so what was wanting in their former estate might be supply'd by them in their following one For as it is not easie to suppose that the corruptible body should so far stupefie the Soul as to hinder it from emerging in time out of sleep in which it may seem to have been cast and accordingly from calling to mind what had been before transacted within it Because though the Body may be some hindrance to the faculties of the Soul yet it doth not hinder them from coming in time to exert their proper operations So it is much less easie to suppose that God should not however bring to it's memory its past State and Actions by which it offended against him Partly to make it sensible of its former guilt and God's choosing to punish it by thrusting it into a Body and partly to make it so much the more careful to break off from those sins by which it had before offended him These as they are the only imaginable ends why God should thrust an offending Soul into such a Body so being perfectly lost to that Soul in which there is no consciousness of it's former state and of those enormities which were contracted in it I conclude therefore that whatever may be said as to this particular concerning Original Sin yet it did not take its rise from the evil acts or habits of the Soul in any praexistent estate and nothing therefore left to us to resolve it into but the depravedness of those from whom we all descended and from whom it is transmitted to particular Souls and Persons I deny not indeed that even this Account is not without its difficulties and such as it will be hard if not impossible perfectly to assoile I deny not farther that those difficulties are much enhanc'd by the ignorance we are under concerning the Original of humane Souls and which whilst we continue under it will not be easie for us to shew how that depravedness of Nature should pass from them to us But as those difficulties are no ways comparable to the difficulties of two of the former even those which resolve Original Sin into the malignity of some evil spirit or the pravity of matter So they can much less be thought to be of force against the testimony of the Scripture if that as I shall afterwards shew favour its arising from the pravity of our first Parents Partly because the thing in question is a matter of fact and therefore to be determin'd rather by testimony than the force of reason and partly because the testimony of Scripture is the most Authentick one as being no other than the testimony of God. Now that there wants not sufficient evidence from thence that that Original Sin whereof we speak ariseth from the pravity of those from whom we first descended will appear if these three things can be made out First that the sin of all mankind enter'd in by Adam Secondly that it enter'd in by Adam not meerly as the first that committed it or tempted other Men by his ill example to do the like but as more or less the cause of all their sins by his own Thirdly that he became the cause of all their sins through his by depraving thereby his own Nature and then communicating that depravation to those that descended from him That the Sin of all Mankind enter'd in by Adam will need no other proof than that known Text of S. Paul (p) Rom. 5.12 even that by one Man sin enter'd into the World and death by sin and so death passed through unto all Men for that all have sinned For as we cannot well interpret the word sin of any other than the sin of all Men because there is nothing in the Text to limit it to any particular Man's so much less when S. Paul doth afterwards affirm that that death which enter'd in by it passed thorough unto all Men for that or because all had sinned by the means of him That as it makes death to pass upon all Men with respect to their several sins and consequently their several sins to be the immediate door by which it enters so making those several sins therefore to be included in that sin which he before affirmed to be the cause of that death and together with it to have enter'd in by Adam But because among those at least by whom the Scripture is acknowledg'd the question is not so much whether all sin enter'd by Adam but after what manner it enter'd by him And because till that be known we cannot speak with any certainty concerning the derivation of the corruptness of our Natures from that of our first Parents or Parent Therefore pass we on to shew according to the method before laid down that as the sin of all Mankind enter'd in by Adam so it enter'd in by him not as some have vainly deem'd meerly as one who first committed it or tempted others by his example to do the like but as one also yea especially who by the malignant influence of his sin was more or less the cause of all those sins that followed it That the sin of all Mankind enter'd not in by Adam either meerly or principally as one who first committed it will need no other proof than his being not the first committer of sin even in this sublunary World but that Serpent who tempted our first Parents to it For as he and his fellow Angels sinned before them in those glorious seats in which they were first bestow'd So he sinned also before them here by that temptation which he suggested to them and without which they had not fallen from their integrity Which as it is an evidence of sin 's not entring in by Adam in that sense and consequently that that was not the sense intended by S. Paul So is the more to be considered because S. John attributes this entrance of sin to the Devil (q) 1 Joh. 3.8 yea makes all the committers of sin to be therefore of him But besides that Adam was not the first of those that sinned and we therefore not so to understand S. Paul when describing sin as entring by him Neither was he the first of humane kind that sinned which will be a yet farther prejudice to the former surmise For as we learn from the story of the Fall (r) Gen. 3.6 yea from this very Apostle elsewhere (Å¿) 1 Tim. 2.14 Adam was not deceiv'd that is to say was not the first that was so but the Woman being deceiv'd was in the transgression Which what is it but to say that sin did not enter in by Adam in that sense and consequently that that was not the sense intended by the Apostle in it Only if it be said and more than that cannot be said in it that we are not so to understand S. Paul when describing sin as entring by Adam as not also to suppose him to connote the Partner both of his Bed and of his transgression As I
Head than that that Law which requires a pious and innocent temper was given to Adam in that capacity But as we can as little doubt of that if his contracting a contrary temper was as fatal to his Posterity as to himself So that it was will need no other proof than his producing the like temper in them and that temper 's proving as deadly to them The former whereof is evident from what I before said to shew that Original Sin had its beginning from Adam the latter from S. Paul's (p) Rom. 7.24 calling it a Body of Death or a Body that brings it The Genitive Case (q) Grot. iâ— loc among the Hebrews and Hellenists being usually set for such Adjectives as betoken a causality in them Even as the Savour of Death is us'd for a deadly one or that which bringeth death and the Tree of Life for a life-giving one or that which was apt to produce or continue it I deny not indeed that I may now pass to those Exceptions that are commonly made against it that it may seem hard to conceive how Adam should be set in such a capacity as to involve all mankind in happipiness or misery according as he either continued in or fell from that integrity wherein God created him I deny not therefore but that it is equally hard to conceive how God should give him such a Law the observation or transgression whereof on his part should redound to the account of his Posterity But as every thing that is hard to be conceiv'd is not therefore to be deny'd if it be otherwise strengthen'd with sufficient proofs So it would be consider'd also whether it be not much more hard to conceive how God should otherwise involve Infants and Children in those calamities into which they often fall especially in National Judgments It being certainly more agreeable to the divine Justice to conceive those to have some way or other offended and consequently thereto to have fallen under the displeasure of it than to conceive them to suffer it without any offence at all For why then should we not think especially when the Scripture hath led the way that God oblig'd them in Adam to a pious and innocent temper and which they losing in him they became obnoxious with him to the same sad effects of his displeasure And though it be true that there is this great imparity between the cases that the effect of God's displeasure upon occasion of Original Sin is made to reach to eternal misery as well as to a temporal one whereas the case we before instanc'd in concerns only a temporal punishment Yet as they do thus far agree that a punishment is inflicted where there is no actual sin to deserve it which is sufficiently irreconcileable with the understanding we otherwise have of the divine Justice So that great imparity may be much abated by considering that God hath provided a Plaster as large as the Sore even by giving his Son to dye for all Mankind and appointed the Sacrament of Baptism to convey the benefit of it For as the consequents of Original Sin will be thereby taken off from so many Infants at least as are admitted to that Sacrament so that mercy of his to those and the assurance we have from the Scripture of his giving his Son to dye for all may perswade us to believe that though he hath not reveal'd the particular way to us yet he hath some other way to convey the benefit of that death to those who are not admitted to the other But it will be said it may be which is a no less prejudice against the being of Original Sin that all sin to make it truly such must have the consent of the will of those in whom it is as well as be the transgression of a Law. A thing by no means to be affirm'd concerning that which we call Original Sin because not only contracted before we had a being and therefore also before we had so much as the faculty of willing but moreover conveyed to us when we had neither reason to apprehend it nor any power in our wills either to admit or reject it And indeed how altogether to take off the force of that Objection is beyond my capacity to apprehend or satisfie the understandings of other Men Because as I cannot see how any thing can be a sin which hath not also the consent of the will of those in whom it is so I am as little able to conceive how Original Sin should have the consent of ours either when it was first contracted or when it was transmitted to us But as I am far less able to conceive how Infants and Children should come to be so severely dealt with without any offence at all or therefore without having some way or other consented to one So I think first that that difficulty may well be laid in the ballance against the other yea alledged as a bar to the supposed force of it For why should my inability to apprehend how Infants and Children could consent to Original Sin prevail with me to deny the being of it when a far greater inability to apprehend how the same persons should come to be so severely dealt withal without it doth not prevail with me to deny that severe usage of them Neither will it avail to say which is otherwise considerable enough that we have for the belief of this last the testimony of our senses which is not to be alledged as to the other For the question is not now whether the severe usage of Infants and Children may not more reasonably be believ'd than their Original Sin upon the account of the greater evidence there may be of it But whether we can any more deny the Original Sin of Infants and Children upon the account of our inability to apprehend how they should consent unto it than we can deny the severe usage of the same persons upon the account of our inability to apprehend how they should come to be so dealt with without the other Which that we cannot is evident from hence that we are equally at a loss in our apprehensions about the one and the other that I say not also more at a loss about the latter than about the former And indeed as we find it necessary to believe many things notwithstanding our inability to apprehend how they should come to pass and ought not therefore to deny the being of any one thing upon the sole account of that inability So our apprehensions are so short as to the modes of those things of the being whereof we are most assured that it will hardly be deemed reasonable to insist upon the suggestions of them against the affirmations of the Scripture Partly because of the Authority of him from whom it proceeded and partly because we cannot so easily fail in our apprehension concerning the due sense of the affirmations of it as in the deductions of our own reason concerning
the things affirmed Nothing more being required to the understanding of the one than a due consideration of the signification of the words wherein they are expressed whereas to the right ordering of the other there is requir'd a due understanding of the Nature of those things about which we reason which is both a matter of far greater difficulty and in many cases impossible to be attain'd Whatever difficulty therefore there may be in apprehending how Original Sin could have the consent of those in whom it is supposed to be and consequently how it should be truly and properly a sin Yet ought not that to be a bar against our belief of it if the Scripture hath represented it as such and which whether it hath or no I shall leave to be judg'd by what I have before observ'd from it From such Objections as are level'd more immediately against the being of Original Sin pass we to those which impugne the derivation of it from Adam and from whom we have affirmed it to proceed Which Objections again do either tend to shew that it had its Original from something else or that it cannot be suppos'd to have its Original from Adam An opinion hath prevail'd of late years that that which we call Original Sin took its rise from the sins of particular Souls in some praexistent estate and from those evil habits which they contracted by them And certainly the opinion were reasonable enough to be embrac'd if the praexistence of Souls were but as well prov'd as it is speciously contriv'd For that suppos'd it would be no hard matter to give an account of the rise of that Corruption which is in us nor yet of God's afflicting those on whom no other blame appears That corruption as it is no other than what particular Souls have themselves contracted so making them as obnoxious to the vengeance of God as any after sins can be supposed to do But do they who advance this hypothesis think the plausibleness thereof a sufficient ground to build it on Or are problems in Divinity no other way to be determin'd than those of Astronomy or other such conjectural Arts are I had thought that for the resolution of these we ought rather to have had recourse to that word of God which was design'd to give us an understanding of them to have examin'd the several assertions of it and acquiesced in them how difficult soever to be apprehended I had thought that we ought to have done so much more where the Scripture professeth to deliver its opinion and doth not only not wave the thing in question but speaks to it Which that it doth in the present case will need no other proof than the account it gives of the Original of Mankind and then of the Original of Evil. For as it professeth to speak of Adam not only as created by God but as appointed by him (r) Gen. 1.28 to give being by the way of natural Generation to all that after him should replenish the Earth which how he should be thought to do if he were only to be a means of furnishing them with a Body who had the better part of their being before is past my understanding to imagine so it professeth to speak of the same Adam as one by whom sin and death (Å¿) Rom. 5.12 1 Cor. 15.21 22. enter'd into the World as well as the persons of those on whom it seizeth And can there then be any place for a precarious hypothesis about the Original of Mankind or the evils of it Can there be place for advancing that hypothesis not only beside but against the determinations of the Scripture Do not all such hypotheses proceed upon the uncertainty of the matter about which they are conversant Do they not come in as a relief to the understandings of Men where they cannot be satisfied any other way But how then can there be place for such a one where the Scripture hath determin'd How can there be any place even for the most specious and plausible For as that cannot be suppos'd to be uncertain which the Scripture hath determin'd So no plausibility whatsoever can come in competition with the determinations of God such as those of the Scripture are But such it seems is the restlesness of some Men's minds that if they cannot satisfie their scruples from what the Scripture hath advanced they will be setting up other Hypotheses to do it by Wherein yet they are for the most part so unlucky as to advance such things themselves as have nothing at all of probability in them For who can think it any way probable that if mens Souls had an existence antecedent to their conception in the Womb they should not in the least be conscious of it nor of any of those things which were transacted by them in it Is it as one hath observ'd who seems to have been the first broacher of it in this latter Age is it I say for want of opportunity of being reminded of their former transactions as it happens to many who rise confident that they slept without dreaming and yet before they go to bed again recover a whole series of representations by something that occurr'd to them in the day But who can think when the Souls of Men must be supposed to carry in them the same evil tendencies and inclinations that they should never light upon any one thing which might bring back to their minds what they had formerly transacted or but so much as that they had a being antecedent to their present one For whoever was so forgetful of his dreams as not to remember he was sometime in a dreaming condition yea that he actually dreamed in it Is it secondly as the same Learned Man goes on by a desuetude of thinking of their former actions and whereby it sometimes comes to pass as he there observes that what we have earnestly meditated labour'd for and pen'd down with our own hands when we were at School becomes so lost to our memories that if we did not see our own handwriting to it we should not acknowledge it to be our own But doth this come home to the present case Doth it persuade such a forgetfulness in the Souls of Men as not only not to remember their particular actions but not so much as that they were in a condition to act any thing or acted any thing under it For though a Man may forget the particular exercise he did at School yet can any Man though he slept an Age and never so much as dream'd in all that time of being at School or any other thing be supposed if he awoke in his right wits to forget he was sometime in such a place and performed some exercises in it Is it lastly by means of some distemper that happens to the Soul by coming into an earthly Body and by which the foremention'd person conceives the Soul may suffer in its memory as we see it sometime doth in its
may be yea be assur'd to us of the original or conveyance whereof we our selves are perfectly ignorant for who doubts of the being of humane Souls though he neither knows nor well can whether they be traduc'd or infus'd and partly because the testimony of Scripture with the experience we have of its effects is a much more forcible argument of the being of it than all the former reasons are of the other These being direct and immediate proofs of its existence whereas the other are only indirect and mediate From such objections therefore as consider Original Sin as a simple Corruption of humane Nature pass we to those which consider it also as sinful and which indeed seem most hardly to press upon it Such as are that all sin is the transgression of a Law which Original Sin seems not to be That it requires the consent of the will of him in whom it is which cannot well be affirm'd of that As in fine that the Scripture it self may seem to make that which we call Original Sin rather the Parent of Sin than sin it self because making sin to arise (o) James 1 13 c. from the conception and parturition of it As to what is objected from the forementioned Scripture it is either nothing at all to the purpose or very much against the purpose of those that alledge it Partly because by the sin there spoken of can be meant no other than actual sin and nothing therefore to be concluded from thence but that all actual sin is the product of Men's Lust and partly because that Text makes even actual sins to be the product of Men's Lust yea of such a lust as draweth them aside and enticeth them For who can well think the Parent of such Children to be of a better Nature than the Children themselves especially when she is described as giving birth to them by false and deceitful Arts Such Arts as those reflecting no great honour upon the Mother but on the contrary making her to be altogether as criminal as the other If therefore they who impugn Original Sin as such would do it with any advantage it must not be by Arguments drawn from Scripture which will rather hurt than profit them but by Arguments drawn from reason and particularly by such as represent Original Sin as no transgression of a Law and therefore no sin properly so call'd or as a thing which hath not the consent of the will of him in whom it is and therefore yet farther removed from it As concerning the former of these even that which represents Original Sin as no transgression of a Law I answer that they who so speak must deny it to be such either because it is no Act or because there is no Law which it can be suppos'd to be a transgression of If the former of these be their meaning I willingly grant what they alledge but I say withall that it will not from thence follow that it is no sin at all For if Men are obliged by the divine Law to a pious and innocent temper as well as not to swerve from it in their actions the want of that happy temper or the having a contrary one will be as much the transgression of a Law as the want of the same piety in their actions Which will consequently devolve the whole force of that Objection upon the supposition of there being no such Law of God which requires the former temper or which therefore Original Sin can be thought to be a transgression of But as I have already made it appear in some measure that there is in truth such a Law as requires a pious and innocent temper so I shall now endeavour to strengthen it by some more particular proofs and by answering those exceptions that are made against it In order to the former whereof we are to know that as the Law we speak of must be supposed to have been given to Adam as that too not only in his private but publick capacity and as he may be thought to have been the representative of all Mankind there being no other Law which can be suppos'd to concern us before we come to be in a capacity to apprehend and obey it so I shall endeavour to make it appear first that there was such a Law given to Adam and then that it was given to him not only in his private but publick capacity and as he may be thought to have been the representative of all Mankind Now that there was a Law given to Adam requiring a pious and innocent temper as well as the preserving that piety and innocency in his actions will need no other proof than God's creating him in it and the love he may be supposed to bear unto it For as we cannot think God would have ever intrusted such a Jewel with Adam if it had not been his intention that he should preserve and exercise it so much less when the holiness of the divine Nature persuades his love to it as well as the declarations of his word For what were this but to make God indifferent what became of his most excellent gifts which no wise person and much less so hearty a lover of them can be supposed to be If therefore there can be any doubt concerning the Law we speak of it must be as to its having been given to Adam in his publick capacity and as he may be suppos'd to have been the representative of all Mankind Which I shall endeavour to evince first by shewing what I mean by his publick capacity secondly by shewing that Adam was set in such a capacity and thirdly that the Law we speak of was given to him as considered in it By the publick capacity of Adam I mean such a one whereby as he was design'd to be the Father of all Mankind so God made him a kind of Trustee for it In order thereunto both giving him what he did for their benefit as well as his own and obliging him for their sakes as well as his own to see to the preservation of it and act agreeably to it Which if he did his Posterity as well as himself should have the benefit thereof and God's favour together with it but if not forfeit together with him what God had so bestow'd upon him and incurr the penalty of his displeasure Now that Adam was set in such a capacity which is the second thing to be demonstrated will appear from the Scriptures making him the cause of all Men's death by his offence and disobedience For the effects of another disobedience being not otherwise chargeable upon any Man than as that other may be suppos'd to be appointed to act for him If the effects of Adam's disobedience were to fall upon all his Posterity he also must be supposed to have been appointed to act for them and consequently to have been set in that publick capacity whereof I speak Which will leave nothing more for us to shew upon this
saved from everlasting damnation by Christ And it is not only saith another (n) Hom. of Faith. the common belief of the Articles of our Faith but it is also a sure trust and considence of the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ and a stedfast hope of all good things to be receiv'd at God's hands In fine saith the same (o) Ibid. Homily the very sure lively Christian faith is not only to believe all things of God which are contained in holy Scripture but also to have an earnest trust and confidence in God c. Which suppos'd as we may because we can have no more Authentick interpretation of it to be the sense of the belief here intended it will not be difficult to shew what our Catechism means by a stedfast one For considering the belief of these Promises as an Assent of the mind to them so a stedfast belief will imply that which is free from all doubts and which the mind of man gives to those Promises without any the least fear of their being any Collusion in them Which the mind of man may well give considering whose those Promises are and that they have both God and Christ for the Authors of them On the other side if we consider the belief intended as including in it also an affiance or trust and by vertue of which the heart or will is prompted to desire as well as believe the matter of those Promises and acquiesce in those Promises for the attaining of it So this stedfast belief will also imply such a one as is firmly rooted in the heart or will and can no more be rooted out of it by the force of temptations than the other by doubts or scruples And indeed as I do not see how any other belief than that can answer such glorious promises as are made to us in the Sacrament of Baptism so I see as little reason to doubt IV. What evidence there is of that being the Faith or belief which is pre-requir'd by Christianity to the receiving of it For though S. Luke may seem to intimate by the account he gives of the Baptism of the Samaritans (p) Acts 8.12 that they were baptiz'd upon a simple belief of what Philip preach'd concerning the things of the Kingdom of God Yet he doth much more clearly intimate afterward that Christianity requir'd another sort of belief and such as was accompani'd with an adherence of the will unto them He making it the condition of the Eunuch's Baptism afterward that he should believe with all his heart (q) Acts 8.37 Which is an expression that in the language of the Scripture referrs rather to the will and affections than to the understanding but however cannot well be thought not to include them there where the believing with all the heart is requir'd And indeed as I do not see considering the Doctrine of our First Reformers why this notion of Faith should be so exploded as it seems to me lately to have been As I do much less see why men should so boyle at that Justification which was wont to be attributed in an especial manner to it So if I live to finish the work I am now upon I will in a Comment upon the Epistle to the Philippians which I have almost gather'd sufficient materials for endeavour to clear both the one and the other that men may neither take occasion from thence to discard good works as unnecessary nor yet stay themselves upon any other than the promises of Christ and on which the holiest men upon earth when they have been approaching near God's tribunal have found themselves oblig'd to cast themselves In the mean time a little to repress the youthful heats of those who can hardly forbear smiling at such antiquated notions I will set before them the advice which was order'd to be given to sick persons when good works to be sure were not without their just repute It is among the Interrogatories which are said (r) Field of the Church Append. to the 3d. Book pa. 303. to have been prescrib'd by Anselme Archbishop of Canterbury and particularly after that which prompts the Priest to ask Dost thou believe that thou canst not be sav'd but by the death of Christ and the sick persons Answer that he did so Go too therefore as the Priest was taught to proceed and whilst thy soul remaineth in thee place thy confidence in this death alone and in no other thing commit thy self wholly to it cover thy self wholly with it immerse fix and wrap thy self wholly in it And if the Lord God will judge thee say I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy judgment otherwise I contend not with thee And if he say that thou art a sinner say Lord I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my sins If he say to thee thou hast deserv'd damnation say Lord I put the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and my evil deserts and I offer the same death for that merit which I ought to have had and have not If he continue as yet to say that he is angry with thee say Lord I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and thy displeasure Words which shew what kind of Faith was sometime thought to be a justfying one and what stress was laid upon it before ever Fanaticism or any thing of that nature was heard of in the World. PART XI Of the Baptism of Infants The Contents What ground Infant-Baptism hath in Scripture and particularly in what it suggests concerning Christ's commanding his Disciples to suffer little Children to come unto him S. Paul's giving the Children of the faithful the title of Holy and the Circumcision of Infants The concurrence of Antiquity therein with the Doctrine of the Scripture and that concurrence farther strengthned by the Pelagians so freely admitting of what was urg'd against them from thence A brief account of that remission and regeneration which Infants acquire by Baptism and a more large consideration of the Objections that are made against it More particularly of what is urg'd against the Regeneration of Infants in Baptism or their ability to answer what is pre-requir'd to it on the part of persons to be baptiz'd or is to be performed by them in the reception of it Where the Regeneration of Infants is more largely considered and what is promis'd for them by others shewn to be both reasonable and sufficient FRom the Baptism of those of riper years Question Why then are Infants baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them Answer Because they promise them both by their sureties which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform pass we to that of Infants or Children the only Baptism upon the matter now celebrated and therefore so much the more carefully to be clear'd and establish'd In order whereunto I will enquire I. What