Concupiscence was sin Rom 7 7. And when they did the things contained in the Law they did them not perfectly nor doth the Apostle say this but the contrary for he addeth that their consciences did accuse them 2. Though we should suppose that they both could and did fulfil the Law against all Reason Scripture and Experience yet we who do not with this man deny Original sin might assert a necessity of Christ's coming for all their future obedience make it never so perfect being but their duty could make no satisfaction to divine justice for Adams sin whereof they were guilty 3. Hence he may see that we need not say that any can or could be saved without Christ. 4. Nor need we say that such should have been damned for being ignorant of Christ to come but for their transgression But absurdities deduced from an impossible supposition are but absurd probations fit only for Quakers 27. What he saith § 3. to the vindicating of 1 Cor 2 14. from the exception of such as would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaned of a Brutish man an animal not of a Natural man doth not concerne us but therein unawars he contradicteth himself for if man now in his fallen condition can know nothing of God of his Being Nature or Government of the world nor nothing of the Principles of common Honesty Morality nor nothing of the things of the Law as he went about to prove as we heard then let him tell me wherein a man in his Natural state differeth from a Brute And how he can then make use of this answere Againe when he sayeth that the Apostle doth demonstrate through that whole chapter he should have added the first Chapter too how the wisdom of Man is an uncapable judge of the things of God Let him tell me if he thinketh that the wise men such as the Grecians of old were as he granteth here could not judge of any of these particulars held forth in the Law of God If not wherein appeared their Wisdome Or wherein were they to be called Wise If they could judge in some matters of the Law which was written in their heart then let him reconcile this if he can with what he said above But as we have frequently alreaâ—y observed this Man regairdeth so little what he sayeth that may he but have occasion to contradict Truth he cares not how often he contradict himself as is usual with such who are carryed away with a prejudice against Truth and know not well as yet were to settle 28 Thus have we examined what this Quaker saith upon this Head and because he alleiged we spoke without Reaâ—on when we said that there were some reliques of the image of God left in the natural man whereby he may know some things concerning God's Being and Nature and Government of the world his duty towards God his Neghbour and Himself we shall shortly manifest the truth of this to the end that it may the better appeare that this Quakers Theology which he pleadeth for and driveth at is but Paganical borne with every corrupt son of Adam and far different from that which is Saving and is manifest by the Gospel which hath brought life and immortality to light The Socinians deny that there is any inuate knowledge of God in man or that by nature he knoweth any thing of God so Socinus himself praelect cap 11 So Ostorodus Institut P. 1. 10. Smalcius contra Frantzium disp 8. though others as Crellius and Schlichtingius be of another judgment our Divines on the contrare Maintaine that there is some Imperfect and as to Salvation Insufficient though sufficient for Instruction as to several duties and to render the transgressours Unexcusable knowledge of God implanted in corrupt nature so that man even in his natural condition coming to the use and exercise of Reason by a natural instinct sense and force cometh to know that there is a God that is Optimus Maximus Powerfull Good Wise c. Governeth all the world that we ought to Worshipe Serve him that we ought to do Right to all that Punishment abideth evil doers and several things of this nature and what our Divines say they confirme by Scripture and Reason passages of Scripture are these Rom. 1 19. because that which may be knâ—wn of God is manifest in them for God hath shewed it unto them This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not manifested unto some few of them as to their chiefe Philosophers but in all who were ungodly and unrighteous and held the truth in unrighteouâ—ness vers 18. So vers 21. it is said that they knew God even they who did not glorify him as God neither were thankful but became vaine in their imaginations c. So vers 23. They changed the glory of the incorruptible God And therefore had some notions of this incorruptible and glorious majesty And vers 25. they changed the truth of God into a lie So vers 32. They knew the judgment of God that they which commit such things are worthy of death And so could noâ— be ignorant of God of his Law of the Equity thereof of their Obligation to obedience and of God's Righteousnes in Iudging and Punishing transgressours So Rom 2 14 15. of which we spoke above The Gentiles who had not the written law did by nature the things contained in the Law and did shew the work of the law written in their hearts having their consciences bearing them witness and their thoughts accusing or excusing according as they observed or transgressed the said law So that having this law implanted in their hearts they could not be ignorant of God whose law this is and in whose name it calleth for Obedience nor of their own Obligation to obedience and their Consciences did preach forth the same for it judgeth and accuseth as God's Deputy See likewise Act. 14 15 16 17. 17 24 25 26 27. As for Reasons evinceing this They adduce the Workings and Stirrings of the Conscience which natural men have and which they cannot get shaken off which manifestly evince to them That there is a Supream Judge God in whose name Conscience giveth sentence and vexeth and tormenteth evil doers night and day for as Menander said conscience is a God to all mortals And this took vengeance on that monster of men Caligula and so haunteth evil doers that they alwayes think they see their Punishment before their eyes hence some Great persons without the reach of Inferiours have been made to tremble and quake at thunder claps yea and put violent hands in themselves Philosophers Historians and Poets declare this at large yea common sense and experience confirmeth it so that every rational person cannot but assent to the truth of this so soon as he heareth it and knoweth what is said That God is It carryeth alongs with it such rayes of light that without any difficulty it is seen and understood and mans Minde and Judgment of
and yet behold the Righteous God cannot be acquite in that which is every way more justifiable though He hath absolute dominion over us and may dispose of us as He will which no man hath over another The truth is this dissatisfaction with God in all his wayes is an argument beyond all deniall of our Rebellious Natural Inbred Corruption and Wickedness of heart what would they not have said that it had been Goodness and Equity both in God if Adam had stood to have made us all partakers of the Benefite thereof and shall it now be against both Goodness Equity if by reason of his Fall we be deprived thereof and be Obnoxious to the evils threatned what unequal dealing is this In fine This is the old câ—ant of the Palagians as Vossius sheweth us Hist. Pelag. Pag. 206. And what Augustine replyed he way see Ibid. Pag. 20â— 13. He addeth a rhapsody of non-sense telling his readers our opinion floweth from our self lâ—ve because we maintaine an absolute decree of election for ourselves and ours and so care not to send all the rest to hell and leave them into inextricable difficulties The reading of whâ—ch might indeeâ— excite any man of Understanding to commiserate this mans case who is thus so transported with paâ—sion as he knoweth not what he is saying only we see that he muâ—t spew out his gall againâ—t the Orthoâ—â—x doctrine of Election before the fit time come but when he cometh to tâ—e right place of speaking to this as we shall see in the next Chapter he dar not meddle with Election but contents himself with Reprobation But what an evident demonstration of Corrupt Self love and Pride against God is in his Pelagian heresie he is blinde that seeth not These Quakers with other Pelagians will not be beholden to the Grace of God but as little as may be and therefore so frame their doctrine that themselves and not the grace of God may have all the praise of their Salvation as we will have occasion frequently to shew ere all be done When he hath deluded himself and other Quakers and made some others beleeve that they have no Original sin to mourne for and thereby hath brought them under the dominion of Satan more than befoâ—e hath he done them any good service Is it good service to poor souls to hoodwinke them that they may post to the pit witâ— a lie in their right hand Woe I say and thrice woe to such as drink-in this mans doctrine and live and die accordingly 14 Thereafter he is better pleased with Papists who allow a limbus to the Infants dying without baptisme than wâ—th us But we must be satisâ—ied that he look more warmly to his old friends the Papists among whom he drank-in no doubt much of that prejudice which now he is pleased to voâ—ite foâ—th as Quaker rather than as a Papist And as to this particular whereupon now we are his opinion will accord better with the Papists than with Ours for Bellarm. will not have concupiscence to be owned as sin Formally but only Originally and Effectively or Terminatively and they say that Adam was created in puris naturalibus which naturals remain whole and intire as yet and will not this Quaker grant all this as to Infants Nay he agreeth well with the Errour of Albert-Pighius who will have no sin propagated to us from Adam and sayeth that there is nothing in us when new borne but what is good and that death cometh not upon Infants because of sin but floweth from the constitution of the body But whether he will say with him that because of Adam's sin all his posterity are banished out of Heaven though not obnoxious to eternall Death I know not It may be he will allow them a limbus or else make them all sure of heaven if he will grant a heaven to any But how come they thither seing they have nothing to do with Christ all thaâ— come to heaven must be beholden to Christ the Redeemer and hold their crown of Him But this Qvakers Religion will teach old persons let be Infants to be little beholden to Christ as we shall heare 15. He is so bold as to tell us next that our opinion is contrary to Scripture Because the Apostle sayeth Rom. 4 15 that where there is no Law there is no transgression and 5 13. but sin is not imputed when there is no Law And he like a man proveth that Infants are under no Law But is the man such a stranger to the common practices among men who forfeite the Children yea Infants yea such as are not borne with their Fathers for great crimes and yet they know that Infants are not obnoxious to their Lawes especially if as yet unborne But our plaine answere is That the Nature of Mankinde was under the Law proposed unto Adam as the Head and when he as the Head and Representative broke that Law the whole nature of Mankinde became guilty and consequently every Infant becometh guilty when they partake of that guilty nature And that thus it was with all the posterity of Adâ—m the Apostle expresly asserts in the last place cited viz. Rom 5 12 13 14. even notwithstanding of this very Oâ—jection which he proleptically bringeth-in there as the cohesâ—on cleareth and we shall evince afterward 16. His last reason is from Ezechiel 18 20. which Socinians also urge and it receiveth a quick dispatch for he himself must loose this doubt if there bâ— any as well as we for he said before that God punisheth the sins of the Fathers on the children when guilty of actual sinnes whereby they homologate their Fathers wickedness And Ezechiel doth plainly and frequently enough make it out â—hat tâ—ese children were as wicked as their fathers if not more and so the Lord might according to this Man 's owne concession visite the iniquities of their Fathers upon them But the scope of the place being clearly this That so little grouâ—d had these people to alleige that they were innocent and that God had no quarrel againâ—t them but for their fathers transgressions so that their fathers did eat thâ— soure â—rapes and their teeth were therefore set on edge though they themselves did eat no soure grape being innâ—câ—nt that on the contrary the Lord tels them by the Prophet that though he should not visite one iniquity of their Fathers upon them as hâ— might do in justice and had one with others but should follow a way with them more suteable to their owne minde viz. only take notice of their own guilt personal yet they could not escape because their owne personal iniquities were so many and so great This I say being the scope of the place it is obvious how impertinent it is for him here to alleidge it And beside let him make of it what he will it cannot reach us for we have told him that this original sin is not the sin of another Person as Adam's after sins were
that look upon the place that the Apostle to the end he might clear up the way how beleevers partake of the benefites of Christs death maketh a comparison betwixt Adam and Christ and so cleareth up how it is that all Mankinde is become Corrupt and that in and through the first Man Adam from whom this corruption is derived not by Imitation for they cannot imitate it who never heard of it and yet even they partake of this corruption therefore by real Participation of the guilt saying verse 12. as by one man sin entred into the world c. and that in him all sinned and afterward that upon this sin death passed upon all men and reigned even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgressions that is over infants that had not yet committed any actual sin and that judgment was by one to condemnation so that the fruit of this sin was Condemnation or Obnoxiousness to condemnation and that because by this one sin the posterity were made sinners 2. By Death here is meaned every kinde of death Temporal and Eternal and Spiritual for it is a death that reigned over Iâ—fants and is called Condemnation 3. we finde no person old or young that come of this first Adam by ordinary generation here excepted nay Infants are expresly enough included vers 14. 4. So that all the posterity of Adam young and old being in Adam their Natural and Federal Head partake of his sin having sinned in him and of the miseries or just punishment of that sin All this is so clear and manifest both from the very words and expressions of the Apostle and from his scope that who ever speak against this must do violence to the text and weaken the Apostles argueings This same passage did the ancients Augustine and others urge against the Pelagians as is to be seen in Vossij histor Pelag. Pag. 146 147. By this argument That sin which is so described to us by the Apostle that he sayeth is brought death upon all men that men sinned by it and were made sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that thereby all became guilty of death and of condemnation that sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature included in Adam and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and to condemnation But the first sin of Adam is decribed to us by the Apostle c. Ergo That sin is the sin of nature because Adam did sustaine the person of all who potentially were in his Ioines and by vertue thereof all are liable to death the punishment thereof Vossius tels us moreover that the Ancients took much notice of Paul's calling Adam a Type and of the particle As and did hence gather that as the Obedience of Christ belongeth to all such as are spiritually begotten not by Imitation but by Imputation so the Disobedience of Adam is conveyed not by Imitation but by Imputation unto all such as corporally come of him They took notice also as he sheweth us of the particle By which did denote the Efficient cause of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom which saith that the posterity did sin in Adam or if it be rendered because or in as much or for which it will shew what is the Adequate cause of death and that it hath also place in Infants 19. Thus we have seen the Argument of the orthodox Church and its ground let us next see what he sâ—ith against it As concerning the words of the Apostle saith he the reason of the condemnation in whom all did sin that is in that seed or by occasion of that seed for no man is said to sin but in his owne person But I pray By what warrand may he foist-in words at his owne pleasure into the tâ—xt Is there the least mention made of seed in all the text Is not this intolerable boldness to deal so with the Scripâ—ures of Truth But if Infants be condemned because they sinned in or by occasion of that seed then that seed was imputed to them Yes he will say but that was when they began to sin in their owne persons No say I that cannot be because the text importeth no such thing yea it saith the contrary viz. that death which is included in the condemnation passed upon all men and reigned even over such as had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression that is had not as yet sinned actually So that his reason is directly against the Apostle and we have further above discovered its untruth He addeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aggreeth with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so sheweth how Adam by his sin gave entry to sin into the world and so death by sin entered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. by which viz. occasion or in which viz. death all others did sin i. e. actually in their persons viz. who were capable of sinning of which number Infants are not who are under no Law as was showne and where no Law is there is no transgression as the Apostle sayeth This upon the matter is the same that the old Pelagians said as Vossius sheweth us Hist. Pelag. Pag. 182.183 For they interpreted these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom all have sinned by sinning after example or Imitation and this man by sinning upon that Occasion when they become capable and the Socinians with Episcopius homologate with the Pelagians and have been abundantly answered by the orthodox who shew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Xenophon Aristophanes Demosthenes and other Greek Authors But For Answere unto this Quaker I would say 1. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then the meaning must be this and so death passed upon all men in which death all men sinned and what sense can this make out May not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agree as well to Man If not let him give us the least colour of reason either from the text or context 2. If Adam by his sin gave entry unto sin into the world this must be meaned of his first sin for the Apostle speaketh alwayes of one sin or of Offence in the singular number that Vers. 18. may be read by one offence And so sin entered not by Imitation nor yet by Occasion for his after sinnes might have laid the way for Imitation and have given Occasion as well as the first Yea more yea only for while the first sin was committed there were none to imitate him and if this had been the Apostles meaning he had spoken of sins in the plural number 3 If this had been the Apostles meaning he had not named One man and One man as a Type a Type of him that was to come for Eva's sin the Devils sin might also have been an Occasion 4. Hence it will follow thaâ— beleevers are made Righteous only upon Occasion of Christs Righteousness
and have â—othing of it Imputed unto them which though this man may account no way absurd yet all Orthoeox Christians will be of another minde 5 He speaks dubiously concerning the Import of these two words and knoweth not whether their meaning be by which occasion or in which death and we have seen that the meaning cannot be by which Occasion And it will further appear from this that Adams sin could be no Occasion to such as never heard of it and our nearest Parents sins should be a greater Occasion and further what could Paul's meâ—tioning an Occasion contribute to his designe 6. Paul asserts that death passed upon all men and giveth this as a ground thereof that all men had sinned but this Man perverteth the Apostles words and meaning and maketâ— the Apostle speak thus death passed upon all men because all men will sin actually when they become capable 7. The Apostle sheweth that death passed upon all men and reigned even over Infants and so supposeth that Infants had sinned otherwayes his argument vers 12. had been of no value for the Instance of Infants who are a great part of Mankinde had destroyed the Apostles reasoning if they bad not been included under all men 8. He is angry at the Orthodox as we sâ—all hear afterward for restricting the particle all or the words all men though it be according to the exigence of the context But here he excludeth a great part of Mankinde contrary to the whole scope and disigne of the Text yea and to the Apostles expresse including of Infants and making use of their Case as a confirmation of his point 9 If he exclude Infants from this sin he must exclude them also from all benefite in Christs Obedience and then where is his Universal Redemption and his Universal Grace whereof he speaketh in the following Theses 10 That Infants are capable of sinning in their Head is as clear as they are capable of dying for the sin of the Head this the Apostle proveth from their death and from death reigneing over them 11. But sayes he Infants are under no Law But the Apostâ—e sayes the contrare viz. that there was both Sin and Law before Moses dayes because death reigned even over Infants and consequently that Infants were under sin and therefore also under a Law for where there is no law there is no transgressiâ—n But this was the Law given to Adam as head of Mankinde which Law all transgressed when Adam transgressed because the whole Nature transgressed it Adam representing all as their Natural Root and by vertue of the Covenant in which he stood And thus we see how this Man perverteth and inverteth the Words and Arguments and Scope and All of the Apostle 12 If death was inflicted on old Persons because of their actual sins wherefore was death inflicted upon Infants Sure the Apostle maketh no distinction of Deaths nor doth he speak of distinct causes of Death but only mentioneth an universal Cause of an universal Effect sin the cause and death the effect and therefore if the effect come upon infants the cause must also come upon them or the Apostle argueth very loosly and he must impute cruelty injustice to his Maker 13. This addition of his to the text viz. who were capable of sinning is the same that Castalio made saying these to wit who in regaird of age could have sinned And in this he was no lesse bold with the text then our Quaker is for as we have seen and the text is clear it is not all these only that die but even such as come not to that age and the Apostle alwayes speaks of death as the wages of sin And when he here sayeth of Infants that they sinned not after the similitude of Adam's transgression he clearly intimateth that they sinned some other way viz. in Adam which also the 19. verse manifestly proveth 20. He taketh notice Next of our argument from Psal. 51 5. behold I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me where the Psalmist is exaggerating his iniquity before the Lord as all true penitents will do traceth his sin to the very Spring and Fountaine as to him viz. that Original Corruption which he brought into the world with him and shewing that even while he was a forming and warming as the word importeth in the womb this corruption did adhere to him so that the very masse out of which he was framed was corrupt and what greater proof could we desire of the originaâ—ed part of this Original Sin than is here The Ancient Fathers made use of this passage for the same end as Vossius sheweth us Hist. Pelag. Pag. 144.145 And some Jewes such as Aben Ezra Sal. Iarchi expound it of innate Concupiscence Now what saith this Quaker to this He cannot see our Infâ—rence and why so It seemeth to me sayes he that this iniquity and sin is rathâ—r ascribed to the parents than to the Infants for he sayeth in sin did my mother conceive me not my mother conceived me sinning Ans. Is not this a quick observation and worthy of a Quaker But the misery is it quite crosseth Davids designe This man must think that it was a great argument of Davids Sorrow and Repentance to lay iniquity upon his Parents now in all appearance dead but I should look upon this as no argument of a true penitent heart What could his upbraiding of his Father and Mother after this manner contribute to the aggravating of his own sin And that this is David's designe I think this Quaker will not deny if he but look upon the place and read over the Psalm or the first part of it Is not David about the confessing of his owne sin Read the title of the Psalm the preeceeding verse and see Is he not seeking pardon and remission of his own sin Or shall we suppose that he is praying for remission to the dead all Confession of sin to God is in reference to Remission and if David speak here only of his Parents sin he is tacitely seeking Remission If he speak of his Parents sin in begetting and warming him in the womb it must be as including himself at least as shareing thereof and this will prove that David had sin upon him from his very conception And by his answere he would seem to make marriage duties unlawful contrare to 1 Cor. 7 2 3 4 5. Heb. 13 4. He addeth another answere thus Such an interpretation would contradict the Scriptures formerly cited while it maketh infants to he hurt by their immediat parents sin And there is no mention here of Adam Answ. I do not prove hence that David was guilty of his immediat Parents sins but that original contagion doth so cleave to every ordinary Infant unless we could suppose some singular thing in David without all ground that in his very warming in his Mothers womb he is corrupted and albeit David make no mention here of Adam the
irreprehensible and sinless It is said of them indeed that they were blameless as all Pastors should be 1 Tim. 3 2. anâ— all Christians Phil. 2 15. but not that they were sinless And August lib. cont Caelest distinguisheth betwixt esse sine peccato esse sine querela and he sayes this may be said of some but that of none but of Christ. What he saith from Ephes. 2 5 6. is true viz. that such as sit with Christ to wit Actually sin no more but now they sit not actually there but only in Christ Jesus their head As for Heb. 12 22 23. whatever beginnings there may be thereof here Yet its fulness is above Revel 14 5. speaketh not of Perfection here but of their blamelesness that is their Sincerity and Uprightness And this is all that he adduceth to prove his Opinion by and how slender his grounds are let any judge 28. He comes at length to answere some of our arguments § 9. Pag. 161. c. And to that brought from 1 Ioh. 1.8 if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves the truth is not in us He wondereth that we are so blinde partial as to alleige this place against which so much might be said Let us hear what can be said He saith That we doth not include the Apostle as we see Iam. 3 9 10. Ans. That place of Iames taketh in all even the Apostles though not for the present time and that was sufficient to prove what a member the tongue was And he might say as well that the Apostle is not included 1 Ioh. 1 7 9 10. Nor Chap. 2 1 2 3. But nâ—xt be it so that the Apostle is not here expresly included it is sufficient for us that it is spoken of beleevers to whom Iohn wrote that their joy might be full vers 4. and who have interest in the bloud of Christ vers 7. and are children Chap. 2 vers 1. and have an advocate with the Father Iesus Christ the righteous ibid. and are brethren vers 7. who had their sinnes forgiven them vers 12. and knew the Father vers 13. and among these come in also the young men and the Fathers mentioned vers 13 14. What saith he next Here it is not said that we daily sin in word and deed far less that all our best works are sinful for the following verse showeth the contrary where it is said that such as confess their sins get pardon and are washen and this cleansing cannot be meaned of remitting the guilt for that was expressed by forgiving otherwise there should be a tautology here Ans. 1. It is sufficient that this place proveth that beleevers are not so perfect as to be sinless here 2. It is true beleevers confessing their sins and fleeing to Christ by faith obtaine remission of their sins and it is also true that Christs bloud cleanseth them from guilt and staine but that cleansing from the staine and filth is not perfect here for then there were no need of remission and beleevers might say they had no sin contrare to what is here said verse 8. and Chap. 2 1. In the 3. place he distinguisheth betwixt sinning and having sin as Volkelius the Socinian lib. 5. c. 19. did to elude this place betwixt having of sin and being accustomed to sin and then tels us that because all have sinned it may be said of them that they have sin Just as Smalcius the Socinian said disp 6. de Bonis Oper. Pag. 178. But we Ans. That the Apostle expresly saith both that we have sin vers 8. and that we have had sin vers 10. And he that sinneth in the present time he hath sin in the present time And beside this having of sin he supponeth that they may sin saying Chap. 2 1 My little children these things write I unto you that ye sin not that is not that ye have not had sin And if any man sin that is in the present and future time We have an advocate with the Father c. And it is observable that the Apostle cleareth vers 9. what he meaned by having of sin vers 8. by saying if we confess our sinnes he is faithful and just to forgive us our sinnes For here he can mean no other than such sinnes as need foregiveness and not such as were formerly was hen away by the bloud of Jesus vers 7. Moreoveâ— he tels us that sin may be taken for the seed of sin that for some time remaineth even in such as are redeemed from actual sin and when the children of God resist the temptations that come from this seed it is not their sin but the Devils that tempteth Ans. 1. This seed of sin is sinful and as lonâ— as this seed of sin is in them they cannot be perfect 2. The Apostle is speaking of actual sins not excluding this seed and body of death which must be confessed before they be actually pardoned and they cleansed from the guilt of them vers 9. 3. In so far as the godly resist these temptations they do well but even these sinful motions of corruption within them are transgressions of the Law and should be mourned for and are evidences that the flesh lusteth against the Spirit so that they do not what they should do every way as they ought to do What he saith in the last place to wit That this place should not be so wrested as to speak against what the same Apostle saith frequently in the same Epistle Is founded upon his presumption and false supposition that he hath proven this Perfection from this Epistle the conâ—rary whereof is shown 29. To 1 King 8 46. and Eccles. 7 20. he answereth That there is nothing here said of sinning daily Yea Salâ—mon in that place two verses thereafter speaketh of them that turne from their sinnes with all their heart which insinuateth a possibility of relinquishing sin Ans. It is expresse in Ecclesiastes that there is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not clearly importing that even in their doing good they sinne and so that they sinne daily What followeth 1 King 8 48. speaketh only of their Repentance which we deny not to be possible but nothing of this possibility of not sinning He answereth 2. Though it were granted that at that time there was no man that sinned not yet it will not follow that there are none such now or that it is Impossible there should be any such Ans. 1. Then he must say either that at that time there were none Regenerate no not Solomon himself or that his position is false which maketh this common to all Regenerate persons 2. We have proven it not only under the Old Test. but also under the New what needs more 3. We do not speak of a simple impossibility as if it surpassed the power of God to cause such a thing but of an ordinary impossibility matters standing as they are in the wise ordination of God who
will so have it In the 3. place he comes to criticize tell us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken in the potential mood and so it signifieth who may not or cannot sin as Ps. 119 11. Ans. And why not also ought not seing this Mood is used to expresse that This is but vanity for the Hebrew hath not properly potential moods And though interpreters do usually render it so as more congruous latin yet the sense abideth the same and the Dutch translate it as we have it And what will this say to other places Nay the very scope of Solomon evidenceth our translation to be right his gloss to be but vanity as is obvious to every Reader 30. To that argument from Rom. 7 14. c. he answereth the same that Socinians and Arminians answered of old to wit That the Apostle is not there speaking of himself but of an unregenerate person While as all the circumstances of the text evince the contrary to wit that he is speaking of himself and that in the present time for he useth alwayes from vers 14. and forward verbs in the present tense and he distinguisheth betwixt the Old and New man in himself ascribeing to each their proper work and speaketh many things of himself which cannot be spoken of the Unregenerat as 1. To will and approve what is good and to nill and disapprove what is evil and that alwayes and to approve all good and disapprove all evil discovered to be such 2. To consent unto the Law that it is good and to delight therein and that according to the inner man which is the Regenerat part opposite to the Old man 3. Not to do evil not I it is no more I and that was according to the Renewed part 4. To have an inner man which is proper to the Regenerate Ephes. 3 19. 5. To feel a strife and warre betwixt the Flesh and the Spirit which also agreeth to the Regenerate Gal. 5 17. 6 To hate evil which no Unregenerate person can do 7. To approve of the Law as Spiritual 8. To have will present unto good even when he findeth not how to performe what is good 9. To be brought into captivity to the Law of sin while as the wicked are willing slaves 10. To be groaning under this body of death and accounting himself wreatched because of it 11. To have a Law in the minde against which the Law in the members maketh warre 12. To be expecting full delivery in Jesus Christ. 13. To be thankfull to God upon that account 14. To be serving the Law of God when the flesh is serving the Law of sin 15 And Chap. 8 1. being an inference from whaâ— is said Chap. 7. he inferreth that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ which supposeth that he was speaking of one that was in Christ otherwise his Inference had not been pertinent 31. These things are clear and might be further explained and confirmed if it were necessary Let us see what he saith against this 1. He saith The Apostle declared the contrary Chap. 6 2. Answ. No such matter for what he said there and what he saith here can well agree for he that is thus resisting sin striveing and protesting against it when he can do no more is abundanâ—ly evidencing that he is dead unto it as to its dominion and that he is not living therein 2. He saith Paul could not call himself a carnal man as vers 14. Answ. So said Schlightingius the Socinian So Arminius But we say Paul doth not call himself simply and every way carnal but only in a certain respect distinguishing betwixt his better part which he owneth as himself and this Flesh vers 18. And we finde also that Paul called the Corinthians who were babes in Christ carnal in some respect 1 Cor. 3 1 2. He saith 3. The Apostle Chap. 8. saith he was made free from the Law of sin and death and so he could not be then carnal Answ. Neither say we that he was carnal in so far but spiritual 4. He saith That Paul Chap. 8 35. saith who shall separat us from the love of Christ vers 37. that in all these things we are more then conquerours And vers last nothing can separat us But where sin is and is continued in there there is a separation for all sin is contrary to God 1 Ioh. 3 4. Answ. That sin where it is striven and wrestled against as Rom. 7 15. c. will make a separation from God I deny 2. That sin is contrary to God I no where read that it is a breach and transgression of his Law is true 32. To the instances of the failings of Noah and David He saith They are nothing to the purpose Why so The question is not saith he whether good men cannot sin num non possint peccare but whether they be able not to sin num possint non peccare And this may be true though they have sinned Answ. But our Argument lyeth thus If these men whom the Spirit of God stileth Perfect and men according to God's heart have had their failings and these failings are registrated for our use then we have no Scripture warrant for such a Perfection here as is not attended with sin But the former is true Let him of now apply his answere to this argument and see what it will say Or thus we may frame the Argument If we finde no instances in Scripture such persons as were so perfect as that they did not sin then to imagine such a perfection is but a groundless fancy a dream But the former is true Or If we finde sin consisting with a state of Regeneration than it is false that all Regenerat persons are in a sinless state Hereby also is that which he addeth in the second place obviated And further we say that from these instances we do not prove that the godly sin in all they do because of a body of death and corruption cleaving to them other Arguments evince that But from these instances we shew that his sinless state is but a Quakeristick dream 33. To that argument That this doctrine taketh away the study of Mortification and Usemaking of the blood of Christ and Praying for remission He very civilly tels us Tâ—at because of its absurdity he had almost forgoten it As if he had answered all the arguments we use against this errour But wherein consists its absurdity Is sayes he mortification of sin useless when its end is attained But he mistaketh after his usual manner our argument which in forme runneth thus If mortification be a duty pressed on persons regenerated then persons regenerated have sin and corruption in them to be mortified and so are not sinless But the former is true Therefore c. May it please him to shew the absurdity of this argument When all sin is mortified there is no more need of this duty of studying mortification and if all sin
17 12 16 17 Neh. 13 15 17 21 22 25 30 2 King 23 5 6 9 20 21. 2 Chron. 34 31. 15 12 13 16. Dan. 3 29. 1 Tim 2 2. Esai 49 v. 2. Zech. 13 23. 3. Our Quaker premitteth some things for clearing of the question and first he tels us that by Conscience as he said before he understandeth that perswasion of soul which ariseth from the Intellect with the truth or falshood of a thing Anâ—w 1. How this description can agree to a scrupulous or to a doubting Conscience I see not for neither of these have attained to any perswasion though I know a blinded conscience or an erroneous conscience can have a sort of perswasion 2. Before to wit Pag. 89. he told us that some of the Quakers did fitly compare the Conscience unto a lanterne and the light of Christ to a candle burning in it And compareing this with what is here said we may see that in the Quakers judgment the light of Christ whereof they talk so much is nothing but the light of the understanding for it is this light of the understanding that causeth the perswasion which he calleth Conscience here and it is that which shineth in the dark lanterne of conscience as they speak there But 3. How can Conscience be compared to a lanterne seing a lanterne is a dark thing having no light in it self only it hath an aptitude to transmit the light that shineth in it but Conscience is a lump of light and is either an act of the practical understanding as some or rather as others a power of the practical understanding is not a distinct faculty from the understanding but the very understanding judging of and giving sentence upon the mans State Wayes and Actions And the very name Conscience importeth a knowing power and faculty con scientia or co-knowledge to it belongeth the Synteresis the intellectual store-house and magazine of truthes the Register of common notions left in us by nature whether as to things concerning God or as to things concerning Ourselves and our Nieghbour in respect of which the conscience is said to be a Law or Light and this belike is all the Light of Christ which our Quakers understand And the judgment of Conscience being discursive to it belongeth also the knowledge of all the mans actions in which respect it is called a Book or Witness or an Indiâ—ement as it bringeth forth these actions to light and compareth them with the Law To it also belongeth the judgment or sentence passed upon the actions as conforme or disconforme to the Law of God 4. Conscience then cannot properly be called a perswasion for this resulteth from the clear apprehensions dictats witnessing and judgment of the Conscience and so is but a consequent of Conscience acting that not of every conscience either as not of a doubâ—ing nor of a scrupling conscience but of a clear and sound conscience or of a deluded one 4. What saith he further which to wit the thing presented by the intellect thâ—ugh it be false and evil in it self yet as long as the man is perswaded to wit that it is true and â—ood he should sin if he did contrary to that perswasion for saith the Apostle whatever is not of faith is sin and he that doubteth is damned if he eat And Ames saith a conscience erring tyeth c Answ. It is true whatever the Conscience dictateth or enjoyneth it doth it in the name and authority of God whose Deputy and vicegerent it is yet it is but an underjudge and is not the supream Law but regula regulata so that though its dictats even when erroneous and contrary to the Law of God do so binde as that the man who doth contrary cannot but sin for though upon the maâ—er he doth nothing contrary to the Law of God yet formally and interpretatively he transgresseth that which is represented to him by Conscience as the Law of God and he knoweth no better but it is in very deed the Law of God which he transgresseth Yet for all this the erroneous conscience layeth on no formal obligation as the same D. Ames telleth us for it cannot oblige us to do that which is a transgression of the Law of God our supream Lawgiver It is true which the Apostle saith Rom. 14. last that whatever is not of faith is sin c. because when we do any thing not knowing certainly but in so doing we sin against God we shake off the awe and fâ—ar of God and have not a sufficient abhorrence at sin 5. He proposeth the question thus Whether the Civil Magistrat hath power to compel men against their conscience in maters of Religion And if they will not obey to punish them in their goods liberty and lives And he holdeth the negative I Answere This is a most perverse stateing of the question For 1. He distinguisheth not the Elicite and Imperat acts of the Conscience but confoundeth them As if the Magistrates power were said equally to reach both whereas we do not say that the Magistrate can compel men as to the inward liberty of the soul and conscience that is to Thiâ—k Judge Understand and Conclude in their mindes as he will as if he could force and compell any to Believe and Assent unto this or that opinion in the matters of God We say no such thing the Conscience as to these inward acts is far beyond the reach of his Sword But the question is concerning Outward and Imperated acts such as Speaking Preaching Writing Printing Open Profession and Perswading of others which are visible and audible dishonourable to God and noxious to men to wit Whether the Magistrate may punish such by the Sword who in maters of Religion Teach Speak and Printe blasphemies against God doctrines overturning Religion perverting souls c. And other things of that nature that men can pretend conscience for or not If he hold the Negative here as he must if he speak to the point we shall consider his arguments 2. Upon the other hand Though the Magistrate cannot enforce a Religion upon men Yet he may force them to the use of publick meanes whereby they may be brought to the knowledge and conviction of the truth As to hear sound Instruction and Information and to attend the meanes whereby light is usually conveyed into the soul and this is no force upon conscience but a putting of people to duty 3. So then the question is not whether the sword be a meanes of conversion of men to the true faith nor whether heathens are to be compelled by the magistrates sword to embrace the truth Nor yet whether the Inward Opinions of the minde can be punished by the Magistrate But the only question lyeth here Whether the Magistrate can by his power punish and restraine Open Idolaters false Worshipers false Teachers Perverters of the right wayes of the Lord Seducers of souls Corrupters or Deniers of the true worship of God open
doth he think that his saying he exalteth not the Light of nature and that he rejecteth the Socinians and Pelagians will make wise men and acquanted with these controversies think otherwise than that he and his Fraternity are as great enemies to the grace of God and as great exalters of the Light of nature as ever Pelagius or Socinus were Thinks he that his calling the dimme Light of corrupt Nature by and holding it forth to us under the name of Grace or Light or whatever other name he is pleased to name it by will make us think that it is in truth the true Gospel-grace of God and not to be what it is indeed the meer Light of Corrupt Nature Did he never hear how Pelagius to escape the Anathema of a Synod called that which he pleaded for Grace and was he lesse what he was an enemy to the grace of God for all that never one white and so is it with this Man we are confident ere all be done to finde him as great a Pelagian and Socinian and Iesuite in this point as any and I judge it intollerable Eâ—trontedness or shameless Ignorance in him to place the Pelagians Semipelagians Socinians and some Papists one the extreme as to his Opinion as he doth Pag. 54. of his Apology but of this more afterward 16. When he cometh in his Apology to explaine his Thesis Pag. 54. forbearing to speak of the State of Adam before the Fall because forsooth in his judgment these are but curious notions as the Arminians thought before him Apol. Cap. 5. and yet I judge his plaine expressing of his Opinion in this matter would have contributed not a little to our understanding of his meaning as to the Nature and Consequences of the Fall But it is true the full explication of the State of Adam's righteousness thâ—rein and of the Covenant under which he and mans Nature in him stood would have marred all this Mans Pelagian and Socinian designe and have made him and the rest whom he patronizeth too too naked 17. But behold the 〈◊〉 of â—his Impudent man just now he told us that he was neither Pelagian nor Socinian and yet within a few lines he tels us that the death threatned Gen. 2 17. was 〈◊〉 and death or the dissolution of the 〈◊〉 Man which is the same that Pelagian and Socinian both hold that they may the better maintaine that Principal Errour viz. the Non imputation of Adam's sin to Infants which is also a Cardinal point of this Mans Religion That the Pelagians were of this Opinion Augustine tels us Lib. 1. contra posterior Response jul c. 66. saying you will not say that because of sin death passed upon all originally lest you be forced also to confess that sin did passe upon all for you know how iniquous it is to saâ— thâ— punishment passed without the merite And though Pelagius himselfe as the Synod in Palestine did dissimulate herein as Augustin sheweth Lib. 1. uâ—tani Operis contra jul Cap. 65. Lib. 2 C 113. yet julianus and others still maintained that Adam was so created that though he had nor sinned yet he would have died not as punished for sin but by necessity of nature And Orosius Apol. de Arbitrii libertate advers Pelag. Pag. â—37 tels Pelagius that his disciples that had sucked poison out of his brests affirmed that Adam was made mortal and suffered no dammage herein by his transgression See Vossij Hist. pelag Lib. 2. par 2. P. 188.189 That the Socinians maintaine that Man by nature was mortal before the fall is manifest out of their writings See Socin prael Cap. 1. and contra Puccium Cap. 5. Volkel Lib. 3 Cap. 11. and 14. Socin de Servatore part 3 c. 8. Item ad articulos Cutenj The Arminians Apol. c. 4 so express themselves in this matter as not to displease the Socinians This is also the opinion of Anabaptists who deny original sin Hence already appeareth one cause why this man would not speak anything of the state of Adam before the fall for if he had he behoved so to have explained that excellent staâ—e as that it might appear how notwithstanding thereof Adam was obnoxious to death and dissolution which is inconsistent with such a state of full felicity Eccles. 9 4. But the Lord when he came to passe sentence upon Adam according to the commination because of his transgression Gen. 3 19. tels him that his outward man must be dissolved and that he must return unto the ground and unto the dust So the Apostle holdeth forth death or this dissolution of the outward man as a just punishment and as the wages of sin Rom 5 12 21.806 23. 1 Cor. 15 21 56. So doth the Scripture elsewhere Hos. 13 1. Ezech. 18 4. 1 Cor 11 30. Deut. 30 15 19. Ier. 21 8. Psal. 49 14 55 15. Iâ—m 1 15. what else importeth the law for putting of so many sorts of sinners unto death Exod. 21 29 35 2. Levit. 19 20. 20 11. Numb 1 51. 3 10 38. 18 â— 35 30 Levit. 24 21. Deut. 13 5 9. 17 6 7. 21 22. 24 16. Ios. 1 18 2 Chron. 15 13. is not death called the last enemy which must be destroyed Esa. 25 8. Hos. 13 14. 1 Cor. 15 26 59 Yea nature teacheth this truth Rom. 1 32. See further Ier. 31 30. 2 Chron. 25 4. Ezech. 18 20. Amos. 9 10. with many moe 18. what is his reason why natural Death is not here to be understood for says he as to this death he did not die till many yeers afterward But was he not made Obnoxious thereunto by vertue of that Threatning Threatnings properly declare only the dueness of punishment and say that the transgressour is worthy of or deserveth the punishment threatned or is liable and obnoxious thereunto and not alwayes the certanty of the execution as to the event other wise this man must say that by death here is not to be understood the everlasting separation of soul and body from God and the paines and torments of hell for neither was that presently executed upon Adam And then I would faine know what he understandeth by this Death If he sâ—y that this was begun to be executed that same day in testimony whereof he was cast out of paradise that same day So shall I say that the bodily death began to be executed that same day for it was said to him Gen. 3 17. in sorrow shall thou eate of it the ground all the dayes of thy life 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground Will this Man say that Paines Sicknesses and temporal Calamities that attend us from the womb to the grave in one measure or other are not the due fruits of sin Then he shall contradict manifest Scripture Lam. 3 39. 1 Cor. 11 30. Deut 28. Levit. 26. with many moe If he dar not say
evils but what that was they knew not The proud and vaine glorious Stoicks thought that all this sinne and misery did proceed from every mans own Free Will and Choise immediatly and that there was no other cause Hence they thought that every man came into the world free of any Vice or Inclination to sin errasti sayes Seneca Epist. 94. si existimas nobiscum vitianasci supervenerunt ingesta sunt so againe ib. nulli nos vitio natura conciliat nos illa integros ac liberos genuit And yet the same man must elsewhere lib. 3. quaest c. 30. confess that vice is learned without any teacher Hence also they thought that man by his owne Ability Paines and Industrie might recoveâ— all his losses and that nothing more was requisite but to live according to nature Senec. Epist. 41. Howbeit their very care and industrie to make lawes for bearing down of vice and setting forward of vertue was sufficient to Redargue and Confute their foolish Imagination had they but improven Natures light as they might or made use of right Reason as they pretended However we see Stoicks and Quakers are nigh of kin 2. Plato speaks more clearly concerning this Fallen and Degenerat State of Man but it is not improbable as Mr Galâ— sheweth in his Court of the Gentiles part 1. lib. 3. c. 5. that â—e had help from Scriptures or Iewish Tradition when he speaketh of the â—ron age and particularly when he sayeth in his Timâ—eâ—â— Locrus fol. 103. That the cause of vitiosity is from our Parents and first Principles rather than from ourselves and elsewhere There is well nigh in every one an ingenitâ— evil and disease And de legib lib. 5. The greatest evil of all is implanted in many men and fixed in their souls And this state of misery he tearmes Gorgias fol. 493. a moral or spiritual death and that according to the opinion of the wise saying I have heard from the wise men that we are now dead and that the body is but our sepulchre 3. However the generality of Philosophers were utter strangers to the Rise of this contagion and the hints that Plato giveth are but very dark But when Christianity came and spread it self through the world that which the wise Men of the world were utterly ignorant of became plaine and notoure to every one for without the knowledge of this there could be no right Improvement of the Remedie offered in the Gospel and therefore the knowledge of this was a necessary part of Christianity In causa duorum hominum said August lib. de Pecc orig c. 24. quorum per unum venundati sumus sub peccato per alterum redimimur a peccatis proprie fides christianâ— consistitpunc So that the doctrine of original sin with the reality and manner of its â—raduction from Adam and downeward by natural Generation was unquestioned in the Christian Church until that unhappy enemie of the grace of God arose who raised up his heresie upon the ruines of the proud â—ottages of the Heathen Philosophers I mean Pelagius who to strengthen himself in his opposition and enmity to the Grace of God in Christ Iesus did take upon him the defence of Corrupt Nature and denyed Original sin saying lib. de Natura apud August lib. de Nat. and Grat. c. 9. that all sinned in Adam not because of sin attracted by birth but because of Imitation See more of this Vossij Histor Pelag. lib. 2. par 2. thes 1. And Iulianus the Pelagian as we may see there also said against Augustine that God could not impute the sin of another unto Infants and that no man is born with sin And that the children cannot be guilty until they commit some thing by their owne will How Augustine set himself against this Palagian cardinal errour his books declare And how the whole Church did appear against it is notoure Pelagius himself subdolously seemed to deny his owne opinions in a Council in Palâ—stine at Diopolis condemning himself for saying That Adam was made mortal and so should have died whether he had sinned or not That Adams sin did only hurt himself and not mankinde That infants new borne are into the same condition that Adam was in before the fall And againe these and others of Pelagius errours were anathematized by the Councel of Milevum in Numidia And August tels us lib. â— de Bono persever cap. 2. that the Catholick Church defended against these Pelagians among other truths this That man is borne obnoxius to Adams sin and bound by the bond of damnation 4. This same Pelagian errour is maintained by the Socinians Socin Pral c. 4. de Christ. Serv. part 4. c. 6. Catech Racov. cap. 10. de Proph. Mun. Christ. Smale de justif disp 4. Volkel lib. 5. c. 18. Ostorod Instit. c. 33. By Episcopius against Heidanus Pag. 116. and by the Remonst Armin. Apol. cap. 7. fol. 84. So is it maintained by the Anabaptists And D. Voetius Select disp part 1. pag. 1079. tels us that the Jewes ordinarily this day deny Original sin citeing the words of one at Venice saying that the sin of Adam doth not condemne souls but only hurt the soul in so far as it bringeth in the body of Adam whence it is that it becometh more difficult to the Posterity of Adam to do good c. Mr Stephens in his defence of the doctrine of Original sin sheweth that one Mr Robert Everard and D. Ieremiah Taylor and some Examiners of the late Assemblies Confession of faith did appear against Original sin and in his preface he tels us that Anno 1654. Feb. 22. Some Brethren of the Separation did at a private dispute maintaine That all Infants were-free of Original sin To these Opposers of Original sin This Quaker in the name of the rest adjoyneth himself and so deserteth the Truâ—h maintained by the Orthodox Churches and explained in their several Confessions and particularly by our Confes. of faith Chap. 6. § 2.3 4. By this sin they i. e. our first Parents fell from their Original righâ—eousness and communion with God and so became dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body They being the root of all Mankinde the guilt of this sin was imputed and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation From this original corruption whereby we are utterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil do proceed all actual transgressions And thereafter § 6. Every sin both Original and Actual being a transgression of the righteous Law of God and contrary thereunto doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the Law and so made subject to death with all miseries spiritual temporal and eternal And more briefly in the larger and shâ—rter Catechismes to this Question Did all mankinde fall in
are they in capacity to joyn themselves to this seed of sin Is it when they are in capacity to commit actual sin But of this the question may be renewed when may we judge them in this capacity shall we suppose that they are not in case to sin actually or to adjoyn themselves to this seed untill they come to the full use of reason then it will follow that Idiots can sin none at all that the Envy Selfishness Pettedness and the like that appeare very early in Infants shall be no sinnes and yet Augustin was of another mâ—nde And there were some of the Old Pelagians who to evite the force of arguments against them alleiged that the Infants committed actual sin so soon as they were born and therefore came under death as a punishment against whom August wrote Serm. 7. de Verb. Apost saying what do you think to say and whose eares can heare it did they sinne themselves where I pray 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 sinne do they sin because they take pleasure or repel trouble by motions as dumb â—nimals if these motions be sin they becoâ—e greater sinners in baptisme for there they resist most vehemently But I say another thing you think they have sinned otherwayes they had not died but what say you of such as die in their Mothers womb will you say they have sinned also you lie or are deceived c. Whether this man will be of this judgment or not I know not but it is like he will not owne it for he looketh not upon death as a punishment of sin 9 I would gladly have him explaining to me what that is to joyne themselves to this seed of sin and that so much the rather because it is a piece of their proper dialect and is no where else to be found so far as I know Is this Seed lying within them as a stranger or as a tempter alluring them to sin in which they have no concerne until they submit to the temptation and consent then why may we not suppose that such a seed of sin might have been in Adam before he fell from the very minute of his creation seing it could not have dammaged him if he had not actually consented But why should this Seed of Sin be more looked upon as a stranger so as by vertue thereof they in whom it is shall not be accounted sinners than the Seed of Grace of which the Scripture speaketh and by vertue of which they in whom it is are denominated gracious even when they are not actually exerceing grace But it seemeth this man looketh upon the seed of sin and the seed of grace as two contrary solicitors attending man with their contrary motions and solicitations so that man abideth still in puris naturalibus till he hearken to the one or other and yeeld his consent But then 10 I would ask if it be in mans power to withhold his consent from the urgent soliciting of this seed of sin If this be in his power than he can live all his dayes and never once sin and act his part better than Adam did And how cometh it seing this is in every ones power that there was never one such found borne of a woman and begotten of a man that lived and died without sin If it be not in mans power than his soul hath gote a sinful byasse which Adam's soul had not when first created and shall this sinful byas and inclination be no Deformity no Sin no Imperfection no Contrariety to the law which prohibiteth all inclinatioâ— to sin 11. Let him explaine to me how the childe 's actual sin can make him really guilty of Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit and to deserve hell fire upon that account doth he think that the first actual sin of the châ—lde maketh him really guilty of all his fathers faults doth he think that the fiâ—st actual sin of the childe maketh him as guilty and as obnoxious to the wrath of God for all Adam's after sinns as for his first sin This must be cleared by Him who putteth no difference betwixt Adam and other parents in this matter and it must be cleared so as no staine of Injustice be put upon our Maker and with all he will do well to consider that maine argument of the Socinians and Arminians against us for though it doth not reach us yet I see not how he shall evite it It is this one act cannot make an habite one act of sin could not have that force to corrupt the whole nature of Adam for here this mans judgment is that one act of sin consenting to the seed of sin corrupteth that mans whole nature which was pure before one act of sin can deprive a man of Integrity and of Original Righteousness and bring on an Inclination to all sin but these evils are not sinfull in this mans account therefore he is concerned to loose his friends Objection 12 The ground of this mans mistake though he be not that ingenuous as to declare it is that no guilt can be imputed to a person who doth not actually consent thereto by an act of his owne personal Free Will for this was the maine Objection of the Pelagians and of others But then what will he say of sinnes of Ignorance and the like How cometh it that sins are divided into Voluntary and Involuntary What will he say to Psal. 19 13 14. But we have told him that even Originals in was fully voluntary in our nature and in the Fountain when first committed for it was not as to us a personal sin and so the personal consent of such as are contaminated therewith is not requisite thereto but a sin of our Nature and to this no more consent or will is required than the will and consent of him who was the head of this nature whose will was not extrinsick to us we being in him as members of that Body whereof he was Head Beside that this Voluntariness â—elongeth not to the Essence and Forme of sin Scripture defineth sin otherwise calling it a transgression of the Law 1 Ioh. 3 4. and who say otherwayes joyne with Bellar. de Amiss Grat. C. 1. 13. By this meanes he must say That infants are neither Righteous nor Unrighteous neither Holy nor Sinful indued neither with Good nor Evil qualities and consequently neither heires of Hell nor of Glory and thus make them mere Stocks or Brutes and not Rational Creatures 18. Next he speaketh to our Argument from Rom. 5 12. c. and because this place iâ— the proper seat of this doctrine which we hold the Apostle treating there of it professedly and maintaining it we shall premise some things to clear our Argument and then shall examine what he saith And 1. It is obvious to all
Master-workers are so active and busie It is not good to approach too nigh to a rageing Devil nor to tempt the Lord The history of the two persons that would be present at stage playes is known and the Reader may see the same related to his hand by the worthy Author of the first Epistle to the Reader prefixed to Mr Durham's Exposition of the Commands Let any sober and judicious person consider that which these Quakers call their Solemne Worshipe as this R. Barclay hath laid it forth before us and judge whether there be not there to be found without any narrow search such plaine Vestiges of Devilrie that may cause all in whom is the least meaâ—ure of the fear of God run far from them as from persons possessed with an evil Spirit and acted by the Devil the God of this world the Prince of the power of the aire the Spirit that now ruleth in the Children of disobedience Nothing that I ever heard or knew of them before did so much confirme me of their Devilrie as the reading and examining of that which thou hast here Chap. XXII Beside that every one may know that it is something more then Humane for persons Illiterat and of meane Understandings when turning Quakers to learne in so short a time in a few dayes if not in a few houres all their Notions Errours Blasphemies Prancks and Practices all so contrary to the Way and Profession wherein they have lived from their Infancy that they can act their wayes and utter their Abomination in their very dialect and tone so exactly as if they had seen nothing else all their dayes to speak nothing of Persons civilly educated who yet turning Quakers can so suddenly and so perfectly imitate and follow their rude and rustick carriage as if they had never seen civility with their eyes All which may confirme Rational Persons that it is not humane but the work of some powerful Spirit possessing them And what this Spirit is which Teacheth Possesseth Prompteth Acteth Leadeth and Driveth them and Speaketh in them the Word of God doth sufficiently evidence and may satisfie all Christians By the fruit we know a tree and by their doctrine we may as infallibly know that it is the Spirit of Satan that rageth in them if we will be satisfied with and submit to the Decision of the Spirit of Truth speaking in the Scriptures Their Unsavoury Pernicious and Blasphemous Positions and Assertions will put this matter beyond all debate I have gathered together an heap of such to the Number of Three Hundered and Fiftie and moe and the Reader may possibly finde yet moe that have escaped me and that without noticeing such things as may be drawn by just consequence from their Positive Assertions for if these were collected we might soon finde out the number of the Name of the Beast Six hundereth Sixty and Six to which may be added Sixty and Five found in one book of G. Keiths set down here at the end after the Postscript by which thou mayest judge what a Masse would be found if all their Books were searched But I suppose the fearer of God will say there is here enough and more then enough to cause all Christians abhore them and flee from them as from the Devil himself I shall not trouble thee with any Apologie for the work it self Only because I apprehend some will think I am too large and might have contracted the whole into narrower bounds I must tell thee that considering the genius and temper of these Quakers and knowing how ready they would be to vaunt and triumph as if any thing they said were unanswerable if I had passed over any thing said by their Patron and Advocat and had not examined particularly not only his Erronious and Blasphemous Assertions but also all that he did alledge for confirmation of the same and also all that he belched out against the Truth I was constrained to leave nothing untouched and that the book might be of more universal use I saw a necessitie of clearing and confirming the Truths Opposed by other Grounds and Arguments then this Contradicter of the wayes of Truth had taken any notice of And yet I have done it with that brevitie that maketh me apprehend Moe shall blame me upon the other hand for not confirming the Turths at greater length seing as to several Heads here touched Others now a dayes beside Quakers are appearing against the Truth once received The Heads it is true are many and I have in most for confirmation adduced only our Confession of Faith and Catechismes to the end that one and other may be enduced to peruse that book more as a good Antidote against the many Errours of this time pointing withall the Readers to apposite passages of Scripture for the ground of their faith And if I had handled each Controversie here touched at full length how many volumes should I have been necessitate to have written What intertainment this shall finde with the Quakers a sort of Men that cannot be silent I am not much concerned to enquire And if they examine it as Rats or Mice use to deal with books snatching at a word here and at half a sentence there and no more I suppose no man will think me called to notice the fame nor yet to be troubled at their Railings and Barkings And as for any answere to the whole that shall savoure of Reason Religion Candor and Plainness I do not expect it from them Farewell J. B. A Catalogue Of the arrogant erroneous and blasphemous Assertions of the Quakers mentioned in this book which may serve for an Index to the same 1. Of themselves 1. THey arrogantly stile themselves the servants of God c. 3 10 2. They glory of the Title Quakers 4 3. They account themselves the only Teachers of truth equalizing themselves with the Apostles 9 4. They say they are perfect without sin 11 5. They assert their experiences in matters that cannot be experienced 213 6. They say they only taste see and smell the Inward light 240 7. All their preaching is to call people to turn-in to the light within and to the Christ within them 281 292 8. They assert themselves to be equal with God 326 546 9. They say their quaking ariseth from a strugling within betwixt the power of life and the power of darkness whereby they have the very paines of a woman in travail 418 10. All is done without the Spirit that is not done in their way 440 442 447 11. They remaine covered when we pray or praise to keep their consciences unhurt as they say but really to mock 460 12. It can appear to them when the Spirit of the Lord concurreth with one of our Ministers and when not 460 13. They falsly say that all who are against them maintaine the lawfulness of Comoedies vanity of Apparel 533 534 14. They account their doctrine very harmonious think that to them alone the ancient
from the Father and the Son And if the knowledge of this be such an essential part of Christianity and a ground of that knowledge of God which leadeth to salvation and so necessary for the right uptaking of the great work of Redemption and Salvation as it is and cannot rationally be denyed by any sober man who considereth what a sure basis this is unto the Christians hope peace and comfort how cometh it to pass that there is no express and distinct mention made of this fundamental point in all his Theses we have heard how the Quakers of N. England have denied this foundation And Mr Stalham in his Reviler rebuked part 1. sect 7. tels us that the Quakers against whom he wrote dâ—nied thâ—t there was any Scripture for the Trinity and said that the Holy Ghost was no Person It is known also how others of them inveigh against this fundamental Truth It is true I finde not this man either in his Theses or in his Apology directly writing against this truâ—h Yet as I finde no expressions hereanent in his whole book others than such as might come out of the mouth of an Antitrinitarian Socinian so I judge if his Theses had answered his great brags in the Preface they had expresly and distinctly not only mentioned but clearly have unfolded this truth 7. In the 3. place If by his Theses he would direct us into the Saving knowledge of God and make a plaine discovery to us from the very fountaine of all that knowledge that leadeth unto life eternal how cometh it to pass that we have no declaration made to us of the Eternal Purposes and Decrees of God whereby some Men and Angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and others foreordained unto everlasting death and whereby according to the most wise and holy counsel of his will he hath freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever cometh to pass Shall we think that the knowledge of this hath no interest in the saving knowledge of God or in that knowledge which leadeth unto life which yet undeniâ—bly yeeldeth such a noble ground of Faith Dependence Praise Reverence Humility Hope Consolation Admiration and holy Fear Nay this Man not only doth not asserte or explaine this but as we shall hear doth deny and impugne it with all his might 8. How cometh it 4 That in all his Theses or Apology there is not the least mention direct or indirect made of the Covenant of Redemption or of those mutual actings of the blessed Persons of the Trinity resembling a mutual Covenant and engagement concerning the everlasting Interest of man Shall any man think that this point of truth which is such a sure ground of all our hopes and consolation such a sure support of staggering souls and such an armour of proof against the assaults of Satan maketh no part of that knowledge which leadeth unto life or hath no place in true and saving knowledge 9. Further 5. Doth not the doctrine of the first Câ—venant of Works entered into with Adam as the representative of Mâ—n-kiâ—de upon condition of Personal Perfect and Perpetual obedience belong to that necessary knowledge which bringeth forward unto life or unto that knowledge of God in Christ which is begun felicity How is it then that his Theses are so silent herein or at most give us such a darke and jejune hint of this as is next to none as we shall see It is one of the Quakers tenets as Mr Stalham Sheweth in his forecited book Part 1. Sectâ—7 â—7 that Adam was not under a Covenant of Works that the Law which Adam had in innocency written in his heart was not the moral law that Adam did not stand by the observation of the positive branches given him in command according to that Law So said I. Nayler and R. F. as he sheweth us and that the same Iames Nayler in his Book called The discovery of the Man of sin Pag 23. went about to prove this by such pityful Arguments as these The Covenant of Works saith do this and live but he that is Adam had the life already while he stood in it and so it was not to be obtained by working as if do this and live could not hold forth the condition of continueing in life and againe That the law was added because of transgression which if it had been before the transgression could not have been as if the law must not of necessity be before sin which is the transgression thereof 1. Ioh. 3.4 and could not afterward beheld forth as a glass to discover the foule spots of transgressions and the same would R. F. in the 12. Pag. of his Book go about to prove 10 Moreover 6. If his Theses be such an unfolding of clear and naked truth how cometh it that he speaketh so obscurely and enigmatically of the fall of Adam Doth not the clear and distinct knowledge of this truth concerne such as would be acquaint with true and saving knowledge 11. But especially 7. We may wonder how it cometh to pass that in his Theses which he would give out as a summe of saving knowledge nor in his great Apologie we have no description explication or delineation yea or mention of the Covenant of Grace wherein Life and Salvation Pardon and Acceptance Grace and Glory is promised and offered through faith in Jesus Christ or acceptance of Him as He is offered in the Gospel Shall we think that the knowledge of this is no part of that pure and naked Truth which is necessary to be known Or that it can contribute nothing unto that knowledge of God in Christ which is the sure way unto eternal life How shall he be able to perswade us hereof 12. Againe 8. Shall we think that the doctrine of the Redemption purchased by Christ of the Atonement made by him unto Justice for the sinnes of his people and of their Reconciliation unto and Acceptance with God upon the account thereof of the Sufferings of Christ in Body and Soul in his state of Humiliation of his Death Resurrection and Ascension and Sitting at the Fathers right hand of his Obedience and of the Sacrifice of himself which he through the Eternal Spirit once offered up unto God to satisfie Justice and purchase not only Reconciliation but also an everlasting Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven for all such as were given to him of the Father shall we think I say that the knowledge of this is not necessary unto Salvation nor necessary to such as would have such a knowledge of God as is eternal life If he dar not be so impudent as to say so why is there such a shameful silence hereof in his Theses and Book as there is Had he no will to displease his friends the Socinians 13. Further 9. Shall it be thought that the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God the Second Person in the Trinity hath no great interest in that pure and naked truth the knowledge whereof leadeth
himself By this accusing of conscience Paul proveth here that the Gentiles had the Law in their heart 10. He would know that there is a twofold writing of the Law in the heart One is whereby the knowledge of the Law is so fixed in their mindes as that it cannot be utterly delet howbeit their wils cannot and will not comply therewith and of this the Apostle is here speaking for the Heathens have this Law of nature so imprinted and fixed in their Mindes as to several things concerning God and their carriage and walk in the world that they cannot but see a difference betwixt Righteousness and Iniquity Honesty and Dishonesty in several particulars and in their judgment preferre the one to the other though their hearts and wills be not reconciled thereunto and made to comply therewith even according to thâ— measure of their Knowledge and Judgment The Other is whereby the whole will of God revealed in Law and Gospel is by the Spirit of God deeply imprinted in the soul of Beleevers so that as their Mindes know it and their Judgments approve it so their Wills imbrace it with love and desire and their native Endeavour is after Full Pure Sincere and Spiritual conformity thereto in the strength of the same Spirit and it is their griefe and matter of unfaigned sorrow when through the workings of a remanent body of death they come short of what is commanded whether as to Matter or Manner or End intended c. If he shall evince that Paul speaketh of this here he shal do more than all the Socinians no persons else ever dreamed of this ever have been able to do to this day But the truth is I apprehend all this is a riddle to this man who understandeth no other writing of the Law in hearts than the first for as he is an enemy so is he a stranger unto the Gospel of the Grace of God as will evidently enough appear ere we have done 25. He addeth a second reason for his Interpretation Pag. 57 saying that if nature here be understood of the proper nature of Man then the Apostle should contradict himself who elsewhere saith that the natural man cannot perceive the things of God but among these things of God the Law is comprehend seing Paul Rom. 7 12 14. itâ—oly â—oly just and good and Spiritual and calleth himself carnal which must be understood as he was unregenerat I answere 1. Paul no way contradicteth himself except in this mans dreaming fancy for these spiritual things whereof the Apostle speaketh 1 Cor. 2 14 are not the things of Nature or of the Law or Light of Nature But the things of the Spirit of God which must be spiritually understood vers 14. which none can know without they have the minde of Christ vers 16. which concerne Christ and Him Crucified vers 2. the same which Paul preached in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power vers 4. which was Wisdom among such only as were perfect vers 6. and which only the Spirit which is of God did reveal and not the Spirit of the world vers 11 12. and which eye had not seen nor eare heard c. vers 9. It was the preaching of the Crosse of Christ which even the Wise and Understanding and such as had not only Natures Light but the Light of the Law could not know It was that which even to the Jewes was a stumbling block and to the wise Grecians was foolishness Chap. 1 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23. Hence we see the Law which was written in the hearts of the Gentiles is not among those things whereof Paul speaketh 1 Cor. 2. 2. It is truâ— the Law both that which is written in the heart of the Gentiles and that which was more clearly and amply declared and explained by God to the Jewes was Good Holy Just and Spiritual yet was it not the same with the things of God whereof the Apostle spoke 1 Cor. 2. 3 This man must have a strange antipathy at â—ruth and against the Orthodox for he will joyne with any before he take part with them we heard but just now how he joyned with Smalcius the Socinian and here in interpreting Rom. 7 14. c. he deserteth the orâ—hodox and joyneth himself with Pelagians Arminians and Socinians who will have the Apostle there speaking not of himself but as assumeing the person of one in nature not yet regenerated as if such were not wholly â—in and whâ—lâ—y flesh or had an Inward man delighting in the Law of God or â—ad a Law in their minde contrary to the Law in their members or were capable of this captivity when they are willing slaves or could groan under a boâ—y of death and account themselves miserable upon that account or thank God through Jesus Christ because of the begun delivery and certane expectation of the full victory or as if they with their minde could serve the Law of God 4. His sole reason viz. because the Apostle said he was carnal proveth nothing for what the Apostle speaketh in a certane respect must not be understood in an absolute sense He was it is true carnal as all â—egenerat persons are not absolutly nor wholly but in part in so far as the old man remained in which respect the best have a Law in their members warring against the Law of their minde and have the flesh lusting against the Spirit as they have the Spirit lusting against the flesh Gal. 6.17 And the Apostle calleth even such babes in Christ carnal in a certane reâ—pect 1 Cor. 3 1. 26. Thereafter he tels us That when we are urged with this testimony by Pelagians anâ— Socinians and by them so â—hat we see with whom he and his party are birds of one feather we use to answere that there were some remnants of the spiritual image left in Adam But sayes he this is affirmed without probation In which he either speaketâ— aâ—ainst his Light or he â—aâ—â— neâ—er read what hath been said upon this by the orthodox against Socinians and Arminians and such as would defend that there were some speculative Atheisâ—s unto whom this Mans assertion doth no small service as we may shew hereafter But next he saith that hereby we contradict ourselves and destroy our own cause Why so For saith he If by these relicques they could fulfil the law then either Christ's coming was not necessary or men could be saved without him or that these thâ—ugh they keeped the Law were damned because ignorant â—f Christ to come which the Lord had made impossible for them to know Answere 1. We never said that they could fulfil the Law by these relicques nor doth the Apostle say so It is true they did and could do by nature somethings contained in the Law and this was sufficient for the Apostles designe not all Even Paul though many stages above many heathens while in the state of nature did not know till the written Law told him that
Adams first transgressiâ—n t is answered thus The Covenant being made with Adam as a publick person not for himself only but for his posterity all mankinde descending from him by ordinary generation sinned in him and fell with him in that first transgressiâ—n 5. Concerning this sin which is under various names and titles pointed forth to us in Scripture being called Sin by way of eminency Rom. 6.12 7 8. the Old Man Rom. 6 6. a Law in the members Rom. 7 23. the Body of sin Rom. 6 6. a Body of death Rom. 7 24. In dwelling sin Rom 7 17 20. Evill present Rom 7 21. These are meaned of this Sin as seated in and derived unto the posteriâ—y but as committed first by Adam Paul Rom. 5 calleth it Sin Offence Transgression Disoâ—edience and concerning its Propagation or Traduction unto the posterity many questions and doubts are moved which we are not to meddle with our purpose not being to treate of this Subject but only to vindicate the orthodox doctrine from the exceptions of this Quaker and to discover his errour in this particular For which cause we need only take notice of two things concerning this Original sin First There is the Sin disobedience offence and transgression of Adam in eating of the forbidden fruit This though it was the sin of our nature in Adam yet is said to be imputed to our persons when we come to have a being by natural Generation and deâ—cent from Adam Secondly There is that wâ—ich followed upon and flowed from that transgression of Adam according to the nature and tenour of tâ—e Covenant wherein he stood as the head and representer of all mankinde viz. The Privation or Want of that Original righteousness which our Nature possessed in Adam and the Depravation Corruption Deordination of the whole man whereby he is Disabled to all good and wholly Inclined and disposed to evil and all evil and only evil continually till grace make a change This cannot properly be said to be imputed but being a just punishment as well as a sin of the sin committed by Adam is justly inflicted by the righteous God and conveyed from Adam to all his posterity as a leprosy and infectious disease corrupting the whole man which therefore is seated and subjected in the man so soon as he hath a being by natural generation from his immediat parents though both the guilt and this contagion be not received immediatly from our next parents but immediatly from Adam from whom we have our Nature as our Personal being from our immediat parents who stand in no nearer relation to Adam as the Head of Nature than we but all Father Son and Nephew c. stand in the same near relation to him in respect of Nature as lines to the same centre 6. Having premised these things let us now consider what this Quaker hath to say against this in his Fourth Thesis towards the end he setteth downe his Assertion in few words where before we mentione his words we cannot but take notice of a piece of more than ordinary shamelesness in this Man for in the words immediatly before he cometh in with a triumphing parad saying hence the errours of Socinians and Pelagians c. are rejected as if he would make his Reader beleeve thâ—t he did anathematize all the errours of Pelagians and Socinians wâ—en yet he licks up and hugs in his bosome a special fundamental part of Pelagianisme and Socinianisme adding which are the words we are now to take notice of Yet nevertheless this seed is not imputed unto infants but when they joyne themselves to it actually by sinning We must beare with this man's following the Quakers dialect for he will speak but as he pleaseth But for understanding of wâ—at he meaneth we must call to minde his foregoing words which we took notice of in the foregoing Chapter and examined where he mentioned the Seed of God of the touch whereof he said all Adam's posterity was deprived This cannot be the seed he here meaneth He mentioneâ— another Seed of Satan to which Adam's posterity was subject and this Seed he said Satan did sowe in the hearts of Men c. Now this must be that malignant and depraved seed whence all their Thoughts Words and Actions are evil which he here meaneth And this Seed he sayeth is not Imputed to Infants And we said lately that this originated sin or Corrupâ—ion of nature could not properly be said to be impuâ—ed becauâ—e it was properly inherent as a disease of nature But the thing that he would say is plainly enough expressed in his Apology Pag. 54. But others sayeth he go so far in the â—ther extremity to whom Augustine in his declineing age moved with zeal against the Pelagians did first of all the Ancients open the way as not only to confess that Men of themselves are unfit for good and inclined to evil but also to affirme that man even while in his Mothers womb and before he commit any actual sin is under the guilt and crime of sin by which he deserveth eternal death Whereby we see that he freeth Infants from the guilt of Adam's first sin and againe Pag. 55. he sayeth they impute nothing of Adam's sin unto Men until they make it their owne by such like acts of disobedience He is clear then for the Non-imputation of Adam's sin unto Infants and the Arguments he adduceth cleare his judgment yet more 7. Thus we have seen what are his thoughts of the Imputation of Adam's guilt But what thinketh he of the other particular the Corruption of Nature His Thesis could meane nothing else by the Seed of the Serpent and when he cometh to the explication of this part of the Thesis in his Apâ—logy Pag. 59 § 4. he tels us that this evil and corrupt seed is not imputed unto infants until they actually joyn themselves unto it by sin And by this evil and corrupt seed he meaneth that whicâ— he had been speaking of viz. the Corrupt nature of Man But Pag. 55. he would seem to câ—ntradict this when he sayeth We cannot conceive how Man who is naturally come of Adam can have any good in his nature pertaining to it which he had not from whom he is derived if then we may affirme that he in his nature retained no will belonging to it nor light capable of it self to manifest spiritual things so nor his posterity Whence you might think that as Adam by his fall lost Original righteousness and all aptitude in Will or Undeâ—standing unto spiriâ—ual things so â—lso his Posterity that came naturally of him in this mans opinion but his tâ—ue meaning is that though Infants descend naturally from Adam yet this Privation of Righteousness and Corruption of Will and Understanding is not imputed to Infants nor do they partake thereof until they sin actually for in the end of his discourse upon this head Pag. 62. he sayes that this seed of sin is not imputed to any till by
sinning they actually joyn themselves to it And this seed of sin is frequently in Scripture called dâ—ath and the body of death and that this seed and that which cometh of it is called the old man the old Adam Thus then in â—hort his judgment is that nothing of original sin neither Originans nor Originatum neither the Guilt of Adam's sin nor the Corruption of nature is imputed to or inherent in any man till he commit some actual transgression and so sin cometh not by Propagation or Traduction but by Imitation as said the Pelagians of old and as the Socinians and Anabaptists to day maintaine And the Arminians with their Episcopius deny that any thing that is truely sin is found in any of Adams Posterity before their own proper act 8. Let us now see what he sayeth in defence of this Errour and let us first take notice of what he said of Augustine that much honoured Instrument of the Lord against the errours that Satan was soweing in the Church in his time He would make us beleeve that Augustine wrote of this subject when under the dottage of old age while as it is manifest to such as read his life that what he wrote against Pelagius was written while he was in the prime of his Vigour and Understanding and his works themselvs declare the same But what will this pedantick Quaker think of that singular and self-denying woâ—k of that worthy person called his Retractations wherein he reviewed all his former writings and retracted several thâ—ngs asserted by him in his younger and lesse studied yeers belike this man will look upon that work being written after these he now excepteth against as containing nothing but greater dottages because as he â—upposeth the longer persons live though not yet comeing near the ordinary attendants of stouping or declineing old age they grow the greater fools and consequently that himself must now be a greater fool though I see little dâ—ffâ—rence while become a Quaker than he was in his younger dayes when he was a Papist Next the man is not ashamed to judge of the very Thoughâ—s and Motives of that noble Instrument yea he is so bold as to condemne him of acting upon corrupt motives as if noâ—hing had moved him to write for Oâ—iginal sin but eagerness of Zâ—al against Pelagius no inward conviction of the truth not of the damnableness or danger of the Pelagian heâ—esie in this no conviction of his duty to appear for truth Doth this Qâ—aker consider that hereby he is audaciously arrogating to himself Gods prerogative royal of judging the secrets of the heart Remembeâ—eth he that God is a Jealous God who will not give his glory to another But what grounds can he give of this his bold presumption What evidence is there of that holy Fathers writting against his own conscience I â—ay no more of this but leave this Quaker to his judge and take notice of a Third untruth when he sayeth that Augustine was the first that appeared in this controversie against the Pelagians Had he but consulted Vossius in his Historia Pelagianismi a book that sometime he citeth he should have found that whole Councils appeared against Pelagius himâ—elf to speak nothing of Hierome in this particular before that Augustine wrote of it particularly the first Synod at Carthage and that Synod in Palestine where Pelagius himself was present and hideing his abominations deceived the Fathers with faire words and the Council of Milevy that dealt more roundly with that heresie tels us in plaine tearmes that the Truth which they maintained was owned by the whole Catholick Church all the world over and so it was indeed and never once questioned till that unhappy instrument of Satan to whom this Quaker adjoyneth himself broached his pernicious doctrine It is true the Pelagians called this Orthodox truth a forged device of Augustines as this man doth but Augustine replyed as Vossius tels us Hist. Pelag lib. 2. part 1. Thes. 6. in these words I did not devise original sin which the Caâ—holick faith beleeved of old but thou who denyest this without doubt art a new heretick and lib. 1. contra Iulian. Cap. 2. he citeth no fewer then ten or twelue of the Fathers for him and lib. de Pecc Merit Remis he saies he never heard one that owned the Scriptures speak otherwise If this Quaker had perused Vossius in the place last cited he would have seen how the â—ame truth which Augustine maintained was asserted by ancient Fathers both Greek and Latine before Augustine's dayes such as Ignatius Dionysius Areopagia Iustin Martyr Tatianus Ireneus whom Augustine himself citeth Origen Methodius Macarius Hierosol Macarius Aegyptius Athanasius Cyrillus Nazianzenus Chrysostome and others of the latine Fathers he citeth Tertullian Cyprian Arnobius Reticius Olympius Hilarius Ambrosius whom Augustine citeth Hilarius Diaconus Hieronimus whom he also citeth And moreover he should have found Pag. 179. that Augustine did not assert this truth meerly out of zeâ—l gainst the Pelagians as he ignorantly and boldly affirmeth for he had asserted it in hâ—s books de Libero Arbitrio written before Pelagianisme appeared and how in his 6. book against Iulianus the Pelagian Cap. 4. he sayes expresly that he was in that judgment from the very beginning of his conversion that he had said nothing through heat of disput which was not the ancient doctrine of the whole Church Ego sayeth he per unum hominem in mundum intrasse peccatum per peccatum mortem ita in omnes homines pertransisse in quo peccaverunt omnes ab initio conversionis meae sic tenui semper ut teneo Extant libri quos adhuc laicus reâ—entissimâ neâ conversiâ—ne conscripst et si nondum sicut postea sacris literis eruditus tamen nihil de hâc re jam nunc sentiens ubi disputandi ratio poposcerat dicens nisi quod antiquitus discit and docet omnis Ecclesia Let this Qâ—aker read these words and if he be not above measure effronted let him blush at his shameless boldness Let hiâ— read also August lib 4 ad Boniâ—ac c. 8. contra duaâ— Pelagianorum Eâ—istolas lib. 3. de Pecc Mer. remiss cap. 6. 7. lib. 1. adv jul resp poster Pag 5.8 125. and he will see further cause of repenting of his groundless confidence and audacity if his conscience be not feared 9. We have had one great proof of this Quakers confident boldness now theâ—e followeth another for the only confirmation which he adduceth of his Heâ—esie in his Thesis and that which he first speaketh to in his Apology Pag. 59. is brought from Ephes. 2 1 2 3. a passage out of which the old Fathers proved Orâ—ginal sin against the Pelagians as August lib. 6. c. 12. cont jul Scriptor Hypognost lib. 2. Fulgent and fourteen Bishops with him ad Petrum diaconum c. 26. Theodoret on the place also Primasius and Haimo commenting on the place and others cited by
Vossius ubi Supra Pag. 150. taking that by nature c. to import as none with any shew of reason can otherwise think all carnally borne and partaking of the nature of Adam and so to be verified of all borne by the conjunction of man and woman so that by nature is as much as naturally And Calvin on the place sayeth that it is a notable passage against the Pelagians for saieth he what is naturally in every one is in them from their very original therefore if all be children of wrath or obnoxious to wrath by nature they are so from their very original But what way doth this Man evade The Apostle sayeth he assigneth evil actions not any thing that is not yet reduced into act for an argument proveing them to be children of wrath By which we see how backwardly this man readeth the Scriptures for the Apostle to commend the riches and power of the grace of God towards these Ephesians whom the Lord had quickened showeth what persons they were and all are before grace take hold of them He saith not that these Ephesians were children of wrath because walking according to the course of this world c. but that they had so walked were moreover children of wrath by nature and it is observable though this Man putteth out his owne eyes that he may not see it how the Apostle changeth the person from the second to the first vers 3. saying among whom also we all had our conversation in times past and were by nature the children of wrath even as others And thereby sheweth that this was not the condition of the Ephesians and other Gentiles only but of the Jewes also himself not excepted because nature corrupted in Adam is one and the same common to all both Jewes and Gentiles so that all as soon as they partake of Nature come under this guilt and are Children of wrath He himself immediatly before told us that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned 1 Cor. 2. the Carnal man was not the Animal man but the Rational man so that this is true not only of the beastly man who by his actual sinnes bâ—utifieth himself and maketh himself a meer Animal but even of the Rational man who hath a rational soul and so soon as he hath a rational soul. The usual import of the word Nature and Natural in Scripture confirmeth this Rom. 2 27. 11 24. Gal. 2 15. 4 8. 1 Cor. 15 44 46. 10. We need not then regaird what he addeth saying that the Gospel condemneth nor threatneth no man but him that hath actually sinned for in some sense the Gospel condemneth no man that heareth it but the final unbeleever but offereth life pardon to all to whom it is preached of all their sins actual original upon condition of accepting of Christ offered therein And as for the New Test. we have seen enough in it already and will see more to evince our point and albeit this were not we Judge that the Old Test. could prove the point as we shall also see The Gospel moreover tels us that except a man be born againe he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God and so that as long as he hath but the first birth of the flesh he is under the wrath of God Infants are not capable of threatnings but they are capable of death which we proved in the preceeding Chapter to be the punishment of sin 11. Nor is that which followeth much worth the noticeing when he sayeth God will visite the iniquities of the fathers upon their childeren who abide in sin and so homologate and follow thir fathers iniquities For there is a vast difference betwixt Adam's first sin and the sinnes of other Parents Adam's first sin or breach of the Covenant was not a personal sin as the sinnes of other Parents are and his after sins were but the sin of the whole Nature whereof he was the Head and Representative therefore all that partake of that Nature participate of the guilt of Nature when Infants have a being they partake of the nature of Adam immediatly and though they have this nature by meanes of generation of their immediat parents yet they have not this nature from them but from Adam as I said And though they have their personality from their immediat parents yet they do not partake of their Fathers personality but have their owne humane personality not being a thing propagable therefore they cannot in strick sense be guilty of their parents personal sinnes And yet if it were of moment to debate the matter we might shew from Scripture how the holy Lord who is Just Righteous punisheth even children for their Fathers faults and though the children be sometimes found guilty of actual sinnes and so homologate their Fathers transgression yet it is not found alwayes to be so It was not so I suppose with the infants of Careh Dathan and Abiram and the rest of that conspiracy nor with the Children of Achan nor with the Infants of Sodome and Gomorrah and of the Old world nor with these that were carried away captive by the Assyrians and Babylonians and several other instances to speak nothing of the Children of Cain Ismael Esau and of the Jewes when cut off the Old and Natural stock Rom. 11. And further the very expression of God Command 2. of visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the Children sheweth that whatever sinnes they may have of their owne yet it is the fathers guilt that bringeth on that punishment else it could not be a visiting of their fathers iniquities but only of their owne 12. It seemeth more considerable that he sayeth our opinion is contrary both to the mercy and justice of God if he had given any proof But he must follow the footsteps of Socinians and Arminians who Assert this also but will not much trouble us with their probations He told us just now himself That God can and doth visite the Iniquities of Fathers on their Children and how can this comport with his goodness and justice seing their fathers sins are not properly their owne because they were personal when he thinketh it Incongruous to God's Iustice and Goodness to impute the sin of Nature to all that partake of that nature though it be their owne by vertue of their partaking of Nature And strange it is that men will be that bold as to call God to their bar and accuse him as Unrighteous because he taketh vengeance when upon a far unlike account they will not impute iniquity unto Men we see that for crimes of â—ese Majesty or the like one man is not only punished but all his posterity after him though not yet borne are forfeited When a person representing others which cometh neareâ— to our case committeth any fault as such a person representing all whom â—e representeth must beare the guilt and the inconvenience following there upon and no man will account this unjust or iniquous
thing which we inferre is manifest viz. the originated sin or the corruption of nature which here David calleth Sin And if this Quaker think that this came from another Original than from Adam let him tell us what it is and not joyn in with the Manichees nor make God the Author and cause of sin if he can 21. Another of our Arguments is from that word of Paul's the wages of sin is death And seing infants die they must have sin as a procuring cause That death was and is a Punishment of sin we cleared above and the Apostle asserteth it here so manifestly calling it the Wages and due Desert that it must argue wonderful impudence in any to question it What sayeth this Quaker He granteth that death is a Consequence of the fall but denyeth that hence we can necessarily inferre iniquity to be in all those that are subject to death That is in plaine termes but the mans modesty dar not speak it out to say the Apostle speaketh not truth who ever imagined that wages were no more but a Consequent of the workmans labour If Death be the Wages and Reward and just Punishment of sin it can certanely be inflicted by the Righteous Judge of the world upon none but such as are guilty of sin How oft doth the Apostle speak of death as the just Desert and Punishment of sin Rom. 5 12 death entred by sin death passed on all for all had sinned suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not signifie in whom as it doth Marc. 2 vers 4. Luk. 5 vers 25.2 Cor. 5 vers 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being several times put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 9 10 15 1â— but did only import the Cause as Socinians would have it it would sufficiently confirme this that death is inflicted because of sin so vers 15. through the offence of one many be dead and this is called vers 16. judgmnt to condemnation and vers 17. by one mans offence or by one offence death reigned And vers 21. sin reigned unto death And then againe Chap. 6 23. for the wages of sin is death So likewise 1 Cor. 15 21.22 by man came death for as in Adam all die He addeth as a reason of his denyal that it might appear he did not contradict the Apostle without reason For sath he all the outward creation suffered detriment and ruine in some respect by Adam's fall and yet the herbes and trees c. are not therefore sinners Ans. Is not this a valide reason wherefore to reject death as a punishment of sin Nay seing the vanity under which the world groaneth because of sin is a punishment to all Mankinde to Infants as well as to Adult persons it is hence manifest that all are guilty of sin that is all mankinde who are capable of sin as trees and herbes are not But yet more he addeth to Confront the Apostle and sayeth death is no wages of sin to the saints but is gaine Phil. 1 v. 21. Answ. Why is death called an enemy and the last enemy 1 Cor. 15 v. 26. wâ—at meaneth that that when corruptible hath put on incorruption and mortal hath put on immortality death shall be swallowed up in victory 1 Cor. 15 vers 54. Because the Lord by grace through Jesus Christ hath taken the sting of death away and made it a passage to glory unto his owne shall we therefore look upon it in it self as no punishment of sin or as not coming into the world because of sin This will tend as much to prove that Adult persons are not sinful as that Infants have no sin and that a womans paines in child birth or a Mans purchaseing his bread with the sweat of his face c. are no punishments of sin Original or Actual because all these Paines Troubles Afflictions c. worke together for good to such as love God Rom. 8 vers 28. And so the Godly have no Punishments Chastisements Visitations Corrections or the like for sin though the Scripture say so in hundereds of places Here this Quaker joineth with Antinomians 22. He mentioneth another argument which as he thinketh fools only make use of which is this If Infants have no sin they must all be saved Well what replyeth he to this argument We will rather saith he admit this supposed absurdity as a Consequent of our doctrine then say that innumerable Infants perish eternally not for their owne but only for Adams fault But though he should not value such Absurdities notwithstanding he therein run wilder than Papists and joine with Anabaptists and some Pelagians Yet me thinks he should take heed of contradicting his owne doctrine for afterward we will heare of his pleading for Christs dying for all Mankinde And sure if that be true he must say that he died also for Infants and yet here he granteth that they will be all saved without Christ for they have no sin they have no need of a Saviour to save them from their sinnes But how can they be all saved seing they have the Seed of sin â—n them and the Spring of all actual sinnes and that seed of sin which in Scripture is called death and the body of death the old man and the old Adam as he himself speaketh Pag. 62 When Paul speaketh of the body of death Rom. 7 24. he looks upon it as that from which Christ must deliver him How will this Quaker reconcile these things The old man must be put off or we cannot enter into glory and if Infants have the old man how can they enter into glory And beside All in glory must sing the song of the Redeemed and praise him that hath redeemed them by his blood Revel 5 9 10. How can Infants do this who have never been washen from their sinnes in the blood of the lamb as never having had sin And Pag. 55. he told us that none of Adam's posterity had any good in them which he had not from whom they descended Adam then being deprived of his Original Righteousness none of his Posterity no not Infants can lay claim to that Righteousness how I pray can Infants go to heaven who want a righteousness The heaven then which they go to must be a heaven wherein dwelleth no Righteousness and what can this be but some new Limbus But to be more plaine with him It is not enough for him to say he may grant such a Consequence from his doctrine for we must have sure Scripture grounds ere we beleeve that all Infants even of Turks and Heathens shall certanely go to heaven The Scripture giveth more ground of hope of those that are within the Covenant I am sure than of those who are without what thinks he of the Infants of Sodom See Iud. vers 7. and of Coreh and his company not to mention the Infants of the old world And why doth the Scripture call the children of such as are without the church 1 Cor. 7 14. unclean
Nither can it advantage his Charity to found it upon an Untruth and that his Charity in this matter is founded upon an Untruth we have seen already and shall yet make it more evident He supposeth that when Infants perish because of Original sin they perish for no â—in of their owne but only for the sin of another of Adam But how groundless this mistake is we have seen and we have told him that Original sin is the proper sin of humane Nature and so is traduced from Adam to all that come of him by ordinary Generation and so partake of humane nature 23. In end he saith that Zuinglius did deny and refute our Opinion But all his proof is from the Councâ—l of Trent which hath not much credite with us Whatever it hath with him we have more Reason to take Bullingers testimony Decad. 3. Serm. 10 and cont Anabapt lib. 1. c. 12 Gualters in Apol. pro Zuinglio Operib ejus than either Bellarmins or the Councell of Trent Nay Zuinglius declared himself abundantly for the truth in the conference with Luther at Marpurg where these words are we beleeve that Original sin is in-born in every man from Adam and is hereditary and is a sin condemning all and that unless Iesus Christ had helpâ—d by his life and death we had all because of it perished eternally neither had we been partakers of happiness and of the Kingdom of God And if he read his confession of faith to the Emperour Charles V at the dyet at Ausburgh A. D. 1539. he will finde the ground of his mistake for he will there see in what sense he said original sin was not sin viz. that the original sin in Infants was not their Actual sin and who can say that they did actually eat the apple yet he said that upâ—n the account of that they were born Enemies to God His words are these as Bullinger where now cited relateth them I confess Original sin to be borne with all who are begotten of man and woman I know we are by nature the children of wrath Nor do I stick at this disease being called after Pauls manner sin yea it is such a sin as who ever are born in it are Enemies to God and unto this they are drawn by their birth not by committing of wickedness but in so far as the first father did commit it c. 23. We have now seen all that he hath said against the Orthodox doctrine about original sin and have vindicated such arguments as he was pleased to take any notice of I shall now ere I leave this matter propose some moe Arguments to his Consideration And first I shall mention that which himself adduced when he was speaking of mans lapsed state of whâ—ch we heard in the â—oregoing chapter to wit Gen. 6 5. 8 21. from which places the old fathers argued against Pelagianisme See Vossij Hist. Pelag. Pag. 142 143. and indeed there is no small force in these passages for though the Lord be there speaking of the guilt and sin of Adult persons yet he is aggravating the same by traceing it up to the very Root Rise of all saying that it was so with them from their Infancy or Child hood so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth yea from every state of their child hood for the word is in the plural number 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pueritiis ejus and thus the Lord useth to aggravat the sin of people Ezech. 16 4. c. Mat. 15 19. Ephes. 2 3. Doth not such corrupt Fruit evidence an evil Tree with a bitter root of wickedness Mat. 7 16 And seing such are the fruits and acts of men so soon as they beginne to act and bud who can say that the Root is good and not corrupt rotten Chrysostoms words on Gen. 6. Hom. 22. are remarkabâ—e Neque aetas intempestiva alioquin inexperta malorum expers erat sed statim ab incunabulis omnes malum hoc praelium certabant contendentes ut malis operibus alter alterum superarent And it is certane that the Infants of the old world perished in the â—â—ood the Lord saith here that it was for sin wickedness that this judgment came on if then these Infants did not perish for their immediat parents sins as this Quaker affirmeth they must have perished for their owne having no actual sinnes of their owne they must have perished for their original sin so that they also must be comprehended with the rest in the forecited places and the evil there spoken of must be as well habitual as actual as well innate as acquired It is observable that Gen. 8 21. the same words are used of the new World that remained to wit of Noah and his posterity 25. We might adde other Scriptures to the same purpose such as Psal. 14 1 2 53 1 2 3. Rom. 3 9 10 23. 11 32. Gal. 3 22. These universals in such a matter as this is admit of no Exceptions yea all Exceptions are expresly excluded in the very text and the scope at which the Apostle driveth Rom. 3. admitteth of no exception for all have need of Christ and of God's mercy in Him otherwise the Apostles argument should be Inconsequent concluding an Universal from a Particular and because we dar not think thus therefore we must say that all are included and because all are not to be charged with actual sins original sin must be here included 26. Origen Cyrillus Chrysostom Augustin and others of the ancients adduced to this purpose these words of Iob Chap. 14 4. hence August de Praedest Grat. Cap. 3. saith Vitiatae radicis macula it a propaginis traduce per generationum sarmenta dissusa est ut nec infans quidem unius diei a culpa sit primae praevaricationis alienus nisi per indebitam Salvatoris gratiam fuerit liberatus quodsi nec quidem sine peccato est qui proprium habere non potuit conficitur ut illud traxerit alienum de quo Apostolus dixit per unum hâ—minem c. Now that the import of this passage may be the more noticed we would consider that when Iob saith who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean not one He is speaking of an inward uncleaâ—ness an uncleanness of soul by which we are exposed to the judgment of God of which he speaketh vers 3. and which he pointeth forth as inevitable and as such as no man can prevent or remedie So is he also speaking of an uncleanneâ—s which is Vniversal and therefore habitual for whâ—t is only actual is not universal Infants being free therefrom and of an uncleanness which is Permanent and Adherent as also of that which is Traduced or Propagated from Father to son and is hereditary all which do manifestly make it appear that he is speaking of Original sin in respect of which every one is Unclean cometh into the world unclean and can be no
made up for destruction and that as the first is done that He might make known the riches of his glory so the last is done that He might shew his wrath and make his power known 10. Christ Mat. 11 25 26. referreth the Lords hiding of the Gospel-manifestations of life and salvation from some unto the good pleasure of God! and if this part of the execution of the decree of Reprobation be referred unto this Absolute Soveraignity good Pleasure of God as its first and only spring much more must the Decree it self be reduced to this only Fountain 11. The like we may observe from 1 Pet. 2.8 from Iud vers 4. from Revel 13 8 17 8. 12. We are told that the Lord added to the Church dayly such as should be saved Act. 2 47. and that as many as were ordained to eternal life believed Act. 13 48. where we see that the appointing some to be saved and ordaining them to eternal life is given as the prime ground and cause of their being added to the Church and Beleeving whence it followeth that the Lord did not adde others to the Church nor give them grace to Beleeve because he had not ordained and appointed them to life the consequence of the Negation is as manifest as the consequence of the Affirmation and is clearly intimated when the other is expressed 11. Thus the Scripture confirmeth our point we shall adde a few reasons as 1. No temporal thing such as is mans sin can be the cause of that which is Eternal as is God's act of Reprobation If it be said that the foresight of what is temporal may be the cause of an Eternal Decree I answere This cannot be for how is it imaginable That God's prescience should be the meritorious cause of his Decree can one eternal Act of God be the meritorious cause and of such a cause we speak here of another All the Eternal Acts of God are one and they are the same with himself how absurd is it then to imagine one to be the meritorious cause of another or the same act as terminated on one object to be the meritorious cause of it self as terminated upon another object If it be said that sin foreâ—een can be the cause of an Eternal act of Reprobation Answ. But sin can not be foreseen as a thing that shall exist without a previous decree concerning its existence by the permission of God and so sin must first be permitted or decreed to be by permission before any man can be Reprobated because of sin by this Objection and then when we suppose sin to be permitted by a decree I ask for what end is this decreed permission God decreeth nothing but for a certane end and what is His End in this is it that he may thereby be moved to Reprobat Then his intention of Reprobation is first for the intention of the End is before the Intention of the midss and how absurd and a theological is that to say that God intended an End and then he Intended Meanes to move him to intend that end Againe by this Assertion the decree of Permitting sin should be before the decree of Damning for sin and so we must imagine the same order in the decrees that we see in the things decreed while as how various soever the things decreed be the decrees themselvs are all one pure act in God who is actus purissimus simplicissimus and therefore sin foreseen can no more be the meritorious cause of the decree of Reprobating for sin than of the decree of Permitting sin And if we should imagine an order betwixt these two decrees of Permitting of sin and of Reprobating for sin it must be such an order as is betwixt the Intention of the End and of the Meanes and so the intention of Permitting sin being first should be of the End which is always first in intention and the intention of Reprobation being the last of these two should be of the Means and so we should be damned for sin that we might be Permitted to sin and that which is first in Intention as the End being last in Execution and that which is a Means being first it would follow that man should be first damned and then permitted to sin which is obviously false and absurd 2. if sin be the meritorious cause of Reprobation then it is so either by necessity of Nature or by the free Constitution of God But neither can be said as we saw above â— The decrees of God can have no more a cause than himself can have all the Acts of God's will being his Will and his Will being Himself we cannot imagine a cause in man of an act of his will more than of himself 4 we should reason proportionably of the decree of Election as we do of the decree of Reprobation as we saw the Apostle doing and so if sin foreseen be the cause of Reprobation grace foreseen must be the cause of Election against the whole Scripture and the Apostles expresse argueing Rom. 9. 5. That procureing cause of Reprobation God could have prevented or taken out of the way if he had pleased else we must imagine a stoical fate overpowering God himself If he might have taken it out of the way and did not can any reason hereof be given beside his owne good pleasure or his designe to manifest the glory of his justice in the just damnation of such and doth not this referre the decree of damning for sin ultimatly unto His good pleasure 6. what are those sinnes which are the procuring cause of Reprobation This man will not say that Original sin is the cause for he denieth it as we saw in the proceeding Chapter And what can that actual sin be and whatever be supposed it must be such as could be foreseen in no other otherwise the foresight thereof could not be the proper meritorious or moving cause why this man was Reprobated more then that man for what is to be foreseen in an Elect cannot be the meritorious cause why the other is Reprobated Againe whatever actual sin that be final Unbeleef or what you will it must either be such as God could have prevented or taken out of the way if he had pleased or not if the first be said then it is manifest that the decree of Reprobation can not ultimatly be resolved into sin as a procuring cause but into the good pleasure of God who would not take that sin out of the way nor prevent its being If this Last be said then God was under a fatal necessitie of decreeing and doing all which he decreed and did and could not hinder sin nor not create that man nor alter any one circumstance which did occasion that sin and thus God himself shall be bound by the fetters of a fatal Necessity yea and all this fatal Necessity shall have its rise from Man which were most absurd and blasphemous 7. if actual sinnes be the consequent of
of them He cannot deny but God did permit sin nor will he say that God could not have prevented sins coming into the world if He had pleased will he say that God did not foresee sinnes coming into the world If he did foresee it and might have hindered it if he had pleased and did not hinder it shall we say that sin came into the world whether he would or not And if he willed or decreed that sin should exist through his permission shall we call him the author of sin Then he must be the author of sin because he did not hinder sin effectually by his Omnipotency and then whatever we say of Reprobation whether we affirme it to be Absolute or upon sin Foreseen there is no remedie as to this for God must alwayes be the Author of sin But hallowed be his Name 6. The Decree of Reprobation putteth no man into a state of sin It is true the Execution theâ—eof presupposeth sin but hence it will no more follow that the decree of Reprobation placeth a man in sin than that the decree of Election doth so for the execution here presupposeth also mans being in sin 7. Where readeth he that expression among our divines that by vertue of the decree of Reprobation the Reprobat are secondarily led or to be led to destruction as the end The Lord leadeth no man to destruction but every reprobat runeth head long thither of his own accord and because the Lord hath designed and decreed to let them run-on and not restraine them by saving grace shall he therefore be the Author of their sinnes Then all the sins that are committed must be charged upon the Holy one of Israel because He did not prevent them by his grace And thus the devils may come in play and learne of this man to plead Excuse for themselves and lay the blame of all their wickedness upon God Sure this must be Develish doctrine 8. But what is it that God is the Author and Cause of His hujus doth not distinctly inform us That he is the Author and Cause of his own Act and Decree is most true But that he is the Cause and Author of sin as this man would inferre we see not the Antecedent from whence this Consequence can follow Beside that the Author of a thing is he by whose authority or judgment it is done or upon whose testimony it is beleeved for Cicero opposeth Authorem and dissuasorem and joineth these together as of the same import Hortator atque Author Consiliarius Author Suasor Author Plautus said Impero autorque sum Now dar this Man say that God Exhorteth Counseleth and perswadeth to sin Dar this Man say that we hold or tâ—at it followeth from our juâ—gment that by God's Authority Sentence and Swasion sin is committed Let him prove this and then carry the cause 9. In a word we referre this Man to the Apostle Paul Rom. 9 11 12 13. to receive his answere and let him dispute no more against us till he once take the boldness to confute that his inferring from our doctrine that God is the Author of sin is but the same which the Apostle saw would be deduced from his doctrine by men of corrupt mindes when he addeth by way of Objection vers â—4 Is there unrighteousness with God And if our answere will not satisfie him let him confute the Apostles answere for we but say the same viz. That God hath mercy on whom he will hardeneth whom he will And if for this cause our doctrine be blamed we cannot help it but must be content to be contradicted and if he make use of the reply used vers 19. we must give the returne which the Apostle giveth vers 20 21. And if all this will not satisfie we must leave him to the judgment of the great day when that God against whom these proud carpers thus reply shall answer them by himself put them to eternal silence and everlasting shame 17. Thereafter he citeth some sayings of Calvin Beza Zanchius Pareus Martyr Zuinglius Piscator out of which he would inferre that they allaiged God was the Author of sin All which and moe he might finde collected to his hand by Bellarmin and answered by the learned D. Twisse in his Vindiciae And therefore as also because this belongeth to a distinct question we need neither spend time in searcâ—ing out what truth is in all this not yet in vindicating of them One thing I shall say That among them all he shall not finde one that saith directly that God is the Author and Culpable Cause of sin and if he suppose that this may be drawn from their expressions I shall only reply That if there be any of them that giveth more real ground for such an Inference than the very Expressions used in Scripture I shall not owne them and if they say no more and yet are condemned by him as making God the Author of sin though they expresly deny it let him see how he shall vindicate the Spirit of Goâ— from the same charge or rather how in his blind boldnesse he charges the Spirit of God As for these passages of Scripture which our Divines aâ—duce against the Pelagians and Iesuites who ascribe unto God in the matâ—er of sin an Idle Provideâ—câ— aâ—d Permâ—ssion Bellarmine ranketh them up in five classes First Such as speak of God's Willing and Decreeing from eternity that sin shall exist such are Act. 2 23. 4 27. Esai 53 10. Second Such as import God's creating evil men for this end that his righteousness might shine forth in their punishment such are Prov. 16 4. 1 Sam. 2 25. Exod. 9 16. Rom. 9 17 21. Third Such as import God's setting of Satan and men to evil and useing of them as instruments to do that which could not be done without sin such are 1 King 22 20 23. Iob. 1 12. 2 6. 2 Sam. 16.10 24 1. Esai 5 26. 10 5 15. â—3 17. 19 2 4. Ier. 50 24 25. 51 11. Ezech. 12 13. Psal. 105 25. c. Fourth Such as speak of God's blinding hardening c. as Exod. 4.21 7 3 13. 9.12 10 1 20 27. 1â— 10. 14 4 8. Deut. 2 30. Iosu. 1â— 20. 1 Sam. 2 25. Iob. 12 16 20 24. Esai 19 14. 63 17. Ier. 20 7. Ioh. 12 3â— 40. Rom. 1 24 26 28. 9 18. 2 Thes. 2 11. c. Fift Such as import God's doing of those things which are evil as 2 Sam. 12 11. Luk. 2 34. Rom. 9 33. Esai 8 14. 28 16. Gen. 45 8. 1 King 11 31 37. 12 15 24. 2 King 9 3. 10 30. c. Now if he can adduce any testimony of our Divines whence he can with more probability inferre that God is the Author of sin I shall not as I said owne it And if such as are but consonant to the Scriptures do not please him
gate it was that he might sanctifie the people with his own bloud 〈◊〉 this is more than a may be Rom. 3 25 26. Why did God set forth Christ to be a propitiation It was to declare his righteousness for the remission of sinnes that are past that he might be just and the justifiâ—r of him that â—eleeveth in Iesus a Certaine Real thing Many moe passages might be added to this purpose but these may suffice to discover the absurd falshood of this Quakers doctrine 17. Adde 6. such passages as mention the Actual Accomplishment and Effect of Christ's death where it will yet more appear that this was no meere May be or Possible thing but that which was to have a certaine Bâ—ing and Reality as to the persons for whom it was designed Such as Heb. 1 3. when he had by himself purged our sinnes Can their sinnes be said to be purged who pine away in hell for ever because of their sinnes could this be true if no man had been saved and yet if it had been a mere possible and may be Redemption it might have come to passe that not one person should have been actually saved So Heb. 9 12. by his owne blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption Is a meer possible Redemption to be called an Eternal Redemption and was that all that Christ obtained Then Christ's blood was more ineffectual in the truth than the type was in its typicalness for the blood of buls and goats and the ashes of an hiefer sprinkling the unclean did not obtaine a possible and may be-sanctification and purifying of the flesh but did actually and really sanctify to the purifying of the flesh vers 13. Againe vers 14. which also confirmeth what is now said how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God So that all such for whom he offeâ—ed himself and shed his blood and none else have their consciences purged from dead works to serve the living God and who dar say that this is common to all or is a meer may be which the Apostle both restricteth and asserteth as a most certaine real thing Againe vers 26. but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself So that he did Actually and Really and not Possibly and Potentially only put away sin the sin viz. of those for whom he was a sacrifice even of them that look for him and to whom he shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation vers 28. and sure no man in his wits will say that this is the whole world Gal. 3 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us 24 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith Here are three Ends and Effects of Christ's Redemption mentioned which no Man will say are common to all viz. Redemption from the curse of the Law this was Really not potentially only done by Christ's being made a curse for us the Communication of the blessing of Abraham and the Promise of the Spirit which are ensured to such as are Redeemed from the curse of the lâ—w and to none else So Ephes. 2 13 14 15 16. But now in Christ Iesus ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ for he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us having abolished in his flesh the enmity the Law of commandements in ordinances for to make to himself of twain one nâ—w man so making peace and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the crosse having slaine the enmity thereby To which adde the parallel place Col. 1 21 22. 2 14 15. was all this delivery from Wrath Enmity Law of commandements whatever was against us but a meer Potential thing and a May be common to all in whose power it was to cause it take effect or not as they pleased Esai 53 5. He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed with 1 Cor. 15.3 Christ died for our sinnes 1 Pet. 2 24. who his owne self bear our sinnes in his own body on the tree by whose stripes we are healed How can we then imagine that all this was a meer May be seing he was so bruised for our iniquities so died for our sins so bear our sinnes in his own body as that thereby all in whose room he stood are healed by his stripes The Apostle doth moreover fully clear this matter Rom. 5 6. Christ died for the ungodly was this for all Or was it to have an uncertane End and effect No vers 9. much more then being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him The ungodly and the sinners for whom he died are such as become justified by his blood and shall at length be fully saved from wrath And againe vers 10. for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life Upon his death followeth Reconciliation with God and then Salvation and his death is for no more than his life is for By him also they receive an atonement vers 11. As the consequences and effects of Adam's sin did Certainly and not by a May be redownd to all that he represented and engadged for so the fruites and effects of Christ's death do as certainly come unto such as are his as the Apostle cleareth in the following verses laying the advantage on the side of Christ and his vers 15. much more the grace of God and the gift by grace by one man Iesus Christ hath abounded unto many vers 16. but the free gift is of many offences unto justification vers 17. much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reigne in life by one Iesus Christ vers 18. even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life ver 19. so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous vers 21 so might grace reigne through righteousness unto eternal life by Iesus Christ our Lord. Is all this a Common thing and a meer May be or Possibility Ioh. 10 11. he giveth his life for his sheep vers 15. But may they for all that perish No in no wise vers 28. and I give unto them eternal life and they shall never perish He came that they might have life and might have it more abundantly vers 10. To the same purpose he saith Ioh. 6.33 that he
the way and the non-performance of this condition being also a sin our proposition will recurre upon this and so in infinitum but if this sin be taken out of the way it cannot prejudge them of the pardon of the rest and thus all their sins being pardoned they must needs be saved and yet it is not so But it is said that Christ died not for the sin of Final Unbeleef yet it seemeth thâ—t it will be granted that he died even for the sin of Unbeleefe of all the world and for unbeleefe continued in until the last houre of a mans life but not for that last act which yet is but the same Unbeleefe continued in an hour longer and shall we think that Christ bare the Unbeleefe of 20 40 60. or moe yeers in his body on the crosse and not the same Unbeleefe for one houre or halfe houre yea or quarter of an houre Who seeth not how little ground there is for such an imagination But the thing I would have mainly here considered is this That for whose sinnes Christ hath died he hath died for all their sins and therefore if he died for the sinnes of all the world he died for the final Unbeleefe of all the world But this will not be granted therefore neither can it be said that he died for the sinnes of all men Whose sinnes he took upon him to make satisfaction for he left none for them to answere for for he is a compleat Mediator and is sole Mediator If he died for all the rest of the sinnes of the Reprobat and of the whole world why not for that also Sure when the Scripture speaketh of Christs taking away of sin and of the Redemption that is forgiveness of sins which people enjoy through him there is no sin excepted He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities Esa. 53 5. the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all vers 6. or mâ—de the iniquitie of us all to meet on him there is no ground for any exception here when he was stricken for transgression vers 9. and his soul was made an offering for sin v. 10. is there any appearance of the exception of any one sin when he bear their sin and their iniquities vers 11 12. what intimation is given of an exception of any Yea if this exception was to be made which would null and destroy all what consolation could the declaration of this redemption remission of sins yeeld unto poor sinners Col. 1 14. Ephes. 1 7. When the Lord made him to be sin for us was it only in part how then could we be made the righteousness of God in Him 2 Cor. 5 21 was the Lord in Christ reconcileing the world unto himself not imputing only part of their trespasses to them but the imputing of one sin would mar the reconciliation for ever Is not final unbeleef a dead work Doubtless yet the blood of Christ purgeth consciences from dead works Heb. 9 14. Did the blood of buls and goats so sanctify as to the purifying of the flesh as to leave the most defileing spot of all untaken away How could healing come by his stripes if he bear but part of our sins in his body on the tree seing final unbeleef alone would mar all for where that is there is no coming to God imaginable But moreover the Scripture tels us that the blood Iesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin 1 Ioh. 1 7. and that if any man sin there is an Advocat with the Father who is a propitiation for sins 1 Ioh. 2 vers 1 2. and so must be for all sins otherwayes there were little ground of comfort here And it was foretold by Daniel Chap. 9 24. that he should make an end of sin and finish the transgression and so bring-in everlasting righteousness Doth this admit of exceptions and of such an exception as would unavoidably make all null No certanely But you will ask of me If I think that Christ did die for final unbeleefe I Answ. Not for I judge it is the sin only of Reprobates who hear the Gospel and I judge that Christ did not die for any sin of Reprobats But this I hold and have cleared That for whose sinnes soever Christ hath died he hath died for all their sins And because he hath not died for final Unbeleef therefore he hath not died for any sin of such as shall be guilty of this and as for his owne he died to prevent their falling into and to keep them from this sin for he died to bring them unto God that they might have the Adoption of sons that they might be sanctified and live unto righteousness be made righteous yea the righteousness of God as is clear 1 Pet. 2 24. Gal. 4 4. Heb. 10 10. 2 Cor. 5 21. 1 Pet. 3 18. Rom. 5 19. what then will this Quaker say to this Final unbeleef is certainly a sin and Christ either died for it or not if he died for it than it can be laid to no mans charge or Christ's death is of no value If he died not for it he died not for all the sinnes of alâ— men but at most for some sinnes of all men and if that was all no man could thereby be saved for one sin is enough to procure damnation 21. Moreover 10 we finde the Persons for whom this price of blood was laid down designed more particularly and the Object of this Redemption restricted and so it could not be for all and every one It is said to be for Many Esai 53 11. Math. 20 28. and 26.28 Mark 10 45. Heb. 9 28. and what these many are is abundantly declared in other Scriptures where they are called Christ's Sheep Ioh. 10 15. Christ's People Mat. 1 21. His People whom according to the predictions of the Prophets which have been since the world began he should save from their enemies and from the hand of all that hate them to performe the mercy promised to the Fathers and to remember his holy covenant the oath which he swore to Father Abraham that he would grant unto them that being delivered out of the hand of their enemies they might serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of their life Luk. 1 68 70 71 72 73 74 75. His Church Ephes. 5 25 Act. 20 28. His Body Ephes. 5 23. The Children of God that were scattered abroad Ioh. 11 52. Sones Sanctified Brethren the Children that God gave him the Seed of Abraham Heb. 2 10 11 12 13 14 16 17. They are the Sheep that shall infallibly beleeve because sheep Ioh. 10 26. and Whom Christ knoweth and of whom he is known vers 14 and such as shall heare his voice vers 16. and follow him vers 27. to whom he will give eternal life so that they shall never perish and who are given to him of his Father vers 28.29 and the Elect 2 Tim 2 10 He is bread
for some sinnes of all and not for all their sinnes for whom he died seing he was a Compleet Cautioner So then as Christ died in their roome and stead as their Cautioner and Sponsor for whom he died wrong should be done to Him if all these for whom he was a Cautioner should not at length actually be delivered out of prison freed from the accusation of the law They for whom he died being in him legally when he died and morally and virtually dying in him and with him must not in justice be made to pay their own debt and satisfie the law over againe Christ's stricking hands as the phrase is Prov. 22 26. and so putting his name in the obligation and accordingly making satisfaction the Principal 's name is blotted out and he freed in the time appointed for he beare our griefs and carryed our sorrowes c. Esai 53 4 5. and by meanes of death he delivered them who through fear of death were all their lifetime ubject to bondage Heb. 2 14 15. 37. This matter will be further clear if we consider 26. How the death of Christ was a Satisfaction and none can deny this but Antichristian Socinians Others willingly grant that Christ did substitute himself in the room of sinners and was willing to undergo the punishment threatned in the Law against sin that the sinners for whom he undertook satisfaction might be freed So he bear their sins Esai 53 11. 1 Pet. 2 24 And he was made sin 2 Cor. 5 21. Hence he is called a Propitiation 1 Ioh. 2 3. 4 10. Rom. 3 25. Whereby we see that Christ took upon him the whole Punishment that was due to sin and that God whom sinners had offended was well pleased with what he did and suffered according to that undertaking yea more pleased than he was displeased with all the sinnes of those for whom he suffered for hereby His Authority and justice was made to appear more glorious excellent How then can we think that many of those it may be all for whom he gave that satisfaction may notwithstanding possibly be made to make satisfaction for themselves as they may by our Adversaries way Was not his satisfaction full compleat Why should any then for whom he gave that satisfaction be liable to Punishment Is this consonant to justice Did not the Lord Jehovah send Christ and fit him with a body for this end Psal. 40 6. Heb. 10 5. laid upon Him the iniquities of us all Esai 53 6 that He might make full satisfaction for them to justice suffer for them all that the Law could demande of them or they were liable unto by the broken Law Did not Christ do suffer all which he undertook to do suffer for this end And did not the Father accept of what he did suffered as a full Compensation Satisfaction And seing this cannot be denied it is manifest that this was done by Christ as a Cautioner Heb. 7 22. how can it be imagined that the Principal debtor shall not thereupon have a fundamental right to freedom pardon in due time after the Gospel method be actually Discharged delivered from the penalty of the Law Redeemed by the Satisfactory Price payed by the Cautioner accepted of the Creditour Doth not the denying of this certain infallible Effect call in question the value worth of Christ's satisfaction and give ground to say that Jehovah was not Satisfied with the price or that Christ made no Satisfaction Did not Christ make Reconciliation for the sinnes of his people Heb. 2 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 38. Adde for a further confirmation of this 27. That Christ's death was a propitiating sacrifice He gave himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour Ephes. 5 2. He offered up himself once Heb. 7 27. He is a sacrifice for us 1 Cor. 5 7. the lamb of God which beareth or taketh away the sin of the world Ioh. 1 29. He offered up himself without spot to God Heb. 9 14 he was once offered to bear the sinnes of many Heb. 9 28. we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Iesus Christ once for all he offered one sacrifice for sin for ever Heb. 10 10 12. Now as the sacrifices under the Law which were a type of this did not procure a General Possible benefite but did procure a Real favour only to the People of God for they sanctified to the purifying of the fâ—esh Heb. 9 13. So certanely this Real and Perfect sacrifice must have a Peculiar and Real Effect and sprinkle consciences from dead works to serve the living God Heb. 9.14 And this is not a thing common to all nor is it a meer Possible thing They must then do a great indignity unto the Sacrifice of Christ who speak of an Universal meerly Possible Redemption 39. Adde to this 28. How upon this Sacrifice which Christ offered up in his death we read of a Reconciliation made Ephes 2 â—6 and that he might Reconcile both unto God in one body by the crosse having slaine the enmity by it or in himself 2 Cor 5 10. when we were enemies we were Reconciled to God by the death of his Son Col. 1 20. and having made peace through the blood of his crosse by him to Reconcile all things unto himself Therefore is he called our Peace Ephes. 2 14. he maketh Peace vers 15. we have Peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. Rom. 5 1. Now this Reconciliation being of parties that are at varience must be a Reconciliation of both to other and so a mutual Reconciliation and Christ effectuateth both and both are purchased by his death we cannot then imagine with Socinians that all the Reconciliation mentioned in Scripture is of us to God as if God's Anger and Wrath were not appeased and taken out of the way nor with Arminians that Christ obtained an Universal Reconciliation of God to all but no Reconciliation of man to God friendship betwixt enemies must be mutual if a Reconciliation be and our state before this was enmity Rom. 5 10. Col. 1 20 21. and God's wrath was against us and upon us Ephes 2 3. Ioh. 3 36. But now how will this agree with Universal Redemption Is God Reconciled to all when many perish under his wrath for ever Can God be said to be upon the death of Christ Reconciled to all when it may so fall out that not one soul shall have peace with God How cometh it to passe that many whose Reconciliation Christ hath purchased live and die enemies to God Sure the Apostle tels us 2 Cor. 5 19. that to whom God is reconciled to them he doth not impute sin and he assureth us that all such as are reconciled to God by the death of his Son shall be saved Rom. 5 10. 40. Adde 29. That it seemeth
â—ewes Whileas it is much more probable that he lived before the children of Israel were brought out of Aegypt and that for this one reason That in all this book where so much is spoken by Iob and by his friends of God's power and faithfulness there is not one word of God's delivering his people out of the furnace of Egypt which would not have been omitted it being so apposite to what is there oftentimes handled if so be it had been done before this time His questions then may easily be answered without that inward common grace which he dreameth of to wit that God taught Iob as he did other holy men before the giving of the Law and that without Scripture which was not then written His supposing thereafter Pag. 116. that Iob speaketh of this light Chap. 24 13. is another of his fond imaginations What he saith next of Iob's friends receiveth the same answere that we gave to what he said of Iob seing the ground of the mistake is the same in both and requireth no new consideration 10. Then he tels us how Paul Rom. 2. saith that the Gentiles did those things which are contained in the Law and hence inferreth that they feared God and wrought righteousness Ans. 1. That the Gentiles were not without all knowledge of what was just and unjust honest and dishonest is most certain for so much was remaining ingraven in their hearts that could not be delete and this was evidenced by their commanding and forbidding by their Laws somethings commanded and forbidden by the Law of God as appeareth by their Laws against Theft Adultery Manslaughter and the like which yet was not universal It is in the original only thus they do by nature the things of the Law And as Beza well observeth this differeth from doing what the Law commandeth being a doing of what the Law doth that is commanding or prohibiting what the Law commandeth or prohibiteth And therefore is it added these having not a Law are a Law unto themselves 2. Hence it appeareth that it will not follow that they therefore feared God and wrought righteousness for the same Apostle tels us Chap. 1 21. that when they knew God they glorified him not as God neither were thankful but became vaine in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened Is this to fear God and work righteousness And though hereby the Apostle evinceth the Gentiles to be without excuse Yet he tels us Chap. 3 9. that he hath proved both Iewes and Gentiles that they are all under sin And will this Quaker contradict the Apostle and say it is not true that the Gentiles are under sin though the Apostle hath charged it home upon them for they feared God and wrought righteousness This were indeed blasphemous boldness suiteing only a Quaker But he thinks that vers 13. confirmeth all where Paul saith the doers of the Law are justified As if Paul were speaking that of the Gentiles which is spoken of the Jewes who heard the Law which the Gentiles did not And as if Paul did hereby insinuat that any man Jew or Gentile could be justified as a doer of the Law that is by his owne obedience which is diametrically opposite to his whole disput and scope in this part of the Epistle and to his conclusion set down Chap. 3 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Vers. 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight What shall we think of this Quaker who thus maketh the Apostle contradict himself and inferreth out of the Apostles words perverted the contrary of what the Apostle himself who knew the force of his owne premises best concludeth And what boldness and blasphemy is comparable to this And withal he will be yet so bold as to tell us that nothing is more clear and that the Apostle vers 9 10.11 doth confirme this doctrine yea and Pag. 117. declare moreover that unless we suppose the Apostle to have spoken otherwayes then he thought we may saifly conclude that those Gentiles were justified and partakers of glory honour and peace and that by their owne works O what miserable miscreants must these men be that dar thus expose the Apostle yea the Spirit of God speaking in him and by him to open laughter as proving and concluding contradictories and that by the same medium and premises which is hardly supposable of a man in his wits and that knoweth what he saith His repetitions Pag. 117. I wave they being formerly confuted and repititions being jejune probations need not be againe examined He doubts whether we can prove that all the Patriarches and holy men before Moses had any distinct knowledge either of Adams fall or of the coming of the Messias for I see not what else he can understand by his vel hujus vel illius these being the only two things spoken of by him immediatly before and his following words confirme this And if he doubt whether we can prove it it is no great matter if he doubt not himself of the thing And if he do doubt of the thing Where is his charity to the Patriarchs and Saints What charity can this be which is so large to Heathens and so straitned to the Saints of God Can this be divine charity No it is a Pagans charity suting him who would have us all turn Pagans But seing the Scripture tels us that they all obtained a good report by faith which is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11 1 2. And that they all died in faith not having received the promises but having seen them afar off and were perswaded of them and embraced them vers 13. And Christ himself tels us that Abraham saw his day Ioh. 8 56. what needs us more proof These and the like passages satisfie us concerning their knowing as much as was then requisite in order to salvation And that the Gentiles who never heard of Christ know so much is that which he should prove and doth it not nor never shall 11. He tels us that the Iewes even after David's dayes who prophecied more largely of Christ than did others before could not out of all these prophecies discerne Christ when he came Act. 3 17. 1 Cor. 2 8. Yea Mary herself did not know that her Son was about his Fathers work when disputing with the Doctors and the Apostles that long conversed with him and saw his miracles did not beleeve what belonged to his death and resurrection Ans. Is not this a wonderful proofe that the holy Patriarchs had no saving knowledge of and faith in the Messias who was to come because the wicked Jewes did crucify him when he came Who would not simile at this But David had many clear prophecies of the Messias and yet they did not understand these And what then Ergo they were saved without the understanding of these prophecies
of their lost condition And in our examination thereof in its several parts we have manifested the contrary And whether this be not a palpable untruth the Reader is free to judge He faith moreover That they deny remission of sins or justification to be had by any work of theirs c. And what is this to the point seing they say that we are justified by an Inherent Righteousness and not by Righteousness Imputed 10. He giveth us in the next place good words about the satisfaction of Christ which if he would stand to and not deceive us with Socinian glosses and metaphoricall senses he should withall overturne his owne doctrine about justification as we did shew lately § 6. In the third place he saiâ—h several things that are not true as first That all men that have come to mans age except Christ have sinned insinuating that none else have sinned nor are capable to sin until they come to Mans age and so denieth original sin and denieth that the wicked actions of young children and young girles who are not yet come to be men and women are sinnes Then sayes he Therefore all have need of a Saviour to take away Gods wrath due for sinnes Have none need of a Saviour but these only who are come to mans age qui aetatem virilem adepti sunt Doth the Scripture make any such restriction Where is then his universal Redemption that he pleaded For He addeth In this respect therefore he is truely said to have born the sinnes of all in his owne body on the tree In what respect is this Is it in respect that all have sinned but what sense is there here or truth either did he bear the sinnes of none but of such as are come to mans age what becometh then of infants boyes and girles and if he beare all their sinnes they must upon that account be freed from the guilt of sin and justified and so we shall have an universal justification as well as Redemption and this is confirmed indeed by the following words to wit therefore he is the sole mediator removing the wrath of God that our bypast sinnes may not meet us seing theâ— are pardoned by vertue of his sacrifice For this he understandeth of all for whom Christ died But he tels us afterward that remission is no other way to be expressed And I would ask whether there be any remission in or by justification and if so why are we not justified upon the account of the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith Then followeth a word which undoeth all not to mention his parenthesis were he saith some may partake of this remission who have no knowledge of the history of Christ sufficiently above spoken unto Christ saith he hath by his death and passion reconciled us while enemies unto God that is to say he offereth unto us reconciliation and maketh us capable thereof If this be all it is but the Arminian Reconciliation he hath been speaking of yea and nothing but what a Socinian may say Sure the Apostle speaketh otherwayes of this Reconciliation as of that which certainly is attended with Iustification with such a Iustification as hath life following saying Rom. 5 8 9 10. But God commendeth his love towards us that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being now justified by his bloud we shall be saved from wrath through him for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son much more being reconciled we shall be saved by â—is life The reconciliation then which was had by the death of Christ the Son of God was not a meer offer of reconciliation nor a meer capability for it But that which was a certain forerunner of salvation and that which Salvation must necessarily with a much more follow He citeth 2 Corinth Chap. 5 vers 19 20. and tels us that the Apostle insinuateth that seing the wrath of God is removed by Christ's obedience the Lord is ready to be reconciled with them and pardon their sinnes if they repent Which is a manifest perversion of the scope and meaning of the Apostle who is there shewing how the Reconciliation of sinners unto God is brought about both upon Gods part and upon mans part not of all the world but of the Elect scattered over the face of the earth and from the beginning of the world how they were brought into peace with God through Iesus so it is a limited world as appeareth by the us used ver 18. And againe more fully ver 21. for he hath made him sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him And therefore it is onlâ— that world he understandeth here for whom Christ was made sin having their sinnes imputed to him as their cautioner and sponsor who by vertue hereof are cloathed in due time with his righteousnesse imputed unto them and so are made the righteousness of God in him Now all this was not a meer may be or a mere possible or potential thing but such as was attended with a non-imputation of trespasses nor doth it import only a readiness in God to be reconciled with all upon conditions as if there were none in particular whose sinnes the Lord did bear and for whom he offered up himself a satisfactory sacrifice to the justice of God purchasing unto them faith to be granted in due time whereby they should come â—o be actually reconciled unto and brought in favour with God when through his grace they should yeeld unto the beseachings of Christ's messengers to whom the Word Ministrie or Administration of this Reconciliation is committed as to Ambassadours for Christ sent forth to beseach in Christ's stead By all which the Apostle is clearing how all things are of God and particularly all the new things which the new creature the man in Christ is made partaker of vers 17 18. And moreover we see verse 14 15. that these all for whom Christ died are one time or other made alive unto God through grace communicated to them from their Head Christ As it followeth And that he died for all that they which live should not hence forth live unto themselves but unto him which died for them and rose againe And who will say that it shall at any time be said with truth of all the world that they are thus alive 11. He tels us next of a double Redemption both which he sayes are perfect in their owne nature and as to us cannot be separated Then all certainly must be redeemed the one way who are redeemed the other way What is the first That sayes he Pag. 127. made by Christ in his crucified body without us and by this Man as he standeth in the fall is put in a capacity of salvation and hath transmitted into him a certain measure of power of grace and of the vertue of the Spirit of life which
is in Christ which is able to overcome and eradicat the evil seed Ans. 1. The Redemption made by Christ on the crosse and by his obedience and sufferings we cheerfully acknowledge But that it was a Redemption made for allâ— we abundantly disproved above Chap. VIII 2. That there was any such Power Grace or Vertue of the Spirit of life purchased hereby and granted to all is false and abundantly above disproved likewise See Chap. X. 3. To imagine that every son of Adam hath power granted to him to subdue and root out natural corruption is but pure Pelagianisme Arminianisme Iesuitisme but not the truth revealed to us in the word of God is to wedge warr against thâ— pure grace of God and the free operations thereof to set the crown of salvation upon the head of the creature all which we made manifest above at several occasions 12. What is the Second Redemption that is inseparable from the other It is that sayes he which Christ worketh in us And what is that It is that sayes he further whereby we possesse and know that that pure and perfect redemption is in us purifieing us delivering us from the power of corruption and bringing into favour union and familiarity with God Answ. 1. That the Lord Jesus Redeemeth by Power through his Spirit from sin and corruption all such as he hath Redeemed by Price from Law and justice we willingly grant But how can he say that these two are inseparable seing then they must be of equal extent and so as the first Redemption was in his judgment for all and every man the second must extend to all and every man and so all and every man must be delivered from the power of corruption and consequently must be saved Againe how can he say this who pleadeth afterward for the Apostasie of the Saints But 2. This purifying and delivering from corruption as would appear by his words is not wrought by the second Redemption but only a knowing that that pure and perfect Redemption is in us purifying us c. And so all that is had by this second Redemption is but a sight of what the fruite of the first Redemption is doing So that by the first Redemption not only man hath power to subdue corruption but he actually doth subdue it without any new grace or divine help and by the second Redemption he is only delivered from darkness which hindered his actual perceiving of the operation of the gift and grace bestowed upon the first Redemption 3. whether is this second Redemption necessary unto salvation or not I suppose he will say yes Then what shall become of the childe of God that walketh in darkness hath no light what shall become of them that have true grace and grace uniteing them to Christ to God through Christ yet through darkness the Lord dispensing so partly as a punishment partly for tryal exercise can see and acknowledge no such thing 13. He tels us over againe that by the first Redemption all mankinde was so far reconciled unto God that they were made capable of salvation and had the offer of Gospel peace citeing for this Ephes. 2 15. 1 Ioh. 4 10. Ezech. 16 6. 1 Pet. 2 22 24. 3 18. Tit. 2 14. Phil. 3 10. Ans. 1. we have seen before at several occasions that the Redemption of Christ is a far other thing and hath far other effects even remission of sinnes 2 Cor. 5 19. actual reconciliation grace and glory Dan. 9 24 26. Col. 1 19 20. Ephes. 1 11 14. Ioh. 17 2. Heb. 9 12 13. 2 Cor. 1 20. 2. The very texts cited by himself make against him for Ephes. 2 15. he died to make in himself of twaine one new man so making peace and this was not a mere capacity See vers 13. but now in Christ Iesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Was this only a capacity of coming near or a meer offer of it deluded souls may think so but the words are plaine let him see also Ephes. 1 7. 2 5 6. The next place he citeth is 1 Ioh. 4 10. Where God is said to have sent his son to be a propitiation for our sinnes and sure a Propitiation doth work more then a meer possibility of friendshipe and he was so a Propitiation as that for the same persons he is an Advocat with the Father 1 Ioh. 2 1 2. His next passage is Ezech. 16 6. And doth he think that when God saith to any lying in their bloud live that that creating word giveth nothing but a meer capacity to live See vers 8 9 10 11 12. But this properly is to be understood of Gods dispensation of love to that visible Church as such and so is not very pertinent to the purpose in hand His next passage is 1 Pet. 2 22. he would say 21. 24. And what can be more clear against him seing the Apostle saith vers 24. that he bear our sins for this end that we being dead to sinnes should live unto righteousness and then addeth by whose stripes ye were healed See also Chap. 1 vers 18. Where he saith that we are redeemed from our vaine conversation See also Chap. 1 2 4. He citeth next 1 Pet. 3 18. Where it is expresly said that Christ hath once suffered that he might bring us to God and not put us in a bare capacity Was this mans minde present when he wrote these citations Why did he not cite also Col. 1 vers 14. Gal. 1 vers 4. 3 vers 13 14. 4. vers 5. If he would cite passages against himself As also Revel 5 vers 9 10. 14.3 4. Tit. 2 vers 14 14. He explaineth over againe his Second Redemption and addeth that hereby we are really Iustified That is when we are sanctified we are Justified or Justified by sanctification as say the Tridentine Papists Then he tels us That both the Redemptions are the cause of Iustification the first the procureing cause and the last the formal cause And just so say they as we saw above out of the Councel of Trent and may be seen in Bellarmine who de justifie lib. 1. Cap. 2. proveth that Jesus Christ is the meritorious cause of Justification and is sounder here than I suppose this Quakers is who complyeth more with Samosatenians Socinians against whom Bellarmin there disputeth And the Councel of Trent said that Christ did merite justification to us by his most holy passion on the tree of the crosse Wherein doth this man now differ from Papists the worst of them I mean such as follow the Councel of Trent There are some Others that may shame this Quaker in this point As Contarenus a cardinal who in his Treatis of Iustification cleareth and determineth the question thus Because by faith we attaine to a twofold â—â—ghteousness one inherent whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature thâ— other
holy sayes he as is the root they come from and therefore God accepts them and justifieth us in them and rewardeth us for them of his proper and free grace But the question is whether they be perfect and can stand before the tribunal of Justice and so become any part of that Righteousness answering the Law which requireth perfect conformity in all points which is the formal objective reason of our Justification before God whose judgment is according to truth 18. Thus we have seen his explication of their Opinion which in short is this That the formal objective reason or as he with others speak the formal cause of Justification is a Principle of grace within or Christ formed there that is the spring and principle of good works which is begun sanctification This I say is it according to his words but if we â—emember what was said to this above and consider what this Christ within is according to the Quakers principles we shall finde that in this point their judgment is more dâ—testable than is that of Papists for this Christ within is formed of meer Nature and that without any assistance of divine grace by the meer Rational power and will of man yeelding unto the dictats of that Light which is as well in pagans that scarce have the use of reason as in Christians and in all alike and so it is a Christ formed within whereof Pagans Turks and Indians that never heard nor never shall heare the least sound of the Gospel are capable and by vertue whereof they as well as Christians can come to be justified So that in short the justification which Quakers maintaine is a Pagan-justification resulting from a Pagan-sanctification and if this be not many degrees more damnable abominable then the doctrine of Tridentine Papists let any of understanding judge 19. After this he layeth downe three Propositions the confirmation of which will as he thinketh prove his point The first is this Pag. 129. The Obedience and Passion of Christ is that whereby the soul obtaineth remission of sins in that it is the cause prâ—curing that grace and seed by whose inward operations Christ is formed within and the soul is made conforme unto it and so just and justified And in respect of this capacity and offer of gracâ— God is said to be reconciled not that he is actually râ—conciled or justifieth any or holdeth any justified who remaineth in his sins ungodly impure and unjust Ans. 1. To say that the obedience and suffering of Christ procureth remission of sins in that it procureth that grace and seed c. is but a Socinian and Arminian untruth destroying the Satisfaction of Christ and upon the mater saying that Christ by his Obedience and Death did not fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified did not make a Proper Real and Full Satisfaction to justice in their behalf contrare to Rom. 5 8 9 10 19. 1 Tim. 2 5 6. Heb. 10 10 14. Dan. 9 24 25. Esai 53 4 5 6 10 11 12. Nor doth the Scripture speak so of the mater see Ephes. 1 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins So Col. 1 14. See also Col. 2 13. Ephes. 4 32 Mat. 9 2 5. Mark 2 59. Luk. 5 20 23. 7 48. Mat. 26 28. Heb. 9 22. It is true the methode of the Gospel requireth that the Persons be first united to Christ by faith before they can obtaine these benefites of his Redemption but this is not the thing he speaketh of 2. This grace and seed is with him common to all flesh But the Scriptures tell us not as we have showne above that Christ's righteousness was for all or that all receive grace by vertue thereof 3. Christ formed within by the inward operations of that grace and seed which is common to Pagans is but a Natural Christ and Birth for such as the cause is such must the effect be And so what followeth upon this is but a Pagan righteousness and Justification 4. It is false as we have already manifested that God is said to be Reconciled only in respect of this capacity and offer of grace 5. We say not that God justifieth any remaining in their sinnes yet we grant that the Justified may commit sinnes and thereby fall under God's fatherly displeasure Psal. 89 31 32 33. 51 7 8 9.10 11 12. 32 5. 1 Cor. 11 30 32. Luk. 1 20. Mat. 26 75. and yet withall remaine in the state of Justification Luk. 22 32. Heb. 10 24. for we approve not of Antinomians in this mater 20. The Proposition we have heard and what he would properly assert thereby we are yet to learne Possibly his proofs will help us to understand it The first proof Pag. 130. us from Rom. 3 25. Here sayes he the Apostle showeth the efficacy of Christâ—s death viz. that by it and faith in it remission of by past sinnes is obtained And what then This is it in which and for which the long suffering of God is exercised toward men And what then Therefore though men by their dayly sinnes deserve eternal death yet by vertue of the sacrifice of Christ grace and the seed of God move them in love dureing the day of their visitation that they may be redeemed from evil Here are Quakers dreames whereof the text maketh no mention and dreames that have no sense but with men of distracted braines 21. We are nothing the wiser by this proof let us see the next If God saith he should be totally reconciled unto men and repute them just while they were actually unjust why doth he so oft complean of his people as Esai 59 2. where there is perfect and compleat reconciliation there is no separation or it will follow that sins can make no separation and that their good works and worst sinnes are the same in Gods account This giveth too great liberty to sin And in the margine he saith he speaketh not here of persons not yet converted whom Antinomians their adversaries say were justified from the beginning but of persons converted according to Protestants who may fall into grievous sinnes and yet are said by them to remaine perfectly and wholly justified Answ. 1. Here beginne we to understand something of his Proposition and of its designe And for answere we say That there is a twofold unrighteousness one of State or of Person another of Condition and particular Actions As to the first no unrighteous person is justified because before Justification he must be cloathed with the imputed righteousness of Christ and so constituted just and in Justification declared just because constituted just And as to the second though such an one as committeth sin be in so far unrighteous as to his actions and in that not justified or approven of God Yet being united to Christ by faith and thereby put in a justified state he remaineth in Gods account a justified person as to his State which
glory though we must alwayes lament our shortcoming and run to the bloud of Iesus that the defilement cleaving to our best works may be purged away Nor do we think that this hyperbolick expression of the penitent church will warrant any to caâ—l all the work of the Spirit of God in his people sordide and filthy rags What is of God should be acknowledged good acceptable though the defilements that adhere to the best of God's works in us here because of our continueing corruption and because of the lustings of the flesh in us should be mourned over and keep us humble One thing I would further note here That if our Gospel-works be such why are we not Justified because of them as well as in them He further answereth pag. 149. § 12 That though it were granted that the best of men are imperfect Yet God can produce perfect works in them by his Spirit Ans. the qustion is not what God can do but what he doth God can make all his perfect Yet the supposition made saith he doth not so He hath thought it fit for his owne glory so to work in his Saints as they may have so long as they are here a body of death to wrestle with and occasion to pray dayly forgive us our sinnes and to run to the fountaine opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Ierusalem for sin and for uncleanness that they may be washen He proceedeth The Spirit of God is not capable of a blot and therefore all Christ's works wrought in his children are pure and perfect Ans. The Spirit it is true is not capable of pollution yet his works as received by us and as we are the formal actors of them are obnoxious to pollution And doth not the Scripture tell us that God first beginneth a good work in us and afterward perfecteth it Phil. 1 6. How can then all the works of Christ in us be perfect And if it were so his children here should be as holy as they will be in heaven for what is higher than perfection Thus we see this man will outstripe Bellarm. who confessed that our actual righteousness was imperfect because of the admixtion of venial faults and stood in need of dayly remission And will run the length of bold Vasques who thinketh that such have no need of remission in 1. 2. Disp. 204. c. 2. 3. He further argueth It would then follow that the miracles and works of the Apostles themselves as the conversion of the Gentiles gathering of Churches writting of Scripture and giving of themselves to the death for Christ were defiled with sin Ans. we must distinguish betwixt these works which were extraordinary I meane as to the manner of their performance and so peculiar to such extraordinary persons in which they were not in a manner formal actors but passive organs such as working of miracles and writting of Scripture in these the Apostles moved as they were immediatly Acted Inspired and Led of the Spirit so that these were not properly their formal acts And these which are of a more ordinary nature wherein they were more formal actors through the assistance of the Spirit whether in works belonging to their office as preaching and gathering of Churches or in works of Christianity as giving themselvs to the death and the like As to the first sort we may grant that they were undefiled as being pure acts of the Spirit wherein the Apostles were but organs used by the Spirit as he saw meet But as to others I see no absurdity to say that they needed to use that petition forgive us our sinnes The Apostle Paul had his infirmities and weakneses a body of death that made him cry out wo is me miserableman and was thereby made to do what he would not and hindered from doing what he would Rom. 7 The Apostle Iames saith in many things we offend all Iam. 3 2. and the Apostle Iohn saith 1 Ioh. 1 8. that if we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us 43. Thereafter he giveth unto works an instrumental part in Iustification which is true of faith laying hold on the righteousness of Christ the only Objective Formal cause of Justification but cannot agree to works But he citeth some Protestants assenting to this as Polanus Symphon c. 27. whose words if understood of after pardon that is of sinnes committed after Justification as they may containe nothing but truth and that truth which we question not acknowledging that even iustified persons before remission of after sins must repent confesse and mourne for their sinnes and act faith on Christ. Zanchius in the words he citeth is expresly speaking of salvation not of Justification and to this end he might cite all the Protestants that I know of Amesius is speaking of the same As for Mr Baxter I have told already that his notions about Justification are not acceptable to all As for what he addeth about the word merite I shall not contend only I would say that seing it sounds so ill because of the common and known abuse thereof by Papists the less we use it the better seing Verba valent usu 44. Nor shall I say much against his conclusion of this mater Only while he tels us that such may confidently appear before God who sensible of their owne unworthiness and of the unprofitableness of all their works and endeavours c. did apply themselves unto the light within and suffered that grace to work in them and thereby are renewed quickened and have Christ risen in them and working in them to will to do having thus put on Christ and being clothed with him and made partakers of his righteousness When I say he speaketh thus he but cheateth his Reader giving him faire words and no more for as we have formerly seen in the examination of his Principles This light is but a Pelagian Grace if not worse common to all men Scythian and Barbarian And by vertue of this light without the least help of the grace of God for of grace assisting far lesse regenerating such as are in nature and so beginning every good work there is not in his writings the least mention if the man will but yeeld and of power and full ability to do this he maketh no question he becometh regenerated begotten of God partaker of the divine nature and what not And this is this Mans Sanctification and foundation of Justification whereof Pagans and Barbarians who never did nor never shall hear of Câ—rist are as capable as such who live within the visible Church and that without any new grace communicated by that which is borne with them Let the Reader now Judge what a Regeneration and Sanctification can flow from this which is in every man and what Justification that can be which is founded hereupon And whether or not this be a sure bottom to stand upon and with confidence to rest upon
it but in a wrong thought or in coming short in the least measure of the right manner of doing a duty is inconsistent with regeneration say our Quaker and yet he saith within a line or two that every sin doth not destroy a spiritual condition These things cannot hang together a person wanting a leg or an arme cannot be called a perfect man as to his integral parts gold having drosse admixed cannot be called pure 11. His last Position is That he will not affirme that such a state is not attaineable here in which to do righteousness becometh natural unto the regenerat soul that in the stability of that state they cannot sin Answ. This is an higher degree of Perfection than what he mentioned before for the former was such a state in which one was able not to sin though he might also sin possit non peccare Item possit But this is such in which he cannot sin peccare non possit And as to this he ingenuously confesseth he himself hath not yet attained it in which his modesty and ingenuity is commendable But he dar not deny but there may be such a state seing it seemeth to be expresly affirmed by the Apostle 1 Ioh. 3 9. Answ. But if he so interpret the words of the Apostle Iohn as importing this highest degree of perfection he must also grant that this highest perfection is not only attainable in this life but that it is common to all renewed persons for Iohn speaketh this as a truth of all that are borne of God and of all that have this seed in them and this is true of all that are truely Regenerated all such are borne of God and Gods seed is in them What will the man now say Though he will say that he is in such a state wherein he is able not to sin possit non peccare yet if he dar not say that he cannot sinne non possit peccare he must acknowledge himself not to be yet borne of God and to be void of the seed of God This passage if it prove any thing for perfection will utterly destroy this Quakers first kinde of Perfection which is a possibility of not sinning and that as common to all Regenerat persons But neither the one nor the other is asserted hereby the Apostle who only saith that he that is borne of God cannot make a trade of sinne and be wholly taken up therein as his constant work and exercise wherein he is delighted and findeth pleasure and full satisfaction as a man doth in his daily trade and employment He doth not say that such have no sin for he had said the contrare Chap. 1 8. but that they do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trade in sin and this is opposite to that which is their trade and occupation 1 Ioh. 2 29 they do worke or trade in righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This doing working or tradeing in sin is peculiar to such as are of the Devil as the doing working and tradeing in righteousness is peculiar to Gods people 1 Ioh. 3 7 8 9. He that committeth sin is of the devil whosoever is borne of God doth not commit sin so that such as are borne of God do not commit sin as do such as are of the Devil and do the works of the Devil And this committing of sin is opposed to the work of purifying or studying of sanctification which lively hope setteth the beleever upon vers 3.4 and importeth a fixed set purpose and resolution to work in sin with full purpose of heart and to give up themselves to the trade of sin as delighting therein and as devouted thereunto adde that such sinne not so as to fall away and lose the seed nor unto death See Chap. 5 16 17. 12. Thus we have seen his Opinion which in short is this That all the Regenerat are in such a state as that they are able noâ— to sin or transgress any of the commands of God but to keep them in all points and walk up to full conformity to the Law yet they may also sin through their own fault and unwatchfulnâ—ss for it is not impossible But some may come unto that hight of perfection as that it is impossible for them to sin they cannot sin Let us now see ere we examine his grounds what affinity this opinion of his hath with the Old Pelagians with the late Socinians and Others as to the first Vossius his Historia Pelagiamsmi Lib. 5. Part. prior Thesi prima Pag. 460. giveth us their opinion thus They said the Saints led their life without sin which they laboured to prove from the instances of those who in Scripture are said to have keeped the Law perfectly Yet they distinguished betwixt such as never sinned all their dayes and such as at first were sinners but afterward left off to sin The first they gave to Abel the last unto Paul See what he citeth to verifie this He sets downe the Antithesis of the orthodox Pag. 462. thus That none by the power of nature could fulfill the Law That none by strength of grace did live all their dayes without sin That none attained that measure of holiness in this life that he could live any long time without sin The perfection ascribed to some in the Scripture was not from nature but from grace Nor for all their dayes Nor at any time full and absolute but which might increase and was mixed with evil deeds and so was a perfection of parts only not of degrees And this he cleareth out of Hierom Iustin Martyr Ambrose Gennadius Chrysost. Beda Origen Cyprian Macarius Optatus Augustin Ivo Carnatens Lombard He tels us moreover Pag. 4â—8 That unto these instances out of Scripture urged by the Pâ—lagians They answered that by perfection was meaned Sincerity or a true not feigned study of obeying all God's Lawes and actual obedience according to the measure attained in this life and in comparison with others but not any full or absolute perfection As an house is said to be perfect which is yet but in building in respect of the beginnings by a synecdoche of parts or of desire by a metonymie of the end 2. In comparison with rubbish or with an house not so far advanced 3. In respect of promise when the builder undertaketh to compleat it And so the righteousness here was perfect 1. Inchoatively in respect of the beginnings and desires 2. Comparatively in respect both of the ungodly and of the godly who are more imperfect 3. Evangelically whereby all is said to be done when that which was not done is pardoned And this to have been the Judgment of the orthodox he proveâ—h out of their writtings as of Hierom Orosius August Gelasius Bernard The Reader may see more in his 2. Antithesis Pag. 473. c. out of Nazianzen Tertullian Optatus Millevit Hierom c. For the better maintaining of this Perfection the Pelagians said that sinnes of ignorance were no sinnes I
is no agreement betwixt light and darkness 2 Cor. 6 14. Now God is Light and all sin is darkness Answ. 1. All this would plead for a sinlesness from the very first instant of Regeneration Yea and for the highest degree of Perfection 2. Though corruption abideth in the Regenerated man as a vanquished enemy strugling in the dead thrawes yet is not the Regenerated man joyned thereto but separated therefrom in Minde Will and Affections in so far as regenerated and is fighting and lusting against it as his greatest enemy 3 It is sin delighted in and unrepented of loved and intertained in the soul that separateth betwixt God and the soul and that text Esai 59 2. speaketh of soul-wasting and land-destroying sinnes to which that people had given up themselves and would not turne from as we see vers 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15. And yet we see there vers 16 17. What soveraignity of free grace can do to and for such a people for the glory of his name 4. What is impure as impure cannot be one Spirit with Christ But beleevers are reckoned according to what hath now the throne and the heart and the dominion in the soul with their free and sanctified consent for now they are maried to a new Husband and are engadged in warfare under a new Captaine They are dead unto sin but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord therefore they are under an obligation to strive against all that would labour to set sin againe upon the throne wrong the interest of their new Lord Soveraigne Rom. 6 11 12 13. And though they be risen with Christ and are dead have their life hid with Christ in God Yet they have members to mortifie uppon earth Fornication Uncleanness c. Col. 3 2 3 5. 5. God hath no fâ—llowshipe with corruption more then light can have fellowshipe with darkness yet he can have fellowshipe with his owne work of grace in the soul and with the soul as sanctified and renewed 19. But sayes he further Is it not against the wisdom of God to say He could finde no other methode whereby he should be served than by such actions by which the devil is no lesse yea more served for he that sinneth is the servant of sin Rom. 6 16. Ans. It is not fit for man to stand up and disput wickedly for God and under a shew of zeal for and patronage of his Wisdome condemne the same His folly is wiser than our wisdome What methods God could have found out whereby He might have been served by men what proud man will take upon him to determine The methode he hath chosen should satisfie us But to the matter when God's people are serving Him with some measure of sincerity and uprightness of heart howbeit the devil opposeth and by his temptations and the co-working of corruption prevaileth much to hold back or to cause the soul move slowly Yet the heart and the renewed part of the man being for God and for God only and directly against Satan and all his wayes doings and designes there is no formal service performed unto Saâ—an for the Lord regardeth the heart And though oft times there be more corruption in the work than grace Yet the heart being upright in the main the denomination is from the better part And albeit how more sin be in the action that is gone about by the honest Beleever in weakness Satan be the glader Yet in that the beleever cannot be called his servant For the Apostle in the place cited saith not he that sinneth but he that yeeldeth himself up as a servanâ— to obey sin is the servant of sin No doubt if the Lord had seen it for his glory he could have so ordered it that his children from the day of their new birth should never have sinned more but He hath thought it good that they should be exercised with a spiritual warfare all their dayes against Satan and a wicked world without and a body of death and its members within that his power might be made perfect in their weakness that they might live by Faith and get continual proofs of God's Power Love Care Faithfulness Grace Mercy and Tenderness that they might daily have use of the blood of Christ to wash in and so exercise Humility Godly sorrow Repentance Faith Patience Submission Watchfulness Diligence and might groan under the body of death that they might see through daily experience the riches and worth of their Redemption and read their great Obligations to their Lord Ransomer and Soveraigne King And if we were sober we might here mark wonderful wisdome and see a piece of the manifold wisdome of God But when we be come distracted as doubtless we are when we will be wise above what is written no wonder we become blinde and speak as fools as this man doth here and in the following words which I shall not so much as honour with a transcribing 20. He sayes our doctrine is repugnant to the justice of God requireing them to abstaine from all sin and not enabling them hereunto and requireing more then he giveth ability to do Ans. 1. The man runneth so hard that he runneth himself blinde Seeth he not that if this argument prove any thing it will prove that all the wicked world are perfect for God requireth of them obedience to his Law and it may be a question if hence it may not likewise be proven that the damned and the Devils are all perfect and without sin seing it may be a doubt if they be loosed from the Law of their Creation But 2. Though it were granted they had power I mean moral power for no other can be here understood yet this will not prove their perfection or freedom from sin many may have power and yet not use it Adam had power to resist Satans suggestion yet did it not His perfect ones may grow slack in their watch and so sin though he will grant they have power to do otherwise 3 This is old Pelagius's argument as Vâ—ssius cleareth to us Hist. Pelag. lib. 5. part 1. Thes. 6. where among other evidences he citeth Hieron adv Pelag. bringing-in Critobolus as a Pelagian reasoning thus Either God gave commandements that were possible or that were impossible if possible it is in our power to do them if we will if impossible we are not guilty if we do them not seing we cannot And thus whether the Lords command be possible or Impossible man may be without sin if he will Our Quaker is yet worse for the Pelagian would hence prove but a possibility of Perfection but he will hence evince the real being of Perfection and that common to all believers â— God made man upright and able to fulfil all his Law and when he hath dilapidated his stock of strength must God be unjust if he require due debt Or doth mans inability dissolve his obligation Seing God is pleased of his grace
4 11. that pastors are given for the perfecting of the Saints c. till we all come unto the unity of faith c. Answ. 1. Hence we see the necessity of a standing Ministrie which yet he and is brethren are against as we shall heare 2. The Ministrie is to bring them on toward perfection and is for the edifying and building up of the body and of particular souls till we all come at length into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. How is it proved that this ultimat end is attained here And further we told above that there was a perfection comparative and in parts here attainable and attained according to the measure of grace of the gift given to every man Ephes. 4 7. 1 Cor. 12 11. But not a perfection of degrees which excludeth all increase and grouth contrare to 2 Pet. 3 18. Phil. 3 12 2 Thes. 1 3. not such a perfection as excludeth all sin He addeth Pag. 158. doth not the Apostle say that the Scriptures are given to make the man of God perfect 2 Tim. 3.17 Answ. Yes And they do that in their owne manner as a perfect and compleat Rule giving full instruction and information in all things necessary to salvation contrare to what himself taught above so that the the man of God needeâ—h to hearken to no Dreames Enthusiasms or Precepts of men to learne what is God's wiâ—l How doth our doctrine make Prayers useless Are not these prayers saith he useless and without faith that are made for preservation from sin if withall they beleeve that God will not give them what they ask Answ. So said Crellius the Socinian But the doctrine of Perfection seemeth rather to take away all use of such Prayer for who will pray for that which they have 2. If saints pray for a sinless state here they pray without warrand He that taught us to pray that we be not led into temptation taught us also to pray for forgiveness of sinnes But saith he what shall we say of the prayers of the Apostles Col. 4 12. 1 Thes. 3 13. 5 22 c. Did they pray so without faith Ans. This is another of Crellius arguments But we say The Prayers of the Apostles were not for a sinless state nor did they beleeve that the Saints here could be in such a state as to sinne no more Nay while they prayed thus for the saints they supposed that the saints had not yet attained to it Epaphras not the Apostle Paul is said Col. 4 12. to labour fervently in prayer that the Colossians might stand perfect and compleat in all the will of God that is might set the will of God only before them as their Rule and hang upon no man as to their Christian conduct but walk in sincerity as becometh Christians following the rule of Gods Law and might not be alwayes câ—ildren tossed to and fro with every winde of doctrine and spoiled through Philosophy and vaine deceit after the tradition of men after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ as there was ground to feare as we see Chap. 2. Paul 1 Thes. 3 12 13. is clear against this imagined Perfection for he prayeth that God would make them to increase and abound in love so that thâ—re was yet some shortcoming to the end he might establish their hearts unblameable in holiness at the coming of our Lord Iesus Christ. So that he sheweth not what a measure of love and holiness they will attaine unto here but prayeth that it might alwayes be growing untill it attaine its full perfection at the coming of the Lord. The same is clear from 2 Thes. 5 23. Which maketh against this imagined perfection and speaketh only of a perfection of parts not of degrees 24. In the fift place he reasoneth thus Pag. 158. § 7. Our doctrine is repugnant to common sense and reason Why so for these two opposite principles in the children of darkness and in the children of light are sin and righteousness And as men are respectively fermented with the one or the other so are they to be called justified or reprobated seing he that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just even they both are abomination to the Lord Prov. 17 15. Ans. This argument would prove as well that full perfection which he denieth to be common to all the Regenerat to be essential to the state of Christianity and therefore he must answere it as well as we But 2. That there are contrary principles in the godly and wicked is true and it is as true that there remaineth sin in the godly which floweth from a principle of corruption yet the Godly man is not fermented to speak in the dialect of the Quaker or rather to speak in the dialect of the Scriptures is not under the dominion of that principle nor given up thereunto as the wicked are with full will consent and pleasure without any reluctancy or lusting of a contrary principle 3. It is not saife to call all not yet justified reprobat 4. The Lord justifieth none upon the account of their Inherent Righteousness and indeed this mans opinion tendeth to a setting up of Justification by the works of the law or inherent righteousness for if man can abide in all things that are written in the Law he should be free of the curse Gal. 3 10. But this is contrary to the experience of the best of Saints Psal. 130 3. 143 2. Iob. 9 3. 4â— 5. 1 Cor. 4 4. And the Law should not then be weak because of flesh contrare to Rom. 8.3 And contrare to that Iam. 2 10. He who trangresseth in one is guilty in all and contrary to these Scriptures Gal. 3 21 22. 2 21 3 10. further sayes he Then a man should be called just who sinneth in all his actions Ans. No man is calleâ— just before God in point of Justification becauâ—e of his Inherent Righteousness but because of the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to him by God received by faith And as to sanctification such may be called just because of Integrity Sincerity Uprightness of heart because of Endeavouring after conformity to the Law in the strengh of the Lord upon which account the man is approven of God but not because he is sinless for then no man should goe under that denomination But sayes he the subject is donominated by the accident that adhereth Ans. Yet a wall is called white though the whiteness be not perfect but mixed And God giveth the denomination according to grace that is according to the better part though it sometimes should be the lesser part He asketh where are then the children of God and of light the sanctified and purified ones Ans. Even where these are who are groaning under a body of death and running daily to the