the Law that is As a serpent could not wound us without its sting so neither could death have any power over us to kill us but for sin nor sin have any force to oblige us to this punishment but by the Law This is spoken of the death of infants as well as others unless you will deny their resurrection go sin is the sting that is the deserving cause even of their death Mic. 1. 5. For the transgression of Jacob is all this and for the sins of the house of Israel Hence Satan is said to have the power of death Heb 2. 14. as the executioner of God's wrath for sin from whom Christ delivereth us 2. If the death of infants be an act of God's justice on them then it is a punishment for it is no act of remunerative justice go it must be of punitive justice if of any But it is an act of God's justice on them as I prove 1. It is the execution of God's sentence Gen. 3. 19. go it is an act of his justice on them that were sentenced which was mankind 2. It is their condemnation Rom. 5. 18. go it is an act of justice on them 3. Subjects are ordinarily secured from being by their Soveraigns put to death without any desert of theirs even by the justice of the Soveraign but infants are God's subjects go ordinarily they are secured by his justice from being put to death by him without any desert of theirs The major is proved 1. From the very nature of Government and Justice Governing Justice consisteth in giving to all the subjects according to their deserts ut bonis bene sit malis male go to kill the innocent and that ordinarily is contrary to Governing Justice 2. From the Law of Nature and Scripture which constantly threatneth the sinner and only the sinner and promiseth good to them that sin not Now the contrary opinion 1. either denieth God to be a King to infants of which anon or 2. denieth his Justice 3. and nullifieth the use of his Law which is to be Norma judicii 2. That infants are God's subjects is proved 1. In that they are of the number of reasonable creatures though yet they have not the use of reason and go are not perfect members of his Kingdom 2. In that they are to be entred into the holy Covenant with him as his subjects Deut. 29. c. 3. In that they have promises and threatnings in his Laws 4. They are subjects in all particular Common-wealths which are but parts of his universal Kingdom But this I have proved at large in my Treatise of Infants Church-membership and Baptism Obj. But God is an absolute Lord as well as a King or Ruler and go may do with his own as he list Answ His dominion or propriety is in order of nature antecedent to his Government or Kingdom and so in that antecedent instant he may do with his own what he will and so he may still but then by becoming a Governor to the rational nature he thereby signifieth that he will give to all according to their works or moral aptitude for God cannot be an unjust Governor nor without justice And his Laws do signifie this yet more Moreover the contrary opinion overthroweth all our consolation and leaveth us uncertain whether God will not damn all the godly at least it denieth them any comfort from the light or law of Nature and the justice of God though they had no sin of their own For if God notwithstanding all his Governing Justice may and do ordinarily kill the innocent because he is an absolute Lord then he may damn the innocent hereafter for ought we know notwithstanding his governing justice For instance the adversaries must on the same grounds say that for ought they know all infants that die in infancy are damned For God may no question torment his own as he is an absolute owner of them as well as kill them And if his natural justice give no security from damnation to the innocent then neither can his righteous Laws and then they can have no security at all which is false and injurious to God and man Obj. Bruits die without their desert Answ God is not the Rector of bruits nor are they his subjects and go he is not engaged by any relation to deal with them in justice nor are they capable of justice remunerative or vindictive nor are they under any Law Arg. 4. Infants are capable of moral good and have such go infants are capable of moral evil and have it The capacity is the chief thing in controversy for if we prove that they are capable of having virtue or vice in habit or disposition without consent then I find none that will deny the consequence that de facto they have it That infants have moral good is proved thus 1. Else they could not be inwardly sanctified 2. Else they did not morally differ one from another 3. And so one were no more amiable to God than another 4. Nor one any more fit for Heaven than another and so none should be saved that die in infancy as being unqualified for salvation or if holiness inherent be needless then all might be saved as well as any 5. And then Baptism nor any priviledges of holy birth or dedication to God could give no hope of any moral good upon them 6. And thus they are made meer bruits that are capable of no moral good or evil All which are most absurd and disproved in my Treatise of Infant Baptism The consequence is undeniable If they are capable of moral good without actual moral volitions so are they of moral evil for there is eadem ratio If a disposition to holy action be a moral good or virtue then a disposition to evil actions is vice or moral evil Arg. 5. Infants have a privation of moral good but a privation of moral good is a moral evil go infants have a moral evil The major is proved in that Adam's posterity should have been born in original righteousness or moral goodness if he had not sinned go it is a privation of a moral good to be born without it and not a meer negation The minor is undeniable privations belonging by reduction to the kind of that which they are a privation of else a privation would be but a meer negation that is no privation at all Arg. 6. All that are the members of Jesus Christ and saved by him or for whom he died as a Redeemer are when existent sinners but infants are the members of Christ and saved by him he is their Redeemer and died for them go they are when existent sinners go they have original sin The major I prove from Matth. 1. 21. Thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people from their sins If it be the very reason of his denomination why he is called a Saviour because he saveth his people from their sins then he is a Saviour to none
but sinners but the antecedent is true go c. The antecedent is in the Text most plain The consequence is undeniable because the essence or formal reason denominateth go he can be called a Saviour to none other And to prevent all cavils note that 1. it is sin it self and not meer suffering much less undeserved suffering that connoteth not sin as the cause that is here mentioned 2. That it is their sin and not other mens sin that they are said to be saved from Nothing go but violence can evade this evidence Matth. 9. 12. The whole need not a Physitian but the sick To be sick is to be sinful to be a Physitian is to be the Saviour go those that have no sin have no need of a Saviour Eph. 5. 23 25 26 27. Christ is the Head of the Church and Saviour of the Body and how doth he save them Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it to himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing So that to be a Saviour to the body is to sanctifie cleanse and wash it that it may be without spot Those go that have no spots or filth to be washed and cleansed from cannot be of that body or have Christ for their Saviour Rev. 1. 5 6. The Apostle speaks in the name of the Church Vnto him that hath loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood be glory c. If infants come to Heaven they must give this praise to Christ for washing them from their sins as well as others His work on the Cross was to purge or make purgation of sin Heb. 1. 3. He died for our sins 1 Cor. 15. 3. He died for us while we were sinners and enemies to reconcile us to God Rom. 5. 6 8 10. He came to give his life a ransome for many Matth. 20. 28. He gave himself a ransome for all 1 Tim. 2. 6. Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree that we being dead to sin should live to righteousness by whose stripes we are bealed 1 Pet. 24 25. For Christ also once suffered for sins the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God 1 Pet. 3. 18. Christ our Passover is sasacrificed for us 1 Cor. 5. 7. He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 9. 26. He was once offered to bear the sins of many ver 28. By his own blood he entred into the holy place having obtained eternal Redemption He offered himself without spot to God to purge our consciences c. And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Testament they that are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Heb. 9. 12 14 15. He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole World 1 Joh. 2. 2. If one died for all then were all dead 2 Cor. 5. 14. that is in sin and for sin Joh. 1. 29 Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the World A multitude of such passages of Scripture tell us that Christ's death was for sinners only and go that he died for none but sinners for what need had the innocent of a satisfaction to Justice and of a Sacrifice and Ransome and Redemption No one text of Scripture can be produced in which Christ is said to die for any that had no sin or to be the Redeemer or Saviour of any such And go to say that he died for infants to procure them supernatural Grace and Heaven and not to save them from their sin is vain Scripture knows no such design of Christ's death And the very privation of that rectitude which they call supernatural grace is sin as is manifested nor can a rational creature be shut out of Heaven but penally for his sins it being a very grievous punishment And for the minor that Christ died for infants and is their Saviour c. it 's proved 1. In that he is oft said to die for all the World 2. In that there is no other name under Heaven given by which we can be saved 3. In that he hath taken infants into his Church and Covenant before and since his incarnation and took them in his arms and blessed them and said his Kingdom was of such 4. In that he would have gathered the Jewish infants with their Parents into his Church Matth. 23. 37. 5. Else they are not Christians no not imperfect ones nor to be baptized Many more proofs I have given in the foresaid Treatise of Infant Baptism And few I think deny the minor Arg. 7. All that ought to be baptized with the Christian Baptism are sinners But some infants ought to be baptized with the Christian Baptism go they are sinners The minor I shall suppose to be proved in the foresaid Treatise The major I have proved at large in my Disput of Right to Sacraments especially pag. 79 80. where it 's proved that Christ hath commanded or instituted no other Baptism but what is for remission of sin to p. 88. The sign it self the washing by water and burying under it and rising from under sheweth that this is essential in the signification what else but sin are we to be washed from Read over all the texts of Scripture that speak of Baptism as instituted by Christ and when you have found that no one of them intimateth such a thing as baptizing them that are no sinners washing them that are not unclean then tell us why we should believe that there is such a thing Nay it importeth a false dissimulation with God when we will assert infants to be washed by the blood of Christ when we believe that they have no sin and need no such washing Arg. 8. If infants have no sin they must either never come to Judgment or be justified by the Law or their meer innocency without remission by a Redeemer but the consequent is false go so is the antecedent The consequence is undeniable in that no justice can condemn the innocent the Law will justify them that have no sin for its commination hath nothing against them such go need not pardon by a Redeemer The falshood of both parts of the consequent is proved easily 1. Many Scriptures shew that all men shall be judged Heb. 9. 27. all that die Rom. 14. 12. Joh. 5. 28 29. all that are in the graves with many such places 2. If infants be not judged they would neither be justified nor condemned but that 's not true go c. 2. And that all infants nor any are not justified by the Law or their own Innocency is plain in the Apostle's arguings Rom. 3. 4 and 5. throughout and in the Epist to Galat. Rom. 3. 20. by the deeds of the Law there
want of necessary grace to innocent nature as the adversaries think is plain for necessary grace hath some sufficiency to its ends and go it it is called sufficient grace by the adversaries commonly But that which never attaineth its end in any one person in the World in their own judgment is not sufficient It is their common and last argument against our doctrine of special effectual grace given to all the elect as distinct from that sufficient grace which say the Dominicans is given to others that the grace is not sufficient that never proveth effectual in any We may much more confidently say so here when we speak of the whole World that the grace is not sufficient that never is was or will be effectual in any If it suffice to make the event naturally possible yet not to remove the moral impossibility 3. And that God is the Author of the Law that forbiddeth sin and of innocent nature is granted and past doubt The certainty of this universal event cannot come from a contingent cause as such The will is naturally free that chooseth but it is not morally free or else the World would not choose evil So that it is certain that if there be no original sin the cause of this universal event that all men sin must be resolved to be somewhat in nature or something in providence of which God is the cause If God have so framed pure nature and so order the affairs of the World that no man on earth shall eventually escape the sin which he so much prohibiteth and abhorreth it must needs follow that he is the moral reputative cause at least And yet it is one of the pretences against the doctrine of original sin that it maketh God the Author of it in infants when it 's they that make him the Author of it in all Seeing therefore that sin hath so overspread the World that all men sin in all Countries in all Ages except Christ this must proceed either from mans natural principles and so be chargeable upon God his Maker or it is the fruit of original sin and to be charged on our first Parents and our selves Arg. 19. If infants have in their corrupted natures a virtual enmity to God and Holiness then have they original sin but such an enmity they have I mean in disposition seed or habit go they have original sin The antecedent or minor I prove 1. From the common experience of the World that manifest such an enmity as soon as they come to the use of reason and that maintain it so obstinately till renewing grace do overcome it How early do they shew an aversness to the work and ends for which they were created How little do the precepts of Parents or Teachers and all the means of grace themselves to conquer it in the most And where it is most conquered even in the godly it is most confessed because there is a troublesome remnant of it still so that there is no man in the World that hath not more or less of it in him the wicked being under the power of it and the godly under the trouble of these remainders 2. From Gen. 3. 15. Joh. 3. 5 6. Rom. 8. 3 5 6 7 8 9. Rom. 7. 21 23 24 25 compared In Joh. 3. 6. we find that flesh begets but flesh That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that go a new birth by the spirit is necessary to make us spiritual of which before In Rom. 8. we find that it was through the flesh that the Law was weak and that God sending his son in the likeness of sinful flesh not as sinful but as flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh Where it is undeniable that by flesh is not meant sin it self for then it had not been called sinful nor the subject of sin nor Christ said to have taken the likeness of it and go the word flesh here is taken in no worse a sense than in Joh. 3. 6. We find here also that all flesh is universally called sinful which Christ took the likeness of And Christ took the likeness of infants and that first only growing up to the likeness of the adult infants go have sinful flesh And ver 5 6. This flesh as the principle that prevaileth in some is opposed to the spirit which prevaileth in others and their fruits opposed the one sort mind fleshly things the other spiritual things and death belongs to one and life and peace to the other And ver 7. The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be And ver 8. They that are in the flesh cannot please God that is they that have not the spirit to subdue and mortify the flesh as it is explained ver 9. And if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his So that flesh without spirit which is now mans natural estate is a principle of enmity and rebellion and proves men none of Christ's and in a state of death And many Expositors judge that in Gen. 3. 15. such being none of Christ's till they have the spirit are annumerated to the serpents seed that hath the enmity against the spiritual seed which so sheweth it self when they come to age that as Cain by Abel and Ishmael by Isaack so still He that is born after the flesh persecuteth him that is born after the spirit if not restrained Gal. 4. 29. And Rom. 7. 18. I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing that is in Paul so far as he was without the spirit And as this innate universal enmity is thus proved so it is proved to be sin 1. By the Law of nature which tells us that an habitual enmity of the rational creature against God and Holiness is sin if any thing be sin It is an inclination or disposition contrary to the primitive nature and moral image of God in man and contrary to what our relation to God importeth and as it is commonly said of actual hatred of God it may as truly if not much more evidently be said of this dispositive virtual enmity that it is an evil that cannot become good and so naturally sin that it can be no other 2. It 's proved to be sin by the express assertion of the Text. Rom. 8. 3. 10. it is sinful flesh and the subject of sin till the spirit come Ver. 9. it proves them none of Christ ' s. Rom. 7. 14. 17. 20. 24 25. it is called in-dwelling sin and a Law of sin and to be carnal is to be sold under sin 3. From the effects which nothing can produce but sin They cannot be subject to the Law of God They please not God To be carnally minded is death c. Rom. 8. So 1 Cor. 2. 14. The natural meerly animal man now in his corrupt estate receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness
upon our selves are but misery and not properly sin Sin may make a man sick or lame or blind or mad and yet these be no sins but the effects of sins Sin may kill us and yet death be no sin There must be therefore some other formal reason which can be nothing but the disconformity to the rule 2. Adam as was said before had original righteousness which was imputable to him as a moral good before his actions go it is not necessary to the morality or imputability of a principle that it be the consequent of our acts 3. Jesus Christ had moral good before his humane action go the same will follow 4. Infants that are sanctified have moral good that is not the consequent of their acts go c. 5. The dedication by believing Parents and entring the child into the Covenant of God is taken to all the ends thereof as if it were the infants act 6. Among men the will of the Parents is in many cases reputatively the will of the child and children receive good or are deprived of it and oft-times penally for the Parents acts Obj. 3. No righteous Judges do punish the children for the Parents sin Answ 1. It is not for the Parents only imputed but their own contracted that God doth punish them And he takes that cognisance of the heart that man doth not 2. And he is more holy and just than man 3. And yet all Common-wealths are directed by the light of nature to punish infants for their Parents sins as naturally participant The Laws do threaten the posterity of many offenders for the Parents sins and Judges sentence them accordingly As that Traytors or some other most odious offenders shall be deprived of their honours and estates and their children after them for ever It cannot be said here that this is but an affliction to the posterity and not a penalty or that it is a meer consequent of the Parents sin and not the effect for it is expressed in the Law and Judgment and is malum naturale propter malum civile vel morale and it 's on a subject And it 's a privation of the good that he should else have possessed and many positive evils of mind and body care sorrow want labour c. follow thereupon Obj. 4. But God hath told us that the soul that sinneth shall die and the child shall not die for the Parents sins Answ 1. go it followeth that children that do die have sin of their own 2. The text plainly speaketh of those children that see the evil of their Parents sins and do not after them but renounce them and live in righteousness themselves which is nothing to the present case Obj. 5. It seems to make God the Author of sin when he will cause us to be born of sinful Parents and infuse a soul into sinful flesh when we cannot help it Answ 1. I have proved that it is the denial of original sin that makes God the Author of sin resolving it into his workmanship or denial of sufficient or necessary grace so that no man in the World avoideth sin 2. But the true doctrine of original sin doth manifest that it is not of God as I have shewed God as Creator setled the nature of his creatures and the course of propagating them before man sinn'd and he was no ways bound to change the course of nature when man had corrupted it to prevent our being born sinners Though we know not fully the manner of God's concourse in our generation and how he causeth souls yet we are sure it is according to the first established course of nature appointed in the creation as much as the generation of any other creature is and that 's enough God was not the cause of Adam's transgression and his Law of propagation went before it and his concourse with the Parents maketh him no more the cause than the Sun is of the poison of a toad Obj. 6. But it seemeth cruelty to damn infants for that which they could not help Answ The deniers of Original sin do much more impute cruelty to God as I shall prove For 1. They confess as much of the misery and sufferings of infants as we assert 2. And they maintain that God inflicts all this without the least desert of theirs For the first they confess that infants die and they confess that God is not obliged to revive them and that without Christ they should have no part in glory If God may annihilate them or deny them an immortal life they cannot deny but he may cause their souls to live and their bodies to revive if he please and if so that he may inflict as much positive pain as shall be proportioned to the evil of annihilation And it is a great deal of suffering that man would choose to prevent annihilation They confess that God may make them to be toads when such creatures are what they are without sin and so continue them for ever And who would not endure much misery as a man rather than be a toad or serpent They confess that infants have immortal souls at least capable of immortality and that God is no ways bound to annihilate them and that he may shut them out of happiness which is half damnation and that in equality with the worst it being the same Heaven that all men lose and if they are rational creatures they must needs have the torment of positive grief in the despairing apprehension of their loss And for our parts we presume not to be so far acquainted with the secret judgments of the Lord as to determine whether infants shall have a greater degree of misery in their damnation than all this which the adversaries grant So that we differ not about the degree of suffering 2. And then for the cause of it there 's the difference We say that God inflicteth not all this but for their own desert by original sin And our Adversaries say that he doth it without the least fault or desert of theirs And then I would know whether there be any reason why God doth all this against infants but because he will do it If man had never sinned he might have done it according to them If it be said that he punisheth the Parents in the children I answer 1. What punishment to Parents is the everlasting loss or suffering of the children 2. Or what punishment is the present death of children to harlots and unnatural persons that desire to be rid of them 3. And how can he cause the subjects of his Kingdom to suffer so much without their own desert 4. And if their natural interest make them not in some measure partakers of their Parents sin what reason why they any more than other creatures should be chosen to the suffering And here I would propound this question What if God had left it in the beginning to Adam's free will whether he would beget a man or a toad or a serpent Would
of his eating the forbidden fruit if we are guilty only of his first sin For that was not the first His unbelief of God and believing the Serpent and others more did go before it 3. Yea the sins that Adam committed after the Promise do in their nature deserve our sufferings as much as the first though that desert had a remedy provided If any still reduce all to God's meer will and say that it was his will in his first actions to deal with Adam as the root of mankind but not in his later sins I must expect till they bring some proof of such a will of God or such a Law and still say that the will and law of God doth not make sinners of innocent men nor make sinners no sinners any otherwise than by pardoning and sanctifying them So that 〈◊〉 were as much in Adam after the promise as before and his sin was of the same demerit naturally and therefore we are as well guilty of that as of the first And then for the consequent it is acknowledged by most of those whom we now oppose that we are equally related to Adam's later sins and to those of our neerer Parents I mean to all that Adam committed before the propagation of his Progeny And there are the same causes as is before manifested Though our neerer Parents were not the root of all mankind as Adam was yet are they as much a cause of us and our nature and of so much of mankind as spring from their loins as Adam was And all the progeny of Cain did spring as truly from him as from Adam And all the World since the Flood were as truly in the loins of Noah as of Adam and so naturally equally interessed in their sins Arg. 4. If our natures may be corrupted more by the sins of our neerer Parents then may they be guilty by them as well as by Adam's But the antecedent I have before proved go The consequence depends on the fameness of the reasons that guilt and depravation should concur from our neerer Parents as well as from our first And it seems that participation in guilt is pre-requisite to the depravation of nature else it might seem some kind of injury to us that another should have power to make us so miserable Sin is commonly called the punishment of sin Arg. 5. If God may without any injustice bring death both temporal and eternal on the son of a sinner without intending it as a punishment to the Son for the Father's sin then may he also without injustice nay in justice inflict the same death as a penalty for the Father's sin But the antecedent is true as I prove thus 1. That which all Rulers may do without injustice that God may do without injustice But all Rulers may without injustice deprive the children of a Traytor or other offender of those enjoyments which the Father hath forfeited himself and which were to have been conveyed from the Father to the child if the Father had not forfeited them If a Traytor forfeit his Lands and Honours his Son is justly deprived of them though the Prince intend it not as a punishment to the Son Because the Father cannot convey to his Son that which he hath not himself as having lost it on his forfeiture and the Son hath no right to it when the Fathers right is gone So if a wicked man do forfeit his right to all blessings in this life or that to come he cannot convey a right to his Son which he had not himself And what other way should that Son have such a right unless God should give it him which he is or was free to do or not It 's true that God by a new covenant hath given this everlasting life to believers but that 's not to all nor doth that deny them to be guilty of their Parents sin before nor yet that it deserveth death still as to its nature and might bring it were it not pardoned 2. God hath no obligation on him according to the Law of works to give health peace or any blessing in this life much less eternal glory to the son of a sinner 2. And for the consequence 1. It is evident from what is said that God cannot be charged with hard or cruel dealing in regard of any wrong that we should suffer if he punish us thus by deprivation for our Parents sins for if it be no cruelty to do the same thing upon the meer occasion of their sins which is unquestionable then it is no cruelty to do it in respect to their sin as the deserving cause 2. And for the point of justice as it is already proved to be non injustum so it may be proved to be justum thus Where there is a real participation in the sin there it is just that there should be a participation in the punishment because of that sin But we did really participate in the sin as of Adam so of our neerer Parents go For the minor they that were seminally in them though not by personal existence did really participate with them in their sin But we were seminally in them go This will be further confirmed in that which followeth Arg. 6. If we should have been guilty of the sin of our neerest Parents though Adam had never sinned then are we guilty of them now But the antecedent is true go Here I suppose that Adam had not sinned and our neerest Parents had If any say this is not to be supposed I answer Though it may not be affirmed to have so been yet we may in dispute suppose it had been Nor have I yet seen it proved that God made any such promise to Adam as to confirm all his posterity on condition that he did not commit that or any sin If Adam had begot a posterity no better than himself was in his first created perfection and under the same Law then they would have been peceable and mutable as he was and liable to the same penalty upon their sin as he was But Adam would have begot a posterity no better than himself for ought we can find by Scripture which no where promiseth him a better that is an immutable or indesectible posterity and they would have been under the same Law for it was suited to their perfect nature go From what is said the antecedent is evident For if we should have been as much in our neerest Parents as we were in Adam and they have been under the same Law then their sin would have brought on us the same guilt and punishment For example if Cain had been the first sinner and Seth had been innocent the posterity of Cain would have been all guilty and corrupted as Adam's posterity now is For the same causes would have produced the same effects The consequence is clear in that Adam's sinning first can be no cause why we should not be guilty of the following sins of our neerer Parents which otherwise we
that only and many other Texts of Scripture tell us that it is to be extended further Obj. This was the voice of the Law of Works which God doth not now govern the World by Answ 1. This is a Law which was in force since Adam and the Promise and therefore not then abrogated 2. It is as much as I plead for that according to the law of nature punishment is our due for our neerer Parents sins or else it had not been put in this curse by Moses But that Christ hath provided a remedy in the Gospel for that and original sin as from Adam and our actual sin it self I thankfully acknowledge I say not therefore that eventually any shall perish for the imputed act of his Parents sin to whom it is pardoned by the Grace of Christ Arg. 10. Exod. 20. 5. It is expressed in the moral Law it self For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the Fathers upon the children to the third and fourth Generation of them that hate me so Deut. 5. 9. and so God proclaims his name to Moses Exod. 34. 7. Here then is a threatning determining punishment to be due to the children for their neerer Parents sin for God will visit that is in justice punish it on them The objections before answered I pass by Obj. This is only against those children that do themselves tread in their Fathers steps Answ True as to the adult But it is the Parents sins that are visited on them Those children are especially threatned because it is they that lie under such guilt ununremedied But it 's thence plain that it was the case of all till they receive the remedy for the childs actual sin doth not then begin to make him guilty of his Parents sin but only shews him to lie under that guilt Obj. Yes it is by consenting to our Parents sin when we come to age that we become guilty of them Answ That 's not the first guilt and that consenting brings not on us the same formal numerical sin or guilt that was on our Parents for one accident cannot pass from one subject to another nor remain in two subjects but it brings only a guilt of the like sort so that ours is but the guilt of consenting to their sin But the Text here saith expresly that it is the sins of the Fathers that are visited on the children Obj. It is meant of children in an ethical sense that is not natural but the heirs of their vices Answ It is plain in the Text that it is to natural children and therefore the third and fourth Generation are mentioned though it 's true that it is not all those children that lie under that guilt but only those that inherit their vices Otherwise the threatning should be equally to any other mans natural children that imitate your sin But that 's against the plain Text Though it be true that any other mans children that imitate your sin are liable to punishment for such imitation yet not for your sin Arg. 11. Eph. 2. 3. 11 12. Were by nature the children of wrath even as others Remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh that at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the Covenants of Promise having no hope and without God in the World The first words are commonly understood of a state of wrath derived from Parents by natural Generation If that be not the meaning then I confess it makes nothing to prove either the imputation of Adam's sin or other Parents nor native corruption neither But if that be the sense as is commonly judged then is there no intimation for a restriction of it to Adam's sin as the only cause of our desert of that wrath nay the later verses and the whole scope of the place gives it as a special reason that they were Gentiles in the flesh So that it seems to me some state of wrath which Israel was not under that is here meant or at least some what more to them as the seed of the Gentiles than was common to Israel It appears also from the following verses that when Christ took away the enmity so that the Gentiles were no more strangers and foreigners but fellow-Citizens of the Saints and of the houshold of God and no more without God Covenant Hope c. that Christ did deliver the Gentiles from a special punishment and consequently guilt which lay on them and their seed more than on the Jews So Gal. 2. 15. We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles which intimates plainly that the Gentiles were by nature in a worse state than the Jews and therefore had by nature some more guilt than they Obj. That is not because the Gentiles were by nature guilty of any more than Adam's sin but because the Jews were by nature freed from that guilt which made the difference Answ I confess that may be much taking the word nature but as the cause of the persons to whom the benefit is given and not as the cause of the gift or thing given But yet that seems not all which is meant when we are called sinners of the Gentiles and strangers and foreigners c. For these shew some further transgression of our Parents that bound the sin of Adam falier on us and increased our guilt beyond that of the Jews I mean increased it fundamentaliter quoad â—iusam meritoriam though not terminative quoad poenam demeritam And indeed it was not all the Jews that were freed from the guilt of Adam's sin but only those of them that were within the special Covenant of Grace Arg. 12. Matth. 23. 31 35 36. Wherefore ye be witnesses to your selves that ye are the children of them which killed the Prophets Fill ye up then the measure of your Fathers Ye serpents ye generation of vipers how shall ye escape the damnation of hell That upon you may come all the rightous blood shed on the earth from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zaccharias son of Barachias whom ye slew between the Temple and the Altar Verily I say unto you all these things shall come upon this Generation Here 1. that which they are brought in to witness against themselves is something that may justly subject them to punishment But that which they must so witness is that they are the children of them that killed the Prophets and not of Adam only go c. 2. From hence Christ concludeth 1. Fill up the measure of your Fathers c. q. d. 1. Having the same corrupt natures with your Parents no wonder if ye do the same deeds 2. It is just with God to forsake you for their sakes and permit you to follow the nature that you have from them 2. He calls them a generation of vipers and serpents not only because of their first Father but because of the murderers of the
Adam's first sin on that account because we were seminally in him and are propagated from him then are we guilty of our neerer Parents sins on the same account But the antecedent is true go so is the consequent Here I suppose it granted that Adam's first sin is imputed to us and we guilty of it for I now deal not with those Divines that deny it but with those that maintain it For as I said before if we are not guilty of Adam's sin then I must give up my cause and confess that we are not guilty of the sins of our neerer Parents Supposing then the imputation of Adam's sin to us I must First prove that the reason of that imputation is because we are propagated from him and were seminally in him 2. That on the same reason we have the like guilt of neerer Parents sins 1. For the first I may safely premise this that as in all relations there must be a relate correlate and foundation and as to the disconformity of a crooked line from the rule there must be the crookedness of the line and the straightness of the rule and is the rule will not give you ground to denominate the line disconform or crooked unless it be truly so even so there must be merit on mans part consisting in performance or some participation in the evil before the Law which is the rule will judge him guilty The Law is first the rule of duty and then the rule of judgment And it first shews them to be guilty of the sin reos culpae before it shew their obligation to punishment reatum poenae This being so it seems clear that the doctrine of too many that lay the chief or only cause of man's guilt and punishment upon God's covenant is not sound They say God made a covenant with Adam that he should stand or fall for all his posterity that is as some expound it that his desert of life or death should be imputed theirs and as others that if he sinned he and his posterity should be guilty of death and if he did not sin that first sin of eating the forbidden fruit both he and his posterity should be confirmed in their happiness as the good Angels and never fall afterward And this covenant say they makes us guilty of Adam's sin though we have not a natural interest to make us guilty and so God imputeth it to us not because it was ours before the imputation but because he is pleased to make it ours by that imputation or by his covenant That it is not the imputation or covenant that primarily makes us guilty but determineth us guilty of the fault who are so in our selves and consequently determineth us guilty of punishment I prove thus 1. Else it should be God only or primarily that should make us sinners and not we our selves nor our Parents But that 's most false go The consequence is most apparent If a man be therefore a sinner because God by his covenant or imputation saith he is one and not because he is first made one by himself or Parents then God is the principal if not only cause of sin 2. Yea then God should make a man a sinner by that Law whose essential nature is to prohibit and hinder sin 3. Or else thus God's judgment by Law or Sentence is ever according to the truth of the thing He judgeth or pronounceth things to be as they are and not as they are not But if he should determine or pronounce a man a sinner that is not his judgment were not according to truth but he should make that which is false become true by judging it true which is no tolerable conceit 4. If it were without any antecedent ground in us that God's covenant doth judge or make us guilty of Adam's sin or God impute it to us but meerly because he will do it then on the same reason might God have made or judged the innocent Angels or the Lord Jesus Christ guilty of Adam's sin yea he might have imputed it to the Sun or Moon or any creature For if real innocency secure not us from being made sinners by God or reputed such then it would not secure them Or if God's will to impute it be enough without an antecedent interest to ground that imputation upon then there is no difference as to interest in that sin between them and us But that 's too gross a conceit to be defended 5. There is no such covenant of God with Adam mentioned in Scripture as lays the final standing of his posterity upon that first obedience or disobedience of his much less that determineth that they shall be judged guilty for his sake of more than they are guilty of indeed by natural interest The foundation of the relation is in our selves I conclude therefore that it is most certain that there is in man some sufficient ground or cause why God's Law should denominate or judge him guilty before it do so And this cause can be no other than one of these two either because we were seminally in Adam and are his children or because God making his covenant as the Rector of all mankind did make it upon supposition of a virtual consent contained in the very nature of man and so supposing that what we ought to do we would do and that if all men had then existed we ought to have consented to venture our felicity upon Adam's act and to run the hazardâ— of perishing with him on condition we might be saved with him if he stand and so such a supposed consent is the ground of our guilt But though I will not exclude this last ground yet certainly it is upon a supposition of the former or else it is none at all For man was not to exist till the fall was past and therefore could not be supposed to exist And if God had decreed to create every individual person to the end of the World of nothing as he did Adam without any derivation from him what virtual consent can be supposed or on what ground should it be presupposed that we would all consent to live and die with him any more than with the Angels that fell or any more than the good Angels might be supposed to consent to such a thing I conclude therefore that the first ground of our interest in Adam's sin or our guilt of it is our being his off-spring and then seminally in him and next that God might make one Law for him and all that should come of him as supposing the equity of their consent yet by that Law he hath not that I know of involved them in his first sin any more than in his second or third nor offered them happiness meerly on condition of his avoiding that first sin whatsoever they should afterwards do themselves nor yet promised to make them impeccable or prevent all after sin 2. It being then our natural interest that is the first ground of our guilt
should have been guilty of Arg. 7. None can be naturally the propagators of a nature better than their own or a person better than themselves But if Parents who are manifoldly guilty of death did propagate a nature not guilty then should they propagate a nature or person better than their own go Here I must explain my meaning by distinguishing of evil positive if such be and privative Between evils adhering to our nature or essence and those that adhere but to some integral part Between a total privation and a partial Between a privation real or physical and relative And so I conclude that 1. I speak not here of positive evil as such if such there be but of privative 2. I speak not of every evil that adhereth only to some part and not to nature it self For I know a lame man may beget a Son not lame and a sick man may beget a sound child 3. Nor do I speak of such a partial privation which may consist with the prevalency of the contrary and which nature may supply or overcome 4. Nor yet of a privation of some physical good though that be another part of our unhappiness but of a relation or right 5. Nor of a privation accidentally accrewing to the person and limited to himself alone by the will 〈◊〉 another but of one that is without any such limitation naturally or by necessary resultancy fallen upon him Furthermore it must be observed 1. that the guilt that we now speak of is no natural being but a relative and that not proper and compleat but as we may call it a privative relation participating of the nature of a proper relation but little more than a natural privation doth of natural being A right to life is a true relation which by sin we are deprived of yet because there is not only the non debitum habendi but the debitum non habendi I will not deny but even in this privation there is a kind of relatio rationis 2. Observe that we are not now speaking of the duness of positive torments for I say nothing of that in this point of guilt of progenitors sins 3. Note that many learned Philosophers and Divines affirm that all evil is a privation of good formally see Barlow's Exercit. de Natura Mali. And if that hold then it seems that our Parents sins do bring upon us a guilt of all evil of punishment for when they have forfeited all good they can convey no right of any to us 4. Note also that right to blessedness more or less doth not adhere to the nature of man as man for then those in Hell should have it but it is a separable thing depending on the will of God And therefore our Parents may convey our nature without any right to such blessings 5. When I say that it is naturally and by necessary resultancy that a sinner is thus guilty I do not exclude God's free will as the antecedent cause in making Nature it self and the Law but the indifferency or non-necessity of the effect when the causes are once in nature thus laid Gnd might have chosen to have made man such as he is that is man and having so made him whether he might have chosen to make him that Law which we call the Law of nature I will not now dispute though I think not because that Law of nature is nothing but the very nature of man himself considered as related to God and withal the nature of the whole creation which all per modum signi do shew man the will of God concerning what shall be due from man and to man But this is clear that God having freely made man in that relation and under that Law as he did his breach of that Law doth then by a natural necessity bring him under guilt for if the subjectum fundamentum terminus be put in being the relation cannot be avoided for that were a contradiction Having given this explication I suppose little more need to be said for the proof of the premises For the major it seems now clear that a person who hath lost his right totally to life or any blessing cannot convey to another person of whom he is the root a nature that hath right to that life or blessing For nemo dat quod non habet 2. And this seems plainly to be no meer negation of right in the derived nature but a privation Because if our progenitors had none of them sinned we should have been born with that right which now we want and so we had seminally and virtually a right our selves which being lost it is a privation to us and not a meer negation and so a punishment and not a meer affliction Yet as the right of our Parents themselves as Adam who were personally existent was a more full and proper right than ours who were but seminally in them so our privation is not in so plenary and proper a sense called a privation nor a punishment as theirs is or as our own is for our actual sins And so our guilt is not so full and proper a guilt but analogically so called as Accidens is called Ens. And this seems to me to be the true difference between our guilt of our Parents sins and of our own and our punishment for theirs original from Adam or others and of our own actual sin And perhaps Zuinglius meant thus when he denied Original sin to be properly called sin So far as such a seminal right or possibility which the seed hath through the Parent doth differ from the Parents own right so far there is a difference in the formal nature of penalty and guilt upon the loss of that right It is doubtless some more loss that the Son of a Traytor hath by his Fathers forfeiture of his Lands than a stranger may be said to have by that forfeiture who never was in a possibility of enjoying them It is therefore no meer negation but a privation and consequently participateth of the nature of penalty and the obligation thereto of the nature of guilt And thus in the major proposition of this Argument I place the very reason of original guilt from Adam or any Parents The minor is plain If Adam should convey to Abel a nature that hath right to life or that is not deprived of the right it was in possibility of or seminally had then he should propagate a better nature than his own and give that which he had not to give And so if our neerest Parents who are by a manifold obligation deprived of that right should convey to us a nature that is deprived of it but by a single obligation they also should propagate a better nature than their own But that cannot be God by his Grace may make us better than our Parents but they by natural procreation cannot Arg. 8. Where punishment may justly follow there guilt did go before But punishment of children for their Parents sin committed
all that have sinned that are said to have sin imputed to them 3. The All that have sinned ver 12. are the same All that are made righteous and have the justification of life and that shall reign in life by Jesus Christ ver 16 17 18 19. This is plain in the Context in the opposition But infants are included in the latter All that shall reign in life by Jesus Christ c. go infants are included in the former All that have sinned He that denieth the minor must deny not only the Baptism but the justification and salvation of all infants 4. All old interpretations which the Churches have used that are now most known do shew that thus they understood the Text. The Syriack turns it by so death passed on all the sons of men for that all have sinned The Arabick seeing all have now sinned referring to that past sin The Ethiopick thus And as by the iniquity of one man sin entred into the World and by that sin death came upon all men because that sin is imputed to all men even to them that knew not what that sin is Here is a Paraphrase instead of a Version more fully to express this sense The in quo makes the sense of the Latin Interpreter past doubt This is the first argument from these verses Arg. 2. from the same verses especially 18 They that are under condemnation by Adam's sin have original sin at least the imputed part But infants are under condemnation for Adam's sin go infants have original sin If I prove no more but that they are under condemnation for the minor it is enough for the consequence is thence apparent The major is plain in that condemnation is only for sin and infants have no sin but original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as essentially related to culpa as poena is The minor is proved from ver 18. By the offence of one judgment came on all men to condemnation or as the Syriack rendereth it For the offence of one condemnation is on all or as the Ethiopick All men are condemned so ver 15. Through the offence of one many are dead That All men includeth infants here the former arguments prove This one 18 th ver of Rom. 5. were there no more in all the Scripture is so plain for an imputation of Adams sin on all to condemnation that it might end the controversy Both major and minor I yet further confirm 1. That it is a condemnation proving the condemned to be sinners by just imputation is manifest 1. in that ver 13 14. sin is hence said to be imputed to the sufferers 2. ver 12. they are said to have sinned 3. ver 19. they are said to be made sinners If any say that this signifieth but metonymically to be used as sinners I answer 1. He that would make what his list of God's plain words by pretended unproved metonymies is not to be believed 2. If it were true yet it must mean such a using men as sinners as implyeth them to be justly so reputed and their being sinners must be connoted as the cause as it is in all punishment It is surely a penal evil to the adult by the adversaries confession and here 's no distinction 3. To be made righteous which is the opposite member is more than to be used as righteous though we have no sin at all inherent or imputed go to be made sinners is more than to be used as sinners though we have no sin at all inherent or imputed 4. That evil interpretation doth but accuse God of injustice of which anon 2. And for the minor it is sufficient to prove that infants are included 1. Because infants die on this account 2. Because it is a being made sinners by one man's disobedience ver 19. and a being dead and under condemnation through one man's offence as ver 15. 18. that is mentioned and those that are now adult had their relation in infancy to Adam's offence as well as after It is not actual sin that brings them to be thus related to Adam It is both by one offence ver 18. and by the offence of one ver 17. and ver 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in or by the sin of one It is not go the effect of actual sins of the adult that the Apostle here principally speaks of much less only them but it is the participation and imputation of that one mans offence which he opposeth to the righteousness of one Arg. 3. from the punishment of infants If infants are punished they have original sin But infants are punished go they have original sin for they have no other The consequence is certain because it is essential to punishment to be propter malum morale the effect of sin as the meritorious cause All that requireth proof is the minor which I have proved at large in another disputation of the guilt of our immediate Parents sins To which I add 1. God doth not ordinarily at least afflict any rational creature with death but for their sin But God doth ordinarily afflict infants even with death go he doth it for their sin The minor is too well known The major I prove thus 1. In the lamentations of Jeremy the pains of the sucking children are mentioned often among the rest and of all it s said ch 3. 33. For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men that is He doth it not till he be provoked by their sins But if he afflict even unto death all infants that so die in the World without their desert by sin then he doth it willingly even because he will do it without their demerit But wherefore doth a living man complain a man for the punishment of his sin ver 39. Though it be the adult that principally complain yet this intimateth that all suffer for their sin Ezek. 18. 23. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die saith the Lord God 32. For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth saith the Lord God Ezek. 33. 11. Say unto them As I live saith the Lord God I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked Much less hath he so much pleasure in the death of innocents as to kill them ordinarily without their desert Rom. 6. 23. The wages of sin is death Scripture speaks of no other death to man but what is the fruit of sin 1 Cor. 15. In Adam all die and Gen. 3. 19. Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return extends to all the posterity of Adam ordinarily which shews some participation in the sin or else why should we all participate so much of the suffering for it 1 Cor. 15. 26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death By enemy is meant a penal evil which Christ was to remove as our Redeemer go even to infants death is a penal evil 1 Cor. 15. 56. The sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is