A Treatise of Original Sin, Part 1 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
A Third Text brought to make good this Fundamental Point about Original Sinne, improved and vindicated.
SECT. I.
JOE 14. 4.
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.
THough other pregnant Texts in the New Teſtament may be brought to confirm this Neceſſary and Fundamental Truth about original ſinne, yet I ſhall forbear them, till I come to the handling of the Nature of it, or what it is; For that is not true of the Remonſtrants, which ſay, Original ſinne can be proved only by two or three places; although if there were no more, it's certain, that out of the mouth of two or three ſuch Divine Witneſſes, the Doctrine about it may be eſtabliſhed.
I come therefore and ſelect one or two places out of the Old Teſtament, that ſo you may ſee this Truth was alwayes acknowledged in the Church of God, and that even in the times of the Old Teſtament, where divine light and knowledge was not ſo plentifully communicated, yet there was full and clear evidence about this.
The Text I have read is deſervedly both by the ancient and later Writers eſteemed a powerfull place, to prove our natural uncleanneſſe and ſinnefulneſſe.
To underſtand it therefore conſider, That whereas Job in the former verſes had aſſerted the vanity and mortality of man, comparing him to a flower, which though ſweet for a while, yet is preſently cut down. Thus all the comforts, all the joyes thou haſt in this world, they are but a Poeſie, which have a pinne within them to prick thee for the preſent, while thou ſmelleſt on them, and will quickly wither away. But becauſe flowers alſo have ſome ſubſtance and ſweetneſs for the preſent, in the next place he reſembleth our life to a ſhadow, which as he ſaid was nigrum nihil, a black nothing; There is both emptineſs and tranſitorineſs in all theſe things; and hitherto all the Heathens have arrived, They all perceived theſe miſeries and troubles we are obnoxious unto: But then in my Text, we have the cauſe of this, which they were either totally or in a great meaſure ignorant of; God then did not make man like a ſhadow thus at firſt; but ſinne brought this corruptibility into the world, and that not actual ſinne, but original; If there had been none but this, yet all theſe miſeries would have fallen upon mankind.
In the words therefore we have a full and clear Deſcription of that original ſin or birth-ſinne we are guilty of; Yea the Text ſaith, It is impoſſible, it ſhould be otherwiſe: So that the Scripture, and thoſe that deny original ſinne are diametrally oppoſite one to another: They ſay, there is no ſuch birth-ſinne: The Scripture ſaith, It cannot be, but that there muſt be ſuch an original contagion.
In the Text, we have the Interrogation, and the Anſwer; The Interrogation is therefore put to ſhew the vehemency and peremptorineſs in affirming this truth, it's more than if it had been barely ſaid, That none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean; The meaning is, That every man being by nature unclean, it's neceſſary that every one born of man therefore ſhould be unclean.
By uncleanneſs is meant ſinne, as appeareth by comparing this with Chap. 15. 14. Chap. 25. 4. where you have this expreſſion uſed, and it is oppoſed to righteouſneſs, and to be juſtified before God. It is therefore an uncleanneſs not natural or bodily (as the Pelagians of old would have wreſted it) but ſpiritually oppoſite to Righteouſneſs, and ſuch as depriveth a man of Juſtification: Yea, the word unclean, is applied to ſignifie hainous pollution: Hence the Devils are ſo often called unclean ſpirits, ſo that the Devils and mankind are in this alike.
The Hebrew Prepoſition Min, is by ſome underſtood of mutation, by others of origination, but one is neceſſarily connexed with the other; of mutation in this ſenſe, Who ſhall give (for ſo it is in the Hebrew) that is, Who can make pure, him that is impure? Who can change that which is naturally filthy? No man by his free-will, or power can; or elſe it is for the originals, and that doth ſeem the moſt genuine, for Job is ſpeaking what belongs to every man naturally, and thus the ſenſe is, From that which is unclean, none can bring that which is clean: Even as our Saviour ſaith in another caſe, None can gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thiſtles, Mat 6. 16. or as the Apoſtle James, A ſweet fountain cannot ſend forth bitter ſtreams, ſo neither can a bitter fountain ſweet ſtreams, Jam. 3. Now when it is ſaid, Of an unclean thing cannot come a clean: Hereby Adam in his firſt Creation is excluded, for he was made holy, and came not out of that which was unclean; and alſo Chriſt is hereby excluded, for although he is ſaid to be born of a woman, yet that was in a miraculous and extraordinary manner: As for the Diſpute about the Virgin Mary, whoſe freedom from original ſinne, ſome have with great vehemency maintained, that ſeemeth not any wayes probable, as is to be ſhewed. It is alſo good to obſerve the emphatical expreſsion in the word, Out of unclean thing, which implieth, That man by nature is all over ſinfull, in mind, will, affections; and the whole man, it is the unclean thing; even as Chriſt was called the foreign, the holy thing, becauſe he was in every particular altogether holy.
In the next place, you have the Anſwer, Not one. Some read this interrogatively. Doeſt not thou alone? as ſpeaking to God, ſo the Chaldee Paraphraſt. Theſe make the ſenſe to be, That God alone, and no other can deliver out of this uncleanneſs. Hence alſo ſome make that expreſſion, Who can forgive ſinne, but God alone? to be an alluſion to this place. For, as Aquinas ſaith, De frigido facere calidum eſt ejus quod per ſe calidum eſt, &c. Of cold to make hot, is the effect of that which is hot of it's own nature: So of unclean to make clean, is the proper work of him, who is in his own nature pure, and eſſentially holy. The Septuagint they read it differently from others, who is free from uncleanneſs, nor a child, though he be but a day old. That which is moſt genuine is to take it negatively, as our Tranſlators do, and hereby is demonſtrated, That there is not one in all mankind born in a natural manner, but he is ſinfull, and polluted: This ſame is expreſſed more fully, Chap. 15 14. The Socinians give in their exceptions to that place; but I ſhall deferre the conſideration of them, till we take that to treat on, which doth evidently ſhew, That man is ſo naturally ſinfull, that he drinketh ſin down like water.
From the Text obſerve, That every one by birth and natural deſcent is ſpiritually unclean and ſinfull.
SECT. II.
A Three-fold Uncleanneſs.
TO inform us of this Doctrinal Truth, we may firſt take notice of a threefold impurity or uncleanneſs.
1. That which is corporal and bodily, man being born ſo loathſomly, that even the Heathens have abhorred themſelves, becauſe of it, when they came into the world: it did ſo debaſe them, that even the higheſt did refuſe thoſe hyperbolical honours, which their flatterers would have put upon them. In the ſixteenth of Ezekiel you have this bodily filthineſs at large deſcribed, and thereby is repreſented the uncomely and impotent condition of the Church of Iſrael in her Infancy, to promote her own welfare, no more than a little Infant new born is able to help it ſelf; Yea this place is alluſively brought by ſome to deſcribe our ſpiritual uncleanneſs: The child comes not more naked and polluted into the world bodily, then the ſoul doth ſpiritually, being denuded of the Image of God, and full of ſpiritual ulcers and fores, like a Job full of botches, like a Lazarus all over ſpiritually ulcerous, though few take notice of this, and lay it to heart.
2. There is a typical and ceremonial uncleanneſs, ſuch as was appointed in the Law, of which there were two ſorts, one more hainous, and ſo did caſt a greater and longer ſeparation from the company of men, and the publique worſhip of God: The other leſs, and ſo more eaſily purified, and that in a ſhorter ſpace; and the former kind of uncleanneſſes, We read Levit. 12. That a woman upon her bringing forth a child was guilty of: Inſomuch that in the legal diſpenſation, every woman that brought forth a child was to be ſeparated ſo many dayes, as unclean to be kept from the publick worſhip of God, and at laſt to bring an offering for to cleanſe her. Now it's diſputed, why God appointed ſuch a law about a womans uncleanneſs, and purification in bringing forth children. Although ſome, as Bonfretius and Grotius make it to no more ſignification, than of other impurities that were legall, yet Auſtin of old, and Calvin are very poſitive, that this was to informe them of the curſed and ſinnefull eſtate, that the child was brought into the world with. The father and mother (ſaith Calvin) by this ceremony were taught with what humiliation and ſorrow they ought to look upon that natural pollution, the infant was born in, and in his comment on the place, he inſinuateth two Anſwers to thoſe two Objections, that are made againſt the typifying of original ſinne thereby, as that this uncleanneſs and ſo purification, did belong to the child as well as the mother. For the Objectors ſay, It could not denote original ſin, becauſe it related to the mother only, and not to the child; but Calvin ſaith, it belongeth to both, and that by Luk. 2. 22. it may be proved. And Grotius preferreth thoſe Copies which have the plural number, foreign, their purification, relating to the child, as well as the mother: But Junius doth more probably think, it belonged only to the mother. Another Objection is, That the mother was longer unclean by a female, than a male, which if it were for original ſinne, would argue the female had more of it, than the male. To this, Calvin giveth this conjecture, That therefore there might be ſo much ſpiritual ſignification to the female, that ſo the defect in circumciſion, the females not being to be circumciſed, might be made up this way. But the difference of time is commonly attributed to a phyſical conſideration; Howſoever theſe Anſwers be, yet Junius, as well as Calvin doth acknowledge, This was done, becauſe of original ſinne, though he had actual ſins alſo. As for the Virgin Mary, who offered according to the Law, when her time of purification was expired, Luke 2. 22. if it did relate to the child, as well as the mother, that did not argue Chriſt to be born in ſinne, no more than circumciſion argued a duty of putting off the foreskin of the heart in him, but it was to fulfill all righteouſneſs, he being now made ſubject to the Law. Not that ſuch a ceremonial uncleanneſs is ſtill under the Goſpel-times, as ſome ignorant ſuperſtitious women think, for all ſuch ceremonial Rites were aboliſhed by Chriſts coming into the world, onelyonly in the general, that Ceremony in the Jewiſh Church, did teach us the nature of birth-pollution.
3. There is a moral uncleanneſs, and that is ſinne, which is a pollution of the ſoul, making it abominable and loathſom in the eyes of God; and this uncleanneſs is upon every Infant, though but a day, or an hour old; and of this uncleanneſs the Text ſpeaketh.
SECT. III.
A Compariſon between Mans Moral Uncleanneſs, and Levitical Uncleanneſs.
TO underſtand the foulneſs of it, let us firſt compare our ſpiritual uncleanneſs with the worſt legal uncleanneſs in the Law, even that of Leproſie, and we ſhall ſee, how fitly they agree. For
1. The legal unclean, eſpecially the Leper he was to keep aloof off from all men and company, even his wife and children (only ſuch as were to provide neceſſaries for them) and to cry, He was unclean, unclean. In what a ſad and miſerable condition did ſuch an unclean perſon apprehend himſelf to be, no body to come near him, none to have any civil commerce with him, but to ſit pining and mourning alone? Thus ought every man in this original pollution, for by it he hath deſerved to be deprived of every comfort, he is now curſed by the Law with all curſes thereof, ſo that no creature in the world might give him any creature; The whole creation began to groan, as ſoon as man fell: Hence it is, that though we truly ſay, Every man, though in his natural condition hath a civil right to the comforts he enjoyeth, yet he hath not an holy and ſanctified right, being not in Chriſt, ſo that what is our due by nature, as ſoon as we are born, is hell and damnation, the wrath and anger of God. Though we ſhould beg here as Dives did in hell for a drop of water, it might be denied us; Oh miſerable then and unclean man, who is thus to ſtand aloof off from all creatures and comforts, ſaying, Wo unto me, for I am unclean.
2. The legal unclean perſon did make unclean every thing that be touched, whatſoever he laid his hand upon, that was preſently made unclean; yea, as appeareth, Hag. 2. If he did touch any holy thing, he made that unclean, the holy thing did not ſanctifie him. Now is not this too true in every man, who is by nature ſpiritually unclean? The Apoſtle ſpeaks this with evident conviction to all that will not wilfully ſhut their eyes, Tit. 1. 15. VntoUnto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure. So then what a loathſom Leproſie of ſinne is upon every one by nature, that he defileth all he medleth with; if he eat, he makes it unclean eating; if he work, he makes it unclean working; yea, if he prayeth, if he heareth, he makes it unclean and impure praying and hearing to him: Oh what a thunder-bolt ſhould this be in our ears! What a polluted wretch am I, that in all places, at all times, in every thing I do, have this uncleaneſſe upon me!
The uncleanneſs every man is born in, hath been partly conſidered, and a compariſon made between every man in his natural eſtate, and the ceremonial unclean perſon in the old legal conſtitution. Now that we may be the more affected with this lamentable and wofull condition we are all born in: Let us conſider it abſolutely in it ſelf.
The uncleanneſs in the Text is not a natural or ceremonial, but moral uncleanneſs; For although with us in our common ſpeech, and ſometimes in the Scripture, uncleanneſs is taken more ſtrictly for the pollution of the body in any unlawfull way, yet it is here taken largely for ſinne in the general, and therefore to be righteous is the oppoſite to it, as Job 15. In this ſenſe it is uſed, Zech. 13. 1. where a fountain is ſaid to be ſet open for ſinne and uncleanneſs. Seeing therefore the holy Ghoſt doth pronounce us all by nature to be unclean, yea ſo unclean, that no power either humane or Angelical can make us clean; but it is God alone, that maketh grapes to grow of theſe thorns, or rather turns thorns into vines: Let us examine what is comprehended in this expreſſion unclean.
SECT. IV.
What is comprehended in this Expreſsion Uncleanneſs.
FIrſt, There is evidently declared the loathſom and abominable objects we are to God, as ſoon as ever we have a being. We are unclean, that is, filthy, loathſom, abominable, ſuch as the pure eyes of God cannot behold with the leaſt approbation: Hence Job 15. 16. man is called abominable and filthy, ſo that no Toad or noiſom creature can be more irkſom and loathſom to our eyes, than we are to God, while abiding in this natural pollution: God indeed when he made man at firſt, ſaw that all was exceeding good: If Adam had continued in his integrity, then there had the clean been brought out of the clean, then man would have been glorious and comely, thirſting after, and drinking down righteouſneſs like water, then the imaginations of the throughts of his heart would have been holy and good, and that continually; but now we are become ſinfull, and thus polluted of our own making; It is from us, that of once clean we are made unclean; For although none but God can make the unclean clean, yet Adam by the liberty and mutability of his will, did quickly make the clean unclean: Oh then how deeply ſhould this thought pierce us, that we came into the world abominable and loathſom in Gods eyes! The object of his wrath and diſpleaſure, finding nothing of that holy Image in us, which was at firſt put into us: Oh conſider how great, and glorious, and powerfull that God is, to whom thou art thus loathſom! If all men and Angels ſhould abhorre thee, it is nothing to this, that God abominates thee.
Secondly, This alſo implieth, That we ſhould be loathſom and abominable in our own eyes; that when we are grown up, and ſhall be truly informed upon what terms we come into the world, we ſhould be as ſo many ſpiritual monſters in our own eyes. Job, you ſee here, though ſo godly a man, and who had ſuch a glorious character given him by God himſelf, yet becauſe of this doth loath himſelf. The ulcers and ſores upon his body, for which he ſate abhorring of himſelf upon the dung-hill, ſeem not more to affect him then this ſpiritual vileneſs and loathſomneſs that is upon him. It's obſerved, That though Herod and others have kept a feſtival Commemoration of their birth-day, yet we never read that ever any godly man did ſo, (though Calvin ſaith, it's mos vetuſtus, and ſo not vituperabilis, becauſe of the good uſe may be made of it) in the Scripture. Indeed the day of their death hath been celebrated and called their birth-day, becauſe then, and never till then did they begin indeed to live; And if Solomon, meerly becauſe of the miſeries and vexations that do accompany this humane life, Eccleſ. 4. 2. praiſed the dead above the living, and he that never had been, that was not born, better than both: How much rather will this bold true, if we conſider, how man is born in a ſinfull eſtate, and cannot but ſinne all the day long? Certainly, we may ſay, it had been farre better thou hadſt never been born, if not new born, if not delivered from this native filthineſs, as if thou muſt have a being, better have been any bruitiſh creature than a man, better be a Toad, a Tyger, a Serpent, than a man, if not waſhed by the bloud of Chriſt from this uncleanneſs; For although we have cauſe to bleſs God that he made us men, rather than bruit beaſts, in reſpect of natural conſiderations, yet in a theological ſenſe, becauſe they are not ſubject to hell and damnation, as man is, therefore their eſtate is not ſo miſerable. For
In the third place, In that men is born unclean, thereby is proclaimed, That he cometh into the world upon farre more dangerous and wretched terms, than other creatures do. The bruit creatures they are not unclean; God doth not loath and abhorre their young ones; They are not by nature the objects of his wrath, neither are they expoſed to eternal torments, but thus is the ſinfull off-ſpring of all mankind; Thou canſt not ſee a worm crawling on the ground, thou canſt not hear a ſnake hiſſing in the hedge, but thou mayeſt think theſe are not as bad as I am, theſe have no ſinne in their natures, God is not angry with theſe, as he is with mankind: For though Hiſtory report of a devout man, who ſeeing a Toad fell a weeping, becauſe of the goodneſs of God, who had made him a man, and not that Toad, yet upon the conſideration of original ſinne, he might as deeply have mourned, becauſe he was worſe, than that Toad. Thou canſt not ſee the fatted beaſts driven to the ſlaughter, but thou mayeſt ſay, They are happier than I am, for they are killed, and there is an end of them, but I am a miſerable and wretched man, born in ſinne, and if not cleanſed from it, muſt neceſſarily periſh to all eternity. Luther, while in the deeps, troubles and ſorrows of heart, becauſe of his ſinne, had this paſſage, Oh quoties optavi me uunquam fuiſſe hominem! He went from place to place, his heart aking and throbbing, crying out, Oh that I had never been a man! So that by ſinne a man is not onelyonly made like the beaſt that periſheth, but worſe, for the beaſt periſheth totally, but ſo ſhall not he.
Fourthly, In our natural uncleanneſs is declared our manifeſt ſimilitude and agreement with the Devils themſelves, that we and they are now under the ſame conſideration, for man is naturally unclean, and the Devils have this appropriated attribute all along the New Teſtament for the moſt part, that they are the unclean ſpirits. The Devil is an unclean ſpirit, and man is unclean in body and ſpirit; Hence becauſe of this natural pollution, we are all by nature the ſeed of the Serpent; The Devils is ſaid to rule in us, and we are therefore under his Kingdom, for being not born in a ſtate of grace, but of ſinne, we are therefore under his dominion; and upon this ſuppoſition even in Auſtin's time there were exorciſms uſed at the Baptiſm of Infants, which was not a Scripture inſtitution, no more than giving honey and milk to the baptized child, which was very ancient, and yet now laid aſide even by the Roman Church it ſelf, that amongſt other Rites in Baptiſm, they had this of exorciſmes and inſufflation, by which they ſignified, not that the child was poſſeſſed bodily with the Devil, but that it was under the power of him. This Auſtin inſtanceth in, to Julian the Pelagian, where he tels him, Ipſe à toto orbe exufflandus eſſet, ſi huic exufflationi qua princeps mundi ejicitur for as contradicere voluiſt is; I mention not this to allow or commend that Ceremony, for it was an abſurd one, though brought into the Church …etimes, for it had been happy, if the Church alwayes had contented her ſelf, with the pure, plain and ſole inſtitutions of Chriſt, but to inform you, what even the ancient Church thought about Infants new born, that they were wholly under the power of the Devils. Yea the Heathens had ſome kind of confuſed knowledge about this (as in time may be ſhewed) for they had a cuſtom with them of expiating and cleanſing of their Infants, as being unclean.
Fifthly, This expreſſion of uncleanneſs, doth denote our unfitneſs and unworthineſs to come into Gods preſence, or to perform any holy duty, no more than a perſon full of his vomit or loathſomneſs, or a man with the noiſom plague fores, is fit to come into the preſence of a great King: As the legal unclean perſon, was not to come into the Temple, or to touch any holy things; And this was typified in Adam, when he was caſt out of Paradiſe, and flaming ſwords ſet to keep him out, all this denoted, That God had excommunicated Adam, and (as it were) all mankind in him, ſo that now they have no fitneſs or decency, no worth or ſuitableneſs to any holy duty. And certainly, this ſhould deeply humble us, yea at this our hearts ſhould tremble and move out of their places, to conſider, that though none need God more than we do, none have more need to pray inceſſantly to him, yet ſuch is our pollution, that we are not fit to pray, or to draw nigh to God, yea, our duties, while performed by us, in this our original condition, are a provocation to God, and they become new ſinnes; for if no clean thing can be brought out of an unclean, then no clean prayer, no clean holy duty can come from thee, who art unclean. It is true, though we are thus polluted, it is our duty to pray; by our original Apoſtaſie we are not freed from Gods commands, we are bound to pray, and to pray with as holy and heavenly frame of heart, as Adam in his integrity, but though it be our duty, yet we have loſt all power and ability: Yea, and beſides this, there is an unfitneſs and unworthineſs, even as when the frogs crept into Pharaoh's chamber: And to this Bernard a…luded, when he called himſelf, Ranuncula repens in conſpectu Dei, How dare ſuch a loathſom frog as he, creep into the preſence of ſo holy a God? Certainly, if the Angels, though without any ſuch blemiſh, yea not having the leaſt ſpot, do yet not cover their feet, but their faces, the nobleſt part (as it were) becauſe of the glorious and holy Majeſty of God, how much more muſt ſinfull and unclean man? Iſa. 6. When the Prophet had beheld God in his glory, he crieth out, though a regenerated man, Woe be unto me, for I am of pollutea lips! This made him afraid to make mention of God: How then may every natural corrupt man, cry out, Wo be to me, for I am not only a man of polluted lips, but alſo of a polluted mind and heart!
Sixthly, This title of being naturally unclean, maketh us to be in the moſt immediate … to God that can be. To ſay, Man that is born of woman had been miſerable, frail, ſubject to dangers and outward evils, would not have denoted any immediate oppoſition to God, but calling him unclean and unholy; This ſheweth, that we are by nature in direct contrariety to what he is, for he is by nature pure and holy, yea it is that glorious Attribute which makes all others glorious, becauſe his Wiſdom is holy Wiſdom, becauſe his Power is holy Power, therefore it's admirable Wiſdom and Power; Hence thoſe Angels, Iſa. 6. of all the Attributes of God ſingle out that to celebrate, when they cry out, Holy, holy, holy; Now man is born unclean and unholy, being herein directly contrary to God: So that though man be indowed with many natural perfections, yet this original uncleanneſs defileth them all; he hath reaſon, but it's unclean reaſon; he hath an underſtanding, but it is an unclean underſtanding; he hath a will, but it's an impure and unclean will; So that of all the ſeveral Arguments, which man hath to humble him, he may chuſe out this, as the chiefeſt of all, crying out, unclean, unclean, unclean, why is it that upon the diſcovery of this contrariety to God, we do not more abhor our ſelves?
Seventhly, This attribute of uncleanneſs, proclaimeth the abſolute neceſſity of Gods grace, and of Chriſts blood, for theſe only can make us clean. Did a man truly conſider, how it is with him in regard of his birth-eſtate, he would tremble to ſtay an hour in it, he would neither eat, drink, or ſleep, till he be delivered out of it; for being wholly unclean, he can never, while ſo, enter into the kingdom of Heaven: So that as no legal uncleanneſs was removed, but with ſome ſprinkling and waſhing, much leſs can any moral uncleanneſs be waſhed away without Chriſts bloud; therefore that is ſaid, to cleanſe us from all our ſinnes, 1 Joh. 1. 7. and without ſhedding of blood there is no remiſſion of ſinne, Heb. 9. 22. Oh then this natural uncleanneſs ſhould teach us highly to eſteem Chriſts blood, for we could never weep water enough, though our heads were fountains to waſh us, nothing can get out this ſpot, but Chriſts blood! and this every Infant, though but a day old needeth; Chriſts bloud then muſt purifie us, elſe we periſh, and with this alſo there is requiſite grace, both juſtifying and ſanctifying, for theſe alſo tend to the cleanſing of us; Juſtification that is partly a cleanſing and awaſhing away of our iniquities, as God promiſeth, Zech. 13. 1. He would ſet open a fountain for ſinne and uncleanneſs; a fountain, ſo that there is plenty and fulneſs of grace to waſh away this filthineſs. Thus alſo Ezek. 36. 25. I will ſprinkle clean water upon you, and ye ſhall be clean from all your filthineſs. Beſides this, there is alſo grace ſanctifying neceſſary, and this is a formal internal cleanſing of us; ſo that becauſe of this work of grace, we are made clean, yet not ſo, but that we need ſome waſhing daily, as Joh. 13. 10. He that is waſhed, needeth not ſave to waſh his feet, for this uncleanneſs will not in this life be quite taken away, but is like that of the Leproſie, which ſtuck ſo to the wals of the houſe, that though it were ſcraped off, yet it would riſe again, and ſo could not be removed, till the very houſe was demoliſhed. Thus while death lay this houſe of clay in the grave, there will alwayes be ſome uncleanneſs adhering to thee.
Vſe. Of Inſtruction. Can none bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Then this ſheweth, That thoſe who from the youth up, have lived civil, ingenuous and chaſte lives, are not to reſt in this, for thy nature is foul and loathſom, as well as of all others, though thy life may be cleaner. The Snake hath a gliſtering skinne, though ſhe hath a poiſoned body: Thus thou haſt a defiled ſoul, an heart full of filthineſs, though thy outward converſation be unblameable. Certainly, if an Infant but a day old be thus unclean, and needeth the bloud of Chriſt to cleanſe it: Doeſt thou flatter thy ſelf with ingenuity and civility? Thou haſt not leſſe ſinnefulneſſe and guilt in thee, than a child new born, yet that is a child of wrath, till cleanſed: Oh then be … of thy condition.
SECT. V.
Objections againſt this natural Uncleanneſs, anſwered.
THe Doctrine of our natural uncleanneſs and ſinfulneſs by traduction from Adam, being eſtabliſhed out of theſe words, we come to anſwer ſome Objections; That as the ſhaking of the Tree, makes it root faſter and deeper, ſo doubts about it, when cleared, may the more confirm us.
The firſt Objection, which I ſhall bring, ſeemeth in expreſs terms to deny any ſuch uncleanneſs, at leaſt to Infants of bellevers: So that it ſhould ſeem, Becauſe believers are clean; Therefore their children are brought clean out of them. The place that gives fuel to this Argument is known, being much vexed and diſcuſſed in theſe dayes, eſpecially in the controverſie about Poedobaptiſm, it is 1 Cor. 7. 14. Elſe were your children unclean, but now are they holy; where it is poſitively ſaid, That the children, though but of one believing Parent, are not unclean, foreign, that anſwereth the Hebrew word in the Text; yea the contrary to this is affirmed, That they are holy.
I ſhall not range into all the controverſal Diſputes about this point, only in the general we may ſay, That this place doth not at all contradict my Text, for Job ſaith, That by nature none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean, but if God by grace doth it, that doth not oppoſe Job; yea, we told you, ſome render the later clauſe interrogatively; Art not thou he alone, viz. that can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Certainly, though no humane or Angelical power can thus ſanctifie, yet God can; For, what do all thoſe glorified Saints in Heaven made perfectly holy, but proclaim this, for they were once unclean, and impure, but now God hath made them fully clean without the leaſt ſpot or blemiſh? Thus there is no contrariety between theſe two Texts, for one ſpeaketh of what we are in a natural way, the other, what ſome are by a gracious and ſupernatural way.
But yet in the ſecond place, It's good to have a more thorow diſcuſſion of theſe words, though not ſo amply, as polemical Divines have enlarged it; and the rather, becauſe the Lutheran Divines do boldly and peremptorily charge it upon the Calviniſts, as if they denied original ſinne in all the children of believers; And although they cannot be ignorant in what ſenſe the Calviniſts do explain this holineſs of believers children, yet they conſtantly calumniate in this point, as if ſomething would ſtick upon them howſoever.
Therefore in the third place, there are three or four Interpretations, that are competitors about this Text.
The firſt is of thoſe, who by uncleanneſs do mean a ſpurious baſtard-brood, and by holy, a civil ſanctity, as it were, that is true and legitimate; as if the Apoſtles meaning was, in anſwering the doubt of a believer, Whether they might continue in marriage with unbelievers (for in Ezra's time, all the Jews that had ſo married, were commanded to put away their wives?) did inform them, that their marriage would be lawful, otherwiſe their children would be baſtards, but they were legitimate. Thus the Lutherans generally ſome of the Ancients are alledged alſo, and Muſculus upon ſecond thoughts cometh off to this Interpretation, confeſſing he had formerly abuſed it againſt Anabaptiſts. But this might eaſily be rejected, if it were our buſineſs in hand: For,
1. Marriage even among Heathens, is true lawfull marriage, and their children are legitimate; for although their very marriage, as all things elſe are unclean to them in a ſanctified ſenſe, becauſe they are impure, yet marriage in it ſelf is a lawfull thing to them, ſo that it is not to be judged fornication. And
2. The Apoſtles argument would not conclude, for thoſe that doubted, whether their marriage was lawful, would alſo have doubted, whether their children were legitimate, and therefore this could not be an argument to prove their marriage lawfull.
In the ſecond place, There are ſome who underſtand this holineſs of inward true inherent purity; ſo that their judgement is, that the Apoſtle ſaith, all godly parents have holy children, and if it fall out otherwiſe in ſome caſes, they ſay, it's an indefinite, not an univerſal propoſition, which if it be true, for the moſt part, it is enough; but experience ſeemeth to confute this; Neither is believer here taken ſtrictly, for one who did in a ſaving way believe, but largely for one that did profeſs faith in Chriſt, and therefore is oppoſite to an Infidel; Now all that were not Infidels, were not preſently, truly godly, though they did believe, as ſome are ſaid, Joh. 2. To whom yet Chriſt would not commit himſelf.
3. Therefore there are thoſe, who underſtand this of Heatheniſh uncleanneſs and Idolatry, and ſo they ſay, One born of believing Parents, is free from that, eſpecially, if we do regard the hopes that are in his education: Therefore ſome expound this holineſs only in reſpect of the deſigning and dedicating of ſuch unto real holineſs. Hence Eſtius he underſtands this, De filiis adultu, of children grown up; For it may be ſuppoſed, That if the unbelieving husband will not leave his wife, but abide with her, that therefore he will yeeld to her, and let her educate her children in the faith of Chriſt, and be no enemy, or oppoſet, thereunto; and 1 Pet. 1. 3. is brought to expound this place; ſo that they make this holineſs to be only quoad ſpem, and diſciplinam; For the believer may by an holy godly life, gain both the unbeliever and the children; and thus Hierom is ſaid to anſwer a Queſtion propoſed by Paulinus, concerning this place; Lapide conſents to this, and oppoſeth Calvin and Beza concerning this foederal holineſs, as alſo Tirinus on the place, becauſe the Church is not like a civil Commonwealth, but is a ſupernatural Society, ſaith Lapide; This is no Reaſon; for though it be a ſupernatural Society, yet God may give what ſpiritual priviledges he pleaſeth to them and theirs; and therefore Salmeron, he underſtands this holineſs of a Church-holineſs, that they are eſteemed children of that; And in his Comment on that place, brings that Promiſe, which the Calviniſts uſe to do, I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed.
Hence the fourth and laſt Interpretation, which is juſtly deemed moſt genuine and orthodox, is to expound this holineſs of a Covenant and foederal holineſs, of a Church-priviledge, That being born, though but of one believing parent, yet they are not unclean, as Heathens and their children, who have no right or claim to any Church-Ordinance, but are holy by the gracious favour and Covenant of God, who taketh in believers and their ſeed. When parents are taken into the Church, their children alſo, or Infants are received in with them, not that all are made internally holy, only they have a right to Church-memberſhip; and therefore the initial ſign ought not to be denied to them: So that the hope of godly education, or to be candidates of the true faith, is not enough, but both are requiſite, as Tertullian of old mentioned, both ſeminis praerogativa, and inſtitutionis diſciplina: Though therefore children of both, or one believing parent, are in this ſenſe clean and holy, yet by nature they are unclean; neither doth this external holineſs deliver them from inward contagion; Yea, ſuppoſe ſome ſhould be regenerated in the very womb, as John Baptiſt was, yet this Text holdeth true in him; for he was by nature unclean, he had not the holy Ghoſt by natural deſcenſion from his parents, for then all children ſhould be ſo ſanctified, but it was Gods grace and power that made him clean of unclean; John Baptiſt therefore was conceived in ſinne, and by nature a child of wrath, but the grace of God made him clean, yet not totally and perfectly, as if no uncleanneſs was in him; for even Job, though in ſo high a degree ſanctified, yet ſpeaks this truth in the Text, to himſelf as then, and at that time conſidered, not to what he was once before his converſion, but even in that renewed eſtate he was in, if God ſhould caſt his eyes upon him, and judge him with ſeverity, he would find much uncleanneſs adhering unto him.
The ſecond Objection is propounded by Socinus,Object. who ſaith, It cannot be conceived, that one actual tranſgreſſion of Adam ſhould infect the whole nature of man, one Act cannot contract an habit of ſinne: So then he ſaith, It's impoſſible that one ſinfull act, ſhould all ever defile Adam, and make him totally ſinfull, much leſſe that it ſhould infect the whole nature of man. And the Remonſtrants they purſue this Argument, If (ſay they, Apolog, pro Confeſſione exam. Cenſ. cap. 7. pag. 85.) that one act of ſinne did expel all grave in Adam, then it did it, either quatenus peccatum, as it was a ſinne, and if ſo, then every little ſinne the godly man commits, much more groſſe ſinnes would caſt him out of all grace, would root out the ſeed of God in him, which yet (ſay they) the Calviniſts will in no wiſe endure; Or it cometh ſo from ſome peculiar ordination, and divine appointment of God; If ſo, they bid us, bring out that order, and manifeſt ſuch an appointment, that one ſinne onelyonly ſhould deprive a man of the whole Image of God, when now one ſinne doth not, or cannot extirpate the habit of grace; but every godly man hath ſinne and grace alſo in him.
To this many things are to be anſwered:Anſw.
Firſt, That it is a vain and an abſurd thing to give leave to our humane reaſonings, that ſuch a thing cannot be, when the event diſcovers it is ſo. It is plain, That upon Adam's actual tranſgreſſion he was deprived of the Image of God he was created in. Adam therefore having loſt that ſpiritual and ſupernatural life, we need not curiouſly diſpute, how one ſtab, as it were of ſin could kill him; Certainly, even the leaſt ſin is preſent poiſon, and would kill immediately, if Gods grace did not prevent.
Secondly, That one ſinne may ſuddenly deprive the ſubject of all Grace it hath, appeareth plainly in thoſe Apoſtate Angels, Did not the firſt ſinne? which was in them a thought or an act of the will, (what it was it is diſputed) Did not that immediately throw them out of their divine and bleſſed Habitations? And by that one and firſt ſinne, was not a glorious Angel made immediately a black Devil? It is true indeed, We cannot ſay the Devils have original ſinne, In this ſenſe, As if becauſe when the firſt Angel ſinned, all the reſt ſinned in him, as if all their wils were bound up in him; No, They all ſtood upon their own bottom, they all ſinned perſonally and voluntarily by their own actual tranſgreſſion, though happily it might be by imitation and conſent to him that firſt ſinned; yet for all this, we ſee plainly, that in every Apoſtate Angel, one ſinne was enough to deprive him of all the good he had, and to fill him with ſuch inveterate enmity to all goodneſs, That the Devil, though of ſuch natural light in his conſcience, yet is not able to do one good work, or have the leaſt holy thought.
Thirdly, Sinne doth expel grace, both formally, or (as ſome call it) efficiently and meritoriouſly alſo; it expels it formally, as darkneſs doth light, as diſeaſes do ſickneſs, or death, life, and meritoriouſly deſerving, that God ſhould deprive us of all holineſs, and deny any further grace to us. The Remonſtrants they call this folly and abſurdity, to ſay, Sinne expels grace actually and meritoriouſly alſo; For if it do actually, what need is there of meritoriouſly? If a man actually put out his eyes, it's abſurd to ſay, he deſerveth by that to have them put out; Or if a man wilfully throw away his garments, making himſelf naked, that he deſerveth to be naked. But theſe inſtances do no wayes enervate this Truth; for in that ſinne doth thus actually and meritoriouſly alſo deprive us of grace, we ſee the hainouſneſs of it; one ſheweth, how ſinne is in it's own ſelf like poiſon that preſently kils, and the other, how odious it is to God, that if it did not of it ſelf deprive us of ſpiritual life, yet it doth ſo provoke God, that becauſe of it, God would not continue his daily grace to us. Beſides, though ſinne doth formally expel the grace that is inherent in us, yet Gods grace without us, his preventing cooperating and continuing grace, without which we could not abide a moment in the ſtate of grace, that it chaſeth away meritoriouſly only; So that Adam in his firſt ſinne did both chaſe away the Image of God in him, and deſerve, that God ſhould withdraw his aſſiſting and preſerving grace, without which he could not have continued in his good eſtate; yea, ſinne doth ſo meritoriouſly expel grace, that could Adam by his own power, have immediately recovered himſelf, and inſtated himſelf into the condition he was in, yet he deſerved for that former tranſgreſſion, that God ſhould have outed him of all: As they ſay, A man that hangeth himſelf, if it were poſſible … to live preſently again, the Law would adjudge him to death, for … of himſelf.
Therefore in the laſt place, you ſee, why every ſinne in a godly man, no, … it be a groſs ſinne, doth not immediately deprive him of all grace, as we ſee it did in Adam, and the Apoſtate Angels: Not that ſinne in it ſelf would not do ſo in them, as well as in thoſe, but becauſe God entred into a gracious Covenant and Promiſe with every believer through Chriſt, to perpetuate his intereſt and union with him; ſo that if he fall, he ſhall have grace to recover himſelf, neither will every ſpark of grace within him be ſuffered wholly to be extinguiſhed, although in Adam there was a peculiar reaſon, why his ſinne did infect all mankind, becauſe (as Aquinas ſaith well) Adam in quantum fuit principium … naturae habuit rationem cauſae univerſalis ex Adam, in that he was the … of mankind, was a kind of univerſal cauſe, and ſo by his corrupt act, all mankind was corrupted.
Vſe Of Inſtruction, That nothing more is requiſite on our part to be partaker of Adam's ſinne, and to be made unclean, but natural generation and deſcent from Adam; It's true, there is on Gods part alſo a Covenant, and his imputation, otherwiſe Adam's ſinne would not have been ours, no more than other parents; but on our parts, there is no other way of conveying it, but by natural deſcent from him, whereas to be in Chriſt, and to partake of his divine benefit, there is required a ſupernatural work upon us, a ſpiritual inſition, and incorporation of us into Chriſt, but to be a ſinner in Adam, our very being born in a natural way, before we are able to know, or will any thing, or to diſcern the right hand from the left, is enough to intitle us to it: Oh then with what ſhame, ſorrow and holy confuſion of face, ſhould we think of this our natural uncleanneſs! How vile and loathſom ſhould we be in our eyes? Oh the diſtance and contrariety that is between ſo holy and pure a God, and thou an impure and unclean wretch? If our righteouſneſſes are menſtruous rags, how abominable then is our real iniquity?