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
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
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.
one hath that promise of which we now speak fulfilled unto him and thus the only Scripture argument which Robert Barclay attempts to urge in his Vindication falleth to the ground for all the rest of the Scriptures from which he deduced his Apologetick Arguments he slideth over without any Vindication thereof Robert Barclay Apolog. pag. 38. hath another Argument which because he complaineth as if it were not sufficiently solved by his adversary chap. 3. numb last I will set down here and answer formally that there may be no just ground of Complaint The Argumâ—nt thus runs That unto which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kind do at last recurr and because of which all other grounds are commended and accounted worthy to be believed must of necessity be the only Rule most certain and immovable ground of all Christian Faith but the inward immediat objective Revelation of the Spirit is that c. Ergo. Resp. the Minor is ambiguous and therefore most fallacious for according to this kind of reasoning they may conclude that a man just now possessing a piece of land formerly enjoyed by his Ancestors by Virtue of a Right granted to them by a Prince deceased many ages ago spake mouth to mouth with that Prince dead ages out of mind Thus that unto which the present Possessor of such a piece of Land when pressed to the last recurreth unâ—o and for which other Grounds or Charters are commended or valid must of necessity be the most immoveable ground of and Warrand for his possession of such a piece of Ground but the Grant and Donation of such or such a Prince given many ages ago first by word of Mouth tho again committted to writings is that which the present Possessor being pressed to the last recurreth to Ergo the present Possessor had immediat Discourse mouâ—h to mouth with a Prince many ages back ere the present Possessor was born Certainly these must be admirable Fellows who can conclude and that in modo figura quiâ—libet ex quolibet and thus their strongest Arguments serve only to prove the Authors to â—e in a paroxism of folly moving laughter in a very Heraclite But ex abundante I answer directly to this their blunt Sophism tho forsooth the Quakâ—rs Achillean Argument Thus But inward immediate objective Revelation is that to which all Christians recur c. this is inward immediat objective in Respect of the Apostles and Prophets I grant in Respect of the present Professors of Christianity I deny and let them urge the membrum negatum Of the like Nature is another and that the chief of his Apologetick Arguments viz. Enoch Noah Abraham and some others had immediate objective Revelation therefore the whole Church had it the Consequent his Antagonist chap. 3. numb 11. denyeth as not having the least shadow of Reason let us therefore see how he vindicateth this Argument which is a sine quo non to the whole frame of Quakerism and for this all that he sayeth Vindic pag. 24. is that then it seems there was more of Gods immediat Revelation in those dark times even by his Adversaries Confession than now under the Gospel where the chief pastors of the Church according to him are to expect no such thing neither is it proved that others not mentioned had no immediat Revelations Answ. true it is that even in these dark times there was in some respect viz. of immediate Revelations more of God than there is now and yet lesse in another sense viz. in respect of more large propagation of the Truth of God and of the large Measure of Grace dispensed unto Believers under the New Test But what sayeth this to the probation of the Quakers tremulous consequence how doth it prove that because some few had these Revelations all and every one within the Church had them this is a baculo ad angulum neither are we bound to prove the contrary affirmanti enim incumbit probatio It is enough for us to tell him that it is a groundless fancy to assert it for how will he prove ex gr that ever Abel had immediate objective Revelation and thus the third Proposition of his second These that God did alwayes reveal himself by his Spirit i. e. by immediate objective Revelation to every one of the Church falleth to the Ground and with it the fourth viz. that these Revelations were the formal object of the Faith of the Saints for if it be altogether groundless to say that every Saint had them as we have now seen it is no lesse groundlesse to say that they were the formal Object of their Faith and with these also his fifth Proposition viz. that the same i. e immediat Revelation continueth to be the formal object of the Saints Faith. ea lapsa repente ruinam Cum sonitu trabit Tremulum super agmina late Incidit Like the Trojan Tower its couplings being cutt the whole Fabrick of Quakerism tumbleth down about the ears of its Authors and builders CHAP. III. Concerning Original Sin. HAving canvassed the grand principle of the universal Light and spirit of the Quakers I shall consider some of the chief points of their Religion and lay open the absurdity and blasphemy thereof that the Reader may the better judge of the root having seen the Fruit and of the Bâ—sis by the Superstructure The first of these shall be the doctrine of Original Sin which they joyntly deny asserting that Adams Sin can be imputed to none but himself and therefore none are guilty of the transgression of our first Parents anâ— so lyable to punishment until by their evil walking or actual sins they become transgressors This Doctrine although not so an 〈◊〉 as the Apâ—stles and Prophets yet is as old as the Doctrine of pestifâ—rous Pelagâ—us the first open asserter thereof with Celestius his Disciple Hence all who denyed the Doctrine which now the reformed Churches hold â—â—ent Original sin were esteemed guilty of Pelagiâ—nism which notwithstanding Robert Barclay Vinâ— sect 5. Numb 5. would fain deny but to â—o purpose except to contradict what he himself said in his Apology chap 4. where he granteth that Augustin with whom all the Orthodox whollie agree in this point did hold the same Doctrine with the Westminster Confession in opposition to the Pelagians to which Confession of his tho now by himself retracted or rather contradicted I will add the words of Vincentius Lyrenensis chap 35. adversus haeret cited by the Author of Melius inquirendum who before Caelestius the monstrous Scholar of Pelagius ever denyed that all mankind stood guilty of Adams apostacy from God Moreover whosoever will be at the pains to read the Magdeburgick History centur 5. colum 577 588 589 590. And compare it with the Doctrine of the Quakers in this point he will find an exact harmony between them and the Pelagians both in Doctrine and Probation thereof But we need add no more seing Robert Barclay in the place just now
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
forth by the conjunction of man and woman To this argument drawn from Orthodox antiquity Rob. 〈◊〉 Vind. Sect. 2. N 5. replyeth what then â—oth that render our doctrine null Answer Not indeed to a Pelagian which every where and in special here by his open Patrociny of this Hereâ—y he fully demonstrateth himself to be notwâ—thstanding that at other times he would fain deny himself to be one studying to evite the name tho he hug their â—lasphemy Their answer to our Argument drawn from Psal. 51.5 I was shapen in iniquity c. Which by all the Orthodox both primitive writers as Augustin passim and the Reformers as Luther in his Confession is understood of Original sin is most strange viz That David speaketh of the sin of his Mother and not of his own To which it is replyed that thus the marriage duty shall de condemned To this Rob. Barclay Vind Sect 5 N 7. returneth a denyal of the inference which yet is clear seing wherever in all the Scriptures any did bewail the sins of their progenitors they still specified and pointed at the sin in particular as Neh. 9. with many other places but here if any particular fact be specified it must needs be that of the Marriage duty therefore the inference holdeth good here I cannot but take notice of one of his pungent answers or rather questions if ye will Which he proposeth ubi modo in these words And I desire yet to be informed of him in what Scripture he reads of Original sin and whether if the Scripture be the only Rule he cannot find words fit enough to express his Faith or must he shift for them else where Thus he but in Lieu of these I return him another question and desire to be informed of him whether or not he readeth of Actual sin or findeth this in so many words Behold then Reader the desperate tendency of Quakerism which is to make men beleive that there is no sin at aâ— mâ—ntioned in the Scriptures and therefore not at all prohibited For seing on the account that the phrase Original sin is not found in Scriptures he denyeth our Doctrine how clear so ever it be proved by Scriptural deductions he giveth good ground to another for inferring ad hominem that there is not such a thing as Actual sin seing the phrase Actual sin is no where in Scripture to be â—ound more than that phrase Original sin Tâ—e same Truth may be yet further demonstrated by several other pregnant arguments As first Infants for the sin of Adam are deprived of the Image of God therefore there is no reason to deny that they can be accounted guilty of his sin The Antecedent is denyed by none of our present Adversaries The Consequence is also firm for its a punishment yea the greatest of punishments equal with if not greater than the torments of hell to be deprived of the Image of God and therefore of his comfortable presence Communion Love and Favour 2. The Scripture is ignorant of any persons that go to Heaven except these that were guilty persons these whose sin Christ did bear Er Children who have never committed Actual sin are guilty before God. The Consequence is beyond all â—xceptions Thâ— Antecedent also remaineth firm until our Adâ—ersaries adduce some place of Scripture shewing that some persons who never were guilty go to Heaven or are saved without the merits of Christ. Moreover it is clear from the whole tenor of the Scriptures that none are saved but sinners which was Christs errand to the Earth 〈◊〉 the Scripture no where maketh any distinction betwixt guilty persons and sinners and no where sayeth that any are saved but these whose sins Châ—ist did bear and one would in reason think that this can least of all men be denyed by our Adversaries who assert that Christ died for all men without exception Therefore if Infants be not guilty there is no reason to say that Christ â—ied for them or did bear their sins therefore we with all reason enquire which our Adversaries according to their principles can never be able to answer how Infants if not guilty come to heaven without the Death and Merits of Christ They are altogether void of reason while they with Rob Barcl for want of a better answer enquire How these whom we account Elect Infants come to Heaven Seing our reply is at hand viz that they are acquited before God by the imputed righteousness of Christ. 3. Certain it is from the whole tenor of the Scriptures and in special Rev 22.15 That these who in the sight of God are dogâ— are guilty persons and to be excluded from Heaven and therefore to be thrust into Hell but whole Nations without any exception are such Matth. 15.26 Therefore Infants being a part of these Nations deserve to be excluded from Heaven and sent to Hell. Add to this that some Children are said by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.14 To be altogether destitut of Holiness which persons Heb. 12.14 So long as they are so cannot see God. Some of the Fathers in order to prove the Guilt of Infants flowing from Adams transgression made use of Gen. 17.14 The man-child that is uncircumcised shall be cut off This Deduction of some of the Ancients Mr Broun mentioneth pag 132. But expresly telling that he will not urge it but inferreth notwithstanding from this place that Children may be in some sense capable of breach of Covenant and therefore under a Law desiring his Adversary to chew his cud upon this inference which if true overthroweth all this Socinian Doctrine anent Original sin which still presupposeth that Children are under no Law. For reply to which Rob Barcl Vind pag 62. introduceth Mr. Broun as if he had willed him to chew his â—ud on this first deduction viz. that of some of the Fathers passing by the second viz Mr. Broun's own inference without so much as mentioning thereof whereby he declareth that it hath broken his Jaws or at best is not yet digested 4 None can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again Ioh. 3.7 But surely this new-birth or to be born again is the gift of God and a priviledge which he may withhold from whom he will and therefore without prejudice to his justice may exclude whosoever hath it not from the Kingdom of Heaven but none are excluded from it but guilty persons which I believe none will deny therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons 6. The main Objection and that for any thing I know upon which the bulk of all their Objections dependeth against our Doctrine of Original sin the Socinians and Quakers draw from Ezek 18.20 The Son shall not bear the Fathers iniquity c. Hence they infer That no sin can be imputed To which it is answered that this will not follow seing the Lord is there stopping the mouth of the wicked but yet queâ—â—lous Iews as tho they had been altogether guiltless themselves and punished for
He is angry because his Adversary saith that it is the will of God that his people be under a warfare so long as they are here saying But 〈◊〉 it the will of God that they alwayes be overcomeâ— Seing if their Actions still be stained with sin 〈◊〉 that they may be called service to Satan they cannot but be said to be overcome Ans. They are not alwayes overcome Because sometimes the man as Spiritual prevaileth against himself as carnal And alwayes overcometh at length and at the end of the War though oftentimes foiled in particular Battels The none consideration of which distinction is the ground of this Cavil his following words stand and fall with this Doctrine of Original sin and universal Grace according to his own confession we shall therefore passe them Pag. 123 He repeateth his Argument which is that our Doctrine is injurious to the Sacrifice of Christ. But he forgetteth to shew how Only he sayeth in opposition to his Adversary saying that the Guilt of sin by by this Sacrifice is taken away And also he taketh away the stain thereof piece and piece till in end he give full Victory They refer that to another Life The Question is concerning this Ans. If he were minded to make a Difference betwixt Heaven and Earth he had not made a Question about full Victory in this life 2. How profane a Heart must he have that counteth all the attainments of a Child of God in this Life as good as nothing For notwithstanding of them all he will still have the Sacrifice of Christ to be useless except a man in this Life become as sinless as an Angel. He was concerned to have proved this otherwise not belied the World by giving out that he had fully answered his Adversary But especially he lieth here in that he sayeth he hath fully answered his eight Chapter In which of all places he most failed Of which I shal give the Reader a touch in my Appendix And may be more fully seen by these who compare the Books themselves He will not be content that his Adversary sayeth that the godly and the wicked differ In that the one sinneth with full Purpose of Heart and the other viz. the godly mourneth over and repenteth of his sin and shortcomings but sayeth seing he supposeth the godly to remain in sin all their lifetime the similitude remaineth Ans. And is it so that there is no difference in sinning between him that sinneth through Malice and him that sinneth through Infirmity let him prove this For until he do it we account it an abominable Assertion For the Scripture maketh a clear difference between the shortcomings of the godly and wicked departing from God. And is it no difference that the one repenteth and the other not Next he mentioneth another of his Apologetick Arguments viz. that our Doctrine in this Point maketh the Ministry uselesse But in stead of urging what his Adversary answered which was that upon this very head the Necessity of a Ministry appeareth 2. That it cannot be proved that this ultimat end of the Ministry mentioned Eph. 4 13. is attained here and 3. That there is a Perfection of Parts and another of Degrees I say in stead of urging of all this he only sayeth but the Question is whether or not that perfection is attainable here Ans. He ought to urge his Argument And not propone Questions seing he knoweth well enough that his Adversary as alwayes so here denyeth that a sinless perfection is attainable in this life Now let him prove this from the place and he may be considered But in stead of this for as short as his Book is he must make a Digression to tell us that though Christ was sinlesse yet he admitted of grouth which is nothing to the purpose seing Christ is not said to grow in the Love of God and such moral Perfections about which the Question is but only in that kind of Knowledge the pura nescientia or want of which is no sin or culpable Ignorance Next he sayeth it will not follow from Col. 4.12 and 1 Thes. 3 12. that it is impossible that men should be free of sin here by the Grace of God. These were the Places from which he deduced an Argument for sinless perfection in his Apology And now being answered he thinks it enough for urging of them to bid us prove the contrary from the same places Judge Reader if this man be not pithy And yet he hath all the pith that Socinus and Crellius had from whom he learned the Argument His following Quibles are already answered Only I must take notice that in this pag. 129. he enquireth How these can be said to have renounced the Works of darkness who have need to be washed from their dayly Defilements Ans. Let him read the 12 and 13. of Zechariah and there he may find that these two are consistent And as for his how 's seing he will not see from the Scripture they ought to have no other Answer And whereas he venteth his Malice here in special against the Presbyterians we expect no oâ—her thing at his hand For we know though Qâ—â—kers and Jesuits have an inveterat Hatred against all Protestants Yet in a special Manner theiâ— hate burneth against Presbyterians knowing that these are furthest off from the Church of Rome Some othâ—rs of his Apologetick Arguments he mentioneth in the following page but doth not so much as attempt to urge them Next the Examples of Enoch and Noah he also â—entioneth and again taketh his old Shift viz. the Defendents part â—aying how can we prove thaâ— they were never without sin whileas affirmanti incumbit probatio He doth not deny but they had once sin Now seing he asserteth that at another time they were free of it altogether he ought to prove it And that by another Argument than saying If they had not been altogether free of sin they would not have been called perfect Seing that perfection is variously taken in Scripture and not only for being free of sin as himself confessed above seing he did not contradict what his Adversary said about the Diversity of the Signification of the Word He cometh in the next place to remove our Arguments The first of them is drawn from 1 Joh. 2.8 If we say we have no sin c. and here he sayeth first that this will no more prove that the Apostle Iohn himself sinned dayly than what is said Iames 3.9.10 can be affirmed of the Apostle Iames himself Ans. There is no parity For James speaketh of grosse outbreakings from which the Lâ—rds People are ordinarly kept But here the Apostle speaketh simply of the Nature of sin 2. Certain it is that the Apostle John even in his best frame had sinful Actions and his own Errors Which none will deny that readeth Rev. 19.10 11 and 22 8 9. and I think no Quaker will deny that John was perfectly born again if any ever was Now let them
Pen to defend this passage from the absurdities with which it had been loaded by Hiâ—ks in his first Dialogue pag 3 4. such as that then the Sun Moon Star or Stone is God â—peâ—keth thus George Whitehead inferring from Iohn 1. That if the Life was of the Divine Beeing the Light must be the same for as the Cause is so is the Effect it was never George Whitehead's principle or words that the Life which is the Light of men is but in it self a meer Effect for he owns it in its own beeing to be no other than God himself counterf Christ detect ed pâ—g 56 and again Wil. Pen. Reason against railing pag. 56 We assert the true Light with which every man is enlightned to be in it self the Christ of God and the Saviour of the world The same Willâ— Pen Quakerism a new Nickname pag 9 10. All men are enlightned this Light is Divine because it is the very Light of the world which is God not any effect of his power as a created Light as some men fancy and George Whitehead Dipl pâ— pag 13. to call the Light in every man a meer Creature is conâ—rary to Iohn 1. In him was Life and the Life was the Light of men which Light is Divine and Increated Also George Fox great Myst pag 10. Some câ—ll the Light Consciâ—nce which Light was before Coâ—scâ—ence was or Creature was or Created or made Light was He maâ—e the Sun the Moon and the Light was before thâ—se were made and pâ—g 23. some call it a natural Light which Light was bâ—fore tâ—e word Conscience was or a naâ—ural Light the Sun Moon or Stars either for all things that were made were made by it the natural Light or made Light are created Lights It made the Sun Moon and Stars they were made here it is the natural Light to the naturaâ— Eye and the light that every man is enligâ—tneâ— with that cometh into the world was before thesâ— were made glorified with the Father before the world began Idem pag 185. The Light which every man that cometh into the World is enlightned withal is Christ by whom the world was made And pag 331. The Light which every one that cometh into the world is enlightned withal is not Conscience for the Light was befâ—re any thing was made or Conscience named George Fox younger in a Collection of his Works pag 171. Thus speaketh All mind that Gift of God in your selves which maketh you sensible of your prâ—sent condition you must receive the living principle of God in your own particular vessels which principle I call the Light it being a proper Name for it But I shal not desire to tye up any of you to give this principle of Truth only the name of Light I shall not matter if you call it the Truth or the gift of God are a measure of the eternal Beeing Now Reader did ever the Sun shine upon such a Black and Blasphemous Company of men who durst assert that that dim Light by which most men have enough ado to perceive that there is a Suprem Beeing and notwithstanding of which knowledge they are Ignorant of the true way of the Worship of God the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity the Person of Christ Jesus his Natures and Offices and are at every turn ready to deceive and be deceived I say did ever a company of Men outdo yea or ever equalize these Quakers who dare asâ—eâ—t such a Light as this to be God Notwithstanding of this their matchless exaltation of this Light within every man they again at other times and when occasion serveth depress and bring low the same as much as before they cryed it up For they assert that the Light within any particular person ought to yeild and stoop to the light of their Church or constitut body For William Pen Spirit of Alex pag 14. sayeth We deny that to be a Light which opposeth the judgement of the body Ibid pag 4.5 We as a body have power to determine therefore we abhor renounce rebuke with all severity that rude imagination of the Hat-on in publick prayer and Sp. of the hat pag 21 We have the power and will not such as are in the power do right Ibid. the body will have a true sense feeling and understanding of Motions Visions Revelations and Doctrines therefore it is safest to make her the touchstone in all things relating to God. Behold Reader as the Quakers with the Papists reject the Scriptures from being the Suprem Rule and ultimat Judge So they no less than the grossest of the Romanists ascribe an Infallibility to their Church and make this the suprem Rule and ultimat Judge to which every mans Light within must stoop and yeild though never so clear which is one of the grossest Errors of Popery But yet it is infinitly more gross and impious in the Quakers for in so doing they proclaim the fallibility of that which they maintain to be Christ and God and subject it unto another as capable of deceiving and being deceived which Impiety I am sure is scarcâ— equalized 18ly Although the absurdity of this Doctrine may of it self abundantly secure us that we need not bâ— much concerned let them use what Arguments they will to prove it we being certain that whatever arguments can prove this will equally serve to prove whatever entereth into any mans fancy yet I will propose and enervat these of their arguments which seem to be most strong and plead most for them One of which is proposed by George Keith Truth-defend pag 87. A Divine Law in all men is an inward immediat Dictat but there is a Divine Law in all men Of this Argument singled out of all that ever George Keith wrote as the choicest Master-peice to uphold Quakerism and overthrow the authority of the Scriptures he is so confident that by it alone he thinketh to strike the Cause dead But he is hugely mistaken for if by a divine Law he understand any other thing beside Conscience and Reason which he himself together with his Brother Rob Barclay Quakerism confirm pag 3. acknowledgeth to be only natural We deny his Minor the proof of which we expect ad Kalendas Graecas And thus the great Argument of one of the greatest Champions of the Quakers evanisheth into smoak at the very first handling thereof 2ly Rob Barclay Vind pag 39. thus reasoneh what if I should say is not God a Light And is not he in every man and is not this Light within the increated Spirit The Reader may here observe that this Author is diffident of this Argument and fearful to bring it forth and good reason he hath for by this reason he only evinceth that which he elsewhere by all means endeavoureth to evite viz that the Quakers Grace and Light is common to Devils and damned Souls for God can no more be said to be in every Son and Daughter of Adam without exception than in these
wicked Spirits if he think othewayes let him essay the proof of it 3ly For the sufficiency of their universal Light they thus argue That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation but in not obeying the Light within we sin therefore it is sufficient to Salvation But this Sophism is too palpable and gross to take with any that is not altogether willing to be deceived for the Major proposition thereof is most false otherwise the lawful commands of every Parent Heathen as well as Christian should be a sufficient guide to Salvation for disobedience to these is as really a sin as disobedience to our own Light. 4ly To prove that there is a Divine Light purchased by Christ in every man they adduce Iohn 1.9 That was the true Light which enlightneth every man that cometh into the world for Vindication of which place it shall suffice to overthrow what Rob Barclay hath said in the Vindication of his Apology pag 91. For the confirmation of the Quakers gloss on this text of which Mr Broun Quaker path way to Pagan pag 151 152 153 154. had given diverse expositions as 1. that Light may be here taken for the Light of reason 2ly That by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which is savingly enlightned these expositions with others he at large evinceth and illustrateth from Scripture and reason and sheweth that the Quakers joyn with the Socinians in their exposition Now whereas if the Quaker had done any thing to the purpose he ought to have refuted these exposiâ—ions but in stead thereof he sayeth his adversary must be much puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it But this I confess is a strange inference for the Quaker from abundance inferreth penury and because his adversary gave diverse expositions any of which will serve the turn Ergo sayes he he knows not what to answer I was wondering at this Consequence but I presently remembred that the Quakers were Enemies to Logick He himself diverse times hath given several meanings of one place as for Example Isa. 8.20 much therefore he hath been puzled to answer our arguments proving the Scriptures to be our principal Rule which I do really believe tho upon another account Now it is observable that this Quaker almost every where endeavoureth to turn Defendent when he should be impugnant for the Scriptures from which he drew his arguments in his Apology faâ—ling him so that he can prove nothing from them his Adversary having removed the vernishing of his Sophistry he bendeth his whole wit in his Vindication to find out Evasions and Distinctions to defend his own glosse and this artifice he useth here which think of it what he will will serve for nothing except to discover hiâ— Weakness and Conviction of a bad cause and whereas he flouteth at his Adversary inferring from v. 5. of this chapter the darkness comprehended it not that by darkness is meant man in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is natural we say whereas he flouteth at him inferring from this that man while in that Estate is void of all Spiritual and supernatural light saying is not this a learned Refutation Reader He â—heweth only good will as they use to say to have the Doctrine of the Reformed become a mocking stock and shame rubbed upon it if he could for all the expositions given by the Reformed Churches on this place quite contradict that of the Quakers except he will call Socinus and the like Reformed Protestants But the thing incumbent to the Quaker was the urging and vindicating of his Reason viz. that if man in his natural estate cannot comprehend this Light who notwithstanding can comprehend the things of Nature Ergo by this enlightning with which every man is said to be enlightned that cometh into the world is not understood the Light of Nature and Reason which consequence he shal never be able to prove for altho the Light it self viz. Christ be supernatural and the incomprehensible God of Nature yet these little Beams or Sparks of Reason and Conscience which are the Effect and Gift of this great Ligh Christ the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity no lesse than of the Father and Holy Ghost are altogether natural and comprehensible Many places of Scripture beside this they detort and deprave to the end that by the Scriptures themselves they may destroy the Scriptures and prove that the light within which they being pitifully deluded take for the Spirit of God is the Supream Rule of Faith and Manners all which glosses fall to the ground tho upon this one Account that they have couched in them this most dangerous and blasphemous falshood viz. that the dim and dark Light of nature is not only sufficient to guide us to Salvation but which ought to be heard with horror is God himself One of which Scriptures is John 14.26 27. and 16.13 whence they would infer that all Believers are led by immediat objective Revelation as the Apostles were because say they the way that the Apostles were taught which is by immediat Revelation is there holden forth as common to aâ—l Believers and the words to lead and to teach in their proper and native signification denote always an immediat objective leading or teaching Thus Reasoneth Ro. Barclay Vind. pag. 19.20 to which I answer that these being two of the main places that he brought for proving the Spirit to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners he ought to have given some other thing than bare assertions if he had in good earnest intended to overthrow what his Adversary chap. 3. n. 27. said against his meaning of these places which he hath not in the least done for why may not immediat objective Râ—velatâ—on be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not unto all Believers but subjective only whereby they may understand and apply these Truths that were taught immediatly to the Apostles and Prophets upon whose Doctrine the Faith of all Believers is founded as its principal Rule and Foundation Ephes. 2 20. Even as the like Phâ—ases hold forth an immediate objective Teaching to some and yet that only which is meerly mediate as to others as Neh. 9.20 comp with v. 30. 1 Kings 8. 36. Psal. 132.12 Deu. 32.12 Moreover that the words to lead and teach hold forth a mediate objective Teaching or a subjective Illumination far oftner in Scripture than immediate objective Revelation is manifest to any that are acquainted with the Scriptures which if the Quakers deny seing they are the opponents they ought to condescend to a collation of places and shew the contrary Lastly whatever the Quakers say we cannot help it certain it is that no man of sound Judgment will deny that when one readeth the Scriptureâ— and hath his mind illuminated by the Spirit of God that he may understand the wondrous things in Gods Law but such an