A Treatise of Original Sin, Part 1 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
Objections Anſwered.
SECT. I.
I Am only demonſtrating, that it is ſin, and not what it is; Therefore I proceed no further in the poſitive Explication of it, but come to anſwer thoſe Objections, that are made by all ſorts of perſons againſt this ſinne, whether Pelagians, ſome Papiſts, Arminians or Socinians; And when theſe Clouds are diſpelled, the light of the Truth will ſhine more evidently. And
Firſt, That which is a famous and obvious Objection, owned by all the Adverſaries to this Doctrine, is, The neceſſarineſs and involuntarineſs of it.
Object. Every ſinne (ſay they) muſt be voluntary; This is a principle ingraffed, as they conceive, in the conſcience of a man: No man is to be faulted, or blamed for that which is not in his power to prevent; And they preſs that known Rule of Auſtins, Vſque adeo voluntarium peccatum eſt malum, quod non ſit peccatum, niſi voluntarium, If it be not voluntary, it cannot be any ſinne at all. Now (ſay they) this original ſinne comes upon us by natural neceſſity, it lieth no more in our power to prevent it, then to hinder our being born; Shall then we conceive God willing to damn a man, eſpecially an Infant, for that ſinne which never was in his power, or his will to do? This they think cannot be admitted. Therefore though ſome of them grant, Adam's actual ſinne may be made ours, becauſe our will is interpretatively in his, yet not this inherent corruption, becauſe this is a particular perſonal ſinne, and ſo requireth a perſonal actual will to make it a ſinne. And this ſeemeth to have ſome plauſible colour, while we attend only to principles of humane Reaſon, and Arguments of Philoſophy: But let us ſee, whether it will not be too light, if weighed in the balance of the Sanctuary. And
Anſw. 1. We muſt underſtand in what ſenſe any ſinne at all can be called voluntary, and that is, not as if any man could will ſinne, no not he that ſinneth maliciouſly, as it is ſin. This is granted by all moral Philoſophers, That no man willeth ſin, as it is ſin, becauſe bonum, either real or appearing ſo, is the adequate object of the will: As in the underſtanding, that cannot aſſent to any thing that is apparently falſe; ſo neither doth the will chooſe any thing that is manifeſted to be evil, as evil, but when it imbraceth any ſine, there is ſome deceivable good or other, which deceiveth the ſoul. Thus Adam when he tranſgreſſed the command of God, he did not will this as a ſinne, nor did he poſitively intend the damnation of his poſterity (For we ſuppoſe that he knew himſelf to be a common Parent, and that he received a common ſtock for all mankind) But he willed that action, to which ſinne was annexed; And thus no wicked man, when he ſinneth, doth will the damnation of his ſoul formally, but conſequentially by willing that to which this guilt doth belong.
Secondly, Although it be granted, That every ſinne muſt be voluntary, yet (as Auſtin of old anſwered) this ſinne may be called voluntary, as it is in Infants, becauſe their will is interpretatively in Adam, and we therefore are all ſaid to ſinne in him: Adam's will may be ſaid to be our will two wayes:
1. By way of delegation, as if we had choſen him to be our common parent, and had tranſlated our wils over to him, as amongſt men, it is uſual in arbitrations, and then they are ſaid to will, that which their Arbitrator hath done, though it may be they diſlike it, and in this ſenſe, Adam's will is not our will, for we had no actual being or exiſtence in him. Hence
2. Adam's will may be ſaid to be ours interpretatively, God appointing him to be the univerſal principle of mankind; what he did is interpreted, as if we had done it, and the equity of making Adam's will ours, ariſeth from the inſtituting will and Covenant of God, that would have it ſo: But more eſpecially, becauſe God then dealt with Adam in a Covenant of works, which if broken and violated, carrieth condemnation to all his off-ſpring, as appeareth by the curſes threatned in the Law. This original ſinne then is voluntary, becauſe committed by Adam's will, which by Gods imputation is made ours; ſo that as in Adam upon his actual diſobedience, the Image of God was loſt, and in ſtead thereof came an univerſal pollution of his whole man; which was in him truly and properly a ſinne; So it is in every Infant deſcended from him.
Thirdly, If it be granted, That every ſinne muſt be voluntary, yet this alſo will hold good in Infants ſinne; for a thing may be ſaid to be voluntarium in cauſa, but involuntarium in ſe. With moral Philoſophers, all habits of ſinne are involuntary in themſelves, but voluntary in their cauſe; thoſe actions that did produce them; And thus is original ſin inherent in mankind, it is voluntary in its cauſe, which was Adam's ſin.
Fourthly, Auſtin himſelf, who urgeth voluntarineſs in ſinne, yet afterwards conſidering how the Pelagians made uſe of it, he anſwereth, That this is to be underſtood of actual ſinne, not original ſinne; Every actual ſinne muſt be voluntary, it's not neceſſary original ſinne ſhould be perſonally and formally ſo: Again, he limits that Rule to ſuch ſins as are meerly ſins, not puniſhments alſo, but original ſin is both a ſin and puniſhment.
Laſtly, He grants this to be true amongſt the Laws of men, and therefore cals it politica ſententia; And no wonder if Philoſophers required a formal will in every ſin, elſe not to make it imputable, becauſe they were wholly ignorant of this Truth.
But in the laſt place, our Divines do deny that voluntarineſs is requiſite to every actual ſinne; for there are ſinnes of ignorance for which Sacrifices were to be offered; And David prayeth to be cleanſed from ſecret ſins, which he did not know, and if ſo, they muſt be involuntary; yea, Paul expreſly cals that a ſin, Rom. 7. which yet was againſt his will, although it may be granted, that even in theſe there is ſome kind of voluntarines; For a thing may be voluntary either in its cauſe, or in it ſelf, or abſolutely involuntary, but comparatively voluntary, as when we do things for fear, or there may be a mixture of voluntarines and involuntarines, which Paul ſeemeth to acknowledge in himſelf, yet ſtill the proper notion of a ſinne lieth in the contrariety of it to the Law of God: Therefore John defineth ſinne by that, whether it be voluntary or not, he doth not take notice of. This is acknowledged by ſome Scholaſtical Writers, eſpecially Holkot (De imputabilitate peccati) anſwereth this Objection fully to our purpoſe, where he poſitively affirmeth, That ſinne is not therefore imputable unto us, becauſe it was in the power of the will, but as righteouſneſs is therefore praiſe-worthy, becauſe it is righteouſneſs, ſo unrighteouſneſs is therefore culpable, and damnable, becauſe it is unrighteouſneſs (that is, if I may interpret him) becauſe it's againſt a Law. Hence he proceedeth to ſhew, That a thing is not righteous or vnrighteous meerly becauſe it was in the power of the will, for the will of a child would have been made righteous by God, ſine proprie motu, without any proper motion of the childs will; And then why may it not as well be ſinfull without any ſuch voluntary motion in an Infant? So that he concludeth, It's as proper to original ſinne to be naturally contracte… or derived from another, without any proper act of the will, as it is to an actual ſinne, to have the will one way or other conſenting to it: Even as in the ſtate of integrity, original righteouſneſs in Infants would have been propagated, but actuall Righteouſneſs voluntarily performed. And theſe things may ſatisfie this firſt Objection, yet hereafter we ſhall ſpeak more to this.
SECT. II.
THe ſecond Objection is in effect to this ſenſe, What is a puniſhment cannot be a ſinne: But the deprivation of Gods Image in man upon Adam's diſobedience is a puniſhment; And therefore it cannot be a ſinne. Original ſinne, if not totally, yet principally conſiſts in the loſſe of that original Righteouſneſſe and rectitude, which God made man in: Seeing therefore the privation of this came upon man by way of puniſhment, when Adam tranſgreſſed; We cannot conceive it (ſay they) to be a ſinne alſo, for a puniſhment and a ſinne, are wholly contradictory; a ſinne muſt be voluntary, a puniſhment involuntary, a ſinne is an action, and a puniſhment is a paſſion; a ſinne is an evil, and God cannot be the author of it; a puniſhment is good, and an act of Juſtice; ſo that God cannot be ſaid to permit that, but to inflict it.
This Argument (at the firſt view) hath likewiſe ſome colour, but upon the examination of it, it will quickly vaniſh: I ſhall not anſwer in a large diſpute about that famous Queſtion, Whether the ſame thing may be a ſin and a puniſhment? Or, whether God doth puniſh one ſin with another, but ſhall ſpeak as much, briefly, as is convenient for this Objection. And
Firſt, You muſt know that Arminius began to diſlike this Doctrine of original ſinne (Reſponſ. ad Artic. 31.) which was mentioned in their publique Catechiſm, upon this very reaſon, becauſe it was a puniſhment; and he gave this Reaſon to the Miniſter then conferring with him, Becauſe if God did puniſh Adam's ſinne with this ſinne, then he muſt puniſh this with another, and that other with another, and ſo there muſt be a proceſſus in infinitum. But his followers the Remonſtrants (in their Apology for their Confeſſion contra Cenſuram) ſeem to diſclaim this opinion, That our original corruption is either malum culpae, or poenae, properly ſo called, Becauſe where there is an evil of puniſhment, it muſt be for ſome ſinne: But Infants have committed no voluntary ſinne, and therefore could not deſerve ſuch a puniſhment. So that they profeſs themſelves to be of Zuinglius his mind, whether he retracted it, or not afterwards they are not certain, viz. That it is a morbus, a vitium, a languor, an imbecillity of nature, but neither the evil of ſinne or puniſhment. Some Papiſts as Pighius, Catharinus, Mayro, and ſome Scotiſts hold, That native pollution to be no ſinne, becauſe it's a puniſhment, and that for Adam's ſinne imputed to all, concluding on this, That it cannot be a ſinne, becauſe it's a puniſhment. The Socinians they ſay, The neceſſity of dying with other puniſhments, is the puniſhment of Adam's ſinne; and therefore that repugnancy and contrariety which is between the fleſh and the Spirit, is from our very Creation; The ſenſitive appetite rebels againſt the rational, from the very firſt Creation of man, and would have been whether Adam had ſinned or no; yea, it was from this vehement oppoſition of the appetite to reaſon, that he did ſin.
I ſhall conſider the ſtrength of their Objection, as it lieth in this, The ſame thing cannot be a ſin and a puniſhment too. The Remonſtrants affirm this, and Papiſts likewiſe, but with ſome explication. And
1. It is confeſſed, That there are ſome puniſhments of ſinne, which are not ſinne, as when God for Adam's diſobedience hath made man obnoxious to miſeries, to ſickneſs and death; Theſe are not ſinnes; It comes from ſinne to have pain, and to die, but they are not ſinnes; and the Reaſon is, Becauſe theſe are malum naturale, not morale, they are a natural evil, not a moral.
In the ſecond place, Auſtin ſaith, and he ſaith it truly from Scripture, That original inherent ſinne, which he calleth concupiſcence, is both a ſinne, a puniſhment of ſinne, and a cauſe of ſin; Even as blindneſs of mind, or hardneſs of heart, is both a ſinne, a puniſhment, and a cauſe of further ſinne, (Lib. 5. contra Juhan. cap. 3.) That it is a ſinne appeareth by the many Texts already brought: And Auſtin's Reaſon in that place is very cogent, Quia ineſt illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis; There is in it a diſobedience againſt the dominion of mind and ſpirit, therefore the Spirit luſteth againſt it. That it is a puniſhment is manifeſt by the event, for upon Adam's diſobedience he loſt Gods Image, and ſo hath blindneſs in mind, perverſneſs in his will, and a diſorder over the whole man, in which dreadfull and horrible eſtate we all ſucceed him: and this the Text in hand ſpeaketh to. That it is the cauſe of ſinne is manifeſt, Gen. 6. 5. for from that corrupt heart of man, it is, That the imaginations of a mans heart are only evil, and that continually. This is a furnace red hot, which alwayes ſends forth thoſe ſparks. Thus you ſee that original ſinne is all theſe three, a ſin, a puniſhment, and a cauſe of ſin.
3. It is very clear and plain by Scripture, that God doth puniſh one ſinne by another; So that when a man hath committed one ſinne, he is juſtly given up by God to commit more. Amongſt the many inſtances that may be given, I ſhall pitch on two only, 2 Theſſ. 2. 10, 11. where you have a ſinne mentioned that God will puniſh, viz. They received not the truth of God in love: A ſinne that is very ordinary: But then obſerve how dreadfully God puniſheth this, God ſhall ſend them ſtrong deluſions, that they ſhould believe a lie; This is their puniſhment; a ſpiritual puniſhment, more than any corporal one; and that this is a ſinne, as well as a puniſhment, is plain, Becauſe to believe a lie is a ſinne, to take falſhood for truth, the deluſions of the Devil, for the voice of Gods Spirit; This is a ſinne and a very hainous one. The other inſtance is Rom. 1. 21. where you have the Heathens ſinnes mentioned, Becauſe that when they knew God, they glorified him not. &c. There you have their puniſhment, to be given up to uncleanneſs, to all vile luſts and ſins againſt nature. None can deny but theſe were ſinnes, and that they were a puniſhment for corrupting their natural light implanted in them, is plain, for the Apoſtle, verſ. 24, 26, 28. ſaith, For this cauſe, or therefore God gave them up to theſe luſts, and verſ 27. the expreſſion is obſervable, That they received in themſelves that recompence of their error which was meet. Hearken to this with both ears, and tremble all you who live under Goſpel light, if natural light corrupted bring ſuch heavy ſoul-judgments, no wonder, if ſupernatural; And therefore if you ſee men, notwithſtanding all the preaching of Gods word, yet given up to be beaſtly ſots, or obſtinate malicious men in their wickedneſs; Wonder not at it, for they receive in themſelves a juſt recompence for the abuſing of that light God hath vouchſafed to them. Many other inſtances there are, wherein it is plain, That God makes one ſinne a puniſhment of another; Yea, it's ſaid, That every ſinne ſince the firſt, is both a ſinne and a puniſhment; Therefore the want of Gods Imagine us, as ſoon as we are born, with a proneneſs to all evil may be the puniſhment of Adam's actual diſobedience, and yet a ſinne in us.
4. As for the diſtinction aſſigned between ſinne and puniſhment, the one voluntary, and an action, the other involuntary and a paſſion. Though there be learned men, both Papiſts and Proteſtants, viz. Vaſquez and Twiſſe, who diſprove this by inſtances, yet (if it be granted) it will not hinder or enervate our Poſition, That original inherent ſinne is both a ſinne, and a puniſhment alſo; For when the learned ſay, That ſinne may be a puniſhment of a ſinne, they do not mean ſin, quâ ſinne, peccatum, quâ peccatum, for that is, wholly of man, but peccatum quâ poena, as a judgment it is of God.
To underſtand this therefore, take notice, That in ſinne there is the Obliquity, and the Action to which this Obliquity is annexed; Now ſinne in the Obliquity of it, ſo it is not a puniſhment, but in the action or materiale of it, to which it doth adhere: As for inſtance, Thoſe vile and unclean luſts the Heathens were given up unto, were a puniſhment of their rebellion unto the light; Now as they were ſinnes in their formality, ſo they were onelyonly permiſſivè and ordinativè of God; but take the Actions ſubſtracted to that Obliquity, which was in them, ſo they were efficienter of God, and he gave them up to their luſts.
2. When God doth puniſh one ſinne with another, the meaning is not, as if he did infuſe this wickedneſs, but only he denieth that mollifying and ſoftning grace, which if a man had, he would reſiſt the temptations of ſinne, as in this particular of original ſinne; You muſt not conceive of God, in the Creation of the ſoul, as if a man were pouring poiſon in a veſſel, ſo he did put ſinne into our natures, but he denieth to give and continue that Righteouſneſs Adam had, and then our ſouls do neceſſarily receive the clean contrary, darkneſs for light, Atheiſm for faith, diſorder for order: Even as if God ſhould withdraw the Sunne at noon-day, continue the light thereof no longer to us, it would upon that ſubduction be immediately dark, there needed no other cauſe to introduce it: Thus it is here upon Adam's fall, God denying to continue his Image, and original righteouſneſs in us, original ſinne without any other poſitive cauſe cometh in the ſtead thereof; and therefore we are not, as Auſtin of old well obſerved, to ſeek after the cauſa efficiens, but deficiens peccati, ſin hath no efficient, but deficient cauſe.
Therefore thirdly, In this original ſinne we may conſider that which is peccatum, and ſo it's evil, and that which is poena, and ſo it's good; For as you lookon it, being the deprivation of that rectitude which ought to be in a man, ſo it is a ſinne; but as you conſider it to be the denying of that holineſs on Gods part, which once we had, ſo it's poena, or rather punitio; The denying of this Image o… God at firſt was punitio, but this loſs continued is poena; ſo that the want and loſs of that righteouſneſs which once we enjoyed, if conſidered on Gods part, who continueth his denial of it, is a juſt puniſhment, and a good thing ordained by God; but if you conſider it as inherent in man, who hath deſerved this at Gods hand, ſo it's an evil, and properly a ſin in him.
4. The ſame thing may be a ſinne and a puniſhment alſo, in divers reſpects, As it may be a ſinne in reſpect of a ſinner, but a puniſhment in reſpect of others. Thus Abſolom's ſinne was a ſinne in reſpect of himſelf, but a puniſhment in reſpect of David; So Parents ſinnes may be ſinnes in reſpect of themſelves, but puniſhments in reſpect of their children; and we are eſpecially to take heed of ſuch ſinnes, as are not our ſinnes onelyonly, but others puniſhments, ſuch are paſſions and unmortified anger, this is a ſinne to thee, and a puniſhment to others.
5. Every ſinne is a puniſhment, in this reſpect, That it brings anxiety, terror, and fear with it, a guilt of conſcience is contracted upon every ſinne. Thus ſome expound that known ſaying of Auſtin, Juſſiſti Domine, & ſic eſt, ut omnis animus inordinatus ſit ſibi ipſi poena; O Lord, thou haſt ſo commanded, and thus it is, that a ſoul immoderate any way, ſhould be a puniſhment to it ſelf. Thus, as the moral Philoſophers ſay, Virtus eſt ſibiipſi praemium, ſo peccatum eſt ſibiipſi poena, Virtue is a reward to it ſelf, becauſe it brings ſweetneſs and comfort of conſcience, ſo a ſinne is a puniſhment to it ſelf, becauſe it brings terror and fear with it.
Laſtly, The ſame thing may be both a ſinne and a puniſhment, both poena damni, and poena ſenſus, a puniſhment of loſs, and ſo every ſinne, in that it is a ſin, depriveth the ſoul of that ſpiritual good and glory which it ought to have, and ſo is a kind of diſeaſe or death it ſelf; and then in ſome ſins they are a puniſhment of ſenſe, as in envy and anger. Thus when Ahitophel and Judas hanged themſelves, their ſelf-murder was both a ſinne and a puniſhment of loſs, and ſenſe alſo.
SECT. III.
IN the third place it is objected, Object.If original inherent ſinne be made a diſtinct ſin from Adam's imputed ſinne, we do needleſly make two guilts, and ſo multiply ſins without neceſſity, for all the guilt that is in Adam's ſinne imputed, the corruption of Nature which floweth immediately from it, doth not make a new ſin, but makes the former more hainous: As if (ſay they) a man ſhould by ſome ſin loſe his eyes, that act whereby he put out his eyes was a ſinne, but then it's not a new diſtinct ſin in him, to be without eyes: Or if a Commander, who had a Caſtle to keep, upon which depended the good of a Town adjacent, if he prove perſidious, and give it up to the enemy, his perfidious act at firſt is all the ſinne, if the Town adjacent have much miſery thereby, it is an aggravation of his ſin, but it doth not make him guilty of two ſins.
This hath made ſome think,Anſw. That our original pollution, as diſtinct from Adam's ſinne imputed, is not a ſinne; and that whenſoever the Fathers call it a ſinne, they underſtand it, as connexed with Adam's ſinne. Thus the learned Voſſius in his Pelagian Hiſtory. But the truth no doubt is on their ſide, who hold a twofold diſtinct guilt, That Adams ſinne imputed to us, and that inherent are two diſtinct ſins, though one doth neceſſarily imply an order to another, and the later is alwayes to be looked upon, as a relative to the former. Neither doth that ſimilitude of a man wilfully putting his eyes out, make to this purpoſe: For when a man hath loſt his eyes, there is a natural impotency ever to have them again; Neither is there any obligation, or Law binding him thereunto: But beſides the guilt of imputed ſinne, we are bound to have that inherent rectitude we once loſt, and therefore being defective in that we ought to have, it's truly a ſinne. The loſs of a mans eyes is malum naturale, this is morale; And thus Ariſtotle determined that a drunken man, who committed any ſin worthy of puniſhment, was to be twice puniſhed both for his drunkenneſs, and the other ſinne committed. Thus Rivet alſo in the matter of Lot's Inceſt, which he committed while he was ſo drunk, that he could not tell what he did, inclineth to their opinion, who ſay, That Lot's Inceſt was not only a puniſhment of his drunkenneſs, and ſo an aggravation of his ſinne, but truly and properly Inceſt; ſo that he had two ſins, and was twice guilty. Some learned men do determine, That if a man commit ſuch a ſin, upon which other ſins do uſually follow, though while they do them, they cannot avoid them, not knowing what they do, yet thoſe ſubſequent ſins are to be charged upon them, beſides the firſt that was the cauſe of all; as murder is to be charged, as a diſtinct ſin upon a drunkard, though happily in his drunkenneſs he knew not that he committed ſuch a ſin.
SECT. IV.
ARe we all guilty of ſinne as ſoon as we are born? This ſhould teach us Humiliation and Patience under the death or miſeries of our Infants; we are ready to ſay, Why are ſuch poor Innocents expoſed to ſuch calamities? The knowledge of original ſinne will ſtop thy mouth herein. When Titus the Emperour was dying, who for his good and ſweet Government was called Deliciae generis humani, he quarrelled with the gods, becauſe he thought they did eripere vitam immerenti, he deſerved not to die, he thought death was a wrong to him; but had he underſtood original ſinne, he would have ſeen his deſert of it, though he had never committed any actual impiety. Pliny likewiſe if he had known this, would not have uttered that fooliſh complaint, That homo was animal infaeliciter natum, which did cum ſuppliciis vitam auspicari, unam tantum ob culpam, quia natum eſt, that did begin his life with miſeries, and puniſh us for this fault only becauſe he was born; No, The Scripture would have informed him, it was, becauſe he was born in ſinne. This is the riſe and ſpring of all mans calamity.
SECT. V.
I Shall at this time conclude this famous and noble Text, wherein we have the Doctrine of original ſinne ſo evidently aſſerted, notwithſtanding all the fogs and miſts that ſome have indeavoured to bring upon it. The remaining work is to diſſolve ſome further Objections, that are laid in the way as ſtumblingblocks, which, when removed, we ſhall proceed to the practical improvement of it.
In the next place therefore, Object.this is thought a powerfull weapon againſt this Truth, viz. It cannot be truly and properly a ſinne, becauſe it is not againſt any Law. The Apoſtle makes contrariety to the Law, to be of the eſſence of ſinne: If therefore Infants new-born, or before they are born, are not under a Law, then they are not capable of any ſinne; and truly it hath a ſeeming abſurdity to ſay, Infants are commanded by Gods Law, to be born without ſinne, ſeeing that is no more in their power than to be born. This conſideration did preſs that learned Divine Molinaus (Enodatio graviſſ. Quaeſt. de peccato origin. pag. 130.) to acknowledge, That no ſuch Law was upon Infants, and therefore he ſaith, That the Law doth condemn original ſinne, but not prohibit it. But this ſeemeth very ſtrange, For how can the Law condemn a thing, but becauſe it is againſt it? And how can it be againſt it, but becauſe it doth prohibit? If therefore the meaning of that learned man be, that original ſinne is not immediately and proximely forbidden, that is readily granted, for ſo only actual ſins are, but mediately and remotely, both the habits of ſinne, and original, muſt neceſſarily be prohibited, if they be condemned. The learned Voſſius alſo affirmeth, That original ſinne is not forbidden by the moral Law, though he confeſſeth it is by the natural Law, which was at firſt in the Creation of man, but that primordial and original Law is the ſame for ſubſtance with the moral, though differing in ſome reſpects.
To the Argument therefore we ſay,
Firſt,Anſw. That as this original ſinne is voluntary, voluntate cauſae, which was Adam's will, ſo it is alſo againſt a Law which was enjoyned Adam; For although Adam had not a Law upon him in reſpect of the beginning or original of the righteouſneſs he had, he being created in that, and ſo was not capable of any Law, yet in reſpect of the preſervation and continuation of this for himſelf and his poſterity, ſo he had a Law impoſed on him, and therefore violating of that Law, we in him alſo did violate it: You ſee then this original ſin is a tranſgreſſion of that Law which Adam was under, viz. the continuation of the righteouſneſs he was created in, both for himſelf and his poſterity.
Secondly, Even by the moral Law, or the Decalogue, this original corruption is forbidden. The Apoſtle Rom. 7. ſheweth, That he had not known luſt to be a ſinne, had not the Law ſaid, Theu ſhalt not luſt: So that as the Law forbiddeth actual luſting, thus it doth alſo the principle and root of it; for the Law is ſpiritual and in its obligation reacheth to the fountain, and root of all ſin, it doth not only prohibit the ſinfull motions of thy ſoul, but the cauſe of all theſe: Even as when it commands any holy duty, to love God; for inſtance, it requireth that inward ſanctification of the whole man, whereby he is inabled to love God upon right and induring grounds, otherwiſe if this were not ſo, the habits of ſinne would not be againſt Gods Law, nor the habits of Grace required by it, as therefore it was with Adam his actual tranſgreſſion, was directly and immediately forbidden by the Law of God; but that habital depravation of the whole man, which came thereupon, was forbidden remotely and by conſequence: Thus it is with that native contagion we are born in, and this ſhould teach us in every ſin we commit, to think the Law doth not forbid and condemn this actual ſin only, but the very inward principle of it; ſay to thy ſelf, Alas I ſhould not only be without ſuch vain thoughts, ſuch vain affections, but without an inclination thereunto; Therefore mark the Apoſtle reaſoning, Epheſ. 4. 22, 24, 25. When he had exhorted them to put off the old man, that is original ſinne, and to put on the new man, which is the Image of God, immediately oppoſing that; See what he inferreth thereupon, Wherefore put away lying, they muſt leave that actual ſinne, becauſe they have in meaſure ſubdued original ſinne. Thus it holds in all other ſins, put away pride, earthlineſs, prophaneneſs, becauſe the old man is firſt put away in ſome degrees, But oh how little do men attend to this? They think of their actual ſins, they ſay, This, I have done, is againſt Gods Law, but go no deeper, they do not further conſider, but God forbids and layeth his axe to the root, as well as the branches & the fruit.
Thirdly, A ſinne doth not therefore ceaſe to be a ſin, becauſe the Law doth not now forbid it, it was enough, if it were once forbidden, and contrary to Gods Law, otherwiſe we might ſay, That all ſins which are paſt, are no ſins; for the Law doth not require, that what hath been done, ſhould be undone again, or not to be done, for that is impoſſible ex natura rei; If therefore ever original ſinne hath been under a Law prohibitive of it, that is enough to make it a ſin, though now it cannot be helped. Hence Almain the Schoolman hath a diſtinction of Debitum praecepti, and Debitum ſtatuti (which other Schoolmen alſo mention) now they apply it thus, To be born without ſin, is not (ſay they) Debitum praecepti, it doth not become due by any precept or command, but it is Debitum ſtatuti, that is, God had firſt appointed ſuch an order, that whoſoever ſhould come of Adam, ſhould be born in that righteouſneſs, which Adam was created in, and was to preſerve for himſelf and his poſterity; ſo that though there be no direct Praeceptum divinum, yet (they ſay) there is Ordinatio divina, that we ſhould have been born without ſinne. Although we need not runne to this, becauſe it is now againſt the moral Law of God, as you heard proved.
SECT. VI.
ANother Objection is from the Juſtice, Object.Equity and Righteouſneſs of God, as alſo his Mercy and Goodneſs; How can it be thought conſonant to any of theſe attributes, that we ſhould be involved in guilt and ſinne, becauſe of anothers eſpecially they urge that Ezek. 18. 18, 19. where God ſaith, The child ſhall not bear the ſins of his father, and the Lord doth it to ſtop their prophane ca…il againſt his wayes, as if they were not equal, becauſe the fathers did eat ſour grapes, and the childrens teeth were ſet on edge. The Remonſtrants are ſo confident, that in their Apology, cap. 7. they ſay, Neither Scripture, nor Gods Truth, nor his Juſtice, nor his Mercy and Equity, nor the Nature of ſinne will permit this.
To anſwer this:Anſw. Firſt, It is not my purpoſe at this time to enter into that great Debate, Whether the ſins of parents are puniſhed in their children? And it ſo, How it ſtands with the Juſtice of God? It is plain, That in the ſecond Commandment it is ſaid, That God being a jealous God, becauſe of Idolatry, he will viſit the ſins of ſuch perſons, to the third and fourth generation. The ſame likewiſe is attributed unto God, Exod. 34. 7. when his glorious Properties are deſcribed, experience alſo in the deſtruction of Sedom and Gomorrah, as alſo in the drowning of the world, doth abundantly teſtifie this; For no doubt there was in thoſe places, as God ſaid of Ninevch, many little ones, that did not know the right hand from the left, and ſo could not have any conſent to the actual iniquities of their Parents. To reconcile therefore that place of Ezek. 18. where God ſaith, The child ſhall not bear the iniquity of his Father, with thoſe former places, hath exerciſed the thoughts of the moſt learned men variouſly, endeavouring to unty that knot. Though I find ſome of late, underſtanding that of Ezekiel, only for that particular occaſion, as it did concern the Jews, in their particular judgment of Captivity, who complained that for their fathers iniquities they were tranſported into a ſtrange Land; So that they think it not to be extended univerſally, but limited to that people only, and at that time, and that alone to that Land of Iſrael, becauſe they were driven from their own Countrey: But whether this Interpretation will abide firm or no, it is certain that the Text doth not militate againſt our cauſe in hand. For
1. As hath been ſhewed, There is not the ſame reaſon of parents, ſince Adam's fall, as of Adam; for he was a common perſon, and therefore Chriſt and he are compared as the two fountains, and univerſal principles of all; For which reaſons alſo it is that the Apoſtle doth here call him foreign, The Type of him that was to come: Inſomuch that we may eaſily ſee, why there is a difference between Adam and other parents; So that although the child dieth not for his parents ſins, yet he doth, and moſt for Adams. Learned men uſe to illuſtrate our being in Adam, and ſinning in him, (for which our puniſhment is juſt and due) by that of the Apoſtle, Heb 7. 9, 10 where Levi is ſaid, to pay Tyths to Melchizedech long before he was born, becauſe he was in Abrakams l…ins: And although it may be granted, that there is ſome diſproportion, Abraham not being ſuch a common parent to Levi, as Adam was to all mankind; yet Sceinus his exception is very frivolous. The Apoſtle ſaith, he uſeth that diminutive phraſe, foreign, as I may ſo ſay, which doth demonſtrate, that it was not a proper ſaying. To this we anſwer, That if you do regard Levies actual paying of Tyths, as it he had an actual exiſtence, then there was ſome impropriety, which made the Apoſtle uſe that phraſe, but not in regard of the truth of his paying in a moral conſideration. Thus when we ſay, All ſinned in Adam, we may well uſe that phraſe, and ſpeak thus, As we may ſo ſay, we did all actually will Adam's ſinne, we did all actually tranſgreſs that Commandment; Thus it is a diminutive expreſſion in relation to our actual exiſtence, but not to our ſinne; For by Gods Covenant we were looked upon, as in him. Though I muſt conſeſs that is a very abſurd and forced expoſitiof Catharinus (Opuſc. de pece…t. orig) whoſe opinion is, That all our original ſinne is Adams actual ſinne made ours, and referreth that expreſſion of Chriſt to Nathaneel, Joh. 1. 49. When thou waſt under the fig-tree, I ſaw thee, to Nathaneels being in Adam, while he did eat of the forbidden …ruit, which ſome ſay was a fig-tree: Howſoever it be, you ſee that place in Ezekiel doth not reach to our caſe in hand.
2. That place will overthrow the Socinians themſelves alſo; For they grant, That by Adam's ſinne, death though otherwiſe natural, is now made neceſſary and penal, inſomuch that we actually die, becauſe of Adam's diſobedience. And
3. That place in Ezekiel, it is commonly interpreted thus, The child ſhall not bear the Fathers ſiane, viz. if he be innocent, and not guilty of it, as well as his Father. I do not diſcuſs, whether this be the full interpretation of that place: But if it be ſo, then our puniſhment, becauſe of Adam, hath no injuſtice in it, becauſe by that actual tranſgreſſion of Adam, we are made ſinners, as well as he, and ſo have in our ſelves, though new born, a juſt deſert of all the wages of ſin. The Infant dying becauſe of that particular inherent ſin, which is in him, ſo that it is both Adams and his own, in ſeveral reſpects.
In the ſecond place, to anſwer this Argument, take notice, That though it be of the will of God, that Adams ſin is made ours, for if he pleaſed, he might have done otherwiſe; Yet we are not to ſay as the Remonſtrants, That God imputeth this ſinne to mankind, meerly becauſe he will, as if the thing in it ſelf were indifferent: Even as God appointed things ſhould be unclean in the Old Teſtament meerly and ſolely from his will, becauſe he had appointed ſo, for it is from his Juſtice alſo, ſuch is the hatred of God againſt ſinne, and withall dealing with Adam according to the Covenant of works, the curſe of that, if violated, would deſcend from parents to children, as appeareth in Moſes his curſes, pronounced againſt thoſe that ſhould not continue in the Law, it was to them and their children. Therefore ſome learned men expound that paſſage of Gods ſaying, The child ſhall not die for the iniquity of his Father, which is alſo mentioned Jer. 31. 29. to belong to the Evangelical Covenant, but according to the Legal Covenant, the child muſt ſuffer with the father, and this interpretation they urge, becauſe v. 31, 32. preſently followeth the declaration of Gods Evangelical Covenant, he will make with his people: But let this prove as it can, this we muſt conclude of, That God doth not impute Adams ſinne to us, meerly becauſe he will, but becauſe of his Juſtice alſo inclining him thereunto. So that the Remonſtrants ſpeak too ſlightly of it, as if it were only a diſpenſative imputation to make way for grace through Chriſt. But I ſhall hereafter have occaſion to ſpeak more fully to this particular; as alſo to the other Objections, which may again frequently interpoſe themſelves.
Vſe. Of Inſtruction, from all theſe ſubtil and ſpecious Arguments againſt it, and that in all ages, we may ſee the ſubtilty and craft of Satan, who would gladly have this Doctrine wholly buried; for man is naturally proud and ſelf-righteous, hardly brought to be thought ſo miſerable a ſinner: If therefore any Doctors ſhall ariſe, that ſhall likewiſe plead for ſuch a ſuppoſed innocency and freedom, How welcome and ſuitable is this to fleſh and bloud? Therefore look upon this Doctrine, as a Fundamental Truth, ſpecially in reference to the practice of godlineſs, and acknowledge it the good hand of God, that as there have been any, ſubtil and bold to deny it in any age, ſo he hath raiſed up eminent and choice men, in the ſame ages, to propugn this Doctrine; eſpecially do thou often compare thy foul nature with the pure rule of Gods Law; Be not like the Elephant, which they ſay, before it drinketh, bemuddeth the waters that it may not ſee his own deformity.