want of necessary grace to innocent nature as the adversaries think is plain for necessary grace hath some sufficiency to its ends and go it it is called sufficient grace by the adversaries commonly But that which never attaineth its end in any one person in the World in their own judgment is not sufficient It is their common and last argument against our doctrine of special effectual grace given to all the elect as distinct from that sufficient grace which say the Dominicans is given to others that the grace is not sufficient that never proveth effectual in any We may much more confidently say so here when we speak of the whole World that the grace is not sufficient that never is was or will be effectual in any If it suffice to make the event naturally possible yet not to remove the moral impossibility 3. And that God is the Author of the Law that forbiddeth sin and of innocent nature is granted and past doubt The certainty of this universal event cannot come from a contingent cause as such The will is naturally free that chooseth but it is not morally free or else the World would not choose evil So that it is certain that if there be no original sin the cause of this universal event that all men sin must be resolved to be somewhat in nature or something in providence of which God is the cause If God have so framed pure nature and so order the affairs of the World that no man on earth shall eventually escape the sin which he so much prohibiteth and abhorreth it must needs follow that he is the moral reputative cause at least And yet it is one of the pretences against the doctrine of original sin that it maketh God the Author of it in infants when it 's they that make him the Author of it in all Seeing therefore that sin hath so overspread the World that all men sin in all Countries in all Ages except Christ this must proceed either from mans natural principles and so be chargeable upon God his Maker or it is the fruit of original sin and to be charged on our first Parents and our selves Arg. 19. If infants have in their corrupted natures a virtual enmity to God and Holiness then have they original sin but such an enmity they have I mean in disposition seed or habit go they have original sin The antecedent or minor I prove 1. From the common experience of the World that manifest such an enmity as soon as they come to the use of reason and that maintain it so obstinately till renewing grace do overcome it How early do they shew an aversness to the work and ends for which they were created How little do the precepts of Parents or Teachers and all the means of grace themselves to conquer it in the most And where it is most conquered even in the godly it is most confessed because there is a troublesome remnant of it still so that there is no man in the World that hath not more or less of it in him the wicked being under the power of it and the godly under the trouble of these remainders 2. From Gen. 3. 15. Joh. 3. 5 6. Rom. 8. 3 5 6 7 8 9. Rom. 7. 21 23 24 25 compared In Joh. 3. 6. we find that flesh begets but flesh That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that go a new birth by the spirit is necessary to make us spiritual of which before In Rom. 8. we find that it was through the flesh that the Law was weak and that God sending his son in the likeness of sinful flesh not as sinful but as flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh Where it is undeniable that by flesh is not meant sin it self for then it had not been called sinful nor the subject of sin nor Christ said to have taken the likeness of it and go the word flesh here is taken in no worse a sense than in Joh. 3. 6. We find here also that all flesh is universally called sinful which Christ took the likeness of And Christ took the likeness of infants and that first only growing up to the likeness of the adult infants go have sinful flesh And ver 5 6. This flesh as the principle that prevaileth in some is opposed to the spirit which prevaileth in others and their fruits opposed the one sort mind fleshly things the other spiritual things and death belongs to one and life and peace to the other And ver 7. The carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can be And ver 8. They that are in the flesh cannot please God that is they that have not the spirit to subdue and mortify the flesh as it is explained ver 9. And if any man have not the spirit of Christ he is none of his So that flesh without spirit which is now mans natural estate is a principle of enmity and rebellion and proves men none of Christ's and in a state of death And many Expositors judge that in Gen. 3. 15. such being none of Christ's till they have the spirit are annumerated to the serpents seed that hath the enmity against the spiritual seed which so sheweth it self when they come to age that as Cain by Abel and Ishmael by Isaack so still He that is born after the flesh persecuteth him that is born after the spirit if not restrained Gal. 4. 29. And Rom. 7. 18. I know that in me that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing that is in Paul so far as he was without the spirit And as this innate universal enmity is thus proved so it is proved to be sin 1. By the Law of nature which tells us that an habitual enmity of the rational creature against God and Holiness is sin if any thing be sin It is an inclination or disposition contrary to the primitive nature and moral image of God in man and contrary to what our relation to God importeth and as it is commonly said of actual hatred of God it may as truly if not much more evidently be said of this dispositive virtual enmity that it is an evil that cannot become good and so naturally sin that it can be no other 2. It 's proved to be sin by the express assertion of the Text. Rom. 8. 3. 10. it is sinful flesh and the subject of sin till the spirit come Ver. 9. it proves them none of Christ ' s. Rom. 7. 14. 17. 20. 24 25. it is called in-dwelling sin and a Law of sin and to be carnal is to be sold under sin 3. From the effects which nothing can produce but sin They cannot be subject to the Law of God They please not God To be carnally minded is death c. Rom. 8. So 1 Cor. 2. 14. The natural meerly animal man now in his corrupt estate receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness
sin go c. The major is proved 1. In that they have immortal souls and virtually rational 2. They are under many promises and threats that are mentioned in the Scripture 3. They are disciples of Christ and members of his Church The minor is plain 1. In that they make infants uncapable of any moral evil eo nomine because they have no actual volition or choice 2. And thereby they conclude them uncapable of moral good 3. And thereby they conclude them uncapable of judgment 4. And of any rewards 5. And of any punishments 6. And they say they are under no law or obligation 7. And go they can be no subjects of Christ's Kingdom or members of his Church Only God may do with them what he will and so he may with bruits Arg. 16. The infants of the unbelieving Gentiles were sinners and children of wrath go infants are capable of sin and some at least are sinners c. The antecedent is proved from Gal. 2. 15. We Jews by nature or birth and not sinners of the Gentiles i. e. by nature 1 Cor. 7. 14. Else were your children unclean but now are they holy The Anabaptists make this to speak but of legitimation The Papists by being unclean think nothing is meant but being not baptizable and to be holy they think is but to be baptizable and and that a posteriore because it is presumed that such infants will be religiously educated but Christ hath instituted no Baptism but what is for remission of sin and he doth not actually remit sin to some more than to others upon a presumption of the Church that they will hereafter be educated as Christians There is some holiness mentioned by the Apostle which is the reason why those infants more than others are to be admitted to Baptism which supposeth and signifieth it and that cannot be only a thing future and uncertain Divines commonly call it among Protestants a federal holiness and that this supposeth infants capable of moral good and evil I have shewed on this Text in my Treatise of Infants Baptism Eph. 2. 3. And were by nature the children of wrath even as others Forasmuch as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth nature birth or natural disposition properly and signifieth custom only by a rare and improper acception go it is not here to be interpreted by custom without such cogent evidence as none hath yet given us Those that attempt a collecting of testimonies for this improper use sometimes do give us many that make against them There is no necessity that will warrant our reception of such a tropical and unusual sense Job 11. 12. For vain man would be wise though man be born as a wild asses colt that is of a rude sottish unruly disposition Ezek. 16. 2 3 4. Son of man cause Jerusalem to know her abominations and say Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem Thy Birth and thy Nativity is of the Land of Canaan thy Father was an Amorite and thy Mother an Hittite and as for thy Nativity in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut neither wast thou washed c. This allegory sheweth that part of Jerusalem ' s abhomination was natural from the birth and nothing but sin is abhomination before God Job 25. How then can man be justified with God or how can he be clean that is born of a woman 15. 14. What is man that he should be clean and he that is born of a woman that he should be righteous The illustration that is fetch'd from the natural weakness and impurity of the Heavens the Moon the Stars doth not contradict the exposition of the former words as of moral impurity for the impurity is according to the subject and natural impurity is not unrighteousness Arg. 17. From the necessity of regeneration Joh. 3. 3 5 6. Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit If there be a necessity of a new birth to make us spiritual the first birth bringing forth but flesh before we can enter into the Kingdom of God then by the first birth we are born in sin But the antecedent is certain go so is the consequent The minor is plain in the Text 1. That flesh begets not spirit but flesh 2. That regeneration is therefore of absolute necessity At present I will suppose that by flesh here is not meant sin that the adversary may not think I beg any thing of him The consequence of the major hath this double proof 1. Because flesh without spirit in a rational creature is sinful or morally corrupt for being deprived of the spirit it is deprived of moral good 2. Because nothing but sin can keep a rational creature and subject of God out of Heaven for to be kept out of Heaven is one half at least of the damned's misery and to live and know that loss as immortal souls must do will produce also positive punishment Arg. 18. That doctrine is untrue which maketh God the Author of sin but so doth the denial of Original sin go it is untrue The major will be granted The minor I prove The doctrine which feigneth that innocent nature is under such a moral impossibility of not sinning as that no one person in all the World that hath the use of reason shall escape it doth feign God to be the Author of sin But so doth their doctrine that deny original sin go it feigneth God to be the Author of sin Or The doctrine which feigneth that innocent nature doth sin for want of necessary grace to escape it doth make God the Author of sin But so doth the denial of original sin go c. For the proof of the major of both Arguments consider 1. That the adversaries suppose nature in infants to be innocent 2. That it is granted by them that de facto all men that have the use of reason are sinners except Jesus Christ the Papists except also the Virgin Mary If they denied this it 's easily proved 1. By the common experience of the World as to the generality 2. By plain Scripture 1 Joh. 1. 8. 10. If we say that we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us If we say that we have not sinned we make him a liar and his word is not in us Jam. 3. 2. For in many things we offend all Eccl. 7. 20. For there is not a just man on earth that doth good and sinneth not And that there is a moral impossibility to escape sin appeareth 1. By the universality of the event that which no man in all the World in any age attaineth to notwithstanding all the helps vouchsafed is morally impossible 2. And the Scripture assertion proveth it in that it alloweth us to conclude it of all that we know not and of those that are yet unborn And that the World sinneth for
is in us ab origine or by propagation not only because it is the original of all other sin 3. Concerning Original Righteousness which must first be understood we must enquire 1. Whether it was natural or supernatural 2. Wherein it did consist For the first 1. It must be understood that the Righteousness which we enquire after is 1. Qualitative the holy inclinations of the soul called the Image of God 2. and Relative the Innocency or Justifiableness of man but not 3. the Active Righteousness for that was 1. after Creation 2. freely performed by man himself and yet it may extend to that as it is denominated from the inclining principle And for the question 1. As Natural signifieth that which was created in us or which we had in the beginning with our being from God as our gracious Creator so Original Righteousness was Natural that is 1. It was not given him at any time following his Creation 2. Nor was it given at the same time as a thing distinct from the soundness and rectitude and integrity of his nature but was that rectitude it self and as much concreated with man as health and beauty with the body 2. As natural signifieth that which belongeth to the essence of man and is inseparable from him so original righteousness was not natural no more than health and beauty are to the body 3. As Natural signifieth that which is now propagated and born with us and comes by generation to man in his lapst estate so Original Righteousness is supernatural 4. Though as it signifieth that which would have been propagated to posterity if the Parents had not sin'd and lost it so Original Righteousness is natural 5. As Natural signifieth that which may be recovered or maintained by meer natural means so Original Righteousness is not Natural for though to Adam it was as natural to the soul as health and beauty to the body yet 1. He was commanded by supernatural revelation certain positive duties for the exercise and maintaining of it and for the attainment of salvation which was its end 2. And now we are deprived of it we cannot expect the restoration but by means supernatural even by Christ and the Spirit and supernatural revelations And that Original Righteousness is Natural so far as I have said that is concreated and should have been propagated to posterity if not lost by Parents I shall here prove by several Arguments because I find Dr. Taylor and others that deny Original sin do build on this supposition that Infants are deprived of this Righteousness as some superadded thing and yet be in puris naturalibus without sin But there is no such state nor ever was as a state of pure nature in a rational creature without holiness or sin as I prove Arg. 1. Man was naturally able and disposed to know God to be God and his God go He was naturally able and disposed to love him as God and his God which is the sum of his Original Righteousness By disposed I mean morally inclined and not void of that holy inclination to love God which is the life of morality and rectitude of the will The Antecedent is undoubted if the rational nature had not been disposed to know God it had been blind deformed and not fit for the ends of its creation The Consequence is proved thus If the understanding had been disposed to know God and not the will to love him as God then the will would have been created lame and deformed and unfit for the ends of its creation and there would have been a disproportion if not a conflict between the faculties of the soul but the Consequent is not to be admitted go nor the Antecedent Arg. 2. God made not man without all moral good go He made him with the inclination to God which we call Charity in habit or disposition which was his Original Righteousness We speak not of Active good for that was to follow his creation but of inward Virtue in habit or disposition The Antecedent is proved 1. In that else he had been imperfect as to his end 2. And not born the Image of God's goodness and by the other reasons hereafter following And if God made man without all moral virtue and goodness then could he lose and fall from none The consequence is proved because there can be no proper moral good where the true principle and end are wanting but where the love of God is wanting the true principle and end is wanting go c. God is the end Love is the adhesion to God Heathens and unregenerate men have no moral good any further than they have some kind of love to God and respect him as the end Which as it is in them but analogically called love to God so have they but an analogical morality Arg. 3. Man was created in the Image of God go he was created in Original Righteousness which consisted in the inclination of the soul to God as God The Antecedent is exprest in Gen. 1. 26 27. The consequence is proved from Eph. 4. 24. with Col. 3. 10. which shew that the Image of God besides that which was in our Essentials in power understanding and will consisted in wisdom righteousness and true holiness It 's impossible that the moral Image of God should be without Original Righteousness and the love of God Arg. 4. God look'd on man when he had created him and saw that he was very good Gen. 1. 31. go he saw that he had an inclination to his Maker or habitual love to God for the rational creature cannot be very good without it Arg. 5. If man was made for God as his ultimate end then was he made with Original Righteousness or an holy inclination to love God but man was made for God as his ultimate end go c. The minor is certain Though it be doubtful whether naturally man could know that he might enjoy God by immediate vision of his Glory and also whether it should be in Heaven or on Earth or where and also whether he could obtain the beatifical vision without supernatural revelation and assistance yet it was plain that he was made for God as his end that is to please him and to love him and be beloved by him and enjoy him according to his capacity 1. Else it had been no duty of man by nature to intend God as his end and to love him above all 2. And it had been no part of his sin or misery to take up short of God which are false as shall be shewed The major is proved thus All the works of God are disposed for the attainment of their ends go so was man and go with Original Righteousness for without Charity in the habit or inclination and so without Original Righteousness man had not been disposed to his end but had been left in an unfitness and indifferency inclined no more to God than to any creature Moreover man was created with an inclination to
you have thought this a cruelty or injustice Why might not God leave such a thing to his free will as well as his own salvation or damnation And if he might leave it to a serpent necessarily to beget a serpent why might he not leave it to the will of man to do it freely And if man had chosen such a generation could his off-spring if capable have charged God with cruelty And if not as nothing surer why might not God leave it to the will of man to remain righteous and beget a righteous seed or to fall and beget such as himself Obj. 7. But the pains of hell consist in the torments of conscience and the conscience of an infant will not torment him for that which he could not help Answ 1. It is past our reach here to understand fully the nature of hell torments 2. The loss of Heaven is the greatest part of the misery 3. The sense of that loss will be no small positive misery 4. And all this which the adversaries grant will be confessed due for original pravity and because they are the seed of sinners Obj. 8. No Law forbiddeth us to be the seed of Adam or to draw corruption from our Parents Answ The Law forbad Adam in whom we were to sin and it requireth perfection of acts and habits and condemneth sinful habits as well as sinful acts and go we are violaters of that Law Obj. 9. If Original sin were derived from Adam to us it would have been in the humane nature of Christ at least Adam's act would have been imputed to him as being really the son of man Answ The relation and corruption go together and both of them belong to them that derived their natures only from Adam according to the way of natural generation But Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost who by sanctifying the substance of the Virgin of which he had his humane nature and by the miraculous way of procreation prevented the derivation of guilt or sin Obj. 10. Christ saith except we become as little children we shall not enter into Heaven Answ He speaks not of their innocency but of their beginning the World and their lowliness except we be little in our eyes and begin the World a-new by conversion we cannot enter into his Kingdom But this denieth not but that infants may have corruption that unfits them for his Kingdom as you confess Obj. 11. 1 Cor. 7. 14. The children of believers are holy Answ 1. But not by nature but by grace and the faithful's interest in the covenant and dedication of them to Christ in Baptism 2. They had no need of this hallowing if they had not naturally some corruption And 3. The children of unbelievers are still unclean 4. And the children of the faithful are not perfectly holy for then they should be better than the Parents Obj. 12. By the same reason you may say that we are guilty of our immediate Parents sins for we were in them more immediately than in Adam Answ We have the same natural interest in our nearest Parents sin and some participation which we must lament and not excuse But of that I have spoken by it self The chief objections here omitted I answered before from Adam's or our nearer Parents being themselves forgiven and so having no guilt to derive to us and their being sanctified and from the creation of the soul c. and go shall not again repeat the answers to them It better beseems us to confess our sin and misery and value the remedy than to tell Christ that we will not so much as pray for the pardon of Original sin nor be beholden to him to forgive it nor to his spirit to cure it which yet is really the thoughts of them that think they have no such thing Among others read Philip Mornay Lord du Plessis in his Verity of Christian Religion in the Chapters of Original sin The vanity of Dr. Taylor 's opposition may be easily seen by what is said his begging the question about the supernaturality of holiness to Adam his frequent mistakes and self-contradiction Whether Posterity be guilty of Death by reason of the Actual sins of their immediate Parents AS little as is said by Divines on this Question it is no over-curious or needless unprofitable subject but very weighty and needful to be understood by all Christians that can reach to the understanding of it For as it is useful for the opening of the cause and nature of Original guilt so if it should prove true that we are guilty by the sins of our immediate Parents it would be necessary that we know it for our due humiliation and that we may in penitent confessions and deprecations prevail with God for the pardon thereof As it is thought a dangerous thing to deny original sin because they that so do will not be humbled under it and sensible of their misery by it nor of the necessity of God's mercy or Christ's blood for the pardon of it nor will apply themselves to God by Christ in Faith Confession and Prayer for pardon and consequently are in danger of missing of pardon so in the present case the same reasons will prove it as well dangerous to deny our guilt of our Parents sins if indeed we are so guilty Which that we may enquire into after a very brief explication of the terms of the Question I shall lay down a few necessary distinctions and then assert what I judge to be the truth in certain Propositions and prove such of them as most require proof 1. By immediate Parents we mean those that personally beget By Posterity we mean their children so begotten By Reason of Actual sin we mean by the Merit of those sins which our Parents themselves committed or by a resultancy from such sin compared with the rule By guilt we mean obligation to punishment or duness of punishment By death we mean the destruction or final misery of the creature either death temporal or eternal We must here distinguish 1. Between the seminal causal potential and virtual being which we have in our Parents and the personal existence that we have in our selves 2. Between the guilt which immediately resulteth from actual sin and the guilt which riseth but mediately from it viz. by the means of some intervening corruption of our own 3. Between the sins of Parents while we are seminally in them and their sins after our birth either 1. in our infancy or 2. in our riper age 4. Between guilt of fault and guilt of punishment 5. Between the aggravation of voluntariness actual and of voluntariness habitual or dispositive 6. Between plenary proper guilt and guilt so called by analogy of attribution and guilt so called equivocally 7. Between punishment univocally analogically or equivocally so called 8. Between obligation to the pain of loss and to the pain of sense 9. And between the meer sense of that loss and the sensible accusations of conscience for actual
which the first sin did not bring us under As to the pain of loss it is clear because when we have forfeited all we can forfeit no more but by the first sin we forfeited all But this is not because the sin in its own nature hath not the same demerit as the first but because man is capable of no greater privation than he hath incurred already nor of any greater torment if the first sin deserved as much torment as mans nature was capable of So that terminative here is no new super-added punishment according to the first Law But yet none may hence conclude that here is no new guilt because it is another fundamentaliter formaliter For divers relations may have the same Terminus We do by following sins incur a new and further obligation to the same penalty which would be to a greater penalty were we capable of it naturally When a Felon is guilty of death on one crime yet twenty bills may be brought in against him which may charge him with a manifold guilt though but of one death As a man may have a manifold right to one good thing which he possesseth and a right super-added to his first right as God hath the right of Redemption to us super-added to the right of Creation so may a sinner have super-added and manifold obligations to the same punishment Yet here we see some difference between our first guilt of Adam's sin and all super-added guilt that the first having deprived us of all our felicity none that follows can deprive us of any more except of the mercies new given us by the Gospel which the meer sins of Parents shall deprive no man of that disowneth them Prop. 22. Though it be but an imperfect analogical guilt which the act of Adam's or other Parents sin doth directly and immediately leave upon us yet the corruption or pravity of our own nature inherent in each person which by Adam's sin was introduced doth bring on us a further guilt And so mediately the said actual sin doth bring it Which occasioneth so many Protestant Divines to place original sin as ours in this pravity alone Prop. 23. Though this natural depravedness may seem to infer a lesser guilt because it is not voluntary as our actual sins are Yet 1. we being seminally in him that voluntarily caused it and 2. it being the habitual pravity of the will it self and so far voluntary and 3. therefore containing virtually all future actual voluntary sins 4. and being more contrary to God's holy nature and will than one single actual sin would be it hath therefore many aggravations instead of that one which it seemeth to have less of And so must needs bring a true and proper obligation to punishment till Christ dissolve it as well as actual sins Prop. 24. It seems to me that the sins of neerer Parents may do much to the corrupting of our natures as well as the sin of Adam and to increase the pravity that from his only sin would have been upon them Proved 1. There is the same reason why the sins of immediate Parents should deprave the nature of Posterity as there is that Adam's sin should do it Some Divines say that God took away his image from Adam some that he took away his spirit and so the loss of his image followed some that Adam's sin did it self destroy or blot out that image As to the first I say 1. It is not sound because it makes God the most proper immediate if not the only true efficient cause of sin and of the sinning sin which is the worst of sins Also because there is no word of God that saith any such thing 2. If it were true the sin of Cain deserved the same as well as the sin of Adam As to the second opinion I say 1. It is yet undetermined de nomine among Divines whether it be not the Redeemer only that giveth the spirit and whether it can properly be said that God gave his spirit to Adam in innocency though I am for the affirmative 2. But suppose that there be some conserving aid which God did withdraw by what name soever it be called yet thaat withdrawing was in order of nature consequential to mans sinning and not before it and that sin it self did deprave the soul 3. The sin of Cain deserveth the like desertion as well as the sin of Adam but man's nature is not now capable of it in the same sort as then it was because then we were innocent and had the perfect image of God upon us and were capable of losing it but now we have lost it already our Parents sins can but remove us further from God and hinder our recovery The third opinion seemeth most warrantable that Adam put away or blotted out God's image and so depraved his own soul for which see Capel of Tempt and Thes Salmuriens Vol. 1. disp de statu hominis lapsi ante gratiam sect 19 20 21. But there is the same reason why Cain's sin should deprive his posterity of God's image save only that they had not the same to lose for the destructive nature of the sin is the same and so is the merit And though they have not that perfect image of God now to lose yet they have some remnants of moral virtue assisted by the light and law of nature and the nature of man is capable of being made worse than yet it is And there is the same reason why Cain's sin may make it worse as there is why Adam's may make it bad Man's fall was a change of his end He first took God for his ultimate end and chief good He was seduced to take him for one that envied his felicity and for a liar and to seek his felicity in the creature against the command of God The ultimate end of man's actions being thus changed all moral good is so far perverted for all means and subordinate ends depend on it And so the stream of mans actions are turned into a wrong channel the sensitive appetite is hereupon become the master-principle in the soul as ruling the rest For as Placaeus saith ubi sup Cujus facultatis finis proximus est hominis ultimus ea caeteris omnibus facultatibus tanquam architectonica imperat that faculty whose neerest end is mans ultimate end doth rule all the other faculties as the master of the work And thus man being turned finally to sensibles from God his nature is depraved and God's image defaced Yet is not the soul removed to the utmost distance from God for then he should be as bad as the Devils and all men should be equally evil and the sensitive appetite would so uncontrouledly reign that man would be worse than bruitified his reason serving only to purvey for the flesh so that the light and law of nature would not restrain him nor any thoughts of a God and a life everlasting once stop him in his sin Now it is apparent
Prophets 3. He saith that the righteous blood shed by their Fathers shall come on them so that it appeareth that it is not only their own imitation of their Parents blood shed that comes on them but even that very blood that was shed by their Parents before they were born 4. He gives the reason from their natural participation whom ye slew and ye are the children of them that killed c. q. d. In as much as your Parents did it and you have your nature from them it 's just that all this be imputed to you and that you suffer as the doers of it your selves which yet you might have remedied by leaving their sinful ways but being your selves imitaters of them you shall bear both the sins which they and which your selves have committed Arg. 13. Psal 109. 9 10 12 13 14 15 16. Let his children be continually vagabonds and beg and let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places Neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children let his posterity be cut off and in the generation following let their name be blotted out Let the iniquity of bis Fathers be remembred with the Lord and let not the sin of his Mother be blotted out Let them be before the Lord continually that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth Here seems to be as plain evidence that we may be justly punished for the sins of our neerer Parents as any is in Scripture to prove the imputation of Adam's sin 1. David desireth a curse upon this sinners posterity even before they are born or before he knows what they will prove 2. And this is not because of Adam's sin though that also lay upon them but as he expresseth it ver 16. because he remembred not to shew mercy but persecuted the poâ— and needy man c. 3. Yea he desireth that God would remember the iniquity of his Father and not blot out the sin of his Mother which cannot be meant of any punishment that David would have God inflict on that Father or Mother He is not of a spirit so cruel and contrary to the Gospel as to desire that God would not forgive them that are dead long ago and either in joy or misery when he knew not whether they died penitently or impenitently If any say that he did know by the spirit of prophesie or special vision that they did die impenitently and are in hell 1. I desire them that affirm it to prove it 2. If so what need he desire that God would not forgive them or blot out their sin which he knew was now beyond possibility 3. But the next words in the Text shew that he speaks only of the sin of the dead Ancestors as it lieth on the posterity and not on themselves For as it was not the dead but the living that David prayeth against so he next saith Let them be before the Lord continually that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth So that it is a penalty on him that then was living and upon his posterity that David prays for even that his Parents sin may be remembred against him and his sin remembred against his children and not that any of them may be remembred against the dead who for ought he knew might some of them be pardoned in Heaven Obj. This might be an unlawful Prayer Answ Then would it not be recorded among the sacred forms which were dictated by the Holy Ghost without one word of check or reprehension Obj. It is but temporal judgments that David desires for the Parents sin Answ 1. It 's known that the judgments and blessings of God are mostly expressed in the old Testament as consisting in things temporal because it was not yet the fulness of time for Grace and the great fruits and concomitants of it to be revealed to the full Life and immortality are brought to light in a greater measure in the Gospel 2. I have proved in the beginning that If God may inflict temporal death on children for Parents sin then also may he inflict eternal as to the penalty of loss and so much of the pain of sense as the apprehension of that loss must needs infer He that depriveth man of life depriveth him of all the comforts of it and he that may do so may leave him his life without those comforts if he please Arg. 14. Psal 137. 9. Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones Here Babylon's children are to be dashed against the stones not only for Adam's but their neerer Parents sins As is plain in that those are given as the reason in the Psalm Arg. 15. Job 21. 19. God layeth up his iniquity for his children that is a punishment for his very iniquity So Job 27. 14. If his children be multiplied it is for the sword and his off-spring shall not be satisfied with bread Those that remain of him shall be buried in death So Job 17. 5. Even the eyes of his children shall fail So Job 5. 4. Arg. 16. The infants were to be part of the fasting mourning repenting sanctified Assembly Joel 2. 15 16. which was not to lament Adam's sin only but their later sins go the infants had some sort of participation in the guilt and danger of punishment Arg. 17. Nahum 3. 10. Her young children also were dashed in pieces at the top of all the streets This mentioned as God's punishment for Parents sins The like is oft in the Lament So Hos 13. 16. Samaria shall become desolate for she hath rebelled against her God they shall fall by the sword their infants shall be dashed in pieces and their women with child shall be rip'd up Arg. 18. Jer. 29. 32. Thus saith the Lord I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite and his seed because he hath taught rebellion against the Lord. Mark here it is called punishing his seed So of Jehoiakim Jer. 36. 31. I will punish him and his seed c. So Jer. 22. 28 30. Arg. 19. Isa 14. 20. The seed of evil doers shall never be renowned Isa 1. 4. A people laden with iniquity a seed of evil doers Psal 21. 10. Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth and their seed from among the children of men Psal 37. 28. The seed of the wicked shall be cut off So Psal 106. 27. And it 's oft made a reproach and a note of men liable to contempt as Isa 57. 3. Ye sons of the Sorceress the seed of the Adulterer and the Whore so oft Mal. 2. 15. may have somewhat to this sense And wherefore one that he might seek a godly seed whereof one reason may be when they contract no guilt of Parents Adultery I might here also draw an argument not contemptible from the interest of the seed of the faithful in the benefits of free Grace But because I have been so long I will add but one more and in that sum up
to him nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned And it can be no better than sin that maketh spiritual things seem foolishness All the other Texts of Scripture commonly urged for Original sin I purposely pass over because in Commentaries and Controversies they are so frequently handled Arg. 20. My last Argument is from the universal consent of the Church of God if not of most of the Philosophers also In so great a point it is not safe to go against the consent of the universal Church that hath so much in Scripture to encourage and warrant it But the deniers of Original sin do go against the consent of the universal Church as is proved 1. From the known confessions of all the Churches that own Original sin 2. In that general Councils have asserted it 3. And have condemned those as Hereticks that denied it And so did divers received Provincial Councils I shall now recite only the words of the Concil 2. Melevitan Arausican and the Popish Council of Trent The first Can. 2. saith Item placuit ut quicunque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat aut dicit in remissionem quidem peccatorum eos baptizari sed nihil ex Adam trahere Originalis peccati quod regenerationis lavacro expietur unde sit consequens ut in eis forma baptismatis in remissionem peceatorum non vera sed falsa intelligatur Anathema sit Quoniam non aliter intelligendum est quod ait Apostolus Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum per peccatum mors ita in omnes homines pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt nisi quemadmodum Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa semper intellexit Propter hanc enim regulam fidei etiam parvuli qui nihil peccatorum in semetipsis adhuc committere potuerunt ideo in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur ut in eis regeneratione mundetur quod generatione traxerunt Augustine was one in this General Council So Arausican 2. Can. 1. and 2. Siquis soli Adae praevaricationem suam non ejus propagini asserit nocuisse aut certe mortem tantum corporis quae poena peccati est non autem peccatum quod mors est animae per unùm hominem in omne genus humanum transiisse testatur injustitiam Deo dabit contradicens Apostolo dicenti Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum per peccatum mors in omnes homines pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt Ita Concil Diospol alia I shall add the Council of Trent because the adversaries should be ashamed to be less Oxthodox than Papists and that they may see the continuance of the Tradition which the Concil Melevit plead against Pelagius They use the words of the former Councils Sess 5. Can. 2. and 4. Siquis soli Adae praevaricationem suam non aliis etiam ejus propagini asserit nocuisse acceptam a Deo sanctitatem justitiam quam perdidit non nobis sed sibi soli perdidisse inquinatoque illo per inobedientiae peccatum mortem poenas corporis tantum in omne genus humanum secundum communem legem transfudisse non autem Peccatum cui pro poena debebatur utraque mors corporis viz. animae Anathema sit cum contradicat Apostolo dicenti Per unum hominem c. Can. 4. Siquis parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat etiamsi fuerint a baptizatis parentibus orti aut dicit in remissionem quidem peccatorum eos baptizari sed nihil ex Adam trahere Originalis peccati quod regenerationis lavacro necesse sit expiari ad vitam aeternam consequendam unde sit consequens ut in eis forma baptismatis in remissionem peccatorum non vera sed falsa intelligatur Anathema sit Quoniam non aliter intelligendum quod ait Apostolus Per unum hominem c. nisi quâ—madmodum Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa semper intelleâ—â—it and so on as above Conc. Mel. Hanc fidei sanctorum patrum normam imitandâ— haec sancta synodus fatetur declarat in baptismate per Jesu Christi gratiam quam confert continet non modo remitti reatum originalis peccati sed totum id auferri quod veram propriam rationem peccati habet These last words Binnius leaves out but they are in him and others repeated again in Can. 5. so that they are their own Crabb also leaves them out and both of them leave out some other words which Caranza puts in but the difference reacheth not to any thing material to our controversy So that it 's apparent that even the Church of Rome do Anathematize those that hold not infants to have Original sin truly so called before Baptism Their assertion of the abolition of all that is truly sin by baptism is more than they found in the Concil Melevit or any of the ancient ones If to be Anathematized by the Council of Trent be nothing yet with those men that take general Councils to be the supreme power in the Church on earth and separate from others for not obeying them in some Ceremonies or indifferent things methinks the Curses of the ancient Councils and that on the account of differences in points of Faith should seem considerable The consent of the Reformed Churches is so well known that I need not recite their words And though the English Articles mention only our pravity and say nothing of Adam's sin imputed or made ours whether by forgetfulness or by moderation not imposing that which some deny yet they deny it not and elsewhere the Church of England seemeth to own it Obj. 1. That which is not voluntary is not sin Original corruption or guilt is not voluntary go it is not sin Answ I deny the minor I before answered that there is a threefold voluntariness 1. Actual 2. Reputative or moral by participation 3. Habitual Original sin is voluntary in both the last senses It was the act of his will that was virtually and reputaâ—ively ours and the corruption is the habit of our wills and the privation of good habits and that which is habitual is more voluntary than that which is but some single Act. Obj. 2. That which never was in our power to prevent is not sin But c. go c. Answ It was in our power as we were in Adam It was in his power from whom by the established Law or order of providence we were to derive our nature That habits are good or evil as well as acts I hope few will deny And whereas it is objected that only such habits as are the effects or consequents of our acts are sinful I further answer 1. If it be so it is eo nomine because they are the consequents of our acts that they are sinful or else for some other formal reason Not because such or as such for it 's most certain that many effects of sin