Truth triumphant through the spiritual warfare, Christian labours, and writings of that able and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, Robert Barclay, who deceased at his own house at Urie in the kingdom of Scotland, the 3 day of the 8 month 1690.

SECT. V.

Wherein his Fifth and Sixth Chapters, Intituled by him, Of Man's Natural State, and Of Original Sin, are Considered.

1. AFter he has Repeated some of my words, he Complains, I speak darkly; and having given his usual, malitious In∣sinuations, that I do it of Design, and have some Mysteries under it; He takes upon him to endeavour to guess at my Meaning, and bestows many Pages to frame one Conjecture after another: and then spends many words to Refute these Shadows, and Men of Straw of his own making. And yet at the end of all he Confesses, He doubts, whether he has got or hit my Meaning; And to be sure then, he must be as Ʋncertain, that he has Refuted it; and there∣fore knoweth not, but all his Reasonings against his own Conje∣ctures are Impertinent. For after he hath written one Conjecture, and bestows much labour in Refuting it; his own words are (p. 91. n 5.) If this be not his true meaning, let us try another Conjecture: which shews, he knows not, whether what he said before, was to the purpose. Thus he spendeth pag. 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98. in which last Page he is very Angry, that I should Condemn the Socinians and Pelagians; but the Reason is manifest, because he would so willingly have it believed, that I am one with them. And albeit I could not in Reason be Obliged to say any thing more to these Pages; yet that none of these fictitious and false Conjectures may catch any unwary Rea∣der, I do freely Affirm, that I believe, Man fell, and was dege∣nerated

both as to Soul and Body: and I understand, the first A∣dam, (or Earthly Man) to Comprehend both. But that there was something in Adam, which was no part of his Soul and Body, nor yet Constitutive of his being a Man (in my Judgment) which could not degenerate, and which was in Adam by the Fall Redu∣ced to a Seed, and could never have been Raised in him again to his Comfort, but by a New Visitation of Life, which from Christ by the Promise was Administred unto him, and is to all Men in a Day, (for to say, the affirming such a Seed remained in Adam when he fell, doth Infer, his Ʋnderstanding was not hurt; and, as he doth p. 94. is a Consequence I deny, and remains for him to prove) That to believe, there was such a thing in Adam, which the Scripture calleth Spiraculum vitarum, the Breath of Lives, is no New-Coin'd Doctrine: as those may see, that will read Atha∣nasius de Definitionibus, and his Third Dialogue de Trinitate, and Fourth Oration against the Arians; and Cyrillus Alexandrinus in his Treatise upon John, lib. 2. and 3. and lib. 8.47. and in his Thesaurus lib. 4. and Others, that might be mentioned. As for his arguing (p. 96) that because I affirm, The Seed of God is a Substance, therefore (according to me) the Seed of Sin must be a Substance also; which Consequence I deny: and therefore what he builds against me upon this Supposition, falls to the ground. What he saith here and there scattered in these Pages of the Light, will in its proper place come more fully to be Considered.

¶ 2. Pag. 98. n. 17. after he has saluted me with the Titles of Effronted and Impudent, he will have me one with Socinians and Pelagians, because I deny, Outward Death to be a Consequence of the Fall; but where he proves I do so, I see not. It's true I say, The death threatned (Gen. 2.17.) was not outward death; for A∣dam did not so die the Day he did eat; and I do still believe so; neither offereth he me any thing to give me ground to alter my mind: but to Conclude thence, I deny Outward Death to be a Consequence of the Fall, was too hastily Inferred. But what! if I were Ʋndetermined in this matter, and that it remained a Mystery to me? (for I believe not the being positive therein, Essential to my Salvation) which if I were, truly, what he saith, seems not to me sufficient to Proselite me to his Opinion. For albeit I willingly Confess with him, that Sickness and all the other Miseries attend∣ing this Life, yea and Death it self, considering the Anguishes wherewith it is now generally accompanied, are the Consequence of the Fall, and of Sin; yet I see not, how it would thence fol∣low, that Adam should not have died; seeing Death to him, if he had not fall'n, would have been freed of all these Miseries, and rather a Pleasure, than a Pain: which has been known to have befall'n many Saints. As for his n. 19. he Confesseth; the matter of it is left to the next Chapter, where I may meet him.

¶ 3. Pag. 100. n. 20. He goes on at an high rate of Perverting. For after he has said; Who would suspect, but I mean honestly? He applieth to me the saying of Solomon, He that hateth, dissembleth with his Lips, we must not believe him; for there are seven Abomi∣nations in his heart. But why am I with him guilty of this great

Charge? Because albeit I affirm, That Man is wholly degenerate, yet I say, Whatever good Man doth in his Nature, that doth not proceed from him, but from the Divine Seed in him, Answ. These words are none of mine, but a Forgery of his own; so incident it is for the Man to lie and pervert: And therefore all his vapouring and absurd Inferences drawn from this throughout this Paragraph, fall to the ground. My words are, That the nature, by which the Apostle saith, the Gentiles did the things Contained in the Law, cannot be understood of the proper, Corrupt Nature of Man, but of a Spiritual Nature, which proceedeth from the Seed of God, as he re∣ceiveth a New Visitation of the Divine Love: Where it is very plain, I consider Man, as visited a-new, and that in the Strength of that Grace thereby received (not of his degenerate Nature) he doth that which is good. Nor do I any where say, as he falsly in∣sinuates, That this Spiritual Nature is in all Men; though I do say, That all Men are visited by God, in order to beget this spiritual Nature in them; as will after come in its place to be spoken of. Now all his battering of this my Assertion in the three following pages depends upon this Supposition; That the good Acts done by the Gentiles, are not done by vertue of any such Visitation, but only by a Light of Corrupt Nature, which remained in them after the Fall: So that it is but a meer begging of the Question, until that be first debated. But he thinks, he has brought me under a great Dilem∣ma, p. 103. urging, That since I say, All their Imaginations are Evil, I must say, Every Heathen has this Spiritual Nature in him, yea, and the Devils must be Partakers of it; because they believe, there is a God, which is a good Thought. Answ. He is too hasty in his Reasonings: for that the knowledge a Man may receive from the Divine Seed, makes him instantly to partake of the Divine Na∣ture, is not proved by him; and he knows, I believe all Men to be Visited by this Divine Seed, which may give them an Head know∣ledge, which they may retain (as some Men do the Truth) in Ʋn∣righteousness; and yet not receive it in the Love of it: So though they have it from a Divine Seed, yet it will not follow they must necessarily so receive it, as to become Partakers of the Divine Nature. And as for the Devils, he will Confess that once they had this Knowledge from a Spiritual Nature; and though they have fall'n, yet they may retain the Memory of it: for that their Fall and Man's is every way alike, he will not Affirm. He saith p. 102. That to believe good done by Heathens (that is, by such as have not the benefit of the outward Knowledge of Christ) is done in vertue of a Divine Seed, overturns the Gospel; but he leaves the Confirmation of it to the Sequel, where I shall attend him. N. 25. he tells me very fairly, The Apostle doth not Contradict himself; as if I had ever imagined he did: but the question is, Whether the Meaning he gives the Apostle's words, implies not a Contradiction? which indeed he can no ways Reconcile, but upon the Supposition above denied: And the Reader may judge, whether he or I do most fully acknowledge Man's fall, and most truly Exalt the Grace of God; he that affirmeth, That Man, notwith∣standing the Fall, yet retaineth some Reliques of the Image of God,

yea so, that the Law of God, which is Holy, Just, Good and Spiri∣tual, is written in his Heart, pag. 105. and all this Considered as fall'n Man, without receiving any Grace and Benefit from Christ: or I, who affirm, That Man by the Fall was wholly degenerated, re∣taining nothing of the Image of God; in whom albeit there remain∣ed a Seed of Righteousness, yet no other ways, than as a Naked Seed in Barren Ground, in vertue of which he can do nothing, until visi∣ted by a New Visitation, which he receives by vertue of Christ, as Mediator. And yet while he ascribeth all this to Ʋnregenerate Men, he saith in a few Lines, That the Apostle and all Regenerate Men are in a certain respect Carnal: So his Divinity will run thus; The Devil and all Unregenerate Men are in a certain respect Spiritual, and the Apostle and all Regenerate are in a certain re∣spect Carnal.

¶ 4. But he thinks, in the following page 106. he has gotten me in a notable Contradiction; so that he concludeth, if I may have occasion to Contradict the Truth, I care not, how often I Contradict my self; and that is, by asking me this Question: Wherein appeared the Wisdom of the Wise Men among the Greeks, if not in the knowledge of the Things of God? I Answer: In the Wise and Prudent Management of Worldly Affairs: For he hath not proved, that is necessarily united to a Knowledge of God and things Spiritual; since it is said of some Beasts, that they have something of this, such as Bees and Ants, &c. And whereas he asks, Wherein Men differ from Brutes then? I say, In many things; as in the knowledge of Numbers, and Mathematical and Mechani∣cal Demonstrations: Is the Knowledge of such natural Truths (as 2 and 3 makes 5: and the whole is greater than the part, and all that's deduced there-from) the knowledge of the things of God? And yet is not this further, than what Beasts know? And to shew him his forwardness in this, let him shew me, if he admit not this, how the Wisdom of this World is Foolishness with God, and the Wisdom of God Foolishness with Men? At last he comes p. 107. and to the end of this Chapter, to prove, That there doth remain in Man some Reliques of the Image of God, notwithstanding the Fall; which he builds upon that saying of the Apostle, Rom. 1.19. Because that which may be known of God, is manifest in them; and the reason he urgeth, is, Because it was known not to a few only. Answ. This is very true; but makes nothing for him: for here (as for the most part else-where) he with an unparallel'd Confi∣dence (not to say Impudence) every where begs the Question. First, in that he (supposeth that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or what is to be known of God, is somewhat, that Man retained in the Fall, and no New Visitation of Light and Grace; which he knows I deny. And Se∣condly,: That it must be so; because all Men have it: where he supposeth, that all Men receive not such a Visitation; which he knows I also deny: and yet he Concludes, without offering to prove either of them. Who but one Desperate, and that cares not, how Ri∣diculous and Absurd he be, if he can but heap together a Company of Railing Words, would urge his Adversary by Mediums, which he knows he denies; without first proving them, or at least attempt∣ing so to do?

¶ 5. Next followeth his Sixth Chapter, Intituled, Of Original Sin: in which nothing of what he saith, can touch me; but so far as he proves, That those, who never actually sinned (such as Infants) are guilty of Adam's sin: Therefore what he saith of others, who affirm, That Man sustained no hurt by Adam, but by Imitation, Concerns me not; since I say no such thing: And yet he thinks it a Paradox for me to say (albeit he cannot deny but it is true) that I deny the Errors of such. And of this nature is, what he writes in the first four Pages of this Chapter: in the last of which he goes (after his Custom) as it were, to pump for the Meaning of my Words, that he may Insinuate to the Reader, as if I wrote all in the Dark, and had great Mysteries under them; whereas any one that reads them, may see, they are so plain, that they need no Commentary. For who is so weak, as not to understand me saying, That the Seed of Sin is not Imputed to Infants, until they actually join with it? He comes, p. 114. n. 8. to Exa∣min, what he saith, I say in defence of this Error: And first he will take notice, of what I say of Augustin, whom he alledgeth I Abuse, because I say, that he was the first among the Ancients. that opened the way to his Opinion in his declining Age, out of Zeal: But will he deny, that Augustin wrote most Zealously against Pelagius in his declining Age? Next he shews here his great Disingenuity: For while he names many of the Ancients, as being of the same Mind, and whom Augustin also cited against Pelagius, he gives none of their Words; that it might have been seen, whether it was in this, that they Condemned him, to wit, That Infants are not guilty of Adam's Sin: For these Citations may relate to that, which was accounted indeed Pelagianism, to wit, That Man by Nature with∣out the Grace of God could fulfil the Law, yea, that he needed not Grace to perform the Will of God; which was the thing, for which Pelagius was Condemned by the African Synod. As for the Citation he gives of Augustin, saying, He was of the same Mind since the beginning of his Conversion; seeing, in this Place Augustin's Words, which he saith he has held, are no more than the Express Words of the Apostle, Rom. 5.12. which J. B. has not yet proved to Import, that Infants are guilty of Adam's Sin: So if he has no better way to prove Augustin's positive Judgment in the Case, than this, he doth but give a Token of his own Effrontedness and shameless Boldness, not of Mine. But since he seems so great an Admirer of Augustin, as an honoured Instrument of the Lord, and an Holy Father, (as he terms him) then I desire to know, Whether he will agree to all that Augustin hath written? which if he will not do, he doth ill to Accuse me for Condemning Augustin, as Errone∣ous in some things: And if he will, I may then shew him, That Augustin both Commended and Practised things, which he and his Brethren Cried-out against as Superstition, Will-worship and Abo∣minable Popery and Idolatry; and for far less, than which they have Excommunicated their Fellow Preachers: Which shews in effect meaner Thoughts of him, than I have yet Expressed. My Argument drawn from Ephes. 2.3. (where the Apostle Ascribes the Reason of Mems being Children of Wrath to their Evil Deeds)

he saith, was the Fathers against Pelagius. And what then? doth that render it null? But his own Answer to it is Rare, saying,

He thinks, I put out my Eyes, that do not observe, how the Apostle changes the second Person, saying; [Among whom also we all had our Conversation in times past,—and were by Nature the Children of Wrath]

whence the Man wisely infers, That Paul and the Jews were the Children of Wrath; which is not denied: but they must have quick Eyes indeed, that see it from thence to be Inferred, that they were such, ere they Committed any Actual Sin; since the Apostle ex∣presly mentions his and their having had their Conversation among the World as a Reason of their having been in the same Condition. He saith further, 1 Confess 1 Cor. 2. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be under∣stood of the Rational Soul: And what then? Therefore so soon as they partake of the Rational Soul, they become Children of Wrath; This is indeed a rare Consequence: But he must Excuse me for not Admitting it, till better proved. It would seem much more Ra∣tional to say, That so soon as they come to the Exercise of their Ra∣tional Soul, and then do Evil, they become guilty; for he cannot deny, That the Gospel nor Condemneth, nor Threatneth any Man, but him that has Actually Sinned: And whether this destroys not his Cause, the Reader may judge. That, Except a Man be born again, he cannot enter the Kingdom, I never denied. Albeit Chil∣dren be capable of Death, yet it will not follow, that they are Guilty of Sin, since Death is no Punishment, but rather an Advan∣tage to such; to whom it's a Transition to a better Life. He thinks, p. 117. that my saying, Such as homologate their Fathers Sins, God will visit the Iniquities of their Fathers upon them, is no worth Noticing; but whether his Answer be worth Noticing, the Reader may judge, which is: That Adam's sin was not a per∣sonal Sin, as other Mens are, and his own After-sins; but the Man forgot to prove this, and therefore may do it next. But he thinks, the Children of Core, Dathan and Abiram, of Achan and the Sodo∣mites, were judged guilty of their Fathers Sins; for unless he proves that, he saith nothing: But for what Reason, I know not; unless that they were outwardly destroyed: But until he prove, that infers Guilt, he must forbear making his Conclusion. He is highly offended should say, Their Opinion is contrary to the Justice and Mer∣cy of God; alledging, It is without proof: But if to account one guilty for a Sin committed by another Thousands of years, ere they had a Being, and to punish for it, be not against Justice, and inconsistent with Mercy, I desire to know of him, what is more Ʋnjust and Ʋnmerciful? To say, that this is an Accusing of God, is but a silly begging of the Question, until he has first proved his Opinion to be true: It's no Accusing of God to Condemn Mens Opinions, when con∣trary to his Nature. He will have it to be a Rapsody of Non-sense when I say,

This proceeds from Self-love founded on their Opinion, of Absolute Reprobation;

but whether it be, or not, the Reader may judge: Sure, his saying it makes it not so. That this of In∣fants being guilty of Adam's Sin, and therefore many of them being damned, depends upon their Doctrine of Reprobation, no Man of Sense, that knows their Doctrine, will deny; since they say, some

Infants are saved, because Elected: Are not the rest then (accord∣ing to them) Damned, because Reprobated? He gives me nothing here in answer, but Railing; and so concludes this Paragraph with this notable Saying; Wo, Isay (that is, J. Brown forsooth) and thrice Wo to such, as drink-in this Man's Doctrine, and live and die accordingly (p. 118. n. 14.) He thinks, my saying, Papists are more Charitable in allowing a Limbus to Children, shews my Affection to them; but he has not heard me allow of their Notion of a Lim∣bus, as he does (in the Chapter of Justification, p. 310.) of the Opinion of a certain Popish Cardinal; preferring it not only to what is said by William Forbes, a Protestant Bishop, but even (as it would appear) to Richard Baxter, his ancient Presbyterian Brother: And in pursuance of this he asks, How they come to Hea∣ven (meaning Children) who have nothing to do with Christ? But then what will he say of those, he accounts Elect Children? go they to Heaven without Christ? If not, the difficulty is the same way resolved. To prove Children are under a Law, and subject to Transgression, he gives the Common Practices among Men, who forfeit Children; yea such, as are unborn, with their Fathers for great Crimes: But in what Country do they use to kill all the Children, when the Father is put to Death for a Crime? and unless this were done, his Comparison infers not the Point. His plain answer (he saith) is, Adam his being a Publick Person; of which hereafter. To my Citation Ezech. 18.20. The Son shall not bear the Father's Iniquity, he preaches at large upon the Words, alledg∣ing, his Meaning is, that those Persons he wrote to, had so much Sin of their own, that God might justly judge them; albeit he did not visit them for their Fathers Iniquities: And this is the quick Dispatch he saith this Place receives: It is a quick Way to Dispatch indeed, if it were Valid, to make the Meaning destroy the Text; But Men of Sense use not to be sudden in receiving such Dispatches. The Words are plain and positive, The Son shall not bear the Father's Iniquity; therefore, until he give Ground from plain Scripture to take it away, it must stand to the overthrow of his Doctrine: for the greater Sinners those Men were, the more justly and deservedly might their Father's Iniquity be laid upon them.

¶ 6. Pag. 120. n. 17. He cometh from my Confession, That Adam was a publick Person, to infer, That the guilt passeth from him to all: And first in this page he affirmeth, That this Sin of Adam's, from whence Original Sin proceeds, is the Sin of the whole Nature of Mankind, and not like Adam's After-sins, and the Sins of other Men; which he confesses, are not the Sins of the whole Nature. And because upon this dependeth much, of what he infers; he had done well to have proved this in the first Place by some Scripture: Till which Time his Inference is not to be Re∣ceived. For did Adam Cease to be a publick Person, after he had Committed that Sin? If he say, Yea, let him prove it by plain Scripture; for I deny it: If not, then his other Sins must be Imputed to all Men (which he denies) or else nothing can be urged from his being a publick Person. And while to urge it, he asketh, Did ever any hear one stated as a Publick Person, whose

Failings could have no Effect, until the Persons represented did testify their Approbation of it? For here speaking of Failings, he must either Conclude in Contradiction to himself, That Adam's Sins are laid to the Charge of his Posterity; or his Instance is wholly Imperti∣nent. And yet (to go round again) he takes notice, p. 125. That the Apostle names One Offence in the Singular Number, as if thence he would Infer, that One Sin is only Transmitted: But how he proves his Consequence thence, he has not shewen. For albeit by that first Offence he gave Entrance for Sin, that being his First; yet it will not follow, he then ceased to be a publick Person: and if not, nothing can be proved from granting him to be such, as is above observed. Next, the Words are, The Offence of one, and not, One Offence, as he would Insinuate; which (though in the Singular Number) may include many, yea all his Offences. For whatever way he seek to urge this from this Place as to Adam, the parallel will allow it to be Interpreted of Christ; where the Apostle speaking of his Righteousness useth also the Singular Number: and thence according to him we might say, that it is only the first Act of Christ's Righteousness, that is Imputed unto us, and none of the rest; so that we have nothing to do with his Death, Sufferings and Resurrection. What thinks he now of his own Divinity? Let him loose his Knot the next time (to give him one of his own modestest Proverbs.) The Absurdity he seeks to draw from denying this Consequence of his being a publick Person, That if Adam had stood, Infants should have no Advantage by him, since they have no hurt by his Fall, Toucheth not me at all; who no where say, That Infants have no Hurt by Adam's Fall. Adam by his Fall lost his Glory, his Strength, his Dominion, by which he could have easily withstood the Devil; and came under great Weakness, where∣by the Enemy's Tentations had a ready Access to him, and he be∣came very obnoxious to fall under them: And so all his Posterity are come under the same Weakness and Obnoxiousness to the Ene∣my's Tentations, who influenceth them by Entring into them, and powerfully Inclining them to Sin; and this malignant Influence is that Seed of Sin in all Men, whereunto they become obnoxious by reason of the Fall: which though in it self really Sin, yet is it not Man's, but the Devil's, until Man give Way to it. But I deny not, but the least yielding is Man's Sin; among which I reckon Concupiscence to be one; and so differ from Papists. For albeit the Tentation simply considered, or as presented by the Devil, be not Man's Sin; yet if he have the least Love or Desire to it, albeit he join not Actually, that shews, his Mind is already defiled and corrupted, and that he is become a Partaker of it. Thus are an∣swered his Reasonings and Questionings, How this Seed of Sin can be, and yet not the Persons Sin? p. 121, 122, &c. as the Reader by Comparing may observe. Only it is remarkable, p. 121. where he seems to put a great Stress upon the Judgment of Augustin, and citing him, he brings him in saying these Words (among others) concerning Infants; Shall they sin, that are under no Command? Now since they, who are under no Command, are under no Law (for every Law imports a Command) how will he reconcile this

saying or his Holy Father, which he brings as a matter of Autho∣rity, with his accounting it both foolish and strange in me p. 119. to prove, Children are under no Law? So that either the Authority of Augustin he brings, is not to be regarded; or his Reasonings to prove Children under a Law, that is, a Command, must be naught: let him chuse which he will, and clear himself of Impertinency. His Argument in this page, That as the Seed of Grace denominates a Man gracious, even while not exercising works of Grace; so the Seed of Sin must denominate a Man sinful, is but a begging of the Question: as in its place will appear, when I come to treat of the Seed of Grace.

¶ 7. When he cometh p. 123. n. 18. to Reply to my Answer to their Objection, Rom. 5.12. among his preliminary Observati∣ons the first is very proper, where he saith; It is observable, the Apostle makes Comparison betwixt Adam and Christ. I answer; It is indeed so: for as the Righteousness of Christ is not imputed to Men for Justification, until they actually Join with it, or apprehend it by Faith, (as himself will acknowledge, for I suppose, by his accounting the Antinomians Hereticks, he will not with them af∣firm, that Men are Justified, before they believe;) so neither is the Ʋnrighteousness and Disobedience of Adam Imputed to Men for Con∣demnation, until they actually Join with it: but this Comparison spoils all his Doctrine. Then after he has beg'd the Question a while, by meer Allegations, affirming; his Doctrine to be so clear from the Apostle's words, that it cannot be Contradicted, without doing violence to the Text; he forms an Argument thus:

That Sin, which is so described to us by the Apostle, that he saith, it 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 rendreth the whole Nature obnoxious to Death, and to Condemnation. But

The first Sin of Adam is described to us by the Apostle, &c. Ergo

That Sin is the Sin of Nature, &c.

This Argument may perhaps satisfy such, as are already Prose∣lites of his Theam: but will not Convince one, that either believes other ways, or doubts; since the Major is a meer begging of the Question. And if any thing be a foisting-in of words to the Text, this must be it: since he foists-in the thing in Debate, and words not in the Text, such as [Even they, who could not as yet actually Sin] and joineth them with the words of the Text without di∣stinction, and not as an Interpretation; that his unwary Reader may Conclude them to be of the Text. And yet the Man has the Impudence in the same page to Accuse me of Intolerable Boldness, as foisting words into the Text, while I expresly shew, it is but an Interpretation, by saying, That is, &c. so much is he blinded with Self-Interest: but I am Content, there be neither Addition, nor so much as Consequence made use of. Let him shew me the plain Scripture, that saith, Infants are guilty of Adam's Sin? If he say,

It must be necessarily Inferred from these words, [in whom all have sinned] I say, it as necessarily follows, that it is only to be under∣stood of all that could sin, which Infants could not; as not being under any Law, as I have above proved, and Augustin (whom he so much reverenceth) doth affirm, if his Citation from him be true. And therefore finding this to pinch him, he brings it up again p. 126. where bringing me in saying, Infants are under no Law, he answers; But the Apostle saith the contrary: He would have done Charitably to have told me Where? that I might have observed it. What he saith in this, as well as the former page in answer to my Affirmation, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may relate to Death, and that it's understood [upon which occasion Man sinned••] urging Ab∣surdities by the like Application of Christ's Righteousness; is solved by a serious observation of the Comparison, as stated by me be∣twixt Christ and Adam. His Arguing from Childrens dying doth not Conclude, until he prove Death simply considered, necessarily to infer guilt in the Party dying, of which I have spoken before p. 126. n. 20. to my answer to Psal. 51.5. alledged by them, wherein I shew, that David saith not. My Mother conceived me sinning; and therefore it proves not his Assertion. His Reply is (after he has given a Scoff) It quite crosseth David's design: But why so? because in that Psalm he expresseth his Sorrow and Humili∣ation for his Sins? and what then? might not David lament upon that occasion, that he was not only a Sinner himself, but also came of such, as were so? But when I urge this place further, shewing, their Interpretation would make Infants guilty of the Sin of their Immediate Parents, since there is no mention here of A∣dam; His Answer to this is a Repetition of his own Doctrine: A rare Method of Debate, very usual to him! And then taking it for granted, he asks me; Whether this Originated Sin (of which he supposed David spake, for he never offers to prove it, though it be the matter in Debate) came from another Original than Adam? What he affirmed here of my Insinuating Marriage-Duties to be Sin, is but a false Conjecture: but as to the Hurt and Loss, that Man got by Adam, which I ascribe to no other Original (as be∣ing no Manichee) I spake before. But he should first prove, be∣fore he Obtrude such things upon others (and I desire yet to be In∣formed of him) In what Scripture he reads of Original Sin? and whether, if the Scripture be the only Rule, he cannot find words in it fit enough to express his Faith? or must he shift for them else-where?

¶ 8. Pag. 127. n. 21. He urges Paul's saying, The Wages of Sin is Death; and to my saying

[This may be a Consequence of the Fall; but that thence it cannot at all be Inferred, that Iniquity is in all those that are subject to Death]

he saith; It is in plain terms (but my Modesty dare not speak it out) to say, the Apostle speaketh not Truth. Answ. Is not this to take upon him to judge of another Man's heart, which else••where he accounts a great Presumption? and why takes he no notice, or gives he no Answer to the Absurdity I shew, followed from thence, since the whole Creation received a Decay by Adam's Fall, and yet we say not,

Herbs and Trees are Sinners? And while he would make-out this great Charge of my Contradicting the Apostle, he forgets the half of his business, which is To prove, the Apostle meaned in that place Natural Death, and not Eternal; since the Apostle oppo∣seth it there to Eternal Life: and Eternal Death he will Confess, is the Wages of Sin, which the Apostle shews they shun by Jesus Christ's obtaining Eternal Life; whereas Natural Death they do not avoid. Likewise he should have proved, that all the Scri∣ptures mentioned by him, p. 128. are meant of Natural Death; which he will not find very easie. As for his citing Death, as mentioned by, the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. the Apostle's words, ver. 56. Confirm, what I say, That Death is only a punishment to the Wicked, not to the Saints: for the words are, The Sting of Death is Sin; so where Sin is taken away, there Death has no Sting; and that is the Saints Victory▪ Now he cannot Apply this to Infants, without supposing, that they have Sin; which were to beg the Question. And whereas he asks, Whether Death be NO Punish∣ment for Sin? I Answer, that I said not so; neither is that need∣ful for me to affirm, seeing it is sufficient, if it be not always a Punishment of Sin: which if it be not, it cannot be Concluded, that because Infants die, therefore they must be guilty of Sin. Since then the Absurdities he after urges, follow from his Supposi∣tion, That Death is No Punishment for Sin (which I say not) they do not Touch me. He judgeth, p. 128. n. 22. That I run wilder, than Papists, in saying,

We will rather admit the suppo∣sed Absurdity of saying, All Infants are Saved, to follow from our Doctrine, than with them say, That Innumerable Infants perish Eternally, not for their own, but only for Adam's Fault:

This he reckons a Contradicting of my Doctrine of Christ's dying for all, saying, I here grant, That all Infants will be saved without Christ. What horrible Lie is this? Where say I, That all Infants will be saved without Christ? If he say, it is by Consequence, that I say so, (which he must needs do, or else be an Impudent, Ʋnparallel'd Ly∣ar) then he Infers it either from my saying, Christ died for all: Therefore if all Infants are saved, it must be without Christ; or that, If all Infants be saved, Christ cannot have died for all: for one of these two must be, If I Contradict my self. But such Consequences are only fit for such an Author, as seems to have a∣bandoned all sense of Honesty and Christian Reputation, and resolves per fas aut nefas, and without Rime or Reason (as the Proverb is) to bespatter his Adversary▪ As for his adding, They that have no Sin, have no need of a Saviour to save them from Sin, He Overturns it all by asking me, (in which also lies the pinch of his matter) Since I affirm, they have a Seed of Sin in them, which is called Death and the Old Man, how can they put-off this, and sing the Song of the Redeemed, which all that enter into Glory, must do? Does not this then shew, I believe, they have need of Christ, as a Saviour, who died for them, to deliver them from this? And is not the Con∣tradiction his own in urging this Question? which I thus answer: How are those he accounts Elect Infants, saved, whom he affirms to be really guilty of Adam's Sin, and so in a worse Condition,

than I affirm Infants to be? (for he will not say with Pa∣pists and Lutherans, that the Administring of that they call the Sacrament of Baptism, does it?) When he Answers this, he will solve his own Argument. To insinuate, That some Infants are damned, he asketh me; What I think of those of Sodom, Jude v. 7. the words are these: Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Cities about them in like manner giving themselves over to Fornication, and going after strange Flesh, are set forth for an Ex∣ample, suffering the Vengeance of Eternal Fire. But it is strange, the Man should be so desperately Audacious, as to proclaim his own Sottishness to the World: Is there a word here of Infants? Is not the very Reason of suffering the Vengeance of Eternal Fire given, because of their giving themselves over to Fornication? which Reason could not touch Infants. Pag. 129. he thinks, I wrong Zuinglius upon the Credit of the Council of Trent; but if the Council of Trent wronged Zuinglius, in Condemning him for that he was not guilty of, he and his Brethren have the ho∣nour to have their Judgment Approved by that Council, while ours is Condemned: and let him Remember how he useth to up∣braid me with Affinity with Papists; yea, in this very Chapter upon less ground. Pag. 130. he goes about to prove his matter from several Scriptures; but how shallowly, the Reader may easily observe. (1.) He citeth Gen. 6.5. Mans thoughts are evil con∣tinually: What then? Are Infants therefore guilty of Adam's Sin, that's the thing in Question? But the Hebrew signifies a pueritiis, from their Infancy: What then? how proves that the Case? I do not deny, but Children may become guilty of Sin very early; but the question is, Whether they be guilty of Adam's Sin even in their Mothers Womb? And hereby we may see, he thinks not their Version so Exact, but J. B. must take upon him to Correct it, to help himself at a Dead Lift, as they say. The same way is answered the other Scriptures, that follow, Ezek. 16.4. Matth. 15.19. Eph. 2.3. which are yet more Impertinent; as the Reader by looking to them may see, and I might easily by Examining them particularly shew; if it were not, that I study Brevity, and delight not to glory over the Man's Impertinency. And though Infants perished in the Flood, and that was brought upon the Men and Women that sinned, for their Iniquities; yet it will not follow thence, that Infants are guilty of Sins, until he better prove, that Natural Death is always, and to all the Wa∣ges of Sin: albeit I confess with the Apostle, Eternal Death is. And indeed, if these Infants were punished at all, it must have been for the Sins of their Immediate Parents; which he will not affirm, since the Flood is not said to have come for Adam's Sin, but for their own: so this Instance clearly overturns his Assertion. I leave to the Reader's Judgment the Scriptures not men∣tioned at length, but set down by him, in this to judge, whe∣ther they prove the thing in Debate, to wit, That Infants are guilty of Adam's Sin? The Citations out of Augustin and Origen brought by him in the next page 131. the Reader may also judge of, (in case they be truly cited, which I cannot Examin at

present) whether they have Weight enough to Overturn, what has been here proved from Scripture. The words of Eliphaz (Job. 15.14.) speak of a Man, not of a Child; and therefore not to the purpose: neither do I believe, though the Spirit of God gave a Relation, of what Eliphaz said, that we ought to build our Faith upon his Affirmations. Next he urges Gen. c. 5. v. 3. And Adam—begat a Son in his own Likeness, after his Image; but this would prove Adam's Sons as guilty of all Sins, as that first, which he denied; or let him shew a ground for such a Distinction. And thus is further Answered, what he saith next page, Gen. 17.14. where it is said, The Man-Child that is Ʋncircumcised, shall be cut off; which he thinks so strong, that in a Vapor he desires me to Chew my Cud upon it: For if this Cutting-off was a Punishment of these Children for Sin, it must be for that of their Immediate Parents, who neglected to Circumcise them; which Adam could not do, and therefore could not Sin in omitting it: and since he will not say this, he can Ʋrge nothing from that place. He saith, The Fathers used to make use of these words of Christ, Joh. 3.5. Except a Man be born of Water, &c. But their Ʋsing it was upon their Mistake, that Baptism took away Original Sin; and that there∣fore Infants Ʋnbaptized could not to be saved. That Regenera∣tion is needful to Infants, I deny not; and whereas he asks, how they are Regenerate? I answered that before, asking him, How those he accounts Elect Infants, whom he confesses to be guilty of Adam's Sin, are Regenerate? He Confesses, The Fathers Argu∣ment, taken from sprinkling Infants with Water, (which they and he falsly call Baptism,) will Conclude nothing against me. But since he names here Initial Sacraments in the Plural Num∣ber, which the Fathers made use of; it seems, they had some more, than Baptism: And since he and his Brethren make use of no more as Initial, but Baptism, it seems he differs from them, in what they judged needful here, as well as the Qua∣kers. I have shewen above, how I Evite both Contradicting my self, as to Ʋniversal Redemption, and Excluding Infants from the benefit of Christ's death. And as for his last Question, Wherein did Christ Excell other Infants, if they be born without Sin? (he should have said, not guilty of Sin;) I answer: In that he had no Seed of Sin in him, as other Infants have; and that not only, but he had nothing of that Weakness and Propensity to yield to the Evil Influence thereof, as other Infants: but was in greater Strength, Glory and Dominion over it, than Adam, even before he fell. This shews his Priviledge above others, and in nothing Contradicteth, what I have said before.

Notes

• J. B. Con∣fesses himself in the Dark with Trying his uncertain Conjectures.
• The Fall of Man; and the Breath of lives (Spi∣raculum Vi∣tarum) re∣maining in Adam.
• Adam did not die an outward Death, the day he did Eat.
• How the Gentiles did the things of the Law?
• The diffe∣rence be∣tween Head-Knowledge and the par∣taking of the Divine Na∣ture.
• J. B's false Assertions that Man re∣tained some Relicks of the Image of God in the Fall.
• The Wis∣dom of the Greeks ap∣peared in their Worldly Affairs.
• That which may be known of God, &c. are not J. B.'s Re∣licks.
• J. B. of Original Sin.
• That the Seed of Sin is not imputed to Infants un∣til they Actu∣ally join with it.
• Children of Wrath are so for their evil Deeds.
• The Chil∣dren of Core, &c. Instanced.
• Some In∣fants Elected, some Repro∣bated, J. B.'s Opinion.
• The Son shall not bear the Father's Ini∣quity, how Explained by J. B?
• J. B. Infers Original Sin from Adam's being a pub∣lick Person.
• As by the Offence of one, &c. Objected.
• Adam by his Fall be∣came obnoxi∣ous to Tempta∣tions.
• Infants are under no Law.
• J. B. ta∣ken in his own Snare.
• As Christ's Righteousness, so Adam's Ʋn∣righteousness is not Imputed to Men, be∣fore actual Joining with either.
• J. B. foist's in words of his own to deceive his Reader.
• J. B.'s proofless As∣sertion of Infants under a Law.
• Whether Childrens DEATH argues Guilt in them.
• The Wa∣ges of Sin is Death, proved Eternal.
• Infants sa∣ved without Christ, J. B.'s horrible Lie.
• Infants are saved by Christ, who died for them.
• Sodom's Children, &c. not guilty of their Fathers Transgressions, nor of Adam's.
• Infants pe∣rishing in the Flood, proves not them guilty.
• Circumcisi∣on argues not Infants guilty.
• Regenerati∣on of Infants▪
• Christ's Birth without Sin, and the Birth of other Infants differ: