Two Disputations of Original Sin, Disputation 1

Two Disputations of Original Sin · Disputation 1

p. 65Queſt. Whether Infants have Original Sin? Aff. (And of Original Righteouſneſs.)

THat I may as briefly and yet as clearly as I can (conſidering that neceſſary brevity) diſpatch this Controverſy, I muſt 1. tell you what original ſin is; and 2. aſſert & open the Affirmative propoſition; and 3. give you ſome Arguments for it.

I. In order to the firſt, we muſt 1. enquire What ſin is; 2. What the word [Original] here ſignifieth; 3. What Original Righteouſnes was.

1. Sin is foreign, an irregularity, or a diſſonancy or diſconformity to the Law of God, in a ſubject. It is any defect, inclination or action contrary to the rule of Righteouſneſs. The form of it is Relative. Diſconformity is a true relation, as well as Conformity; as crooked is as well as ſtraight, and diſſimile as well as ſimile.

2. We now call it [Original] ſin, becauſe it 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 p. 65duplicate page p. 66enquire, 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 p. 67now 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 p. 68without 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 p. 69in 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 p. 70God (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 p. 71it 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 good, as good, ſo far as he perceived it; and go. with the greateſt inclination to the greateſt good: but to man in his natural integrity God appeared as the greateſt good; otherwiſe the underſtanding could not have diſcerned that truth which the whole creation manifeſted: which is not to be imagined.

Moreover, man by nature was inclined to his own felicity formally, and objectively ſo far as he knew it: but by nature he knew God to be objectively his felicity; (though he might not know the immediate viſion, he could not but know that it was his happineſs to be accepted and beloved by his Maker, and enjoy him according to his capacity); go. &c.

p. 72Moreover, no creature can ſatisfie the mind of man, or fulfil his deſire: go. Man in his natural integrity was inclined to God, who only can ſatisfy.

Moreover, it is natural for the creature to deſire the perfection of that which it had in imperfection: but it cannot be denied but Adam had ſome knowledge of God, as God, and ſo as the chief good, and conſequently ſome inclination to him, (ſuppoſe it never ſo ſmall): go. he naturally deſired to know and love him perfectly; and go. it muſt needs be that God was his end, and he had Original Righteouſneſs.

Arg. 6. Man was naturally obliged to love God above all, and ſerve and pleaſe him with all his powers: go. he was naturally diſpoſed hereunto. The Antecedent is plain; in that God by meer Reſultancy having made man a rational free agent, was related to him as his Creator, Lord, and Ruler, and Benefactor; and man related to him as his creature, as his own, as his ſubject, and as his Beneficiary: and go. muſt needs be bound by virtue of this relation, to love God with all his heart, and be thankful to him, and devoted to his will and ſervice. The conſequence is proved; in that God fitteth all his creatures to their uſe, not only by a naked power, but by a convenient inclination for p. 73the actuating of that power: go. he did ſo by man: he did not lay all this duty on him, without giving him an aptitude and diſpoſition ſuitable thereto.

Arg. 7. The contrary Doctrine too much favoureth Infidelity, as to mans immortal happineſs with God.

For, 1. If mans nature, as compleated by the Creator, was not made for, and ſuited and diſpoſed to the fruition of God in immortality, ſuper-added Grace and Redemption muſt be conceived to make man as it were another creature, and give him another nature; and ſo that God ſhould preſently change the nature that he had newly made; and that Grace were to make man holy, as if it were to make a beaſt to be a man, and elevate him above the tendency of all his natural perfections: which will ſeen improbable. 2. It denieth all the arguments for the immortality of the ſoul, that are fetch'd from nature: which is not to be done. If the nature of the ſoul can prove its immortality, it muſt accordingly prove its immortal happineſs, or miſery; for a neutral ſtate cannot thence be proved: and go. it muſt prove that happineſs to be in the love of God; and ſo that the ſoul was inclined to it.

Arg. 8. There is no word of God, that p. 74mentioneth the ſuper-adding of Original Righteouſneſs, by any following gift of God, diſtinct from our creation: go. it cannot by divine Faith be believed that ſuch a following gift there was.

Arg. 9. Regeneration is mans reparation and reſtoration to God: go. man fell from God; and ſo from the love of God: and it is the reparation of that Image of God in which he was created, Col. 3. 10. Eph. 4. 24.

Arg. 10. It is expreſly ſaid, Eccl. 7. 29. that God made man upright: but his righteouſneſs was his uprightneſs: go. he alſo made him righteous. So much of that queſtion.

2. As to the next queſtion, Wherein Original Righteouſneſs doth conſiſt; 1. It conſiſteth in the ſouls inclination to God as God; that is in the habit or diſpoſition, or propenſity of the ſoul to love God for himſelf, as the infinite good, and alſo as our felicity. 2. In the underſtandings diſpoſition to know God as one to be thus beloved. 3. In a holy vivacity Godward. 4. In the ordination and ſubjection of all the inferior faculties to the underſtanding and will thus inclined. 5. And relatively, in the innocency hence reſulting.

And now we may hence ſee what original ſin is. In Adam himſelf the firſt ſin was p. 75actual, and thence followed the habitual pravity: in us the firſt in order of nature is Adam's ſin imputed juſtly, becauſe we were in him, and in our immediate Parents, who derived it from him; and herewith is conjoyned the pravity or corruption of our nature, which containeth theſe things following: 1. The privation of the true love of God, as our principal end, to be loved for himſelf, and as our felicity; and herewith the privation of the love of holineſs, his image: and ſo of the rectitude of the will. 2. The privation of the true and ſavoury knowledge of God and his image, and eſtimation of them. Here note that it is the privation of the inclination, diſpoſition or habit that I ſpeak of, and not of the act. 3. In a deadneſs and inactivity Godwards. 4. In the inordinate adheſion or inclination of the ſenſitive appetite to its objects. 5. In the inordinate inclination of the will to our ſelves, eſpecially our carnal intereſt. The matter of original ſin is in theſe.

II. For the explication of the Theſis, I deſire that theſe things may be noted, beſides what is ſaid.

1. It is original ſin (increaſed by our ſinful acts) that hindereth us from knowing original ſin. As it is the ophthalmie, or gutta ſerena, or ſuffuſion, that hindreth the eye, by p. 76the glaſs to ſee its own diſeaſe. Original ſin lieth very much in an inordinate ſelf-love, or ſelfiſh inclination: and the more any man hath of that, the more unwilling and unapt he is to know it: and much more unapt to be truly humbled for it; and go. unſanctified men that are ſtrangers to true ſelf-denial, are apt to plead againſt the being of original ſin, and are hardly brought to know it in themſelves.

2. Sin is a word that's uſually and properly taken ſo largely as to contain all moral evil; or all defects, inclinations and actions contrary to the rule of holineſs and righteouſneſs, and deſerving any puniſhment: and thus we take it in the queſtion. But ſometimes ſin is taken more narrowly, as ſignifying only the actual tranſgreſſion of the Law; but we take it not ſo narrowly here (for one kind of ſin only).

3. Some ſins have a greater degree of ſinfulneſs, or malignity in them than ſome others have: and ſo when we ſay that infants have original ſin, we do not equal it in degree of malignity with the ſins of the adult. Materially there is more malignity or oppoſition to God, in original, than in ordinary actual ſins: but formally there is more culpability in many actual ſins, than in original ſin, becauſe they are more fully voluntary, p. 77and in our power. Yet the confirmed ſinful habits of the adult, where original ſin is ſtrengthened by actual, are worſt of all: ſo that as Accidens is ſaid to be called Ens but by analogy of attribution, as having a leſs participation of the kind; and yet it is truly Ens: ſo the original ſin of infants is called ſin by ſuch an analogy, as having a leſs participation of the common nature of ſin, in the form and culpability.

4. In ſuch a degree as infants are ſubjects of Chriſt's Kingdom, in ſuch a degree alſo their original pravity is properly ſin.

5. In ſuch a degree as their Parents righteouſneſs would have been imputable to them, if none of their Anceſtors from the creation had ſinned; and as their own inherent holineſs is imputable to the ſanctified infants as a moral good: in ſuch a degree alſo is their progenitors ſin imputed to them, and their original pravity imputed to them as a moral evil.

6. We do not aſſert that any of the adult are damned for original ſin alone; nor that their original ſin is a remedileſs evil: but that a remedy is provided, and means appointed for men to uſe, in order to their deliverance from the guilt and pravity; which if they refuſe, they lie under a double guilt.

p. 787. Original ſin, and the miſery deſerved and due to the ſubject, is a remediable evil in infants themſelves: As their Parents have propagated a ſinful guilty nature to them, ſo if their Parents will unfeignedly dedicate them to Chriſt, and offer and engage them to God in the holy Covenant, which Baptiſme is the ſign and ſeal of, they ſhall be accepted by God, according to the tenor of his promiſe.

8. Our queſtion extendeth not to the degree of infants puniſhment, whether they ſhall have more or leſs? whether pain of loſs only, or of ſenſe alſo, or how far?

9. An ordinary occaſion of ſeducing many into the denial of original ſin, is, the equalling God's Laws with the Laws of man; (which yet afford much matter for their confutation). Man's Laws meddle not ſo much with the heart, and are not a rule for mens ſecret thoughts, diſpoſitions and inclinations, as God's Laws are; for man knoweth not the heart, nor is made the judge of it, further than it is manifeſted by words or deeds: but the heart is as open to God as the actions, and the diſtempers of it as loathſome to him: and go. his Laws condemn even vitious diſpoſitions and habits as ſuch.

10. The will is the firſt defiled faculty p. 79and ſeat of ſin: and all the reſt of the faculties are capable of ſin, but ſecondarily, and by participation from the will: and there is a threefold voluntarineſs. 1. There is an actual voluntarineſs, or volition. 2. An habitual or diſpoſitive voluntarineſs. 3. A moral, that is, a reputative voluntarineſs. This laſt may be in ſeveral caſes diſtinct from the two former. 1. In caſe a man by contract engage himſelf to ſtand to what another doth: though that other do ſomewhat that is againſt his will in the thing, yet his conſent to the general hath made him guilty, as being reputatively willing of it. 2. In caſe a man will the cauſe of a neceſſary effect, or any way promote that effect, when he ſhould not, he is reputatively willing of the effect. 3. In caſe a man by conſent be a member of a ſociety, whoſe conſtitution engageth all the members in a participation of their acts, and the conſequents; ſo that what is done by a major vote, is taken as the act of all, as to the good or evil conſequents: here every member is reputatively an offender when the ſociety offendeth, ſo far as that conſtitution engaged them.

4. In caſe of a natural power that another hath to chooſe or refuſe for us: and this is the caſe of Parents and their infants, and ideot children, that having no capacity p. 80themſelves to chooſe or refuſe, their Parents wills are reputatively their wills, in all caſes wherein their Parents have power to diſpoſe of them; as it is in caſes of inheritance among us. So in Baptiſm the Parents have power to engage the child to Chriſt, as all the Jews had power (and were bound) to engage their children in covenant to God: where the child reputatively conſenteth. So Adam having power to retain or reject that righteouſneſs of nature which then he was poſſeſſed of, and might have derived to his poſterity, and to chooſe life or death for himſelf, and (in ſome ſort) for his poſterity, we reputatively refuſed life in his refuſal or rejection.

III. I come now to the proof of the Theſis, [that infants have original ſin].

Arg. 1. From Rom. 5. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. If all have ſinned, then infants have ſinned; (and that can be only by original ſin). But all have ſinned: go. infants have ſinned. Whether foreign be [in whom] or [in that] or [foraſmuch as] I make no great matter of. (Though I ſee no reaſon but with the vulgar Latin, and others, we ſhould turn it [in quo]). If infants have ſin, it is as much as I am proving. The minor is expreſly affirmed in ver. 12. [all have ſinned]; which is rendred in other words, ver. 19. p. 81[many were made ſinners]. The conſequence of the major can have nothing ſaid againſt it, but that by [All] is meant only [All the adult], and infants are excluded. But this is ſuch wilful violence to the Text, as that all Scripture may by ſuch interpretation be eluded, and words ſhall ſignify nothing. 1. The expreſs univerſal affirmation may not be expounded by reſtraining terms, without ſome cogent reaſon: but here is no cogent reaſon brought, nor can be: all the reaſon of the adverſaries is but the point now in queſtion, which if they may beg, they may thence deny all Texts that be againſt them, becauſe they are againſt them.

2. It is all men that die that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of: but infants die: go. he ſpeaks of infants. The major is plain, v. 12. [Death by ſin; and ſo death paſſed upon all men, for that all have ſinned]. Here the ſinners and dyers are made the ſame; and more than ſo, death is the effect of their [having ſinned]: it go. paſſeth upon all men, for that all have ſinned; go. not without their ſin. And the next verſes fullier prove it purpoſely. Where death reigneth, there ſin is imputed: but death reigneth on infants; go. ſin is imputed to infants: and alſo the [All] before mentioned includeth them; for it is the ſame perſons that the Apoſtle ſpeaks of in theſe p. 82verſes, 12, 13, 14. The major is proved from the 13 and 14 verſes, elſe the Apoſtle's argument were vain; for this is his medium to prove that ſin was imputed before the Law, viz. becauſe death reigned before the Law, even from Adam to Moſes: go. the reign of death will prove the imputation of ſin; which is the ſame with [having ſinned], mentioned, ver. 12. It is the [all that have ſinned] that are ſaid to have ſin imputed to them.

3. The All that have ſinned, ver. 12. are the ſame All that are made righteous, and have the juſtification of life, and that ſhall reign in life by Jeſus Chriſt, ver. 16, 17, 18, 19. (This is plain in the Context, in the oppoſition): But infants are included in the latter All [that ſhall reign in life by Jeſus Chriſt, &c.] go. infants are included in the former All [that have ſinned]. He that denieth the minor, muſt deny not only the Baptiſm, but the juſtification and ſalvation of all infants.

4. All old interpretations which the Churches have uſed, (that are now moſt known), do ſhew, that thus they underſtood the Text. The Syriack turns it by [ſo death paſſed on all the ſons of men, for that all have ſinned]. The Arabick [ſeeing all have now ſinned] referring to that paſt ſin. p. 83The Ethiopick thus, [And as by the iniquity of one man ſin entred into the World, and by that ſin death came upon all men, becauſe that ſin is imputed to all men, even to them that knew not what that ſin is]. Here is a Paraphraſe inſtead of a Verſion, more fully to expreſs this ſenſe. The [in quo] makes the ſenſe of the Latin Interpreter paſt doubt. This is the firſt argument from theſe verſes.

Arg. 2. from the ſame verſes, eſpecially 18: They that are under condemnation by Adam's ſin, have original ſin (at leaſt the imputed part). But infants are under condemnation for Adam's ſin: go. infants have original ſin. If I prove no more but that [they are under condemnation] for the minor it is enough: for the conſequence is thence apparent. The major is plain, in that condemnation is only for ſin, (and infants have no ſin but original): foreign is as eſſentially related to culpa, as poena is. The minor is proved from ver. 18. [By the offence of one judgment came on all men to condemnation]: or as the Syriack rendereth it, [For the offence of one condemnation is on all]: or as the Ethiopick, [All men are condemned]; ſo ver. 15. [Through the offence of one many are dead.] That [All men] includeth infants here, the former arguments prove. This one 18 th. ver. of Rom. 5. were there no more in all the Scripture, is ſo plain p. 84for an imputation of Adams ſin on all to condemnation, that it might end the controverſy.

Both major and minor I yet further confirm. 1. That it is a condemnation proving the condemned to be ſinners by juſt imputation, is manifeſt, 1. in that ver. 13, 14. ſin is hence ſaid to be imputed to the ſufferers: 2. ver. 12. they are ſaid to have ſinned: 3. ver. 19. they are ſaid to be made ſinners. If any ſay that this ſignifieth but metonymically, [to be uſed as ſinners]; I anſwer, 1. He that would make what his liſt of God's plain words by pretended unproved metonymies, is not to be believed. 2. If it were true, yet it muſt mean ſuch a uſing men as ſinners, as implyeth them to be juſtly ſo reputed, and their being ſinners muſt be connoted as the cauſe, as it is in all puniſhment. It is ſurely a penal evil to the adult, by the adverſaries confeſſion: and here's no diſtinction. 3. To be [made righteous], which is the oppoſite member, is more than to be [uſed as righteous, though we have no ſin at all inherent or imputed: go. to be [made ſinners] is more than to be [uſed as ſinners, though we have no ſin at all inherent, or imputed]. 4. That evil interpretation doth but accuſe God of injuſtice, of which anon.

2. And for the minor, it is ſufficient to p. 85prove that infants are included; 1. Becauſe infants die on this account. 2. Becauſe it is a [being made ſinners by one man's diſobedience, ver. 19.] and a being [dead, and under condemnation through one man's offence], as ver. 15. 18. that is mentioned; and thoſe that are now adult, had their relation in infancy to Adam's offence as well as after. It is not actual ſin that brings them to be thus related to Adam. It is both by one offence, ver. 18. and by the offence of one, ver. 17. and ver. 15. [foreign], in or by the ſin of one. It is not go. the effect of actual ſins of the adult, that the Apoſtle here principally ſpeaks of, (much leſs, only them): but it is the participation and imputation of that one mans offence, which he oppoſeth to the righteouſneſs of one.

Arg. 3. from the puniſhment of infants. If infants are puniſhed, they have original ſin. But infants are puniſhed, go. they have original ſin; (for they have no other). The conſequence is certain, becauſe it is eſſential to puniſhment to be propter malum morale, the effect of ſin as the meritorious cauſe. All that requireth proof is the minor, which I have proved at large in another diſputation (of the guilt of our immediate Parents ſins). To which I add; 1. God doth not (ordinarily at leaſt) afflict any rational creature p. 86with death, but for their ſin. But God doth ordinarily afflict infants even with death: go. he doth it for their ſin. The minor is too well known. The major I prove thus: 1. In the lamentations of Jeremy, the pains of the ſucking children are mentioned often among the reſt: and of all its ſaid, ch. 3. 33. [For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men]; that is, He doth it not till he be provoked by their ſins. But if he afflict even unto death, all infants (that ſo die) in the World without their deſert by ſin, then he doth it willingly; even becauſe he will do it, without their demerit. But [wherefore doth a living man complain? a man for the puniſhment of his ſin? ver. 39.] Though it be the adult that principally complain, yet this intimateth that all ſuffer for their ſin.

Ezek. 18. 23. [Have I any pleaſure at all that the wicked ſhould die, ſaith the Lord God?] 32. [For I have no pleaſure in the death of him that dieth, ſaith the Lord God]. Ezek. 33. 11. [Say unto them, As I live, ſaith the Lord God, I have no pleaſure in the death of the wicked. Much leſs hath he ſo much pleaſure in the death of innocents, as to kill them ordinarily without their deſert. Rom. 6. 23. [The wages of ſin is death:] Scripture ſpeaks of no other death to man, but what is p. 87the fruit of ſin. 1 Cor. 15. [In Adam all die;] and Gen. 3. 19. [Duſt thou art, and to duſt thou ſhalt return,] extends to all the poſterity of Adam (ordinarily); which ſhews ſome participation in the ſin: or elſe why ſhould we all participate ſo much of the ſuffering for it. 1 Cor. 15. 26. [The laſt enemy that ſhall be deſtroyed is death]. By enemy is meant a penal evil, which Chriſt was to remove as our Redeemer: go. even to infants, death is a penal evil. 1 Cor. 15. 56. [The ſting of death is ſin, and the ſtrength of ſin is the Law]; that is, As a ſerpent could not wound us without its ſting, ſo neither could death have any power over us to kill us, but for ſin: nor ſin have any force to oblige us to this puniſhment, but by the Law. This is ſpoken of the death of infants as well as others, (unleſs you will deny their reſurrection): go. ſin is the ſting, that is, the deſerving cauſe, even of their death. Mic. 1. 5. [For the tranſgreſſion of Jacob is all this, and for the ſins of the houſe of Iſrael]. Hence Satan is ſaid to have the power of death, Heb 2. 14. as the executioner of God's wrath for ſin; from whom Chriſt delivereth us.

2. If the death of infants be an act of God's juſtice on them, then it is a puniſhment: (for it is no act of remunerative juſtice, go. it muſt be of punitive juſtice, if p. 88of any). But it is an act of God's juſtice on them; as I prove. 1. It is the execution of God's ſentence, Gen. 3. 19. go. it is an act of his juſtice on them that were ſentenced: which was mankind.

2. It is their condemnation, Rom. 5. 18. go. it is an act of juſtice on them.

3. Subjects are ordinarily ſecured from being by their Soveraigns put to death without any deſert of theirs, even by the juſtice of the Soveraign: but infants are God's ſubjects: go. ordinarily they are ſecured by his juſtice from being put to death by him without any deſert of theirs.

The major is proved, 1. From the very nature of Government and Juſtice. Governing Juſtice conſiſteth in giving to all the ſubjects according to their deſerts, ut bonis bene ſit, & malis male: go. to kill the innocent, and that ordinarily, is contrary to Governing Juſtice. 2. From the Law of Nature and Scripture; which conſtantly threatneth the ſinner, and only the ſinner, and promiſeth good to them that ſin not. Now the contrary opinion, 1. either denieth God to be a King to infants, (of which anon); or, 2. denieth his Juſtice, 3. and nullifieth the uſe of his Law, which is to be Norma judicii.

2. That infants are God's ſubjects, is p. 89proved, 1. In that they are of the number of reaſonable creatures, (though yet they have not the uſe of reaſon, and go. are not perfect members of his Kingdom). 2. In that they are to be entred into the holy Covenant with him, as his ſubjects, (Deut. 29. &c.) 3. In that they have promiſes and threatnings in his Laws. 4. They are ſubjects in all particular Common-wealths, which are but parts of his univerſal Kingdom. But this I have proved at large in my Treatiſe of Infants Church-memberſhip and Baptiſm.

Obj. But God is an abſolute Lord as well as a King or Ruler, and go. may do with his own as he liſt. Anſw. His dominion or propriety is in order of nature antecedent to his Government or Kingdom, and ſo in that antecedent inſtant he may do with his own what he will; and ſo he may ſtill: but then by becoming a Governor to the rational nature, he thereby ſignifieth that he will give to all according to their works, or moral aptitude; for God cannot be an unjuſt Governor; nor without juſtice. And his Laws do ſignifie this yet more.

Moreover, the contrary opinion overthroweth all our conſolation, and leaveth us uncertain whether God will not damn all the godly; at leaſt it denieth them any comfort from the light or law of Nature, and the p. 90juſtice of God, though they had no ſin of their own. For if God notwithſtanding all his Governing Juſtice, may and do ordinarily kill the innocent becauſe he is an abſolute Lord, then he may damn the innocent hereafter for ought we know notwithſtanding his governing juſtice: For inſtance, the adverſaries muſt on the ſame grounds ſay, that for ought they know all infants that die in infancy are damned. For God may, no queſtion, torment his own, as he is an abſolute owner of them, as well as kill them. And if his natural juſtice give no ſecurity from damnation to the innocent, then neither can his righteous Laws, and then they can have no ſecurity at all: which is falſe and injurious to God and man.

Obj. Bruits die without their deſert. Anſw. God is not the Rector of bruits, nor are they his ſubjects, and go. he is not engaged by any relation to deal with them in juſtice, nor are they capable of juſtice, remunerative or vindictive, nor are they under any Law.

Arg. 4. Infants are capable of moral good, (and have ſuch): go. infants are capable of moral evil, (and have it). The capacity is the chief thing in controverſy: for if we prove that they are capable of having virtue or vice in habit or p. 91diſpoſition, without conſent, then I find none that will deny the conſequence, that de facto they have it. That infants have moral good, is proved thus: 1. Elſe they could not be inwardly ſanctified: 2. Elſe they did not morally differ one from another: 3. And ſo one were no more amiable to God than another: 4. Nor one any more fit for Heaven than another: and ſo none ſhould be ſaved that die in infancy, as being unqualified for ſalvation: or if holineſs inherent be needleſs, then all might be ſaved as well as any. 5. And then Baptiſm, nor any priviledges of holy birth, or dedication to God, could give no hope of any moral good upon them. 6. And thus they are made meer bruits that are capable of no moral good or evil. All which are moſt abſurd, and diſproved in my Treatiſe of Infant Baptiſm.

The conſequence is undeniable. If they are capable of moral good, without actual moral volitions, ſo are they of moral evil: for there is eadem ratio. If a diſpoſition to holy action be a moral good or virtue, then a diſpoſition to evil actions is vice or moral evil.

Arg. 5. Infants have a privation of moral good: but a privation of moral good is a moral evil: go. infants have a moral evil. The major is proved, in that Adam's poſterity p. 92ſhould have been born in original righteouſneſs, or moral goodneſs, if he had not ſinned: go. it is a privation of a moral good to be born without it, and not a meer negation. The minor is undeniable; privations belonging by reduction to the kind of that which they are a privation of: elſe a privation would be but a meer negation; that is, no privation at all.

Arg. 6. All that are the members of Jeſus Chriſt, and ſaved by him, or for whom he died as a Redeemer, are (when exiſtent) ſinners: but infants are the members of Chriſt, and ſaved by him; he is their Redeemer, and died for them: go. they are (when exiſtent) ſinners: go. they have original ſin. The major I prove from Matth. 1. 21. [Thou ſhalt call his name Jeſus, for he ſhall ſave his people from their ſins]. If it be the very reaſon of his denomination, (why he is called a Saviour), becauſe he ſaveth his people from their ſins, then he is a Saviour to none but ſinners: but the antecedent is true: go. &c. The antecedent is in the Text moſt plain. The conſequence is undeniable; becauſe the eſſence or formal reaſon denominateth: go. he can be called a Saviour to none other. And to prevent all cavils, note that, 1. it is ſin it ſelf, and not meer ſuffering, much leſs undeſerved ſuffering that connoteth p. 93not ſin as the cauſe, that is here mentioned. 2. That it is [their ſin], and not other mens ſin, that they are ſaid to be ſaved from. Nothing go. but violence can evade this evidence.

Matth. 9. 12. The whole need not a Phyſitian, but the ſick. To be ſick is to be ſinful: to be a Phyſitian is to be the Saviour: go. thoſe that have no ſin have no need of a Saviour.

Eph. 5. 23, 25, 26, 27. [Chriſt is the Head of the Church, and Saviour of the Body]: and how doth he ſave them? [Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, that he might ſanctifie and cleanſe it with the waſhing of water by the word; that he might preſent it to himſelf a glorious Church, not having ſpot or wrinkle, or any ſuch thing]. So that to be a Saviour to the body, is to ſanctifie, cleanſe, and waſh it, that it may be without ſpot. Thoſe go. that have no ſpots or filth to be waſhed and cleanſed from, cannot be of that body, or have Chriſt for their Saviour.

Rev. 1. 5, 6. The Apoſtle ſpeaks in the name of the Church, [VntoUnto him that hath loved us, and waſhed us from our ſins in his own blood,—be glory, &c.] If infants come to Heaven, they muſt give this praiſe to Chriſt for waſhing them from their ſins, as well as others.

p. 94His work on the Croſs was to purge, or make purgation of ſin, Heb. 1. 3. He died for our ſins, 1 Cor. 15. 3. He died for us while we were ſinners and enemies, to reconcile us to God, Rom. 5. 6, 8, 10. He came to give his life a ranſome for many, Matth. 20. 28. He gave himſelf a ranſome for all, 1 Tim. 2. 6. Who his own ſelf bare our ſins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to ſin, ſhould live to righteouſneſs, by whoſe ſtripes we are bealed, 1 Pet. 24, 25. For Chriſt alſo once ſuffered for ſins, the juſt for the unjuſt, that he might bring us to God, 1 Pet. 3. 18. Chriſt our Paſſover is ſaſacrificed for us, 1 Cor. 5. 7. He appeared to put away ſin by the ſacrifice of himſelf, Heb. 9. 26. He was once offered to bear the ſins of many, ver. 28. By his own blood he entred into the holy place, having obtained eternal Redemption. He offered himſelf without ſpot to God, to purge our conſciences, &c. And for this cauſe he is the Mediator of the New Teſtament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the tranſgreſſions under the firſt Teſtament, they that are called might receive the promiſe of eternal inheritance, Heb. 9. 12, 14, 15. He is the propitiation for the ſins of the whole World, 1 Joh. 2. 2. If one died for all, then were all dead, 2 Cor. 5. 14. that is, in ſin, and for ſin. Joh. 1. 29; Behold the p. 95Lamb of God that taketh away the ſins of the World. A multitude of ſuch paſſages of Scripture tell us, that Chriſt's death was for ſinners only; and go. that he died for none but ſinners: for what need had the innocent of a ſatisfaction to Juſtice, and of a Sacrifice, and Ranſome, and Redemption? No one text of Scripture can be produced, in which Chriſt is ſaid to die for any that had no ſin, or to be the Redeemer or Saviour of any ſuch. And go. to ſay that he died for infants, to procure them ſupernatural Grace, and Heaven, and not to ſave them from their ſin, is vain. Scripture knows no ſuch deſign of Chriſt's death. And the very privation of that rectitude which they call ſupernatural grace, is ſin; as is manifeſted: nor can a rational creature be ſhut out of Heaven, but penally for his ſins; it being a very grievous puniſhment.

And for the minor, (that Chriſt died for infants, and is their Saviour, &c.) it's proved: 1. In that he is oft ſaid to die for all the World. 2. In that there is no other name under Heaven given by which we can be ſaved. 3. In that he hath taken infants into his Church and Covenant, before and ſince his incarnation: and took them in his arms and bleſſed them, and ſaid his Kingdom was of ſuch. 4. In that he would have gathered p. 96the Jewiſh infants with their Parents into his Church, Matth. 23. 37. 5. Elſe they are not Chriſtians, (no not imperfect ones), nor to be baptized. Many more proofs I have given in the foreſaid Treatiſe of Infant Baptiſm. And few I think deny the minor.

Arg. 7. All that ought to be baptized with the Chriſtian Baptiſm, are ſinners. But ſome infants ought to be baptized with the Chriſtian Baptiſm: go. they are ſinners.

The minor I ſhall ſuppoſe to be proved in the foreſaid Treatiſe. The major I have proved at large in my Diſput. of Right to Sacraments: eſpecially pag. 79, 80. where it's proved that Chriſt hath commanded or inſtituted no other Baptiſm but what is [for remiſſion of ſin:] (to p. 88.) The ſign it ſelf (the waſhing by water, and burying under it, and riſing from under) ſheweth that this is eſſential in the ſignification: what elſe but ſin are we to be waſhed from?

Read over all the texts of Scripture that ſpeak of Baptiſm, as inſtituted by Chriſt; and when you have found that no one of them intimateth ſuch a thing as baptizing them that are no ſinners, waſhing them that are not unclean, then tell us why we ſhould believe that there is ſuch a thing. Nay it importeth a falſe diſſimulation with God; when we will aſſert infants to be waſhed by p. 97the blood of Chriſt, when we believe that they have no ſin, and need no ſuch waſhing.

Arg. 8. If infants have no ſin, they muſt either never come to Judgment, or be juſtified by the Law, or their meer innocency, without remiſſion by a Redeemer: but the conſequent is falſe: go. ſo is the antecedent. The conſequence is undeniable, in that no juſtice can condemn the innocent: the Law will juſtify them that have no ſin; for its commination hath nothing againſt them: ſuch go. need not pardon by a Redeemer.

The falſhood of both parts of the conſequent, is proved eaſily. 1. Many Scriptures ſhew that all men ſhall be judged, Heb. 9. 27. all that die. Rom. 14. 12. Joh. 5. 28, 29. all that are in the graves; with many ſuch places. 2. If infants be not judged, they would neither be juſtified nor condemned: but that's not true, go. &c.

2. And that all infants (nor any) are not juſtified by the Law, or their own Innocency, is plain in the Apoſtle's arguings, Rom. 3. 4, and 5. throughout: and in the Epiſt. to Galat. Rom. 3. 20. by the deeds of the Law there ſhall no fleſh be juſtified in his ſight. Rom. 4. proveth that even to Abraham and his ſeed juſtification was by remiſſion of ſin through faith in Chriſt, and not by the Law, p. 98or their own innocency. And if it was ſo with Abraham's ſeed, it is ſo ſtill with our ſeed.

Arg. 9. Rom. 3. 23. 9, 10, &c. All have ſinned, and come ſhort of the Glory of God, being juſtified freely by his Grace, through the redemption that is in Jeſus Chriſt, whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation, &c. go. infants have ſinned, and come ſhort of the Glory of God, and muſt be juſtified by this propitiation for ſin. Ver. 9. We have before proved that Jews and Gentiles are all under ſin. Ver. 19. That every mouth may be ſtopped, and all the World may become guilty before God. If men will groundleſly ſay that all theſe univerſals are to be limited to the adult, they do but ſay they will believe what they liſt, and words ſhall ſignifie what they will.

Obj. The Text ſpeaks of actors in ſin.

Anſw. True, becauſe it ſpeaks of all the World, among whom the adult (actors) were the principal part.

Obj. The word [All] is to be taken limitedly in many other Texts.

Anſw. 1. What of that? ſhall we go. deny its propereſt ſignification, without a proved neceſſity? and ſhall words be taken improperly by us at our pleaſure, becauſe they are ſo ſometimes where we may prove it? p. 992. Will you allow this plea to them, that uſe it againſt the texts that ſpeak for [Chriſt's dying for all]: when yet they have as fair pretence? 3. The ſcope of the Apoſtle, and the oft repeated univerſals, plainly ſhew that it is the guilt and condemnation on one ſide, and the juſtification on the other ſide, of all ſimply, that are condemned or juſtified, even of all the World, that he ſpeaks of. And he lays the ſtrength of his Argument upon the univerſality: for if any might have pleaded not-guilty before God, and juſtified by the Law, or their Innocency, it had ſpoil'd the Apoſtle's argument. So many plain Scriptures are not to be forced.

Arg. 10. If infants (without a Redeemer) ſhould have been all ſhut out of Heaven, and denied everlaſting happineſs, then are they guilty of original ſin. But the Antecedent is true: go. ſo is the Conſequent. The minor is granted by thoſe that do oppoſe us. If it were not, it's eaſily proved, 1. From all thoſe Scriptures that appropriate ſalvation to the Church, and to the members of Chriſt, and to ſuch as have it by his purchaſe and procurement, who hath the keys of the Kingdom. 2. From thoſe Scriptures that tell us that if any have not the Spirit of Chriſt, the ſame is none of his, Rom. 8. 9. and that without holineſs none ſhall ſee God, Heb. 12. p. 10014. and that except a man be regenerate, and new Born, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; with many the like. 3. From the incapacity of an unholy ſoul to ſee and love God, and ſo to be happy; it being a contradiction. And God hath given us no ground to believe that he will ſanctify all infants after death: and that without any ſatisfaction for their ſin by the death of Chriſt.

The conſequence of the major propoſition is proved thus: Infants having ſouls made capable of immortality, either ſhall live immortally, or not: If not, that privation of everlaſting life is an evil ſo great, that any rational man would chooſe a perpetual tolerable puniſhment to eſcape it: and God would not thus uſe ſo many ſubjects of his Kingdom, to whom he hath undertaken to be a King, and judge them righteouſly, and all without any meaſure of ſin in them. And I find not yet that the adverſaries aſſert this: If they do, they make infants to be but meer bruits; (of which anon). If they live an immortal life, (and riſe with others), then either in Heaven, or out of Heaven, in happineſs, or not: If not in happineſs, (which is before proved, and by them granted), then it muſt be in miſery: 1. Becauſe the very privation of that happineſs is half p. 101hell and more. 2. Becauſe there is no middle ſtate to a living rational creature: they will have feeling and knowledge; and go. they ſhall feel good or evil to them: and they cannot but know that they are deprived of Heaven and Happineſs; which knowledge muſt cauſe a poſitive grief. And thus God doth afflict them by the greateſt privation, and ſome poſitive pain: which Reaſon, or Scripture, or his relation of a righteous King and Judge, will not ſuffer us to think that he doth without any ſin of theirs. For ſhall not the Judge of all the World do righteouſly? Will he deſtroy the righteous with the wicked? far be it from him, Gen. 18. 23, 24, 25. Had all the infants of the old World, of Sodom, of Amalek, of Midian, been wholly free from participating in ſin, they had not been deſtroyed by a righteous Judge.

Arg. 11. If infants are under God's diſpleaſure, or deprived of his acceptance and complacency, then are they guilty of original ſin: but the antecedent is true: go. ſo is the conſequent. If they were in the favour of God, they would be ſaved; (for all the ſubjects of his Kingdom have the bleſſings and rewards of loyal ſubjects, that are in favour with him): but without Chriſt and pardon through his blood, they would not be ſaved: p. 102go &c. If they were not under his diſpleaſure, he would not deny them his ſanctifying grace, and heavenly inheritance, which they are capable of, and which is the portion of his faithful ones. But theſe he doth deny to ſome, and would deny to more, or all, if it were not for their pardon and reconciliation through Chriſt. Nor would he torment them with pain, (as he doth many in this life), and after kill them, (and then ſhut them out of Heaven), if he were well pleaſed with them.

The conſequence is proved, in that nothing but ſin can make God diſpleaſed with a rational creature. Only moral evil can deprive them of his favour. Were original corruption but malum phyſicum, ſuch a natural evil as blindneſs, lameneſs, ſickneſs, madneſs, &c. God would not withdraw his favour for it. Man hateth a ſerpent or a toad that have no ſin, becauſe their natures are contrary to ours: but no meer phyſical evil is evil to God, or contrary to his nature, and go. none ſuch is hated by him A toad is no more contrary or odious to God than a lark: go. for ſuch evil, infants could not fall under his diſpleaſure. He loves the ſick, the lame, the leprous, as well as the moſt ſound.

Arg. 12. Infants have a nature derived from their Parents, who were corrupt and p. 103guilty: go. they cannot be uncorrupt and innocent. The antecedent is undeniable. The reaſon of the conſequence is, becauſe the cauſe can produce no effect that's better than it ſelf. What the effect receiveth, is from its cauſe: and the cauſe cannot give that which it hath not: go. Adam could not convey to Cain or Abel by generation a nature that was innocent and holy, when he had none but a guilty ſinful nature himſelf.

As when Adam had ſinned, each part of his body did bear its part in the guilt; and if a leg or an arm had been cut off from him, that cutting off would not make it become innocent; but at the reſurrection it ſhall bear its ſhare of penalty, ſo the embrio, and the ſeed, blood, and ſpirits that cauſed it, were as real parts of the Parents once, as a leg or arm; and when they were parts, they could not be innocent: (otherwiſe you may as well ſay that the hand or foot was innocent): and go. they could not meerly by birth become innocent. It is not the ſeparation of the infant from the mother, that can put away the guilt that once it had. If any ſay that a leg or arm themſelves have no ſin or guilt, but all is in the will; they muſt then make the body to be no part of the man, and muſt deny its pain, and its reſurrection to everlaſting pain p. 104or joy. It's granted that the will is the firſt and chief ſeat of moral good or evil: but from thence the whole man doth participate thereof: and go. it is the man that is condemned or juſtified, puniſhed or rewarded, and not the will only.

Obj. But the ſoul was no part of the Parent, though the body were: no nor the body neither, for it is in a continual flux, and we have not the ſame body at ſeven years old, which we received from our Parents.

Anſw. 1. This argument (as to the body) is it by which our novel Infidels do think to reaſon us out of the belief and hopes of a reſurrection of theſe ſame numerical bodies: and by the ſame reaſon you may as effectually prove, that the body that committeth murder or adultery this year, and dies ſeven years after, ſhall not be condemned or puniſhed for it; becauſe it is not the ſame body that committed the ſin: but this ingenious folly will ſave none from puniſhment, nor prove them guiltleſs of original ſin. So much is permanent, as doth eſſentially conſtitute and identify the body.

And for the ſoul, 1. It is certain that it is eſſential to the man, and certain that man begets a man; and go. certain that man begets the ſoul. And though it be not by partition of the Parents ſoul, yet is it a true generation: p. 105and go. the man begotten can be no better than he that begat.

Obj. If you ſay that the ſoul is ex traduce you will make it material, and ſo mortal, and a compound of two communicated ſouls conjoyned, viz. the Fathers and the Mothers, &c.

Anſw. If by materia, be meant ſubſtantia, quae potentia corpus eſt, or ſubſtantia incompleta in potentia ad omnes formas, which is Ariſtotle's materia prima; or if any element, or any body be hereby meant, ſo we deny that the ſoul is material, or that it is hence inferred to be ſuch. But if material be extended as far as ſubſtantial, or ſo far as to comprehend ſpirits (improperly), then it is granted on both ſides, that the ſoul is material. But ſuppoſing it taken in the uſual ſenſe, I anſwer, that God can cauſe ſpiritual ſubſtances to propagate their kind: and go. ſuch propagation proveth neither their materiality or mortality; no more than the creation of the firſt animals proved their immortality: nor is it any inconvenience to grant, that two ſouls do joyn in the communicative generation of a third, as long as it is not by partition, or deperdition of any of their ſubſtance; no more than that two candles conjoyned ſhould light a third. But the large handling of this would require more time and words than we ſhall now p. 106ſpare. I refer the Reader therefore to thoſe that have handled this ſubject on purpoſe; and particularly to Micraelius in his Ethnophronius. It is not a Traduction e potentia materiae that we maintain. The materiale ſeminis is but as the oyle to the flame, to which the ſoul is conjunct. The ſemen containeth quid immateriale; the ſoul is in it, not only in potentia, but in actu, as it is in the leg or arm of a man. If you object that then the ſoul is divided, and part of it dieth quum ſemen ejicitur & moritur: I anſwer; Not ſo; no more than it is divided when a man is beheaded, or dieth when a leg or arm dieth that is cut off.

In brief, we muſt not argue ab ignotiore; nor deny a plain and certain truth, (that man begets man), becauſe we are uncertain of the manner of the propagation. As men do in the controverſy about Grace and Free-will, ſo do they in this: they divide what are to be conjoyned, for fear of giving too much to the other ſide. As one denieth ſpecial aſcertaining Grace, and another denieth Free-will, when that Grace worketh by this Free-will; ſo ſome deny God's part in the cauſing of the ſoul, and ſome deny man's part, becauſe they are unskilful in diſcerning the concourſe. God doth as much in it, as if man did nothing: and is as fully the p. 107cauſe as if it were by a meer creation, and man were no cauſe: and yet he cauſeth it by man, even in the way of natural procreation, which by a ſtabliſhed Law he appointed in the beginning; and then gave man a living ſoul that might propagate living ſouls. And more than ſo, it is the ſoul that is the principal in procreating and being procreated: and that ſpark of immortal life that is in ſemine, doth by due cheriſhing of the further cauſes, fabricate its own body: and the ſoul (as Scaliger ſaith, ex Themiſtio), ſui domicilii non inquilina tantum eſt, ſed & architecta (under God). And we are moſt certain that our knowledge of the way or manner of God's influx into, and concourſe with ſecond cauſes, is ſo much above our reach, that we are unfit from preſumptions about ſuch a myſtery, to argue againſt a revealed truth. Nay, when we have conjectured at the manner, it is our wiſeſt courſe to confeſs we know it not. But as the wind bloweth where it liſteth, and we hear the ſound of it, but know not whence it cometh, or whither it goeth, ſo is it in the outgoings of the ſpirit of God for the new birth, and in like manner of his cauſation of the natural birth. But of theſe things we are certain; 1. That the Parents beget the child: man begets man; by virtue of the p. 108nature, firſt given them, with the law or bleſſing annexed, Increaſe and multiply; and God's continued influence. 2. That man's ſoul is not debilitated in its vegetative and ſenſitive operations, by being rational: 3. That go. man begetteth not leſs than bruits. He that ſaith the ſoul, as vegetative and ſenſitive, is not begotten, makes man to beget leſs than bruits. 4. Yea he makes him to beget nothing: for the body or meer matter is not begotten, but with the ſoul, nor would the ſemen inanimatum come to be an embrio. 5. We are ſure that ſemen in corpore animatur anima illius cujus eſt corpus. 6. The conceit of two or three ſouls, (which is the laſt refuge), and that the rational only is created, is at large confuted by many; and it feigneth man not to procreate his kind, when bruits do theirs; nor to beget children indeed, but ſomething elſe that is irrational. And yet even this way, (ſuppoſing God to have at the creation by a decree, annexed his creating act of the rational ſoul, to mans procreating of the ſenſitive), the propagation of original ſin might be defended.

Obj. But by this doctrine ſtill God is made the cauſe of the ſin: for you ſay he is the total cauſe of the ſoul, even as much as if man were no cauſe.

Anſw. God cauſeth it two waies: 1. At p. 109the firſt creation of man, he put a virtue into the ſouls of our firſt Parents to propagate their like, on ſuppoſition of his requiſite univerſal influx, to bring that cauſe or virtue into act. 2. As an univerſal cauſe he effectually procureth ſecond cauſes to do their part, and draweth forth their virtue, and communicateth on his part all that belongeth to the univerſal cauſe to communicate. Now if God be the Author of Original ſin, it muſt be by one of theſe two acts, viz. by Creation, or by his univerſal Cauſation and influence: but it is by neither of theſe. Not by creation, giving the generative ſpecifying virtue to man: for he made man upright, and commanded him to continue ſo, and ſo it was an upright nature that he ſhould have propagated, if he himſelf had not depraved it by ſin. Not by his univerſal concourſe or cauſality; for that cauſeth only the ſoul as ſuch, and not as defective or corrupted: as the Sun cauſeth the life of a toad as well as of a lion, and of a ſtinking weed as well as of a flower of the greateſt beauty and ſweetneſs; but is no cauſe of the ugly venemous nature of the toad, or of the ſtinking nature of the weed, ſave only by accident; nor is it any fault in the Sun, that ſuch creatures are generated by it: ſo though God is the cauſe of generation by his univerſal p. 110influx, yet is he not the cauſe of Original ſin: for the univerſal cauſe ſuppoſing the ſpecifying virtue in the ſeed, doth work on all things according to their natures: and though God was and is the ſpecifying cauſe by creating the procreating force in man, yea and by his conſtant creative emanation, yet he created not the vice, and go. is not the cauſe of that.

Obj. But a lame man doth not beget a lame child; nor a blind man a blind child. Why then ſhould a ſinner beget a ſinner, and corrupted Parents have a corrupted iſſue?

Anſw. The eye and leg are not the ſoul, which hath the generative power, nor yet eſſential parts of the body. But let any of the eſſentials of the body (as the brain or heart) be depraved, and it will appear in the iſſue, (eſpecially if it be ſo with both the Parents): much more when the ſoul is depraved, by whoſe power the body it ſelf is formed, and which is moſt eſſential to the man, the pravity muſt needs be communicated. Lameneſs and blindneſs in the Parents alter not the procreating ſeed, but conſiſt with its integrity. But none can communicate that which he hath loſt, and hath not either actually or virtually himſelf.

Obj. Righteouſneſs and holineſs were not communicable by natural generation if Adam p. 111had not fallen: go. by generation we have no privation of them.

Anſw. 1. The antecedent is falſe: they would have been propagated to poſterity as health and beauty to the body, as I proved in the beginning. 2. If generation as ſuch had not conveyed them, yet if God had affixed, by a ſtanding law, his ſupernatural gifts to natural procreation, it would have proved (againſt the conſequent) that we are ſinfully defective in being without them.

Obj. Learning and wiſdom are not now derived to poſterity.

Anſw. Nor any thing that is acquired, and not natural.

Obj. Godlineſs is not now conveyed by nature: go. it ſhould not have been ſo then.

Anſw. I deny the conſequence: 1. Becauſe that holineſs that was natural then, is ſupernatural now. You may propagate eye-ſight to your children becauſe it is natural: but you can neither reſtore your own, nor theirs, when it is put out, without a ſupernatural power. 2. Becauſe though Adam was our natural head and root, and ſo had power to hold or loſe the grace which he had received for himſelf and us, yet when it came to the work of our reſtoration, he being utterly inſufficient to recover himſelf or us, the work is put into another hand, and Jeſus Chriſt p. 112the ſecond Adam is now our Root and Head; and as he purchaſed all, ſo all our mercies are at his diſpoſal, and he giveth them out as he ſeeth meet: and go. as he gave Adam pardon and holineſs for himſelf, ſo will he give to all his members for themſelves; himſelf being ſtill the treaſury of his Church, and keeping the keys of life in his own hands. 3. Sanctification is imperfect in this life, and go. leaving ſome corruption, no wonder if that be propagated by the beſt. 4. But yet as Adam ſhould have conveyed an innocent holy nature to his children if he had not loſt it; even a legal righteouſneſs, ſuch as he had himſelf: ſo now (though generation do it not, yet) Chriſt in his Goſpel Covenant hath made over a Goſpel Righteouſneſs to the infants of the ſanctified, (who devote themſelves and their children unto God in the Baptiſmal Covenant): ſo that as poſterity is unhappy through their firſt Parents ſin, ſo children may recover happineſs from Chriſt by means of their Parents faith and holineſs, and dedicating them to God in Chriſt.

Obj. Fooliſh Parents beget wiſe children: go. wicked Parents may beget godly children.

Anſw. 1. I grant that God may graciouſly ſanctifie the ſeed of the ungodly: but that p. 113is not by their procreation. 2. I deny the conſequence; becauſe that fooliſhneſs comes from the diſtemper of the organs, and the bodies ineptitude to ſerve the ſoul, and no alteration may be made by it upon the ſeed of generation. But when the ſoul is depraved by ſin, there is no virtue left in nature to rectify that by generation, and hinder the propagation of the pravity. 3. And ſtill as to guilt, all theſe objections ſay nothing. No man can convey the innocency which he had not.

Obj. Adam when he was pardoned had no guilt: go. he could not convey what he had not.

Anſw. 1. There is a threefold guilt: 1. Reatus facti: 2. Reatus culpae: 3. Reatus ad poenam. To be guilty of the fact, is to be truly one that did commit it, or participated therein. To be guilty of the fault, is to be truly culpable by reaſon of that fact, it being really a fault. Theſe two God taketh not away by pardon; for it is impoſſible that which is done ſhould be undone, or that which was a fault ſhould be no fault. The third, which is the obligation to puniſhment, is it that is done away by pardon. Now ſuppoſe this perfectly done away to Adam, or any godly man, yet this pardon is but for himſelf, and he propagateth to his children p. 114the two former, (reatum facti & culpae), which were never done away; and then the third (obligation to puniſhment) will follow immediately per nudam reſultantiam, as long as they have themſelves no pardon.

2. Chriſt is the Quickening Spirit, though Adam was a Living Soul; and Chriſt is now the Fountain of Grace, and gives it out in the meaſure, and on the terms that he ſeeth meet: And as God paſt ſentence on mankind, before he granted his pardon to Adam, and promiſed the Meſſiah; ſo his pardon was no full remitting of that ſentence, but ſuch a perſonal remiſſion to Adam, as ſhould conſiſt with much puniſhment (in his imperfection in grace, and his toyl, and labour, and death, &c.) and with the guilt of his poſterity, till each man received from Chriſt the Mediator his own remiſſion. And ſo as he gave in the promiſe a pardon to Adam, he hath on the ſame condition given it to all. Adam had not power to cure himſelf when he had poiſoned his nature: but Chriſt being become the common Phyſitian, hath prepared a remedy for him and us; and if we take it as Adam did, we ſhall be healed: And the infants are included in the Covenant with their Parents. So that notwithſtanding all theſe objections, the 12th. Argument ſtandeth good.

p. 115Arg. 13. If natural corruption be in infants viciouſly diſpoſing them to evil, and againſt good, then original ſin is in them. But ſuch corruption is in them: go. &c. The minor is proved by the common experience of the World. All infants ſhew their inclination to ſin as ſoon as they can act it: yea ſo ſtrong and obſtinate doth it prove, that frequently it reſiſteth all the endeavours of the moſt prudent, diligent, godly Parents that would root it up; and of Maſters and Teachers that apply both Doctrine and Diſcipline againſt it. And never is it conquered but by ſpecial grace; and never is it ſo reſtrained in any that live to the uſe of reaſon, as not to break out into many actual ſins. And if all men in all ages in all the World do ſin, and frequently ſin, it ſhews that there is ſome corrupt inclination in the nature of man to ſin; for the effect revealeth the cauſe: (yea it is ſo great corruption as to lead into ſome kind of moral neceſſity of ſinning, or moral impoſſibility of not ſinning; or elſe ſome one in the World would have eſcaped it: which none did but Chriſt; and the Papiſts except but the Virgin Mary.)

Obj. Adam ſinned, that yet had no corruption.

Anſw. The fall of one or two may come p. 116from wilful careleſneſs, or inconſiderateneſs, where there is no corrupt inclination antecedent: but ſo cannot the fall of all the World; eſpecially their ſo frequent falls, and ordinary obſtinacy in ſin. If now and then a man only ſhould die, we might impute it to ſome accident; but when all mankind dieth, we are convinced that mortality (even a diſpoſedneſs to death in ſome ſort neceſſitating it) is become natural to him: ſo here.

Obj. Infants have the uſe of ſenſe as ſoon as they are born, and are long coming to the uſe of reaſon, and reaſon is long weak when ſenſe is ſtrong, and this by reaſon of infancy as ſuch, and go. in all this time the prevalency of ſenſe can be no ſin: and ſo long a prevalency muſt needs breed a habit: and this is it which you take for original corruption.

Anſw. 1. If ſin had not made the appetite inordinate, infants might have lived till they had overgrown their infancy without tranſgreſſing: an ordinate appetite would have carried them to no inordinate acts. And they would not have been ſo liable to many of thoſe evils that now provoke their paſſion: and to cry when they are hurt, would be no ſin. And ſo as they had grown up, their temptations would have been but proportionable to their reaſon; and go. they p. 117might well have overcome them. As children have not the reaſon of grown men, ſo neither have they their temptations. They have not worldly riches, or honours, or dignities to care for; they are not tempted to the ſins of luſt. And as now the love of their Parents keepeth them, even in childhood, from tranſgreſſing the commands of their Parents, and maketh them deſirous to pleaſe them, ſo would the love of God have made them deſirous to pleaſe him, and keep his commands. 2. We ſee ſin now break out in children, before cuſtom can engage them to ſuch a habit, and againſt that cuſtom which Parents engage them in againſt it, and with greater obſtinacy than that meer cuſtom could ſo ſoon produce. So much for the minor.

The conſequence of the major is proved, 1. From the purity of God's nature and of his Law, and from the nature of this corruption. This corruption is a diſconformity to the holy nature, will and law of God, and that in his ſubjects: go. it is ſin. The inclinations contrary to his holy nature and image, in a rational creature, muſt needs be abhorred of God, becauſe they are ſuch. And the fleſhly mind, the body of death, is contrary to the Law. 2. Theſe ſame corruptions which are born with us, remain in the p. 118unſanctified (and partly in others) till they come to age, and then they are ſin, (even the ſame degree that was born with us: for it is not only the degree that cuſtom after ſuperaddeth that is ſin). Certainly that abſence of good, and backwardneſs to it, and proneneſs to evil, is ſin in the adult: go. it was ſin before. For it was the ſame thing, and in a true ſubject, capable of vice and virtue. 3. The only Argument againſt it is vain; viz. from the involuntarineſs, as ſhall be ſhewed.

Arg. 14. Adam and Eve had moral good before any actual volition: go. infants are capable of moral good before any actual volition: and conſequently actual volition, or willing, is not of neceſſity to the morality of a habit or inclination; and go. they are capable of moral evil.

The antecedent is proved by the conceſſion of all, that Adam had (whether naturally or ſupernaturally) the image of God, and virtue or holineſs ut principium, before he acted it: and ſo had original righteouſneſs (by creation or gift), which was bonum morale, and made him capable of the divine complacency and acceptance. The parity of reaſon proveth the conſequences. Or if there be any diſparity, it makes againſt the adverſary; infants being virtually pre-exiſtent in their Parents.

p. 119Arg. 15. The doctrine that numbreth infants with bruits, in point of morality and felicity, is falſe: but ſuch is that doctrine which denieth original 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. p. 1207. 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 foreign 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 p. 121yet 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 p. 122the 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.

p. 123Arg. 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 p. 124liar, 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 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 p. 125naturally 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.

p. 126Arg. 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 p. 127through 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 p. 128rebellion, 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 p. 129the 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 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 p. 130confeſſions 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 quicun que 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 ubi que 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 p. 131ſoli 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; inquinato que illo per inobedientiae peccatum, mortem & poenas corporis tantum, in omne genus humanum, & ſecundum communem legem transfudiſſe, non autem & Peccatum, cui pro poena debebatur utra que 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 p. 132baptizatis 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 qu…madmodum Eccleſia Catholica ubi que diffuſa ſemper intelle…it; (and ſo on as above, Conc. Mel.) Hanc fidei & ſanctorum patrum normam imitand…, 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, p. 133is 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 reputa…ively ours: and the corruption is the habit p. 134of 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 upon our ſelves, are but miſery, and not properly ſin. Sin may make a man ſick, or lame, or blind, or mad, and yet theſe be no ſins, but the effects of ſins. Sin may kill us, and yet death be no ſin. There muſt be therefore ſome other formal reaſon, which can be nothing but the diſconformity to the rule. 2. Adam (as was ſaid before) had original righteouſneſs, which was imputable to him as a moral good, before his actions: go. it is not neceſſary to the morality p. 135or imputability of a principle, that it be the conſequent of our acts. 3. Jeſus Chriſt had moral good before his humane action: go. the ſame will follow. 4. Infants that are ſanctified have moral good that is not the conſequent of their acts: go. &c. 5. The dedication by believing Parents, and entring the child into the Covenant of God, is taken to all the ends thereof, as if it were the infants act. 6. Among men, the will of the Parents is in many caſes reputatively the will of the child, and children receive good, or are deprived of it (and oft-times penally), for the Parents acts.

Obj. 3. No righteous Judges do puniſh the children for the Parents ſin.

Anſw. 1. It is not for the Parents only imputed, but their own contracted, that God doth puniſh them. And he takes that cogniſance of the heart that man doth not. 2. And he is more holy and juſt than man. 3. And yet all Common-wealths are directed by the light of nature, to puniſh infants for their Parents ſins, as naturally participant. The Laws do threaten the poſterity of many offenders, for the Parents ſins; and Judges ſentence them accordingly. As that Traytors, or ſome other moſt odious offenders, ſhall be deprived of their honours and eſtates, and their children after them for p. 136ever. It cannot be ſaid here that this is but an affliction to the poſterity, and not a penalty; or that it is a meer conſequent of the Parents ſin, and not the effect: for it is expreſſed in the Law, and Judgment; and is malum naturale propter malum civile vel morale; and it's on a ſubject: And it's a privation of the good that he ſhould elſe have poſſeſſed; and many poſitive evils of mind and body (care, ſorrow, want, labour, &c.) follow thereupon.

Obj. 4. But God hath told us, that the ſoul that ſinneth ſhall die; and the child ſhall not die for the Parents ſins.

Anſw. 1. go. it followeth that children that do die, have ſin of their own. 2. The text plainly ſpeaketh of thoſe children, that ſee the evil of their Parents ſins, and do not after them, but renounce them, and live in righteouſneſs themſelves: which is nothing to the preſent caſe.

Obj. 5. It ſeems to make God the Author of ſin, when he will cauſe us to be born of ſinful Parents, and infuſe a ſoul into ſinful fleſh, when we cannot help it.

Anſw. 1. I have proved that it is the denial of original ſin, that makes God the Author of ſin, reſolving it into his workmanſhip, or denial of ſufficient or neceſſary grace, ſo that no man in the World avoideth p. 137ſin. 2. But the true doctrine of original ſin, doth manifeſt that it is not of God, as I have ſhewed. God as Creator ſetled the nature of his creatures, and the courſe of propagating them, before man ſinn'd: and he was no ways bound to change the courſe of nature, when man had corrupted it, to prevent our being born ſinners. Though we know not fully the manner of God's concourſe in our generation, and how he cauſeth ſouls; yet we are ſure it is according to the firſt eſtabliſhed courſe of nature, appointed in the creation, as much as the generation of any other creature is: and that's enough.

God was not the cauſe of Adam's tranſgreſſion; and his Law of propagation went before it: and his concourſe with the Parents maketh him no more the cauſe, than the Sun is of the poiſon of a toad.

Obj. 6. But it ſeemeth cruelty to damn infants for that which they could not help.

Anſw. The deniers of Original ſin do much more impute cruelty to God, as I ſhall prove. For, 1. They confeſs as much of the miſery and ſufferings of infants, as we aſſert. 2. And they maintain that God inflicts all this without the leaſt deſert of theirs. For the firſt, they confeſs that infants die: and they confeſs that God is not obliged to revive them; and that without p. 138Chriſt they ſhould have no part in glory. If God may annihilate them, or deny them an immortal life, they cannot deny but he may cauſe their ſouls to live, and their bodies to revive, if he pleaſe: and if ſo, that he may inflict as much poſitive pain as ſhall be proportioned to the evil of annihilation. And it is a great deal of ſuffering that man would chooſe to prevent annihilation. They confeſs that God may make them to be toads, (when ſuch creatures are what they are without ſin): and ſo continue them for ever. And who would not endure much miſery as a man, rather than be a toad or ſerpent? They confeſs that infants have immortal ſouls, (at leaſt capable of immortality), and that God is no ways bound to annihilate them, and that he may ſhut them out of happineſs; which is half damnation, and that in equality with the worſt, (it being the ſame Heaven that all men loſe): and if they are rational creatures, they muſt needs have the torment of poſitive grief in the deſpairing apprehenſion of their loſs. And for our parts, we preſume not to be ſo far acquainted with the ſecret judgments of the Lord, as to determine whether infants ſhall have a greater degree of miſery in their damnation, than all this which the adverſaries grant. So that we differ not about the degree of ſuffering.

p. 1392. And then for the cauſe of it, there's the difference. We ſay that God inflicteth not all this but for their own deſert by original ſin: And our Adverſaries ſay, that he doth it without the leaſt fault or deſert of theirs. And then I would know whether there be any reaſon why God doth all this againſt infants, but becauſe he will do it? If man had never ſinned, he might have done it according to them. If it be ſaid, that he puniſheth the Parents in the children: I anſwer, 1. What puniſhment to Parents is the everlaſting loſs or ſuffering of the children? 2. Or what puniſhment is the preſent death of children, to harlots and unnatural perſons, that deſire to be rid of them? 3. And how can he cauſe the ſubjects of his Kingdom to ſuffer ſo much without their own deſert? 4. And if their natural intereſt make them not in ſome meaſure partakers of their Parents ſin, what reaſon, why they any more than other creatures, ſhould be choſen to the ſuffering?

And here I would propound this queſtion: What if God had left it in the beginning to Adam's free will, whether he would beget a man, or a toad, or a ſerpent? Would 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 p. 140ſalvation 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 offſpring (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.

p. 141Obj. 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 p. 142and 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.

p. 143Among 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.