A Treatise of Original Sin, Part 2 · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
A further Conſideration of Original Righteouſneſs, proving the thing, and anſwering Objections againſt it.
SECT. I.
THe Privative Part of Original Corruption, as it is the loſs of Gods Image hath been treated of, both in the general and the particulars. Now that ſtill we may the more throughly poſſeſs our ſouls with this unſpeakable loſs, it is neceſſary to ſay ſomething of Gods Image, which man at firſt was created in: For although I ſaid, that I would not enter into a large Tractate of it, yet ſomething muſt be neceſſarily ſpoken to it; for if there be no ſuch thing as original righteouſneſſe, then there is no ſuch thing as original ſinne; if there be no ſuch thing as light, there cannot be any ſuch thing as darkneſs. The Privation doth neceſſarily ſuppoſe an habit; Hence the Socinians, as they wholly deny this original ſin we are treating of, ſo do they alſo reject this original righteouſneſs; calling it (as was ſaid) Faetida fabula, an old ſtinking Fable, an Idea feigned in mens brains, of which there is foreign, not the leaſt Title in the Scripture (Vide Pertium Harmon.) It behoveth us therefore the more diligently to ſearch into this truth; For if Adam never had ſuch glory and holineſs put upon him, then we his poſterity could not loſe it.
To inform our ſelves then herein, Let us conſider,
Firſt, That what Adam's ſtate of integrity was, we cannot any wayes know, but by the Scripture. We have now no experience of it, nor can any Philoſophy or humane reaſon, give us any direction therein Now there are two Rocks upon which the Adverſaries of this Truth do ſplit themſelves; The one is, Judging of original righteouſneſs, or of man in his Creation, according to the principles of moral Philoſophy; As if we were not to read Moſes and Paul concerning this righteouſneſſe of Adam, but Plato and Ariſtotle; for humane Philoſophers, as they were wholly ignorant of original ſinne, ſuppoſing the ſoul to come into the world as an abraſa fabula, a meer blank, ready to receive good or evil, yet inclining rather to good, as Ariſtotle ſaith, ſo they were wholly ignorant either of mans creation, or if that were acknowledged, of any imitation or change made upon man by his Apoſtaſie. Now this principle in effect the Socinian imbibeth: For (he ſaith) There is no righteouſneſs to be conceived in Adam, but what was actual, that there was no habitual infuſed into him, but that he was created in a neutral and indifferent eſtate, neither good or bad, but to be made either of theſe, as his free-will ſhould put it ſelf forth into action. Thus you ſee how truly Tertullian of old ſaid, Philoſophers were the Patriarchs of Heretiques; for both Papiſts and Secintans judge of Adams firſt eſtate, by principles of moral Philoſophy.
The ſecond Rock upon which the erroneous party in this great Truth, deſtroyeth themſelves at, is, The judging of man in his firſt Creation, according to that which we feel in our ſelves now, as if we ſhould judge what wine is by the vinegar it's degenerated into, as if we ſhould determine of a living body, according to what we ſee in a dead carkaſs; And truly we may ſay, that from hence ariſeth all Pelagianiſm, Popery and Socinianiſm: We paſſe a ſentence upon the ſtate we were created in, by what we now feel in our ſelves, as if God had not, or could not make us otherwiſe: As for inſtance, becauſe we now in our ſelves find the inferiour appetitive part rebel in it's motions againſt the rational, therefore they conclude, That this was at firſt in Adams Creation; That this repugnancy is planted in our very conſtitution: Yea, a Remonſtrant is not afraid to ſay, It was in Chriſt himſelf, becauſe a man, (and why not then in the glorified Saints to all eternity, ſeeing they ſhall after the Reſurrection conſiſt of ſoul and body alſo?) In this Poſition both Socinian, Remonſtrant and Papiſt do poſitively agree, viz. That the repugnancy and rebellion, which is between the rational and ſenſitive part doth ariſe from the very conſtitution of man. It ariſeth (ſaith Bellarmine) not from God, but è conditione materiae, from the condition of that matter, of which God made him; but doth not this ariſe becauſe we ſee ſuch a repugnancy is now in every man, becauſe there is none that can live now upon the earth without this rebellion? therefore we conclude it was not alwayes ſo. If then we would ſail by theſe Rocks, if we would be guided into this Divine Truth, let us go out of our ſelves, and out of all the traditions, which Ethical Philoſophy hath delivered unto us, for that ſpeaks only of what is acquired, not of any thing infuſed or concreated with our natures, but rather think this Image of God is ſo glorious a thing, that we know not how to ſpeak of it, or to think of it, we never had the actual enjoyment, or working of it. It is not with us, as with men, who hold a rich and plentifull eſtate, but are now fallen into extream poverty, ſuch can tell you by experience, what a plentifull life they once lived. Job could tell us what honour once he had, and the abundance he enjoyed, even when he ſate ſcraping himſelf upon the dunghill, he could experimentally compare his former eſtate, and that together, but ſo cannot we. Indeed thoſe common foreign, or dictates of nature, whereby our conſciences have ſome light to diſcern between good and evil, may ſerve for ſome kind of conviction, that once God did create us in a more knowing and holy eſtate, but what it was, and fully to conceive of it, that we cannot do. Hence
In the ſecond place, It's a very neceſſary thing in all men, to be often meditating upon theſe two ſtates and conditions of man, his created ſtate, and his fallen eſtate, his primitive condition, and his preſent condition. To compare the light men, with his darkneſſe now, his holineſſe then with his impurity now, his immortality then with his mortality now, his Communion with God then, and his eſtrangement, or contrariety now, for hereby his heart will be the more deeply humbled under his preſent miſerable condition; Thoſe that make them both alike, or aſſign a very little difference, they neither duly conſider what a glorious thing Gods Image was, we were created in, nor how deep and univerſal our pollution is: Oh how diſhonourable and dblaſphemous is it, to think we come out of Gods hands as we are now, that at the firſt we had inclinations to ſinne, that there was a rebellion in us to what is good! What is this but to ſay, God made us at firſt the children of his wrath? Oh pray that the ſcales may fall from thy eyes, that thou beeſt not delivered up to this dangerous errour, which is the broad way to perdition.
In the third place, To underſtand the nature of that Image of God, man was created in, you muſt take heed of the Socinian Poſition, who ſay, God made man meerly an innocent, even as a young child, that he had not in his creation any holineſſe infuſed into him, but he was in a neutral and indifferent diſpoſition, to be actually good or wicked, as his free-will did determine. But this is to diminiſh the goodneſſe of God who made man in ſuch a diſtinguiſhing character to all other creatures, except Angels, for Angels and men they only were created after the Image of God; That Adam was not created in ſuch a negative frame of ſoul, appeareth, in that the Image of God is expreſly ſaid by Paul to conſiſt in righteouſneſſe and true holineſſe; Now righteouſneſſe is more than a not being evil, it denoteth an inherent poſitive perfection in the ſoul; Hence Eccl 7. 30 God is there ſaid, To make man righteous; The word Jaſhar is generally uſed to ſignifie as much as holy, clean and pure. It is not therefore for us to contradict ſo plain Texts of Scripture; Hence the Pſalmiſt, Pſal. 8. 5. doth admire the goodneſſe of God, and his works to man, eſpecially in this, That he hath made him but a little lower than Angels: Oh then admire that glorious excellency God did at firſt put us into! We were at firſt made but a little lower than thoſe glorious Angels of God; Therefore Chryſoſtem called Adam an earthly Angel; Now compare thy preſent eſtate with this of Adams; Art thou like an Angel? Have Angels ſuch blindneſſe of mind, ſuch averſneſſe to what is good, ſuch rebellious and unmortified thoughts in them, as thou haſt? Nay, Art thou not rather a Devil for pride, for malice, for oppoſition to what is good? Was it thus with us from the beginning? They therefore do moſt unthankfully rob God of all that glory and honour which is due to him that will affirm, That God made him in ſuch an indifferent neutral ſtate, neither righteous or unrighteous: Surely then God could not have looked upon all the things that were made with that approbation, They were exceeding god; For though other creatures might be good in their kind with a natural goodneſſe, yet Adam was in his kind with a moral goodneſſe: Neither will the Socinian evaſion help, That by good there is meant convenient, beautifull and proper for its end: For let no more be granted but that, it's enough, If Adam was not created with holineſſe in his ſoul, he was not made good in their ſenſe, that is not ſutable and ſit for his end; For being created to know and love God, and thereby to have a comfortable enjoyment of him, How could he do this without wiſdom in his mind, and holineſſe in his will? And certainly we may not think, that God gave every creature a goodneſſe in its kind, to obtain its particular end, and not adorn man, the nobleſt of viſible creatures, for his peculiar end.
The Scripture then is clear, That man was at firſt made ſuch an holy and bleſſed creature; Let us conſider what Reaſons are objected againſt it by the Socinian party. And
Firſt, (ſay they) Adam could not be holy till he had done ſome actual holineſs,Obj how could he be denominated righteous (ſay they) till he had acted ſomething that was righteous?
But this argueth great ignorance,Anſw. as if there were no righteouſneſſe, but what is acquired, as if there were no infuſed habits of holineſſe, which denominate a man ſo, before he doth that which is holy; Were not the Angels made holy in their Creation before they acted what was holineſſe? Is not Chriſt himſelf Luke 1. called the foreign, the holy thing, before he did actually that which was holy; yea the contrary is true, therefore did Adam that which was actually holy, becauſe he was habitually holy: As the Tree is firſt good, and then the fruit good: Adam then before his fall had both original and actual holineſſe, but the latter was an effect of the former, and therefore he did one becauſe he had the other.
Secondly, Object.It is objected by them, That if Adam was made in the Image of God like him, holy as he is holy, then Adam could not ſinne, he would be impeceable, even as God is.
But this is a weak cavil,Anſw. For though man be made holy, as God is, yet that is not by equality, but proportion onelyonly; Were not the Angels made holy, and yet for all that they ſinned? He then that is eſſentially and infinitely holy cannot ſinne; yea a creature when confirmed in holineſſe by God cannot ſinne, as the elect Angels and glorified Saints; but Adam though he was made holy, yet was in a mutable and changeable eſtate, and therefore he might ſinne.
Queſt. But you will ſay, Why did not this original Righteouſneſſe ſo farre defend him, that he did not withſtand the Devil more ſtrongly, he ſeemed to have little or no grace, that was ſo eaſily enſnared by Satan, and that in ſuch a little matter when he enjoyed ſo much outward felicity?
Anſw. But to this we may anſwer, That Adam and Eve, they did not at the very firſt yeeld themſelves up to the Devil, but they did repell the Devils temptations awbile; neither was it the inordinate deſire of the forbidden fruit that was his firſt ſinne, but pride and unbelief; not believing the threatnings of God, and affecting to be like God, and ſuch ſinnes do quickly and eaſily penetrate into the beſt and nobleſt ſubjects, as you ſee in the Angels themſelves, thoſe ſublime and admirable ſpiritual ſubſtances, yet how quickly did ſuch kind of ſinnes enter into them, and defile them all over; So that we are to look to thoſe ſpiritual ſecret ſinnes, which did induce Adam to eat of the forbidden fruit.
Laſtly, Object.It's objected by them, and the ſame Argument alſo is improved by Bellarmine, That man conſiſting of a ſoul, a ſpiritual ſubſtance, and of a body, which is a ſenſible corporeal ſubſtance, when theſe two are united in one perſon, it's impoſſible, but the ſpiritual part ſhould incline one way, and the ſenſitive another; The rational part that deſireth a ſpiritual good, and the ſenſitive part that which is ſenſible, and theſe are contrary.
But the anſwer is,Anſw. that though theſe inclinations are divers, yet they are not contrary, but where ſin hath made an Ataxy. As God at firſt ordained the will, which is appetitus rationalis, to follow the underſtanding, ſo he did alſo our affections to follow both of them; ſo that there was an eſſential ſubordination of the affectionate part to the rational; even as we ſee the members of the body do readily move at the command of the ſoul, or as in perfect mixt bodies, though there be contrary qualities, yet by the temperament of that body, their contrariety is removed; and certainly, the Angels ſinned, who yet had not any ſenſitive appetite to rebell againſt the rational, therefore it was not from this neceſſarily, that Adam did ſinne. Thus in Chriſt there was no repugnancy between grace and nature; for when he ſaid, Father, if it be poſſible, let this Cup paſſe away; This was not an abſolute deſire of his humane nature, but a conditional one, and ſtill with ſubmiſſion; therefore he addeth, Nevertheleſſe thy will be done; and the Saints in Heaven, when they ſhall have re-aſſumed their bodies, will not find any contrariety between the rational and ſenſitive appetite. And thus you ſee that Adam was created in this holy eſtate.
Laſtly, This holineſs and righteouſneſs in a well explained ſenſe, was not ſupernatural, but natural. The Remonſtrants they make this diſpute about original righteouſneſſe, inepta & abſurda, abſurd and fooliſh; Therefore they deny any infuſed or concreated habits alſo, and ſay, The rectitude of the faculties was enough; But the Orthodox ſay, Adam could not be created without ſuch habits or principles of holineſſe within him, becauſe he was created for the enjoyment of God, and therefore they call it natural, not as flowing from the principles of nature, but as a moral condition neceſſary to qualifie him for his end, and therefore it was given to whole mankind in Adam, and would have been naturally propagated; and whereas the Remonſtrants ask, To what purpoſe or uſe is ſuch original righteouſneſſe? For if it did not neceſſarily and immutably determine Adams will to good, than this original righteouſneſſe, did need another, and ſo in infinitum; or if it did then, How came it about that Adam did ſinne? To this ſubtilty it is anſwered, That this original righteouſneſſe was not to determine the will of Adam neceſſarily, but to incline and ſortifie Adams will the more ſtrongly, and eaſily to do what was good; So that although it did not abſolutely take away Adams mutability and liberty, yet it did heighten and raiſe up the faculties of his ſoul to what was good, yet this was not a ſuperadded grace to Adam, as actual confirmation in holines would have been, but a natural and due qualification preparing him for communion with God; So that the diſcourſe about man in his pure naturals without this original righteouſneſſe, is an houſe that hath not ſo much as a ſandy foundation, it being without any foundation at all, God having put his Image into man, as Phydias did his into Minerva's ſhield, that none could take that out, but he muſt alſo deſtroy that ſhield: Thus the Devil could not prevail with Adam to ſinne, but by the loſſe of Gods Image.