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
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
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
proposition the discovery of which in truth will not make recompence for the pratling of disagreeing Persons Truth and Peace make an excellent yoke but the truth of God is alwayes to be preferred before the Peace of men and therefore our Blessed Saviour came not to send Peace but a sword That is he knew his doctrine would cause great devisions of heart but yet he came to perswade us to Peace and Unity Indeed if the truth be cleare and yet of no great effect in the lives of men in government or in the honour of God then it ought not to break the Peace That is it may not run out of its retirement to disquiet them to whom their rest is better then that knowledge But if it be brought out already it must not be deserted positively though peace goes away in its stead So that peace is rather to be deserted then any truth should be renounced or denied but Peace is rather to be procured or continued then some truth offer'd This is my sence Madam when the case is otherwise then I suppose it to be at present For as for the present case there must be two when there is a falling out or a peace broken and therefore I will secure it now for let any man dissent from me in this Article I will not be troubled at him he may doe it with liberty and with my charity If any man is of my opinion I confesse I love him the better but if he refutes it I will not love him lesse after then I did before but he that dissents and reviles me must expect from me no other kindness but that I forgive him and pray for him and offer to reclaim him and that I resolve nothing shall ever make me either hate him or reproach him and that still in the greatest of his difference I refuse not to give him the communion of a Brother I believe I shall be chidden by some or other for my easinesse and want of fierceness which they call Zeal but it is a fault of my nature a part of my Original sin Vnicuique dedit vitium Natura Creato Mî Natura aliquid semper amare dedit Propert. Some weaknesse to each man by birth descends To me too great a kindnesse Nature lends But if the Peace can be broken no more then thus I suppose the truth which I publish will do more then make recompence for the noise that in Clubs and Conventicles is made over and above So long as I am thus resolved there may be injury done to me but there can be no duell or losse of Peace abroad For a single anger or a displeasure on one side is not a breach of peace on both and a Warre cannot be made by fewer then a bargain can in which alwaies there must be two at least Object 3. But as to the thing If it be inquired 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what profit what use what edification is there what good to souls what honour to God by this new explication of the Article I answer that the usuall Doctrines of Originall sinne are made the great foundation of the horrible proposition concerning absolute Reprobation the consequences of it◠reproach God with injustice they charge God foolishly and deny his Goodness and his Wisdom in many instances and whatsoever can upon the account of the Divine Attributes be objected against the fierce way of Absolute Decrees all that can be brought for the reproof of their usuall Propositions concerning Originall sinne For the consequences are plaine and by them the necessity of my Doctrine and its usefulnesse may be understood For 1. If God decrees us to be born sinners Then he makes us to be sinners and then where is his goodnesse 2. If God does damne any for that he damnes us for what we could not help and for what himself did and then where is his Justice 3. If God sentence us to that Damnation which he cannot in justice inflict where is his Wisdome 4. If God for the sinne of Adam brings upon us a necessity of sinning where is our liberty where is our Nature what is become of all Lawes and of all Vertue and vice How can men be distinguish'd from Beasts or the Vertuous from the vitious 5. If by the fall of Adam we are so wholly ruined in our faculties that we cannot do any good but must do evill how shall any man take care of his wayes or how can it be supposed he should strive against all vice when he can excuse so much upon his Nature or indeed how shall he strive at all for if all actual sins are derived from the Originall and then is unavoidable and yet an Unresistable cause then no man can take care to avoid any actuall sinne whose cause is naturall and not to be declined And then where is his providence and Government 6. If God does cast Infants into Hell for the sinne of others and yet did not condemne Devills but for their owne sinne where is his love to mankind 7. If God chooseth the death of so many Millions of Persons who are no sinners upon their own stock and yet sweares that he does not love the death of a sinner viz. sinning with his owne choice how can that be credible he should love to kill Innocents and yet should love to spare the Criminall where then is his Mercie and where is his Truth 8. If God hath given us a Nature by derivation which is wholly corrupted then how can it be that all which God made is good for though Adam corrupted himself yet in propriety of speaking we did not but this was the Decree of God and then where is the excellency of his providence and Power where is the glory of the Creation Because therefore that God is all goodness and justice and wisedome and love and that he governs all things and all men wisely and holily and according to the capacities of their natures and Persons that he gives us a wise law and binds that law on us by promises and threatnings I had reason to assert these glories of the Divine Majestie and remove the hindrances of a good life since every thing can hinder us from living well but scar cely can all the Arguments of God and man and all the Powers of heaven and hell perswade us to strictnesse and severity Qui serere ingenuum volet agrum Liberet arva priùs sruticibus Falce rubos silicemque resecet Ut novâ fruge gravis Ceres eat He that will sow his field with hopefull seed Must every bramble every thistle weed And when each hindrance to the graine is gone A fruitfull crop shall rise of corn alone When therefore there were so many wayes made to the Devill I was willing amongst many others to stop this also and I dare say few Questions in Christendome can say half so much in justification of their owne usefulnesse and necessity I know Madam that they
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
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
your Lordship is thus haunted with objections about the Question of Original Sin but because you are pleas'd to hand them to me I cannot think them so inconsiderable as in themselves they seem for what your Lordship thinks worthy the reporting from others I must think are fit to be answered and returned by me In your Lordships of Nevember 10. these things I am to reply to Let me request you to weigh that of S. Paul Ephes. 2. 5. The words are these Even when we were dead in sins God hath quickned us together with Christ which words I do not at all suppose relate to the matter of Original Sin but to the state of Heathen sins habitual Idolatries and impurities in which the world was dead before the great Reformation by Christ. And I do not know any Expositor of note that suspects any other sense of it and the second verse of that chapter makes it so certain and plain that it is too visible to insist upon it longer But your Lordship addes further And to remember how often he cals concupiscence Sin I know S. Paul reckons Concupiscence to be one of the works of the flesh and consequently such as excludes from heaven Col. 3. 5. Evil concupiscence concupiscence with something superadded but certainly that is nothing that is natural for God made nothing that is evil and whatsoever is natural and necessary cannot be mortified but this may and must and the Apostle cals upon us to do it but that this is a superinducing and an actual or habitual lusting appears by the following words vers 7. in which ye also walked sometimes when ye lived in them such a concupiscence as that which is the effect of habitual sins or an estate of sins of which the Apostle speaks Rom. 7. 8. Sin taking occasion by the commandement wrought in me all manner of concupiscence that is so great a state of evil such strong inclinations and desires to sin that I grew as captive under it it introduced a necessity like those in S. Peter who had eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 full of an Adulteress the women had possessed their eyes and therefore they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they could not cease from sin because having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all concupiscence that is the very spirit of sinful desires they could relish nothing but the productions of sin they could fancy nothing but Colloquintida and Toad-stools of the earth * Once more I finde S. Paul speaking of Concupiscence 1 Thess. 4. 5. Let every man knew to possess his vessel in holiness and honour not in the lust of concupiscence as do the Gentiles which know not God In the lust of Concupiscence that is plainly in lustfulness and impurity for it is a Hebraism where a superlative is usually expressed by the synonymon as Lutum coeni pluvia imbris so the Gall of bitterness and the iniquity of sins Robur virium the blackness of darkness that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the outer darkness or the greatest darkness so here the lust of Concupiscence that is the vilest and basest of it I know no where else that the Apostle uses the word in any sense But the like is to be said of the word lust which the Apostle often uses for the habits produced or the pregnant desires but never for the natural principle and affection when he speaks of sin But your Lordship is pleased to adde a subtlety in pursuance of your former advices and notices which I confess I shall never understand Although Baptism take away the guilt as concretively redoundding to the person yet the simple abstracted guilt as to the Nature remains for Sacraments are administred to persons not to natures Thus I suppose those persons from whom your Lordship reports it intended as an answer to a secret objection For if Concupiscence be a sin and yet remains after baptism then what good does Baptism effect But if it be no sin after then it is no sin before To this it is answered as you see there is a double guilt a guilt of person and of nature That is taken away this is not for Sacraments are given to Persons not to Natures But first where is there such a distinction set down in Scripture or in the prime antiquity or in any moral Philosopher There is no humane nature but what is in the persons of men and though our understanding can make a separate consideration of these or rather consider a person in a double capacity in his personal and in his natural that is if I am to speak sense a person may be considered in that which is proper to him and in that which is common to him and others yet these two considerations cannot make two distinct subjects capable of such different events I will put it to the trial This guilt that is in nature what is it Is it the same thing that was in the person that is is it an obligation to punishment If it be not I know not the meaning of the word and therefore I have nothing to do with it If it be then if this guilt or obligation to punishment remains in the nature after it is taken from the person then if this concupiscence deserve damnation this nature shall be damned though the person be saved Let the Objectors my Lord choose which they will If it does not deserve damnation why do they say it does If it does then the guilty may suffer what they deserve but the innocent or the absolved must not the person then being acquitted and the nature not acquitted the nature shall be damn'd and the person be saved But if it be said that the guilt remains in the nature to certain purposes but not to all then I reply so it does in the person for it is in the person after Baptism so as to be a perpetual possibility and proneness to sin and a principle of trouble and if it be no otherwise in the nature then this distinction is to no purpose if it be otherwise in the nature then it brings damnation to it when it brings none to the Man and then the former argument must return But whether it prevail or no yet I cannot but note that what is here affirmed is expresly against the words commonly attributed to S. Cyprian De ablutione pedum Sic abluit quos parentalis labes infecerat ut nec actualis nec Originalis macula post ablutionem illam ulla sui vestigia derelinguat How this supposing it of Baptism can be reconcil'd with the guilt remaining in the nature I confess I cannot give an account It is expresly against S. Austin Tom. 9. Tract 41. in Johan epist. ad Ocean saying deleta est tota iniquitas expresly against S. Hierom Quoâ—odo justificati sumus sanctificati si peccatum aliquid in nobis relinquitur But again My Lord I did suppose that Concupiscence or Original Sin had been founded in nature and had not
been a personal but a natural evil I am sure so the Article of our Church affirms it is the fault and corruption of our Nature And so S. Bonaventure affirms in the 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
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
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
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 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
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
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