Quakerism the Path-Way to Paganism, Chapter 6

Quakerism the Path-Way to Paganism · Chapter 6

p. 110CHAP. VI. Of Original sin.

1. THat Man is now fallen and lying into a State of Sin and Misery, until he be delivered there from, cannot by any rational man be denyed. The very Heathen Philosophers have complained, as sensible of this; & vented many strange & uncouth Notions thereanent▪ But as to the Rise & Cause of this Disorder, Confusion & Misery, which was every where obvious, they remained blinde: the wisest of them, only were brought to say, that there was some hidden cause of all these 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 recove… 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 Gal… sheweth, in his Court of the Gentiles part. 1. lib. 3. c. 5. that …e had help from Scriptures, or Iewish Tradition, when he speaketh of the …ron age; and particularly, when he sayeth in his Tim…e… 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 ingenit… 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. p. 111lib. de Pecc. orig. c. 24.) quorum per unum venundati sumus sub peccato, per alterum redimimur a peccatis—proprie fides christian… consistitpunc; So that the doctrine of original sin, with the reality and manner of its …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 …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 Pal…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. …. 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 Tru…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 righ…eousness, and communion with God; and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled, in all the faculties and parts of soul and p. 112body. 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 sh…rter Catechismes, to this Question, Did all mankinde fall in Adams first transgressi…n; tis 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 transgressi…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 posteri…y: but as committed first by Adam, Paul Rom. 5▪ calleth it Sin, Offence, Transgression Diso…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 de…cent from Adam. Secondly There is that, w…ich followed upon, and flowed from, that transgression of Adam, according to the nature and tenour of t…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,

p. 1136. 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, th…t he did anathematize all the errours of Pelagians and Socinians; w…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 w…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 mentione… 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 Corrup…ion of nature, could not properly be said to be impu…ed; becau…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 …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 Ap…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, whic… he had been speaking of, viz. the Corrupt nature of Man. But Pag. 55. he would seem to c…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 p. 114nor his posterity. Whence you might think, that as Adam, by his fall, lost Original righteousness, and all aptitude, in Will, or Unde…standing, unto spiri…ual things, so …lso his Posterity, that came naturally of him, in this mans opinion; but his t…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 d…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 …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 wo…k of that worthy person, called his Retractations, wherein he reviewed all his former writings, and retracted several th…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 …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 d…ff…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 Though…s and Motives of that noble Instrument; yea he is so bold, as to condemne him of acting upon corrupt motives; as if no…hing had moved him to write for O…iginal sin, but eagerness of Z…al against Pelagius; no inward conviction of the truth not of the damnableness or danger of the Pelagian he…esie in this; no conviction of his duty to appear for truth. Doth this Q…aker consider, that hereby he is audaciously arrogating to himself Gods prerogative royal, of judging the secrets of the heart? Remembe…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 p. 115writting against his own conscience? I …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 him…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 Ca…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 …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 ze…l gainst the Pelagians (as he ignorantly and boldly affirmeth) for he had asserted it, in h…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 re…entissimâ neâ conversi…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 Q…aker read these words, and if he be not above measure effronted, let him blush at his shameless boldness. Let hi… read also August. lib 4 ad Boni…ac. c. 8. contra dua… Pelagianorum E…istolas, & lib. 3. de Pecc. Mer. & remiss. cap. 6. & 7. & lib. 1. adv. jul, resp. poster Pag 5.8. & 125. and he will p. 116see 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 the…e followeth another; for the only confirmation, which he adduceth, of his He…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 Or…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 foreign 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 b…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 p. 117albeit 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, p. 118they will not impute iniquity unto Men▪ we see that for crimes of …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 neare… to our case) committeth any fault, as such a person representing, all whom …e representeth must beare the guilt, and the inconvenience following there upon; and no man will account this unjust, or iniquous. 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 c…ant of the Palagians, as Vossius sheweth us Hist. Pelag. Pag. 206. And what Augustine replyed, he way see Ibid. Pag. 20….

13. He addeth a rhapsody of non-sense telling his readers, our opinion floweth from our self l…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 wh…ch might indee… excite any man of Understanding to commiserate this mans case, who is thus so transported with pa…sion, as he knoweth not what he is saying: only we see, that he mu…t spew out his gall again…t the Ortho…x doctrine of Election, before the fit time come; but when he cometh to t…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 befo…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, wit… 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 w…th us: But we must be satis…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 vo…ite fo…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 p. 119Bellarm. 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 tha… 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 Ad…m, the Apostle expresly asserts, in the last place cited viz. Rom: 5:12, 13, 14. even notwithstanding of this very O…jection, which he proleptically bringeth-in there, as the cohes…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 b… 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, …hat t…ese children were as wicked, as their fathers; if not more; and so the Lord might, according to this Mans owne concession, visite the iniquities of their Fathers upon them: But the scope of the place being clearly this, That so little grou…d had these people to alleige, that they were innocent, and that God had no quarrel again…t them, but for their fathers transgressions, so that their fathers did eat th… soure …rapes, and their teeth were therefore set on edge, though they themselves did eat no soure grape, being inn…c…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 h… might do in justice, and had one with others; but should follow a way with them, more suteable to their p. 120owne 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, and the sinnes of other parents are; but it is the proper sin of all Mankinde, who are partakers of that Nature by ordinary generation, and so it is the proper sin of every infant, so descended of Adam, as well as it was Adam's; for it was not Adam's sin, as a Particular Person, but a sin committed by the Head and Representative of …umane Nature, to be propagated by ordinary generation.

17. He cometh §. 5. &c. to consider what are our Arguments: and first he mentioneth our saying, that Adam was a publick person, and therefore all sinned in him, when he sinned. He replyeth thus, That Adam was a publick person, I deny not; and that by hi…, the seed of sin was propagated to all men, which of its owne nature is defiled, and inclineth men to sin; yet it will not thence follow, that Infants, that do not joyn themselves thereunto, are guilty thereof. Excepting what must be allowed to the Quakers, as their peculiar dialect, this is not far different from what the Arminians say Apol. Cap. 7: Fol. 84. They own not original sin, as a proper sin, which makes Adam's posterity obnoxious to God's ha…red; nor as an evil, which cometh upon them, as a proper punishment, but as an evil, infirmity, vice, or by what other name it can be called, which is propagated from Adam void of original righteousness; whence all his posterity are d…stitute of the same righteousness, and indisposed for life eternal &c. The Socinians speak also much after this mans dialect▪ for Smalcius saieth, We confess, that we are now corrupt, and far from that state of Innocency, which Adam had; but this is not to be ascribed to the fall of Adam, but to men themselves, who of their own accord corrupt themselves: and Ostorodus saith, we willingly confess, that there is a great proclivity to sin almost in all men, but that cometh not from the first sin, but from mens corrupting of themselves, which afterward they propagate to their children. But to returne to our Quaker. (1.) In what tolerable, or intelligible sense, can he yeeld that Adam was a Publick Person; if what he did as such, is not to be accounted as done by all, whom he did represent? Did ever any hear of one stated as a publick Person, whose failings could have no e…fect, until the persons represented did testify their approbation of it? By this reasoning, if Adam had stood, and continued in innocency, infants could have had no benefite thereby; for if the evil that Adam did, as a Publick Person, could not hurt infants, neither could his good have advantaged them; And then I would faine know, wherein did consist his being a Publick Person? or what he thinketh a Publick Person is? (2.) whether is this Seed of sin it self, sin, or not? If it be not sin, why calleth he it afterward, the Original of all sin? why calleth he it, the body of death, and the Old Adam? The Scripture speaketh of these as Master sinnes. If it be sin, how can it be propagated to all Men, and to Infants among others, and they not be denominated sinfull thereby? Can the seed of sin be transmitted to …nfants, and they be the subjects …hereof, and yet they not be sinfull? shall the seed of all poison and venom be transmitted from the p. 121old serpents to the young, and shall the young thereby not be accounted poysonful and venemous? (3.) He saith, this seed inclineth those, in whom it is, unto sin: But this inclination to sin, is sin, and contrary to the Law of God. Therefore Infants, in whom is this seed inclining to sin, must have sin within them. (4.) This, which he saith is propagate by Adam to all his posterity, is either something good, or something evil: good it cannot be, because of what is said: If it be evil, it must either be the evil of sin, or the evil of punishment, or both: If it be the evil of sin, than sin is propagated: If it be the evil of punishment, than it presupposeth sin, for all punishment that is just, is the punishment of sin; poenam istam esse (said August. lib. 2. de lib. arb. c. 18.) quis dubitet, omnis autem poena, si justa est, peccati poena est, & supplicium nominatut. (5.) But it may be, he will say with the Arminians, that because it is a punishment, therefore it is not a sin: But th… Scriptur… calleth it Sin, and the Body of sin. Indwelling sin, and several other Epithets it getteth, all shewing that it is sin, and contrary to the Law of God, and so deserving death, spiritual, temporal and eternal. Let him consider Col. 2:11. & 3:11. Ephes 4:22. Rom. 6:6 & 7:17. not to mention Rom. 7:15. &c. And himself calleth it, the Fountaine and Spring of all actual transgressions: And that concupiscence, which Iames sheweth to be the spring of evil, Iam. 1:14. Paul calleth sin Rom. 7:7, 18. & is prohibited by the Law saying, thou shalt not covet. (6.) Iulianus the Pelagian spoke at this rate, saying, that the Law in our members, which is repugnant to the Law of our minde, dwelleth indeed in Man, and doth instigat the resisting minde, so that the conflict, though it be not damnable, because it doth not perfect sin, yet is miserable, because it hath not peace. See August. lib. 1. adv. Iul. c. 68. To which Augustine replyed, That it was madness in the man to confess, that sin was evil, and yet say that the concupiscence of sins was good; and yet more intolerable to say, that it did provoke to evil, and yet was not evil. And else where, in the same book Cap. 83. he chargeth Manicheisme upon Iulianus, upon this account, that he granted misery did attend the posterity, and yet would not grant sin was imputed. Tu ergo adjutorem Manichaei te non esse, ostende si potes, qui miserias hominum, cum quibus eos nasoi, quoniam sine dubio sentit genus humanum, no…ens tribuere peccato vitiatae naturae nostrae, facis, ut eas ille permixtae nobis naturae tribuat altenae. (7.) This man would faine have fastned this sin upon us, that we made God Unrighteous and Unjust; but here he declareth himself manifestly chargeable therewith; for evil and misery, he granteth, is propagated to all men, and the seed of sin, which inclineth to sin; and yet will not have sin the procureing cause propagated. Quia ergo (said August. lib. 2. cont. Iul. oper. posth. Cap 110.) gravi jugo, à die exitus de ventre matris, puniti sunt parvuli, agnosce judicem justum, & confitere originale peccatum: punire enim nullius peccati meritum habentes, sicut etiam ipse confiteris, non potest sine eversione justitiae: & in the following Chapt. he hath these words. In illo gravi jugo, quo etiam parvuli premuntur, quomodo est Iustus Deus, si nullus nascitur reus? (8.) He talketh of Infants joyning themselves unto this Seed of sin, before they become guilty. But when 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? p. 122shall 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 m…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 …nimals? if these motions be sin, they beco…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 inclinatio… to sin? (11.) Let him explaine to me, how the childes actual sin, can make him really guilty of Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit, p. 123and to deserve hell fire upon that account: doth he think, that the first actual sin of the ch…lde, maketh him really guilty of all his fathers faults? doth he think, that the fi…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 …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 i… 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, 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; p. 124therefore 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 I…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 foreign 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 s…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 t…xt? Is there the least mention made of seed, in all the text? Is not this intolerable boldness, to deal so with the Scrip…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 p. 125when 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, foreign aggreeth with foreign. and so sheweth how Adam, by his sin, gave entry to sin into the world, and so death by sin entered foreign 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 foreign 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 foreign is the same with foreign out of Xenophon, Aristophanes, Demosthenes, and other Greek Authors. But For Answere unto this Quaker I would say (1.) If foreign agree with foreign, 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 foreign 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, tha… beleevers are made Righteous, only upon Occasion of Christs Righteousness, and have …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 me…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 maket… the Apostle speak thus; death passed upon all men, because all men will sin actually, when they become capable, (7.) The Apostle sheweth, that p. 126death 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 s…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 Apost…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 transgressi…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 p. 127framed, was corrupt: and what greater proof could we desire of the origina… 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 Inf…rence: and why so? It seemeth to me (sayes he) that this iniquity and sin is rath…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 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 p. 128and 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 foreign should not signifie in whom, (as it doth Marc. 2: vers. 4. Luk. 5▪ vers. 25.2 Cor. 5: vers. 4. foreign being several times put for foreign Heb. 9:10, 15, 1…. 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. w…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 p. 129without 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 …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 …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 Counc…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 help…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 p. 130said 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 up…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 wh…ch we heard in the …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 foreign signifieth) yea from every state of their child hood, for the word is in the plural number (foreign 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 remarkab…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 …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.

p. 13126. 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 h…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 unclea…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 uncleanne…s, which is Vniversal, and therefore habitual: for wh…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 otherwayes than unclean. To wh…ch words of Iob we may adde the words of Eliphaz. Iob 15:14. what is man, that he should be clean? and he which is borne of a woman, that he should be righteous? Origens words Hom. 11. super Levit. are considerable: Omnis qui ingreditur hunc mundum, in quadam contaminatione effici dicitur, Propter quod & Scriptura dicit, Nemo mundus a sorde, nec si unius diei suerit vitaejus (he meaneth this place of Iob, as it is rendered by the 70.) Hoc ipso ergo, qui in vulva matris est positus, & qui materiam corporis ab …rigine paterni seminis sumit, in patre & in matre contaminatus dici potest. Aut nescis, quia cum quadragint a dierum factus fuerit puer masculus, offertur ad altare, ut ibi purificetur, tanquam qui pollutus fuerit in ipsa conceptione vel pat…rni seminis, vel uters materni: Omnis ergo homo in patre & in matre pollutus est.

27. An argument for our purpose may be taken also from these words, Gen. 5:3. And Adam—begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, compared with vers. 1.—In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him: As that Image of God, in which Adam was first created, did denote that Original Righteousness and Integrity, which Adam had; so this likeness and image of Adam, in which Seth was begotten, must denote Adams corrupted state, whereof Seth in his very generation was a partaker; and this was Original sin, which was thus traduced and propagated from Adam to his posterity. It is true, Cain and Abel both were so also generated, but it is thus expresly said of Seth, because Abel had no posterity, and Cains posterity was excluded from the Covenant, & Seths was to continue within it; and therfore it is said of him, that even his pos…erity might know their true Original, and be humble, notwithstanding of this privilege. As also to shew, that no length of time betwixt the fall, and this generation of Seth, had worne this corruption away.

28. The ancient Fathers made use of, to this end, these words of Christ to Nicodemus, Ioh. 3:5.6.—Except a man be born of watter and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and p. 132that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit: And indeed the proof hence deduced is irrefragable; for Christ, the Amen and faithful witnesse, asserts with a double asseveration, verily, verily, that a man, and every man (no exception made of Infants) must be regenerated, before he can enter into the Kingdom of God; so that his first generation, if there be no change, will advantage him nothing: And the Reason is added, for by the first generation he hath a fleshly birth, which is corrupt, and not meet for the Kingdom of God, what is borne of the flesh is flesh, and nothing else: and this probation annexed sheweth, that Christ mean…th here even original, natural and habitual corruption, and this must principally be put from its dominion, by Regeneration. Beside that the words flesh and Spirit, opposed thus to other, in Scripture, denote Natural Corruption, and Grace reforming Rom. 7:14. & 8:1, 3. &c. Gal. 6: vers. 16:17. 1 Pet. 2: vers. 2.

29. The ancients to this purpose made use of Gen. 17:14. and said, the Covenant, which these infants did violate, who were not circumcised by their Fathers neglect or carelesness, was the Covenant made with Adam See Vossii Hist. Pelag. Pag. 143. I shall not urge this place upon that account: only, seing the Text saith expresly, that the uncircumcised man childe was to be cut off, because he had broken God's Covenant, we see, that they were under a Covenant & Law, & in some sense capable of breaking it, & therefore obnoxious to off cuting: Now, we heard above this Quaker say, that Infants were under no Law, & therefore obnoxious to no punishment: Let him chew his cood upon this place, & contradict Moses, as he did lately contradict Paul. They cited also Esai. 48:8. Yea, thou heardest not; Yea, thou knewest not, yea from that time, that thine eare was not opened: for I know that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and was called a transgressour from the womb. So did they make use of Rom. 7:23. I see another Law in my members: and vers. 18. for I know, that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing. As also 1 Cor. 15:22. of which we have already spoken a little. And indeed this last place clearly pointeth forth that we are made alive by Christ, through his merites conveyed to us by spiritual Regeneration, as we died in Adam, through his Sin and Corruption, made ours by Natural Generation.

30. Augustine (as the forecited Author sheweth us Pag. 151.152) made much use of the Paines, Torments & Death, which Infants were subject to, as an irrefragable argument for Original sin: and we have spoken something of it already. The Fathers also made use of the initial Sacraments, as a confirmation of this. But I know, this Quaker will regaird little any thing, we can say of Baptisme, for among the rest of his Errours, he must not want this of Antibaptisme, of which in due place. Pelagius was much puzzled with this perplexing Argument, & was forced to grant that Baptisme to them, was not for remission of sins; & so made it useless. And as for Infants, that died before baptisme, he knew not what became of them; quo non eant, scio; quo eant, nescio: and he devised a mid place betwixt hell & heaven for them. And so made two kinds of felicities, one with in the Kingdom of God, & one without the Kingdom of God: And he said, that by baptisme, they were brought out p. 133of the middle state, into the highest. See for this the forecited Author Pag. 192.193. Thus that man & his followers were miserably Entangled: But this Quaker, I confess, taketh a more consequential course, (but whether more consonant to Truth & Piety, I doubt) when he denyeth all Baptisme. But not to speak of Baptisme now, for which there is a proper place reserved, what will he say of Circumcision? He cannot deny but that was an ordinance appointed of God; And that it had reference to the body of sin, Paul tels us Col. 21 11. And therefore it could not but presuppose sin, in the Infants. It is called by Paul Rom 4:11. a seal of the righteousness of faith: and did point out the circumciseing of the heart, Deut. 30:6.

31. The Fathers made much of this Argument. That by this opinion of the Pelagians, Infants were wholly excluded from any Interest in the Death and Merites of Christ. And how this man will evite this, I know not; nor know I, how he will accord with himself, in asserting Universal Redemption, as we shall hear. But to put a close to this. I would only ask this question of this Quaker: If Infants be borne pure and free of sin, as he saith; How can this be the peculiar prerogative of Christ, to be conceived and borne without sin? And in reference to this, what necessity was there, that he should have been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and borne of a Virgine? Let him answere this, at his owne leasure.