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
us formally because it was Vnius inobedientia the disobedience of one man therefore in no sense could it be properly ours 6. Whensoever another mans sin is imputed to his relative therefore because it is anothers and imputed it can go no further but to effect certain evils to afflict the relative but to punish the cause not formally to denominate the descendant or relative to be a sinner for it is as much a contradiction to say that I am formally by him a sinner as that I did really do his action Now to impute in Scripture it signifies to reckon as if he had done it Not to impute is to treate him so as if he had not done it So far then as the imputation is so far we are reckoned as sinners but Adams sin being by the Apostle signified to be imputed but to the condemnation or sentence to a temporal death so far we are sinners in him that is so as that for his sake death was brought upon us And indeed the word imputare to impute does never signifie more nor alwayes so much Imputare verò frequenter ad significationem exprobrantis accedit sed citra reprehensionem sayes Laurentius valla It is like an exprobation but short of a reproof so Quintilian Imput as nobis propitios ventos secundum mare ac civitatis opulentae liberalitatem Thou doest impute that is upbraid to us our prosperous voyages and a calm Sea and the liberality of a rich City Imputare signifies oftentimes the same that computare to reckon or account Nam haec in quartâ non imputantur say the Lawyers they are not imputed that is they are not computed or reckoned Thus Adams sin is imputed to us that is it is put into our reckoning when we are sick and die we pay our Symbols the portion of evil that is laid upon us and what Marcus said I may say in this case with a little variety legata in haereditate sive legatum datum sit haeredi sive percipere sive deducere vel retinere passus est ei imputantur the the legacy whether it be given or left to the heire whether he may take it or keep it is still imputed to him that is it is within his reckoning But no reason no Scripture no Religion does inforce and no divine Attribute does permit that we should say that God did so impute Adams sin to his posterity that he di really esteem them to be guilty of Adams sin equally culpable equally hateful For if in this sense it be true that in him we sinned then we sinn'd as he did that is with the same malice in the same action and then we are as much guilty as he but if we have sinned lesse then we did not sin in him for to sinne in him could not by him be lessen'd to us for what we did in him we did by him and therefore as much as he did but if God imputed this sin lesse to us then to him then this imputation supposes it onely to be a collateral and indirect account to such purposes as he pleased of which purposes we judge by the analogy of faith by the words of Scripture by the proportion and notices of the Divine Attributes 7. There is nothing in the designe or purpose of the Apostle that can or ought to infer any other thing for his purpose is to signifie that by mans sin death entred into the world which the son of Sirach Ecclus. 25. 33. expresses thus à muliere factum est initium peccati inde est quod morimur from the woman is the beginning of sinne and from her it is that we all die and again Ecclus. 1. 24. by the envie of the Devil death came into the world this evil being Universal Christ came to the world and became our head to other purposes even to redeem us from death which he hath begun and will finish and to become to us our Parent in a new birth the Author of a spiritual life and this benefit is of far more efficacy by Christ then the evil could be by Adam and as by Adam we are made sinners so by Christ we are made righteous not just so but so and more and therefore as our being made sinners signifies that by him we die so being by Christ made righteous must at least signifie that by him we live and this is so evident to them who read Saint Pauls words Rom. 5. from verse 12. to verse 19. inclusively that I wonder any man should make a farther question concerning them especially since Erasmus and Grotius who are to be reckoned amongst the greatest and the best expositors of Scripture that any age since the Apostles and their immediat successors hath brought forth have so understood and rendred it But Madam that your Honour may read the words and their sense together and see that without violence they signifie what I have said and no more I have here subjoyned a paraphrase of them in which if I use any violence I can very easily be reproved As by the disobedience of Adam sin had it's beginning and by sin death that is the sentence and preparations the solennities addresses of death sicknesse calamity diminution of strengths Old age misfortunes and all the affections of Mortality for the destroying of our temporall life and so this mortality and condition or state of death pass'd actually upon all mankind for Adam being thrown out of paradise and forc'd to live with his Children where they had no trees of Life as he had in Paradise was remanded to his mortall naturall state and therefore death passed upon them mortally seized on all for that all have sinned that is the sin was reckoned to all not to make them guilty like Adam but Adams sinne passed upon all imprinting this real calamity on us all But yet death descended also upon Adams Posterity for their own sins for since all did sinne all should die And marvell not that Death did presently descend on all mankind even before a Law was given them with an appendant penalty viz. With the expresse intermination of death For they did do actions unnaturall and vile enough but yet these things which afterwards upon the publication of the Law were imputed to them upon their personall account even unto death were not yet so imputed For Nature alone gives Rules but does not directly bind to penalties But death came upon them before the Law for Adams sin for with him God being angry was pleased to curse him also in his Posterity and leave them also in their meere naturall condition to which yet they dispos'd themselves and had deserved but too much by committing evill things to which things although before the law death was not threatned yet for the anger which God had against mankind he left that death which he threatned to Adam expresly by implication to fall upon the Posteritie And therefore it was that death reigned from Adam to
a healthful body from an ill affected one he is freed from the punishment of his stock and passes from the house of wickedness into another family But he who inherits the disease he also must be heir of the punishment Quorum natura amplexa est cognatam malitiam hos Justitia similitudinem pravitatis persequens supplicio affecit if they pursue their kindreds wickedness they shall be pursued by a cognation of judgement Other waies there are by which it may come to pass that the sins of others may descend upon us He that is author or the perswader the minister or the helper the approver or the follower may derive the sins of others to himself but then it is not their sins only but our own too and it is like a dead taper put to a burning light and held there this derives light and flames from the other and yet then hath it of its own but they dwell together and make one body These are the waies by which punishment can enter but there are evils which are no punishments and they may come upon more accounts by Gods Dominion by natural consequence by infection by destitution and dereliction for the glory of God by right of authority for the institution or exercise of the sufferers or for their more immediate good But that directly and properly one should be punish'd for the sins of others was indeed practised by some Common-wealths Utilitatis specie saepissimè in repub peccari said Cicero they do it sometimes for terror and because their waies of preventing evil is very imperfect and when Pedianus secundus the Pretor was kill'd by a slave all the family of them was kill'd in punishment this was secundum veterem morem said Tacit. Annal. 14. for in the slaughter of Marcellus the slaves fled for fear of such usage it was thus I say among the Romans but habuit aliquid iniqui and God forbid we should say such things of the fountain of Justice and mercy But I have done and will move no more stones but hereafter carry them as long as I can rather then make a noise by throwing them down I shall only add this one thing I was troubled with an objection lately for it being propounded to me why it is to be beleeved that the sin of Adam could spoil the nature of man and yet the nature of Devils could not be spoiled by their sin which was worse I could not well tell what to say and therefore I held my peace THE END An Advertisement to the Reader PAg. 8 9 there are seven lines misplaced which are to be read thus pag. 8. lin 16. read till the body was grown up to strength enough to infect it and in the whole process it must be an impossible thing because the instrument which hath all its operations by the force of the principal agent cannot of it self produce a great change and violent effect upon the principal agent Besides all this I say while one does not know how Original Sin can be derived and another who thinks he can names a wrong way and both the waies infer it to be another kinde of thing then all the Schools of learning teach does it not too clearly demonstrate The names of several Treatises and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor D.D. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Course of Sermons for all the Sundaies in the year together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. Episcopacy asserted in 4. 3. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ 2. Edit in fol. 4. The Liberty of Prophesying in 4. 5. An Apologie for authorised and Set-formes of Liturgie in 4. 6. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12. 7. The Rule and Exercises of holy dying in 12. 8. The Golden Grove or A Manual of daily Prayers fitted to the daies of the week together with a short Method of Peace and Holiness 9. The Doctrine an practice of repentance rescued from popular Errors in a large 8. Newly published Books written by H. Hammond D. D. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Test. by H. Hammond D.D. in fol. 2. The Practical Catechism with all other English Treatises of H. Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4. 3. Dissertions quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum Authore Henrico Hammond in 4. 4. A Letter of Resolution of six Queries in 12. 5. Of Schism A Defence of the Church of England against the Exceptions of the Romanists in 12. 6. Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to practice by H. Hammond D. D. in 12. 7. Six books of late Controversie in defence of the Church of England in two volumes in 4. newly published Books newly published Doctor Cousins Devotions in 12. The persecuted Ministery by William Langley late of St. Maries in the City of Liechfield Minister in 4. A Discourse of Auxiliary Beauty or Artificial Handsomenesse In point of Conscience between two Ladies in 8. Lyford's Legacy or an help to young People Preparing them for the worthy receiving of the Lords Supper in 12. The Principles of Holy Christian Religion or the Catechism of the Church of England paraphrazed By R. Sherlock B. D. at Borwick Hall in Lancashire in 8. A Discourse 1. Of the Holy Spirit of God His Impressions and workings on the Souls of Men. 2. Of Divine Revelation Mediate and Immediate 3. Of Error Heresie and Schism the Nature Kindes Causes Reasons and Dangers thereof with directions for avoiding the same By R. Sherlock B. D. in 4. THE END Sueton. in vita liber c 54. Instit. l. 3. c. 23. Sect. 7. Vind. Grat. l. 1. p. 1. digres 4. c. 3. Disp. 18. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 23. Sect. 23. Lib. 1. ad Bonifac. c. 2 Doctr. and Pract. of Repent Plinius ep 12.lib Psal. 56. by Bp. King Boeth lib. 3. Metr 1. 1 Kings 1. 21. Zech. 14. 19. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Isai. 53. 10. Hebr. 9. 28. 1 Kings 1. 21. Rom. 5. 12. As by one man sinne entred into the world and Death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned 13. For untill the law sin was in the World but sin is not imputed where there is no law 14. Neverthelesse death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression who is the figure of him which was to come 15. But not as the offence so also is the free gift for if through the offence of one many be dead much more the grace of God the gift by grace which is by one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many 16. And not as it was by one that sinned so is the gift for the judgement was by one to condemnation but the free gift is of many offences unto justification 17. For if by one offence so it is in the Kings MS. or if by one mans offence death reigned by one much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous
your eyes as it is in all its own colours and proportions But first Madam be pleased to remember that the question is not whether there bee any such thing as Originall Sin for it is certain and confessed on all hands almost For my part I cannot but confess that to be which I feel and groan under and by which all the World is miserable Adam turned his back upon the Sun and dwelt in the dark and the shadow he sinned and fell into Gods displeasure and was made naked of all his supernaturall endowments and was ashamed and sentenced to death and deprived of the means of long life and of the Sacrament and instrument of Immortality I mean the Tree of Life he then fell under the evills of a sickly body and a passionate ignorant uninstructed soul his sin made him sickly his sickliness made him peevish his sin left him ignorant his ignorance made him foolish and unreasonable His sin left him to his nature and by his nature who ever was to be born at all was to be born a child and to do before he could understand bred under Laws to which he was alwayes bound but which could not always be exacted and he was to choose when he could not reason and had passions most strong when he had his understanding most weak and was to ride a wilde horse without a bridle and the more need he had of a curb the less strength he had to use it and this being the case of all the World what was every mans evill became all mens greater evill and though alone it was very bad yet when they came together it was made much worse like Ships in a storm every one alone hath enough to do to out-ride it but when they meet besides the evills of the storm they find the intolerable calamitie of their mutuall concussion and every ship that is ready to be oppressed with the tempest is a worse tempest to every vessell against which it is violently dashed So it is in mankind every man hath evill enough of his own and it is hard for a man to live soberly temperately and religiously but when he hath Parents and Children brothers and sisters friends and enemies buyers and sellers Lawyers and Physitians a family and a neighbourhood a King over him or Tenants under him a Bishop to rule in matters of Government spirituall and a People to be rul'd by him in the affaires of their Souls then it is that every man dashes against another and one relation requires what another denies and when one speaks another will contradict him and that which is well spoken is sometimes innocently mistaken and that upon a good cause produces an evill effect and by these and ten thousand other concurrent causes man is made more then most miserable But the main thing is this when God was angry with Adam the man fell from the state of grace for God withdrew his grace and we returned to the state of meer nature of our prime creation And although I am not of Petrus Diaconus his mind who said that when we all fell in Adam we fell into the dirt and not only so but we fell also upon a heap of stones so that we not onely were made naked but defiled also and broken all in pieces yet this I believe to be certain that we by his fall received evill enough to undoe us and ruine us all but yet the evill did so descend upon us that we were left in powers capacities to serve and glorifie God Gods service was made much harder but not impossible mankind was made miserable but not desperate we contracted an actuall mortality but we were redeemable from the power of Death sinne was easie and ready at the door but it was resistable Our Will was abused but yet not destroyed our Understandding was cosened but yet still capable of the best instructions and though the Devill had wounded us yet God sent his Son who like the good Samaritan poured Oyle and Wine into our wounds and we were cured before we felt the hurt that might have ruined us upon that Occasion It is sad enough but not altogether so intolerable and decretory which the Sibylline Oracle describes to be the effect of Adams sin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man was the worke of God fram'd by his hands Him did the Serpent cheat that to deaths bands He was subjected for his sin for this was all He tasted good and evill by his fall But to this we may superadde that which Plutarch found to be experimentally true Mirum quod pedes moverunt ad usum rationis nullo autem fraeno passiones the foot moves at the command of the Will and by the empire of reason but the passionsare stiff even then when the knee bends and no bridle can make the Passions regular and temperate And indeed Madam this is in a manner the sum total of the evill of our abused and corrupted nature Our soul is in the body as in a Prison it is there tanquam in alienâ domo it is a so journer and lives by the bodies measures and loves and hates by the bodies Interests and Inclinations that which is pleasing and nourishing to the body the soul chooses and delights in that which is vexatious and troublesome it abhorres and hath motions accordingly for Passions are nothing else but acts of the Will carried to or from materiall Objects and effects and impresses upon the man made by such acts consequent motions and productions from the Will It is an useless and a groundless proposition in Philosophy to make the Passions to be distinct faculties and seated in a differing region for as the reasonable soul is both sensitive and vegetative so is the Will elective and passionate the region both of choice and passions that is When the Object is immateriall or the motives such the act of the Will is so meerly intellectuall that it is then spirituall and the acts are proper and Symbolical but if the Object is materiall or corporall the acts of the Will are adhaesion and aversation and these it receives by the needs and inclinations of the body now because many of the bodies needs are naturally necessary and the rest are made so by being thought needs and by being so naturally pleasant and that this is the bodies day and it rules here in its own place and time therefore it is that the will is so great a scene of passion and we so great servants of our bodies This was the great effect of Adams sin which became therrefore to us a punishment because of the appendant infirmity that went along with it for Adam being spoiled of all the rectitudes and supernatural heights of grace and thrust back to the form of nature and left to derive grace to himself by a new Oeconomy or to be without it and his posterity left just so as he was left himself
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
Moses from the first law to the second from the time that a Law was given to one man till the time a Law was given to one nation and although men had not sinn'd so grievously as Adam did who had no excuse many helps excellent endowments mighty advantages trifling temptations communication with God himself no disorder in his faculties free will perfect immunity from violence Originall righteousnesse perfect power over his faculties yet those men such as Abel and Seth Noah and Abraham Isaac and Jacob Joseph and Benjamin who sinned lesse and in the midst of all their disadvantages were left to fall under the same sentence and this besides that it was the present Oeconomy of the Divine Providence and Government it did also like Janus looke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it looked forwards as well as backwards and became a type of Christ or of him that was to come For as from Adam evill did descend upon his naturall Children upon the account of Gods entercourse with Adam so did good descend upon the spirituall Children of the second Adam This should have been the latter part of a similitude but upon further consideration it is found that as in Adam we die so in Christ we live and much rather and much more therefore I cannot say As by one man vers 12 so by one man verse 15. But much more for not as the offence so also is the free gift for the offence of one did run over unto many and those many even as it were all all except Enoch or some very few more of whom mention peradventure is not made are already dead upon that account but when God comes by Jesus Christ to shew mercy to mankind he does it in much more abundance he may be angry to the third and fourth generation in them that hate him but he will shew mercy unto thousands in them that love him to a thousand generations and and in ten thousand degrees so that now although a comparison proportionate was at first intended yet the river here rises far higher then the fountain and now no argument can be drawn from the similitude of Adam and Christ but that as much hurt was done to humane nature by Adams sin so very much more good is done to mankinde by the incarnation of the Son of God And the first disparity and excesse is in this particular for the judgment was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by one man sinning one sin that one sin was imputed but by Christ not onely one sin was forgiven freely but many offences were remitted unto justification and secondly a vast disparity there is in this that the descendants from Adam were perfectly like him in nature his own real natural production and they sinned though not so bad yet very much and therefore there was a great parity of reason that the evil which was threatened to Adam and not to his children should yet for the likeness of nature and of sin descend upon them But in the other part the case is highly differing for Christ being our Patriarch in a spiritual birth we fall infinitely short of him and are not so like him as we were to Adam and yet that we in greater unlikelinesse should receive a greater favour this was the excesse of the comparison and this is the free gift of God And this is the third degree or measure of excesse of efficacy on Christs part over it was on the part of Adam For if the sin of Adam alone could bring death upon the world who by imitation of his transgression on the stock of their own natural choice did sin against God though not after the similitude of Adams transgression much more shall we who not onely receive the aides of the spirit of grace but receive them also in an abundant measure receive also the effect of all this even to reign in life by one Jesus Christ. Therefore now to return to the other part of the similitude where I began although I have shown the great excesse and abundance of grace by Christ over the evil that did descend by Adam yet the proportion and comparison lies in the main emanation of death from one and life from the other judgement unto condemnation that is the sentence of death came upon all men by the offence of one even so by a like Oeconomy and dispensation God would not be behind in doing an act of Grace as he did before of judgmenr and as that judgement was not to condemnation by the offence of one so the free gift and grace came upon all to justification of life by the righteousnesse of one The sum of all is this by the disobedience of one man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many were constituted or put into the order of sinners they were made such by Gods appointment that is not that God could be the Author of a sin to any but that he appointed the evill which is the consequent of sin to be upon their heads who descended from the sinner so it shall be on the other side for by the obedience of one even of Christ many shall be made or constituted righteous But still this must be with a supposition of what was said before that there was a vast difference for we are made much more righteous by Christt â—hen we were sinners by Adam and the life we receive by Christ shall be greater then the death by Adam and the graces we derive from Christ shall be more and mightier then the corruption and declination by Adam but yet as one is the head so is the other one is the beginning of sinne and death and the other of life and righteousnesse Now the consequent of this discourse must needs at least be this that it is impossible that the greatest part of mankinde should be left in the eternal bonds of hell by Adam for then quite contrary to the discourse of the Apostle there had been abundance of sin but a scarcity of grace and the accesse had been on the part of Adam not on the part of Christ against which he so mightily and artificially contends so that the Presbyterian way is perfectly condemned by this discourse of the Apostle and the other more gentle way which affirmes that we were sentenc'd in Adam to eternal death though the execution is taken off by Christ is also no way countenanced by any thing in this Chapter for that the judgement which for Adams sin came unto the condemnation of the world was nothing but temporal death is here affirmed it being in no sense imaginable that the death which here Saint Paul sayes passed upon all men and which reigned from Adam to Moses should be eternal death for the Apostle speaks of that death which was threatened to Adam and of such a death which was afterwards threatened in Moses Law and such a death which fell
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