he hath a people redeemed from the guilt and power of iniquity though not fully from its presence and stirrings and a people zealous of good works which is not inconsistent with the stirrings of a crucified body of death That that everlasting righteounsess mentioned by Daniel Chap. 9. is to be understood of Evangelical perfection is said but not proved Againe he sayes It is said 1 Ioh. 3 5 8. that the Son of God appeared for this end to take away our sinnes and to destroy the works of the devil Answ. True and so he hath done by taking away the guilt and by destroying daily the works of the devil in his people mortifying lust and corruption and carrying on the work of grace till at length it be perfected Ay but he sayes it is added he that is borne of God doth not commit sin that is doth not break the Law in thought word or deed Answ. What that is to commit sin we shewed above and also that by this passage thus interpreted he shall prove what is against himself to wit that that highest degree of Perfection which whosoever hath attained cannot sin any more is not peculiar to some but common to all that are borne of God Is not Christ sent saith he further to turne a people from sin unto righteousness and from the Kingdom of Satan unto the Kingdom of his dear Son Answ. Yes Are not these thus converted his servants children brethren friends Ans. They are Are they not as he in the world holy pure and immaculate Answ. The text saith not this Read againe 1 Ioh. 4 27 Doth not Christ watch over them care and pray for them save them by his Spirit walking in them and among them Ans. This is all true and â—hence we inferre that they shall certainly be perfected in end and shall persevere unto the end contrare to what he saith as we shall see in the next Chap. But all this will not prove a sinless Perfection common to all the saints But will not Christ have them perfect or is he not able to make them perfect Ans. Yes But he will do it in his owne time and way He himself will not deny but Christ is able to make them all perfect in the highest degree so as not to be able to sin any more yet for all that he will not say that it is so He citeth also Ephes 5 25 26 27. But nothing to his purpose for we grant that the Lord will present his Bride to himself one day faire and cleane without spot or wrinkle or any such thing and that he is about this work bringing all his forward unto this state of perfection washing them cleansing them in his blond and by his Spirit sanctifying them more and more But saith he if they do sin in thought word and deed dayly there is no difference betwixt the holy and profane the cleane and unclean c. Answ. Notwithstanding of this the difference is great for what the profane doth is nothing but sin and in nothing accepted of God through Christ and is done with full purpose of heart without any contrary lusting of the Spirit all they do as it floweth from an evil principle so it is done for an evil end and in a corrupt sinful manner and so is wholly defiled But it is not so with the child of God He mourneth over and repenteth of his shortcomings and striveth against sin The other not So there are many moe differences too many here to be insisted upon 23. His fourth Argument Pag. 157 § 6. is That our doctrine maketh the work of the ministry preaching prayers c. useless while as Paul sayes Ephes.