at all to shew to whom the Law was given or not but onely that the Christian Church at Rome specially many of them being Iewes as appears chap. 16 to which he wrote was not ignorant of the Law whether generall or particular to which he had reference in that place To Deut. 11. 2 besides things answered by Mr. Ainsworth I adde that Moses there excludes not onely infants but many grown men as appears v. 3. 4. The other two places Matth. 13. 9 and 1 Cor. 10. 15 exclude too many mens of years also considering how few haue ears to hear or understanding to judg aright of spirituall things For the third head and that all sinned in Adam it is so plain from Rom. 5 as they haue nothing at all to answer though they object the place onely they bring certain other Scriptures in such a manner as if they would disproue one Scripture by another And indeed what exposition can be given or evasion found considering the expressenes of the words As by one man sinne entred into the world and death by sinne so death passed upon all men for that or as the originall hath it in whom all men haue sinned So v. 19 As by one mans disobedience many were made sinners c. If they say as some doe that all are made sinners by imitation onely they are clearly confuted first by daily experience in which it is plain that children comming to some discerning will lie filch and revenge themselvs though they never heard lie told c. It is alas too evident that they bring this corruption into the world with them Secondly by the Apostles words v. 19 For as by ones mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous If wee bee made unrighteous onely by imitation of Adams sin and not by his performing it as our root naturally then we are made righteous onely by imitation of Christs righteousnesse and not by his performing righteousnesse and fulfilling the Law for us as our spirituall root in which wee are grafted by faith Lastly these Adversaries grant that by Adams sin all his posterity haue weak natures by which when the commandement comes they cannot obey and liue but sin and so die Rom. 8. 3. Can they which are accustomed to doe evill doe well Or will these men never leav their godlesse custom of corrupting the words of the text for advantaging of an evill cause For flesh which the Text hath they put nature wheras it is without all question that by flesh the Apostle there understands properly sin and sinfull flesh as he expresly calleth it and as is plain in the whole context v. 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7 c. In all which hee opposeth the flesh to the spirit and the sinfull life of the one to the righteous life of the other And I would know of these deep Divines what but sin could possibly make Adams posterity unable to keep the Law This flesh or nature as they will haue it must be contrary to this good and holy Law and resist it And is not that properly sinfull and unholy which resists and is contrary to that which is good and holy Lastly this enemy to the Law of God in a man must be in his soule And what else can it be then a disposition in the understanding to ignorance and errour touching God and heavenly things and an inclination in the will and affections to evill Which is as properly sinne as their acts and effects are properly sinfull Infants therefore bring sin properly into the world with them Two things they here object First that Christ often accounts children innocents as Math. 18. 3. 4 19. 14. I answer first not as they mean that is such as haue in them nothing vertuous or vitious good or evill but as being humble and without pride and such as unto whom the Kingdom of God and his blessing did appertain Secondly He speaks not of all children but of those of and in the Church Their second objection is that our soules being the subjects of sin are created of God imediately But to this objection they that referrs the soules originall imediately to Gods supernaturall and indeed miraculous work do giue divers answers which these Adversaries should haue refuted Amongst others Mr. Ainsworths answer is worthy the consideration But let us consider their proofs for the soules immediate creation The first is Act. 17. 26 Of one bloud God made all mankind c. But this place makes rather against them seeing the body alone makes not mankind but the soule with it by which specially the man is The next place is Heb. 12. 9 whence they gather that Adam is the Father of our bodies and God the Father of our Spirits But first the Text neither mentions Adam nor can agree to him in the state of creation seeing in that estate there was no use of correction Secondly it saith not the fathers of our bodies but of our flesh nor the father of our Spirits but of Spirits And the meaning seems unto me with due respect had to other mens different judgment onely to be this that if we giue honour to men our carnall or fleshly fathers chastening us as they think good how much more owe honour to our spirituall father chastening us for our eternall good And surely God in his kinde is the father of the whole man not of the soule onely So is man in his kinde the father of the whole man and not of the body onely Lastly seeing the drift of the place is to shew that God as a father chasteneth his sons which he loveth and on the contrary that they that are not chastened are not sons and so haue not God for their Father I see not how the Apostle can speak of the creation of soules seeing in that respect wicked and godly children and bastards haue God alike their father The Preacher ch 12. 7 speaks of the manner of the creation of the first man Adam onely but no more proues that our soules or spirits are created by God imediately then that our bodies are made of dust immediately That ch 8. 8 hath no colour of proof in it Against our fourth and last assertion that all by Adams sin are guilty of death Rom. 5. 12 they cavill that we were not in Adam to bring any soule to hell for the breach of that commandemant Thou shalt not eat Where first to passe by their incongruity of speech they free Adam himselfe from the guilt of condemnation of which our question is as well as his posterity by that his sin seeing it brought not him himself to hell But secondly for the thing it selfe They grant acording to the Scriptures that death as a part of the curse came over all Adams posterity for his sin And will they then deny that eternall death was also due by the same law of justice Is
not the justice of God infinite and so requiring infinite satisfaction To what reasonable creature soever the smallest punishment is due from God the greatest is due also in rigour of justice And so the curse as they grant extending to Adams generation by his sin eternall condemnation as the principall part of it extendeth unto them necessarily except mercy be shewed them Neither will it help our Adversaries that other creatures die also seeing their absolutely mortall condition limits their punishment to this present life But such is not the estate of infants but their immortall soules unto which their bodies at that day are to be reunited makes the whole capable of a more full declaration of Gods justice if he deale in severity therof without mercy as he may Besides the Apostle saith that death passed upon all for that all haue sinned viz. in that one man Adam Doth death come over bruit beasts because they haue sinned in Adam They are brutish that see not the difference which these men will not acknowledge It is said else-where that in Adam all die Doe beasts die in Adam as his posterity doth As all that are Christs are in Christ and made aliue by him so all Adams posterity were in him and die in him Which death also the Apostle makes no lesse then judgement to condemnation to wit if redemption be not obtained to which he opposeth justification and eternall life Ioyn herewith these mens confession that all mankind by Adams fall are made unable to keep Gods precepts when he giues them and so all fall under the wrath of God and are therfore said to be children of wrath Eph. 2. 3 and there is sufficient for their conviction as hath been shewed But I add that the Apostle means plainly a further matter and that all are born children of wrath for to be so by nature and to be born so are the same We are children of wrath by sin onely If therefore all be children of wrath by nature it is by the sin of nature which we call originall sin and not by actuall sin onely as they surmise Lastly I demand whether if Adam had not sinned hee should not haue transferred to his posterity the Image of God after which he was created and a pronenesse to keep it as notwithstanding sin he doth some feeble remainders thereof and therewith right to eternall life If yea why not then sin and the guilt thereof by proportion having sinned To Ezech. 18 I haue formerly answered He speaks of the sins of immediate parents not of the first sin of our first father which was naturall whereas the other but personall yea not onely other mens but his after sins also Secondly it is plain he speaks of such children as seeing all their fathers sins consider and doe not the like but doe that which is lawfull and right keeping and doing all Gods statutes To such God imputes no sin Their affirmation following is strange that Infants shall receiv no judgment because they haue done neither good nor evill according to which all judgment passeth By this they should neither be saved nor damned for what else is it to receiv judgment of salvation but to be saved and so for the contrarie They doe ignorantly exclude Infants from a state one or other for wanting that condition which is required of men of years onely They might as probably say that Infants shall be damned seeing Christ saith He that beleevs not shall bee damned or should not eat because it is said He that will not work shall not eat To the place Ps. 51. 5 Behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceiv me they answer not directly but by many Ifs ands chusing many uncertain vanities rather then one certain truth which is that David in this whole context confesseth his transgression and sin And as men ascend by the stream to the fountain so doth he in those words to the fountain of all evill As if he should haue said Lord I am not onely stayned with and guiltie of these particular evils but I am even wholly corrupt by nature from the very womb and haue brought a fountain of sin into the world with me from whence these particular mischiefs haue issued ADVERSARIES THeir Answers follow The first is that David confesseth that he is made as Ps. 103. 14 of weak flesh and unable to resist the Tempter being dust c. DEFENCE DOth mans being made of dust make him unable to resist the Tempter Then God making Adam of the dust made him unable to resist the Tempter also which both crosseth the truth and their own assertion The Prophet Psal. 103. 14 speaks of bodily weaknesse and frailtie onely which is nothing at all to the matter in hand and which if it had been greater in David would haue been more advantageable against that sin into which he fell Next for their advantage they corrupt the Text Rom. 8 in saying Christ came in sinfull flesh where the Text saith hee came in the similitude of sinfull flesh He came in nothing sinfull but all holy and pure from sin So doe they that 2 Cor. 5. 21 leaving out for us which shewes how Christ became sin for us that is as our Surety and lyable to the curse due to our sinns but not in sinfull flesh as they erroneously say Thirdly they absurdly affirm that the sin of his mother whether Hevah or that bare him is that sin or punishment layd upon her which he here confesseth in saying I was conceived in sin David confesseth a sin as evill wheras all punishments are Gods good work yea his own sin onely of which he desires forgiuenesse Neither doe the words here at all agree with those Gen. 3. 16 as they say The Reader that will may see them opened at large by Mr. Aâ—nsworth They add that it is frequent with the Holy Ghost to call punishments for sins by the name of sins But first not so frequent by a 1000 times as to call the transgression of the Law sinn secondly the phrase in sin is never taken but properly as to be in sin to liue in sin to continue in sin to die in sin and specially to be born in sin as Ioh. 9. 34 the Pharisees in so judging followed the errour of the Pythagorean Philosophers thirdly where Christ is sayd to bear our sins it is primarily in regard of the guilt as he was our Surety Of what sin of his mother was David guilty They unjustly accuse us as saying that David sinned in being born and conceived or that the very matter and substance wherof David was made was sin Vayn are they in imagining such vain things of us David was meerly a patient in being born and sinned not therin neither yet did his mother sin either in conceiving or bearing him though shee conceived and brought him forth in sin But he having sinned in Adam
the Covenant of the Gospell solemnly made with our father Abraham long before the Law was given the old Testament established or Moses born Their discourse about Rome is vain except they can proue that the outward baptism there administred though unlawfully is not to be reteyned by such as unto whom the Lord afterward vouchsafeth the inward baptism of his spirit and so answer our Reasons to the contrary which they haue and haue had so long time in their hands These things thus cleared it remaines we come in the next last place to examine their defence of that their own unhallowed baptism in use amongst them formerly proved by me a mere nullity by their grounds and practise set together Their ground is that baptism unlawfully ministred is no baptism their practise that he who ministring his gift poorely as their manner is doth convert in truth pervert another may also baptize him without any speciall calling For foundation of my proofs I laid down these two Rules 1. There is no lawfull baptism but by him that hath a lawfull calling to baptize 1. Thess. 4. 11. Heb. 5. 4. 5. And unto this they assent 2. Onely he hath a lawfull ordinary calling to baptize and extraordinary they challeng not who is called therto by the Church This their first rebaptizer Mr. Smith had not neyther haue they that now administer baptism amongst them neither doe they account that more is requisite for power and right to baptize then a personall gift of teaching and making thereby one of their Proselites and supposed converts Whereupon it follows that they themselvs being baptized by such as want a lawfull calling are not lawfully baptized and so by the verdict of their own quest unbaptized persons Their defence they begin with the perverting both of my words and meaning very unhonestly in setting down the state of the question which yet seems not strang unto me considering their licentious dealing in like sort with the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures They frame the question whether any but Pastors or Elders may baptize and my charge upon them that they are unbaptized because they want Pastors But where haue I so spoken or how gather they that to haue been my meaning had it so been why could I not as easily haue said that none but Pastors for of baptism by others Elders which labour not in the word and doctrine we approve not may lawfully baptize as that none but such as are lawfully called by the Church may baptize which are my words My meaning was not to deny that a Church wanting Pastors may appoint a member able to teach though out of office to baptize for which much may be said and hath been by some so minded Which though I doe not simply approve of yet neyther did neither had I occasion ro deal thereagainst but onely against the wilde course of these All-alikes of whom any that can wrest a few Scriptures intended of men of yeares onely against the baptizing of Infants to the corrupting of some simple man or woman thinks himself another Iohn Baptist as their practise and profession manifests Now whether they haue thus altered my words and perverted my meaning out of bold rashnes as being more hasty to answer then to understand their adversarie or out of cunning for their advantage the Lord and themselvs bee Iudges Onely this any may see and I shall make appeare that the most and most colourable of their Arguments are against their misconceaved and not mine intended sense which gives occasion to suspect that they haue rather been cunning then carelesse in the thing ADVERSARIES LET us come to the particulars and first to their first and main ground and foundation of their course which is that members and Churches of Christ are made both by faith and baptism and not by the one onely DEFENCE THIS their foundation in respect of baptism is sandy seeing it servs but to signifie and confirm what was before but makes nothing to be that was not The Scriptures being many cited by them are partly impertinent and partly against them some of them expresly and the rest truely Some of them indeed speak of being baptized into Christ and into his death and into one body with him and make baptism a foundation but mean not 〈◊〉 to shew that men are made Christian soules by baptism as ignorant persons think and speak but onely that they are confirmed and furthered thereby in that which they were before Some of the places joyn with baptism the Lords Supper others the laying on of hands which yet rather is meant of the doctrine then ministration of those things Now doe they conceaue that such as were no true Christians before are in part made Christians by the Lords Supper and laying on of hands When the Scriptures affirm any thing of an ordinance they must be interpreted according to the nature of the ordimance As where Christ saith of the bread This is my body or of the rock And the rock was Christ or the Apostle here that we are baptized into Christ and draw neer unto Christ by baptism and the like we must understand the speaches as sacramentall so far as they are applied to ordinances that is as intending those things for signes and seales and means of confirmation and not otherwise Others of the Scriptures brought by them are so plainly against them as it is marvail that in setting them down they thought not of the Lords answer to the evill servant Luke 19. 22. For example Math. 28. 19. Go teach or as they well turn it make all nations disciples baptizing them c. The Apostles then were first to make to wit by their teaching disciples that is Christians and after to baptize them Is it not the Scriptures constant voice and these mens plea true in it self but to a wrong end that men must first beleeue and repent and upon manifestation thereof be baptized Are not they that beleev and repent Christians with them Otherwise How doe they baptize them But thus it is with men in all sects that are lead by passion and appetite more then reason they doatupon some one thing truly or apparantly good and labor aboue measure to magnifie it esteeming all things without it as nothing Thus these men esteem of baptism others of Church government others of seperation others of imposition of hands by Bishops And so according as men haue advantage by particulars or suffer for them or are otherwise prejudiced towards them they set high valuation upon them But as grace teacheth us to acknowledg better things in Christians then any outward ordinances so must wisdom warn us not to ascribe too much to any one as fond folks use to doe to the person or thing which they affect Math. 18. 20 is against them To be gathered together in Christs name there presupposes a Church state So is Io◠4. 1. Christ made and baptized disciples they were made disciples by preaching