and sinful Parents is flesh that is is fleshly and finful for so we find in other places of Scripture as was said before that where the flesh and spirit are opposed one to another as they are in this verse there by spirit is understood the regenerate part in man and by flesh the unregenerate part as beside the former Text quoted Gal. 5.16 17. verses is to be seen in Rom. 8. several times verse the 5. They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit And in the next verse To be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life and peace And in the 9. verse Ye are not in the flesh but in the spirit And again in the 13. verse If ye live after the flesh ye shall die but if ye through the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the body ye shall live In all which places as also in most other in the New Testament where the Spirit and the flesh are set in opposition one to another there by flesh is meant the unregenerate part in man unless some circumstances in the context do necessarily require that such places should be otherwise understood Hence therefore it follows undeniably That children are conceived and born in sin namely because they stand in need of regeneration to their salvation Argument 2. THey that are subject to diseases and death in their conception and birth are in their conception and birth sinful for these namely diseases and death are affirmed to be the fruits and effects of sin in Scripture very frequently Rom. 5.12 By one man sin entred into the World and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is death So that where we see death or sicknesse sieze upon any young or old there we may surely conclude that sin hath gone before But Infants are subject to diseases and death in their very conception and birth Therefore they are in their conception and birth sinful To evade the force of this argument one of note amongst the Anabaptisie nâ—mely one Mr. Brown in a Treatise which he hath penned and published entituled Scriptureredeâ—ption freed from restraint and in page the 7. of the said discourse restrains the death mentioned in the forenamed Texts to a bodily death only affirming that Adam by his sin exposed himself and his posterity not to eternal or the second death to the death of soul and body both but to bodily death only Yet lest he should seem to contradict Scripture which every-where affirms all sin to provoke God's anger and to deserve death and to bring forth fruit unto death he confesseth that any sin deserves death but not every kind of death His words are these I grant saith he that the wages of sin is death but the wages of any sin is not every kind of death And so denies that Adam incurred any other death by his sin then the death of the body Touching this answer and this exposition of the foresaid Texts of Scripture I desire the Reader to take notice of these two failings and falts therein First it extenuates the hainousness of sin and minceth and diminisheth that just demerit and penalty of it which throughout the whole Scripture is denounced against it which is death both of body and soul Secondly It 's a concession and confession in effect that children are by nature sinful born with fin upon them and in them for if the wages of any be death which is truth and he ingeniously affirms it then where there is any death there must needs be some sin or else the wages and penalty of sin should be inflicted where there is no sin Whereas therefore some children suffer in their infancy some kind of death namely bodily death they must needs be guilty of some kind of sin otherwise they should be punished with bodily death undeservedly which to affirm were blasphemy But they can have no actual sin as is confessed of all men and therefore the sin which exposeth them to death must needs be some latent sin wherewith their natures are stained from the womb as the Scripture speakes which is that which we call originall And so ye may see that his answer to the argument is in effect a concession of the unaswerable force of it and of that which he would seeme to deny But I will display Mr. Brown his gross errour about this point yet a little further He confesseth in the same place of his book that actuall sins in men deserve eternall death though not origin all sin Now I would know of him whether Adam's first sin was not actuall sin This I am sure he cannot deny Nay a very hainous actuall sin it was as might be laid open by many circumstances This then being granted I demand of him why actuall sins in us should be punishable with eternall death and not this first hainous actuall sin of Adam's I dare answer for him that he cannot tel For if our actuall sins deserve eternall death much rather that of Adam's as who had greater light and more grace and less temptations then we have All which considerations are so many aggravations of his sin Lastly to trample this vile errour yet once more under foot that it may never lift up it selfe againe I demand of these Anabaptists whether Adam did not by his sin divest and disrobe himselfe of that glorious image of God after which he was made which consisted especially in righteousnesse and true holiness as the Apostle hath declared Eph. 4.22.23 and 24. verses for there he exhorts to put of the old man by which he means the vitiosity sinfulness of our natures transmitted and propagated into us by old Adam and then to be renewed in the spirit of our minds and to put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness which implyes that Gods image after which man was first created did consist in righteousness and holiness Now if they deny that Adam by his sin deprived himselfe of God's image consisting in righteousness and holiness they must deny the 5. chapter of Pauls epistle to the Romans to be Canonicall Scripture for there the Apostle affirmes severall times in the five last verses that by Christ we regain both righteousness and life which Adam lost And againe the word renewed which the Scripture useth in speaking hereof implyes a deprivation of that which was before for nothing can properly be said to be renewed but where there hath been a precedent deprivation of that which is renewed Again on the other side if they confess that Adam by his sin deprived himselfe of God's image then they confess by conseqvence that his sin brought upon him spirituall death which is a further penalty then corporall death and so impugneth their tenet that Adam incurred by his first sin no other death then the
it It will be expedient for me to premise certain Theological conclusions or principles which all Orthodox Divines unanimously and univocally have acknowledged to be undoubted Truths as Praecognita and Canons to have recourse unto for the decision and determination of any Controversie as need shall require which if they deny to assent unto they are not to be disputed with as the proverb speaks Contra negantem principia non est disputandum There 's no disputation to be held with him that will deny the principles of Art The Principles I think fit to premise are these four 1. That the Canonical Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is authentical and creditable of it self 2. That there is no contradictions in the Canonical Scripture 3. That the same makes and so by consequence alloweth to be made distinction between things that sometime in Scripture have the same denomination This appears by many instances in Scripture whereof I will name these three Fear Faith and Sorrow First About Fear the Scripture mentioneth a fear which is gracious and godly which the learned have termed Filial and a Fear which is gracelesse which the learned have termed Servile of this we have an example in 2 Kings 17.33 34. where it 's said of the Babylonians in the former verse that they feared God and then in the latter verse that they feared him not Whence it 's evident that a distinction must be made of the fear of God whereof some is a Gracious Fear and some a Gracelesse otherwise there would be a contradiction between the two verses which Scripture admits not Secondly About Faith The Scripture doth distinguish it into these two sorts namely a Faith that hath Works and a Faith that is without works which it also calleth a dead faith James 2.17 Faith if it have no Works is dead being alone Thirdly About Sorrow The Scripture speaks of a godly sorrow for sin and a worldly sorrow in 2 Cor. 7.10 Godly sorrow worketh Repentance to salvation but the sorrow of the World worketh death Hereby it 's clear that a distinction is sometimes to be made betwixt things that have the same denomination The fourth Principle which I shall premise is this That seeming contradictions in Scripture are so to be expounded by help of other Texts either speaking of the same point or otherwise that they may symphonize and accord together Which help the Scripture affords in one place or other If our Adversaries will yield to be tryed about the forementioned Controversies by these old Canons which have been universally received for undoubted truths by all Christian Churches in primitive times when the waters ran clearest from under the Threshold of the Sanctuary I shall adventure to bear the disgrace if I do not convince them of error about each Controversie that I have before named The first Controversie handled About Election THeir first Error that I shall undertake to confute is their assertion That God's election of men unto salvation is grounded upon his foresight of their Faith and Obedience or sanctification and Good Works That is that he electeth such and such men to life and salvation because he foreseeth that they will believe and walk in obedience to his Commandements This Assertion I shall prove to be an error by these four Arguments The first Argument If men shall therefore believe because they are elected and ordained to eternal life then they are not elected and ordained to eternal life because they will believe This consequence cannot be denied by any intelligent man But men shall therefore believe because they are elected and ordained to eternal life and therefore are not elected and ordained to it because they will believe The Assumption I prove out of Acts 13.48 where it 's said That as many as were ordained to eternall life believed Here Faith is made the fruit and effect of election to eternal life and therefore cannot be the cause of it for nothing can be the cause and effect too of one and the same thing My second Argument is this If men be elected or chosen that they may be holy then their election must needs be the ground and cause of their holinesse and sanctification But men are elected that they may be holy so saith the Scripture Ephes 1.4 He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the World that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Therefore Election is the ground and cause of holinesse or sanctification and not holinesse the ground and cause of election The third Argument If the good pleasure of God's will be the ground and first cause of mens election and predestination to salvation then God's fore-sight of their Sanctification and Good Works cannot be the first cause and ground thereof This consequence is undeniable But the good pleasure of God's will is the first cause and ground of mens election and predestination to salvation Therefore God's fore-sight of their sanctification and Good Works cannot be the first cause and ground thereof The A sumption I prove from these two Texts of Scripture passing by many other to the same purpose Rom. 9.11 S. Paul there affirms That the purpose of God according to Election stands not of Works but of him that calleth Where works are denied and Gods will affirmed to be the cause of election And Ephes 1.5 and again verse 11. the good pleasure of God's will is made the ground and cause of mens election to salvation The words in the fift verse are these Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself according to the good pleasure of his will And the words in the 11. verse are these In whom also we have obtained an inheritance being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the councel of his own will If the Adversaries answer that Election may be according to the good pleasure of God's will and yet the good pleasure of his will may not be the cause of Election To this I reply That the Apostle makes it plain in the 11. verse that he speaks of the good pleasure of God's will as the cause of Election by the addition of these last words in the verse Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will For if he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will then Election is necessarily one of those things which he worketh after the councel of his own will and therefore the counsell of his own will must needs be the cause thereof The fourth Argument is this If Good Works be no causes of salvation then neither of election unto salvation this is plain because Election is the cause of Salvation But Good Works are no causes of salvation and therefore no causes of Election The minor Proposition or Assumption is proved by Ephes 2.8 9 verses where the Apostle saith By grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the
Scripture that he died for many as well as for all as Isa 53.12 He bare the sins of many Matth. 20.28 He gave his life a ransome for many Heb. 9.28 Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many Which expressions import that he died not for all alike but for many in one sense and for all in another or else the expression of his dying for many were needlesse in that it is so oft expressed that he died for all Secondly Because it 's oft said that he died for his Church as John 10.15 I lay down my life for the sheep Eph. 5.25 Husbands love your Wives even as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it Which imports also that he died for all men in one sense and for his Church in another Thirdly because the Scripture hath in terminis in expresse words put a difference between his being a Saviour to all men and his being a Saviour to them that believe as in 1 Tim. 4.10 We trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all men specially of those that believe From whence I argue thus Christ died for all men as he is a Saviour of all men but he is a Saviour of all men in a different sense and sort namely generally of the universality of men and specially of his Church witnesse the distinction made by the Apostle in the fore-cited Text Therefore he died for all men in a different sense and sort namely in one sense and sort for the universality of men and in another sense and sort for the particularity of his Church To the third Quaery I answer That he died for all wicked men and unbelievers in these two senses according to Scripture 1. As suffering a satisfactory punishment for the sins of all the men in the world so as they are not left destitute of the means of remission of sins and of salvation according to the words of the Apostle 1 Tim. 2.6 There is one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransome for all a testimony in due time And again Heb. 2.9 the Apostle saith that He tasted death for every man 2. He died for them upon condition of their faith and obedience according to these Scriptures John 3.16 God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life And Heb. 5.9 He became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him And so in like manner it 's the affirmation of sundry other Texts of Scripture But then he died not for them with an intention and purpose to give them grace to repent and believe and so to bring them to salvation which appears by Scripture to be a clear truth these two ways 1. Because Scripture hath revealed abundantly God's purpose to the contrary namely to save some men but not all The proofs whereof are so numerous that I need not quote any 2. Because if Christ died for all men with an intention and purpose to save all then either all shall be saved which is contradicted by a hundred places of Scripture or else Christ's purpose may be altered But his purpose cannot be altered or disappointed and therefore he died not for all with a purpose to save all That his purpose cannot be altered I prove both because he can neither alter it himself nor can any other alter it That he cannot alter it himself is oft taught in Scripture Mal. 3.6 I am the Lord I change not Jam. 1.17 With him is no variablenesse neither shadow of turning Neither can any other alter it for his purpose is immutable and his will irresistible Isa 46.10 My counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleasure And 43.13 I will work and who shall let it And Rom. 9.19 Who hath resisted his will Thus then from the premises already sufficiently proved I conclude and determine the controversie thus That Christ died for all the men in the world in these two senses First As paying by his death a sufficient ransome for the sins of them all which the Scripture calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of redemption several times Secondly That he died for them all upon condition of their faith and obedience but died not for all men with purpose to bring all actually to salvation And so the old distinction of Christ's dying for all men either sufficientur or efficaciter sufficiently or effectually as it may be understood and applied stands still upon its basis and feet and challengeth all the desertors and rejecters of it to frame a more fit and proper distinction between Christ's dying for all men and his dying for his Church Seeing a distinction between them is to be made as hath been already declared by testimony of Scripture The third Controversie which is of all other the most difficult and knotty WHether an unregenerate man hath power to repent and believe and so be saved if he will Mr. Haggar answers hereto in the affirmative in Page the 25. of his fore-mentioned discourse I answer to it in the negative denying that a natural man hath power to repent and believe by the energy or strength of his own free-will but needs the help of the special preventing grace of God ere he can be converted or he cannot convert himself For the fuller opening and enodation of this controversie and because therein I have more learned adverseries to deal with then Anabaptists I will first speak out what the will of an unregenerate man is able to do towards his conversion without the help of God's special efficacious grace or preventing grace as the learned call it And then secondly How far it cooperates with God's grace in his conversion About the first notice is to be taken of a threefold liberty of Will namely The liberty of Nature the liberty of Grace and the liberty of Glory Of which though these two last we lost by Adam's fall yet the first was not lost but remains still so as by vertue thereof the Will hath liberty to will or nill without compulsion or constraint and that not only in natural and civil actions but also in moral and ecclesiastical In moral actions to practise virtue as Justice Temperance Liberality c. And so to do some things commanded in God's Law as both experience shews and Paul testifies Rom. 2.14 where be saith That the Gentiles did by nature the things contained in the Law In Ecclesiastical actions an unregenerate man hath liberty also namely to perform the duties of God's worship and service for the outward act as to come to Church hear and read the word of God pray partake of the Sacraments do works of charity and confer about Religion and the doctrine of faith as common experience shews all which are good preparatives to and ofttimes efficacious means of regeneration and conversion Yet must this liberty of Will about all these actions either
active and passive is the meritorious cause of salvation and of all the means conducting thereunto So Colos 1.14 We have redemption through his bloud even the forgiveness of sins And 1 John 1.7 The bloud of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin And 1 Pet. 1.18 19. Knowing that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers but with the precious bloud of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot with many such like Texts Thirdly Faith is the instrumental cause that is to say the instrument whereby we receive Christ and apply his merits to us so John 1.12 As many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name And Ephes 3.17 The Apostle saith that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith And hence it is our righteousnesse is called both the righteousness of faith Rom. 10.6 And the righteousnesse which is by faith Heb. 11.7 And the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Phil. 3.9 Fourthly and lastly Vocation and Justification and Sanctification and good works and eternal life and salvation are the joynt fruits and effects of the aforenamed causes successively following one another Vocacion Justification and Sanctification and good works are the first fruits and effects of the foresaid causes brought forth here in this life as numerous Texts of Scripture testifie which I need not recite because they are familiarly known and because I have mentioned divers of them formerly And Eternal Life and Salvation is the last fruit the consummation and ultimate end of all as it 's very often taught and testified Rom. 6.22 Being made free from sin and become servants to God ye have your fruit unto heliness and the end everlasting life And 1 Pet. 1.9 Receiving the end of your faith even the salvation of your souls These are the links of the golden chain of salvation and the order of the causes thereof as they are annexed and held forth to us in the word of God And in Rom. 8.30 they are summed up together though in fewer words Whom he did predestinate saith the Apostle them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified And hence is Mr. Haggar's grosse error in his concatenation of the causes of salvation detected and confuted In that he makes sanctification and good works causes of salvation which are but fruits and effects of God's election and the merits of Christ apprehended by faith for they go before salvation only as necessary antecedents and as the appointed way to lead us to salvation and as preparatives for Heaven as hath been already declared but not as causes thereof 1. They are Via regnâ— but not causa regnandi So that as the way to any place is not the cause that brings any man to it though he must needs passe through the way to come to that place but the cause of his coming to it is his own will and motion So sanctification and good works though they be necessary antecedents to salvation so that we cannot passe to Heaven but through them yet they are not the causes which brings us thither but the causes thereof are the mercies of God and the merits of Christ apprehended by Faith And so I end this Controversie If now I have not untied the Gordian knots of these long debated Controversies so fully and openly as to give satisfaction to all whose thoughts have been formerly puzzled about them as I believe I shall not yet my labour will not be wholly lost in these regards First Because I have hereby declared my willingnesse to do the Church service to my power by putting my hand to the supportation of the truth of the gospel which these stormy times have so impetuously and vehemently shaken Secondly Because what I have delivered may happily give satisfaction to some and let them loose out of the briers of their hesitation that were doubtful before what opinion to incline to Thirdly Because this Essay may happily be an occasion to invite and induce some more Logical and Learned pen to publish a more Scholastick and plenary solution of them The fifth Controversie About Original sin THat I may the more fully discover and confute this error I will unfold these four points about the sin of our natures the sin wherein we are conceived and born which therefore all Orthodox Divines have fitly and properly called Original Sin First I will render a reason of the epithete why it is called Original Sin Secondly I will give a definition of the Sin what is Thirdly I will alledge some of the evident proofs of Scripture for the justification of it Fourthly I will frame some irrefragable and convincing arguments drawn out of Scripture to prove it by necessary and undeniable consequence The first Point opened THe sinful corruption or corrupt disposition of man's nature from the womb hath many epithetes or names given unto it in Scripture which denote and declare that it hath its original and beginning with man's conception and birth and therefore is fitly and properly termed Original Sin and so ever hath been for above this thousand years by all sound and learned Divines both ancient and modern For though it be not in terminis in these very words so called in Scripture yet hath it divers other epithetes and names there given it which are consignificant and import and imply the same sense and meaning with these words Original Sin amongst which take notice of these Rom. 6.6 It 's called The old man and the body of sin 1 Cor. 5.7 It 's termed The old leaven Rom. 7.17 The sin that dwelleth in us Rom. 7.23 The law in our members Rom. 7.24 The body of death Gal. 5.16 The lusts of the flesh Jam. 1.14 A man 's own lust In which Text in the next words following it is punctually distinguished from all actual sins as being expresly affirmed to be the procreant cause of all actual sin for the cause and the effects cannot be one and the same The second Point opened what original sin is ORiginal sin is a pravity vitiosity or vitious habit or corrupt disposition of man's nature from his first conception as a just punishment of all mens sin in Adam whereby they are born the children of wrath and become subject to death both of body and soul and also become prone to commit all actual sins Or thus Original sin is a pravity of man's nature from his first conception whereby he seems to be prone to all sin as a just punishment of Adam's sin or transgression whereof all men are guilty and for which all men are exposed and subjected to death both corporal and eternal Both these definitions have one and the same sense And from them ye may observe that there be three things in Original Sin or three parts of it The first
is the guilt of Adam's sin whereof S. Paul speaks Rom. 5.19 where he saith By one man's disobedience many were made sinners Secondly There is the defect and want of original righteousnesse whereof he speaks Rom. 3.23 All have sinned and come short of the glory of God i.e. of God's image which was in man's first creation stamped upon him And for this exposition I have warrant from 1 Cor. 11.7 in that the Apostle there joyned these together as synonimas image and glory when he saith That man is the image and glory of God Thirdly There is the succession of a vitious habit and corrupt disposition in man's nature in place of his primitive righteousnesse whereof we read Gen. 6.5 where God himself witnesseth That the whole imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evill continually And Psal 14.2 â— verse David saith That the Lord looked down from Heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek God They are all gone aside they are altogether become filthy And here I desire the Reader to consider how these three parts of this our native sin do produce and bring forth one another the first namely the guilt of Adam's sin being the sole cause of the other two as these Texts beside many other declare Rom. 3.23 All have sinned that is in Adam and come short of the glory of God i.e. come short of that glorious image of God by reason of that sin of Adam's whereof all are guilty And Rom. 5.19 By one man's disobedience many wert made sinners By which one man Adam is understood as all acknowledge And so these two Texts make it clear that childrens want of Original or Primitive righteousnesse and the inquination and depravation of their natures do both flow from their guilt of Adam's sin and are the sad consequents of it The third point opened The evident proofs of Scripture for it BEsides the Texts already named it 's plentifully taught elsewhere Gen. 5. the 1 3. verses compared In the first verse it 's said that Adam was created in the likeness of God And in the 3. verse it 's said that He begat a child in his own likeness after his image which imports that he begat not a child in the likenesse of God which consisted in holinesse but in the likenesse of himself who then was stained with sin Gen. 8.21 The imagination of man's heart is evill from his youth Which Text is rendered by Junius and Tremellius The imagination or frame of man's heart is evill from his childhood Now children are free from actual sins and therefore the evill of their hearts must need be Original because all evill of sin is comprehended under one of these two sorts Job 14.4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean not one Which is spoken in reference to man's birth as it 's there most apparent in the first verse Job 15.14 What is man that he should be clean or he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous And again chap. 25.4 How then can man be justified with God or how can he be clean that is born of a woman The interrogations in both these Texts imply an impossibility that any woman should bring forth a child free from the pollution and tincture of sin in the ordinary way of conception and parturition Psal 51.5 Behold saith David I was shapen in iniquity If David then all others but our Saviour only whose conception was not after the ordinary manner but by the miraculous and incomprehensible operation of the holy Ghost The Anabaptists to avoid the repugnancy between their Tenet and this Text have devised this shift They say that David spake this of his mother's sin in his conception and not of his own fin But this is so weak a subterfuge and evasion and so dissonant from the scope and purpose of the Psalm that I should think that any judicious man that seeks the truth should blush to own it for this is one of David's penitential Psalms wherein he makes humble confession of his own sins to God and not of his mother's and makes earnest request and supplication for the expiation of them as all the precedent verses declare And again though the latter words in the verse might be wrested to be spoken of his mother's sin as well as his own because mention is made of her yet the first words which are these Behold I was shapen in iniquity must of necessity be understood of himself and can have no reference to his mother without violence to the Text and wilful wresting of it Psal 58.3 It 's said That the wicked are estranged from the womb And the like place is in Isa 48.8 where the Lord calls the house of Jacob A transgressor from the womb which is as much to say as a sinner by birth Ezek. 16.4 5 6. verses Jersalem's nativity is affirmed by God to be polluted and he saith That he saw her polluted in her own bloud which Text though it should be granted to be allegoricall as some Interpreters would have it yet inevitably concludes mans birth to be unclean Joh. 3.6 That which is borne of the flesh is flesh saith our Saviour that is is sinfull For when the flesh is opposed to the Spirit as it is here in this Text it usually denoteth and is put to signifie the pravity or sinfullness of nature as Gal. 5.17 The flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh and these are contrary one to another Roman 5.12 By one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and so death pasled upon all men for that all have sinned If all have sinned then have infants sinned as well as others for we do not find them any where excepted Now infants have no actuall sin while they are infants and therefore that sin which they are said to have must needs be originall all sin whatsoever being comprehended under one of these two kinds as was said before The fourth Point opened namely Arguments drawn from Scripture to prove original sin by necessary consequence Argument 1. IF children be not conceived and born in sin then is there no need of their regeneration or second birth to their salvation before they have made themselves sinners by actual transgression for nothing hinders from salvation but sin But children have need of a regeneration or second birth to their salvation before they have committed any actual sin as is clear from our Saviour's words twice affirmed with vehement asseveration John 3.3 5. verses Verily verily I say unto thee except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God And this is spoken without any exception of Infants either there or in any other place of Scripture and is also proved by our Saviour in the verse next following to concern Infants as well as men of years because whatsoever is born of the flesh that is of fleshly
death of the body for as the soule gives naturall life to the body so the image of God namely righteousnesse and holinesse gives spirituall life to the soule and without which the soul is spiritually dead as Ephes 2.1 Colos 2.13 and divers other Texts of Scripture witnesse where mention is made of a death in sin You that were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened c. whence by undeniable consequence it follows that where there is a deprivation of the spiritual life of righteousnesse and holinesse there must needs follow a spiritual death in sin Now if they deny grace righteousnesse and holinesse to be the life of the soul I refer them to the view of these three Texts of Scripture omitting many other where it 's expreslly asserted Prov. 3.21 22. Keep sound wisedom and discretion so shall they be life unto thy soul And Rom. 8.6 To be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life And Rom. 8.10 The spirit is life because of righteousness that is The soul is alive spiritually because of righteousnesse Argument 3. THey whom Christ came to save are sinners So saith our Saviour himself Matth. 9.13 I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance And S. Paul Rom. 5.6 Christ died for the ungodly And 1 Tim. 1.15 Christ Jesus came into the World to save sinners And this must needs be so in reason for where there is no sin there is no need of a Saviour But Christ came to save Infants as well as men of years Therefore they are sinners Now that Christ came to save Infants as well as men of years appears by Scripture these two ways 1. Because he died for all men as oft the Scripture affirms 1 Tim. 2.6 He gave himself a ransome for all Heb. 2.9 He tasted death for every man For whether all in these and the like Texts of Scripture be taken for all sorts of men only or for all of all sorts Infants must needs be included amongst them for they are one sort of men 2. Because he invited children to come unto him or to be brought unto him as is said Marke 10.14 which intimates that he came into the world to save them as well as men of years I will add one argument more for proof of this point to which the wit of man though prompted by the cunning suggestion of the old serpent cannot devise a satisfactory answer Argument 4. THey which are by nature children of wrath are by nature sinners But all men are by nature children of wrath so saith the Apostle Ephes 2.3 Therefore all men are by nature sinners and so consequently Infants The first proposition is all that I have to prove for the assumption is S. Paul's own affirmation And I find it the constant doctrine of holy Scripture both in the Old and New Testament which evermore teacheth sin to be the only cause of God's anger and wrath And this in reason must needs be so because all things else were his own works which were all good yea very good as we read in Gen. 1.31 And sin only was the Divel's work the enemy of God and all goodnesse and therefore sin only is said to provoke God's anger and wrath The testimonies of Scripture are so numerous for this that I will name but this one of a thomsand Rom. 1.18 The wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousnesse of men And how oft God is said in Scripture to have been provoked to anger by the sins of the people of Israel none can be ignorant I will add but one thing more about this argument and so I will conclude it The forenamed Text in Eph. 2.3 with what is deducible from it where it is affirmed that we are all by nature the children of wrath puzleth the Anabaptists not a little and puts them to their shifts to frame such an exposition thereof as may not impugn their own false Tenet about original sin This may appear from that exposition which the forementioned Mr. Brown hath made of that Text in the 6. page of his book that I named before where he thus expounds it By nature saith he is understood first the matter and form of our bodies which are good and principally the light that God hath placed in man Now that this is a novel false and irrational interpretation of this Text I thus discover If by nature here be understood nothing but what is good namely the matter and form of our bodies and the light that God hath placed in us then how can it make us the children of wrath as here it 's said of it for nothing that 's good can make us children of wrath It 's sin only which was first brought forth by Satan and nothing else that provokes God's wrath as formerly was proved By nature therefore in this place of necessity must be understood something that is sinful for else it could not make us children of wrath as hath been shewed which can be nothing else but that vitiosity pravity and corrupt disposition which from our first birth and being is propagated into our bodies and souls by natural generation For though it were granted that by nature here be meant the substance of our souls and bodies yet of necessity it must be also granted as hath been now proved that it 's meant of them not as pure and free from any sin but as vitiated and depraved therewith from their first union and conjunction together into one individual It remains therefore a sure and sacred truth inviolable and infringible and not to be contradicted but by obstinacy or impudence it self That children are born in sin The sixth Controversie About Tithes THere is an obsteperous clamour raised against Tithes by the Anabaptistical teachers who yet for the most part lay as heavy a burthen upon their disciples and put them to as great cost and charges as is equivalent to Tithes And this in all probability they have broached and ventilated to get the better morsel for themselves For this they find by experience that the way to insinuate with the common people and to winde themselves into their bosomes is to preach pleasing things unto them and especially such as sound for their profit be it right or wrong To stop their mouths if it may be if not yet to justifie the practise of paying and receiving Tithes I will first make it appear that it stands with equity and justice that Ministers of the Gospel have allowance and recompence for performing their work of the Ministery and such an allowance as may afford them a competent and comfortable livelihood and subsistence Secondly I shall make it appear That it stands with equity and justice that they have Tithes for their allowance 1. The former I shall prove both by Scripture and force of reason By Scripture I shall prove it both in the Old Testament and in the New First