Argum 9. From the necessity of Infants in respect of a Saviour; Those Infants that die in their Infancy, and go to heaven, cannot obtain this glorious benefit, but by Christ: If therefore Christ be a Saviour to some Infants then they are lost and undone in themselves: But not for any actual sins: Therefore for original. This fully demonstrates every Infant, though but a day, but an hour old, to be truly a sinner, Why? Because even they need Christ a Saviour; if they had no sin, they needed not a Jesus; And this must necessarily be confessed, That either Infants cannot be saved, and are not to be accounted of the people ⟨p. 36⟩of God, and of his Church; or if they be, that they have sin from which they are to be cleansed and saved. The former is rarely asserted, and therefore the later must be granted: And indeed when the Scripture saith, Matth. 1. 21. Christ is called Jesus, Because he shall save his people from their sins: As also Ephes. 5. 25, 26. Christ is said, to give himself for his Church, that he may cleanse it, so as to be without spot or wrinkle; Either we must say, Infants are none of Christs people, they belong not at all to his Church, or if they do, they have true and proper sin in them, which the Scripture calls uncleanness; and it is evidently applied to Infants in that sense, Job. 14. 4. Job. 15. 14. who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? And who is is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Where to be unclean is made directly opposite to be righteous. Therefore when the Pelagians of old would evade this Argument, saying, Infants needed a Christ to bring them to the Kingdom of Heaven, though they had no sin. Austin well urged, That they divided those two names of our Saviour, Christ and Jesus, making him a Christ, where he was not a Jesus: Certainly to be a Saviour of Infants implieth, in themselves they are lest.
Argum 9. From the necessity of Infants in respect of a Saviour; Those Infants that die in their Infancy, and go to heaven, cannot obtain this glorious benefit, but by Christ: If therefore Christ be a Saviour to some Infants then they are lost and undone in themselves: But not for any actual sinnes: Therefore for original. This fully demonstrates every Infant, though but a day, but an hour old, to be truly a sinner, Why? Because even they need Christ a Saviour; if they had no sinne, they needed not a Jesus; And this must necessarily be confessed, That either Infants cannot be saved, and are not to be accounted of the people ⟨p. 36⟩of God, and of his Church; or if they be, that they have sinne from which they are to be cleansed and saved. The former is rarely asserted, and therefore the later must be granted: And indeed when the Scripture saith, Matth. 1. 21. Christ is called Jesus, Because he shall save his people from their sinnes: As also Ephes. 5. 25, 26. Christ is said, to give himself for his Church, that he may cleanse it, so as to be without spot or wrinkle; Either we must say, Infants are none of Christs people, they belong not at all to his Church, or if they do, they have true and proper sinne in them, which the Scripture cals uncleanness; and it is evidently applied to Infants in that sense, Job. 14. 4. Job. 15. 14. who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? And who is is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Where to be unclean is made directly opposite to be righteous. Therefore when the Pelagians of old would evade this Argument, saying, Infants needed a Christ to bring them to the Kingdom of Heaven, though they had no sinne. Austin well urged, That they divided those two names of our Saviour, Christ and Jesus, making him a Christ, where he was not a Jesus: Certainly to be a Saviour of Infants implieth, in themselves they are lest.
