to the trial This guilt that is in nature what is it Is it the same thing that was in the person that is is it an obligation to punishment If it be not I know not the meaning of the word and therefore I have nothing to do with it If it be then if this guilt or obligation to punishment remains in the nature after it is taken from the person then if this concupiscence deserve damnation this nature shall be damned though the person be saved Let the Objectors my Lord choose which they will If it does not deserve damnation why do they say it does If it does then the guilty may suffer what they deserve but the innocent or the absolved must not the person then being acquitted and the nature not acquitted the nature shall be damn'd and the person be saved But if it be said that the guilt remains in the nature to certain purposes but not to all then I reply so it does in the person for it is in the person after Baptism so as to be a perpetual possibility and proneness to sin and a principle of trouble and if it be no otherwise in the nature then this distinction is to no purpose if it be otherwise in the nature then it brings damnation to it when it brings none to the Man and then the former argument must return But whether it prevail or no yet I cannot but note that what is here affirmed is expresly against the words commonly attributed to S. Cyprian De ablutione pedum Sic abluit quos parentalis labes infecerat ut nec actualis nec Originalis macula post ablutionem illam ulla sui vestigia derelinquat How this supposing it of Baptism can be reconcil'd with the guilt remaining in the nature I confess I cannot give an account It is expresly against S. Austin Tom. 9. Tract 41. in Johan epist ad Ocean saying deleta est tota iniquitas expresly against S. Hierom Quomodo justificati sumus sanctificati si peccatum aliquid in nobis relinquitur But again My Lord I did suppose that Concupiscence or Original Sin had been founded in nature and had not been a personal but a natural evil I am sure so the Article of our Church affirms it is the fault and corruption of our Nature And so S. Bonaventure affirms in the words cited by your Lordship in your Letter Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae ita peccatum origiuis tribuitur ratione naturae Either then the Sacrament must have effect upon our Nature to purifie that which is vitiated by Concupiscence or else it does no good at all For if the guilt or sin be founded in the nature as the Article affirms and Baptism does not take off the guilt from the nature then it does nothing Now since your Lordship is pleas'd in the behalf of the objectors so warily to avoid what they thought pressing I will take leave to use the advantages it ministers for so the Serpent teaches us where to strike him by his so warily and guiltily defending his head I therefore argue thus Either Baptism does not take off the guilt of Original Sin or else there may be punishment where there is no guilt or else natural death was not it which God threatned as the punishment of Adam's fact For it is certain that all men die as well after baptism as before and more after then before That which would be properly the consequent of this Dilemma is this that when God threatned death to Adam saying On the day thou eatest of the tree thou shalt die the death he inflicted and intended to inflict the evils of a troublesome mortal life For Adam did not die that day but Adam began to be miserable that day to live upon hard labour to eat fruits from an accursed field till he should return to the earth whence he was taken Gen. 3.17 18 19. So that death in the common sense of the word was to be the end of his labour not so much the punishment of the sin For it is probable he should have gone off from the scene of this world to a better though he had not sin'd but if he had not sin'd he should not be so afflicted and he should not have died daily till he had died finally that is till he had returned to his dust whence he was taken and whither he would naturally have gone and it is no new thing in Scripture that miseries and infelicities should be called dying or death Exod. 10.17 1 Cor. 15.31 2 Cor. 1.10 4.10 11 12. 11.23 But I only note this as probable as not being willing to admit what the Socinians answer in this argument who affirm that God threatning death to the Sin of Adam meant death eternal which is certainly not true as we learn from the words of the Apostle saying In Adam we all die which is not true of death eternal but it is true of the miseries and calamities of mankinde and it is true of temporal death in the sense now explicated and in that which is commonly received But I add also this probleme That which would have been had there been no sin and that which remains when the sin or guiltiness is gone is not properly the punishment of the sin But dissolution of the soul and body should have been if Adam had not sin'd for the world would have been too little to have entertain'd those myriads of men which must in all reason have been born from that blessing of Increase and multiply which was given at the first Creation and to have confin'd mankinde to the pleasures of this world in case he had not fallen would have been a punishment of his innocence but however it might have been though God had not been angry and shall still be even when the sin is taken off The proper consequent of this will be that when the Apostle sayes Death came in by sin and that Death is the wages of sin he primarily and literally means the solemnities and causes and infelicities and untimeliness of temporal death and not meerly the dissolution which is directly no evil but an inlet to a better state But I infist not on this but offer it to the consideration of inquisitive and modest persons And now that I may return thither from whence this objection brought me I consider that if any should urge this argument to me Baptism delivers from Original Sin Baptism does not deliver from Concupiscence therefore Concupiscence is not Original Sin I did not know well what to answer I could possibly say something to satisfie the boyes young men at a publique disputation but not to satisfie my self when I am upon my knees and giving an account to God of all my secret and hearty perswasions But I consider that by Concupiscence must be meant either the first inclinations to their object or the proper acts of Election which are the second acts of Concupiscence
he stood all his posterity should be I know not what and if he fell they should be in a damnable condition of this I say there is nec vola nec vestigium in holy Scripture that ever I could meet with if there had been any such covenant it had been but equity that to all the persons interessed it should have been communicated and caution given to all who were to suffer and abilities given to them to prevent the evil for else it is not a Covenant with them but a decree concerning them and it is impossible that there should be a covenant made between two when one of the parties knowes nothing of it I will enter no further into this enquiry but only observe that though there was no such covenant yet the event that hapned might without any such covenant have justly entred in at many doors It is one thing to say that God by Adam's sin was moved to a severer entercourse with his posterity for that is certainly true and it is another thing to say that Adam's sin of it self did deserve all the evill that came actually upon his children Death is the wages of sin one death for one sin but not 10000 millions for one sin but therefore the Apostle affirms it to have descended on all in as much as all men have sin'd But if from a sinning Parent a good childe descends the childs innocence will more prevail with God for kindness then the fathers sin shall prevail for trouble Non omnia parentum peccata dii in liberos convertunt sed siquis de malo nascitur bonus tanquam benè affectus corpore natus de morboso is generis poena liberatur tanquam ex improbitatis domo in aliam familiam datus qui vero morbo in similitudinem generis refertur atque redigitur vitiosi ei nimirum convenit tanquam haeredi debitas poenas vitii persolvere said Plutarch De iis qui sero à Numine puniuntur ex interpr Cluserii God does not alwaies make the fathers sins descend upon the children But if a good childe is born of a bad father like a healthful body from an ill affected one he is freed from the punishment of his stock and passes from the house of wickedness into another family But he who inherits the disease he also must be heir of the punishment Quorum natura amplexa est cognatam malitiam hos Justitia similitudinem pravitatis persequens supplicio affecit if they pursue their kindreds wickedness they shall be pursued by a cognation of judgement Other waies there are by which it may come to pass that the sins of others may descend upon us He that is author or the perswader the minister or the helper the approver or the follower may derive the sins of others to himself but then it is not their sins only but our own too and it is like a dead taper put to a burning light and held there this derives light and flames from the other and yet then hath it of its own but they dwell together and make one body These are the waies by which punishment can enter but there are evils which are no punishments and they may come upon more accounts by Gods Dominion by natural consequence by infection by destitution and dereliction for the glory of God by right of authority for the institution or exercise of the sufferers or for their more immediate good But that directly and properly one should be punish'd for the sins of others was indeed practised by some Common-wealths Utilitatis specie saepissimè in repub peccari said Cicero they do it sometimes for terror and because their waies of preventing evil is very imperfect and when Pedianus secundus the Pretor was kill'd by a slave all the family of them was kill'd in punishment this was secundum veterem morem said Tacit. Annal. 14. for in the slaughter of Marcellus the slaves fled for fear of such usage it was thus I say among the Romans but habuit aliquid iniqui and God forbid we should say such things of the fountain of Justice and mercy But I have done and will move no more stones but hereafter carry them as long as I can rather then make a noise by throwing them down I shall only add this one thing I was troubled with an objection lately for it being propounded to me why it is to be beleeved that the sin of Adam could spoil the nature of man and yet the nature of Devils could not be spoiled by their sin which was worse I could not well tell what to say and therefore I held my peace THE END An Advertisement to the Reader PAg. 8 9 there are seven lines misplaced which are to be read thus pag. 8. lin 16. read till the body was grown up to strength enough to infect it and in the whole process it must be an impossible thing because the instrument which hath all its operations by the force of the principal agent cannot of it self produce a great change and violent effect upon the principal agent Besides all this I say while one does not know how Original Sin can be derived and another who thinks he can names a wrong way and both the waies infer it to be another kinde of thing then all the Schools of learning teach does it not too clearly demonstrate The names of several Treatises and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor D.D. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Course of Sermons for all the Sundaies in the year together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. Episcopacy asserted in 4. 3. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ 2. Edit in fol. 4. The Liberty of Prophesying in 4. 5. An Apologie for authorised and Set formes of Liturgie in 4. 6. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12. 7. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying in 12. 8. The Golden Grove or A Manual of daily Prayers fitted to the daies of the week together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness 9. The Doctrine an practice of repentance rescued from popular Errors in a large 8. Newly published Books written by H. Hammond D. D. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Test by H. Hammond D.D. in fol. 2. The Practical Catechism with all other English Treatises of H. Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4. 3. Dissertiones quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum Authore Henrico Hammond in 4. 4. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries in 12. 5. Of Schism A Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists in 12. 6. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice by H. Hammond D. D. in 12. 7. Six books of late Controversie in defence of the Church of England in two volumes in 4. newly published Books newly published DOctor Cousins Devotions in 12. The persecuted Ministery by William Langley late of St. Maries in the City of Liechfield Minister in 4. A Discourse of Auxiliary Beauty or Artificial Handsomenesse In point of Conscience between two Ladies in 8. Lyford's Legacy or an help to young People Preparing them for the worthy receiving of the Lords Supper in 12. The Principles of Holy Christian Religion or the Catechism of the Church of England paraphrazed By R. Sherlock B. D. at Borwick Hall in Lancashire in 8. A Discourse 1. Of the Holy Spirit of God His Impressions and workings on the Souls of Men. 2. Of Divine Revelation Mediate and Immediate 3. Of Error Heresie and Schism the Nature Kindes Causes Reasons and Dangers thereof with directions for avoiding the same By R. Sherlock B. D. in 4. THE END
the flesh lusteth against the spirit that is it really produces a state of evil temptations it lusteth that is actually and habitually it lusteth against the spirit and therefore deserves Gods wrath and damnation So the Article Therefore for no other reason but because the flesh lusteth against the spirit not because it can lust or is apta nata to lust but because it lusteth actually therefore it deserves damnation and this is Original Sin or as the Article expresses it it hath the nature of sin it is the fomes or matter of sin and is in the original of mankinde and deriv'd from Adam as our body is but it deserves not damnation in the highest sense of the word till the concupiscence be actual Till then the words of Wrath and Damnation must be meant in the less and more easie signification according to the former explication and must only relate to the personal sin of Adam To this sense of the Article I heartily subscribe For besides the reasonableness of the thing and the very manner of speaking us'd in the Article it is the very same way of speaking and exactly the same doctrine which we finde in S. James Jam. 1.14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concupiscence when it is impregnated when it hath conceiv'd then it brings forth sin and sin when it is in production and birth brings forth death But in Infants concupiscence is innocent and a virgin it conceives not and therefore is without sin and therefore without death or damnation * Against these expositions I cannot imagine what can be really and materially objected But my Lord I perceive the main outcry is like to be upon the authority of the Harmony of Confessions Concerning which I shall say this that in this Article the Harmony makes as good musick as bels ringing backward and they agree especially when they come to be explicated and untwisted into their minute and explicite meanings as much as Lutheran and Calvinist as Papist and Protestant as Thomas and Scotus as Remonstrant and Dordrechtan that is as much as pro and con or but a very little more I have not the book with me here in prison and this neighbourhood cannot supply me and I dare not trust my memory to give a scheme of it but your Lordship knows that in nothing more do the reformed Churches disagree then in this and its appendages and you are pleased to hint something of it by saying that some speak more of this then the Church of England and Andrew Rivet though unwillingly yet confesses de Confessionibus nostris earum syntagmate vel Harmonia etiamsi in non nullis capitibus non planè conveniant dicam tamen melius in concordiam redigi posse quà m in Ecclesia Romana concordantiam discordantium Canonum quo titulo decretum Gratiani quod Canonistis regulas praefigit solet infigniri And what he affirmes of the whole collection is most notorious in the Article of Original Sin For my own part I am ready to subscribe the first Helvetian confession but not the second So much difference there is in the confessions of the same Church Now whereas your Lordship adds that though they are fallible yet when they bring evidence of holy Writ their assertions are infallible and not to be contradicted I am bound to reply that when they do so whether they be infallible or no I will beleeve them because then though they might yet they are not deceived But as evidence of holy Writ had been sufficient without their authority so without such evidence their authority is nothing But then My Lord their citing and urging the words of S. Paul Rom. 5.12 is so far from being an evident probation of their Article that nothing is to me a surer argument of their fallibility then the urging of that which evidently makes nothing for them but much against them As 1. Affirming expresly that death was the event of Adam's sin the whole event for it names no other temporal death according to that saying of S. Paul 1 Cor. 15. In Adam we all die And 2. Affirming this process of death to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is and ought to be taken to be the allay or condition of the condemnation It became a punishment to them only who did sin but upon them also inflicted for Adam 's sake A like expression to which is in the Psalms Psal 106.32 33. They angred him also at the waters of strife so that he punished Moses for their sakes Here was plainly a traduction of evil from the Nation to Moses their relative For their sakes he was punished but yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for as much as Moses had sin'd for so it followes because they provoked his spirit so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips So it is between Adam and us He sin'd and God was highly displeased This displeasure went further then upon Adam's sin for though that only was threatned with death yet the sins of his children which were not so threatned became so punished and they were by nature heirs of wrath and damnation that is for his sake our sins inherited his curse The curse that was specially and only threatned to him we when we sin'd did inherit for his sake So that it is not so properly to be called Original Sin as an original curse upon our sin To this purpose we have also another example of God transmitting the curse from one to another Both were sinners but one was the original of the curse or punishment So said the Prophet to the wife of Jeroboam 1 King 14.16 He shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam who did sin and who made Israel to sin Jeroboam was the root of the sin and of the curse Here it was also that I may use the words of the Apostle that by the sin of one man Jeroboam sin went out into all Israel and the curse captivity or death by sin and so death went upon all men of Israel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men of Israel have sinned If these men had not sinned they had not been punished I cannot say they had not been afflicted for David's childe was smitten for his fathers fault but though they did sin yet unless their root and principal had sinned possibly they should not have so been punish'd For his sake the punishment came Upon the same account it may be that we may inherit the damnation or curse for Adam's sake though we deserve it yet it being transmitted from Adam and not particularly threatned to the first posterity we were his heirs the heirs of death deriving from him an original curse but due also if God so pleased to our sins And this is the full sense of the 12. verse and the effect of the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But your Lordship is pleased to object that though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does once signifie For as much as yet three times it signifies in