The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism, Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Concerning Original Sin.
HAving canvassed the grand principle of the universal Light, and spirit of the Quakers, I shall consider some of the chief points of their Religion, and lay open the absurdity and blasphemy thereof, that the Reader may the better judge of the root, having seen the Fruit, and of the B…sis by the Superstructure. The first of these shall be the doctrine of Original Sin, which they joyntly deny▪ asserting that Adams Sin, can be imputed to none but himself, and therefore none are guilty of the transgression of our first Parents, an… so lyable to punishment until by their evil walking▪ or actual sins, they become transgressors. This Doctrine, although not so an … as the Ap…stles and Prophets, yet is as old as the Doctrine of pestif…rous Pelag…us, the first open asserter thereof, with Celestius his Disciple. Hence all who denyed the Doctrine which now the reformed Churches hold …ent Original sin, were esteemed guilty of Pelagi…nism; which notwithstanding Robert Barclay: Vin…: sect 5. Numb 5. would fain deny but to …o purpose, except to contradict what he himself said in his Apology chap 4. where he granteth, that Augustin with whom all the Orthodox whollie agree in this point, did hold the same Doctrine with the Westminster Confession, in opposition to the Pelagians, to which Confession of his, tho now by himself retracted, or rather contradicted, I will add the words of Vincentius Lyrenensis chap 35. adversus haeret: cited by the Author of Melius inquirendum, who before Caelestius the monstrous Scholar of Pelagius, ever denyed that all mankind stood guilty of Adams apostacy from God? Moreover, whosoever will be at the pains to read the Magdeburgick History, centur. 5. colum. 577, 588, 589, 590. And compare it with the Doctrine of the Quakers in this point, he will find an exact harmony, between them and the Pelagians, both in Doctrine, and Probation thereof. But we need add no more, seing Robert Barclay, in the place just now cited, after several serpentine windings and turnings, to the end he may (tho he retain the thing yet) evite the Name, wholly rejecteth Augustin, and therefore give…h up the Cause, ridiculously enquiring at his Adversary, if he will assert every thing that Augustin said, ridiculously (I say) seing the question is, if Augustin did not hold our Doctrine anent Original Sin, as the Antithesis to that of the Pelagians in this point, which Pelagians have had many successors, tho known by other Names, as Socinus, and his School, and holy and pure Anabaptists (as they called themselves) and were by contrariety of speech, called by others, the Fry of a deluded Enthusiast, Thomas Muncer; The horrid abominations of which Sect, and this their Doctrine of Original Sin among the rest, that famous reformer Bullinger, hath by Scriptures and Reason, so hammered, that one in reason should have thought, that it should never have had a Resurrection, as may be seen Lib: 1. cap 11. adversus Anabaptistas, where he also to purpose vindicateth Zuinglius from the calumny of the denyal of Original Sin, wherewith first the Council of Trent, although contrary to their own Light, as judicious Soave observeth, and of late Rob: Barclay, both in his Apology and Vindication, hath traduced him.
Secondly, Altho this Doctrine hath by many Ages been assaulted most fiercely, by corrupt men, both of subtile wit and earnestness of Intention, yet the providence of God hath sufficiently pre-occupied, what they have said or can say, and fortified all who truly believe what God hath said in His Word, where there is good Store both of Sword and Buckler, for managing of this War; and of these many I shall here excerpt and vindicate a few. And First, Gen. 2.17. For in the Day thou Eatest thou shall surely Die, or Dying thou shalt Die, where is a clear proof of our Doctrine, whence we reason, as well against Pelagians, Anabaptists, Socinians and Quakers, as against the Papists, who deny Original sin in Infants after Baptism; Thus: Infants Die, Ergo they are guilty of Original Sin, seeing according to this present Text▪ Death is the punishment due to the breach of the Command. To this the Pelagians, as Augustin in several places, and particularlie Quest. 3. C. 899-tom 4. colum. 666. And the Socinians, as Pareus on the place sheweth, with other Enemies of the Christian Religion, and at this day the Quakers answer, that Bodily death is not included in this Threatning; But besides that the Pelagians were anathematized for this doctrine by one Council of Carthage, consisting of 224 Bishops Photius Biblioth. Colum. 42. This answer is evidently false, seeing that by this word (Death) frequently in Scripture, Bodily as well as Spiritual, is understood, and by the Phrase, to die the Death, the separation of Soul and Body is frequently holden forth: Moreover none can deny that Bodily Death of it self is an evil, and no evil could have befallen Mankind persevering in the State of Innocency; But Chap. 3.19. Will aabundantly dissolve all doubts about the meaning of the text to any unbyassed Men: Where God himself, describing the punishment of Adams transgression, denounce…h and foretelleth his return to the dust, as not the least part thereof. But we need not multiply reasons for the vindication of this text, seeing none, except Socinians and Pelagians, oppose our meaning thereof, and the reason adduced by our present adversaries, common to them with the Socinians, and in particular Crellius, for its overthrown, in strength excelleth not a cobweb, although they pitched upon it, as the only weapon, which had any Teeth or keenness therein▪ The reason is, Adam died not that day that he did eat, therefore (say they) Bodily death is not Comprehended in the threatning: Neither hath this reason any stronger nerves than the rest used by Pelagians & Socinians, which yet for ought any thing I can find, the Quakers do not use, judging them (as it seems) unfit to serve their turn; Therefore Robert Barclay tho he had Apolog: chap 4. Fought with this Reason as the only prop of his cause; his adversary chap. 5. num. 8. Having hewed it in pieces) in his Vindication essayeth not the reinforcement thereof, only Sect. 5. num. 3. In stead of a Vindication hath its repetition, adding, that death as it is now circumstantiated with Sickness and the like miseries, is a consequence, but not a punishment of Sin, which distinction is most Blasphemou…, as here it is made use of, seing it insinuateth that God Transgresseth his own Law, by inflicting more miserie on fallen man, than was denounced in the Threatning. Either this he must say, or else that Sickness, and Death, as they are now circumstantiated, are not inflicted by God, which I am sure is little better than the former. But to shut up all, he sayeth, that his Adversarie hath not said enough, to proselyte him to his Opinion, notwithstanding that he had so d…shed his reason, upon which it was builded, that the Quaker attempteth not the Restauration thereof: He addeth further as a reason why his Adversary had not said enough to proselyte him, that death to Adam in the state of Innocency should have been a pleasure & not a pain; which reason is altogether reasonlesse, seeing the reason why death is pleasant to any, is its being the port to free Men from all evil, & especially from Sin, without which Adam should have wholly remained, if he had persevered in his integrity; but it is too evident, that the Quaker is of Bellarmins mind who de Statu primi Hominis, alledgeth that man during his Integrity was not free of concupiscence and evil inclinations; which doctrine maketh God the Author of sin. But I leave this matter, only I cannot but here observe, which I might do in most places and weightiest points of Robert Barclay's Vindication; that per fas aut nefas (as they say) the Quakers must have the last words▪ for who will think it requisite to write after one, who can tell his Adversary that he hath not said enough to proselyte him, and yet never so much as essay to vindicate his own, or remove his adversaries reasons, as Robert Barclay doth here, and yet publishes his book to the world, as a sufficient answer or refutation of what his adversarie had said, living in the mean time without so much as an attempted vindication, these points with which the whole frame of Quakerism standeth and falleth; for if Bodily death was included in the threatning, then our doctrine of Original sin is proved, which doctrine once being evinced, all the pretended absurdities and blasphemies, which Socinians, Quakers and others infer from our Doctrine of Original sin and Reprobation, fall to the Ground, and they are, if they be Christians, obliged to remove these themselves. Further its clear from Rom. 6.23. The wages of sin is Death, where death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages, not the consequence only of sin, as the Quaker both in his Apology and Vindication Sect. 5. num. 8. in contradict…on to the express Text, expoundeth it; neither is his reason more weightie, than his exposition is sound, which is, that the whole Creation received a decay by Adams fall, and yet Herbs and Trees are not to be called sinners, seeing the Apostle is not here speaking of herbs and trees, but of Men Women who are capable of receiving the wages of sin, as being the workers thereof, and certainly one may with the like reason, say that H…rbs and Trees are capable of eternal life as that they may be capable of the wages of Sin. His other shift which he hath Ibid: by which also he destroyes the former, viz. that by death is not to be understood Bodily Death, because Eternal Life is put as the Opposite of the death here spoken of, and obtained by Christ Iesus, and yet natural death is not avoided, is not much better then the former, seeing that after the resurrection, the Bodies of the Godlie, shall live as well as their souls, and the reunion of both doth belong to Eternal Life, and so natural Life is comprehended in Eternal Life, as well as Spiritual Life; and tho believers die a Bodily Death, yet it is not a punishment to them, on this account that the Sting and Bitterness thereof is removed by Christ, who did bear the same, otherwise death is in it self a punishment, being the separation of Soul and Body, the most strictly united friends and companions in the World.
3ly. Our Doctrine of Original Sin is clearlie evinced from Rom. 5.12. As by one Man, Sin entered into the World and Death by Sin, &c. together with the following verses; whence diverse strong arguments may easily be collected, for 1. The Apostle that he may prove justification not to be by works but by Faith, or the imputed righteeousness of Christ; maketh a comparison betwixt the two common Heads or Representatives, Adam and Christ, in this, that both of them represented the parties related to them, the same way, so that Adam was a Type of Christ in his standing in the room of one partie as Christ did in the Room of another, by bearing of their Iniquities Isa▪ 53.11. By being made sin for them, 2 Cor. 5.21. (i. e.) by Imputation thereof unto him, for no otherwise this text can be understood without Blasphemie; that they may be made the Righteousness of God in Him, i. e. by imputation of it to them, as their Sin was imputed to him; Therefore Adam the Type, stood in the name and Room of Mankind, so as his doings or failings were imputed to them. Robert Barclay Vindication, Sect. 5. numb. 7. Alledgeth that this comparison spoileth all our doctrine, because if the Righteousness of Christ is not to be imputed to men for Iustification, untill they actually joyn with it apprehended by Faith, so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam, imputed to Men for Condemnation, untill they actually joyn with it. But I wonder not to see a man intending by right or wrong to Stick to his preconceived opinions, make use of Fig-leaf defences, when he can find no other: For may not Children before they come to the use of Reason, be justified and Saved by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them, and by consequence, others before the use of reason stand guilty of Adams sin imputed to them, which is the Conclusion he fain would evite. Moreover he may as well say, that Adams Sin doth not at all hurt any of his posterity, untill they having the use of reason, actually joyn with it, which yet he no where sayeth, but granteth the contrary in several places of this Section. 3ly. Omne simile claudicat, this parallel ought not necessarily, to be stretched to every particular mode and circumstance, but only to the particular which is intended here, viz. the Imputation of what the two common representatives did or suffered, unto the parties represented by them; but the Quakers have Learned Bellarmin's Art, who by racking of this Parallel thought to overthrow our Doctrine of Justification by faith. 2. The Sin of Adam is such, that if this Text have any sense at all, by this Sin of his, all have sinned, and by it Death without exception is brought upon all Mankind. 3. It is such a sin of which they are guilty who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam, seeing death reigned over them, for death can reign over none but Guilty persons, but Infants are subject to Death, tho they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam, i. e. by actual transgression, Ergo Infants are guilty of Adams sin. 4. This Offence of Adams was of such a nature, that the Guilt of it, or judgement flowing therefrom, came upon all the partie represented by him, to the condemnation thereof, i. e. (if it be any thing) so that this party stood really condemned thereby. v. 18. But all Mankind were represented by Adam, Ergo all Men are condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to them: To this Robert Barclay answereth Vind. pag, 101. That Iudgment or Guilt is not expressed in the Original, which is true, but while he sayeth, it ought not to be supplied, one would expect that he should give a better answer, which I looked for; but all that he giveth, is an individuum vagum [Something] which supplement denudeth the Text offense, making a Welshmans hose thereof; therefore certainly there can be no other thing understood, but either Iudgement, as our Translation hath it, or Condemnation, as the version of Tremellius out of the Syriak, or Guilt, as Beza: Seeing the effect thereof was the condemnation of the whole party represented by Adam, as the Text clearlie sheweth. But to declare his Harmonie with Rome he followeth the Versio Vulgata, which in this place hath non-sense supplying nothing. From all that is said, I argue thus, that sin which is described to us by the Apostle, that he saith brought death upon all Men, that men Sinned by it, and were made Sinners, even they who could not as yet actually sin, that they all became Guilty of Death and condemnation; that Sin by imputation is the sin of the whole Nature, included in Adam, and rendreth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation; but the first Sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostles, &c. Ergo, that sin is the sin of Nature, &c. Robert Barclay denyeth the Major of this argument, and that to the admiration of all Logicians, seeing no connexion can be clearer in the World, as might easily appear to any that consider it; for who can deny (not to mention other Members of this Argument) that if these who had not actually sinned, are made sinners by this Transgression of Adam, then this is the Sin of the whole Nature, or imputed to it, which is our Doctrine of Original Sin; who I say will deny this? Seeing there is no other thing in the consequence then in the antecedent, except a variation of words and Phrases holding forth the same thing, which yet cannot be counted a Tautology in strict Syllogistical a…g…mentation, the scope of which is to evince the same sense by a clearer phrasiology or way of speaking. 2. He sayeth that in this argumentation, words not in the Text are foisted in, viz. they who have not actually sinned: But in this he only bewrayeth his Own and his Brethrens capital error▪ that the Scriptures ought not to be interpreted or reasoned from; for his adversary used only this argument as a clear deduction from the Text, & yet because it is not in so many words in the Text, he rejecteth it; yea he saith Ibid. let him shew me the place of Scripture that saith that Infants are guilty of Adams sin. Behold, Reader, how the Quakers new light hath extinguished the light of sound reason, and provided for their ancestors the Sadducees a shield, such as it is, toward off the argument of our Saviour, whereby He to purpose proved the Resurection from the dead; but had Robert Barclay been there, he had given him more ado, by saying, shew me the plain Scripture that sayeth the dead shall rise again: Moreover we say that this followeth clearly from these words, in whom all have sinned. To this he answereth, that it is to be understood of all that could sin, i. e. actuallie having come to the use of reason▪ but this answer hath in its bosom a blasphemous falshood that the righteousness of Christ, cannot be imputed to Infants, and therefore that they are not saved by him only, and come to Heaven throw his Righteousness, for whatever he say for the defence of this h… …nswer, doth of its own accord tend to the protection of this Blasphemy; for altogether with the like reason, it might be replyed to any pleading from this Chapter that the Justification and Salvation of Infants is to be ascribed to the Righteousness of Christ; that these are only righteous for the Righteousness of Christ, who could be righteous, i. e. After the use of reason actually joyned themselves to that Righteousness. 2. He may as well say, that these received hurt and damage by the sin of Adam, who could receive it, i. e. actually join themselves to it, for there is alike reason for both. His reason why Infants cannot sin is, because they are under no Law, for the proof whereof, he refers me to what he has said above, whither with him I will return, which is num. 4. where he requireth in what Countries they use to kill all the Children whose Fathers are put to death for their crimes? To which I reply, 1. That it is enough to prove Children to be under a Law, that tho in non-age or unborn, they undergo forfeiture and deprivation of Goods and priviledges, for no evil of their own, but their Fathers misdemeanors only. 2. Both in divine and humane writing, Children are recorded to have suffered dea…h, who had committed no actual sin, and yet suffered the same punishment with their Fathers who had actually sinned: In divine story, the Sodomites ▪ I am sure were put to death for their crimes, all whose Children were killed with them Gen. 19. Behold, reader, how easily his most perplexing questions are resolved. The like fell out to the Children of Core Numb. 16. The Children of Achan Jos. 7. and to the Canaanitish Infants; the Children of Benjamin; the inhabitants of Iabesh-Gilead: of the like examples humane Histories are full, of which the reader may see good store collected by that excellent divine Turret. in vol. 1. loco. 9. Quest 9. pag. 671. I am sure there is nothing more common than for Kings or Common-wealths to sack the Cities and Countries of Obstinate rebells, and thus to destroy the Children with the Fathers, and to kill the hostages of Covenant-breakers, without respect & regard to their age, examples of which see in Livie decade tertia. 3. If in any point of Religion and Faith, the admirable depth of the judgm…nt and Secret Counsel of God, be to be seen, certainly it is be observed here; for I am sure Mans luxuriant reason, can find so much to object against even the very inherent corruption of Man, his miseries tho in non-age, and his deprivation of the image of God, as being the effects or sure consequence of Adams eating of the forbidden fruit, as may send the answerer to Pauls Sanctuarie Rom. 9.20. Who art thou &c. We answer therefore, 1. That Adam was a publick person, standing and falling in the Room of his posterity, in whose name and behalf, the Covenant of works was made with him as their representative, so that his first sin was not personal, but the sin of the whole Nature: To this Robert Barclay replyeth num▪ 6. requiring Mr. Brown to prove by plain Scriptures, that Adam ceased to be a publick person after he had committed his first sin. Answer, he denyeth not, if this be proved, but that our Doctrine of Original sin will stand, for so much he here insinuateth; I therefore with the more chearfulness prove, that Adam did cease to be a publick person, which is evident from this, that he died in that day he did eat, and therefore made the Covenant void and null, now certainly no Man with reason can say, that a Man dead in Law, as Adam was after the breach of the Covenant by eating, can in his future actions be a publick person, in respect of the same Law broken by eating; Therefore seing the day he did eat, did put a term to this Covenant of Life (as no man with reason can deny it) and a period to this common headship, for the one of these standeth and falleth reciprocallie with the other; it is clear and manifest to all, that Adam after his fall was no more a publick person. Moreover the sin of Adam whereby we were damnified, is still holden forth as one, and not as many sins; as for example Rom. 5. All along in the comparison betwixt Christ, and Adam.
Robert Barclay replyeth, that we may as well hence conclude; that we are only justified by the first act of Christs obedience, and so have nothing to do with Christs death and sufferings. But by his favour Bonum oritur ex integra causa, Malum autem ex defectu q…ovis. The Scriptures every where, and in particular Isa. 53. throughout express a long series of doings and sufferings agreed upon in the Covenant of Redemption, none of which could be wanting for the fulfilling of the bargain and accomplishment of our Salvation: Whereas on the other hand, one defect in Adam was enough to compleat (so to speak) his fall, and make the breach of the Covenant, it being an evil thing, for the makeing of which one defect is enough. And thus his Gordian, and insoluble knot (for so he accounteth it) is with all easiness untyed. But we need not insist on this, seing he endeavoureth to Shre…d himself, under the covert of his accustomed antiscriptural dottage, calling for plain Scripture; that is, That Adam was a publick person before his fall, in so many Letters, and Syllables, knowing well that unless underproped with such damnable hypotheses his Doctrine cannot stand; but he buyeth bad Wares at a full dear price, for with the same breath he overthroweth both his own Apology, and Vindication, with whatsoever beside he has written in the defence of his principles; seeing these are not found in the Scriptures in so many Letters, & Syllables: But I again return to his seventh number, and in it next he alleadgeth Augustin as the Patron of his opinion, in contradiction to his own Apology Chap. 4. Where he granted Augustin to be of the same Opinion with his Adversary, acknowledging that according to the mind of Augustin, Infants even before their birth are Guilty of Eternal Death, and the pains of Hell. Thus he either speaketh self contradictions, or would make Augustin to do it. 2. The words of Augustin, from which he would conclude this self contradiction are these Serm. 7. Ex verb. Apostoli, what do ye think to say? And whose eares can hear it? Did they sin themselves? Where I pray you did they sin? When and how did they sin? They know neither good nor evil. Shall they sin that are under no Command? Prove that Infants are sinners, prove what is their Sin, is it because they weep, that they sin? Do they Sin, because they take pleasure, or repell trouble by motion, as dumb Animals? If these motions be sin, they become greater sinners in Baptism, for they resist most vehemently. But I say another thing. You think they have sinned; otherwise they had not dyed, but what say ye of such as die in there Mothers womb? Will you say they have sinned also? You Lye, or are deceived. &c. Thus Augustin in opposition to the Pelagians, who to evite the force of the arguments of the Orthodox proving Original sin, did assert, that Children presently after their birth become actual Sinners. And yet from this the Quaker will conclude that Augustin in these words contradicteth his own doctrine of Infants being guilty of Original Sin; of which there is not the least appearance, seing this will be admirable Logick to inferr from Augustin his proving of Infants not to be guilty of actual sin, therefore he denyed them to be guilty of Original sin: Now what wou…d not these Men adventure to say in the dark, when they are so audacious, as to publish to the world in print, that Augustin denyed Infants to be guilty of Original sin, when his own works do every where, and the World proclaim the contrary: yea and the Quaker himself also confessed it. Here he alledgeth that the Apostle no where sayeth that Children, are under any Law; which is true, if he understand it in so many words, which yet notwithstanding may be gathered from the 13. and 14. verses of this Chapter, where the Apostle having said, That there is no Sin, where there is no Law, subjoyneth that nevertheless Death, (which I have in my former Section, proved to be a punishment) reigned even over these who had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam: Which holdeth true of Children who never sinned actually as Adam did. When he seeth that it cannot be denyed, that in this place foreign is of the same meaning with foreign he would have foreign to repeat foreign making the words to run thus, In which, or by occasion of which, death, all have sinned. A Pelagian exposition, makeing men sin by imitation only, and the righteousness of Christ to be the occasion, and patern only; and not the price of our acceptation, and Salvation. And altho he say, that this is resolved by a serious consideration of the comparison between Christ and Adam, as stated by him in his Apology. This is not to be regarded, seing after an impartial search, nothing of this resolution can be perceived: He ought therefore to have shewed u…, how in particular he had in his Apology preoccupied our argument, whereby they are proved to be amongst the grossest of Socinians, who make the death and sufferings of Christ an occasion, or example only whereby to walk, and so to be saved: But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation, but Vltra posse non datur esse. But indeed this is a fine way of Vindicating ones Doctrine, to say in opposition to their Adversaries argument how pressing soever, in the general only, you do not understand our doctrine aright, or consider what we say. And upon this answer only erect his Triumphal Arches, and Cry Victoria.
4. Our Doctrine is to the conviction of all, except of the Old and New Pelagians, evicted from Eph 2, 3. and yet Rob: Barclay (following Bellarmin, who played the like audacious pranks with Rom. 4. whereby we evince against the Papists, Justification to be by Faith) would turn our weapons against our selves, and overthrow from this place our Doctrine of Original Sin, alledging that Mens evil walking, is the cause why they are counted the children of Wrath: But if the Apostle had so meaned, in all likelyhood, he should not have spoken so generally as he did; but had made some Intimation, that Children were excepted, which he neither here, nor any where else doeth▪ 2. This Phrase by Nature, is still taken in Scripture, for, so soon as a thing hath a beeing, or for its very rising, or Original: which these Scriptures confirm. Rom. 2.27. and 11, 24. Gal, 2.5. and 4.8. 1 Cor. 15.44, 46. Hence we thus with Calvin, in opposition to the Pelagians, on the place reason What is naturally in every one, is in them from their very Original; and therefore if all be the Children of Wrath, or … to wrath by Nature▪ they are so … their very Original. These Scriptures, and this Argument of Calvin used by his Adversary Robert Barclay in his Vind… ▪ Is so far from attempting to answer; that he maketh not the least mention thereof. From which one Omission, though there were no more, any may easily see, that his book deserveth nothing less than the name of a Vindica…tion.
3. We add as a good secondary Confirmation, that the primitive Ch…rch used still this place to prove the same Doctrine, which we hold of Original sin, in opposition to the Pelagians, denying it; and in particular Augustin de Fide ad Petram diaconum Cap. 26. who sayeth firmissime tene, hold most constantly, and without so much a… once wavering, that every one who is conceived by the conjunction of man and woman, is born with Original sin, under the power of ungodliness, subject to death ▪ (which he explaineth of eternal, as well as bodily death, Ibid) and upon the same very account a Child of wrath, concerning which the Apostle saith, and we were by nature the Children of wrath. And the like Doctrine, did Fulgentius, and fourteen bishops with him assert, as also Theodoretus, Primasius and Haimo on the place, taking by nature &c. to import all carnally born, and partaking of the nature of Adam, and so to be verified of all brought forth by the conjunction of man and woman. To this argument drawn from Orthodox antiquity, Rob. … Vind. Sect. 2. N 5. replyeth, what then▪ …oth that render our doctrine null? Answer, Not indeed to a Pelagian; which every where, and in special here by his open Patrociny of this Here…y, he fully demonstrateth himself to be, notw…thstanding that at other times he would fain deny himself to be one, studying to evite the name, tho he hug their …lasphemy. Their answer to our Argument drawn from Psal. 51.5. I was shapen in iniquity &c. Which by all the Orthodox, both primitive writers, as Augustin passim, and the Reformers, as Luther, in his Confession is understood of Original sin, is most strange, viz That David speaketh of the sin of his Mother, and not of his own. To which it is replyed that thus the marriage duty shall de condemned. To this Rob. Barclay, Vind: Sect 5 N 7. returneth a denyal of the inference; which yet is clear; seing wherever in all the Scriptures, any did bewail the sins of their progenitors, they still specified and pointed at the sin in particular, as Neh. 9. with many other places; but here if any particular fact be specified, it must needs be that of the Marriage duty, therefore the inference holdeth good, & here I cannot but take notice of one of his pungent answers, or rather questions (if ye will) Which he proposeth ubi modo in these words, And I desire yet to be informed of him in what Scripture he reads of Original sin, and whether, if the Scripture be the only Rule, he cannot find words fit enough to express his Faith? or must he shift for them else where? Thus he, but in Lieu of these, I return him another question, and desire to be informed of him, whether or not he readeth of Actual sin, or findeth this in so many words? Behold then Reader▪ the desperate tendency of Quakerism, which is to make men beleive that there is no sin at a… m…ntioned in the Scriptures, and therefore, not at all prohibited: For seing on the account that the phrase Original sin, is not found in Scriptures, he denyeth our Doctrine how clear so ever it be proved, by Scriptural deductions: he giveth good ground to another▪ for inferring ad hominem, that there is not such a thing as Actual sin, seing the phrase Actual sin, is no where in Scripture to be …ound, more than that phrase Original sin.
T…e same Truth may be yet further demonstrated by several other pregnant arguments. As first,
Infants for the sin of Adam, are deprived of the Image of God therefore there is no reason to deny, that they can be accounted guilty of his sin. The Antecedent is denyed by none of our present Adversaries. The Consequence is also firm, for its a punishment, yea, the greatest of punishments, equal with, if not greater than the torments of hell, to be deprived of the Image of God, and therefore of his comfortable presence, Communion, Love, and Favour. 2. The Scripture is ignorant of any persons that go to Heaven, except these that were guilty persons, these whose sin Christ did bear: Er: Children who have never committed Actual sin, are guilty before God. The Consequence is beyond all …xceptions. Th… Antecedent also remaineth firm, until our Ad…ersaries adduce some place of Scripture, shewing that some persons who never were guilty go to Heaven, or are saved without the merits of Christ. Moreover, it is clear from the whole tenor of the Scriptures, that none are saved but sinners; which was Christs errand to the Earth; … the Scripture no where maketh any distinction, betwixt guilty persons, and sinners: and no where sayeth, that any are saved, but these whose sins Ch…ist did bear, and one would in reason think, that this can least of all men, be denyed by our Adversaries, who assert that Christ died for all men without exception: Therefore if Infants be not guilty, there is no reason to say, that Christ …ied for them, or did bear their sins, therefore we with all reason enquire, which our Adversaries according to their principles can never be able to answer, how Infants, if not guilty come to heaven, without the Death, and Merits of Christ? They are altogether void of reason, while they with Rob: Barcl. for want of a better answer enquire, How these whom we account Elect Infants come to Heaven? Seing our reply is at hand, viz: that they are acquited before God, by the imputed righteousness of Christ.
3. Certain it is from the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and in special Rev ▪ 22.15. That these who in the sight of God are dog…, are guilty persons, and to be excluded from Heaven, and therefore to be thrust into Hell, but whole Nations without any exception are such. Matth. 15.26. Therefore Infants being a part of these Nations, deserve to be excluded from Heaven, and sent to Hell. Add to this, that some Children are said by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.14. To be altogether destitut of Holiness, which persons, Heb. 12.14. So long as they are so, cannot see God. Some of the Fathers in order to prove the Guilt of Infants, flowing from Adams transgression, made use of Gen. 17.14. The man-child that is uncircumcised, shall be cut off. This Deduction of some of the Ancients Mr: Broun mentioneth pag 132. But expresly telling, that he will not urge it, but inferreth notwithstanding from this place, that Children may be in some sense capable of breach of Covenant; and therefore under a Law, desiring his Adversary to chew his cud upon this inference, which if true, overthroweth all this Socinian Doctrine anent Original sin, which still presupposeth, that Children are under no Law. For reply to which Rob: Barcl. Vind▪ pag▪ 62. introduceth Mr. Broun as if he had willed him, to chew his …ud on this first deduction, viz. that, of some of the Fathers; passing by the second, viz Mr. Broun's own inference, without so much as mentioning thereof; whereby he declareth that it hath broken his Jaws, or at best, is not yet digested.
4, None can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again. Ioh. 3.7. But surely this new-birth, or to be born again, is the gift of God, and a priviledge which he may withhold from whom he will, and therefore without prejudice to his justice may exclude whosoever hath it not, from the Kingdom of Heaven, but none are excluded from it, but guilty persons, which I believe none will deny, therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons.
6. The main Objection, and that for any thing I know, upon which the bulk of all their Objections dependeth, against our Doctrine of Original sin▪ the Socinians and Quakers draw from Ezek 18.20. The Son shall not bear the Fathers iniquity &c. Hence they infer, That no sin can be imputed. To which it is answered, that this will not follow seing the Lord is there stopping the mouth of the wicked, but yet que…lous Iews, as tho they had been altogether guiltless themselves, and punished for their Fathers transgressions only; To whom the Lord asserteth that they had sin enough themselves; for which they might be punished & doth not at all say, that no sin can be imputed to another, this meaning we say, beside that it is evident from the Context, must of necessity be admitted, otherwise there shall be a flat contradiction between this, and many other texts. As for example the second Command ▪ This text Mr. Broun pag 119. cleared, and everted what the Quakers had said from this place; therefore he in his Vindication pag 55. not being in case to force the tex…, to speak for him again, saith the words are plain. The Son shall not die for the Fathers iniquity. And therefore they must stand to the overthrow of his Adversaries Doctrine. Such a Comb…t…nt as this is not fit for a second essay.