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
done the action which another did and not we the action is as individual as the person and Titius may as well be Cajus and the Son be his own Father as he can be said to have done the Fathers action and therefore we cannot possibly be guilty of it for guilt is an obligation to punishment for having done it the action and the guilt are relatives one cannot be without the other something must be done inwardly or outwardly or there can be no guilt * But then for the evil of punishment that may pass further then the action If it passes upon the innocent it is not a punishment to them but an evil inflicted by right of Dominion but yet by reason of the relation of the afflicted to him that sin'd to him it is a punishment But if it passes upon others that are not innocent then it is a punishment to both to the first principally to the Descendents or Relatives for the others sake his sin being imputed so far How far that is in the present case and what it is the Apostle expresses thus It was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 18. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 16. a curse unto condemnation or a judgement unto condemnation that is a curse inherited from the principal deserv'd by him and yet also actually descending upon us after we had sin'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the judgement passed upon Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was on him but it prov'd to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a through condemnation when from him it passed upon all men that sin'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes differ in degrees so the words are used by S. Paul otherwhere 1 Cor. 11.32 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a judgement to prevent a punishment or a less to forestal a greater in the same kinde so here the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pass'd further the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was fulfilled in his posterity passing on further viz. that all who sin'd should pass under the power of death as well as he but this became formally and actually a punishment to them only who did sin personally to them it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 17. the reign of death this is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vers 21. the reign of sin in death that is the effect which Adam's sin had was only to bring in the reign of death which is already broken by Jesus Christ and at last shall be quite destroyed But to say that sin here is properly transmitted to us from Adam formally and so as to be inherent in us is to say that we were made to do his action which is a perfect contradiction Now then your Lordship sees that what you note of the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I admit and is indeed true enough and agreeable to the discourse of the Apostle and very much in justification of what I taught 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes I easily subscribe to it but then take in the words of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one sin or by the sin of one the curse passed upon all men unto condemnation that is the curse descended from Adam for his sake it was propagated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to a real condemnation viz. when they should sin For though this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse of death was threatned only to Adam yet upon Gods being angry with him God resolved it should descend and if men did sin as Adam or if they did sin at all though less then Adam yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the curse threatned to him should pass 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the same actual condemnation which fell upon him that is it should actually bring them under the reign of death But then my Lord I beseech you let it be considered if this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must suppose a punishment for sin for the sin of him his own sin that is so condemn'd as your Lordship proves perfectly out of Ezek. 18. how can it be just that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemnation should pass upon us for Adam's sin that is not for his own sin who is so condemn'd but for the sin of another S. Paul easily resolves the doubt if there had been any The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reign of death passed upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned And now why shall we suppose that we must be guilty of what we did not when without any such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is so much guilt of what we did really and personally why shall it be that we die only for Adam's sin and not rather as S. Paul expresly affirms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in as much as all men have sinned since by your own argument it cannot be in as much as all men have not sinned this you say cannot be and yet you will not confess this which can be and which S. Paul affirms to have been indeed as if it were not more just and reasonable to say that from Adam the curse descended unto the condemnation of the sins of the world then to say the curse descended without consideration of their sins but a sin must be imagined to make it seem reasonable and just to condemn us Now I submit it to the judgement of all the world which way of arguing is most reasonable and concluding You my Lord in behalf of others argue thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own Therefore every man is truly guilty of Adam's sin and that becomes his own Against this I oppose mine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or condemnation cannot pass upon a man for any sin but his own therefore it did not pass upon man for Adam's fin because Adam's sin was Adam's not our own But we all have sinned we have sins of our own therefore for these the curse pass'd from Adam to us To back mine besides that common notices of sense and reason defend it I have the plain words of S. Paul Death passed upon all men for as much as all men have sinned all men that is the generality of mankinde all that liv'd till they could sin the others that died before died in their nature not in their sin neither Adam's nor their own save only that Adam brought it in upon them or rather left it to them himself being disrobed of all that which could hinder it Now for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which your Lordship renders clear from sin I am sure no man is so justified in this world as to be clear from sin and if we all
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
by the force of the principal agent cannot of it self produce a great change and violent effect upon the principal agent does it not too clearly demonstrate that all that infinite variety of fancies agreeing in nothing but in an endless uncertainty is nothing else but a being busie about the quiddities of a dream and the constituent parts of a shadow But then My Lord my discourse representing all this to be vanity and uncertainty ought not to be call'd or suppos'd to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he that ends the question between two Schoolmen disputing about the place of Purgatory by saying they need not trouble themselves about the place for that which is not hath no place at all ought not to be told he contends about a shadow when he proves that to be true which he suggested to the two trifling litigants But as to the thing it self I do not say there is no such thing as Original Sin but it is not that which it is supposed to be it is not our sin formally but by imputation only and it is imputed so as to be an inlet to sickness death and disorder but it does not introduce a necessity of sinning nor damn any one to the flames of Hell So that Original Sin is not a Non ens unless that be nothing which infers so many real mischiefs The next thing your Lordship is pleas'd to note to me is that in your wisdome you foresee some will argue against my explication of the word Damnation in the ninth Article of our Church which affirms that Original Sin deserves damnation Concerning which My Lord I do thus and I hope fairly acquit my self 1. That it having been affirmed by S. Austin that Infants dying unbaptized are damn'd he is deservedly called Durus pater Infantum and generally forsaken by all sober men of the later ages and it will be an intolerable thing to think the Church of England guilty of that which all her wiser sons and all the Christian Churches generally abhorre I remember that I have heard that King James reproving a Scottish Minister who refus'd to give private Baptism to a dying Infant being askt by the Minister if he thought the childe should be damn'd for want of Baptism answer'd No but I think you may be damn'd for refusing it and he said well But then my Lord If Original Sin deserves damnation then may Infants be damn'd if they die without Baptism But if it be a horrible affirmative to say that the poor babes shall be made Devils or enter into their portion if they want that ceremony which is the only gate the only way of salvation that stands open then the word Damnation in the 9. Article must mean something less then what we usually understand by it or else the Article must be salved by expounding some other word to an allay and lessening of the horrible sentence and particularly the word Deserves of which I shall afterwards give account Both these waies I follow The first is the way of the Schoolmen For they suppose the state of unbaptized Infants to be a poena damni and they are confident enough to say that this may be well suppos'd without inferring their suffering the pains of hell But this sentence of theirs I admit and explicate with some little difference of expression For so far I admit this pain of loss or rather a deficiency from going to Heaven to be the consequence of Adam's sin that by it we being left in meris Naturalibus could never by these strengths alone have gone to Heaven Now whereas your Lordship in behalf of those whom you suppose may be captious is pleas'd to argue That as loss of sight or eyes infers a state of darkness or blindness so the losse of Heaven infers Hell and if Infants go not to heaven in that state whither can they go but to hell and that 's Damnation in the greatest sense I grant it that if in the event of things they do not go to Heaven as things are now ordered it is but too likely that they go to Hell but I adde that as all darkness does not infer horror and distraction of minde or fearful apparitions and phantasms so neither does all Hell or states in Hell infer all those torments which the Schoolmen signifie by a poena sensus for I speak now in pursuance of their way So that there is no necessity of a third place but it concludes only that in the state of separation from Gods presence there is a great variety of degrees and kinds of evil and every one is not the extreme and yet by the way let me observe that Gregory Nazianzen and Nicetas taught that there is a third place for Infants and Heathens and Irenaeus affirm'd that the evils of Hell were not eternal to all but to the Devils only and the greater criminals But neither they nor we nor any man else can tell whether Hell be a place or no. It is a state of evil but whether all the damned be in one or in twenty places we cannot tell But I have no need to make use of any of this For when I affirm that Infants being by Adam reduc'd and left to their meer natural state fall short of Heaven I do not say they cannot go to Heaven at all but they cannot go thither by their naturall powers they cannot without a new grace and favour go to heaven But then it cannot presently be inferred that therefore they go to hell but this ought to be infer'd which indeed was the real consequent of it therefore it is necessary that Gods Grace should supply this defect if God intends Heaven to them at all and because Nature cannot God sent a Saviour by whom it was effected But if it be asked what if this grace had not come and that it be said that without Gods grace they must have gone to Hell because without it they could not go to Heaven I answer That we know how it is now that God in his goodness hath made provisions for them but if he had not made such provisions what would have been we know not any more then we know what would have followed if Adam had not sinned where he should have liv'd and how long and in what circumstances the posterity should have been provided for in all their possible contingencies But yet this I know that it followes not that if without this Grace we could not have gone to Heaven that therefore we must have gone to Hel. For although the first was ordinarily impossible yet the second was absolutely unjust and against Gods goodness and therefore more impossible But because the first could not be done by nature God was pleased to promise and to give his grace that he might bring us to that state whither he had design'd us that is to a supernatural felicity If Adam had not fallen yet Heaven had not been a natural consequent of his obedience but a Gracious
it had been a gift still and of Adam though he had persisted in innocence it is true to say that without Gods Grace that is by the meer force of Nature he could never have arriv'd to a Supernatural state that is to the joyes of Heaven and yet it does not follow that if he had remain'd in Innocence he must have gone to Hell Just so it is in Infants Hell was not made for man but for Devils and therefore it must be something besides meer Nature that can bear any man thither meer Nature goes neither to Heaven nor Hell So that when I say Infants naturally cannot go to Heaven and that this is a punishment of Adam's sin he being for it punished with a loss of his gracious condition and devolv'd to the state of Nature and we by him left so my meaning is that this Damnation which is of our Nature is but negative that is as a consequent of our Patriarchs sin our Nature is left imperfect and deficient in order to a supernatural end which the Schoolmen call a poena damni but improperly they indeed think it may be a real event and final condition of persons as well as things but I affirm it was an evil effect of Adam's sin but in the event of things it became to the persons the way to a new grace and hath no other event as to Heaven and Hell directly and immediately In the same sense and to the same purpose I understand the word Damnation in the 9. Article But the word Damnation may very well truly and sufficiently signifie all the purposes of the Article if it be taken only for the effect of that sentence which was inflicted upon Adam and descended on his posterity that is for condemnation to Death and the evils of mortality So the word is used by S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.29 He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word but that it did particularly signifie temporal death and evils appears by the instances of probation in the next words For for this cause some are weak amongst you some are sick and some are fallen asleep This also in the Article Original Sin deserves damnation that is it justly brought in the angry sentence of God upon Man it brought him to death and deserv'd it it brought it upon us and deserv'd it too I do not say that we by that sin deserv'd that death neither can death be properly a punishment of us till we superadde some evil of our own yet Adam's sin deserv'd it so that it was justly left to fall upon us we as a consequent and punishment of his sin being reduc'd to our natural portion In odiosis quod minimum est sequimur The lesser sense of the word is certainly agreeable to truth and reason and it were good we us'd the word in that sense which may best warrant her doctrine especially for that use of the word having the precedent of Scripture I am confirm'd in this interpretation by the 2. § of the Article viz. of the remanency of concupiscence or Original Sin in the Regenerate All the sinfulness of Original Sin is the lust or concupiscence that is the proneness to sin Now then I demand whether Concupiscence before actual consent be a sin or no and if it be a sin whether it deserves damnation That all sin deserves damnation I am sure our Church denies not If therefore concupiscence before consent be a sin then this also deserves damnation where ever it is and if so then a man may be damned for Original Sin even after Baptism For even after Baptism concupiscence or the sinfulness of Original Sin remains in the regenerate and that which is the same thing the same vitiousness the same enmity to God after Baptism is as damnable it deserves damnation as much as that did that went before If it be replied that Baptism takes off the guilt or formal part of it but leaves the material part behinde that is though concupiscence remains yet it shall not bring damnation to the regenerate or Baptized I answer that though baptismal regeneration puts a man into a state of grace and favour so that what went before shall not be imputed to him afterwards that is Adam's sin shall not bring damnation in any sense yet it hinders not but that what is sinful afterwards shall be then imputed to him that is he may be damn'd for his own concupiscence He is quitted from it as it came from Adam but by Baptism he is not quitted from it as it is subjected in himself if I say concupiscence before consent be a sin If it be no sin then for it Infants unbaptized cannot with justice be damn'd it does not deserve damnation but if it be a sin then so long as it is there so long it deserves damnation and Baptism did only quit the relation of it to Adam for that was all that went before it but not the danger of the man * But because the Article supposes that it does not damn the regenerate or baptized and yet that it hath the nature of sin it follows evidently and undeniably that both the phrases are to be diminished and understood in a favourable sense As the phrase the Nature of sin signifies so does Damnation but the Nature of sin signifies something that brings no guilt because it is affirm'd to be in the Regenerate therefore Damnation signifies something that brings no Hell but to deserve Damnation must mean something lesse then ordinary that is that concupiscence is a thing not morally good not to be allowed of not to be nurs'd but mortifi'd fought against disapprov'd condemn'd and disallowed of men as it is of God And truly My Lord to say that for Adam's sin it is just in God to condemn Infants to the eternal flames of Hell and to say that concupiscence or natural inclinations before they pass into any act could bring eternal condemnation from Gods presence into the eternall portion of Devils are two such horrid propositions that if any Church in the world would expresly affirm them I for my part should think it unlawful to communicate with her in the defence or profession of either and do think it would be the greatest temptation in the world to make men not to love God of whom men so easily speak such horrid things I would suppose the Article to mean any thing rather then either of these But yet one thing more I have to say The Article is certainly to be expounded according to the analogy of faith and the express words of Scripture if there be any that speak expresly in this matter Now whereas the Article explicating Original Sin affirms it to be that fault or corruption of mans nature vitium Naturae not peccatum by which he is far gone from originall righteousness and is inclin'd to evil because this is not full enough the Article adds by way of explanation So that
be sinners and yet healed as just persons it is certain we are just by imputation only that is Christ imputing our faith and sincere though not unerring obedience to us for righteousness And then the Antithesis must hold thus By Christ comes justification to life as by Adam came the curse or the sin to the condemnation of death But our justification which comes by Christ is by imputation and acceptilation by grace and favour not that we are made really that is legally and perfectly righteous but by imputation of faith and obedience to us as if it were perfect And therfore Adam's sin was but by imputation only to certain purposes not real or proper not formal or inherent For the grace by Christ is more then the sin by Adam if therefore that was not legal and proper but Evangelical and gracious favourable and imputative much more is the sin of Adam in us improperly and by imputation * And truly my Lord I think that no sound Divine of any of our Churches will say that we are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in any other sense not that Christs righteousness is imputed to us without any inherent graces in us but that our imperfect services our true faith and sincere endevours of obedience are imputed to us for righteousness through Jesus Christ and since it is certainly so I am sure the Antithesis between Christ and Adam can never be salved by making us sinners really by Adam and yet just or righteous by Christ only in acceptation and imputation For then sin should abound more then grace expresly against the honour of our blessed Saviour the glory of our redemption and the words of S. Paul But rather on the contrary is it true That though by Christ we were really and legally made perfectly righteous it follows not that we were made sinners by Adam in the same manner and measure for this similitude of S. Paul ought not to extend to an equality in all things but still the advantage and prerogative the abundance and the excess must be on the part of Grace for if sin does abound grace does much more abound and we do more partake of righteousness by Christ then of sin by Adam Christ and Adam are the several fountains of emanation and are compar'd aequè but not aequaliter Therefore this argument holds redundantly since by Christ we are not made legally righteous but by imputation only much less are we made sinners by Adam This in my sense is so infinitely far from being an objection that it perfectly demonstrates the main question and for my part I mean to relie upon it As for that which your Lordship adds out of Rom. 5.19 That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies sinners not by imitation as the Pelagians dream but sinners really and effectively I shall not need to make any other reply but that 1. I do not approve of that gloss of the Pelagians that in Adam we are made sinners by imitation and much less of that which affirms we are made so properly and formally But made sinners signifies us'd like sinners so as justified signifies healed like just persons In which interpretation I follow S. Paul not the Pelagians they who are on the other side of the question follow neither And unless men take in their opinion before they read and resolve not to understand S. Paul in this Epistle I wonder why they should fancy that all that he sayes sounds that way which they commonly dream of But as men fancy so the Bels will ring But I know yovr Lordships grave and wiser judgement sees not only this that I have now opened but much beyond it and that you will be a zealous advocate for the truth of God and for the honour of his justice wisdome and mercy That which followes makes me beleeve your Lordship resolv'd to try me by speaking your own sense in the line and your temptation in the interline For when your Lordship had said that My arguments for the vindication of Gods goodness and justice are sound and holy your hand run it over again and added as abstracted from the case of Original Sin But why should this be abstracted from all the whole Oeconomy of God from all his other dispensations Is it in all cases of the world unjust for God to impute our fathers fins to us unto eternal condemnation and is it otherwise in this only Certainly a man would think this were the more favourable case as being a single act done but once repented of after it was done not consented to by the parties interested not stipulated by God that it should be so and being against all lawes and all the reason of the world therefore it were but reason that if any where here much rather Gods justice and goodness should be relied upon as the measure of the event * And if in other cases lawes be never given to Ideots and Infants and persons uncapable why should they be given here but if they were not capable of a Law then neither could they be of Sin for where there is no law there is no transgression And is it unjust to condemn one man to hell for all the sin of a thousand of his Ancestors actually done by them and shall it be accounted just to damn all the world for one sin of one man But if it be said that it is unjust to damn the innocent for the sin of another but the world is not innocent but really guilty in Adam Besides that this is a begging of the question it is also against common sense to say that a man is not innocent of that which was done before he had a being for if that be not sufficient then it is impossible for a man to be innocent And if this way of answer be admitted any man may be damned for the sin of any Father because it may be said here as well as there that although the innocent must not perish for anothers fault yet the son is not innocent as being in his fathers loyns when the fault was committed and the law cals him and makes him guilty And if it were so indeed this were so far from being an excuse to say that the Law makes him guilty that this were absolute tyranny and the thing that were to be complain'd of I hope by this time your Lordship perceives that I have no reason to fear that I praevaricate S. Paul's rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I only endevour to understand S. Paul's words and I read them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in proportion to and so as they may not intrench upon the reputation of Gods goodness and justice that 's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be wise unto sobriety But they that do so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to resolve it to be so whether God be honour'd in it or dishonour'd and to answer all arguments whether they can or cannot be answered and to efform all their Theology