Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one nation and although men had not sinn'd so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Originall righteousnesse perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned lesse and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence and this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus looke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evill did descend upon his naturall Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spirituall Children of the second Adam This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say As by one man vers 12 so by one man verse 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands in them that love him to a thousand generations and and in ten thousand degrees so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended yet the river here rises far higher then the fountain and now no argument can be drawn from the similitude of Adam and Christ but that as much hurt was done to humane nature by Adams sin so very much more good is done to mankinde by the incarnation of the Son of God And the first disparity and excesse is in this particular for the judgment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man sinning one sin that one sin was imputed but by Christ not onely one sin was forgiven freely but many offences were remitted unto justification and secondly a vast disparity there is in this that the descendants from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and they sinned though not so bad yet very much and therefore there was a great parity of reason that the evil which was threatened to Adam and not to his children should yet for the likeness of nature and of sin descend upon them But in the other part the case is highly differing for Christ being our Patriarch in a spiritual birth we fall infinitely short of him and are not so like him as we were to Adam and yet that we in greater unlikelinesse should receive a greater favour this was the excesse of the comparison and this is the free gift of God And this is the third degree or measure of excesse of efficacy on Christs part over it was on the part of Adam For if the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God though not after the similitude of Adams transgression much more shall we who not onely receive the aides of the spirit of grace but receive them also in an abundant measure receive also the effect of all this even to reign in life by one Jesus Christ. Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began although I have shown the great excesse and abundance of grace by Christ over the evil that did descend by Adam yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one and life from the other judgement unto condemnation that is the sentence of death came upon all men by the offence of one even so by a like Oeconomy and dispensation God would not be behind in doing an act of Grace as he did before of judgmenr and as that judgement was not to condemnation by the offence of one so the free gift and grace came upon all to justification of life by the righteousnesse of one The sum of all is this by the disobedience of one man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many were constituted or put into the order of sinners they were made such by Gods appointment that is not that God could be the Author of a sin to any but that he appointed the evill which is the consequent of sin to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner so it shall be on the other side for by the obedience of one even of Christ many shall be made or constituted righteous But still this must be with a supposition of what was said before that there was a vast difference for we are made much more righteous by Christt â—hen we were sinners by Adam and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater then the death by Adam and the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier then the corruption and declination by Adam but yet as one is the head so is the other one is the beginning of sinne and death and the other of life and righteousnesse Now the consequent of this discourse must needs at least be this that it is impossible that the greatest part of mankinde should be left in the eternal bonds of hell by Adam for then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle there had been abundance of sin but a scarcity of grace and the accesse had been on the part of Adam not on the part of Christ against which he so mightily and artificially contends so that the Presbyterian way is perfectly condemned by this discourse of the Apostle and the other more gentle way which affirmes that we were sentenc'd in Adam to eternal death though the execution is taken off by Christ is also no way countenanced by any thing in this Chapter for that the judgement which for Adams sin came unto the condemnation of the world was nothing but temporal death is here affirmed it being in no sense imaginable that the death which here Saint Paul sayes passed upon all men and which reigned from Adam to Moses should be eternal death for the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatened to Adam and of such a death which was afterwards threatened in Moses Law and such a death which fell even upon the most righteous of Adams posterity Abel and Seth and Methusela that is upon them who did not sin after the similitude of
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. Dissertions 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 Sueton. in vita liber c 54. Instit. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 7. Vind. Grat. l. 1. p. 1. digres 4. c. 3. Disp. 18. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 23. Lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 2 Doctr. and Pract. of Repent Plinius ep 12.lib Psal. 56. by Bp. King Boeth lib. 3. Metr 1. 1 Kings 1. 21. Zech. 14. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Isai. 53. 10. Hebr. 9. 28. 1 Kings 1. 21. Rom. 5. 12. As by one man sinne entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned 13. For untill the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law 14. Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgement was by one to condemnation but the free gift is of many offences unto justification 17. For if by one offence so it is in the Kings MS. or if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous
your eyes as it is in all its own colours and proportions But first Madam be pleased to remember that the question is not whether there bee any such thing as Originall Sin for it is certain and confessed on all hands almost For my part I cannot but confess that to be which I feel and groan under and by which all the World is miserable Adam turned his back upon the Sun and dwelt in the dark and the shadow he sinned and fell into Gods displeasure and was made naked of all his supernaturall endowments and was ashamed and sentenced to death and deprived of the means of long life and of the Sacrament and instrument of Immortality I mean the Tree of Life he then fell under the evills of a sickly body and a passionate ignorant uninstructed soul his sin made him sickly his sickliness made him peevish his sin left him ignorant his ignorance made him foolish and unreasonable His sin left him to his nature and by his nature who ever was to be born at all was to be born a child and to do before he could understand bred under Laws to which he was alwayes bound but which could not always be exacted and he was to choose when he could not reason and had passions most strong when he had his understanding most weak and was to ride a wilde horse without a bridle and the more need he had of a curb the less strength he had to use it and this being the case of all the World what was every mans evill became all mens greater evill and though alone it was very bad yet when they came together it was made much worse like Ships in a storm every one alone hath enough to do to out-ride it but when they meet besides the evills of the storm they find the intolerable calamitie of their mutuall concussion and every ship that is ready to be oppressed with the tempest is a worse tempest to every vessell against which it is violently dashed So it is in mankind every man hath evill enough of his own and it is hard for a man to live soberly temperately and religiously but when he hath Parents and Children brothers and sisters friends and enemies buyers and sellers Lawyers and Physitians a family and a neighbourhood a King over him or Tenants under him a Bishop to rule in matters of Government spirituall and a People to be rul'd by him in the affaires of their Souls then it is that every man dashes against another and one relation requires what another denies and when one speaks another will contradict him and that which is well spoken is sometimes innocently mistaken and that upon a good cause produces an evill effect and by these and ten thousand other concurrent causes man is made more then most miserable But the main thing is this when God was angry with Adam the man fell from the state of grace for God withdrew his grace and we returned to the state of meer nature of our prime creation And although I am not of Petrus Diaconus his mind who said that when we all fell in Adam we fell into the dirt and not only so but we fell also upon a heap of stones so that we not onely were made naked but defiled also and broken all in pieces yet this I believe to be certain that we by his fall received evill enough to undoe us and ruine us all but yet the evill did so descend upon us that we were left in powers capacities to serve and glorifie God Gods service was made much harder but not impossible mankind was made miserable but not desperate we contracted an actuall mortality but we were redeemable from the power of Death sinne was easie and ready at the door but it was resistable Our Will was abused but yet not destroyed our Understandding was cosened but yet still capable of the best instructions and though the Devill had wounded us yet God sent his Son who like the good Samaritan poured Oyle and Wine into our wounds and we were cured before we felt the hurt that might have ruined us upon that Occasion It is sad enough but not altogether so intolerable and decretory which the Sibylline Oracle describes to be the effect of Adams sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man was the worke of God fram'd by his hands Him did the Serpent cheat that to deaths bands He was subjected for his sin for this was all He tasted good and evill by his fall But to this we may superadde that which Plutarch found to be experimentally true Mirum quod pedes moverunt ad usum rationis nullo autem fraeno passiones the foot moves at the command of the Will and by the empire of reason but the passionsare stiff even then when the knee bends and no bridle can make the Passions regular and temperate And indeed Madam this is in a manner the sum total of the evill of our abused and corrupted nature Our soul is in the body as in a Prison it is there tanquam in alienâ domo it is a so journer and lives by the bodies measures and loves and hates by the bodies Interests and Inclinations that which is pleasing and nourishing to the body the soul chooses and delights in that which is vexatious and troublesome it abhorres and hath motions accordingly for Passions are nothing else but acts of the Will carried to or from materiall Objects and effects and impresses upon the man made by such acts consequent motions and productions from the Will It is an useless and a groundless proposition in Philosophy to make the Passions to be distinct faculties and seated in a differing region for as the reasonable soul is both sensitive and vegetative so is the Will elective and passionate the region both of choice and passions that is When the Object is immateriall or the motives such the act of the Will is so meerly intellectuall that it is then spirituall and the acts are proper and Symbolical but if the Object is materiall or corporall the acts of the Will are adhaesion and aversation and these it receives by the needs and inclinations of the body now because many of the bodies needs are naturally necessary and the rest are made so by being thought needs and by being so naturally pleasant and that this is the bodies day and it rules here in its own place and time therefore it is that the will is so great a scene of passion and we so great servants of our bodies This was the great effect of Adams sin which became therrefore to us a punishment because of the appendant infirmity that went along with it for Adam being spoiled of all the rectitudes and supernatural heights of grace and thrust back to the form of nature and left to derive grace to himself by a new Oeconomy or to be without it and his posterity left just so as he was left himself
account suspect the usuall discourses of the effects and Oeconomy of Originall sinne 8. For where will they reckon the beginning of Predestination will they reckon it in Adam after the fall or in Christ immediately promised If in Adam then they return to the Presbyterian way and run upon all the rocks before reckoned enough to break all the World in Pieces If in Christ they reckon it and so they do then thus I argue If we are all reckoned in Christ before we were borne then how can we be reckoned in Adam when we are born I speak as to the matter of Predestination to salvation or damnation For as for the intermedial temporal evills and dangers spirituall and sad infirmities they are our nature and might with Justice have been all the portion God had given to Adam and therefore may be so to us and consequently not at all to be reckoned in this inquiry But certainly as to the maine 9. If God lookes upon us all in Christ then by him we are rescued from Adam so much is done for us before we were born For if this is not to be reckoned till after we were borne then Adam's sin prevailed really in some periods and to some effects for which God in Christ had provided no remedie for it gave no remedie to children till after they were born but irremediably they were born children of wrath For if a remedy were given to children before they were born then they are born in Christ not in Adam but if this remedy was not given to children before they were born then it followes that we were not at first looked upon in Christ but in Adam and consequently he was caput praedestinationis the head of predestination or else there were two the one before we were born the other after So that haeret lethalis arundo The arrow sticks fast and it cannot be pulled out unlesse by other instruments then are commonly in fashion However it be yet me thinks this a very good probable argument As Adam sinned before any childe was born so was Christ promised before and that our Redeemer shall not have more force upon children that they should be born beloved and quitted from wrath then Adam our Progenitor shall have to cause that we be born hated and in a damnable condition wants so many degrees of probability that it seems to dishonour the mercy of God and the reputation of his goodesse and the power of his redemption For this serves as an Antidote and Antinomy of their great objection pretended by these learned persons for whereas they say they the rather affirm this because it is an honour to the redemption which our Saviour wrought for us that it rescued us from the sentence of damnation which we had incurred To this I say that the honour of our blessed Saviour does no way depend upon our imaginations and weak propositions and neither can the reputation and honour of the Divine goodnesse borrow aids and artificial supports from the dishonour of his Justice and it is no reputation to a Physitian to say he hath cured us of an evil which we never had and shall we accuse the Father of mercies to have wounded us for no other reason but that the son may have the Honour to have cured us I understand not that He that makes a necessity that he may finde a remedie is like the Roman whom Cato found fault withal he would commit a fault that he might begge a pardon he had rather write bad Greek that he might make an apologie then write good latine and need none But however Christ hath done enough for us even all that we did need and since it is all the reason in the World we should pay him all honour we may remember that it is a greater favour to us that by the benefit of our Blessed Saviour who was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world we were reckoned in Christ and born in the accounts of the Divine favour I say it is a greater favour that we were born under the redemption of Christ then under the sentence and damnation of Adam and to prevent an evil is a greater favour then to cure it so that if to do honour to Gods goodnesse and to the graces of our Redeemer we will suppose a need we may do him more honour to suppose that the promised seed of the woman did do us as early a good as the sin of Adam could do us mischief and therefore that in Christ we are born quitted from any such supposed sentence and not that we bring it upon our shoulders into the World with us But this thing relies onely upon their suppositions For if we will speak of what is really true and plainly revealed From all the sins of all mankinde Christ came to redeem us He came to give us a supernatural birth to tell us all his Fathers will to reveal to us those glorious promises upon the expectation of which we might be enabled to do every thing that is required He came to bring us grace and life and spirit to strengthen us against all the powers of Hell and Earth to sanctifie our afflictions which from Adam by Natural generation descended on us to take cut the sting of death to make it an entrance to immortal life to assure us of resurrection to intercede for us and to be an advocate for us when we by infirmity commit sin to pardon us when we repent Nothing of which could be derived to us from Adam by our natural generation Mankinde now taking in his whole constitution and designe is like the Birds of Paradice which travellers tell us of in the Molucco Islands born without legs but by a celestial power they have a recompence made to them for that defect and they alwayes hover in the air and feed on the dew of heaven so are we birds of Paradice but cast out from thence and born without legs without strength to walk in the laws of God or to go to heaven but by a power from above we are adopted in our new birth to a celestial conversation we feed on the dew of heaven the just does â—live â—oy faith and breaths in this new life by the spirit of God For from the first Adam nothing descended to us but an infirm body and a naked soul evil example and a body of death ignorance and passion hard labor and a cursed field a captive soul and an imprisoned body that is a soul naturally apt to comply with the appetites of the body and its desires whether reasonable or excessive and though these things were not direct sins to us in their natural abode and first principle yet there are proper inherent miseries and principles of sin to us in their emanation But from this state Christ came to redeem us all by his grace and by his spirit by his life and by his death by his Doctrine and by his Sacraments by his promises and by his
who are of the other side doe and will disavow most of these consequences and so doe all the World all the evils which their adversaries say do follow from their opinions but yet all the World of men that perceive such evills to follow from a proposition think themselves bound to stop the progression of such opinions from whence they beleeve such evils may arise If the Church of Rome did believe that all those horrid things were chargable upon Transubstantiation and upon worshipping of Images which we charge upon the Doctrines I doe not doubt but they would as much disowne the Proposition as now they doe the consequents and yet I doe as little doubt but that we do well to disown the first because we espy the latter and though the Man be not yet the doctrines are highly chargable with the evils that follow it may be the men espy them not yet from the doctrines they do certainly follow and there are not it the World many men who owne that is evil in the pretence but many doe such as are dangerous in the effect and this doctrine which I have reproved I take to be one of them Object 4. But if Originall sinne be not a sinne properly why are children baptized and what benefit comes to them by baptisme I Answer as much as they need and are capable of and it may as well be asked Why were all the sons of Abraham circumcised when in that Covenant there was no remission of sins at all for little things and legal impurities and irregularities there were but there being no sacrifice there but of beasts whose blood could not take away sinne it is certaine and plainly taught us in Scripture that no Rite of Moses was expiatory of sinnes But secondly This Objection can presse nothing at all for why was Christ baptized who knew no sinne But yet so it behoved him to fulfill all Righteousnesse 3. Baptisme is called regeneration or the new birth and therefore since in Adam Children are borne onely to a naturall life and a Naturall death and by this they can never arrive at Heaven therefore Infants are baptized because untill they be borne anew they can never have title to the Promises of Jesus Christ or be heirs of heaven and coheir's of Jesus 4. By Baptisme Children are made partakers of the holy Ghost and of the grace of God which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian Heresy who did suppose Nature to be so perfect that the Grace of God was not necessary and that by Nature alone they could go to heaven which because I affirm to be impossible and that Baptisme is therfore necessary because nature is insufficient and Baptisme is the great chanel of grace there ought to be no envious and ignorant load laid upon my Doctrine as if it complied with the Pelagian against which it is so essentially and so mainly opposed in the main difference of his Doctrine 5. Children are therefore Baptized because if they live they will sinne and though their sins are not pardoned before hand yet in Baptisme they are admitted to that state of favour that they are within the Covenant of repentance and Pardon and this is expresly the Doctrine of St. Austin lib. 1. de nupt concup cap. 26. cap. 33. tract 124. in Johan But of this I have already given larger accounts in my Discourse of Baptisme part 2 p. 194. in the great Exemplar 6. Children are baptized for the Pardon even of Originall sin this may be affirmed truly but yet improperly for so far as it is imputed so farr also it is remissible for the evill that is done by Adam is also taken away in Christ and it is imputed to us to very evill purposes as I have already explicated but as it was among the Jewes who believed then the sinne to be taken away when the evill of punishment is taken off so is Originall sinne taken away in Baptisme for though the Material part of the evill is not taken away yet the curse in all the sons of God is turn'd into a blessing and is made an occasion of reward or an entrance to it Now in all this I affirme all that is true and all that is probable for in the same sense as Originall staine is a sinne so does Baptisme bring the Pardon It is a sinne metonymically that is because it is the effect of one sinne and the cause of many and just so in baptisme it is taken away that it is now the matter of a grace and the opportunity of glory and upon these Accounts the Church Baptizes all her Children Object 5. But to deny Originall sinne to be a sinne properly and inherently is expressly against the words of S. Paul in the 5. Chapter to the Romanes If it bee I have done but that it is not I have these things to say 1. If the words be capable of any interpretation and can be permitted to signifie otherwise then is vulgarly pretended I suppose my self to have given reasons sufficient why they ought to be For any interpretation that does violence to right Reason to Religion to Holinesse of life and the Divine Attributes of God is therefore to be rejected and another chosen For in all Scriptures all good and all wise men doe it 2. The words in question sin and sinner and condemnation are frequently used in Scripture in the lesser sense and sin is taken for the punishment of sin and sin is taken for him who bore the evil of the sinne and sin is taken for legal impurity and for him who could not be guilty even for Christ himself as I have proved already and in the like manner sinners is used by the rule of Conjugates and denominatives but it is so also in the case of Bathsheba the Mother of Solomon 3. For the word condemnation it is by the Apostle himself limited to signifie his temporal death for when the Apostle sayes Death passed upon all men in as much as all men have sinned he must mean temporal death for eternal death did not passe upon all men and if he means eternal death he must not mean that it came for Adams sin but in as much as all men have sinned that is upon all those upon whom eternal death did come it came because they also have sinned 4. The Apostle here speaks of sin imputed therefore not of sin inherent and if imputed onely to such purposes as he here speaks of viz. to temporal death then it is neither a sin properly nor yet imputable to Eternal death so far as is or can be inplyed by the Apostles words 5. The Apostles sayes by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so that it appears that we in this have no sin of our own neither is it at all our own formally and inherently for though efficiently it was his and effectively ours as to certain purposes of imputation yet it could not be a sin to
us formally because it was Vnius inobedientia the disobedience of one man therefore in no sense could it be properly ours 6. Whensoever another mans sin is imputed to his relative therefore because it is anothers and imputed it can go no further but to effect certain evils to afflict the relative but to punish the cause not formally to denominate the descendant or relative to be a sinner for it is as much a contradiction to say that I am formally by him a sinner as that I did really do his action Now to impute in Scripture it signifies to reckon as if he had done it Not to impute is to treate him so as if he had not done it So far then as the imputation is so far we are reckoned as sinners but Adams sin being by the Apostle signified to be imputed but to the condemnation or sentence to a temporal death so far we are sinners in him that is so as that for his sake death was brought upon us And indeed the word imputare to impute does never signifie more nor alwayes so much Imputare verò frequenter ad significationem exprobrantis accedit sed citra reprehensionem sayes Laurentius valla It is like an exprobation but short of a reproof so Quintilian Imput as nobis propitios ventos secundum mare ac civitatis opulentae liberalitatem Thou doest impute that is upbraid to us our prosperous voyages and a calm Sea and the liberality of a rich City Imputare signifies oftentimes the same that computare to reckon or account Nam haec in quartâ non imputantur say the Lawyers they are not imputed that is they are not computed or reckoned Thus Adams sin is imputed to us that is it is put into our reckoning when we are sick and die we pay our Symbols the portion of evil that is laid upon us and what Marcus said I may say in this case with a little variety legata in haereditate sive legatum datum sit haeredi sive percipere sive deducere vel retinere passus est ei imputantur the the legacy whether it be given or left to the heire whether he may take it or keep it is still imputed to him that is it is within his reckoning But no reason no Scripture no Religion does inforce and no divine Attribute does permit that we should say that God did so impute Adams sin to his posterity that he di really esteem them to be guilty of Adams sin equally culpable equally hateful For if in this sense it be true that in him we sinned then we sinn'd as he did that is with the same malice in the same action and then we are as much guilty as he but if we have sinned lesse then we did not sin in him for to sinne in him could not by him be lessen'd to us for what we did in him we did by him and therefore as much as he did but if God imputed this sin lesse to us then to him then this imputation supposes it onely to be a collateral and indirect account to such purposes as he pleased of which purposes we judge by the analogy of faith by the words of Scripture by the proportion and notices of the Divine Attributes 7. There is nothing in the designe or purpose of the Apostle that can or ought to infer any other thing for his purpose is to signifie that by mans sin death entred into the world which the son of Sirach Ecclus. 25. 33. expresses thus à muliere factum est initium peccati inde est quod morimur from the woman is the beginning of sinne and from her it is that we all die and again Ecclus. 1. 24. by the envie of the Devil death came into the world this evil being Universal Christ came to the world and became our head to other purposes even to redeem us from death which he hath begun and will finish and to become to us our Parent in a new birth the Author of a spiritual life and this benefit is of far more efficacy by Christ then the evil could be by Adam and as by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous not just so but so and more and therefore as our being made sinners signifies that by him we die so being by Christ made righteous must at least signifie that by him we live and this is so evident to them who read Saint Pauls words Rom. 5. from verse 12. to verse 19. inclusively that I wonder any man should make a farther question concerning them especially since Erasmus and Grotius who are to be reckoned amongst the greatest and the best expositors of Scripture that any age since the Apostles and their immediat successors hath brought forth have so understood and rendred it But Madam that your Honour may read the words and their sense together and see that without violence they signifie what I have said and no more I have here subjoyned a paraphrase of them in which if I use any violence I can very easily be reproved As by the disobedience of Adam sin had it's beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities addresses of death sicknesse calamity diminution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporall life and so this mortality and condition or state of death pass'd actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of paradise and forc'd to live with his Children where they had no trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortall naturall state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sinne passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sinne all should die And marvell not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the expresse intermination of death For they did do actions unnaturall and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personall account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their meere naturall condition to which yet they dispos'd themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evill things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posteritie And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to
Adams transgression Since then all the judgement which the Apostle saies came by the sin of Adam was expressly affirmed to be death temporal that God should sentence mankinde to eternal damnation for Adams sin though in goodnesse thorough Christ he afterwards took it off is not at all affirm'd by the Apostle and because in proportion to the evil so was the imputation of the sin it follows that Adams sin is ours metonymically and improperly God was not finally angry with us nor had so much as any designes of eternal displeasure upon that account his anger went no further then the evils of this life and therefore the imputation was not of a proper guilt for that might justly have passed beyond our grave if the sin had passed beyond a metonymie or a juridical external imputation And of this God and Man have given this further testimony that as no man ever imposed penance for it so God himself in nature did never for it afflict or affright the conscience and yet the Conscience never spares any man that is guilty of a known sin Extemplo quodcunque malum committitur ipsi Displicet Authori He that is guilty of a sin shal rue the crime that he lies in And why the Conscience shall be for ever at so much peace for this sin that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin unlesse some or other scares him with an impertinent proposition why I say the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it nor so much as naturally know it I confesse I cannot yet make any reasonable conjecture save this onely that it is not properly a sin but onely metonymicall and improperly And indeed there are some whole Churches which think themselves so little concern'd in the matter of Original sin that they have not a word of it in all their Theology I mean the Christians in the East-Indies concerning whom Fryer Luys de Urretta in his Ecclesiastical story of AEthiopia saies that the Christians in AEthiopia unde the Empire of Prestre Juan never kept the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary no se entremetieron enessas Teologias del peccado Original porque nunca tuvieron los entendimientes may metafisicos antes como gente afable benigna Uana de entendimientos conversables y alaguenos seguian la dotrina de los Santos antiguos y de los sagrados Concilies sin disputas ni diferencias nor do they insert into their Theology any propositions concerning Original sin nor trouble themselves with such Metaphysical contemplations but being of an affable ingenuous gentile comportment and understanding follow the Doctrine of the primitive Saints and Holy Councels without disputation of difference so sayes the story But we unfortunatly trouble our selves by raising ideas of sin and afflict our selves with our own dreams and will not beleeve but it is a vision And the height of this imgination hath wrought so high in the Church of Rome that when they would do great honours to the Virgin Mary they were pleas'd to allow to her an immaculate conception without any Original sin and a Holy-day appointed for the celebration of the dream But the Christians in the other world are wiser and trouble themselves with none of these things but in simplicity honour the Divine attributes and speak nothing but what is easy to be understood And indeed religion is then the best and the world will be sure to have fewer Atheists and fewer Blasphemers when the understandings of witty men are not tempted by commanding them to beleeve impossible articles and unintelligible propositions when every thing is believed by the same simplicity it is taught when we do not cal that a mystery which we are not able to prove and tempt our faith to swallow that whole which reason cannot chew One thing I am to observe more before I leave considering the words of the Apostle The Apostle here having instituted a comparison between Adam and Christ that as death came by one so life by the other as by one we are made sinners so by the other we are made righteous some from hence suppose they argue strongly to the overthrow of all that I have said thus Christ and Adam are compared therefore as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really sinners our righteousnesse by Christ is more then imputed and therefore so is our unrighteousnesse by Adam â— To this besides what I have already spoken in my humble addresses to that wise and charitable Prelate the Lord Bishop of Rochester delivering the sense and objections of others in which I have declared my sense of the imputation of Christ's righteousnesse and besides that although the Apostle offers at a similitude yet he findes himself surprised and that one part of the similitude does far exceed the other and therefore nothing can follow hence but that if we receive evil from Adam we shall much more receive good from Christ besides this I say I have something very material to reply to the form of the argument which is a very trick and fallacy For the Apostle argues thus As by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous and that is very true and much more but to argue from hence as by Christ we are made really righteous so by Adam we are made really sinners is to invert the purpose of the Apostle who argues from the lesse to the greater and to make it conclude affirmatively from the greater to the lesse in matter of power as if one should say If a childe can carry a ten pound weight much more can a man and therefore whatsoever a man can do that also a childe can do For though I can say If this thing be done in a green tree what shall be done in the dry yet I must not say therefore If this be done in the dry tree what shall be done in the green for the dry try of the Crosse could do much then the green tree in the Garden of Eden It is a good argument to say If the Devil be so potent to do a shrewd turn much more powerful is God to do good but we cannot conclude from hence but God can by his own meer power and pleasure save a soul therefore the Devil can by his power ruine one In a similitude the first part may be and often is lesse then the second but never greater and therefore though the Apostle said as by Adam c. So by Christ c. Yet we cannot say as by Christ so by Adam We may well reason thus As by Nature there is a reward to evil doers so much more is there by God but we cannot by way of conversion reason thus As by God there is an eternal reward appointed to good actions so by Nature there
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 odiesis 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 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 signfication 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 insigniri 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 Jereboam 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 or by To this I would be content to submit if the observation could be verified and be material when it were true But besides that it is so used in 2 Cor. 5. 4. your Lordship may please to see it used as not only my self but indeed most men and particularly the Church of England does read it and expound it in Mat. 26. 50. And yet if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with in or by if it be rendred word for word yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice in the Scripture signifies for as much as as you may read Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 2. 18. So that here are two places besides this in question and two more ex abundanti to shew that if it were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but said in words expresly as you would have it in the meaning yet even so neither the thing nor any part of the thing could be evicted against me and lastly if it were not only said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that that sense of it were admitted which is desired and that it did mean in or by in this very place yet the Question were not at all the nearer to be concluded against me For I grant that it is true in him we are all sinners as it is true that in him we all die that is for his sake we are us'd as sinners being miserable really but sinners in account and effect as I have largely discoursed in my book But then for the place here in question it is so certain that it signifies the same thing as our Church reads it that it is not sense without it but a violent breach of the period without precedent or reason And after all I have looked upon those places where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is said to signifie in or by and in one of them I finde it so Mar. 2. 4. but in Act. 3. 16. Phil. 1. 3. I finde it not at all in any sense but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed is used for in or by in that of the Acts and in the other it signifies at or upon but if all were granted that is pretended to it no way prejudices my cause as I have already proved Next to these your Lordship seems a little more zealous and decretory in the Question upon the confidence of the 17
〈◊〉 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 sin 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 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
that they will give me my liberty because I will not be tied to him that speaks contrary things to himself and contrary to them that went before him and though he was a rare person yet he was as fallible as any of my brethren at this day He was followed by many ignorant ages and all the world knowes by what accidental advantages he acquired a great reputation but he who made no scruple of deserting all his predecessors must give us leave upon the strength of his own reasons to quit his authority All that I shall observe is this that the Doctrine of Original Sin as it is explicated by S. Austin had two parents one was the Doctrine of the Encratites and some other Hereticks who forbad Marriage and supposing it to be evill thought they were warranted to say it was the bed of sin and children the spawn of vipers and sinners And S. Austin himself and especially S. Hierom whom your Lordship cites speaks some things of marriage which if they were true then marriage were highly to be refused as being the increaser of sin rather then of children and a semination in the flesh and contrary to the spirit and such a thing which being mingled with sin produces univocal issues the mother and the daughter are so like that they are the worse again For if a proper inherent sin be effected by chaste marriages then they are in this particular equal to adulterous embraces and rather to be pardoned then allowed and if all Concupiscence be vicious then no marriage can be pure These things it may be have not been so much considered but your Lordship I know remembers strange sayings in S. Hierom in Athenag or as and in S. Austin which possibly have been countenanced and maintained at the charge of this opinion But the other parent of this is the zeal against the Pelagian Heresie which did serve it self by saying too little in this Article and therefore was thought fit to be confuted by saying too much and that I conjecture right in this affair I appeal to the words which I cited out of S. Austin in the matter of Concupiscence concerning which he speaks the same thing that I do when he is disingaged as in his books De eivitate Dei but in his Tractate de peccatorum meritis remissione which was written in his heat against the Pelagians he speaks quite contrary And who ever shall with observation read his one book of Original Sin against Pelagius his two books de Nuptiis Concupiscentia to Valerius his three books to Marcellinus de peccatorum meritis remissione his four books to Boniface contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum his six books to Claudius against Julianus and shall think himself bound to beleeve all that this excellent man wrote will not only finde it impossible he should but will have reason to say that zeal against an error is not alwaies the best instrument to finde our truth The same complaint hath been made of others and S. Jerome hath suffer'd deeply in the infirmity I shall not therefore trouble your Lordship with giving particular answers to the words of S. Jerom and S. Ambrose because besides what I have already said I do not think that their words are an argument fit to conclude against so much evidence nor against a much less then that which I have every where brought in this Article though indeed their words are capable of a fair interpretation and besides the words quoted out of S. Ambrose are none of his and for Aquinas Lombard and Bonaventure your Lordship might as well press me with the opinion of Mr. Calvin Knox and Buchannan with the Synod of Dort or the Scots Presbyteries I know they are against me and therefore I reprove them for it but it is no disparagement to the truth that other men are in error And yet of all the Schoolmen Bonaventure should least have been urg'd against me for the proverbs sake for Adam non peccavit in Bonaventura Alexander of Hales would often say that Adam never sin'd in Bonaventure But it may be he was not in earnest no more am I. The last thing your Lordship gives to me in charge in the behalf of the objectors is that I would take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity To this I answer that I know of no such thing God made a covenant with Adam indeed and us'd the right of his dominion over his posterity and yet did nothing but what was just but I finde in Scripture no mention made of any such Covenant as is dreamt of about the matter of original sin only the Covenant of works God did make with all men till Christ came but he did never exact it after Adam but for a Covenant that God should make with Adam that if 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 pana liberatur tanquam ex improbitatis domo in aliam familâ—am datus qui vero morbo in similitudinem generis refertur atque redigitur vitiosi ei nimirum convenit tanquam haeredi debitas poeas 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
he was permitted to the power of his enemy that betray'd him and put under the power of his body whose appetites would govern him and when they would grow irregular could not be mastered by any thing that was about him or born with him so that his case was miserable and naked and his state of things was imperfect and would be disordered But now Madam things being thus bad are made worse by the superinduced Doctrines of men which when I have represented to your Ladiship and told upon what accounts I reprove them your Honour will finde that I have reason There are one sort of Calvins Scholars whom we for distinctions sake call Supralapsarians who are so fierce in their sentences of predestination and reprobation that they say God look'd upon mankinde onely as his Creation and his slaves over whom he having absolute power was very gracious that he was pleased to take some few and save them absolutely and to the other greater part he did no wrong though he was pleased to damn them eternally onely because he pleased for they were his own and Qui jure suo utitur nemini facit injuriam saies the law of reason every one may do what he please with his own But this bloody and horrible opinion is held but by a few as tending directly to the dishonour of God charging on Him alone that He is the cause of mens sins on Earth and of mens eternal torments in Hell it makes God to be powerfull but his power not to be good it makes him more cruel to men then good men can be to Dogs and sheep it makes him give the final sentence of Hell without any pretence or colour of justice it represents him to be that which all the World must naturally fear and naturally hate as being a God delighting in the death of innocents for so they are when he resolves to damn them and then most tyrannically cruel and unreasonable for it saies that to make a postnate pretence of justice it decrees that men inevitably shall sin that they may inevitably but justly be damned like the Roman Lictors who because they could not put to death Sejanus daughters as being Virgins defloured them after sentence that by that barbarity they might be capable of the utmost Cruelty it makes God to be all that thing that can be hated for it makes him neither to be good nor just nor reasonable but a mighty enemy to the biggest part of mankinde it makes him to hate what himself hath made and to punish that in another which in himself he decreed should not be avoided it charges the wisdom of God with folly as having no means to glorifie his justice but by doing unjustly by bringing in that which himself hates that he might do what himself loves doing as Tiberius did to Brutus and Nero the Sons of Germanicus Variâ fraude induxit ut concitarentur ad convitia et concitati perderentur provoking them to raise that he might punish their reproachings This opinion reproaches the words and the Spirit of Scripture it charges God with Hypocrisy and want of Mercy making him a Father of Cruelties not of Mercie and is a perfect overthrow of all Religion and all Lawes and all Goverment it destroyes the very being and nature of all Election thrusting a man down to the lowest form of beasts and birds to whom a Spontaneity of doing certain actions is given by God but it is in them so naturall that it is unavoidable Now concerning this horrid opinion I for my part shall say nothing but this that he that sayes there was no such man as Alexander would tell a horrible lie and be injurious to all story and to the memory and fame of that great Prince but he that should say It is true there was such a man as Alexander but he was a Tyrant and a Blood-sucker cruel and injurious false and dissembling an enemy of mankind and for all the reasons of the world to be hated and reproached would certainly dishonour Alexander more and be his greatest enemy So I think in this That the Atheists who deny there is a God do not so impiously against God as they that charge him with foul appellatives or maintain such sentences which if they were true God could not be true But these men Madam have nothing to do in the Question of Originall Sin save onely that they say that God did decree that Adam should fall and all the sins that he sinn'd and all the world after him are no effects of choice but of predestination that is they were the actions of God rather then man But because these men even to their brethren seem to speak evil things of God therefore the more wary and temperat of the Calvinists bring down the order of reprobation lower affirming that God looked upon all mankind in Adam as fallen into his displeasure hated by God truly guilty of his sin liable to Eternal damnation and they being all equally condemned he was pleased to separate some the smaller number far and irresistibly bring them to Heaven but the far greater number he passed over leaving them to be damned for the sin of Adam and so they think they salve Gods Justice and this was the designe and device of the Synod of Dort Now to bring this to passe they teach concerning Original sin 1. That by this sin our first Parents fell from their Original righteousnesse and communion with God and so became dead in sinne and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body 2. That whatsoever death was due to our first Parents for this sin they being the root of all mankinde and the guilt of this sin being imputed the same is conveied to all their posterity by ordinary generation 3. That by this Original corruption we are utterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evill and that from hence proceed all actual trangressions 4. This corruption of nature remaines in the regenerate and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified yet both it self and all the motions thereof are trulie and properly sin 5. Original sin being a transgression of the righteous Law of God and contrary thereunto doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God and curse of the Law and so made subject to death with all miseries spiritual temporall and eternal These are the sayings of the late Assembly at Westminster Against this heap of errors and dangerous propositions I have made my former discoursings and statings of the Question of Original sin These are the Doctrines of the Presbyterian but as unlike truth as his assemblies are to our Church for concerning him I may say Nemo tam propè proculque nobis He is the likest and the unlikest to a Son of our Church in the world he is neerest to us and furthest from us and to all the world abroad
he calls himself our friend while at home he hates us and destroyes us Now I shall first speak to the thing in general and its designes then I shall make some observations upon the particulars 1. This device of our Presbyterians and of the Synod of Dort is but an artifice to save their proposition harmless to stop the out-cries of Scripture and reason and of all the World against them But this way of stating the article of reprobation is as horrid in effect as the other For 1. Is it by a natural consequent that we are guilty of Adams sin or is it by the decree of God Naturally it cannot be for then the sins of all our forefathers who are to their posterity the same that Adam was to his must be ours and not onely Adams first sin but his others are ours upon the same account But if it be by the Decree of God by his choice and constitution that it should be so as Mr. Calvin and Dr. Twisse that I may name no more for that side do expresly teach it followes that God is the Author of our Sin So that I may use Mr. Calvins words How is it that so many Nations with their Children should be involved in the fall without remedy but because God would have it so and if that be the matter then to God as to the cause must that sin and that damnation be accounted And let it then be considered whether this be not as bad as the worst For the Supralapsarians say God did decree that the greatest part of mankind should perish only because he would The Sublapsarians say That God made it by his decree necessary that all wee who were born of Adam should be born guilty of Originall Sin and he it was who decreed to damne whom he pleased for that sin in which he decreed they should be born and both these he did for no other consideration but because he would Is it not therefore evident that he absolutely decreed Damnation to these Persons For he that decrees the end and he that decrees the onely necessary and effective meanes to the end and decrees that it shall be the end of that means does decree absolutely alike though by several dispensations And then all the evill consequents which I reckoned before to be the monstrous productions of the first way are all Daughters of the other and if Solomon were here he could not tell which were the truer Mother Now that the case is equall between them some of their own chiefest do confess so Dr. Twisse If God may ordain Men to Hell for Adam's sin which is derived unto them by Gods onely constitution he may as well do it absolutely without any such constitution The same also is affirmed by Maccovius and by Mr. Calvin and the reason is plain for he that does a thing for a reason which himself makes may as well do it without a reason Or he may make his owne Will to be the reason because the thing and the motive of the thing come in both cases equally from the same principle and from that alone Now Madam be pleased to say whether I had not reason and necessity for what I have taught You are a happy Mother of an Honorable Posterity your Children and Nephews are Deare to you as your right eye and yet you cannot love them so well as God loves them and it is possible that a Mother should forget her Children yet God even then will not cannot but if our Father and Mother forsake us God taketh us up Now Madam consider could you have found in your heart when the Nurses and Midwives had bound up the heads of any of your Children when you had born them with pain and joy upon your knees could you have been tempted to give command that murderers should be brought to slay them alive to put them to exquisite tortures and then in the middest of their saddest groans throw any one of them into the flames of a fierce fire for no other reason but because he was born at Latimers or upon a Friday or when the Moon wasin her prime or for what other reason you had made and they could never avoid could you have been delighted in their horrid shrieks and out-cries and taking pleasure in their unavoidable and their intollerable calamity could you have smiled if the hangman had snatched your Eldest Son from his Nurses breasts and dashed his brains out against the pavement and would you not have wondred that any Father or Mother could espie the innocence and prety smiles of your sweet babes and yet tear their limbs in pieces or devise devilish artifices to make them roar with intollerable convulsions could you desire to be thought good and yet have delighted in such cruelty I know I may answer for you you would first have dyed your self And yet say again God loves mankind better then we can love one another and he is essentially just and he is infinitely mercifull and he is all goodness and therefore though we might possibly do evil things yet he cannot and yet this doctrine of the Presbyterian reprobation saies he both can and does things the very apprehension of which hath caused many in despair to drown or hang themselves Now if the Doctrine of absolute Reprobation be so horrid so intolerable a proposition so unjust and blasphemous to God so injurious and cruell to men and that there is no colour or pretence to justifie it but by pretending our guilt of Adams sin and damnation to be the punishment then because from truth nothing but truth can issue that must needs be a lie from which such horrid consequences do proceed For the case in short is this If it be just for God to damne any one of Adam's Posterity for Adam's sin then it is just in him to damne all for all his Children are equally guilty and then if he spares any it is Mercy and the rest who perish have no cause to complain But if all these fearful consequences which Reason and Religion so much abhorr do so certainly follow from such doctrines of Reprobation and these doctrines wholly rely upon this pretence it follows that the pretence is infinitely false and intollerable and that it cannot be just for God to damne us for being in a state of calamity to which state we entred no way but by his constitution and decree You see Madam I had reason to reprove that doctrine which said It was just in God to damne us for the sinne of Adam Though this be the maine error yet there are some other collaterall things which I can by no means approve such is that 1. That by the Sin of Adam our Parents became wholly defiled in all the faculties and Powers of their souls and bodies And 2. That by this we also are disabled and made opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evill And 3. That from hence proceed all actuall transgressions
And 4. that our naturall corruption in the regenerate still remains and is still properly a sin Against this I opposed these Propositions That the effect of Adams sin was in himself bad enough for it devested him of that state of grace and favour where God placed him it threw him from Paradise and all the advantages of that place it left him in the state of Nature but yet his nature was not spoiled by that sin he was not wholly inclined to all evill neither was he disabled and made opposite to all good only his good was imperfect it was naturall and fell short of heaven for till his nature was invested with a new nature he could go no further then the designe of his first Nature that is without Christ without the Spirit of Christ he could never arrive at heaven which is his supernaturall condition But 1. There still remained in him a naturall freedom of doing good or evill 2. In every one that was born there are great inclinations to some good 3. Where our Nature was averse to good it is not the direct sin of Nature but the imperfection of it the reason being because God superinduced Lawes against our naturall inclination and yet there was in nature nothing sufficient to make us contradict our nature in obedience to God all that being to come from a supernaturall and Divine principle These I shall prove together for one depends upon another 1. And first that the liberty of will did not perish to mankind by the fall of Adam is so evident that St. Austin who is an adversary in some parts of this Question but not yet by way of question and confidence askes Quis â—utem nostrum dicat quod primi hominis peccato perierit liberum arbitrium de humano genere Which of us can say That the liberty of our Will did perish by the sin of the first Man And he adds a rare reason for it is so certain that it did not perish in a sinner that this thing onely is it by which they do sinne especially when they delight in their sinne and by the love of sin that thing is pleasing to them which they list to do And therefore when we are charged with sin it is worthy of inquiry whence it is that we are sinners Is it by the necessity of nature or by the liberty of our Will If by nature and not choice then it is good and not evil for whatsoever is our Nature is of Gods making and consequently is good but if we are sinners by choice liberty of will whence had we this libertie If from Adam then we have not lost it but if we had it not from him then from him we do not derive all our sin for by this liberty alone we sin If it be replied that wee are free to sin but not to good it is such a foolery and the cause of the mistake so evident and so ignorant that I wonder any man of Learning or common sense should own it For if I be free to evill then I can chuse evill or refuse it If I can refuse it then I can do good for to refuse that evill is good and it is in the Commandement Eschew evill but if I cannot choose or refuse it how am I free to evill For Voluntas and libertas Will and Liberty in Philosophy are not the same I may will it when I cannot will the contrary as the Saints in Heaven and God himself wills good they can not will evill because to do so is imperfection and contrary to felicity but here is no liberty for liberty is with power to do or not to do to do this or the contrary and if this liberty be not in us we are not in the state of obedience or of disobedience which is the state of all them who are alive who are neither in hell nor Heaven But that our case is otherwise if I had no other argument in the world and were never so prejudicate and obstinate a person I think I should be perfectly convinced by those words of S. Paul 1 Cor. 7.37 The Apostle speaks of a good act tending not onely to the keeping of a Precept but to a counsel of perfection concerning that he hath these words Neverthelesse he that standeth stedfast in his heart having no necessity but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his Virgin doth well The words are plain and need no explication If this be not a plain liberty of choice and a power of will then words mean nothing and we can never hope to understand one anothers meaning But if sinne be avoidable then wee have liberty of choice If it be unavoidable it is not imputable by the measures of Lawes and Justice what it is by Empire and Tyranny let the Adversaries inquire and prove But since all Theology all Schools of learning consent in this that an invincible or unavoidable ignorance does wholly excuse from sin why an invincible and an unavoidable necessity shall not also excuse I confesse I have not yet been taught But if by Adam's sinne wee be so utterly indisposed disabled and opposite to all good wholly inclined to evill and from hence come all actuall sinnes that is That by Adam we are brought to that passe that we cannot chuse but sinne it is a strange severity that this should descend upon Persons otherwise most innocent and that this which is the most grievous of all evills prima maximapeccantium poena est peccasse Seneca To be given over to sin is the worst calamity the most extreme anger never inflicted directly at all for any sinne as I have therwise proved and not indirectly but upon the extremest anger which cannot be supposed unlesse God be more angry with us for being born Men then for choosing to be sinners The Consequent of these Arguments is this That our faculties are not so wholly spoiled by Adams fall but that we can choose good or evill that our nature is not wholly disabled and made opposite to all good But to nature are left and given as much as to the handmaid Agar nature hath nothing to do with the inheritance but she and her sons have gifts given them and by nature we have Laws of Virtue and inclinations to Virtue and naturally we love God and worship him and speak good things of him and love our Parents and abstain from incestuous mixtures and are pleased when we do well and affrighted within when we sin in horrid instances against God all this is in Nature and much good comes from Nature neque enim quasi lassa effaeta natura est ut nihil jam laudabile pariat Nature is not so old so absolute and dried a trunck as to bring no good fruits upon its own stock and the French-men have a good proverb Bonus sanguis non mentitur a good blood never lies and some men are
naturally chast and some are abstemious and many are just and friendly and noble and charitable and therefore all actual sins do not proceed from this sin of Adam for if the sin of Adam left us in liberty to sin and that this liberty was before Adams fall then it is not long of Adams fall that we sin by his fall it should rather be that we cannot choose but do this or that and then it is no sin But to say that our actuall sins should any more proceed from Adams fall then Adams fal should proceed from it self is not to be imagined for what made Adam sin when he fell If a fatal decree made him sin then he was nothing to blame Fati ista culpa est Nemo fit fato nocens No guilt upon mankinde can lie For what 's the fault of destiny And Adam might with just reason lay the blame from himself and say as Agamemnon did in Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not I that sinned but it was fate or a sury it was God and not I it was not my act but the effect of the Divine decree and then the same decree may make us sin and not the sin of Adam be the cause of it But if a liberty of will made Adam sin then this liberty to sin being still left us this liberty and and not Adams sin is the cause of all our actual Concerning the other clause in the Presbyterian article that our natural corruption in the regenerate still remaines and is still a sin and properly a sin I have I confesse heartily opposed it and shall besides my arguments confute it with my blood if God shall call me for it is so great a reproach to the spirit and power of Christ and to the effects of Baptisme to Scripture and to right reason that all good people are bound in Conscience to be zealous against it For when Christ came to reconcile us to his Father he came to take away our sins not onely to pardon them but to destroy them and if the regenerate in whom the spirit of Christ rules and in whom all their habitual sins are dead are still under the servitude and in the stock 's of Original sin then it follows not onely that our guilt of Adams sin is greater then our own actual the sin that we never consented to is of a deeper grain then that which we have chosen and delighted in and God was more angry with Cain that he was born of Adam then that he kill'd his Brother and Judas by descent from the first Adam contracted that sin which he could never be quit of but he might have been quit of his betraying the second Adam if he would not have despaired I say not onely these horrid consequences do follow but this also will follow that Adams sin hath done some mischief that the grace of Christ can never cure and generation staines so much that regeneration cannot wash it clean Besides all this if the natural corruption remaines in the regenerate and be properly a sin then either Gods hates the regenerate or loves the sinner and when he dies he must enter into Heaven with that sin which he cannot lay down but in the grave as the vilest sinner layes down every sin and then an unclean thing can go to Heaven or else no man can and lastly to say that this natural corruption though it be pardoned and mortified yet still remaines and is stil a sin is perfect non-sence for if it be mortified it is not it hath no being if it is pardoned it was indeed but now is no sin for till a man can be guilty of sin without obligation to punishment a sin cannot be a sin that is pardoned that is if the obligation to punishment or the guilt be taken away a man is not guilty Thus far Madam I hope you will think I had reason One thing more I did and do reprove in their Westminster articles and that is that Original sin meaning our sin derived from Adam is contrary to the law of God and doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner binding him over to Gods wrath c. that is that the sin of Adam imputed to us is properly formally and inhaerently a sin If it were properly a sin in us our sin it might indeed be damnable for every transgression of the Divine Commandment is so but because I have proved it cannot bring eternal damnation I can as well argue thus this sin cannot justly bring us to damnation therefore it is not properly a sin as to say this is properly a sin therefore it can bring us to damnation Either of them both follow well but because they cannot prove it to be a sin properly or any other wayes but by a limited imputation to certain purposes they cannot say it infers damnation But because I have proved it cannot infer damnation I can safely conclude it is not formally properly and inherently a sin in us Nec placet ô superi vobis cum vertere cuncta Propositum nostris erroribus addere crimen Nor did it please our God when that our state Was chang'd to adde a crime unto our fate I have now Madam though much to your trouble quitted my self of my Presbyterian opponents so far as I can judge fitting for the present but my friends also take some exceptions and there are some objections made and blows given me as it happened to our Blessed Saviour in domo illorum qui diligebant me in the house of my Mother and in the societies of some of my Dearest Brethren For the case is this They joyn with me in all this that I have said viz. That Original sin is ours onely by imputation that it leaves us still in our natural liberty and though it hath devested us of our supernaturals yet that our nature is almost the same and by the grace of Jesus as capable of Heaven as it could ever be by derivation of Original rightousnesse from Adam In the conduct and in the description of this Question being usually esteemed to be onely Scholastical I confesse they as all men else do usually differ for it was long ago observ'd that there are 16. several famous opinions in this one Question of Original sin But my Brethren are willlng to confesse that for Adams sin alone no man did or shall ever perish And that it is rather to be called a stain then a sin If they were all of one minde and one voice in this article though but thus far I would not move a stone to disturb it but some draw one way and some another and they that are aptest to understand the whole secret do put fetters and bars upon their own understanding by an importune regard to the great names of some dead men who are called masters upon earth and whose authority is as apt to mislead us into some propositions as their learning is usefull to guide
us in others but so it happens that because all are not of a minde I cannot give account of every disagreeing man but of that which is most material I shall Some learned persons are content I should say no man is damned for the sin of Adam alone but yet that we stand guilty in Adam and redeemed from this damnation by Christ and if that the article were so stated it would not intrench upon the justice or the goodnesse of God for his justice would be sufficiently declared because no man can complain of wrong done him when the evil that he fell into by Adam is taken off by Christ and his goodnesse is manifest in making a new Census for us taxing and numbring us in Christ and giving us free Redemption by the blood of Jesus but yet that we ought to confess that we are liable to damnation by Adam and saved from thence by Christ that Gods justice may be glorified in that and his goodnesse in this but that we are still real sinners till washed in the blood of Lamb and without God and without hopes of heaven till then and that if this article be thus handled the Presbyterian fancie will disappear for they can be confuted without denying Adams sin to be damnable by saying it is pardoned in Christ and in Christ all men are restored and he is the head of the Predestination for in him God looked upon us when he designed us to our final state and this say they is much for the honour of Christs Redemption To these things Madam I have much to say some thing I will trouble your Ladiship withal at this time that you and all that consider the particulars may see I could not do the work of God and truth if I had proceeded in that method For 1. It is observable that those wiser persons who will by no means admit that any one is or ever shall be damned for Original sin do by this means hope to salve the justice of God by which they plainly imply that to damn us for this is hard and intolerable and therefore they suppose they have declared a remedy But then this also is to be considered if it be intolerable to damn children for the sin of Adam then it is intolerable to say it is damnable If that be not just or reasonable then this is also unjust and unreasonable â— for the sentence and the execution of the sentence are the same emanation and issue of justice and are to be equally accounted of For. 2. I demand had it been just in God to damn all mankinde to the eternal paines of hell for Adams sin commited before they had a being or could consent to it or know of it if it could be just then any thing in the world can be just and it is no matter who is innocent or who is criminal directly and by choice since they may turn Devils in their Mothers bellies and it matters not whether there be any laws or no since it is all one that there be no law and that we do not know whether there be or no and it matters not whether there be any judicial processe for we may as well be damned without judgment as be guilty without action and besides all those arguments will presse here which I urged in my first discourse Now if it had been unjust actually to damn us all for the sin of one it was unjust to sentence us to it for if he did give sentence against us justly he could justly have executed the sentence and this is just if that be But 3. God did put this sentence in execution for when he sent the Holy Jesus into the world to die for us and to Redeem us he satisfied his Fathers Anger for Original sin as well as for actual he paid all the price of that as well as of this damnation and the horrible sentence was brought off and God was so satisfied that his justice had full measure for so all men say who speak the voice of the Church in the matter of Christs satisfaction so that now although there was the goodnesse of God in taking the evil from us yet how to reconcile this processe with his justice viz. That for the sin of another their God should sentence all the world to the portion of devils to eternal ages and that he would not be reconciled to us or take off this horrible sentence without a full price to be paid to his justice by the Saviour of the world this this is it that I require may be reconciled to that Notion which we have of the Divine justice 4. If no man shall ever be damned for the sin of Adam alone then I demand whether are they born quitt from the guilt or when they are quitted if they be born free I agree to it but then they were never charg'd with it so far as to make them liable to damnation If they be not born free when are they quitted By baptisme before or after He that saies before or after must speak wholly by chance and without pretence of Scripture or tradition or any sufficient warrant and he cannot guesse when it is If in Baptisme he is quitted then he that dies before baptisme is still under the sentence and what shall become of him If it be answered that God will pardon him some way or other at some time or other I reply yea but who said so For if the Scriptures have said that we are all in Adam guilty of sin and damnation and the Scriptures have told us no wayes of being quit of it but by baptisme and faith in Christ Is it not plainly consequent that til we believe in Christ or at least till in the faith of others we are Baptised into Christ we are reckoned still in Adam not in Christ that is still we are under damnation and not heires of heaven but of wrath onely 5. How can any one bring himself into a belief that none can be damned for Original sin if it be of this perswasion that it makes us liable to damnation for if you say as I say that it is against Gods justice to damn us for the fault of another then it is also against his justice to sentence us to that suffering which to inflict is injustice If you say it is beleeved upon this account because Christ was promised to all mankinde I reply that yet all mankinde shall not be saved and there are conditions required on our part and no man can be saved but by Christ and he must come to him or be brought to him or it is not told us how any one can have a part in him and therefore that will not give us the confidence is looked for If it be at last said that we hope in Gods goodness that he will take care of innocents and that they shall not perish I answer that if they be innocents we need not appeal to his goodnesse for his justice will
secure them If they be guilty and not innocents then it is but vain to run to Gods goodnesse which in this particular is not revealed when it is against his justice which is revealed and to hope God will save them whom he hates who are gone from him in Adam who are born heires of his wrath slaves of the Devil servants of sin for these Epithetes are given to all the children of Adam by the opponents in this Question is to hope for that against which his justice visibly is ingaged and for which I hope there is no ground unlesse this instance of Divine goodnesse were expressed in revelation For so even wicked persons on their death-bed are bidden to hope without rule and without reason or sufficient grounds of trust But besides that we hope in Gods goodnesse in this case is not ill but I ask is it against Gods goodnesse that any one should perish for Original sin if it be against Gods goodnesse it is also against his justice for nothing is just that is not also good Gods goodnesse may cause his justice to forbear a sentence but whatsoever is against Gods goodnesse is against God and therefore against his justice also because every attribute in God is God himself For it is one thing to say This is against Gods goodnesse and the contrary is agreeable to Gods goodnesse Whatsoever is against the goodnesse of God is essentially evil But a thing may be agreeable to Gods goodnesse and yet the other part not be against it For example It is against the goodnesse of God to hate fools and ideots and therefore he can never hate them But it is agreeable to Gods goodnesse to give heaven to them and the joyes beatifical and if he does not give them so much yet if he does no evil to them hereafter it is also agreeable to his goodnesse To give them Heaven or not to give them Heaven though they be contradictories yet are both agreeable to his goodnesse But in contraries the case is otherwise For though not to give them heaven is consistent with the Divine goodnesse yet to end them to hell is not The reason of the difference is this Because to do contrary things must come from contrary principles and whatsoever is contrary to the Divine goodnesse is essentially evil But to do or not to do supposes but one positive principle and the other negative not having a contrary cause may be wholy innocent as proceeding from a negative but to speak more plain Is it against Gods goodnese that Infants should be damned for Original sin then it could never have been done it was essentially evil and therefore could never have been decreed or sentenced But if it be not against Gods goodness that they should perish in hell then it may consist with Gods goodness and then to hope that Gods goodness will rescue them from his justice when the thing may agree with both is to hope without ground God may be good though they perish for Adams sin and if so and that he can be just too upon the account of what attribute shal these innocents be rescued and we hope for mercy for them 6. If Adams posterity be onely liable to damnation but shall never be damned for Adams sin then all the children of Heathens dying in their infancy shall escape as well as baptized Christian children which if any of my disagreeing Brethren shall affirm he will indeed seem to magnifie Gods goodness but he must fall out with some great Doctors of the Church whom he would pretend to follow and besides he will be hard put to it to tell what advantage Christian children have over Heathens supposing them all to die young for being bred up in the Christian Religion is accidental and may happen to the children of unbelievers or may not happen to the children of believers and if Baptisme addes nothing to their present state there is no reason infants should be baptized but if it does add to their present capacity as most certainly it does very much then that Heathen infants should be in a condition of being rescued from the wrath of God as well as Christian Infants is a strange unlookt for affirmative and can no way be justified or made probable but by affirming it to be against the justice of God to condemn any for Adams sin Indeed if it be unjust as I have proved it is then it will follow that none shall suffer damnation by it But if the hopes of the salvation of Heathen infants be to be derived onely from Gods goodnesse though Gods goodnesse cannot fail yet our argument may fail for it will not follow because God is good therefore Heathen infants shall be saved for it might as well follow God is good therefore Heathens shal be no heathens but all turn Christians These things do not follow affirmatively But negatively they do For if it were against Gods Goodnesse that they should be reckoned in Adam unto eternal death then it is also against his Justice and against God all the way and then either we should finde some revelation of Gods honour in Scripture or at least there would be no principle such as is this pretence of being guilty of damnation in Adam to contest against it 7. But to come yet closer to the Question some Good Men and wise suppose that the Sublapsarian Presbyterians can be confuted in their pretended grounds of absolute reprobation although we grant that Adams sinne is damnable to his posterity provided we say that though it was damnable yet it shall never damne us Now though I wish it could be done that they and I might not differ so much as in a circumstance yet first it is certain that the men they speake of can never be confuted upon the stock of Gods Justice because as the one saies it is just that God should actually damn all for the sin of Adam So the other saies it is just that God should actually sentence all to damnation and so there the case is equall Secondly they cannot be confuted upon the stock of Gods goodnesse because the emanations of that being wholly arbitrary and though there are negative measures of it as there is of Gods Infinity and we know Gods goodness to be inconsistent with some things yet there are no positive measures of this goodnesse and no man can tell how much it will do for us and therefore without a revelation things may be sometimes hoped which yet may not be presumed and therefore here also they are not to be confuted and as for the particular Scriptures unlesse we have the advantage of essentiall reason taken from the divine Attributes they will oppose Scripture to Scripture and have as much advantage to expound the opposite places as the Jewes have in their Questions of the Messias and therefore si meos ipse corymbos necterem if I might make mine own arguments in their society and with their leave I would upon that very
revelations by his resurrection and by his ascension by his interceding for us and judging of us and if this be not a conjugation of glorious things great enough to amaze us and to merit from us all our services and all our love and all the glorifications of God I am sure nothing can be added to it by any supposed need of which we have no revelation There is as much done for us as we could need and more then we could aske Nempe quod optanti Divûm promittere nemo Auderet volvenda dies en attulit ultro Vivite faelices anime quibus est fortuna peracta Jam sua the meaning of which words I render or at least recompence with the verse of a Psalm To thee O Lord I 'le pay my vow My knees in thanks to thee shall bow For thou my life keepst from the grave And do'st my feet from falling save That with the living in thy sight I may enjoy eternal light For thus what Ahasuerus said to Ester Vetercs literas muta change the old letters is done by the birth of our Blessed Saviour Eva is changed into Ave and although it be true what Bensirach said From the woman is the beginning of sin and by her we all die yet it is now chang'd by the birth of our Redeemer from a woman is the beginning of our restitution and in him we all live thus are all the four quarters of the World renewed by the second Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The East West North and South are represented in the second Adam as well as the first and rather and to better purposes because if sin did abound Grace shall superabound I have now Madam given to your honour such accounts as I hope being added to my other papers may satisfie not onely your Ladiship but those to whom this account may be communicated I shall onely now beg your patience since your Honour hath been troubled with Questions and inquiries and objections and little murmurs to hear my answers to such of them as have been brought to me 1. I am complained of that I would trouble the World with a new thing which let it be never so true yet unlesse it were very useful will hardly make recompence for the trouble I put the world to in this inquiry I answer that for the newnesse of it I have already given accounts that the opinions which I impugne as they are no direct parts of the article of Original sin so they are newer then the truth which I have asserted But let what I say seem as new as the reformation did when Luther first preached against indulgences the presence of Novelty did not and we say ought not to have affrighted him and therefore I ought also to look to what I say that it be true and the truth will proove its age But to speak freely Madam though I have a great reverence for Antiquity yet it is the prime antiquity of the Church the ages of Martyrs and Holinesse that I mean and I am sure that in them my opinion hath much more warrant then the contrary But for the descending ages I give that veneration to the great names of them that went before us which themselves gave to their Predecessors I honour their memory I read their books I imitate their piety I examine their arguments for therefore they did write them and where the reasons of the Moderns and their's seeme equall I turn the ballance on the elder side and follow them but where a scruple or a grane of reason is evidently in the other ballance I must follow that Nempe qui ante nos ista moverunt non Domini nostri sed Duces sunt Seneca ep 33. They that taught of this Article before me are Good Guides but no Lords and Masters for I must acknowledge none upon earth for so am I commanded by my Master that is in Heaven and I remember what we are taught in Palingenius when wee were boyes Quicquid Aristoteles vel quivis dicat eorum Dict a nihil moror à vero cum fortè recedunt Saepe graves magnosque viros famaque verendos Errare labi contingit plurima secum Ingenia in tenebras consueti nominis alti Authores ubi connivent deducere easdem If Aristotle be deceiv'd and say that 's true What nor himself nor others ever knew I leave his text and let his Schollers talke Till they be hoarse or weary in their walke When wise men erre though their fame ring like Bells I scape a danger when I leave their spells For although they that are dead some ages before we were borne have a reverence due to them yet more is due to truth that shall never die and God is not wanting to our industry any more then to theirs but blesses every age with the understanding of his truths AEtatibus omnibus omnibus hominibus communis sapientia est nec illam ceu peculium licet antiquitati gratulari All ages and all men have their advantages in their inquiries after truth neither is wisedome appropriate to our Fathers And because even wise men may be deceived and therefore that when I find it or suppose it so for that 's all one as to me and my dutie I must go after truth where ever it is certainly it will be lesse expected from me to follow the popular noises and the voices of the people who are not to teach us but to be taught by us and I believe my self to have reason to complain when men are angry at a doctrine because it is not commonly taught that is when they are impatient to be taught a truth because most men do already believe a lie recti apud nos locum tenet error ubi publicus factâ—us est So Seneca Epist. 123. complained in his time it is a strange title to truth which error can pretend for its being publick and we refuse to follow an unusuall truth quasi honestius sit quia frequentius and indeed it were well to do so in those propositions who have no truth in them but what they borrow from mens opinions and are for nothing tollerable but that they are usuall Object 2. But what necessity is there in my publication of this doctrine supposing it were true for all truths are not to be spoken at all times and if a truth gives offence it is better to let men alone then to disturb the peace I answer with the labouring mans Proverb a pennyworth of ease is worth a Penny at any time and a little truth is worth a little Peace every day of the weeke caeteris parióus Truth is to be preferred before Peace not every trifling truth to a considerable peace but if the truth be material it makes recompence though it brings a great noise along with it and if the breach of Peace be nothing but that men talke in Private or declame a little in publicke truly then Madam it is a very pittifull little
pleased with them who offer to lead them out of it But your Lordship doth with great advantages represent an objection of some captious persons which relates not to the material part of the Question but to the rules of art If there be no such thing as Original Sin transmitted from Adam to his posterity then all that sixth chapter is a strife about a shadow a Non ens A. It is true my Lord the Question as it is usually handled is so For when the Franciscan and Dominican do eternally dispute about the conception of the Blessed Virgin whether it was with or without Original Sin meaning by way of grace and special exemption this is de non ente for there was no need of any such exemption and they supposing that commonly it was otherwise troubled themselves about the exception of a Rule which in that sense which the suppos'd it was not true at all she was born as innocent from any impurity or formal guilt as Adam was created and so was her Mother and so was all her family * When the Lutheran and the Roman dispute whether justice and original righteousness in Adam was Natural or by Grace it is de non ente for it was positively neither but negatively only he had original righteousness till he sin'd that is he was righteous till he became unrighteous * When the Calvinist troubles himself and his Parishioners with fierce declamations against natural inclinations or concupiscence and disputes whether it remains in baptized persons or whether it be taken off by Election or by the Sacrament whether to all Christians or to some few this is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is no sin at all in persons baptiz'd or unbaptiz'd till it be consented to My Lord when I was a young man in Cambridge I knew a learned professor of Divinity whose ordinary Lectures in the Lady Margarets Chair for many years together nine as I suppose or thereabouts were concerning Original Sin and the appendant questions This indeed could not choose but be Andabatarum conflictus But then my discourse representing that these disputes are uselesse and as they discourse usually to be de non ente is not to be reprov'd For I professe to evince that many of those things of the sense of which they dispute are not true at all in any sense I declare them to be de non ente that is I untie their intricate knots by cutting them in pieces For when a false proposition is the ground of disputes the process must needs be infinite unless you discover the first error He that tels them they both fight about a shadow and with many arguments proves the vanity of their whole processe they if he saies true not he is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * When S. Austine was horribly puzled about the traduction of Original Sin and thought himself forc'd to say that either the Father begat the soul or that he could not transmit sin which is subjected in the soul or at least he could not tell how it was transmitted he had no way to be relieved but by being told that Original Sin was not subjected in the soul because properly and formally it was no reall sin of ours at all but that it was only by imputation and to certain purposes not any inherent quality or corruption and so in effect all his trouble was de non ente * But now some wits have lately risen in the Church of Rome and they tell us another story The soul followes the temperature of the body and so Original Sin comes to be transmitted by contact because the constitution of the body is the fomes or nest of the sin and the souls concupiscence is deriv'd from the bodies lust But besides that this fancy disappears at the first handling and there would be so many Original Sins as there are several constitutions and the guilt would not be equal and they who are born Eunuchs should be lesse infected by Adam's pollution by having lesse of concupiscence in the great instance of desires and after all concupiscence it self could not be a sin in the soul till the body was grown up to strength enough to infect it 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 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 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
18 19. verses of the 5. chapter to the Romans The sum of which as your Lordship most ingeniously sums it up is this As by one many were made sinners so by one many were made righteous that by Adam this by Christ. But by Christ we are made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just not by imputation only but effectively and to real purposes therefore by Adam we are really made sinners And this your Lordship confirms by the observation of the sense of two words here used by the Apostle The first is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a sentence of guilt or punishment for sin and this sin to be theirs upon whom the condemnation comes because God punishes none but for their own sin Ezek. 18. 2. From the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clear from sin so your Lordship renders it and in opposition to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be rendred that is guilty criminal persons really and properly This is all which the wit of man can say from this place of S. Paul and if I make it appear that this is invalid I hope I am secure To this then I answer That the Antithesis in these words here urg'd for there is another in the chapter and this whole argument of S. Paul is full and intire without descending to minutes Death came in by one man much more shall life come by one man if that by Adam then much more this by Christ by him to condemnation by this man to justification This is enough to verifie the argument of S. Paul though life and death did not come in the same manner to the several relatives as indeed they did not of which afterwards But for the present It runs thus By Adam we were made sinners by Christ we are made righteous As certainly one as the other though not in the same manner of dispensation By Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 death reigned by this man the reign of death shall be destroyed and life set up in stead of it by him we were us'd as sinners for in him we died but by Christ we are justified that is us'd as just persons for by him we live This is sufficient for the Apostles argument and yet no necessity to affirm that we are sinners in Adam any more then by imputation for we are by Christ made just no otherwise then by imputation In the proof or perswasion I will use no indirect arguments as to say that to deny us to be just by imputation is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of the Socinian Conventicles but expresly dislik'd by all the Lutheran Calvinist and Zuinglian Churches and particularly by the Church of England and indeed by the whole Harmony of Confessions this I say I will not make use of not only because I my self do not love to be press'd by such prejudices rather then arguments but because the question of the imputation of righteousness is very much mistaken and misunderstood on all hands They that say that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification do it upon this account because they know all that we do is imperfect therefore they think themselves constrain'd to flie to Christ's righteousness and think it must be imputed to us or we perish The other side considering that this way would destroy the necessity of holy living and that in order to our justification there were conditions requir'd on our parts think it necessary to say that we are justified by inherent righteousness Between these the truth is plain enough to be read Thus Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us for justification directly and immediately neither can we be justified by our own righteousness but our Faith and sincere endevours are through Christ accepted in stead of legal righteousness that is we are justified through Christ by imputation not of Christs nor our own righteousness but of our faith and endevours of righteousness as if they were perfect and we are justified by a Non-imputation viz. of our past sins and present unavoidable imperfections that is we are handled as if we were just persons and no sinners So faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness not that it made him so legally but Evangelically that is by grace and imputation And indeed My Lord that I may speak freely in this great question when one man hath sin'd his descendents and relatives cannot possibly by him or for him or in him be made sinners properly and really For in sin there are but two things imaginable the irregular action and the guilt or obligation to punishment Now we cannot in any sense be said to have 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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 to the ayre of that one great proposition and to find out waies for God to proceed in which he hath never told of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 waies that are crooked and not to be insisted in waies that are not right if these men do not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then I hope I shall have less need to fear that I do who do none of these things And in proportion to my security here I am confident that I am unconcern'd in the consequent threatning If any man shall Evangelize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any other doctrine then what ye have received something for Gospel which is not Gospel something that ye have not received let him be accursed My Lord if what I teach were not that which we have received that God is just and righteous and true that the soul that sins the same shall die that we shall have no cause to say The Fathers have eaten sowre grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge that God is a gracious Father pardoning iniquity and therefore not exacting it where it is not that Infants are from their Mothers wombs beloved of God their Father that of such is the Kingdome of God that he pities those souls who cannot discern the right hand from the left as he declar'd in the case of the Ninevites that to Infants there are special Angels appointed who alwaies behold the face of God that Christ took them in his arms and blessed them and therefore they are not hated by God and accursed heirs of Hell and coheirs with Satan that the Messias was promis'd before any children were born as certainly as that Adam sin'd before they were born that if sin abounds grace does superabound and therefore children are with greater effect involv'd in the grace then they could be in the sin and the sin must be gone before it could do them mischief if this were not the doctrine of both Testaments and if the contrary were then the threatning of S. Paul might well be held up against me but else my Lord to shew such a Scorpion to him that speaks the truth of God in sincerity and humility though it cannot make me to betray the truth and the
honour of God yet the very fear and affrightment which must needs seize upon every good man that does but behold it or hear the words of that angry voice shall and hath made me to pray not only that my self be preserved in truth but that it would please God to bring into the way of truth all such as have erred and are deceived My Lord I humbly thank your Lordship for your grave and pious Councel and kisse the hand that reaches forth so paternal a rod. I see you are tender both of truth and me and though I have not made this tedious reply to cause trouble to your Lordship or to steal from you any part of your precious time yet because I see your Lordship was perswaded induere personam to give some little countenance to a popular error out of jealousie against a less usual truth I thought it my duty to represent to your Lordship such things by which as I can so I ought to be defended against captious objectors It is hard when men will not be patient of truth because another man offers it to them and they did not first take it in or if they did were not pleas'd to own it But from your Lordship I expect and am sure to finde the effects of your piety wisdome and learning and that an error for being popular shall not prevail against so necessary though unobserved truth A necessary truth I call it because without this I do not understand how we can declare Gods righteousness and justifie him with whom unrighteousnesse cannot dwell But if men of a contrary opinion can reconcile their usual doctrines of Original Sin with Gods justice and goodness and truth I shall be well pleased with it and think better of their doctrine then now I can But untill that be done it were well My Lord if men would not trouble themselves or the Church with impertinent contradictions but patiently give leave to have truth advanced and God justified in his sayings and in his judgements and the Church improved and all errors confuted that what did so prosperously begin the Reformation may be admitted to bring it to perfection that men may no longer go quâ itur but quâ eundum est The Bp of Rochester's Letter to Dr. Taylor with an account of the particulars there given in charge WORTHY SIR Let me request you to weigh that of S. Paul Ephes. 2. 5. which are urged by some Ancients and to remember how often he cals Concupiscence Sin whereby it is urg'd that although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redounding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to Persons not to Natures I confess I finde not the Fathers so fully and plainly speaking of Original Sin till Pelagius had pudled the stream but after this you may finde S. Jerom in Hos. saying In paradiso omnes praevaricati sunt in Adamo And S. Ambrose in Rom. 1. 5. Manifestum est omnes peccasse in Adam quasi in massâ ex eo igitur cuncti peccatores quiae ex eo sumus omnes and as Greg. 39 Hom. in Ezek. Sine culpâ in mundo esse non potest qui in mundum cum culpâ venit But S. Austin is so frequent so full and clear in his assertions that his words reasons will require your most judicious examinations and more strict weighing of them he saith epist 107. Scimus secundum Adam nos primâ nativitate contagium mortis contrahere nec liberamur à supplicio mortis aeternae nisi per gratiam renascamur in Christo Id. de verb. Apost Ser 4. peccatum à primo homine in omnes homines pertransiit etenim illud peccatum non in fonte mansit sed pertransiit and Rom. 5. ubi te invenit venundatum sub peccato trahentem peccatum primi hominis habentem peccatum antequam possis habere arbitrium Id. de praedestin grat c. 2. Si infans unius diei non sit sine peccato qui proprium habere non potuit conficitur at illud traxerit alienum de quo Apost Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum quod qui negat negat profectò nos esse mortales quoniam mors est poena peccati Sequitur necesse est poena peccatum Id. enchir c. 9. 29. Sola gratia redemptos discernit à perditis quos in unam perditionis massam concreverat ab origine ducta communis contagio Id. de peccator mer. remiss l. 1. c. 3. Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis Quid potest aut potuit nasci ex servo nisi servus ideo sicut omnis homo ab Adamo est ita omnis homo per Adamum servus est peccati Rom. 5. Falluntur ergo omnino qui dicunt mortem solam non â—peccatum transiisse in genus humanum Prosper resp ad articulum Augustino falsò impositum Omnes homines praevaricationis reos damnationi obnexios nasci periturosque nisi in Christo renascamur asserimus Tho. 12. q. 8. Secundum fidem Catholicam tenendum est quod primum peccatum primi hominis originaliter transit in posteros propter quod etiam pueri mox nati deferuntur ad baptismum ab interiore culpâ abluendi Contrarium est haeresis Pelag. unde peccatum quod sic à primo parente derivatur dicicitur Originale sicut peccatum quod ab animâ derivatur ad membra corporis dicitur actuale Bonavent in 2. sent dist 31. Sicut peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis personae it a peccatum originale tribuitur ratione Naturae corpus infectum traducitur quia persona Adae infecit naturam natura infecit personam Anima enim inficitur à carne per colligantiam quum unita carni traxit ad se alterius proprietates Lombar 2. Sent. dist 31. Peccatum originale per corruptionem carnis in animà fit in vase enim dignoscitur vitium esse quod vinum accescit If you take into consideration the Covenant made between Almighty God and Adam as relating to his posterity it may conduce to the satisfaction of those who urge it for a proof of Original Sin Now that the work may prosper under your hands to the manifestation of Gods glory the edification of the Church and the satisfaction of all good Christians is the hearty prayer of Your fellow Servant in our most Blessed Lord Christ Jesu Jo. Roffens My Lord I Perceive that you have a great Charity to every one of the sons of the Church that your Lordship refuses not to sollicite their objections and to take care that every man be answered that can make objections against my Doctrine but as your charity makes you refuse no work or labour of love so shall my duty and obedience make me ready to perform any commandement that can be relative to so excellent a principle I am indeed sorry
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 woâ—ds cited by your Lordship in your Letter Sicui peccatum actuale tribuitur alicui ratione singularis persona 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 insist 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 If the first inclinations be meant then certainly that cannot be a sin which is natural and which is necessary For I consider that Concupiscence and natural desires are like hunger which while it is natural and necessary is not for the destruction but conservation of man when it goes beyond the limits of nature it is violent and a disease and so is Concupiscence But desires or lustings when they are taken for the natural propensity to their proper object are so far from being a sin that they are the instruments of felicity for this duration and when they grow towards being irregular they may if we please grow instruments of felicity in order to the other duration because they may serve a vertue by being restrained And to desire that to which all men tend naturally is no more a sin then to desire to be happy is a sin desire is no more a sin then joy or sorrow is neither can it be fancied why one passion more then another can be in its whole nature Criminal either all or none are so when any of them growes irregular or inordinate Joy is as bad as Desire and Fear as bad as either But if by Concupiscence we mean the second acts of it that is avoidable consentings and deliberate elections then let it be as much condemned as the Apostle and all the Church after him hath sentenc'd it but then it is not Adam's sin but our own by which we are condemned for it is not his fault that we choose If we choose it is our own if we choose not it is no fault For there is a natural act of the Will as well as of the Understanding and in the choice of the supreme Good and in the first apprehension of its proper object the Will is as natural as any other faculty and the other faculties have degrees of adherence as well as the Will so have the potestative and intellective faculties they are delighted in their best objects But because these only are natural and the will is natural sometimes but not alwaies there it is that a difference can be For I consider
if the first Concupiscence be a sin Original Sin for actual it is not and that this is properly personally and inherently our sin by traduction that is if our will be necessitated to sin by Adam's fall as it must needs be if it can sin when it cannot deliberate then there can be no reason told why it is more a sin to will evil then to understand it and how does that which is moral differ from that which is natural for the understanding is first and primely moved by its object and in that motion by nothing else but by God who moves all things and if that which hath nothing else to move it but the object yet is not free it is strange that the will can in any sense be free when it is necessitated by wisdome and by power and by Adam that is from within and from without besides what God and violence do and can do But in this I have not only Scripture and all the reason of the world on my side but the complying sentences of the most eminent writers of the Primitive Church I need not trouble my self with citations of many of them since Calvin lib. 3. Instit. c. 3. § 10. confesses that S. Austin hath collected their testimonies and is of their opinion that Concupiscence is not a sin but an infirmity only But I will here set down the words of S. Chrysostome Homil. 13. in epist. Rom. because they are very clear Ipsae passiones in se peccatum non sunt Effraenata verò ipsarum immoderantia peccatum operata est Concupiscentia quidem peccatum non est quando verò egressa modum foras eruperit tunc demum adulterium fit non à concupiscentia sed à nimio illicito illius luxu By the way I cannot but wonder why men are pleased where ever they finde the word Concupiscence in the New Testament presently to dream of Original Sin and make that to be the sum total of it whereas Concupiscence if it were the product of Adam's fall is but one small part of it Et ut exempli gratia unam illarum tractem said S. Chrysostome in the forecited place Concupiscence is but one of the passions and in the utmost extension of the word it can be taken but for one half of the passion for not only all the passions of the Concupiscible faculty can be a principle of sin but the Irascible does more hurt in the world that is more sensual this is more devillish The reason why I note this is because upon this account it will seem that concupiscence is no more to be called a sin then anger is and as S. Paul said Be angry but sin not so he might have said Desire or lust but sin not For there are some lustings and desires without sin as well as some Anger 's and that which is indifferent to vertue and vice cannot of it self be a vice To which I add that if Concupiscence taken for all desires be a sin then so are all the passions of the Irascible faculty Why one more then the other is not to be told but that Anger in the first motions is not a sin appears because it is not alwaies sinful in the second a man may be actually angry and yet really innocent and so he may be lustful and full of desire and yet he may be not only that which is good or he may overcome his desires to that which is bad I have now considered what your Lordship received from others and gave me in charge your self concerning concupiscence Your next charge is concerning Antiquity intimating that although the first antiquity is not clearly against me yet the second is For thus your Lordship is pleased to write their objection I confess I finde not the Fathers so fully and plainly speaking of Original Sin till Pelagius had pudled the stream but after this you may finde S. Jerom c. That the Fathers of the first 400 years did speak plainly and fully of it is so evident as nothing more and I appeal to their testimonies as they are set down in the papers annexed in their proper place and therefore that must needs be one of the little arts by which some men use to escape from the pressure of that authority by which because they would have other men concluded sometimes upon strict inquiry they finde themselves entangled Original Sin as it is at this day commonly explicated was not the Doctrine of the primitive Church but when Pelagius had pudled the stream S. Austin was so angry that he stampt and disturb'd it more and truly my Lord I do not think that the Gentlemen that urg'd against me S. Austin's opinion do well consider that I profess my self to follow those fathers who were before him and whom S. Austin did forsake as I do him in the question They may as well press me with his authority in the Article of the damnation of Infants dying unbaptized or of absolute predestination In which Article S. Austin's words are equally urged by the Jansenists and Molinists by the Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants and they can serve both and therefore cannot determine me But then My Lord let it be remembred that they are as much against S. Chrysostome as I am against S. Austin with this only difference that S. Chrysostome speaks constantly in the argument which S. Austin did not and particularly in that part of it which concerns Concupiscence For in the inquiry whether it be a sin or no he speaks so variously that though Calvin complains of him that he cals it only an infirmity yet he also brings testimonies from him to prove it to be a sin and let any man try if he can tie these words together De peccator mer. et remission l. 1. c. 3. Concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis Which are the words your Lordship quotes Concupiscence is a sin because it is a disobedience to the Empire of the spirit But yet in another place lib. 1. de civit Dei cap. 25. Illa Concupiscentialis inobedientia quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis It is a sin and it is no sin it is criminal but is without fault it is culpable because it is a disobedience and yet this disobedience without actual consent is not culpable If I do beleeve S. Austin I must disbeleeve him and which part soever I take I shall be reproved by the same authority But when the Fathers are divided from each other or themselves it is indifferent to follow either but when any of them are divided from reason and Scripture then it is not indifferent for us to follow them and neglect these and yet if these who object S. Austin's authority to my Doctrine will be content to subject to all that he saies I am content they shall follow him in this too provided