A30247:930
A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is
A treatise of original sin ... proving that it is, by pregnant texts of Scripture vindicated from false glosses / by Anthony Burgess.
London : s.n., 1658
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Another emphatical expression is, In using the abstract for the concrete, is flesh, that is fleshly, is spirit, that is, spiritual. We see then here a Proposition affirmed concerning all mankind born in a natural way, which no humane Philosophy could ever inform us in, yea to which it is wholly contrary, viz. That we all by nature both in soul and body are nothing but flesh; for flesh is here put for the vicious and sinful quality that is in us, and so the mind, the intellectual and choicest parts of the soul are thus condemned, as well as the more gross and sensitive, as in time is to be showed.
Another emphatical expression is, In using the abstract for the concrete, is flesh, that is fleshly, is spirit, that is, spiritual. We see then here a Proposition affirmed concerning all mankind born in a natural way, which no humane Philosophy could ever inform us in, yea to which it is wholly contrary, viz. That we all by nature both in soul and body are nothing but flesh; for flesh is here put for the vicious and sinfull quality that is in us, and so the mind, the intellictual and choisest parts of the soul are thus condemned, as well as the more gross and sensitive, as in time is to be shewed.
This is a clear Text to prove our universal contagion by sin, yet upon what weak and poor grounds would the Remonstrants oppose it; They therefore by flesh understand, Man simply as man, flesh and blood, begotten in a fleshly and bodily manner, not as sinful and corrupted; as if our Saviours Argument had been, as what is born of man is man, so what is born of the Spirit is spiritual: But this is very unsound: For what Argument would this be to prove Regeneration? Must a man be new born merely because he is a man? Certainly had Adam continued in the state of integrity, there would have been procreation of children, yet then there would not have been a necessity of Regeneration: Our Saviour therefore is giving a reason, why there must be a new birth, and that is from the sinful pollution every one is born in: And whereas the reason they give, why by flesh cannot be meant, wholly sinful, Because (say they) then in the opposition, by Spirit, would be meant wholly spiritual, whereas the Orthodox do acknowledge a conflict with the Spirit, and the flesh abiding in every regenerate man: But to this the Answer is, That the abstract is put for the concrete, spirit for spiritual, so that the Subject in the Proposition [Born of the Spirit] Spirit is the holy Spirit of God; and the Predicate [is made spirit] Spirit is to be understood of that spiritual and heavenly nature wrought in us by him; And although he who is