Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	believe_v	faith_n	revelation_n	1,466	5	9.8611	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46640	Verus Patroclus, or, The weapons of Quakerism, the weakness of Quakerism being a discourse, wherein the choicest arguments for their chief tenets are enervat, and their best defences annihilat : several abominations, not heretofore so directly discovered, unmasked : with a digression explicative of the doctrine anent the necessity of the spirits operation, and an appendix, vindicating, Rom. 9. from the depravations of an Arminian / by William Jamison.	Jameson, William, fl. 1689-1720.	1689 (1689)	Wing J445; ESTC R2476	154,054	299

one hath that promise of which we now speak fulfilled unto him and thus the only Scripture argument which Robert Barclay attempts to urge in his Vindication falleth to the ground for all the rest of the Scriptures from which he deduced his Apologetick Arguments he slideth over without any Vindication thereof Robert Barclay Apolog. pag. 38. hath another Argument which because he complaineth as if it were not sufficiently solved by his adversary chap. 3. numb last I will set down here and answer formally that there may be no just ground of Complaint The Argum●nt thus runs That unto which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kind do at last recurr and because of which all other grounds are commended and accounted worthy to be believed must of necessity be the only Rule most certain and immovable ground of all Christian Faith but the inward immediat objective Revelation of the Spirit is that c. Ergo. Resp. the Minor is ambiguous and therefore most fallacious for according to this kind of reasoning they may conclude that a man just now possessing a piece of land formerly enjoyed by his Ancestors by Virtue of a Right granted to them by a Prince deceased many ages ago spake mouth to mouth with that Prince dead ages out of mind Thus that unto which the present Possessor of such a piece of Land when pressed to the last recurreth un●o and for which other Grounds or Charters are commended or valid must of necessity be the most immoveable ground of and Warrand for his possession of such a piece of Ground but the Grant and Donation of such or such a Prince given many ages ago first by word of Mouth tho again committted to writings is that which the present Possessor being pressed to the last recurreth to Ergo the present Possessor had immediat Discourse mou●h to mouth with a Prince many ages back ere the present Possessor was born Certainly these must be admirable Fellows who can conclude and that in modo figura qui●libet ex quolibet and thus their strongest Arguments serve only to prove the Authors to ●e in a paroxism of folly moving laughter in a very Heraclite But ex abundante I answer directly to this their blunt Sophism tho forsooth the Quak●rs Achillean Argument Thus But inward immediate objective Revelation is that to which all Christians recur c. this is inward immediat objective in Respect of the Apostles and Prophets I grant in Respect of the present Professors of Christianity I deny and let them urge the membrum negatum Of the like Nature is another and that the chief of his Apologetick Arguments viz. Enoch Noah Abraham and some others had immediate objective Revelation therefore the whole Church had it the Consequent his Antagonist chap. 3. numb 11. denyeth as not having the least shadow of Reason let us therefore see how he vindicateth this Argument which is a sine quo non to the whole frame of Quakerism and for this all that he sayeth Vindic pag. 24. is that then it seems there was more of Gods immediat Revelation in those dark times even by his Adversaries Confession than now under the Gospel where the chief pastors of the Church according to him are to expect no such thing neither is it proved that others not mentioned had no immediat Revelations Answ. true it is that even in these dark times there was in some respect viz. of immediate Revelations more of God than there is now and yet lesse in another sense viz. in respect of more large propagation of the Truth of God and of the large Measure of Grace dispensed unto Believers under the New Test But what sayeth this to the probation of the Quakers tremulous consequence how doth it prove that because some few had these Revelations all and every one within the Church had them this is a baculo ad angulum neither are we bound to prove the contrary affirmanti enim incumbit probatio It is enough for us to tell him that it is a groundless fancy to assert it for how will he prove ex gr that ever Abel had immediate objective Revelation and thus the third Proposition of his second These that God did alwayes reveal himself by his Spirit i. e. by immediate objective Revelation to every one of the Church falleth to the Ground and with it the fourth viz. that these Revelations were the formal object of the Faith of the Saints for if it be altogether groundless to say that every Saint had them as we have now seen it is no lesse groundlesse to say that they were the formal Object of their Faith and with these also his fifth Proposition viz. that the same i. e immediat Revelation continueth to be the formal object of the Saints Faith. ea lapsa repente ruinam Cum sonitu trabit Tremulum super agmina late Incidit Like the Trojan Tower its couplings being cutt the whole Fabrick of Quakerism tumbleth down about the ears of its Authors and builders CHAP. III. Concerning Original Sin. HAving canvassed the grand principle of the universal Light and spirit of the Quakers I shall consider some of the chief points of their Religion and lay open the absurdity and blasphemy thereof that the Reader may the better judge of the root having seen the Fruit and of the 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

that is to study how he may secure himself from the hazard of a Trial. Hence these men are in all probability beyond the reach of a Conviction but the many Instances not only of other Antiscript●rians but even of themselves who have been most pitifully and palpably acted by the Devil whom they notwithstanding took for God might teach them at length to suspect their Spirit and try before they trust As for the Prophesies of future Events they may well be brought to the Scripture Test to the end we may know whether the thing Prophesied may be expected without contradicting the Scriptures as for Pauls reproof of the Spirit of Divination it is most irrationally Objected Seeing Paul was immediatly Inspired and a Writer of Scripture himself 2●y This Action was most Consonant to Scripture being abundantly warranted by that promise of Christ Matth 10 to his Apostles that they should cast out Devils They use also many Arguments against the Scriptures being the principal Rule of which the Chief and Ground of almost all the rest with which they stand and fall and therefore meriteth particular Consideration is this the Scriptures are not the Fountain it self but a declaration of the Fountain therefore they are not to be accounted the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge nor the adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners thus reasoned Rob Barclay in his Appology This consequence is by his adversary judged a Demonstration of the Authors folly pag. 57. as being altogether ridiculous saying who ever dreamed that the Scriptures were God or the Spirit of God To which 〈◊〉 Barclay Vind. pag. 37. thus Replyeth he sayeth I come nearer to the Core of my design which is to set up Enthusiasms in affirming that the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain and yet the Man within three or four lines confesseth it himself ascribing it to my folly to dream any man thinks so thus ●e goeth backward and forward which he illustrateth by the Example of Laws But if it be so are not they to be blamed that account them the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge whither the other branch of my deduction followeth from this That they are not to be accounted the primary Rule of Faith and Manners will appear when the Arguments and Objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned and whereas he thinks this is absurd and not making for my Design because God Himself is the Fountain and yet not the Rule he mistakes the matter as urged by me For I argue that the Scriptures are not the Original Ground of Knowledge but God not simply considered but as manifesting himself in divine immediat Revelations in the hearts of his children which being the new Covenants Dispensation is the primary and adequate Rule of Christians For I was never so absurd as to call God simply considered or the Spirit of God in abstracto not as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians and this may serve to answer all his Cavills upon this Theam Thus he Answer in his Apol. he thus reasoned the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain therefore they are not the principal original of all Truth nor the adequate or primary Rule of Faith. Now this Argumentation which is all one with fallacia plurium interrogationum hath a consequent made up of two parts and therefore there are to be considered here two consequences of which the first or the consequence as to the first part of the inference his adversarie calleth a demonstration of the Authors folly as proving that which never man denyed viz. that the Scriptures are not God himself I add that this is also a demonstration of his Malice for in this his ridiculous argumentation he would perswade the world that the Reformed Churches for against them in that place he bendeth his weapons assert that the Scriptures are God himself Upon this account I say his Adversary accuseth him of folly now in stead of a better off-coming he giveth out that his adversary first denyed his Antecedent and then again presently confessed it whereas he never impugned the Antecedent but blameth him for his consequence of which as we have already said the first part is very ridiculous proving the thing that never one denyed and malicious belieing the whole Reformed Churches and the second part viz. Because the Scriptures are not the Fountain therefore they are not the adequat and primary Rule of Faith a Rope of sand The coherence of which will be made out ad Calendas Graecas He sayeth that the second Branch of his Deduction will appear when the Arguments and objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned which is nothing to the purpose in hand for unless he prove that the Scriptures are not the primary and adequate Rule of Faith from this one Topick that they are not the Fountain but a Declaration thereof the argument is gone Hence all this wrangling is but a further proof of his Weakness and Malice In his following Words he confoundeth the Principal Rule and the Original Ground together which are things most distinct and therefore these words are altogether void of good sense or at best they are ridiculous in that they speak nothing to the purpose For he might well have known if he had pleased that by the Primary Rule is understood that which is now among the hands of Christians according to which they ought to examine ultimately all sort of Doctrines and opinions of men or yet suggestions from within concerning divine things and reject or receive as they disagree or agree with this Rule If in this sense he had understood the primary Rule he had not given such mysterious Niceties But the Question is not if God be greater than the Scriptures for as man is above the word of a man so is he above them But the Question is whether or not the Scriptures contain all things necessary in order to Faith and practise and whether or not we ought to see that every Doctrine we embrace be according to them and if swerving from them we ought to reject it tho an Angel from Heaven should teach it Thus we understand the primary Rule and while he doth not so he but mistaketh the Question 2. This Acyrology or improper speech to call a person a Rule is a grand inductive of Confusion for who ever called a teacher a Rule for only the dictats taught are the Rule Here we see that these new Teachers are contrary to all men in their acceptations of Words as well as in Doctrines But whereas he sayeth that he was never so absurd as to call the Spirit of God simply or in abstracto a Rule but as he imprints Truths in the hearts of Believers he doth not answer these things which he calls Cavills for these Rules imprinted

in the Soul are not God under what notion soever he be taken a Declaration of the Fountain is not the fountain it self Hence the Quakers grand principle that immediat objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their Faith falleth to the Ground and these imprinted Rules are but only secondary Ergo even according to what is here gained from the Quakers the Scriptures are equal even in their primariness to immediat Revelations for the one can no more be called the primary Rule than the other and that by the Quaker his own Concession Moreover seing these immediat Revelations imprinted on the Soul are not the primary but secondary Rule then certainly they ought to be examined according to the primary Rule Now to assert this is most impious Seing these Revelations must be supposed to be self evident and their Divinity already undoubtedly apparent For this is to maintain that we ought to doubt whether or not there is veracity in God and horresco referens Judge that the God of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us But once more how shal these imprinted secondary Rules be examined not by other words or dictats of whatsoever kind for to do this will cost the examiner a journey to in finitum to which he will not come in haste seing these other Dictats or Revelations are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain more than the first and to assert that these Revelations may be examined according to God himself and not by the Word of God is to go some stages beyond the wildest of nonsense and again there is very good Reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primary than the Scriptures both being given by the same Spirit seing the primarinesse is not the immediatness but the chief binding power the prerogative to be the touch-stone of all Doctrines Now this notion of a primary Rule being had there is very good Reason to wonder why the Dictats of the Spirit should be preferred before the Scriptures seing God hath told whether mediatly or immediatly it 's all one the Quakers themselves dare not deny that God hath indeed said it that they are able to make the Man of God wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.16 17. And hath commanded and commended the perusal of them as the Book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest in the matters of greatest import Isai. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 2 Pet. 1.19 20. With many other places But on the other hand in all the Scriptures there is not so much as the least intimation that all persons within the Church and fa● less all men have divine immediat Objective Revelations by which they may examine and discern good from evil and here he is very angry with his adversary because he accused him of confounding in his Apology the principal Rule and the principal Leader and yet as though he had not confounded them compleatly enough in his Apology he here again in his Vindication in one and the same page viz. 38. both calleth the Spirit as imprinting Truths into the Soul the primary Rule as was even now cited and also the same Spirit the principal Leader as imprinting Rules into the Soul to walk by by which Rules must be understood the Truths he spake of just now above here the Reader may see that not only the same thing is both Principal Leader and principal Rule but also that there is not so much as a Metaphysical formality betwixt them for both of them is God under the notion of imprinting Rules or Truths into the soul yet the confidence I shal not say the impudence hath he to deny that he confounded them 8. But the Quakers well knowing that if God speaking in the Holy Scriptures be admitted Judge of the present Debates between us and them Or if the Holy Scriptures be not Esteemed False Ambiguous and Nonsensical then their cause is lost and their great Diana of Immediat Revelations and the rest of their Monstruous and Impious Doctrine falls to the ground they assert with the Papists that the Spirit of God Speaking in the Scriptures is not his own Interpreter and so bereave the Scriptures of that which is the Soul Sense and Marrow thereof denying all Scripture Interpretation though never so Genuine and Clear except they have Immediat Objective Revelation to tell them that such a Meaning is true Hence they say they may very well reject all our Interpretations and Consequences of Scripture seeing we do not pretend to the Spirit that gave forth the Scripture but declare our selves Enemies to it Thus replyeth George Keith to Mr. Iohn Alexander Truths Def. Chap. 8. Behold Reader the grossest of Popish Shift●● to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine for the Papists still say that we can know nothing Certainly because we reject their Doctrine of Infallibility just so do the Quakers maliciously belying the whole Reformed Churches Impiously crying out that they are Enemies to the Spirit of God and that because we examine all Doctrines and Practices by the written Word of God. Hence we find that the Spirit the Quakers pretend to is Diametrically opposite to the Scriptures and therefore the Spirit of Lies and Delusion at this they are enraged and cannot away with it Nam trepidant immisso lumine manes Hence William Pen thus speaketh Rej. Pag. 72. Let them shew me that Scripture that plainly and uninterpretatly tells me such a proposition is true and such a One is false that only consists of their additional Meanings such a new Nick-named People Right and such wrong and they do their busines If they cannot as it is impossible they should they must have recourse to some thing else to Rule and Determine and what can that be besides that Eternal Spirit Thou seest Judicious Reader that according to the Quakers God speaking in the Scriptures cannot tell us what is true or what is false who are Right or who are Wrong of the same Nature is that which the Quakers have in their Queries to Mr. Iohn Alexander in which they often require an Answer to be given in plain words of Scripture and in particular Querie 10. They have these Words We say they expect plain Scriptures from you for this without any Shuffling Meanings Consequences or else never pretend Scripture Rule more but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings Consequences which have been your Rule Hence according to this Doctrine our Saviour laboured but in vain when he proved the resurrection of the Dead from the Scriptures Matth. 22.31 32. for the Sadducees might have answered that such express words were not in the Pentateuch viz. That the dead should rise again and therefore they were not bound to believe it tho the inference were never so clear except they had a new immediate Revelation which they might have said we have not and who could have proved the contrary yea if this Doctrine be true a man doth not sin tho

God to compile a rule of Faith and Life could by Infallible Evidence and infallible proofs even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers demonstrat that they were sent of God but nothing of this kind the Quakers can do yea they are so far from it that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentials for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation than the most wicked Enthusiasts as for Example Iohn of Leyden and his followers whom the Quakers themselves dare not deny to have him Acted by a most wicked Spirit of Delusion seeing therefore they will not subject their Revelations to the infallible test of the holy Scriptures but contrarywise will Impiously make the Scriptures stoup to their Revelations they can be no more certain that they are not acted by the Devil or at least by their own giddy-brain and erroneous fancie when they bear us in hand that they are inspired by the Spirit of God than they of Manster were To this Argument they decline so far as they can a direct answer Therefore Robert Barclay Replyeth to Mr. Broun Vind. pag. 21. How cometh it that others pretending to be led by the Scripture as their Rule as much as John Broun have been deceived since the Scripture declares nothing but Truth But how silly this is I have shown above and more largely in my Apology in these paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted And indeed this is a fine Argument he has provided for Atheists and Scepticks for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain For since their ground and warrant of Writing the Scripture was in his own account Inward Immediat and Extraordinary Revelations and if such be as he affirms uncertain then the truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such must necessarily be uncertain since the Stream cannot be more pure than the Fountain Thus he This Reply resolveth into two Hypothetick Propositions as for the Paragraphs of which he here boasteth as unanswered which take up six pages in his Apology filled with Railing and Gall against all the reformed Churches they prove only that the Scriptures through men corruption are subject to abuse which never man denyed The first is if the Scriptures through the Corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the Patrociny of Errors and corrupt Practices then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them and square their Practice exactly according to them Yet they are no more able to be a Rule unto them than these Revelations can be which Iohn of Leyden held The second is He that will not admit of such Revelations as cannot be distinguished from these which led their followers into the most Blasphemous Opinions and most wicked Practices imaginable He I say that will not admit of these for his principal Rule but preferreth unto them the Scriptures which can both be invincibly demonstrated to have proceeded from God and also call themselves sufficient to make one wise unto Salvation provideth an Argument for Atheists and Scepti●ks But thus doth Mr. Broun reason against the Quakers and except this the like other grounds the Quakers have none for this heavy Charge For that his Adversary called the Revelations of the Apostles Prophets uncertain Is a most palpable Untruth the least shadow of which cannot be found in all his Writings except they deduce it by such unreasonable Inferences as these And now Reader speak thy mind in good earnest Thinkest thou that this man was in his wit or to be numbred amongst Rationals when he made these Deductions by which their palpable Impieties are indeed antidots against seduction But these men have an ordinary Trick of comparing their own Revelations of the Divinity of which they can give no Signs to these of the Apostles and Prophets that were to the conviction of all Opposers proved to be Divine and thus give away and betray the Christian Cause in labouring to defend their own Dottages In the next place therefore let us take a short view of the Quakers principal Rule compared with ours that it may more fully appear which of the parties provide an argument for Atheists Scepticks And 1. We cannot know whether they ha●● any Revelations at all they may be lying unto us for any thing we know we have only their naked Word for it whereas on the other hand it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures 2ly It being given that they have Revelations of some kind from whence are they from Heaven their own fancy or from Hell This we cannot know they neither do nor can give any mark to distinguish them from these Revelations which all the world are perswaded to have been from Hell or at least from a Vertiginous Fancy Go to then let them speak their mind and attempt the retortion of the argument if they dare upon the Scriptures They yet more fully prove that their Revelations are not from Heaven while they affirm that they are common to all men which if the experience of the World yea of the word of God may be judge is most ●alie 3ly Making a Supposition which will never come to a solid Position that they have divine Revelations we yet cannot know for what end they are given whether to be a principal Rule or not or whether or not through their own corruption they do not wrest and misunderstand or tho they do understand them if they walk according to them nothing of which can be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures we can hear nothing nor 〈◊〉 nothing but some men still amusing the World Crying a new Light without giving any Evidence or proof thereof but only their own Word so are always their oun witnesses in their own cause and therefore by all rational men ought not a little to be suspected 4ly This Spirit inward Light or Revelations of the Quakers for I take all for one can never be able to determine Controversies Seeing two different parties may both of them adduce these Revelations to prove contradictory Assertions Now Seeing neither of the parties is in case to Evince that his Revelations are from God more than the other the Controversie must remain for ever undetermined Seeing they have no common principle in which they can concenter and meet And thus standeth for Examples sake the case betwixt Quakers and Ranters agreeing in this principle of immediat Revelations and yet if their books be to be believed bitter Enemies to one another in several points for which both of them alledge Revelations as their grand Principle and neither of them can evince their Revelations to have proceeded from God more than the other Hence we most rationally conclude that the Controversies betwixt these two parties are indeterminable so long as they stick to this Principle Now this Argument in no ways 〈◊〉 be retorted on the Scriptures for though there have been through the corruption of men wresting the Scriptures many Controversies and that even amongst these who

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