in contradictâ—on to the express Text expoundeth it neither is his reason more weightie than his exposition is sound which is that the whole Creation received a decay by Adams fall and yet Herbs and Trees are not to be called sinners seeing the Apostle is not here speaking of herbs and trees but of Men Women who are capable of receiving the wages of sin as being the workers thereof and certainly one may with the like reason say that Hâ—rbs and Trees are capable of eternal life as that they may be capable of the wages of Sin. His other shift which he hath Ibid by which also he destroyes the former viz. that by death is not to be understood Bodily Death because Eternal Life is put as the Opposite of the death here spoken of and obtained by Christ Iesus and yet natural death is not avoided is not much better then the former seeing that after the resurrection the Bodies of the Godlie shall live as well as their souls and the re-union of both doth belong to Eternal Life and so natural Life is comprehended in Eternal Life as well as Spiritual Life and tho believers die a Bodily Death yet it is not a punishment to them on this account that the Sting and Bitterness thereof is removed by Christ who did bear the same otherwise death is in it self a punishment being the separation of Soul and Body the most strictly united friends and companions in the World. 3ly Our Doctrine of Original Sin is clearlie evinced from Rom. 5.12 As by one Man Sin entered into the World and Death by Sin c. together with the following verses whence diverse strong arguments may easily be collected for 1. The Apostle that he may prove justification not to be by works but by Faith or the imputed righteeousness of Christ maketh a comparison betwixt the two common Heads or Representatives Adam and Christ in this that both of them represented the parties related to them the same way so that Adam was a Type of Christ in his standing in the room of one partie as Christ did in the Room of another by bearing of their Iniquities Isa 53.11 By being made sin for them 2 Cor. 5.21 i. e. by Imputation thereof unto him for no otherwise this text can be understood without Blasphemie that they may be made the Righteousness of God in Him i. e. by imputation of it to them as their Sin was imputed to him Therefore Adam the Type stood in the name and Room of Mankind so as his doings or failings were imputed to them Robert Barclay Vindication Sect. 5. numb 7. Alledgeth that this comparison spoileth all our doctrine because if the Righteousness of Christ is not to be imputed to men for Iustification untill they actually joyn with it apprehended by Faith so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam imputed to Men for Condemnation untill they actually joyn with it But I wonder not to see a man intending by right or wrong to Stick to his preconceived opinions make use of Fig-leaf defences when he can find no other For may not Children before they come to the use of Reason be justified and Saved by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them and by consequence others before the use of reason stand guilty of Adams sin imputed to them which is the Conclusion he fain would evite Moreover he may as well say that Adams Sin doth not at all hurt any of his posterity untill they having the use of reason actually joyn with it which yet he no where sayeth but granteth the contrary in several places of this Section 3ly Omne simile claudicat this parallel ought not necessarily to be stretched to every particular mode and circumstance but only to the particular which is intended here viz. the Imputation of what the two common representatives did or suffered unto the parties represented by them but the Quakers have Learned Bellarmin's Art who by racking of this Parallel thought to overthrow our Doctrine of Justification by faith 2. The Sin of Adam is such that if this Text have any sense at all by this Sin of his all have sinned and by it Death without exception is brought upon all Mankind 3. It is such a sin of which they are guilty who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam seeing death reigned over them for death can reign over none but Guilty persons but Infants are subject to Death tho they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam i. e. by actual transgression Ergo Infants are guilty of Adams sin 4. This Offence of Adams was of such a nature that the Guilt of it or judgement flowing therefrom came upon all the partie represented by him to the condemnation thereof i. e. if it be any thing so that this party stood really condemned thereby v. 18. But all Mankind were represented by Adam Ergo all Men are condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to them To this Robert Barclay answereth Vind. pag 101. That Iudgment or Guilt is not expressed in the Original which is true but while he sayeth it ought not to be supplied one would expect that he should give a better answer which I looked for but all that he giveth is an individuum vagum Something which supplement denudeth the Text offense making a Welshmans hose thereof therefore certainly there can be no other thing understood but either Iudgement as our Translation hath it or Condemnation as the version of Tremellius out of the Syriak or Guilt as Beza Seeing the effect thereof was the condemnation of the whole party represented by Adam as the Text clearlie sheweth But to declare his Harmonie with Rome he followeth the Versio Vulgata which in this place hath non-sense supplying nothing From all that is said I argue thus that sin which is described to us by the Apostle that he saith brought death upon all Men that men Sinned by it and were made Sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that they all became Guilty of Death and condemnation that Sin by imputation is the sin of the whole Nature included in Adam and rendreth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation but the first Sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostles c. Ergo that sin is the sin of Nature c. Robert Barclay denyeth the Major of this argument and that to the admiration of all Logicians seeing no connexion can be clearer in the World as might easily appear to any that consider it for who can deny not to mention other Members of this Argument that if these who had not actually sinned are made sinners by this Transgression of Adam then this is the Sin of the whole Nature or imputed to it which is our Doctrine of Original Sin who I say will deny this Seeing there is no other thing in the consequence then in the antecedent except a variation of words and Phrases holding forth the same thing which yet cannot be
cited after several serpentine windings and turnings to the end he may tho he retain the thing yet evite the Name wholly rejecteth Augustin and therefore giveâ—h up the Cause ridiculously enquiring at his Adversary if he will assert every thing that Augustin said ridiculously I say seing the question is if Augustin did not hold our Doctrine anent Original Sin as the Antithesis to that of the Pelagians in this point which Pelagians have had many successors tho known by other Names as Socinus and his School and holy and pure Anabaptists as they called themselves and were by contrariety of speech called by others the Fry of a deluded Enthusiast Thomas Muncer The horrid abominations of which Sect and this their Doctrine of Original Sin among the rest that famous reformer Bullinger hath by Scriptures and Reason so hammered that one in reason should have thought that it should never have had a Resurrection as may be seen Lib 1. cap 11. adversus Anabaptistas where he also to purpose vindicateth Zuinglius from the calumny of the denyal of Original Sin wherewith first the Council of Trent although contrary to their own Light as judicious Soave observeth and of late Rob Barclay both in his Apology and Vindication hath traduced him Secondly Altho this Doctrine hath by many Ages been assaulted most fiercely by corrupt men both of subtile wit and earnestness of Intention yet the providence of God hath sufficiently pre-occupied what they have said or can say and fortified all who truly believe what God hath said in His Word where there is good Store both of Sword and Buckler for managing of this War and of these many I shall here excerpt and vindicate a few And First Gen. 2.17 For in the Day thou Eatest thou shall surely Die or Dying thou shalt Die where is a clear proof of our Doctrine whence we reason as well against Pelagians Anabaptists Socinians and Quakers as against the Papists who deny Original sin in Infants after Baptism Thus Infants Die Ergo they are guilty of Original Sin seeing according to this present Text Death is the punishment due to the breach of the Command To this the Pelagians as Augustin in several places and particularlie Quest. 3. C. 899-tom 4. colum 666. And the Socinians as Pareus on the place sheweth with other Enemies of the Christian Religion and at this day the Quakers answer that Bodily death is not included in this Threatning But besides that the Pelagians were anathematized for this doctrine by one Council of Carthage consisting of 224 Bishops Photius Biblioth Colum. 42. This answer is evidently false seeing that by this word Death frequently in Scripture Bodily as well as Spiritual is understood and by the Phrase to die the Death the separation of Soul and Body is frequently holden forth Moreover none can deny that Bodily Death of it self is an evil and no evil could have befallen Mankind persevering in the State of Innocency But Chap. 3.19 Will aabundantly dissolve all doubts about the meaning of the text to any unbyassed Men Where God himself describing the punishment of Adams transgression denounceâ—h and foretelleth his return to the dust as not the least part thereof But we need not multiply reasons for the vindication of this text seeing none except Socinians and Pelagians oppose our meaning thereof and the reason adduced by our present adversaries common to them with the Socinians and in particular Crellius for it s overthrown in strength excelleth not a cobweb although they pitched upon it as the only weapon which had any Teeth or keenness therein The reason is Adam died not that day that he did eat therefore say they Bodily death is not Comprehended in the threatning Neither hath this reason any stronger nerves than the rest used by Pelagians Socinians which yet for ought any thing I can find the Quakers do not use judging them as it seems unfit to serve their turn Therefore Robert Barclay tho he had Apolog chap 4. Fought with this Reason as the only prop of his cause his adversary chap. 5. num 8. Having hewed it in pieces in his Vindication essayeth not the reinforcement thereof only Sect. 5. num 3. In stead of a Vindication hath its repetition adding that death as it is now circumstantiated with Sickness and the like miseries is a consequence but not a punishment of Sin which distinction is most Blasphemouâ— as here it is made use of seing it insinuateth that God Transgresseth his own Law by inflicting more miserie on fallen man than was denounced in the Threatning Either this he must say or else that Sickness and Death as they are now circumstantiated are not inflicted by God which I am sure is little better than the former But to shut up all he sayeth that his Adversarie hath not said enough to proselyte him to his Opinion notwithstanding that he had so dâ—shed his reason upon which it was builded that the Quaker attempteth not the Restauration thereof He addeth further as a reason why his Adversary had not said enough to proselyte him that death to Adam in the state of Innocency should have been a pleasure not a pain which reason is altogether reasonlesse seeing the reason why death is pleasant to any is its being the port to free Men from all evil especially from Sin without which Adam should have wholly remained if he had persevered in his integrity but it is too evident that the Quaker is of Bellarmins mind who de Statu primi Hominis alledgeth that man during his Integrity was not free of concupiscence and evil inclinations which doctrine maketh God the Author of sin But I leave this matter only I cannot but here observe which I might do in most places and weightiest points of Robert Barclay's Vindication that per fas aut nefas as they say the Quakers must have the last words for who will think it requisite to write after one who can tell his Adversary that he hath not said enough to proselyte him and yet never so much as essay to vindicate his own or remove his adversaries reasons as Robert Barclay doth here and yet publishes his book to the world as a sufficient answer or refutation of what his adversarie had said living in the mean time without so much as an attempted vindication these points with which the whole frame of Quakerism standeth and falleth for if Bodily death was included in the threatning then our doctrine of Original sin is proved which doctrine once being evinced all the pretended absurdities and blasphemies which Socinians Quakers and others infer from our Doctrine of Original sin and Reprobation fall to the Ground and they are if they be Christians obliged to remove these themselves Further its clear from Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is Death where death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages not the consequence only of sin as the Quaker both in his Apology and Vindication Sect. 5. num 8.
counted a Tautology in strict Syllogistical aâ—gâ—mentation the scope of which is to evince the same sense by a clearer phrasiology or way of speaking 2. He sayeth that in this argumentation words not in the Text are foisted in viz. they who have not actually sinned But in this he only bewrayeth his Own and his Brethrens capital error that the Scriptures ought not to be interpreted or reasoned from for his adversary used only this argument as a clear deduction from the Text yet because it is not in so many words in the Text he rejecteth it yea he saith Ibid. let him shew me the place of Scripture that saith that Infants are guilty of Adams sin Behold Reader how the Quakers new light hath extinguished the light of sound reason and provided for their ancestors the Sadducees a shield such as it is toward off the argument of our Saviour whereby He to purpose proved the Resurection from the dead but had Robert Barclay been there he had given him more ado by saying shew me the plain Scripture that sayeth the dead shall rise again Moreover we say that this followeth clearly from these words in whom all have sinned To this he answereth that it is to be understood of all that could sin i. e. actuallie having come to the use of reason but this answer hath in its bosom a blasphemous falshood that the righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to Infants and therefore that they are not saved by him only and come to Heaven throw his Righteousness for whatever he say for the defence of this hâ—â—â—nswer doth of its own accord tend to the protection of this Blasphemy for altogether with the like reason it might be replyed to any pleading from this Chapter that the Justification and Salvation of Infants is to be ascribed to the Righteousness of Christ that these are only righteous for the Righteousness of Christ who could be righteous i. e. After the use of reason actually joyned themselves to that Righteousness 2. He may as well say that these received hurt and damage by the sin of Adam who could receive it i. e. actually join themselves to it for there is alike reason for both His reason why Infants cannot sin is because they are under no Law for the proof whereof he refers me to what he has said above whither with him I will return which is num 4. where he requireth in what Countries they use to kill all the Children whose Fathers are put to death for their crimes To which I reply 1. That it is enough to prove Children to be under a Law that tho in non-age or unborn they undergo forfeiture and deprivation of Goods and priviledges for no evil of their own but their Fathers misdemeanors only 2. Both in divine and humane writing Children are recorded to have suffered deaâ—h who had committed no actual sin and yet suffered the same punishment with their Fathers who had actually sinned In divine story the Sodomites I am sure were put to death for their crimes all whose Children were killed with them Gen. 19. Behold reader how easily his most perplexing questions are resolved The like fell out to the Children of Core Numb 16. The Children of Achan Jos. 7. and to the Canaanitish Infants the Children of Benjamin the inhabitants of Iabesh-Gilead of the like examples humane Histories are full of which the reader may see good store collected by that excellent divine Turret in vol. 1. loco 9. Quest 9. pag. 671. I am sure there is nothing more common than for Kings or Common-wealths to sack the Cities and Countries of Obstinate rebells and thus to destroy the Children with the Fathers and to kill the hostages of Covenant-breakers without respect regard to their age examples of which see in Livie decade tertia 3. If in any point of Religion and Faith the admirable depth of the judgmâ—nt and Secret Counsel of God be to be seen certainly it is be observed here for I am sure Mans luxuriant reason can find so much to object against even the very inherent corruption of Man his miseries tho in non-age and his deprivation of the image of God as being the effects or sure consequence of Adams eating of the forbidden fruit as may send the answerer to Pauls Sanctuarie Rom. 9.20 Who art thou c. We answer therefore 1. That Adam was a publick person standing and falling in the Room of his posterity in whose name and behalf the Covenant of works was made with him as their representative so that his first sin was not personal but the sin of the whole Nature To this Robert Barclay replyeth num 6. requiring Mr. Brown to prove by plain Scriptures that Adam ceased to be a publick person after he had committed his first sin Answer he denyeth not if this be proved but that our Doctrine of Original sin will stand for so much he here insinuateth I therefore with the more chearfulness prove that Adam did cease to be a publick person which is evident from this that he died in that day he did eat and therefore made the Covenant void and null now certainly no Man with reason can say that a Man dead in Law as Adam was after the breach of the Covenant by eating can in his future actions be a publick person in respect of the same Law broken by eating Therefore seing the day he did eat did put a term to this Covenant of Life as no man with reason can deny it and a period to this common headship for the one of these standeth and falleth reciprocallie with the other it is clear and manifest to all that Adam after his fall was no more a publick person Moreover the sin of Adam whereby we were damnified is still holden forth as one and not as many sins as for example Rom. 5. All along in the comparison betwixt Christ and Adam Robert Barclay replyeth that we may as well hence conclude that we are only justified by the first act of Christs obedience and so have nothing to do with Christs death and sufferings But by his favour Bonum oritur ex integra causa Malum autem ex defectu qâ—ovis The Scriptures every where and in particular Isa. 53. throughout express a long series of doings and sufferings agreed upon in the Covenant of Redemption none of which could be wanting for the fulfilling of the bargain and accomplishment of our Salvation Whereas on the other hand one defect in Adam was enough to compleat so to speak his fall and make the breach of the Covenant it being an evil thing for the makeing of which one defect is enough And thus his Gordian and insoluble knot for so he accounteth it is with all easiness untyed But we need not insist on this seing he endeavoureth to Shreâ—d himself under the covert of his accustomed antiscriptural dottage calling for plain Scripture that is That Adam was a publick person before his fall in so many Letters and Syllables knowing
well that unless underproped with such damnable hypotheses his Doctrine cannot stand but he buyeth bad Wares at a full dear price for with the same breath he overthroweth both his own Apology and Vindication with whatsoever beside he has written in the defence of his principles seeing these are not found in the Scriptures in so many Letters Syllables But I again return to his seventh number and in it next he alleadgeth Augustin as the Patron of his opinion in contradiction to his own Apology Chap. 4. Where he granted Augustin to be of the same Opinion with his Adversary acknowledging that according to the mind of Augustin Infants even before their birth are Guilty of Eternal Death and the pains of Hell. Thus he either speaketh self contradictions or would make Augustin to do it 2. The words of Augustin from which he would conclude this self contradiction are these Serm. 7. Ex verb. Apostoli what do ye think to say And whose eares can hear it Did they sin themselves Where I pray you did they sin When and how did they sin They know neither good nor evil Shall they sin that are under no Command Prove that Infants are sinners prove what is their Sin is it because they weep that they sin Do they Sin because they take pleasure or repell trouble by motion as dumb Animals If these motions be sin they become greater sinners in Baptism for they resist most vehemently But I say another thing You think they have sinned otherwise they had not dyed but what say ye of such as die in there Mothers womb Will you say they have sinned also You Lye or are deceived c. Thus Augustin in opposition to the Pelagians who to evite the force of the arguments of the Orthodox proving Original sin did assert that Children presently after their birth become actual Sinners And yet from this the Quaker will conclude that Augustin in these words contradicteth his own doctrine of Infants being guilty of Original Sin of which there is not the least appearance seing this will be admirable Logick to inferr from Augustin his proving of Infants not to be guilty of actual sin therefore he denyed them to be guilty of Original sin Now what wouâ—d not these Men adventure to say in the dark when they are so audacious as to publish to the world in print that Augustin denyed Infants to be guilty of Original sin when his own works do every where and the World proclaim the contrary yea and the Quaker himself also confessed it Here he alledgeth that the Apostle no where sayeth that Children are under any Law which is true if he understand it in so many words which yet notwithstanding may be gathered from the 13. and 14. verses of this Chapter where the Apostle having said That there is no Sin where there is no Law subjoyneth that nevertheless Death which I have in my former Section proved to be a punishment reigned even over these who had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam Which holdeth true of Children who never sinned actually as Adam did When he seeth that it cannot be denyed that in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same meaning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the words to run thus In which or by occasion of which death all have sinned A Pelagian exposition makeing men sin by imitation only and the righteousness of Christ to be the occasion and patern only and not the price of our acceptation and Salvation And altho he say that this is resolved by a serious consideration of the comparison between Christ and Adam as stated by him in his Apology This is not to be regarded seing after an impartial search nothing of this resolution can be perceived He ought therefore to have shewed uâ— how in particular he had in his Apology preoccupied our argument whereby they are proved to be amongst the grossest of Socinians who make the death and sufferings of Christ an occasion or example only whereby to walk and so to be saved But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation but Vltra posse non datur esse But indeed this is a fine way of Vindicating ones Doctrine to say in opposition to their Adversaries argument how pressing soever in the general only you do not understand our doctrine aright or consider what we say And upon this answer only erect his Triumphal Arches and Cry Victoria 4. Our Doctrine is to the conviction of all except of the Old and New Pelagians evicted from Eph 2 3. and yet Rob Barclay following Bellarmin who played the like audacious pranks with Rom. 4. whereby we evince against the Papists Justification to be by Faith would turn our weapons against our selves and overthrow from this place our Doctrine of Original Sin alledging that Mens evil walking is the cause why they are counted the children of Wrath But if the Apostle had so meaned in all likelyhood he should not have spoken so generally as he did but had made some Intimation that Children were excepted which he neither here nor any where else doeth 2. This Phrase by Nature is still taken in Scripture for so soon as a thing hath a beeing or for its very rising or Original which these Scriptures confirm Rom. 2.27 and 11 24. Gal 2.5 and 4.8 1 Cor. 15.44 46. Hence we thus with Calvin in opposition to the Pelagians on the place reason What is naturally in every one is in them from their very Original and therefore if all be the Children of Wrath or 〈◊〉 to wrath by Nature they are so 〈◊〉 their very Original These Scriptures and this Argument of Calvin used by his Adversary Robert Barclay in his Vindâ— Is so far from attempting to answer that he maketh not the least mention thereof From which one Omission though there were no more any may easily see that his book deserveth nothing less than the name of a Vindicaâ—tion 3. We add as a good secondary Confirmation that the primitive Châ—rch used still this place to prove the same Doctrine which we hold of Original sin in opposition to the Pelagians denying it and in particular Augustin de Fide ad Petram diaconum Cap. 26. who sayeth firmissime tene hold most constantly and without so much aâ— once wavering that every one who is conceived by the conjunction of man and woman is born with Original sin under the power of ungodliness subject to death which he explaineth of eternal as well as bodily death Ibid and upon the same very account a Child of wrath concerning which the Apostle saith and we were by nature the Children of wrath And the like Doctrine did Fulgentius and fourteen bishops with him assert as also Theodoretus Primasius and Haimo on the place taking by nature c. to import all carnally born and partaking of the nature of Adam and so to be verified of all brought
the begetting of many to a lively hope for which generations to come shall call thee blessed whose beeing and habitation is in the power of the highest in which thou rules and Governs in Righteousness and thy Kingdom is Established in peace and the increase thereof without end Date 21. day of the 12 Moneth 1658. See Tyr detected pag 19. CHAP. VI. Of Perfection ALthough we have already given several instances of the damnable Doctrine of the Quakers together with their miserable defence thereof We shall notwithstanding for the more abundant evicting hereof trace the Footsteps of one of their cheif Authors Robert Barclay in his Vindication of one or two of their cheif principles The first of which shall be that of Perfection The Doctrine of the Quakers in this point is In whom this pure holy birth is fully brought forth the Body of death and sin cometh to be crucified and removed and their hearts united and subjected to the truth so as not to obey any Suggestions or Temptations of the evil one to be free from actual sinning and Transgressing of the Law of God and in that respect perfect Yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth And there remaineth alwayes in some part a possibility of sinning where the mind doeth not most diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord. These are the words of his eight These And afterward he sayeth that there may be a State in this Life in which a Man cannot sin it is so natural unto him to do Righteousness Let us in the next place consider how he vindicateth this Doctrine which is our main purpose Having vind Sect 9. Spent a while in accusing his Adversarie as guilty of railing and in rejecting his own Brethrens books such as Sauls errand to Damascus In which they maintain themselves to be equal with God. Which is also asserted by Hubberthorn against Sherl pag 30. I say rejecting these or denying that they have said them for he still insinuateth that Hicks only said these things although it be evinced by particular citation of book and page where they are In the next place he giveth away the cause wholly by saying that he pleadeth for no more than Mr. Brown sayeth N 6. viz. That by perfection in this life is understood a change in the whole man so that he yieldeth impartial obedience to all the Commands of God though in a small degree yet that he may seem to say somewhat he enquireth How this Doctrine is reconciled with that of dayly breaking the Commands in thought word deed In answer to which question it is enough to enquire how he evinceth them to be contradictory Seing he may know if he will that the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees as well as parts and that it is a disconformity to the Law of God and consequently a sin to be deficient in the one as well as in the other And whereas he enquireth if to break Gods Commands dayly in thought word and deed be the way to grow in grace To put off the Old Man and on the New. He but only useth his old Custom viz. maliciously to calumniate For who said such a thing Or from what point of our Doctrine will he prove this We shall attend his proofs of it Which untill we hear we cannot but in reason Judge that he delighteth in malicious lies For though we say according to the Scripture that even the regenerate carrie about a body of death with them until death which defileth all their actions Yet where did any of the reformed teach that to endeavour to break Gods Commands is the way to grow in grace as this Man insinuateth they do What kind of light is this he has that teacheth him such a facultie of lying He goeth on saying but he addeth that this perfection rendereth gospel commands useless but are the Commands useless if men obey them But certainly He that is above the breach of the Law as the Quakers say many may be has no more use of the Law or need of it to learn any thing from it in order to the obedience thereof And where is his vain subterâ—uge now But that he may yet further contradict himself and his Brethren He sayeth He has shewn in his Apology that all have need to repent and pray for forgiveness For if some be equal with God above the breach of the Commands want a bodie of death The most that they have to do is to give thanks and not to pray or repent For I think he will not say that they pray or repent which are in heaven These duties presupponing sorrow of which they are incapable And far lesse Horresco referens these that are equals with God. In opposition to his Adversary shewing that this Doctrine tendeth to the fomenting of pride and security he sayeth but where freedom from sin is where can Pride and Security have place Ans. This answer had been as fit to the Apostles Question Rom. 3 27 as to this Argument For he inferred that boasting might follow upon Justification by works It might then have been as well replyed If a man be perfectly Just and so without sin how can he incur the fault of boasting 2. How will he shew but this Doctrine of his doth bring many under a mistake as if they were secure from sinning when indeed they are not Whereas he sayeth that according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life the wicked Villains do lesse make uselesse Gods Commands than others because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and prayer for forgiveness of God We only refer him to Rom 3.8 where he may have the like Objection with a fit Answer And here he promiseth alwayes to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus And why Because sayes he they must be made useful in breaking the Commands in thought word and deed His reason is a Calumnie if it have sense at all What Ordinance teacheth which we maintain that it is ones duty daylie to break the Commands of God that the Ordinances may be the more useâ—â—l to us If this be not of the same nature with Cavil wiped off by the Apostle Rom 3. then certainly two and three are not five But such malice the Church must resolve to be the Butt of so long as she is militant He goeth on to remove this Absurdity from their Doctrine of Perfection viz. that then none that are regenerat could sin at all but would be beyond the possibility of it Which inference is very clear for the ground which they give for their Doctrine is Ioh. 3.9 He that is born of God doeth not commit sin Which place they abuse taking it without restriction not attending to the context speaking of a Tread and Custom of sin and of a commission of it from Malice like the devil and the wicked his Children Which absurdity that he may evite He assureth that a man is not regene rat
Doctrine Lastly say they If he deny Christ 〈◊〉 be Man we disown him who do say that Christ is both God and Mâ—n This is a good confession And a man that knew them not might easily thinâ— that we wronged them by charging them witâ— the denyal of the Divinity of Christ. But notwithstanding hereof this confession serveth only to prove these Men guilty of most wicked hypocrisie lying and self Contradiction to put a cheat upon the World and cover their abominations For whosoever taketh but an overly veiw of the passages above cited of George Keiths way cast up he may clearly see that if these passages be true Doctrine the greatest arguments for establishing the Divinity of Christ are for ever gone For I appeal to the writings of all who have refuâ—ed the Doctrine of Arrius and Socinus if prov 8.23 Be not brought as one of the main texts to prove the Eternity and Divinity of Christ as also Psal. 110 by which Christ himself silenced and for ever stopped the mouths of the Pharisees who denyed his God-head Matth. 22 43 44 45 46. Neither is there a greater argument than that by him all things were Created And yet if these forecited passages be true the denyers of Christs Divinity have an easie answer that all these things are verified of Christ as man only And so the greatest arguments for the Divinitie of Christ fall to the Ground Now let any man judge if the Quakers do not what in them lye to overthrow the Divinity of Christ seeing they endeavour to undermine and destroy all the arguments by which it is underpropped Moreover this Doctrine robbeth God of his incommunicable attributs in ascribing Omnipresence or Ubiquitie to a Man. But before I leave this point I propose this dilemma to the Quakers If all things were created by Christ as Man then either the Manhood of Christ is created or not if created then it is created by it self than which there is nothing more absurd If uncreated then there is an uncreated man and a man that is coeternal with God. Which Blasphemie it s hardly able to equalize far lesse to outdo From all which it is most evident that the Quakers doe what in them lyeth to evert the fundamental Doctrines and basis of the Christian Religion viz. the Godhead of Christ. And in this they are more wicked than the professed Arrians or Socinians that they add deep dissimulation and hypocrisie to their horrid impiety whereas the Arrians and Socinians more ingenuous than they profess in words what they really believe It is also clear that in stead of their Christ they embrace a meer chimerical non entity seing there is nothing more contradictiorie than that either the Soul or the Body of a man which is a meer creature can be every where or from Eternitie Lastly observe that the Quakers put no distinction betwixt their Christ and their light within and that the light within is nothing but the smal dark Relicts of the Image of God or the dimm light of nature as we have already evinced And so their Christ their God and all that is dear unto them resolve at length into this almost quenched spunk in which all who have trusted in stead of finding the safe port of Eternal happiness have alwayes met with certain Shipwrack In favours of this Spiritual AntiChrist or Antichristian figment which they account for their Christ they decry vilifie and do what they can to overthrow whatever ought to be precious and dear to a Christian for what will they not deny seing they deny the Godhead of Christ they therefore with open mouth blaspheme and deny Jesus Christ as a person without them or as any thing distinct from their Imaginary Christ or light within of many which we could cite take a few passages for proof hereof first Geo Whith Dip. Pl. pag 13. Jesus Christ a person without us is not Scripture Language but the Anthropomorphits and Mugletonians And in his Appen to Reas against Rail pag 21. The Socinian telleth us of a personal Christ and that the man Christ Jesus our Lord hath in Heaven a place remote from Earth a humane body but doth he believe him to be the eternal God while he imagineth him to be a personal Christ a humane Body so Limited and confined to a remotness And William Pen counterfit christian pag 77 78. Give me one place that mentioneth Christ to be a distinct person without us art thou destitute of common Sense as to think of proving the Quaker no christian because he denyeth that Doctrine not expressed in the Scripture George Fox Great Myst 206 If there be any other Christ but he that was crucified within he is the false Christ and he that hath not this Christ that was risen and crucified within is a reprobate Though Devils and reprobats may make a talk of him without And Great Myst pag 207 God's Christ is not distinct from his Saints nor his Body for he is within them not distinct from their Spirits Ib. pag 16. Such are deceived that say Christ is distinct from His Saints Moreover the Quakers Doctrins Principles of the Priests in Scotland pag 33 in opposition to Mr. Henry Foreside who said that Christ mourned over Jerusalem as He was Humane answer as for the Word Humane it is not Scripture Language it speaketh not that Language Certainly by this speech of these Quakers no other thing can be understood but that Christ hath no Humane Nature For though the word Humane were not found in the Scripture if the thing imported by it be found in Scripture then they must confesse themselves to have been ridiculous and purposeless pratlers which I believe they will not do and therefore its evident that they deny the Humane Nature of Christ. Again the Quakers speak as contemptibly of the Body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as if he were the basest of Men as these words of Isaac Peningtoun witnesse can outward blood cleanse We must enquire therefore saith he whether it was the blood of the Vail Or of that Spiritual Man viz. of Flesh Blood and bones which took on Him the Vail or Humane Nature And the Mystery of iniquitie Lyeth in the Blood of Christ sayeth Edward Billings And Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlock who had said that Christ was not capable of Faith and Repentance saith here I charge thee to be a lyar and Slanderer for he was capable of Faith and Repentance What then is clearer than that according to these Mens Doctrinâ— the Spotless Lamb of God was really defiled with sin and stood in need of another Saviour to believe in Moreover as we have already heard they still distinguish between the outward inward body of Christ wickedly absurdly ascribing to their imaginarie inward body of Christ all that the Scripture attributeth to the Blessed Body of Christ that dyed at Ierusalem such as sufferings Death Resurrection and â—he like by which distinction